RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #8

Joao Saraiva · Post #21 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 1:04 am

Might change my vote if it's useful to select Shaq for this spot, since I think they're really a 1a and 1b option.

1st vote - Hakeem Olajuwon

I think Hakeem and Shaq are a neck to neck comparison. I think both guys have a similar impact - Shaq was a better offensive player, but Hakeem was the better defensive player - both had great moments as two way impact players tough.

Shaq was the more successfull between them, but I think he was put in a better position to succeed. He played with Kobe, had an all time great coach in P. Jackson, played with Hardaway at his best, Wade at his best...

Hakeem usually had to carry a bigger loads than Shaq. And while I believe Shaq maybe could replicate Hakeem's success, I also think Hakeem could replicate Shaq's. I think, however, it would be most likely for Hakeem to replicate Shaq's. What Hakeem achieved between 93-95 is something that I don't see replicated by many guys. Winning with that roster in 94 was absolutely stunning.

I see that has the best 3 year spam among them, and I might give a slight edge to peak Hakeem (94) over Shaq (00). From the players I've seen, I'd say that year has a great case for the best peak (Altough others have a good case like LeBron 09, Jordan 91 or Shaq 00).

I think they have similar longevity, peak and prime... so I might decide that with the player I think peaked and had a slightly better 3 year prime - and I think that's Hakeem.

Outside their best years (3 years or 5 years) I see Shaq as the better guy on offense but I also think Hakeem's edge on D might be bigger. Shaq was a better passer than Hakeem for most of their careers, a bigger threat on offensive rebounds and a more efficient scorer. But Hakeem has also a clear edge on D, since he covered a lot more ground than Shaq on D, was a better PnR defender and a better rim protector.

This was one of my most difficult choices so far, maybe I'm being a bit unfair to Shaq... but I gotta go with one.

2nd vote - Shaquille O'Neal

therealbig3 · Post #22 » by **therealbig3** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 1:04 am

So yeah, I'm popping in every now and then as an outside observer, even though I'm not voting, and to just respond to some posts from the previous threads regarding my post on KG:

-Why is KG the only one with this intangible impact, that goes well beyond the box score?

Um, who said that he was? Obviously, all of these guys have non-box score impact. But simply understanding how KG approaches the game vs these other players pretty much tells you why it's easy to see that his game is less conducive to big box score numbers relative to his big man peers like Hakeem and Shaq, whose main strengths were their volume scoring, which is much easier to see in the box score. Now, Hakeem was also a great defensive anchor in his own right, which is why I think he peaked higher than KG (and I feel the same way about Shaq), but there are serious questions about their consistency throughout their prime, and Shaq in particular was kind of always a liability in the PnR, even at his peak, so there are definitely arguments for KG from a career perspective here

It's long been the general hypothesis with KG that he's one of those guys who might not be having a huge game with regards to the box score, but is doing so many things at an elite level that he's still having an insane amount of impact. And then we got +/- data, and what do you know, not only was he having elite impact, he was having more impact than anyone in the league, and no one other than LeBron in the modern era has surpassed him in that aspect

-Where are the results (aka why didn't his teams win more)?

Pretty shallow analysis honestly. I'm not going to hold it against him that he didn't drag some of the worst supporting casts in history to the playoffs, or past the 1st round, in a tough Western Conference...the fact that in the only two years of his prime he actually got good/great supporting casts, he led them to the WCF (before the aforementioned supporting cast got devastated by injuries) and the championship is proof enough for me that this guy doesn't really pale in comparison to pretty much anyone in NBA history, including the guys already voted in

-There's no way his box score mattered that little

It's not that his box score didn't matter, it's that it does not do justice to a player like Kevin Garnett...just like it doesn't do justice to Tim Duncan, Bill Walton, or more recently, Draymond Green. Most of what they do are not captured in the box score, but are absolutely captured in the final score, which is what matters the most. I also find the comment about projecting Bill Walton's expected career onto KG's career as being unfair to Walton as a little funny, since I pretty much see peak KG as a superior player to peak Walton, and that my comment was actually a little generous to Walton if anything.

-KG's box score stats just aren't there

And even as lame of a way it is to straight up compare box scores and conclude KG doesn't belong here, when you compare career playoff PER of these players, he actually proves that he does belong, lol:

93-96 Hakeem: 26.3 PER
84-88 Bird: 22.7 PER
84-91 Magic: 23.6 PER
95-04 Shaq: 28.3 PER
99-08 KG: 23.9 PER

Does KG seriously look like a guy whose box score production doesn't belong here? If anything, Shaq and to a lesser extent Hakeem are outliers, while Bird/Magic/KG are on the same level. So you can't really say that his box score production doesn't warrant him being here, even if you look at his playoffs.

And there really wasn't much of a response to the points brought up by SSB and ElGee, which was disappointing. I can repost them if people would like.

therealbig3 · Post #23 » by **therealbig3** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 1:08 am

ElGee wrote:I'm compiling some WOWY data for the WOWY thread and something struck me: In Boston, from 2008-2011 Kevin Garnett played 142 games (controlling for all starters also in the lineup) and missed 55. In those 4 years, Boston was a 9 SRS team with him and a 2.8 SRS team without him. This is all-time level stuff, both in terms of the impact and height of the team...

colts18 wrote:For the KG guys, how do you account for the fact that KG's offense fell of quite a bit when facing good defenses?

Spoiler:
This is him compared to David Robinson (another guy criticized for stat padding against bad teams):

DRob 90-98 vs. KG 97-08 vs. top 10 defenses:

DRob: 22.1 PPG, .536 TS%, 11.9 Reb, 3.1 AST/2.5 TOV, 1.2 Stl, 3.3 blk
KG: 20.1 PPG, .510 TS%, 11.4 Reb, 4.3 AST/2.9 TOV, 1.2 stl, 1.3 blk

vs. not top 10 defenses:
DRob: 24.9 PPG, .564 TS%, 12.4 Reb, 2.7 AST/3.4 TOV, 1.3 stl, 3.0 blk
KG: 23.3 PPG, .531 TS%, 13.4 Reb, 4.6 AST/3.0 TOV, 1.5 stl, 1.9 blk

KG's playoff numbers against teams with 15 or worse defensive ranking:
23.8 PPG, .527 TS%, 13.9 Reb, 4.5 AST, 1.8 STL, 2.1 blk

And I think this is a great question. But did it really fall off "quite a bit?" Especially relative to Duncan?

(1) Using the arbitrary benchmark "top-10" obfuscates the fact that Kevin Garnett played in a significantly lower scorer era than David Robinson. Avg. PS defense from 99-08 for KG was 103.5, versus 106.5 for Robinson from 90-98.

(2) Is Duncan really a better offensive player than Garnett?

Tim Duncan is categorically not on that Mount Rushmore of offensive players, so why are people OK with anointing him but not KG? Really, so what if Tim Duncan is slightly better at isolation Hero-Ball? The better the situation, the less this is needed.

Did you know that the 2002 Wolves were +4.5 on offense? +5 after Terrell Brandon went down? Wally, young Billups, Rasho, Peeler, Joe Smith...+5 offense. Remember, Magic Johnson's 1984 Lakers were +2.9. The 2000 Wolves with Brandon and KG were +5 as well. The 03 Wolves with Wally +5.4. The 04 Wolves +3. The 05 Wolves +3.5 with Cassell. The 08 Celtics +2.8 w KG. 09 +2.0 (and the Celtics were heavily slanted toward defensive strategy, abandoning the offensive boards).

San Antonio had one Tim Duncan-centered offense above +3.

(3) Hero Ball on Bad Teams

Guys, you won't understand why we value KG so highly unless you can buy-in that evaluating players on bad teams is not an accurate reflection of their value to all teams. Or that basketball is not a one-on-one game.

That's really a key to the counter-argument here -- "when you need a bucket, who can get you one?" The more your team has to implement that strategy, the worse off they are. We're interested in the overall performance of the race car and you want to talk about how well it handles in the rain...only it doesn't rain that much. You might think "wait, it rains a lot in the NBA! Teams really need buckets at key times."

But the evidence says that isolation Hero-Ball is generally a bad idea.

(4) And really, how much better is Duncan at Hero Ball?

The counter-argument is that KG's offensive game is less effective against top defenses relative to Duncan. There's truth in that, but to what degree? There are 2 key factors here:

(1) This difference is probably very small (data forthcoming)
(2) The better the teammates, the less this difference is really relevant

Garnett's relative TS% in 99-08 PS games was +0.1%. Tim Duncan was +2.9%. (Kobe +2.9%. Jordan +4.1%.) He scores at 29.7 pts/100 in that span. Duncan scores at 32.1...8% more per 100. Do you know how easy it is to redistribute those possessions to better opportunities? Or make up for them in other ways? Or to not run them at all in place of much better scoring paths on higher quality teams?

If you give Duncan Garnett's teams and KG Pop, Manu, Parker, etc. you think that their stats will remain the same?

(5) Their situations aren't the same

Posted this earlier -- perhaps no one saw it:
"Shoulder all load" 03 Duncan v LA: 29.0 ppg 51.7% TS 25.1% ast 14.1% TOV 103 ortg
"Shoulder most load" 03 KG v LA: 27.0 ppg 53.9% TS 23.4% ast 10.7% TOV 105 ortg
"Shoulder most load" 04 KG v LA: 23.7 ppg 51.8% TS 22.1% ast 13.8% TOV 100 ortg

Spoiler:
Out of curiosity, I looked at Duncan's 16 wins in 2003:

Duncan 2003 PS wins: 23.9 ppg 58% TS 16.6 rpg 6.0 apg 3.4 TOV 4.0 blck 24.4 GmSc
[KG 2003-04 PS wins: 28.3 ppg 54% TS 15.5 rpg 4.8 rpg 3.4 TOV 2.9 blck 24.3 GmSc]

And their 8-best games of the 24 we're discussing:

Duncan 03: 32.6 ppg 65.0%$ TS 17.0 rpg 5.9 apg 3.4 TOV 3.9 Blck 32.0 GmSc (vs. 101.5 DRtg)
KG 03-04: 30.5 ppg 58.6% TS 15.0 rpg 5.1 apg 3.0 TOV 3.1 Blck 27.6 GmSc (vs 103.8 DRtg)

Of course, Duncan's on a better team (as you'll notice by his weaker numbers in wins, for example), which you can argue helps his scoring stats AND helps his rebounding (because KG has a 31 to 27% DRB% edge). You can argue that KG would have done work against Kenyon Martin despite New Jersey's 98.1 DRtg or that his numbers would look nicer if he played Dallas and Phoenix. You can argue that Duncan had to spend less energy on defense. Etc. But note Duncan's statistics.

You brought up pace too. Just so people can understand what we're looking at here:
Wilt 1962 28.7 pts/75 (estimated)
KG (03-04 PS) 27.4 pts/75
Duncan 03 PS 26.6 pts/75

Adding context -- LA's defense in 2003 was +2 with Shaq. In 2004 with the Big 4 in, it was -3.3. I have a hard time seeing a clear difference here in Garnett and Duncan's scoring statistics, so I'll post a bunch more in a second...

(6) Clutch (Hero Ball) statistics

I think that's what you're referring to when you ask someone to substantiate Garnett's scoring game. (e.g. all the "1st option" criticisms.) Who can "score when the team needs it?"

Again, if the team needs it a lot, they ain't a good team. But what do the numbers actually say? How much better productions did Duncan get out of his stronger base, bank shot and rolling hook compared to KG's pull-ups, fadeaways and spins?

Spoiler:
From 2001-2011, Garnett shot at -0.8% below league average for eFG% in 5+5 situations (59% assisted)
From 2001-2011, Duncan shot at at +0.8% above league average for eFG% in 5+5 situations (41% assisted)

From 2002-2005, here's how they fared in the RS 5+5:

Duncan: 524 mp | 25.7 pts/36 | 43.3% eFG% | 13.6 FTA/36 | 53.6% TS% |
Garnett: 627 mp | 23.6 pts/36 | 46.8% eFG% | 8.6 FTA/36 | 54.15 TS
|

From 2002-2005, down 5 or tied:
Duncan: 271 mp | 29.2 pts/36 | 45.4% eFG% | 12.8 FTA/36
Garnett: 268 mp | 30.8 pts/36 | 46.3% eFG% | 10.7 FTA/36

Playoffs 98-08
Duncan: 386 mp | 21.8 pts/36 | 48.8% eFG% | 11.4 FTA/36 | 53.0% TS%
Garnett: 259 mp | 17.7 pts/36 | 45.7% eFG% | 6.0 FTA/36 | 51.7% TS%

(7) "First Option" Importance v Team

Trying to get at the heart of the matter for people because I've gone through the machinations myself. Here are the best healthy teams by SRS since Jordan:

14 Spurs (11.8 SRS)
04 Pistons (10.2 SRS)
00 Lakers (9.7 SRS)
08 Celtics (9.7 SRS)
12 Spurs (9.6 SRS)
09 Celtics (9.3 SRS)
05 Spurs (9.1 SRS)

Who were the "1st options" on those teams? (Hint: It's a trick question)

If you don't look at the results and see a clear trend that screams "you don't need a great iso scorer to build a great team around, you'll never understand why KG is so valued. It's also why I value Duncan so highly -- I don't think of him as an all-time great offensive player. I just think the hang-up is that Duncan has better low-post isolation scoring (and by what, 3%? 5%?) and people default to that difference over everything else. But as we just saw, that difference is almost negligible. Give Duncan in the nod for isolation buckets, but Garnett will still be there to score key buckets (without a "falling of a quite a bit") as well as his spacing and passing that scales up to better teams.

Finally, I really sympathize with people on Garnett. We ask everyone to update their mental file of basketball in ways that seem counter-intuitive and challenge status quo. The mainstream feeds you a steady diet of scoring, scoring, and some flash thrown in. Accepting defensive impact is one thing. But here it's practically geometry analytics. It's a clear shift. And people accept many of these things about Garnett, and slowly come along with their evaluation, and then all of a sudden -- BOOM -- another jump is asked of them. Based largely on new considerations of longevity, and careers, and in conjunction with the most data-rich era in NBA history that also can be overwhelming. And you end up thinking "I'm being fair to KG, how can someone vote him 4th?!"

To that I say this: Don't identify with your rankings. The more I research, the more two my favorite basketball savants slide (Magic and Bird). So what? Doesn't change how great they were. Doesn't change how entertaining or unique they were. It just means that I have a clearer picture of them as well as other players and the sport. And sometimes, more guys just come along. I have Jerry West closer to 20 than to 5. Do I think Jerry West is absolutely awesome? Yup. But he was injured all the time. Do I think KG can hang with any of the GOAT offensive players, let alone scorers? Nope. But when you're all-time good defensively and have a really good offensive package and your longevity is sick...you're going ahead of West, and Magic, and Bird...NB: That's why I have Tim Duncan ahead of them as well.

PS If I thought David Robinson could pass or possessed the outside shot KG had, AND he had Garnett's longevity, I'd have him in my top-10 too.

ElGee wrote:
fpliii wrote:I'm still struggling with the four bigs. Hopefully I'll figure something out in the next couple of days. Just a couple of questions for anybody who has time:

1) How do we feel about KG's defensive game horizontally compared to Hakeem's?
2) How many more years of 84-88 level Bird would you guys need to see to consider him here? How many years at his 80-83 level instead? I'm not trying to take into account years Bird didn't play, don't get me wrong. Just trying to get an idea of how big the perceived gap is between the current batch and him.

I'll address No. 1 because I'll post on Bird later. I've broken down film in past projects on KG if anyone wants to search (as well as 2010/11 film supported by stat-tracking). With Hakeem I've never gone into that detail on the site, so with both those caveats, I'll give you my general take:

-KG is better horizontally than maybe anyone ever, including Hakeem. I'll exclude Russell for a second because my point mostly centers around the 2 and 3-man game concept that is so prevalent today. Alert: If you're criteria is for 2005-present rules, pay attention! Kevin Garnett is like Ray Lewis against the pick and roll. This basically impacts the whole court, and it's why I think his defensive RAPM scores are so good in Boston.

-guarding the screener: Garnett, because of his length and coverage, has an incredible balance of showing against the ball handler around a screen while still simultaneously sticking with his man. His communication on this front is matched by no one I've seen -- constant talking and communicating about the timing of switching on/off and showing. The inability to allow a team to gain an advantage via the PnR -- the most common shot-creation method in the current NBA rules -- blows up weak side and strong side threats because KG and his man still stick to the ball handler and screener and there is no breakdown (no help needed) on the backside of the defense.

-as the helper: Here's where KG really flexes his Middle Linebacker. He reads offenses like Manning and Brady read defenses. PnR advantages are about who is involved -- usually who is dribbling -- but it's also about angles and spacing of the screener in relation to the other guys on the court. Garnett's positioning in this regard -- what used to be illegal in the illegal D days -- is scary good. It's human chess. Go watch game tape of the 08 or 10 playoffs -- he always moves the proper distance out to the screen action while keeping track of not just his man, but the help-the-helpers (because KG, in accordance with the defensive scheme) has communicated to his guys to slide into helping position on a screen. This was the strength of the historically good Boston D, and it started with him, and it's a lot of the reason why (again, IMO) his RAPM numbers were amazing in Boston despite a diminished rim presence.

PS I'm sure there's youtube breakdowns or a Lowe analysis of this somewhere on the net with visuals/video. Don't have to time to it here myself, but if you find a game, just watch how he handles these situations...to me, that's the horizontal impact.

SideshowBob wrote:Garnett's offense can be broken down like this:

-Spacing
-PnR (Roll/Pop)
-High-Post
-Low-Post
-Mid-Post
-Screens

Remember, there is overlap between these offensive skills/features; I'm trying to give a broad-strokes perspective here.

Let's talk about his shooting really quick, and then dive in. What I want to consider is how and which of these traits show up in the box-score, as well as which would be resilient in the face of smarter defenses.

-Has range out to the 3 pt line but practically/effectively speaking, he's going out to ~22 feet.
-From 10-23 feet, shot 47.7% in 03 (9.6 FGA/G), 45.2% in 04 (11.0 FGA/G), 44.6% in 05 (8.3 FGA/G), 48.4% in 06 (8.4 FGA/G)
-16-23 ft range, he's assisted on ~77% over those 4 years
-Shooting at the big-man positions is a conundrum - shooting 4/5s are often associated with weak (breakeven) or bad (negative) defense. Garnett is one of the few exceptions in that not only is he an elite shooter, there's virtually no defensive opportunity cost to playing him over anyone in history.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When he's on the ball, he can utilize his exceptional ball-handling skills to create separation and knock it down. When he's off the ball, he's always a threat to convert - the fact that he's assisted so frequently on 16-23 ft shots means they're mostly coming on a Pick and Pop or a drive and kick, which means a lot of them are open. He's usually shooting around 45% overall from there, so we're looking at high 40s on open shots and low-mid 40s on created ones. BOTH of those numbers are strong, and that's where the first offensive trait comes; Spacing. His shooting spaces the floor. A LOT - despite the fact that he doesn't shoot 3s, he forces bigs out of the paint and opens up the lane. Because he's not a 3-point shooter though, this effect doesn't really show up in the box-score. And yet, this effect will always be present; doesn't matter how much a defense slows down his raw production in the playoffs, the spacing effect will always be present - he's going to try and create shots from out there and he's going to pop/spot-up; give him space/leave him open and he'll convert at .95-1.00 PPP (which is very strong in the halfcourt). Cover him/recover on him with a little guy and he'll just shoot right over. His man has to come out and try and cover him, and this means that there will always be a marginal improvement for the rest of the team with regards to the lane being open. The only real way to reduce this? Have someone at the 1-3 that can cover him (has the size/strength to cope with his shot/inside game for stretches at a time), but even then, you might yield a disadvantage with one of your bigs covering a small ball-handler.

So next, his PnR game. Crucially, he's a dual threat, he's deadly popping out (as demonstrated above) but even crazier rolling to the basket (high 60s-70ish finishing, that includes post/isolation, thus baskets on the roll would likely be higher. The rolls are similar (though not equal) to drives to the basket and aside from finishing offer an opportunity to kick it out. THIS aspect is captured fairly well by the box-score (rolls into finishes - FG%, finishes - PTS, kick outs - direct assists). This is also one that good PnR defense teams can slow down. Close off the PnR by stopping the ball handler (aggressive blitz/trap to force the ball out their hands before the PnR is initiated, or drop center, ice sideline to deny the ball-handler middle), or rely on strong rotations into the lane to close off easy baskets off a roll. When we talk about his postseason dips (mainly PPG and TS%), this is mostly where they're coming from (and face up game which I'll get to later).

So now, the post options. The high post probably yields the largest fraction of his offensive impact. His scoring skills (again, ball-handling to set up midrange game, quickness/explosion to attack the basket straight on, catch&shoot/spotup, etc.) means that he draws a great amount of attention here, again, pulling a big away from the restricted area and up to the free throw line. This is significant because he can spot and capitalize on any off ball movement, use his passing to force rotations until an opportunity is created, play the give and go with a small. Essentially, there are a ton of options available here due to his gravity and diversity, yet almost none of this will show up in the box-score. Unless he hits a cutter with a wide open lane or a shooter with a wide open corner, he's not going to be credited with the assist.

Imagine - he sucks/turns the attention of the defense to himself, a cutter sees an opening and zips in from the wing, which forces a defender from the corner to come over and protect the basket, leaving a shooter open. Garnett hits the cutter who dishes it out, or he kicks the ball out to the perimeter and it is swung around to the open shooter. Garnett's pressure created the opening, and his passing/vision got the ball where it needed to go, but he's given no credit in the box-score.

Give and go is another example - at the top of the key, he gets the ball, his man (a big) is now worried about his shot and starts to close in, the lane has one less protector, the PG who just threw it in to him now curls around him with a quick handoff, his defender now runs into Garnett or his man and the PG gets an open lane to the basket. If someone has rotated over, a shooter will be open, if not, free layup for the PG, or a kick out for a reset for Garnett in the high/mid-block area. IF it works out that the PG gets an opening up top on the handoff, then he may get a pullup and Garnett is credited with an assist, but in most scenarios, it will play out that again, Garnett gets no box-score credit.

The effect of this play on the offense is resilient, its going to remain present against strong defenses. It doesn't matter how strong your rotations are or what kind of personnel you have, the key is that adjustments have to be made to combat a talented high-post hub, and when adjustments are made, there is always a cost (which means the defense must yield somewhere) and therein lies the impact. This is one of the most defense-resistant AND portable offensive skillsets that one can have (you're almost never going to have issue with fit) and its what made Garnett, Walton, 67 Chamberlain, so valuable.

Mid-Post and face-up game are a little more visible in the box-score (similar to PnR). Mostly comprised of either blowing by the defender and making quick moves to the basket (and draw a foul) or setting up the close-mid-range shot. This is his isolation offense, something that will tend to suffer against stronger, well equipped defenses that can close off the lane, which sort of strips away the "attack the basket, draw free throws" part and reduces it to just set up mid-range jumpshots. Garnett's obviously great at these, but taking away the higher-percentage inside shots will hurt his shooting numbers, volume, and FTA bit. The key then is, how disciplined is the defense. Yes they can close the paint off, but can they do so without yielding too much somewhere else - was there a missed rotation/help when someone left his man to help cover the paint. If yes, then there is impact, as there is anytime opportunities are created, if no then its unlikely any opportunity was created and the best option becomes to just shoot a jumper. This is the other feature of his game that isn't as resilient in the face of smart defenses.

The low-post game is crucial because it provides both a spacing effect and the additional value of his scoring. While he lacks the upper body strength to consistently finish inside against larger bigs, he can always just shoot over them at a reliable % instead, and against most matchups he's skilled enough back-to-basket and face-up that he can typically get to the rim and score. Being able to do this means that he draws attention/doubles, and he's one of the best at his position ever at capitalizing by passing out to an open shooter or kicking it out to swing the ball around the perimeter to the open guy (in case the double comes from the opposite corner/baseline) and all of this action tends force rotations enough that you can get some seams for cuts as well. Outside of scoring or making a direct pass to the open guy, the hockey assists won't show up in the box-score. But, more importantly, there is a crucial utility in having a guy diverse enough that he can play inside and out equally effectively - lineup diversity. He fills so many staples of an offense himself that it allows the team to run more specialized lineups/personnel that might not conventionally work, and this forces defenses to adjust (! that's a key word here). He doesn't have to do anything here that shows up in the box-score, all he needs to do is be on the floor. You can argue the low-post ability as a 50/50 box-score/non-box-score, but I'd lean towards giving the latter more weight.

Finally screens. The effect of Garnett's screens is elite, because of his strong lower body base and because of the diversity of his offensive threat (and he just doesn't get called for moving screens). Its tough for most players to go through/over a Garnett screen, which makes him ideal for setting up jumpers and cutters off the ball. When he's screening on the ball, everyone involved has to worry about his dual scoring threat, and when that happens, that gives the ball-handler that much more space to work with. Marginal on a single possession, significant when added up over the course of ~75 possessions, and extremely resilient - how do you stop good screens? You don't really, you just stay as disciplined as possible. And this effect is completely absent in the box-score.

So what's important now is to consider the fact that most of Garnett's offense does not show up in the box-score! And I wouldn't call what he does on the floor the "little things" (this is just something people have been conditioned to say, most things that aren't covered in the box-score have become atypical/unconventional or associated with grit/hustle, despite the fact that these are pretty fundamental basketball actions/skills). Something like 75-80% of his offensive value just simply isn't tracked by "conventional" recordkeeping, yet the focus with Garnett is almost always on the dip in scoring and efficiency. So what if the 20% that is tracked has fallen off. Even if that aspect of his game fell off by 50% (it hasn't), the rest of his game is so fundamentally resilient that I'm not even sure what degree of defense it would take to neutralize it (at least to an effective degree, I'm welcome to explanations), and that still puts him at 80-90% of his max offensive impact (given the increased loads he was typically carrying in the playoffs, I doubt it even went that low). The generalized argument against him of course tends to be "where are the results", and quite frankly it needs to be hammered home that his Minnesota casts were actually that bad. Not mid 2000s Kobe/Lebron bad, like REALLY bad, like worst of any top 10 player bad.

Joao Saraiva · Post #24 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 1:12 am

therealbig3 wrote:So yeah, I'm popping in every now and then as an outside observer, even though I'm not voting, and to just respond to some posts from the previous threads regarding my post on KG:

-Why is KG the only one with this intangible impact, that goes well beyond the box score?

Um, who said that he was? Obviously, all of these guys have non-box score impact. But simply understanding how KG approaches the game vs these other players pretty much tells you why it's easy to see that his game is less conducive to big box score numbers relative to his big man peers like Hakeem and Shaq, whose main strengths were their volume scoring, which is much easier to see in the box score. Now, Hakeem was also a great defensive anchor in his own right, which is why I think he peaked higher than KG (and I feel the same way about Shaq), but there are serious questions about their consistency throughout their prime, and Shaq in particular was kind of always a liability in the PnR, even at his peak, so there are definitely arguments for KG from a career perspective here

It's long been the general hypothesis with KG that he's one of those guys who might not be having a huge game with regards to the box score, but is doing so many things at an elite level that he's still having an insane amount of impact. And then we got +/- data, and what do you know, not only was he having elite impact, he was having more impact than anyone in the league, and no one other than LeBron in the modern era has surpassed him in that aspect

-Where are the results (aka why didn't his teams win more)?

Pretty shallow analysis honestly. I'm not going to hold it against him that he didn't drag some of the worst supporting casts in history to the playoffs, or past the 1st round, in a tough Western Conference...the fact that in the only two years of his prime he actually got good/great supporting casts, he led them to the WCF (before the aforementioned supporting cast got devastated by injuries) and the championship is proof enough for me that this guy doesn't really pale in comparison to pretty much anyone in NBA history, including the guys already voted in

-There's no way his box score mattered that little

It's not that his box score didn't matter, it's that it does not do justice to a player like Kevin Garnett...just like it doesn't do justice to Tim Duncan, Bill Walton, or more recently, Draymond Green. Most of what they do are not captured in the box score, but are absolutely captured in the final score, which is what matters the most. I also find the comment about projecting Bill Walton's expected career onto KG's career as being unfair to Walton as a little funny, since I pretty much see peak KG as a superior player to peak Walton, and that my comment was actually a little generous to Walton if anything.

-KG's box score stats just aren't there

And even as lame of a way it is to straight up compare box scores and conclude KG doesn't belong here, when you compare career playoff PER of these players, he actually proves that he does belong, lol:

93-96 Hakeem: 26.3 PER
84-88 Bird: 22.7 PER
84-91 Magic: 23.6 PER
95-04 Shaq: 28.3 PER
99-08 KG: 23.9 PER

Does KG seriously look like a guy whose box score production doesn't belong here? If anything, Shaq and to a lesser extent Hakeem are outliers, while Bird/Magic/KG are on the same level. So you can't really say that his box score production doesn't warrant him being here, even if you look at his playoffs.

And there really wasn't much of a response to the points brought up by SSB and ElGee, which was disappointing. I can repost them if people would like.

Well to put it in a simple way:
- I think Hakeem is a better defensive player than Kevin Garnett. The rim protection is vastly superior, since I think Hakeem is even better than Duncan.

- The ground covered by both and PnR defense might give KG an edge, but I think it's a small gap. Not good enough to make me put KG above Hakeem even on the defensive side of the floor.

- As offensive players, I think Hakeem definitely comes out on top. KG suffers from the Karl Malone sindrome - he drops his efficiency in playoff time. I know some context is needed here, but KG actually lacks many great playoff runs. That's something guys like Hakeem and Shaq have done. Context matters, but I gotta give credit for the guys who actually did it;

- I don't see KG with the same gravity effect Shaq had on the offensive end, not even Hakeem's;

- I don't see KG leading those 94 and 95 Rockets to NBA championships, but I see Hakeem replicating KG's career every year and even exceeding it by quite a good margin.

I simply don't like KG as my offensive anchor compared to guys like Shaq, Hakeem or Bird.

I also think there are better defensive anchors left, and since one of them is Hakeem I'd rather vote for him pretty clearly.

Jaivl · Post #25 » by **Jaivl** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 1:12 am

Re: Mikan

1. He has a +12 SRS in the data we have in his prime.
2. That data covers a grand total of 2 games, so it's useless.

3. We have a big sample size of post-retirement Mikan. He played half the 1956 season, around 21 minutes a game, at a similar per-minute production as his prime seasons (but with way more fouls, so I guess he just couldn't stay on the court?). Lakers didn't seem to have changed more players mid-season. And we have WOWY for that...

Spoiler:

Well, this I certainly didn't expect.

EDIT: Looking into that season... the Lakers lost a playoff series against the Hawks... having out-scored them by 18.7 points per game! (lost by 1, won by 58, lost by 1) Certainly a curious nugget of information.

therealbig3 · Post #26 » by **therealbig3** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 1:29 am

Joao Saraiva wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:So yeah, I'm popping in every now and then as an outside observer, even though I'm not voting, and to just respond to some posts from the previous threads regarding my post on KG:

-Why is KG the only one with this intangible impact, that goes well beyond the box score?

Um, who said that he was? Obviously, all of these guys have non-box score impact. But simply understanding how KG approaches the game vs these other players pretty much tells you why it's easy to see that his game is less conducive to big box score numbers relative to his big man peers like Hakeem and Shaq, whose main strengths were their volume scoring, which is much easier to see in the box score. Now, Hakeem was also a great defensive anchor in his own right, which is why I think he peaked higher than KG (and I feel the same way about Shaq), but there are serious questions about their consistency throughout their prime, and Shaq in particular was kind of always a liability in the PnR, even at his peak, so there are definitely arguments for KG from a career perspective here

It's long been the general hypothesis with KG that he's one of those guys who might not be having a huge game with regards to the box score, but is doing so many things at an elite level that he's still having an insane amount of impact. And then we got +/- data, and what do you know, not only was he having elite impact, he was having more impact than anyone in the league, and no one other than LeBron in the modern era has surpassed him in that aspect

-Where are the results (aka why didn't his teams win more)?

Pretty shallow analysis honestly. I'm not going to hold it against him that he didn't drag some of the worst supporting casts in history to the playoffs, or past the 1st round, in a tough Western Conference...the fact that in the only two years of his prime he actually got good/great supporting casts, he led them to the WCF (before the aforementioned supporting cast got devastated by injuries) and the championship is proof enough for me that this guy doesn't really pale in comparison to pretty much anyone in NBA history, including the guys already voted in

-There's no way his box score mattered that little

It's not that his box score didn't matter, it's that it does not do justice to a player like Kevin Garnett...just like it doesn't do justice to Tim Duncan, Bill Walton, or more recently, Draymond Green. Most of what they do are not captured in the box score, but are absolutely captured in the final score, which is what matters the most. I also find the comment about projecting Bill Walton's expected career onto KG's career as being unfair to Walton as a little funny, since I pretty much see peak KG as a superior player to peak Walton, and that my comment was actually a little generous to Walton if anything.

-KG's box score stats just aren't there

And even as lame of a way it is to straight up compare box scores and conclude KG doesn't belong here, when you compare career playoff PER of these players, he actually proves that he does belong, lol:

93-96 Hakeem: 26.3 PER
84-88 Bird: 22.7 PER
84-91 Magic: 23.6 PER
95-04 Shaq: 28.3 PER
99-08 KG: 23.9 PER

Does KG seriously look like a guy whose box score production doesn't belong here? If anything, Shaq and to a lesser extent Hakeem are outliers, while Bird/Magic/KG are on the same level. So you can't really say that his box score production doesn't warrant him being here, even if you look at his playoffs.

And there really wasn't much of a response to the points brought up by SSB and ElGee, which was disappointing. I can repost them if people would like.

Well to put it in a simple way:
- I think Hakeem is a better defensive player than Kevin Garnett. The rim protection is vastly superior, since I think Hakeem is even better than Duncan.

- The ground covered by both and PnR defense might give KG an edge, but I think it's a small gap. Not good enough to make me put KG above Hakeem even on the defensive side of the floor.

- As offensive players, I think Hakeem definitely comes out on top. KG suffers from the Karl Malone sindrome - he drops his efficiency in playoff time. I know some context is needed here, but KG actually lacks many great playoff runs. That's something guys like Hakeem and Shaq have done. Context matters, but I gotta give credit for the guys who actually did it;

- I don't see KG with the same gravity effect Shaq had on the offensive end, not even Hakeem's;

- I don't see KG leading those 94 and 95 Rockets to NBA championships, but I see Hakeem replicating KG's career every year and even exceeding it by quite a good margin.

I simply don't like KG as my offensive anchor compared to guys like Shaq, Hakeem or Bird.

I also think there are better defensive anchors left, and since one of them is Hakeem I'd rather vote for him pretty clearly.

That's fine, you can have your criteria, but it's pretty clearly peak-based, since the questions with Shaq and Hakeem have more to do with their consistency year in and year out, rather than their peak play, which I agree was better than KG's.

Joao Saraiva · Post #27 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 2:31 am

therealbig3 wrote:
Joao Saraiva wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:So yeah, I'm popping in every now and then as an outside observer, even though I'm not voting, and to just respond to some posts from the previous threads regarding my post on KG:

-Why is KG the only one with this intangible impact, that goes well beyond the box score?

Um, who said that he was? Obviously, all of these guys have non-box score impact. But simply understanding how KG approaches the game vs these other players pretty much tells you why it's easy to see that his game is less conducive to big box score numbers relative to his big man peers like Hakeem and Shaq, whose main strengths were their volume scoring, which is much easier to see in the box score. Now, Hakeem was also a great defensive anchor in his own right, which is why I think he peaked higher than KG (and I feel the same way about Shaq), but there are serious questions about their consistency throughout their prime, and Shaq in particular was kind of always a liability in the PnR, even at his peak, so there are definitely arguments for KG from a career perspective here

It's long been the general hypothesis with KG that he's one of those guys who might not be having a huge game with regards to the box score, but is doing so many things at an elite level that he's still having an insane amount of impact. And then we got +/- data, and what do you know, not only was he having elite impact, he was having more impact than anyone in the league, and no one other than LeBron in the modern era has surpassed him in that aspect

-Where are the results (aka why didn't his teams win more)?

Pretty shallow analysis honestly. I'm not going to hold it against him that he didn't drag some of the worst supporting casts in history to the playoffs, or past the 1st round, in a tough Western Conference...the fact that in the only two years of his prime he actually got good/great supporting casts, he led them to the WCF (before the aforementioned supporting cast got devastated by injuries) and the championship is proof enough for me that this guy doesn't really pale in comparison to pretty much anyone in NBA history, including the guys already voted in

-There's no way his box score mattered that little

It's not that his box score didn't matter, it's that it does not do justice to a player like Kevin Garnett...just like it doesn't do justice to Tim Duncan, Bill Walton, or more recently, Draymond Green. Most of what they do are not captured in the box score, but are absolutely captured in the final score, which is what matters the most. I also find the comment about projecting Bill Walton's expected career onto KG's career as being unfair to Walton as a little funny, since I pretty much see peak KG as a superior player to peak Walton, and that my comment was actually a little generous to Walton if anything.

-KG's box score stats just aren't there

And even as lame of a way it is to straight up compare box scores and conclude KG doesn't belong here, when you compare career playoff PER of these players, he actually proves that he does belong, lol:

93-96 Hakeem: 26.3 PER
84-88 Bird: 22.7 PER
84-91 Magic: 23.6 PER
95-04 Shaq: 28.3 PER
99-08 KG: 23.9 PER

Does KG seriously look like a guy whose box score production doesn't belong here? If anything, Shaq and to a lesser extent Hakeem are outliers, while Bird/Magic/KG are on the same level. So you can't really say that his box score production doesn't warrant him being here, even if you look at his playoffs.

And there really wasn't much of a response to the points brought up by SSB and ElGee, which was disappointing. I can repost them if people would like.

Well to put it in a simple way:
- I think Hakeem is a better defensive player than Kevin Garnett. The rim protection is vastly superior, since I think Hakeem is even better than Duncan.

- The ground covered by both and PnR defense might give KG an edge, but I think it's a small gap. Not good enough to make me put KG above Hakeem even on the defensive side of the floor.

- As offensive players, I think Hakeem definitely comes out on top. KG suffers from the Karl Malone sindrome - he drops his efficiency in playoff time. I know some context is needed here, but KG actually lacks many great playoff runs. That's something guys like Hakeem and Shaq have done. Context matters, but I gotta give credit for the guys who actually did it;

- I don't see KG with the same gravity effect Shaq had on the offensive end, not even Hakeem's;

- I don't see KG leading those 94 and 95 Rockets to NBA championships, but I see Hakeem replicating KG's career every year and even exceeding it by quite a good margin.

I simply don't like KG as my offensive anchor compared to guys like Shaq, Hakeem or Bird.

I also think there are better defensive anchors left, and since one of them is Hakeem I'd rather vote for him pretty clearly.

That's fine, you can have your criteria, but it's pretty clearly peak-based, since the questions with Shaq and Hakeem have more to do with their consistency year in and year out, rather than their peak play, which I agree was better than KG's.

I actually put a great deal into longevity.

So KG has better longevity than them? Not according to my formula.

Longevity for me is about accumulated production during their career. For example, Wilt Chamberlain has more RS minutes than Duncan, and most of them were spent in prime seasons. That gives him an edge on lognevity over Tim, despite Tim playing more seasons.

Since somebody mentioned PER, Hakeem has more 20 PER seasons than Kevin Garnett.

And once we factor the playoffs, Hakeem has 500 more minutes played than KG.

I'd also like to point Hakeem was a much better playoff performer than Kevin Garnett.

His 1986, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997 runs would definitely make a top 10 list for me if we included KG's and Hakeem's runs. I know some of them are short, but it's not like KG has a ton of deep runs himself.

And of course, from the top 5 I think at least 3 would be Hakeem's, including #1 and #2.

Pablo Novi · Post #28 » by **Pablo Novi** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 2:37 am

trex_8063 wrote:
Jaivl wrote:Magic sneaks in with nearly no discussion lol, same as in 2014 IIRC.

It's like magic, you might say .

Oh, and I'm back.
Thanks for covering for me penbeast0, I'll try to get right back up to speed on things.

Hey trex,
Thanx for including me in the voting panel.
Otoh, I don't see my name in the OP (did I miss it? or did you forget it?)

So this note is just an appeal to be allowed to vote from here on out.
Thanx
Pablo

Pablo Novi · Post #29 » by **Pablo Novi** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 2:49 am

My basic GOAT criteria is each player's total number of Great Years (as defined as selections to the ALL-League Teams; with 5 "Points" for each 1st-Team selection, 3 "Points" for each 2nd-Team selection; etc.

My second "criteria" is that I FIRST ranked players BY POSITION and then; I include one player per position in every descending set of 5 GOAT players. Part of the reason for this "positional-relative-equality" is that people have never taken into account the amount of extra running-around the non-centers do. I BELIEVE that this system is more objective than any other - but what do I know? lol

I've got Dr J (Julius Erving) next up. His play in the ABA was just phenomenal and he was about equal to Bird in the NBA.

I've then got Kobe due to him being the #2 GOAT Shooting Guard. (As to the Laker's Play-Off successes in the joint Shaq-Kobe years. True Shaq should get most of the credit in year 1. But in years 2-3, imo, Kobe outplayed Shaq in the non-Finals rounds; while Shaq (clearly facing inferior Centers/Power Forwards in the Finals; outshined Kobe there.

So: Dr J (behind LeBron, barely ahead of Larry Bird).
ALTERNATE: Kobe (not all that far behind MJ; barely ahead of Jerry West
2nd ALTERNATE: Big "O" (GOAT #2 PG - barely below Magic; slightly ahead of Stockton)
3rd ALTERNATE: Karl Malone (barely behind TD; barely ahead of Bob Pettit, KG and Sir Charles)

On my own GOAT list, these 4 players are each only ONE SPOT higher (than would be the case if my choices were voted in in this order).

Overall, my only serious objection to our combined RealGM GOAT list is Bill Russell being in the GOAT Top 5 (I have him GOAT #16 - because he was clearly NOT the #1 Center in his own career - Wilt clearly was.)

mischievous · Post #30 » by **mischievous** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 3:04 am

therealbig3 wrote:
Joao Saraiva wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:So yeah, I'm popping in every now and then as an outside observer, even though I'm not voting, and to just respond to some posts from the previous threads regarding my post on KG:

-Why is KG the only one with this intangible impact, that goes well beyond the box score?

Um, who said that he was? Obviously, all of these guys have non-box score impact. But simply understanding how KG approaches the game vs these other players pretty much tells you why it's easy to see that his game is less conducive to big box score numbers relative to his big man peers like Hakeem and Shaq, whose main strengths were their volume scoring, which is much easier to see in the box score. Now, Hakeem was also a great defensive anchor in his own right, which is why I think he peaked higher than KG (and I feel the same way about Shaq), but there are serious questions about their consistency throughout their prime, and Shaq in particular was kind of always a liability in the PnR, even at his peak, so there are definitely arguments for KG from a career perspective here

It's long been the general hypothesis with KG that he's one of those guys who might not be having a huge game with regards to the box score, but is doing so many things at an elite level that he's still having an insane amount of impact. And then we got +/- data, and what do you know, not only was he having elite impact, he was having more impact than anyone in the league, and no one other than LeBron in the modern era has surpassed him in that aspect

-Where are the results (aka why didn't his teams win more)?

Pretty shallow analysis honestly. I'm not going to hold it against him that he didn't drag some of the worst supporting casts in history to the playoffs, or past the 1st round, in a tough Western Conference...the fact that in the only two years of his prime he actually got good/great supporting casts, he led them to the WCF (before the aforementioned supporting cast got devastated by injuries) and the championship is proof enough for me that this guy doesn't really pale in comparison to pretty much anyone in NBA history, including the guys already voted in

-There's no way his box score mattered that little

It's not that his box score didn't matter, it's that it does not do justice to a player like Kevin Garnett...just like it doesn't do justice to Tim Duncan, Bill Walton, or more recently, Draymond Green. Most of what they do are not captured in the box score, but are absolutely captured in the final score, which is what matters the most. I also find the comment about projecting Bill Walton's expected career onto KG's career as being unfair to Walton as a little funny, since I pretty much see peak KG as a superior player to peak Walton, and that my comment was actually a little generous to Walton if anything.

-KG's box score stats just aren't there

And even as lame of a way it is to straight up compare box scores and conclude KG doesn't belong here, when you compare career playoff PER of these players, he actually proves that he does belong, lol:

93-96 Hakeem: 26.3 PER
84-88 Bird: 22.7 PER
84-91 Magic: 23.6 PER
95-04 Shaq: 28.3 PER
99-08 KG: 23.9 PER

Does KG seriously look like a guy whose box score production doesn't belong here? If anything, Shaq and to a lesser extent Hakeem are outliers, while Bird/Magic/KG are on the same level. So you can't really say that his box score production doesn't warrant him being here, even if you look at his playoffs.

And there really wasn't much of a response to the points brought up by SSB and ElGee, which was disappointing. I can repost them if people would like.

Well to put it in a simple way:
- I think Hakeem is a better defensive player than Kevin Garnett. The rim protection is vastly superior, since I think Hakeem is even better than Duncan.

- The ground covered by both and PnR defense might give KG an edge, but I think it's a small gap. Not good enough to make me put KG above Hakeem even on the defensive side of the floor.

- As offensive players, I think Hakeem definitely comes out on top. KG suffers from the Karl Malone sindrome - he drops his efficiency in playoff time. I know some context is needed here, but KG actually lacks many great playoff runs. That's something guys like Hakeem and Shaq have done. Context matters, but I gotta give credit for the guys who actually did it;

- I don't see KG with the same gravity effect Shaq had on the offensive end, not even Hakeem's;

- I don't see KG leading those 94 and 95 Rockets to NBA championships, but I see Hakeem replicating KG's career every year and even exceeding it by quite a good margin.

I simply don't like KG as my offensive anchor compared to guys like Shaq, Hakeem or Bird.

I also think there are better defensive anchors left, and since one of them is Hakeem I'd rather vote for him pretty clearly.

That's fine, you can have your criteria, but it's pretty clearly peak-based, since the questions with Shaq and Hakeem have more to do with their consistency year in and year out, rather than their peak play, which I agree was better than KG's.

What is there to suggest that Kg's year to year consistency was higher than Hakeem's? If people want to believe there's a big gap between Hakeem's few peak years and his others, you can just as easily say the same for Kg.

Pablo Novi · Post #31 » by **Pablo Novi** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 3:07 am

At these high altitudes, imo, Larry Bird just didn't quite accumulate enough Great Years (though his Peak was awesome).
imo, same for KG and Shaq and the others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-NBA_Team
If you go down to near the bottom of the page, there's a kind of cumulative listing. If you sort by 1st-Teams, you see that 10 Players had more (10) 1st-Team Great Years than Larry (who had 9), and the two others who had the same number of 1st-Team years, are Magic (already selected) and the Big "O" who had an additional 2nd-Team Great Year.

Notice that Shaq "only" had 8 1st-Team years; Hakeem only had SIX; and KG doesn't even make this list (because he ONLY had 4 1st-Team years, 3 2nd-Team years and 2 3rd-Team years). So, in my book KG doesn't even come close to consideration for my GOAT Top 15.

Joao Saraiva · Post #32 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 3:13 am

Pablo Novi wrote:My basic GOAT criteria is each player's total number of Great Years (as defined as selections to the ALL-League Teams; with 5 "Points" for each 1st-Team selection, 3 "Points" for each 2nd-Team selection; etc.

My second "criteria" is that I FIRST ranked players BY POSITION and then; I include one player per position in every descending set of 5 GOAT players. Part of the reason for this "positional-relative-equality" is that people have never taken into account the amount of extra running-around the non-centers do. I BELIEVE that this system is more objective than any other - but what do I know? lol

I've got Dr J (Julius Erving) next up. His play in the ABA was just phenomenal and he was about equal to Bird in the NBA.

I've then got Kobe due to him being the #2 GOAT Shooting Guard. (As to the Laker's Play-Off successes in the joint Shaq-Kobe years. True Shaq should get most of the credit in year 1. But in years 2-3, imo, Kobe outplayed Shaq in the non-Finals rounds; while Shaq (clearly facing inferior Centers/Power Forwards in the Finals; outshined Kobe there.

So: Dr J (behind LeBron, barely ahead of Larry Bird).
ALTERNATE: Kobe (not all that far behind MJ; barely ahead of Jerry West
2nd ALTERNATE: Big "O" (GOAT #2 PG - barely below Magic; slightly ahead of Stockton)
3rd ALTERNATE: Karl Malone (barely behind TD; barely ahead of Bob Pettit, KG and Sir Charles)

On my own GOAT list, these 4 players are each only ONE SPOT higher (than would be the case if my choices were voted in in this order).

Overall, my only serious objection to our combined RealGM GOAT list is Bill Russell being in the GOAT Top 5 (I have him GOAT #16 - because he was clearly NOT the #1 Center in his own career - Wilt clearly was.)

Kobe outplayed Shaq? While there is a good case for Kobe > Shaq against the Spurs in both years that's about it.

2001 Kobe has a case for being Shaq's equal against Portland and Sacramento (I believe Shaq was still the best man vs Sac, despite Kobe playing very well

Now if you bring 2002...

Game score vs Portland
- Shaq 21.7
- Kobe 17.2

They had similar raw production. However Shaq had a 12.4ts% edge over Kobe. Also Shaq had a 119 ORTG compared to Kobe's 102, while on D they're pretty much equal (smaller advantage to Shaq.

Game score vs Sacramento:
- Shaq 21.8
- Kobe 16.4

Again Shaq's ORTG/DRTG relation is better than Kobe's, he has 7.2ts% more and in this case, even better raw totals.

Given all that:
- Shaq was better than Kobe against Sacramento and Philadelphia in 01. They were about equal against Portland and Kobe was better vs SAS.

- Shaq was better than Kobe against Portland, Sacramento and Indiana in 02. Kobe was better vs Spurs.

Out of 8 series Shaq was the better man in 5 of them. Kobe was the best man in 2, and they were about equal in 1...

So them being equal doesn't seem true at all - nothing wrong with that. Kobe sometimes being at Shaq's peak levels is actually really impressive, especially at such age.

Joao Saraiva · Post #33 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 3:20 am

Pablo Novi wrote:At these high altitudes, imo, Larry Bird just didn't quite accumulate enough Great Years (though his Peak was awesome).
imo, same for KG and Shaq and the others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-NBA_Team
If you go down to near the bottom of the page, there's a kind of cumulative listing. If you sort by 1st-Teams, you see that 10 Players had more (10) 1st-Team Great Years than Larry (who had 9), and the two others who had the same number of 1st-Team years, are Magic (already selected) and the Big "O" who had an additional 2nd-Team Great Year.

Notice that Shaq "only" had 8 1st-Team years; Hakeem only had SIX; and KG doesn't even make this list (because he ONLY had 4 1st-Team years, 3 2nd-Team years and 2 3rd-Team years). So, in my book KG doesn't even come close to consideration for my GOAT Top 15.

The center spot is only one. So that makes it harder.

Also young Shaq, Hakeem and Robinson (one of the greatest RS performers ever) coexisted. So eventually only one of them is making the 1st team.

Hakeem 95 didn't make the 1st team and I'd definitely argue him over any year of Kobe's career.

Also Kobe's longevity is a bit overrated.

+20 PER seasons:
Shaq 16
Hakeem 16
Kobe 14

I know PER is not a good measure going solo by any means, but this might give you an idea about their longevity.

Also not all years are equal. Since Shaq and Hakeem had higher primes, they're adding more value in those years than Kobe is at his best. So that actually makes the longevity (cumulated value over career) bigger for Hakeem and Shaq.

About Larry Bird vs Kobe... I think it's a great debate. And I might vote for Kobe ahead of Bird.

Post #34 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 3:26 am

Pablo Novi wrote:Thanx for including me in the voting panel.
Otoh, I don't see my name in the OP (did I miss it? or did you forget it?)

So this note is just an appeal to be allowed to vote from here on out.
Thanx
Pablo

Pablo, your name and that of John248, weren't in the OP because when I put it up, Trex had not yet returned and given his blessing. You are in for the rest of the panel as long as you stay active . . . another few months of continuous argument. :argue:

Post #35 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 3:36 am

My questions about KG . . .

(1) Do we have evidence that his defensive impact is appreciably higher than Hakeem? Eye test says the opposite and I've always used that for defense to a large degree.
(2) Do we have evidence that his offensive impact is on a level with Hakeem? Even the chart that TheRealBig3 posted showing playoff PER show he's on a level with Bird (who had some rough playoffs), but not with Shaq or Hakeem (who was a notorious playoff beast).
(3) Where is this inconsistency in Hakeem's play that I keep hearing about? He was a bit of a whiner early in his career, upset that Houston wasn't surrounding him with enough talent post Ralph Sampson plus his game early on was more raw and athletic, with much weaker post passing, but it developed over time (though the whole Dream Shake post moves thing I always though was overrated, it was pretty but not efficient compared to the likes of Shaq's power moves). Garnett took a couple of years to develop his passing and gain consistency with his shot as well, though he started in the NBA much younger so it's more excusable in his case . . . but then Hakeem hadn't grown up playing basketball and it doesn't matter why . . . only what you actually produce.

I have really enjoyed the Garnett posts and do have him over Karl Malone, Bob Pettit, and Dirk/Charles on my all-time PF list, but I think the benefit of the doubt goes to the superior box score performer until the evidence forces a change of opinion and it hasn't convinced me yet. (And no, I don't want to hear about him v. Duncan any more, Duncan isn't his competition now).

rebirthoftheM · Post #36 » by **rebirthoftheM** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 4:54 am

Magic was great and all, but did not expect him to be picked over Shaq

This seemingly leaves Shaq, Hakeem, Kobe, KG and Bird (with Dirk an outside shot it seems) to battle for the last 3 spots in the top 10. Should be really interesting to read the arguments from here on.

I was going to make a long post about Kobe's elite offensive impact, particularly at his peak, but I will have to hold off for the moment. Can't be doing ish like that when Shaq is still on the board :lol:

, and it would unbecoming of any serious GOAT list IMO if he fell out of the top 10.

Post #37 » by **Doctor MJ** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 5:13 am

penbeast0 wrote:My questions about KG . . .

(1) Do we have evidence that his defensive impact is appreciably higher than Hakeem? Eye test says the opposite and I've always used that for defense to a large degree.
(2) Do we have evidence that his offensive impact is on a level with Hakeem? Even the chart that TheRealBig3 posted showing playoff PER show he's on a level with Bird (who had some rough playoffs), but not with Shaq or Hakeem (who was a notorious playoff beast).

We don't have anywhere the data we'd like to have on Hakeem. I certainly understand why that lack of evidence leaves you sticking with your existing opinion.

What the +/- data tells me over the years about Garnett is that he seems to be on a tier with LeBron and Shaq, and that's basically it. Duncan is at the head of the next tier down. As mentioned, I'm really not looking to figure Garnett vs Duncan here, but I can't escape that comparison when asked about how I see Garnett next to other guys.

Duncan vs Hakeem is very, very debatable to me. I think Hakeem peaked higher, but think it likely that Duncan had a better average impact during their respective primes. I think Duncan clearly has intangible edges for being such a stable presence. And of course, Duncan has a big longevity edge.

I see Duncan ahead of Hakeem, and since I see Garnett ahead of Duncan, Garnett gets the edge over Hakeem.

You might say that that's a problematic method for the basis of comparison, and there I'd quite agree with you. It's the best I can do to this point.

penbeast0 wrote:(3) Where is this inconsistency in Hakeem's play that I keep hearing about? He was a bit of a whiner early in his career, upset that Houston wasn't surrounding him with enough talent post Ralph Sampson plus his game early on was more raw and athletic, with much weaker post passing, but it developed over time (though the whole Dream Shake post moves thing I always though was overrated, it was pretty but not efficient compared to the likes of Shaq's power moves). Garnett took a couple of years to develop his passing and gain consistency with his shot as well, though he started in the NBA much younger so it's more excusable in his case . . . but then Hakeem hadn't grown up playing basketball and it doesn't matter why . . . only what you actually produce.

I have really enjoyed the Garnett posts and do have him over Karl Malone, Bob Pettit, and Dirk/Charles on my all-time PF list, but I think the benefit of the doubt goes to the superior box score performer until the evidence forces a change of opinion and it hasn't convinced me yet. (And no, I don't want to hear about him v. Duncan any more, Duncan isn't his competition now).

What makes it so clear to you that Hakeem is the better box score performer? If you say "playoffs", that's a good answer, but one which leaves me to ask why you didn't say "playoffs" in your statement.

The reality is that by advanced stats, Garnett is arguably ahead of Hakeem in the regular season. And by "advanced stats" I means box score based stuff, the stuff that underrates Garnett's actual impact

For me personally a lot of this debate comes from whether or not I should presume Hakeem's impact was well above his stats indicate. I'm uncomfortable with this to be honest, and not just with Hakeem.

drza · Post #38 » by **drza** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 5:19 am

Hakeem Olajuwon: estimating impact, through eras

So, I started a post about Hakeem Olajuwon a couple of days ago. I got maybe 3 paragraphs in, when I realized that there was NO WAY that I had the time to do it justice before I had to leave town. So, I tabled it. Unfortunately, the way I did so was to leave it up on preview here, but I didn't paste it elsewhere (don't know why...brain freeze). Long story short, that post is gone, and I have to start over. But I find myself feeling the same way I did a couple of days ago...it feels like there just isn't time to do the justice that I'd like to do in the time I have tonight. But...I'm going for it anyway. Don't want to let the better be the enemy of the good, so I'll do what I can.

So, I decided to start by sampling a heavily scouting-based post I wrote before about Hakeem (in comparison to Robinson, Duncan and Garnett) http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=44640166#p44640166

For what it's worth, my general memories of Olajuwon through the years:

Spoiler:

Wow. When I started my "I remember"s, I wasn't expecting that section to be nearly that long. I guess the point of my reminiscing is that I was aware of and watching Olajuwon on some level from the time he entered the NBA, but that I wasn't exactly scouting him. But I guess I did see him enough to form opinions.

My impressions of Hakeem (as compared to Robinson, Duncan and/or Garnett)
Physically:

Spoiler:

Defense:

Spoiler:

I remember Hakeem coming out on guards if necessary (most famous example being his block against the Knicks) but the vast majority of my impressions of him are at/near the rim. From that, even though he had the ability to go horizontal, I would say I'd expect his "horizontal defense" to be more similar to young Duncan's or Robinson's (and perhaps Russell's) than Garnett's. As someone (Doc MJ?) suggested up-thread, the type of defense that Garnett played wasn't necessarily conducive to the blocked shot. If roles were reversed, Olajuwon and his coach would have to decide what ratio of horizontal vs. vertical he wanted to be as a defender. And of course, that decision wouldn't be trivially made.

In fact, I'd say that Robinson and Hakeem probably had the most similarity in terms of defensive style of that four-some. Both were incredible shot-blockers but also extremely disruptive of the passing lanes.

It was pretty ironic that the lasting images (for me anyway) of that 1995 match-up were Robinson being so badly fooled by Olajwon's feints and head-fakes, because I kind of feel like Olajuwon would have also fallen for those fakes. Both Olajuwon and Robinson tended to look for the block a lot, which sometimes caused them to over-commit. I feel like this is a weakness for both when compared to Tim Duncan, who almost always seemed to play steady post defense without going for the fakes. I think that Garnett also tended to be better at this area, as he relied on being so darned long that I don't remember him often joining the para-troopers club when defending on-ball.

For all 3 of Hakeem, Robinson and Duncan I think their help defense primarily consisted of rim protection. As I mentioned, all had the athletic ability to show or occasionally switch out to a perimeter player if needed, but their primary areas of influence was the paint. Garnett's area of influence is more like the entire area inside the arc, but the trade-off is that he wasn't directly protecting the rim as often. Some believe this meant that the three center-like players were providing a more important service. I tend to feel like Garnett does more to blow up offenses with his extended range and that this was the more important skill, and got more-so with the rule changes in the "modern" NBA.

Offense:

Spoiler:

On offense, I feel like all four had distinct styles that produced different types of effects.

*Robinson was the best of the 4 on the fast break, and also the best in the face-up game. He was likely the tallest (I peg him at 7-1, KG at 7-1, Duncan at 6-11 and Olajuwon at 6-10, though I'm not positive of these heights) and best leaper which made him great at finishing if set up near the rim. Robinson had some back to the basket skills, but it wasn't his natural forte and depended more on athletic ability than skill. This isn't necessarily a good thing, as the skill tends to win out when faced with players of similar ability. Robinson showed the ability to scale up his scoring (especially in the regular season) when his team brought in more rebounding, and he also showed the ability/willingness to scale down his scoring with more energy focused on defense when playing next to Duncan. Robinson was an adequate passer, but in this company he's not at the top of that heap. As such, he is more ideally suited to be an offensive finisher than a low-post hub or offense creator for teammates.

Olajuwon had the most artistic post moves of the group, and he used them to maximal effect with more volume-scoring mentality than the others. Robinson peaked higher as a regular season scorer, but Olajuwon had the highest peaks in playoff scoring. Olajuwon was the most natural agile/fluid of the group, and that played out with his post moves. Olajuwon also had an excellent handle for a center, and could attack off the face-up. Olajuwon was never really as efficient a scorer as Robinson in the regular season, and I think in large part that's because he didn't share Robinson's proclivity for getting the "easy" shots (fast breaks, alley-oops) nor did he attack and draw fouls like the Admiral. However, his post moves were the exact opposite on the skill/strength continuum. Olajuwon was also (in this company) an adequate passer that got better as his career progressed. However, since he was more adept at post play than Robinson he was a better choice to be a low-post hub for the offense. Especially when surrounded by four shooters, as was the case during his championship runs. His volume/efficiency could potentially hinder his portability with respect to his peers, as we don't have a positive example of him scaling down his volume for the sake of team success if circumstances dictated the way that we do for the others in the group. But to be fair, I don't know that any of the other three could have taken on the volume scoring responsibility to the degree that he did during the Rockets' repeat years. Olajuwon was the best Iso scorer of the group.

Duncan: I think that, while less flashy, Duncan's post game was as effective as Dream's. I also think that he was a better passer than either Robinson or Olajuwon. I think that this makes him as good of a low post hub option on offense as Olajuwon was. However, I don't think that either Duncan or Olajuwon are as good of big men offensive hub options as Shaq or Kareem. Thus, I don't know that you could scale up an offense built primarily around Duncan (or Olajuwon's) low-post offense to a best-in-the-league level the way that you could one built around Shaq or Kareem. However, what both Duncan and Olajuwon demonstrated with their post-game was the ability to lead/anchor an offense that was good enough to win with the right combination of strong defense and shooters. Duncan was good in the iso, but not brilliant like Hakeem could be. He also shared shooting range with Hakeem out to about 15 feet, which was a nice counter to the post games.

Garnett: Like on defense, Garnett's offense is stylistically the most different from the other three. He had a good iso scoring and post game, but not nearly on Hakeem's level. His effectiveness as a scorer down low could rival Duncan's, but he didn't spend as much time down there. Whether it was to prevent wear-and-tear or to put defenses off balance/prevent easy doubles, Garnett spent the most time of this group operating from the high-post/elbow. He was able to run perinneal top-5 offenses from his office in the high-post, pulling defenses towards him and opening up passing lanes and shooting space for teammates. Garnett was also the best passer of the group, and the one best suited to be an offensive hub due to his high-post ability. Garnett also had the most shooting range. Garnett was the lowest volume-scorer of the group, though very similar in that respect to Duncan. Conversely, this meant that KG's game was the one least dependent upon scoring to provide impact.

Putting some numbers to Hakeem's impact through the years

WOWY Olajuwon missed double-digit games in three time windows during his rough prime window of 1986 - 1996:

*1986: Olajuwon missed 14 games. ElGee's WOWY spreadsheet accounts for 13 of those games. He measured the change in SRS of the Rockets to be +1.9 when Olajuwon was in, vs those 13 games when he was out. The team's ultimate SRS was 2.1.

1991 & 1992: Olajuwon missed 26 games in 1991 and 12 games in 1992. ElGee's WOWY spreadsheet measured the change in SRS of the Rockets to be +3.8 when Olajuwon was in vs those 38 games when he was out, and he calculated that the SRS of the team over those two seasons was 2.0.

1995 & 1996: Olajuwon missed 10 games in 1995 and another 10 in 1996. ElGee's WOWY spreadsheet accounts for eight of the missed games in 95 and all 10 in 96. Unfortunately, he doesn't have them grouped here for one number. In 95, the SRS of the Rockets was +6 higher and in 96 it was +9.4 higher with Olajuwon than in the games that he was out.

*First, someone (I think Blackmill) has performed simulations that he believes shows that WOWY is noisy for this order of 10 - 40 games missed, so take the above with whatever size grain of salt you desire

On/off +/-: We have that data for 1994, 1995 and 1996 (nominally Olajuwon's peak)

1994: Rockets +7 on, -7.5 off --> +14.5 net, 4th in NBA (Robinson 1st, +19.9)

1995: Rockets +5.6 on, -6.3 off --> +11.9 net, 7th in NBA (Robinson 1st, +19.8)

1996: Rockets +4.9 on, -5.4 off --> +10.3 net (unknown rank, Robinson 1st, +16.6, Jordan +15.2)

Quick thoughts on those impact approaches

*It is generally accepted that Olajuwon hit an absurd peak between 93 - 96, a peak that was historic level. The question that a lot of people have, then, is how different was "peak" Olajuwon from "pre-peak" Olajuwon. There is a sentiment, among his supporters, that while he may have improved a bit in 93, that he was similarly impactful before 1993 but had a team that was too poor to show it. Being a Garnett supporter, I'm of course familiar with that argument

*The WOWY data suggests (to the extent that you find WOWY on 10 - 40 games in 1 to 2 year periods useful) that Olajuwon's impact was not as large in his '86 or '91-'92 absence as it was in his '95-96 absences.

*Comparatively speaking, early Olajuwon's impact per WOWY was more similar to 1965 Wilt (when he went from the Warriors to the 76ers mid-season with neither team changing much in SRS).

*However, later Olajuwon (1996), per WOWY, had a much larger impact (on the order of 2001-02 Shaq or 2005 Duncan, even 1978 Walton)

*Olajuwon's 1994 - 1996 on/off +/- scores generally support his 1996 WOWY score...they also support that Olajuwon was having an impact in those mid-90s years that was among the best in the NBA in those seasons.

What may have contributed to Olajuwon's impact pre-1993 not being as large as during his 93 - 96 peak?

I've got two potential reasons: 1) More complete offense at his peak and 2) More intelligent defense at his peak. Let's start with the boxscores, and go from there.

Hakeem's boxscore

1986 - 92: 23.2 pts (51% FG, 71% FT), 12.6 reb, 2.3 ast/3.2 TO, 2.1 stl, 3.7 blk

1993 - 96: 27 pts (52% FG, 74% FT), 11.7 reb, 3.6 ast/3.3 TO, 1.7 stl, 3.6 blk

1) More complete offense. There aren't huge differences in the boxscore, a bit each way. Olajuwon was scoring on a bit higher volume, about one rebound less, miniscule differences in steal/block numbers

The one area that stands out to me, though, is the seemingly small difference in assists. See, up until 1993, Olajuwon never had a single season where he had as many assists as he had turnovers. Then, from 93 - 96, he had more assists than TOs every season. Here's why I think that's important:

From the databall era +/- stats (1997 - current), the regressed data suggests strongly that volume scoring (even on good efficiency) is NOT sufficient for strong offense impact. No, for volume scorers, passing/assists correlates more with positive offensive impact than scoring efficiency. There's a growing amount of research indicating this, but here's one article from Andrew Johnson on Nylon Calculus http://fansided.com/2016/11/28/nylon-calculus-shooting-shot-creation-variance/:

"The higher COV on passing efficiency within positions indicates that passing efficiency is a measure with some real separation in talent. Further, the outliers on the upper end tend to line up with the players we think of as stars."

"In fact, Justin Willard’s research found that there is an interactive quality between scoring and passing proficiency; being a superior passer increases the impact of a player’s scoring and vice versa."

For a center, getting up near 4 assists per game vs the just over 2 assists pre-peak pushes Olajuwon out towards the "position outliers" that Johnson describes.

In some of my own research, it seems that for bigs, getting to that assist/TO ratio over 1 is almost like a Magic number. It's not published, but it's very clear when you go through the RAPM studies for the last 20 years. It's clear even when you go through the subjectively decided offensive peaks of the great big man scorers...Kareem, Shaq, Robinson, Dirk, Duncan...look at the seasons that you believe to be their best offensive seasons, and universally they're the ones with assist/TO ratios over 1.

Olajuwon became a more intelligent player at his peak, he became a better passer, and it allowed the Rockets to play that 1 star with 4 shooters offense, which devastated the league. I believe that this helps to explain why Olajuwon's impact at his peak was just better than previously

2) Smarter defense. This one I'm handwaving, which hopefully can be somewhat forgiven at the end of this marathon post. General consensus is that Hakeem's defensive peak came just before his overall peak, and that 1993 may have been the last of his true "defensive peak" years. That's reasonable. By his offensive peak, he was no longer at his athletic peak, and we did see a small dip in his rebounds and steals (not much in his blocks). But, I would also say that, in general, players become smarter defenders (and players in general) as they get older. And while Hakeem was no longer at his athletic peak in the mid-90s, he was still at the upper end of the elite as far as athleticism for a center. Plus, and this shouldn't be overlooked, but the Rockets had intelligent 4s like Otis Thorpe and young Robert Horry, which maybe allowed Olajuwon to emphasize his strengths (e.g. post-defense and rim protection) without having to cover quite as much land as he had to previously.

Somewhat like Wilt, Duncan, Robinson and Garnett...they may have lost some athleticism off their defensive fast ball, but smarts seemed to allow them to either maintain or even perhaps have larger measure impacts as old guys. I'm going to postulate that maybe peak Hakeem had some of that as well

Conclusions

*Whew. If you're still reading, thanks and congratulations. Some of my cliffnote walk-off thoughts:

*Hakeem was an athletic freak that could score in a dominant way and fill up the defensive boxscores for almost his entire career

*Hakeem didn't measure out with elite WOWY scores in his absences in 1986 or 1991-92.

*Hakeem DID measure out with elite WOWY scores, as well as elite on/off +/- scores during his 1994 - 96 peak years

*Hakeem clearly became a better passer and better overall offensive hub in his peak years than he was previously, both by the eye test and it can somewhat be seen in the boxscore. I contend that offense creation/passing is a MUCH more important factor in offensive impact than general consensus or the boxscore composite stats account for, and that this marked an important increase in Olajuwon's offensive impact

*The consensus is that Hakeem's defensive peak was just prior to his offensive peak, and I can see that. However, experience breeds defensive intelligence and often leads to extended (maybe even increased) defensive impact even as the athletic ability starts to wane. This seems to be especially true for the elite bigs that maintained strong physical advantages even when they lost top athletic ability, and I contend that it could be true for Hakeem as well

Bottom line: it DOES appear that a) peak Hakeem (1993 - 96) was a distinctly bigger impact player than pre-1993 Hakeem. Of course, this also argues that b) Hakeem's peak years may have been closer to a simultaneous offensive/defensive peak than he is often credited for. I think I'm fine with both of the previous stances, as I try to evaluate his career

Post #39 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 6:41 am

Yes, the post passing in his early days has always been an issue for me with Hakeem v. DRob (up until their one postseason meeting) and v. Shaq . . . and now it seems v. Garnett. Again, very close among all these greats and I'm trying to keep an open mind.

drza · Post #40 » by **drza** » Tue Jul 4, 2017 7:31 am

ardee wrote:Nobody has replied to the big post I quoted breaking down every Garnett Minny Playoff game and showing how his poor offensive skills killed the Wolves by shooting them out of game after game.

ardee wrote:One more time, quoting this amazing post about how Garnett's flawed skillset hurt his teams badly in the Playoffs.

Since you bring these points up, start with reading this analysis of KG's Minnesota Playoff career, which breaks down very well how his offensive flaws severely hurt his teams in those years.

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

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

99 versus the eventual-champion Spurs.

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

2000, against Portland:

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

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

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

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

2001 vs SAS:

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

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

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

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

2002, 3-game sweep by Dallas.

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

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

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

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

OK, ramble over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second half play from Garnett.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Game 6, elimination time, KG's favorite!

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

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

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

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

A few things, here:

1) The post that ardee is quoting here was actually from a debate that I had with tsherkin close to a decade ago, now, about how Garnett compared with Dirk and Duncan in the playoffs. In it, we were debating how important Garnett's scoring efficiency in the playoffs was when evaluating his overall playoff impact. We've had those debates a few times through the years. And of course, this is relevant in this project as well

2) As ardee knows, though, I replied to tsherkin's post real-time in that debate. I look through the "worst" of Garnett's games, as tsherkin saw it, and shined a brighter light on the context, on Garnett's overall contributions in those games, and what Garnett's actual impact was in those games. I'll post that response below, so you can judge for yourself whether ardee is right that Garnett's performance cost his teams games...or whether, on the other hand, Garnett was making a monster impact in those games and was in fact the ONLY reason his teams were competitive in those games in the first place.

3) I saw penbeast, for one, felt that ardee's re-post of tsherkin's post was useful.

I also saw a good quote from Senior that I wanted to respond to: "The thing is, those question marks that needed to be addressed for KG aren't even there for Hakeem. His playoff offense has never been an issue."

Plus, I know the tenor of a lot of the KG posts that focus on the quality (or lack thereof) of Garnett's supporting cast through the years tends to make Texas Chuck's eyes bleed.

As I read through my post below, I am again reminded of just how much responsibility Garnett was tasked with in the postseason. There's no other way to put it...it was NOT a normal load. It wasn't even a normal load for a superstar. And it speaks a lot to those last two points. Normally, a dominant big man is tasked with a) defensive anchoring (primarily rim protection) and b) scoring. To Senior's point, Olajuwon was always excellent at that, and did both to high levels throughout his career and then exploded at his peak. However, and this speaks to the supporting cast aspersions that Texas Chuck hates, Garnett in Minnesota was never asked to only do that. If he "only" was a great scorer and rim protector, a) his teams would never have made the postseason and b) if they WERE somehow in the playoffs, they would get TORCHED.

The reason, of course, is that the Timberwolves needed MUCH more than rim protection and scoring from him. They ALSO needed him to generate TEAM offense for them, creating opportunities for his teammates and then delivering the ball to them in positions to score. They ALSO needed him to extend his defensive influence out from the paint to the 3-point line, because (as Dr. Positivity pointed out) those Wolves tended to be poor defenders and mid-range shooters.

And, as ElGee pointed out, Garnett's teams through his prime in Minnesota got progressively worse over time. So, all of the issues I point out in the previous paragraph only get worse as you go from the 99 - 01 series that I describe below to the 03 - 04 playoffs that aren't in the rebuttal.

In Minnesota, a "good" playoff game from Garnett (e.g. one that gave his team a chance to win) was NOT to score at volume/efficiency and protect the rim. For him, on his teams, against those opponents, he had to score, create, defend the rim, defend the mid=range/perimeter, rebound, provide the team energy and lead against teams that grossly outclassed the Wolves almost every time. He had the responsibilities of both a dominant big AS WELL AS the responsibilities of a dominant perimeter player. If he checks most of those boxes, which he almost always did, I contend that he had MUCH more playoff impact than someone who may have scored at higher volume and efficiency without bringing everything else to the table.

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=33856830#p33856830

drza wrote:
tsherkin wrote: A lot of very detailed, interesting info

Alright, I'm ready to respond to your monster post. Let me start by saying that there was a lot of killer info in there, and I appreciated the detailed step through. Let me also say that I've enjoyed your overall tone as an informed skeptic in this thread, using strong support to back up your position on both sides. In your posts in general you've been quick to point out Garnett's defense, his playmaking ability, the weakness of his teammates and the strength of his competition.

But. (You knew there was a "but" coming)

In this, a response to me claiming that Garnett has an argument for best postseason performer of his generation due to his overall effect on games, your reply was to stipulate the other factors above (defense, playmaking, weak team/strong opponent) as givens so that you could really key in on how KG performed as a scorer. This would be a reasonable thing to do if you were then going to re-introduce the other factors before making your overall conclusions, but you never really did. I mean, at some points you verbally acknowledge that his defense and rebounding must have been "THAT AWESOME" to compensate for what you see as offensive weakness, but the overall tone and outcome measures of your post are in general negative to the concept of KG being possibly the best. You even use the example games to attempt to build the case that KG was coming up short in these elimination games, primarily due to scoring. That's a fair thing to do...again, if you go back and add the context and other elements of the game before making your conclusions. I don't think you do, though. I think you make your conclusions based on the scoring, then add a disclaimer about the other circumstances afterwards that softens the criticisms but doesn't truly evaluate the game as a whole.

On the whole, in zooming in so far on KG's scoring output/efficiency I think you sometimes find yourself missing the forest for the trees. So let me add some perspective to a few of the games that you classified as stinkers for KG, many of the most egregious ones in fact, and see if it's really reasonable to characterize those games as evidence of Garnett-failure.

99 versus the eventual-champion Spurs...

Then here's the killer. Game 4 was a 7-point loss and he shot 6/20 FG and 8/12 at the line. Realistically, he left 7-9 points on the board from what he'd have posted just making 45% FG and around 80% FT, very normal numbers for him. This is a single-game, single-series performance at the beginning of his All-NBA era (and he's far from alone in having poor performances), but as we start to watch him coming up short in key moments and close games like that, it begins to detract from the overall picture you're painting of the "most dominant postseason performer from 99-08" kind of thing, right? That right there is a game that kind of mirrors Dirk against the Warriors.

OK. Here's the first elimination game that you characterize as a failure. If all I had to go by was your description, I'd think that KG just stunk in this game. I mean wow, he shot terrible and left points on the board in a winnable game. Yeah, that stings...oh, but hold on for a second. Let's take a step back and look at the game as a whole:

Garnett - 20 points, 40% TS, 16 rebounds, 6 asts, 2 stls, 1 TO
Duncan - 16 points, 42% TS, 8 rebounds, 0 asts, 0 stls, 3 blks, 1 TO

Garnett KILLED Duncan in their head-to-head this game. Yeah, Garnett's shooting was off and it'd be great if he could have hit more. But he was facing the consensus best PF of all-time who was also backed up by a still almost prime David Robinson, if KG happened to get by Duncan. KG's running mate at center on that team, the man to help him face off against Duncan and Robinson, was DEAN GARRETT!!!! The only reason that this game was remotely winnable for the Wolves was that KG erased Duncan, dominated the glass, set the table for his teammates with a (team-high) 6 assists-to-1-TO ratio, and clamped the paint (Duncan and Robinson shot a combined 10-for-28 from the field).

You'd be hard pressed to convince me (or, I'd think anyone really) that Garnett had a poor game in that closeout. He flat out out-played the consensus GOAT at his position head-to-head, and gave his team a serious shot to win against a much better opponent. I mean yeah, it'd be nice if KG could have thrown a dominant scoring game on top of that. But at that point such a hypothetical performance is no longer vying for "best of his generation"...it's inching more towards "best in history".

2000, against Portland:

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

I reply to this one purely because you later mention this game (as well as the above Spurs G4) as one of three "major stinkers" in the 8 games of this and the Spurs series. So again, let's look at it. The Blazers frontline featured Rasheed Wallace, Scottie Pippen, and Sabonis as starters with Brian Grant as the main big off the bench. Much like the Duncan/Robinson frontline, we're again speaking of one of the best defensive frontcourts of the era...and they were focused entirely on KG. Now, it's more than fair to mention that KG was terrible shooting in this game. However, you mention KG's 11 assists and the non-Garnett Wolves shooting 53% FG as though those are two isolated events, when in reality the other Wolves starters shot so well specifically BECAUSE Garnett was drawing the Blazers defense and getting the rest of his team easy looks. Also, the Blazers as a team were under their averages in both points scored and FG%, suggesting that somebody on the Wolves must have really been putting in work on defense.

The Wolves lost a tight 3-point game on the road against a much better team, where the opponent was so keyed on KG that he was able to get the rest of his team playing to max efficiency on offense while simultaneously playing lock defense at the other end to keep them in it. Now obviously you can (and did) read this as KG coming up short because of the scoring...to me, this reads that Garnett was the dominant player in this game and did everything he could to give his team a shot to win and they just didn't have enough.

Said a different way...if KG played this EXACT same game and the Blazers played this EXACT same game, but KG was out there with 2002 Steve Nash, Michael Finley and Nick Van Exel instead of Brandon, Wally Z and Anthony Peeler, I think they win this game easily. On the flip side, if the rest of the Wolves were exactly as good but you replaced KG in that game with Tim Duncan, the Wolves still very likely lose (Duncan's 3 games against the Blazers in 2000 were 2 scoring stinkers and 1 scoring explosion, with almost no presence on the boards). So I'm saying that Garnett in this game, even with his shot completely off, was still having at least as much positive impact on the game as we'd have expected from his contemporary superstars. That's a success, not a stinker.

2000, against Portland:

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

Copy and paste the analysis from game 1. Again, KG's shot was in the toilet. Again, he was setting up his teammates right and left, playing dominant defense (Blazers scored 85 points with an ORtg of 101.2...WELL below their season averages of 97.5 points on 107.9 ORtg), and giving his team a legitimate chance against a much stronger opponent. And mind you, I've now re-examined each of the three games that you characterize as "major stinkers" and...well, I've said my piece. If you would still call those games stinkers OVERALL (with scoring and everything else also included) then we'd have to agree to disagree.

2001 vs SAS:

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

OK, really, I'm not going to spend a lot of words here. Let me just post 4 stat lines from this game:

Garnett - 18 points, 54.5% TS, 12 reb, 2 ast, 1 blk, 2 TO
Duncan - 18 points, 45.5% TS, 11 rebs, 4 ast, 2 stl, 1 blk, 1 TO
Rest-of-Wolves-Starters-Combined: 15 pts, 25.7% TS, 11 rebounds, 4 ast, 2 stl, 1 blk, 8 TOs
David Robinson by himself: 16 points, 69% TS, 11 rebounds, 3 asts, 3 stls, 2 blks, 2 TOs

Was Garnett in the population of Crapsville? Was he part of a team-wide failure? Or did Garnett again play Duncan to at-worst a standstill, and his team COMPLETELY let him down? I leave it to the reader to decide.

2001 vs SAS:

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

Another elimination game, part of the theme you were trying to develop of Garnett failing personally in big games. You mention Duncan's shooting and D-Rob's foul trouble, but don't really elaborate. So, slightly wider angle lens:

Garnett - 19 points, 57.5% TS, 15 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 2 TOs
Duncan - 24 points, 42.4% TS, 16 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 2 blk, 2 TOs

At worst Garnett plays Duncan to a standstill, and if scoring efficiency is as important as is generally held around here you'd say that Garnett pretty dramatically outplayed Duncan in this elimination game. His team just wasn't good enough to take advantage. Which I'd contend was a known coming in, but that when isolating the scoring from everything else it's easy to lose sight of that.

Conclusion: I have to stop here. I've spend my entire morning work session on this, and have to leave now as I'm late for a meeting. But I think my point should be pretty clear by now. I went through the first three series that you did, focusing on the exact games that you say were the worst that KG had to offer. Those were some of the worst shooting games of KG's postseason career...and in those games KG consistently outplayed Duncan head-to-head, displayed outstanding playmaking ability that clearly lifted his team's offense, defensively dominated against two of the best frontlines of the era, and in all five cases kept his much less talented team competitive against much stronger competition. I repeat my contention from above, but expanded now for all five games: if you replace KG with either 99 - 01 Duncan or 02 - 04 Dirk, the Wolves still go 0 - 5 in those games (at BEST they squeak out 1 or 2 if Dirk/Duncan go nuts). But if you give KG (playing at the EXACT same level as he did in those 5 games) either the 99 - 01 Spurs cast or the 02 - 04 Mavs cast, they at the worst go 3 - 2 and have a legit shot at 5 - 0. The focus on the scoring efficiency obscured that the other things he was doing was at a brilliant level, which is ultimately reflected in the postseason +/- stats for the entire next decade.