The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[richboy]

Something that's been bothering me in various KG threads is that he's gotten this label from his detractors as a guy who is only viewed as awesome because of +/- stats, when that's not the case at all.

1. The guy is a box-score monster. Career RS PER of 23.1 in almost 48K minutes. 23/13/5/1.6/1.4 from 01-07.

2. Part of the reason +/- stats are used so frequently when examining him is to counter the resistance to the claims that his supporting cast was THAT bad. He isn't awesome because of +/- stats. Those stats do help show his value. Just like they do for Duncan, Dirk, Kobe, etc.

Maybe you talking to me. I do think some people elevate KG because of his +- stats. I just don't buy into it. Don't get me wrong. I have him, Dirk, and Barkley battling for my second best PF all-time spot. But I hear people talk about KG in the same breath as true defensive anchors. He spent most of his time in Minnesota anchoring mediocre to bad defenses. That is where the whole plus minus stuff comes in. IMO Garnett +- numbers are inflated by the fact he played on a lot of teams with little depth and athleticism at the PF and C spots. That most of his teams just didn't have anybody else that could control the defensive glass very well.

Except his Boston career exists. The whole KG isn't a true defensive anchor argument falls to pieces when you look at his Boston career.

How so?

Just because you can play good defense without an anchor doesn't mean your truly a defensive anchor. Is Chris Bosh a defensive anchor?

You can survive with KG just like you can survive with Chris Bosh. As long as your not playing physical dominate teams. When I talk about anchor its about someone who brings your physical toughness to the inside. He the guy that is saying your not going to push us around. KG was not that guy.KG didn't want to guard Shaq. Please KG didn't want to guard Dwight Howard. He didn't want to guard Bynum. He didn't want any part of strong physical players. Young KG wanted to play defense like one of his idols Scottie Pippen played defense. All over the court doing all kind of things. Which is completely fine and has its value.However there are players who could do similar things maybe not as good as KG but also bring that physicality to the game.

Your also suggesting something that really didn't exist. KG is a different player today than he was in the past. KG in Minnesota didn't even want to play PF. He would have went flat out insane about the idea of him playing center. This KG has been accepting of his job. But in no way does that mean KG in the past was a defensive anchor.

[richboy]

Word. I suppose I mixed it up with KG getting into a supposed altercation with a former teammate. Wally's other tweets are nothing but props, and you guys overlook that I basically agree with them. However being a go-to scorer can be seen as a part of leadership, but I've said from beginning KG's leadership is still excellent

Ok, cool. The bottom line is it's crazy for us to judge NBA players on their leadership ability since you know, we aren't a part of those locker rooms.

He's definitely not a typical 7 foot defensive anchor. KG even the Celtics version is generally more mobile than his peers but at the same time didn't have the same interior presence and impact near the rim although he's by no means a slouch there.

Who cares about typical? I only care about defensive impact.

You should care about winning titles. This is the same thing I saw about Harden. The NBA regular season is full of easy games and opportunities to pad the stats. It is the playoffs where you need to have as little weaknesses as possible. Should I care about KG defensive impact which may or may not exist when most teams don't have a dominate inside presence. When many teams don't have the size to even take advantage. Harden can lite up guys in the regular season and then in the playoffs you take away his left and he stuck launching step back 3 pointers. KG is fine as an anchor against a lot of teams but what happens when you face Paul Gasol and Bynum and no Perkins in game 7. Are you the guy that going to keep Lebron shooting jumpers or is he going right to the rim on you.

So to answer your point. What has Boston done with KG as the anchor?

[drza]

Re: Garnett's offense

Garnett's offense is an interesting topic, because in these legacy conversations it is often given much less weight than I think that it should. There are many reasons why this happens, not the least of which is the notion that Garnett subsumed his offense in exchange for defense during the Celtics years (including, and especially, the Championship season).

But here's the thing...Garnett wasn't just a good offensive player...he wasn't even "just" a great offensive player...Garnett was a RIDICULOUS offensive player. I can say, without hyperbole, that Garnett would have been a Hall of Famer for his offense alone.

Now, is there a difference between "Hall of Famer" and "Best of All time"? Obviously. If Garnett was an offense-only player that produced exactly the offense he did in his real career, he wouldn't be nearly as "fascinating" on this board as he is because he wouldn't have been nearly as good as he actually is. In this scenario he would come up short of the offensive GOATs that we love to discuss.

But.

There is a huge, chasm-like difference between being "only" Hall-of-Fame-worthy-but-not-GOAT and "2nd option", "relatively low impact", or not worthy of mention the way that Garnett's offense is often treated in these discussions. The difference is a matter of scale, but in a major way.

For example, in the often covered KG vs Dirk debate, the assertion is sometimes made that Dirk's offense is more valuable than KG's defense so therefore Dirk is the more valuable player. But making this statement and leaving it at that completely ignores that in addition to KG's defense, he's also one of the best offensive bigs in history. Dirk is a solid defender, better than he is often given credit for. But Garnett is a game-changer on offense, a player very capable of being the best offensive player on championship-caliber squads.

This segues into the idea that KG didn't show that he could be a beast on offense and defense simultaneously...that his defensive peak came in Boston while his offensive peak was in Minnesota, so we shouldn't assume that he could do both at the same time. While it is fair to examine this and put it into perspective, we should again take note of scale.

In 2003 Garnett finished top-5 in the NBA in both offensive and defensive win shares (box score-based), and top-7 in both offensive and defensive RAPM.

In 2004 KG finished top-2 in both offensive and defensive win shares, and top-3 in both offensive and defensive win shares.

So KG demonstrated that he could peak near the top of both categories simultaneously over multiple years.

But even after he went to Boston, in his 13th season and into his 30s, Garnett still demonstrated major impact on both offense and defense. True, he led the league in every defensive stat there is in 2008 while leading the historic team defense...but he also measured out as one of the better offensive players in the game that season as well. Maybe no longer leading the league like he was at his peak in Minnesota, but still comfortably in the top-20 with Dirk as the only big man measuring out comfortably ahead of KG in both offensive measures cited.

So yes, it's fair to point out where KG's career might not measure as well offensively as some of the offensive GOATs. It's fair to say that he put up his best defensive impact stats after the time that he put up his best offensive stats. But again, it's a matter of scale and perspective. And when you take that perspective and put everything into context, KG's offensive abilities are a HUGE part of his legacy because he more than demonstrated huge peak impact, portability, longevity, and contender-leading ability on that side of the ball.

[colts18]

Garnett was a good offensive player (probably better than Duncan), but that did not translate to the playoffs, where KG's offensive numbers fell. KG's teams were like -1.0 in his prime offensively in the playoffs. Thats a huge dropoff.

[Rapcity_11]

How so?

Just because you can play good defense without an anchor doesn't mean your truly a defensive anchor. Is Chris Bosh a defensive anchor?

Equating KG to Bosh? Ha.

You can survive with KG just like you can survive with Chris Bosh. As long as your not playing physical dominate teams. When I talk about anchor its about someone who brings your physical toughness to the inside. He the guy that is saying your not going to push us around. KG was not that guy. KG didn't want to guard Shaq. Please KG didn't want to guard Dwight Howard. He didn't want to guard Bynum. He didn't want any part of strong physical players. Young KG wanted to play defense like one of his idols Scottie Pippen played defense. All over the court doing all kind of things. Which is completely fine and has its value.However there are players who could do similar things maybe not as good as KG but also bring that physicality to the game.

So? KG plays PF. Grab a big C to play next to him, that's not difficult. A Perkins, or a Collins, or a **** Aaron Gray. You're getting way too caught in defending the post. It's not that important and there are always plenty of guys who can do a passable job doing it. Man defense just isn't that important.

[Rapcity_11]

You should care about winning titles. This is the same thing I saw about Harden. The NBA regular season is full of easy games and opportunities to pad the stats. It is the playoffs where you need to have as little weaknesses as possible. Should I care about KG defensive impact which may or may not exist when most teams don't have a dominate inside presence. When many teams don't have the size to even take advantage. Harden can lite up guys in the regular season and then in the playoffs you take away his left and he stuck launching step back 3 pointers. KG is fine as an anchor against a lot of teams but what happens when you face Paul Gasol and Bynum and no Perkins in game 7. Are you the guy that going to keep Lebron shooting jumpers or is he going right to the rim on you.

So to answer your point. What has Boston done with KG as the anchor?

They've been elite defensively. I mean, there's not even more to say. You've built some weird narrative in your head. I don't know what to say other than the C's have been elite defensively in the playoffs since 08.

[Texas Chuck]

Re: Garnett's offense



For example, in the often covered KG vs Dirk debate, the assertion is sometimes made that Dirk's offense is more valuable than KG's defense so therefore Dirk is the more valuable player. But making this statement and leaving it at that completely ignores that in addition to KG's defense, he's also one of the best offensive bigs in history. Dirk is a solid defender, better than he is often given credit for. But Garnett is a game-changer on offense, a player very capable of being the best offensive player on championship-caliber squads.

First let me state that your entire post was really strong. I think aside from some minor disagreements about the exact quality of KG's offensive ability(mainly his PS efficiency was pretty poor most years and never great) that I agree with almost all of that.

As far as Dirk v KG imo it goes a little beyond just simply that Dirk's offense is more valuable than KG's defense and so he's more valuable when we stop there. Because KG is a great offensive player and an elite defensive one. For me I think Dirk's ability as an offensive anchor makes building a team around him easier. Forget the debate over quality of teammates(we all know Dirk's were better until 08) but moreso the different teams Dirk has anchored and how they always won. I think the value he adds by simply being easier to assemble a contending team around tilts the debate his way. Not exactly that his offense is > KG's defense and that ends it. But what his entire game(as you correctly note Dirk isnt just an offensive wizard) allows an organization to do around him.

But I must admit the more discussions I get into re: KG the more my opinion is getting swayed more in his favor.

[Texas Chuck]

So? KG plays PF. Grab a big C to play next to him, that's not difficult. A Perkins, or a Collins, or a **** Aaron Gray. You're getting way too caught in defending the post. It's not that important and there are always plenty of guys who can do a passable job doing it. Man defense just isn't that important.

In a conference with prime Shaq and prime Duncan (among others) Id say that post defense was pretty darn important.

[Rapcity_11]

So? KG plays PF. Grab a big C to play next to him, that's not difficult. A Perkins, or a Collins, or a **** Aaron Gray. You're getting way too caught in defending the post. It's not that important and there are always plenty of guys who can do a passable job doing it. Man defense just isn't that important.

In a conference with prime Shaq and prime Duncan (among others) Id say that post defense was pretty darn important.

Shaq may be the biggest outlier in NBA history. You don't want your best player guarding him. That's why Duncan often didn't guard him. You used the biggest guys you could find with fouls to spare. So that's not going to factor into my analysis.

KG defended Duncan great in the playoffs. Check out their head to head numbers that drza has posted many times.

Additionally, having KG to double and fly around the court next to a bigger C is a great way to defend the post.

[The Infamous1]

Yea with Pierce and allen were he was 1A 1B with Paul on offense in the playoffs.The celtics are the team KG should've been on his whole career and the role he should've always been playing.

Odd comment. Boston is the first modern day superteam, most stars could be so lucky. I wonder what David Robinson would have done if he was on a team with Pierce, Allen and Rondo. At least one title like KG (on his own that is), possibly more. Maybe 2010 goes different if you have a legit center to deal with Gasol/Bynum. Then he probably isn't listed 8 spots behind Garnett on All Time list here.

Tough thing with KG is his team circumstances were so black and white. Mostly poor or average casts for most of his career, then an awesome cast. But still only one title out of it. Could he have won with just one other great offensive player alongside him. I don't know the answer.

Well I think Drob and KG are very comparable, I think David is better IMO. Put him on the 08' celtics and they win the same title rather easily but KG did a great job.

The reason I said it was the ideal team is because KG is the GOAT Complimentary player, like a seven foot Pippen. Good not great scorer/great rebounder/Great Passer/ATG defender, and his game fits perfectly with other stars like Scottie

[ElGee]

Re: Mutombo's impact on MJ. There's no doubt that if you drive to the hoop, a big by the hoop is going to have major impact. The reason to favor the horizontal game is that it allows you to threaten other shots as well.

I'm not sure this has really been explicitly stated, so it's worth hammering home:

In this PnR/3-point era, it's not that a horizontal, middle linebacker can guard lots of shots, it's that he can guard lots of space. A lot of open shots are generated from an inability to handle the PnR (the screen gives the offense an inherent spatial advantage). This is NOT reserved to the on-ball defender. It's not even reserved to the defender of the screener. The whole team has to move in space correctly.

KG is the best PnR defender I've ever seen because he prevents the other team from generating a power play so frequently. If someone wants to doll out game tape from 08 or 10 I can demonstrate this in detail, but having stat-tracked these games, I can tell you the whole reason so many shots against Boston ended in low-percentage, contested looks is because Kevin Garnett absolutely BLOWS UP your pick-and-roll, whether he's the big on the screener or whether he's the primary help in the lane.

Situation A

Spoiler:

KG is guarding the screener. He takes an optimal route depending on the offensive player (eg "show hard") but he also recovers and rotates back perfectly. Now there's 6 seconds on the shot clock, everyone is re-guarded and the offensive has no advantage. This possession has gone from a 0.9 pts/possession to a 0.6 point possession.

Situation B

Spoiler:

KG is in the lane and Perkins is guarding the screener. KG tells Perkins (and indirectly, his help-the-helper) where to be depending on how is in the PnR. He helps appropriately if it's a hard roller, DETERRING a pass, and he helps appropriately if it's a skilled driver, DETERRING the drive. He basically does this at the same time. (!) Again, a team tries to set up a power-play and it doesn't work...

This also explains why there are no real stats for KG's impact, but he just "mysteriously" has this giant impact on the game when he's playing. His strength is PnR D in a league of PnR. It's analogous to Russell's strength being shot-blocking/rim protection in a league that lived in a packed paint.

[ElGee]

Garnett was a good offensive player (probably better than Duncan), but that did not translate to the playoffs, where KG's offensive numbers fell. KG's teams were like -1.0 in his prime offensively in the playoffs. Thats a huge dropoff.

I agree with this. I probably take peak KG's offense over Duncan's. The issue I have with obsessing over this "dropoff" is that the circumstances weren't the same. When defenses can load up on you it will make scoring harder. Duncan's probably a better "drag me to mediocrity" isolation player than Garnett...but that isn't as valuable as what KG can bring on better teams. I mean, even his maligned 2003 Spurs team is a supporting cast Kevin Garnett would killed for (making his life easier and his stats look different) prior to 04/Boston.

[colts18]

I agree with this. I probably take peak KG's offense over Duncan's. The issue I have with obsessing over this "dropoff" is that the circumstances weren't the same. When defenses can load up on you it will make scoring harder. Duncan's probably a better "drag me to mediocrity" isolation player than Garnett...but that isn't as valuable as what KG can bring on better teams. I mean, even his maligned 2003 Spurs team is a supporting cast Kevin Garnett would killed for (making his life easier and his stats look different) prior to 04/Boston.

But Duncan faced similar pressure on offense too. KG's 2002 and 2004 casts are better offensively than any of Duncan's casts pre 2004. Duncan probably faced more pressure and attention since no one on his team played well offensively in the playoffs. Duncan's team was like +2 or +3 offensively in the playoffs in 2003.

Playoffs (03 Duncan vs 04 KG):

Duncan: 24.7 PPG, .577 TS%, 15.4 Reb, 5.3 AST, 3.2 TOV, 3.3 blk, 28.4 PER, 116 O rating, 92 D rating
Garnett: 24.3 PPG, .513 TS%, 14.6 Reb, 5.1 AST, 4.2 TOV, 2.3 blk, 25.0 PER, 100 O rating, 95 D rating

Thats a big dropoff for KG who is behind Duncan in pretty much every category in the playoffs including a massive 16 point O rating gap. KG's efficiency was 6.4 TS% points behind and he had a 4% higher usage%.

[WhateverBro]

But Duncan faced similar pressure on offense too. KG's 2002 and 2004 casts are better offensively than any of Duncan's casts pre 2004. Duncan probably faced more pressure and attention since no one on his team played well offensively in the playoffs. Duncan's team was like +2 or +3 offensively in the playoffs in 2003.

Playoffs (03 Duncan vs 04 KG):

Duncan: 24.7 PPG, .577 TS%, 15.4 Reb, 5.3 AST, 3.2 TOV, 3.3 blk, 28.4 PER, 116 O rating, 92 D rating
Garnett: 24.3 PPG, .513 TS%, 14.6 Reb, 5.1 AST, 4.2 TOV, 2.3 blk, 25.0 PER, 100 O rating, 95 D rating

Thats a big dropoff for KG who is behind Duncan in pretty much every category in the playoffs including a massive 16 point O rating gap. KG's efficiency was 6.4 TS% points behind and he had a 4% higher usage%.

Not disagreeing with anything, just adding some facts since I've seen every minute of the 04 playoff run by KG several times. While he wasn't efficient shooting the ball in the Nuggets series, his efficiency in the Sacramento, Lakers series is most likely a bit influenced by him being forced to play on the perimeter alot more than during the regular season. Not to mention that Cassell was heavily bothered by his hips for the games he played in the playoffs which made the offense worse generally and didn't allow KG nearly as many easy baskets as during the regular season.

If you look at Garnetts shooting during the RS as compared to PS, you quickly see that he was finishing at the rim at a higher rate during the playoffs. So what really suffered was his game from 3-10 feet and from 16 feet and out all the way to the three point line. During the RS, his makes from 3-10 feet were assisted 53 % of the time, compared to 39 % during the PS. His 16 feet to 3pt line makes were assisted on 65 % of the time during the PS, down from 84 % during the RS. And finally, his 3pt makes were assisted 82 % of the time during the RS, compared to 40 % during the playoffs. To tell the truth, he was handling the ball way too much during those playoffs, I mean he was forced to do it because they didn't have any options with both Cassell missing time and Hudson being out (yes, even Hudson would've helped, insane...).

I'm willing to draw the conclusion that Cassell being hobbled and even missing games during the PS probably hurt him a little bit efficiency wise. He had to create for himself alot more offensively and also was responsible to run the offense at an even higher rate than during the RS. This also lead to him expanding even more energy than he usually did during the RS (which was already too much...).

[richboy]

You should care about winning titles. This is the same thing I saw about Harden. The NBA regular season is full of easy games and opportunities to pad the stats. It is the playoffs where you need to have as little weaknesses as possible. Should I care about KG defensive impact which may or may not exist when most teams don't have a dominate inside presence. When many teams don't have the size to even take advantage. Harden can lite up guys in the regular season and then in the playoffs you take away his left and he stuck launching step back 3 pointers. KG is fine as an anchor against a lot of teams but what happens when you face Paul Gasol and Bynum and no Perkins in game 7. Are you the guy that going to keep Lebron shooting jumpers or is he going right to the rim on you.

So to answer your point. What has Boston done with KG as the anchor?

They've been elite defensively. I mean, there's not even more to say. You've built some weird narrative in your head. I don't know what to say other than the C's have been elite defensively in the playoffs since 08.

Thats fine but you can be elite defensively with other great true anchors who can truly hold down the paint. If you take KG your pretty much hoping not to meet certain players or teams in the playoffs.

[quote]So? KG plays PF. Grab a big C to play next to him, that's not difficult. A Perkins, or a Collins, or a **** Aaron Gray. You're getting way too caught in defending the post. It's not that important and there are always plenty of guys who can do a passable job doing it. Man defense just isn't that important.[quote/]

Lol. Its about a lot more than guarding the post. Its about having your best big go up against there best big whenever you need it. Tim Duncan's defense on Shaq won them playoff series. Saying well go get Aaron Gray to do it. Are you serious. Your entire argument is pretty much based I want KG as my anchor if I'm in an era with no great post players. Because apparently I want Aaron Gray guarding Patrick Ewing in the big spots.

What you say is why scoring is down. You in essence need to bring in a offensively challenged player who only job is to do post defense. In essence take 2 people to do the job of 1 person. I had this same conversation with Net fans about Brook Lopez. That they pretty much play a horrible offensive player in Reggie Evans to do what your center should be able to do by himself.

By you i'm going to spend money and put a stiff in Kendrick Perkins in the game for the sole purpose of bringing some toughness in the paint. While guys like Dwight, Duncan, Hakeem, DR can do that by themselves. Unless KG is just so ridiculous above these others in all aspects of the game you make my case. Apparently we have to pay KG over 20 million a year and then go get a Kendrick, or Rasho, or Kandi for another 7 or 8 million to make 1 complete dominate big man.

[richboy]

Re: Garnett's offense

Garnett's offense is an interesting topic, because in these legacy conversations it is often given much less weight than I think that it should. There are many reasons why this happens, not the least of which is the notion that Garnett subsumed his offense in exchange for defense during the Celtics years (including, and especially, the Championship season).

But here's the thing...Garnett wasn't just a good offensive player...he wasn't even "just" a great offensive player...Garnett was a RIDICULOUS offensive player. I can say, without hyperbole, that Garnett would have been a Hall of Famer for his offense alone.

Now, is there a difference between "Hall of Famer" and "Best of All time"? Obviously. If Garnett was an offense-only player that produced exactly the offense he did in his real career, he wouldn't be nearly as "fascinating" on this board as he is because he wouldn't have been nearly as good as he actually is. In this scenario he would come up short of the offensive GOATs that we love to discuss.

But.

There is a huge, chasm-like difference between being "only" Hall-of-Fame-worthy-but-not-GOAT and "2nd option", "relatively low impact", or not worthy of mention the way that Garnett's offense is often treated in these discussions. The difference is a matter of scale, but in a major way.

For example, in the often covered KG vs Dirk debate, the assertion is sometimes made that Dirk's offense is more valuable than KG's defense so therefore Dirk is the more valuable player. But making this statement and leaving it at that completely ignores that in addition to KG's defense, he's also one of the best offensive bigs in history. Dirk is a solid defender, better than he is often given credit for. But Garnett is a game-changer on offense, a player very capable of being the best offensive player on championship-caliber squads.

This segues into the idea that KG didn't show that he could be a beast on offense and defense simultaneously...that his defensive peak came in Boston while his offensive peak was in Minnesota, so we shouldn't assume that he could do both at the same time. While it is fair to examine this and put it into perspective, we should again take note of scale.

In 2003 Garnett finished top-5 in the NBA in both offensive and defensive win shares (box score-based), and top-7 in both offensive and defensive RAPM.

In 2004 KG finished top-2 in both offensive and defensive win shares, and top-3 in both offensive and defensive win shares.

So KG demonstrated that he could peak near the top of both categories simultaneously over multiple years.

But even after he went to Boston, in his 13th season and into his 30s, Garnett still demonstrated major impact on both offense and defense. True, he led the league in every defensive stat there is in 2008 while leading the historic team defense...but he also measured out as one of the better offensive players in the game that season as well. Maybe no longer leading the league like he was at his peak in Minnesota, but still comfortably in the top-20 with Dirk as the only big man measuring out comfortably ahead of KG in both offensive measures cited.

So yes, it's fair to point out where KG's career might not measure as well offensively as some of the offensive GOATs. It's fair to say that he put up his best defensive impact stats after the time that he put up his best offensive stats. But again, it's a matter of scale and perspective. And when you take that perspective and put everything into context, KG's offensive abilities are a HUGE part of his legacy because he more than demonstrated huge peak impact, portability, longevity, and contender-leading ability on that side of the ball.

Saying KG was a HOF offensive player is pretty much irrelevant when we see that pretty much any decent offensive player is claiming HOF status. In terms of PFs in league history if KG was a offense only player were talking about a bunch of PFs potentially jumping him as potential HOFers.

Chris Bosh
Amare Stoudamire
Chris Webber
Zach Randolph
Pau Gasol

not to mention some young guys coming up like

Kevin Love
LeMarcus Aldridge
Blake Griffin

The only way i can see KG as a great offensive player is if I valued his assist more. The problem for me is he racked up easy assist in Minnesota playing that high post offense. Although a very good passer I do not consider KG in the league of some other bigs in terms of passing.

Matter of fact I would actually say that KG for most of his career is the classic over extended star player. That KG was a extremely high paid player with it saw himself in the middle of everything Minnesota did. But his lack of actually winning success was as much a product of him not being good enough to handle all those things. He was pretty much 1994 Scottie Pippen for much of his career in Minnesota. A overused second banana trying to be a first banana but destined to not be good enough. The numbers looked nice but they weren't going to lead to anything.

[HeartBreakKid]

You should care about winning titles. This is the same thing I saw about Harden. The NBA regular season is full of easy games and opportunities to pad the stats. It is the playoffs where you need to have as little weaknesses as possible. Should I care about KG defensive impact which may or may not exist when most teams don't have a dominate inside presence. When many teams don't have the size to even take advantage. Harden can lite up guys in the regular season and then in the playoffs you take away his left and he stuck launching step back 3 pointers. KG is fine as an anchor against a lot of teams but what happens when you face Paul Gasol and Bynum and no Perkins in game 7. Are you the guy that going to keep Lebron shooting jumpers or is he going right to the rim on you.

So to answer your point. What has Boston done with KG as the anchor?

They've been elite defensively. I mean, there's not even more to say. You've built some weird narrative in your head. I don't know what to say other than the C's have been elite defensively in the playoffs since 08.

Thats fine but you can be elite defensively with other great true anchors who can truly hold down the paint. If you take KG your pretty much hoping not to meet certain players or teams in the playoffs.

So? KG plays PF. Grab a big C to play next to him, that's not difficult. A Perkins, or a Collins, or a **** Aaron Gray. You're getting way too caught in defending the post. It's not that important and there are always plenty of guys who can do a passable job doing it. Man defense just isn't that important.[quote/]

Lol. Its about a lot more than guarding the post. Its about having your best big go up against there best big whenever you need it. Tim Duncan's defense on Shaq won them playoff series. Saying well go get Aaron Gray to do it. Are you serious. Your entire argument is pretty much based I want KG as my anchor if I'm in an era with no great post players. Because apparently I want Aaron Gray guarding Patrick Ewing in the big spots.

What you say is why scoring is down. You in essence need to bring in a offensively challenged player who only job is to do post defense. In essence take 2 people to do the job of 1 person. I had this same conversation with Net fans about Brook Lopez. That they pretty much play a horrible offensive player to do what your center should be able to do by himself.

By you i'm going to spend money and put a stiff in Kendrick Perkins in the game for the sole purpose of bringing some toughness in the paint. While guys like Dwight, Duncan, Hakeem, DR can do that by themselves. Unless KG is just so ridiculous in other aspects of the game you make my case. Apparently we have to pay KG over 20 million a year and then go get a Kendrick, or Rasho, or Kandi for another 7 or 8 million to make 1 complete dominate big man.

I'm confused, what centers has KG had problems playing against since he's actually been playing Center (which is what, 2 or 3 years?).

KG is a power forward, why should he have to guard Shaq? Argument makes little sense.

[drza]

Saying KG was a HOF offensive player is pretty much irrelevant when we see that pretty much any decent offensive player is claiming HOF status. In terms of PFs in league history if KG was a offense only player were talking about a bunch of PFs potentially jumping him as potential HOFers.

Chris Bosh
Amare Stoudamire
Chris Webber
Zach Randolph
Pau Gasol

not to mention some young guys coming up like

Kevin Love
LeMarcus Aldridge
Blake Griffin

The only way i can see KG as a great offensive player is if I valued his assist more. The problem for me is he racked up easy assist in Minnesota playing that high post offense. Although a very good passer I do not consider KG in the league of some other bigs in terms of passing.

Matter of fact I would actually say that KG for most of his career is the classic over extended star player. That KG was a extremely high paid player with it saw himself in the middle of everything Minnesota did. But his lack of actually winning success was as much a product of him not being good enough to handle all those things. He was pretty much 1994 Scottie Pippen for much of his career in Minnesota. A overused second banana trying to be a first banana but destined to not be good enough. The numbers looked nice but they weren't going to lead to anything.

Even keeping it general, there's no way those guys are "jumping" over KG's offensive HOF credentials.

Garnett has 25,000+ points and 5000+ assists. No way any of the names on your list are approaching that. The only bigs to do it ever, if I'm not mistaken, are Kareem and Karl Malone

KG peaked leading the NBA in points scored. The other 9 names you listed combined to do that zero times.

KG was the leading scorer and usage leader on four straight top-6 offenses, and in two of those years he led the team in both scoring and assists. And for kicks, he did this with four different starting point guards. Without looking it up, MAYBE Webber might have come close to the scoring part of that in his Sac days but nowhere near the whole package.

KG peaked as both the #1 player in the NBA in ORAPM (completely non-boxscore impact) the same year that he was #2 in offensive win shares (completely boxscore). None of the names on your list are approaching that combo.

You listed some very good forwards, most of which are known primarily for offense. Lots of All Star and All NBA appearances in your list. But none of them are surpassing KG even on offense alone. Which, circling back, was my point in the first place: KG was extremely strong on offense...Hall-of-Fame worthy, in fact, on that side of the ball alone.

[NO-KG-AI]

Yea with Pierce and allen were he was 1A 1B with Paul on offense in the playoffs.The celtics are the team KG should've been on his whole career and the role he should've always been playing.

Odd comment. Boston is the first modern day superteam, most stars could be so lucky. I wonder what David Robinson would have done if he was on a team with Pierce, Allen and Rondo. At least one title like KG (on his own that is), possibly more. Maybe 2010 goes different if you have a legit center to deal with Gasol/Bynum. Then he probably isn't listed 8 spots behind Garnett on All Time list here.

Tough thing with KG is his team circumstances were so black and white. Mostly poor or average casts for most of his career, then an awesome cast. But still only one title out of it. Could he have won with just one other great offensive player alongside him. I don't know the answer.

Are they that "super" though? They are a super team by name value, but by that time, injury and age had slowed all 3 down.

The Celtics had super results because of their defense. They weren't great offensively(10th is their highest, in 08), even in the playoffs. Younger versions of Garnett had carried more potent offenses with much lesser talent. People hear the names of Ray Allen and Paul Pierce and picture the 25+ ppg, big efficiency, younger more athletic versions.

In terms of results, they were around the level of prime Parker/Ginobli, and in the playoffs, they were a lot more inconsistent. That's good, title winning support, but it's not what you think of in a "Superteam". I would trade those two for Shaq in an instant, or a lot of other big name superstars.

If you put the big 3 together at a young age, it's a whole new ballgame.

As for Rondo being labeled as part of the "help". The year they won the title, Rondo was detrimental to the offense as a whole, and by the time he made strides where he could do real damage (in the playoffs), the other 3 were definitely not good enough to be labeled a superteam. He's a good player, and like Doctor MJ said before, maybe he'd be beneficial in a different type of team, but he does nothing for Allen/Pierce/Garnett.

For the people acting like it's hard to put scorers around Garnett, consider this:

The Celtics won a title with Pierce as the second scorer behind KG. They won 66 regular season games behind his 19.6 points on 59.9 ts% and a 19.6 PER.

In the playoffs, it was 19.7 points, 57.0 TS% and a PER of 17.4. Is that really hard production to find? Ray Allen was easily a replaceable commodity that season.

If you can build a 66 win team and title winner with two sub 20 scorers, is it really that hard to believe you can build a multiple title winner around Garnett with another superstar?

[HeartBreakKid]

^ That's what I say all the damn time. I mean people are acting like KG had Benard King as his partner or something.

KG didn't even need anyone to average over 20 points for him to lead a championship team. Like I said before, I think finding a second option who can score 18 points and maybe a third option who can score 16ish sounds reasonable for getting a championship. Compared to some of the second options of the past several years, it's laughable to think you need a loaded team for KG to win a title.

Pierce and Ray are famous players, but they were not superstars at all. Pierce was a top 20 player (to put things in perspective, someone like Noah is a top 20 player this year), Ray Allen might not have even been top 30 that year. After that, everyone else were just modest role players for the most part - Tony Allen was the only guy who stood out after the big 3 on that team.