[POLL] Kevin Garnett: Where do you rank him?

[Purch]

[Hornet Mania]

When folks list KG as the 11th greatest player of all time, when his team only won a single playoff game 5 of 7 years, in a sport where a single supernova talent can make a massive impact, and KG's entire argument rests on his unseen impact, which apparently doesn't manifest itself in the playoffs for 7 solid years, expect controversy.

I get the desire to objectively focus the discussion. I can also follow why advanced stats could theoretically provide that objectivity in a discussion where the eye test simply will not suffice. But basketball is a human activity, and mathematics simply has not evolved to the point where it can perfectly explain human behavior even in such a limited context as a basketball game. There was something about Garnett's impact that didn't seem to manifest itself in team performance when the level of competition rose.

The constant defeat, generally without much struggle, of Garnett's teams for 7 straight years simply cannot be so easily dismissed. Of course those Celtics team did quite well late in his career, squads featuring three Hall of Fame players and another rising All-Star generally do.I don't think that Minnesota's failures should totally condemn KG, but surely it counts for something? 2008 wipes it all away, just like that? As I stated before, "KG didn't learn to win until 2008" and "The 2008 title washes away all the Minnesota losses" are equally simplistic lenses through which to view a complicated player.

KG's legacy is a difficult one. The advanced stats favor him, but he never seemed to lift his team in the playoffs to at least consistently challenge opponents in the way other greats have done with similarly poor casts. To dismiss that string of post-season mediocrity in comparison to other greats, and simply point to advanced stats + winning with a stacked team later on, doesn't seem like nearly enough to tip the scale. If player analysis is going to be totally decoupled from the on-court results of the teams players were a part of I think it will be for the worse. In a way the KG argument is bigger than him because it pits the "winning" guys against the "impact" guys. KG is perhaps the most polarizing figure in this struggle to continually improve player comparisons because his team results and statistical impact are on opposite ends of the spectrum for much of his career. In my opinion team success should not be the end-all, but a consistent string of flops such as this should be scrutinized quite a bit more heavily than some are willing to admit.

[G35]

Most of the KG fans in this thread are coming across like whiny bitches, if I'm to be honest.

[G35]

While the KG led Celtics had only two good playoff runs. Actually even their 2008 championship was shaky at best and the offense fell off big time. Gasol didn't just have a good series vs KG, he busted KG's ass. It would have been better if KG had not played.

In G7 of the finals Gasol had 18 rebounds and KG had 3 rebounds...now I know you want to say KG was injured but he also shot 8-13 so he was not that hurt and he played 38 minutes. How big does KG come up in close out games...not very well.....

And in that same series Ray Allen "busted" Kobe Bryant's ass, does that mean that Ray Allen is better than Kobe Bryant?

KG was still the best player on that team, and realistically still had the most impact that series. Don't get how Gasol having a great series means all that much.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... inals.html

Allen for the series:

14.6 ppg
FG% .367
3P% .293
2.7 REB
1.7 AST
TS% .505
ORTG 96
DRTG 111
GS 7.3

That series must be why they call you Heartbreak Kid......

[Jim Naismith]

The 2014 RealGM Top 100 project ranks Kevin Garnett at #11.

Update
Kevin Garnett is currently ranked #15 in this poll.


This is based on the weighted average of the results.

So I don't really see the big discrepancy. 11-15 SHOULD be pretty interchangeable for most people. You're talking about the best of the best here...a huge gap between any of them doesn't make any sense.

I disagree: #31 - #35 should be more interchangeable than #11 - #15.

[BmanInBigD]

I have him around 17th. I can see the positive point of his absurd RAPM and some other advanced stats. I can also see the negative point of not being able to do much in the PS.

To me, and it's as subjective as the "eye-test", which I abhor because it always makes the high-flying and/or inconsistent wing players look better, Garnett never really seemed to be able to make his teammates better. Whether it's from spacing on offense OR defense, attitude, personality, or whatever, his teams just didn't seem to ever play better than the sum of their parts.

[Ballerhogger]

Top 20 for me

[therealbig3]

Most of the KG fans in this thread are coming across like whiny bitches, if I'm to be honest.

That's funny, except KG fans aren't the ones passive-aggressively crying throughout this whole thread.

Trust me, I really couldn't care less about this the second I walk away from my computer.

[Regulio]

I have him somewhere in 18-22 range.
11 is too high for me, top 10 is absurd.
It should have been expected that RGM's darling would be rated high though.

[therealbig3]

When folks list KG as the 11th greatest player of all time, when his team only won a single playoff game 5 of 7 years, in a sport where a single supernova talent can make a massive impact, and KG's entire argument rests on his unseen impact, which apparently doesn't manifest itself in the playoffs for 7 solid years, expect controversy.

I get the desire to objectively focus the discussion. I can also follow why advanced stats could theoretically provide that objectivity in a discussion where the eye test simply will not suffice. But basketball is a human activity, and mathematics simply has not evolved to the point where it can perfectly explain human behavior even in such a limited context as a basketball game. There was something about Garnett's impact that didn't seem to manifest itself in team performance when the level of competition rose.

The constant defeat, generally without much struggle, of Garnett's teams for 7 straight years simply cannot be so easily dismissed. Of course those Celtics team did quite well late in his career, squads featuring three Hall of Fame players and another rising All-Star generally do.I don't think that Minnesota's failures should totally condemn KG, but surely it counts for something? 2008 wipes it all away, just like that? As I stated before, "KG didn't learn to win until 2008" and "The 2008 title washes away all the Minnesota losses" are equally simplistic lenses through which to view a complicated player.

KG's legacy is a difficult one. The advanced stats favor him, but he never seemed to lift his team in the playoffs to at least consistently challenge opponents in the way other greats have done with similarly poor casts. To dismiss that string of post-season mediocrity in comparison to other greats, and simply point to advanced stats + winning with a stacked team later on, doesn't seem like nearly enough to tip the scale. If player analysis is going to be totally decoupled from the on-court results of the teams players were a part of I think it will be for the worse. In a way the KG argument is bigger than him because it pits the "winning" guys against the "impact" guys. KG is perhaps the most polarizing figure in this struggle to continually improve player comparisons because his team results and statistical impact are on opposite ends of the spectrum for much of his career. In my opinion team success should not be the end-all, but a consistent string of flops such as this should be scrutinized quite a bit more heavily than some are willing to admit.

It's very simple for me...when one guy is doing so much, and his team is still getting crushed...it's an indictment on his team, not him. I'm not punishing him whatsoever for that.

[ardee]

Most of the KG fans in this thread are coming across like whiny bitches, if I'm to be honest.

That's funny, except KG fans aren't the ones passive-aggressively crying throughout this whole thread.

Trust me, I really couldn't care less about this the second I walk away from my computer.

Really? This thread is full of insecure KG fans complaining about what's being said EVEN though their guy was already voted in.

I'm just amused at how inane some of the arguments were and putting them out there to show how out there they are.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[therealbig3]

Really? This thread is full of insecure KG fans complaining about what's being said EVEN though their guy was already voted in.

I'm just amused at how inane some of the arguments were and putting them out there to show how out there they are.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You've missed the entire point of this project...it's not about "their" guy getting in...there were just a lot of people that felt he was that good, and voted him in.

If it was such inane and obviously crazy logic...then why did so many people get convinced by it? Not everyone that voted for him was a KG-die hard. Chuck Texas even voted for KG! Clearly, the reasoning was legit and convincing, otherwise it would have been the same core group of 3-4 KG fans that kept voting for him...not 18 voters.

[Hornet Mania]

When folks list KG as the 11th greatest player of all time, when his team only won a single playoff game 5 of 7 years, in a sport where a single supernova talent can make a massive impact, and KG's entire argument rests on his unseen impact, which apparently doesn't manifest itself in the playoffs for 7 solid years, expect controversy.

I get the desire to objectively focus the discussion. I can also follow why advanced stats could theoretically provide that objectivity in a discussion where the eye test simply will not suffice. But basketball is a human activity, and mathematics simply has not evolved to the point where it can perfectly explain human behavior even in such a limited context as a basketball game. There was something about Garnett's impact that didn't seem to manifest itself in team performance when the level of competition rose.

The constant defeat, generally without much struggle, of Garnett's teams for 7 straight years simply cannot be so easily dismissed. Of course those Celtics team did quite well late in his career, squads featuring three Hall of Fame players and another rising All-Star generally do.I don't think that Minnesota's failures should totally condemn KG, but surely it counts for something? 2008 wipes it all away, just like that? As I stated before, "KG didn't learn to win until 2008" and "The 2008 title washes away all the Minnesota losses" are equally simplistic lenses through which to view a complicated player.

KG's legacy is a difficult one. The advanced stats favor him, but he never seemed to lift his team in the playoffs to at least consistently challenge opponents in the way other greats have done with similarly poor casts. To dismiss that string of post-season mediocrity in comparison to other greats, and simply point to advanced stats + winning with a stacked team later on, doesn't seem like nearly enough to tip the scale. If player analysis is going to be totally decoupled from the on-court results of the teams players were a part of I think it will be for the worse. In a way the KG argument is bigger than him because it pits the "winning" guys against the "impact" guys. KG is perhaps the most polarizing figure in this struggle to continually improve player comparisons because his team results and statistical impact are on opposite ends of the spectrum for much of his career. In my opinion team success should not be the end-all, but a consistent string of flops such as this should be scrutinized quite a bit more heavily than some are willing to admit.

It's very simple for me...when one guy is doing so much, and his team is still getting crushed...it's an indictment on his team, not him. I'm not punishing him whatsoever for that.

We'll have to respectfully disagree on this one. It's not the fact that it happened once or twice that makes me question KG, it's that it happened 7 times consecutively. I believe that in a sport where a single player can have such outsized impact if KG were actually as valuable as some claim he would have broken through earlier or at least made some of those series competitive. I just don't see other comparable all-timers with so many non-competitive first round beatings in their post-season record (particularly in a row), and it makes me hesitate to place Garnett so high atop the rankings.

He did have a few years with help as well, Terrell Brandon was a nice player particularly from 99-01, and while Wally Szczerbiak's All-Star nod in 2002 was a bit sketchy it still indicates he was a quality player who provided some support. The Wolves roster from 97-03 were not nearly as fatally flawed as the ones from 05-07, where I don't particularly hold it against KG that they missed the playoffs in a stacked West.

[G35]

Most of the KG fans in this thread are coming across like whiny bitches, if I'm to be honest.

That's funny, except KG fans aren't the ones passive-aggressively crying throughout this whole thread.

Trust me, I really couldn't care less about this the second I walk away from my computer.

Lol, as soon as you walk away from the computer...but as soon as you log on you are back to caring.

I don't know who doesn't stop caring once they walk away from the computer.

When folks list KG as the 11th greatest player of all time, when his team only won a single playoff game 5 of 7 years, in a sport where a single supernova talent can make a massive impact, and KG's entire argument rests on his unseen impact, which apparently doesn't manifest itself in the playoffs for 7 solid years, expect controversy.

I get the desire to objectively focus the discussion. I can also follow why advanced stats could theoretically provide that objectivity in a discussion where the eye test simply will not suffice. But basketball is a human activity, and mathematics simply has not evolved to the point where it can perfectly explain human behavior even in such a limited context as a basketball game. There was something about Garnett's impact that didn't seem to manifest itself in team performance when the level of competition rose.

The constant defeat, generally without much struggle, of Garnett's teams for 7 straight years simply cannot be so easily dismissed. Of course those Celtics team did quite well late in his career, squads featuring three Hall of Fame players and another rising All-Star generally do.I don't think that Minnesota's failures should totally condemn KG, but surely it counts for something? 2008 wipes it all away, just like that? As I stated before, "KG didn't learn to win until 2008" and "The 2008 title washes away all the Minnesota losses" are equally simplistic lenses through which to view a complicated player.

KG's legacy is a difficult one. The advanced stats favor him, but he never seemed to lift his team in the playoffs to at least consistently challenge opponents in the way other greats have done with similarly poor casts. To dismiss that string of post-season mediocrity in comparison to other greats, and simply point to advanced stats + winning with a stacked team later on, doesn't seem like nearly enough to tip the scale. If player analysis is going to be totally decoupled from the on-court results of the teams players were a part of I think it will be for the worse. In a way the KG argument is bigger than him because it pits the "winning" guys against the "impact" guys. KG is perhaps the most polarizing figure in this struggle to continually improve player comparisons because his team results and statistical impact are on opposite ends of the spectrum for much of his career. In my opinion team success should not be the end-all, but a consistent string of flops such as this should be scrutinized quite a bit more heavily than some are willing to admit.

It's very simple for me...when one guy is doing so much, and his team is still getting crushed...it's an indictment on his team, not him. I'm not punishing him whatsoever for that.

Which kind of makes KG the REALGM conundrum. He is a RAPM beast. But what is RAPM?

Here's Wayne Winston explaining what Advanced Plus-Minus does:

It reflects the impact of each player on his team's scoring margin after controlling for the strength of every teammate and every opponent during each minute he's on the court.

Adjusted +/- ratings indicate how many additional points are contributed to a team's scoring margin by a given player in comparison to the league-average player whose adjusted +/- value is zero over the span of a typical game. It is assumpted that in a typical game a team has 100 offensive and 100 defensive possessions. For example, if a +6.5 "adjusted +/-" player is on the floor with 4 average teammates, his team will average about 6.5 points better per 100 possessions than 5 average players would.

If KG really has the impact on his team that RAPM says, then the effect should be transparent. You wouldn't need to get all hostile and there wouldn't have to be so much explanation for why Garnett should be ranked that high. Even people that don't like Kobe think he is at least a top 20 guy. For those that are not blinded by RAPM Garnett is a top 30 player. I think Hakeem is overrated, Russell is overrated, but I still don't see their ratings as being that far out of line. KG doesn't even come close to being accurately ranked, and that's purely because this is a pro-KG board and that is not passive-aggressive, it's a fact......

[NinjaSheppard]

6th all time especially after reading some of the amazing posts made in the project

[Basketballefan]

6th all time especially after reading some of the amazing posts made in the project

Lol such as what? The arguments for KG were all driven by posters with confirmation bias for KG.

[Rapcity_11]

Some of the Kobe fans in this thread are coming across like whiny bitches, if I'm to be honest.

It's a combination of hilarious and embarassing , really.

[therealbig3]

When folks list KG as the 11th greatest player of all time, when his team only won a single playoff game 5 of 7 years, in a sport where a single supernova talent can make a massive impact, and KG's entire argument rests on his unseen impact, which apparently doesn't manifest itself in the playoffs for 7 solid years, expect controversy.

I get the desire to objectively focus the discussion. I can also follow why advanced stats could theoretically provide that objectivity in a discussion where the eye test simply will not suffice. But basketball is a human activity, and mathematics simply has not evolved to the point where it can perfectly explain human behavior even in such a limited context as a basketball game. There was something about Garnett's impact that didn't seem to manifest itself in team performance when the level of competition rose.

The constant defeat, generally without much struggle, of Garnett's teams for 7 straight years simply cannot be so easily dismissed. Of course those Celtics team did quite well late in his career, squads featuring three Hall of Fame players and another rising All-Star generally do.I don't think that Minnesota's failures should totally condemn KG, but surely it counts for something? 2008 wipes it all away, just like that? As I stated before, "KG didn't learn to win until 2008" and "The 2008 title washes away all the Minnesota losses" are equally simplistic lenses through which to view a complicated player.

KG's legacy is a difficult one. The advanced stats favor him, but he never seemed to lift his team in the playoffs to at least consistently challenge opponents in the way other greats have done with similarly poor casts. To dismiss that string of post-season mediocrity in comparison to other greats, and simply point to advanced stats + winning with a stacked team later on, doesn't seem like nearly enough to tip the scale. If player analysis is going to be totally decoupled from the on-court results of the teams players were a part of I think it will be for the worse. In a way the KG argument is bigger than him because it pits the "winning" guys against the "impact" guys. KG is perhaps the most polarizing figure in this struggle to continually improve player comparisons because his team results and statistical impact are on opposite ends of the spectrum for much of his career. In my opinion team success should not be the end-all, but a consistent string of flops such as this should be scrutinized quite a bit more heavily than some are willing to admit.

It's very simple for me...when one guy is doing so much, and his team is still getting crushed...it's an indictment on his team, not him. I'm not punishing him whatsoever for that.

We'll have to respectfully disagree on this one. It's not the fact that it happened once or twice that makes me question KG, it's that it happened 7 times consecutively. I believe that in a sport where a single player can have such outsized impact if KG were actually as valuable as some claim he would have broken through earlier or at least made some of those series competitive. I just don't see other comparable all-timers with so many non-competitive first round beatings in their post-season record (particularly in a row), and it makes me hesitate to place Garnett so high atop the rankings.

He did have a few years with help as well, Terrell Brandon was a nice player particularly from 99-01, and while Wally Szczerbiak's All-Star nod in 2002 was a bit sketchy it still indicates he was a quality player who provided some support. The Wolves roster from 97-03 were not nearly as fatally flawed as the ones from 05-07, where I don't particularly hold it against KG that they missed the playoffs in a stacked West.

I can understand that, and I respect people that can't quite get there when it comes to Garnett...as long as they accept that other people DON'T see it as that big of a deal, and there's a legit reason for that as well.

[Hornet Mania]

It's very simple for me...when one guy is doing so much, and his team is still getting crushed...it's an indictment on his team, not him. I'm not punishing him whatsoever for that.

We'll have to respectfully disagree on this one. It's not the fact that it happened once or twice that makes me question KG, it's that it happened 7 times consecutively. I believe that in a sport where a single player can have such outsized impact if KG were actually as valuable as some claim he would have broken through earlier or at least made some of those series competitive. I just don't see other comparable all-timers with so many non-competitive first round beatings in their post-season record (particularly in a row), and it makes me hesitate to place Garnett so high atop the rankings.

He did have a few years with help as well, Terrell Brandon was a nice player particularly from 99-01, and while Wally Szczerbiak's All-Star nod in 2002 was a bit sketchy it still indicates he was a quality player who provided some support. The Wolves roster from 97-03 were not nearly as fatally flawed as the ones from 05-07, where I don't particularly hold it against KG that they missed the playoffs in a stacked West.

I can understand that, and I respect people that can't quite get there when it comes to Garnett...as long as they accept that other people DON'T see it as that big of a deal, and there's a legit reason for that as well.

Absolutely. I just wanted to make clear that not everyone who is wary of anointing KG is a wild-eyed Kobe homer or has an advanced stat phobia of some kind I felt like the question of why his teams performed poorly in the playoffs early on was being lost in the shuffle due to that, and it was a shame since that is the actual potential knock on his resume not endless RAPM debates. I understand that some can shrug off the Minny years more easily than others, and obviously if it doesn't bother you most of the critiques disappear.

[Basketballefan]

Just for the record im not a "Kobe fan". I actually like Kg more than him but when im honest with myself theres no way i can put kg over Kobe. Most sensible fans who actually watch basketball would'nt either.