Starting a Franchise...Prime KG or Lebron?

[bastillon]

thats probably one of my all time fav posts...
Dean Garrett!

[singlepurposeac]

So I should take everything you've quoted to be your opinion Bastillion? If so I'll get to it after work, if not you just wasted alot of time for nothing. Tsherkin, I'll reply to you as soon as I get time, but just a reminder here, these teams are all being compared to the 09 and 10 Cavs, or to the 02 and 03 Spurs support casts, not to good support casts. Are they so much worse to justify the radically different results? Really?

[tsherkin]

tsherkin, I'll reply to you as soon as I get time, but just a reminder here, these teams are all being compared to the 09 and 10 Cavs, or to the 02 and 03 Spurs support casts, not to good support casts. Are they so much worse to justify the radically different results? Really?

It's a mixture of several things:

1) The Cavs had good defensive coaching. Brown sucked at coordinating offense, but he learned pretty well from Pops and he had good defensive roleplayers
2) The Cavs had a LOT more offensive value around Lebron than the Wolves did around Garnett

and

3) The early 00s WC was a LOT more difficult to crack than the mid-2000s EC, as I noted.

Remember, KG finished 8th seed with 47 wins one year while LBJ's Cavs were 3rd in the conference with 50 wins (and with 50, KG would have instead faced the reigning champions as the 7th seed instead). Much, MUCH tougher, deeper conference. Kings, Mavs, Spurs and Lakers? Blazers and Jazz, too? Way tougher than the piddly competition Lebron had to face apart from the Pistons until fairly recent times.

BIG, BIG difference, which is why I bothered to note the specific teams that KG faced. 58-win Spurs, 57-win Mavs, the 00 Blazers (who were STACKED), and so forth.

And yes, there were some seriously incompetent boobs playing big minutes for the Wolves, whereas the 09 Cavs had some pretty good turn-outs from a lot of different players. Also remember that this was the pre-05 era, when defense was largely peaking in terms of physical play and pace was grind-it-out nasty a lot of the time. The 03 Wolves, as I noted, were 9th in pace at 91.9. That'd be 18th today. Anyway, it meant that scrub guards didn't have an advantage going to the rim and looking for the foul in the same way and that perimeter guys could get locked up a lot more readily by someone like a Pippen-type with handchecking. That made even the guys Garnett had worse than they'd have been with LBJ in the modern era. That effect isn't super-dramatic, but in conjunction with all this other stuff?

And then there's the flat-out useless players like DEAN GARRETT!!! and William Avery, etc.

Honestly, McHale should have faced a firing squad.

[singlepurposeac]

The KG Wolves averaged 46 wins in the 7 year playoff disappointments, and obviously worse during the 05-07 period. If you think KG was comparable to prime Lebron/Duncan, which is the argument people are making here, then the team varied in being between 12 and 34 wins worse in quality. That's an almost unimaginably large difference for teams this bad. It's not like the Cavs and Spurs weren't giving minutes to sucky players like DEAN GARRETT in those years. Charles Smith was out of the NBA less than 50 games later. Steve Smith's career was basically over after 2002, his handful of incomplete seasons so pitiful. You don't really answer my question about where you think KG's peak/prime were, and how it hurts his TD comparison...

[tsherkin]

The KG Wolves averaged 46 wins in the 7 year playoff disappointments, and obviously worse during the 05-07 period. If you think KG was comparable to prime Lebron/Duncan, which is the argument people are making here, then the team varied in being between 12 and 34 wins worse in quality. That's an almost unimaginably large difference for teams this bad. It's not like the Cavs and Spurs weren't giving minutes to sucky players like DEAN GARRETT in those years. Charles Smith was out of the NBA less than 50 games later. Steve Smith's career was basically over after 2002, his handful of incomplete seasons so pitiful. You don't really answer my question about where you think KG's peak/prime were, and how it hurts his TD comparison...

I think he stacks up as well as anyone to Tim Duncan. Having Pops on his side and good roleplayers definitely favored Duncan. Robinson alone, even in 03, was better than any frontcourt player Garnett had alongside him his entire pre-Boston career and Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson were better than anyone but a healthy Terrell Brandon/Chauncey Billups (in his second year with Minny) with whom Garnett played pre-04. Hell, Mario Elie was a more consistent performer than most of what Garnett had. Bowen? Parker? Manu? Even in 03, Manu and Parker were at least good in the RS. In the playoffs, the Spurs contended with rough offense from non-Duncan players but epic, all-time great defense and timely offensive bursts.

Duncan's sub-par performance in Game 2 of the 03 Finals was why they lost (42% FG when the rest of the starters shot at least 50% FG and Parker outscored him). They all sucked in Game 4 (ugh, 77-76 loss, worst game I ever watched). I could go on, but it's much the same.

The 03 Finals was "which team would suck less offensively," it was an embarrassment to watch, they were so bad. The Spurs were lucky the EC was so bad that year and they're even luckier that Robert Horry chose that season to suddenly make me look like an NBA-caliber shooter in the playoffs (that was the season he was 2/38 from 3 in the postseason), so it's not some hallmark performance by Duncan. He's legitimately great, a guy I consider top-10 all-time, but I don't think he was a better player than peak Garnett.

A more accomplished one, certainly, and in principle a little easier to build around, but he did most certainly have a much more favorable team environment to work with. Coaching, management, teammates, all definitely better... even in 03.

EDIT: Keep in mind, coaching of that sort makes a significant difference, as did the presence of David Robinson, as did the various wing players that were a lot better than Anthony Peeler and Kendall Gill and such. Even if Duncan was mostly working with Speedy Claxton, younger Stephen Jackson, young Manu, young Parker, etc, etc, those guys were all noticeably more effective than what Garnett had to work with.

[tsherkin]

thats probably one of my all time fav posts...
Dean Garrett!

Glad you enjoyed it.

[bastillon]

The 03 Finals was "which team would suck less offensively," it was an embarrassment to watch, they were so bad. The Spurs were lucky the EC was so bad that year and they're even luckier that Robert Horry chose that season to suddenly make me look like an NBA-caliber shooter in the playoffs (that was the season he was 2/38 from 3 in the postseason), so it's not some hallmark performance by Duncan. He's legitimately great, a guy I consider top-10 all-time, but I don't think he was a better player than peak Garnett.

Lakers screwed up big time, they should've signed AUF. thats prime AUF we're talking about. they'd have to guard him closely otherwise he'd just load up on 3s all game long and then probably even stick out his tongue.

[tsherkin]

Hey now, let's leave that alone, shall we?

[SuigintouEV]

tsherk, as usual, with an excellent, genuine analysis, not the typical espn regurgitation.

[singlepurposeac]

2002 and 2003, let's stay focused here.

I understand the automatic affection people develop for a player because "he plays defence at least", but it's a totally false dichotomy for valuing players. Players need to be looked at for their holistic value, they do not get extra points for being good defenders as opposed to good on offence. Carmelo isn't good on D, he's an amazing player. Battier when he was younger was great on D, and solid on O too, but it did not mean he was even close to as valuable as Melo has ever been. The Spurs having some role players who were ok on D, but sucked on O, doesn't change the value of those players. There's a reason teams didn't go out giving big money to Bowen, or S.Jax in 2003 (or to other defensive players like Battier, M.Curry, etc). Hudson sucking on D shouldn't obscure the fact that he's infinitely better than Bowen on offence. Of course Hudson is not as good a player as Bowen, that's not the point. But you and others here have basically completely dismissed most of KG's support because they can't play D great, or because they're not suited to KG's game, or whatever.

Wally was regarded as being more valuable than D.Rob in 2002. He made the all-star team over him, and in the open market would undoubtedly have been paid more per year. The same is true of many of the players KG had who have been covered. I'm really at a loss how you can look at the 2002 or 2003 Spurs, compare them to every single one of the 10 teams KG performed worse with, and tell me that he had a support cast as bad (in fact, worse, sometimes substantially worse!). In many cases the Wolves had not only the 2nd best player out of both support casts, but the 3rd, and even 4th best too. In 97 Googs and Marbury were both better than the next best Spurs guy. In 98 that was still true. In 99 Brandon/Marbury was the 2nd best player, and I'd definitely rather the 33 mpg of Joe Smith to the next best guy the Spurs had. The Wolves had decent depth this year too. In 2000 I'd only really put Brandon clearly above the next best Spurs guy, but the Wolves had a decent depth of role players (Wally, Sealy, B.Jax, J.Smith, Peeler, Rasho, Mitchell... not all world guys, but solid enough role players). The next year was a similar situation, the team was just not dissimilar to those Spurs teams, and in 2002 you concede he had his best cast yet, with both depth, and at least 2 guys better than the Spurs next best player in 2002, yet it apparently counts for little, because KG got 50 wins and lost in the first round to the Mavs? Huh? Nor do I think all the teams from 2005-07 were so bad. 2007 was pretty awful, but 2005 certainly wasn't, and 2006 wasn't out of the realm of what Tim/Lebron sometimes played with... it certainly wasn't so far outside it as to justify the appalling result differential.

You concede Duncan was "in principle a little easier to build around", and I think that's borne out by KG's apparent inability to work with all the guys named above. Duncan would have easily been able to work with Joe Smith and Wally, but I can't say the same for KG working with Bowen and S.Smith for example. Indeed, you claim his borderline all-star PG's were a bad fit with him. That's through failures of his I'm afraid. The only sort of player who I can think of who KG would fit better with than Duncan is Shaq, or someone along those lines, and since that sort of player is incredibly rare it's basically meaningless.

I asked before when you think KG peaked exactly, etc, and I didn't really get an answer. Do you think he was in his peak in 2005? Or as Elgee suggested had KG started to fade around then?

I hate having to reduce these things to questions like this, but look at the 10 KG teams I named. Take away KG from the team, and tell me how many games they win, and now do the same with Tim/Lebron in 2002/2003 and 2009/2010. Is the different really enough to justify such different result, for a guy who was supposedly just as good? I just don't think it's fair to blame Flip either, he was a good coach, especially in the regular season, there should be no excuse for some of those teams.

Put prime KG on the 2002 and 2003 Spurs, there's no question they do worse. Put prime Tim Duncan on every one of those Wolves teams, they do better. I mean, give me some picture of what this mythical KG support cast looks like, that is equally valuable to the 2002 Spurs, but structured to "fit around KG", because the only example are teams who are vastly more talented. Just who were these similarly valued role players to S.Smith or A.Daniels and Malik Rose who KG would have thrived with?

[bastillon]

you know whats funny, the dumbest thing said in this thread is actually NOT the Robinson/J.Smith comparison but the argument that Joe Smith was great because Kevin McHale offered him a big salary

Kevin McHale, people...

btw,



DEAN GARRETTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[therealbig3]

The 03 Finals was "which team would suck less offensively," it was an embarrassment to watch, they were so bad. The Spurs were lucky the EC was so bad that year and they're even luckier that Robert Horry chose that season to suddenly make me look like an NBA-caliber shooter in the playoffs (that was the season he was 2/38 from 3 in the postseason), so it's not some hallmark performance by Duncan. He's legitimately great, a guy I consider top-10 all-time, but I don't think he was a better player than peak Garnett.

Understandably, with a supporting cast that lacked the offensive firepower that he had, you need luck, like opponents being way off their game, or facing the right opponent at the right time. But Duncan averaged 24/17/5/5 on 50% shooting in those Finals. He had a near-quadruple double in the closeout game. I'd say his Finals performance and his overall 2003 was hallmark. Might not be better than 03 KG, but I think 03 was Duncan's absolute best season, considering everything he accomplished.

And blaming Duncan for the game 2 loss is unfair. His efficiency was crap (shot 3-10 from the line in addition to shooting 42% from the field), but he did grab 12 boards, he did dish out 3 assists, and he did block 3 shots. He held Kenyon Martin to 38% shooting. I would say the loss was more because Kidd exploded for 30 points in that game. I mean, you can pretty much point to any playoff game where a star played less than expectations (you can even do this with Jordan) and say the loss was their fault, because they didn't play as well as they normally did. But sometimes, someone on the other team is feeling it, and you just have an off-game, or you faced a good defense that day. It happens.

[tsherkin]

I'd say his Finals performance and his overall 2003 was hallmark.

Statistically, a little impressive. Contextually, less so, given that it was the Nets and their "frontcourt." People give Shaq the business from time to time for dominating that piss-poor team, Duncan should be treated no differently. In any case, he played quite well, he's Tim Duncan. He's one of the ten best players in league history, considering ability and career, sort of GOAT stuff. IMHO, anyway. I respect Duncan greatly. But we're talking compared to KG here, which is why I'm diminishing a little.

And blaming Duncan for the game 2 loss is unfair. His efficiency was crap (shot 3-10 from the line in addition to shooting 42% from the field), but he did grab 12 boards, he did dish out 3 assists, and he did block 3 shots. He held Kenyon Martin to 38% shooting.

LOL? Kenyon Martin had the worst offensive game I've ever seen. If it wasn't an OREB or a dunk in transition, it was a fadeaway crap-shot from the mid-post. He was a horrendously limited offensive player and Duncan was like 3" taller than him and considerably stronger, who was surprised by that? That's not a mega-impressive feat.

Also, when the rest of the team was dominating and Duncan looked like arse on offense, that one's on him. They lost by 2 points and the Spurs were, as a team, 52.2% eFG against the Nets' 44.6%. The loss was squarely on Duncan's shoulders, the rest of the team was dominating the New Jersey D in a huge way. If Duncan hit even 60% from the line, they win that game. If he hit ~47% FG, below hi average, they still go to OT. If he shot 40% from the FT line and hit one more FG, they win. But he blew chunks. Kidd going for 30 was unimpressive when they still held the Nets to 87 points on ~42% shooting. Stephen Jackson was better on offense that game than was Duncan, it was a big issue.

Not the rest of the series, but that particular game, VERY much on Tim's shoulders. It didn't matter ultimately, and everyone has an off-night, but that was a pretty inept game from him. The Spurs looked way more mortal against New Jersey than they should have, mostly because of that game.

[GreenHat]

2003 Wolves were a bunch of scrubs and KG, but fit well together. well... sort of, at least if you compare them to their talent level, I say no way they win 10 games without Garnett, they were outscored by 17 pts per48 mins in KG's absence, that means they had a -20 SRS (this years Cavs are around -10). that could be the worst team of all time honestly.

Come on now, you know you can't just extrapolate on/off differential like that and compare it to a full season of another team.

[singlepurposeac]

Nobody has said Joe Smith's value was exactly what McHale offered, that would be false. However Joe Smith was regarded as a great role player in his prime, despite his status as a disappointing star. The guy made over 60 mill in his career legitimately, even after that contract was voided. If he was really the player you claim he was (purely to pump KG up) then the contract he was offered was the worst signing of all time (without even considering the illegal aspects of it). Even bad GM's don't screw up that much.

[colts18]

Joe Smith was better than 2003 David Robinson. 2003 David Robinson is basically what Erick Dampier was a few years ago. He averaged 9 and 8. In the playoffs, he averaged 8 and 7. The guy wasn't good at all.

[tsherkin]

That's one of the more uninformed opinions I've seen.

Robinson was very much better than Joe Smith on the basis of defense alone, and was very much better than Erick Dampier has ever been, even in 2003.

9/8 in 26 mpg is rather impressive, especially on a slower-paced team. Especially with 2.4 BLK36. And this while dealing with his back issues and falling apart.

In the playoffs, he did quite well. You're also forgetting that he stuck the Nets for 13/17 in his last game as an NBA player. In the NBA Finals. That's not bad at all, you don't know what you're talking about.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention... 8/7 in the playoffs? 59% TS and in 23 mpg. Right. Yeah, he was TERRIBLE... "Not good at all," yep.

The guy was 37, of course he wasn't a star, but being able to perform in that manner at that age is incredible. .204 WS/48 in the playoffs. 1.2 STL36 in the playoffs, too, along with 2.07 BLK36. He was still playing pretty good help defense, still playing decent man defense, still grabbing 10+ REB36... He was doing just fine, he just didn't play big minutes.

[singlepurposeac]

That 13/17 game was totally atypical of his production in the playoffs, in both 2003 and 2002, and I referred to it earlier when I said I almost choked on my beer when I saw him have that game, including a driving layup. You are attributing a special value to defence that ignores Robinson's overall value. In addition D.Rob was slow, unable to run up and down the court well, mechanical. He was on 2 teams totally without depth or size in 2002 and 2003 (aside from Duncan of course). It's not surprising he'd pull down some boards in that situation, someone had to, but he was nothing but a solid and old role player. Joe Smith was at least of comparable value.

[singlepurposeac]

He was terrible compared to what he once was. I have been consistent in calling him an above average role player for his position (with the limiting factors of age though), but the guy played 20mpg in the 2002 playoffs and did nothing, and in 2003 he was little better. He was just a role player at this point, not the "defensive all-star" or "all-star" or "one of the best big men defenders in the NBA" Bastillon called him.

[tsherkin]

That 13/17 game was totally atypical of his production in the playoffs, in both 2003 and 2002, and I referred to it earlier when I said I almost choked on my beer when I saw him have that game, including a driving layup. You are attributing a special value to defence that ignores Robinson's overall value. In addition D.Rob was slow, unable to run up and down the court well, mechanical. He was on 2 teams totally without depth or size in 2002 and 2003 (aside from Duncan of course). It's not surprising he'd pull down some boards in that situation, someone had to, but he was nothing but a solid and old role player. Joe Smith was at least of comparable value.

Joe Smith was not of comparable value.

Joe Smith in the 2000s for Minny was not a super-valuable player. All he really did was hit elbow jumpers and rebound at a mediocre level. Even 37 year-old Robinson was a LOT more valuable as a defensive threat, despite his various and many limitations in that respect.

Robinson was indeed a solid, old roleplayer. And he was better than Joe Smith had ever been at any point in his career. Smith was never anything special, he was totally a poor-man's SAR at best. He had some numbers as a Warrior... but that's hardly an impressive feat.