The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[SideshowBob]

Chances are Wilt also did it in '64, '66, '67, '68. In all the available video footage he is a low turnover player, and in using ElGee's "created opportunities" method, he had more than double the number of created shots (54) vs. assists (26). He had even fewer turnovers (14).



viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1247724

Shots Created: 54

*Not all assists are necessarily counted as shots created, and vice versa.

Total Fouls Called: 5
Outside Paint- 30
In Paint - 19 (At Rim) - 15

That's awesome! I had seen your thread already, but didn't realize you managed to track OC as well. If I may ask, was it the same games that you did the shot chart tracking for?

[Dipper 13]

^Yes, the following games below. Even if it is a very small sample, it is all that is available for now.



1964 NBA Finals Gm. 4 Celtics vs. Warriors (2nd Half)
1967 EDF Gm. 4 Sixers vs. Celtics (2nd Half)
1969 NBA Finals Gm. 7 Celtics vs. Lakers (4th Quarter)
1970 NBA Finals Gm. 5 Lakers vs. Knicks (Incomplete)
1970 NBA Finals Gm. 7 Lakers vs. Knicks
1971 WCSF Gm. 6 Lakers vs. Bulls
Jan 9, 1972 - Lakers vs. Bucks
1972 NBA Finals Gm. 5 Knicks vs. Lakers (Incomplete)

[Doctor MJ]

Well, no big man has really been able to produce KG's amount of assists/turnovers over the years. Either he was in the most unique system of all time, or he's doing something no one else is capable of doing.

Or he was just overused. Every thing you do should come with the attitude that will it lead to winning a title. The game isn't about stat stuffing. Duncan's numbers are championship numbers. It is about are you producing at a way that leads to winning. So Minnesota is running there offense threw KG. He is putting up stats but its not an amazing offense. They aren't winning titles. The reality is if I want a championship level offense I need more talent and take the ball of KGs hands some.

When Garnett was doing this the offense often was better than what the Spurs had. The Spurs were better because of their defense, and as a result you've concluded that that means they did everything else the "championship" way, and everyone who failed to win a title did everything NOT the championship way. You cannot extrapolate meaningfully this way.

[SideshowBob]

^Yes, the following games below. Even if it is a very small sample, it is all that is available for now.



1964 NBA Finals Gm. 4 Celtics vs. Warriors (2nd Half)
1967 EDF Gm. 4 Sixers vs. Celtics (2nd Half)
1969 NBA Finals Gm. 7 Celtics vs. Lakers (4th Quarter)
1970 NBA Finals Gm. 5 Lakers vs. Knicks (Incomplete)
1970 NBA Finals Gm. 7 Lakers vs. Knicks
1971 WCSF Gm. 6 Lakers vs. Bulls
Jan 9, 1972 - Lakers vs. Bucks
1972 NBA Finals Gm. 5 Knicks vs. Lakers (Incomplete)

Cool. That's better than no sample of course

[richboy]

Well, no big man has really been able to produce KG's amount of assists/turnovers over the years. Either he was in the most unique system of all time, or he's doing something no one else is capable of doing.

Or he was just overused. Every thing you do should come with the attitude that will it lead to winning a title. The game isn't about stat stuffing. Duncan's numbers are championship numbers. It is about are you producing at a way that leads to winning. So Minnesota is running there offense threw KG. He is putting up stats but its not an amazing offense. They aren't winning titles. The reality is if I want a championship level offense I need more talent and take the ball of KGs hands some.

When Garnett was doing this the offense often was better than what the Spurs had. The Spurs were better because of their defense, and as a result you've concluded that that means they did everything else the "championship" way, and everyone who failed to win a title did everything NOT the championship way. You cannot extrapolate meaningfully this way.

I'm not getting your point. Your comparing a team that was going out in the first round to a team that was winning titles. Your offense needs to be as good as your defense. If you average 2 points a game and give up 1 point per game your good enough offensively.

I'm not going to even get into if your statement was actually accurate. I'm focused on offense in the post season. Which Minnesota often was not as good in the playoffs on the offensive end. They weren't even good almost every series that KG played in his time there. Are you suggesting that the Spurs have been bad offensively in just about every series as well? I haven't even checked to look. But I don't get your point because the Spurs always won because of there defense. Minnesota was a offensive team. Dallas was an offensive team. They were a good offensive team in the playoffs as well. That like saying if Dallas suddenly sucked in the playoffs on offense well there offense was as good as the Spurs.

Right now your point seems to be. Minnesota wasn't good enough in the playoffs on offense to win. That they weren't good enough on defense to win. So how does any of this elevate KG. Especially since he the center of both there offense and defense. Although I think Minnesota was actually better in the post season on defense in a lot of those years.

[Doctor MJ]

Or he was just overused. Every thing you do should come with the attitude that will it lead to winning a title. The game isn't about stat stuffing. Duncan's numbers are championship numbers. It is about are you producing at a way that leads to winning. So Minnesota is running there offense threw KG. He is putting up stats but its not an amazing offense. They aren't winning titles. The reality is if I want a championship level offense I need more talent and take the ball of KGs hands some.

When Garnett was doing this the offense often was better than what the Spurs had. The Spurs were better because of their defense, and as a result you've concluded that that means they did everything else the "championship" way, and everyone who failed to win a title did everything NOT the championship way. You cannot extrapolate meaningfully this way.

I'm not getting your point. Your comparing a team that was going out in the first round to a team that was winning titles. Your offense needs to be as good as your defense. If you average 2 points a game and give up 1 point per game your good enough offensively.

-It's not about comparing two teams with two different levels of overall success. You knocked a team's offense and then championed another offense that wasn't any better. This makes no sense.

-"Your offense needs to be as good as your defense". Bizarre logic there. Again you're championing the Spurs. Their offense wasn't as good as their defense. Wasn't even close. You've evidently equated the two in your mind simply because the team won a title, and that's not remotely reasonable.

-"If score 2 and give up 1, you're good enough offensively." I understand what you're saying, it's just crazy. It makes no sense to trash a team's offense only because their defense was not stronger. When evaluating offense, evaluate offense. It's simple.

Right now your point seems to be. Minnesota wasn't good enough in the playoffs on offense to win. That they weren't good enough on defense to win. So how does any of this elevate KG. Especially since he the center of both there offense and defense. Although I think Minnesota was actually better in the post season on defense in a lot of those years.

Focus on the point.

You criticized Garnett's team's offense as part of your attack on the legitimacy of his individual offensive accomplishments essentially just because his team didn't win a title. And as part of this you praised another offense as being championship-worthy just because they won a championship. You made an entire point without bringing defense into, and that kills your credibility because defense was by far the reason the Spurs were a stronger team.

You want to talk about Garnett's legacy in other areas, we can do that...but I'm not letting you segue into that area as if that can save the argument you already made. The only way we can get anywhere in conversations like this is if we cat sit put and hash out a particular facet of the game. You brought up X, so I'm pointing out your flaws in X. Attempt to rebut them by sticking with X or acknowledge the flaws. You bringing up Y is neither here nor there.

[TheMidnightSun]

kg is the type of player i would love to play with, hes a true basketball player in that he plays every part of the game,

[richboy]

-It's not about comparing two teams with two different levels of overall success. You knocked a team's offense and then championed another offense that wasn't any better. This makes no sense.

-"Your offense needs to be as good as your defense". Bizarre logic there. Again you're championing the Spurs. Their offense wasn't as good as their defense. Wasn't even close. You've evidently equated the two in your mind simply because the team won a title, and that's not remotely reasonable.

-"If score 2 and give up 1, you're good enough offensively." I understand what you're saying, it's just crazy. It makes no sense to trash a team's offense only because their defense was not stronger. When evaluating offense, evaluate offense. It's simple.

I championed the Spurs offense? No I championed Tim Duncan for putting up Championship numbers in years they were winning championships. This discussion is based on do I think KG is good enough offensively to carry a championship offense. Either that or he good enough to anchor a championship defense. When were talking about his time in Minnesota were looking at he wasn't good enough on offense or defense to actually carry them even out of the first round most years.

Duncan is winning so comparing there numbers is near irrelevant. He is winning these series. If they needed more offense perhaps he would have given them ore offense. But your comparing the stats to someone that was winning to someone that was wasn't. Perhaps the Spurs would have produced more offense if they needed too. In actual games what they did was more than enough to win. They had years they would play PHoenix, Lakers, Utah in the playoffs and had to produce more on offense because they couldn't slow those teams down as much. In 2005 they pretty much had to outscore Denver, Seattle and PHoenix. They also had to win defensive wars against the Pistons. I don't know how else to put it but that is what champions do. It doesn't always happen. Some years they couldn't stop the Mavericks or Lakers.

To say wait the Spurs offense wasn't great so Minnesota defense was the problem. I don't get that because in reality your just cherry picking a team and trying to make a correlation. You could easily say the Twolves defense was better than the Lakers or Dallas Mavericks some years. Maybe offense was the problem. There is always a reason or excuse for not winning.

See you always see the game threw a stat point of view. But somewhere deep inside you I know you know what I'm talking about. Like I'll hear someone say Michael Jordan couldn't score 81 in a game. MJ scored enough to win the game. Let me hear how Jordan sucked against the Sonics in the finals. Yet they were up 3-0 in the series and won 4 games they were relaxing in the 4th quarter. He did enough that winning was not an issue.

Tim Duncan did enough to win games and playoff series. Maybe one series was a defensive battle. Maybe the next he have to find a way to get 110 points. They found ways to get it done and move to the next series a lot. That what great players do. You watch Miami you get a feeling that if Lebron knew he had to score 35 -40 to win the series he find a way to get it done. He doesn't so he fine scoring what he has. Someone might come at you 10 years from now and say not that impressive of a series for him.Durant was better against Memphis than Lebron was against the Bulls. Lebron is doing enough to win and win pretty easy. Durant right now isn't doing enough to finish the games and win. Duncan did enough to win and win a lot of playoff series easy. For whatever reason KG didn't. Which suggest to me he wasn't good enough somewhere.

[WhateverBro]

Seems like its the right mix of both, no? Obviously he needs the ability that allowed Minny to run top 10 offenses through him in the first place which eliminates the vast majority of PFs. Next he needs a coach willing to use his best scorer in a distributing role. KG is also one of the most unselfish superstars ever, which I think at times was to the Wolves' detriment--in much the same way Lebron's unselfishness used to be before he found the right mix of making the correct play and when he needs to just go on his own.

Despite the big numbers I dont think of KG first when I think of the best passing big men, so maybe just like Stockton's numbers dont mean he's the best playmaking pg ever despite the enormous gulf between him and the next guy, maybe KG's numbers aren't evidence that no other big was capable of what he did if given the role he had in Minny?

I would understand this if Garnett hadn't shown that he was able to maintain his numbers for so long, all while displaying an incredible display of passing ability throughout his career. Both the numbers and eye-test back up the fact that he's a candidate for GOAT passing big men.

Let me ask you this, what's great passing to you? The end result or the flashiness of the pass? Because arguments against KGs passing ability has often been "his passes isn't as *skilled*" as someone like Webber. Using this logic, one might argue that Marbury is a better passer than Nash, which is insane to me. Garnett had the total package when it comes to passing, he could set up the offense from a PG role, he was incredible, hell still is, at finding cutters going to the basket from the post. Also, he was excellent at hitting open players from double teams because of the combination of his length and great court vision not to mention that he was a willing passer, which shouldn't be underrated.

Garnett peaked at 6 apg in a top 5 offense in the league. To suggest that his style of play was detrimental to his his teams is ridiculous to me for the simple fact that he was overacheving offensively with most Minny squads and I couldn't really imagine any type of in which Garnett changing his game would've helped the team. And finally, the problem with your hypothetical situation that other big men could've done what KG did if they had the same role on their teams is that very few big men (if any...?) could play the role that KG did. Very few big men has the combination of length, mobility and court vision to be able to play on both the perimeter, high post, low post and even at times breaking down defenses himself to find guys open. Garnetts passing wasn't limited to just the high post, or just finding guys from double teams, his passing was just as versatile as the rest of his game.

[Texas Chuck]

ITs not my hypothetical. I was responding to a post suggesting that KG was the only big man capable of putting up big assist/relative low turnovers and questioning the accuracy of that.

Other than that if you actually read my entire post and not just jumped to defend what you automatically interpreted as KG criticism you will see I said:

"Obviously he needs the ability that allowed Minny to run top 10 offenses through him in the first place which eliminates the vast majority of PFs."

So I agree KG is a GREAT passing big man. I just dont understand why his assist numbers are supposed to prove that he's some outlier when Stockton has a Gretzky-level dominance over the field and its universally agreed that thats meaningless. I also think there are some other really good passing big men, including but not limited to Webber.

And Im also well on record that Im about substance over style, so Im not sure why you are suggesting Im tricked by Webber's style of passing vs KG. I dont think White Chocolate is some great pg despite him doing things Ive never seen anyone else do. I think KG did overpass at times. Obviously you will never agree. That's cool.

We can disagree on whether or not he was misused in Minny. I think there is plenty of evidence that suggests he was. You disagree. Im never going to convince you. And Im okay with that.

[tsherkin]

Scoring was always KG's biggest limitation in Minny, he was never an especially dominant scorer, especially in the playoffs. With Pierce and Ray, though, and a structured offense? He suits his Boston role much more so.

[WhateverBro]

ITs not my hypothetical. I was responding to a post suggesting that KG was the only big man capable of putting up big assist/relative low turnovers and questioning the accuracy of that.

Other than that if you actually read my entire post and not just jumped to defend what you automatically interpreted as KG criticism you will see I said:

"Obviously he needs the ability that allowed Minny to run top 10 offenses through him in the first place which eliminates the vast majority of PFs."

So I agree KG is a GREAT passing big man. I just dont understand why his assist numbers are supposed to prove that he's some outlier when Stockton has a Gretzky-level dominance over the field and its universally agreed that thats meaningless. I also think there are some other really good passing big men, including but not limited to Webber.

And Im also well on record that Im about substance over style, so Im not sure why you are suggesting Im tricked by Webber's style of passing vs KG. I dont think White Chocolate is some great pg despite him doing things Ive never seen anyone else do. I think KG did overpass at times. Obviously you will never agree. That's cool.

We can disagree on whether or not he was misused in Minny. I think there is plenty of evidence that suggests he was. You disagree. Im never going to convince you. And Im okay with that.

What's the evidence then? Of course I can be convinced, I don't have a problem with changing my opinion on things.

As for the misused thing, I mean yes, there are several roles I can see him play on those Minny teams that would benefit Garnett himself and probably make him a more efficient scorer. But I don't agree that it would benefit the team, because he clearly needed to "do it all" offensively. Yeah, if there was an option for him to be on a team like Boston his whole career, which allowed him to roam defensively in his prime and play more of a "finisher" role offensively then yes, he was misused. But that option wasn't available in Minnesota due to the roster makings for his career which makes it hard for me to say he was misused. Flip used all that Garnett had, because it was needed. I for one, who is a big KG fan would've loved to see him in a better situation in which he wasn't ran into the ground every game but that option simply wasn't there if they wanted to stay competitive.

Most people seem to forget that he was forced into roles on that team, for the better of the team. During the 04 playoffs he was FORCED to play PG, he, himself hated it. In short, I'd agree that he was misused in the sense that he would've been even better suited to always be the type of player he was in Boston but I don't agree that he was misused in the sense that Timberwolves would've been better if he didn't "do it all" offensively.

[NO-KG-AI]

ITs not my hypothetical. I was responding to a post suggesting that KG was the only big man capable of putting up big assist/relative low turnovers and questioning the accuracy of that.

Maybe he isn't the only one that could, but he's really the only big man that sustained that type of statistical production from a passing standpoint over a sustained period of time. This wasn't a Rondo situation either, where the offense was hurting while he racked up big numbers. The Wolves were 5th in offense in 02-03 with 52 games of Wally Z, then the other starters were Troy Hudson, Rasho, Kendall Gill/Peeler.

We can disagree on whether or not he was misused in Minny. I think there is plenty of evidence that suggests he was. You disagree. Im never going to convince you. And Im okay with that.

I dunno, like I said, they were way overachieving offensively most of the time, so I think if anything, it says he was being used optimally. I think Boston didn't use him as well offensively, but I think that's a lot due to him being older/injured and not being as capable.

In 01-02 the Wolves were 4th in offense with Wally Z and a young Chauncey (12.5/5.5). They were 5th with KG and Cassell being the only thing notable on offense(and Spree taking more bad shots than good).

Now early in the Flip era, he was definitely misused defensively (the zone). This was more Flip trying to get other PF's on the floor, which forced KG to do the job they couldn't do(defend the wing).

Now if you believe KG didn't have the stamina/durability to play an offensive role similar to his in Minnesota, while doing defensively what he did in Boston, that's a whole other argument. I wouldn't agree(he played defensively at 100% no matter what role he was in), but I guess I could understand it.

[Doctor MJ]

-It's not about comparing two teams with two different levels of overall success. You knocked a team's offense and then championed another offense that wasn't any better. This makes no sense.

-"Your offense needs to be as good as your defense". Bizarre logic there. Again you're championing the Spurs. Their offense wasn't as good as their defense. Wasn't even close. You've evidently equated the two in your mind simply because the team won a title, and that's not remotely reasonable.

-"If score 2 and give up 1, you're good enough offensively." I understand what you're saying, it's just crazy. It makes no sense to trash a team's offense only because their defense was not stronger. When evaluating offense, evaluate offense. It's simple.

I championed the Spurs offense? No I championed Tim Duncan for putting up Championship numbers in years they were winning championships. This discussion is based on do I think KG is good enough offensively to carry a championship offense.

So here I am, scrolling up to earlier on the same page and snatching my own post responding to you:

Well, no big man has really been able to produce KG's amount of assists/turnovers over the years. Either he was in the most unique system of all time, or he's doing something no one else is capable of doing.

Or he was just overused. Every thing you do should come with the attitude that will it lead to winning a title. The game isn't about stat stuffing. Duncan's numbers are championship numbers. It is about are you producing at a way that leads to winning. So Minnesota is running there offense threw KG. He is putting up stats but its not an amazing offense. They aren't winning titles. The reality is if I want a championship level offense I need more talent and take the ball of KGs hands some.

When Garnett was doing this the offense often was better than what the Spurs had. The Spurs were better because of their defense, and as a result you've concluded that that means they did everything else the "championship" way, and everyone who failed to win a title did everything NOT the championship way. You cannot extrapolate meaningfully this way.

You disparaged Garnett's stats as essentially being not real while praising Duncan's stats. Your argument was based on the fact that one led to a championship, and therefore the other one was stat stuffing which had something wrong with it...despite the fact that quite literally Minny wins titles if they have the Spurs defense.

Either that or he good enough to anchor a championship defense. When were talking about his time in Minnesota were looking at he wasn't good enough on offense or defense to actually carry them even out of the first round most years.

So here's your pivot then. You see it as basically saying "hey, if you're saying it's about the defense, then let's talk about the defense. Garnett didn't lead a great defense, so Garnett is failing no matter how you look at it".

This is not a reasonable way to go about any kind of productive discussion though.

The competitive advantage you're relying on now, and that I'm agreeing to, is that the Spurs had the better defense.

If you had said Duncan was a better defender because of what we saw in their teams' defenses, I would not be taking issue with your comments about offense.
If you had said Duncan was a better overall player because of what we saw in their teams' overall performances, I would not be taking issue with your comment about offense.

I'm taking issue with your comments about offense because you made comments about offense. And when I did so you defended your statements by talking about the overall performance which was clearly dominated by the defensive performance. At no time did you back up your offensive comments with offensive reasons.

It all gives one the impression that when a team wins a championship you think it's because every part of the team was beyond repute and when they don't it's because every part of the team was flawed. No one can benefit from analysis like that.

[KingMeh]

I guess I'm new here, so could someone give me a brief idea of why so many people on this site are so high on KG.... even over guys like Kobe and LeBron

[Jonny Blaze]

He's massively overrated on here but underrated in real life. I've just never been a fan, to me he's always Been the 7foot version of Scottie Pippen. The celtics were the best thing to ever happen to him, he can just worry about the defense and put up Pau Gasol 09-10 numbers on offense.

This.

I have KG as the 2nd greatest Robin of all time behind Scottie Pippen.

Going to a Super team in Boston with 3 other superstars was the greatest thing that ever happened to Garnett.

[HeartBreakKid]

He's massively overrated on here but underrated in real life. I've just never been a fan, to me he's always Been the 7foot version of Scottie Pippen. The celtics were the best thing to ever happen to him, he can just worry about the defense and put up Pau Gasol 09-10 numbers on offense.

This.

I have KG as the 2nd greatest Robin of all time behind Scottie Pippen.

Going to a Super team in Boston with 3 other superstars was the greatest thing that ever happened to Garnett.

That's interesting, who was KG robin too considering he was the best player on a championship team by a huge margin? And come on, Scottie Pippen is better than Kevin Garnett? I'm going to love to hear this one.

Yeah, KG is so lucky to be on a "super team" considering he rotted away his prime on the Timberwolves.

[Jonny Blaze]

That's interesting, who was KG robin too considering he was the best player on a championship team by a huge margin? .

Huge Margin?

Then where is his NBA Finals MVP trophy?

Oh...there isn't one.

Why?
Because averaging 18-13 and 15-6 in your two Finals appearances are not the numbers of an NBA Finals MVP.



Its means you are a great robin. A second banana.

Only on this board do people think KG is as good as Tim Duncan or Dirk.

Has Kevin Garnett ever had an NBA finals game as dominant as Gasol game 7 in 2010?

Kevin Garnett is not a good enough player that you can build a team around him and consistently compete for NBA titles.
He is fantastic as a 2nd or 3rd offensive option and the ability to just concentrate on defense.

Do any of you think that prime KG could win a title full of role players like Hakeem in 1994, Duncan in 2003 or Dirk did in 2011?

I dont.

Why?
Because Garnett never came close to accomplishing that.

As great as a defender as he is he has never had the offensive ability to consistently take over playoff games.
How many playoff games has Kevin Garnett ever scored more then 30 points?

Its a shockingly low number.....and I ask that question because if you analyze his scoring output to some of his peers.....it becomes rather obvious why the T-Wolves didnt do better in the playoffs.

He was perfect as a 2nd banana in Boston because Paul Pierce and Ray Allen could shoulder a lot of the scoring load.

[Doctor MJ]

That's interesting, who was KG robin too considering he was the best player on a championship team by a huge margin? .

Huge Margin?

Then where is his NBA Finals MVP trophy?

Oh...there isn't one.

Why?

Because they got it wrong. It was a basketball team that won with defense. Garnett was far and away the star defensive player on the team. When they gave the Finals MVP based scoring some points they basically said "We're going to totally ignore why this team won."

[Doctor MJ]

I guess I'm new here, so could someone give me a brief idea of why so many people on this site are so high on KG.... even over guys like Kobe and LeBron

Welcome! I'll try to put it succinctly:

The perception of Kobe's superiority to KG came when Minnesota fell apart.

Clearly the team fell apart because the supporting cast got worse, but still most people became convinced that if it could fall apart under KG, then the previous perception of KG that led to his MVP must have overrated him.

The more you look in the data though, the more it appears that really KG was absolutely having the impact of a superstar the whole time, it's just the bottom REALLY fell out of the supporting cast.

The fact that Garnett then went to Boston, adapted his role drastically, and led Boston to far greater heights than was predicted adds into this as well.

Basically: If Garnett's career went straight from, say, '03-04 to '07-08, in the minds of many people KG would be a much more impressive player, and that shouldn't be the case.

You'll note there I only mentioned Kobe once and LeBron not at all. I only mention Kobe once because it's really not about him. I don't mention LeBron at all because I don't think you'll actually find many people who will argue KG over LeBron in terms impact. You may find people talking about KG's versatility being greater than LeBron's, but that's a very different thing.