RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #11 (Kevin Garnett)

[Odinn21]

Thank you for the historical context. It certainly helps to know these things to more accurately evaluate players, especially from older eras.

On Frazier's defense: The numbers you cited are impressive for sure. However, it's still man defense. You can be the greatest man defender in the world and still not come close to the impact big men provide. That's my concern. Would Frazier be able to maintain his defensive impact in today's league for example? It's a vastly different landscape.

On Kidd: I tend to credit the Mavs' team defense. LeBron's lack of a post game was exposed that series and the Mavs definitely needed all hands on deck to limit him that much. Kidd may have had similar defensive impact to guys like Iggy, Artest, and Smart but not quite on the level of Pippen, peak D Kawhi, Kirilenko, etc. And even those guys can't sniff the big men.

I can concede that Kidd and Frazier are in fact better defenders than Paul. But Paul is still right there with them.

Cheers mate.

Re: Frazier's defense
I think there's no point in penalizing Frazier for playing on that position. I doubt you could find many players that caused that much trouble to their matchups, regardless of the position.
More than that, there's also no point in penalizing Frazier for playing in the '70s. Why would I entertain like that idea like 2010s is the standard to think about? This is an all-time project. Either we should look at performances, and if we care about portability, it should cut both ways. Would Chris Paul be this effective as a defender in the '70s? If this is a comparison between Frazier and Paul, only thinking about from pro-modern perspective is incomplete.
As for man defense aspect, I could and probably would argue that man defense is more important in playoffs compared to regular season performances and those were in the playoffs. Man defense in playoffs matters so much in any era. I don't think we can lower its extent to a point you could doubt about this defensive efficiency / impact.

Re: Kidd's defense
To be honest, I went through many videos and stat pages while writing Frazier's part and did not want to spend that much time on Kidd, I was tired. I talked about 2011 NBA Finals as a shortcut.
Kidd made up for his lack of size by his strength and ability to guard the low block. Of course, not saying entirely made up for. Some of it. I'd rate Kidd higher than Iguodala and Smart as a defender by the way.
As for Pippen, Leonard and Kirilenko, I'd also rate them on the same level as rim protectors like Chandler. I agree that they were better than Kidd. But they were exceptional for their height, brought so much to the table and I don't think being a rim protector on the level Chandler was would grant a direct superiority over those guys. I find them comparable and would pick one over the other depending on my team's structure with other players.

[Whopper_Sr]

Thank you for the historical context. It certainly helps to know these things to more accurately evaluate players, especially from older eras.

On Frazier's defense: The numbers you cited are impressive for sure. However, it's still man defense. You can be the greatest man defender in the world and still not come close to the impact big men provide. That's my concern. Would Frazier be able to maintain his defensive impact in today's league for example? It's a vastly different landscape.

On Kidd: I tend to credit the Mavs' team defense. LeBron's lack of a post game was exposed that series and the Mavs definitely needed all hands on deck to limit him that much. Kidd may have had similar defensive impact to guys like Iggy, Artest, and Smart but not quite on the level of Pippen, peak D Kawhi, Kirilenko, etc. And even those guys can't sniff the big men.

I can concede that Kidd and Frazier are in fact better defenders than Paul. But Paul is still right there with them.

Cheers mate.

Re: Frazier's defense
I think there's no point in penalizing Frazier for playing on that position. I doubt you could find many players that caused that much trouble to their matchups, regardless of the position.
More than that, there's also no point in penalizing Frazier for playing in the '70s. Why would I entertain like that idea like 2010s is the standard to think about? This is an all-time project. Either we should look at performances, and if we care about portability, it should cut both ways. Would Chris Paul be this effective as a defender in the '70s? If this is a comparison between Frazier and Paul, only thinking about from pro-modern perspective is incomplete.
As for man defense aspect, I could and probably would argue that man defense is more important in playoffs compared to regular season performances and those were in the playoffs. Man defense in playoffs matters so much in any era. I don't think we can lower its extent to a point you could doubt about this defensive efficiency / impact.

Re: Kidd's defense
To be honest, I went through many videos and stat pages while writing Frazier's part and did not want to spend that much time on Kidd, I was tired. I talked about 2011 NBA Finals as a shortcut.
Kidd made up for his lack of size by his strength and ability to guard the low block. Of course, not saying entirely made up for. Some of it. I'd rate Kidd higher than Iguodala and Smart as a defender by the way.
As for Pippen, Leonard and Kirilenko, I'd also rate them on the same level as rim protectors like Chandler. I agree that they were better than Kidd. But they were exceptional for their height, brought so much to the table and I don't think being a rim protector on the level Chandler was would grant a direct superiority over those guys. I find them comparable and would pick one over the other depending on my team's structure with other players.

We tend to underrate the value of man defense (and iso scoring). They are sort of safety nets that can buoy an offense or a defense. When set plays fail, it's always assuring to have a guy who can get buckets against elite defenses. Similarly, it's encouraging to have a lockdown man defender that can completely take a star player out of the game. Although, if that star player can be contained by one defender, how much of a star is he really?

Yes, there are situations where man defense would be more valuable than rim protection or defensive quarterbacking. For example, the 2015 Cavs. Iguodala won the FMVP for limiting LeBron since he was their only source of offense and the while the Warriors still had a sophisticated plan to stop LeBron as a team, it's Iggy's man defense that put them over the top. However, not every team is built like those Cavs. The defensive impact big men and select wings provide are simply just more valuable and in a wider range of matchups.

On defensive portability: I believe Paul could be an excellent defender regardless of era. His size certainly limits his top end impact but his basketball IQ will still be there and his defensive instincts (timing, anticipation, knowing tendencies, etc) also intact. That's a recipe for success no matter when you play. I guess you could say the same for Frazier but Paul is proven in a tougher era. Frazier is not. I could still give him the benefit of the doubt though.

You're right about how it depends on team construction. The league has also been trending toward a more perimeter-oriented game, lessening the impact traditional big men defense gives you. But then you have guys like KG and AD who are agile enough to keep up with smaller and quicker players as well as deter shots at and near the rim. They are still unicorns and in general, I'll still value rim protection/quarterbacking over premier man defense.

[trex_8063]

Thank you for the historical context. It certainly helps to know these things to more accurately evaluate players, especially from older eras.

On Frazier's defense: The numbers you cited are impressive for sure. However, it's still man defense. You can be the greatest man defender in the world and still not come close to the impact big men provide. That's my concern. Would Frazier be able to maintain his defensive impact in today's league for example? It's a vastly different landscape.

On Kidd: I tend to credit the Mavs' team defense. LeBron's lack of a post game was exposed that series and the Mavs definitely needed all hands on deck to limit him that much. Kidd may have had similar defensive impact to guys like Iggy, Artest, and Smart but not quite on the level of Pippen, peak D Kawhi, Kirilenko, etc. And even those guys can't sniff the big men.

I can concede that Kidd and Frazier are in fact better defenders than Paul. But Paul is still right there with them.

Cheers mate.

Re: Frazier's defense
I think there's no point in penalizing Frazier for playing on that position. I doubt you could find many players that caused that much trouble to their matchups, regardless of the position.
More than that, there's also no point in penalizing Frazier for playing in the '70s. Why would I entertain like that idea like 2010s is the standard to think about? This is an all-time project. Either we should look at performances, and if we care about portability, it should cut both ways. Would Chris Paul be this effective as a defender in the '70s? If this is a comparison between Frazier and Paul, only thinking about from pro-modern perspective is incomplete.
As for man defense aspect, I could and probably would argue that man defense is more important in playoffs compared to regular season performances and those were in the playoffs. Man defense in playoffs matters so much in any era. I don't think we can lower its extent to a point you could doubt about this defensive efficiency / impact.

Re: Kidd's defense
To be honest, I went through many videos and stat pages while writing Frazier's part and did not want to spend that much time on Kidd, I was tired. I talked about 2011 NBA Finals as a shortcut.
Kidd made up for his lack of size by his strength and ability to guard the low block. Of course, not saying entirely made up for. Some of it. I'd rate Kidd higher than Iguodala and Smart as a defender by the way.
As for Pippen, Leonard and Kirilenko, I'd also rate them on the same level as rim protectors like Chandler. I agree that they were better than Kidd. But they were exceptional for their height, brought so much to the table and I don't think being a rim protector on the level Chandler was would grant a direct superiority over those guys. I find them comparable and would pick one over the other depending on my team's structure with other players.

We tend to underrate the value of man defense (and iso scoring). They are sort of safety nets that can buoy an offense or a defense. When set plays fail, it's always assuring to have a guy who can get buckets against elite defenses. Similarly, it's encouraging to have a lockdown man defender that can completely take a star player out of the game. Although, if that star player can be contained by one defender, how much of a star is he really?

Yes, there are situations where man defense would be more valuable than rim protection or defensive quarterbacking. For example, the 2015 Cavs. Iguodala won the FMVP for limiting LeBron since he was their only source of offense and the while the Warriors still had a sophisticated plan to stop LeBron as a team, it's Iggy's man defense that put them over the top. However, not every team is built like those Cavs. The defensive impact big men and select wings provide are simply just more valuable and in a wider range of matchups.

On defensive portability: I believe Paul could be an excellent defender regardless of era. His size certainly limits his top end impact but his basketball IQ will still be there and his defensive instincts (timing, anticipation, knowing tendencies, etc) also intact. That's a recipe for success no matter when you play. I guess you could say the same for Frazier but Paul is proven in a tougher era. Frazier is not. I could still give him the benefit of the doubt though.

You're right about how it depends on team construction. The league has also been trending toward a more perimeter-oriented game, lessening the impact traditional big men defense gives you. But then you have guys like KG and AD who are agile enough to keep up with smaller and quicker players as well as deter shots at and near the rim. They are still unicorns and in general, I'll still value rim protection/quarterbacking over premier man defense.

Don't forget to resurrect this conversation in another ~15 threads or so, when these guys become viable candidates. I have some comments on Kidd's defense in particular, but I'm reluctant to post them here in the #11 thread.

[Odinn21]

"Although, if that star player can be contained by one defender, how much of a star is he really?"
I think this is a very big stretch and unnecessary. Tim Duncan really struggled against Tyson Chandler and David West in the '08 WC 2nd round. Was Duncan not a star in general or in that particular season?
Among the names Frazier contained, we could talk about only West being top 15/20 material but Earl Monroe, Jo Jo White, Sam Jones, Pete Maravich, Calvin Murphy, these players were definitely stars. I could argue that Monroe, Jones and Murphy were borderline superstars.

I think that statement came from not being able to trust the info about that time and it's affecting your opinion in a way it shouldn't.

They are still unicorns and in general, I'll still value rim protection/quarterbacking over premier man defense.

Oh, definitely. I do that too. The particular names in our conversation were exceptional non-bigs vs. not-so exceptional bigs (heck, they were below all-time great standards). That's why I saw a meaningful contextual comparison.

Some points to straighten out. I'm not saying Paul is bad defender or anything. He's definitely one of the better defenders from PG position. I just would not put him on the same level as Kidd and Frazier who, IMHO, were exceptions to our general perception with guards. Their defensive quality and impact exceeded our perception. At least to me, it happened and I gave you my reasons. But I guess it's time to call agree to disagree peacefully because other than that big stretch, I don't think I can say a thing about this topic that I did not say before.

[penbeast0]

I would also add that when you have your primary offensive star and he gives great energy on the defensive end and buys into the coaching scheme, the other players tend to fall into line in a way that often isn't reflected in on/off or RAPM type analysis. It creates a team culture that having a guy who cares more about scoring a lot of points and rests on defense creates a negative team culture. I can't prove it except anecdotally, but I believe it.

[Doctor MJ]

I would also add that when you have your primary offensive star and he gives great energy on the defensive end and buys into the coaching scheme, the other players tend to fall into line in a way that often isn't reflected in on/off or RAPM type analysis. It creates a team culture that having a guy who cares more about scoring a lot of points and rests on defense creates a negative team culture. I can't prove it except anecdotally, but I believe it.

This is very true and a grand irony. The players who inspire the players around them to do better can appear to be less valuable by +/- metrics.

I think you mostly see it on defense, but I believe it's also true on offense for guys like Walton and Jokic in particular.

[frica]

I would also add that when you have your primary offensive star and he gives great energy on the defensive end and buys into the coaching scheme, the other players tend to fall into line in a way that often isn't reflected in on/off or RAPM type analysis. It creates a team culture that having a guy who cares more about scoring a lot of points and rests on defense creates a negative team culture. I can't prove it except anecdotally, but I believe it.

It could also be done in the Wes Unseld way, if the best player does the dirty work it will energize the rest too.

[WestGOAT]

Kevin Garnett: Concerns about Offensive style
I just wanted to expand a little bit on my view that Minnesota's offense in the KG years was very uniquely constructed and based almost completely around his one of a kind skill-set as a high post hub, however this flawed build and playstyle was only capable of functioning with KG out on the floor. Thus, his ORAPM and similar metrics overrate his true offensive ability because he anchored a functionally flawed offense that relied completely on him and had a limited ceiling.

Timberwolves' Shot Frequency: % of FGA at Shot Location
Season ----- At Rim ------- 3pt ------- At Rim + 3pt
1998 --------- 23rd --------- 24th --------- 25th (out of 29)
1999 --------- 27th --------- 29th --------- 29th
2000 --------- 28th --------- 28th --------- 29th
2001 --------- 26th --------- 27th --------- 28th
2002 --------- 28th --------- 22nd --------- 27th
2003 --------- 26th --------- 28th --------- 28th
2004 --------- 29th --------- 27th --------- 29th
2005 --------- 30th --------- 21st --------- 30th (out of 30)
2006 --------- 21st --------- 26th --------- 29th
2007 --------- 29th --------- 25th --------- 29th


This Timberwolves offense was consistently awful when it came to attacking the optimal scoring areas on the court. It wasn't just that they were very bad at attacking the rim, which I mentioned on the last thread, but they were also nearly as bad at utilizing the 3pt line. When you combine their shot frequencies At the Rim + Behind the Arc, they were the worst team in the entire league over this time period. In these 10 years, they ranked dead last 4 times and 2nd to last another 4 times! With a player of KG's caliber, a very good offensive coach in Saunders, and a team with relatively better offensive talent than defense... these are just ugly numbers. I know KG led these teams to top 5 caliber offenses from '02-'05, but those offenses had relatively low ceilings because of how flawed their general approach was.

I understand that KG had poor help in Minny. I know the Joe Smith situation was unprecedented which put Minny in a huge hole when it came to adding talent to the roster. I know KG got unlucky when it came to Marbury and Billups both leaving. I know KG is an extremely well rounded offensive player. I'm taking all this into account.

But I just don't buy KG's offensive impact as being as high as some others do, based on how functionally flawed these Wolves offenses were. A lot of that blame goes to the bad Timberwolves franchise, but KG's high post hub offensive style and unwillingness to attack the rim consistently was a big reason for the Timberwolves' shot frequencies at the high leverage areas being so poor.

From 2001-2007, there were 113 players who compiled 1000+ assists. KG was ranked 15th in terms of total assists over this span. Tim Duncan was ranked 44th, Shaq was ranked 78th, Dirk was ranked 58th, and Kobe was ranked 16th. However, a significantly higher portion of KG's assists were in the mid-range area than the other Legends from this list.

https://www.pbpstats.com/totals/nba/player?Season=2001-02,2000-01,2002-03,2003-04,2004-05,2005-06,2006-07&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason

Ratio of Assists being At Rim or 3pters: '01-'07 (out of 113 players)
Shaq: 1st
Duncan: 2nd
Kobe: 7th
Dirk: 15th
Garnett: 99th

This is one of the main reasons I voted for Duncan and Shaq ahead of KG. Those two guys were able to dominate the game inside to get their teammates great looks at high value shot locations. They were literally the top 2 out of the 113 qualifying players at ratio of assists being at high value locations. Dirk and Kobe were also excellent by this metric. Garnett on the other hand is near the very bottom, not surprisingly because of how much the Timberwolves offense was based around mid-range shots. Shaq and Duncan attracted more doubles and defensive attention due to their more interior based games, which provided significantly greater spacing impact than KG hanging out in the high post did. I'm sure Hakeem Olajuwon would've ranked similarly high during his offensive peak seasons, as the Rockets were built around getting open outside looks due to his interior scoring. KG's versatility as a big was great, but his non-traditional style for a big wasn't ideal for spacing purposes.

KG's flaws as a scorer have been mentioned before. His scoring relied on a ton of assisted jumpers, which combined with his unwillingness to bang inside led to his consistently poor playoff performances from an efficiency standpoint. So his scoring was dependent on his teammates to create for him more than any other player in this mix, and his passing was based around setting his teammates up for lower value looks than any other player in this mix. He depended on role players to make tougher plays on offense than any of the other superstars on this list.

These flaws often reared their head at the end of close games, when the functionally flawed Minny offense and KG's inability to scale up as a creator really limited their offenses down the stretch. In terms of career +/- in the playoffs from '97-'20, Garnett ranked dead last among all players at -87 in 263 minutes. His per minute/possession +/- wasn't the worst, but his career total was by far the worst (Thad Young 2nd worst as -56). And before you say that's because of his poor teammates, KG's +/- in '04 and '08 when he was on contenders in his prime was -45 over over 68 minutes. One of the reasons the Celtics' dominant 2008 squad played so many playoff games that year was because of their terrible play in close games, and KG certainly did not play well in those minutes (17/7/0 per 36mins on .492 TS%). One of the striking aspects of his poor clutch play was his inability to create looks for his teammates.

In those 263 clutch minutes during the playoffs, Garnett had 5 assists. Not 5 assists per 36 minutes. 5 assists total, 2 with Boston and 3 with Minnesota. That comes out to an average of 0.68 assists per 36 minutes over a 263 minute span. For perspective, Tim Duncan had 46 assists in 424 playoff minutes (3.91 Ast/36). This is yet another sign that Garnett's passing is overrated and that his offensive style was easy to defend in tougher environments since he did not create very high level looks for his teammates compared to other great players. The fact that he completely disappeared as a creator in clutch situations is unreal. Speaks to his flaws as an overall offensive player that get overlooked by some.

I would share this playoff clutch spreadsheet I created however it's a little cluttered and I wanted to finish up adding the 2020 playoff numbers and make it look neater before I made a post on it sometime in the next few months. If you don't "trust" these numbers, that's fair and I get it. But if you go on NBA.com and look up KG's clutch numbers for these playoff seasons, you'll get the same awful results I did.

Very nice post, definitely makes me more sceptical about how valuable Garnett can be on offence, especially considering the recent Duncan vs Garnett discussions prompted by Ben Talyor's recent greatest peaks episode.

I do wonder though how Garnett would have looked offensively if he played for a coach that was more open to the 3-point shot like Rick Adelman and played with someone to space the floor like Peja Stojakovic. Chris Webber was also taking a lot of long 2pters (16ft-3pt) during that period and the Kings were pretty/very good on offence with Webber as the first option, especially during the 2003 post-season (+10.6 rORTG in the playoffs, though Webber did miss a significant portion of that playoff run).

[Odinn21]

Very nice post, definitely makes me more sceptical about how valuable Garnett can be on offence, especially considering the recent Duncan vs Garnett discussions prompted by Ben Talyor's recent greatest peaks episode.

I do wonder though how Garnett would have looked offensively if he played for a coach that was more open to the 3-point shot like Rick Adelman and played with someone to space the floor like Peja Stojakovic. Chris Webber was also taking a lot of long 2pters (16ft-3pt) during that period. The King were pretty/very good on offence with Webber as the first option, especially during the 2003 post-season (+10.6 rORTG in the playoffs).

The Kings, they did not have just Webber and Stojakovic. They were insanely deep. They had the greatest passing frontcourt ever. Webber was as good as Garnett at passing and Divac was better than both. They also had Bibby an above average passing PG and Doug Christie who was among tier 1 passing SGs historically.
In 2002, the Kings went 2-2 with the Lakers in the playoffs when Stojavovic was out due to an injury. That is a big luxury.
Having Adelman and that kind of passing was the biggest luxury a team can have for offense (bar having Shaquille O'Neal) in that time.

If a team needs the best constructed offense possible to have Garnett led offense successful, then it's not a good argument for Garnett's case.

BTW the Wolves had decent #2 and #3 guys from 2000-01 to 2003-04. They generally lacked depth but the next best players were good offensive pieces to be an average or a slightly above average offensive unit around Garnett;
2000-01; Terrell Brandon (2.6/2.3 obpm) & Wally Szczerbiak (1.2/1.5 obpm)
2001-02; Chauncey Billups (3.1/1.4 obpm) & Wally Szczerbiak (2.3/1.8 obpm)
2002-03; Troy Hudson (1.4/5.7 obpm) & Wally Szczerbiak (1.8/-1.3 obpm)
2003-04; Sam Cassell (4.1/2.0 obpm) & Latrell Sprewell (0.3/2.0 obpm)
Flip Saunders was rigid about three pointers but he was one of the better offensive coaches around.

Surely, they sucked real hard in the seasons they missed the playoffs while having eff'in Kevin Garnett on their team.

[WestGOAT]

Very nice post, definitely makes me more sceptical about how valuable Garnett can be on offence, especially considering the recent Duncan vs Garnett discussions prompted by Ben Talyor's recent greatest peaks episode.

I do wonder though how Garnett would have looked offensively if he played for a coach that was more open to the 3-point shot like Rick Adelman and played with someone to space the floor like Peja Stojakovic. Chris Webber was also taking a lot of long 2pters (16ft-3pt) during that period. The King were pretty/very good on offence with Webber as the first option, especially during the 2003 post-season (+10.6 rORTG in the playoffs).

The Kings, they did not have just Webber and Stojakovic. They were insanely deep. They had the greatest passing frontcourt ever. Webber was as good as Garnett at passing and Divac was better than both. They also had Bibby an above average passing PG and Doug Christie who was among tier 1 passing SGs historically.
In 2002, the Kings went 2-2 with the Lakers in the playoffs when Stojavovic was out due to an injury. That is a big luxury.
Having Adelman and that kind of passing was the biggest luxury a team can have for offense (bar having Shaquille O'Neal) in that time.

If a team needs the best constructed offense possible to have Garnett led offense successful, then it's not a good argument for Garnett's case.

BTW the Wolves had decent #2 and #3 guys from 2000-01 to 2003-04. They generally lacked depth but the next best players were good offensive pieces to be an average or a slightly above average offensive unit around Garnett;
2000-01; Terrell Brandon (2.6/2.3 obpm) & Wally Szczerbiak (1.2/1.5 obpm)
2001-02; Chauncey Billups (3.1/1.4 obpm) & Wally Szczerbiak (2.3/1.8 obpm)
2002-03; Troy Hudson (1.4/5.7 obpm) & Wally Szczerbiak (1.8/-1.3 obpm)
2003-04; Sam Cassell (4.1/2.0 obpm) & Latrell Sprewell (0.3/2.0 obpm)
Flip Saunders was rigid about three pointers but he was one of the better offensive coaches around.

Surely, they sucked real hard in the seasons they missed the playoffs while having eff'in Kevin Garnett on their team.

Oh I do realize the Kings were more than Webber and Peja. They forced a game 7 against the Mavs during that 2003 post-season when Webber was out injured and they were even better on offence the next season, at least during the regular season with Webber missing major minutes (though they were also way worse defensively without him, so Webber's contributions to team defence might be bit underappreciated).

It's just that Sacramento while deep, had a lot of spacing on the floor. Christie and Bibby were shooting around 40% on 3s on decent volume during that period, which is elite even for today's standards.