The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[WhateverBro]

2007 Duncan playoffs PER: 27.4
2008 KG playoffs PER: 23.0

Its not as impressive when you see how much more impactful duncan was in the advanced stats metric, Kg's efficiency was so mediocre. Make a poll 2007 duncan vs 2008 kg and duncan will mop the floor with him.

Just completely ignore the fact that a majority of KGs playoff games have been played at the end or out of his prime while Duncan has plenty of games in his prime / peak. Garnett basically has two longer playoff runs at his peak / prime.

[NO-KG-AI]

No. Ray Allen was the one doing a good job on Kobe actually. And Posey. If Truth was so important to the defense, they wouldn't have been just as good defensively with or without him. They were .9 points per 100 possessions better in the regular season and 1.4 points worse in the post season. (with Pierce on the floor)

Dont care what your stats show. I watched those games and Truth was on Kobe when it counted and was doing a terrific job.

And again because this always gets missed--Im not saying he was a better defender than KG, a more important player than KG, a more valuable player than KG. I am saying his ability to create offense on his own was important as was his individual defense on Kobe. Did he deserve FMVP over KG? No but I get it. Lifelong Celtic, scoring same as KG and again his end of game defense on Kobe. Its hardly the outrage its made out to be.

No dude, you're wrong. Pierce wasn't guarding Kobe all that much

As for the FMVP, I don't care about it, I just don't like when people use it as evidence.

"Don't care what your stats show." No point debating then. Opinion is fact, and there is no reason to even discuss.

[Texas Chuck]

No dude, you're wrong. Pierce wasn't guarding Kobe all that much

Still think Truth was really important to hte 08 Celtics, but I will concede the point about his defense on Kobe. Obviously its been 5 years ago and my memory of what I think I saw has some inaccuracies. No doubt the people telling me otherwise are more familiar with that team than me.

I also had stopped posting itt and got sucked into to it to defend Truth. I really need to stay out of KG threads tho. Im just beating my head into a wall for no purpose. But I did need to post one last time to acknowledge that I clearly didnt know what the heck I was saying.


Edit: just saw your edit and theshot you took at me. Guess I deserved it but I thought I had more credibility as a reasonable and thinking poster than for you to think I think my opinion is the most important thing. I honestly thought I remembered Pierce defending Kobe a lot at the end of games but maybe that was 2010 or maybe I honestly was talking out my behind, but that's what I remembered in my head.

[NO-KG-AI]

I respect you a lot lately, because you aren't stubborn like you used to be

Pierce was obviously hugely important. I honestly think they should have went for a different type of PG, and put the ball in Pierce's hands more. That team should have been better than 10th in offense. I didn't realize 82games had numbers up for the playoffs, but it's not surprising that Rondo hurt that offense badly.

[WhateverBro]

I respect you a lot lately, because you aren't stubborn like you used to be

Pierce was obviously hugely important. I honestly think they should have went for a different type of PG, and put the ball in Pierce's hands more. That team should have been better than 10th in offense. I didn't realize 82games had numbers up for the playoffs, but it's not surprising that Rondo hurt that offense badly.

Yep, Rondo has always been a pretty bad offensive player. Better now, sure but still has major flaws. His defense was better back then than now though. Ever since he was "handed the key" to the team he's been pounding the ball on the offensive end all while starting to slack defensively, repeatedly losing his man going after steals. He was much better defensively when he played a more Bradley like role defensively. Part of this is Doc though, he doesn't know how to run a proper offense and the truth is that Boston during the KG era should've been better offensively than they were.

[microfib4thewin]

I don't see Pierce on Kobe that much. Mostly it was Allen guarding him. Even then, Boston's defense has never been about man to man defense like the 90s Bulls, they're about directing the ballhandler to the paint right at KG and Perkins which either forces him to shoot an off-rhythm midrange shot or turn the ball over.

While I don't like certain arguments that are in favor of KG because it sounded more like flip-flopping than consistent reasoning(i.e Team offense/defense good = KG's credit, bad = fault of his teammates) KG should unquestionably be the Finals MVP.

[The Infamous1]

Pierce wasnt on Kobe. It was the entire celtics roster. I've never seen a Finals series where a team didnt give a damn about any one else but one player to that extent.

As for the finals MVP, KG wasnt better then pierce and wasnt even better then ray Allen. If your going to give someone an MVP for defense, your going to have to show me them shutting down or severely limiting someone. For example if Hakeem in 94 was underwhelming like KG was in 08', I could still see him winning mvp because of him shutting down Ewing holding him to 36%, what did KG do?

His primary assignments odom/Gasol both shot 50% from the field. And this is pre peak Pau Gasol who wasnt an all star that year and odom whose always been a high end role player at best. Yes alot of that has to do with the massive amout of attention Kobe was getting and those guys being flat out wide open at times but still. Pau had a better series against KG in 08' then Duncan in the series before.

Also lets be honest, you put Any other HOF big against a frontline rotation of 2008 Gasol/Odom/Turiaf and he was a historic series

[ThaRegul8r]

If your going to give someone an MVP for defense, your going to have to show me them shutting down or severely limiting someone. For example if Hakeem in 94 was underwhelming like KG was in 08', I could still see him winning mvp because of him shutting down Ewing holding him to 36%

It's interesting how some say that what happened during the regular season is completely different from, and has no bearing on postseason matchups, because Hakeem held Ewing to 12 points on 25.7% shooting during the regular season in 1993-94. So the Finals was simply Hakeem continuing to do to Ewing what he'd been doing all year. It's just that no one paid any attention until the Finals.

[The Infamous1]

2008 NBA playoffs

Paul Pierce 19.7 PPG
KG 20.4 PPG

Less then one point game. Not exactly Jordan outscoring Pippen by 12-15 PPG, where there is a true gap and separation

Efficiency

KG 54%TS
Pierce 57%TS

And pierce led the team in assists. This was a one A one B situation on offense.

[ushvinder88]

2007 Duncan playoffs PER: 27.4
2008 KG playoffs PER: 23.0

Its not as impressive when you see how much more impactful duncan was in the advanced stats metric, Kg's efficiency was so mediocre. Make a poll 2007 duncan vs 2008 kg and duncan will mop the floor with him.

Just completely ignore the fact that a majority of KGs playoff games have been played at the end or out of his prime while Duncan has plenty of games in his prime / peak. Garnett basically has two longer playoff runs at his peak / prime.

I chose 2007 for duncan, you know when he was essentially the same age as 2008 kg, any more excuses?

[NO-KG-AI]

KG had like 10,000 more minutes played than Duncan at that stage

[WhateverBro]

2007 Duncan playoffs PER: 27.4
2008 KG playoffs PER: 23.0

Its not as impressive when you see how much more impactful duncan was in the advanced stats metric, Kg's efficiency was so mediocre. Make a poll 2007 duncan vs 2008 kg and duncan will mop the floor with him.

Just completely ignore the fact that a majority of KGs playoff games have been played at the end or out of his prime while Duncan has plenty of games in his prime / peak. Garnett basically has two longer playoff runs at his peak / prime.

I chose 2007 for duncan, you know when he was essentially the same age as 2008 kg, any more excuses?

Oh, my bad. I thought you ran their career PER.

Edit: Duncan beating KG in PER doesnt really prove anything that we didn't already know. And Garnett 08 biggest strength isnt measured in PER, sadly. Everyone should know that he didn't fill up the boxscore as nicely as he had done earlier in his career although he proved he could even that year (check out his stats from the beginning of the season...)

[The Infamous1]

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.

Him and Scottie are pretty much the same player both in skillset and mentality.

[NO-KG-AI]

KG is substantially better as an offensive player. Substantially better as a defender, unless you want to argue pound for pound or by position or some other bogus stuff.

Pippen's best seasons really weren't close offensively, even though he played with far more "help".

Scottie's career high PER is the same as KG's total for 18 seasons. Still having a DPOY impact in year 18. ...

[Doctor MJ]

Responding to your point though, I can't help but notice that in response to me saying "Boston won with defense and Garnett was by far their best defender" you responded with stats which didn't rebut my claim.

This is frustrating to me because I don't know where your mind is at. What is it about my statement that is so extreme it causes you to misunderstand so bad?

Umm actually he has a point, its much easier to focus on defense when your offensive volume is so small. KG is an overrated playoff performer.

He didn't make that point actually. Had he done so we could have at least moved forward to the next step in the conversation.

[Doctor MJ]

Good catch Ive now edited it.

So instead of one great game, we will change that to two great game and 4 games of mediocrity.

You didn't edit it. Go back and do that.

Responding to your point though, I can't help but notice that in response to me saying "Boston won with defense and Garnett was by far their best defender" you responded with stats which didn't rebut my claim.

This is frustrating to me because I don't know where your mind is at. What is it about my statement that is so extreme it causes you to misunderstand so bad?

The problem with that thinking is at some point you have to win with offense. Paul Pierce scores 41 points in game 7 and Boston survives being knocked out in the second round. If Paul Pierce doesn't have that game is KG going to take over and carry them to the win. We know the answer.

Paul Pierce completely destroyed the Lakers in the Finals. Granted it was against Luke Walton. When he wasn't being carried off in a wheel chair he was dominating the Lakers offensively. If Paul Pierce isn't as good as he was the Lakers can win that series. Well he didn't dominate Ron Artest two years later and they lost. Take away Paul Pierce KG not good enough to carry an offense in these tough spots.

The problem with that thinking is that you aren't looking to try to factor in two different things together. In the end you need to get buckets, but in the end you need to stop buckets too. There are plenty of times where the team's best offensive player is the team's best player, but if it's not clear to you that it can be the team's best defensive player instead then you're not going to come up with reasonable conclusions.

Re: "Piece completely destroyed the Lakers". That's a crazy statement. The dude scored less than 4 points more than Garnett.

Re: wheelchair. The wheelchair is a reason to mock Pierce not praise him. Obviously he didn't need the wheelchair or he wouldn't have kept playing.

Re: take away KG. Is Pierce good enough to carry a defense through these tough spots? If you aren't LMFAO with that statement you need to take a step back. If I can simply play the symmetrical card you play and the entire thing becomes a joke that tells us everything we need to know about the comparison.

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.

Now to what I said before. You didn't address anything. You did what I fully expect. Pretty much say well look at the stats. Ignore the reality of what happened. Instead live in a world of basketball on paper numbers and not the reality of what happens on the court. This statement though shocked me. Your pretty much saying basketball is nothing more than a bunch of numbers. The dynamics of things that happen during the game. The moments that change a potential lost to a victory. Those things are no longer important. If MInnesota matched San Antonio defense they would have been 4 time champs. Perhaps even more.

Me tearing the foundation of your reasoning to shreds is not me insisting on stats over watching the game. If there are flaws in your chain of reasoning then you're not going to draw proper conclusions about the actual basketball.

What's interesting is that I run into things like this all the time. This is nothing knew, though of course, the accusations when I talk politics or religion or science aren't typically that I'm a stathead, though some other epithet is common.

Let me ask. Why we even playing the games. You know who going to win the title.

I don't know who is going to win the title. I guess you don't know me very well.

I know you had OKC as the champ since they played better offense and defense than Miami. Pretty much everyone in the league.

I considered Miami a heavy favorite over OKC. Have we met before?

Apparently that how the game is played now. Minnesota didn't get out of the first round but apparently we can make the assumption what they would have done in the first, second, third, and the finals. Wow. Can you tell me exactly how many games they won these titles in?

If you want to point out that there's luck involved in the game and so we don't truly know what would have happened that's fine by me. I've pointed that out to you often enough, it would make me happy to know you were listening.

Obviously when I make a statement about what would have happened it's a statement of what would likely have happened. Minnesota with a far better defense is clearly a far better team which it would be absurd to say couldn't possibly win a title. I make the case I do because you make statements implying that what Garnett and Minny did was essentially not real because they didn't win a title, not because I'm trying to proclaim omniscience. I keep it more succinct because I think at times more details only confuse people.

It reminds me of a friend of mine. We use to play golf at a local course and I would always win. I moved away and he practiced hard to improve his skills. He knew exactly what I shot at this course. What he needed to do to beat me. When I was back in town he couldn't wait to say he was now as good if not better than me. We hit the course and I shoot even better than before. He was dumb founded. See he remembered what I shot. He didn't remember that I had such a lead that the last few holes I was no longer even serious.

That is this situation here.

Um, that Garnett's Timberwolves were so inferior that the teams that eliminated them blew them out and then tanked late in the game? Pretty sure that's not how it went down dude.

You can talk about the stats. I'm looking at the reality of what happened.

I look at what happened too. I look at everything from the top down and figure out the good and the bad to the best of my ability. I can be wrong no doubt about that, but I'm going to be right more often than people who can't see the flaws in a success or the strengths in a failure.

Basketball is not played that way. Its about style, skill, matchups. Will what you do in the regular season work in the playoffs. If you can't do you have the ability to adjust and be productive in other ways.

To be clear I don't disagree with any of that. Minny didn't exactly have a habit though of getting upset all the time in the playoffs so why is it you think of them in this way?

[Doctor MJ]

If KG is at 7th spot on someone's ATG list, Pippen should be in Top10 too then.
They are both very similar all time greats defenders with above average game on offense.
Imagine if Pippen would have scored like 27-30ppg on 58 TS%, he is Lebron James #2.
The same thing is with KG to me, if only he was better at scoring, then I'd call him fascinating.
I just think offense is more valuable than defense.

No two players are so similar they should have to be right next to each other on an All-Time List, let alone guys with such clearly different bodies.

[Doctor MJ]

Good catch Ive now edited it.

So instead of one great game, we will change that to two great game and 4 games of mediocrity.

You didn't edit it. Go back and do that.

Responding to your point though, I can't help but notice that in response to me saying "Boston won with defense and Garnett was by far their best defender" you responded with stats which didn't rebut my claim.

This is frustrating to me because I don't know where your mind is at. What is it about my statement that is so extreme it causes you to misunderstand so bad?

Honestly.....whats the point of your statement?

Boston 2008 won with defense and KG was their best defensive player......ok.

Most nights he was the 2nd or 3rd best offensive player.

I don't really understand how it can be so hard for you that the "2nd or 3rd best offensive player" on a team that "won with defense" and "was their best defensive player" might be their MVP. Seriously, where's the disconnect?

I'm not saying that's proof he has to be, but then I'm rebutting YOUR point. I don't have to prove the opposite of what you're saying is true to point out a gap in your reasoning.

Mind the gap and carry on. That's how debate works.

As good as his defense was....his offensive stats are nowhere comparable to any other NBA Finals MVP.

So your opinion now is based not on what you personally observed in that series but based on trying to approximate what people did in the past? Never going to persuade anyone that way.

Ben Wallace was the best defender on the 2004 Pistons (another monster defensive team).......so what?

Yes, because KG and Ben are entirely comparable on offense...

I put Tim Duncans stats in a post above, because I wanted to illustrate the differences between the stats of a Top Dog and a Robin.

With Duncan you are getting just as good, if not better defense then KG.....and you are getting a much more dominant scorer.

Same thing with guys like Hakeem Olajuwon, Jordan and even Lebron.

None of these guys are in the 2008 Finals MVP debate. Just had to point that out to you. You don't get to side against Garnett in favor of Pierce because a bunch of guys FAR better than Pierce could ever dream of being were better than Garnett to. Or rather you can if you want, but you're being silly.

The problem for him is that good and pretty good playoff performances were not going to cut it in the early 2000's Western Conference

When you look at KG's playoff resume....Im just not that impressed.
I just cant fathom that certain people would even put his name in the same sentence as Tim Duncan.

The Dirk vs KG debate can be a close one, but Dirk put a huge kabosh in that argument with his 2011 NBA Finals MVP......something that I truly doubt KG will ever win.
Dirk is a more accomplished player....all the while playing three less seasons then Garnett.

If you compare their stats in the 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011 NBA Finals.....its easy to tell who's the Alpha Dog, and who is the Robin.

Now you're just drifting like a drunken sailor..

[The Infamous1]

KG is substantially better as an offensive player. Substantially better as a defender, unless you want to argue pound for pound or by position or some other bogus stuff.

Pippen's best seasons really weren't close offensively, even though he played with far more "help".

Scottie's career high PER is the same as KG's total for 18 seasons. Still having a DPOY impact in year 18. ...

PER is not a stat, its Hollingers opinion on the value of individual stats. I don't know why people use it as gospel. It literally means nothing

Secondly kg isn't clearly a better offensive player. They're on the same tier as scorers with Scottie being a better playmaker.

Both jack of all trades all time defenders who are relatively weak scorers by first option standards

[NO-KG-AI]

How about offensive win shares? Offensive rating, or points per game? KG peaked higher, and was consistently higher.

There is more argument for KG being the better playmaker than their is for them being the same tier as scorers.

If there is evidence that Scottie Pippen could lead an elite offense without Michael Jordan doing all the heavy lifting, you're welcome to provide it.