This is what the KG argument has come to is:
KG detractors don't understand the statistics being used in support of KG, it's "too advanced" because it shows how obvious KG's superiority is over just about anyone not in the top 10. What irks those not entranced by these stats is that when other players do things...like win playoff series, win titles, win MVP's, win Finals MVP's that all pales to one single metric that KG look all powerful. Which is why I make this statement:
To end this hypocrisy, there should not be Lord of the Rings mentality in that one metric/measurement rules all. We should not just use stats, nor the eye test, nor rings, nor PER, nor efficiency, nor MVP's/Awards, nor a narrative to compare players. They should all be on the table and they are not part of a metric; you can't give stats a +2 and the eye test .44 or awards a .88. Everyone has a preference and changing how you measure one player to the next is...a logical fallacy. It's very difficult to accept KG's impact statistics and then also this:
bastillon wrote:
let me repeat one more time. it is not enough for you to show the Celtics record without any context whatsoever. numbers have a different meaning once they are put in the proper context.
bastillon wrote:G35, you are operating under the assumption that individual drtg has any value. it is trying to measure defense with boxscore stats. it's dividing the credit for team defense based on boxscore stats. KG's defensive impact is non-boxscore stuff (contesting shots, help-D, pnr D, QBing the defense). you are misinterpreting the results.
NO-KG-AI wrote:Probably because people use context. Like the fact that Moses played 42 minutes. Or that the Rockets offense wasn't that great, despite how "dominant" he was. That's why every metric shows KG as a better player. Except ppg/rpg.
WhateverBro wrote:
Another good question is why Garnett is knocked for scoring too little when him and Duncan were basically neck and neck scoring wise for most of their careers. Why is this logic only applied to KG?
drza wrote:The argument is circular, whether it's the regular season or the playoffs. You and your crew will hold up boxscore stats, often scoring, and scream that these are the most important things. We'll point out that there are aspects of the game, especially on defense but including offensive creation and distribution, that aren't measured well (or at all, in some cases) by the boxscores and that the best current measures for entire games are the +/- stats. Your side disregards the +/- stats or even the approach that would value what those stats could tell us. Which leaves us in a debate with no common ground, and in which all either side can do is spit a bunch of words at each other. I don't have the patience or time to try to win arguments that way anymore. THAT'S why you haven't seen me very much in this or other topics recently, not because of some fear of speaking about the playoffs. I actually love talking about KG's playoffs, because they're still so under-appreciated or misunderstood by so many.
All of these quotes are saying that KG needs efforts need context. I mean there is one argument that Moses only did better because he played more minutes. But I NEVER hear that argument when people compare KG to Duncan. Duncan stopped being a big minutes guy after 6 years in the league. Everyone knows how much Pop likes to manage minutes/games. Duncan's minutes went down to 33-34 mpg in in 2004/05 taking off 5-6 mpg. However, Duncan still put up comparable scoring/rebounding numbers. Not one single KG supporter ever talks about how many minutes KG plays that was a HUGE boost to his box score numbers.
Another CONTEXT point is that throughout NBA history the greatest statistical seasons are typically when that player is surrounded with a poor supporting cast; Jordan, Wilt, Barkley, Robinson, Moses, Kobe all had monster numbers when they had to carry their teams. KG played a ton of minutes, had a TERRIBLE supporting cast (just ask anyone) and KG only posted one really memorable season and that's when he had help.
However, all that can be attributed to MY OPINION which I am entitled to. What KG supporters don't get is that when they INTERPRET the impact of KG's play on the court is just their interpretation. There are a thousand different factors in a basketball, they can all tell you something about how the game was played, but at the end of the day the best stat that shows impact is winning. When KG fans pontificate about how great KG is to THEM that's ok but don't make the mistake of saying that it's OBVIOUS how great he is when others disagree. KG has a huge back log of evidence showing how much he failed.
That KG would have realized his potential if he had been in Duncan's place in SA.....I wonder if Chris Webber, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, David Robinson, Rasheed, Ewing, or Hakeem would have been better in the Spurs system that Duncan helped to CREATE. What's funny is that people think that system was in place before Duncan was drafted to the Spurs; it wasn't the Spurs did a horrible job putting talent around Robinson and developing any sort of continuity. So when I read that KG would have been so much better if he was in the place of Duncan I can't take it seriously. KG didn't create anything lasting in Minnesota, what makes people think Garnett would have built anything in SA? You mean because of Popovich? Are you saying that COACHING makes the difference in a players development because I don't hear anything from KG fans about the coaching he got in Boston. It's pretty quiet on that front.....
I'm so tired of the typical......
. You'll have plenty of backers on this board if you like to back yourself up with little to no substance, and cherry pick. Maybe you all can teach the simpletons of this board like tsherkin/Doctor MJ/MysticBB/ElGee and the various other Boston/Minnesota homer like them to read a box score.
