[POLL] Kevin Garnett: Where do you rank him?

[Hornet Mania]

Somewhere between 15-20 for me. I can understand why someone might rank him a bit higher though, choosing between anyone in the 11-20 tier is an exercise in splitting some very thin hairs.

The Top 100 project is really glossing over some of the flaws in his resume though, in my opinion. KG is a legend, but his teams got snuffed out in the first round year after year. I understand the desire to not hold team performance against a superior individual in this sort of ranking, but with KG it has gone a bit far. His teams were trounced, oftentimes in embarrassing fashion, in the first round for seven straight years. Other guys (like Wade in 2009) were able to at least push teams to seven games with godawful supporting casts, KG couldn't even manage that.

If he truly was the 11th best player of all time he wouldn't have been defeated so consistently for nearly a decade in the opening round of the playoffs. Basketball, more than perhaps any other team sport, is a game where one superior individual can drag a bad team over another superior group of guys who lack that singular talent. This has diminishing returns as you get further along in the playoffs, like Lebron in the Cavs years, but those diminishing returns don't manifest themselves in the first freakin' round. Definitely not over seven straight years, five of which the Wolves won a single game or less (although, to be fair, it must be mentioned these were mostly Best of 5 series).

KG is a great player, one of my favorites growing up, and he deserves his place in the annals of NBA history without question. I just think if he didn't win in 2008 with Boston there is simply no chance he'd be considered as high as 11th, and he might slide as far as the low 20s. That would be too low for him, imo, but it just shows how much that one year changed everything for the perception of him.

[Blast Tyrant]

Jordan
Russell
Chamberlain
Johnson
Bird
Abdul-Jabbar
Duncan
O'Neal
Bryant
Nowitzki
Robertson
Olajuwan
Thomas
Moses Malone
Walton
Nash
Kidd
James

In no order all had better careers in my opinion. This is so objective though. He realistically could be anywhere from 15-25.

[Basketballefan]

Jordan
Russell
Chamberlain
Johnson
Bird
Abdul-Jabbar
Duncan
O'Neal
Bryant
Nowitzki
Robertson
Olajuwan
Thomas
Moses Malone
Walton
Nash
Kidd
James


In no order all had better careers in my opinion. This is so objective though. He realistically could be anywhere from 15-25.

??????????
Walton has no business anywhere near the top 20, he only had a few healthy seasons.

[Joao Saraiva]

I don't do all time lists because I didn't see a lot of guys playing, but as far as PF ranking go I have Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowiztki, Malone and Charles Barkley above KG. (only rank the ones I've seen playing)

But well I also don't agree with Duncan's spot on that list... I guess realGM posters just happen to like some guys a lot.

[An Unbiased Fan]

KG gives you 15 superstar level seasons based on RAPM, so i'm going move him to #1. Give him a sidekick like Pippen, and a HOF coach like Phil, and he would be winning titles at Russell's pace. And in comparisons to Russ, KG gives you the same GOAT level defense, with much better offense, and crazy versatility.

[Basketballefan]

KG gives you 15 superstar level seasons based on RAPM, so i'm going move him to #1. Give him a sidekick like Pippen, and a HOF coach like Phil, and he would be winning titles at Russell's pace. And in comparisons to Russ, KG gives you the same GOAT level defense, with much better offense, and crazy versatility.

Let's not forget that KG was still a top 5 player in 2013!

[Imon]

Man, I can't say I'm a big KG fan but he's definitely 15-20 for me and, honestly, I wouldn't have a huge problem if he were ranked a little higher.

KG gives you 15 superstar level seasons based on RAPM, so i'm going move him to #1. Give him a sidekick like Pippen, and a HOF coach like Phil, and he would be winning titles at Russell's pace. And in comparisons to Russ, KG gives you the same GOAT level defense, with much better offense, and crazy versatility.

I understand the desire to make arguments like these but these fantasy scenario arguments still irk me, especially when they are used to make all-time-great cases.
You can make an argument like this swapping out any player for any more favorable situation. How many more times do we have to hear, "If KG played in San Antonio with Pop and Duncan was in Minny, what would their careers look like now?"
ENOUGH. KG's career is what it is - stop assuming that he would be Bill Russell in these fantasy scenarios. Nothing is a given.

[Jim Naismith]

Man, I can't say I'm a big KG fan but he's definitely 15-20 for me and, honestly, I wouldn't have a huge problem if he were ranked a little higher.

KG gives you 15 superstar level seasons based on RAPM, so i'm going move him to #1. Give him a sidekick like Pippen, and a HOF coach like Phil, and he would be winning titles at Russell's pace. And in comparisons to Russ, KG gives you the same GOAT level defense, with much better offense, and crazy versatility.

I understand the desire to make arguments like these but these fantasy scenario arguments still irk me, especially when they are used to make all-time-great cases.
You can make an argument like this swapping out any player for any more favorable situation. How many more times do we have to hear, "If KG played in San Antonio with Pop and Duncan was in Minny, what would their careers look like now?"
ENOUGH. KG's career is what it is - stop assuming that he would be Bill Russell in these fantasy scenarios. Nothing is a given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[WhateverBro]

Instead of complaining about the results of the RealGM 100 - why don't you provide solid evidence that he is in fact not as good as some of his peers? I've been reading throught he whole project and thread after thread just keeps making Garnett stronger, while the majority of supporters of other players are whining about the results, rather than showing what makes other players a better choice than KG.

Just look at the thread for the 11th spot. I find it mind boggling that people can actually question KG at 11th place after the discussions held in that thread. He's a polarizing figure because he's not your typical all-time player (volume scoring, winning) but that does not mean that he isn't an all-time player. Tim Duncan would most likely suffer from the same thing if he was drafted by a team as poorly ran as Minnesota.

[Imon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Are you suggesting that no one has ever made the argument I just used as an example in my post?
Because I see the Duncan/KG swap argument made all the time.

Duncan is easily top-10 in my books and people assuming that KG would have done just as well, a little worse, or even better than Duncan in his position would stand to reason that in that case KG would be top-10 as well.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Man, I can't say I'm a big KG fan but he's definitely 15-20 for me and, honestly, I wouldn't have a huge problem if he were ranked a little higher.

KG gives you 15 superstar level seasons based on RAPM, so i'm going move him to #1. Give him a sidekick like Pippen, and a HOF coach like Phil, and he would be winning titles at Russell's pace. And in comparisons to Russ, KG gives you the same GOAT level defense, with much better offense, and crazy versatility.

I understand the desire to make arguments like these but these fantasy scenario arguments still irk me, especially when they are used to make all-time-great cases.
You can make an argument like this swapping out any player for any more favorable situation. How many more times do we have to hear, "If KG played in San Antonio with Pop and Duncan was in Minny, what would their careers look like now?"
ENOUGH. KG's career is what it is - stop assuming that he would be Bill Russell in these fantasy scenarios. Nothing is a given.

Don't know about this bro. KG's giving you +9-11 impact at his peak, which maps out even greater than Russell probably. He's like a portable version of Goku once he goes Super-Saiyan.

To compare in my mind...

KG = Super Saiyan Goku
Russell = Frieza
MJ = Super Cell
Kareem = Vegeta
Lebron = Piccolo
Bosh = Krillen
Lisa Leslie = Bulma

[Purch]

Instead of complaining about the results of the RealGM 100 - why don't you provide solid evidence that he is in fact not as good as some of his peers? I've been reading throught he whole project and thread after thread just keeps making Garnett stronger, while the majority of supporters of other players are whining about the results, rather than showing what makes other players a better choice than KG.

Just look at the thread for the 11th spot. I find it mind boggling that people can actually question KG at 11th place after the discussions held in that thread. He's a polarizing figure because he's not your typical all-time player (volume scoring, winning) but that does not mean that he isn't an all-time player. Tim Duncan would most likely suffer from the same thing if he was drafted by a team as poorly ran as Minnesota.

What do you mean the disscusions held in that thread? The disscusions have been the same for the past 6 threads, and everyone's already pointed out their issues with it serveral times.

You find it mind boggling that people would question KG over Kobe, Oscar, Barkley, Moseses, Robinson, Dirkk, West and Dr.J?



It's like we're in an alternate reality (which for guys like you is great, since you love to play the hypothetical career game)

[SactoKingsFan]

Man, I can't say I'm a big KG fan but he's definitely 15-20 for me and, honestly, I wouldn't have a huge problem if he were ranked a little higher.

KG gives you 15 superstar level seasons based on RAPM, so i'm going move him to #1. Give him a sidekick like Pippen, and a HOF coach like Phil, and he would be winning titles at Russell's pace. And in comparisons to Russ, KG gives you the same GOAT level defense, with much better offense, and crazy versatility.

I understand the desire to make arguments like these but these fantasy scenario arguments still irk me, especially when they are used to make all-time-great cases.
You can make an argument like this swapping out any player for any more favorable situation. How many more times do we have to hear, "If KG played in San Antonio with Pop and Duncan was in Minny, what would their careers look like now?"
ENOUGH. KG's career is what it is - stop assuming that he would be Bill Russell in these fantasy scenarios. Nothing is a given.

Don't know about this bro. KG's giving you +9-11 impact at his peak, which maps out even greater than Russell probably. He's like a portable version of Goku once he goes Super-Saiyan.

To compare in my mind...

KG = Super Saiyan Goku
Russell = Frieza
MJ = Super Cell
Kareem = Vegeta
Lebron = Piccolo
Bosh = Krillen
Lisa Leslie = Bulma

Now you're just mocking KG supporters and being childish.

[Jaivl]

Should have smelled the agenda when I entered here. Nevermind.

[Hornet Mania]

Instead of complaining about the results of the RealGM 100 - why don't you provide solid evidence that he is in fact not as good as some of his peers? I've been reading throught he whole project and thread after thread just keeps making Garnett stronger, while the majority of supporters of other players are whining about the results, rather than showing what makes other players a better choice than KG.

Just look at the thread for the 11th spot. I find it mind boggling that people can actually question KG at 11th place after the discussions held in that thread. He's a polarizing figure because he's not your typical all-time player (volume scoring, winning) but that does not mean that he isn't an all-time player. Tim Duncan would most likely suffer from the same thing if he was drafted by a team as poorly ran as Minnesota.

Because it's borderline-pointless. The only criticism one can have about Garnett is that, somehow, in spite of all his perceived statistical impact, his teams got spanked year after year in Minnesota. Somehow, in spite of all statistical evidence, the apparently 11th-greatest player of all time could only win more than one playoff game twice in seven years. Guys like Wade in 09 or Kobe in 2006 managed to pull similarly awful casts to Game 7, KG could only get to the final game (in that case Game 5, because it was the old format) a single time. His failure to actually produce wins is his only flaw as a player. But no one in that thread seems terribly concerned about discussing it so why scream into the wind?

There is no statistical argument against KG, because he obviously was a beast in that regard, and certain advanced stats (particularly RAPM) are even more glowing about his impact. If you are laser-focused on stats KG is a god. If you are focused on only wins KG is mediocre (in terms of all-time greats). I think when factoring in stats + how that translated into winning KG is somewhere in the latter part of the top 20, which seems to be the general consensus of this poll as well. But the voting group in the Top 100 project for the most part has disregarded whether the stats translated into wins because they just shrug and say "Minnesota's teams sucked, KG couldn't have done better" in spite of other greats actually doing as good or better with similarly poor rosters. That is their prerogative, of course, but I have seen no evidence to suggest they listen to anything but raw numbers when it comes to Garnett and in raw numbers KG is nigh untouchable.

Sorry if that seems a bit harsh. I've been reading the threads in the Top 100 project with great interest, and have learned quite a bit from them and appreciate the knowledge I've gained from it. But the KG discussion has almost wholly dismissed the disconnect between his advanced statistical impact and what actually occurred in reality for nearly a decade, and it has sort of put a damper on my enthusiasm. I'm sure it will pick back up as the project rolls on, since I was really looking forward to hearing of guys in the 21-100 range more anyway because those are the ones who rarely get lionized.

[WhateverBro]

Instead of complaining about the results of the RealGM 100 - why don't you provide solid evidence that he is in fact not as good as some of his peers? I've been reading throught he whole project and thread after thread just keeps making Garnett stronger, while the majority of supporters of other players are whining about the results, rather than showing what makes other players a better choice than KG.

Just look at the thread for the 11th spot. I find it mind boggling that people can actually question KG at 11th place after the discussions held in that thread. He's a polarizing figure because he's not your typical all-time player (volume scoring, winning) but that does not mean that he isn't an all-time player. Tim Duncan would most likely suffer from the same thing if he was drafted by a team as poorly ran as Minnesota.

Because it's borderline-pointless. The only criticism one can have about Garnett is that, somehow, in spite of all his perceived statistical impact, his teams got spanked year after year in Minnesota. Somehow, in spite of all statistical evidence, the apparently 11th-greatest player of all time could only win more than one playoff game twice in seven years. Guys like Wade in 09 or Kobe in 2006 managed to pull similarly awful casts to Game 7, KG could only get to the final game (in that case Game 5, because it was the old format) a single time. His failure to actually produce wins is his only flaw as a player. But no one in that thread seems terribly concerned about discussing it so why scream into the wind?

There is no statistical argument against KG, because he obviously was a beast in that regard, and certain advanced stats (particularly RAPM) are even more glowing about his impact. If you are laser-focused on stats KG is a god. If you are focused on only wins KG is mediocre (in terms of all-time greats). I think when factoring in stats + how that translated into winning KG is somewhere in the latter part of the top 20, which seems to be the general consensus of this poll as well. But the voting group in the Top 100 project for the most part has disregarded whether the stats translated into wins because they just shrug and say "Minnesota's teams sucked, KG couldn't have done better" in spite of other greats actually doing as good or better with similarly poor rosters. That is their prerogative, of course, but I have seen no evidence to suggest they listen to anything but raw numbers when it comes to Garnett and in raw numbers KG is nigh untouchable.

Sorry if that seems a bit harsh. I've been reading the threads in the Top 100 project with great interest, and have learned quite a bit from them and appreciate the knowledge I've gained from it. But the KG discussion has almost wholly dismissed the disconnect between his advanced statistical impact and what actually occurred in reality for nearly a decade, and it has sort of put a damper on my enthusiasm. I'm sure it will pick back up as the project rolls on, since I was really looking forward to hearing of guys in the 21-100 range more anyway because those are the ones who rarely get lionized.

Ok, so exactly what happened when KG played in Boston? Did he simply learn how to translate his impact into wins? Did he improve as he aged? It seems like most of your concerns should disappear with what happened in Boston.

What do you believe KGs results wouldve been if he had played with Bostons 08-13 squads during his prime?

[Timmaytime]

He could reasonably be placed between 10 and 20 anywhere. I have him at 11 post 1980, so assuming Russell and Wilt are ahead of him that puts him at 13 for me.

Having him below 20 seems rough

[Colbinii]

Now you're just mocking KG supporters and being childish.

Did you expect anything else from that poster?

[Dr Pepper]

I understand the desire to make arguments like these but these fantasy scenario arguments still irk me, especially when they are used to make all-time-great cases.
You can make an argument like this swapping out any player for any more favorable situation. How many more times do we have to hear, "If KG played in San Antonio with Pop and Duncan was in Minny, what would their careers look like now?"
ENOUGH. KG's career is what it is - stop assuming that he would be Bill Russell in these fantasy scenarios. Nothing is a given.

Yea I'm not a fan of the what-ifs but if we play that game then David Robinson really needs more love from the KG fans: The Admiral had 5 different coaches in his first 6 seasons, was more dominant and talented than KG, and his prime was eaten up by military service/college, drafting Sean Elliott, etc.

[Purch]

Instead of complaining about the results of the RealGM 100 - why don't you provide solid evidence that he is in fact not as good as some of his peers? I've been reading throught he whole project and thread after thread just keeps making Garnett stronger, while the majority of supporters of other players are whining about the results, rather than showing what makes other players a better choice than KG.

Just look at the thread for the 11th spot. I find it mind boggling that people can actually question KG at 11th place after the discussions held in that thread. He's a polarizing figure because he's not your typical all-time player (volume scoring, winning) but that does not mean that he isn't an all-time player. Tim Duncan would most likely suffer from the same thing if he was drafted by a team as poorly ran as Minnesota.

Because it's borderline-pointless. The only criticism one can have about Garnett is that, somehow, in spite of all his perceived statistical impact, his teams got spanked year after year in Minnesota. Somehow, in spite of all statistical evidence, the apparently 11th-greatest player of all time could only win more than one playoff game twice in seven years. Guys like Wade in 09 or Kobe in 2006 managed to pull similarly awful casts to Game 7, KG could only get to the final game (in that case Game 5, because it was the old format) a single time. His failure to actually produce wins is his only flaw as a player. But no one in that thread seems terribly concerned about discussing it so why scream into the wind?

There is no statistical argument against KG, because he obviously was a beast in that regard, and certain advanced stats (particularly RAPM) are even more glowing about his impact. If you are laser-focused on stats KG is a god. If you are focused on only wins KG is mediocre (in terms of all-time greats). I think when factoring in stats + how that translated into winning KG is somewhere in the latter part of the top 20, which seems to be the general consensus of this poll as well. But the voting group in the Top 100 project for the most part has disregarded whether the stats translated into wins because they just shrug and say "Minnesota's teams sucked, KG couldn't have done better" in spite of other greats actually doing as good or better with similarly poor rosters. That is their prerogative, of course, but I have seen no evidence to suggest they listen to anything but raw numbers when it comes to Garnett and in raw numbers KG is nigh untouchable.

Sorry if that seems a bit harsh. I've been reading the threads in the Top 100 project with great interest, and have learned quite a bit from them and appreciate the knowledge I've gained from it. But the KG discussion has almost wholly dismissed the disconnect between his advanced statistical impact and what actually occurred in reality for nearly a decade, and it has sort of put a damper on my enthusiasm. I'm sure it will pick back up as the project rolls on, since I was really looking forward to hearing of guys in the 21-100 range more anyway because those are the ones who rarely get lionized.

Ok, so exactly what happened when KG played in Boston? Did he simply learn how to translate his impact into wins? Did he improve as he aged? It seems like most of your concerns should disappear with what happened in Boston.

What do you believe KGs results wouldve been if he had played with Bostons 08-13 squads during his prime?

O yes, when he suddenly went under Thibs(a coach who has produced elite defenses with and without Garnett) he was able to anchor an elite defense after putting up the 21st worst defense the season before.But yet KG proved how's he's on the level of Russell defensively

Please the reason that Boston team won the championship was because their defense was so much better and so different than the rest of the league in 08. But if you put those same defensive teams around KG in the beggining of the 2000's that's not the case. The Pistons were a better defensive team than the 08 celtics, the Spurs were elite defensively, and better than the celtics offensively, so please inform me on how the celtics would steamroll through the league , when even in the year they won they had one of the least dominant playoff runs in nba history. Yea the 08 celtics go to 7 against the Cavs and the Hawks, but if they had prime Kg they'd be on the same level as the 3 peat lakers