Build around KG or DIRK?

[Texas Chuck]

nor was it quite "miserable" except in the outcome.

perhaps not but my standards and expectations for Dirk in the PS are obviously super high. Its hard to see that Mavericks team beating that OKC team under any circumstances but games 1,2 and 4 were all right there for the taking and I think a typical PS performance from Dirk at least makes the series interesting.

So not miserable by human standards surely but definitely subpar for Dirk.

[tsherkin]

perhaps not but my standards and expectations for Dirk in the PS are obviously super high.

Of course, and I think we both agree that it was below what we've seen from the past four years or so. Still, I have high hopes that he's got one or two more "Like A Baus!" seasons in him still. I'm feeling 94, 95 Hakeem coming on, you know? That last burst before age finally catches up to him.

[drza]

A lot of very detailed, interesting info

Alright, I'm ready to respond to your monster post. Let me start by saying that there was a lot of killer info in there, and I appreciated the detailed step through. Let me also say that I've enjoyed your overall tone as an informed skeptic in this thread, using strong support to back up your position on both sides. In your posts in general you've been quick to point out Garnett's defense, his playmaking ability, the weakness of his teammates and the strength of his competition.

But. (You knew there was a "but" coming)

In this, a response to me claiming that Garnett has an argument for best postseason performer of his generation due to his overall effect on games, your reply was to stipulate the other factors above (defense, playmaking, weak team/strong opponent) as givens so that you could really key in on how KG performed as a scorer. This would be a reasonable thing to do if you were then going to re-introduce the other factors before making your overall conclusions, but you never really did. I mean, at some points you verbally acknowledge that his defense and rebounding must have been "THAT AWESOME" to compensate for what you see as offensive weakness, but the overall tone and outcome measures of your post are in general negative to the concept of KG being possibly the best. You even use the example games to attempt to build the case that KG was coming up short in these elimination games, primarily due to scoring. That's a fair thing to do...again, if you go back and add the context and other elements of the game before making your conclusions. I don't think you do, though. I think you make your conclusions based on the scoring, then add a disclaimer about the other circumstances afterwards that softens the criticisms but doesn't truly evaluate the game as a whole.

On the whole, in zooming in so far on KG's scoring output/efficiency I think you sometimes find yourself missing the forest for the trees. So let me add some perspective to a few of the games that you classified as stinkers for KG, many of the most egregious ones in fact, and see if it's really reasonable to characterize those games as evidence of Garnett-failure.

99 versus the eventual-champion Spurs...

Then here's the killer. Game 4 was a 7-point loss and he shot 6/20 FG and 8/12 at the line. Realistically, he left 7-9 points on the board from what he'd have posted just making 45% FG and around 80% FT, very normal numbers for him. This is a single-game, single-series performance at the beginning of his All-NBA era (and he's far from alone in having poor performances), but as we start to watch him coming up short in key moments and close games like that, it begins to detract from the overall picture you're painting of the "most dominant postseason performer from 99-08" kind of thing, right? That right there is a game that kind of mirrors Dirk against the Warriors.

OK. Here's the first elimination game that you characterize as a failure. If all I had to go by was your description, I'd think that KG just stunk in this game. I mean wow, he shot terrible and left points on the board in a winnable game. Yeah, that stings...oh, but hold on for a second. Let's take a step back and look at the game as a whole:

Garnett - 20 points, 40% TS, 16 rebounds, 6 asts, 2 stls, 1 TO
Duncan - 16 points, 42% TS, 8 rebounds, 0 asts, 0 stls, 3 blks, 1 TO

Garnett KILLED Duncan in their head-to-head this game. Yeah, Garnett's shooting was off and it'd be great if he could have hit more. But he was facing the consensus best PF of all-time who was also backed up by a still almost prime David Robinson, if KG happened to get by Duncan. KG's running mate at center on that team, the man to help him face off against Duncan and Robinson, was DEAN GARRETT!!!! The only reason that this game was remotely winnable for the Wolves was that KG erased Duncan, dominated the glass, set the table for his teammates with a (team-high) 6 assists-to-1-TO ratio, and clamped the paint (Duncan and Robinson shot a combined 10-for-28 from the field).

You'd be hard pressed to convince me (or, I'd think anyone really) that Garnett had a poor game in that closeout. He flat out out-played the consensus GOAT at his position head-to-head, and gave his team a serious shot to win against a much better opponent. I mean yeah, it'd be nice if KG could have thrown a dominant scoring game on top of that. But at that point such a hypothetical performance is no longer vying for "best of his generation"...it's inching more towards "best in history".

2000, against Portland:

Opens up with a 6/20 performance, no FTAs. 12/10/11 triple-double, but the triple-double belies his overall performance. With 26.2% usage and him shooting 30% FG without any FTAs, that's a rough, rough performance. And it was a 3-point loss. The not-Garnett Wolves shot 53% FG. Meantime, Sheed played well: didn't shoot much, but was 6/10 for 15 points (3/3 FT).

I reply to this one purely because you later mention this game (as well as the above Spurs G4) as one of three "major stinkers" in the 8 games of this and the Spurs series. So again, let's look at it. The Blazers frontline featured Rasheed Wallace, Scottie Pippen, and Sabonis as starters with Brian Grant as the main big off the bench. Much like the Duncan/Robinson frontline, we're again speaking of one of the best defensive frontcourts of the era...and they were focused entirely on KG. Now, it's more than fair to mention that KG was terrible shooting in this game. However, you mention KG's 11 assists and the non-Garnett Wolves shooting 53% FG as though those are two isolated events, when in reality the other Wolves starters shot so well specifically BECAUSE Garnett was drawing the Blazers defense and getting the rest of his team easy looks. Also, the Blazers as a team were under their averages in both points scored and FG%, suggesting that somebody on the Wolves must have really been putting in work on defense.

The Wolves lost a tight 3-point game on the road against a much better team, where the opponent was so keyed on KG that he was able to get the rest of his team playing to max efficiency on offense while simultaneously playing lock defense at the other end to keep them in it. Now obviously you can (and did) read this as KG coming up short because of the scoring...to me, this reads that Garnett was the dominant player in this game and did everything he could to give his team a shot to win and they just didn't have enough.

Said a different way...if KG played this EXACT same game and the Blazers played this EXACT same game, but KG was out there with 2002 Steve Nash, Michael Finley and Nick Van Exel instead of Brandon, Wally Z and Anthony Peeler, I think they win this game easily. On the flip side, if the rest of the Wolves were exactly as good but you replaced KG in that game with Tim Duncan, the Wolves still very likely lose (Duncan's 3 games against the Blazers in 2000 were 2 scoring stinkers and 1 scoring explosion, with almost no presence on the boards). So I'm saying that Garnett in this game, even with his shot completely off, was still having at least as much positive impact on the game as we'd have expected from his contemporary superstars. That's a success, not a stinker.

2000, against Portland:

Game 4. Elimination game #2 in this series and KG goes for a 5/20. 1/2 3P, 6/6 FT. 17 points on 37.5% TS. 10 boards, 9 assists, 3 turnovers. But WOW was he ever bad shooting that night, and that's his second major stinker in the series and his third over two consecutive postseason matchups (e.g. his 3rd in 8 games).

Copy and paste the analysis from game 1. Again, KG's shot was in the toilet. Again, he was setting up his teammates right and left, playing dominant defense (Blazers scored 85 points with an ORtg of 101.2...WELL below their season averages of 97.5 points on 107.9 ORtg), and giving his team a legitimate chance against a much stronger opponent. And mind you, I've now re-examined each of the three games that you characterize as "major stinkers" and...well, I've said my piece. If you would still call those games stinkers OVERALL (with scoring and everything else also included) then we'd have to agree to disagree.

2001 vs SAS:

Game 2. Welcome to Crapsville, population, YOU. 5/13 FG, but 8/8 FT gives him a 54.5% TS. 12 boards, 2 assists, 2 turnovers, 112 ORTG. Another rough shooting night for him, though, and he played only 32 minutes because of some foul trouble, but mainly because it was garbage time after 3. The Wolves shot something stupid like a tenth of a percent off of their franchise-worst in the playoffs and they committed 20 turnovers. It was embarrassing. KG was part of a team-wide failure that game. This is, I believe, the year after Sealy was killed and right around Joe Smith time.

OK, really, I'm not going to spend a lot of words here. Let me just post 4 stat lines from this game:

Garnett - 18 points, 54.5% TS, 12 reb, 2 ast, 1 blk, 2 TO
Duncan - 18 points, 45.5% TS, 11 rebs, 4 ast, 2 stl, 1 blk, 1 TO
Rest-of-Wolves-Starters-Combined: 15 pts, 25.7% TS, 11 rebounds, 4 ast, 2 stl, 1 blk, 8 TOs
David Robinson by himself: 16 points, 69% TS, 11 rebounds, 3 asts, 3 stls, 2 blks, 2 TOs

Was Garnett in the population of Crapsville? Was he part of a team-wide failure? Or did Garnett again play Duncan to at-worst a standstill, and his team COMPLETELY let him down? I leave it to the reader to decide.

2001 vs SAS:

Game 4, elimination game. 6/13 shooting, 19/15/5, 2 turnovers, 5 fouls, 7/8 FT for 57.5% TS but they were crushed, a 13-point loss. Duncan shot terribly (8/23) and D-Rob had 4 fouls by the 3rd. Wolves were down 8 after 3, but down only 1 at halftime.

Another elimination game, part of the theme you were trying to develop of Garnett failing personally in big games. You mention Duncan's shooting and D-Rob's foul trouble, but don't really elaborate. So, slightly wider angle lens:

Garnett - 19 points, 57.5% TS, 15 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 2 TOs
Duncan - 24 points, 42.4% TS, 16 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 2 blk, 2 TOs

At worst Garnett plays Duncan to a standstill, and if scoring efficiency is as important as is generally held around here you'd say that Garnett pretty dramatically outplayed Duncan in this elimination game. His team just wasn't good enough to take advantage. Which I'd contend was a known coming in, but that when isolating the scoring from everything else it's easy to lose sight of that.

Conclusion: I have to stop here. I've spend my entire morning work session on this, and have to leave now as I'm late for a meeting. But I think my point should be pretty clear by now. I went through the first three series that you did, focusing on the exact games that you say were the worst that KG had to offer. Those were some of the worst shooting games of KG's postseason career...and in those games KG consistently outplayed Duncan head-to-head, displayed outstanding playmaking ability that clearly lifted his team's offense, defensively dominated against two of the best frontlines of the era, and in all five cases kept his much less talented team competitive against much stronger competition. I repeat my contention from above, but expanded now for all five games: if you replace KG with either 99 - 01 Duncan or 02 - 04 Dirk, the Wolves still go 0 - 5 in those games (at BEST they squeak out 1 or 2 if Dirk/Duncan go nuts). But if you give KG (playing at the EXACT same level as he did in those 5 games) either the 99 - 01 Spurs cast or the 02 - 04 Mavs cast, they at the worst go 3 - 2 and have a legit shot at 5 - 0. The focus on the scoring efficiency obscured that the other things he was doing was at a brilliant level, which is ultimately reflected in the postseason +/- stats for the entire next decade.

[tsherkin]

In your posts in general you've been quick to point out Garnett's defense, his playmaking ability, the weakness of his teammates and the strength of his competition.

It's tough to post in this thread because I haven't personally made a decision as to whether or not I believe Garnett to be equal or superior to Dirk in terms of postseason play, so I've been trying to be as even-handed as possible. I wanted to zone in on scoring and offensive play as a way to perhaps highlight the value of offense versus defense from a star player, since that's essentially what this would come down to in the KG/Dirk debate, since Dirk is almost irrefutably a superior offensive player and Garnett IS irrefutably the superior defender.

OK. Here's the first elimination game that you characterize as a failure. If all I had to go by was your description, I'd think that KG just stunk in this game. I mean wow, he shot terrible and left points on the board in a winnable game. Yeah, that stings...oh, but hold on for a second. Let's take a step back and look at the game as a whole:

Mmm, comparing him to Duncan seems moot here, though, since his defense didn't lead to the Wolves taking advantage of what he was able to accomplish against TD in that game. That would seem to support the notion that the defense matters only so much in the absence of offense.

It IS true that Garnett was the driving force behind the Wolves being in the game at all, which is why I repeatedly acknowledged the strength of the competition Garnett was facing in those first-round losses and why at one point I specifically acknowledged the Robinson/Duncan tandem.

to me, this reads that Garnett was the dominant player in this game and did everything he could to give his team a shot to win and they just didn't have enough.

It explicitly can't be read that way, though, not using the word "everything." If that had been the case, then he'd have shot more effectively. It's much to ask, but the overall tone of his offensive contributions was limited by his poor performance as a scoring threat. Now, there ARE several counterarguments here, mostly centered around the minutes he was playing: you'll notice that KG, like Lebron and a couple of other stars, was logging a stupidly high number of minutes per game in the playoffs because of how much his team needed him to contribute. No matter how many times he said "I'll never use the word fatigue," it was pretty clearly something that had to wear on him. Big RS minutes followed by biggER PS minutes can't have had a negligible effect on him, and I recognize that every time I start talking about the quality of his teammates versus those of the competition he was facing.

Copy and paste the analysis from game 1. Again, KG's shot was in the toilet. Again, he was setting up his teammates right and left, playing dominant defense (Blazers scored 85 points with an ORtg of 101.2...WELL below their season averages of 97.5 points on 107.9 ORtg), and giving his team a legitimate chance against a much stronger opponent. And mind you, I've now re-examined each of the three games that you characterize as "major stinkers" and...well, I've said my piece. If you would still call those games stinkers OVERALL (with scoring and everything else also included) then we'd have to agree to disagree.

When you shoot 25% from the field on that kind of volume, your volume shooting is a huge part of why the team is losing. I understand that the Wolves relied upon him (slash were useless without him) generating shots, but the inefficiency of his scoring game compromised the utility of his passing game. There's a reason someone like Kidd or Rondo has a much lower offensive impact than someone like Nash or Paul and that difference is rooted in the efficacy of their individual scoring games. On nights like these, 8+ assists from Garnett with a reasonable amount of turnovers LOOKS really nice, but the net impact is considerably more limited than the raw totals would otherwise indicate. 5/20 shooting is bloody terrible, no matter what circumstances in which you post those numbers.

Was Garnett in the population of Crapsville? Was he part of a team-wide failure? Or did Garnett again play Duncan to at-worst a standstill, and his team COMPLETELY let him down? I leave it to the reader to decide.

Hey, there's a reason I mentioned how #epicfail his teammates were. Doesn't mean he didn't shoot like crap. That wasn't a good game. He wasn't the sole cause of failure, of course, but again, that's why I mentioned that it was basically the second-worst team shooting performance in Minnesota playoff history. That Garnett played poorly and his teammates also played poorly are not mutually exclusive events.

Conclusion: I have to stop here. I've spend my entire morning work session on this, and have to leave now as I'm late for a meeting. But I think my point should be pretty clear by now. I went through the first three series that you did, focusing on the exact games that you say were the worst that KG had to offer. Those were some of the worst shooting games of KG's postseason career...and in those games KG consistently outplayed Duncan head-to-head, displayed outstanding playmaking ability that clearly lifted his team's offense, defensively dominated against two of the best frontlines of the era, and in all five cases kept his much less talented team competitive against much stronger competition.

I'll wait until you start looking at my second-half and fourth-quarter analyses before I go further with this. Those are the sections where I think what I'm talking about will be highlighted more clearly than they were in the ones where I just sort of talked about what I remembered and pulled the stat lines, game recaps, highlights, etc.

[Texas Chuck]

since Dirk is almost irrefutably a superior offensive player and Garnett IS irrefutably the superior defender.

Why the Dirk caveat?

edit: I promised to leave the Dirk stuff out of the thread until this KG line comes to a more natural conclusion. But if people actually have any doubts about who is the superior offensive player I will certainly appreciate the chance to go into more detail on both players offensive games at the appropriate time.

[tsherkin]

Why the Dirk caveat?

edit: I promised to leave the Dirk stuff out of the thread until this KG line comes to a more natural conclusion. But if people actually have any doubts about who is the superior offensive player I will certainly appreciate the chance to go into more detail on both players offensive games at the appropriate time.

Well, I'm of the opinion that Dirk is superior to Garnett, but I can at least see the possibility of arguing that KG's passing helps close the gap, which is essentially what drza was trying to do in his last post as a way to assuage the horrendous inefficiency of his shooting, right? So because drza hasn't finished his full reply, I'm leaving the door open so I don't act too close-minded.

[ahonui06]

Dirk is pretty much done, I would say, I can't see him carry an awful Mav's offense at the age of 33-34.

Ironic considering DIRK still outplayed KG offensively in his playoff series. DIRK is much more invested this summer and has been at the training facility all year long except for 2 weeks. DIRK is re-focused and re-energized this year and I believe he will return to form. 2012 was a combination of idleness, the lockout, and lack of motivation on DIRK's part. He admitted that he accomplished all the goals he had set for himself and was lackadaisical last season.

[colts18]

From 99-04, KG posted a 103 O rating (98 D rating) in the playoffs. He had a 29 USG% too (13.1 TOV%) with .513 TS%. So if you have a guy using 3/10 of your possessions who is below average efficiency and turnover prone, of course the offense is going to struggle. In that same span, Duncan was 110 O rating (94 D rating) with 28 USG% (14 TOV%), .561 TS%. While KG had better passing numbers, Duncan's efficiency advantage was huge especially considering he did it in double the games KG did.

[Rapcity_11]

From 99-04, KG posted a 103 O rating (98 D rating) in the playoffs. He had a 29 USG% too (13.1 TOV%) with .513 TS%. So if you have a guy using 3/10 of your possessions who is below average efficiency and turnover prone, of course the offense is going to struggle. In that same span, Duncan was 110 O rating (94 D rating) with 28 USG% (14 TOV%), .561 TS%. While KG had better passing numbers, Duncan's efficiency advantage was huge especially considering he did it in double the games KG did.

Mostly because Duncan feasted on poor opponents every year.

[ahonui06]

From 99-04, KG posted a 103 O rating (98 D rating) in the playoffs. He had a 29 USG% too (13.1 TOV%) with .513 TS%. So if you have a guy using 3/10 of your possessions who is below average efficiency and turnover prone, of course the offense is going to struggle. In that same span, Duncan was 110 O rating (94 D rating) with 28 USG% (14 TOV%), .561 TS%. While KG had better passing numbers, Duncan's efficiency advantage was huge especially considering he did it in double the games KG did.

Mostly because Duncan feasted on poor opponents every year.

From 2001-2012

DIRK posted ORtg of 118 and DRtg of 107.
KG posted ORtg of 106 and DRtg of 98.
Duncan posted ORtg of 110 and DRtg of 99.

RapCity you are wrong. Duncan was going up against great teams such as Shaq's Lakers, DIRK's Mavs and other solid West teams. The West was loaded during Duncan's prime.

[Texas Chuck]

Mostly because Duncan feasted on poor opponents every year.

From 99 to 04 the Spurs faced the Shaq/Kobe Lakers every single year except for 2000. Then they also faced KG 2x,Dirk's Mavs 2x. So not really even close.

[Dr Pepper]

Wow this thread is jam packed with good stuff...

But how would you guys rate Dirk's defense? I remember earlier last season that there were Synergy numbers indicating that Dirk was surprisingly the best low post defender %-wise (or something like that).

Sure there's much more to defense than just Synergy 1v1 numbers, but I'm asking because KG's offense is being compared to Dirk's, and many Dirk fans recognize that his defense has been an underrated aspect of his game. It's nowhere near KG or peak KG, but its something I would love to read about from the posters here in both camps

Would also love to read mysticbb's overall take in this comparison if he's out there reading (unless I missed it)

[Rapcity_11]

Ok yeah, poor was a poor (pun!) choice of words. What I meant is that Duncan playoff efficiency is boosted by performances against average to poor defensive teams. His numbers look crazy similar to KG against the same type of opponents.

(This has all been explained before, many times.)

[Dr Pepper]

Ok yeah, poor was a poor (pun!) choice of words. What I meant is that Duncan playoff efficiency is boosted by performances against average to poor defensive teams. His numbers look crazy similar to KG against the same type of opponents.

(This has all been explained before, many times.)

Didn't Duncan have some of the all-time great Finals games vs the Nets who were no.1 DefRTG that year?

Duncan's numbers may look similar to KG but you'd have to look at shot attempts too, and the context

[drza]

In your posts in general you've been quick to point out Garnett's defense, his playmaking ability, the weakness of his teammates and the strength of his competition.

It's tough to post in this thread because I haven't personally made a decision as to whether or not I believe Garnett to be equal or superior to Dirk in terms of postseason play, so I've been trying to be as even-handed as possible. I wanted to zone in on scoring and offensive play as a way to perhaps highlight the value of offense versus defense from a star player, since that's essentially what this would come down to in the KG/Dirk debate, since Dirk is almost irrefutably a superior offensive player and Garnett IS irrefutably the superior defender.

This is a crux point, though, which is why I spent some time on it. I disagree that this is a just a case of Dirk's offense vs KG's defense. I think the debate we're having is ALL of Dirk vs ALL of KG. When you try to focus on one area of the game to the extent that you ignore the others (even just for the sake of making that point), you end up in the situation to lead to questionable conclusions. For example, your next point...

OK. Here's the first elimination game that you characterize as a failure. If all I had to go by was your description, I'd think that KG just stunk in this game. I mean wow, he shot terrible and left points on the board in a winnable game. Yeah, that stings...oh, but hold on for a second. Let's take a step back and look at the game as a whole:

Garnett - 20 points, 40% TS (26 total shot possessions, w/ FTs), 16 reb, 6 ast, 2 stls, 1 TO
Duncan - 16 points, 42% TS, 8 rebounds, 0 asts, 0 stls, 3 blks, 1 TO

Garnett KILLED Duncan in their head-to-head this game. Yeah, Garnett's shooting was off and it'd be great if he could have hit more. But he was facing the consensus best PF of all-time who was also backed up by a still almost prime David Robinson, if KG happened to get by Duncan. KG's running mate at center on that team, the man to help him face off against Duncan and Robinson, was DEAN GARRETT!!!! The only reason that this game was remotely winnable for the Wolves was that KG erased Duncan, dominated the glass, set the table for his teammates with a (team-high) 6 assists-to-1-TO ratio, and clamped the paint (Duncan and Robinson shot a combined 10-for-28 from the field).

Mmm, comparing him to Duncan seems moot here, though, since his defense didn't lead to the Wolves taking advantage of what he was able to accomplish against TD in that game. That would seem to support the notion that the defense matters only so much in the absence of offense.

It IS true that Garnett was the driving force behind the Wolves being in the game at all, which is why I repeatedly acknowledged the strength of the competition Garnett was facing in those first-round losses and why at one point I specifically acknowledged the Robinson/Duncan tandem.

I have no idea how you can reasonably conclude the underlined (note: I read that last sentence as an argument that the Wolves may have been better served in that game with added/more efficient scoring at the expense of the other parts of KG's game). The Wolves DID take advantage of what KG was able to accomplish against TD in that game, as well as his setting the table for teammates...that's WHY they were in it. I contend that a huge, efficient scoring explosion from KG but WITHOUT the defense and passing would have led to a worse team results than them losing by 7 points.

For example, set up the thought experiment that you excise KG completely from the game and paste in Dirk's contributions from Game 1 from the 2003 matchup against the Spurs (Note: this is for illustrative purposes, in no way rigorous or fully fleshed. I just wanted some example numbers to help highlight the point I'm trying to make, that it's a lot more complicated than saying that "the team lost, so they didn't take advantage of the impact KG was making").

Dirk: 38 points on 71.8% TS (27 total shot possessions, w/ FTs), 15 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk, 4 TOs

If you could JUST substitute in Dirk's scoring but keep the rest of Garnett's results the same, then yeah, the Wolves obviously win. But it's not that simple, because if you replace the WHOLE of Garnett with the WHOLE of Dirk, then you have to also remove KG's other contributions and replace them with what you get from Dirk. So that means you also replace the squashed Duncan statline of above with what he actually produced against 38-point Dirk:

Duncan: 40 points on 70.5% TS, 15 boards, 7 assists, 1 stl, 1 blk, 2 TOs

And also, instead of KG leading his team in assists with only 1 TO, you also get Dirk with 2 assists vs 4 TOs.

So, let's do some math. KG used 33 possessions (26 total shot attempts with FTs, 7 total assists/TOs), and coincidentally Dirk also used 33 possessions (27 total shot attempts with FTs, 6 total TOs/asts). Of those 33 possessions used, KG's resulted in 32 points while Dirk's resulted in 42 points. So the net sum of pretend-inserting this outstanding Dirk effort for an awful shooting Garnett performance is that the Wolves' offense as a whole gets better by 10 points. But on the flip side, instead of Duncan producing 16 total points on 20 possessions used like he did against Garnett, you get him producing 54 points on 38 possessions.

Now, of course, obviously it's more complicated than this example. You can't just cut-and-paste numbers to replicate the complexity of a team dynamic. That wasn't the point of this. The point is, that it gives us a way to numerically look at what I had previously been trying to explain qualitatively. What Garnett was giving the team in that game was a LOT more involved than just his scoring volume/efficiency. And if you focus solely on that, even stipulating that you recognize his other contributions, you still end up not really accounting for them.

Said another way, we're not comparing Garnett to the best of what he could give HIMSELF if he gave all of his other contributions but also scored better. We're comparing him to the best of what we could reasonably expect from his contemporaries, namely Dirk in this thread. You can't just say that Dirk's offense (even at his best) would have led to more Wolves success in that game than a KG shooting 6-for-20, because if KG's defense and passing in that game were stellar (which they were) in a way that Dirk couldn't replicate, then even Dirk scoring 38 points on 26 shots could in the end not make up for all of the other net points that are left on the table by KG's other contributions. The Wolves might lose in either case, but in KG's case maybe it's a 7-point loss while in 38-point-Dirk's case it's a 17 point loss. But with neither contribution do I see THAT Wolves team getting by THAT Spurs team.

Had KG scored 38 points on excellent efficiency but played worse defense and not facilitated the offense of his teammates as well in a 17-point loss to the Spurs, he would be covered in glory historically because it would be remembered as him just being outgunned. My point is that what he ACTUALLY did in going 6-for-20 from the field while helping his teammates produce better and inducing Duncan and Robinson to shoot a combined 10-for-28 from the field actually constituted a BETTER performance than a highly efficient huge-scoring effort without the rest. THAT is what I'm arguing here. And I feel like what I wrote in my previous post fully makes that point, even without me going back and continuing it. And until we can at least can't get on the same page about this particular point, continuing to marathon post in point-by-point rebuttals on a wider scale won't really lead to better co-understanding. I think we'd be much better spent digging in here, with you questioning my assumptions about what Dirk's effect would be on the whole or suggesting that Garnett with more scoring but less in other areas might have been better overall or something like that. Because ultimately, I think that is the crux of the debate that is on the table.

KG as he was but with Dirk's scoring added on TOP of that isn't a fair comparison point for either, because neither real KG nor Dirk have approached what that super-player would be. But that's the standard that you end up setting if you stipulate the defense/passing/team level/opponent level as givens and only focus on the scoring.

[Rapcity_11]

Ok yeah, poor was a poor (pun!) choice of words. What I meant is that Duncan playoff efficiency is boosted by performances against average to poor defensive teams. His numbers look crazy similar to KG against the same type of opponents.

(This has all been explained before, many times.)

Didn't Duncan have some of the all-time great Finals games vs the Nets who were no.1 DefRTG that year?

Duncan's numbers may look similar to KG but you'd have to look at shot attempts too, and the context

He had one great game in that series. (In terms of scoring and efficiency)

His overall series was 24 PPG on 54.6 TS% (With 3.8 TO's). But games 2-6 was 22.6 PPG on 51.6 TS%. (With 4.4 TO's)

[Dr Pepper]

Ok yeah, poor was a poor (pun!) choice of words. What I meant is that Duncan playoff efficiency is boosted by performances against average to poor defensive teams. His numbers look crazy similar to KG against the same type of opponents.

(This has all been explained before, many times.)

Didn't Duncan have some of the all-time great Finals games vs the Nets who were no.1 DefRTG that year?

Duncan's numbers may look similar to KG but you'd have to look at shot attempts too, and the context

He had one great game in that series. (In terms of scoring and efficiency)

His overall series was 24 PPG on 54.6 TS% (With 3.8 TO's). But games 2-6 was 22.6 PPG on 51.6 TS%. (With 4.4 TO's)

Thanks, went ahead and did more googling. It was an all time great game that was close to being the NBA Finals' first five-by-five in the Finals.

For the closing game, Duncan posted a near quadruple double, and set the record for shotblocking in the Finals. Poor Kenyon Martin shooting 3-23

[Rapcity_11]

Thanks, went ahead and did more googling. It was an all time great game that was close to being the NBA Finals' first five-by-five in the Finals.

For the closing game, Duncan posted a near quadruple double, and set the record for shotblocking in the Finals. Poor Kenyon Martin shooting 3-23

That game was bananas. But it actually wasn't his best game for scoring and efficiency. Game 1 was clearly better.

[Texas Chuck]

drza,

That last post concerns me a lot that we are moving way too far from reality and into statistical guessing/manipulation. A sharp contrast to your initial posts showing the impact KG was having in the games apart from his obvious box score contributions seemed to be on point and telling. I understand the point you are trying to make to tsherkin and I can appreciate exactly where you are coming from. I feel the same frustration when people want to just look at what Dirk provides in his raw offensive numbers without looking at everything he is doing to impact games.

But using your example of replacing KG with Dirk and Duncan goes from 16 to 40 is such a big leap of conjecture that Im not sure we are served going back and forth guessing at such things.

I do completely agree that the debate does not need to be Dirk's offense vs KG's defense. Thats a disservice to both players and in no way answers the question--which elite PF is better to build around.

[ahonui06]

All these advanced stats don't really mean too much when comparing DIRK, KG, and Duncan.

Duncan has beaten DIRK and KG in playoff series.
DIRK has beaten Duncan and KG in playoff series.
KG has beaten neither in playoff series.