The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[The Infamous1]

When you have a stacked team(3 plus all stars)likethe 08' celtics you don't need a dominant scorer. Because the scoring evens out, kinda like the show time lakers,80's celtics,80's pistons. But it a extremely hard to form a team like that.

If you build around KG he needs a stacked team because he's not good enough to carry a team offensively in the postseason. KG works best as a 19-21 PPG(Pau Gasol level) scorer.

You can't ask KG to average 28-30 over the course of a playoff run like

Kobe
Shaq
Lebron
Wade
Jordan
Hakeem

Etc to lead your team to a title. He's just not capable of that. There's a reason he only has 9 30 point playoff games in his career, he's just not that guy

[The Infamous1]

Look at Pau in 2009. His 19 PPG playoff scoring is GREAT for a robin to legit batman(Kobe's 30 PPG) like Scottie Pippen's 20 PPG was great for a robin for a legit batman(Jordan's 30 PPG). But there not good enough scorers to be your best offensive player, they cant dominate the game offensively like jordan/Kobe Thats why they make great robins. Now i think you can win with Scottie as your best player but ot would have to be a 08' Celtics/80's Pistons/04 Pistons type situation. And as Richboy said, its not even just about numbers alot of it has to do with mentality. Some guys just don't have the type of Mentality and game to be a Batman

Always remember, the better the scorer your best player is, the less offensive help he needs to contend. Kevin Durant gives you 30 on good efficiency every night in the PS, so your going to need less offensive help then a Prime KG who gives you 20-24 on his allen iverson Like playoff efficiency

[HeartBreakKid]

In KG's peak years, he was a much better scorer than Scottie and Pau, so I really don't get this argument at all.

Are you actually implying that it is hard to find two players who can score 15-18 points per game (which is what KG had), as opposed to finding a second star player as a robin lol?


And I have no idea why you keep ignoring that everyone is disagreeing with the notion that you need to average 30 points to "lead your team to the playoffs". Someone actually proved that the majority of teams did not even have someone like that. Not to mention that during KG's best years, he did have 30 point games in the playoffs, so this argument makes little sense.

Instead of blindly repeating yourself to your false ideology, how about you post some proof other than just "cause" in regards to why someone would need to average 30 points a game to lead their team to a championship?


It's also insanely ironic infamous, that you're claiming that someone like KG would need a ton of help (when during his peak years, he didnt have a lot at all), 4/6 guys you mention are

Wade
Shaq
James
Bryant


All of those guys have won titles with at least one other person on the list, and you're going to tell me that it is unreasonable to give KG a 18 ppg scoring Robin? Sounds hypocritical to me. Pretty sure it's easier to find a Rip Hamilton quality scorer than a Kobe Bryant quality scorer in terms of finding role players.

[G35]

KG never was some dominant or great scorer in the RS and ESPECIALLY in the PS.(9 30 point games in his ENTIRE PS career) It's revisionist to think otherwise and that's why he makes a perfect Robin to a legit 28- 30 PPG scorer in the playoffs

So now we have a definition for a "legit" so-called Batman: 28 - 30 ppg scorer in playoffs.

I just thought I'd point out that out of 58 NBA champions in the shot clock era, only 18 had someone average at least 28 points in the playoffs.

If we drop the criterion to at least 27 ppg in the playoffs, we can up that to 22 teams with a "legit" so-called Batman...again, out of 58 champions.

Not only was KG not a Batman, but...

Magic Johnson wasn't a Batman in any of his championships.
Wilt Chamberlain wasn't a Batman in any of his.
Tim Duncan wasn't Batman in any of his.
Of course Bill Russell wasn't Batman. With his scoring averages he didn't even deserve a cape.
Kareem and Bird were only Batman once each in their combined 9 titles.

Also, with the expanded 27 ppg Batman threshold...

The '67 Sixers had a Batman that wasn't Wilt, despite '67 Wilt being one of the greatest peaks in history. No, the Batman on that team was actually Hal Greer. I guess that makes '67 Wilt arguably the greatest Robin in history.

Similarly, Bob Petit was really the Robin on his only championship (despite being NBA MVP in 2 of the surrounding 4 seasons) because Cliff Hagan was the one to hit the "playoff Batman" criterion.

If only the vast majority of NBA champions ever would have been lucky enough to be led by a "legit" Batman...

Or...and I know this is a radical concept...but perhaps there are other ways to lead a team to a title besides individual scoring. I know that sounds silly, but...since more than 60% of all NBA champions did it without the "legit" so-called Batman scorer, maybe we can at least entertain the notion that there's more than one way to get the job done.

If you take that Batman scale KG is at the lower end of it.....

[drza]

KG never was some dominant or great scorer in the RS and ESPECIALLY in the PS.(9 30 point games in his ENTIRE PS career) It's revisionist to think otherwise and that's why he makes a perfect Robin to a legit 28- 30 PPG scorer in the playoffs

So now we have a definition for a "legit" so-called Batman: 28 - 30 ppg scorer in playoffs.

I just thought I'd point out that out of 58 NBA champions in the shot clock era, only 18 had someone average at least 28 points in the playoffs.

If we drop the criterion to at least 27 ppg in the playoffs, we can up that to 22 teams with a "legit" so-called Batman...again, out of 58 champions.

Not only was KG not a Batman, but...

Magic Johnson wasn't a Batman in any of his championships.
Wilt Chamberlain wasn't a Batman in any of his.
Tim Duncan wasn't Batman in any of his.
Of course Bill Russell wasn't Batman. With his scoring averages he didn't even deserve a cape.
Kareem and Bird were only Batman once each in their combined 9 titles.

Also, with the expanded 27 ppg Batman threshold...

The '67 Sixers had a Batman that wasn't Wilt, despite '67 Wilt being one of the greatest peaks in history. No, the Batman on that team was actually Hal Greer. I guess that makes '67 Wilt arguably the greatest Robin in history.

Similarly, Bob Petit was really the Robin on his only championship (despite being NBA MVP in 2 of the surrounding 4 seasons) because Cliff Hagan was the one to hit the "playoff Batman" criterion.

If only the vast majority of NBA champions ever would have been lucky enough to be led by a "legit" Batman...

Or...and I know this is a radical concept...but perhaps there are other ways to lead a team to a title besides individual scoring. I know that sounds silly, but...since more than 60% of all NBA champions did it without the "legit" so-called Batman scorer, maybe we can at least entertain the notion that there's more than one way to get the job done.

If you take that Batman scale KG is at the lower end of it.....

So now he's a "lower end" Batman. I guess that's progress. But still...is he "lower end"? He averaged more than 20 ppg...

Russell didn't average that in his 11 championships.
Magic only did it once in his 5 championships.
Wilt only did it for one of his.
Walton didn't do it for his, despite it being considered one of the best seasons ever.

Seems like KG has some good company down at the "lower end" of the Batman scale. But of course, these guys are Mount Rushmore legends so their lower end Batman is clearly different than KG's. Coincidentally, all of these guys had their main strength in areas other than scoring in those "lower end" championship years. Like being the best offensive floor general or the best defensive player in the league.

If only KG would have been the runaway best defensive player in the league in his championship season, then he could be a legendary "lower end" Batman like those guys.

Oh, wait...

[colts18]

G7 2010 of the NBA Finals he was 8-13 from the floor (although the defense was subpar).

G7 in 2008 against Atlanta he was dominant (9-13) with 18-11-3 in 27 minutes.

G5 in 2008 against Detroit he had 33 points (74% TS).

G6 in 2008 v LA 26 pts 11 reb (62% TS) in 36 minutes.

He didn't play a playoff game before that from 05-07...

In 2004, G3 (1-1 series) 30 pts 15 reb (56% TS) v Sac
In 2004, G7 v Sac 32-21-4 5 blck 4 steals (58% TS) in a GOAT-level G7
In 2004, G5 v LAL (against elimination) 30 pts 19 reb (54% TS)

In 2003 he had a bad shooting game in G6 elimination v LAL (9-21), 27 ppg on 54% TS for the series. Which means:

-Doesn't it seem like Kevin Garnett has actually played incredibly well in most of his biggest PS games?
-Wasn't Kevin Garnett actually very much a "Batman" level scorer, according to other people's definitions?

I'm not sure why you would bring up game 7 of the 2010 finals when KG played an awful game that day. He had 3 rebounds total in a game where the Celtics got outrebounded by 13 and only had a 58 Dreb%. 9 players in that game outrebounded him.

[ElGee]

Because the locus was scoring, and G7 -- the game where "everyone shot poorly", was the inspiration for the post.

[G35]

If you take that Batman scale KG is at the lower end of it.....

So now he's a "lower end" Batman. I guess that's progress. But still...is he "lower end"? He averaged more than 20 ppg...

Russell didn't average that in his 11 championships.
Magic only did it once in his 5 championships.
Wilt only did it for one of his.
Walton didn't do it for his, despite it being considered one of the best seasons ever.

Seems like KG has some good company down at the "lower end" of the Batman scale. But of course, these guys are Mount Rushmore legends so their lower end Batman is clearly different than KG's. Coincidentally, all of these guys had their main strength in areas other than scoring in those "lower end" championship years. Like being the best offensive floor general or the best defensive player in the league.

If only KG would have been the runaway best defensive player in the league in his championship season, then he could be a legendary "lower end" Batman like those guys.

Oh, wait...

He's always been a lower Batman or #1 option....in comparison to other all time greats. I see this just like when people want to say KG is an elite defensive anchor. Ok but he's not at the top of the list with Hakeem, DRob, Wilt, Russell, Dikembe, Eaton, Mourning.

If you compare KG to the other all time greats as a scorer he is near the bottom....

[drza]

If you take that Batman scale KG is at the lower end of it.....

So now he's a "lower end" Batman. I guess that's progress. But still...is he "lower end"? He averaged more than 20 ppg...

Russell didn't average that in his 11 championships.
Magic only did it once in his 5 championships.
Wilt only did it for one of his.
Walton didn't do it for his, despite it being considered one of the best seasons ever.

Seems like KG has some good company down at the "lower end" of the Batman scale. But of course, these guys are Mount Rushmore legends so their lower end Batman is clearly different than KG's. Coincidentally, all of these guys had their main strength in areas other than scoring in those "lower end" championship years. Like being the best offensive floor general or the best defensive player in the league.

If only KG would have been the runaway best defensive player in the league in his championship season, then he could be a legendary "lower end" Batman like those guys.

Oh, wait...

He's always been a lower Batman or #1 option....in comparison to other all time greats. I see this just like when people want to say KG is an elite defensive anchor. Ok but he's not at the top of the list with Hakeem, DRob, Wilt, Russell, Dikembe, Eaton, Mourning.

If you compare KG to the other all time greats as a scorer he is near the bottom....

*Looks at what I wrote*

*Looks at this response*

Perhaps I was too subtle in my last couple of posts, so let me be clear. If Russell and Magic (or the other 40 or so champions that led title teams without averaging near 30 pg) were also near the bottom of this so-called Batman scale based on their scoring, then it seems obvious that this "Batman scale" is either busted or irrelevant in determining a championship franchise player. Determining "Batman and Robin" based solely on scoring ignores the other, often more valuable components of the game. Clearly it's way too limiting.

So fine, you win. KG's not Batman. He can instead be Spiderman, or Wolverine, or any of the other superheros that get it done in a different way than Bruce Wayne does.

[richboy]

In KG's peak years, he was a much better scorer than Scottie and Pau, so I really don't get this argument at all.

Are you actually implying that it is hard to find two players who can score 15-18 points per game (which is what KG had), as opposed to finding a second star player as a robin lol?


And I have no idea why you keep ignoring that everyone is disagreeing with the notion that you need to average 30 points to "lead your team to the playoffs". Someone actually proved that the majority of teams did not even have someone like that. Not to mention that during KG's best years, he did have 30 point games in the playoffs, so this argument makes little sense.

Instead of blindly repeating yourself to your false ideology, how about you post some proof other than just "cause" in regards to why someone would need to average 30 points a game to lead their team to a championship?


It's also insanely ironic infamous, that you're claiming that someone like KG would need a ton of help (when during his peak years, he didnt have a lot at all), 4/6 guys you mention are

Wade
Shaq
James
Bryant


All of those guys have won titles with at least one other person on the list, and you're going to tell me that it is unreasonable to give KG a 18 ppg scoring Robin? Sounds hypocritical to me. Pretty sure it's easier to find a Rip Hamilton quality scorer than a Kobe Bryant quality scorer in terms of finding role players.

Did you really use the 'everyone thinks' defense. Winners don't think like everyone.

What is this give KG a 18ppg guy and you win titles. He had Wally Z and Terrell Brandon before the injuries.

He had Cassell, Sprewell, and Wally Z 2 of them putting 18 per 36 and they still were not an elite offense..

This constant comparison to the Spurs is just laughable. Greg P does not max out the Spurs in the regular season. In much of Tim Duncan's career his second best scorer didn't even start the game with him. They often aren't on the floor together. Take away Duncan's first few years he plays as little minutes as any superstar in the league.

The Spurs always have more offense if needed in the playoffs. They play the stars more and can raise the usage of Duncan if needed. KG was a near or above 40 minute player his career in Minnesota. He was not the high usage player like Duncan could be. Because he spent most of his time just shooting 2 point jump shots he didn't go to the line very much.

Your not going to build a great offense around a 2 point jump shooter who didn't go to the line that much.If not for his inflated high post offense assist he a step below Chris Bosh offensively.

[WhateverBro]

Did you really use the 'everyone thinks' defense. Winners don't think like everyone.

What is this give KG a 18ppg guy and you win titles. He had Wally Z and Terrell Brandon before the injuries.

He had Cassell, Sprewell, and Wally Z 2 of them putting 18 per 36 and they still were not an elite offense..

This constant comparison to the Spurs is just laughable. Greg P does not max out the Spurs in the regular season. In much of Tim Duncan's career his second best scorer didn't even start the game with him. They often aren't on the floor together. Take away Duncan's first few years he plays as little minutes as any superstar in the league.

The Spurs always have more offense if needed in the playoffs. They play the stars more and can raise the usage of Duncan if needed. KG was a near or above 40 minute player his career in Minnesota. He was not the high usage player like Duncan could be. Because he spent most of his time just shooting 2 point jump shots he didn't go to the line very much.

Your not going to build a great offense around a 2 point jump shooter who didn't go to the line that much.If not for his inflated high post offense assist he a step below Chris Bosh offensively.

He had Wally Szczerbiak and Terrell Brandon exactly two seasons together before Brandon was hit with injuries. The first was Wallys rookie season, in which KG lead the team to 50 wins, losing 3-1 to Blazers in the first round. You know, the same Blazers who win 59 games and lost in game 7 of the WCF against Lakers after choking away a 15 point lead in 11 minutes of the 4th quarter.

The second time he had Wally and Brandon was in 01, he lead the team to 47 wins and lost in the first round to Spurs, who went on to lose in the WCF against the champions Lakers.

And FYI, none of Wally or Brandon averaged 18 ppg these two seasons. Wally averaged 11 and 14 ppg, while Brandon averaged 17 and 16 ppg. How is any of this an argument against KG again?

The year he had Cassell, Spree and Wally, the team won 58 games, 1st in the west and 2nd in the league all while pushing the Lakers to six games in the WCF. Not to mention that Wally missed most o the season with a back injury and was battling it during the playoffs in which he also missed 6 games with the injury. The truth is that Wally was never healthy that season, he played 40 games out of 110 total games that season and was very slow defensively because of the injuries. And that's not even factoring in that Cassell was hurt for the playoffs to the point where he couldn't even finish the Laker series, his hip problems were bothering him all of the playoffs. When putting the season in its context, the Timberwolves overachived and had an overall great season and if Cassell hadn't gotten hurt in the playoffs, they have a very good chance at upsetting the Lakers and going into the finals.

Imagine making the finals with Ervin Johnson, Madsen, Trent, Olowokandi and Oliver Miller in your big man rotation. Pretty impressive.

[G35]

*Looks at what I wrote*

*Looks at this response*

Perhaps I was too subtle in my last couple of posts, so let me be clear. If Russell and Magic (or the other 40 or so champions that led title teams without averaging near 30 pg) were also near the bottom of this so-called Batman scale based on their scoring, then it seems obvious that this "Batman scale" is either busted or irrelevant in determining a championship franchise player. Determining "Batman and Robin" based solely on scoring ignores the other, often more valuable components of the game. Clearly it's way too limiting.

So fine, you win. KG's not Batman. He can instead be Spiderman, or Wolverine, or any of the other superheros that get it done in a different way than Bruce Wayne does.

If you want to find outlier players to help prop up KG that's up to you.

Russell has 11 rings. I know rings mean nothing on the PC board but imo if a player wins one or two rings that may be because of circumstances/luck. 11 is not luck. Bill brought something to the table that others didn't. I do have qualms about Russells scoring and how it would have translated if he played on any other franchise than the Celtics or in another era. However I am sure KG couldn't replicate 11 rings. For that I give Bill a huge amount of credit because I do value winning.

Magic also has been the benefactor of playing on some great teams. Playing with KAJ/Worthy/Cooper/Nixon/Wilkes/McAdoo was a godsend for his career. However Magic is an outlier in that he brought something that no one has been able to duplicate (until now with Lebron). Magic was damn near unguardable later in his career and brings an element to teams that I believe is greater than KG.

7 1st rd KO's. 3 straight lottery appearances. Name another great that has that on their resume. Not having the prototypical big man game/efficiency of a perimeter player. Wasn't that dominant on the Celtics; you can look at your metrics all you want but KG played the Pippen role on those teams. You knew he would produce but there is a limit to what he will do. I can think of several players that I would rather have than KG.

So pick whichever superhero scale you want, I put KG at the lower end in comparison to his peers.....

[drza]

If you want to find outlier players to help prop up KG that's up to you.

Russell has 11 rings. I know rings mean nothing on the PC board but imo if a player wins one or two rings that may be because of circumstances/luck. 11 is not luck. Bill brought something to the table that others didn't. I do have qualms about Russells scoring and how it would have translated if he played on any other franchise than the Celtics or in another era. However I am sure KG couldn't replicate 11 rings. For that I give Bill a huge amount of credit because I do value winning.

Magic also has been the benefactor of playing on some great teams. Playing with KAJ/Worthy/Cooper/Nixon/Wilkes/McAdoo was a godsend for his career. However Magic is an outlier in that he brought something that no one has been able to duplicate (until now with Lebron). Magic was damn near unguardable later in his career and brings an element to teams that I believe is greater than KG.

7 1st rd KO's. 3 straight lottery appearances. Name another great that has that on their resume. Not having the prototypical big man game/efficiency of a perimeter player. Wasn't that dominant on the Celtics; you can look at your metrics all you want but KG played the Pippen role on those teams. You knew he would produce but there is a limit to what he will do. I can think of several players that I would rather have than KG.

So pick whichever superhero scale you want, I put KG at the lower end in comparison to his peers.....

Lol, "outlier players"? We're discussing whether a player needs to score in the upper 20s to lead championship teams. Russell and Magic are 2 of the best ever at that, and neither are volume scorers. Walton wasn't a volume scorer the one year he was healthy, which coincidentally led to a ring in one of the better peak seasons on record. Wilt wasn't a heavy volume scorer in either of his 2 championship seasons. Bird led the '81 Celtics to the title on a similar playoffs scoring volume as '08 KG. None of the Bad Boys Pistons that went back-to-back to close the Bird/Magic era had anyone outscoring '08 KG in the playoffs. This is NOT an outlier phenomenon.

If you look across all teams that have ever won titles, the vast majority aren't led by players scoring in the upper 20s (what was it, something like only 20 out of almost 60 had players scoring 27 or more per game?). Historically the outlier, in fact, is teams that ARE led by heavy volume scorers.

"The Pippen Role", as you're using it, is only defined for a player playing a secondary role to a transcendant (and apparently high-scoring) superstar. That just point blank isn't true of Garnett and the '08 Celtics. It categorically, without any room for interpretation, is not true. If someone can play the "Pippen role", as you put it, and be clearly the best player on a championship team (including the leading scorer) then maybe you should re-think what your definition of "Pippen Role" is.

You're welcome to rank KG wherever you want on whatever scale that you want. But the reasoning you're using here to justify it just factually is incorrect.

[FJS]

Kg is the most overrated player in history of Realgm.

He wasn't able to step up in Wolves (except 03-04 and still fell short vs LAL) and his best year were with a depleted C's team with PP and Allen in their primes which did what he could in all his carreer: to carry in scoring the weight of the team in his shoulders.

He is the definition of very good in everything but not elite in nothing: Yes, he was extremelly well in defense, but he was not Hakeem, Russell, Robinson, Wilt for example.
And he was great in deffense with others great defenders like Posey, Tony Allen, Rondo or PJ Brown to name a few and a great deffensive coaches in Rivers/ Thiboddeau (spelling?), because he did not lead great deffenses in Wolves.

[WhateverBro]

Kg is the most overrated player in history of Realgm.

He wasn't able to step up in Wolves (except 03-04 and still fell short vs LAL) and his best year were with a depleted C's team with PP and Allen in their primes which did what he could in all his carreer: to carry in scoring the weight of the team in his shoulders.

He is the definition of very good in everything but not elite in nothing: Yes, he was extremelly well in defense, but he was not Hakeem, Russell, Robinson, Wilt for example.
And he was great in deffense with others great defenders like Posey, Tony Allen, Rondo or PJ Brown to name a few and a great deffensive coaches in Rivers/ Thiboddeau (spelling?), because he did not lead great deffenses in Wolves.

He was an elite rebounder and an elite defender. That's two large aspects of the game of basketball, not to mention that you could argue that he was an elite offensive player. Elite passer for his position too, although that goes hand in hand with the case for being an elite offensive player.

Sure, he was great in a defense with Posey, Tony Allen, Rondo and PJ Brown and Thibs but he was also great in a defense without all of those parts except Rondo. Hell, he was still great defensively without Rondo this year so he's been elite defensively without every single one of those pieces except Doc. Either Doc is a super genius that could make Garnett an elite defender for his career while only coaching him for six of the years; or maybe Garnett just flat out is a GOAT level of defender..

[FJS]

He is elite rebounder... but he was not Wilt, Lucas, Hayes, Thrumond, Russell, Moses, Jabbar... even contemporanies like Rodman, Olajuwon, Ben Wallace, Barkley, Howard, Love had better seasons than KG peak.

Celtics defend pretty well, and they have some players who can defend. Still was the 12th better deffense.

[NO-KG-AI]

The Celtics were 7th. They've been 1st, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 1st, 7th since KG's been there, with significant fall off with KG off the floor.

KG led the league in rebounds per game 4 years straight. With a second and 3rd place finish in the two years before that. He's 10th all time in total rebounds, 2nd in defensive rebounds.

[Texas Chuck]

I dont see any justification for saying KG isnt an elite rebounder or defender. By any metric I can think of he is among the best of the best all-time in both regards.

I also dont see any justification for claiming that KG isnt a really strong offensive player and scorer. I do think its fair to question his ability to put a championship team on his back offensively the way we have seen some of his contemporariy superstars do. Or to question him as "a closer', but to be fair almost no big men ever have been asked to fill that role so its a little unfair imo.

[richboy]

Did you really use the 'everyone thinks' defense. Winners don't think like everyone.

What is this give KG a 18ppg guy and you win titles. He had Wally Z and Terrell Brandon before the injuries.

He had Cassell, Sprewell, and Wally Z 2 of them putting 18 per 36 and they still were not an elite offense..

This constant comparison to the Spurs is just laughable. Greg P does not max out the Spurs in the regular season. In much of Tim Duncan's career his second best scorer didn't even start the game with him. They often aren't on the floor together. Take away Duncan's first few years he plays as little minutes as any superstar in the league.

The Spurs always have more offense if needed in the playoffs. They play the stars more and can raise the usage of Duncan if needed. KG was a near or above 40 minute player his career in Minnesota. He was not the high usage player like Duncan could be. Because he spent most of his time just shooting 2 point jump shots he didn't go to the line very much.

Your not going to build a great offense around a 2 point jump shooter who didn't go to the line that much.If not for his inflated high post offense assist he a step below Chris Bosh offensively.

He had Wally Szczerbiak and Terrell Brandon exactly two seasons together before Brandon was hit with injuries. The first was Wallys rookie season, in which KG lead the team to 50 wins, losing 3-1 to Blazers in the first round. You know, the same Blazers who win 59 games and lost in game 7 of the WCF against Lakers after choking away a 15 point lead in 11 minutes of the 4th quarter.

The second time he had Wally and Brandon was in 01, he lead the team to 47 wins and lost in the first round to Spurs, who went on to lose in the WCF against the champions Lakers.

And FYI, none of Wally or Brandon averaged 18 ppg these two seasons. Wally averaged 11 and 14 ppg, while Brandon averaged 17 and 16 ppg. How is any of this an argument against KG again?

The year he had Cassell, Spree and Wally, the team won 58 games, 1st in the west and 2nd in the league all while pushing the Lakers to six games in the WCF. Not to mention that Wally missed most o the season with a back injury and was battling it during the playoffs in which he also missed 6 games with the injury. The truth is that Wally was never healthy that season, he played 40 games out of 110 total games that season and was very slow defensively because of the injuries. And that's not even factoring in that Cassell was hurt for the playoffs to the point where he couldn't even finish the Laker series, his hip problems were bothering him all of the playoffs. When putting the season in its context, the Timberwolves overachived and had an overall great season and if Cassell hadn't gotten hurt in the playoffs, they have a very good chance at upsetting the Lakers and going into the finals.

Imagine making the finals with Ervin Johnson, Madsen, Trent, Olowokandi and Oliver Miller in your big man rotation. Pretty impressive.

If the idea is that if you give KG a 18 point scorer your going to have a championship level offense. The reality is he had 18 point per game scorers in the past and wasn't winning championships. Not only that but was not a great offensive team at any point.

The 2004 Minnesota Timberwolves are one of the most overrated teams on Realgm. How many times do they bring that team up. Lets not forget that they barely had the best record in the West. That the Spurs had lost Duncan for a stretch. The Kings had Webber for just over 20 games. In the playoffs he was pretty much playing on one leg. The Lakers were in the middle of the Kobe/Shaq issue. Also with both missing part of the year. Same with Karl Malone at the time.

It took an act of god to get KG that deep in the West. If not for Duncan injury he probably the MVP of the league again that year. Instead they finished 1 game behind Minnesota which gave everyone the go ahead to make KG the MVP. He plays all year they are a 60 plus win team and at the top of the league standings.

Getting Spree, Cassell, and KG weren't that good of a squad either. The pretending that KG was a few decent players away from dominating the league is just crazy. He has been on one team that dominated the regular season in the weak East that scraped by to win the title instead of going out early. For KG to have similar success to Duncan he would have needed a top tier player.

[therealbig3]

What I don't get is the drastic revisionist history when it comes to how good KG was viewed around the league. Everyone that says there's no debate between KG and TD as players...tell that to EVERYONE who was actively having that debate throughout the 2000's, even BEFORE KG won a title and DURING the Spurs' title runs. Everyone saw the crappy situation KG was in during his Minnesota years, and saw the monster statistical production he was putting up, and everyone wondered what would have happened if KG and Duncan switched places, and KG vs Duncan was THE debate when both were in their primes.

KG was considered arguably the best player in basketball BEFORE the 04 season...meaning he was still in the conversation in the minds of many AFTER Duncan won back to back MVPs and AFTER Duncan had his lauded championship run in 2003. I remember this because my Nets announcers were discussing how KG was arguably the best player in basketball during the Nets home opener of the 03-04 season when they hosted the T'Wolves.

Now, I don't really care about general consensus all that much, but I'm just pointing this out for the people that act it's ridiculous to compare their skillsets and their abilities as players, because it wasn't such a ridiculous notion during their primes.

BTW, if winning is that important...why aren't more people ranking Parker over Kidd and Nash? I want to know. Because I'm guessing a lot of the arguments would come down to "coaching" and "teammates" and "stats". In which case, why can't these be used in favor of KG, who clearly has similar or even better statistical production than Duncan during his prime, and clearly had worse coaching and worse teammates?