The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[Dr Pepper]

What exactly are these comments?

Retweet:



Sure its Wally, and sure he would later apologize especially after KG's next performance (although it wasn't exactly against tough post defenders) but you just don't find this kind of crap with Duncan imo. As for McHale's quote it's more or less the same thing but yea searching through Google after KG hugged McHale won't make it easy. KG is still an excellent leader but I don't think his leadership is as elite as some of his peers

So you base your argument against KG with a tweet from someone who 1) didn't get along with KG during their years together and 2) who deleted his tweet, apologized and said his Twitter was hacked.

The McHale quotes you claim exist are probably just make believe. I can dig up several quotes of McHale showing how much he loves KG and his game. The only reason their relationship became somewhat bad the last two years was because of the frustration of the team being so bad. KG wanted McHale to bring him more help and for whatever reason he couldnt. They both love eachother and McHale has stated many times that he thinks KG is one of the best ever.

Actually you guys are the ones focusing on that part but fair enough imo. However tbh the rest of the criticisms about KG still stands. You just won't find that kind of stuff with some of his more winning peers

[Dr Pepper]

Hahaha.

That's basically the equivalent of blaming Duncan for Stephen Jackson thinking he's better than the guys in the Spurs rotation and getting himself released.

How in the world anyone can use Wally's tweet as an indictment of KG is beyond me.

Nah even the Sjax incident didn't have stuff like this and for it to be close it'd have to be something like Sjax saying Duncan sucks in the 4th and he should get the ball. About the only thing that comes close would be Horry talking about how Duncan's game was more finesse than a younger Hakeem, imo. What former teammates says about their stars isn't completely worthless and it's not like KG being a go-to scorer especially in the 4th isn't some new criticism, in fact it's career long.

[lorak]

No I never suggesting any such thing. My comments were simply that I believe Russell had a greater defensive impact than KG. I was simply pointing in response to your justification for KG's Minny defense as being due to offensive responsibilities that Russell also had enormous offensive responsibilities. So being tired from offense shouldnt be an excuse for KG in comparison.

As enormous as Garnett's?! How is that possible?

BTW, in 2004 KG was 1st in ORPM and 3rd in DRAPM with 3.6, so not so much behind Duncan's 4.3 and Ben's 4.1. That's insane.

I would also really like to see your explanation:
1. why you think Russell was so better defensively (but if estimated drtg is all you got, then ok, no need to post this again, but I'm hoping something more convincing would appear)?

2. why Celtics didn't improve much defensively in Russell's second season?

3. how much offensive quality of opposing teams matters when we use team drtg to prove player's defensive greatness?
(Because sure, at first glance -10 drtg seems better than -8.5, but that are just numbers worthless without context. So how much environment matters? 3P league with better offenses than during 60s - no offense, but why so many of you acting like that doesn't matter and just simply compare pure numbers: -10 vs -8.5?)

[Rapcity_11]

Nah even the Sjax incident didn't have stuff like this. About the only thing that comes close would be Horry talking about how Duncan's game was more finesse than a younger Hakeem, imo.

All of those things are in the meaningless category.

Do yourself a favour and stop bringing up the Wally thing.

[Dr Pepper]

Nah even the Sjax incident didn't have stuff like this. About the only thing that comes close would be Horry talking about how Duncan's game was more finesse than a younger Hakeem, imo.

All of those things are in the meaningless category.

Do yourself a favour and stop bringing up the Wally thing.

Why? KG sucking in the clutch has been a career long criticism from both players and fans. KG is just not an elite go-to scorer, at least compared to his peers anyway. Doesn't draw enough contact, relies too much on finesse, and doesn't have a versatile enough offensive game in the paint for his size imo

BTW Horry wasn't insulting Duncan, and the Sjax incident doesn't compare either

[Texas Chuck]

[
3. how much offensive quality of opposing teams matters when we use team drtg to prove player's defensive greatness?
(Because sure, at first glance -10 drtg seems better than -8.5, but that are just numbers worthless without context. So how much environment matters? 3P league with better offenses than during 60s - no offense, but why so many of you acting like that doesn't matter and just simply compare pure numbers: -10 vs -8.5?)

im about to go out, but I promise I will get back to you at some point in response to your entire post. I just wanted to point out I never made the argument you are assigning me in point 3. There is simply too much projection that is ultimately just guesswork in trying to compare the different eras using that stat.

I would never try and use stats in one era and attempt tocompare them with a totally different era operating on a different system of rules. Its an exercise in total guesswork that I choose to participate in as little as possible. I have never brought up drtg and wouldnt just like I dont think you should have brought up DRAPM. You wouldnt be using the data if it didnt show KG in a favorable light and you know we dont have it for Russell so its just noise used to tilt the scales in favor of KG.

[penbeast0]

He's honestly had a Bill Russell type defensive impact

No, no he hasnt. No one ever has. This is part of the problem that generates what Rap is talking about which I will address separately because he makes a fair pt. KG's defensive impact isnt close to Russells. Look at the TWolves years.

What good defenders were on the Twolves other than KG?

What good defenders were on the early Celtics other than Russell?

Heinsohn and Cousy were poor defenders, Frank Ramsey had a rep as offense only too though I never saw enough of him to truly judge. Sharman was a tough guy and worked defensively but was undersized and not super athletic. They had Sam Jones as the second wing off the bench but he wasn't particularly good defensively either. They usually got a thug like Lotscutoff for their last rotation guy; some of them were good defenders, some weren't but the early Celtics were a poor defensive team other than Russell and yet with Russell, they were the best defensive squad in the NBA still.

Late era Celtics had Jones and Sanders as defensive specialists (neither could play much offensively) and Havlicek as a two way player together with Sam Jones and Bailey Howell who was a poor defender as well (skinny Carlos Boozer type). That's a good defensive squad with any decent center, probably as good as than Rondo/Allen/Pierce/Perkins though Howell keeps it from being truly elite.

[Doctor MJ]

Retweet:



Sure its Wally, and sure he would later apologize especially after KG's next performance (although it wasn't exactly against tough post defenders) but you just don't find this kind of crap with Duncan imo. As for McHale's quote it's more or less the same thing but yea searching through Google after KG hugged McHale won't make it easy. KG is still an excellent leader but I don't think his leadership is as elite as some of his peers

I don't know if you remember, but Duncan was thought of as pretty soft before he won enough titles that people didn't feel comfortable sticking with the narrative.

I remember in 2005 when Duncan was struggling like crazy from the free throw line there was a round "Tim Duncan should get down on his knees and worship Robert Horry for carrying him to the title". It is an absolute given that if the Spurs hadn't won titles, Duncan would have been considered by many to be an extreme choker and would attribute his lack of rings to his a character flaw.

As crazy as that narrative was, and as wrongheaded as that alternate reality narrative would have been, that's about as misguided as it is for people to look at Duncan as some kind of unassailable clutch, leader. Dude has struggled in the clutch, and in 2004 as the best player on the Olympics team his leadership was completely non-existent in the face of bigger personalities.

In the end what makes for a real leader is someone who can grab hold of others and propel them to greatness. That's not what Duncan is. What he is someone who will work hard and not complain even if asked to sacrifice, which is a phenomenal thing to have when you're a superstar talent - but it's called being a good soldier, or a follower. Again, that's not an insult. I'd much rather build my franchise around Duncan than most guys with big personalities even if they have comparable talent, but no one should mistake it for innate charisma, and no one should be trying to find leadership reasons for explaining why Duncan is more successful than Garnett.

[Doctor MJ]

The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

While I find myself questioning why we need a thread for every player, the idea here is interesting.

In particular: I don't think Garnett's the most fascinating player on RealGM. That would be Wilt here just like it is everywhere else. Garnett however is the face of a particular kind of fascination that exists on RealGM and in a few other circles, but not in the rest of the basketball world.

And yeah, as I've said before, the genesis is simple: Once we got the data to figure out how much impact it was reasonable to see superstars have and the data to start pegging with some accuracy just how strong or weak supporting casts were, it stood to reason that there would be guys for whom that data would scream "This guy got blamed for something that was really just bad luck". For whatever players that would be, you'd have people embracing the data, and you'd have people refusing to embrace the data, and so those players would become "fascinating" for the conversations that happened around them.

So the most salient of those guys turned out to be Garnett, he is therefore fascinating because of the conversations involving him...but the conversations aren't interesting because of what they say about Garnett but rather what they say about those involved in the conversation and how they come to their decisions.

Garnett is not a lightning rod so much as a watershed.

[microfib4thewin]

Although I don't exactly recall there were also several other ex-teammates that didn't have a high opinion on KG. I don't think of him as a team cancer but I do think he's not someone who's easy to work with.

[ardee]

Although I don't exactly recall there were also several other ex-teammates that didn't have a high opinion on KG. I don't think of him as a team cancer but I do think he's not someone who's easy to work with.

Those would be the lazy bench players who's incompetence KG could not tolerate... It's the same thing with Kobe, who's got more credibility, him or Smush Parker?

[NO-KG-AI]

People "sucking" in the clutch is always the blame they take when they lose. Dirk and LeBron didn't have the clutch gene, and then they won the title, and they did

[Doctor MJ]

Although I don't exactly recall there were also several other ex-teammates that didn't have a high opinion on KG. I don't think of him as a team cancer but I do think he's not someone who's easy to work with.

One could say the same about Jordan. I'm actually quite critical of Jordan at times for how abusive he was of his teammates, but I'm not going to say there was something about his demeanor that kept him from being a successful leader. I doubt anyone else will either.

Does anyone think Garnett fails where Jordan didn't because he was lazy?
Does anyone think Garnett fails where Jordan didn't because he was too selfish?
Does anyone think Garnett fails where Jordan didn't because he was too confrontational?

[ThaRegul8r]

I remember in 2005 when Duncan was struggling like crazy from the free throw line there was a round "Tim Duncan should get down on his knees and worship Robert Horry for carrying him to the title". It is an absolute given that if the Spurs hadn't won titles, Duncan would have been considered by many to be an extreme choker and would attribute his lack of rings to his a character flaw.

As Duncan is my favorite active player, I clearly remember this as well, and saved several articles saying this, as I like to compare what's said about players at different points of their career. I also remember in 2007, after the Spurs' last title, that there were people vehemently disputing the contention that Duncan was a Top 10 player of all time.

As crazy as that narrative was, and as wrongheaded as that alternate reality narrative would have been, that's about as misguided as it is for people to look at Duncan as some kind of unassailable clutch, leader. Dude has struggled in the clutch, and in 2004 as the best player on the Olympics team his leadership was completely non-existent in the face of bigger personalities.

I've found that the majority of people go to one of two extremes. Either 1) Time erases all a player's faults and people become guilty of the availability heuristic where they don't remember the player in question's shortcomings anymore, often mythologizing them; or 2) people focus SOLELY on real or perceived faults of a particular player to the exclusion of anything else. People who do this often personally dislike the player in question for whatever reason, or said player is a rival, contemporary or historical, of another player they do like. Agendas are often involved, though they can be in the case of 1) as well. I rarely see people willing to objectively weigh the pluses and minuses in order to come to as objective a conclusion as they can.

[The Infamous1]

People "sucking" in the clutch is always the blame they take when they lose. Dirk and LeBron didn't have the clutch gene, and then they won the title, and they did

But They(like many others)were much better playoff performers then garnett.

[HeartBreakKid]

People "sucking" in the clutch is always the blame they take when they lose. Dirk and LeBron didn't have the clutch gene, and then they won the title, and they did

But They(like many others)were much better playoff performers then garnett.

He was good enough to win a title, I'd say KG is "clutch" enough.

[HeartBreakKid]

No, no he hasnt. No one ever has. This is part of the problem that generates what Rap is talking about which I will address separately because he makes a fair pt. KG's defensive impact isnt close to Russells. Look at the TWolves years.

What good defenders were on the Twolves other than KG?

What good defenders were on the early Celtics other than Russell?

Heinsohn and Cousy were poor defenders, Frank Ramsey had a rep as offense only too though I never saw enough of him to truly judge. Sharman was a tough guy and worked defensively but was undersized and not super athletic. They had Sam Jones as the second wing off the bench but he wasn't particularly good defensively either. They usually got a thug like Lotscutoff for their last rotation guy; some of them were good defenders, some weren't but the early Celtics were a poor defensive team other than Russell and yet with Russell, they were the best defensive squad in the NBA still.

Late era Celtics had Jones and Sanders as defensive specialists (neither could play much offensively) and Havlicek as a two way player together with Sam Jones and Bailey Howell who was a poor defender as well (skinny Carlos Boozer type). That's a good defensive squad with any decent center, probably as good as than Rondo/Allen/Pierce/Perkins though Howell keeps it from being truly elite.

What exactly do you define as "early" Celtics.

The late era defense you pointed out is defensively much better than the big 3 era defensively. I mean if you're highlighting Sam Jones as a weak point in the Celtics defense. Sam Jones was not a terrible defender, he was just known for other things. Someone like Ray Allen is probably worse, whos defense was either masked by his team or he was elevated thanks to KG, Thibs and Rivers.

Hondo and Sanders are better defenders than any of the starters on the 08 squad by a decent amount, other than KG of course.


As for the point of "look at KGs Twolves". Look at what exactly? The team's defensive rating? I mean I really don't understand the argument in that because the T-Wolves did not have a good defensive statistically that means KG isn't a goat candidate. The T-Wolves rating was so bad, that to me that alone proved that one person can't make a difference in most situations. Because anyone with a brain knows KG is an elite defender.

Also, why exactly would anyone have to focus on his T-Wolves year? Why not his championship year. It seems like people always ignore 08 in regards to KG when they want to talk him down. It's like, if the guy could anchor a defense at that age, why on earth would anyone assume he is worse when he was younger? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[The Infamous1]

Yea with Pierce and allen were he was 1A 1B with Paul on offense in the playoffs.The celtics are the team KG should've been on his whole career and the role he should've always been playing. Pau Gasol scoring numbers good rebounding and great defense. But you cant ask KG to put up 25-30 a night in the playoffs on good efficiency like other all time greats, that's not his strength nor is he capable of it

[HeartBreakKid]

Yea with Pierce and allen were he was 1A 1B with Paul on offense in the playoffs.The celtics are the team KG should've been on his whole career and the role he should've always been playing. Pau Gasol scoring numbers good rebounding and great defense. But you cant ask KG to put up 25-30 a night in the playoffs on good efficiency like other all time greats, that's not his strength nor is he capable of it

Sure, I agree. But I don't get how that makes him not clutch, is clutch only an offensive thing?


I don't get why KG has to score 25-30 a night. Last time I checked basketball wasn't about scoring a lot, it's about scoring more than your opponent. If his defensive strength is good enough (which it is, he's easily one of the best defensive players ever), then wouldn't that make up the difference in his "lack of offensive" strength?

And one thing I never get in regards to KG needing another scorer. How good of a scorer does KG actually need? I mean think about it, he didn't need much to get the job done. What did Paul Pierce average that year, 18 points? You get 2 guys who are decent-bad defenders who can score 18 a game, and you get a title? That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Even the year where KG carried his team deep in the playoffs, he didn't even have a deep roster, yet it was enough to get to the WCF finals. I mean some of these other players who have gotten rings have had guys like Shaq, Kobe and Wade as second fiddles, those three guys I listed were also the best players on championship teams, I mean that is pretty crazy when you start using the "KG doesn't score enough" argument. Would KG need to score worth a damn if he even had a player like Vince Carter in his prime? Who is no bum, but hardly a celebrated star around here. KG himself is still giving you a good 20 a night, and he can take over in his own right.

[richboy]

Something that's been bothering me in various KG threads is that he's gotten this label from his detractors as a guy who is only viewed as awesome because of +/- stats, when that's not the case at all.

1. The guy is a box-score monster. Career RS PER of 23.1 in almost 48K minutes. 23/13/5/1.6/1.4 from 01-07.

2. Part of the reason +/- stats are used so frequently when examining him is to counter the resistance to the claims that his supporting cast was THAT bad. He isn't awesome because of +/- stats. Those stats do help show his value. Just like they do for Duncan, Dirk, Kobe, etc.

Maybe you talking to me. I do think some people elevate KG because of his +- stats. I just don't buy into it. Don't get me wrong. I have him, Dirk, and Barkley battling for my second best PF all-time spot. But I hear people talk about KG in the same breath as true defensive anchors. He spent most of his time in Minnesota anchoring mediocre to bad defenses. That is where the whole plus minus stuff comes in. IMO Garnett +- numbers are inflated by the fact he played on a lot of teams with little depth and athleticism at the PF and C spots. That most of his teams just didn't have anybody else that could control the defensive glass very well.