RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #8

[ElGee]

The thing is (and I know you mean relative to Shaq, so that's probably true, but in general), KG's skill set is extremely resilient in the playoffs, as SSB pointed out, because the vast majority of what he does offensively isn't really "defendable". Relative to a peer like Dirk Nowitzki, who obviously has non-scoring impact offensively as well, but whose scoring is much moreso the bulk of his impact than Garnett, if he gets slowed down in the playoffs with regards to that (like from 05-07), that's a MUCH bigger deal than Garnett being slowed down with regards to his scoring.

I would say this is more true of Garnett than pretty much anyone in history, save for Bill Russell, because he's just so elite at all non-scoring things. And he was still a 20+ ppg scorer for the bulk of his prime anyway.

Funny -- the thing that put KG on my radar was how blown away I was at his impact on the game outside of scoring against those Spurs team and Duncan in the PS. Defense. Rebounding. Passing. The 2003 series he played PG (lol). For everyone else, though, they panned him for losing or only shooting 40%.

[therealbig3]

The thing is (and I know you mean relative to Shaq, so that's probably true, but in general), KG's skill set is extremely resilient in the playoffs, as SSB pointed out, because the vast majority of what he does offensively isn't really "defendable". Relative to a peer like Dirk Nowitzki, who obviously has non-scoring impact offensively as well, but whose scoring is much moreso the bulk of his impact than Garnett, if he gets slowed down in the playoffs with regards to that (like from 05-07), that's a MUCH bigger deal than Garnett being slowed down with regards to his scoring.

I would say this is more true of Garnett than pretty much anyone in history, save for Bill Russell, because he's just so elite at all non-scoring things. And he was still a 20+ ppg scorer for the bulk of his prime anyway.

Funny -- the thing that put KG on my radar was how blown away I was at his impact on the game outside of scoring against those Spurs team and Duncan in the PS. Defense. Rebounding. Passing. The 2003 series he played PG (lol). For everyone else, though, they panned him for losing or only shooting 40%.

And I like how you mention Duncan, whose main separation from Garnett for most people is the belief that he was a superior offensive player in the playoffs...which of course is primarily because they see his superior TS% and conclude that.

But how are we filtering out Duncan doing the majority of his damage against weak front lines like the 03 Lakers, 03 Mavs, undersized 03 Nets, 05 Sonics, and 05 Suns, vs Garnett essentially going up against a strong defensive front line year after year (99 Spurs, 00 Blazers, 01 Spurs, 04 Lakers)? The two years he didn't, he actually played really well offensively, unsurprisingly (02 Mavs and 03 Lakers).

If we compare similar series against each other for Duncan and Garnett, let's look at their common performances against the 03 and 04 Lakers, as well as Garnett's performance against the 99 and 01 Spurs vs Duncan's performance against the 05 Pistons (pretty similarly intimidating front lines, I think).

Duncan vs 03 Lakers (6 games): 28.0 ppg on 57.5% TS
Garnett vs 03 Lakers (6 games): 27.0 ppg on 53.9% TS

Duncan vs 04 Lakers (6 games): 20.7 ppg on 53.4% TS
Garnett vs 04 Lakers (6 games): 23.7 ppg on 51.8% TS

Duncan vs 05 Pistons (7 games): 20.6 ppg on 47.1% TS
Garnett vs 99, 01 Spurs (8 games): 21.4 ppg on 52.5% TS

Altogether:

Duncan (19 games vs 03 Lakers, 04 Lakers, 05 Pistons): 22.9 ppg on 52.5% TS
Garnett (20 games vs 99 Spurs, 01 Spurs, 03 Lakers, 04 Lakers): 23.8 ppg on 52.7% TS

Looks pretty darn similar to me using this PPG + TS% logic. Then you add in the fact that Garnett is a better shooter, passer, ball handler, etc...and is Duncan really a superior offensive anchor in the playoffs?

And I know Duncan is in already, but I guess the question becomes, why the delay/resistance with Garnett? Because it can't be because of Duncan being superior offensively in the playoffs, because in similar situations, that doesn't hold true, and if anything, it's Garnett who brings more to the table outside of scoring than Duncan. And there's really no evidence that Duncan was the superior defensive presence, other than pointing to team defensive results...in which case, I don't think there's any argument for Hakeem over Duncan defensively, is there?

Winning bias disguises itself in a bunch of different ways now. It's become TS%-bias, because it's the people with low TS% that lose who are dissected and criticized, while the people with low TS% that win...well, they must have done something right.

[ardee]

And I know Duncan is in already, but I guess the question becomes, why the delay/resistance with Garnett?

Maybe because the ones going against the grain have the onus of providing proof to support their argument, and so far there hasn't been anything convincing?

I am afraid you will have to do better than this wondrous "invisible impact". As I have said before, the entire conventional top 15 were amazing players and you don't need to dig too deep to realize it. Why are we supposed to just take it for granted that even though it's not visible for Garnett, we're just supposed to take the KG arguers' word for it?

Believe me, until this question is answered, there will be a LOT of resistance. I can see that a good number of participants are having the same thoughts I am, so I am confident Garnett will not make the top 10.

[ardee]

> 2003: Kobe's good bc the Lakers won.
> 2007: We know the Lakers must be bad because of his teammates, because we know Kobe's good!
> 2008: See, we knew Kobe was good.

> 2003: We don't know if Garnett's good bc Min hasn't won.
> 2007: See, Garnett's not good. Minn can't win.
> 2008: Since we know Garnett's not good, we know his teammates must be good because they won

The difference is in 2007 the Lakers were actually good offensively, which is where Kobe's impact primarily was. His 31.5 ppg on 58% TS led them to the 8th best ORtg in the league even with Odom playing 50 games, and the other starters being Parker, Cook and Walton.

On the other hand, Garnett on the other hand led the 25th ranked offense and the 21st ranked defense. Great players have proven the ability to provide some measure of success with any cast, yet Garnett was unable to do so in comparison to Kobe here.

No one is saying Garnett was not "good" in any of those years, he was top 5 in 2003 and 2008 and probably top 10 in 2007, but Kobe was simply better.

[70sFan]

It's the first time in my life I see someone say that Timmy's only advantage over KG offensively is his PS scoring. Now it's like KG is the king of non-boxscore offense but Duncan didn't have much impact outside of scoring?

Garnett wasn't better ballhandler, he just spent more time on perimeter. Duncan was better passer out of the post, KG was more of a playmaker. Timmy had amazing ability to kick out of the double teams. KG was better shooter indeed but Duncan had much bigger gravity down low. Both players are among the best screen setters in NBA history.

They are different players but I don't see how KG can be considered better offensively in playoffs. Duncan was great in all non-boxscores aspects not named spacing and he wasn't Howard in that aspect either. He was also much more efficient scorer year in and year out during postseason runs. People here act like Garnett is much better passer than Duncan. How can any bigman be much better passer than Duncan? As I said before, he's as good and inteligent post playmaker as any player in NBA history. Including Garnett.

I don't want to touch defense because I also think that Timmy is better here, but that's not my point. My point is that most KG fans assume that Garnett has higher impact in all non-boxscores aspect of offense than any other bigman in NBA history (maybe besides Shaq). He's the only player who is praised for that. Meanwhile, Moses never get enough credit for his gravity factor. Or Robinson for his GOAT faceup game. I don't even say that KG is worse than Moses or Admiral, it's just my way to show the subject.

Actually, I really appreciate that KG fans find these "small things" important. All basketball fans should do that. I'm huge Wes Unseld fan because of that. But KG fans are focused on other players weaknesses a bit too much. Garnett himself wasn't exactly flawless. In 2008 when he was still close to his prime self, he still wasn't stunning scorer in playoffs.

[70sFan]

BTW, it's interesting why Wilt is always blamed for Warriors weak 1963 RS but KG isn't. Don't you think that it sounds like double standards?

[Doctor MJ]

And I know Duncan is in already, but I guess the question becomes, why the delay/resistance with Garnett?

Maybe because the ones going against the grain have the onus of providing proof to support their argument, and so far there hasn't been anything convincing?

I am afraid you will have to do better than this wondrous "invisible impact". As I have said before, the entire conventional top 15 were amazing players and you don't need to dig too deep to realize it. Why are we supposed to just take it for granted that even though it's not visible for Garnett, we're just supposed to take the KG arguers' word for it?

Believe me, until this question is answered, there will be a LOT of resistance. I can see that a good number of participants are having the same thoughts I am, so I am confident Garnett will not make the top 10.

You may not have convinced but this support for Garnett has come with time as more of us find the evidence like what you've read here very convincing.

It's totally fine if you're not convinced, but you seem to characterize it like it's a bunch of KG fans in disbelief that others don't agree with them. The reality is that for the most part we know we're doomed to minority opinion on this among the basketball loving population and really we're just posting stuff that was formative to us learning the game further.

Last note: I'd encourage folks not to think in terms of "well I have the same opinion as more people, so the burden of proof is on those who disagree with me". The burden of proof IS on them if they want to convince you of course, just as that burden is on you if you want to convince them.
What's more important is how you're using others opinions to test and refine your own schema of basketball and if you learn nothing I've the course of a project like this, then others will pass you in understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[andrewww]

The intangibles that KG brought..led to some pretty mediorcre teams (and team defenses) in the mid 2000s that consistently missed the playoffs, and if defense was his calling card then it looks even worse. Compare that to the perceived blackhole that was Kobe in the mid 2000s whose supporting cast was just as bad, and he led them to top 10 offensive ratings during the RS that were in conjunction with playoff appearances including almost an upset as the underdog in 2006 against Phoenix. Having Smusher Parker, Kwame Brown and Odom in the starting 5 with almost no floor spacing...makes you wonder if a floor raiser like Lebron could have done much better if at all.

Some good tidbits from those who saw BOTH Magic and Kobe play... http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2016/04/14/kobe-gives-fans-one-last-memory-with-an-epic-farewell-game/

"In Kobe’s twenty years of playoff basketball, I count just one series where Kobe played “hero ball”…. the finals against Detroit. I remember being disappointed with Kobe’s mindset in that series, and felt that he continually wavered from the game plan.

However, that’s just one playoff series in 20 years…or 5 games out of 220 playoff games, which translates to less than 2%.

I don’t recall any other series where Kobe played hero ball or did not follow the game plan.

Even in the Smush/Kwame era, when the game plan against Phoenix was to go through Kwame and Lamar, Kobe literally took a backseat to Kwame on offense and had no issues with it. Kwame!?! When Kobe had Pau, he continually had to remind him to take more shots and be more aggressive on offense.

I think when people think of Kobe’s hero ball, they are mostly referencing the regular season games in the Smush/Kwame era. The Triangle took a backseat, and the game plan was to give the ball to Kobe and get out of the way, and guess what? It worked. The Lakers somehow made the playoffs in the stacked West with Luke as their third best player, featuring starters Kwame and Smush. If Kobe had played less hero ball, and more like Magic with that team, I don’t think those teams could have come close to sniffing the playoffs. At the same time, if Kobe had played hero ball when he had Shaq, there is no way they would have won one championship, let alone 3 in a row.

Instead of focusing on the differences between Magic and Kobe, my two favorite players of all time, I like to focus on their similarities. They are both cut from the same cloth. Both were ruthless killers on the court who were obsessed with winning."

Shaq - always had superstar wings next to him in his prime. Lazy on defense. Needed a closer on offense.
Hakeem - closest of the 4 players here who combined peak offense and defense in championship runs at the same time. Did the type of carrying Lebron gets praised for but actually got the win.
Bird - Magic-like but a better shooter.
Kobe - most accomplished winning contributor with arguably the best career of these 4. Excelled in multiple roles (primary creator, scorer, defender). Underrated peak in 06/07 that doesnt get recognized like those who prop up KG.

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon
Alternate: Kobe Bryant

[therealbig3]

It's the first time in my life I see someone say that Timmy's only advantage over KG offensively is his PS scoring. Now it's like KG is the king of non-boxscore offense but Duncan didn't have much impact outside of scoring?

Garnett wasn't better ballhandler, he just spent more time on perimeter. Duncan was better passer out of the post, KG was more of a playmaker. Timmy had amazing ability to kick out of the double teams. KG was better shooter indeed but Duncan had much bigger gravity down low. Both players are among the best screen setters in NBA history.

They are different players but I don't see how KG can be considered better offensively in playoffs. Duncan was great in all non-boxscores aspects not named spacing and he wasn't Howard in that aspect either. He was also much more efficient scorer year in and year out during postseason runs. People here act like Garnett is much better passer than Duncan. How can any bigman be much better passer than Duncan? As I said before, he's as good and inteligent post playmaker as any player in NBA history. Including Garnett.

I don't want to touch defense because I also think that Timmy is better here, but that's not my point. My point is that most KG fans assume that Garnett has higher impact in all non-boxscores aspect of offense than any other bigman in NBA history (maybe besides Shaq). He's the only player who is praised for that. Meanwhile, Moses never get enough credit for his gravity factor. Or Robinson for his GOAT faceup game. I don't even say that KG is worse than Moses or Admiral, it's just my way to show the subject.

Actually, I really appreciate that KG fans find these "small things" important. All basketball fans should do that. I'm huge Wes Unseld fan because of that. But KG fans are focused on other players weaknesses a bit too much. Garnett himself wasn't exactly flawless. In 2008 when he was still close to his prime self, he still wasn't stunning scorer in playoffs.

It's not small things, I think ball handling, passing, and shooting are major things, and KG is clearly better than Duncan in this regard. As for gravity, I disagree with that as well...I don't think he received more defensive attention than Garnett did.

And I just pointed out that Duncan really wasn't a more efficient scorer in his playoff runs, he beat up on weaker opponents, and he clearly had better teams. And at the end of the day, I don't think either one's impact is captured all that well by their scoring numbers, and it's really hard for me to see Duncan having much of an edge beyond that. If we just focus on offense, again, KG is one of the most prolific passing big men ever, and I personally don't see it as all that arguable between him and Duncan, even though Duncan was really good too. Furthermore, KG was the superior ball handler and could make plays from anywhere, and he was a far superior shooter and provided more spacing that way as well. Duncan had advantages too, I feel like he could abuse mismatches in the post moreso than Garnett could, and he had a stronger base and was able to maintain his efficiency around the rim as he aged moreso than Garnett could. But I think Garnett's utility as a playmaker and shooter are more valuable for a wider variety of team contexts, and his abilities as an ISO scorer really aren't that inferior to Duncan's, if at all.

And yes, the most common argument against KG in comparison to Duncan is usually the fact that Duncan's scoring efficiency in the playoffs is higher, without applying proper context.

And I also don't agree that only KG gets this kind of consideration, everyone does. That's the great thing about the PC board. For some reason though, it's only KG getting context applied that receives so much vitriol.

[70sFan]

Spurs in 2001-04 were actually weak in terms of offense. Watch some 2001 playoffs games for example, outside of old Admiral Spurs couldn't create offense without Duncan.

Also, you mentioned 2005 finals as a normal example of Duncan against great defenses. Timmy had health problems all season, he wasn't at his best. Duncan actually did much better against 2003 Lakers as you pointed out and don't say that Spurs had much more offensive talent.

How about 2008 vs Lakers? Both players are actually bad in terms of efficiency. Duncan didn't have more help though and he contributed more as a playmaker (much better TOV/AST ratio). Why don't we bring it as an example of his superior non-scoring offense?

Also, I disagree with you about passing aspect, just as you disagree about gravity. Matter of preference.

[therealbig3]

And I know Duncan is in already, but I guess the question becomes, why the delay/resistance with Garnett?

Maybe because the ones going against the grain have the onus of providing proof to support their argument, and so far there hasn't been anything convincing?

I am afraid you will have to do better than this wondrous "invisible impact". As I have said before, the entire conventional top 15 were amazing players and you don't need to dig too deep to realize it. Why are we supposed to just take it for granted that even though it's not visible for Garnett, we're just supposed to take the KG arguers' word for it?

Believe me, until this question is answered, there will be a LOT of resistance. I can see that a good number of participants are having the same thoughts I am, so I am confident Garnett will not make the top 10.

I mean, if you're so emotionally invested in Garnett not making an arbitrary cutoff...congrats? I'm not losing any sleep over it, but it sounds like you would have to see him ranked a certain way on an Internet list. Good for you I guess.

Honestly though, I feel like your whole anti-KG conspiracy thread to try and sabotage the votes prior to this project, kinda like what you did for Wilt in the previous project, and your blatant agenda that ignores everything people are using to make their point and continuing to repeat the same weak ass logic is pretty embarrassing on your end.

You've been the anti-thesis of what this project is about, so I don't really see the need to respond to you, or try to prove anything to you, because you're the last person I really care to engage here.

[ardee]

BTW, it's interesting why Wilt is always blamed for Warriors weak 1963 RS but KG isn't. Don't you think that it sounds like double standards?

Because Garnett gets special treatment.

[ardee]

And I know Duncan is in already, but I guess the question becomes, why the delay/resistance with Garnett?

Maybe because the ones going against the grain have the onus of providing proof to support their argument, and so far there hasn't been anything convincing?

I am afraid you will have to do better than this wondrous "invisible impact". As I have said before, the entire conventional top 15 were amazing players and you don't need to dig too deep to realize it. Why are we supposed to just take it for granted that even though it's not visible for Garnett, we're just supposed to take the KG arguers' word for it?

Believe me, until this question is answered, there will be a LOT of resistance. I can see that a good number of participants are having the same thoughts I am, so I am confident Garnett will not make the top 10.

I mean, if you're so emotionally invested in Garnett not making an arbitrary cutoff...congrats? I'm not losing any sleep over it, but it sounds like you would have to see him ranked a certain way on an Internet list. Good for you I guess.

Honestly though, I feel like your whole anti-KG conspiracy thread to try and sabotage the votes prior to this project, kinda like what you did for Wilt in the previous project, and your blatant agenda that ignores everything people are using to make their point and continuing to repeat the same weak ass logic is pretty embarrassing on your end.

You've been the anti-thesis of what this project is about, so I don't really see the need to respond to you, or try to prove anything to you, because you're the last person I really care to engage here.

1. I'm doing that for the credibility of the project and respect for Bird, Shaq, Hakeem and Kobe. If we want the RealGM PC Board to retain its reputation as the GOAT fount of basketball knowledge, ranking KG over those players would taint it and also be insulting to those players.

2. Interestingly, the reason Wilt got the 4th spot in 2014 was because I made an almost 2k word post showing how great he truly was and he was convinced by it. And you can call my logic "weak" here, but it's convincing people.

3. Well I don't need to engage with you either seeing as you're going to keep supporting Garnett regardless of what is said, so there's no point in bothering.

[urnoggin]

I mean, if you're so emotionally invested in Garnett not making an arbitrary cutoff...congrats? I'm not losing any sleep over it, but it sounds like you would have to see him ranked a certain way on an Internet list. Good for you I guess.

Honestly though, I feel like your whole anti-KG conspiracy thread to try and sabotage the votes prior to this project, kinda like what you did for Wilt in the previous project, and your blatant agenda that ignores everything people are using to make their point and continuing to repeat the same weak ass logic is pretty embarrassing on your end.

You've been the anti-thesis of what this project is about, so I don't really see the need to respond to you, or try to prove anything to you, because you're the last person I really care to engage here.

As a observer of this project who also happens to be a Kobe fan (not a KG fan), I completely agree. ardee simply seems adamant on his personal version of the GOAT list, on which he sees Wilt and Kobe higher than most and KG lower than most.

I would be intersted in hearing arguments/evidence for Dirk over Magic/Bird, because I don't quite see any. As for KG, what's his case over Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, or even DRob?

There aren't any/there isn't one

Exactly. Not even a modicum. I skip over the posts discussing it because I wouldn't even entertain the thought, and there's no point in refuting them because the people making them are so set on it already.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

This is what he says in the thread for #6. Very close-minded mentality and quite ironic considering he's the one that's set on his opinions while others have shown the willingness to listen and entertain alternative viewpoints. Really sucks because the spirit of this project is to encourage discussion. Oh well.

As for Hakeem vs Shaq, I lean towards Shaq on this one. Better peak ('00-'02 Shaq just barely above '93-'95 Hakeem), and was more impactful throughout the entirety of his prime. I really feel that Hakeem should've been better in '91 and '92 given what he displayed both before and after those years. otoh, Shaq was exerting impact on good teams from '93-'06, although injuries and work ethic hindered his consistency somewhat.

[ardee]

snip

If you think rankings don't matter, why not just not vote and have discussion threads about each player?

[urnoggin]

snip

If you think rankings don't matter, why not just not vote and have discussion threads about each player?

That's besides the point. Of course I think rankings matter, but just because they don't go the way I like doesn't give me reason to complain. This is the RealGM top 100 list so if the majority of users vote for KG > Kobe or KG > Hakeem, then that's representative of what RealGM (or this board specifically) believes. This isn't ardee's top 100 list superimposed onto RealGM's list, and you shouldn't be complaining about rankings if you're participating in a group project (where everyone's opinion counts!). Calling this project a "travesty" after Duncan got voted in at 5 over Wilt is the wrong attitude and is making you ironically unwilling to consider other positions on certain players.

[ardee]

snip

If you think rankings don't matter, why not just not vote and have discussion threads about each player?

That's besides the point. Of course I think rankings matter, but just because they don't go the way I like doesn't give me reason to complain. This is the RealGM top 100 list so if the majority of users vote for KG > Kobe or KG > Hakeem, then that's representative of what RealGM (or this board specifically) believes. This isn't ardee's top 100 list superimposed onto RealGM's list, and you shouldn't be complaining about rankings if you're participating in a group project (where everyone's opinion counts!). Calling this project a "travesty" after Duncan got voted in at 5 over Wilt is the wrong attitude and is making you ironically unwilling to consider other positions on certain players.

Of course it's not my list. But don't give me **** for trying to argue for the players I am voting for and trying to convince other people to vote for them: that is the point of the project.

[Jaivl]

The intangibles that KG brought..led to some pretty mediorcre teams (and team defenses) in the mid 2000s that consistently missed the playoffs, and if defense was his calling card then it looks even worse. Compare that to the perceived blackhole that was Kobe in the mid 2000s whose supporting cast was just as bad, and he led them to top 10 offensive ratings during the RS that were in conjunction with playoff appearances including almost an upset as the underdog in 2006 against Phoenix. Having Smusher Parker, Kwame Brown and Odom in the starting 5 with almost no floor spacing...makes you wonder if a floor raiser like Lebron could have done much better if at all.

This has quite some fallacies, but the one that sticks out to me the most is the fallacy { KG had bad casts but Kobe had bad casts too and... } acting like they aren't different levels of bad. That has been debunked already, but to add another nail to the coffin...

I took the players with +1000 minutes in both teams (used 06 Lakers and Wolves) and found their rankings in the 01-15 RAPM study (could use 06 RAPM but I figured it would be more noisey):

Spoiler:

Averages are adjusted by minutes played.

Additional notes: Vujacic was a rookie / Wally was shot down by injuries

Not to my surprise, KG's cast looks dreadful. Kobe's cast looks almost as bad as KG's, but only on offense. He actually had some quite good defensive players around him, while Garnett... yeah, didn't. Not a single positive defender and some terrible ones. Odom is miles better than any other player KG played with. And for all the talk about Smush Parker (he certainly deserves his reputation), Hassell looks quite worse.

[andrewww]

The intangibles that KG brought..led to some pretty mediorcre teams (and team defenses) in the mid 2000s that consistently missed the playoffs, and if defense was his calling card then it looks even worse. Compare that to the perceived blackhole that was Kobe in the mid 2000s whose supporting cast was just as bad, and he led them to top 10 offensive ratings during the RS that were in conjunction with playoff appearances including almost an upset as the underdog in 2006 against Phoenix. Having Smusher Parker, Kwame Brown and Odom in the starting 5 with almost no floor spacing...makes you wonder if a floor raiser like Lebron could have done much better if at all.

This has quite some fallacies, but the one that sticks out to me the most is the fallacy { KG had bad casts but Kobe had bad casts too and... } acting like they aren't different levels of bad. That has been debunked already, but to add another nail to the coffin...

I took the players with +1000 minutes in both teams (used 06 Lakers and Wolves) and found their rankings in the 01-15 RAPM study (could use 06 RAPM but I figured it would be more noisey):

Spoiler:

Averages are adjusted by minutes played.

Additional notes: Vujacic was a rookie / Wally was shot down by injuries

Not to my surprise, KG's cast looks dreadful. Kobe's cast looks almost as bad as KG's, but only on offense. He actually had some quite good defensive players around him, while Garnett... yeah, didn't. Not a single positive defender and some terrible ones. Odom is miles better than any other player KG played with. And for all the talk about Smush Parker (he certainly deserves his reputation), Hassell looks quite worse.

To be it bluntly, Odom was the 2nd best player on LAL while Wally as on MIN. Everyone else on both teams was nothing to right about. KG actually had better scoring around him than Kobe did. So did Kobe's offense do more for LAL than KG's defense did for MIN? The results are the lakers made the playoffs came to within 1 game up 3-2 of upsetting MVP Nash's Suns. KG's team missed the playoffs in consecutive years.

[Joao Saraiva]

The thing is (and I know you mean relative to Shaq, so that's probably true, but in general), KG's skill set is extremely resilient in the playoffs, as SSB pointed out, because the vast majority of what he does offensively isn't really "defendable". Relative to a peer like Dirk Nowitzki, who obviously has non-scoring impact offensively as well, but whose scoring is much moreso the bulk of his impact than Garnett, if he gets slowed down in the playoffs with regards to that (like from 05-07), that's a MUCH bigger deal than Garnett being slowed down with regards to his scoring.

I would say this is more true of Garnett than pretty much anyone in history, save for Bill Russell, because he's just so elite at all non-scoring things. And he was still a 20+ ppg scorer for the bulk of his prime anyway.

Funny -- the thing that put KG on my radar was how blown away I was at his impact on the game outside of scoring against those Spurs team and Duncan in the PS. Defense. Rebounding. Passing. The 2003 series he played PG (lol). For everyone else, though, they panned him for losing or only shooting 40%.

And I like how you mention Duncan, whose main separation from Garnett for most people is the belief that he was a superior offensive player in the playoffs...which of course is primarily because they see his superior TS% and conclude that.

But how are we filtering out Duncan doing the majority of his damage against weak front lines like the 03 Lakers, 03 Mavs, undersized 03 Nets, 05 Sonics, and 05 Suns, vs Garnett essentially going up against a strong defensive front line year after year (99 Spurs, 00 Blazers, 01 Spurs, 04 Lakers)? The two years he didn't, he actually played really well offensively, unsurprisingly (02 Mavs and 03 Lakers).

If we compare similar series against each other for Duncan and Garnett, let's look at their common performances against the 03 and 04 Lakers, as well as Garnett's performance against the 99 and 01 Spurs vs Duncan's performance against the 05 Pistons (pretty similarly intimidating front lines, I think).

Duncan vs 03 Lakers (6 games): 28.0 ppg on 57.5% TS
Garnett vs 03 Lakers (6 games): 27.0 ppg on 53.9% TS

Duncan vs 04 Lakers (6 games): 20.7 ppg on 53.4% TS
Garnett vs 04 Lakers (6 games): 23.7 ppg on 51.8% TS

Duncan vs 05 Pistons (7 games): 20.6 ppg on 47.1% TS
Garnett vs 99, 01 Spurs (8 games): 21.4 ppg on 52.5% TS

Altogether:

Duncan (19 games vs 03 Lakers, 04 Lakers, 05 Pistons): 22.9 ppg on 52.5% TS
Garnett (20 games vs 99 Spurs, 01 Spurs, 03 Lakers, 04 Lakers): 23.8 ppg on 52.7% TS

Looks pretty darn similar to me using this PPG + TS% logic. Then you add in the fact that Garnett is a better shooter, passer, ball handler, etc...and is Duncan really a superior offensive anchor in the playoffs?

And I know Duncan is in already, but I guess the question becomes, why the delay/resistance with Garnett? Because it can't be because of Duncan being superior offensively in the playoffs, because in similar situations, that doesn't hold true, and if anything, it's Garnett who brings more to the table outside of scoring than Duncan. And there's really no evidence that Duncan was the superior defensive presence, other than pointing to team defensive results...in which case, I don't think there's any argument for Hakeem over Duncan defensively, is there?

Winning bias disguises itself in a bunch of different ways now. It's become TS%-bias, because it's the people with low TS% that lose who are dissected and criticized, while the people with low TS% that win...well, they must have done something right.

Actually during Duncan's peak (03) he had the better series.

The 2nd best year of Duncan was 02. So why are we comparing 04 Duncan to 03 and 04 KG since that's KG's best runs?

Seems a little misguided to me.

The difference is here:

Playoff runs above or equal to 25 PER:
Duncan 7 (1 above 30 in 2002 the year you left out)
Garnett 3 (and two of them at 25)

Playoff runs above 20 WS/48:
Duncan 7
Garnett 1

Playoff runs above 55ts%
Duncan 10
Garnett 3

Playoff runs above 7 BPM:
Duncan 7
Garnett 1

Playoff runs above 25 PPG:
Duncan 2
Garnett 1

Playoff runs above 10 RPG
Duncan 12
Garnett 10

Duncan 04 was actually a bad playoff run for him. So why do you include that to compare it to the best of Garnett? That just shows even with bad Duncan's runs he actually competes with KG.

Besides that, I also believe Tim Duncan's rim protection was more valuable on defense than KG's slight edge in PnR defense and ground covered.

Simply put, the difference is, I believe, much bigger than you think.

You can't take 3 series to judge them on their entire careers. The sample is short, and in this case it's biased, since you're not even only going with Tim's best runs against KG's best runs.

EDIT: I know this are some arbitrary cuts, but still I think they give a good idea on how much better Duncan was.