New Franchise: Kevin Garnett vs Moses Malone

[drza]

Conclusion: I kept this extremely basic, and purposefully didn't include any type of "advanced" stats. But check my logic:

IF Garnett doesn't deserve credit because those Celtics were historically stacked, then how come they ONLY made it out of those 13 games due to Garnett's brilliance in the face of a struggling cast?

IF the Celtics were a "weak" champion because of those first 13 games, and they were "weak" over those first 13 games because of the play of Pierce and Allen, then how could they be so "historically stacked" that Garnett doesn't get credit?

It's a double-edged sword. People argue that the team was weak in the postseason as an indictment of KG, then simultaneously want to say that the team was strong and use THAT as an indictment of KG as well. But Garnett was the constant, it was the support...the team around him that alternated wildly between great and struggling. Pierce had a superstar Game 7 against the Cavs and Game 5 against the Lakers along with many other moments both good and bad...Ray had a huge game 5 against the Pistons and a number of big offensive moments in the Finals after his earlier struggles. Over those last 13 games, especially, the other Celtics finally raised their game to the level of support expected of a team capable of +10 SRS in the season and exclamation point victories over strong competition in the last two series. But KG was there the whole time.

In that single playoffs, KG showed the ability to lift his game when necessary and also to allow his teammates to shine when they were ready to perform. The team may have fluctuated as the support did, but Garnett's impact on the team and influence on their winning was consistent, large, and measurable over that postseason. It was every bit worthy of a superstar centerpiece on a championship run. The logic of his critics melts away in the face of the barest common sense application, leaving the double-edged sword blunt all-the-way-around.

I'm sorry NO I missed this argument. Now if you want to say that KG was the best defensive player on the Celtics you won't get an argument from me but you cannot play both sides of the coin. This is REALGM Players Comparison board and we have already established that ONE PLAYER is not entirely responsible for a teams defense good or bad. How do we know this?

12 years of KG in Minnesota and he didn't have nearly the impact as he had in Boston. It was his teammates fault that he his teams posted mediocre to terrible Drtg's.

I have already shown this before:

Defensive Rating 2008

1. Kevin Garnett-BOS 93.8
2. Tim Duncan-SAS 96.6
3. Chuck Hayes-HOU 96.7
4. Kendrick Perkins-BOS 97.3
5. James Posey-BOS 98.0
6. Rasheed Wallace-DET 98.1
7. Marcus Camby-DEN 98.3
8. Rajon Rondo-BOS 98.4
9. Dwight Howard-ORL 98.8
10. Yao Ming-HOU 99.4
11. Paul Pierce-BOS 99.7

How is it that 5 of the top 11 players in 2008 were on the Celtics but all of the credit is going to KG? Nobody can make a defense #1 by themself and when it clearly shows that KG had a lot of help on that end. He was not some one man show. That doesn't even take in account Tony Allen or Glen Davis who were also rated at 99 on defense. That is a stacked team on defense.

For comparison's sake another similar built team that had multiple all stars and were built around their defense the 2004 Pistons. They had DPOY winner Ben Wallace.

Defensive Rating
1. Ben Wallace-DET 87.5
2. Tim Duncan-SAS 88.5
3. Kevin Garnett-MIN 91.6
4. Rasho Nesterovic-SAS 92.2
5. Kenyon Martin-NJN 93.1
6. Manu Ginobili-SAS 93.1
7. Jermaine O'Neal-IND 93.1
8. Hedo Turkoglu-SAS 93.8
9. Mehmet Okur-DET 94.7
10. Kelvin Cato-HOU 95.1
11. Marcus Camby-DEN 95.3
12. Jeff Foster-IND 95.6
13. Metta World Peace-IND 96.0
14. Donyell Marshall-TOT 96.6
15. Samuel Dalembert-PHI 96.8
16. Jason Kidd-NJN 96.8
17. Yao Ming-HOU 96.9
18. Andrei Kirilenko-UTA 97.3
19. Bruce Bowen-SAS 97.3
20. Tayshaun Prince-DET 97.7

In comparison there were only 3 Pistons in the top 20 while there were 5 in the top 11 for the Celtics? Care to explain how no one is saying that Ben Wallace had all time Bill Russell like impact......anyone?

This is an incredibly odd response to my post. I made a post about how Garnett put the team on his back and carried them through the first half of the playoffs until his teammates showed up, and you responded with a (long and poorly supported) rant about the Celtics' defense? Why quote me, then spend most of your post completely not addressing anything I said?

Anyway, as Bastillon pointed out, your "defensive rating" stat doesn't mean what you think it does. The basketball-reference defensive rating stat was designed to be an estimate of how many points a team allows when a player is on the floor. He came up with a formula to estimate this, using box score information. The thing is, in the years since, the rise in +/- stats let's us actually DIRECTLY measure how many points a team allows when a player is on the floor along with when he's off the floor. And it lets us do regressions to get much more specific about how a team defense (or offense) responds to the presence of certain players.

Using the boxscore estimate of defensive rating instead of +/- is like using the North Star to give someone driving directions when GPS is available. It's just not a supportable thing to do.

Also, KG did not lift his game at all. How? His stats are still pedestrian EVEN IF HE WAS THE BEST PLAYER! And I still want to see how KG raised his game or anyone's game in these 2 games:

Game 7 vs the Cavaliers
Game 6 vs the Pistons

KG doesn't bring you back from down under. He doesn't put a team away on his own. He doesn't dominate individually. He can't; it's not his game. He can't go mano-a-mano with another teams superstar. He's the support not the main point......

And once again, you quoted my post on the first 13 games then started talking about something else. No matter. Let's discuss. If you want to see when/how KG raised his game in key games in the 2008 playoffs, there's no need for you to cherry-pick two random games...we have the benefit of hindsight, so we know exactly which were the key games in those playoffs. And there were a lot more than two. We also (should) know that there's more than one way to elevate your game besides scoring. So with that, let's take a look at some of the most important games of the 2008 playoffs:

Cavs Game 1. The Celtics had just gone 7 games with the Hawks, and there was a buzz that they were vulnerable. LeBron was right on the cusp of taking the reigns as the best player in the NBA, and he had led the Cavs to the Finals just the year before. The team had to have this game (and in hindsight we know this even more-so, as without this game the Cavs win the series in 6).

Garnett: 28 points, 8 boards, 3 asts, 59% from the field, 1 TO. Hit the game-tying bucket with about a minute left and the game-winning bucket with about 20 seconds left

Pierce: 4 points, five boards, 3 asts, 14% from field, 6 TOs
Allen: 0 points, 4 reb, 1 ast, 4 TOs

Cavs Game 5: The Celtics had gone up 2-0, then the Cavs had won two straight at home to tie series. Celtics had to win this game 5 at home or face elimination in Cleveland (hindsight: they lost that game in Cleveland, so this win was as crucial as it seemed at the time)

Garnett: 26 points, 16 boards, 4 asts, 2 stls, 3 blks, 0 TOs, 63% from field
Pierce: 29 points, 7 reb, 3 asts, 3 TOs, 42% from field
Allen: 11 points, 3 reb, 2 asts, 1 blk, 3 TOs, 36% from field

Cavs Game 7: One of the games you referenced. This was Pierce's superstar moment, take nothing away. Little known fact, though: in that playoffs series, the team that won the rebound battle won ALL 7 games. In that game 7 the Celtics dominated the glass 39 - 29 to help control this defense-dominated game. KG led the effort on the glass and, with his 13 rebounds, had as many boards a the ENTIRE CAVS STARTING LINE-UP.

Garnett: 13 points, 13 boards, 3 asts, 1 stl, 0 TOs, 39% from field
Pierce: 41 points, 4 boards, 5 asts, 2 stls, 4 TOs, 57% from field

Pistons Game 1:Now fresh off TWO 7-game series and facing the conference bullies, the Celtics absolutely had to start off with a win.

Garnett: 26 points, 9 reb, 4 sts, 1 stl, 2 blks, 3 TOs, 65% from field
Pierce: 22 points, 6 reb, 6 asts, 5 TOs, 50% from field
Allen: 9 points, 2 reb, 4 asts, 2 stls, 30% from field

Pistons Game 3:The Pistons had stolen game 2 in Boston, the Celtics' first home-loss that post-season. The buzz got louder that the Celtics were vulnerable. The Celtics had yet to win on the road in the playoffs, and the Pistons now had homecourt advantage. Garnett led a dominant effort to snatch home-court back

Garnett: 22 points, 13 reb, 6 asts, 2 stl, 3 TOs, 44% FG
Pierce: 11 points, 4 reb, 2 asts, 2 stl, 1 blk, 5 TO, 67% FG
Allen: 14 points, 6 reb, 6 asts, 1 TO, 31% FG

Pistons Game 5: With the series tied at 2-2, the Celtics HAD to win at home or else face elimination in Detroit in the next game. Ray Allen finally woke up with a huge outing and Kendrick Perkins had his best game of the postseason as well. But Garnett was the man with his biggest scoring explosion of the season, including 10 4th quarter points and two clutch free throws with 2 seconds left to ice the game.

Garnett: 33 points, 7 reb, 2 asts, 1 stl, 5 TOs, 65% FG
Pierce: 16 points, 5 reb, 6 asts, 1 stl, 1 TO, 46% FG
Allen: 29 points, 3 reb, 2 asts, 3 TOs, 60% FG

Pistons Game 6: Another game that you referenced. The Celtics came back from a big 4th quarter deficit to close out the Pistons. Pierce was strong this game. But, did you know that Garnett got in foul trouble this game? That in-fact he picked up his 4th foul with 7 minutes left in the 3rd quarter and the Celtics leading by 5. When he went out a minute later the Celtics were still up by 1, but when Garnett returned in the 4th quarter the Pistons had jumped out to an 8 point lead which they'd increase to 10 points by scoring the first bucket of the 4th. Then, Garnett and Pierce went to work. Starting when KG drew a shooting foul with 9:05 left in the 4th with the Celtics down 5 points, and continuing until KG hit a jumper with 3:39 left in the 4th, Garnett and Pierce scored all 16 Celtics points and turned that deficit into a 5-point lead. The Pistons would never get closer than 4-points down for the rest of the game.

Garnett: 16 points, 6 reb, 4 asts, 1 TO, 5 fouls, 44% FG
Pierce: 27 points, 8 reb, 3 asts, 2 stls, 1 blk, 1 TO, 67% FG
Allen: 17 points, 6 reb, 2 asts, 1 stl, 50% FG

Lakers Game 1: It's the Finals! The Lakers are scorching hot, having torched pretty much everyone since Pau Gasol got to town and having just run through the Western Conference. The Celtics have to have this game to start the series on the right foot.

Garnett: 24 points, 13 reb, 3 asts, 1 stl, 1 TO, 41% FG
Pierce: 22 points, 4 reb, 2 asts, 1 stl, 3 TO, 70% FG
Allen: 19 points, 8 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk, 4 TO, 39% FG

Lakers Game 4: This one wasn't so much a must-win coming in, as the Celtics were up 2-1 and it was being played in LA. But the historic comeback in this game put the Cs firmly on the path to the title. After this game they had all the confidence, and the Lakers were on the ropes. This is another foul-trouble game for KG, at least early on. He picked up his 2nd foul 5:55 into the 1st quarter and had to leave the game with the Celtics down 10. When he returned in the 2nd quarter the Celtics were down 21. The Celtics made their big comeback in the 2nd half with a line-up of KG, Pierce, Ray, Posey and House...KG + 4 shooters, that only worked because KG was able to dominate the middle by himself.

Garnett: 17 points, 11 reb, 3 asts, 2 stls, 1 blk, 4 TO, 50% FG
Pierce: 20 points, 4 reb, 7 asts, 1 stl, 1 blk, 4 TOs, 46% FG
Allen: 19 points, 9 reb, 2 asts, 3 stl, 1 blk, 1 TO, 55% FG

Lakers Game 6: The championship closeout. Garnett was upset because he had played poorly at the end of Game 5, and he came out with a vengeance and dominated the game. Early on it was shaping up to be a 1-on-1 battle between KG and Kobe, with Kobe going for 11 1st quarter points to KG's 10. When KG re-entered the game in the 2nd quarter, the Celtics were clinging to a 3-point lead at 32-29. Garnett came in and touched off the killer combo that the Lakers never recovered from. KG scored 7 points with 3 boards and 3 assists over that final 7:31 of the second quarter, in which the Celtics stomped the Lakers out for a 23-point halftime lead. Game over.

At the half Garnett had as many made field goals as the entire Lakers team. In the 2nd half, which was in its entirety Garbage time, Ray (18 points with 6 made treys) and Rondo (15 points, 7 asts) put up some nice numbers. But during the first half, when the game was decided, it was Garnett that stepped on the Lakers' throats.

Garnett: 26 points, 14 reb, 4 asts, 3 stls, 1 blk, 0 TO, 56% FG
Pierce: 17 points, 3 reb, 10 asts, 2 stls, 2 TOs, 31% FG
Allen: 26 points, 4 reb, 2 asts, 3 stls, 1 TOs, 67% FG

Conclusion: Now, that's a pretty exhaustive list of the 10 "biggest" wins that the Celtics had in the 2008 playoffs (not including the Hawks series, in which every win was a blowout). In those 10 big wins KG averaged 23.1 points and 11 boards and made a huge impact in every game. He was the leading scorer in 6 of the 10 games, made many big plays early and late (including one game-winning shot in the last 24 seconds, and in a different game two FTs with 2 seconds left to seal the win), and none of this even touches upon his consistent role as the defensive key on one of the best defenses in history on a team that won with its defense first.

[MisterWestside]

Anyway, as Bastillon pointed out, your "defensive rating" stat doesn't mean what you think it does. The basketball-reference defensive rating stat was designed to be an estimate of how many points a team allows when a player is on the floor.

Not exactly. It's more how many pts/100 possessions a player allows as an individual defender (the possessions HE guards) while on the court.

Carry on though You're correct about the issues of using the box score to measure defense. Not too reliable in general.

[G35]

Conclusion: I kept this extremely basic, and purposefully didn't include any type of "advanced" stats. But check my logic:

IF Garnett doesn't deserve credit because those Celtics were historically stacked, then how come they ONLY made it out of those 13 games due to Garnett's brilliance in the face of a struggling cast?

IF the Celtics were a "weak" champion because of those first 13 games, and they were "weak" over those first 13 games because of the play of Pierce and Allen, then how could they be so "historically stacked" that Garnett doesn't get credit?

It's a double-edged sword. People argue that the team was weak in the postseason as an indictment of KG, then simultaneously want to say that the team was strong and use THAT as an indictment of KG as well. But Garnett was the constant, it was the support...the team around him that alternated wildly between great and struggling. Pierce had a superstar Game 7 against the Cavs and Game 5 against the Lakers along with many other moments both good and bad...Ray had a huge game 5 against the Pistons and a number of big offensive moments in the Finals after his earlier struggles. Over those last 13 games, especially, the other Celtics finally raised their game to the level of support expected of a team capable of +10 SRS in the season and exclamation point victories over strong competition in the last two series. But KG was there the whole time.

In that single playoffs, KG showed the ability to lift his game when necessary and also to allow his teammates to shine when they were ready to perform. The team may have fluctuated as the support did, but Garnett's impact on the team and influence on their winning was consistent, large, and measurable over that postseason. It was every bit worthy of a superstar centerpiece on a championship run. The logic of his critics melts away in the face of the barest common sense application, leaving the double-edged sword blunt all-the-way-around.

I'm sorry NO I missed this argument. Now if you want to say that KG was the best defensive player on the Celtics you won't get an argument from me but you cannot play both sides of the coin. This is REALGM Players Comparison board and we have already established that ONE PLAYER is not entirely responsible for a teams defense good or bad. How do we know this?

12 years of KG in Minnesota and he didn't have nearly the impact as he had in Boston. It was his teammates fault that he his teams posted mediocre to terrible Drtg's.

I have already shown this before:

Defensive Rating 2008

1. Kevin Garnett-BOS 93.8
2. Tim Duncan-SAS 96.6
3. Chuck Hayes-HOU 96.7
4. Kendrick Perkins-BOS 97.3
5. James Posey-BOS 98.0
6. Rasheed Wallace-DET 98.1
7. Marcus Camby-DEN 98.3
8. Rajon Rondo-BOS 98.4
9. Dwight Howard-ORL 98.8
10. Yao Ming-HOU 99.4
11. Paul Pierce-BOS 99.7

How is it that 5 of the top 11 players in 2008 were on the Celtics but all of the credit is going to KG? Nobody can make a defense #1 by themself and when it clearly shows that KG had a lot of help on that end. He was not some one man show. That doesn't even take in account Tony Allen or Glen Davis who were also rated at 99 on defense. That is a stacked team on defense.

For comparison's sake another similar built team that had multiple all stars and were built around their defense the 2004 Pistons. They had DPOY winner Ben Wallace.

Defensive Rating
1. Ben Wallace-DET 87.5
2. Tim Duncan-SAS 88.5
3. Kevin Garnett-MIN 91.6
4. Rasho Nesterovic-SAS 92.2
5. Kenyon Martin-NJN 93.1
6. Manu Ginobili-SAS 93.1
7. Jermaine O'Neal-IND 93.1
8. Hedo Turkoglu-SAS 93.8
9. Mehmet Okur-DET 94.7
10. Kelvin Cato-HOU 95.1
11. Marcus Camby-DEN 95.3
12. Jeff Foster-IND 95.6
13. Metta World Peace-IND 96.0
14. Donyell Marshall-TOT 96.6
15. Samuel Dalembert-PHI 96.8
16. Jason Kidd-NJN 96.8
17. Yao Ming-HOU 96.9
18. Andrei Kirilenko-UTA 97.3
19. Bruce Bowen-SAS 97.3
20. Tayshaun Prince-DET 97.7

In comparison there were only 3 Pistons in the top 20 while there were 5 in the top 11 for the Celtics? Care to explain how no one is saying that Ben Wallace had all time Bill Russell like impact......anyone?

This is an incredibly odd response to my post. I made a post about how Garnett put the team on his back and carried them through the first half of the playoffs until his teammates showed up, and you responded with a (long and poorly supported) rant about the Celtics' defense? Why quote me, then spend most of your post completely not addressing anything I said?

Anyway, as Bastillon pointed out, your "defensive rating" stat doesn't mean what you think it does. The basketball-reference defensive rating stat was designed to be an estimate of how many points a team allows when a player is on the floor. He came up with a formula to estimate this, using box score information. The thing is, in the years since, the rise in +/- stats let's us actually DIRECTLY measure how many points a team allows when a player is on the floor along with when he's off the floor. And it lets us do regressions to get much more specific about how a team defense (or offense) responds to the presence of certain players.

Using the boxscore estimate of defensive rating instead of +/- is like using the North Star to give someone driving directions when GPS is available. It's just not a supportable thing to do.

Also, KG did not lift his game at all. How? His stats are still pedestrian EVEN IF HE WAS THE BEST PLAYER! And I still want to see how KG raised his game or anyone's game in these 2 games:

Game 7 vs the Cavaliers
Game 6 vs the Pistons

KG doesn't bring you back from down under. He doesn't put a team away on his own. He doesn't dominate individually. He can't; it's not his game. He can't go mano-a-mano with another teams superstar. He's the support not the main point......

And once again, you quoted my post on the first 13 games then started talking about something else. No matter. Let's discuss. If you want to see when/how KG raised his game in key games in the 2008 playoffs, there's no need for you to cherry-pick two random games...we have the benefit of hindsight, so we know exactly which were the key games in those playoffs. And there were a lot more than two. We also (should) know that there's more than one way to elevate your game besides scoring. So with that, let's take a look at some of the most important games of the 2008 playoffs:

Cavs Game 1. The Celtics had just gone 7 games with the Hawks, and there was a buzz that they were vulnerable. LeBron was right on the cusp of taking the reigns as the best player in the NBA, and he had led the Cavs to the Finals just the year before. The team had to have this game (and in hindsight we know this even more-so, as without this game the Cavs win the series in 6).

Garnett: 28 points, 8 boards, 3 asts, 59% from the field, 1 TO. Hit the game-tying bucket with about a minute left and the game-winning bucket with about 20 seconds left

Pierce: 4 points, five boards, 3 asts, 14% from field, 6 TOs
Allen: 0 points, 4 reb, 1 ast, 4 TOs

Cavs Game 5: The Celtics had gone up 2-0, then the Cavs had won two straight at home to tie series. Celtics had to win this game 5 at home or face elimination in Cleveland (hindsight: they lost that game in Cleveland, so this win was as crucial as it seemed at the time)

Garnett: 26 points, 16 boards, 4 asts, 2 stls, 3 blks, 0 TOs, 63% from field
Pierce: 29 points, 7 reb, 3 asts, 3 TOs, 42% from field
Allen: 11 points, 3 reb, 2 asts, 1 blk, 3 TOs, 36% from field

Cavs Game 7: One of the games you referenced. This was Pierce's superstar moment, take nothing away. Little known fact, though: in that playoffs series, the team that won the rebound battle won ALL 7 games. In that game 7 the Celtics dominated the glass 39 - 29 to help control this defense-dominated game. KG led the effort on the glass and, with his 13 rebounds, had as many boards a the ENTIRE CAVS STARTING LINE-UP.

Garnett: 13 points, 13 boards, 3 asts, 1 stl, 0 TOs, 39% from field
Pierce: 41 points, 4 boards, 5 asts, 2 stls, 4 TOs, 57% from field

Pistons Game 1:Now fresh off TWO 7-game series and facing the conference bullies, the Celtics absolutely had to start off with a win.

Garnett: 26 points, 9 reb, 4 sts, 1 stl, 2 blks, 3 TOs, 65% from field
Pierce: 22 points, 6 reb, 6 asts, 5 TOs, 50% from field
Allen: 9 points, 2 reb, 4 asts, 2 stls, 30% from field

Pistons Game 3:The Pistons had stolen game 2 in Boston, the Celtics' first home-loss that post-season. The buzz got louder that the Celtics were vulnerable. The Celtics had yet to win on the road in the playoffs, and the Pistons now had homecourt advantage. Garnett led a dominant effort to snatch home-court back

Garnett: 22 points, 13 reb, 6 asts, 2 stl, 3 TOs, 44% FG
Pierce: 11 points, 4 reb, 2 asts, 2 stl, 1 blk, 5 TO, 67% FG
Allen: 14 points, 6 reb, 6 asts, 1 TO, 31% FG

Pistons Game 5: With the series tied at 2-2, the Celtics HAD to win at home or else face elimination in Detroit in the next game. Ray Allen finally woke up with a huge outing and Kendrick Perkins had his best game of the postseason as well. But Garnett was the man with his biggest scoring explosion of the season, including 10 4th quarter points and two clutch free throws with 2 seconds left to ice the game.

Garnett: 33 points, 7 reb, 2 asts, 1 stl, 5 TOs, 65% FG
Pierce: 16 points, 5 reb, 6 asts, 1 stl, 1 TO, 46% FG
Allen: 29 points, 3 reb, 2 asts, 3 TOs, 60% FG

Pistons Game 6: Another game that you referenced. The Celtics came back from a big 4th quarter deficit to close out the Pistons. Pierce was strong this game. But, did you know that Garnett got in foul trouble this game? That in-fact he picked up his 4th foul with 7 minutes left in the 3rd quarter and the Celtics leading by 5. When he went out a minute later the Celtics were still up by 1, but when Garnett returned in the 4th quarter the Pistons had jumped out to an 8 point lead which they'd increase to 10 points by scoring the first bucket of the 4th. Then, Garnett and Pierce went to work. Starting when KG drew a shooting foul with 9:05 left in the 4th with the Celtics down 5 points, and continuing until KG hit a jumper with 3:39 left in the 4th, Garnett and Pierce scored all 16 Celtics points and turned that deficit into a 5-point lead. The Pistons would never get closer than 4-points down for the rest of the game.

Garnett: 16 points, 6 reb, 4 asts, 1 TO, 5 fouls, 44% FG
Pierce: 27 points, 8 reb, 3 asts, 2 stls, 1 blk, 1 TO, 67% FG
Allen: 17 points, 6 reb, 2 asts, 1 stl, 50% FG

Lakers Game 1: It's the Finals! The Lakers are scorching hot, having torched pretty much everyone since Pau Gasol got to town and having just run through the Western Conference. The Celtics have to have this game to start the series on the right foot.

Garnett: 24 points, 13 reb, 3 asts, 1 stl, 1 TO, 41% FG
Pierce: 22 points, 4 reb, 2 asts, 1 stl, 3 TO, 70% FG
Allen: 19 points, 8 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk, 4 TO, 39% FG

Lakers Game 4: This one wasn't so much a must-win coming in, as the Celtics were up 2-1 and it was being played in LA. But the historic comeback in this game put the Cs firmly on the path to the title. After this game they had all the confidence, and the Lakers were on the ropes. This is another foul-trouble game for KG, at least early on. He picked up his 2nd foul 5:55 into the 1st quarter and had to leave the game with the Celtics down 10. When he returned in the 2nd quarter the Celtics were down 21. The Celtics made their big comeback in the 2nd half with a line-up of KG, Pierce, Ray, Posey and House...KG + 4 shooters, that only worked because KG was able to dominate the middle by himself.

Garnett: 17 points, 11 reb, 3 asts, 2 stls, 1 blk, 4 TO, 50% FG
Pierce: 20 points, 4 reb, 7 asts, 1 stl, 1 blk, 4 TOs, 46% FG
Allen: 19 points, 9 reb, 2 asts, 3 stl, 1 blk, 1 TO, 55% FG

Lakers Game 6: The championship closeout. Garnett was upset because he had played poorly at the end of Game 5, and he came out with a vengeance and dominated the game. Early on it was shaping up to be a 1-on-1 battle between KG and Kobe, with Kobe going for 11 1st quarter points to KG's 10. When KG re-entered the game in the 2nd quarter, the Celtics were clinging to a 3-point lead at 32-29. Garnett came in and touched off the killer combo that the Lakers never recovered from. KG scored 7 points with 3 boards and 3 assists over that final 7:31 of the second quarter, in which the Celtics stomped the Lakers out for a 23-point halftime lead. Game over.

At the half Garnett had as many made field goals as the entire Lakers team. In the 2nd half, which was in its entirety Garbage time, Ray (18 points with 6 made treys) and Rondo (15 points, 7 asts) put up some nice numbers. But during the first half, when the game was decided, it was Garnett that stepped on the Lakers' throats.

Garnett: 26 points, 14 reb, 4 asts, 3 stls, 1 blk, 0 TO, 56% FG
Pierce: 17 points, 3 reb, 10 asts, 2 stls, 2 TOs, 31% FG
Allen: 26 points, 4 reb, 2 asts, 3 stls, 1 TOs, 67% FG

Conclusion: Now, that's a pretty exhaustive list of the 10 "biggest" wins that the Celtics had in the 2008 playoffs (not including the Hawks series, in which every win was a blowout). In those 10 big wins KG averaged 23.1 points and 11 boards and made a huge impact in every game. He was the leading scorer in 6 of the 10 games, made many big plays early and late (including one game-winning shot in the last 24 seconds, and in a different game two FTs with 2 seconds left to seal the win), and none of this even touches upon his consistent role as the defensive key on one of the best defenses in history on a team that won with its defense first.

Well it may seem as if I'm responding to you but I'm really not, NO-KG-AI said your post refuted all of my claims.
My claims are that KG does not show up in the biggest games. He was not the sole reason for the Celtics great defense (and it seems not one KG supporter will admit that because that is their holy grail defense for him).

Did KG really do anything more than he did in the regular season? 20 and 10 is right there in line with KG's career avg's. Nothing more, nothing less. It's nothing to be ashamed of and I'm not saying he should be downgraded for it, but there is no reason he should be given props for 20/10 on pretty avg efficiency.

Those games that I pointed out you did nothing to refute it. Not your fault since there is nothing that you can say for KG. In the Cleveland game it was a win or go home scenario. KG DID NOT SHOW UP. Pierce did, that's raising your game. Lebron raised his game. I keep asking why the DPOY didn't go out and guard Lebron when he was on fire, posting 45 pts on one of the best defenses in league history?

How is 13 pts in a game 7 of a semi-finals matchup raising your game? If Kobe did that he would get killed, if Lebron did that they would say he choked, if Durant did that they would say he is not ready to win. KG get's credit for "willing" Pierce to a superstar game.

Then the Pistons game 6; you say that KG was in foul trouble.........so? That's an excuse? He should not have gotten in foul trouble when he is the anchor of the Celtics defense, when he is so important to their team. Then you say that when KG left the game the Celtics were down by 1 and then when he came back in the game they were down by 8. Let me ask you this question:

What other superstar of KG's caliber would you not expect that? If KG is so valuable isn't that what you expect to happen? What's interesting to me is that the Celtics didn't completely fall apart ON THE ROAD, in a hostile environment (Detroit).

So you detailed what KG did, but you do know Pierce was the leading scorer in that 4th quarter with 13 of the Celtics 29 pts.

Also there were MULTIPLE contributions from Celtics players on defense:

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/playbypla ... 8&period=4

9:37 62-70 Richard Hamilton bad pass (James Posey steals)

9:30 64-70 Theo Ratliff shooting foul (Kendrick Perkins draws the foul)

7:39 69-70 Antonio McDyess personal foul (Paul Pierce draws the foul)

7:35 69-70 Jason Maxiell personal foul (Paul Pierce draws the foul)

7:18 70-70 Richard Hamilton lost ball (Kendrick Perkins steals)

5:24 74-74 Rodney Stuckey shooting foul (Paul Pierce draws the foul)

5:05 75-74 Rasheed Wallace bad pass (Rajon Rondo steals)

4:11 77-74 Jason Maxiell personal foul (Paul Pierce draws the foul)

1:39 83-79 Tayshaun Prince lost ball (James Posey steals)

1:35 83-79 Richard Hamilton personal foul (Paul Pierce draws the foul)

1:23 85-79 Kendrick Perkins blocks Chauncey Billups's layup

0:30 85-79 Chauncey Billups personal foul (Paul Pierce draws the foul)

0:22 86-79 Rodney Stuckey personal foul (Ray Allen draws the foul)

0:15 88-81 Tayshaun Prince personal foul (Paul Pierce draws the foul)

Now I'm sure you can see the effect that Pierce had on the game with his ability to draw fouls and get the Celtics into the penalty. The Celtics shot 18 FT's in that quarter, and KG actually missed two critical FT's near the end that would have iced the game.

My point is that without Pierce they don't get out of the Cleveland series. They don't get out of the Pistons series. Pierce directly was the primary reason why the Celtics closed out those teams.


Game 1 of the finals. Yes the Celtics needed to have that game, not winning game 1 would have been devastating.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=280605002

However, everyone's worries were soothed just moments later when Pierce returned to Boston's bench and checked back in with 5:04 remaining. As Pierce jogged onto the court with a black elastic wrap on his knee, Garnett clinched a fist and screamed, "Yes!"

"Everybody was rejuvenated," said Garnett, who had 13 rebounds. "It was good to see him."

Soon, more than 18,000 others were screaming as Pierce made two 3-pointers in just 22 seconds, capping a 15-point quarter and giving the Celtics a 75-71 lead.

With their crowd breaking into the familiar "Beat L.A." chants from the outset, the Celtics led 77-73 after three quarters and quickly pushed their lead to eight in the fourth following a 3-pointer by James Posey. Fisher and Sasha Vujacic scored to get the Lakers within 86-82, but Pierce countered with a jumper and made two free throws to put Boston up 90-82.

The Lakers again got within six, but Garnett, who missed nine shots in a row, followed up a miss with a ferocious dunk to crown Boston's win.

Come on, yeah KG may have scored the most points but it was Pierce who willed the Celtics to victory. That's what I saw all series was Pierce killing the Lakers and I think that was validated when Pierce was named Finals MVP......

[Fencer reregistered]

He's one of a handful of players in league history who I believe guarantee you a title as long as you give them a decent amount of help.

That must explain his many rings.

[WindmillSlam]

Kevin Garnett's best statistical season:
2003-04 24.2 ppg, 13.9 rpg, 5.0 apg, 1.5 spg, 2.2 bpg

Moses Malone's best statistical season:
1981-82 31.1 ppg, 14.7 rpg, 1.8 apg, 0.9 spg, 1.5 bpg

Only thing you could really argue more in Garnett's favor is defense. Malone is way more of a dominant player though.

[Jonny Blaze]

Kevin Garnett's best statistical season:
2003-04 24.2 ppg, 13.9 rpg, 5.0 apg, 1.5 spg, 2.2 bpg

Moses Malone's best statistical season:
1981-82 31.1 ppg, 14.7 rpg, 1.8 apg, 0.9 spg, 1.5 bpg

Only thing you could really argue more in Garnett's favor is defense. Malone is way more of a dominant player though.

The People that will argue against this post are the same people that will argue that 12-1 is equivalent to 16-10.

[NO-KG-AI]

Probably because people use context. Like the fact that Moses played 42 minutes. Or that the Rockets offense wasn't that great, despite how "dominant" he was. That's why every metric shows KG as a better player. Except ppg/rpg.

G35 must be a massive Tebow/Vince young fan.

[WhateverBro]

Kevin Garnett's best statistical season:
2003-04 24.2 ppg, 13.9 rpg, 5.0 apg, 1.5 spg, 2.2 bpg

Moses Malone's best statistical season:
1981-82 31.1 ppg, 14.7 rpg, 1.8 apg, 0.9 spg, 1.5 bpg

Only thing you could really argue more in Garnett's favor is defense. Malone is way more of a dominant player though.

Why wouldn't you put those numbers in its context though?

Moses Malone averaged 42 mpg, compared to KGs 39.4 mpg. The per 36 numbers looks very different and KG basically has the edge in every statistical category except scoring.

Garnett posts a higher rebounding percentage and lower turnover percentage. There's also the pace factor, which obviously inflates Moses stats. Rockets had 97.2 possessions per 48 minutes, while the Timberwolves had 89. To put those numbers in context for you, Nash led Phoenix Suns highest pace was in 07-08 with 96.7 possessions per 48.

So that Rockets team played faster than the SSOL offense that Phoenix ran in the mid to late 00s, while the Timberwolves pace would rank dead last in todays league, behind Memphis Grizzlies who plays with a pace of 90.

Also, the defense argument is kinda big considering it's half of the game. You're basically giving the edge to Moses for scoring more, ignoring everything else that happens on the floor.

[Jonny Blaze]

Probably because people use context. Like the fact that Moses played 42 minutes. Or that the Rockets offense wasn't that great, despite how "dominant" he was. That's why every metric shows KG as a better player. Except ppg/rpg.

G35 must be a massive Tebow/Vince young fan.

Oh....okay I get it now. Thank you for clarifying.

That is a great argument. .

If you don't take into account scoring, rebounding, NBA MVPS, NBA Final MVPS, playoff statistics, and playoff success Kevin Garnett is the better player.

Got it.

[Prokorov]

Starting a new franchise, who you got?

moses. he was just more of a go to force offensively. i dont think garnett was ever a 'force' on offense.

[Prokorov]

Moses easy. He averaged 31.1 PPG and 14.7 RPG in his MVP prime ('81-'82). Better scorer AND rebounder than KG and arguably the greatest offensive rebounder ever. Mo kicked Kareem's ass in the '83 finals (24.5/15.3 in '82-'83) and helped lead the Sixers to a four game sweep. No way KG is kicking Kareem's ass....ever. Also, Mo somehow led a sub .500 Rockets team to the finals in '81 as well. Hakeem used to play ball with Mo in Houston during the off season as a younger player to learn from him. Show Mo some respect.

for me this is it. moses was a more dominant force, and he could outplay the best player on any team and carry you offenisvely. not to dominish what garnett does. but i dont see KG dropping liek 40/20 on another star in the playoffs. i think its one of the reasons barkley gets so overlooked. barkley's defense wasnt stellar, but when he was dropping 40 and grabbing 20 boards and setting the tone of the game that was more impactful then playing great D.

same with moses. maybe he wasnt garnett elite as a defender, but when he is grabbing every board in site, scoring a ton inside, and getting offensive rebounds that is a really disruptive thing. dominating the tone of the game isnt something shows up in stat sheets... but its also non "intangable nonsense".

[Prokorov]

It's a very popular opinion. I think like 30-35% of posters here actually consider Garnett to be a top 15 player, let alone top 20. I happen to be one of them, but from what I've seen, some terrific posters like Doctor MJ, fpliii, bastillon and DavidStern even have him in their top 10.

Wow. I think top 15 is very excessive and top 10 is just absurd. That's a rabbit hole to jump down another time though lol.

Top ten? That's criminal. Seven first round exits as "the man" in Minnesota. That alone keeps him off any top 20 lists in my opinion let alone top 10.

the thing is, in almost every era, you need one elite offensive player(or close to elite - or a guy who raises his level to elite offensive player) to win a ring. their are obviously a handful of exceptions. but you need that guy who can score and give you dominant offense.

And that was what failed KG in his prime in minnesota. he just never had a guy who could go on scoring spurts and carry the offense. I think the only legit knock you can put on garnett, is for a guy that skilled, who is 7 feet, he never really developed a low post game.

once he had pierce, he had a guy who could get buckets in big spots and take over offensively.

[NO-KG-AI]

Probably because people use context. Like the fact that Moses played 42 minutes. Or that the Rockets offense wasn't that great, despite how "dominant" he was. That's why every metric shows KG as a better player. Except ppg/rpg.

G35 must be a massive Tebow/Vince young fan.

Oh....okay I get it now. Thank you for clarifying.

That is a great argument. .

If you don't take into account scoring, rebounding, NBA MVPS, NBA Final MVPS, playoff statistics, and playoff success Kevin Garnett is the better player.

Got it.

Well, you could say all that, but on the quoted seasons that you cherry picked stats with no context(and backed up with your "points"), Garnett was a better rebounder in the regular season and playoffs, a better scorer in the playoffs, an amazing passer, as opposed to a bad one, also won an MVP, played DPOY level defense, and made the conference finals, where Moses got swept

[WhateverBro]

Wow. I think top 15 is very excessive and top 10 is just absurd. That's a rabbit hole to jump down another time though lol.

Top ten? That's criminal. Seven first round exits as "the man" in Minnesota. That alone keeps him off any top 20 lists in my opinion let alone top 10.

the thing is, in almost every era, you need one elite offensive player(or close to elite - or a guy who raises his level to elite offensive player) to win a ring. their are obviously a handful of exceptions. but you need that guy who can score and give you dominant offense.

And that was what failed KG in his prime in minnesota. he just never had a guy who could go on scoring spurts and carry the offense. I think the only legit knock you can put on garnett, is for a guy that skilled, who is 7 feet, he never really developed a low post game.

once he had pierce, he had a guy who could get buckets in big spots and take over offensively.

Yet, Garnett was the one who lead the team in scoring during their title run and scored most 4th quarter points and clutch points.

[The Infamous1]

Wow. I think top 15 is very excessive and top 10 is just absurd. That's a rabbit hole to jump down another time though lol.

Top ten? That's criminal. Seven first round exits as "the man" in Minnesota. That alone keeps him off any top 20 lists in my opinion let alone top 10.

the thing is, in almost every era, you need one elite offensive player(or close to elite - or a guy who raises his level to elite offensive player) to win a ring. their are obviously a handful of exceptions. but you need that guy who can score and give you dominant offense.

And that was what failed KG in his prime in minnesota. he just never had a guy who could go on scoring spurts and carry the offense. I think the only legit knock you can put on garnett, is for a guy that skilled, who is 7 feet, he never really developed a low post game.

once he had pierce, he had a guy who could get buckets in big spots and take over offensively.

I always said there was no excuse for KG not to be a consistent 25 PPG to 27 PPG scorer in his prime

[NO-KG-AI]

Top ten? That's criminal. Seven first round exits as "the man" in Minnesota. That alone keeps him off any top 20 lists in my opinion let alone top 10.

the thing is, in almost every era, you need one elite offensive player(or close to elite - or a guy who raises his level to elite offensive player) to win a ring. their are obviously a handful of exceptions. but you need that guy who can score and give you dominant offense.

And that was what failed KG in his prime in minnesota. he just never had a guy who could go on scoring spurts and carry the offense. I think the only legit knock you can put on garnett, is for a guy that skilled, who is 7 feet, he never really developed a low post game.

once he had pierce, he had a guy who could get buckets in big spots and take over offensively.

I always said there was no excuse for KG not to be a consistent 25 PPG to 27 PPG scorer in his prime

Very curious statement. Don't mix up couldn't and shouldn't.

[The Infamous1]

He had all the tools though

Were talking about a 7 footer who had a great midrange game and good handles for a big. If he would've combined that with a good post game he would be a monster scorer

[WhateverBro]

He had all the tools though

Were talking about a 7 footer who had a great midrange game and good handles for a big. If he would've combined that with a good post game he would be a monster scorer

You do know that scoring more points doesnt necessarily mean that he would help the team more, right?

[The Infamous1]

He had all the tools though

Were talking about a 7 footer who had a great midrange game and good handles for a big. If he would've combined that with a good post game he would be a monster scorer

You do know that scoring more points doesnt necessarily mean that he would help the team more, right?

Who would it hurt? How does efficient volume scoring hurt a team? Virtually every nba champion in the last several decades has had a Efficient volume scorer leading them on the roster.

Look at the last 2 years they missed the playoffs, they're offense was garbage. They needed a guy who could put up tons of points

[NO-KG-AI]

Who is the gold standard for the PF position?