Kevin Garnett's Scoring Ability........

[drza]

Yes. It is the equivalent of a 50fg% player vs a 44%fg% player if that make it easier for you to understand. Better yet, it is the equivalent of an AI vs a D-Wade 2pts goal efficiency if that help if you understand better.

But it's not, though. Here is what that 3 percent of true shooting percentage translates to, practically. Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett, playoffs, from 1999 - 2008:

Duncan: 23.6 ppg (on 17.5 FGA + 8.8 FT = 21.4 shot possessions used), 3.6 ast (3.1 TO)
Garnett: 22.3 ppg (on 18.8 FGA + 5.8 FT = 21.3 shot possessions used), 4.5 ast (2.9 TO)

Duncan scored 1.3 more points on a similar number of shot attempts. Garnett had 0.9 more assists with a similar number of turnovers.

It is NOT the same as AI vs D'Wade's 2 pt goal efficiency. It isn't REMOTELY in the same vicinity. Seriously, look at the actual source numbers again. Duncan and Garnett, in the playoffs, in their primes, both used a tad oer 28 possessions per game. And they produced almost exactly the same number of points for their teams, at least as measured by the box scores. The difference is in the decimal points, in either direction.

This is NOT a big difference. Is it? Pretend for a moment that I understand the concepts of true shooting percentage and field goal percentage perfectly, and instead explain to me why the minuscule differences illustrated above (in by the way a measure that doesn't NEARLY cover the entirety of offense anyway), are the basis for a near universal argument of one player's superiority over another. Please do, because THAT is one thing I've never understood.

Try look at the PS again. KG missed the playoff in '05, '06, '07. You might as well compare them from '99 to '04 if we are to be really fair here.

Code: Select all

         From   To     FG%     PTS    TRB    AST   STL   BLK   TOV
Duncan   1999   2004   0.505   24.3   13.6   4.1   0.8   3.0   3.5
KG       1999   2004   0.455   23.5   14.2   5.3   1.4   1.9   3.5
                           
                           
         From   PER    TS%     WS    WS/48  OBPM  DBPM  BPM   VORP
Duncan   1999   27.0   0.561   15.1   0.2   4.3   4.7   9.0   8.6
KG       1999   24.5   0.513   5.5    0.2   1.2   5.2   6.4   3.6

A 1pt difference in a massive efficiency. Advance stat are better for Duncan across the board. Also Duncan played more games, 73 to 49 on KG. And this is including Duncan missing '00 PS in his prime form.

There's no need for me to "look at the PS again". As far as I can tell, the numbers I posted were perfectly accurate and included every postseason that Duncan and Garnett played in during the years most commonly assigned for their primes. You apparently didn't like the inclusive prime numbers, and instead wanted to sculpt to certain years when both Duncan and Garnett were in the same postseason. But you didn't add any information to the discussion with this post. You didn't add any context. The info you posted could be cut-and-pasted from Basketball-Reference. I asked before that, for the sake of this discussion, you please consider that I may understand the numbers and concepts perfectly. I'm not asking for you to show me the numbers...I got those. At the very least, put them in some interesting context. Like...OK, let's play.

Duncan vs Garnett scoring (volume/efficiency), playoffs, peak seasons, in context
I showed the numbers for their entire primes, all postseasons, inclusive. You wanted to focus more on the years they both played in the postseason, at their peaks. OK. Then I'll counter you by offering this context: let's look at the playoff series each season, in their peak years, when both of them were in the playoffs, where they were in the most similar situation. As defined in 1 of 3 ways:

1) They play each other head-to-head (happened twice from 1999 - 2004)
2) They play the same opponent, in the same postseason (happened twice from 1999 - 2004)
3) If neither of these things happened, look at their elimination round (happened once from 1999 - 2004)

1999: KG and Duncan went head-to-head (4 games)
2001: KG and Duncan went head-to-head (4 games)
2002: Elimination round (5 games for Duncan, 3 for KG)
2003: Both played the Lakers (6 games)
2004: Both played the Lakers (6 games)

Remember, the premise is that in the playoffs, Duncan steps it up to a level that Garnett can't reach (in terms of scoring volume/efficiency). My counter-premise is that this isn't true, but that Garnett instead faced worse circumstances. And that when KG and Duncan were in similar circumstances, in the playoffs, at their peaks, they performed similarly.

Alright, here's how this experiment played out.

Duncan: 1999 - 2004, 25 games: 24.1 ppg, 22.2 shot possessions used, 4.0 ast, 3.3 TO, 13.0 reb
Garnett: 1999 - 2004, 23 game: 23.8 ppg, 22.6 shot possessions used, 4.6 ast, 3.1 TO, 14.2 reb

Hey, what do you know?! Even during the peak years that you specified, when both played in the playoffs as you specified, when even a basic context filter is applied (e.g. the series where their circumstances were most similar), Duncan and Garnett produce postseason offensive volume and efficiency numbers that are almost exactly the same in terms of possessions used and resultant team points! The SAME result you get if you take off all the filters, and just look at their postseason performances over the entirety of their primes. Hmmmmm.

And again, this is just the basic boxscore numbers. Whether we zoom in close by examining the circumstances and context at their peaks, or zoom outward and just look at overall playoff box score numbers in their primes, Garnett and Duncan produced similar numbers of points for their teams while using similar numbers of possessions, as measured by the box scores. But my point all along has been that scoring efficiency is only one small part of offense, with many other parts of the offense not captured in the box scores, so small differences in individual scoring efficiency don't mean much anyway!

So, I'll try one more time. And please, don't just cut and paste something from basketball-reference.com. I'm trying to advance the conversation past that point. Please convince me, using some type of on-court impact-based logic, preferably with some sort of quantification but at the very least using sound logic that can be debated for relevance, why should the small differences in scoring efficiency mean all that much, especially when comparing two players like Garnett and Duncan who bring so much ELSE to the table?

[Texas Chuck]

I showed the numbers for their entire primes, all postseasons, inclusive. You wanted to focus more on the years they both played in the postseason, at their peaks. OK. Then I'll counter you by offering this context: let's look at the playoff series each season, in their peak years, when both of them were in the playoffs, where they were in the most similar situation. As defined in 1 of 3 ways:

1) They play each other head-to-head (happened twice from 1999 - 2004)
2) They play the same opponent, in the same postseason (happened twice from 1999 - 2004)
3) If neither of these things happened, look at their elimination round (happened once from 1999 - 2004)

1999: KG and Duncan went head-to-head (4 games)
2001: KG and Duncan went head-to-head (4 games)
2002: Elimination round (5 games for Duncan, 3 for KG)
2003: Both played the Lakers (6 games)
2004: Both played the Lakers (6 games)

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but I'm not sure you are actually accomplishing what you claim in the underlined. The fact remains that their role on their own teams remained dissimilar. And of course a common opponent means something, but doesn't mean the circumstances should be treated as equal. Teams(and key players) match up differently against common opponents What might be a terrible matchup for the Wolves might be a favorable one for the Spurs or vice versa(tho less likely during this time period where the Spurs were the superior team every year outside of 2004).

Even H2H matchups are only so telling. I know from your previous posts you put very little stock in the only Dirk/KG matchup(and rightfully so). Even if KG and Duncan defended each other exclusively--obviously they didn't--they aren't the same defenders as each other either. Plus the sample sizes here are so small.


Overall I feel like this whole line of discussion probably isn't worth the time and effort being put into it--you shouldn't have to be defending KG in this manner imo-- but since you guys are engaging in it, I felt compelled to question a bit your methodology--primarily because you were so stern with the other poster about the same. Please don't take this the wrong way as I have always been a strong defender of your methodology(even where I disagree with some of it as here). Just something that didn't add up right to me.

Feel free of course to show where I am dead wrong in my concerns here, but I'm leery of how you are defining this specific comparison.

[drza]

I showed the numbers for their entire primes, all postseasons, inclusive. You wanted to focus more on the years they both played in the postseason, at their peaks. OK. Then I'll counter you by offering this context: let's look at the playoff series each season, in their peak years, when both of them were in the playoffs, where they were in the most similar situation. As defined in 1 of 3 ways:

1) They play each other head-to-head (happened twice from 1999 - 2004)
2) They play the same opponent, in the same postseason (happened twice from 1999 - 2004)
3) If neither of these things happened, look at their elimination round (happened once from 1999 - 2004)

1999: KG and Duncan went head-to-head (4 games)
2001: KG and Duncan went head-to-head (4 games)
2002: Elimination round (5 games for Duncan, 3 for KG)
2003: Both played the Lakers (6 games)
2004: Both played the Lakers (6 games)

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but I'm not sure you are actually accomplishing what you claim in the underlined. The fact remains that their role on their own teams remained dissimilar. And of course a common opponent means something, but doesn't mean the circumstances should be treated as equal. Teams(and key players) match up differently against common opponents What might be a terrible matchup for the Wolves might be a favorable one for the Spurs or vice versa(tho less likely during this time period where the Spurs were the superior team every year outside of 2004).

Even H2H matchups are only so telling. I know from your previous posts you put very little stock in the only Dirk/KG matchup(and rightfully so). Even if KG and Duncan defended each other exclusively--obviously they didn't--they aren't the same defenders as each other either. Plus the sample sizes here are so small.


Overall I feel like this whole line of discussion probably isn't worth the time and effort being put into it--you shouldn't have to be defending KG in this manner imo-- but since you guys are engaging in it, I felt compelled to question a bit your methodology--primarily because you were so stern with the other poster about the same. Please don't take this the wrong way as I have always been a strong defender of your methodology(even where I disagree with some of it as here). Just something that didn't add up right to me.

Feel free of course to show where I am dead wrong in my concerns here, but I'm leery of how you are defining this specific comparison.

Hey Chuck. I never have any problem at all with push-back. My response to you would be, in the underlined phrase that you mentioned, read the sentence again with the bolded word emphasized. Because I 100% agree with your point, that this wasn't an exact 1-to-1 comparison. But it was closer to same level than just looking at the raw numbers, which was my point.

As I'm sure you know...I'm a bit wordy. So I actually like to go further towards isolating their roles and really breaking down the specifics in a KG vs Duncan (or really, any) debate. The problem I find, is, when I go really in depth a lot of people don't read till the end. So you'll have this situation, kind of like the one in this thread, where a bunch of people will be spouting what are (to me) trite or debunked ideas, then there'll be one or two people saying "drza debunked that already", but most won't hear it.

So here, what I was trying to do, was really condense a message I've written before into a a really short, bite-sized chunk. The tradeoff to something more manageable is that I didn't get to go as in depth as I'd like...and I'm still kind of hoping that my challenges to 2klegend will get him to engage and go into more depth on the comparison, which is where I like to live.

But to your critique I respond, I agree, what I wrote isn't as far into context as I'd like it to be (you really CAN'T get full context staying only with the box scores). But I feel like it's a lot more fair comparison than just going global when it should be REALLY obvious that Duncan and KG had way different support situations up until 2008. But without numbers, many aren't willing to accept that.

Do you disagree that looking at H2Hs and common opponents is at least more even, in better context, than just looking at the numbers that 2klegend posted?

[Joseph17]

I never saw prime Garnett, as I only saw post-knee surgery KG. So I'll preface my statement with that. However, when I was looking through his stats, I noticed that he never had a season where he averaged over 25 PPG (he topped out at 24), and never scored more than 35 in a playoff game, despite being far and away the best player on his team in Minnesota. From the highlights I've seen so far, he looked extremely athletic back then, and of course, KG always had his feathery jump shot. So what prevented him from producing gaudier point totals?

He's a really underrated scorer. He was simply too unselfish when he was at his peak in Minnesota. He could have averaged 25 a game easily, but he cared more about being an all-around player than a scorer.

[2klegend]

But it's not, though. Here is what that 3 percent of true shooting percentage translates to, practically. Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett, playoffs, from 1999 - 2008:

Duncan: 23.6 ppg (on 17.5 FGA + 8.8 FT = 21.4 shot possessions used), 3.6 ast (3.1 TO)
Garnett: 22.3 ppg (on 18.8 FGA + 5.8 FT = 21.3 shot possessions used), 4.5 ast (2.9 TO)

Duncan scored 1.3 more points on a similar number of shot attempts. Garnett had 0.9 more assists with a similar number of turnovers.

It is NOT the same as AI vs D'Wade's 2 pt goal efficiency. It isn't REMOTELY in the same vicinity. Seriously, look at the actual source numbers again. Duncan and Garnett, in the playoffs, in their primes, both used a tad oer 28 possessions per game. And they produced almost exactly the same number of points for their teams, at least as measured by the box scores. The difference is in the decimal points, in either direction.

This is NOT a big difference. Is it? Pretend for a moment that I understand the concepts of true shooting percentage and field goal percentage perfectly, and instead explain to me why the minuscule differences illustrated above (in by the way a measure that doesn't NEARLY cover the entirety of offense anyway), are the basis for a near universal argument of one player's superiority over another. Please do, because THAT is one thing I've never understood.

Try look at the PS again. KG missed the playoff in '05, '06, '07. You might as well compare them from '99 to '04 if we are to be really fair here.

Code: Select all

         From   To     FG%     PTS    TRB    AST   STL   BLK   TOV
Duncan   1999   2004   0.505   24.3   13.6   4.1   0.8   3.0   3.5
KG       1999   2004   0.455   23.5   14.2   5.3   1.4   1.9   3.5
                           
                           
         From   PER    TS%     WS    WS/48  OBPM  DBPM  BPM   VORP
Duncan   1999   27.0   0.561   15.1   0.2   4.3   4.7   9.0   8.6
KG       1999   24.5   0.513   5.5    0.2   1.2   5.2   6.4   3.6

A 1pt difference in a massive efficiency. Advance stat are better for Duncan across the board. Also Duncan played more games, 73 to 49 on KG. And this is including Duncan missing '00 PS in his prime form.

There's no need for me to "look at the PS again". As far as I can tell, the numbers I posted were perfectly accurate and included every postseason that Duncan and Garnett played in during the years most commonly assigned for their primes. You apparently didn't like the inclusive prime numbers, and instead wanted to sculpt to certain years when both Duncan and Garnett were in the same postseason. But you didn't add any information to the discussion with this post. You didn't add any context. The info you posted could be cut-and-pasted from Basketball-Reference. I asked before that, for the sake of this discussion, you please consider that I may understand the numbers and concepts perfectly. I'm not asking for you to show me the numbers...I got those. At the very least, put them in some interesting context. Like...OK, let's play.

Duncan vs Garnett scoring (volume/efficiency), playoffs, peak seasons, in context
I showed the numbers for their entire primes, all postseasons, inclusive. You wanted to focus more on the years they both played in the postseason, at their peaks. OK. Then I'll counter you by offering this context: let's look at the playoff series each season, in their peak years, when both of them were in the playoffs, where they were in the most similar situation. As defined in 1 of 3 ways:

1) They play each other head-to-head (happened twice from 1999 - 2004)
2) They play the same opponent, in the same postseason (happened twice from 1999 - 2004)
3) If neither of these things happened, look at their elimination round (happened once from 1999 - 2004)

1999: KG and Duncan went head-to-head (4 games)
2001: KG and Duncan went head-to-head (4 games)
2002: Elimination round (5 games for Duncan, 3 for KG)
2003: Both played the Lakers (6 games)
2004: Both played the Lakers (6 games)

Remember, the premise is that in the playoffs, Duncan steps it up to a level that Garnett can't reach (in terms of scoring volume/efficiency). My counter-premise is that this isn't true, but that Garnett instead faced worse circumstances. And that when KG and Duncan were in similar circumstances, in the playoffs, at their peaks, they performed similarly.

Alright, here's how this experiment played out.

Duncan: 1999 - 2004, 25 games: 24.1 ppg, 22.2 shot possessions used, 4.0 ast, 3.3 TO, 13.0 reb
Garnett: 1999 - 2004, 23 game: 23.8 ppg, 22.6 shot possessions used, 4.6 ast, 3.1 TO, 14.2 reb

Hey, what do you know?! Even during the peak years that you specified, when both played in the playoffs as you specified, when even a basic context filter is applied (e.g. the series where their circumstances were most similar), Duncan and Garnett produce postseason offensive volume and efficiency numbers that are almost exactly the same in terms of possessions used and resultant team points! The SAME result you get if you take off all the filters, and just look at their postseason performances over the entirety of their primes. Hmmmmm.

And again, this is just the basic boxscore numbers. Whether we zoom in close by examining the circumstances and context at their peaks, or zoom outward and just look at overall playoff box score numbers in their primes, Garnett and Duncan produced similar numbers of points for their teams while using similar numbers of possessions, as measured by the box scores. But my point all along has been that scoring efficiency is only one small part of offense, with many other parts of the offense not captured in the box scores, so small differences in individual scoring efficiency don't mean much anyway!

So, I'll try one more time. And please, don't just cut and paste something from basketball-reference.com. I'm trying to advance the conversation past that point. Please convince me, using some type of on-court impact-based logic, preferably with some sort of quantification but at the very least using sound logic that can be debated for relevance, why should the small differences in scoring efficiency mean all that much, especially when comparing two players like Garnett and Duncan who bring so much ELSE to the table?

The mythology is already flaw. For instance, limit sample size and Duncan apparently got penalized against any team if it doesn't fit within that 3 set arbitrary criteria. This is not the way for a head-to-head comparison. Not to mention Duncan's team from '99-'05 cast wasn't that strong. He got a post-prime D-Rob as his AS starter mate but D-Rob wasn't anywhere near himself especially post '99. You can easily make this head-to-head peak performance by isolating '03 Duncan vs KG's '04 when both in peak form with similar level of PER talent on 400min per player basis in rotation. KG's cast about 12.5 PER vs Duncan's cast 13.2 PER and Duncan's number and efficiency blow KG out of the water in all facet of the game. This is better than set arbitrary criteria in multiple years without looking at the limitation and flaw on that methodology.

[drza]

Spoiler:

First, as I pointed out in the last post, "not as good a scorer as Dirk" isn't the same as mediocre. The terminology is wrong. No one would say, "since Karl Malone isn't as good at basketball as Jordan, that makes him mediocre". It's a matter of scale. Once you get to the point that you're delineating between the greats at something, it doesn't really make sense to speak in those terms. And KG is, conservatively, one of the greatest scorers that ever played in the NBA.

Spoiler:

I disagree with the way you have chosen to interpret my point. When I was thinking about the ATGs KG was mediocre in relation to, neither Moses Malone nor Larry Bird came to mind. In fact, I listed the players I was making a comparison with. It is my view that KG in relation to those specific players had a mediocre offensive impact. In short, his offensive impact IMO was pronouncedly inferior than those players, and I will touch upon this below. Mediocre was a catch-all description of what I thought about KG in comparisons with those other ATGs. This is all semantics. The substance is the same, irrespective of the usage of the word “mediocre”.

To start, my view of KG throughout his entire career was that he did a lot of things right/at a good level, but in the areas that provide substantial impact, he was noticeably inferior than several ATGs, some of who I listed earlier in this thread. In the areas that he was elite in (against all others), it just so happened that overall, these areas had lesser impact on the game as other areas (say KG’s defensive impact v Dirk or Kobe’s offense). KG was the master of “all roundness” but it was fool’s gold relative to the impact his contemporaries were having on games, and most importantly, winning. Your description of KG’s offensive game and impact perfectly ties into it.

You first spoke about gravity.

First and as a precursor to this discussion (which I’m sure you will be in agreement with), one does not necessarily have the higher gravity because he is capable of doing a lot of things. You brought up Shaq, but Shaq was predominately working in the low post, and it is here that he saw most of his doubles/attention as he was devastating from that position. Shaq could not score from the pinch post in the Triangle offense, or hit a wing jumper. His all roundedness was therefore limited, but yet his gravity was GOAT level.

As a matter of offensive impact, a post player who can get great position, and can pass, will excel in these aspects against all others. Again, this is a matter of common sense, as shooting from the paint with good position has a high potential of either leading to 2 points or a trip to the line. If the player who is getting great position in the low-post is a great passer, he becomes double the risk, as there is only so much a defender who wants to come and help can do- the spacing between the perimeter and the low-post will cause nightmares in such a scenario. Zone defences have obviously eroded the effectiveness of this all, but it is nonetheless still a nightmare when you have a beast low post player who can pass out. I would contend, that as far as gravity goes, a player fitting this description will have a very very high ceiling, with the only type of player capable of exceeding this impact being an elite perimeter player (in all senses of the word).

How does this relate to KG? Well to begin, KG, relative to other ATG offensive bigs (minus Dirk, which I will get to latter), was not on the same level in this aspect. Shaq was obviously in another stratosphere, but KG was not as good as Tim Duncan as getting good position in the low post and forcing defensive teams to scramble. I was just rewatching the 2006 WCSF Spurs v Mavericks, and what I noticed right off the bat, was how well Duncan was position himself as other big bodies such as Dampier and Diop. KG simply could not do this, as he could not push around other 4s and 5s in the same as Duncan Do. Neither could he get the same position as Hakeem, whose turn around fadeaways and jumpshots were often far closer to the rim. Nor could he bully his way inside like a Barkley. You might suggest that this has to do with KG having to fill other areas of Minny’s offense, but I don’t find this argument convincing, because it was KG’s skill set that prevented him from doing what other ATG could do. KG was inferior from the low post and closer to the rim relative to other ATG bigs.

Second, a part of offensive gravity being meaningful is the ability for a player who is creating such attention to, at times (i stress at times, not always), assertively taking on this added attention, by aggressively attacking doubles and traps. It is not enough that you simply receive that attention, because if defences notice that whenever they throw some tough defence your way, you pass the ball up, then your offensive threat is lessened. The end result of this, is that in comparisons to players who are able to take on the added attention, such a player will see less potent defensive attention (the proverbial ‘throwing the kitchen sink) and the consequences of this includes, inferior scoring opportunities for the rest of your team. Kobe is a great example of a player who, because of his will to take on tough defences, created cleaner opportunities for his teammates. Your reputation as a player does count here. This is especially important on offensively challenged teams.

What is also meaningful is for you to be somewhat successful at attacking the increased attention, because again, if you are not capable of successfully attacking these defences but are still adamant nonetheless to attack them, teams will throw the kitchen table at you, knowing that you will not pass. Thus the aggressiveness to attack that added attention, and the capability punish them accordingly, is a big part of offensive gravity. Teams will fear you, and there can be huge positive consequential impacts.

How does this relate to KG? Well for starters, KG did not assertively attack defences on the same level that a Dirk Nowitzki did. It is often said about Dirk that all he needs is an inch to score, and if he gets that inch, he has the ability to score. One criticism about KG through out his entire career is that he was too passive as far as taking teams on. Perhaps this was overstated, but IMO, KG in a comparison with other ATGs who saw crazy pressure was least likely to take on those defences. He was more content of passing the ball, and “playing the right way” which was admirable in some situations, but a negative in other areas. Consequently, KG’s offensive gravity in this respect was obviously muted. He was not seen as the threat that others. Again, I would contend that this aspect is also a major of offensive gravity, and as it turns out, Dirk was elite in this category, and KG in comparison, was not.

Third, and on a related point, another major aspect to offensive gravity, and which I alluded to previously, is a player’s reputation as an offensive threat. If X player has shown the ability to score big numbers in short stretches, then teams will always be worried about him blowing up at any moment. Consequently, he will always see tough defences, no matter how poor he is shooting (Kobe being a prime example of this- he had major offensive impact even in games he was shooting atrociously in). This will in turn impact the game in many ways that a player who does not possess such a reputation could only dream of having. This again is especially important on offensively challenged teams.

If that player does indeed have the capability of scoring big at critical junctures (as opposed to mere reputation), then his offensive impact reaches another stratosphere, as he has the added ability of single-handedly altering the momentum of games, and carrying his team on his back.

IMO, and I don’t see this as a controversial point, KG was inferior in this respect to the other ATGs I listed, including Tim Duncan. Whilst Duncan was not an elite scorer in the vein of a Dirk, Shaq or Kobe, he was superior to KG as far as imposing his will offensively when desperately needed. Per eye test, I saw Duncan (particularly when the spurs had mediocre offensive talent), moreso than KG, taking on defences on consecutive possessions, and being ultra aggressive at critical junctures. Again, I would contend that this aspect is also a major of offensive gravity, and as it turns out, KG comes out looking worse for wear, particularly in the playoffs. KG and Duncan might be even in terms of averages, but those averages do not tell you when and how those points were being scored.

So to summarise, in the three most important aspects of offensive gravity, KG comes out looking worse for wear. Given this, what did KG do better/as good as anyone else? You mentioned spacing and facilitating team offense. Granted KG was good in both categories, but both categories are largely impacted by a player’s offensive gravity and his aggressiveness for the reasons I have mentioned earlier. I would contend that the offensive gravity and impact aspects I mentioned above have a far larger impact on these two aspects (spacing and playmaking abilities) than vice versa. And given that all of this discussion comes under the banner of offensive impact, these areas of KG’s game should not be analysed in isolation to other aspects of his offensive game/style. When KG’s spacing and playmaking abilities are analysed within this broader context (outlined in the 3 points above), then they lose some of their impressiveness.

So to sum up: KG does a lot of things on a good level, but he comes out looking worse for wear (relative to the previously listed ATGs) in the most impactful of aspects. And it is for the reasons above that I asserted that he was relatively mediocre.

Now I imagine someone will raise Minny being a top 5 offensive teams in 03 and 04, and I will get around to that when the time calls for it...

Alright. I think we need to take a step back. I like your writing style, and I like the concept of supporting a premise using several levels of support. But my first impression upon reading this is that, outside of word length, there wasn't much (any?) actual evidence given to support your premise. Then, I had a second thought that was even more important...I'm not exactly sure WHAT your premise is. So, let me give my cliffnotes version of what I believe your post said (you're welcome to correct me, if I'm incorrect here):

The concept of gravity is the most important non-boxscore part of offense. There are three main ways a player can create gravity:

1) A post player who can get great position, and can pass, will excel in gravity above all others. Shaq, Duncan (anecdote vs Mavs in 2006), Hakeem & Barkley are given as examples of players that get better interior position to KG

2) Player must (sometimes) assertively take on added attention and attack doubles and traps. Kobe & Dirk are given as examples of this

3) A player's reputation as a scorer. Dirk, Shaq & Kobe given as examples. Duncan didn't have as good a scoring reputation as these, but it was better than Garnett.

Garnett was good at spacing and facilitating team offense, but those are subordinate to gravity and thus Garnett is mediocre, compared to these all-time scoring greats.

So, first of all, it seems to me that you're arguing that Garnett isn't as good of a scorer as Shaq, Hakeem, Barkley, Dirk or Kobe. And though Duncan also isn't as good of a scorer as those guys, you argue that he's also a better scorer than Garnett. That accurate?

My general argument in this thread is that Garnett is on the short list of the best scorers of all-time. That he would be an easy Hall of Famer for his scoring alone.

The problem here, and the reason that I say that I'm not sure what your premise is...is that the previous two statements (one attributed to you, one to me) don't necessarily disagree. We've written a lot of words on each side, in a tone as though we're debating, but as-yet have no clear area of disagreement. I disagree with your assertions about Duncan, and also with your asertions about the most important offensive characteristics and how they interrelate... but as far as the players you used as examples outside of Duncan, I'm broadly ok (or at least, it doesn't at the moment seem worth examining/arguing about) with stipulating that Garnett wasn't as good of a scorer as the rest of the names on your list.

So, at this point it becomes a matter of degree (and this why the stuff you dismissed as semantics is kind of important). You say that Garnett isn't as good of a scorer as five of the inner-circle-extremely-short-list-BEST scorers of all-time, and that therefore he's mediocre with respect to them. I stipulate that Garnett isn't as good of a scorer as those five either, but that he's clearly and easily a Hall-of-Famer for his scoring prowess alone. Here, then, would seem to be where we may disagree? But again, I guess, it depends on what you mean by 'mediocre'.

So, let's start there. I'll make a series of statements that don't necessarily agree/disagree with the majority of what you've written in this thread:

*Kevin Garnett is a Hall-of-Fame caliber scorer
*Kevin Garnett was demonstrably and clearly a good enough scorer to be the best scorer on a credible championship contender
*Kevin Garnett was a good enough scorer to be the centerpiece of a strong offense
*Garnett scored at a rate that, in any other era would have led to a clearly different impression of his scoring ability
*Garnett scored with a unique style that helped make him a larger impact offensive player than what the box scores indicate

Now...which of these five statements, if any, do you disagree with? If you continue our conversation, and I hope you do, then start with where you disagree, and we can build a debate from here that lets us solve this problem of degree and really pin down where we each stand as far as how good of a scorer that Garnett really was.

[rebirthoftheM]

Alright. I think we need to take a step back. I like your writing style, and I like the concept of supporting a premise using several levels of support. But my first impression upon reading this is that, outside of word length, there wasn't much (any?) actual evidence given to support your premise. Then, I had a second thought that was even more important...I'm not exactly sure WHAT your premise is. So, let me give my cliffnotes version of what I believe your post said (you're welcome to correct me, if I'm incorrect here):

I didn't think I needed to show evidence for what I thought was mostly obvious. The Duncan point I raised is contentious but I don't think the rest is. I can post youtube clips, but then the accusation could be levelled that I was cherry picking. Which parts to do you actually disagree with (besides Duncan) and for what reasons? IMO Duncan's ability to score in the post season, and his ability to anchor his teams offensively down the stretch puts him over KG. Duncan is to me a perfect example of a player who could have scored more if he wanted to, and done so very effectively, and have big impact on the game. KG, not so much.

Good point re trying to break down what we disagree on. Those are my general points and yes when you combine all 3 factors, KG comes out looking for worse for wear, not only against the players I listed, but we can also include Larry Legend (Larry's offensive impact went far beyond PPG, and he had the abilty to carry teams), Magic Johnson (Arguably the GOAT at offense), Julius Erving and arguably Peak Clyde Drexler. Notice I haven't even mentioned folks like MJ, Wilt, Kaj and Lebron. That's at least 10 other ATGs who KG is imo inferior to as far as offensive play goes.

Which leads me to the point: Yeah, KG is a HOF scorer/offensive player, if you're comparing him against folks significantly lower than him on the ATG list. However, is that the comparison that really matters? Isn't it interesting that KG, who is often lauded as a fringe top 10 player of all time (with some folks having him in the top 10) comes across as inferior (in a lot of cases, significantly inferior) to IMO at a minimum of 10 (probably at least 12-13) other ATGS, some of which folks consider he is reasonably better than, although he is worse in the most important aspect of the game i.e. offense?

That is the backdrop of all my posts... I am not interested in comparing KG to HOFers ranked 25th of all time. I am comparing with him players on his supposed level/near his level. I thought that was pretty clear... it contexualised all my posts.

Lemme get to the summary of your points:

*Kevin Garnett is a Hall-of-Fame caliber scorer

Yes, but see above

*Kevin Garnett was demonstrably and clearly a good enough scorer to be the best scorer on a credible championship contender.

Yes, but he requires more offensive help than other ATGs on offense, particularly in non-outlier offensive eras/seasons such as the 03-04 season. He couldn't carry his team scoring wise like all the folks I mentioned earlier. This reduces the significance of his ability, because he should be compared with folks on his relative level. Furthermore, KG is the only ATG scorer/offensive player that I can recall who in his prime (in this case, late prime) lead his teams to 2 consecutive bottom 5 offenses. If KG was a more impactful and dominant scorer, this would not have occurred IMO.

*Kevin Garnett was a good enough scorer to be the centerpiece of a strong offense-

Yes. I won't qualify this comment other than that, he is not as strong as others. Heck, this is true for Pau Gasol and Dwight Howard also.


*Garnett scored at a rate that, in any other era would have led to a clearly different impression of his scoring ability-

Disagree, at least in my case. My considerations are not about pure PPG, otherwise I'd put KG into the same group as Timmy D.


*Garnett scored with a unique style that helped make him a larger impact offensive player than what the box scores indicate

Yeah, but not very impressive as some other dudes he is considered better than.

[drza]

Spoiler:

Alright. I think we need to take a step back. I like your writing style, and I like the concept of supporting a premise using several levels of support. But my first impression upon reading this is that, outside of word length, there wasn't much (any?) actual evidence given to support your premise. Then, I had a second thought that was even more important...I'm not exactly sure WHAT your premise is. So, let me give my cliffnotes version of what I believe your post said (you're welcome to correct me, if I'm incorrect here):

Spoiler:

I didn't think I needed to show evidence for what I thought was mostly obvious. The Duncan point I raised is contentious but I don't think the rest is. I can post youtube clips, but then the accusation could be levelled that I was cherry picking. Which parts to do you actually disagree with (besides Duncan) and for what reasons? IMO Duncan's ability to score in the post season, and his ability to anchor his teams offensively down the stretch puts him over KG. Duncan is to me a perfect example of a player who could have scored more if he wanted to, and done so very effectively, and have big impact on the game. KG, not so much.

Good point re trying to break down what we disagree on. Those are my general points and yes when you combine all 3 factors, KG comes out looking for worse for wear, not only against the players I listed, but we can also include Larry Legend (Larry's offensive impact went far beyond PPG, and he had the abilty to carry teams), Magic Johnson (Arguably the GOAT at offense), Julius Erving and arguably Peak Clyde Drexler. Notice I haven't even mentioned folks like MJ, Wilt, Kaj and Lebron. That's at least 10 other ATGs who KG is imo inferior to as far as offensive play goes.

Which leads me to the point: Yeah, KG is a HOF scorer/offensive player, if you're comparing him against folks significantly lower than him on the ATG list. However, is that the comparison that really matters? Isn't it interesting that KG, who is often lauded as a fringe top 10 player of all time (with some folks having him in the top 10) comes across as inferior (in a lot of cases, significantly inferior) to IMO at a minimum of 10 (probably at least 12-13) other ATGS, some of which folks consider he is reasonably better than, although he is worse in the most important aspect of the game i.e. offense?

That is the backdrop of all my posts... I am not interested in comparing KG to HOFers ranked 25th of all time. I am comparing with him players on his supposed level/near his level. I thought that was pretty clear... it contexualised all my posts.

Lemme get to the summary of your points:

*Kevin Garnett is a Hall-of-Fame caliber scorer

Yes, but see above

*Kevin Garnett was demonstrably and clearly a good enough scorer to be the best scorer on a credible championship contender.

Yes, but he requires more offensive help than other ATGs on offense, particularly in non-outlier offensive eras/seasons such as the 03-04 season. He couldn't carry his team scoring wise like all the folks I mentioned earlier. This reduces the significance of his ability, because he should be compared with folks on his relative level. Furthermore, KG is the only ATG scorer/offensive player that I can recall who in his prime (in this case, late prime) lead his teams to 2 consecutive bottom 5 offenses. If KG was a more impactful and dominant scorer, this would not have occurred IMO.

*Kevin Garnett was a good enough scorer to be the centerpiece of a strong offense-

Yes. I won't qualify this comment other than that, he is not as strong as others. Heck, this is true for Pau Gasol and Dwight Howard also.


*Garnett scored at a rate that, in any other era would have led to a clearly different impression of his scoring ability-

Disagree, at least in my case. My considerations are not about pure PPG, otherwise I'd put KG into the same group as Timmy D.


*Garnett scored with a unique style that helped make him a larger impact offensive player than what the box scores indicate

Yeah, but not very impressive as some other dudes he is considered better than.

Some quick bullet replies...

*The term "Hall of Fame" necessarily connotes that you''re comparing against everyone in history, not to an indiviudal. It's a threshold. Kareem isn't a Hall of Fame center compared to Shaq...they're both Hall of Famers compared to everyone. Thus, it doesn't make sense to say "KG is a HOF scorer/offensive player, if you're comparing him against folks significantly lower than him on the ATG list". That's not a logical statement. I see where you're trying to get to, but you're jumping ahead. My statement "KG is a Hall of Fame scorer" is establishing the lower boundary for Garnett purely as a scorer. Once that's agreed upon (and it seems that you do agree with that?), then we can move onto establishing his upper boundaries compared to other GOATs.

*

Isn't it interesting that KG, who is often lauded as a fringe top 10 player of all time (with some folks having him in the top 10) comes across as inferior (in a lot of cases, significantly inferior) to IMO at a minimum of 10 (probably at least 12-13) other ATGS, some of which folks consider he is reasonably better than, although he is worse in the most important aspect of the game i.e. offense?

This is another example of where you're trying to jump ahead to argue a whole case that isn't really what's being discussed. This thread is called "Kevin Garnett's Scoring Ability...". It's about evaluating him as a scorer, with some amount of bleed over into overall offense inevitable. But when you start going into people's GOAT lists overall, clearly that's evaluating a whole player, including defense. And clearly, Garnett's overall impact as a player contains a huge defensive component. I absolutely love comparing the best players of all time in a global sense, and clearly you also would like to push the notion that offense is more important than defense, and that's a cool discussion as well. But it's off-thread here. In this thread, we've got an opportunity to really tune in on Garnett's abilities as primarily a scorer. I think it'd be more valuable to focus on that, here, then maybe we can tease out some detail on that front here that would make its way into the more global GOAT debates that happen all-the-time in other threads.

*

Which parts to do you actually disagree with (besides Duncan) and for what reasons?

This goes back to your previous post, and how I noted that you used a lot of words but that I'm not sure you conveyed much in the way of evidence. Generally speaking, stepping away from the specifics of the player examples you gave in either direction, I generally disagree that a) player "gravity" is clearly more important than other aspects like "spacing" and "playmaking", and b) that the three elements you describe as the most important aspects of gravity are, indeed, the three most important.

Without getting into the weeds of the details, I generally don't think you have the evidence to state either of these points as bald fact the way that you do. Terms like gravity, spacing and playmaking were defined in the realm of non-boxscore impact as general concepts to help describe some of the areas of the game that aren't well captured by the box scores. And while there is a lot of research, and some really cool results coming out of different analytics approaches to tease and find evidence of those concepts and how to quantify them, the by-FAR most effective and vetted approaches to measuring global offensive impact are the family of +/- stats. And those stats, being more global, aren't granular enough (at least as they currently exist) to support your notion that gravity is clearly more important than spacing or playmaking. You mention that there is overlap between the concepts, and that is certainly true...both in conception, and in evaluation. A player's spacing impact, for example, can lead to more gravity (like Dirk). A player's gravity would make it easier for them to be great playmakers. A player's abilities as a playmaker can give him more gravity. There's overlap all around. So no, I don't find it convincing to just baldly state that one is clearly the most important.

Similarly, your three "most important aspects of gravity" were similarly arbitrarily chosen. You chose establishing low-post position as one of your three most important aspects, but it's demonstrably not. Yes, Shaq or Hakeem were studs in the low post and that helped with their gravity, but Dirk works his magic from elsewhere on the court, so does LeBron, so did Kobe. There's a LOT of ways to have offensive gravity. Tying it to low-post position is a false construct that seems designed in this thread to try to punish Garnett for operating from different spots on the court. Your second gravity rule of "at times (i stress at times, not always), assertively taking on this added attention, by aggressively attacking doubles and traps" is just as arbitrary, with no way to quantitatively analyze nor any quantitative basis to support. "Offensive reputation", your third main pillar, is equally nebulous and hard to define. Are those three things that you highlighted elements of gravity? Yeah, I'd say so. But they're three in a continuum of aspects that aren't necessarily the most important, and we really don't have the ability to quantify their importance.

This type of breaking down the concept of gravity seems, to me, to be good as an EXPLANATORY tool (e.g. Player A has an offensive RAPM score higher than expected based on his box scores, why? Further scouting and context shows that he's a good low-post scorer that can score through doubles and has a great reputation, so maybe that's drawing more defensive attention. And Synergy (or some equivalent scouting tracking service) says that Player A is third in the league at drawing double teams, so that supports that he's got more gravity than the box scores indicate.). But it doesn't seem to have much value as a COMPARISON tool the way you're trying to use it. The NBA is littered with great low-post scorers that attack/score through double-teams and have good offensive reputations that measure out as much lower impact offensive players than expected...that particular skill-set as defined by those three terms actually is one of the poster-children for the OPPOSITE of nonboxscore impact. It had always been an NBA truism that low-post scoring was one of the most important aspects of the game, but the evidence in the analytics often directly contradicts that stance and has helped force a re-thinking of what's important.

*I didn't get to everything I'd like to in this post, but it should be in depth enough to continue the conversation.

[PharmD]

Grunch: KG was a back-to-the-basket traditional low post player and his teammates were a bunch of scrubs. He was double-teamed on basically every touch. That actually worked out alright; most Wolves possessions played out the same. Get the ball to KG->double team->swing the ball around the perimeter playing 4 on 3. It was a style that worked very well in KG's "early prime" when the wolves had guys like Terrell Brandon and Wally Szczerbiak who were very good at standing still and making open shots. Unfortunately, Brandon suffered a career-ending injury (the 02-03 Wolves still had the #5 offense with KG, Wally, and a bunch of scrubs). The style did not work as well in KG's "late prime" when his teammates were 1 on 5 dudes like Ricky Davis, Marko Jaric, and Troy Hudson.

[THKNKG]

And while there is a lot of research, and some really cool results coming out of different analytics approaches to tease and find evidence of those concepts and how to quantify them, the by-FAR most effective and vetted approaches to measuring global offensive impact are the family of +/- stats

This is slightly off topic, but which stats are those? Where are some resources to find them/websites/etc.? What players are they especially high on? I'm unfamiliar with them, but everything about them seems valid so far.

[rebirthoftheM]

Some quick bullet replies... *The term "Hall of Fame" necessarily connotes that you''re comparing against everyone in history, not to an indiviudal. It's a threshold. Kareem isn't a Hall of Fame center compared to Shaq...they're both Hall of Famers compared to everyone. Thus, it doesn't make sense to say "KG is a HOF scorer/offensive player, if you're comparing him against folks significantly lower than him on the ATG list". That's not a logical statement. I see where you're trying to get to, but you're jumping ahead. My statement "KG is a Hall of Fame scorer" is establishing the lower boundary for Garnett purely as a scorer. Once that's agreed upon (and it seems that you do agree with that?), then we can move onto establishing his upper boundaries compared to other GOATs.

I don’t want to side-track the conversation but this is false… Kareem is arguably a greater Hall of Fame Center compared to Shaq. He has a very strong argument. Meanwhile, KG has a weak to non-existent argument against many ATGs on offense.

If you want to establish the lower boundary fair enough. It just isn’t something I am interested in. I’d like to compare KG with people he is lumped together with very often.

This is another example of where you're trying to jump ahead to argue a whole case that isn't really what's being discussed. This thread is called "Kevin Garnett's Scoring Ability...". It's about evaluating him as a scorer, with some amount of bleed over into overall offense inevitable. But when you start going into people's GOAT lists overall, clearly that's evaluating a whole player, including defense. And clearly, Garnett's overall impact as a player contains a huge defensive component. I absolutely love comparing the best players of all time in a global sense, and clearly you also would like to push the notion that offense is more important than defense, and that's a cool discussion as well. But it's off-thread here. In this thread, we've got an opportunity to really tune in on Garnett's abilities as primarily a scorer. I think it'd be more valuable to focus on that, here, then maybe we can tease out some detail on that front here that would make its way into the more global GOAT debates that happen all-the-time in other threads.

I wasn’t really jumping the gun, but was explaining my motivations on why I’m particularly adamant on this point. I just find KG horribly overrated, and a lot of it has to do with his offense. His D of course was spectacular, but there is only so much 1 man can do on defense.

Without getting into the weeds of the details, I generally don't think you have the evidence to state either of these points as bald fact the way that you do. Terms like gravity, spacing and playmaking were defined in the realm of non-boxscore impact as general concepts to help describe some of the areas of the game that aren't well captured by the box scores. And while there is a lot of research, and some really cool results coming out of different analytics approaches to tease and find evidence of those concepts and how to quantify them, the by-FAR most effective and vetted approaches to measuring global offensive impact are the family of +/- stats. And those stats, being more global, aren't granular enough (at least as they currently exist) to support your notion that gravity is clearly more important than spacing or playmaking. You mention that there is overlap between the concepts, and that is certainly true...both in conception, and in evaluation. A player's spacing impact, for example, can lead to more gravity (like Dirk). A player's gravity would make it easier for them to be great playmakers. A player's abilities as a playmaker can give him more gravity. There's overlap all around. So no, I don't find it convincing to just baldly state that one is clearly the most important.

Yepp… it is in the overlap where greatness happens. Many of the guys I mentioned for example were great playmakers themselves. The difference is that they also had more overall “gravity” for a number reasons, which trumps whatever advantages KG brings to the table in spacing and play making. See below for more.

Yes, Shaq or Hakeem were studs in the low post and that helped with their gravity, but Dirk works his magic from elsewhere on the court, so does LeBron, so did Kobe. There's a LOT of ways to have offensive gravity. Tying it to low-post position is a false construct that seems designed in this thread to try to punish Garnett for operating from different spots on the court. Your second gravity rule of "at times (i stress at times, not always), assertively taking on this added attention, by aggressively attacking doubles and traps" is just as arbitrary, with no way to quantitatively analyze nor any quantitative basis to support. "Offensive reputation", your third main pillar, is equally nebulous and hard to define. Are those three things that you highlighted elements of gravity? Yeah, I'd say so. But they're three in a continuum of aspects that aren't necessarily the most important, and we really don't have the ability to quantify their importance.

Evidently I know this… neither Dirk, Kobe or Lebron were primary post players, Yet I mentioned them all as more superior offensive players.

What I was trying to get that, each ATG on offense had their “niche” (or multiple "niches) on offense that they dominated from. It could be from the low-post, perimeter, pick and roll, mid-post, running off screens, wing etc, but they all had their niche(s).

KG’s “niche(s)” meanwhile was the weakest of all niches in terms of impact- he did a lot of things very well but in the things he did elite in (as detailed by you in this thread, and also in another thread which detailed KG’s offense), they simply were not as impactful on his teams offense as the other players "niche(s)".

How do I know this? Every dude I mentioned anchored better offensive teams than KG, even when they had offensively challenged teams. KG legitimately led his team to 2 consecutive bottom 10 offenses… in his “late prime” where advanced stats and RPAM etc suggests he was a superstar. That is my “evidence” alongside my eye test, because it is on offense that you can truly decipher an offensive players impact. Defense meanwhile is much harder to gauge (see the Timber-Wolves defensive ratings which were mediocre but really was more about the lack of talent and coaching on the team, and not KG, who was playing great D)

That is my "evidence". All things held the same, I can list off my head at a minimum of 12 guys I’d rather have anchor my offense than KG, because they have proven to be far more effective, particularly in the playoffs. And yes again I stress, I have no qualms in using team offensive ratings to judge a superstars offensive impact. And I imagine you will quote to me +/-, which is the holy grail of analysis now, but KG still comes looking worse for wear against a number of players on offense in this respect (and if it were available, my suspicion against many others in the past).

He does however comes across looking better in +/- on O than Duncan, but watching both of their careers, Duncan had a 6th gear on offense in the playoffs and evidently wasn't too interested on O during the reg season (Duncan proved he could be a good volume scorer/offensive machine. He just didn't care as much).

I think you misunderstood my point re low-post scoring. I simply raised it as an example of how a lot of the other ATGs dominated on offense. Particularly in the 80s, 90s and early 00s, it was evidently a very good model for success during those times.

[SactoKingsFan]

And while there is a lot of research, and some really cool results coming out of different analytics approaches to tease and find evidence of those concepts and how to quantify them, the by-FAR most effective and vetted approaches to measuring global offensive impact are the family of +/- stats

This is slightly off topic, but which stats are those? Where are some resources to find them/websites/etc.? What players are they especially high on? I'm unfamiliar with them, but everything about them seems valid so far.

The family of +/- stats includes plus/minus, RPM, RAPM, etc. You can find +/- as far back as 01 on bball reference. RPM for 14-17 is on the ESPN RPM site. Shutupandjam site has NPI and PI RAPM. Doc MJ has a RAPM spreadsheet. There's also a RAPM thread. Some players that look great in +/- stats include LeBron, KG, Shaq, Duncan, Sheed, DRob, Kobe, Dirk, Nash, Manu, CP3, Baron Davis, Nene Hilario, Draymond, Jokic.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk