David Robinson or Kevin Garnett?

[G35]

Lying is bad. I've seen - and you have too - here statistical arguments for KG over people better than DRob, and none of them disproven. Only by strawmen and putting lots of ellipsis at the end of posts, never once a honest effort.

I want to see where there are a majority of metrics that show KG outperforming KG without any armchair psychoanalysis or wholesale blaming of Minnesota's coaching/front office. Just straight up show how their stats compare to each other.

Yeah, because acknowledging differences in leadership style does not make someone a better/worse leader is equivalent to not understanding the value of leadership...


What part of "I consider Robinson to be the better player" do you not understand? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Yes, because some leadership styles are not as effective as others and it should be acknowledged that KG's leadership style has sufficient proof that he was not good at getting the most out of his teammates. You can blame the front office for not putting enough around him as long as you blame KG for not enabling his teammates in positive ways.

Denial is not proof of anything.

What part of a forum post means that I'm only talking to you? If you cannot understand that all parts of a post are not just for your consumption would prevent this feeling your feeling.....

[GYK]

Not sure why leadership is such a big focus in this thread. Robinson and Garnett have diametrically different leadership styles but one is not better than the other just because they are more or less vocal. If Robinson had a better supporting cast and won more rings in the mid 90s, we would be singing praises about his quiet leadership and humility like we do with Duncan, instead of calling him soft and passive. If Garnett had a better supporting cast and won more rings in the mid 00s, his passion and intensity would be credited with motivating the best out of his teammates and he won't be criticized for being overly-competitive. The narrative of what makes a good leader can easily be shaped by team success and personally, I don't find the leadership difference between the two to be very noteworthy.

In terms of on-court play, I consider Robinson to be the better player but his overall career to be less valuable due to longevity since he came into the league too old.

If you do not understand the value of leadership by now then nothing anyone is going to say will change your mind.

But there is a reason why KG went out in the first round seven straight years.

There is a reason why they missed the playoffs three straight years.

There is a reason why players like Chauncey left the Wolves.

It's the same reason why Durant did not want to play with WB anymore. Its why Kyrie didn't want to play with Lebron anymore. There is a reason why players want to go to the Warriors.

The reason why you say if is because in reality there are not any excuses for why KG did not do more for Minnesota.

KG and DRob both had similar supporting casts (except in 2004 where KG had a superior cast) prior to Duncan being drafted.

But Robinson's teams had better RS and PS success. DRob anchored one of the biggest single season win turnarounds in league history. Robinson led the team to multiple 50+ win seasons and a 60+ win season:

Spurs win totals from 1990-1996
90 - 56 wins
91 - 55 wins
92 - 47 wins
93 - 49 wins
94 - 55 wins
95 - 62 wins
96 - 59 wins

Average wins 54.7 per season over seven seasons...during this time they went to the semi-finals four times and the WCF's once

TWolves win totals from 1996-2007
96 - 26 wins
97 - 40 wins
98 - 45 wins
99 - 25 wins (strike season)
00 - 50 wins
01 - 47 wins
02 - 50 wins
03 - 51 wins
04 - 58 wins
05 - 44 wins
06 - 33 wins
07 - 32 wins

Not counting the strike season the Wolves avg'd 43.3 wins over 11 seasons...during which time they went to the WCF's once and lost in the first round seven times.

What also should be noted during this time is that Flip Saunders was the Wolves head coach for KG's for 9 1/2 seasons. Whatever you may think about Flip he was a better than average coach compiling a .525 winning record over 1246 games.

David Robinson on the other hand, had to deal with six different coaches in seven years.

Larry Brown
Bob Bass
Rex Hughes
Jerry Tarkanian
John Lucas
Bob Hill

Some of these guys were all time bad coaches, like Jerry Tarkanian, who only coached 20 games in the NBA and quit with a record of 9-11.

Jerry Lucas' only winning seasons came while coaching Robinson...with the Spurs he was 94-49....everywhere else he coached he 79-209, coaching at Philadelphia and Cleveland. Yeah both teams got rid of Lucas before acquiring Iverson and Lebron.

Bob Hill another coach who only had winning seasons coaching Robinson; Hill was 121-43 with Robinson when he was healthy and was 189-250 without Robinson. The Spurs got rid of Bob Hill and hired Popovich right before drafting Duncan.

So when people talk about Minnesota did not put anything around KG, the Spurs did not do much better. It was just the David was just that good in the RS that he could power those Spurs to good RS records. But in the PS, yeah he did not look as good because he was getting his teams to overachieve.

If you wanted to make a current comparison, this would be Anthony Davis in New Orleans...except David Robinson was taking his teams to the PS and the second round.

But the thing is that leadership is just one aspect of this comparison, a big one imo but still just one aspect. But you notice none of the KG supporters are pulling out any stats....none whatsoever....because DRob kills him in everything. Individually its no contest, advanced, boxscore, whatever, DRob kills KG.

Then some people want to talk about KG's defense....before going to Boston, no KG-led team ever came close to being the #1 ranked defensive team or even top five.

Robinson is a GOAT level defensive anchor:

DRTG Spurs 1990-96
90 - 3rd
91 - 1st
92 - 1st
93 - 10th
94 - 9th
95 - 5th
96 - 3rd

So in those seven years, the Spurs ranked no worse than 10th defensively and twice were the best defense in the league.

OTOH, KG with all of his ability to switch and read offenses was never able to get the Wolves into the top 5 defensively:
96- 20th
97 - 15th
98 - 23rd
99 - 11th
00 - 12th
01 - 16th
02 - 15th
03 - 16th
04 - 6th
05 - 15th
06 - 10th
07 - 21st

A lot of what KG rides on is that the TWolves never put any talent around him, injuries, quality of competition, Minnesota not being a FA destination. But the same thing was true of Robinson in San Antonio, they have never been a FA destination, nor has management spent a lot of money in building a team. This is true even when Duncan was there, the Spurs have always try to stay within budget.

There is no argument for KG being better than DRob on any metric, so its so confusing that people who tout analytics, facts, objectivity, progressiveness, are still trying to build a narrative in KG's favor. The only thing you can point to is KG's longevity but then you have to balance that out with the fact it took KG three to four years to really become a difference maker and his last few years on Boston, Brooklyn, and Minnesota was just him collecting a check.

DRob was an integral part of two championships at latter half of his career, those years do count in his favor as instead of people acting like he was some five minute bench player. He was still guarding Shaq.....

great post. I never gave credit to the coaching instability DRob went through. often being suckered into his PS let down talk. also just realized DRob gets no credit for being a 2x champ especially the 1st ring.

[trex_8063]

As to who I would like to work with if I'm a coach or GM, well, I'm sure I'd like David Robinson better.

As to who I think is/was better, well, that's almost splittin' hairs in my mind. For pure floor-lifting, probably Robinson. I somewhat like Garnett's versatility and portability on good teams marginally better [maybe]. Either can mesh pretty well with a good cast though; and DRob perhaps less likely to alienate himself, based on articles others have posted.

If we're omnipotent, we'd have to note that we'll get better longevity with Garnett, though.

[Hal14]

Some good points made in this thread.

It's very close. I have these guys ranked only a couple spots away on my all-time list...both in the 20-30 range. Robinson is just barely ranked higher.

Perhaps we could have made this thread a poll?

[syrus3]

D Rob

Garnett is very overrated!

[pandrade83]

Some good points made in this thread.

It's very close. I have these guys ranked only a couple spots away on my all-time list...both in the 20-30 range. Robinson is just barely ranked higher.

Perhaps we could have made this thread a poll?

20-30 range for both? I’d be interested to see the criteria that results in 25 or so players being listed above both.

[henshao]

One key difference between the Admiral and the Big Ticket is one was almost exclusively a center, the other almost refused to play center. I don't know if it makes any difference for you.

[Hal14]

Some good points made in this thread.

It's very close. I have these guys ranked only a couple spots away on my all-time list...both in the 20-30 range. Robinson is just barely ranked higher.

Perhaps we could have made this thread a poll?

20-30 range for both? I’d be interested to see the criteria that results in 25 or so players being listed above both.

You misquoted me. I didn't say I have 25 players above both. I said they are both in the 20-30 range. So that could potentially mean I have them at 20 and 21.

I find it very possible to have 19 players ranked ahead of both. If you'd like to see who those 19 players are, you can check my post in the Top 20 Rankings thread..

[Owly]

Some good points made in this thread.

It's very close. I have these guys ranked only a couple spots away on my all-time list...both in the 20-30 range. Robinson is just barely ranked higher.

Perhaps we could have made this thread a poll?

20-30 range for both? I’d be interested to see the criteria that results in 25 or so players being listed above both.

You misquoted me. I didn't say I have 25 players above both. I said they are both in the 20-30 range. So that could potentially mean I have them at 20 and 21.

I find it very possible to have 19 players ranked ahead of both. If you'd like to see who those 19 players are, you can check my post in the Top 20 Rankings thread..

It would be wrong to assume you had exactly 25 player above both.

It would seem fair to suggest that you have roughly 23 or 24 above each ("range" suggests indecision on precise placement and 20-30 suggests the middle is the best guess if forced to put estimate a specific position, "only a couple of spots" suggests close to one another). You haven't been misquoted (unless your post has been edited by mods) your post and the quotation are identical). Whether you have been misinterpreted ... whether or not the interpretation was accurate to your intent, it doesn't seem unfair.

20 and 21 as the assumed position is disingenuous: (1) because you stated elsewhere that they weren't ...
[btw he's the noted but not linked list pandrade83]

1) Michael Jordan
2) Wilt Chamberlain
3) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4) Larry Bird
5) Magic Johnson
6) Bill Russell
7) LeBron James
8) Hakeem Olajuwon
9) Jerry West
10) Kobe Bryant
11) Isiah Thomas
12) Oscar Robertson
13) Shaquille O’Neal
14) Moses Malone
15) Julius Erving
16) Elgin Baylor
17) John Havlicek
18) Kevin McHale
19) Tim Duncan
20) John Stockton

and
(2) if those were the specific positions then that would have been stated, if those were the approximate positions the range given would typically center around that point (15-25) and in the rare and very specific instance that they were very likely 20, 21 but with certainty of no upside and some possible downside, you would state that if you wanted people to understand where you were (and if it genuinely was this very specific fringe case, which as established in point one, it isn't).

[Texas Chuck]

One key difference between the Admiral and the Big Ticket is one was almost exclusively a center, the other almost refused to play center. I don't know if it makes any difference for you.

KG spent a ton of time playing center the 2nd half of his career. The first half I'm not sure how much of that was him refusing and how much of that was the two dominant players in his conference on the two dominant teams were Shaq and Tim Duncan and so the Wolves felt like they had to have a legit center on the roster to compete with them.

And once Rasho/Kandi/Ervin (not Magic) Johnson were on the roster they were simply better players than some of the forward options.


I wouldn't hold KG playing mostly forward against him in this comparison and certainly any versatility advantage goes his way.

[Owly]

One key difference between the Admiral and the Big Ticket is one was almost exclusively a center, the other almost refused to play center. I don't know if it makes any difference for you.

KG spent a ton of time playing center the 2nd half of his career. The first half I'm not sure how much of that was him refusing and how much of that was the two dominant players in his conference on the two dominant teams were Shaq and Tim Duncan and so the Wolves felt like they had to have a legit center on the roster to compete with them.

And once Rasho/Kandi/Ervin (not Magic) Johnson were on the roster they were simply better players than some of the forward options.


I wouldn't hold KG playing mostly forward against him in this comparison and certainly any versatility advantage goes his way.

Obviously I know what you mean (i.e. relating to body size) but I chuckled thinking of Olowokandi, Oliver Miller, early-career Rasho, late career Ervin Johnson as "legit center[s]".

[Texas Chuck]

Obviously I know what you mean (i.e. relating to body size) but I chuckled thinking of Olowokandi, Oliver Miller, early-career Rasho, late career Ervin Johnson as "legit center[s]".

Yeah legit sizewise, not so much quality. Thanks for helping to make that distinction. tho Ervin Johnson was pretty solid defensively as I recall.

[Hal14]

20-30 range for both? I’d be interested to see the criteria that results in 25 or so players being listed above both.

You misquoted me. I didn't say I have 25 players above both. I said they are both in the 20-30 range. So that could potentially mean I have them at 20 and 21.

I find it very possible to have 19 players ranked ahead of both. If you'd like to see who those 19 players are, you can check my post in the Top 20 Rankings thread..

It would be wrong to assume you had exactly 25 player above both.

It would seem fair to suggest that you have roughly 23 or 24 above each ("range" suggests indecision on precise placement and 20-30 suggests the middle is the best guess if forced to put estimate a specific position, "only a couple of spots" suggests close to one another). You haven't been misquoted (unless your post has been edited by mods) your post and the quotation are identical). Whether you have been misinterpreted ... whether or not the interpretation was accurate to your intent, it doesn't seem unfair.

20 and 21 as the assumed position is disingenuous: (1) because you stated elsewhere that they weren't ...
[btw he's the noted but not linked list pandrade83]

1) Michael Jordan
2) Wilt Chamberlain
3) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4) Larry Bird
5) Magic Johnson
6) Bill Russell
7) LeBron James
8) Hakeem Olajuwon
9) Jerry West
10) Kobe Bryant
11) Isiah Thomas
12) Oscar Robertson
13) Shaquille O’Neal
14) Moses Malone
15) Julius Erving
16) Elgin Baylor
17) John Havlicek
18) Kevin McHale
19) Tim Duncan
20) John Stockton

and
(2) if those were the specific positions then that would have been stated, if those were the approximate positions the range given would typically center around that point (15-25) and in the rare and very specific instance that they were very likely 20, 21 but with certainty of no upside and some possible downside, you would state that if you wanted people to understand where you were (and if it genuinely was this very specific fringe case, which as established in point one, it isn't).

I don't know what half of what you just said is supposed to mean and pretty sure you're over-analyzing this..

[pandrade83]

Some good points made in this thread.

It's very close. I have these guys ranked only a couple spots away on my all-time list...both in the 20-30 range. Robinson is just barely ranked higher.

Perhaps we could have made this thread a poll?

20-30 range for both? I’d be interested to see the criteria that results in 25 or so players being listed above both.

You misquoted me. I didn't say I have 25 players above both. I said they are both in the 20-30 range. So that could potentially mean I have them at 20 and 21.

I find it very possible to have 19 players ranked ahead of both. If you'd like to see who those 19 players are, you can check my post in the Top 20 Rankings thread..

Short version of what owly said:
A). Communicate more clearly. 20-30 is broad. I picked the midpoint.
B). You have at least 20 guys ahead of both since neither made your top 20.


As to your criteria...it produced results that put you in extreme minority territory, to say the very least- in a way that goes beyond the label of contrarian. As best I can tell, the criteria is that you value rings a LOT and that you devalue rings won after 2000, and offense is significantly more important than defense while longevity has little value to you.

That to me, is the only way you could generate those results.

[henshao]

One key difference between the Admiral and the Big Ticket is one was almost exclusively a center, the other almost refused to play center. I don't know if it makes any difference for you.

KG spent a ton of time playing center the 2nd half of his career. The first half I'm not sure how much of that was him refusing and how much of that was the two dominant players in his conference on the two dominant teams were Shaq and Tim Duncan and so the Wolves felt like they had to have a legit center on the roster to compete with them.

And once Rasho/Kandi/Ervin (not Magic) Johnson were on the roster they were simply better players than some of the forward options.


I wouldn't hold KG playing mostly forward against him in this comparison and certainly any versatility advantage goes his way.

https://www.twincities.com/2015/09/27/kevin-garnett-says-his-knees-are-good-and-he-still-hates-playing-center/
http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4690446/kg-on-playing-center-i-dont-like-it

There's a reason he was always listed at 6'11 when he was clearly at least 7'1, see also Kevin Durant

Versatility goes in KG's favor but I'm just pointing it out, the man did not like to be anchored to the basket

[Colbinii]

One key difference between the Admiral and the Big Ticket is one was almost exclusively a center, the other almost refused to play center. I don't know if it makes any difference for you.

KG spent a ton of time playing center the 2nd half of his career. The first half I'm not sure how much of that was him refusing and how much of that was the two dominant players in his conference on the two dominant teams were Shaq and Tim Duncan and so the Wolves felt like they had to have a legit center on the roster to compete with them.

And once Rasho/Kandi/Ervin (not Magic) Johnson were on the roster they were simply better players than some of the forward options.


I wouldn't hold KG playing mostly forward against him in this comparison and certainly any versatility advantage goes his way.

https://www.twincities.com/2015/09/27/kevin-garnett-says-his-knees-are-good-and-he-still-hates-playing-center/
http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4690446/kg-on-playing-center-i-dont-like-it

There's a reason he was always listed at 6'11 when he was clearly at least 7'1, see also Kevin Durant

Versatility goes in KG's favor but I'm just pointing it out, the man did not like to be anchored to the basket

Of course not. He is the most versatile defender of all-time.

[tihsad]

KG spent a ton of time playing center the 2nd half of his career. The first half I'm not sure how much of that was him refusing and how much of that was the two dominant players in his conference on the two dominant teams were Shaq and Tim Duncan and so the Wolves felt like they had to have a legit center on the roster to compete with them.

And once Rasho/Kandi/Ervin (not Magic) Johnson were on the roster they were simply better players than some of the forward options.


I wouldn't hold KG playing mostly forward against him in this comparison and certainly any versatility advantage goes his way.

https://www.twincities.com/2015/09/27/kevin-garnett-says-his-knees-are-good-and-he-still-hates-playing-center/
http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4690446/kg-on-playing-center-i-dont-like-it

There's a reason he was always listed at 6'11 when he was clearly at least 7'1, see also Kevin Durant

Versatility goes in KG's favor but I'm just pointing it out, the man did not like to be anchored to the basket

Of course not. He is the most versatile defender of all-time.

I enjoy your wry comments, even if they can be interpreted as just a hair condescending, and I'd "probably" agree with KG being the most "versatile" defender of all time. I'd think Russell would have an argument (admittedly, I haven't watched hours of the available tape), but he mirrors KG's size and from what we know was at least his equal in athleticism. We also have a reasonable estimate of his defensive impact (I'd refer back to the Peaks Project on his 65' season, which I believe you participated in) which confers a strong argument for GOAT D. The most likely dispute against would be the style of play in the 60s, which might not allow for the "linebacker" style of defense most associated with KG - but remains era specific. The other potential dispute would be Rodman, for whom I regularly see posters claim he "could defend 1-5" in somewhat similar fashion to the vids you posted earlier with KG. We both know that wasn't the case - for either of them. Young Rodman could defend 2-4 regularly, the 1 in limited spots, and got no where near the 5 except as help. 3-peat heavier DR could defend the 3-4, and the 2 and 5 in spots (no, he wasn't guarding Shaq for 35+ minutes). The same for young KG, who could defend the 2-4 (I don't have the link, but I remember T-Mac and Kobe calling him a "nightmare" as a defender), but the 1 and 5 either in very, very limited spots or as help. 04' KG wasn't guarding Shaq in the WCF for any length of time, as we all are aware. Now older KG was defending the 4-5, but the 3 in very limited spots, and going no where near the 1-2 - similar to Rodman as he aged (as with all of us, we gain weight and lose quickness). Does this mean he isn't the most "versatile" defender, not necessarily, but let's not operate under the guise that he was defending 1-5 from 96-16.

That being said, we address "versatile" and that it is in no way synonymous with "best". I'll agree with you that KG's style of defense aged well into the post rule adjustment league, better then the bulky rim protectors of yore (and I take into account your post on his close to the basket rim D), but as result of his longevity he played in almost two different leagues. Our data is of course mostly scatter shot for pre-97 or 98ish, but how does this make him in anyway a superior defender to DR, when the limited amount of information I'm aware of suggests nothing of the kind? Given DR's exceptional athleticism (which IMO clearly surpassed KG's) why wouldn't he have been a KG on steroids in the age of linebacker D, and perhaps, even more versatile? How versatile would 2008+ KG be in 1993?

[Colbinii]

I enjoy your wry comments, even if they can be interpreted as just a hair condescending,

Thanks. If you understand where I am coming from my posts come off less condescending than if you didn't. I also feel like I show respect to the best posters on this board as they help me out.

and I'd "probably" agree with KG being the most "versatile" defender of all time. I'd think Russell would have an argument (admittedly, I haven't watched hours of the available tape), but he mirrors KG's size and from what we know was at least his equal in athleticism. We also have a reasonable estimate of his defensive impact (I'd refer back to the Peaks Project on his 65' season, which I believe you participated in) which confers a strong argument for GOAT D. The most likely dispute against would be the style of play in the 60s, which might not allow for the "linebacker" style of defense most associated with KG - but remains era specific.

...

I am sure 70sFan could expand on the versatility of Russell. He wouldn't have any issues with defending post-expansion in the 70's where the flow of games started to open up nor would he struggle in the heavy 3-point attempt era which we currently reside in. For me and player analysis it is easier to have quantifiable data to support my eye test [which KG's era has and Russell's doesn't]. We also have the luxury of seeing Garnett play against some of the best offensive players of all-time and witness his versatility first hand [Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Dirk, Duncan, Adelman Kings, Kobe/Gasol, LeBron and then even LeBron/Wade later in his career]. All of these instances Garnett showed ability to adapt defensively according to his counterparts.

The other potential dispute would be Rodman, for whom I regularly see posters claim he "could defend 1-5" in somewhat similar fashion to the vids you posted earlier with KG. We both know that wasn't the case - for either of them.

I think when I say [and hopefully anyone says] a player can defend 1-5 they are being hyperbolic, or in other cases against certain teams. Take LeBron in 2013 for example, he could guard 1-5 against the Spurs as he was able to stay in front of Tony Parker [and did so for closing time in most of the epic 7-game series] while also switch onto Duncan [while he couldn't shut down Duncan he could trouble him and not be totally exposed] and then we can't forget his help defense where he destroyed Tiago Splitter.

Watch on YouTube

Young Rodman could defend 2-4 regularly, the 1 in limited spots, and got no where near the 5 except as help. 3-peat heavier DR could defend the 3-4, and the 2 and 5 in spots (no, he wasn't guarding Shaq for 35+ minutes).

Great points. Older generations tend to blend the younger and older versions of players to create this super, mythological being similar to a Centaur or a Harpy.

The same for young KG, who could defend the 2-4 (I don't have the link, but I remember T-Mac and Kobe calling him a "nightmare" as a defender), but the 1 and 5 either in very, very limited spots or as help. 04' KG wasn't guarding Shaq in the WCF for any length of time, as we all are aware. Now older KG was defending the 4-5, but the 3 in very limited spots, and going no where near the 1-2 - similar to Rodman as he aged (as with all of us, we gain weight and lose quickness). Does this mean he isn't the most "versatile" defender, not necessarily, but let's not operate under the guise that he was defending 1-5 from 96-16.

I'm not above criticism, especially from my post in the GOAT #6 thread [which I still believe is the best post I have written on here; though I do have a soft spot for my "Bryant and the Big" thread].

That being said, we address "versatile" and that it is in no way synonymous with "best". I'll agree with you that KG's style of defense aged well into the post rule adjustment league, better then the bulky rim protectors of yore (and I take into account your post on his close to the basket rim D), but as result of his longevity he played in almost two different leagues. Our data is of course mostly scatter shot for pre-97 or 98ish, but how does this make him in anyway a superior defender to DR, when the limited amount of information I'm aware of suggests nothing of the kind? Given DR's exceptional athleticism (which IMO clearly surpassed KG's) why wouldn't he have been a KG on steroids in the age of linebacker D, and perhaps, even more versatile? How versatile would 2008+ KG be in 1993?

I don't think it does make Garnett superior to Robinson. In fact, the data we have for Robinson from 99-02 paints him as one of the best defenders we have ever recorded...and that is 34-37 year old Robinson.

Where I think Garnett becomes more versatile was his quickness and better instincts on the perimeter. Remember, Garnett came into the league and many thought he could be a SF given his lateral quickness.

Of course, where some will argue the difference is in team defensive rating, where Garnett's teams were average to bad defensively for his time in Minnesota while Robinson consistently led top 5-10 defenses. I don't agree with conclusions like this as team defense has a lot to do with the team and less to do with individuals but it is a very strong selling point for Robinson in discussions like this, and something I am open to.

[tihsad]

To be clear, a large part of the enjoyment of your wry humor is its mild (very, of course) condescension. I meant it in a wryly flattering way, FWIT. I have an idea of how solid your BB knowledge is, especially regarding KG, and wanted to prompt from you exactly the post you just made, and not a "quotable" or simple "And 1". In fairness to what you just took the time to post I have to look it over several times before giving it a proper response. Thanks for the work and your quick response.

[tihsad]

I enjoy your wry comments, even if they can be interpreted as just a hair condescending,

Thanks. If you understand where I am coming from my posts come off less condescending than if you didn't. I also feel like I show respect to the best posters on this board as they help me out.

You most certainly do. I don’t stalk your posts, but there is a visible difference between when you’re engaged and when you’re not. That can probably be said for all of us. I was hoping to get you seriously involved again as I respect your opinion, and I sincerely appreciate you doing just that.

and I'd "probably" agree with KG being the most "versatile" defender of all time. I'd think Russell would have an argument (admittedly, I haven't watched hours of the available tape), but he mirrors KG's size and from what we know was at least his equal in athleticism. We also have a reasonable estimate of his defensive impact (I'd refer back to the Peaks Project on his 65' season, which I believe you participated in) which confers a strong argument for GOAT D. The most likely dispute against would be the style of play in the 60s, which might not allow for the "linebacker" style of defense most associated with KG - but remains era specific.

...

I am sure 70sFan could expand on the versatility of Russell. He wouldn't have any issues with defending post-expansion in the 70's where the flow of games started to open up nor would he struggle in the heavy 3-point attempt era which we currently reside in. For me and player analysis it is easier to have quantifiable data to support my eye test [which KG's era has and Russell's doesn't]. We also have the luxury of seeing Garnett play against some of the best offensive players of all-time and witness his versatility first hand [Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Dirk, Duncan, Adelman Kings, Kobe/Gasol, LeBron and then even LeBron/Wade later in his career]. All of these instances Garnett showed ability to adapt defensively according to his counterparts.

I’m very much with you. My heart tells me this is Russell, but I didn’t see him play live and I watched what KG did. I can see KGs numbers and only dream about what BR’s were. And I agree, 70sFan is the guy to ask for further enlightenment in these regards

The other potential dispute would be Rodman, for whom I regularly see posters claim he "could defend 1-5" in somewhat similar fashion to the vids you posted earlier with KG. We both know that wasn't the case - for either of them.

I think when I say [and hopefully anyone says] a player can defend 1-5 they are being hyperbolic, or in other cases against certain teams. Take LeBron in 2013 for example, he could guard 1-5 against the Spurs as he was able to stay in front of Tony Parker [and did so for closing time in most of the epic 7-game series] while also switch onto Duncan [while he couldn't shut down Duncan he could trouble him and not be totally exposed] and then we can't forget his help defense where he destroyed Tiago Splitter.

And I knew we’d both agree on this kind of thinking being a joke.

Watch on YouTube

Young Rodman could defend 2-4 regularly, the 1 in limited spots, and got no where near the 5 except as help. 3-peat heavier DR could defend the 3-4, and the 2 and 5 in spots (no, he wasn't guarding Shaq for 35+ minutes).

Great points. Older generations tend to blend the younger and older versions of players to create this super, mythological being similar to a Centaur or a Harpy.

Of course we do, that’s part of the fun of sports. It’s our mythology and they our gladiators. Hercules, however, did not clean the Augean Stables in a day nor herd Geryon’s stable. As we should nod our hat that legends are just that, iconoclasm for the sake of simple idol smashing serves no greater service. Neither do us much good.

The same for young KG, who could defend the 2-4 (I don't have the link, but I remember T-Mac and Kobe calling him a "nightmare" as a defender), but the 1 and 5 either in very, very limited spots or as help. 04' KG wasn't guarding Shaq in the WCF for any length of time, as we all are aware. Now older KG was defending the 4-5, but the 3 in very limited spots, and going no where near the 1-2 - similar to Rodman as he aged (as with all of us, we gain weight and lose quickness). Does this mean he isn't the most "versatile" defender, not necessarily, but let's not operate under the guise that he was defending 1-5 from 96-16.

I'm not above criticism, especially from my post in the GOAT #6 thread [which I still believe is the best post I have written on here; though I do have a soft spot for my "Bryant and the Big" thread].

There is no criticism here, but I’ve yet read to read the “Bryant and the Big” so let me get back to you

That being said, we address "versatile" and that it is in no way synonymous with "best". I'll agree with you that KG's style of defense aged well into the post rule adjustment league, better then the bulky rim protectors of yore (and I take into account your post on his close to the basket rim D), but as result of his longevity he played in almost two different leagues. Our data is of course mostly scatter shot for pre-97 or 98ish, but how does this make him in anyway a superior defender to DR, when the limited amount of information I'm aware of suggests nothing of the kind? Given DR's exceptional athleticism (which IMO clearly surpassed KG's) why wouldn't he have been a KG on steroids in the age of linebacker D, and perhaps, even more versatile? How versatile would 2008+ KG be in 1993?

I don't think it does make Garnett superior to Robinson. In fact, the data we have for Robinson from 99-02 paints him as one of the best defenders we have ever recorded...and that is 34-37 year old Robinson.

Where I think Garnett becomes more versatile was his quickness and better instincts on the perimeter. Remember, Garnett came into the league and many thought he could be a SF given his lateral quickness.

Now we’re talking, and I agree with you to an extent. That was the crazy thing about out of the gates KG, he really was a 7 foot player that could defend 3s (poor T-mac). This was also the reason why he couldn’t deal with guys like Shaq, even for a limited time, in the post. Let’s think pre 05’ and how the game was played.

Of course, where some will argue the difference is in team defensive rating, where Garnett's teams were average to bad defensively for his time in Minnesota while Robinson consistently led top 5-10 defenses. I don't agree with conclusions like this as team defense has a lot to do with the team and less to do with individuals but it is a very strong selling point for Robinson in discussions like this, and something I am open to.

Yes, I’m well aware of it I do think this is noteworthy, but I think G35 touched on this far better then I will. Is it an end all to the debate, nope, but I can’t see how it can’t be taken into consideration? I agree with G35, frankly, but I’m open to reasonable explanations counterwise, which is why I’m happy to have your input. And ugh, I massacred the quote system with that post, I hope you can decipher Colbini