Where do you rank Kevin Garnett all time?

[OverAndOut]

KG is one of the most controversial players on this forum. Where do you have him ranked on your list?

[_Game7_]

15-20 is reasonable

[pandrade83]

I’ve got him at 9 and feel very comfortable with that valuation.

[freethedevil]

Top ten.
is one of the most impactful players ever by any standard.
Is one of the most portable players too.

Was the most important player on a championship winner well past his prime.

Typically the first argument you see against him is an accusation of "analytics bias" from posters or a "why are we even considering this" which indicates to me the case against him as a top ten player is a weak one. Once you get that you have people cherrypicking his obpm in the playoffs instead of using his overall bpm because...

reasons?

If you use factors outside of play to evaluate greatness, fair enough. Greatest doesn't have to equal best. But if you're going to equate the best, the data says he's top ten, and context tells you his game is highly portable(aka, he fits well on better and better teams), something which is backed up with a past prime kg being the clear cut #1 on winning celtics side.

Again though, cognitive dissonance is going to do it's thing.

[No-more-rings]

Voted 11-15. Not really buying the general push on the board that he’s clearly superior to Kobe Bryant, and the idea of him being top 5 seems absurd to me. The way he gets rated is kind of similar to Chris Paul, he’s like the superior pf version of Cp3 on realgm. Excellent stats and Rapm, but the team success isn’t up to par with most other ATGs. To rank them as high as their fans do, you’d have to ignore what actually happened, or rather what didn’t happen.

[freethedevil]

. The way he gets rated is kind of similar to Chris Paul, he’s like the superior pf version of Cp3 on realgm. Excellent stats and Rapm, but the team success isn’t up to par with most other ATGs. To rank them as high as their fans do, you’d have to ignore what actually happened, or rather what didn’t happen.

Gee, it's almost like team success, applies to teams?

Teams win chips, players impact the game. Saying fans are using what kg "didn't do" because of what his teams "didn't do" is silly. Kd did less with the celtics and was the best player on the best team in the league well past 30.

It's not that his fans are ignoring "what he actually did." It's that you're equating what a team does to what a player does.

[No-more-rings]

. The way he gets rated is kind of similar to Chris Paul, he’s like the superior pf version of Cp3 on realgm. Excellent stats and Rapm, but the team success isn’t up to par with most other ATGs. To rank them as high as their fans do, you’d have to ignore what actually happened, or rather what didn’t happen.

Gee, it's almost like team success, applies to teams?

Teams win chips, players impact the game. Saying fans are using what kg "didn't do" because of what his teams "didn't do" is silly. Kd did less with the celtics and was the best player on the best team in the league well past 30.

It's not that his fans are ignoring "what he actually did." It's that you're equating what a team does to what a player does.

You can’t totally separate the 2 though if one player has a big impact on the outcome.

Kg supporters assume he could achieve what Duncan did so they rank him top 5 or somewhere up there, maybe he could’ve but it’s all hypothetical.

[Homer38]

He don't deserve to be ahead of Kobe.

[freethedevil]

. The way he gets rated is kind of similar to Chris Paul, he’s like the superior pf version of Cp3 on realgm. Excellent stats and Rapm, but the team success isn’t up to par with most other ATGs. To rank them as high as their fans do, you’d have to ignore what actually happened, or rather what didn’t happen.

Gee, it's almost like team success, applies to teams?

Teams win chips, players impact the game. Saying fans are using what kg "didn't do" because of what his teams "didn't do" is silly. Kd did less with the celtics and was the best player on the best team in the league well past 30.

It's not that his fans are ignoring "what he actually did." It's that you're equating what a team does to what a player does.

You can’t totally separate the 2 though if one player has a big impact on the outcome.

Kg supporters assume he could achieve what Duncan did so they rank him top 5 or somewhere up there, maybe he could’ve but it’s all hypothetical.

1. you realize that impact data comes directly from team data? You're essentially arguing we should miles to measure a room instead of using feet.

2. I have no idea why you keep trying to strawman "kg supporters" as relying on hypotheticals. They're saying, he played about as well as duncan did. You're saying, that can't be true because he didn't win as much. There's no hypotheticals here but the ones you're conjuring out of thin air.

[Odinn21]

I think he's a bit overrated in here.

I don't know why but when it comes to KG people tend to act like volume scoring is not something important.

In his career, he had only 2 25+ ppg playoff series. And since he had a bad supporting cast in most of his prime, he should've had more than 2 because as we all know when atg players try to carry a bad team, their numbers go up.

His scoring arsenal wasn't big enough and wasn't reliable enough. If had the impact of a top 10 ever, he would've had good playoff runs more than once (2004).

I usually get criticized for this opinion, and his other offensive capabilities and defensive quality get brought up like I'm not aware of 'em. But, if a player isn't a scoring threat big enough, his other qualities won't shine that much as well.
It was no surprise that he got his long overdue ring when he got together with Paul Pierce and Ray Allen. His team didn't rely on him scoring that many. (that many being more than 25 for me)


KG played all across the box score and he had great advanced metrics thanks to them. And I can not say his peak is not up there. His 2003-04 MVP is one of the most impressive awards ever. He was great in 2004 playoffs. But that's it. I probably can't name 15 single season performances (rs and ps combined) better than KG's 2003-04. It's probably top 10. Other than that, he had great regular seasons in 2002-03 and 2004-05. Then there's 2007-08 season. I can not put a player with only 1 and a half solid (for a top 10 standards) playoff runs and 3 and a half regular season runs into my top 10.
Think of this as number of seasons KG being a top 3 or 5 player in the league. It's just too short.

For example advanced metrics simply don't love Moses Malone. But I'd pick Moses ahead of KG 10 out of 10 times.

With all things being said, he's definitely top 20 ever. Even though I don't have an exact spot for him, I have him at 12-21 range.

[Paddy Brosso]

My top 20 all-time:
1-5: M. Jordan, K. Abdul-Jabbar, L. James, W.Chamberlain, T. Duncan.
6-10: M. Johnson, L. Bird, B. Russell, S. O'Neal, K. Bryant.
11-15: H.Olajuwon, J. West, O. Robertson, M. Malone, K. Malone.
16-20: K. Garnett, D. Nowitzki, K. Durant, S. Curry, D. Robinson.
So KG is currently my 16th player, but maybe in a couple of years he will be overtaken by Durant and/or Curry, who knows

[eminence]

LBJ/Duncan/KAJ/KG - He's 4th for me.

[Colbinii]

Comfortably in the Top 10

[freethedevil]

I think he's a bit overrated in here.

I don't know why but when it comes to KG people tend to act like volume scoring is not something important.

It's not that it isn't important. It's that it's merely a part of impact, and using a factor of impact as an argument against a player's overall impact is downright silly.

KG played all across the box score and he had great advanced metrics thanks to them.

Wait hold up, player who impacts the game in many ways... is more impactful than players who don't?

For example advanced metrics simply don't love Moses Malone. But I'd pick Moses ahead of KG 10 out of 10 times.

And this is what we call circular reasoning:

-> Evidence doesn't support my viewpoint
-> Therefore evidence doesn't prove anything

I usually get criticized for this opinion, and his other offensive capabilities and defensive quality get brought up like I'm not aware of 'em. But, if a player isn't a scoring threat big enough, his other qualities won't shine that much as well.

You get criticized because it's silly. Lebron, Shaq and jordan's other qualities were very good per impact #'s. Their qualities "don't shine as much" because they're not as good. This isn't hard.

[freethedevil]

LBJ/Duncan/KAJ/KG - He's 4th for me.

russell isn't in your top 4?

[eminence]

LBJ/Duncan/KAJ/KG - He's 4th for me.

russell isn't in your top 4?

Not the one that usually gets that reaction Russell's in that next group from 5-9 with MJ/Shaq/Hakeem/Wilt and normally towards the top of it (he MJ usually 5/6 in some order).

But I have a kind of tough time dealing with longevity from that era, players then, and Russell in particular went out on top much more so than they do now and I'm not 100% sure what to do with that. Also kind of low on Russell's peak level of play relative to the levels of other guys being discussed here.

[freethedevil]

LBJ/Duncan/KAJ/KG - He's 4th for me.

russell isn't in your top 4?

But I have a kind of tough time dealing with longevity from that era, players then, and Russell in particular went out on top much more so than they do now and I'm not 100% sure what to do with that. Also kind of low on Russell's peak level of play relative to the levels of other guys being discussed here.

o_o

Also, what's garnett and duncan's case against jordan?

[eminence]

russell isn't in your top 4?

But I have a kind of tough time dealing with longevity from that era, players then, and Russell in particular went out on top much more so than they do now and I'm not 100% sure what to do with that. Also kind of low on Russell's peak level of play relative to the levels of other guys being discussed here.

o_o

Also, what's garnett and duncan's case against jordan?

I knew we'd get there!

Longevity/defense based obviously, though the main difference in my evaluation relative to most posters is that I don't see MJ as a notably better player at his peak (amazingly consistent prime though, I think only Russell/LBJ compare in that respect).

In rough terms I'd have Duncan/KG/MJ all on that very top level of peaks (likely around +6 SIO), with Russell closer to that 'Kobe/solid MVP' level of +5

[freethedevil]

But I have a kind of tough time dealing with longevity from that era, players then, and Russell in particular went out on top much more so than they do now and I'm not 100% sure what to do with that. Also kind of low on Russell's peak level of play relative to the levels of other guys being discussed here.

o_o

Also, what's garnett and duncan's case against jordan?

I knew we'd get there!

Longevity/defense based obviously, though the main difference in my evaluation relative to most posters is that I don't see MJ as a notably better player at his peak (amazingly consistent prime though, I think only Russell/LBJ compare in that respect).

In rough terms I'd have Duncan/KG/MJ all on that very top level of peaks (likely around +6 SIO), with Russell closer to that 'Kobe/solid MVP' level of +5

how do u rate these peaks. And wouldn't a prime, (multiple years of contention) be more important than a peak(one year)?

[HeartBreakKid]

I think he's a bit overrated in here.

I don't know why but when it comes to KG people tend to act like volume scoring is not something important.

In his career, he had only 2 25+ ppg playoff series. And since he had a bad supporting cast in most of his prime, he should've had more than 2 because as we all know when atg players try to carry a bad team, their numbers go up.

His scoring arsenal wasn't big enough and wasn't reliable enough. If had the impact of a top 10 ever, he would've had good playoff runs more than once (2004).

I usually get criticized for this opinion, and his other offensive capabilities and defensive quality get brought up like I'm not aware of 'em. But, if a player isn't a scoring threat big enough, his other qualities won't shine that much as well.
It was no surprise that he got his long overdue ring when he got together with Paul Pierce and Ray Allen. His team didn't rely on him scoring that many. (that many being more than 25 for me)


KG played all across the box score and he had great advanced metrics thanks to them. And I can not say his peak is not up there. His 2003-04 MVP is one of the most impressive awards ever. He was great in 2004 playoffs. But that's it. I probably can't name 15 single season performances (rs and ps combined) better than KG's 2003-04. Heck, it's probably top 10. Other than that, he had great regular seasons in 2002-03 and 2004-05. Then there's 2007-08 season. I can not put a player with only 1 and a half solid (for a top 10 standards) playoff runs and 3 and a half regular season runs into my top 10.
Think of this as number of seasons KG being a top 3 or 5 player in the league. It's just too short.

For example advanced metrics simply don't love Moses Malone. But I'd pick Moses ahead of KG 10 out of 10 times.

With all things being said, he's definitely top 25 ever. Even though I don't have an exact spot for him, I have him at 17-23 range.

It's not a coincidence Moses won a ring when he had a stacked team with amazing defenders either.

I dont know what metrics you are talking about - RPM and RAPM do not exist for Moses Malone, and why would you take him 10/10 times over Garnett? If it's just because of scoring isn't that a circular argument? Moses Malone is a center and not a great defender, so obviously he gives up a lot of what he puts in. He also doesn't pass, he is ball dominant, he doesn't stretch the floor. Basically, Kevin Garnett is better than him every where except in the low post by a substantial amount.

Malone doesn't even have a real rebounding edge over Garnett when you contextualize their styles and era, defensive rebounds are probably more impactful than offensive rebounds even if they are more common and not as flashy.