JoeMalburg wrote:I'm not denying how great KG was at all. I'm just not willing to let a single statistical metric override 70 years of history, the eye test, popular opinion of experts and my own analysis based on as much available information as I can find.
Popping in here because the underlined is a sentiment that often seems to come up in more involved conversations about Garnett. The thing is, though, it isn't true.
For example, one could make a completely scouting-based argument for Garnett as a top player of all-time:
On defense, KG was an elite rim protector (note the word elite, not GOAT) with one of the better vertical games around.
KG arguably was the GOAT as a horizontal defender, covering more ground on help defense than maybe anyone, which disrupted opposing team offenses and either helped hide weak defensive teammates or helped make solid defensive teammates into elite units.
KG arguably was the GOAT pick-and-roll defender, able to blow-up perhaps the most valuable offensive play in basketball to the point that it wrecked opposing game plans.
KG arguably was the GOAT versatile/switch defender, having spent significant time as primary covers on wings, forwards and centers with lots of film defending down to even point guards. His versatility, added to the ground that he could cover on help and his technique at disrupting certain sets is unparalleled.
KG was also credited as one of the best defensive minds and vocal defensive playcallers/communicators in the NBA while he played. And he is one of the best rebounders in history which, when combined with his ability to generate blocks and steals, made him one of the GOAT possession-finishers on defense in NBA history.
On offense, KG was an elite scorer. He was one of the best spacing big-men of all-time with his ability to score at volume and efficiency on extended jump shots. He was one of the best post scorers of his generation as well, with a variety of moves and countermoves that were difficult to defend.
KG arguably was the GOAT passing big man. Not only with his court vision and willingness to pass, but also with his ability to operate as the full-time team offense creator/initiator from the high post. This is a very valuable skill, as evidenced by other bigger-offensive-impact-than-anticipated big men in history like Walton, Sabonis and now Jokic.
KG was at least elite, if not all-time as a pick-setter (both by volume and frequency, in part because he stretched the bounds of legality). And with his combination of pick-setting, decision-making, passing and jump-shooting he is one of the best pick-and-pop big man of all time.
This combination of elite and arguably GOAT-ish skillsets is unique in NBA history and make Garnett one of the most portable, scaleable, biggest team contributors we've ever seen and the best such in the last quarter century. Further, as the game continues to evolve, it is clear that Garnett's style (that was often decried in his time) is actually the template for the optimal way for a big man to play in today's game, proving that his approach and skillset were innovative and ahead of their time. (/example)
SideshowBob has an outstanding example of this type of scout-based argument on offense, where he illustrates exactly why Garnett's offensive impact is so huge and impervious to s true shooting percentage: viewtopic.php?p=44663914#p44663914
One could also make a combination scouting/scouting analytics argument for Garnett as a top player of all-time: Colbini post/repost up-thread is an excellent example of this, where he describes an element of Garnett's play, provides screen-caps to illustrate the effectiveness of the element, then provides scouting analytics (e.g. 81 bad passes per season while averaging 4.9 assists vs only 2.7 TOs, or KG's scoring volume/efficiency at the rim and as a jump-shooter compared to Duncan and Dirk, respectively).
ElGee's GOAT rankings project (link for Garnett
http://www.backpicks.com/2018/03/19/backpicks-goat-8-kevin-garnett/) might be the best example of this combination of scouting and scouting analytics publicly available on the web. He uses Youtube videos of specific plays as visual scouting, then copious amounts of video tracking analytics to support the scouting. For example, why KG is on the short list of GOAT big men passers/team offense initiators:
"In tracking over 1,000 of Garnett’s possessions from 1997-2009, his rate of quality passing was near John Stockton’s, and using just his games from 2003 to 2008, his rate of “good” passes was over 4 per 100, comparable to Jason Kidd. While Garnett’s on-ball load dipped in Boston, his passing was better than ever, making life easier for the offensive weapons around him. He was also the most prolific creator of any big man in history (if we don’t count Larry Bird). In tracking Garnett, his creation rates were similar to his estimated non-3 Box Creation marks — in the 7 per 100 range — placing him at the top of the heap since this stat became available in 1978."Or, why KG is on the short list of GOAT help defenders in NBA history:
"Overall, Garnett’s athleticism, awareness and motor made him one of the best team defenders ever. In my sampling, from 2003-09, he committed defensive errors at a rate of just 0.7 per 100 (96th percentile). This was nearly identical to his rate during my 2010 and 2011 tracking (which included 2,500 more Garnett possessions). Additionally, his frequency of “good” help plays is second in my historical tracking to only a young Hakeem Olajuwon, at over 7 occurrences per 100, ahead of Tim Duncan’s peak rates of more than 6 per 100."The scouting analytics show that offensively, Garnett was a comparable post-scorer to Duncan (thus, elite gravity), second only to Dirk as a big man shooting threat (thus, elite spacing), and a passer/offense initiator on the order of excellent point guards (thus, elite offense creation). On defense, his help defense measures out as the best on record with the possible exception of young Hakeem, but he almost never made defensive errors (mixing the best of both worlds). In addition, he is one of the best rebounders of all-time as well. Put this combination of abilities together, with quantified scouting data supporting the claims, and a strong case can be made that Garnett was the best player of his generation, which puts him on the short list of greatest of all-time. (/example)
Where the impact stats need to be brought inNote, both of these types of cases can a) be very in depth and comprehensive and b) extremely well supported, without either ever having to utilize impact stats. In fact, the scouting and scouting analytics data is completely orthogonal to the impact stats. However, the usual counter-arguments to these types of scouting and/or scouting analytics based approaches (or really, the most common cases made against KG as a GOAT in general) usually contain some combo of these rebuttals:
*One can't be in the GOAT conversation without more team success and/or accolades (with an added negative sensitivity to either pointing out or detailing how bad Garnett's supporting casts were for most of his career).
*Scoring (volume/efficiency) is the most important aspect of basketball, so Garnett being elite but not GOAT at that one skill makes it impossible for him to be having as big of an impact on games as the GOAT scorers in history (alternatively put, versatility doesn't necessarily mean better impact on the game).
*Garnett's small decline in postseason scoring efficiency is somehow emblematic of his postseason impact not being as good as his regular season impact and/or not as good as some of the other GOATs, with Duncan often held up as the common foil.While the scouting and scouting analytics approaches make strong arguments for Garnett, each of these three types of rebuttals begs the question of whether there is a way to quantify which side is correct. And here, as Owly pointed out upthread,
"If only you could have statistics, perhaps a family of them, that gave you some notion of the specific player's "impact" on the points margin."And, of course, we do. We have an in-depth library of impact stats now, spanning well over two decades, which completely support the scouting and scouting-analytics cases and completely rebut the rebuttals. Yes, Garnett's impact on his team's scoring margins measured larger than any other player of the last 25 seasons with the possible exception of LeBron, his only peer. No, scoring (volume and/or efficiency) are not the only...or even a primary...arbiter for player impact. And yes, Garnett's measured impact holds up extremely well in the postseason in the available impact data that we have.
So, it's not a case of there being one magical number that is Garnett's only GOAT argument. At all. Instead, there are large (and growing) arguments that can be made to support Garnett's case. And it is actually really compelling that the entire body of impact stats, which are completely independent of the scouting/scouting-based stats, tell the exact same story and support the case so fully.
