RealGM

This is something I've thought about for a while and I'm not sure a specific thread has been made regarding this.

KG is likely the greatest 2nd option in NBA history (David Robinson has a great argument), but how valuable can a 2nd option really be? I think that a large part of the divisiveness KG has caused on this forum is due to people talking past each other because they have different criteria that they're evaluating him by. The analytics crowd is measuing CORP/plus-minus without less regard for role while others want someone they think is capable of being a 1st option on a championship team.

So, how valuable do you guys think a 2nd option can be in an all-time sense and do you agree with my premise? Also, I'm sure someone will push back on the idea that he can't be the 1st option on a championship team which is perfectly fine.

What would make KG a second option to begin with? Disregarding his main value as a defender by only focussing on the offensive side on the ball is already going to end up with you missing the big picture but KG led the Celtics in FGA in both the regular season and play-offs in 2008.

Russell is likely a 3rd option on offense at best and he has a decent case for GOAT. Can't really see the problem (even if KG was a 2nd option to begin with, which I disagree with).

I agree with the first couple answers. I don't know what kind of standard you have for "first option" (Kevin Durant?). Today if you don't score at least 25+ people are skeptical about you. In KG's era you can be your team's first option with 20+, especially if you don't have a reliable shot creator in the backcourt

I would trust KG with the ball in his hands more than Kyrie and prime Westbrook even if he's not the typical offensive ISO guy

You don't have to be the best offensive player to be the best player, it's that simple.

70sFan wrote:You don't have to be the best offensive player to be the best player, it's that simple.

Theoretically that is true, but how many times has a player who was not the best offensive player led a team to a championship.

The most recent that would even have a semi-argument would be the 2004 Pistons and they did not really have a "best player", they had a compilation of players that played well together and then they still had to go and get Rasheed from the Hawks to put them over the top. I don't think you can take any one of the following players away and they still win: Billups, Prince, Wallace, Sheed, Hamilton and then they had a great bench.

The 2008 Celtics are similar, they had a group of players that if you take away one then I don't think they win. Even if people want to say KG was the best player, he was incrementally...fractionally better than Paul Pierce. Then they still had Ray Allen, Rondo, Big Baby, Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins making big contributions.

Now you can say that all teams have players making big contributions, but the 2008 Lakers did not have Bynum at all for that series and he was a solid starter. So that Lakers team showed they could have won without Bynum. Take one of those players away from the Celtics and its sketchy. That is the whole argument for 2009 and 2010, is that they didn't have a healthy KG in 2009 or Perkins in 2010.

With other players its more cut and dry who the best player is, in 2015, when Love got hurt, Lebron went into another level to keep the Cavaliers in the game.

This is the argument that Warriors fans or KD haters are making is that Durant was not needed to win titles, he was a luxury.

All the way back until 1980, I can't see the best player who was not also the best offensive player. The only possibilities are the original Bad Boy Pistons who had a similar team construction of high level players who were not quite elite. But Isiah is still considered the best player and the leader of those teams.....

A few people (Dutchball97 and AdagioPace) have asked about what it means to say KG is a 2nd option. To me, there's ~3 types of 'First Options:
1. Offensive first option. Often times, when people just say first option, they're just thinking about the offensive side. This usually means best overall offensive player on a team, though sometimes people can value scoring over creation when considering offensive first options.
2. Defensive first option. This usually means best defensive player on a team.
3. Overall/Two-way first option. This usually is the overall best player, with some consideration to what option they are on both offense and defense.

When people say "KG is a 2nd option", I believe they usually mean he can be an "offensive second option," not overall second option. There's a certain archetype of player that you absolutely would love to have as your Defensive first option (i.e. best defensive player) on a championship team, and could absolutely be the Overall/Two-way first option (i.e. best overall player) on a championship team, but you might not want as your Offensive first option (i.e. offensive best player) on a championship team.

Usually, this archetype is used to analyze all-time two way big men. Some examples might be: Bill Russell, later career Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Walton, David Robinson, KG, Tim Duncan (at least when he's older). Other possible candidates might be: Kareem or Hakeem at some point in their career, Scottie Pippin or Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace, and Draymond Green (though these players might not perfectly fit within the archetype... Kareem's definitely a strong offensive first option, Ben Wallace is definitely a weak offensive second option, etc.).

To be clear: some of these players absolutely could be Offensive first options, and as I said, could still be the overall best player on a team. But in an ideal world, if you want to be winning championships with your offense, you may prefer to have these players as an offensive 2nd option, or at least give them some good offensive help (e.g. with some sort of 1a/1b offensive option). For example: Bill Russell is obviously a great choice to be your best overall player and Overall first option on a team, but you certainly don't want him to be your offensive first option on a championship team.

...

To get back to the question, I think it's right that the more analytic-drive crowd are more accepting of this archetype. Me personally, I absolutely agree with 70sFan that you don't have to be the offensive first option to be the overall best player on a championship team. However, there's certainly a crowd of casual fans or people in media (e.g. Stephen A Smith / Max Kellerman) who are less accepting of this archetype, and prioritize Offensive First Options when ranking players.

Bill Russell's actually an interesting case, since he has somewhat escaped the bias that people have against this archetype and against KG in particular. I guess the "Ringz" argument helps overcome peoples' bias. Still, there are plenty of biased people who say Russell only won because his team was stacked or because he was going against "Milkmen and plumbers".

G35 wrote:Theoretically that is true, but how many times has a player who was not the best offensive player led a team to a championship.

What do you mean by "led"?

If you're asking how many times the best player on title team wasn't their best offensive player, then it happened quite a few times:

2004: Ben Wallace was likely their best player
2005: Duncan wasn't Spurs best offensive player, but he was the best player.
2007: you can argue that Manu was better offensively than Duncan, but Duncan was clearly the best
2008: again, you can argue Pierce but KG was clearly the best
2014: this team didn't have clear best player, but both Duncan and Kawhi were more important defensively than offensively
2020: you can argue that Davis was Lakers best player and LeBron was clearly better on offense

The most recent that would even have a semi-argument would be the 2004 Pistons and they did not really have a "best player", they had a compilation of players that played well together and then they still had to go and get Rasheed from the Hawks to put them over the top.

Rasheed trade helped them mostly on defense, not on offense though.

The 2008 Celtics are similar, they had a group of players that if you take away one then I don't think they win. Even if people want to say KG was the best player, he was incrementally...fractionally better than Paul Pierce. Then they still had Ray Allen, Rondo, Big Baby, Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins making big contributions.

By that logic, you can say that with basically any championship run. It doesn't make any sense, Curry wouldn't have won the title without Klay, Iggy or Green in 2015 either. Same with most LeBron titles.

Garnett wasn't better "fractionally" than Pierce, it's not up to debate who was Celtics best player.

Now you can say that all teams have players making big contributions, but the 2008 Lakers did not have Bynum at all for that series and he was a solid starter. So that Lakers team showed they could have won without Bynum. Take one of those players away from the Celtics and its sketchy. That is the whole argument for 2009 and 2010, is that they didn't have a healthy KG in 2009 or Perkins in 2010.

So your argument is that Lakers could win it all without Bynum, but Celtics would struggle without Big Baby? Seriously?

All the way back until 1980, I can't see the best player who was not also the best offensive player. The only possibilities are the original Bad Boy Pistons who had a similar team construction of high level players who were not quite elite. But Isiah is still considered the best player and the leader of those teams.....

Again, that's because you don't rank defense high enough. I already mentioned quite a few examples from 21st century, but here are more:

1999: you can make a case for Robinson
1990: this one isn't clear cut
1989: another tough one
1982: not sure if Kareem was still better offensively than Magic at that point, but he was clearly the best player on Lakers team
1979: another tough one
1978: Hayes was likely their best player and he wasn't their best offensive player
1976: Cowens
1974: Cowens
1972: Wilt
1969: Russell
1968: Russell
1959-66: Russell

If you include losing finalists, the list becomes much longer:

2013: Duncan was clearly the best player and not the best offensive player
2010: Garnett
2009: Howard
2005: Wallace
2001: Mutombo has a strong case
1999: this one is tough
1996: Kemp who definitely wasn't better offensively than Payton
1988: this one is tough
1983: again Kareem, though this one is close
1978: probably Sikma or Webster, certainly both worse offensively than Williams and Brown
1975: Wes Unseld has a case
1973: Wilt
1971: Wes Unseld definitely
1970: Wilt has a case (at least in postseason)
1967: Nate Thurmond has a strong case

To me the key thing is how how easy is find the other pieces to have around a certain player to have a good or great offense, especially from a PO POV.
What I think a little bit gets overlooked sometimes by the biggest Garnett supporters is that you need a ballhandler that is very likely a max guy, and this makes the teams construction more difficult and the player himself less valuable.
There are very few big men that can work without such player (Dirk and Jokic) and some other than can get away with it (Shaq, Hakeem, Timmeh), but Garnett needs actually a real high level primary creator next to him, and those are easy NOT (edit) to find.


___
Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

I think part of what KG may be a victim of is playing in the post MJ era where the best player/talent was expected to be a great offensive player(though that perception has existed for longer). Even Duncan back then was pretty great offensively. Then you had Shaq, Kobe, AI, Tmac etc. So I think KG being this uber talented athletic specimen was expected to become a very good scorer but that's not really the best way to use his talent. So instead of finding another player to also fill the #1 scoring role his team expected him to fill it and that was part of the problem. That isn't the only thing but I think it's part of it. In Boston he was no longer expected to fill that role.

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:To me the key thing is how how easy is find the other pieces to have around a certain player to have a good or great offense, especially from a PO POV.
What I think a little bit gets overlooked sometimes by the biggest Garnett supporters is that you need a ballhandler that is very likely a max guy, and this makes the teams construction more difficult and the player himself less valuable.
There are very few big men that can work without such player (Dirk and Jokic) and some other than can get away with it (Shaq, Hakeem, Timmeh), but Garnett needs actually a real high level primary creator next to him, and those are easy to find.

___
Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

There is a good chance he wins in 2004 if Cassell stays healthy. He was acquired for 34 year-old Anthony Peeler and a fringe starting caliber player in Joe Smith.

Keep in mind Cassell wasn't an all-star prior to joining forces with KG and was a 3.5 OBPM player [prior 6 seasons]. 18 players had a 3.5 OBPM or greater in 2004. 19 Players had a 3.5 OBPM or greater in todays league.

Tim Duncan has it in 2005 [Manu, 4.1] and 2007 [Manu, 5.3 and also Parker and Barry at 2.7]. Duncan then won in 2003 with a Defensive cast Garnett didn't have until 2008 and David Robinson in 1999 [Team didn't need a 3.5+ OBPM perimeter player].

Hakeem didn't have the player in 1994 but did in 1995 [Clyde Drexler at 4.5]

Shaq had Kobe and Wade who were 3.5 OBPM or higher in every season he won [not to mention Penny Hardaway in Orlando].

I agree, if Sam Cassell is considered a High Level Creator [Top 15-20 Offensive Player in the league] then Garnett needs one, as do Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem unless the roster constructions/league balance dictate otherwise.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I think part of what KG may be a victim of is playing in the post MJ era where the best player/talent was expected to be a great offensive player(though that perception has existed for longer). Even Duncan back then was pretty great offensively. Then you had Shaq, Kobe, AI, Tmac etc. So I think KG being this uber talented athletic specimen was expected to become a very good scorer but that's not really the best way to use his talent. So instead of finding another player to also fill the #1 scoring role his team expected him to fill it and that was part of the problem. That isn't the only thing but I think it's part of it. In Boston he was no longer expected to fill that role.

The bigger problem in Minnesota is only one season [2004] did they ever add a player who was top 20-25 for the season. Hardly anyone ever wins when none of his teammates are top 20-25.

Colbinii wrote:
The bigger problem in Minnesota is only one season [2004] did they ever add a player who was top 20-25 for the season. Hardly anyone ever wins when none of his teammates are top 20-25.

True though I think there was some talent there. Terrell Brandon was a good pg, Chauncey was there, Wally was a decent to good offensive player. Not the makings of a contender but decent talent. Obviously not a well run team though.

capfan33 wrote:This is something I've thought about for a while and I'm not sure a specific thread has been made regarding this.

KG is likely the greatest 2nd option in NBA history (David Robinson has a great argument), but how valuable can a 2nd option really be? I think that a large part of the divisiveness KG has caused on this forum is due to people talking past each other because they have different criteria that they're evaluating him by. The analytics crowd is measuing CORP/plus-minus without less regard for role while others want someone they think is capable of being a 1st option on a championship team.

So, how valuable do you guys think a 2nd option can be in an all-time sense and do you agree with my premise? Also, I'm sure someone will push back on the idea that he can't be the 1st option on a championship team which is perfectly fine.

Put me down in the category that doesn't focus on scoring as the lone defining skill of the game. People tend to focus on scoring and say "Well, any player who can't score like X needs a teammate like X" without doing the same logic for other skills. The reality is that we have the +/- data to let us know how much impact various players can have through different skills and roles, and KG is up there with the very best.

Now though, there is an asymmetry in the game based on the fact that the offense dictates the possession and thus has direct choice as to who the ball is likely to go to. In the age of adept 3-point shooting, it does seem like peak offensive impact surpasses peak defensive impact...but I don't see anything magical that changes the conversation from "peak offense is generally worth more than peak defense" to "even if the overall impact factors Player A, pick Player B if he's better on offense".

Colbinii wrote:The bigger problem in Minnesota is only one season [2004] did they ever add a player who was top 20-25 for the season. Hardly anyone ever wins when none of his teammates are top 20-25.

Adding to this:

It's sometimes pointed out that stars who win titles generally have supporting casts that are good enough to at least play .500 ball without them. It's not so clear cut as that, nor is it something we can truly know how good the supporting cast will be without that player simply from on/off data, but suffice to say that Garnett's Minny supporting casts were generally well below that based on such data.

Over the course of Garnett's 13 years in Minny, the average off +/- per 100 possessions for the T-wolves was a -9.0.

By contrast, Tim Duncan's team pulled a +1.9 without him, and Kobe Bryant's a -0.4. KG was dealing with a completely different world of challenge than his rivals were.

70sFan wrote:

G35 wrote:Theoretically that is true, but how many times has a player who was not the best offensive player led a team to a championship.

What do you mean by "led"?

If you're asking how many times the best player on title team wasn't their best offensive player, then it happened quite a few times:

2004: Ben Wallace was likely their best player
2005: Duncan wasn't Spurs best offensive player, but he was the best player.
2007: you can argue that Manu was better offensively than Duncan, but Duncan was clearly the best
2008: again, you can argue Pierce but KG was clearly the best
2014: this team didn't have clear best player, but both Duncan and Kawhi were more important defensively than offensively
2020: you can argue that Davis was Lakers best player and LeBron was clearly better on offense

The most recent that would even have a semi-argument would be the 2004 Pistons and they did not really have a "best player", they had a compilation of players that played well together and then they still had to go and get Rasheed from the Hawks to put them over the top.

Rasheed trade helped them mostly on defense, not on offense though.

The 2008 Celtics are similar, they had a group of players that if you take away one then I don't think they win. Even if people want to say KG was the best player, he was incrementally...fractionally better than Paul Pierce. Then they still had Ray Allen, Rondo, Big Baby, Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins making big contributions.

By that logic, you can say that with basically any championship run. It doesn't make any sense, Curry wouldn't have won the title without Klay, Iggy or Green in 2015 either. Same with most LeBron titles.

Garnett wasn't better "fractionally" than Pierce, it's not up to debate who was Celtics best player.

Now you can say that all teams have players making big contributions, but the 2008 Lakers did not have Bynum at all for that series and he was a solid starter. So that Lakers team showed they could have won without Bynum. Take one of those players away from the Celtics and its sketchy. That is the whole argument for 2009 and 2010, is that they didn't have a healthy KG in 2009 or Perkins in 2010.

So your argument is that Lakers could win it all without Bynum, but Celtics would struggle without Big Baby? Seriously?

All the way back until 1980, I can't see the best player who was not also the best offensive player. The only possibilities are the original Bad Boy Pistons who had a similar team construction of high level players who were not quite elite. But Isiah is still considered the best player and the leader of those teams.....

Again, that's because you don't rank defense high enough. I already mentioned quite a few examples from 21st century, but here are more:

1999: you can make a case for Robinson
1990: this one isn't clear cut
1989: another tough one
1982: not sure if Kareem was still better offensively than Magic at that point, but he was clearly the best player on Lakers team
1979: another tough one
1978: Hayes was likely their best player and he wasn't their best offensive player
1976: Cowens
1974: Cowens
1972: Wilt
1969: Russell
1968: Russell
1959-66: Russell

If you include losing finalists, the list becomes much longer:

2013: Duncan was clearly the best player and not the best offensive player
2010: Garnett
2009: Howard
2005: Wallace
2001: Mutombo has a strong case
1999: this one is tough
1996: Kemp who definitely wasn't better offensively than Payton
1988: this one is tough
1983: again Kareem, though this one is close
1978: probably Sikma or Webster, certainly both worse offensively than Williams and Brown
1975: Wes Unseld has a case
1973: Wilt
1971: Wes Unseld definitely
1970: Wilt has a case (at least in postseason)
1967: Nate Thurmond has a strong case

I had said some other stuff, but this is my opinion on the best player vs offensive player

I'm not going further back than 1980...best player on the championship team:
1980 - Kareem no debate
1981 - Larry Bird no debate
1982 - Kareem no debate
1983 - Moses no debate
1984 - Larry no debate
1985 - this one has a debate with the shift of Kareem to Magic...I would have a hard time choosing even tho KAJ won FMVP
1986 - Larry no debate
1987 - Magic no debate
1988 - Magic no debate
1989 - I can't decide who is the best player on these Pistons..even though I do believe Isiah was their clear leader
1990 - see above
1991 - Jordan no debate
1992 - Jordan no debate
1993 - Jordan no debate
1994 - Hakeem no debate
1995 - Hakeem no debate
1996 - Jordan no debate
1997 - Jordan no debate
1998 - Jordan no debate
1999 - Duncan with a debate for DRob
2000 - Shaq no debate
2001 - Shaq no debate (Kobe was really good but Shaq was better)
2002 - Shaq no debate
2003 - Duncan no debate
2004 - Group effort by Pistons
2005 - Duncan no debate
2006 - Wade no debate
2007 - Duncan no debate
2008 - Pierce and KG co-sign with lots of contributions from the rest of the team
2009 - Kobe no debate
2010 - Kobe no debate
2011 - Dirk no debate
2012 - Lebron no debate
2013 - Lebron debate
2014 - Duncan but it was a team effort
2015 - Curry....I'll just leave it at that
2016 - Lebron no debate (but Kyrie was really good)
2017 and 2018 - I do have a hard time deciding between Curry and KD...I think KD is the better player but Curry makes the Warriors what they are if that makes sense...you can't do what the Warriors do without Curry
2019 - Kawhi no debate
2020 - Lebron but AD was really good as close as it gets, similar to Magic/KAJ, Shaq/Kobe, Curry/KD
2021 - Giannis no debate

Imo, in the last 40 or so years there are about six or seven debatable years on who was the best player. But even most of those debates are between who is the better offensive player. The only years where a defensive player was possibly the best player would be 1999 with DRob and 2004 with Ben Wallace.

The rest of the years its a debate whether one player was better offensively than the other like between Magic and Kareem or Kobe and Shaq, Curry and Durant. Even when you want to suggest Ginobli was better, he wasn't defensively better than Duncan so it still comes down to offense......

Doctor MJ wrote:

Colbinii wrote:The bigger problem in Minnesota is only one season [2004] did they ever add a player who was top 20-25 for the season. Hardly anyone ever wins when none of his teammates are top 20-25.

Adding to this:

It's sometimes pointed out that stars who win titles generally have supporting casts that are good enough to at least play .500 ball without them. It's not so clear cut as that, nor is it something we can truly know how good the supporting cast will be without that player simply from on/off data, but suffice to say that Garnett's Minny supporting casts were generally well below that based on such data.

Over the course of Garnett's 13 years in Minny, the average off +/- per 100 possessions for the T-wolves was a -9.0.

By contrast, Tim Duncan's team pulled a +1.9 without him, and Kobe Bryant's a -0.4. KG was dealing with a completely different world of challenge than his rivals were.

Just out of curiosity - did you include all Duncan Spurs seasons, or only first 13 of his career?

70sFan wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

Colbinii wrote:The bigger problem in Minnesota is only one season [2004] did they ever add a player who was top 20-25 for the season. Hardly anyone ever wins when none of his teammates are top 20-25.

Adding to this:

It's sometimes pointed out that stars who win titles generally have supporting casts that are good enough to at least play .500 ball without them. It's not so clear cut as that, nor is it something we can truly know how good the supporting cast will be without that player simply from on/off data, but suffice to say that Garnett's Minny supporting casts were generally well below that based on such data.

Over the course of Garnett's 13 years in Minny, the average off +/- per 100 possessions for the T-wolves was a -9.0.

By contrast, Tim Duncan's team pulled a +1.9 without him, and Kobe Bryant's a -0.4. KG was dealing with a completely different world of challenge than his rivals were.

Just out of curiosity - did you include all Duncan Spurs seasons, or only first 13 of his career?

Whole career. Feel free to point out details that make the comparison more apples-to-apples. This was just easiest.

Colbinii wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I think part of what KG may be a victim of is playing in the post MJ era where the best player/talent was expected to be a great offensive player(though that perception has existed for longer). Even Duncan back then was pretty great offensively. Then you had Shaq, Kobe, AI, Tmac etc. So I think KG being this uber talented athletic specimen was expected to become a very good scorer but that's not really the best way to use his talent. So instead of finding another player to also fill the #1 scoring role his team expected him to fill it and that was part of the problem. That isn't the only thing but I think it's part of it. In Boston he was no longer expected to fill that role.

The bigger problem in Minnesota is only one season [2004] did they ever add a player who was top 20-25 for the season. Hardly anyone ever wins when none of his teammates are top 20-25.

Dirk didn't have a single top 25 player after 2004. He won 50 games the next 7 years, including twice over 60 and made two trips to the Finals, including a title.

So it can definitely be done.

And before anyone suggests I am saying the Wolves and Mavs rosters were equal in talent I am not, and I am not interested in going back down the rabbit hole where everyone tries to diminish every teammate. Just pointing out it can be done, and done consistently.

And I think it goes to the heart of the question in the OP.

I also think KG was every bit the basketball player Dirk was, have no issues that most on this forum think he was better, and when I try and compare them against each other mostly just throw my hands up, and say both are great, both are among the 15 best players ever. But I do think Dirk establishes a higher floor, while conceding KG in theory at least provides for a higher ceiling.

Doctor MJ wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
Adding to this:

It's sometimes pointed out that stars who win titles generally have supporting casts that are good enough to at least play .500 ball without them. It's not so clear cut as that, nor is it something we can truly know how good the supporting cast will be without that player simply from on/off data, but suffice to say that Garnett's Minny supporting casts were generally well below that based on such data.

Over the course of Garnett's 13 years in Minny, the average off +/- per 100 possessions for the T-wolves was a -9.0.

By contrast, Tim Duncan's team pulled a +1.9 without him, and Kobe Bryant's a -0.4. KG was dealing with a completely different world of challenge than his rivals were.

Just out of curiosity - did you include all Duncan Spurs seasons, or only first 13 of his career?

Whole career. Feel free to point out details that make the comparison more apples-to-apples. This was just easiest.

Thanks for the answer. I think Duncan's past prime seasons may mislead the overall difference between their rosters, because he played on very strong teams after 2010. Still, I would expect that the gap would be still noticeable.