RealGM

Lower end of top 15? Top 20?

Top 25, I don't think you can have him lower than that - though guys like Barkley, Nash and Wade can be argued over him within certain criteria.

Edit: stupid me, I wrote KD.

For KG, anything below top 15 is not reasonable for me.

Don't think I'd really consider sub-20.

I think the absolute floor for Garnett would be at about #25-30. I have him around #15, though, so I definitely think that low end would require being harsh on Garnett and having a pretty charitable view of some other guys. I think the case for the low end on Garnett would mostly center around his offense, which wasn’t really all *that* great. But his defense really was great, his impact numbers are off the charts, and he’s got the general career accolades (i.e. title, MVP, all-NBA teams, etc.). Everyone in that #15-#30 zone is pretty great, though, so I’m not sure that it takes all that much for someone to slip a fairly long way within that grouping.

A low end of 15 for me; only time will tell if Giannis or Jokic may surpass him in a career sense, but I’m quite unsure on that.

lessthanjake wrote:I think the absolute floor for Garnett would be at about #25-30. I have him around #15, though, so I definitely think that low end would require being harsh on Garnett and having a pretty charitable view of some other guys. I think the case for the low end on Garnett would mostly center around his offense, which wasn’t really all *that* great. But his defense really was great, his impact numbers are off the charts, and he’s got the general career accolades (i.e. title, MVP, all-NBA teams, etc.). Everyone in that #15-#30 zone is pretty great, though, I’m not sure that it takes all that much for someone to slip a fairly long way within that grouping.

Yes. exactly. For me they're pretty much equal as players and only separated by things like winnings, rings, accolades.etc.

~#25. ESPN top 75 had him at #21, which is lower than what I have him, but I think Barkley, Malone, DRob, and Jokic can all make a case.
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/33297498/the-nba-75th-anniversary-team-ranked-where-76-basketball-legends-check-our-list

To me the biggest rub when it comes to this whole concept of reasonable(which is a fairly common thread type we see on here) is someone may have what I or others see as 'reasonable criteria' but how they inform that criteria or what they choose to ignore can be a big part of how an opinion goes from being reasonable to unreasonable.

I've got my traditional "top 11" (Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Hakeem, MJ, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, LeBron) that I've got ahead of him as is so I'd say they're at least reasonable. Mikan can be argued over just about anyone if you're looking at relative dominance within their respective eras. I'd also be interested to see if there are people who believe West and Oscar have absolutely no reasonable case over KG at all.

So he could be at 15 and I wouldn't look twice. After 15 it's getting a lot harder to justify pushing KG down the list but there are still some guys out there who I'd be surprised to see ahead of KG but wouldn't call it unreasonable. David Robinson is probably the easiest to accept still here as I don't see that much between them although I still slightly favor KG in both peak and longevity. Dr. J is another one that's not impossible to justify if you're high on the later years of the ABA. Dirk and Karl Malone have a longevity advantage, did more in the play-offs and have MVP-level peaks themselves, although I do think you'd have to put a big emphasis on longevity here as KG's peak is pretty clear from them imo. Curry and KD are probably the last guys where someone could have them above KG on their list and I'm not immediately thinking it as unreasonable.

There's a couple others who I don't think are too far removed but I still couldn't take a list with guys like Barkley, Wade, Chris Paul, Nash or Pippen to name a few above KG. Even though there are 20 guys who I could realistically see above KG, I don't see an objective way of making a list that puts them all above him at the same time.

In short the top 15 is where I expect him, although you could still be reasonable and have him towards the back end of the top 20.

Having him out of the top 20 would seem pretty absurd and based on unfair or inconsistent arguments.

I'll say 15 as the lowest reasonable rank since that's the bottom of the tier below the one I have him in. Personally, I have him #7, but honestly I think anywhere from 3-15 could be argued for.

I mean, I have him top 10 or just outside, but I find it hard to talk to KG fans because it feels like entering a parallel universe where a diehard group wants to rank him #1 all time if they felt they could get away with it.

Once APM for earlier decades is in an element among the KG fans will be dropping Kareem, Jordan and Magic out of the top 20 because at heart all they seem to care about is APM.

I've seen the guy running the top 100 project talk about his evolving criteria, and how logically he now has to put Duncan back over KG. I'll bet when the time comes to vote, he will still vote KG though. It's a weird dynamic that seems to apply to no other player except maybe Jokic and CP3.

One_and_Done wrote:I mean, I have him top 10 or just outside, but I find it hard to talk to KG fans because it feels like entering a parallel universe where a diehard group wants to rank him #1 all time if they felt they could get away with it.

Once APM for earlier decades is in an element among the KG fans will be dropping Kareem, Jordan and Magic out of the top 20 because at heart all they seem to care about is APM.

I've seen the guy running the top 100 project talk about his evolving criteria, and how logically he now has to put Duncan back over KG. I'll bet when the time comes to vote, he will still vote KG though. It's a weird dynamic that seems to apply to no other player except maybe Jokic and CP3.

I mean you don't really have to care about APM here. KG won 58-games with less help than Jordan and Magic ever played with before pulling an all-timer in the playoffs vs a Lakers team that was quite monstrous with everyone healthy. He is probably more versatile than everyone you mentioned and box-stuff rates him 2nd highest over 2-bigs(who are systematically underrated when we compare box-aggregate marks to real-world or stabilized impact). Of the players listed, Kareem is the only one with a comparable or better carry-job, and an alleged modernist like yourself should appreciate that KG played against substantially better talent than all of them.

#1 is indefensible as Duncan and Lebron were comparable and much better respectively, in their own-time(Duncan honestly is probably better by apm if you look at the gaps and account for possession-count), and Lebron and Giannis have flatly better skill-sets by the criteria one would use to gas Garnett as a era-proof great, but I don't see an issue with people who view KG as a peer of the players listed.

The Jokic stuff is just you overvaluing scoring with help assessments honestly, but at least you can theoretically say his help elevated in the playoffs and he has a big weakness on defense. KG is a proper two-way big and on his one extended run during his prime(04) he lost his 2nd best player and still performed admirably. Add that to phenomenal regular-season lift and an, at-the-time, unprecedented set of skills, nigh unrivalled longevity and I think weighing him somewhere between 5 to 10 is reasonable.

He won 58 games with 2 borderline all-star types on his team in 04. Arguably one could say it's an outlier given the rest of his Wolves tenure.

I don't feel that way, but I would also say hos seasons don't compare favourably to the elite carry jobs from certain top 10 guys. I'm talking 09 & 10 Lebron, 02 and 03 Duncan, 94 Hakeem, 70 Kareem, Dr J in 76, maybe 1980 Bird, etc. In those years I could look at those support teams and say they were probably as bad or worse than what KG had in 04, but were led to better high end outcomes. Combine that will all the non-04 Wolves years, where KGs team mates were arguably as good or better than 04 but achieved worse results, and I feel he's lacking carry job credentials.

One_and_Done wrote:In those years I could look at those support teams and say they were probably as bad or worse than what KG had in 04, but were led to better high end outcomes. Combine that will all the non-04 Wolves years, where KGs team mates were arguably as good or better than 04 but achieved worse results, and I feel he's lacking carry job credentials.

There is no way you believe this lol.

Go look at that 2003 Timberwolves team. That is the encapsulation of Garnett’s carrying.

I think there is room for debate when we are talking about lifting weaker rosters to to title contention versus lifting atrocious rosters to the postseason. But the latter is absolutely in the conversation at least.

You didn't read what i wrote, or maybe the commas were misleading. I am not saying every KG roster was of equal strength. He had very bad ones at times, but he had others that were quite solid, and the 04 result was never replicated.

Zeroing in on the worst roster he had and ignoring the rest is not a balanced analysis.

I understood what you wrote. The result was not replicated because yes it was notably better than what their rosters had been (maaaybe excepting 2000, but even then).

And when I say “notably better”, I mean that team would still be lucky to win 38 games without Garnett. Best teammates are Cassell (total outlier year), Sprewell one year away from retirement, and… then what? There are probably a couple of players who could do better than a conference finals exit with that team at their peak. Not sure the list is more than five though.

A support cast who can win mid 30s without you is not comparable to the names under discussion. You describing Spree as 'a year from retirement' is highly dishonest given the circumstances of his 'retirement'.

2002 Wolves support team looks very solid for example.

One_and_Done wrote:He won 58 games with 2 borderline all-star types on his team in 04. Arguably one could say it's an outlier given the rest of his Wolves tenure.

I don't feel that way, but I would also say hos seasons don't compare favourably to the elite carry jobs from certain top 10 guys. I'm talking 09 & 10 Lebron, 02 and 03 Duncan, 94 Hakeem, 70 Kareem, Dr J in 76, maybe 1980 Bird, etc. In those years I could look at those support teams and say they were probably as bad or worse than what KG had in 04, but were led to better high end outcomes. Combine that will all the non-04 Wolves years, where KGs team mates were arguably as good or better than 04 but achieved worse results, and I feel he's lacking carry job credentials.

KG in 03 had a +23.6 on/off net-swing and is probably on a similar to 04 in terms of performance.

One_and_Done wrote:A support cast who can win mid 30s without you is not comparable to the names under discussion.

No, that is pretty much exactly where I would peg the 1970 Bucks. Somewhat worse than the 2003 Spurs. Definitely worse than the 1980 Celtics.

You describing Spree as 'a year from retirement' is highly dishonest given the circumstances of his 'retirement'.

I think it is more dishonest to act like he was some highly desirable asset, especially in a context where he is by a large margin the third best player on a team.

2002 Wolves support team looks very solid for example.

Why, because you see Chauncey Billups listed? Wally Szczerbiak as the commanding second best player on a team is your idea of “solid”?