RealGM

Do you think it's realistic/do you agree/do you disagree that there are 20ish guys that have a good case over kg/that kg is more 15/20 than top 10?

I don't even have a good constructed idea about this, I just feel like: Kg is absolutely a phenom, barefoot 6'11" athletic guy that is an all time great defender and guard skills (elite midrange game, elite passing and ball handling, decent scoring at the rim), he absolutely played in a mess of a team in minnesota. So yeah, even on offense very much a scalable, adaptable player, a "dream starting five" type of player. But, and maybe I'm just skewed by his lack of playoff success except with the celtics, and dominant first offensive option runs, I tend to weigh a lot his sub-optimal scoring, you know, him not being that elite first offensive option, and so i struggle to view him as a top 10ish player. But then again I look at tim duncan who I, as most people, view as a clear top 10 and say ok, duncan wasn't posting better scoring numbers, and yeah obviously he didn't lack that offensive weapon, being him a great post player, but he lacked the other offensive skills that kg had, so i mean, both goat level defenders, both good but not great scorers, i view kg as more skilled (more athletic, better passer shooter ball handler, while tduncan better post up scorer), so yeah i don't see that much of a difference, so like I was saying, im not sure at all.

But me, I'd say I see lbj mj kaj russell duncan wilt magic shaq hakeem west robertson curry as better, probably kobe, bird david robinson, erving, then probably karl malone makes it up with longevity, and like dirk, mikan, kd, pettit, maybe moses? have an argument.

So what do you think?

I struggle to find 5 guys that have a good case over Garnett.

LeBron and Kareem are the only two I think are definitely better. Duncan and Curry I can see. Hakeem is a stretch.

Nope.

I have KG 5th on my own list.

While staying somewhat reasonable with your requirements (eg not most rings=1, Robert Horry tied for #8) I think it's reasonable to have him somewhere in the teens (if high on offense, low on longevity, and high on team success/the on portion of on/off).

I can't think of realistic criteria to get him out of the top 20 (scoring blindness is not a reasonable criteria).

As an example - MVP shares - which push the boundaries of offensive bias, team success bias, only appreciate longevity of the very highest level, and throw some market bias on top of that, and KG still finishes 19th for NBA/ABA shares (Mikan would of course be ahead, but it's extremely unlikely Mel Daniels would be and DrJ might not be either if the leagues hadn't been split). And that's near as poor of criteria weighting as one can come up with for KG.

It's absolutely realistic that there are twenty guys in the HISTORY of the league that you COULD put ahead of KG. I truly don't understand the people that have him Top 5, much less Top 10, but that's why it's a subjective question. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. I'd have him around 20 myself.

PurpleGreenGold wrote:It's absolutely realistic that there are twenty guys in the HISTORY of the league that you COULD put ahead of KG. I truly don't understand the people that have him Top 5, much less Top 10, but that's why it's a subjective question. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. I'd have him around 20 myself.

I think most of the arguments used against him would be shallow and likely have holes in them. Or just be based on things like rings which I don't find relevant personally. For me and what I value, it would be difficult to argue for him outside of the top 15 without digging into losing biases or preference over playstyle rather than effectiveness (basically alluding that it can't be possible to be a dominant player without being a dominant scorer, or other biases against many bigs not just KG).

If you don't understand why someone might think Garnett is a top ten player then go read their arguments. There are plenty of them in the top 100 thread, varied ones at that. No, it's not just all RAPM stuff.

Although, if someone is topping in impact stats nearly every year they are likely doing something right, not like those stats were made as a conspiracy to make him the goat, but I digress.

I'd have him around 8-11 all-time. I can't see him any higher than that.

PurpleGreenGold wrote:It's absolutely realistic that there are twenty guys in the HISTORY of the league that you COULD put ahead of KG. I truly don't understand the people that have him Top 5, much less Top 10, but that's why it's a subjective question. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. I'd have him around 20 myself.

okay but are there 20 people you can put over KG applying consistent rationale

Strong case? Probably not. But a reasonable case? Maybe. I think a range of reasonable values for players is wider than is usually acknowledged. Everything we use to evaluate players is just an imprecise snapshot of a very complex problem, and how those snapshots are subjectively weighted in evaluating players can lead to a pretty large range for most players, IMO. I could see KG as high as #5 with a reasonable argument. I could maybe see him outside of the top 20 with a different reasonable argument.

Players I think are definitely better than KG: Bron, Jordan
Players I think are probably better than KG: Hakeem, Duncan, Kareem
Players I think might be better than KG: Shaq, Curry, Robinson
Players I’m confident are worse than KG who still have a case: Russell, Magic, CP3, Wilt, Oscar

That’s about all that I can come up with if I stretch is 13 guys and I’m really reaching on some of those. I can’t see how you put him outside the top 15. My real range for him is 3-9.

I don’t have 20 guys ahead of Garnett. However, I think one could reasonably put 20 guys ahead of him.

For instance, I think it’d be quite easy to put the following 12 ahead of him, just based on a large raw achievement gap:

Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, LeBron, Duncan, Russell, Wilt, Steph, Magic, and Bird.

At that point, you’d only need to put 8 more guys reasonably ahead of him. And there’s a list of at least 8 guys that could reasonably be up there with him in terms of how good they were and what they achieved in the league. It might be guys like:

Oscar, West, Moses, Mikan, DRob, Karl Malone, Dr. J, Pettit, Durant, Wade, Barkley.

You could put Garnett ahead of 3 of those guys and still have him out of the top 20. And I think one could construct a perfectly reasonable argument for any of them over Garnett. I’m not sure I’d agree with most of those arguments in the end, but they could reasonably be made IMO.

It doesn't seem terribly difficult if you a) place a great deal of importance on accomplishments and b) value the playoffs highly.

He had two serious playoff runs in the prime and ranks 36th all-time in playoff win shares and 26th all-time in playoff VORP. He has one MVP, one DPOY award and ranks 19th all-time in MVP shares.

So if you weigh both of those things highly - or even just one of them - then it doesn't seem particularly difficult to rank Garnett outside the top 20 players all-time. In fact, if you value those things at all it becomes very difficult to rank him top 10.

No. I'm not as high as others on the board on Garnett - but I struggle to see him below 12/13 or so with a consistent criteria.

I have him 18-20 with Giannis and Jokic coming

I have him 11th all time. I can't see 20 guys better than him, no matter which criteria you choose.

The guy was barely a top 20 player in the NBA in his prime. Was never the best PF in the league. Most of his reputation is based on Madison Ave and pocket protector/thick glasses wearing people that don't know much about basketball.

If you watched him play you see that he is a borderline all star player just like Sheed, C Webb, Antonio McDyess and Shawn Kemp. A clear level below Shaq, Duncan, K Malone, Robinson, Ewing and Charles Barkley. A player that you can't build around (most PFs) and has to be the 2nd or 3rd best player on his own team to win. What he does great impacts the stat sheets but doesn't impact the game's outcome.

His accomplishments put him with Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, Bill Walton and Bob Mcadoo. Somewhere in the 30-50 range.

The stat geeks love him but that is because those stats aren't available for the 1st 35-40 years of the league or maybe they would think that his impact is similar to Nate Thurmond or that he is a subpar Bob Pettit. I cant argue for or against using DBPM or VORP so the stat is worthless IMHO but to them NA means 0.

Warspite wrote:The guy was barely a top 20 player in the NBA in his prime. Was never the best PF in the league. Most of his reputation is based on Madison Ave and pocket protector/thick glasses wearing people that don't know much about basketball.

If you watched him play you see that he is a borderline all star player just like Sheed, C Webb, Antonio McDyess and Shawn Kemp. A clear level below Shaq, Duncan, K Malone, Robinson, Ewing and Charles Barkley. A player that you can't build around (most PFs) and has to be the 2nd or 3rd best player on his own team to win. What he does great impacts the stat sheets but doesn't impact the game's outcome.

His accomplishments put him with Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, Bill Walton and Bob Mcadoo. Somewhere in the 30-50 range.

The stat geeks love him but that is because those stats aren't available for the 1st 35-40 years of the league or maybe they would think that his impact is similar to Nate Thurmond or that he is a subpar Bob Pettit. I cant argue for or against using DBPM or VORP so the stat is worthless IMHO but to them NA means 0.

Ngl when I read this post this was my.first thought.

Who is your top 10 exactly? I assume it includes Isiah Thomas and Maravich?

If KG was a better scorer, say Dirk level instead of LMA, he would be the GOAT. Ultimately while the criticism in that area is real, his D/passing/longevity/intangibles resume is strong enough to pass some other guys in the top 20. Hakeem and Duncan are also not perfect offensive players, but it's ok.

In terms of the team success if it was all true in terms of being a best player in the league candidate stuck on a hopeless franchise, you would want exactly what happened in 08 to happen, and it did.

iggymcfrack wrote:Players I think are definitely better than KG: Bron, Jordan
Players I think are probably better than KG: Hakeem, Duncan, Kareem
Players I think might be better than KG: Shaq, Curry, Robinson
Players I’m confident are worse than KG who still have a case: Russell, Magic, CP3, Wilt, Oscar

That’s about all that I can come up with if I stretch is 13 guys and I’m really reaching on some of those. I can’t see how you put him outside the top 15. My real range for him is 3-9.

You don't think there has been a big born since the late-1970s who has a case over KG? Giannis and Jokić each do. Many would argue Bird and Dirk as well. I would disagree, but you don't have to be braindead to make the case.

Dr Positivity wrote:If KG was a better scorer, say Dirk level instead of LMA, he would be the GOAT. Ultimately while the criticism in that area is real, his D/passing/longevity/intangibles resume is strong enough to pass some other guys in the top 20. Hakeem and Duncan are also not perfect offensive players, but it's ok.

In terms of the team success if it was all true in terms of being a best player in the league candidate stuck on a hopeless franchise, you would want exactly what happened in 08 to happen, and it did.

I stated this before, Garnett's Minnesota teams were not that bad.

If some want to say Garnett's prime was 99 onwards: Terrell Brandon, Joe Smith, Dean Garrett(had positive impact), Szczerbiak, Billups, Hudson, Cassell.

Not great but not as bad as Robinson's pre Duncan Spurs.