migya wrote:I didn't say anyone did, but the topic of discussion was Garnett's relatively weak scoring, which is weak compared to some non star players in the PO. Robinson is held to his drop in scoring and efficiency in the playoffs, though it's less significant than Garnett's, and Garnett isn't. A total double standard.
Both players are hurt by their postseason drop off, otherwise Garnett would be ranked close to top 5 like Duncan usually is on this board. I really struggle to understand why you think Garnett scoring isn't held against him, it definitely is.
I want to add one thing - Garnett scoring dropped in the playoffs but his main offensive strengths (passing and shooting) remained consistent. Robinson still drew a lot of fouls, these players were still very impactful even with weaker scoring numbers.
Garnett was a star and had to lead his team on both ends like other alltime bigs did theirs. Robinson, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Malone, Kareem and Chamberlain are all examples of bigs that did so.
Garnett led 2008 Celtics on both ends of the floor and they won the title.
Barkley's massive offensive impact contributed more to his teams winning than Garnett's defense.
Anything to back it up?
How about Garnett's offense vs Barkley's defense?
It is easier to find good defensive bigs that aren't good scorers than good scoring bigs.
Maybe, but it doesn't mean that good scoring bigs (who are also poor defenders) are more impactful than good defenders (who are actually good scorers).
Barkley had Bol, not versatile but a great shotblocker, in Philly and that gave them enough for Barkley to flourish. Nowitzki had a similar situation.
Maybe I am missing something, but Barkley-Bol duo didn't win anything relevant.
This was the whole quote. The other factors are, as I said earlier, that Barkley gets more assists than Garnett, more rebounds, draws more fouls and the metrics are higher for him.
But you are wrong again. If we compare Barkley's career with Garnett through 21-36 years (Barkley's whole career), then he has no visible advantage in rebounding or passing:
1985-00 Barkley: 18.2 TRB%, 17.5 AST%
1998-13 Garnett: 17.5 TRB%, 20.5 AST%
Barkley has a slim edge on the boards, but it's Garnett who actually had more assists. Garnett was a better passer than Barkley.
This is not the case between Nash and Kidd, where Nash provides nothing outside of efficient but not very good scoring and playmaking. Kidd's metrics were better and ofcourse defense.
This is why you should go beyond "advanced stats". Steve Nash came to Phoenix and turned them into the best offensive team of all-time. His "efficient but not very good scoring and playmaking" made him one of the greatest offensive players in the whole history of the league. Nash was basically the best shooter ever before Curry got drafted. Kidd never anchored elite offense, even once in his career and it's not true that he never had help.
The difference on offense between Kidd and Nash is much, much bigger than between Garnett and Barkley (even though this difference is already quite big).
Garnett provides nothing better than Barkley than defense, Kidd provides more than just defense better than Nash.
Garnett was a better passer, even by crude "advanced stats".
What Kidd provided on offense that Nash couldn't? Nash was a better shooter, passer, playmaker, finisher, FT shooter, transition player, ball-handler... Kidd has rebounding I suppose, but it means very little.
I said his efficiency wasn't much better than Kidd's which it wasn't, it's only 2.5ts% higher and only 52.5ts%. A player with 55ts%, which isn't considered high, has the same difference in ts% to Garnett. Again, Garnett had to perform better for his team to win.
Now use the same criteria for Robinson. He had to perform better for his team to win.
But nothing else he did was great and didn't help his team win. His PO performances are mostly below the level of most top 20 players and great bigs.
That's not true, Garnett was elite passer and shooter for his position.
And Garnett didn't perform that well in context.
In 01 he played even to Duncan, a good performance not great.
Playing even to Duncan against such an amazing defense like 2001 Spurs isn't a great performance? It's better performance against quality defense than anything Kidd (or Robinson) did in his career.
In 02 his raw numbers are good but his impact wasn't and he got totally outplayed by Nowitzki. So much has been made of Robinson being outplayed by Olajuwon in the wcf in 95 but he was double teamed and got no defensive help, his team lost in a close six games. Garnett got swept by a young and inexperienced Dallas team.
So you realize that Robinson criticism is too harsh, but at the same time you have no problem with doing the same with Garnett... Got it, no double standards.
Stick to the subject of the thread, it's about comparison between the duos which you haven't contributed to.
It is about the subject. You ignore gigantic efficiency gap between Kidd and Nash, while you focus on Barkley's efficiency advantage over Garnett.
Do you view Robinson higher than Garnett?
No, because Garnett has much better longevity. I view their peaks in similar light though.