How many PPG do you think Grant Hill and Kevin Garnett would average today?

[ronnymac2]

If KG isn't on a really poor team, I see him peaking where he peaked at in real life - 22-24 PPG. I don't think you want him going higher. I would say he'd score lower and dedicate more energy to defense and passing, but with more possessions and players not being allowed to play physical man defense in the REG SEA, it'd make up for it.

For Hill, it's interesting because his one high scoring year is an outlier season for him, but it also seemed like he was picking it up in terms of both aggression and outside shooting. I don't know. If a guy who was a passive slasher can score 25 PPG at the near nadir of offensive efficiency in the post-1980 era with trash spacing, he could probably average 30 PPG today. How many players average 30 PPG today? 12? If that nerd in Boston who couldn't finish 10-feet-and-in worth a damn in last year's playoffs can do it, and if 56-year-old, 63,000-minute LBJ with no spacing playing on one leg can do it, then yeah, an elite slasher in Hill can average 30 PPG today.

[NO-KG-AI]

False.

What part of the post do you disagree with and why? This doesn't help.

The entire premise is false, I'm not getting dragged into responding to a bunch of paragraphs to disprove a fundamental falsehood. It would be like having to argue that a great 3 point shooter would be better in an era where the coaches don't let you shoot as many 3's because he's better than the rest of the league by a bigger "relative amount". I've already blocked him because I'm not here to argue with previously banned posters, and he keeps quoting me anyway. The argument style of "force someone to prove my vague and unprovable statements wrong" is not what I'm here for, especially from guys that have already been banned here, probably more than once.

[OhayoKD]

False.

What part of the post do you disagree with and why? This doesn't help.

The entire premise is false, I'm not getting dragged into responding to a bunch of paragraphs to disprove a fundamental falsehood. It would be like having to argue that a great 3 point shooter would be better in an era where the coaches don't let you shoot as many 3's because he's better than the rest of the league by a bigger "relative amount". I've already blocked him because I'm not here to argue with previously banned posters, and he keeps quoting me anyway. The argument style of "force someone to prove my vague and unprovable statements wrong" is not what I'm here for, especially from guys that have already been banned here, probably more than once.

Huh? What makes my claim "less provable" than yours?

Wouldn't this also apply to "the premise is false"?

[penbeast0]

Huh? What makes my claim "less provable" than yours?

Wouldn't this also apply to "the premise is false"?

That's as bad a post as the previous one. If you two don't want to engage with content, don't post as this sort of post will derail a discussion quickly.

Consider yourselves both informally warned. Let it stop here.

[cupcakesnake]

I think for KG it depends on what kind of guard he was playing with, but that's true of his own era as well so doesn't really answer your question.

The positive thing about imagining modern KG is that he wouldn't be so force-fed in the post. 2023 KG would probably completely eliminate those baseline post up fadeaway that were the staple of his early 2000s shot diet. KG would be more heavily utilized as a spacer, and a playmaking hub inside a motion offense.

I'm not convinced KG would score more points per game necessarily, but he'd be a better offensive player and more optimized based on his skill set. KG was wasted as a post-up guy but that was how we believed bigs should play back in the late 90s.

I think his ball handling and athleticism would get a lot more utilized in this era too. Point-Center with the foot speed to push the floor in ways the other ones can not.

I just can't see a way that a guy who excelled as a ball handler, jump shooter and athlete suffers a fall off in scoring in an era that embraces ball handling, shooting, athletiicsm, and pace in wasy his own era did not.

The era embracing "ball handling, shooting, athleticsm, and pace" in a way his own era did not means the threshold a player has to meet to stand out in all those areas is higher. KG's athleticism, and ball handling falls well short of someone like Giannis, and many of those openings he was hitting to find "higher percentage of high quality reads than lebron"(backpicks) are harder to find/execute today:
viewtopic.php?p=102962677#p102962677

As has been said before, changes in raw production do not matter. What matters are shifts in relative production. To that end, pretty much all of KG's strengths are far more common now in general and specifically among big-men.(versatility, passing, shooting, handles, ect).

Raw production may not fall off, but offensive impact should

I'm not sure of the end point of this kind of thinking when it comes to player comparison across era. It's always easy to say the standards for things were lower in previous era but if we're going to do that, what's the point of comparing across era. If your main point is: 'basketball is harder now so KG wouldn't be as good'... I think that's the kind of thing that could be said in almost every topic on this board and it doesn't get us anywhere. Whether it's correct or not, we're all probably scaling players to era without explaining the methodology we're using, because otherwise all discussions would be stuck in the mud.

I'm unconvinced that Kevin Garnett wouldn't be a great passer in the era, and would need a better explaining than simply 'passing is harder now'. Any of us who are into the NBA draft spend time watching college/intl players and trying to project their skills in a different (more difficult league). When projecting passers we're always assessing feel, vision, and dexterity. I watch old KG footage and think he scores extremely high in these areas while also having very rare focus and court awareness. If I was assessing KG against modern NBA bigs, I would place him in the 90-something-th percentile for most of these things.

While I agree that KG was rare in his era as a 7-footer who could do certain things with the ball, that knife cuts both ways because he in that same era, there were artificial social restraints on how bigs were supposed to play. KG spent most of his career in the low-post because that what he was supposed to do. Dirk Nowitzki was called "soft" for a lot of the first 2/3 of his career for his ATG jump shooting ability. Minnesota offenses leaned heavily on KG post-up attempts against players that outweighed him by 30-50 pounds. It's difficult not to project KG thriving more in an era that would embrace his strengths. I also strongly disagree that KG would be regular today. There are not several 7-footers with his level of mobility and skill. I think Giannis is faster and more explosive, but I don't think he's more skilled just because we watch him dribble by himself at the top of the key and find corner shooters. KG, by my eye, had much better dexterity and court awareness, and was quicker and less predictable finding openings in the defense. After Giannis, who are these 7-foot hyper-athletic players with that level of skill who can also anchor a defense? Joel Embiid is maybe the only one who comes to mind and he's a very different type of player. Bam is smaller doesn't have the shooting/passing. Anthony Davis is a great comparison but falls short of KG as a shooter and passer (not scaled to era, just look at AD's raw midrange numbers and near-neutral ast/to). We could talk about KD and Paolo Banchero, but neither are anchoring a defense.

You called those KG skills "common" in the modern era, but I don't think this holds up to scrutiny of looking up and down NBA rosters. Very few bigs are strong as passer, shooters, and paint protectors all at the same time. I can't find a single one that stacks up to KG, even if we're deciding on some kind of era scaling penalty.

[Owly]

Depends on minutes, team context (teammates, role, pace) and how one does the time machine thing, among other factors (e.g. interpreting as scoring peak transplanted to this one season, or prime at a pace similar to today's etc).

Hill peaked at 5th in points per possession in 2000 in his own league (behind Malone, O'Neal, Iverson, Carter)
Garnett peaked at 3rd in '04 (behind McGrady and Iverson, narrowly ahead of Bryant).