RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #9 (Kevin Garnett)

[70sFan]

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

This place is hung up on KG almost as much as it is LeBron.

If the board has Duncan and Hakeem clearly ahead of Magic, then it's logical to put Garnett over him as well. It has nothing to do with modernism...

[OhayoKD]

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

This place is hung up on KG almost as much as it is LeBron.

If the board has Duncan and Hakeem clearly ahead of Magic, then it's logical to put Garnett over him as well. It has nothing to do with modernism...

If I'm tracking their posts, oldschoolbulls thinks we should be applying a curve on bigger players because they are inherently going to be better than smaller ones.

Also apparently ts-add is note worthy but when players have a massive playmaking advantage(ex: passer-rating/oc), not so much

[HeartBreakKid]

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

This place is hung up on KG almost as much as it is LeBron.

If KG's offense was average then what was Magic's defense?

And even if Magic played more seasons I'd still vote for Garnett over him.

You're complaining about a board that just nominated George Mikan for being too modern?

[iggymcfrack]

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

This place is hung up on KG almost as much as it is LeBron.

You can say an average offensive player compared to Magic and I guess that's fair, but look at this offensive impact:

Timberwolves/Celtics Offensive Rating with Kevin Garnett On/Off (League Rank):

2001: 106.2 (8th), 101.7 (18th)
2002: 110 (2nd), 104.4 (15th)
2003: 108.5 (3rd), 93.4 (2nd to Last)
2004: 108.3 (3rd), 93.8 (Last)
2005: 108.4 (6th), 106.3 (14th)
2006: 105.3 (18th) , 95.2 (Last)
2007: 105.7 (16th), 97.3 (Last)
2008: 113.6 (2nd), 105.9 (21st)
2009: 112.8 (3rd), 109.4 (10th)
2010: 109.8 (10th), 106.7 (19th)
2011: 111.1 (6th), 101.3 (Last)

That's a massive, massive, offensive impact. Even if Magic's the greatest offensive player in the history of the NBA and he may well be, can you really beat that level of offensive impact so much that it makes up for the difference between one of the very best defenders of all-time and a below average defender? There's kind of a ceiling when you're legitimately bad at one of the three main parts of the game. It's the same reason I don't have Russell in my top 10. It's hard for a one way player to beat someone who's truly elite on both ends.

And then even if you do feel like Magic can somehow overcome that massive chasm on defense because his offense is so amazing, there's still the longevity piece. And KG's longevity isn't Kobe having mediocre seasons in 1999 where he's a half-decent #2 or Shaq playing out the string in Phoenix and Cleveland. Several impact stats had KG still battling for the title of the best player in the league in Boston as late as 2011 and 2012. He was legitimately great for 4 or 5 more seasons than Magic.

The only thing I see that you can really hold against him is that in the season where he had the second best chance to win a ring (2009), he got injured, but he was such an iron man for so long, it doesn't feel fair to make that disqualifying. He really performed as well as you could possibly hope for all throughout his career.

[One_and_Done]

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

This place is hung up on KG almost as much as it is LeBron.

I'm a modernist I would say, and while I have Magic over KG it's not a huge gap. I have a problem with KG being top 5, or equal to Duncan, but here is about right.

[70sFan]

I value your thoughts here. I'd be curious to see elaboration on put-backs year-by-year. As well as anything we have that compared his put-backs to other players.

Alright, I don't have the exact breakdown year-by-year unfortunately, but here is what I can share for now. These are the % of total shots taken and points made via putbacks:

1979-81 Moses: 24.1% of FGA, 27.3% of ppg
1982-83 Moses: 20.7% of FGA, 21.0% of ppg

1979-83 Moses: 22.2% of FGA, 23.5% of ppg

For comparison:

1971-79 Kareem: 14.1% of FGA, 16.7% of ppg
2000-01 Shaq: 14.3% of FGA, 19.7% of ppg

1962-68 Wilt: 24.7% of FGA, 33.5% of ppg
1962-73 Wilt: 24.5% of FGA, 30.6% of ppg

[ceiling raiser]

.

Just saw the tag here. This is an easy choice for me. My vote is for Kevin Garnett.

Considering the criteria of the project:

Voting Criteria Guidelines

The RealGM Top 100 is focused on:

1. Career, rather than Peak or Prime. How you weigh Longevity is up to you, but consider the entire Career.
2. Competitive achievement rather cultural innovation/influence.
3. Performance in the NBA and merged leagues (ABA, BAA, NBL). International play and other leagues are not a part of this.

Additionally, the 2023 Project will focus on the play between the years '45-46 and '22-23.

If we were to assume Magic and Garnett played at the same level throughout their careers (a big leap), there's a 3-year disadvantage.

Magic

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

Year   Age   GP   MP
1979-80   20   77   2795 <- Quality Season
1980-81   21   37   1371
1981-82   22   78   2991 <- Quality Season
1982-83   23   79   2907 <- Quality Season
1983-84   24   67   2567 <- Quality Season
1984-85   25   77   2781 <- Quality Season
1985-86   26   72   2578 <- Quality Season
1986-87   27   80   2904 <- Quality Season
1987-88   28   72   2637 <- Quality Season
1988-89   29   77   2886 <- Quality Season
1989-90   30   79   2937 <- Quality Season
1990-91   31   79   2933 <- Quality Season
1995-96   36   32   958

Garnett

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

Year   Age   GP   MP
1995-96   19   80   2293
1996-97   20   77   2995
1997-98   21   82   3222
1998-99   22   47   1780 <- Quality Season
1999-00   23   81   3243 <- Quality Season
2000-01   24   81   3202 <- Quality Season
2001-02   25   81   3175 <- Quality Season
2002-03   26   82   3321 <- Quality Season
2003-04   27   82   3231 <- Quality Season
2004-05   28   82   3121 <- Quality Season
2005-06   29   76   2957 <- Quality Season
2006-07   30   76   2995 <- Quality Season
2007-08   31   71   2328 <- Quality Season
2008-09   32   57   1772
2009-10   33   69   2060 <- Quality Season
2010-11   34   71   2220 <- Quality Season
2011-12   35   60   1864 <- Quality Season
2012-13   36   68   2022 <- Quality Season
2013-14   37   54   1109
2014-15   38   47   952
2015-16   39   38   556

More importantly, I don't buy that we *should* consider Magic's prime seasons to be on par with a healthy KG. Garnett is a guy who we've seen scale defensively in an era approximating the modern game, who much more closely approached Magic's offense than Magic approached his defense.

I have real concerns about Magic's portability. Open to changing my mind per Lazenby's book this fall.

(Full disclosure, have Curry ahead of both guys, but he didn't make the runoff.)

EDIT: Would like to nominate Dirk. I have him as clearly better than Bird and Kobe, and likely better than Magic.

[ceiling raiser]

I value your thoughts here. I'd be curious to see elaboration on put-backs year-by-year. As well as anything we have that compared his put-backs to other players.

Alright, I don't have the exact breakdown year-by-year unfortunately, but here is what I can share for now. These are the % of total shots taken and points made via putbacks:

1979-81 Moses: 24.1% of FGA, 27.3% of ppg
1982-83 Moses: 20.7% of FGA, 21.0% of ppg

1979-83 Moses: 22.2% of FGA, 23.5% of ppg

For comparison:

1971-79 Kareem: 14.1% of FGA, 16.7% of ppg
2000-01 Shaq: 14.3% of FGA, 19.7% of ppg

1962-68 Wilt: 24.7% of FGA, 33.5% of ppg
1962-73 Wilt: 24.5% of FGA, 30.6% of ppg

This is fascinating. What is it pre-67?

[Lou Fan]

Hey guys life has gotten pretty crazy for me the last couple weeks but very quickly I'll throw my vote in for Kevin Garnett. He was able to provide top 3 (arguably better) lift in the databall era while playing in quite possibly the most compatible style of any superstar in the history of the game. There is almost nothing you can't ask him to do and do at incredibly high level. I think the questions about his playoff drop off are easily explained by context and I'm not particularly concerned with his regular season impact overstating his playoff value. Lastly he's an absolute longevity monster. I think he peaked higher than magic but given he also sustained a top level for so long (best player on a team taking the Heatles 7 in 2012) it makes this choice even easier for me. Hope this is sufficient reasoning if it's not oh well I understand.

[Gibson22]

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?

[Ambrose]

Tough call though I kind of doubt my explanation will make it seem like it.

Give me #1 Magic Johnson. Even with the short stint of Tragic talk, I trust him vastly more in a playoff series than I do Garnett. I'm of the view that he's going to be able to elevate others higher while also being more reliable himself. We've also seen him prove it on a level KG simply never has. KG to me is the ultimate theoretical guy. His lift and impact numbers are insane and put him up there with anyone since certain data markers came out, though I believe Magic looks extremely good in WOWY as well which is basically the full extent of what we have for his era.

I personally find it really hard to justify KG well after retirement has elevated himself over guys he's never really been considered over prior, especially when the main reasoning is data we have for him but not Magic. Maybe thought processes change and become more advanced over time, or maybe we become less tethered to the actual results we witnessed. I can't say for sure. But as someone who loves to lean into the analytical nature of the sport, KG is the guy that to me the reality doesn't measure up to the data. Living in Minnesota, I watched too much of the guy to have my opinion on him flip because impact stats say he should've looked more impressive than he did.

Nominate: Jerry West

[OhayoKD]

I personally find it really hard to justify KG well after retirement has elevated himself over guys he's never really been considered over prior, especially when the main reasoning is data we have for him but not Magic. Maybe thought processes change and become more advanced over time, or maybe we become less tethered to the actual results we witnessed

Given the justification at the end is basically "it didn't feel possible at the time", we can probably put this on the former and not the latter. The data is based on actual results. Your impression at the time is just that...your impression at the time.

for this vote, KG's argument is largely longetvity. Magic is close to unassailable via impact stuff. Nonetheless, in lieu of justification, the only response "are you sure you're not recency biased" deserves is "stop projecting".

if team-success means that much to you, then I have to wonder why you were so low on Russell and high on Shaq.

[HeartBreakKid]

Hey guys life has gotten pretty crazy for me the last couple weeks but very quickly I'll throw my vote in for Kevin Garnett. He was able to provide top 3 (arguably better) lift in the databall era while playing in quite possibly the most compatible style of any superstar in the history of the game. There is almost nothing you can't ask him to do and do at incredibly high level. I think the questions about his playoff drop off are easily explained by context and I'm not particularly concerned with his regular season impact overstating his playoff value. Lastly he's an absolute longevity monster. I think he peaked higher than magic but given he also sustained a top level for so long (best player on a team taking the Heatles 7 in 2012) it makes this choice even easier for me. Hope this is sufficient reasoning if it's not oh well I understand.

You should put your vote in bold.

[70sFan]

I value your thoughts here. I'd be curious to see elaboration on put-backs year-by-year. As well as anything we have that compared his put-backs to other players.

Alright, I don't have the exact breakdown year-by-year unfortunately, but here is what I can share for now. These are the % of total shots taken and points made via putbacks:

1979-81 Moses: 24.1% of FGA, 27.3% of ppg
1982-83 Moses: 20.7% of FGA, 21.0% of ppg

1979-83 Moses: 22.2% of FGA, 23.5% of ppg

For comparison:

1971-79 Kareem: 14.1% of FGA, 16.7% of ppg
2000-01 Shaq: 14.3% of FGA, 19.7% of ppg

1962-68 Wilt: 24.7% of FGA, 33.5% of ppg
1962-73 Wilt: 24.5% of FGA, 30.6% of ppg

This is fascinating. What is it pre-67?

I would have to calculate it, because I have total numbers only. I will come back with the numbers later.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Holy batman, didn't expect that level of response to my momentary outburst of frustration.

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

KG over Magic has nothing to do with modernism. Much better defender giving great two-way impact and longevity are all you really need to make the case.

"Modernism" as justification is probably more applicable to Shaq

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

This place is hung up on KG almost as much as it is LeBron.

If the board has Duncan and Hakeem clearly ahead of Magic, then it's logical to put Garnett over him as well. It has nothing to do with modernism...

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

This place is hung up on KG almost as much as it is LeBron.

You can say an average offensive player compared to Magic and I guess that's fair, but look at this offensive impact:

Timberwolves/Celtics Offensive Rating with Kevin Garnett On/Off (League Rank):

2001: 106.2 (8th), 101.7 (18th)
2002: 110 (2nd), 104.4 (15th)
2003: 108.5 (3rd), 93.4 (2nd to Last)
2004: 108.3 (3rd), 93.8 (Last)
2005: 108.4 (6th), 106.3 (14th)
2006: 105.3 (18th) , 95.2 (Last)
2007: 105.7 (16th), 97.3 (Last)
2008: 113.6 (2nd), 105.9 (21st)
2009: 112.8 (3rd), 109.4 (10th)
2010: 109.8 (10th), 106.7 (19th)
2011: 111.1 (6th), 101.3 (Last)

That's a massive, massive, offensive impact. Even if Magic's the greatest offensive player in the history of the NBA and he may well be, can you really beat that level of offensive impact so much that it makes up for the difference between one of the very best defenders of all-time and a below average defender? There's kind of a ceiling when you're legitimately bad at one of the three main parts of the game. It's the same reason I don't have Russell in my top 10. It's hard for a one way player to beat someone who's truly elite on both ends.

And then even if you do feel like Magic can somehow overcome that massive chasm on defense because his offense is so amazing, there's still the longevity piece. And KG's longevity isn't Kobe having mediocre seasons in 1999 where he's a half-decent #2 or Shaq playing out the string in Phoenix and Cleveland. Several impact stats had KG still battling for the title of the best player in the league in Boston as late as 2011 and 2012. He was legitimately great for 4 or 5 more seasons than Magic.

The only thing I see that you can really hold against him is that in the season where he had the second best chance to win a ring (2009), he got injured, but he was such an iron man for so long, it doesn't feel fair to make that disqualifying. He really performed as well as you could possibly hope for all throughout his career.

Here's the thing, one of the big arguments that you guys keep bringing up is longevity. IMO, longevity IS a modernist criteria to use, because it is easier to be better for longer now than it used to be. In the 70s/80s, a 12-13 career was considered normal, and guys like Kareem and Moses and maybe a couple others were outliers. These 15-20 year careers weren't really common until you get to players who were drafted in the mid/late 80s, and it's only gotten more common with the players of the 00s and beyond. And is especially beyond the pale to punish Magic of all people given the circumstances of his retirement. It strikes me as rather unforgiving.

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

This place is hung up on KG almost as much as it is LeBron.

If the board has Duncan and Hakeem clearly ahead of Magic, then it's logical to put Garnett over him as well. It has nothing to do with modernism...

If I'm tracking their posts, oldschoolbulls thinks we should be applying a curve on bigger players because they are inherently going to be better than smaller ones.

Also apparently ts-add is note worthy but when players have a massive playmaking advantage(ex: passer-rating/oc), not so much [/quote]

This is maybe the third time you've brought this up, so once again, I never said that.

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

This place is hung up on KG almost as much as it is LeBron.

If KG's offense was average then what was Magic's defense?

And even if Magic played more seasons I'd still vote for Garnett over him.

You're complaining about a board that just nominated George Mikan for being too modern?

Honestly, I am surprised that Mikan was nominated already, because it seems like it does go against what a lot of people here believe. One poster in particular has been rather vocal in his distaste for that nomination.

Suffice it to say I feel like am in crazy town with some of these bold statements about KG. No way, absolutely no way, is he a top 5 player of all time, and I don't even think he's top 10. Top 15, yes.

[homecourtloss]

FFS people, come on and vote for Magic.

I can’t stand the modernism that permeates this board. Just punishing Magic for a lack of longevity that was 100% not his fault and drooling over KG’s defense while ignoring that KG was an average offensive player compared to Magic and the fact that Magic is one of the game’s greatest winners.

Come on.

This place is hung up on KG almost as much as it is LeBron.

Been holding this in? There have been many terrific posts made about Magic Johnson in this project, many of which someone might label as “modernist arguments.” There have also been tremendous posts made about Kevin Garnett. Why get upset when the best collection of data and arguments for players is brought together in these top 100 projects, and we get to enjoy it and/or participate in it for free?There was a literally a “modernist” style post made that supported magic Johnson’s case as an impact monster including data that we have never had access to before in that form.

[Doctor MJ]

Holy batman, didn't expect that level of response to my momentary outburst of frustration.

...

Honestly, I am surprised that Mikan was nominated already, because it seems like it does go against what a lot of people here believe. One poster in particular has been rather vocal in his distaste for that nomination.

Suffice it to say I feel like am in crazy town with some of these bold statements about KG. No way, absolutely no way, is he a top 5 player of all time, and I don't even think he's top 10. Top 15, yes.

Eh, well, I'm not really surprised at the response having read your post. I don't think you or they really crossed terrible lines, but humans tend to respond in kind based on how they perceive the "kind".

Other thoughts:

I think the fact that Magic & Bird are dropping while Mikan is rising is first and foremost about the collective shape of the voter base being more complicated than any one person's perspective.

Beyond that, I think that one of the big things going on here is the skepticism that an offensive player can match a two-way player when the two-way player is also an outstanding offensive star. The concern certainly resonates with me, and I had been voting for KG over Magic during the last 3 iterations of the project.

Garnett falling so much this time has a lot to do with a shift in approach I'm using and so I think it's not the most fruitful to focus on him. Rather, I think considering Magic vs Duncan makes more sense, because Duncan isn't really being hurt by my approach to anywhere near the same degree...yet I still put Magic back on top of him.

In a nutshell:

1. Tippy top tier offensive players from the '80s onward seem to have a capacity for team offensive resilience that is just plain massive in a way that other offensive stars don't come close to, and no defensive stars come close to.

2. While the concept of a star being a "bad defensive player" makes sense, what we seem to keep seeing is that you can build a defense that's pretty solid with those guys. Whether it's Magic, Dirk, or Jokic, time and again, we seem to be seeing this not really keep them from taking their team all the way.

None of this makes it a given that Magic had a better prime than Duncan/KG, let alone can overcome longevity concerns, but I don't really see a reason to be skeptical of the extreme amount team success Magic had.

Still, I think KG has a case here.

[OhayoKD]

Honestly, I am surprised that Mikan was nominated already, because it seems like it does go against what a lot of people here believe. One poster in particular has been rather vocal in his distaste for that nomination.

Different posters have different approaches and therefore opinions. Well spotted.

Here's the thing, one of the big arguments that you guys keep bringing up is longevity. [b] IMO, longevity IS a modernist criteria to use

Longetvity has always mattered to an extent. Walton was never considered a goat-candidate. And if criteria shifting is modernist, than we can apply to this to every standard established at any point in history. Was "leading the league in scoring while winning titles" considered the standard for GOAT in the 60's and 70"s? No.

Perspectives changing does not make the new perspectives lesser than older perspectives. Indeed, if a long-held opinion sees pushback from a bunch of sources, there might be a good reasons for it.

If the board has Duncan and Hakeem clearly ahead of Magic, then it's logical to put Garnett over him as well. It has nothing to do with modernism...

If I'm tracking their posts, oldschoolbulls thinks we should be applying a curve on bigger players because they are inherently going to be better than smaller ones.

Also apparently ts-add is note worthy but when players have a massive playmaking advantage(ex: passer-rating/oc), not so much [/quote]

This is maybe the third time you've brought this up, so once again, I never said that.

I didn't says you "said" anything(and it would be the 2nd time), I commented on how you "didn't" talk about playmaking after you said "jordan's scoring impact probably makes up for the defensive gap"(also baseless but whatever) while ignoring Jordan's at a big disadvantage as a creator relative to all these other all-time offensive players who you were comparing to him merely via scoring(and consequently does not seem to generate the same level of offensive influence as a fair few of them).

If KG's offense was average then what was Magic's defense?

And even if Magic played more seasons I'd still vote for Garnett over him.

You're complaining about a board that just nominated George Mikan for being too modern?

Suffice it to say I feel like am in crazy town with some of these bold statements about KG. No way, absolutely no way, is he a top 5 player of all time, and I don't even think he's top 10. Top 15, yes.

Perhaps. But at least "crazytown" is generally not cherrypicking when things matter and when they don't. (cough Shaq's RAPM cough)

[penbeast0]

I value your thoughts here. I'd be curious to see elaboration on put-backs year-by-year. As well as anything we have that compared his put-backs to other players.

Alright, I don't have the exact breakdown year-by-year unfortunately, but here is what I can share for now. These are the % of total shots taken and points made via putbacks:

1979-81 Moses: 24.1% of FGA, 27.3% of ppg
1982-83 Moses: 20.7% of FGA, 21.0% of ppg

1979-83 Moses: 22.2% of FGA, 23.5% of ppg

For comparison:

1971-79 Kareem: 14.1% of FGA, 16.7% of ppg
2000-01 Shaq: 14.3% of FGA, 19.7% of ppg

1962-68 Wilt: 24.7% of FGA, 33.5% of ppg
1962-73 Wilt: 24.5% of FGA, 30.6% of ppg

I agree that it is interesting stuff, particularly that the putback rate as a % of his points went DOWN for Wilt after 68.

Do you have any numbers for Bob Pettit and putbacks or is that going back too far?

[Doctor MJ]

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?

So, some thoughts:

1. The Timberwolves context was a really, really, REALLY big handicap. People tend to acknowledge this like it's a tally mark on a pro/con list and move on, but team sports don't work like that.

2. I think it's critical to understand that the gap between Duncan & KG as volume scorers really isn't that big. Yes Duncan won titles as a volume scorer...but he won those titles because the Spurs' defense was the killer advantage. Duncan of course was the most important part of that defense so he deserves a ton of credit overall, but really 2003 is the only title run where I think you can even argue that this gave his team a big value add over other options, and even there I'm not so sure.

I don't think it can be emphasized enough how noteworthy it is that the Spurs didn't develop an elite offense until AFTER Duncan was past his prime. That's the furthest thing from normal for elite scorers.

On the other hand, when you characterize it as a team that went away from a post-oriented volume scorer to more of a perimeter attack it's not just understandable but precisely what we'd expect given the improvements to offensive strategy that have come to the game during the era.

On top of all of that there's the matter that Garnett was a better long-distance shooter, a better ball handler, and a better passer than Duncan. Doesn't change what happened in Minnesota back then, but I would expect Garnett to be a more effective offensive player on a team that uses the strategies of today's game.