Rank the top 15 defensive seasons between Minnesota KG, Orlando Dwight Howard, and Utah Gobert

[Peregrine01]

No one's saying that KG isn't a great defensive player, which would be a ludicrous take. The question is just how good was he? And could he be rated too highly among those who rely on metrics like DRAPM.

I lean more on the side of what actually happened than what-ifs. KG didn't lead a top 5 defense until he landed on the Celts in 2008 and that 12-year record of generally middling defenses on those Minny teams shouldn't be painting him in a better light in discussions like these.

[Colbinii]

No one's saying that KG isn't a great defensive player, which would be a ludicrous take. The question is just how good was he? And could he be rated too highly among those who rely on metrics like DRAPM.

I lean more on the side of what actually happened than what-ifs. KG didn't lead a top 5 defense until he landed on the Celts in 2008 and that 12-year record of generally middling defenses on those Minny teams shouldn't be painting him in a better light in discussions like these.

But we have simple +/- data that show Garnett far more impactful than Howard.

This isn't me going through and finding some hard to believe context or twisted theory or rationale for Garnett.

It's simple +/-.

[trelos6]

I’ll give it a try.

04 KG
05 KG
03 KG
06 KG
10 Dwight
11 Dwight
09 Dwight
08 Dwight
17 Gobert
19 Gobert
21 Gobert
00 KG

[OhayoKD]

No one's saying that KG isn't a great defensive player, which would be a ludicrous take. The question is just how good was he? And could he be rated too highly among those who rely on metrics like DRAPM.

I lean more on the side of what actually happened than what-ifs. KG didn't lead a top 5 defense until he landed on the Celts in 2008 and that 12-year record of generally middling defenses on those Minny teams shouldn't be painting him in a better light in discussions like these.

Defensive-rating splits are as much "what actually happened" as just looking at team-results and calling it a day...

If you literally just want to look at team-success, fine, but uh....Boston defenses were pretty firmly ahead of any of Dwight's

[kendogg]

No one's saying that KG isn't a great defensive player, which would be a ludicrous take. The question is just how good was he? And could he be rated too highly among those who rely on metrics like DRAPM.

I lean more on the side of what actually happened than what-ifs. KG didn't lead a top 5 defense until he landed on the Celts in 2008 and that 12-year record of generally middling defenses on those Minny teams shouldn't be painting him in a better light in discussions like these.

But we have simple +/- data that show Garnett far more impactful than Howard.

This isn't me going through and finding some hard to believe context or twisted theory or rationale for Garnett.

It's simple +/-.

plus minus data is quite useless in a lot of cases. a player with a subpar backup (like Jokic had in past seasons) will look better in plus minus simply because their teammate is worse. Now that we have plus/minus for lineup data in recent eras, the data is slightly more useful, but still in many many situations there is not enough data points to gleam anything useful. Especially for playoff data, where there is so few data points that any nearly sort of advanced stats are worthless.

KG had mostly empty stats in Minny. The teams weren't good on any level. Not even defensively which is supposedly KG's greatest strength. They failed to make the playoffs most years and only in 1 postseason did they even win a single series.

Because KG excels as a help defender which is a force multiplier. Good help defense on a bad team doesn't multiply much. Look at how worthless Draymond Green is when Curry sits. He's worth less than half as much to any other team because only Curry has enough off-ball gravity to account for Dray's negative gravity. KG is in the same boat (despite KG being the clearly better player they have the same limitations as floor raisers). These guys are the ultimate role players and not stars.

Offensively, KG is also a role player like Dray. They can setup other players well enough with their basketball IQ and above average handle for a big. KG is clearly a better shooter but KG still has no actual go-to moves or any sort of high efficiency shots in his arsenal. People act like KG shooting 45% for their career on midrange is a good shot. It's not.

KG isn't an elite man defender. He's versatile and crafty, but he's not quick enough to stay in front of guards and he's not strong enough to not get bullied in the paint. He's an elite rebounder for sure but rim protector, no. KG doesn't have enough bounce or strength to be an elite rim protector. He's one of the best help defenders of all time, again, (not better than Russ but maybe everyone else?), but if that's his only truly elite skill, unless you count BBIQ as a skill, then it leaves a lot to be desired.

[Colbinii]

No one's saying that KG isn't a great defensive player, which would be a ludicrous take. The question is just how good was he? And could he be rated too highly among those who rely on metrics like DRAPM.

I lean more on the side of what actually happened than what-ifs. KG didn't lead a top 5 defense until he landed on the Celts in 2008 and that 12-year record of generally middling defenses on those Minny teams shouldn't be painting him in a better light in discussions like these.

But we have simple +/- data that show Garnett far more impactful than Howard.

This isn't me going through and finding some hard to believe context or twisted theory or rationale for Garnett.

It's simple +/-.

plus minus data is quite useless in a lot of cases. a player with a subpar backup (like Jokic had in past seasons) will look better in plus minus simply because their teammate is worse. Now that we have plus/minus for lineup data in recent eras, the data is slightly more useful, but still in many many situations there is not enough data points to gleam anything useful. Especially for playoff data, where there is so few data points that any nearly sort of advanced stats are worthless.

I disagree that 33K and 7K minutes are small or meaningless samples. You must think every season isn't accurate of the teams or players statistics then as well since a single season is < 7K minutes, meaning all statistics over a season are meaningless?

KG had mostly empty stats in Minny. The teams weren't good on any level. Not even defensively which is supposedly KG's greatest strength. They failed to make the playoffs most years and only in 1 postseason did they even win a single series.

Empty Stats as in he didn't help his team immensely? Can you explain how KG was DeMar DeRozan.

Because KG excels as a help defender which is a force multiplier. Good help defense on a bad team doesn't multiply much. Look at how worthless Draymond Green is when Curry sits. He's worth less than half as much to any other team because only Curry has enough off-ball gravity to account for Dray's negative gravity. KG is in the same boat (despite KG being the clearly better player they have the same limitations as floor raisers). These guys are the ultimate role players and not stars.

Garnett, the role player who won an MVP

Offensively, KG is also a role player like Dray. They can setup other players well enough with their basketball IQ and above average handle for a big. KG is clearly a better shooter but KG still has no actual go-to moves or any sort of high efficiency shots in his arsenal. People act like KG shooting 45% for their career on midrange is a good shot. It's not.

Do you agree Hakeem is also a role player offensively? Garnett anchored much better offenses than Hakeem did.

Oh wait, you want sample size larger than 7K minutes. So you want to disregard Hakeem's post-season runs since they are such small samples?

KG isn't an elite man defender. He's versatile and crafty, but he's not quick enough to stay in front of guards and he's not strong enough to not get bullied in the paint. He's an elite rebounder for sure but rim protector, no. KG doesn't have enough bounce or strength to be an elite rim protector. He's one of the best help defenders of all time, again, (not better than Russ but maybe everyone else?), but if that's his only truly elite skill, unless you count BBIQ as a skill, then it leaves a lot to be desired.

Yeah, I disagree with all of this about him being unable to stay in front of most guards and he wasn't bullied in the paint against most bigs.

This entire posts reads like a giant satire. I can't believe I spend time responding to this crap. I feel like I am over on /r/Conservative with these takes.

At least post some statistical evidence or Anecdotal evidence. You just make baseless claims with nothing supporting them. I have posted videos and pictures of Garnett switching onto the LeBron, T-Mac and Kobe's of this world.

Either post something useful that can be tangible in some capacity or I am going to chalk every word here to rubbish.

[trex_8063]

Time to disengage, fellas.

[Red Beast]

I disagree that 33K and 7K minutes are small or meaningless samples. You must think every season isn't accurate of the teams or players statistics then as well since a single season is < 7K minutes, meaning all statistics over a season are meaningless?

Garnett played a long time which means he has big total minutes but there are fundamental flaws in using +/- in this context. The first one I have mentioned ad nauseum. The stat, relates only to an individual player's specific circumstance and has multiple variables, including minutes played (which I'll get to in a second). This stat gives brilliant insight to an individual's contribution to their own team. If I were coaching a team, I would be very interested in this stat as it would help me with determining line ups etc. This notwithstanding, it becomes very dangerous when I use it as the basis of comparison, for defensive efficacy, for players that play on two completely different teams. That is because, the variables for the two players would be entirely different. This is compounded by players that play a high level of minutes per game.

Do minutes per game matter? Yes, not total minutes, which has some use, but minutes per game is very important for context. KG played around 40 minutes per game for the Wolves in the regular season. That means that he was sitting, on average, for two minutes per quarter. This becomes even more ridiculous in the post season, where he was playing up to 44 minutes plus per game. That means that there were many games where he was only off the court for two to three minutes a game. It would be accurate to say that a fair proportion of the time he was off would have been garbage time. Now, think about this scenario inversely. If you had a player who played between 3 to 8 minutes a game, could you use +/- to, accurately, evaluate their value? I don't think you can. Let's take it a step further, could you evaluate their value by using their +/- with the +/- of another player, who plays between 3 - 8 minutes a game on a different team? Now we are entering the absurd.

I hope you understand my point. I don't dismiss +/- or RAPM as a stat without value, but I have great concern of its use as a comparitive tool.

Empty Stats as in he didn't help his team immensely? Can you explain how KG was DeMar DeRozan.

I don't think KG's stats were empty at all. I think he was a great player. His offensive stats, I believe, are illustrative of who he was as a great, but not elite offensive player. Measuring defense is very difficult as I have illustrated above. For me KG is similar on defense as he is on offense. He has limitations that prevent him from raising a defense to a great unit by himself. However, with good help, in the right system, he can be a key contributor to a great defense.

Garnett, the role player who won an MVP

I think role player is harsh. Every player needs help. What I would say, is that he was not a player that could elevate his game to supremely dominant levels on offense or defense. This being said, his motor, skill and intelligence meant that he could absolutely be the best player on a championship team with the right supporting cast.

Do you agree Hakeem is also a role player offensively? Garnett anchored much better offenses than Hakeem did.

Oh wait, you want sample size larger than 7K minutes. So you want to disregard Hakeem's post-season runs since they are such small samples?

Not sure what you are trying to say here. There can be no debate that Hakeem is a superior offensive player to Garnett. Hakeem won two titles as the offensive focal point of his team.

Yeah, I disagree with all of this about him being unable to stay in front of most guards and he wasn't bullied in the paint against most bigs.

Garnett was very switchable which is an extremely useful skill but being able to do it sometimes, is not akin to being able to do it effectively for prolonged stretches. There is no way that KG could guard Jordan and Shaq, for long periods of time the way that Rodman did. Again, he was a great defender overall, but I can't ever remember him shutting down his opponent or even making a superstar player struggle offensively. KG was long, mobile and coordinated with a great motor. He was not strong or a fast twitch athlete which meant that he could not really physically dominate his opposition.

[Jaivl]

The most logical explanation is that KG was a decent defender during his prime and then jumped to GOAT level in 2008, at 31 years old.

[Peregrine01]

The most logical explanation is that KG was a decent defender during his prime and then jumped to GOAT level in 2008, at 31 years old.

That's possible. But what's the common denominator here? KG, who never anchored a top 5 defense before being paired with Thibs, or Thibs himself, who did it on practically every team he was a coach of.

[Jaivl]

The most logical explanation is that KG was a decent defender during his prime and then jumped to GOAT level in 2008, at 31 years old.

That's possible. But what's the common denominator here? KG, who never anchored a top 5 defense before being paired with Thibs, or Thibs himself, who did it on practically every team he was a coach of.

Change "KG" with "Jordan", "Thibs" with "Pippen", "top 5 defense" with "playoff series" and notice how dumb that logic is.

Dumb logic, that seems to be the common denominator in this thread.

[Peregrine01]

The most logical explanation is that KG was a decent defender during his prime and then jumped to GOAT level in 2008, at 31 years old.

That's possible. But what's the common denominator here? KG, who never anchored a top 5 defense before being paired with Thibs, or Thibs himself, who did it on practically every team he was a coach of.

Change "KG" with "Jordan", "Thibs" with "Pippen", "top 5 defense" with "playoff series" and notice how dumb that logic is.

Dumb logic, that seems to be the common denominator in this thread.

I'd argue that's a semi-decent analogy given how underrated Pippen and Thibs generally are. However, there's a crucial difference here if this is the analogy that you're going for - Pippen didn't win anything without Jordan. Whereas Thibs led top-5 defenses on multiple different rosters and KG never did until he landed with the Celtics.

[HeartBreakKid]

The most logical explanation is that KG was a decent defender during his prime and then jumped to GOAT level in 2008, at 31 years old.

That's possible. But what's the common denominator here? KG, who never anchored a top 5 defense before being paired with Thibs, or Thibs himself, who did it on practically every team he was a coach of.

1) Thibs...wasn't the head coach.

2) Kevin Garnett anchored elite defenses AFTER Thibs left. The Celtics had a better or equal defense than the Bulls

The Bulls who had a more defensive heavy roster than the Celtics had a worse defense than the Celtics in 2010. In 2011, 2012, 2013 they both had the same drtg roughly.

Kevin Garnett at 35 years old with a bunch of other old players is anchoring the same level defense as a team filled with defensive specialist and according to you, the coach that makes Kevin Garnett good.

[Peregrine01]

The most logical explanation is that KG was a decent defender during his prime and then jumped to GOAT level in 2008, at 31 years old.

That's possible. But what's the common denominator here? KG, who never anchored a top 5 defense before being paired with Thibs, or Thibs himself, who did it on practically every team he was a coach of.

1) Thibs...wasn't the head coach.

2) Kevin Garnett anchored elite defenses AFTER Thibs left. The Celtics had a better or equal defense than the Bulls

The Bulls who had a more defensive heavy roster than the Celtics had a worse defense than the Celtics in 2010. In 2011, 2012, 2013 they both had the same drtg roughly.

Kevin Garnett at 35 years old with a bunch of other old players is anchoring the same level defense as a team filled with defensive specialist and according to you, the coach that makes Kevin Garnett good.

"Head coach" is semantics...unless you think it's Doc that's driving the defensive coaching there.

The point I was making isn't about KG vs Thibs really. It's that this board gives woefully little credit to the importance of coaching on defense, which I think has proven historically to be more important than the contributions of any individual player in the modern game. This is rather unlike offense where a single transcendent talent can carry on his own.

[Jaivl]

That's possible. But what's the common denominator here? KG, who never anchored a top 5 defense before being paired with Thibs, or Thibs himself, who did it on practically every team he was a coach of.

Change "KG" with "Jordan", "Thibs" with "Pippen", "top 5 defense" with "playoff series" and notice how dumb that logic is.

Dumb logic, that seems to be the common denominator in this thread.

I'd argue that's a semi-decent analogy given how underrated Pippen and Thibs generally are. However, there's a crucial difference here if this is the analogy that you're going for - Pippen didn't win anything without Jordan. Whereas Thibs led top-5 defenses on multiple different rosters and KG never did until he landed with the Celtics.

If somehow you're keen on continuing with the analogy, Pippen on Portland was more winning than any non-Pippen Jordan season, so... yeah.

[OhayoKD]

The most logical explanation is that KG was a decent defender during his prime and then jumped to GOAT level in 2008, at 31 years old.

That's possible. But what's the common denominator here? KG, who never anchored a top 5 defense before being paired with Thibs, or Thibs himself, who did it on practically every team he was a coach of.

1) Thibs...wasn't the head coach.

2) Kevin Garnett anchored elite defenses AFTER Thibs left. The Celtics had a better or equal defense than the Bulls

The Bulls who had a more defensive heavy roster than the Celtics had a worse defense than the Celtics in 2010. In 2011, 2012, 2013 they both had the same drtg roughly.

Kevin Garnett at 35 years old with a bunch of other old players is anchoring the same level defense as a team filled with defensive specialist and according to you, the coach that makes Kevin Garnett good.

and dont forget that in minesotta, what matters when isolating kg from context is not how much the defense improves with kg on it, but rather how good they were with kg and a bunch of other potentially confounding variables sharing the court with him.

Also "head coach" is semantics, "top 5" is not.

Change "KG" with "Jordan", "Thibs" with "Pippen", "top 5 defense" with "playoff series" and notice how dumb that logic is.

Dumb logic, that seems to be the common denominator in this thread.

I'd argue that's a semi-decent analogy given how underrated Pippen and Thibs generally are. However, there's a crucial difference here if this is the analogy that you're going for - Pippen didn't win anything without Jordan. Whereas Thibs led top-5 defenses on multiple different rosters and KG never did until he landed with the Celtics.

If somehow you're keen on continuing with the analogy, Pippen on Portland was more winning than any non-Pippen Jordan season, so... yeah.

95 Bulls without jordan or grant also posted a better srs than any mj team without pippen...