Retro POY '04-05 (Voting Complete)

[shawngoat23]

1. Tim Duncan
2. Steve Nash
3. Dwyane Wade
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Shaquille O'Neal

Honorable mentions to LeBron James, Tracy McGrady, and DIrk Nowitzki.

I valued playoff performance, but Kevin Garnett meant so much for a team with such a terrible supporting cast that I would not feel comfortable leaving him off the list. This was Shaq's last best year, but I felt then that Dwyane Wade was the key to the Miami team, which looks better in retrospect, and it was primarily Wade's ability to step it up in the playoffs more so than Shaq's impact that allowed the Heat to come within one game of the NBA Finals. The voters had Shaq #2, but I think the voters rewarded him for past dominance, reputation, and incorrectly attributed most of the Heat improvement to his addition (rather than Wade's rapid maturation into superstardom and without considering that the Heat were starting to already become a strong team in the previous year). This would be Shaq's last year as a dominant player, IMO.

[Doctor MJ]

I really want more opinions on Duncan & Ginobili.

I'll say at the outset, the idea of picking Ginobili over Duncan seems absurd, but I'm trying to find reasons to support that feeling.

Generally, I find the one argument you can use against Ginobili at his best that precludes him from superstar status at any time is that he doesn't play enough. This year though, Duncan didn't play significantly more than Ginobili.

I'm fine saying Duncan was better per minute in the regular season, though it has to be noted how good Ginobili was. His team net +/- was sky high despite playing a ton of minutes without Duncan, and he was awesome in the clutch averaging 40+ points per 48 minutes of clutch (6th in the league) and had the 3rd highest PER in the league in clutch time.

Then the playoffs, Ginobili picked up his game, and Duncan really wasn't the same. Massive +/- for Ginobili (team net +/- of +20), and the team does better when Duncan's on the bench. Ginobili leads the team in WS (almost did in the regular season too), is basically tied in PER (24.9 vs 24.8). Shooting efficiency goes to Ginobili in a landslide (12.6 TS% advantage over the whole playoffs, 16.4 TS% advantage in the finals). And of course there was a pretty loud chorus of people saying that Ginobili was the true star of the playoffs and the true Finals MVP.

So fellas, talk me down. Why is it clear Duncan > Ginobili this year?

[sp6r=underrated]

So fellas, talk me down. Why is it clear Duncan > Ginobili this year?

I sort of answered this before

The thing about the Spurs, is I don't think people realize how good that 05 squad was. Going into the Detroit RS March game, when Duncan suffered that terrible ankle injury, this was their record and point differential. 50-15 +10.24. They were playing like an all time great NBA champion and were good enough to win a title with a hobbled TD. There is 0 doubt in my mind that they would have went 16-2/3 in the PO if he was healthy in the PS.

So the way I see it is when Duncan was healthy, with a large enough sample size to evaluate the two players, TD established his superiority over Manu.

I'm not sure if I would vote for TD # 1 for the season though because the injury can't be brushed aside with the other elite.

[shawngoat23]

So fellas, talk me down. Why is it clear Duncan > Ginobili this year?

I stand by putting Duncan #1 on my list, but I'll have to think hard about giving more credit to Ginobili. FWIW, I feel he should have won Finals MVP that year.

[Doctor MJ]

So the way I see it is when Duncan was healthy, with a large enough sample size to evaluate the two players, TD established his superiority over Manu.

Trying to be clear here. There's no debate in my mind that peak, healthy Duncan is better than peak, healthy Ginobili.

Maybe if I put it like this: Do you believe Duncan was the playoff MVP of the Spurs, and if so, why? Not quite the same question, but related.

[mysticbb]

I'm fine saying Duncan was better per minute in the regular season, though it has to be noted how good Ginobili was. His team net +/- was sky high despite playing a ton of minutes without Duncan, and he was awesome in the clutch averaging 40+ points per 48 minutes of clutch (6th in the league) and had the 3rd highest PER in the league in clutch time.

It should be noted that Duncan's APM was still the 2nd best in the league and well ahead of Ginobili's. That said I have Ginobili either on 5 or 6, which needs to be determined. Thus a interesting discussion about that would be appreciated.

[Dr Positivity]

I really want more opinions on Duncan & Ginobili.

I'll say at the outset, the idea of picking Ginobili over Duncan seems absurd, but I'm trying to find reasons to support that feeling.

Generally, I find the one argument you can use against Ginobili at his best that precludes him from superstar status at any time is that he doesn't play enough. This year though, Duncan didn't play significantly more than Ginobili.

I'm fine saying Duncan was better per minute in the regular season, though it has to be noted how good Ginobili was. His team net +/- was sky high despite playing a ton of minutes without Duncan, and he was awesome in the clutch averaging 40+ points per 48 minutes of clutch (6th in the league) and had the 3rd highest PER in the league in clutch time.

Then the playoffs, Ginobili picked up his game, and Duncan really wasn't the same. Massive +/- for Ginobili (team net +/- of +20), and the team does better when Duncan's on the bench. Ginobili leads the team in WS (almost did in the regular season too), is basically tied in PER (24.9 vs 24.8). Shooting efficiency goes to Ginobili in a landslide (12.6 TS% advantage over the whole playoffs, 16.4 TS% advantage in the finals). And of course there was a pretty loud chorus of people saying that Ginobili was the true star of the playoffs and the true Finals MVP.

So fellas, talk me down. Why is it clear Duncan > Ginobili this year?

Manu, while great, was still putting up 16/4/4 compared to Duncan's 20/11/3. Of course there's much more to a player's impact than stats... almost all of which favor Duncan. Anchored the team's d, set his team's picks, was the team's true #1 option for running the offense through, and he was much more consistent. 12 of Manu's 74 games he scored under 10 points, that means in those games he didn't do anything for his team. Duncan only scored under 10 twice in comparison and he would've had a huge non statsheet impact on the game even if he wasn't scoring. Finally there's the question of what's easier to replicate, 16ppg from a shooting swingman or 20ppg from a post PF/C... it's easier to get that scoring from a swing IMO.

Duncan is a tricky one this year because he played 66 games, but I'd certainly put him over Manu still. The only thing Manu has is the 74 games > 66 thing, but Duncan actually played more minutes than him so it's irrelevant. Duncan was the better player.

[Doctor MJ]

Manu, while great, was still putting up 16/4/4 compared to Duncan's 20/11/3. Of course there's much more to a player's impact than stats... almost all of which favor Duncan. Anchored the team's d, set his team's picks, was the team's true #1 option for running the offense through, and he was much more consistent. 12 of Manu's 74 games he scored under 10 points, that means in those games he didn't do anything for his team. Duncan only scored under 10 twice in comparison and he would've had a huge non statsheet impact on the game even if he wasn't scoring. Finally there's the question of what's easier to replicate, 16ppg from a shooting swingman or 20ppg from a post PF/C... it's easier to get that scoring from a swing IMO.

Duncan is a tricky one this year because he played 66 games, but I'd certainly put him over Manu still. The only thing Manu has is the 74 games > 66 thing, but Duncan actually played more minutes than him so it's irrelevant. Duncan was the better player.

Playing devil's advocate here:

-The raw P/R/A you show is kinda off considering that the debate only comes up due to the time Duncan missed.

-True #1 option for offense? Well yes & no. Like I mentioned before, in the clutch, when the team needed baskets, it was Ginobili easily as the #1 option.

-Inconsistency (# times under 10 points). A good point. Worth mentioning though that because Duncan missed more time, the total number of 10+ point games they each had is basically even, and Ginobili played less minutes per game so you'd expect he'd have a bit less 10+ point games.

-Re minutes vs games. Do you really think that if given the choice to have a player 1) play a few minutes less per game, or 2) miss more games, while still playing the same number of total minutes, a team would choose (2)?

[ElGee]

I think the TWolves without Garnett (with a replacement level player) would have won many fewer than 44 games. But the heart of the team, IMO, was Cassell (in the same was that Garnett was for the Celtics years later)--and I think a top 5 player in his prime should have shouldered that responsibility more than KG did in 2005.

I think you're being unfair here and making this point without completely looking at the dynamics of the circumstance. I assume drza lives in Minnesota so I'd be open to his viewpoint. Here's the way I saw it...

Minnesota was an expansion team. They were terrible. Most people can't name a single player from their franchise before Kevin Garnett was drafted (perhaps people remember Doug West, or Laettner because of his fame, or maybe now Scott Brooks because of his coaching success). KG arrived and gave them a future direction. But he was really young and raw. Then the lockout happened, which seemed to pause a lot of young players from that generation...but by the time Minnesota opened in Japan the following year, Garnett had expanded his game to superstar status, thus making Minnesota a potential contender. When it was clear how good he was over the following seasons, they entered the championship window of "get the superstar help," only the help was slow to arrive.

When another viable option came on board in the form of Cassell, he wasn't a sexy free agent (Shaq to LA) or a suddenly explosive draft pick (Scottie Pippen), but a 34 year old with a late-peaking career. Cassell, as it were, had a huge personality. He embraced that dynamic in Minnesota, relishing in making big shots and helping lead that team to championship level (a place he hadn't been since playing with Hakeem). And he fit well because the biggest knock on KG was his unselfishness down the stretch, and Cassell loved to display his large onions in crunch time (figuratively, and literally). He was experienced, vocal, the point guard and loved big shots. How is it possible for that kind of player not to look like he's part of the emotional core of the team? He probably was. But that doesn't mean Garnett wasn't too.

So, you seem to be penalizing Garnett because of Cassell's characteristics. I don't think it's an all-or-nothing scenario (one player doesn't represent the "heart" of each team).

(To compare it to the Celtics -- it would be like downgrading Pierce because KG was the heart. Yet when KG went down, Pierce wasn't suddenly void of leadership and emotional presence.)

[TMACFORMVP]

I honestly feel this is McGrady's second best season as a pro. After a rough start, or adjustment period with the Rockets (14 games of roughly 20/6/5 on 41%), he finished the season doing nearly 26/6/6. I think the only reason he didn't receive more MVP consideration that season was because of the Rockets poor start. They started 13-15, then traded Jim Jackson for Wesley, which moved him to the SF position. From that point, he did nearly 27/6/6 the rest of the season, and the Rockets went 38-16. I believe he was one of three players to have averaged at least 25/5/5 on the season (Kobe and LeBron being the others), being the only one to have made the playoffs. I also think aside from his years in Toronto, his first year in Houston was his most consistent and effective defensive season. Take it for what it's worth, but he was 16th in the league in defensive rating and 5th in defensive win shares. I particularly don't like the stat myself, but it's interesting to say the least.

The 25/5/5 stat is a bit mis-leading since I believe Wade, Arenas, and Carter all came close as well. Granted his team was likely better than the both of theirs, I question how much better.

I'd think one of his main competitors would be Dirk, whom not only did he guard and hold to under 40% shooting, but did roughly 31/7/7 on 45-46% himself. He lost in the first round (duh), but with the supporting cast in place I'm not sure how much I'd blame him that scenario. What hurts his stock in my mind is the fact the Rockets blew a 2-0 lead after winning BOTH games on the road.

I'm probably a homer, but I'm interested to see where he's placed this season.

As for my list, I'll get into it a little later, but I think I have:

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaquille O'neal
3. Steve Nash
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Tracy McGrady

I'm still flip flopping with the Nash selection, and contemplating if Wade should get that final spot instead. Garnett might be the most statistically dominant player, but I don't feel he was vastly better than those ahead of him to justify the ultimate fact that he missed the playoffs. It is worth noting though the Timberwolves STILL did win 44 games that season, so they clearly weren't a poor team by any stretch.

[drza]

I expected a lot of KG debate for this one. Well let's look at some stuff. The Wolves were 6th offensively and 15th defensively. The Spurs were 8th offensively and 1st defensively. KG's career is hard one of the most difficult to gauge to me because the biggest reason he wasn't winning like Duncan was his consistently mediocore defensive teams and NOT a lack of offensive support. This tells me either a) KG's defense is overrated, or b) Flip's defensive system was realllllly bad. I don't know if you can chalk it up to the rest of the roster alone.If you look at the all-time defensive anchors like Hakeem, Duncan, Robinson, Howard... these guys could lead top 3-5 defenses without perimeter guys particularly known for it. A lot of those teams have good offensive players who could fit in a great defense if they had an elite guy backing them up.

The thing about Flip is he went to the Pistons and coached 5th, 7th, and 4th defensive teams, the last two without Ben Wallace. That would indicate to me Flip was not single handidly submarining the Wolves d. All coaches know what good defense is and what it takes to play it...

I just can't give KG the credit as an equal defensive anchor as Tim Duncan when the team defense results are so lopsided. Whether it was because he was misused, what's clear is his defensive impact was not the same as Duncan's for one reason or another. If the impact on the game wasn't there, I can't vote for him, even if it wasn't his fault. Sort of like how you can't vote for Wade in his injured years even if it wasn't the fault of his caliber of ability...

I disagree with your conclusions (that either KG's D is overrated or Flip's scheme is awful), and I think you formed them based on a faulty premise (that all-time anchors like Duncan lead elite units without much help). I'd say that the place to start is to look at what their defensive teammates looked like in 2004-05.

Wolves in '05: Troy Hudson, Sprewell, Wally, Garnett, Olowokandi (Team Def Rating 106.6)
Spurs in '05: Parker, Manu, Bruce Bowen, Duncan, Rasho (Team Def rating 98.8)

You contended that Duncan was leading elite defenses without perimeter guys known for defense, but I would argue that Bowen and Manu are both very good perimeter defensive guys. The '05 Wolves, on the other hand, had Wally and Hudson playing the most at SF and PG, respectively. I already posted earlier in this thread where Rosenbaum classified Hudson as "the worst defender in the league (at any position)...playing a game on the defensive end that is not remotely like anyone else’s in the league." Wally measured out to be only slightly better than that on defense, also among the worst defenders in the NBA at his position.

I would contend that these differences in defensive teammates are frankly huge, and that trying to anchor a defense with two not just bad, but AWFUL defensive teammates without any corresponding help makes up the lion share of the difference between the '05 Wolves and '05 Spurs on defense. That it's not due to any advantage Duncan had over KG. To support my contention, I bring up the '04 Wolves:

Wolves in '04: Cassell, Sprewell, Hassell, Garnett, Ervin Johnson (Team Defensive rating 99.7)

The '04 Wolves were still not particularly talented on defense outside of Garnett, but they at least had role players with a defensive mentality (like Hassell or old 'Erv). That was enough for Garnett to anchor a very good defense. Still not as good as the Spurs in general, but clearly a lot better than the '05 Wolves and very similar to the '05 Spurs, at least.

Just like with championships, the general argument for Garnett on defense vs Duncan has always been that Garnett's teammates weren't nearly as good as Duncan's, and if he ever were in a similar situation you would get similar results. The facts that in '04 and again since '08, the two times that Garnett has been given anywhere near comparable defensive teammates the results have turned out to be similar, to me further supports the already strong qualitative and quantitative arguments that Garnett is, in fact, a defender of similar caliber to Duncan.

[Sedale Threatt]

So fellas, talk me down. Why is it clear Duncan > Ginobili this year?

I stand by putting Duncan #1 on my list, but I'll have to think hard about giving more credit to Ginobili. FWIW, I feel he should have won Finals MVP that year.

Absolutely. He was truly magnificent in the playoffs.

But regarding the good Dr.'s query, I just have a problem giving Manu significant consideration, despite what the advanced stats might say, to a guy who was averaging 30 minutes and 10 shots in the regular season.

Great as he was, and is, I just don't think he's ever been in a situation where he's had to shoulder significant responsibility on a nightly basis. That was Duncan's role, and I give him all the credit in the world for that. He is the sun around which everybody on that team orbits.

[drza]

Re: KG's offense

Here is some more fun with numbers. In 2004-05, Garnett averaged 22.2 points and 5.7 assists. Since 1980, here are the forwards that have averaged at least 22 points and 5.7 assists for an NBA season:

Larry Bird
LeBron James
Kevin Garnett

That's it. If you want to include them as forwards then you can add swingmen like McGrady and Drexler to the list as well. But among pure forwards, Bird, KG and LeBron are the only ones to accomplish this combo of scoring and passing in the last 30 years.

The key takeaway from this isn't just to name drop or to look at the pretty numbers, but to consider what those numbers reflect. Especially since he got to Boston, Garnett has become known primarily for his defense. And for much of his career KG has been criticized for not being more of a volume scorer. But when you consider that for the bulk of his peak Garnett was not only the primary scorer but also often the primary initiator/distributor for his team, it (to me) puts his offensive impact into another context.

And these weren't empty numbers. I once did a timeline, tracking the Wolves' offensive efficiency in conjunction with Garnett's ascension to primary initiator. The results were that when Garnett became both the main scorer and decision-maker the team offensive efficiency went from average to elite. From '01-02 (after Brandon's career ended) until 2006-07 (when new coach Dwane Casey moved KG off the ball), KG led the Wolves to four straight top-6 offenses. He wasn't just scoring and passing for numbers that no power forward has (ever?) matched, but those numbers were translating to elite team offense as well.

Garnett is one of the better defensive players in history. But, especially at his peak, he was also one of the best offensive bigs that the game has seen as well. I think that's often forgotten.

[Sedale Threatt]

I already know the answer, but I'm going to ask anyway: Do you think Garnett deserves criticism for relying so heavily on jump shots/fadeaways, and not drawing many fouls for a player of his size and skill level? Do you think it's a legitimate observation that he wasn't the type of player to consistently shoulder the scoring load down the stretch?

[drza]

I think the TWolves without Garnett (with a replacement level player) would have won many fewer than 44 games. But the heart of the team, IMO, was Cassell (in the same was that Garnett was for the Celtics years later)--and I think a top 5 player in his prime should have shouldered that responsibility more than KG did in 2005.

I think you're being unfair here and making this point without completely looking at the dynamics of the circumstance. I assume drza lives in Minnesota so I'd be open to his viewpoint. Here's the way I saw it...

Minnesota was an expansion team. They were terrible. Most people can't name a single player from their franchise before Kevin Garnett was drafted (perhaps people remember Doug West, or Laettner because of his fame, or maybe now Scott Brooks because of his coaching success). KG arrived and gave them a future direction. But he was really young and raw. Then the lockout happened, which seemed to pause a lot of young players from that generation...but by the time Minnesota opened in Japan the following year, Garnett had expanded his game to superstar status, thus making Minnesota a potential contender. When it was clear how good he was over the following seasons, they entered the championship window of "get the superstar help," only the help was slow to arrive.

When another viable option came on board in the form of Cassell, he wasn't a sexy free agent (Shaq to LA) or a suddenly explosive draft pick (Scottie Pippen), but a 34 year old with a late-peaking career. Cassell, as it were, had a huge personality. He embraced that dynamic in Minnesota, relishing in making big shots and helping lead that team to championship level (a place he hadn't been since playing with Hakeem). And he fit well because the biggest knock on KG was his unselfishness down the stretch, and Cassell loved to display his large onions in crunch time (figuratively, and literally). He was experienced, vocal, the point guard and loved big shots. How is it possible for that kind of player not to look like he's part of the emotional core of the team? He probably was. But that doesn't mean Garnett wasn't too.

So, you seem to be penalizing Garnett because of Cassell's characteristics. I don't think it's an all-or-nothing scenario (one player doesn't represent the "heart" of each team).

(To compare it to the Celtics -- it would be like downgrading Pierce because KG was the heart. Yet when KG went down, Pierce wasn't suddenly void of leadership and emotional presence.)

I'm actually from Ohio and currently live in North Carolina. I started paying attention to the Wolves because of Marbury ( ), who went to my alma mater, then continued to follow the team through the joys of the internet and satellite because Garnett played the way I always hoped that I would if I were 7-1.

That said, there are some things that I disagree with here based upon what I experienced in following the Wolves.

1) The Cassell/Spree trades are remembered a lot differently now than they were at the time. At the time, they were considered last-ditch hail Mary moves because there was just no talent around Garnett. The Wolves got Cassell for two role players (Smith and Peeler), only one of which had a small expiring contract. They got Spree purely for Brandon's expiring salary. Both Cassell and Spree were in their mid-30s, were considered potential cancers, and were not held in that high of regard. As a fan I was excited to get them because they represented the best individual talents Garnett would have ever played with, but the vast majority of pundits that I remember didn't expect it to work.

2) After Cassell and Spree, the '04 Wolves were exceedingly untalented. The other rotation players were Trenton Hassell/Fred Hoiberg, both of whom had been cut by the lottery-Bulls that summer; Ervin Johnson/Michael Olowokandi/Mark Madsen at center, and a sequence of NBDL-level 10-day contract back-up point guards (Darrick Martin, Anthony Goldwire, Keith Mcleod, etc.). The other two putative rotation players (Wally and Hudson) missed a combined 131 games due to injury).

The outcome of these two things is that the '04 Wolves were almost PURELY powered by Garnett and Cassell, with Spree as a reasonable third option. KG and Cassell were relied upon to a degree that is very rare for contending teams, because they were almost literally the only threats in the offense many nights. Garnett was also relied upon to a similar degree defensively, because his defensive teammates weren't that talented, but at least (outside of Cassell) they knew their roles and put some effort into it.

Now, fast-forward to 2005. Cassell is now injured and so is Hudson, but Troy's contract was structured such that he had to play in order to get his contract incentives and Cassell was actively campaigning for a new deal. Sprewell has fallen off the cliff physically as an old wing that had once relied upon athleticism but now has none, and also is publicly campaigning for a new deal. Wally is healthy enough now that he wants his job back, but Hassell wants to keep the job...and ironically one is almost purely offense and the other almost purely defense. And old Erv is physically done at center, shifting more of the starting role to the Kandi man.

The '05 Wolves weren't 14-games worse just because of Cassell's injury...it was a small perfect storm of poor initial talent, injuries/age catching up with 4 of the primary pieces, poisons in the locker room (Sam, Spree, Wally, Hudson and Hassell all had agendas besides winning), a coach getting fired, the hilarity of relying upon Michael Olowokandi as a starting center, and a lot of other mess that worked against a winning atmosphere.

I argued in the '07 thread that the difference between KG's support on the '07 Wolves and Kobe's support on the '07 Lakers was that while the Lakers weren't good and might be a net zero, the Wolves were a net negative with how poorly they were constructed. Well, this year was another example of that. The '03 Wolves were supremely untalented outside of KG (more on that when we get to that year), but they were not such a huge negative to prevent KG's brilliance from pulling that team to 51 wins when they had no business being close to that. The '05 Wolves, on the other hand, were a morass of negativity in almost every conceivable way. Frankly, him pulling that squad to 44 wins was a Herculean level of accomplishment that really should have been rewarded with at least an 8 slot in the playoffs. It just didn't work out that way.

Back to TrueLA's '04 Wolves vs '08 Celtics comp, Cassell wasn't KG. Cassell was a less talented Pierce. The '05 Wolves, then, are sort of like if the '09 Celtics would have been had Pierce gotten injured, Ray Allen gone physically decrepit, Rondo injured and replaced by 2009 Stephon Marbury, and Perkins suddenly platooning with Mark Blount with both of them fuming at it, with Doc Rivers getting fired mid-season. It stretches the analogy, but hopefully you can see my point. There was a whole lot more wrong in Minnesota in '05 than just Cassell's injury...in fact, you could really say that Garnett's brilliance and Cassell's relative health in '04 were actually masking all of the stinkiosity that was actually there from the start.

[mysticbb]

The '05 Wolves weren't 14-games worse just because of Cassell's injury...it was a small perfect storm of poor initial talent, injuries/age catching up with 4 of the primary pieces, poisons in the locker room (Sam, Spree, Wally, Hudson and Hassell all had agendas besides winning), a coach getting fired, the hilarity of relying upon Michael Olowokandi as a starting center, and a lot of other mess that worked against a winning atmosphere.

Actually it is said that Garnett also had a "hidden" agenda and wasn't quite the same that season. His +/- numbers are dropped significantly. It wasn't just the support here.
You should also keep in mind that other Western Conference teams faced injuries too. The Jazz had to deal with injuries to Boozer, Kirilenko and Bell, the Lakers had an injured Bryant.

Point is: Garnett didn't make a scrub team to an elite defensive team (as proposed he is able to), his overall impact was lower than in previous seasons. He has to take blame for not making the playoffs that season too.

[drza]

The '05 Wolves weren't 14-games worse just because of Cassell's injury...it was a small perfect storm of poor initial talent, injuries/age catching up with 4 of the primary pieces, poisons in the locker room (Sam, Spree, Wally, Hudson and Hassell all had agendas besides winning), a coach getting fired, the hilarity of relying upon Michael Olowokandi as a starting center, and a lot of other mess that worked against a winning atmosphere.

Actually it is said that Garnett also had a "hidden" agenda and wasn't quite the same that season. His +/- numbers are dropped significantly. It wasn't just the support here.
You should also keep in mind that other Western Conference teams faced injuries too. The Jazz had to deal with injuries to Boozer, Kirilenko and Bell, the Lakers had an injured Bryant.

Point is: Garnett didn't make a scrub team to an elite defensive team (as proposed he is able to), his overall impact was lower than in previous seasons. He has to take blame for not making the playoffs that season too.

Wait a minute. The Jazz finished with 26 wins, and the Lakers with 34, both 10-15 games worse than in the surrounding seasons. It would seem that you bringing them up supports the notion that injuries to key players can really derail teams.

Also, I don't recall proposing that Garnett could make a scrub team into an elite defensive team. I believe I said that given Duncan's level of defensive teammate support, Garnett could produce a similar caliber team defense. And history seems to support that. If you're trying to continue the KG/Dirk debate we were having yesterday in the '06 thread (that I left because I felt it was muddying the waters), I would only say that Dampier/Diop, Howard, Terry, Griffin and Harris would be better defensive support than Garnett had in '04, let alone in '05, so that really doesn't fit into this conversation either.

[mysticbb]

Wait a minute. The Jazz finished with 26 wins, and the Lakers with 34, both 10-15 games worse than in the surrounding seasons. It would seem that you bringing them up supports the notion that injuries to key players can really derail teams.

Well, I actually wanted to say that with the Jazz and Lakers out of the playoffs contention with injuries to more important players, the Timberwolves should have it easier to make the playoffs. Imagine both teams fully healthy, that could have meant the Timberwolves would have been behind them.

Also, I don't recall proposing that Garnett could make a scrub team into an elite defensive team.

Well, sometimes it sounds like he could do that, but nevermind then.

[drza]

I already know the answer, but I'm going to ask anyway: Do you think Garnett deserves criticism for relying so heavily on jump shots/fadeaways, and not drawing many fouls for a player of his size and skill level? Do you think it's a legitimate observation that he wasn't the type of player to consistently shoulder the scoring load down the stretch?

I'll answer your two questions separately

1) I think this is a case where the "how" of something is given too much emphasis with respect to the results. I had a long Garnett vs Duncan debate with someone last year, and one of the results was that we ended up crunching a lot of numbers. His stance was that Duncan was inherently better than Garnett on offense because of his more post-oriented game, that efficiency and fouls drawn advantages for Duncan were one of the reasons that the Spurs had been more successful than KG's teams. But when we actually looked at it, from 2002-03 (when Garnett made the final full-time transition to power forward) until 2008, Garnett and Duncan's efficiencies looked very similar. To whit, over that time period:

Duncan: 20.6 points, 50.6% FG, 4.7/7.1 FTs, 1.31 pps
Garnett: 22.1 points, 50.5% FG, 4.8/6.1 FTs, 1.30 pps

2) Again, when the actual results are looked at as opposed to the perception, there doesn't seem to be much difference between Garnett and Duncan as clutch scorers. 82games.com started keeping track of their clutch stats (last 5 minutes of a close game, within 5 points) in 2002-03, and I went back and averaged the points/48 minutes and average EFG% for both Garnett and Duncan over that time period (not mathematically rigorous because I didn't have the raw numbers, but it still should get the general point across):

Duncan: 30 points on 47% EFG
Garnett: 29 points on 48% EFG

Now before anyone gets up in arms about numbers not being everything, I agree. This line of arguments came up in the past because my perception from watching the two was never that Duncan was so much more efficient or more clutch, so I ran some numbers as a sanity check and it just so happens they seem to really support my observations.

In the final wash, yes, I think there are areas where you can criticize Garnett's game. He's not a perfect basketball player. But I think that Garnett tends to get an excessive amount of criticism with respect to his caliber-peers for small weaknesses in his game, because 1) his game isn't traditional so it has few if any good historic stylistic comps and 2) he hasn't had the level of team success that other players of his caliber have enjoyed, which tends to stick in people's craw. And the "look at his teammates and situation" response isn't fully satisfying, because it smacks of excuse, so therefore people want to find more fault in his game to explain his team results. I understand that line of thought, I just don't think it's correct. But that's why we have wonderful message boards and threads like this for me to make my case. Now, whether anyone agrees with me (or even decides to read my book-like posts) is another question entirely

[NO-KG-AI]

It's funny that the two times KG had legitimate help in his career, he went 6 games with a powerhouse in the WCF, and the next time, instantly won a title.

Like DRZA said, he tends to take more flack for his scoring than others would, and it's ridiculous and unfounded at this point, and he's the only guy that can lead his team in scoring, rebounds, and defensively, and be the vocal leader, and still people will contend that he was the second option or what not.

What's funny is, I think time is going to help KG's all time standing like Hakeem's, to the point where I'll be arguing that "No, he wasn't better than people like Magic just because his stats were better" etc.

People sure have stuck to their guns that KG is some super choker, even when results show otherwise.

I think when a team is mediocre, people just look for an excuse to pin it on the star, or look for a reason why. Much like Kobe was selfish and didn't trust his teammates when he had Smush and Kwame Brown, but suddenly he transformed as a player when he got better teammates? Come on man.

Anyway, I digress, Garnett proved even as he was about 80% of his athletic ability, he was able to lead a title squad he had been with for less than a year as the top scorer, and continually came through in the clutch, even though people try to ignore that and fudge that fact.

(/tangent that was a semi response to Sedalle and drza).