Starting a Franchise...Prime KG or Lebron?

[singlepurposeac]

2002 and 2003 are being mentioned by me because those are the years that prove Duncan could succeed with a dud cast. Where are the years that prove that for KG?

You don't blame Flip for the regular season... but the team averaged 46 wins in the 7 first round defeats (and even less in 2005-07...)... interesting... this basically negates the need to discuss coaching further much. Those regular season records reflect the teams talent... glad we agree on this.

The box score doesn't say D.Rob was good, it says he was good compared to the rest of the 2002 team not named Duncan, but since that team was terrible it's not good evidence of anything. His numbers tell me he was mediocre, and my eyes and observations (like the Spurs barely noticing he was gone in the playoffs) confirm those numbers. I also observe he hadn't made a defensive team in years, and that he was beat out to the all-star team by Wally World, who played for the Wolves that very year. You are confusing 2002 and 2003 D.Rob with someone else. I understand why you and Drza choose to forget Joe Smith was offered over 80 mill by the Wolves, but he was... I can't imagine what you think they were paying for, if not his defense. The man had been in the NBA for some years at that point, everyone knew who he was and what he did.

[bastillon]

You don't blame Flip for the regular season... but the team averaged 46 wins in the 7 first round defeats (and even less in 2005-07...)... interesting... this basically negates the need to discuss coaching further much. Those regular season records reflect the teams talent... glad we agree on this.

yeah, those records reflect team talent. without KG they'd win about 15-20 games most years. in 2004 they were about 30 win team without Garnett.

The box score doesn't say D.Rob was good, it says he was good compared to the rest of the 2002 team not named Duncan, but since that team was terrible it's not good evidence of anything. His numbers tell me he was mediocre, and my eyes and observations (like the Spurs barely noticing he was gone in the playoffs) confirm those numbers.

20 PER, 10 WS, .200 WS48 - this is what boxscore says. ie - great player. non boxscore analysis for D-Rob 2003 notices -8 change in pts allowed per 48 (at Spurs pace...about 10 DRtg difference) ie - great defender. data pretty much supports consensus on realGM. there is not one person but you who thinks Joe Smith was a better player or yet better - defender - or yet even better - better player based ON his defense

as for Spurs barely noticing D-Rob was gone, 45W Sonics forced elimination game against them in the first round. then they lost 1-4 to the Lakers. sure they were fine without him.

[singlepurposeac]

yeah, those records reflect team talent. without KG they'd win about 15-20 games most years. in 2004 they were about 30 win team without Garnett

This statement reflects best your unbelievable bias. Do you even understand how bad a 15-20 win team is? KG's teams in the 46 win years would win 15-20 without him?! You're essentially saying he was playing with this years Cavs, or the 2003 Nuggets... he wasn't, considerable analysis went into this, he often had all-star type players, sometimes more than 1. He had many players better than Mo Williams or 2003 Juwan Howard. You're being ridiculous.

Tim Duncan missed a game in the playoffs in 2002 because his father died. I'm glad you mentioned it actually, because it highlights just how awful the Spurs were without him. In the game Tim missed the Sonics killed us, at halftime they were up 57-31. In the next game a few days later with Tim back the outcome was reversed, we led 55-26 at the half and destroyed them. The contrast is so clear, it speaks for itself. I also don't understand why the 4-1 loss to the Lakers apparently showed us we really missed Tim, how did D.Rob go in helping us against the Lakers the year before? Maybe you should look these things up before you say something stupid.

[tsherkin]

You're very poor at this. I've been in many of these debates around here, and debating with you is much more like arguing with BGil or SilverBullet than Tsherkin or Sedale Threatt. And that's not a compliment.

Ouch. But thanks.

I also point out that in '03-'04 (KG) and '09-'10 (LeBron), they again played very similarly as individuals and maximized their teams. These are what I consider to be their peak years to-date...so yes, to respond, LeBron did get better in those years...and KG did as well. The '09 Cavs sans LeBron were better than the '03 Wolves sans KG, thus it isn't surprising that the Cavs had better team results despite similar individual play from the stars. The '10 Cavs sans LeBron were similar to the '04 Wolves sans KG, and thus their team results were similar.

I should jump in on this point.

The 03 Wolves were:

Rasho Nesterovic and Troy Hudson (74+ starts each), Wally Z for 52 games and 42 starts, 39 starts over 82 games from Anthony Peeler, 34 starts over 82 games from Kendall Gill (those two aged 33 and 34, respectively), 22 starts over 80 games from Gary Trent, 21 starts and 54 games from Joe Smith, Loren Woods (Period. QED.), then 47 games from Rod Strickland at 36, 77 games from Marc Jackson and others I needn't name.

Supporting drza, that team f'g SUCKED. I can't even say it without saying that politely. This is why I, and many others, were quietly (or not so quietly) wishing Kevin McHale would get hit with a Mac truck and die. Not, you know, literally, but figuratively. Anything for him to stop ruining Garnett's prime with his abominably incompetent management of that team. He literally wasted Garnett's prime and then, when he finally put two competent borderline talents next to Garnett (over-the-hill Sprewell and Cassell at his absolute pinnacle), they went to the WCFs and sort of "lost" to the ref- err, the Lakers. L.A. played really well, but there were definitely a lot of pro-L.A. questionable calls in that series, too. But that was it, and the team fell apart after that because they didn't have a good core, young talent and because Sprewell is a douchebag.

Kendall Gill who, as I noted, started nearly half the season... had an ORTG of 96. Marc Jackson did too, playing 14 mpg or so over 77 games. Not a lot, but telling. The one player besides Garnett on that team who scored more than 14.2 ppg was Wally Z... and he played barely more than half of the season! And that was at the 9th-fastest pace in the league! That was still slow, 91.9 possessions per game, but FMS, that's ridiculous, he had no offensive talent next to him. And yet Minny was 5th in the league offensively.

This is possibly because Kevin Garnett is mind-boggling incredible as a basketball player.

Or let me rephrase that for the purposes of avoiding ambiguity.

Garnett was the only player on that team who played more than 54 games and recorded a WS/48 of better than .128.

4 of the guys that played more than that recorded WS/48 of under 0.100.

That's beyond pathetic, that's embarrassing and a testament to how much of a waste of skin and air McHale was as a GM. I'm talking about Gill, Peeler, Hudson and Jackson here. Those guys were HORRENDOUS players that season.

By contrast, the 09 Cavs.

Ignoring for a moment the difference in coaching between Brown (a noted defensive specialist who, though incompetent at coaching offense, was still a great defensive coach) and Flip Saunders, who wouldn't know defense if it bit him in the ass and only ever coached a decent defensive team because Rick Carlisle and Larry Brown beat it into the Pistons so that they had nightmares about playing bad defense for a decade. So let's look at the team.

88.7 possessions per game, 25th of 30 in pace and STILL Lebron had similar volume scoring from his next 3 players. Mo Williams, Big Z (on his own better than anyone besides KG on the Wolves of 03) and Delonte West. And then Anderson Varejao, on his own a better defender than any non-KG player on the 03 Wolves.

West was a good shooter who passed and defended pretty well, then the team had Wally Z, entertainingly enough, who played 74 games and shot very well for them, as did Booby Gibson. Lots of shooting talent on that team, which we noticed. Cavs shot a team eFG% of 51.9%, good for 4th in the league. Wolves shot 48.8%, which was still good for 6th in the 03 season, but you're looking at a difference in 3pt shooting. Cleveland was 2nd in the league at 39.3% as a TEAM. The Wolves were 6th, at 36.8%. That is a rather large difference in floor spacing between those two teams. Cleveland put out 5 guys taking 1.8+ 3PA/g and shooting 38%+, including Mo Williams bombing away at 43.6% on 5.2 3PA/g. The best 3pt shooters on the Wolves played 52 and 42 games (Wally Z and Igor Rakocevic). Yeah, Peeler shot 41%+ on 2.6 attempts a game, but the depth of shooting even from the bench was way, way different, as you can see.

That made a huge, huge difference in the tenor of their offensive attack. The Cavs MURDERED the league in 3pt shooting in the RS. They didn't have that in the playoffs and that made a significant difference in the series against the Magic.

Anyway, so that's offense. I should point out right away that the talent drop-off wasn't NEARLY the same in Cleveland as in Minny.

Whereas in Minny, you had what I mentioned (one played with a WS/48 of better than .128 and 55 or more games played), in Cleveland...

You had only one player UNDER .100 WS/48 and playing that many games. More importantly, they had two guys at .165+ in Mo Williams and Anderson Varejao, Wally Z at .140, Big Z at .151 and Delonte at .142.

The Cavs BLEW AWAY the Wolves in terms of secondary talent.

Period. QED. End of argument for all-time. The 09 Cavs had WAY more talent than the 03 Wolves, which makes the difference in wins (+15 favoring the Cavs and making it to the ECFs) completely understandable. Better coaching, better depth, an elite team attribute (3pt shooting) and no serious health issues over the season (nor rotating roster concerns).

Yes, the Cavs were ultimately too flawed to go farther, because they didn't have a great secondary scorer and relied way too much on 3pt shooting (not terribly unlike the Orlando Magic from 08 forward, ironically enough), but they were still vastly superior to the 03 Wolves and without even a moment's hesitation over that fact.

[singlepurposeac]

Tsherkin, you'll notice that I've said little to nothing about 2003, because in some years KG's teams were weaker than others. But if you want to reply seriously, and be taken seriously, don't give a reply intentionally limited to the weakest support cast you can find. What do you think of the Wolves teams for all 7 of their first round exits? Or from 2005-7? Do they all compare fairly to the Cavs as claimed? Your argument may be that KG reached a special peak in 2003 and 2004 (and then what happened to it?), but that sure isn't the argument most are making.

Go on, are all of those 10 teams comparable to the Cavs this year?

[bastillon]

Tsherkin, you'll notice that I've said little to nothing about 2003, because in some years KG's teams were weaker than others. But if you want to reply seriously, and be taken seriously, don't give a reply intentionally limited to the weakest support cast you can find. What do you think of the Wolves teams for all 7 of their first round exits? Or from 2005-7? Do they all compare fairly to the Cavs as claimed? Your argument may be that KG reached a special peak in 2003 and 2004 (and then what happened to it?), but that sure isn't the argument most are making.

Go on, are all of those 10 teams comparable to the Cavs this year?

if 2002 Wolves won as many games as 2003 Wolves and several important players left the town (Billups, Brandon, Wally "all-star" playing half season) doesn't that tell you a lot about fit of 2002 Wolves ?

2002 Wolves had some talent, but it was a misconstructed team with serious flaws. most importantly, KG could play his true position because it was occupied. several important players brought the same things to the table.

2003 Wolves were a bunch of scrubs and KG, but fit well together. well... sort of, at least if you compare them to their talent level, I say no way they win 10 games without Garnett, they were outscored by 17 pts per48 mins in KG's absence, that means they had a -20 SRS (this years Cavs are around -10). that could be the worst team of all time honestly.

[bastillon]

Re: the 2005 Wolves

I've seen several in this thread reference the Wolves as a poor supporting cast, but a couple have mentioned the preseason expectations or that essentially the names don't look so bad when you read them. The '05 Wolves were doomed by several factors that built upon each other, but the biggest one was simply health.

Many in the fall of '04 had the Wolves as favorites (me included) because we underestimated how bad Cassell's hip was. A mid-30s players having major offseason surgery doesn't just heal overnight (as the '10 Celtics learned in the regular season of this year). Cassell's hip, Spree's age (he was obviously just done by this year, the last of his career), Hudson's ankle, Hoiberg's heart, and Wally/Hassell's feelings conspired to make all of those players much worse than their names might suggest.

Ironically, you can see it on Lewin's APM rankings from that year ( http://www.82games.com/lewin3b.htm ) that many have referenced as suggesting a more down year for Garnett. Garnett still led the team with an APM of +9.48, but if you look at the APMs of the next 4 Wolves who played the most time, this is what you see:

Wally -6.81
Spree -1.29
Hassell -6.74
Hudson 0.90

If you want to keep it position-consistent, replace Hassell with starting Center Olowokandi's -3.94. To put it baldly, the reason behind the mystery of how KG could have almost the same year by most advanced metrics but the team play so much worse is that injuries in particular revealed the lack of talent that was actually there that season.

I'll just end this with one of my favorite quotes from Dan Rosenbaum, where he discussed how bad Troy Hudson (who got the most minutes at PG that season) actually was that year:

Troy Hudson probably gets the award for the being the worst defender in the league. He is dead last among point guards in both the statistical and adjusted plus/minus ratings and his adjusted plus/minus ratings are consistently horrible. He is playing a game on the defensive end that is not remotely like anyone else’s in the league.

[singlepurposeac]

KG couldn't play inside as much as Duncan, and so was less able to play with useful big men like Joe Smith, and so was less valuable. Got it. What of the other 9 Wolves teams? And what is your narrative for KG's prime/peak? You seem to say he wasn't elite until 2000 (age 23), wasn't at his peak until 2003 (26)... was he still at his peak in 2005-07? If he wasn't, your argument is basically that he has 2 years which can be compared in the same tier to Duncan... isn't that a devastating argument for the KG/TD comparison?

[bastillon]

On the topic of KG, that team sucked because they ranked 28th offensively (10th defensively). Is it partly his fault they weren't better... actually, yes it is. A guy like Lebron is so valuable offensively because he creates points at the rim and from the 3point line the whole game. Garnett doesn't particularly do either. I can't consider a guy who leads his team to 28th offensively to be superior to the Nash, Duncan, Kobe's of that year... no way

I'm late to this thread and wanted to read through the whole thing before responding, but I'm answering this in real-time in case I happen to forget. One under-considered (never considered?) aspect of Garnett's '05-'07 seasons is that in that 3 year span, the Wolves:

*Had 4 different head coaches, each with different philosophies
*Had at least 6 different starting point guards
*Had at least four different nominal "second options"

You reference the team offensive rating, but it has to be noted that '06 was the beginning of the Dwane Casey/Randy Witttman philosophy of playing KG more off the ball. For instance, KG in '03 and '05 led the Wolves to top-6 offenses with guard play that was about as weak as is possible. But those offenses ran more through KG, he was the main initiator, the one that often made the decisions and got everyone else involved.

In '06, under Casey, the plan was to make KG more of a finisher with the guards doing more of the initiating. You can see the results in KG posting the highest true shooting percentage in his career, but for the reasons you point out I believe it was to the team's detriment because it essentially took away the best facilitator on the team where the other options were extremely weak.

People here aren't interested in excuses, and I'm not interested in giving them in an attempt to draw votes. I honestly didn't expect KG to get many in '06 or '07, and I'm cool with that. But there are very legit and tangible reasons for why the team was so bad, despite him playing in his window as arguably the best player in the world.

[singlepurposeac]

There is no analysis of the 2005-07 Wolves that can justify the huge difference in outcome. Not if KG was supposedly on par with peak Lebron and Duncan in these years. Sure, the support casts weren't ideal, but they weren't worst in the NBA bad, they weren't much different in value to the Duncan/Lebron casts I alluded to. Wally was 27 and playing well, and while Cassell and Spree fell off from their great 2004 campaigns, they were still good players. And even the other guys were passable big men given the utter dearth in the NBA at that time. People don't use advanced stats very well, the same people who will slam Kandi in a moment are quoting a stat that says he was a good starting center, more valuable than Spree, Hassell and Wally. I don't think much of stats like APM I'm afraid.

I see people quote advanced stats here only when it suits them, and with zero consistency. PER is quoted, except when it hurts ones argument (like it would here). Win shares are cited, except where they don't work for your argument (like here). This team was not the 2009 or 2010 Cavs or the 2002 Spurs... and even if it was, look at the totally different results!

[bastillon]

(2) KG in 06 probably wasn't the KG in 03 and 04. That said, I think you're being unfair with regards to the supporting cast. To me, even with posters who are not slaves to team success, this is where team and individual performance become convoluted. All weak casts aren't equally bad.

KG's team in 03: (>1000 MP)
Hudson
Rasho
Peeler
Gill (34 years old)
Wally
Trent
Joe Smith
Marc Jackson (C)

51 wins. Pre-injury Wally was a good offensive option. 42% from downtown. Joe Smith provided solid minutes - he worked that jumper well if I recall. Hudson was sort of an explosive combo guard. The rest are big bodies. KG played at a ridiculous level then - defensively, 13.5 rebounds, 40 minutes a night, 6 assists, etc. 51 wins is impressive. But even great ones need serviceable parts.

KG's team in 06: (>1000 MP)
Trenton Hassell
Marko Jaric
Wally (40 games)
Ricky Davis (36 games)
McCants
Eddie Griffin
Marcus Banks
Mark Blount

Already there's a coaching downgrade to Dwane Casey. The ORtg plummets to 28th. Injuries are a serious issue. And the peripheral and role players are atrocious. No winning team has ever played Ricky Davis more than 600 minutes. He's a cancer. He has a very poor concept of basketball on both ends of the court. After that, how do the parts fit? Who's providing balance with shooting, penetration, offensive orchestration? Certainly not Marcus Banks -- he's barely an NBA player. McCants was a rookie who is also barely an NBA players. These issues are huge.

Basically, the 2003 team had parts, players and a coach. The 2006 team is a mess on all three fronts. This leads me to...

[bastillon]

I'm going to give my explanation for the horror that was the '07 Wolves. What I'm weighing out is, what is the best way to go about it? I could point out facts like the 4 non-KG starters went on to become either short-term rotation level players on a 15-win team or 11th men on poor teams (I did that in the '08 thread) while KG went on to become the best player on a champion the next year. But that doesn't tell the whole story.

I could point out that the front office for the Wolves was so screwed up that in both 2006 and 2007 the team was actively TRYING to lose by the start of April so that they could keep their draft pick (which they'd have lost if they finished better than 10th from the bottom), and both years they sat KG for the last weeks of the year to that end. But that's not enough.

I could point out that the Wolves were 20 - 20 through the first half of the year when their coach (young Dwyane Casey) was fired in order to bring in Randy Wittman, who IIRC has one of the five worst win percentages in NBA history among coaches that have coached at least 100 games (something like a .31 win percentage). After Wittman's arrival, the team finished 12 - 30. But that's not enough.

In order to convey how bad that team was from top to bottom and to illustrate why I think Kobe's cast was solidly better, I need to take your into what that team was really like at both ends of the floor. I could attempt to do that with numbers, like for instance Dave Berri's calculation that the other Wolves besides KG were good for fewer than 11 wins that season ( http://www.wagesofwins.com/GarnettDuncan.html ) while Kobe's was good for almost 26 wins (http://www.wagesofwins.com/Lakers0507.html ) . But then it can become a war of stats where each side pulls out their stat of choice, and between throwing PER and Win Shares and APM around we lose track of the meaning behind those numbers.

So instead, I'm going to describe exactly what Mark Blount, Ricky Davis, Trenton Hassell and Mike James brought to the table and only use stats sparingly to support my descriptions. This will be the interpretation of an admitted Garnett fan so you'll have to judge the bias. But this will also be the interpretation of someone that watched more than 90% of those Wolves games and also at least 15 or 20 Lakers games, so you'll be getting more than just numbers.

2007 Wolves defense: Mark Blount, Ricky Davis and Mike James were all really, really bad defensive players in Minnesota. Blount was an extremely soft defensive big man, unwilling or unable to deny easy post position nor stop his man once the ball was received. Neither Davis nor James were able to prevent consistent dribble penetration from their position. Hassell had earned a reputation as a "defensive stopper" in 2004 when what he really was was an energy defender, someone that would work hard and annoy his opponent without having the actual athletic ability to truly shut someone down, but with a great interior defense behind him he was able to be more aggressive. But in 2005 Hassell lost his starting job to Wally Szczerbiak, and from then on seemed to form the opinion that he needed to spend more energy on his fledgling offense if he wanted to play. By 2007 he was no longer the energy defender that he once was, but he also wasn't as awful as the other 3 starters. Also, all four of those players were poor rebounders for their positions. The end result was that the Wolves' defense couldn't hope to stop anyone, unless Garnett was able to get there in time to help (possible with Hassell, less likely with the others who simply got beaten too quickly for help defense). Moreover, the Wolves couldn't hope to get a reasonable level of defensive rebounds unless Garnett was the one to do it. I've seen posters like ElGee point out that offense is more important than defense because one man can't defend five, but for those Wolves Garnett was asked to come awfully close. (This was a common theme in Minnesota during the 2000s, but 2007 may have been the most glaring year for it.)

Wolves offense: In theory this is the side of the ball with more talent, as Davis was a 17 and 5 guy on reasonable efficiency from a wing while Blount was a 12 ppg center that shot over 50%. What actually played out on offense, though, was that it was being run by James, who was not really a PG (3.6 apg) and was really more of a low-efficiency chucker. Earlier in the decade in situations like this the Wolves ran their offense more through Garnett, letting him be the main decision maker so guys like James could just shoot (leading to a slew of high-efficiency offenses even with guys like Troy Hudson playing "PG"). But Coach Casey and later Coach Wittman wanted Garnett more off the ball, so after James the offense ran through Ricky Davis (team-high 4.8 apg). The problem with that, was, Davis was a graduate of the Iverson/Marbury "I'm going to try my best to get my shot, and if I can't then I'll kick it to someone and you better shoot" school of getting assists. Blount was purely a shooter, and Hassell wanted to be a shooter but just wasn't that talented. The end result was a unit where the only player that could consistently get his own offense was Garnett, the only player that was setting up teammates for easier shots was Garnett, and when the Wolves needed offense late the opponents would absolutely swarm/deny Garnett and nobody else could score.

I give you those descriptions as a back-drop so that the on-court/off-court +/- numbers from 82games make more intuitive sense ( http://www.82games.com/0607/0607MIN.HTM ). Garnett tied with Duncan for the NBA lead in on-court/off-court net +/- in 2007 with a mark of +15 per 48 minutes. But if you follow that link, you'll see that each of the other four starters (who played the majority of their minutes with Garnett) all had net +/- marks of 0 or less. If you look closer, you see that Garnett's +15 came from the team playing their opponents to a standstill with Garnett on the court...but they were -15 when he went to the bench. Now, put that in context with what I wrote above. The Wolves talent and scheme were so bad, such a net negative, that only the presence of KG could make them competitive at either end. If he was off the court for any reason everything disintegrated...rapidly. He was really the only thing that stood against the Wolves challenging the Sixers' record of 9 wins.

Now, to the Lakers. Lamar Odom, Smush Parker, Luke Walton and young Andrew Bynum is a poor cast. There's nothing to write home about, there. But defensively they were not the individual sieves that the Wolves players were, and they could at least rebound their position. Offensively there wasn't much there, though Odom could contribute at that end at least marginally and on the whole just tends to be underrated overall. And Phil Jackson's system put the players in position to compete. Now again, don't get me wrong, on the whole that Laker's cast was a net zero. It was Bryant's brilliance that got them anywhere near .500, let alone to the playoffs. The difference to me is that while the Lakers cast was a net zero, the Wolves' cast and coach were actually a net negative.

You know what that Lakers cast reminded me of? They were like a pro-proven, more experienced version of the Minnesota Kids. The only glimmer of a ray of hope for a Wolves fan to hang onto in 2007 was what we called the "KG and the Kids line-up", that consisted of KG, rookie Randy Foye, rookie Craig Smith, 2nd year Rashad McCants and Marko Jaric. That line-up got limited run, way too little for convincing statistical analysis, but just watching them you could visibly see the difference. Now mind you, that crew wasn't just young, they were also pretty grossly undertalented. Foye was the prize rookie at the time, but he just proved even as a 4th year player unable to hold a job for the Wizards. Smith is a 6-6 center that is playing back-up for the Clippers, and both McCants (at age 26) and Jaric are currently out of the NBA. But when they played next to Garnett, they worked. They made their man work to get past them, long enough that Garnett could actually get there to help. They relied solely upon KG to facillitate the offense, with only Foye and sometimes Smith acting as secondary scorers. And in their short time together as a unit, they were by-far the most successful that the '07 Wolves had and both posters like me and professional bloggers like Brit Robson screamed for that line-up to play together more often, but to no avail. But when they did play, essentially the Kids played as about a net zero that allowed Garnett's brilliance to make the unit a success.

That's what I think the '07 Lakers did for Kobe, and the actual starters on the '07 Wolves failed spectacularly to do for Garnett. That Wolves team was like a science experiment...what would happen if you took the best player in the league and surrounded him with the absolute worst of every possible member of an organization from the front office on down. Well, the result of that experiment will likely keep Garnett out of the top 5 in this year. And again, I can understand it. But as I relived that year in my mind while re-writing this post, I'm struck again by just how unfair it was to Garnett's legacy (and just how great that championship run the following year felt in contrast).

[singlepurposeac]

Link? And is substituting other people's opinions for your own a good idea? As far as I can tell you don't hold to the first sentence of that last post, that KG in 2006 "wasn't the same as 03 or 04 KG". Are you suggesting the years he was comparable to Duncan really only number about 2-3 years?

Elgee is comparing those teams to the Lakers with Kobe, not the Cavs with Lebron, nor the 2002 and 2003 Spurs Duncan had. I think it's wholly dishonest to quote what he's said as though it is.

[bastillon]

Big Talk: Statistically, SF Kevin Garnett is almost a lock for another 20-10-5 (points, rebounds, assists) season, but his impact goes beyond the numbers--in both positive and negative ways. With the retirement of SF Sam Mitchell, Garnett will assume the role of team leader, on the floor and in the locker room. He's a great teammate who plays with desire and has a terrific work ethic--which leads to the downside. Garnett has had trouble maintaining his energy at late-season and postseason crunch time, and he has yet to carry this team when the clock is winding down and the Timberwolves need points in a crucial game. Will he make those big fourth-quarter shots this season?

Supporting arguments: Wally Szczerbiak's move from small forward to shooting guard last year helped showcase his perimeter skills and took some of the pressure off him as a defensive player. He has improved his footwork on defense and spent much of the offseason working on his ballhandling. The most important player on the team, however, might be PG Terrell Brandon. He sat out the end of last season with a knee injury, and preseason reports on the knee aren't overly optimistic. If he can't play, the offense will be in big trouble. Chauncey Billups, who filled in nicely for Brandon last year, signed with the Pistons as a free agent. Newcomer Troy Hudson probably is the No. 2 choice at point guard, and European import Igor Rakocevic is getting a look in camp.

THE DISSING INGREDIENT: SG Anthony Peeler quickly is wearing out his welcome in Minnesota. A streaky shooter, Peeler's defensive lapses and poor shot selection were major concerns last season for a team that could use his potential firepower off the bench. The uncertainty in the backcourt would be lessened if the veteran could be counted on to take pressure off the young point guards, but no one expects that to happen. --John Millea

Deveney's take

Unless Terrell Brandon's knee is healthy by January, this team could be due for a swift decline without a playmaking point guard.

Point guard Terrell Brandon talked last preseason about relinquishing his starting role to a younger player in the not-so-distant future—a notion that seemed absurd once the season started. Brandon handed out a league-best 6.14 assists per turnover and missed only one of his 84 free throw attempts, but even those stats don't convey his importance. He didn't just contribute to the Timberwolves' offense; he also ran it almost every time down the floor.

So when Brandon had surgery to repair his left knee last February, Minnesota stumbled and never recovered, bowing in three straight to the Mavericks in the first round of the playoffs. Brandon, 32, is still on the mend, and though he hasn't been officially shelved for this season, coach Flip Saunders is preparing to be without him. "We've opened our offense up a lot," says Saunders. "No one guy's going to be so depended on."

While Brandon is hurting, Saunders is likely to hand the point to Troy Hudson, 26, a wiry bundle of energy who was one of the league's streakiest scorers last season. Though the 6'1" Hudson has started only 11 games in the past two seasons, he is eager to take charge of the T-Wolves' wide-open attack. "They fit my style," he says. "Up and down."

That's also an apt description of Hudson's career. Undrafted out of Southern Illinois, he has been waived three times and served two tours of duty in the CBA. Last season he blossomed under Doc Rivers in Orlando, and in August, Minnesota signed him to a three-year, $7.4 million deal. With the Magic, Hudson excelled as a Vinny Johnson type—an explosive player who can come off the bench and ignite a team. Will he be able to pace himself as a starter? Saunders hopes not. "Troy always plays with a lot of energy, so we'll incorporate that into what we do," he says. "We like to push things. He has the ability to do that, and it frees up [Kevin] Garnett and [Wally] Szczerbiak in the open floor."

Aside from those two All-Stars, the Timberwolves' lineup is filled with question marks. Center Rasho Nesterovic will be an unrestricted free agent next summer, and small forward Joe Smith, who faded at the end of last season, came to camp 15 pounds underweight. "We're going to have to be greater as a whole than we are as parts," says Saunders. New offense or not, achieving that goal will depend on how well Hudson can pull those parts together.

The spurs will make a run at 60 wins, Tim Duncan is the odds-on choice to retain his MVP award, and guard Emanuel Ginobili is a favorite for Rookie of the Year. And none of that will matter if San Antonio can't find a way to beat Shaq and Kobe, who have gone 8-1 against the Spurs over the last two postseasons.

"I had a chance to step away for a year and look at the team from a different perspective," says 37-year-old backup guard Steve Kerr, who is back in San Antonio after spending last season with the Blazers. "What I see clearly is that we need to get other guys involved more around Tim. We have to take a cue from the Lakers, who didn't start winning until they got everybody involved around Shaq."

With three newcomers—Steve Smith, Bruce Bowen and rookie Tony Parker—in his starting lineup last year, coach Gregg Popovich says he wasn't surprised that the Spurs repeatedly wilted down the stretch against the Lakers. "Making shots is huge in the fourth quarter, and that means getting the open shots that you're used to making," he says. "You know the Lakers are going to execute, but you can't exacerbate things by breaking down."

While it appears that Duncan's game requires little fine-tuning, Popovich would like to see his go-to guy—who last season became the fifth player in league history to rank in the top five in scoring, rebounding and blocks—be more assertive at crunch time. "He can be more hungry as a scorer in certain possessions, and he can also demand more from his teammates," says Popovich. "I see him being more aggressive in everything he does."

More crucial to San Antonio's success will be how well Parker and Ginobili mesh with Duncan. Parker is only 20, but he plays with the swagger of a 10-year All-Star. Ginobili is one of this season's most anticipated rookies, a 25-year-old slasher who led Argentina to its upset of the U.S. at the world championships this summer. Eventually, he and Parker will form one of the league's quickest backcourts. "Even though I am a scorer, I've always been a player who understands very well what the team needs," says Ginobili.

Ginobili won't be as prolific as Kobe, but his daring athleticism could, in time, provide San Antonio with a similarly lethal weapon. "At the end of the game Shaq isn't the problem, because you know where he's going to be and you can double him," says Popovich. "Kobe's the problem because he's hard to get a handle on."

If only Ginobili can create similar headaches.

Big Talk: PF Tim Duncan is coming off an MVP season with career-best averages in points (25.5), rebounds (12.7), assists (3.7) and free-throw shooting (79.9). Already the league's second-most dominant player--behind Lakers C Shaquille O'Neal--Duncan should be more aggressive than ever. He has confidence in his left knee, something he lacked at the start of last season. With C David Robinson retiring after this season, Duncan understands the team is his to lead. If the supporting cast makes shots within the team's motion offense, Duncan should have his best year yet.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS: Though PG Tony Parker was a clutch performer as a rookie, his overall shooting--41.9 percent from the field, 32.3 percent on 3-point attempts and 67.5 percent at the foul line--obviously needed work. During the offseason, he worked on finishing his follow-through motion and on developing a teardrop runner he can release in the lane. Now more confident in his game and more comfortable with his teammates, Parker should be a better all-around point guard. No Spur has added more to his game over the past few seasons than PF Malik Rose. Already noted for his limitless energy, rebounding and versatile defense, Rose developed a consistent midrange jumper last year. This summer, he worked on his ballhandling. With Robinson's durability in doubt, Rose may get more playing time than last year.

the dissing ingredient: The Spurs can survive without Robinson for stretches, but they won't be able to get past Shaq and the Lakers if Robinson is not healthy. The good news for the team is Robinson's back didn't need surgery. The bad news is a disk particle still is floating loose in his back and could cause problems again. In an effort to stay healthy, Robinson spent the summer strengthening his abdominal muscles and improving his running and jumping technique. --Johnny Ludden

Deveney's take

Don't expect David Robinson to spend the season collecting farewell gifts. He will contribute as long as he's suiting up for the Spurs.

[bastillon]

Garnett's second accomplishment:

I mentioned before that, with Wally hurt half the year, Garnett carried the most untalented cast to 51 wins that I've ever heard of. Well, in glancing through this thread, I've seen a mention or two that his cast wasn't really that bad. That maybe it was his teammates’ contributions that helped get them to their level of success. If for some reason anyone still has the notion that KG wasn't by-far...by FAR...the only reason for that team's success, I submit a second huge KG accomplishment from 2003:

Garnett in '03 recorded the largest on-court/off-court +/- value in 82games.com history. The Wolves were 22.8 points better per 48 minutes with Garnett than without him. http://82games.com/teams0203.htm The rest of his team was -17.1 when KG wasn't on the court.

I know some of you aren't partial to APM (clearly, Garnett was #1 in the league in APM in this time period), because sometimes it can give non-intuitive results that can be explained away with logical reasoning (there’s a thread like that floating around this board right now). And even if you believe in APM, being the most vital to your team's success doesn't necessarily make you the best player, because sometimes a player just might be unique or necessary for the system to work and not necessarily the best.

I get that.

But now that KG's ridiculous +23 number is out there, go back and take another look at the other members of the starting 5 and their resumes. And their 51 wins. CLEARLY, that team did not have the talent to win even half of that many games with even a reasonable 5th member. Shareef Abdur-Rahim, for instance, was putting up near 20-10 numbers with better casts on 25 win teams during that time. But Garnett was BANANAS that year, making an unprecedented impact to carry not-very-much to far beyond what they should've been able to do.

Since 82games has been tracking this net +/- stat (2002-03 first season), we've had the '03 TMac season, the '05 KG, the '06 and '07 Kobe, the '09 Wade. We've had historic MVP years like LeBron the last couple of years and KG in '04. We've had two of the biggest win/loss turnarounds in NBA history, both triggered by men credited for having huge intangibles that drove the team. We've seen Chris Paul turn in some of the greatest statistical seasons ever by a point guard, we've had Dirk win his MVP. We even had Duncan '03 lead a cast of good but perceived as too-olds or not-quite-old-enoughs to an NBA title.

But through all of that, in almost a decade we have never seen another season where one man had as large of an impact on his team's success as Garnett had in 2003. That's reason number two for why he should be player of the year.

[bastillon]

This is probably a good place for me to point out why I think the '03 Spurs cast has become underrated over time. People point out that DRob was old an on his way out (true), they point out that Parker, Manu, and Jackson weren't yet what they would become (true), and they point out that no one outside of Duncan was an impact offensive player on that team (true as well). But what doesn't often get pointed out is that those Spurs were a defensive all-star team at 4 of 5 positions. Drob, even at a shadow of himself, was still one of the best defensive big men in the league. And a swingman rotation of prime Bowen, young Manu and young Jackson is a great combo of on-ball aggression and disruptive help defense against opposing swings.

This was vital because the truth is that the 2003 championship had to go through the Lakers. And the Spurs were much better equipped to defend Shaq and Kobe than the Wolves were. Actually, Kobe more-so than Shaq. Those Wolves had a swing rotation of Anthony Peeler, Wally Szczerbiak, and old Kendall Gill with a center rotation of Rasho Nesterovic and Marc Jackson...all TERRIBLE defensive players at that point in their careers. The upshot of that is that no matter how ridiculous KG played (and he was pretty ridiculous that series), the Lakers could always go to Kobe for free buckets the other way. Shaq was a handful like always, but with KG helping out the centers they were able to keep Shaq as contained as was reasonably possible that year. But Kobe just flat laughed at Peeler and Wally, which was ultimately the difference in that series.

I don't believe that KG needed more talent than Duncan in 2003 to beat those Lakers, or that the reason that he lost was that he shoots more from the perimeter than Duncan does. Replace Peeler/Wally/Gill/Rasho with Bowen/SJax/Manu/DRob and I think he could have got it done.

As far as accomplishments go, I've always felt that Garnett somehow managing to carry a crew of Hudson (career journeyman), Szczerbiak (injured half of that season, limited even when healthy), Peeler (career journeyman), Gill (old career journeyman), and Rasho (career journeyman) to 51 wins and a legit shot to beat the 3-peat Lakers was one of the most impressive accomplishments of this decade. I still maintain that from players 2 - 15, that is the worst 51-win team in my lifetime (and quite possibly in NBA history). But the thing is, without championships no one is willing to give these kinds of "moral victories" weight on a historic scale. So no, I don't think KG's title in '08 was as big of an accomplishment as Duncan's in '03...my hope is that once KG has title(s) to his name people will go back and re-evaluate just how amazing his accomplishments were with so little help in his prime in Minnesota.

2) 2003: You took issue with me saying that the '03 Spurs started a defensive All Star team at 4 of the 5 positions. David Robinson was still one of the best defensive centers in the game even in that last year, and he started and played roughly half of the game. Duncan is self evident. Bowen was in his 3rd year of a run of 8 consecutive All Defense selections. SJax and Manu were not decorated defensive All Stars, but they were both above average defenders and good athletes that, when put in rotation with Bowen, assured that the Spurs fielded a line-up with 4 plus defenders (3 of which were legitimately great).

I contrast that with KG in Minnesota, where his starting line-up consisted of 2 extremely poor defensive guards (Hudson and Peeler), 1 extremely poor defensive small forward (Wally), 1 below average defensive center (Rasho), and Garnett. I do not find it coincidence that the Lakers role players shot so poorly against the Spurs team defense after shooting well against the Timberwolves. I also don't find it coincidence that Kobe went from averaging 6.7 assists/2.5 TOs against the Wolves to 3.7 assists/4.5 TOs against the Spurs. Against the Wolves, Kobe controlled the games by blowing past his defenders (Peeler? Wally?) at will and breaking down the defense, creating easy shots for those same shooters. Against the Spurs he was unable to do so, forcing him and Shaq to be lone scorers. And Kobe trying to force it made him much less efficient overall, despite his similar shooting/scoring numbers. Perhaps some of that was due to Kobe's shoulder injury, perhaps some of it was due to Fox being out, but a good bit of it came from the fact that the Spurs had defenders that could pressure Kobe while the Wolves did not.

no, that's not the point. I was just trying to put an end to this ridiculous notion that Duncan's 2003 title was extremely impressive, better than some other in some way. his individual performances were impressive, not the lone fact that he won a title. he had the best supporting cast out of any teams in the league, considering all the injuries and competition... he was supposed to win that title and many players would've done the same under those circumstances. let's not overrate Duncan's title, because this competition was 2ndroundesque, he didn't beat one strong team.

you know, at first
Parker/Claxton
SJax/Manu
Bowen/SJax
Robinson/M.Rose
doesn't look that impressive, but when you consider that his main rivals, players on which opponents were built around - Marbury, Shaq, Finley and Kidd - had even worse teammates, then this title doesn't look that impressive. Marbury and Finley have no business being there anyway, they were just players who took on too much responsibility, they should've been playing as 3rd option scorers, not 'leaders'.

Shaq had
Horry/Medvedenko
George
Kobe/Rush
Fisher

Kidd had
Collins/A.Williams
K-Mart/A.Williams
Jefferson/Kittles
Kittles/L.Harris

PG
Nets
Spurs
Lakers

SG
Lakers
Spurs
Nets

SF
Spurs
Nets
Lakers

PF
Spurs
Nets
Lakers

C
Lakers
Spurs
Nets

so even if we focus on PG, SG, SF, C, Spurs were still the best team. Duncan simply had the best talent around him, that's why he won.

02-03 was a fine year for Tim in the playoffs, though. Regardless of what anyone says, when you're dropping 25/15/5, you're doing something special. Parker sucked that year, Manu was terrible... I mean, you're talking about some pretty weak-sauce teammates for him. There were certainly timely contributions, and the Finals were a joke.

The first round was a joke, but it usually is. The Suns had no hope of beating the Spurs that year, even after the false hope the opener gave them.

The Lakers series was a little different. Game One was basically epic-fail from the role players and a relatively poor performance from Kobe. Shaq had a 20/20 game before fouling out, but guys not named Kobe or Shaq shot 8/28, which was pathetic. That, for reference, was the year that Robert Horry couldn't have hit the broad side of a barn with a 10-ton thermonuclear weapon. He shot just over 5 percent (5, not 25, 5!!) from downtown in the playoffs that year. Epic meltdown from Horry. Game 2 was a blowout where Kobe looked awful and guys not named Shaq/Kobe shot 17/42 (and Kobe shot 9/24). Also, Bruce Bowen was 7/8 from downtown and 10/12 on the game, which was insane. Lakers grabbed two wins after that, lost a close one, then got blown apart in the clincher. The role players just sucked that year. Really, really bad.

I think you have to put a good word in for how Bowen handled Kobe, but that team was the Lakers squad most LACKING proper support for its star players when it counted.

The WCFs though, were where it happened. DIrk was lights-out in the opener, then OK. Then terrible. Then ABSENT in games four, five and six. The Spurs caught a HUGE break on that one. Dirk was missing for three games, during which the Mavs went 1-2. If they'd had DIrk, that would have been at least a 7-game series, and maybe even a Dallas victory.

[bastillon]

Garnett's third accomplishment

I've been doing drive-by posts about Garnett's huge '03 season. So far I've pointed out that he won 51 games with the worst cast for a 51-win team I've ever heard of, and that in order to accomplish this he had to turn in the most impactful season of (at least) the last 8 years with a ridiculous +23 on-court/off-court +/- . So for his third historic accomplishment for '03, let's look more at KG as an individual and how he registered such a huge impact.

In 2003, Garnett became the only player in NBA history to lead his team in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals by both totals AND average. Four players besides Garnett have led their teams by totals, but all four of those other players actually had a teammate that averaged more than them in at least one category that simply didn't play enough games. Not Garnett.

No, Garnett actually was the best scorer, best rebounder, best passer, best at playing the passing lanes, best at protecting the rim, best man defender, best...you name it, KG was the best at it on his team. And it's not just that he was best on his team in these categories...he was second in the league in rebounds, 7th in points, 13th in assists (tops among non-point guards), 16th in blocks, and just outside of the top-20 in steals...no, Garnett was actually among the best in the NBA in each of those different categories.

So now, put that back into context with his first two accomplishments that I mentioned. 51 wins is always pretty good, but it is only a huge accomplishment for a team leader if he doesn't have much help. The net +/- numbers strongly implies that Garnett didn't have much help (after KG's +22.8, the next highest net +/- for a Wolves starter was Wally at +2.6 http://82games.com/0203MIN.HTM ). So now, on top of all that, we also have the box score numbers independently corroborating that no one team has ever relied upon one player to do more for them than the '03 Wolves relied upon KG and that he performed all of these diverse jobs at an extremely high level.

KG's unique accomplishment as the only player in NBA history to lead his team in every major traditional stat is the third reason why he should be the 2003 player of the year.

[tsherkin]

Tsherkin, you'll notice that I've said little to nothing about 2003, because in some years KG's teams were weaker than others. But if you want to reply seriously, and be taken seriously, don't give a reply intentionally limited to the weakest support cast you can find.

I was responding to a specific post made in this thread regarding that season. If you really want to look at the Wolves from 99-00 through 01-02, we can do that. After that, they had success in 03-04 and then had injuries derailing them, and weak rosters. There is no debate about the post-04 period, so I'm not even going to bother, but from 00 through 02, we can do that.

00 is a good place to start. Much prior to that and you can't really begin to comment because Garnett was in the middle of breaking out after ramping up from HS and he was switching from SF to PF in the middle of that time as well. He wasn't even the player we remember until at least the lockout season, during which time the .500 Wolves faced the eventual-champion Spurs in the first round, which isn't much of a competitive battle.

But even that team sucked ass. 18 games from Marbury, 21 games from Terrell Brandon... coincidentally the two highest scorers on the team apart from Garnett. One was traded for the other, of course. Next best player was Joe Smith, then Sam Mitchell. 28 games from Anthony Peeler. 37 starts from DEAN GARRETT! That team was ass, they had two players at .130+ WS/48 that played 30+ games and they were, as a team, below average on offense.

That team's performance was no surprise. They had a marginal frontcourt with a hole at the 5 (Garrett's position) and they had no depth to speak of, weak coaching and no real secondary talent. The best non-Garnett player on the team was Terrell Brandon, and he was only on the team half the season. More pertinently, during his 21 games (and 20 starts), the Wolves went 10-11. They were actually better before the trade (15-14), but Marbury was crazy and stupid and needed to go. So the team cut a deal and got worse as a result. And of course, Brandon would go on to have two good seasons with them, one injury-shortened season and then never played in the NBA again. Great ROI on that one. They turned Ray Allen into Marbury into Brandon into nothing. Classic McHale, though obviously he couldn't have predicted Brandon's injury. Still, not a great move even still, given that Brandon was another player with weak range, like Marbury at the time.

So there's your first answer. The first three second round exits of the Wolves are understandable. In the first two, Garnett was 20 and 21, still mostly playing the 3 and not fully developed physically. It's impressive enough that they MADE the playoffs. Cleveland, for example, missed the playoffs in Lebron's first two seasons. It's not talked about much now, though, because he had horrendous teams and needed to develop because he was a HS baller. Likewise, KG.

They lost to the way more talented 97 Rockets, and the 98 Sonics. The Payton-Baker-Schrempf-Ellis Sonics, with Hersey Hawkins as well. The 19/8/2 Vin Baker, BTW, the guy who made his 4th All-Star appearance that year. Not the fat and alcoholic Baker we all remember. The one who could play a mean game of ball.

But OK, here we go, that's four down (97, 98, 99 and 03). Three to go: 00, 01 and 02.

99-00

Quick, find me three players with .115+ WS/48 on that team besides KG!

You can't. Brandon played really well in his 71 games, but he was the only non-Garnett player on that team scoring 12+ ppg. Wally Z was a good shooter that year, but as was typical of him, was a waste of skin on defense. Malik Sealy... I don't even need to say it. Rasho was a 6/5 player and started 55 games. Sam Mitchell. DEAN GARRETT!! 82 games of Anthony Peeler, 28 of which were starts (in a year where he was a weak 3pt shooter, no less).

KG MADE that team with his defense. The rest of the team was consistently 5 or 6 points worse in DRTG, all worse than league average as might be indicated by the fact that they mostly all sucked on defense, despite KG dragging them to 12th overall defensively. Peeler had moments, he had strength and could move his feet, and when Rasho wasn't out-classed in quickness (which was rarely), he was a solid man defender who did contest shots well if he didn't have to travel far to do it. Very broken-down, homeless-man's Mark Eaton style.

Oh yes, and the immortal William Avery. I don't even need to say it, if you know anything about that team, you know everything you need to about William Avery, the HS STAR!!

That team bit chunks. KG bullied that team to 50 wins and then lost to the Blazers.. who were STACKED. What else did you expect to happen? Those guys fielded Sheed, Steve Smith (still managing 15 ppg on excellent shooting), Damon Stoudamire, 13/6/5 Scottie Pippen, Arvydas Sabonis, Bonzi Wells, Detlef Schrempf (!!), Brian Grant... They were great, and stacked from top to bottom. No wonder they blew the Wolves away, seriously.

So that's 5 down, 2 to go.

01.

This is the team that lost to the Spurs in the first round, the 58-win Spurs, mind. Good offensive seasons from Brandon and Wally Z (two 14+ ppg scorers besides KG? World-shaking!). The first of two years from a young, crappier Chauncey Billups. Absolutely no bench depth and still a lack of serious assistance. Certainly not enough to run with the Spurs. 47 wins, and they matched up with the Spurs because they were the 8th seed. When Lebron's Cavs won 50 games in his third season, the Cavs were third in the conference. If Minny had won 3 more games in the 01 season, they'd have been the 7th seed. That would have earned them the extra pleasure of losing to the reigning-champion L.A. Lakers in the first round. That was a BRUTAL conference, far harder than the mid-2000s Eastern Conference, which sucked big, sweaty balls apart from the Pistons.

Minny was, for reference, the second-worst team in the league at drawing FTs. They were the 4th best at making them, but they never got them. This is on account of their piss-poor offensive sets that largely relied on perimeter jumpers. KG did fine; not great, but he did reasonably well. The rest of the team was abysmal, and it really hurt their offense. Also, at 22/11/5 with great defense, he was doing just about everything he could and that team still bit from lack of support and the incredibly top-heavy Western Conference. Remember that the Lakers and Spurs were titans, the Kings were ramped up in a big way with their stacked squad and the Mavs were pretty damned good too. In 01, the Blazers were still solid and the Jazz still had Stockton and Malone and were winning 50+ games. Top heavy in a BIG way. Not a lot of room for a talent-poor team like the Wolves.

You couldn't find three players on that team with .130+ WS/48 even IF you included KG, unless you counted 14 games from Sam Jacobson. Which I don't, because he played 59 minutes in those 14 games. LaPhonso Ellis sucked. Chauncey sucked, which is why he was bouncing around so much. DEAN GARRETT!!! Anthony Peeler... I mean, where's the talent?

Brandon had a good year, but Wally Z was a one-way player and a really wretched, polar example of it. He was a full-on turnstile. *I* could have blown past him. Or shot open jumpers all game long (that I'd brick anyway, but still) because his rotations sucked so bad.

So, that's 6 down, 1 to go.

2002.

50 wins, lost to the 57-win Mavs in the first round. Yet another underdog team that lost to the favored squad. 50 wins, still not enough to seed well. They were the 5th seed that year and the gap between 4 and 5 was THAT big. Only 3 teams made the WC playoffs with less than 50 wins that year, one of whom had 49.

Billups and Wally Z were the big aids for Garnett that year, Brandon was gone more than half of the season due to the injury that ended his career. Joe Smith, Peeler, Rasho, this all sounds the same. Marc Jackson, Gary Trent, Sam Mitchell... None of these guys were the kind of talent he needed to stick with the big guns that he was playing. The Conference was WAY too tough for him to be expected to beat a Nash/Dirk/Finley Mavs squad. DEAN GARRETT (!!!) played 29 games, Loren Woods played 60. William flipping Avery played 28. Felipe Lopez, 67.

I mean, seriously.

Billups actually had a pretty good season. So did Joe Smith, and Wally Z was good on offense... as usual. This was actually the BEST of Garnett's teams to this point in his career, but none of the non-Garnett players were good enough (in Chauncey's case, at that point in his career) to effectively stick with a team like the Mavs, especially given Flip Saunders and his "coaching." They even put up a pretty decent offensive fight against the Mavs, but they were roundly smacked in a 3-game sweep by a much, much more dangerous team. Those Mavs were the best offense in the league, lest we forget. Hell, they even picked up Van Exel for the last quarter of the season and he was great in the playoffs. Dirk went bat-snot insane in the playoffs, as did Finley, hell, Raef LaFrentz played well.

Minny had no chance.

[bastillon]

Leading man: SF Kevin Garnett has been getting top billing for years now, and it's well deserved. He's a rare combination: a 7-footer (even though he insists he's 6-11) with the versatility to play almost anywhere and defend almost anyone. Everything revolves around him, even when he doesn't score the points. Opponents must make him their focus, and he often responds by taking a pass on the block, waiting for the double-team and kicking the ball back out for an open jump shot.

Supporting roles: Taking the passes from Garnett and making opponents pay are PG Terrell Brandon and SG Wally Szczerbiak. However, there are whispers about Brandon's competitiveness, and his own words often reinforce those comments. As Brandon, 31, appears ready to step down before his time, Szczerbiak, 24, expects to take a step up. The coaching staff wants Szczerbiak to play more at shooting guard, instead of small forward. The move is possible with the return of PF Joe Smith. Szczerbiak is a great shooter and worked on his ballhandling in the offseason. His defensive quickness will be the main question. After a one-year absence, Smith gives the team more muscle in the middle and a hard-nosed rebounder and defender.

Miscast: C Rasho Nesterovic hasn't panned out the way the team hoped when it drafted him in the first round in 1998. He is inconsistent and often lackadaisical. The team needs someone in the middle to take up space and reduce the offensive pressure on Garnett. Rookie C Loren Woods, a second-round pick, has been slow to pick up the offense but remains the top option. Another trouble spot is shooting guard, but the team hopes moving Szczerbiak solves that. SG Anthony Peeler has experience, but is a streaky shooter and slow defender. --John Millea PF joe smith He's back where he wants to be; after signing a big contract, he knows all eyes are on him.

SF kevin garnett Keeps getting better and better, but his teammates must take some off the load off him.

C rasho nesterovic Must show improved intensity and consistency or rookie Loren Woods will take his job.

SG wally szczerbiak Moves from small forward in his third year; the big question is his defensive quickness.

PG terrell brandon Must stay healthy and hit jump shots to lessen defensive pressure on Garnett.

Leading man: Coach Gregg Popovich expects PF Tim Duncan to take charge more often, on and off the court. Now in his fifth season, Duncan has all the tools to be the league's best player. The key is getting him to understand how much he can control a game. Most important, Duncan's left knee no longer is the cause for concern it was a year ago. Once again confident with his body, Duncan has lost the tentativeness he played with early last season. The Spurs believe he will shed last year's free-throw shooting woes.

Supporting roles: Losing SG Derek Anderson was a blow, but the team has a deeper, more versatile roster. SF Bruce Bowen is solid on defense, but his offensive skills aren't as polished as retired Sean Elliott's. Except for needing an occasional 3-pointer from him, the team won't have to rely on Bowen too much for points. Bowen, SG Steve Smith, PG Antonio Daniels and rookie PG Tony Parker--one of the league's quickest players--will allow SF Danny Ferry and SG Terry Porter to move back to the reserve roles for which they are better-suited. C David Robinson is one of the NBA's best defensive players when he's healthy. C Cherokee Parks and F/C Mark Bryant upgrade the team's size inside.

Miscast: After playing well as a shooting guard last year, Daniels will get another chance at becoming the team's starting point guard in his fifth NBA season. Daniels has developed into an above-average defender and a serious 3-point threat, but he needs time to mature as a quarterback. If Daniels struggles, expect Smith to run the offense until Parker is ready to take over. On defense, the Spurs sometimes will have to hide Smith. He looks slower than he really is, but his aging knees make it difficult for him to keep up with the younger, more athletic guards. --Johnny Ludden PF tim duncan With Avery Johnson gone, the Spurs will expect Duncan to take charge on the court.

SF bruce bowen The team could have used his defense in last season's conference finals against Kobe Bryant.

C david robinson Averaged a career-low in minutes last season, but he now has more depth behind him.

SG steve smith Spurs might miss Derek Anderson's athleticism, but new zone defenses will benefit Smith.

PG antonio daniels Daniels began to come into his own at the end of last season--as a shooting guard.

[bastillon]

KG: This was a transition year for Garnett as well. It would be the last year that he spent the majority of his time at small forward, and in a lot of ways it seemed like Flip was experimenting with him. This was the year that zone defense was allowed in the league, and Flip jumped on that with two feet breaking out this crazy 1-2-2/3-2 zone that featured KG at the top of the key with a job description that I can best describe as..."guard everybody, then go get the rebound". If you get a chance, go back and watch some of those games from '02 because it was kind of amazing to watch...KG would be at the point of the zone near half-court defending the PG as he crossed the midline, then he would essentially follow the ball. If the PG passed to the wing, KG would go to the wing and trap, if the ball went into the post then he followed it down there, if it then went back up top then KG did too. And then, when the shot went up, KG was supposed to get the board. Never really seen anything like that at the pro level.

The other big transition, and one that would actually pay dividends the following year, was that this was the season that Flip started using KG as a primary distributor. He'd been a 20-10-5 guy for a couple of seasons already, but always playing off of Terrell Brandon as the PG/main initiator. In '02 Brandon went down with a career-ending injury, though, leaving the team to back-up Chauncey Billups. We all know what Billups eventually became, but for all intents and purposes '02 may as well have been Billups' rookie year. He was a very good shooter, but he hadn't learned to defend his position or run a team as a PG yet (that would come in time). So, once Billups took over the point, KG started running more of the show. This was the first of four straight years when the Wolves would be a top-6 offense with KG taking a more active role in offense initiation.