Why is KG's ineffectiveness in the playoffs ignored?

[GilmoreFan]

Anyone who thinks there is a big advantage to KG's cast in say 2002 (the year they were swept in round 1 by the Mavs) v.s Duncan's cast in 02 or 03 has no sense of objectivity at all. Similar things could be said about other years, notably 01, 00, 99, 05, 06 and especially 98 and 97, but 02 really stands out as a) inarguable, and b) smack in the middle of KG's prime.

[ronnymac2]

What free pass? Nobody thinks KG is an elite scorer.

I think on a traditionally built title team, KG can't be the primary scorer. He can be the best player obviously. He can even be the best overall offensive player. But not the best scorer.

His abilities as a scorer are that he can provide a consistent amount of points at good efficiency against any one defender. If a playoff defense is geared towards slowing him down as the primary scorer, he'll get his points, but he won't hurt you. He won't scramble your defense consistently. He'll hit open jumpers and score from the post and mid-post when faced up against overmatched defenders.

KG's value is in helping his own teammates while throwing a monkey wrench in the other team's game plan, and he does these two things better than almost anybody ever. He's not going to demonstrably annihilate his individual matchup though. Not like Malone or Barkley.

[therealbig3]

What free pass? Nobody thinks KG is an elite scorer.

I think on a traditionally built title team, KG can't be the primary scorer. He can be the best player obviously. He can even be the best overall offensive player. But not the best scorer.

His abilities as a scorer are that he can provide a consistent amount of points at good efficiency against any one defender. If a playoff defense is geared towards slowing him down as the primary scorer, he'll get his points, but he won't hurt you. He won't scramble your defense consistently. He'll hit open jumpers and score from the post and mid-post when faced up against overmatched defenders.

KG's value is in helping his own teammates while throwing a monkey wrench in the other team's game plan, and he does these two things better than almost anybody ever. He's not going to demonstrably annihilate his individual matchup though. Not like Malone or Barkley.

This is one of my main questions though (among others, as drza pointed out lol): is his relative inability to do so compared to Malone, Barkley, and Dirk outweighed by the positives he brings that you mentioned above? I don't know if it does...the ability to score at an elite level is incredibly important when you talk about your go-to player.

[ronnymac2]

What free pass? Nobody thinks KG is an elite scorer.

I think on a traditionally built title team, KG can't be the primary scorer. He can be the best player obviously. He can even be the best overall offensive player. But not the best scorer.

His abilities as a scorer are that he can provide a consistent amount of points at good efficiency against any one defender. If a playoff defense is geared towards slowing him down as the primary scorer, he'll get his points, but he won't hurt you. He won't scramble your defense consistently. He'll hit open jumpers and score from the post and mid-post when faced up against overmatched defenders.

KG's value is in helping his own teammates while throwing a monkey wrench in the other team's game plan, and he does these two things better than almost anybody ever. He's not going to demonstrably annihilate his individual matchup though. Not like Malone or Barkley.

This is one of my main questions though (among others, as drza pointed out lol): is his relative inability to do so compared to Malone, Barkley, and Dirk outweighed by the positives he brings that you mentioned above? I don't know if it does...the ability to score at an elite level is incredibly important when you talk about your go-to player.

Very true.

Well, what do you think of Bill Russell?

[richboy]

It would be interesting to see what people would think of Bill Russell today. As great as Bill Russell was. Can you really give elite championship credit today to a defensive player. Especially when there likely offensive players carrying the load and making the big shots.

[therealbig3]

What free pass? Nobody thinks KG is an elite scorer.

I think on a traditionally built title team, KG can't be the primary scorer. He can be the best player obviously. He can even be the best overall offensive player. But not the best scorer.

His abilities as a scorer are that he can provide a consistent amount of points at good efficiency against any one defender. If a playoff defense is geared towards slowing him down as the primary scorer, he'll get his points, but he won't hurt you. He won't scramble your defense consistently. He'll hit open jumpers and score from the post and mid-post when faced up against overmatched defenders.

KG's value is in helping his own teammates while throwing a monkey wrench in the other team's game plan, and he does these two things better than almost anybody ever. He's not going to demonstrably annihilate his individual matchup though. Not like Malone or Barkley.

This is one of my main questions though (among others, as drza pointed out lol): is his relative inability to do so compared to Malone, Barkley, and Dirk outweighed by the positives he brings that you mentioned above? I don't know if it does...the ability to score at an elite level is incredibly important when you talk about your go-to player.

Very true.

Well, what do you think of Bill Russell?

I have him #2 all time based off reputation mostly. But Russell's defensive impact from what I've seen and heard hasn't really been touched by anyone before or since. He also has the individual accolades and awards that put him in the conversation with the other greats. And I do value rings and team success, although admittedly, I value them a lot less since joining this site. But 11 rings in 13 years, that's hard to ignore.

EDIT: So I guess the difference between the way I view Russell and KG is that KG's team success, unlike Russell's, pales in comparison to his contemporaries, because he does have the accolades and defensive impact. But it was a different league back then, with different rules pretty much. It's probably not possible for a mediocre scorer and elite defender like Russell to be on par with elite scorers in the modern era.

[ronnymac2]

To your Edit: Or is it? Russell is the best of the best imo at helping teammates while hurting what the other team is trying to do. KG is in that mold, though not quite as good obviously (but slightly better in terms of attacking his individual matchup with scoring). All you may need is a Paul Pierce kind of scorer and bam...you may be set with a dominant team for a long time if you get the players at the right time in their careers.

I'm not sure which type of player is more valuable, the Malone/O'Neal/Jordan type or the Walton/Russell/Garnett type. I tend to side with the individuals, but...

[WhateverBro]

I don't see how this is even a topic since no one, I mean literally no one overrates KG's offense on these boards. If anything, is overall offensive impact is underrated from what I've seen. He was a fantastic offensive player in his prime and a very efficient one. Those 1st rounds exists are not good ways to judge his playoff potential IMO because of the simple fact that he played with some of the worst supporting casts known to make the playoffs at all. 03-04 and 07-08 are the only times his teams are good enough to do something in the playoffs, and KG showed up big time in those years. For example, he was the leading scorer for Celtics during their title run, including their best 4th quarter scorer.

[prs]

It gets ignored because he is one of the love childs of this board.

I don't think its his offense that gets overrated other than assist numbers being some kind of absolute to how good a passer someone is. Its his defensive impact that gets overrated. Hes not a defensive anchor and it shows in how poorly the Wolves defense ranked most years. Not to mention defense as a whole is often overrated on these boards, see Payton and Kidd.

People want to put some huge gap between him and other PF's at the defensive end thats suppose to amount to some great imaginary impact. Then try to justify it with one of the worst stats.

[FJS]

The thing it's everyone acts like his defense changed everything.... and his Twolves only were one time in top 10 in defensive ratings.
So a great defensive player did not make great teams. In fact he missed playoff several times, and only one time with Wolves was able to pass first round.
Talented offensive player were able to pass first rounds. See C's in Pierce-Walker era, with a few scrubs. They were able to play ECF in 2002. Carter with Toronto.
Iverson, of course. Olajuwon. Dominique Wilkins.

All those guys played with limited talent. Defense it's only useful when you have talent in offense. Russell without Cousy, Sharman and co. would have not done it. As Garnett without Allen and Pierce.

[GilmoreFan]

You mean like when Russell won without Cousy or Sharman from 64-66 and again in 68 and 69? It's kind of similar to how the Jazz didn't miss a beat from 97 to 98 despite J.Stockton having a massively reduced role... almost like one player was far more important, and on a totally different level to the other player.

[GYBE]

This is a total fantasy, worthy of considerable scorn. Truly, you are pathologically incapable of admitting to any meaningful failure of KG's. He had crap teams in 03 and 07, but not for all those years, that's totally false. Duncan's 02 and 03 teams compare very favourably to some of KG's
teams, the same could be said of some of Lebron's.

Anyone who thinks there is a big advantage to KG's cast in say 2002 (the year they were swept in round 1 by the Mavs) v.s Duncan's cast in 02 or 03 has no sense of objectivity at all. Similar things could be said about other years, notably 01, 00, 99, 05, 06 and especially 98 and 97, but 02 really stands out as a) inarguable, and b) smack in the middle of KG's prime.

Thanks for the lessons in objectivity, GilmoreFan. With a name like that, clearly you are the one impartial observer worthy of an opinion on Duncan vs. KG.

Okay, let's look at 2003. The big difference between the two teams was defense. The Wolves actually were a better offensive team (5th to the Spurs 7th). But players like Wally and Joe Smith, who you applauded earlier in the thread, are TERRIBLE defenders. The Spurs were 3rd in DRTG, Wolves 18th. Duncan was probably a better defender that year, but the gap wasn't that big. The gap comes from the differences between people like Wally/Kendall Gill and the Spurs players. The Wolves had one above-average defender. The Spurs had 5 (Duncan, Robinson, Rose, Jackson, Ginobili). That's not even counting Bruce Bowen, who had an off year but was still better than any other Wolves player.

2002 is the exact same story. Similar offenses, Spurs with a much better defense. At this point David Robinson is still posting ELITE defensive numbers. 5.1 Defensive Win Scores, he was actually better than Duncan on a per-minute basis. Please enlighten me as to how the casts were equal when Duncan had an elite defensive center playing next to him and KG had...Rasho. The Spurs had 7 players with over 2 defensive win shares. The Wolves had 2.

I'm just picking a random year now since apparently you applied this thesis to almost every season. Okay, so 05-06. Again, you said there is no big advantage in the supporting casts. Hilarious. Even discounting the MASSIVE defensive differences between the teams, Duncan has 2 teammates playing at an all-star level! Manu and Tony both put up PER's over 20. Wally was the Wolves best with a 18 PER...of course he was also the teams worst defender while Tony was average and Manu was great.

The Wolves third best player that year was either Marko Jaric or Trenton Hassell. The Spurs third best player was Tony Parker. And somehow you're arguing the casts are similar. The Wolves had two players contribute over 3 Win Shares. The Spurs had 9! And by the way, KG put up a whopping 4 more win shares than Duncan that year. The Spurs had 5 players better than the Wally that year. There were 5 players that instantly would have become the Wolves second best player. And yet...their casts were equal!?!?!?

Look, I'm not going to do all these years because a clear pattern is emerging. Only someone with the clear agenda of propping up Duncan would make these claims. It's just common sense. The Wolves are probably the second worst franchise in league history after the Clippers. They've proven throughout their time in the league how incompetent they are. Conversely, the Spurs are considered the best franchise. Excellent draft picks, a legendary coach and a brilliant front office. And even though there might not be two franchises more different, you are steadfast in your claim that each player had similar situations to deal with. It's just not true.

[GilmoreFan]

Thanks for the lessons in objectivity, GilmoreFan. With a name like that, clearly you are the one impartial observer worthy of an opinion on Duncan vs. KG.

Okay, let's look at 2003. The big difference between the two teams was defense. The Wolves actually were a better offensive team (5th to the Spurs 7th). But players like Wally and Joe Smith, who you applauded earlier in the thread, are TERRIBLE defenders. The Spurs were 3rd in DRTG, Wolves 18th. Duncan was probably a better defender that year, but the gap wasn't that big. The gap comes from the differences between people like Wally/Kendall Gill and the Spurs players. The Wolves had one above-average defender. The Spurs had 5 (Duncan, Robinson, Rose, Jackson, Ginobili). That's not even counting Bruce Bowen, who had an off year but was still better than any other Wolves player.

Why on earth are we comparing the 2003 Wolves to the 2003 Spurs? That's not the claim in contention. The claim is that KG always had suckier casts, and thus can't ever be held accountable for failure. I already conceded KG had a pretty sucky cast in 03 and 07. I then asked you to explain to me about the other 8 or so years.

2002 is the exact same story. Similar offenses, Spurs with a much better defense. At this point David Robinson is still posting ELITE defensive numbers. 5.1 Defensive Win Scores, he was actually better than Duncan on a per-minute basis. Please enlighten me as to how the casts were equal when Duncan had an elite defensive center playing next to him and KG had...Rasho. The Spurs had 7 players with over 2 defensive win shares. The Wolves had 2.

Elite defensive C... you clearly know almost nothing about D.Rob in 02 and especially 03. There's a thread near the top of this forum I posted on where I note just how useless D.Rob was, especially in the playoffs. Your analysis is also just weird, like win shares and per minutes stats are meaningful metrics. According to per minute stats Splitter was a borderline all-star this year. Who gives a F$%#.

Your analysis is based on a false understanding of the question. Go back to that, then you can come back and tell me why KG's team, which included Billups (who ripped it up in the postseason), all-star Wally (hey look, Wally made the all-star team in 2002, and D.Rob didn't... I wonder why?), solid Joe Smith, solid Rasho, some games with a health Brandon, etc, was swept by Dirk's Mavs, while Duncan carried crud in 2002 and 2003 to far better outcomes.

[An Unbiased Fan]

The thing it's everyone acts like his defense changed everything.... and his Twolves only were one time in top 10 in defensive ratings.
So a great defensive player did not make great teams. In fact he missed playoff several times, and only one time with Wolves was able to pass first round.
Talented offensive player were able to pass first rounds. See C's in Pierce-Walker era, with a few scrubs. They were able to play ECF in 2002. Carter with Toronto.
Iverson, of course. Olajuwon. Dominique Wilkins.

All those guys played with limited talent. Defense it's only useful when you have talent in offense. Russell without Cousy, Sharman and co. would have not done it. As Garnett without Allen and Pierce.

Great points. This is something I can never get a straight answer about.

KG's defensive impact has always been overrated compared to other bigs. He's more of a versatile lockdown defender ala Pippen, Kobe, and not a true defensive anchor like Duncan, Zo.

2002:
Minny has the #16 DRtg in the NBA. It should be noted that KG was playing SF at this point.

Minny's paint defense was a dismal #18 in the NBA, giving up 47.6% downlow. Minny's perimeter defense was #10, which is where KG operated more back then. Against opposing PFs, Minny was #11, and against SFs, they were #6.


2003:
Minny has the #16 DRtg in the NBA. KG shifted to PF this year.

Minny's paint defense jumped a bit with KG at PF over Joe Smith, up to #8. However, it still pales in comparison to teams like SA with TD.

Minny was also a very medicore #15 against opposing PFs that year. Which points to another issue KG had back then, he was still an undersized tweener. People forget that KG was skinny and pushed around down low back then.


2004:
Minny's best showing at #6 in DRtg. Still not a Top 5 defense, but certainly a decent defensive team that year.

Minny's paint defense was #4 which shows that KG grew more into his role as a big rather than tweener. HOWEVER, what's fascinating about that 2004 season is that Minny's PERIMETER defense was actually better than their paint. They were #1 in perimeter defense, and that's the major reason why they jumped from the teeens to #6 in overall defense that year.

Minny had the #2 PG defense that year, #5 SG defense, and #3 SF defense. So one has to wonder why people say KG had no defensive help during his MVP season. I mean sure, their PF defense was #3 too, but it's not like they were getting killed outside the paint. Even their C defense was #7 that year.


2005:
Minny drops back to the teen dow to #15 in DRtg, and oput of the playoffs. In 04', Minny excel off having the best perimeter defense, and with injuries, they fall back to they're pre-2004 status.

Minny's paint defense was #9, and periemter dropped to #11.


2006:
Minny is #10 in DRtg, largely due again to periemter defense, rather than paint defense.

Minny is #6 in periemter defense, and only #12 in paint defense. Granted Minny was #4 in PF defense, which shows KG was still playing D, but their C defense was a dismal #23. Which again begs the question, was KG a defensive anchor in Minny, or more of a versatile defender.


2007:
Minny is a pathetic #21 in DRtg.

Minny's paint defense is a sad #22 in the NBA. Their periemter D is #14. I really would like to hear people explain how a Prime KG could put forth such a weak effort defensively.


2008:
KG moves to Boston along with Rondo, Allen, and Perkins. Boston is #1 in DRtg. Interestingly, many liek to give KG all the credit for this, but that Celtic team had huge turnover that year, and the Thibs effect can't be ignored.

Boston has the #2 paint defense, BUT also the #1 periemter defense that season. So again, while KG was very impactful and energized, the strongest part of the C's defense came outside the paint.

To break it down further, here is how each postion ranked defensively that year....

PG - #2
SG - #1
SF - #1
PF - #4 <---hmmm
C - #2

So was it that KG magically changed from 07' to 08', OR could it be that Thibs installed a TEAM defense which turned around the Celtics's????

[GYBE]

The claim is that KG always had suckier casts, and thus can't ever be held accountable for failure. I already conceded KG had a pretty sucky cast in 03 and 07. I then asked you to explain to me about the other 8 or so years.

Funny how you ignored everything I said about 05-06, one of the 8 or so years you asked about. I did 2002. It's not up to me to prove KG's cast was worse every year. That's the conventional wisdom from people who follow basketball. Your claim is the strange one and the onus is on you to prove it. Thus far you haven't used one piece of objective evidence to back it up.

Elite defensive C... you clearly know almost nothing about D.Rob in 02 and especially 03. There's a thread near the top of this forum I posted on where I note just how useless D.Rob was, especially in the playoffs. Your analysis is also just weird, like win shares and per minutes stats are meaningful metrics. According to per minute stats Splitter was a borderline all-star this year. Who gives a F$%#.

I never said he was elite in 2003. I don't care what you posted on D-Rob, your posts thus far have given me no reason to believe in your analysis. Splitter played 738 minutes this year. Robinson played 2303 minutes the year I referenced. Obviously you can't use per-minute stats for a 10 MPG player or whatever, but Robinson played a lot. Just not as much as Duncan.

And yeah my analysis is "weird." I like to use objective stats to prove points. You like to say stuff. Whatever works.

2002 Defensive Rating

1. Ben Wallace-DET 92.9
2. David Robinson-SAS 94.9
3. Tim Duncan-SAS 95.7
4. Malik Rose-SAS 96.8
5. Alonzo Mourning-MIA 97.1

So you can understand my skepticism over your repeated claim of Robinson being "useless." Data has no agenda.

Your analysis is based on a false understanding of the question. Go back to that, then you can come back and tell me why KG's team, which included Billups (who ripped it up in the postseason), all-star Wally (hey look, Wally made the all-star team in 2002, and D.Rob didn't... I wonder why?), solid Joe Smith, solid Rasho, some games with a health Brandon, etc, was swept by Dirk's Mavs, while Duncan carried crud in 2002 and 2003 to far better outcomes.

What's funny is you're screwing around with time to try and make it seem like KG had more help. Brandon was healthy for exactly one playoff series with Minnesota. That year "Solid" Joe Smith put up 4/3, All-Star Wally had 6 PPG and solid Rasho had 6/3. That wasn't when the Mavs swept them. Brandon never played against the Mavs.

Against the Mavs, Chauncey ripped it up in the playoffs to the tune of a 16.6 PER. That was actually worse than his regular season performance. The year before in the playoffs he had 14.1. Awesome! Throw in his bad defense (tied with Wally for the teams worst DRtg) and I'm shocked the Wolves didn't get farther. Billups and Wally put up points because they played over 45 minutes and no one else on the Wolves could shoot. At this same time, solid Joe Smith was putting up a very solid 4/3 against the Mavs. How could they be swept with Joe Smith on their team!

It's your turn to go back and read about HOW TERRIBLE ALL THESE PLAYERS WERE DEFENSIVELY. Sorry, but you seem unable to grasp this concept. For almost a decade he was the lone defender on a team full of terrible ones. Joe Smith was a horrific defender. Actually, he was just a horrible player and your touting of him as part of a good supporting cast is probably your most dubious claim. Wally is useless on the defensive end. Actually useless, not "I'm saying D-Rob is useless when he's still a top 5 defender." When KG came to Boston, he was the main reason they put out a historically great defensive team. Better than any defensive team the Spurs ever had. He just needed help.

Again, it comes down to the franchises. The intelligent Spurs realized defense is critical and constantly surrounded Duncan with excellent defenders. Even if his offensive talent was lacking at times, the teams defense was always great. This is why Duncan never had "crud" like you keep claiming. Even his worst teams were excellent defensively. The Wolves never understood this concept and surrounded KG with terrible defenders for his entire tenure. The results were predictable.

[GYBE]

2007: Minny is a pathetic #21 in DRtg.

Minny's paint defense is a sad #22 in the NBA. Their periemter D is #14. I really would like to hear people explain how a Prime KG could put forth such a weak effort defensively.

Mark Blount. Mike James. Ricky Davis. Randy Foye. Marko Jaric. Trenton Hassell. They were HORRIBLE.

Craig Smith was just below-average, not horrific.

KG was good. That's the whole rotation.

2008:
KG moves to Boston along with Rondo, Allen, and Perkins. Boston is #1 in DRtg. Interestingly, many liek to give KG all the credit for this, but that Celtic team had huge turnover that year, and the Thibs effect can't be ignored.

Boston has the #2 paint defense, BUT also the #1 periemter defense that season. So again, while KG was very impactful and energized, the strongest part of the C's defense came outside the paint.

To break it down further, here is how each postion ranked defensively that year....

PG - #2
SG - #1
SF - #1
PF - #4 <---hmmm
C - #2

So was it that KG magically changed from 07' to 08', OR could it be that Thibs installed a TEAM defense which turned around the Celtics's????

Why do you think KG's defensive impact is most felt in the paint? His strength has always been his versatility and rotations. Especially that year, the Celtics defense had some of the quickest and most efficient rotations I've ever seen. And that often resulted in players defending other positions.

Celtics DRtg's that year:

KG - 94
Perkins - 97
Rondo - 98
Posey - 98
Pierce - 100
Allen - 103

[FJS]

You mean like when Russell won without Cousy or Sharman from 64-66 and again in 68 and 69? It's kind of similar to how the Jazz didn't miss a beat from 97 to 98 despite J.Stockton having a massively reduced role... almost like one player was far more important, and on a totally different level to the other player.

I don't see what have to do J. Stockton in this thread.

Then talking about those years where Cousy or Sharman weren't or the team
He has a guy named Havlicek.
The thing is:
69: Russell was 7th in ppg in his team
68: Russell was 4th (hondo, Howell and Jones above)
66: Russell was 4th (jones, Hondo and Siegfried above)
65: Russell was 3rd (jones and Hondo above)
64: Russell was 4th (Hondo, Jones and Heinsohn above)
63: Russell was 3rd
62: Russell was 2nd (almost tied with Jones as 3rd)
61: 3rd
60: 4th
59: 4th
57: 4th

As I said you use to need great defense to win, but when a player it's great in defense, I think it's overrated, especially when your team it's not winning and you're the star. Twolves were a mediocre team, who use to fall in 1st round, and the problem was not the ability of Garnett in defense. It was the inability to score at high level.
He has one year where he scored 27 ppg in a first round exit. Then two years when he scored 24 ppg.

For example Malone is criticised to underperform in playoffs. He scored a little less than in RS, but it's he scored A LOT in RS. He still have great years in the playoffs.
Have a pair of years in 30 ppg, 3 of 29 ppg, 3 of 27 ppg, 3 of 26.... and so.

KG never was able to step up in scoring, being the main guy, because he was not able to score.

[Doctor MJ]

To your Edit: Or is it? Russell is the best of the best imo at helping teammates while hurting what the other team is trying to do. KG is in that mold, though not quite as good obviously (but slightly better in terms of attacking his individual matchup with scoring). All you may need is a Paul Pierce kind of scorer and bam...you may be set with a dominant team for a long time if you get the players at the right time in their careers.

I'm not sure which type of player is more valuable, the Malone/O'Neal/Jordan type or the Walton/Russell/Garnett type. I tend to side with the individuals, but...

This seems as reasonable place to respond as any and say I think ronny really cut to the crux of the thread with his line of questioning.

Garnett's stature comes from being fantastic at defense, rebounding, and distribution, and solid but not otherworldly as a scorer.

And with that said, I think people need some perspective here on Garnett's scoring.

Garnett averaged 19.6 PPG on 51.9% shooting, and people are talking like it's terrible.
Isiah Thomas averaged 20.4 PPG on 52.0% shooting in an era with arguably weaker defense, and his scoring is the reason people call him a playoff superstar.

Now you can come up with arguments for why that underrates Isiah's scoring, but obviously I'm not saying "See Garnett's a playoff scoring superstar!", but rather to advocate more moderate conclusions about both players.

People need to understand that if Garnett kept his playoff average of shots per game while maintaining his regular season average of TS%, this would have only changed his PPG by about half a point. No one should look at this and say "He was clearly a solid scorer in the regular season, but then he became so inefficient in the playoffs he was hurting his team."

[Doctor MJ]

Then talking about those years where Cousy or Sharman weren't or the team
He has a guy named Havlicek.
The thing is:
69: Russell was 7th in ppg in his team
68: Russell was 4th (hondo, Howell and Jones above)
66: Russell was 4th (jones, Hondo and Siegfried above)
65: Russell was 3rd (jones and Hondo above)
64: Russell was 4th (Hondo, Jones and Heinsohn above)
63: Russell was 3rd
62: Russell was 2nd (almost tied with Jones as 3rd)
61: 3rd
60: 4th
59: 4th
57: 4th

Just feeling the need to chime in here.

People overrate the difference between good and bad teams in terms of likelihood to be successful in a given possession. The fundamental truth about basketball is that it's hard to stop a team from getting a shot off, and it's also very hard to make those shots go in reliably. And so in the modern league, a team that scores 11 points in 20 possessions is consider good, and a team that scores 10 points in 20 possessions is considered bad.

None of these teams are in danger of suddenly scoring 5 points per 20 possession. It just isn't going to happen.

So when you see a bad offensive team led by low efficiency scorers, you should not be thinking "Gosh imagine how bad they'd be without Scorer X", you should be instead questioning whether those scorers are really accomplishing anything.

The '60s Celtics won with defense. They literally could have done a variety of different things with their offense and it wouldn't have gotten that much worse, and it wouldn't have been enough to overwhelm the impact of the great defense.

[magicman1978]

I can see the point the OP is making when we're comparing KG and DRob. I've seen a lot of threads comparing the two and KG seems to get the edge because of robinsons playoff failures.