Real GM Top 100 List #11

[drza]

If KG had a bigger impact in his peak than say LeBron, why was LeBron able to get out of the 1st round every single year he made the playoffs while KG wasn't able to? Both of their supporting casts were similar.

The short answer is, LeBron was playing in the East and KG was playing in the West. I mean, literally, that's about the extent of the answer. I broached this in a topic earlier this year viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1100237&start=60 , but the cliff notes for the TL;DR crowd:

If you look at LeBron's 2006-08 seasons vs KG's 2000 - 2002 seasons I don't see much difference outside of circumstance. They were each beasting individually (consistent top-5 MVP seasons, peaking at 2nd in the MVP vote), carrying supporting casts with similar talent levels to about 50 wins per year, and establishing themselves on the short list of best players in the game. The biggest difference to many is that LeBron won 5 playoff series in those 3 years (including a Finals run in 2007) whereas KG's Wolves bowed out in the first round in each year. But here is where context is important:

Cavs 06 - 08: 48.3 wins per season
Playoff wins over 42-win Wizards, 41-win Wizards, 41-win Nets, 53-win Pistons, and 43-win Wizards
Playoff losses to 64-win Pistons, 58-win Spurs, 66-win Celtics

Wolves 00 - 02: 49 wins per season
Playoff losses to 59-win Trail Blazers, 58-win Spurs, 57-win Mavs

The Cavs and Wolves were very similar caliber teams, but the Cavs got to fatten up in the postseason on a series of mediocre teams that the Wolves just didn't get to face. But when they faced teams of similar quality, the postseason playoff results were the same.

If you follow the link, I go on to compare KG from '03 and '04 to LeBron in '09 and '10, and mention that LeBron's current team situation best matches the Celtics situation KG didn't get to experience until he was 32 with the Celtics. But again, I kept it short for the attention deficit crowd. Either way, though, the reason that LeBron's Cavs had a lot more series wins in the playoffs than KG's Wolves wasn't because of something LeBron did. KG carried his teams of similar talent to similar regular season results. The difference was, in the playoffs KG had to face juggernauts in the first round while LeBron got to do his thing against .500 teams like the Wizards and Nets. When either the Cavs or the Wolves faced elite competition they lost, in large part because their teams were just outgunned.

[colts18]

As for Garnett, are you saying that you use TS% to rank players on an all-time list? Shouldn't like Shaq & Wilt be at the time of the list then? I'm not understanding this aspect. Garnett didn't have a GLARING FLAW in his offensive game like Robinson did.

He played back-to-basket basketball perfectly fine, created and facilitated an entire offensive scheme for almost a decade playing that style in both the low & high post. I don't see a weakness in his game, remember, you can't measure a weakness based on a statistic, just watch them play, you'll notice how Robinson's serious flaw, it's glaring, and obvious. Not using a statistic to compare the two at all.

Please explain to me how Robinson's face up game is a serious flaw when KG never had an offensive game that could score buckets for his team when they needed? If his Robinson was so finesse, why did he average 10 FTA/game in his prime while KG was averaging under 5 FTA/game? Why was KG's teams so mediocre offensively in the playoffs if KG didn't have a glaring flaw? Why is it with Robinson's flaws he still took his team to a WCF and we call it a failure yet we ignore that KG's so called amazing attributes led to playoff success only once in 12 years?

[Baller 24]

Please explain to me how Robinson's face up game is a serious flaw when KG never had an offensive game that could score buckets for his team when they needed?

Easy, I did in the earlier in the post. Re-watch the '94 first round match-up against the Jazz, '95 first round match-up against Denver, 2nd round match-up against the Lakers, or even the WCF match-up against the Rockets. You'll evidently see that Malone exploits his face-up game, and he uses his own to absolutely abuse him. Same exact trend continues in every round after where he's routinely abused by taller above average centers.

If his Robinson was so finesse, why did he average 10 FTA/game in his prime while KG was averaging under 5 FTA/game? Why was KG's teams so mediocre offensively in the playoffs if KG didn't have a glaring flaw? Why is it with Robinson's flaws he still took his team to a WCF and we call it a failure yet we ignore that KG's so called amazing attributes led to playoff success only once in 12 years?

Huh? you're not understanding my post. I wasn't using statistics to compare the two players. I'm comparing their skills as a basketball player. Robinson entered the WCF against the Rockets in '95 with a FG% average of 44.5% in the playoffs. Why did Robinsons team get so far? he had players on the perimeter that were capable of creating their own offense, Elliot & Avery especially both came up big in multiple games against the Nuggets & Lakers that series. Garnett's team was absolutely horrendous, team success depends on a magnitude of factors. It's not just one player carrying his own. It just sucks Garnett had it all just once in terms of a team concept.

[NO-KG-AI]

The thing is, if KG draws single coverage on the block, his turnaround jumper doesn't draw a ton of fouls, but he shoots it above 50%. So it's either double him, or give up a really good shot. Robinson's face up game wasn't as reliable if the refs weren't blowing the whistle down the stretch.

[TMACFORMVP]

Erving in general always gets underrated. His teams were always a near top five defensive team in the NBA. He was among the best shot blockers at his position, a monster team defender, and as someone alluded to, had some impressive defensive man performances throughout the course of his career as well. He was exceptional off the ball, and as noted by ronny, an extremely underrated passer/play-maker. He was an efficient high volume scorer at the peak of his career, with the ability to dominate games - often doing so to lead his team.

His latter year playoffs may not have been too sexy but Erving is definitely one of the top ten Finals performers of All-Time. Even in 83, 19 PPG might not be all that impressive, but five assists, nine boards, over a steal and three blocks with a game clinching steal and dunk in the sweep of the Finals screams impressive to me.

NBA Finals Statistics
77' Finals - 30.3 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 5.0 APG, 2.7 SPG, 0.8 BPG on .543
80' Finals - 25.5 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 5.0 APG, 2.0 SPG, 2.3 BPG on .522
82' Finals - 25.0 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 3.3 APG, 1.8 SPG, 1.3 BPG on .543
83' Finals - 19.0 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 5.0 APG, 1.3 SPG, 2.8 BPG on .469

76 ABA Finals - 37.7 PPG, 14.2 RPG, 6.0 APG, 3.0 SPG, 2.2 BPG.

*In the same Finals, he had back to back 45+ point games. He essentially hit the game-winner in Game 1 and 2. And the clinching Game 6, had 31 points, 19 boards, 5 assists, 5 steals, and 4 blocks.

**Note, I understand the Finals aren't a tell all story, but I'd argue that it's still a large measuring stick when we're comparing players of this caliber. Look at how much we downgrade LeBron for his performance last season. If a player leads his team to numerous finals, comes away with championships, and ridiculously dominant performances, that should count as something significant.

I'm not sure where to get other ABA Final statistics, but in 74' he opened up the Finals with a 47 point game, averaged 28/10/5 in the post-season run and led the Nets to the championship. Keep this in mind - the Nets with the addition of Erving and Kenon, went from a 30-54 win team to 55 wins and an ABA championship. And, let's not try to downgrade the sort of competition, when he was being defended by the best of the best, namely Bobby Jones and Willie Wise. I completely agree with ronny, the ABA from 74-76 was just as good as the NBA - and Erving came away with two championships. Look at the Nuggets team post-merger, finished with the 2nd best record in NBA - the same team that LOST to the Nets in the final season of the ABA. His impact on his teams have already been stated through the immense W/L records of prior to Erving opposed to with him.

And, while many people tend to give credit to Moses for their championship run (rightfully so), it's an often under looked fact that the Sixers the season before acquiring Moses were already a championship caliber team that challenged the Lakers in the Finals to six games. 5-6 Top 5 Finishes in MVP Voting, 5 straight All-NBA First team appearances, 1 Time NBA MVP, a champion, four NBA Finals appearances, 11 NBA All-Star games, THEN factor in what he accomplished in an ABA stretch as good as the NBA during the time, two more ABA championships, MVP's, and ridiculous dominant performances..

Erving has the best peak, doesn't lack in longevity, and was a big game performer.

I'm not sure on nomination, Wade, Pettit, and guys like Frazier, Pippen deserve mention as well. My vote however will be with Erving, but I'll make that more formal with a later post.

[Baller 24]

Vote: Julius Erving

Have to respect his era dominance, I feel at peak form he's on par if not greater than every single player here. Take a look at that roster in '76, it's worse than what LeBron had. What I really love about Erving is the fact that his impact in the NBA transcended so smoothly, his team was continuously one of the best defensive teams in the league, he clearly impacted it from a defensive scheme, check our their numbers with Doc IN and OUT of each the Nets after and Philly before his arrival & departure. The teams foundation remained the same, built around Erving, and while lineups changed, the team remained elite until his very last season in the league. And if we're comparing the ABA & NBA during that tenure, the production amongst both leagues remains the exact same.

[Baller 24]

The thing is, if KG draws single coverage on the block, his turnaround jumper doesn't draw a ton of fouls, but he shoots it above 50%. So it's either double him, or give up a really good shot. Robinson's face up game wasn't as reliable if the refs weren't blowing the whistle down the stretch.

And Garnett had just as lethal and impactful offensive weapon when you get into passing. If we're going to give props to Robinson for getting to the line, you've got the give Garnett the same props for his ability to facilitate from the low & high-post. It's just incredibly hard to do so, especially when you're continuously having 5+ assist seasons, he actually created for others a lot more than Robinson at the same time, regardless of if he didn't create from the foul line.

[Baller 24]

That hurts Wade's case even more in a comparison with Steve Nash.

How so? Nash has playoff failures consistently for three consecutive seasons where he was playing at peak form, Wade doesn't.

And I don't see how David Robinson can already be in the discussion here. He never was the best player on a championship team, he never won MVP, you could even say he was never the best player on a true title contender.

You just said that David Robinson never won an MVP, and the fact that his team was never a championship contender. I think both of those statements ends this argument.

The Spurs with Robinson never were that close to a championship until Duncan came along.

Huh? where do you get this statement from?

[colts18]

Huh? you're not understanding my post. I wasn't using statistics to compare the two players. I'm comparing their skills as a basketball player. Robinson entered the WCF against the Rockets in '95 with a FG% average of 44.5% in the playoffs. Why did Robinsons team get so far? he had players on the perimeter that were capable of creating their own offense, Elliot & Avery especially both came up big in multiple games against the Nuggets & Lakers that series. Garnett's team was absolutely horrendous, team success depends on a magnitude of factors. It's not just one player carrying his own. It just sucks Garnett had it all just once in terms of a team concept.

Or it could be that Robinson averaged 26.3 PPG, 12.8 Reb, 4.0 AST, 2.9 Blk, 1.4 STL on .526 TS%. Last time I checked those numbers are higher than KG's playoff averages in every single category. I guess it was Sean Elliot's 17.6 PPG .417 Shooting or Avery Johnson's 13.4 PPG on .495 that was the difference So with Robinson shooting so low, he was still somewhat efficient. This is what I am talking about when it comes to a different standard for KG than Robinson. You want to guess what KG's playoff FG% was in Minnesota? .458. So you deride Robinson for poor shooting, but ignore KG doing that for a whole 12 years while not making it up by drawing FT's. What about KG's AI-like .511 TS% in the playoffs. Let me guess, when Iverson comes up you will talk about his poor efficiency, but conveniently ignore that AI's TS% in his career is actually higher than KG's Minnesota playoff TS%. It's hard to lead an effective offense when you have a guy who can't draw FT shooting about 45%. With Robinson, he could score on 45% because of his FT drawing ability.

[colts18]

In 1993, David Robinson had a 49 win team. Coincidentally, KG's team won 51 games 10 years later.

93 Spurs: 49 wins, 2.21 SRS, 8th
03 Wolves: 51 wins, 2.46 SRS, 10th

So KG and Robinson's team were pretty much comparable.

93 Blazers: 51 wins, 2.92 SRS, 7th
03 Lakers: 50 wins, 2.71 SRS, 9th

The 93 Blazers and Lakers are also comparable. So what happens in these matchups? All 4 teams are somewhat comparable. but KG has HCA, Robinson doesn't. Result= KG loses 4-2 despite HCA while Robinson beats the Blazers 3-1 despite not having HCA.

[Doctor MJ]

In 1993, David Robinson had a 49 win team. Coincidentally, KG's team won 51 games 10 years later.

93 Spurs: 49 wins, 2.21 SRS, 8th
03 Wolves: 51 wins, 2.46 SRS, 10th

So KG and Robinson's team were pretty much comparable.

93 Blazers: 51 wins, 2.92 SRS, 7th
03 Lakers: 50 wins, 2.71 SRS, 9th

The 93 Blazers and Lakers are also comparable. So what happens in these matchups? All 4 teams are somewhat comparable. but KG has HCA, Robinson doesn't. Result= KG loses 4-2 despite HCA while Robinson beats the Blazers 3-1 despite not having HCA.

Say, you wouldn't happen to know anything else about the teams in question would you? Just want to make sure one of them wasn't a super-talented team coming off a 3-peat that everyone considered the favorite in that series or anything crazy like that

[colts18]

In 1993, David Robinson had a 49 win team. Coincidentally, KG's team won 51 games 10 years later.

93 Spurs: 49 wins, 2.21 SRS, 8th
03 Wolves: 51 wins, 2.46 SRS, 10th

So KG and Robinson's team were pretty much comparable.

93 Blazers: 51 wins, 2.92 SRS, 7th
03 Lakers: 50 wins, 2.71 SRS, 9th

The 93 Blazers and Lakers are also comparable. So what happens in these matchups? All 4 teams are somewhat comparable. but KG has HCA, Robinson doesn't. Result= KG loses 4-2 despite HCA while Robinson beats the Blazers 3-1 despite not having HCA.

Say, you wouldn't happen to know anything else about the teams in question would you? Just want to make sure one of them wasn't a super-talented team coming off a 3-peat that everyone considered the favorite in that series or anything crazy like that

Drexler missed 32 games in the regular season and came back to the playoffs so the injury excuse doesn't fly considering Drexler missed more games than Shaq and Kobe combined. The 03 Lakers were simply not as good as before. They had Samaki Walker, Madsen, and Medvedenko combine for 72 starts that year. That doesn't even include Horry's 26 starts. The 03 Lakers got exposed in the next round by the Spurs. Either way, winning in 4 against this Blazers team while being the underdog (no HCA) is more impressive than losing in 6 as the favorite (HCA) to that unmotivated Lakers team in 6.

[NO-KG-AI]

Lmao.

Look, I have no problem with people not voting for KG, I think there is legitimate arguments for MAlone, Doc, Oscar, Logo, ETC ETC, but the arguments that are actually used are just downright terrible.

You can say we don't know what KG would have done with more talent, or in better situations, but lets stop pretending his teams were just run of the mill mediocre, or that he didn't get probably the biggest shaft of any cornerstone player.

[colts18]

Lmao.

Look, I have no problem with people not voting for KG, I think there is legitimate arguments for MAlone, Doc, Oscar, Logo, ETC ETC, but the arguments that are actually used are just downright terrible.

You can say we don't know what KG would have done with more talent, or in better situations, but lets stop pretending his teams were just run of the mill mediocre, or that he didn't get probably the biggest shaft of any cornerstone player.

KG might have got the shaft, but he did nothing out of it. Kobe got the shaft also and made the playoffs and had the same amount of playoff wins in one series against a good team than KG had from 1999-2002 in the playoffs. You can't tell me the 1999-02 T-Wolves were worse than Kobe's 06 cast.

LeBron certainly got the shaft. Instead of complaining, he won 8 playoff series in 6 years, made the finals and took his team to 2 60+ win seasons (more than KG has).

Dirk got the shaft in 2011. It might not have been to the extent of 2007 Wolves, but his talent was not comparable to LA, OKC, and Mia. KG would have lost to that Lakers team and his supporters would make excuses about it. Dirk instead swept LA without HCA. You can't tell me that Dirk's cast was better than KG's 02 or 04 cast. In 2002, KG had all-star Wally Z who averaged 19-5 on .580 TS%, Terrell Brandon, Joe Smith, Chauncey Billups, and Rasho. Dirk's 2011 cast was not better than that. He didn't have an all-star at all or close to that. He didn't have a PG on Billups level or a perimeter player of Wally's caliber. Even Joe Smith was solid, an 11-6 on .571 TS%, 16 PER big man. At best Dirk's cast is slightly better yet Dirk won the title. His team wasn't good as evidenced by their 2-7 record without him and awful +/-. And KG's 2004 cast was certainly better considering he had a 2nd team All-NBA player.

[NO-KG-AI]

LeBron and Kobe never had to face Shaq, or Tim Duncan or other stacked teams in the first round.

Apples to oranges.

Yes, Dirk had less help on his title team, that's why he could go 1-12 and be up on the Heat at halftime

[pancakes3]

LeBron and Kobe never had to face Shaq, or Tim Duncan or other stacked teams in the first round.

they probably wouldn't have to face Shaq or Duncan if in the same shoes because they'd be able to win enough games not to be a 7/8 seed.

other shafted players would also include AI, Ewing, and just about every other player that was shut out by MJ in the 90's. hell, even Reggie Miller made more out of less (talent and teammates) and managed to win a playoff series or two.

like i said earlier, giving KG the "he did so much with so little, what more do you people want from him!?" treatment stretches it so thin because of how little result he was able to produce. you can talk APM all you want, or % of points, or how Drtg doesn't do him justice, or... etc. but the man just didn't WIN! either regular season OR post season. i mean... Iverson took a pretty mediocre squad all the way to the finals and even managed to steal a game from the most dominant team of all time and yet he's relegated to 30-something status and yet KG is being plastered all over the 11th spot discussion? i really did not expect to see his name until the 17th spot at LEAST.

[NO-KG-AI]

Really though, the discussion doesn't even matter, we should just line up the players by ring count, or whose team won, because that's really all some people can see. Seriously, Reggie and Ewing's teams were 10x more stacked than even the best incarnation of the Wolves teams.

And no, people wouldn't be winning more than 50 games with those Wolves teams, how many wins do you expect people to get with Wally Z as your second fiddle? Should they really have even taken teams like Shaq/Kobe's Lakers 6 games?

People act like the Wolves were winning 30 games and getting gifted an 8th spot, they were up at or around 50 wins with terrible support offensively and defensively, and running into powerhouse teams.

Really, Dallas is like the worst team they played in the first round in that stretch, and Steve Nash and Michael Finley were far better players than anything the Wolves could trot out.

Really, how many games is Troy Hudson, RAsho, Kendall Gill, and Wally going to win with another star? 55-60? lol.

[ElGee]

I'm tired of arguing for Karl Malone. The final point I'll make about it is that my ranking of Malone has less to do with him specifically and more to do with the following idea value:

Take Julius Erving's peak. Or KG's or anyone in that sphere. Now downgrade it to Karl Malone's. What's the difference in your teams likelihood to win a title?

I think people really need to think about how much impact the GOAT players have. We have years of roster changes, intuition, +/- (even EV of actions) telling similar stories about player impact. Teams' win basketball games with point differentials. The greater the "true" margin is over another team, the more likely you are to win. No player, no matter how great, impacts these differentials too much. (What is GOAT level? 8 points? 10 points?)

What does that have to do with Malone? Let's say he's a (fairly large) 2 points worse per game than our J or KG peaks. That equates to ~5.4 wins per year if healthy (and Malone happens to have a health edge over everyone, literally) which may or may not cost a team HCA (which is then worth ~3 points in a G7). And in a playoff series, against a team of exactly equal quality, 2 points would change the odds of winning a game by something like 8%, which changes the odds of winning a series by something like 16%. (Hope those probabilities are right -- Doc MJ sent me a slick graph.)

That means that if you gave Malone and KG/J identical teams every year, and they met every year in the Finals for 10 years, Malone would still end up with 3 or 4 championships (~3.4) out of 10 on average. But then what happens when he gives you 4 extra years at a comparable quality when the others aren't playing/have been reduced to peripheral players who can't nearly the change the game as much?

In this scenario, suddenly Malone's team runs through the otherwise equal team because they just lost their Main Man. Now Malone's team is way better, say, 6 points better, and they win those 4 extra battles like 9 times out of 10 (3.6). And in 14 years, Malone's come out about dead even. That's assuming there is a fairly large peak gap *every single year.* (Someone with the time and inclination can model this perfectly if they desire - would be cool.)

So I don't really understand what kind of managerial projections people are making when they sort of skim over the value of sustained, alpha-level play for 2, 3, 4, 5 extra seasons. I know it sucks to go into battle more often with a slightly weaker squad (even 2 points weaker, not really an insignificant edge), but it's actually likely to give you the most value over the scope of those years. 50 mpg's is awesome, but 40 mpg's on a bigger tank goes farther.

In an extreme, easy to grasp sense, would I rather have Dirk Nowitzki for 1 playoff round or Carmelo Anthony for 4?

[NO-KG-AI]

I get what you are saying ElGee, I just think there are a few ways to win titles, and trying to build around an offensive force is one of them, and I think when you match up with other offensive forces, Malone is going to fall way down the list.

For instance, if I'm building in a league with big time players, I don't think with an even team, Karl Malone isn't going to get through all of the best offensive players of all time, ever.

Will someone like KG? Maybe not, but at least I'll be building around an anchor that can stifle even the best offensive players, and if I can slow down guys like LeBron, Kobe, while having a dominating rebounder, then I like my chances, and you can add to that, building a great ball movement based offense where I can fit in other scorers and such seemlessly, and still get 20+ on 50/80%

TLDR version:

Malone is a scorer, that's why you'd be picking him, but I think there are a bunch of other guys that he's not going to be able to just flat out out-offense. KG brings a different dynamic altogether, something I value more if I'm not getting MJ, Magic, Bird, Shaq Wilt, Kareem, etc type of offense.

[pancakes3]

Really though, the discussion doesn't even matter, we should just line up the players by ring count, or whose team won, because that's really all some people can see.

you want to talk about "seeing" ? ok. i'll tell you exactly what i saw 10 years ago. i saw a hell of a rebounder who liked to hang around the elbow - all the freakin time. he would face up, but not dribble penetrate very much, and swung the ball around the perimeter a good amount. there was a post game, but not gone to enough by my estimation. he helped out in the pick and roll game some with wally z, and the pick and pop game with his endless carousel of half-decent pg's: starbury, brandon, billups... defensively he was long, quick, and active. he discouraged entry passes well and he had quick hands but wasn't much of a shotblocker even though he had the length and athleticism for it. i saw a great PF but there were questions if he was suited to play PF and if he wouldn't be better at SF. Offensively he was 4th behind Dirk, Duncan, and Webber. What separated him from the others was his rebounding #'s and his well-rounded game (although rebounding was really the only thing he did outstanding). There were tons of talk of him not being enough of a leader to take charge and get his team out of the 1st round. The "mentally soft" talks were swirling and luckily the '04 season came and quieted the whispers because otherwise he would be forever branded as a loser. then for the next 3 seasons he was really pushed into the backburner in favor of Steve Nash talk, Kobe's scoring explosion, Lebron/Wade emerging, etc. Then he became relevant again when people asked if 3 "almost there" guys in the boston 3 party could rally together for a W against the Lakers. Really what i see now is a bunch of people who can point to the '04 season and the '08 season and backtrack their way to try and explain the anomaly season(s) and tout KG as this woebegone tragic hero and GOAT defender. I really never thought any of these things when watching the NBA at any point in the past 10 years. eye-test only of course.

Seriously, Reggie and Ewing's teams were 10x more stacked than even the best incarnation of the Wolves teams.

no. absolutely not. not Reggie's pacers. Reggie, Rik Smits, and a bunch of 6'9 journeymen (mckey, dale davis, antonio davis, croshere, al harrington, etc) managing to knock out Shaq? Ewing? the Bucks' big 3 (allen, robinson, cassell), Iverson? no freakin way.

And no, people wouldn't be winning more than 50 games with those Wolves teams, how many wins do you expect people to get with Wally Z as your second fiddle? Should they really have even taken teams like Shaq/Kobe's Lakers 6 games?

well, as someone else pointed out Lebron took the same Wally Z and Joe Smith but 7 years older and twice as injured and took 66 W's. wrong rim ricky won 45 in Boston with a mismash of underachievers the season before he landed with the wolves and won 44. but let me ask all the KG voters: should we be making excuses for their teammates at the 11 spot?

People act like the Wolves were winning 30 games and getting gifted an 8th spot, they were up at or around 50 wins with terrible support offensively and defensively, and running into powerhouse teams.

Really, Dallas is like the worst team they played in the first round in that stretch, and Steve Nash and Michael Finley were far better players than anything the Wolves could trot out.

Really, how many games is Troy Hudson, RAsho, Kendall Gill, and Wally going to win with another star? 55-60? lol.

40, 45, *42, 50, 47, 50, 51, 58, 44, 33, 32 wins from '97 to '07

so, no. not "at or around 50 wins" at all. they WERE winning 30 wins and not even gifted an 8 spot. they lost to... the fading Rockets squad, a post-kemp (read: vin baker era) sonics team, the lockout spurs, the '00 blazers, another odd-#-year spurs squad, the aforementioned mavs, lake show twice, and then nothing, nothing, nothing.

i don't want to make any apologies for KG, but i don't want it to sound like i just arbitrarily hate garnett. i just find this thread to be bizarrely pro-KG and overrating him a good amount. it seems borderline revisionist to go back and say "oh he was this unbelievable point forward that was doing anything and everything for his team and the only reason he couldn't win in either the regular season or the post-season is that his teammates are so absurdly cancerous they were just short of physically leaching blood from him in the middle of games." especially the defense. i really don't see it - and YES. I DID WATCH HIM PLAY.