Is Kevin Garnett a defensive anchor?

[semi-sentient]

08-09 is interesting. Garnett missed just over 30% of the season and the Celtics were still the 2nd best defensive team in the league in terms of dRtg.

He still played 70% of the season

That he did, but he wasn't exactly playing heavy minutes. The point is that the Celtics were still a very good defensive team even with KG being limited that season.

[Geaux_Hawks]

You just said something that has no relevance to the subject. What would you expect a bunch of D leaguers to do against quality nba players besides suck on D and lose game after game?! But thats not even the point right now

If you look back at those numbers, Duncan had better defensive teams around him compared to KG. When KG had better help defensively, his teams were much better even in a league with a bunch of run and gun offenses.

[Geaux_Hawks]

08-09 is interesting. Garnett missed just over 30% of the season and the Celtics were still the 2nd best defensive team in the league in terms of dRtg.

He still played 70% of the season

That he did, but he wasn't exactly playing heavy minutes. The point is that the Celtics were still a very good defensive team even with KG being limited that season.

31 MPG isn't heavy?! 57 games is still a good chunk of the season considering he played majority of them before he got hurt and was clocking heavy minutes

[drza]

There's a lot more to it than just Garnett joining the Celtics. For starters, Pierce missed half the prior season, and the only other guys that were somewhat steady for the Celtics were Gerald Green, Al Jeff, and Delonte West. Kendrick Perkins was only get around 22 MPG, so while he was solid defender he wasn't getting the minutes to have enough of an impact -- and let's face it, when you're FC partner is Al Jeff then you're in bad shape.

Rondo came in and was already a decent defender in his first season. He's quick and while not a great man defender it doesn't matter when you have KG and Perkins backing you up. Ray Allen has always been a solid defender, and when you put all of that together in addition to the motivation those 3 guys had upon coming together, well, they were pretty fantastic.

Oh, and they hired a guy named Tom Thibodeau that off-season. I think he had a little something to do with that improvement as well..

The thing is, because of Garnett's injuries in the past 4 years we can test exactly how the Celtics have played with and without him with a huge sample size each way. We also have a huge sample size with the starting unit without Perkins. I spent some time looking through 82games.com's 5-man units and this is what it told me about how the Rondo/Allen/Pierce units have played with every combination of big man the Celtics have had:

Garnett and Perkins: 112.4 points/100 possessions, 97.3 points allowed/100 poss
Garnett w/o Perkins: 111.9 points/100 possessions, 99.3 points allowed/100 poss
Perkins w/o Garnett: 109.5 points/100 possessions, 112.1 points allowed/100 poss

Now, let me be clear. Since Garnett arrived in 2007, the Celtics' main starting group (Rondo, Ray Allen, Pierce, and Perkins) in a Tom Thibideaux defense have given up 112.1 points/100 possessions when any other player besides Garnett was the 5th player on the floor with them. Just for clarity, the worst defense in the NBA this year gave up 112.7 points/100 possessions. And again, we're talking huge sample sizes here, from well over 200 games that Garnett has played in and 60 that he hasn't over the past 4 years. Conversely, with Garnett in the the line-up (with or without Perkins) the starting unit has given up 13 - 15 fewer points per 100 possessions.

How is that possible if Garnett is riding their coattails to the elite Celtics defenses of the past 4 years?

And again, let me be clear. I'm not saying that the other 4 players are bad defenders, or that they don't also play a role in the Celtics' defensive results. They're not, and they do. But the thing is, individually, the other 4 Celtics have some things that make them effective defenders but also things that make them LIMITED defensive players. By themselves, they can't play stifling team defense even in an excellent Thibideau scheme, because alone they aren't enough. What they need is the one defensive player to build the whole thing around...the guy who is able to erase their mistakes, to help them to recover when their man beats them, and to make sure that they are in the right places at all times.

In short, to be successful on defense, the other Celtics need a defensive anchor.

In all of the conversations I've had on the subject, I've never had ONE person able to explain the above facts to me without Garnett being the anchor. Usually, at this point either the thread dies or the argument is taken in another direction. When Garnett's around, the Celtics team defense is elite. When he's not, the defense falls off a cliff. You can swap out the 2nd best defender, no problem. Swap out Garnett, and the main unit stinks on defense. I mean seriously...what is the counter-argument here? Four years later, how can we still be having new posts about whether or not Garnett is a defensive anchor?

[semi-sentient]

How is that possible if Garnett is riding their coattails to the elite Celtics defenses of the past 4 years?

You're quoting me and then putting down that statement as if I was actually implying that?

My comment was directed at those suggesting the Celtics turned around their defense simply because Garnett joined the team, at which point I pretty clearly stated that there were other factors that needed to be considered.

How many times have you defended Garnett's Wolves by claiming that he didn't have any good defenders around him or that they weren't running any good defensive schemes in Minny? None of that matters now?

Edit: Typos.

[colts18]

What is the Celtics D rating in the games Garnett is out? It's worse by about 5 points, but the offense improves in the games Garnett is out.

[Geaux_Hawks]

There's a lot more to it than just Garnett joining the Celtics. For starters, Pierce missed half the prior season, and the only other guys that were somewhat steady for the Celtics were Gerald Green, Al Jeff, and Delonte West. Kendrick Perkins was only get around 22 MPG, so while he was solid defender he wasn't getting the minutes to have enough of an impact -- and let's face it, when you're FC partner is Al Jeff then you're in bad shape.

Rondo came in and was already a decent defender in his first season. He's quick and while not a great man defender it doesn't matter when you have KG and Perkins backing you up. Ray Allen has always been a solid defender, and when you put all of that together in addition to the motivation those 3 guys had upon coming together, well, they were pretty fantastic.

Oh, and they hired a guy named Tom Thibodeau that off-season. I think he had a little something to do with that improvement as well..

The thing is, because of Garnett's injuries in the past 4 years we can test exactly how the Celtics have played with and without him with a huge sample size each way. We also have a huge sample size with the starting unit without Perkins. I spent some time looking through 82games.com's 5-man units and this is what it told me about how the Rondo/Allen/Pierce units have played with every combination of big man the Celtics have had:

Garnett and Perkins: 112.4 points/100 possessions, 97.3 points allowed/100 poss
Garnett w/o Perkins: 111.9 points/100 possessions, 99.3 points allowed/100 poss
Perkins w/o Garnett: 109.5 points/100 possessions, 112.1 points allowed/100 poss

Now, let me be clear. Since Garnett arrived in 2007, the Celtics' main starting group (Rondo, Ray Allen, Pierce, and Perkins) in a Tom Thibideaux defense have given up 112.1 points/100 possessions when any other player besides Garnett was the 5th player on the floor with them. Just for clarity, the worst defense in the NBA this year gave up 112.7 points/100 possessions. And again, we're talking huge sample sizes here, from well over 200 games that Garnett has played in and 60 that he hasn't over the past 4 years. Conversely, with Garnett in the the line-up (with or without Perkins) the starting unit has given up 13 - 15 fewer points per 100 possessions.

How is that possible if Garnett is riding their coattails to the elite Celtics defenses of the past 4 years?

And again, let me be clear. I'm not saying that the other 4 players are bad defenders, or that they don't also play a role in the Celtics' defensive results. They're not, and they do. But the thing is, individually, the other 4 Celtics have some things that make them effective defenders but also things that make them LIMITED defensive players. By themselves, they can't play stifling team defense even in an excellent Thibideau scheme, because alone they aren't enough. What they need is the one defensive player to build the whole thing around...the guy who is able to erase their mistakes, to help them to recover when their man beats them, and to make sure that they are in the right places at all times.

In short, to be successful on defense, the other Celtics need a defensive anchor.

In all of the conversations I've had on the subject, I've never had ONE person able to explain the above facts to me without Garnett being the anchor. Usually, at this point either the thread dies or the argument is taken in another direction. When Garnett's around, the Celtics team defense is elite. When he's not, the defense falls off a cliff. You can swap out the 2nd best defender, no problem. Swap out Garnett, and the main unit stinks on defense. I mean seriously...what is the counter-argument here? Four years later, how can we still be having new posts about whether or not Garnett is a defensive anchor?

Beautiful!!

[semi-sentient]

Can I get a season-by-season break down?

[Geaux_Hawks]

Can I get a season-by-season break down?

I hope he can provide it, but what does it matter. The numbers show that without Garnett in the line-up, the Celtics are a worse defense.

[ThaRegul8r]

There's a lot more to it than just Garnett joining the Celtics. For starters, Pierce missed half the prior season, and the only other guys that were somewhat steady for the Celtics were Gerald Green, Al Jeff, and Delonte West. Kendrick Perkins was only get around 22 MPG, so while he was solid defender he wasn't getting the minutes to have enough of an impact -- and let's face it, when you're FC partner is Al Jeff then you're in bad shape.

Rondo came in and was already a decent defender in his first season. He's quick and while not a great man defender it doesn't matter when you have KG and Perkins backing you up. Ray Allen has always been a solid defender, and when you put all of that together in addition to the motivation those 3 guys had upon coming together, well, they were pretty fantastic.

Oh, and they hired a guy named Tom Thibodeau that off-season. I think he had a little something to do with that improvement as well..

The thing is, because of Garnett's injuries in the past 4 years we can test exactly how the Celtics have played with and without him with a huge sample size each way. We also have a huge sample size with the starting unit without Perkins. I spent some time looking through 82games.com's 5-man units and this is what it told me about how the Rondo/Allen/Pierce units have played with every combination of big man the Celtics have had:

Garnett and Perkins: 112.4 points/100 possessions, 97.3 points allowed/100 poss
Garnett w/o Perkins: 111.9 points/100 possessions, 99.3 points allowed/100 poss
Perkins w/o Garnett: 109.5 points/100 possessions, 112.1 points allowed/100 poss

Now, let me be clear. Since Garnett arrived in 2007, the Celtics' main starting group (Rondo, Ray Allen, Pierce, and Perkins) in a Tom Thibideaux defense have given up 112.1 points/100 possessions when any other player besides Garnett was the 5th player on the floor with them. Just for clarity, the worst defense in the NBA this year gave up 112.7 points/100 possessions. And again, we're talking huge sample sizes here, from well over 200 games that Garnett has played in and 60 that he hasn't over the past 4 years. Conversely, with Garnett in the the line-up (with or without Perkins) the starting unit has given up 13 - 15 fewer points per 100 possessions.

How is that possible if Garnett is riding their coattails to the elite Celtics defenses of the past 4 years?

And again, let me be clear. I'm not saying that the other 4 players are bad defenders, or that they don't also play a role in the Celtics' defensive results. They're not, and they do. But the thing is, individually, the other 4 Celtics have some things that make them effective defenders but also things that make them LIMITED defensive players. By themselves, they can't play stifling team defense even in an excellent Thibideau scheme, because alone they aren't enough. What they need is the one defensive player to build the whole thing around...the guy who is able to erase their mistakes, to help them to recover when their man beats them, and to make sure that they are in the right places at all times.

In short, to be successful on defense, the other Celtics need a defensive anchor.

In all of the conversations I've had on the subject, I've never had ONE person able to explain the above facts to me without Garnett being the anchor. Usually, at this point either the thread dies or the argument is taken in another direction. When Garnett's around, the Celtics team defense is elite. When he's not, the defense falls off a cliff. You can swap out the 2nd best defender, no problem. Swap out Garnett, and the main unit stinks on defense. I mean seriously...what is the counter-argument here? Four years later, how can we still be having new posts about whether or not Garnett is a defensive anchor?

It disturbs me the extent to which people are unable to revise their thinking in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's like some people have already made up their mind on the matter, and absolutely nothing can change it.

[drza]

How is that possible if Garnett is riding their coattails to the elite Celtics defenses of the past 4 years?

You're quoting me and then putting down that statement as if I was actually implying that?

My comment was directed at those suggesting the Celtics turned around their defense simply because Garnett joined the team, at which point I pretty clearly stated that there were other factors that needed to be considered.

How many times have you defended Garnett's Wolves by claiming that he didn't have any good defenders around him or that they weren't running any good defensive schemes in Minny? None of that matters now?

Edit: Typos.

Touche' on your first statement. When I first started, I had a long paragraph header relating what you wrote about the individual Celtics defenders to the stat analysis that I later provided. Then, when I read my post it was long and I've been trying to shorten them lately so more people would read them, so I snipped the first paragraph entirely. So I can see you might have this response. my bad.

That said, your last statement is an example of you doing the same thing to me. In the quote of mine that you snipped, I specifically say:

"And again, let me be clear. I'm not saying that the other 4 players are bad defenders, or that they don't also play a role in the Celtics' defensive results. They're not, and they do. But the thing is, individually, the other 4 Celtics have some things that make them effective defenders but also things that make them LIMITED defensive players. By themselves, they can't play stifling team defense even in an excellent Thibideau scheme, because alone they aren't enough. What they need is the one defensive player to build the whole thing around...the guy who is able to erase their mistakes, to help them to recover when their man beats them, and to make sure that they are in the right places at all times.

In short, to be successful on defense, the other Celtics need a defensive anchor."

Which is, I think, the larger point. The OP asks if KG is an anchor, and in response many in this thread (you included) have suggested that because the Celtics have other solid defenders or play a good defensive scheme Garnett's defensive impact isn't as large as someone like Duncan's. What I was pointing out in my last thread was that this stance isn't logical. Because of his injuries, we can CLEARLY isolate what the Celtics' defense looks like with and without Garnett. And if Garnett is the lynchpin, the one who allows the Celtics defense to be elite, then he is their anchor. Just like Duncan was the anchor of those Spurs despite playing with good defensive teammates in a great defensive scheme.

[semi-sentient]

Can I get a season-by-season break down?

I hope he can provide it, but what does it matter.

It matters because the amount of games that Perkins played w/o KG is rather lopsided compared to the number of games KG played w/o Perkins. Wre talking a total of 11 games that KG played and Perkins didn't, and at that point the opponent starts to really matter. I don't think it's worth even including 10-11 because Perkins was injured quite a bit and Thibs was no longer with the club, so there are entirely too many variables. Anyway, this is what I came up with, which is why I don't think those sample sizes are going to be very telling:

07-08:

- 70 games together
- 7 games with Perkins, w/o KG
- 2 games with KG, w/o Perkins

08-09:

- 51 games together
- 24 games with Perkins, w/o KG (18-6 record)
- 6 games with KG, w/o Perkins

09-10:

- 66 games together
- 12 games with Perkins, w/o KG
- 3 games with KG, w/o Perkins

The numbers show that without Garnett in the line-up, the Celtics are a worse defense.

Of course they are. Was anyone suggesting otherwise?

[Doormatt]

Awesome post drza. I already sort of considered KG an anchor, but when you look at that, it's hard to deny his awesome impact.

[drza]

Can I get a season-by-season break down?

ETA: In every combo that I posted, Rondo/Ray/Pierce are the other 3 players on the court. These are the breakdowns for how units featuring those 3 players and these combos of 2 big men do defensively. The first column is points allowed per 100 possessions, the last column is the number of minutes that the units played together in a season according to 82games.com's 5-man unit info.

Code: Select all

          pts/100   min
2007-08         
KG/Perk        93   1052
Posey/KG       105   143
KG/Baby        102   77
Scal/Perk      99   51
Posey/Perk    121   41

2008-09         
KG/Perk        98   1074
Baby/Perk     115   361
Scal/KG        96   110
Powe/Perk     108   101
KG/Baby        96   78
Powe/KG        88   66
Scal/Perk     100   52
         
2009-10         
KG/Perk       100   1179.4
Wallace/Perk  109   194.4
KG/Wallace    109   182.1
Scal/Perk     116   66.6
Baby/Perk     126   46.7
         
2010-11         
KG/Baby      96   515.3
KG/Krstic    98   284.9
KG/Shaq      99   265.9
KG/Perk      100   169.7
KG/Jermaine  100   127.1
KG/Semih     104   79.3
KG/Green     105   52.5




[Fencer reregistered]

but when Perkins was traded to OKC at the deadline it really hurt the Celtics' defense. They just weren't the same out there because they didn't have a defensive anchor.

That's not really the case. Perk didn't play much that year anyway, and when he did he was limited.

What's bizarre is that the offense suffered, which only makes sense as an emotional reaction.

[G35]

I think it's a difference of opinion or maybe semantics/interpretation of what a defensive anchor is.

Imo a defensive anchor is the DRob/Hakeem/Dwight type. The last line of defense rim protector that is the main defensive component. If you drop a defensive anchor on a team that is defensively deficient e.g. the Phoenix Suns then they could become a top 5 defense.

I look at KG as a "glue" component. He is the piece that makes a team defense work. Without him the defense doesn't perform as well. He doesn't necessarily block a ton of shots or man the middle but his presence makes everyone else perform better. Like Scottie did for the Bulls. He did the intangibles that made all the Bulls better at their assigned duties.

With a defensive anchor you don't have to have great defensive players or gameplan. The anchor will erase any mistakes with his intimidation and presence.....

[Vincent 666]

I dont think its even a question.......yes.

He was the defensive anchor on the 2008 team.

KG clearly lost a step since his injury.

[Geaux_Hawks]

I think it's a difference of opinion or maybe semantics/interpretation of what a defensive anchor is.

Imo a defensive anchor is the DRob/Hakeem/Dwight type. The last line of defense rim protector that is the main defensive component. If you drop a defensive anchor on a team that is defensively deficient e.g. the Phoenix Suns then they could become a top 5 defense.

I look at KG as a "glue" component. He is the piece that makes a team defense work. Without him the defense doesn't perform as well. He doesn't necessarily block a ton of shots or man the middle but his presence makes everyone else perform better. Like Scottie did for the Bulls. He did the intangibles that made all the Bulls better at their assigned duties.

With a defensive anchor you don't have to have great defensive players or gameplan. The anchor will erase any mistakes with his intimidation and presence.....

But Duncan played in a great scheme and was surrounded by many great defenders.

[pancakes3]

which is relevant because he said "duncan" all of 0 times in his post?

[Doctor MJ]

With a defensive anchor you don't have to have great defensive players or gameplan. The anchor will erase any mistakes with his intimidation and presence.....

By that definition defensive anchors no longer exist. Not saying someone like Dwight Howard isn't great, but this notion that he could turn any defensive lineup into an elite defense is completely without basis. The +/- stats tell us players on that level don't exist, as does common sense: In a league where it's trivial to find players who can bury an open 3, defense gets nowhere without it's components being smart about working together.

And of course, who is the best in the league at being a defensive general telling his teammates where to go while covering the most ground himself? Garnett.