Is Kevin Garnett a defensive anchor?

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Well first let's be clear that all detailed metrics say Garnett is having a positive impact on offense. Is it as big in Boston as his defense? Not even close, but it's positive.

However in Minnesota he had huge offensive impact, and he changed his offensive game drastically when he came to Boston in order to fit in with the other stars, and that included simply focusing more of his energy on defense, which has gotten more dramatic as his age makes his stamina decrease.

[semi-sentient]

What do you mean by huge impact? In his prime (tail-end, at least), the Wolves were among the worst offensive teams in the league (05-06, 06-07), and in prior years the main difference is that he had some guys that could create and/or shoot (Cassell, Sprewell, Wally, Brandon, etc.). What does it say about his impact when the Wolves fall from a top 5ish offense to worst 5ish with him being the only constant from one year to the next? His stats where nice and all, but I don't see a player as having a huge impact if their teams are that horrible offensively with them being the primary option.

[Rapcity_11]

What do you mean by huge impact? In his prime (tail-end, at least), the Wolves were among the worst offensive teams in the league (05-06, 06-07), and in prior years the main difference is that he had some guys that could create and/or shoot (Cassell, Sprewell, Wally, Brandon, etc.). What does it say about his impact when the Wolves fall from a top 5ish offense to worst 5ish with him being the only constant from one year to the next? His stats where nice and all, but I don't see a player as having a huge impact if their teams are that horrible offensively with them being the primary option.

KG on/off Ortg:

03/04 +13.0
04/05 +1.8
05/06 +9.9
06/07 +8.8

Pretty large impact.

[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.

Well first let's be clear that all detailed metrics say Garnett is having a positive impact on offense. Is it as big in Boston as his defense? Not even close, but it's positive.

However in Minnesota he had huge offensive impact, and he changed his offensive game drastically when he came to Boston in order to fit in with the other stars, and that included simply focusing more of his energy on defense, which has gotten more dramatic as his age makes his stamina decrease.

Here are the Celtics stats in 2008 without KG:
102.7 PPG
94 PPG against
+8.72 differential

112.7 O rtg
103.1 D rtg
+9.57 differential

The offense increased a bit without KG. That +9.57 differential is better than any champion in NBA history except for the 92, 96, and 97 Bulls. So that differential is even better than the 86 Celtics and 87 lakers.

[semi-sentient]

What do you mean by huge impact? In his prime (tail-end, at least), the Wolves were among the worst offensive teams in the league (05-06, 06-07), and in prior years the main difference is that he had some guys that could create and/or shoot (Cassell, Sprewell, Wally, Brandon, etc.). What does it say about his impact when the Wolves fall from a top 5ish offense to worst 5ish with him being the only constant from one year to the next? His stats where nice and all, but I don't see a player as having a huge impact if their teams are that horrible offensively with them being the primary option.

KG on/off Ortg:

03/04 +13.0
04/05 +1.8
05/06 +9.9
06/07 +8.8

Pretty large impact.

Where can I find those numbers? I'm curious to see how PG's and whatnot compare.

[Rapcity_11]

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.

on/off Ortg
07/08 +8.0
08/09 +3.6
09/10 +2.7
10/11 +10.3

The off includes all the time where Garnett was off the floor (either injured or on the bench)

So no the offense is much better with KG on playing.

[Rapcity_11]

What do you mean by huge impact? In his prime (tail-end, at least), the Wolves were among the worst offensive teams in the league (05-06, 06-07), and in prior years the main difference is that he had some guys that could create and/or shoot (Cassell, Sprewell, Wally, Brandon, etc.). What does it say about his impact when the Wolves fall from a top 5ish offense to worst 5ish with him being the only constant from one year to the next? His stats where nice and all, but I don't see a player as having a huge impact if their teams are that horrible offensively with them being the primary option.

KG on/off Ortg:

03/04 +13.0
04/05 +1.8
05/06 +9.9
06/07 +8.8

Pretty large impact.

Where can I find those numbers? I'm curious to see how PG's and whatnot compare.

82 games.

Click on prior seasons in the bottom left. Click on the team you want and then the player you want.

I'm a big fan of using those on/off numbers.

[hasslinghoff]

What do you mean by huge impact? In his prime (tail-end, at least), the Wolves were among the worst offensive teams in the league (05-06, 06-07), and in prior years the main difference is that he had some guys that could create and/or shoot (Cassell, Sprewell, Wally, Brandon, etc.). What does it say about his impact when the Wolves fall from a top 5ish offense to worst 5ish with him being the only constant from one year to the next? His stats where nice and all, but I don't see a player as having a huge impact if their teams are that horrible offensively with them being the primary option.

KG on/off Ortg:

03/04 +13.0
04/05 +1.8
05/06 +9.9
06/07 +8.8

Pretty large impact.

Where can I find those numbers? I'm curious to see how PG's and whatnot compare.

some articles by dan rosenbaum on 82games might be what you're looking for: http://www.82games.com/articles.htm

or just have a look at some of the multi-year-apm-results:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... l=en#gid=0
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ranking_rec

[semi-sentient]

So I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly, but doesn't the following suggest that Cassell had a much greater impact than Garnett?

2004-05

Code: Select all

              On    Off

   Cassell  +4.0   -0.2
   Garnett  +2.2   -1.4
Szczerbiak  +2.0   +0.3

I wish some numbers were available for 2003-04 when Cassell was even better, because I very much remember fearing the Wolves because of Cassell and not Garnett. He was the guy that seemed to make the engine go, and frankly I never really feared Garnett when we faced the Wolves.

Anyway, when I think of huge impact offensive players I think of guys who can really break a defense down and consistently draw multiple defenders. I'm not sure if +/- can really give me any insight there. Doesn't bench strength have a large impact on +/-? Rotations?

Also, going by that, Garnett had a bigger impact than Nash in 05-06, which is quite absurd. Maybe I'm not reading them right though, but that's what it seems to suggest.

[Rapcity_11]

So I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly, but doesn't the following suggest that Cassell had a much greater impact than Garnett?

2004-05

Code: Select all

              On    Off

   Cassell  +4.0   -0.2
   Garnett  +2.2   -1.4
Szczerbiak  +2.0   +0.3

I wish some numbers were available for 2003-04 when Cassell was even better, because I very much remember fearing the Wolves because of Cassell and not Garnett. He was the guy that seemed to make the engine go, and frankly I never really feared Garnett when we faced the Wolves.

Anyway, when I think of huge impact offensive players I think of guys who can really break a defense down and consistently draw multiple defenders. I'm not sure if +/- can really give me any insight there. Doesn't bench strength have a large impact on +/-? Rotations?

Also, going by that, Garnett had a bigger impact than Nash in 05-06, which is quite absurd. Maybe I'm not reading them right though, but that's what it seems to suggest.

Yes, you're correct. In 04/05 KG had a down year in terms of on/off impact.

Like I already indicated 03/04 KG is +13.0 on offense and -6.5 on defense and Cassell is +9.7 on offense and -1.7 on defense. Nice numbers for Cassell but nowhere near KG.

Of course benches/rotations have ton to do with on/off numbers. It's still a good way to measure impact.

[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.

on/off Ortg
07/08 +8.0
08/09 +3.6
09/10 +2.7
10/11 +10.3

The off includes all the time where Garnett was off the floor (either injured or on the bench)

So no the offense is much better with KG on playing.

But the offense was better in games KG missed than the games he played. I take more stock in those numbers because off/on numbers have small sample sizes with lots of bench players playing. In the games he missed, the sample is pretty large and its more relevant because it includes a lot of time with starters.

[Rapcity_11]

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.

on/off Ortg
07/08 +8.0
08/09 +3.6
09/10 +2.7
10/11 +10.3

The off includes all the time where Garnett was off the floor (either injured or on the bench)

So no the offense is much better with KG on playing.

But the offense was better in games KG missed than the games he played. I take more stock in those numbers because off/on numbers have small sample sizes with lots of bench players playing. In the games he missed, the sample is pretty large and its more relevant because it includes a lot of time with starters.

on/off numbers include both time on the bench and games missed.

07/08 - 2328 minutes on vs. 1621 minutes off
08/09 - 1771 minutes on vs. 2204 minutes off
09/10 - 2060 minutes on vs. 1894 minutes off
10/11 - 2219 mintues on vs. 1736 minutes off

How are those small sample sizes? If anything taking only games missed is causing small sample size problems.

Where did you find the numbers for the offense improving with Garnett out?

[prs]

I think KG has the most apologists of any player on this board.

His minny teammates
-sucked on defense
-sucked on offense

Coaches had
-terrible schemes

Wonder how all those players were ever in the NBA.

To me hes most definitely not an anchor. We've seen players that have taken teams similar to the wolfs in defensive talent to the top of the league because of their inside presence. Those players are defensive anchors, not KG.

[Doctor MJ]

Here are the Celtics stats in 2008 without KG:
102.7 PPG
94 PPG against
+8.72 differential

112.7 O rtg
103.1 D rtg
+9.57 differential

The offense increased a bit without KG. That +9.57 differential is better than any champion in NBA history except for the 92, 96, and 97 Bulls. So that differential is even better than the 86 Celtics and 87 lakers.

Kinda confused what you're referring to here. Seems like it must be '07-08 and the 11 games played without Garnett.

Presuming that's the case, it's important to understand how insanely good those Celtics were. Through the end of the 2007 calendar year, they were winning at a 74 win pace outscoring opponents by about 14 PPG. Then they started coasting. Like normal coasting teams, when a star goes out, they often stop coasting, and so the C's actually pulled out of a mini-slide when Garnett went down contributing to a feeling that "Oh, I guess Garnett wasn't that great after all" which I fell for too.

The question though should never have been "Is Garnett alone responsible for the single biggest turnaround in all of NBA history?". Obviously he wasn't. Was he a huge part of why the '07-08 C's were the best regular season team since Jordan's Bulls DESPITE injuries and coasting? Abso-freaking-lutely.

[Doctor MJ]

What do you mean by huge impact? In his prime (tail-end, at least), the Wolves were among the worst offensive teams in the league (05-06, 06-07), and in prior years the main difference is that he had some guys that could create and/or shoot (Cassell, Sprewell, Wally, Brandon, etc.). What does it say about his impact when the Wolves fall from a top 5ish offense to worst 5ish with him being the only constant from one year to the next? His stats where nice and all, but I don't see a player as having a huge impact if their teams are that horrible offensively with them being the primary option.

Minny's ORtg actually improved significantly in '04-05 with Cassell missing huge time with injury (playing less than half Garnett's minutes) and seeing his PER fall out of his prime range. Again and again, when we try to make some kind of statement of "Maybe Minny teammate X was actually AMAZING!" it falls apart.

The regular stats tell us Garnett was by far the star of this team, the advanced stats tell us Garnett was by far the star of this team, the +/- stats tell us Garnett was by far the star of the team. The only thing we have indicating otherwise is just the fact that the team was quite bad in the last two years.

Common sense tells us that one man can't do it alone, but when we see a star actually on a struggling team, it's as if we just can't believe it. Like it's a 1-in-a-million chance that a star could actually have that bad a luck. In reality, the odds of a star having a couple bad team years is a hell of a lot more likely than that. And when a player is on a small market club, receiving a death penalty for rule breaking by the league, and then faces a lot of injuries (from himself and teammates), we should expect that team to struggle.

[Doctor MJ]

I think KG has the most apologists of any player on this board.

His minny teammates
-sucked on defense
-sucked on offense

Coaches had
-terrible schemes

Wonder how all those players were ever in the NBA.

I want to draw the distinction here between a Garnett and a guy like Pete Maravich.

What are the odds that again and again your team sucks if you're a true superstar-level player? Pretty dang low Pistol Pete.

What are the odds that you have a really bad run of luck for a couple years? Pretty common.

People have this weird tendency to act like Garnett played his whole career on terrible teams. Dude had two crappy team years. So did Wilt. Kobe had one, Kareem had one. I'm not saying you can't use these years against a player, but it should not be done simply because it exists. Bad luck does happen.

[pancakes3]

^ struggle to put points up on the board. defense doesn't really rely on talent - mostly just effort and hustle.

[Doctor MJ]

Yes, you're correct. In 04/05 KG had a down year in terms of on/off impact.

Like I already indicated 03/04 KG is +13.0 on offense and -6.5 on defense and Cassell is +9.7 on offense and -1.7 on defense. Nice numbers for Cassell but nowhere near KG.

Of course benches/rotations have ton to do with on/off numbers. It's still a good way to measure impact.

Obviously you and I largely agree, but I want to take issue with the bolded phrasing.

In '04-05, KG had a down year in terms of +/- numbers, but the issue with one year there's a good amount of noise in the numbers. Plus, the APM numbers from 82games & Engelmann still are saying he's quite good if not as good as in other years.

[WhateverBro]

I think KG has the most apologists of any player on this board.

His minny teammates
-sucked on defense
-sucked on offense

Coaches had
-terrible schemes

Wonder how all those players were ever in the NBA.

To me hes most definitely not an anchor. We've seen players that have taken teams similar to the wolfs in defensive talent to the top of the league because of their inside presence. Those players are defensive anchors, not KG.

Well, his Minny teamates did suck defensively. The only two I can think of on the top of my head that he played with, that actually was good defensively, is Hassell and Ervin Johnson. That says a lot.

Edit: And are you suggesting coaches like Flip and Wittman was running good defensive schemes? The only competent defense coach he played with was Dwane Casey...for 1 and a half season.

[Doctor MJ]

^ struggle to put points up on the board. defense doesn't really rely on talent - mostly just effort and hustle.

Not sure what you're responding to specifically here but while I'd agree that a team's defense is not as dependent on individual talent as a team's offense, this doesn't mean that you can keep from getting burned if you just try harder. There's a lot of collective intelligence involved in good team defense that needs to come from the top down.

Also, one can argue that raw athleticism is actually more important for defense than offense. To make an analogy: In football, the quickest guy on the field is typically the cornerback because he has to be able to change direction on a dime in reaction to what the offensive player does.