The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[Texas Chuck]

[

Who cares about typical? I only care about defensive impact.

This is an interesting take considering your comments related to pgs. Is it that KG is such an outlier? You know, like JAson Kidd?*


*couldnt resist obviously

Sorry man, I don't follow.

Essentially that the further away from the rim you play, the less impact you are able to have defensively. the best wing ever--Pippen for example doesnt have nearly the same impact as a much-lower rated defensive center.

KG, even in Boston, has played defense further away from the rim than other elite big man defenders--Russell, Dream, Admiral, Deke, Wallace, Duncan, etc. Is it wrong then for Dr P or myself to question if his impact is really as great at those guys? You obviously believe it is, hence my question about you believing KG to be some kind of significant outlier.

[Texas Chuck]

2. Why it should matters when overall defensive impact is what's really important?

Where were you in my pg thread? I needed someone else to understand that guys like Kidd and other non elite scoring pgs can still have a tremendous positive impact even if they didnt do it in the "correct way"

[lorak]

2. Why it should matters when overall defensive impact is what's really important?

Where were you in my pg thread? I needed someone else to understand that guys like Kidd and other non elite scoring pgs can still have a tremendous positive impact even if they didnt do it in the "correct way"

Sorry, I don't read every thread, because engaging in every interesting discussion is too time consuming.

But look what you said in reply to Rapcity. Because of KG's style of defense (let's assume it's really significantly more away from the rim than other great defenders) his impact might be lower than others defensive anchors. Of course we have DRPAM for him and Duncan and Wallace and still KG looks as good as them. It might be because even if he played more away from the rime, that style of defense was very valuable in 3P and p&r league when help D is much more important than man to man D. So for example in 60s his defensive impact might be lower, but something similar applies to Russell. Some of his teams were so dominant on defense because league as a whole was weak offensively and at rim oriented, so it was easier for big man to "alone" change whole team D and had great impact defensively.

[ElGee]

This is an interesting take considering your comments related to pgs. Is it that KG is such an outlier? You know, like JAson Kidd?*


*couldnt resist obviously

Sorry man, I don't follow.

Essentially that the further away from the rim you play, the less impact you are able to have defensively. the best wing ever--Pippen for example doesnt have nearly the same impact as a much-lower rated defensive center.

KG, even in Boston, has played defense further away from the rim than other elite big man defenders--Russell, Dream, Admiral, Deke, Wallace, Duncan, etc. Is it wrong then for Dr P or myself to question if his impact is really as great at those guys? You obviously believe it is, hence my question about you believing KG to be some kind of significant outlier.

Ben Wallace was 6-8, at best. LeBron is 6-8. Scottie Pippen was a strong 6-7 (maybe 6-8).

Many people are fixated with classical positions. PG, SG, SF, PF, C. I don't like this for many reasons, but JUST on defense, PG --> C matters less than Defensive Usage and quality of that usage. This means if you are LBJ or Pip and you can guard all the positions, and your usage goes up. If you can protect the rim (few non-bigs can, these guys can), the quality of your defense goes up (stopping shots at the rim is most valuable). Most BIGS can't do what Pip did to Charles Smith.

So it's less about your position and more about how you play. Pippen and LBJ are the two best non-big defenders I've ever seen because of this. (Both probably with over 7-foot wingspans making their "True Height" even taller.) Kidd is a great example of this because while he won't rim protector he will guard 3 positions well and creates major havoc with uber-defensive IQ help. So while I'll take the elite bigs over these players, there are people we think of as wing defenders who encroach on top big territory IMO.

Spoiler:

My defensive peaks ranking in the 3-pt era:

Robinson/Hakeem/Duncan/KG +4.0
B. Wallace/Mutombo +3.5
Howard/LBJ/Pippen/Shaq/Mourning/Ewing +3.0
Wade/Kidd/Payton/Kemp/Moncrief/Parish/Erving/Rodman/Jordan +2.0

Wade (6-11 wingspan), protects rim, Payton (6-4, guards both guards), Kidd (6-4) all play bigger with bigger DUsg than their position. Rodman (6-6?) plays smaller than his position, and I sometimes find his defensive reputation to overstate his impact because of how good his man defense is. Also, I wonder why I have no one at 2.5. Re-evaluation time...

[Rerisen]

Yea with Pierce and allen were he was 1A 1B with Paul on offense in the playoffs.The celtics are the team KG should've been on his whole career and the role he should've always been playing.

Odd comment. Boston is the first modern day superteam, most stars could be so lucky. I wonder what David Robinson would have done if he was on a team with Pierce, Allen and Rondo. At least one title like KG (on his own that is), possibly more. Maybe 2010 goes different if you have a legit center to deal with Gasol/Bynum. Then he probably isn't listed 8 spots behind Garnett on All Time list here.

Tough thing with KG is his team circumstances were so black and white. Mostly poor or average casts for most of his career, then an awesome cast. But still only one title out of it. Could he have won with just one other great offensive player alongside him. I don't know the answer.

[lorak]

My defensive peaks ranking in the 3-pt era:

Robinson/Hakeem/Duncan/KG +4.0
B. Wallace/Mutombo +3.5
Howard/LBJ/Pippen/Shaq/Mourning/Ewing +3.0
Wade/Kidd/Payton/Kemp/Moncrief/Parish/Erving/Rodman/Jordan +2.0

I'm glad Parish is here. One of the most underrated defenders since merger.

What about Lanier? If I remember correctly you have him with positive defensive impact, but obviously not good enough to make the list. So how good he was? +1?

Also, I think you forget about Eaton

[B_Creamy]

Robinson/Hakeem/Duncan/KG +4.0
B. Wallace/Mutombo +3.5
Howard/LBJ/Pippen/Shaq/Mourning/Ewing +3.0
Wade/Kidd/Payton/Kemp/Moncrief/Parish/Erving/Rodman/Jordan +2.0

This is interesting to me because some people don't even have LeBron as a Top 5 perimeter defender in the league today and you have him at the level of the some the best defensive centers ever. Don't want to derail the Garnett thread but that seems a little strange to me even as a LeBron fan. When you track Heat games do you notice that great an impact? (Assuming you have this year as LeBron's defensive peak)

[ardee]

Something that's been bothering me in various KG threads is that he's gotten this label from his detractors as a guy who is only viewed as awesome because of +/- stats, when that's not the case at all.

1. The guy is a box-score monster. Career RS PER of 23.1 in almost 48K minutes. 23/13/5/1.6/1.4 from 01-07.

2. Part of the reason +/- stats are used so frequently when examining him is to counter the resistance to the claims that his supporting cast was THAT bad. He isn't awesome because of +/- stats. Those stats do help show his value. Just like they do for Duncan, Dirk, Kobe, etc.

This I agree with. Purely stats wise, KG has an all-around value that I'd say is almost as good as LeBron's.... 2003-2005 were just ridiculous. He was like '94 Pippen for his whole Minnesota career.

[ardee]

Oh, and one more thing....

Would people take '03-'08 KG or '06-'11 Dirk?

[Doctor MJ]

Although I don't exactly recall there were also several other ex-teammates that didn't have a high opinion on KG. I don't think of him as a team cancer but I do think he's not someone who's easy to work with.

One could say the same about Jordan. I'm actually quite critical of Jordan at times for how abusive he was of his teammates, but I'm not going to say there was something about his demeanor that kept him from being a successful leader. I doubt anyone else will either.

Does anyone think Garnett fails where Jordan didn't because he was lazy?
Does anyone think Garnett fails where Jordan didn't because he was too selfish?
Does anyone think Garnett fails where Jordan didn't because he was too confrontational?

KG failed because he wasn't as talented to carry a team.....

So you're agreeing with me, right? (Though obviously I wouldn't put it quite like you do)

[Doctor MJ]

I've found that the majority of people go to one of two extremes. Either 1) Time erases all a player's faults and people become guilty of the availability heuristic where they don't remember the player in question's shortcomings anymore, often mythologizing them; or 2) people focus SOLELY on real or perceived faults of a particular player to the exclusion of anything else. People who do this often personally dislike the player in question for whatever reason, or said player is a rival, contemporary or historical, of another player they do like. Agendas are often involved, though they can be in the case of 1) as well. I rarely see people willing to objectively weigh the pluses and minuses in order to come to as objective a conclusion as they can.

In general in life I've found that it's easiest for people to grab hold of extremes due to the simplicity of the reasoning. Chances are on most topics, the typical person either believes basically what there parent believed, or they rebel and take some extreme opinion in the opposite direction. Also chances are neither of those beliefs is really adequate to explain the truth.

Anyway Reg, I think you definitely come off as someone adept at this kind of granular objectivity.

[GSP]

Oh, and one more thing....

Would people take '03-'08 KG or '06-'11 Dirk?

Dirk was never as good 03, 04 or 08 Kg IMO. He was better in that stretch for sure

[Rapcity_11]

Essentially that the further away from the rim you play, the less impact you are able to have defensively. the best wing ever--Pippen for example doesnt have nearly the same impact as a much-lower rated defensive center.

KG, even in Boston, has played defense further away from the rim than other elite big man defenders--Russell, Dream, Admiral, Deke, Wallace, Duncan, etc. Is it wrong then for Dr P or myself to question if his impact is really as great at those guys? You obviously believe it is, hence my question about you believing KG to be some kind of significant outlier.

A good question. Elgee just made some great points.

First I would say it's actually the further away from the rim you start defending, the less impact you have. KG starts from the paint area but often jumps out to take away space from penetrating smalls. That's very different from starting out defending those smalls above the 3 point line.

Help defense is huge, obviously. With the rules on the perimeter, the use of screens and how good perimeter guys are at getting by their man, what the bigs do makes or breaks the defense. KG's ability to be in perfect position, take away the space that the player just created for themselves, defend the PnR in every way possible, all while still being an effective shot challenger and post defender is very impressive. Yes, the highest % looks come at the rim, but most possessions don't end there. The amount of plays KG blows up and forces teams to reset up top is huge.

KG is often criticized for not being able to defend Shaq and not being an elite shotblocker. The way I see it is that no defender is perfect. Everybody is going to give up something. To look at a guy like Duncan what he gives up is open mid-range jumpers and floaters when he defends the PnR because he's most effective just dropping towards the foul line. And that's ok.

So yes, KG is an outlier. Guys with that kind of defensive IQ, footspeed, ability to defend 1-5 do not come along often. Probably only he and Russell.

[Doctor MJ]

I disagree that there was a perception that Duncan struggles in the clutch

My statement wasn't opinion. That perception was out there, so if you don't remember that's just a gap in your memory. Not everyone believed of course, but since I'm someone who basically rolls my eyes at the idea that any of these stars are serious chokers, that goes without saying.

A quick Google led to this 2005 discussion on a Spurs' fan site:

Tim Choke Duncan Sequel

As for KG's leadership don't get me wrong I've said it's excellent and outstanding in its own right. I prefer Duncan's leadership because of his actions on and off the court. Duncan is a 4 year college graduate and to me sees the big picture better. Duncan generally takes less money, is less trouble, trains players in the offseason, makes big shots at tough times, and imo KG's trashtalking ways can backfire.

I think we can come together if you use a less specific word to describe what your preference is. Say, "demeanor". You prefer Duncan's demeanor over Garnett's. You think that the way Duncan goes about things, the calm mature professionalism, is more beneficial than Garnett's "Either you're with us or against us" fanaticism. That's a very reasonable opinion.

I'll put my opinion like this:

First and foremost, I'd much rather have a star with Duncan's demeanor than I would most other stars. Most other stars have egos and get petulant when things don't go there way.

Second, if I've got Popovich, then what I need really more than anything else is a locker room vibe that emphasizes just doing what Pop says. It wouldn't be a bad thing if Duncan was a little more vocal, but the team doesn't need that from him so it's fine.

There are situations though where you really want a true leader, and really we all know what that means. A guy like Tim Duncan doesn't become president, or CEO, or lead a religious movement. Duncan is not a charasmatic, and there are situations everywhere where there's no substitute for a charasmatic. Garnett IS a charasmatic.

Remember these quotes from his teammate. Can you even imagine Duncan even trying to have this kind of direct impact on his teammates' psyche?

I’ve never seen another guy like him. He’s the most unique player I’ve ever been around. And I’ve been around some good players, some superstar-caliber players. He has a realness to him that I’ve never seen. For his pedigree of player, I’ve never seen a guy who can relate like this to the guy who may make the minimum salary, or in between.

He helps everybody with their approach to the game. He motivates everybody, he protects the guys, he’s everything that a teammate should be.

[Doctor MJ]

Essentially that the further away from the rim you play, the less impact you are able to have defensively. the best wing ever--Pippen for example doesnt have nearly the same impact as a much-lower rated defensive center.

KG, even in Boston, has played defense further away from the rim than other elite big man defenders--Russell, Dream, Admiral, Deke, Wallace, Duncan, etc. Is it wrong then for Dr P or myself to question if his impact is really as great at those guys? You obviously believe it is, hence my question about you believing KG to be some kind of significant outlier.

Remember what I said about Russell in the "trophy" thread though: What made Russell the best was his horizontal game, meaning that while he defended at the rim he didn't STAY by the rim.

What makes a globally effective defender isn't that he's close to the rim but that he has coverage over a large amount of valuable court real estate. The land by the rim may be Boardwalk & Park Place, but the best defenders own that and a lot else.

With Garnett it's clear that his domination by the rim is not as strong as it is for some others and that's something to think about and decide how big of an issue it is. I'm not going to say I have the one true answer. What we do know is that he has profound "real estate impact" simply from watching. He's got the horizontal game. And it's also clear he has massive overall impact from the data we have. The only question really is exactly how massive that impact is relative to historical figures.

[Rerisen]

KG is often criticized for not being able to defend Shaq and not being an elite shotblocker. The way I see it is that no defender is perfect. Everybody is going to give up something. To look at a guy like Duncan what he gives up is open mid-range jumpers and floaters when he defends the PnR because he's most effective just dropping towards the foul line. And that's ok.

A defensive 4 anchor should be potentially as good as a 5 *unless* the above scenario, you have to defend a superstar 5. Unfortunately, many of the great teams through league history featured great centers, so its going to come up frequently enough to matter.

I think a defensive 5 anchor scales down and impacts defending all positions on the floor similarly outside their own, because of the rim protection and ability to guard the biggest most talented players on the floor. A 4 scales down as well, but maybe not up so well.

When you look at defensive metrics against 29 other teams, maybe this effect is going to get bled out some, because at any given time there are only a couple of great centers in the league, maybe none presently. But when they are present, they matter a lot.

[ElGee]

My defensive peaks ranking in the 3-pt era:

Robinson/Hakeem/Duncan/KG +4.0
B. Wallace/Mutombo +3.5
Howard/LBJ/Pippen/Shaq/Mourning/Ewing +3.0
Wade/Kidd/Payton/Kemp/Moncrief/Parish/Erving/Rodman/Jordan +2.0

I'm glad Parish is here. One of the most underrated defenders since merger.

What about Lanier? If I remember correctly you have him with positive defensive impact, but obviously not good enough to make the list. So how good he was? +1?

Also, I think you forget about Eaton

Yes I did! Thanks.

[Doctor MJ]

KG is often criticized for not being able to defend Shaq and not being an elite shotblocker. The way I see it is that no defender is perfect. Everybody is going to give up something. To look at a guy like Duncan what he gives up is open mid-range jumpers and floaters when he defends the PnR because he's most effective just dropping towards the foul line. And that's ok.

A defensive 4 anchor should be potentially as good as a 5 *unless* the above scenario, you have to defend a superstar 5. Unfortunately, many of the great teams through league history featured great centers, so its going to come up frequently enough to matter.

I think a defensive 5 anchor scales down and impacts defending all positions on the floor similarly outside their own, because of the rim protection and ability to guard the biggest most talented players on the floor. A 4 scales down as well, but maybe not up so well.

When you look at the average of all numbers against 29 other teams, maybe this effect is going to get bled out some, because at any given time there are only a couple of great centers in the league, maybe none presently. But when they are present, they matter a lot.

I'm glad you put it like this because I specifically disagree with this conclusion for one reason:

It's not actually that common for the best team in the league to have a dominant offense led by a dominant big.

Bigs lead teams to titles, but typically it's more about their defense than offense, and at the very least it's essentially always because of at least having some defensive impact along with their offense.

Now, there's something to the fact that even if that other team isn't amazing on offense you'd still like to matchup well with them, but to me when I hear the point you're making, what I hear is that you're essentially assuming that this particular type of matchup is so common that you want to be thinking about this and not really considering what type of guy you'd prefer to have if some other type of player was the opponent's offensive star.

That's a problem because the odds are well above 50/50, especially nowadays, that that opposing star won't be a big, and if he's not a big then not only is the big-based strategy irrelevant, it's probably counterproductive.

Why? Because if you're matchup up against Shaq, you'd prefer to have a BIG big even if that means losing some agility. If you're matching up with a more perimeter-oriented offense, you're rather have that extra agility so if you built around the BIG big you've now handicapped yourself.

Final point: Of course the most noteworthy matchup of bigs in history was Wilt & Russell. In terms of BIG bigs, unless you're talking about Shaq, Wilt's about as BIG as you get. Meanwhile Russell is the archetype for the smaller, quicker big. This would seem then to be the precise situation where you'd regret having chosen your agile big over the BIG big...and yet as we all know this matchup was one dominated by Russell's team. If choosing the agile big didn't ruin the Celtics in what would seem to be something close to a worst case scenario, how "bad" of a trade off can this really get.

Sure we would all expect that if Russell went up against Shaq he'd have serious problems stopping him one-on-one. But you've got teammates to help, and if you're smart like Russell was you realize you don't have to stop him every time to win. Additionally, if a BIG big like Mutombo can't stop Shaq one-on-one, then how much good is a BIG big period? For me, my ideal build for an offensive big is Shaq, and my ideal build for a defensive big is Russell.

[Rerisen]

Bigs lead teams to titles, but typically it's more about their defense than offense, and at the very least it's essentially always because of at least having some defensive impact along with their offense.

That's a good point. But still, if there isn't any countering special advantage to take KG, and instead we have a 'all else being equal' situation, wouldn't it still be worth making the choice on the 5 anchor, just in case you do run into the offensive star 5.

Why? Because if you're matchup up against Shaq, you'd prefer to have a BIG big even if that means losing some agility. If you're matching up with a more perimeter-oriented offense, you're rather have that extra agility so if you built around the BIG big you've now handicapped yourself.

Eh, when we are talking about the best defensive anchors of all time, I don't see this argument weighted toward KG as a special advantage. I.e. You have to stop a Michael Jordan or LeBron James led offense, KG is going to help defend that better than Hakeem or Robinson? I remember always being aware of Mutombo's impact on Michael's game, for instance, it was pronounced and apparent. Didn't matter that he couldn't dominate horizontally, because all comers still had to end up at the same place.

Final point: Of course the most noteworthy matchup of bigs in history was Wilt & Russell. In terms of BIG bigs, unless you're talking about Shaq, Wilt's about as BIG as you get. Meanwhile Russell is the archetype for the smaller, quicker big. This would seem then to be the precise situation where you'd regret having chosen your agile big over the BIG big...and yet as we all know this matchup was one dominated by Russell's team. If choosing the agile big didn't ruin the Celtics in what would seem to be something close to a worst case scenario, how "bad" of a trade off can this really get.

I'm not sure how much we can extrapolate going forward from this very special historical matchup. But my post wasn't to suggest that KG can't still be of an immense help vs stopping elite scoring centers, we are talking small degrees here. But I would lean toward that a Dream or Admiral is going to help me more vs a Barkley or Malone (not even direct matchup, though that would also seem easier for them to do than vice versa), as opposed to how much KG can help you stop Shaq or Hakeem.

I don't know we can say that just because certain 82 game season data shows KG at similar (or better) net defensive value, its going to hold true statically across all matchups. Now if I can be guaranteed not to face any such mismatch, say this year's playoffs, I'd be much more highly tempted to go with those numbers on my choice.

[Doctor MJ]

Eh, when we are talking about the best defensive anchors of all time, I don't see this argument weighted toward KG as a special advantage. I.e. You have to stop a Michael Jordan or LeBron James led offense, KG is going to help defend that better than Hakeem or Robinson? I remember always being aware of Mutombo's impact on Michael's game, for instance, it was pronounced and apparent. Didn't matter that he couldn't dominate horizontally, because all comers still had to end up at the same place.

I wouldn't classify Hakeem & Robinson as clear cut BIG bigs. Fine if you prefer them to Garnett on the full defensive impact they bring, but those guys were agile as hell. They were, for example, among very few bigs in history who broke the 2 SPG barrier, and their offensive game is basically all about finesse.

Re: Mutombo's impact on MJ. There's no doubt that if you drive to the hoop, a big by the hoop is going to have major impact. The reason to favor the horizontal game is that it allows you to threaten other shots as well. One can question how valuable that really is, but again, it's what Russell did when he had huge impact, and Garnett's doing it as well to huge impact.

I'm not sure how much we can extrapolate going forward from this very special historical matchup. But my post wasn't to suggest that KG can't still be of an immense help vs stopping elite scoring centers, we are talking small degrees here. But I would lean toward that a Dream or Admiral is going to help me more vs a Barkley or Malone (not even direct matchup, though that would also seem easier for them to do than vice versa), as opposed to how much KG can help you stop Shaq or Hakeem.

I don't know we can say that just because certain 82 game season data shows KG at similar (or better) net defensive value, its going to hold true statically across all matchups. Now if I can be guaranteed not to face any such mismatch, say this year's playoffs, I'd be much more highly tempted to go with those numbers on my choice.

This is a good point as well. It isn't a complete picture to focus on Shaq. What we're talking about is interior man defense and how important that is compared to impacting the rest of the court.