The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[Jonny Blaze]

That's interesting, who was KG robin too considering he was the best player on a championship team by a huge margin? .

Huge Margin?

Then where is his NBA Finals MVP trophy?

Oh...there isn't one.

Why?

Because they got it wrong. It was a basketball team that won with defense. Garnett was far and away the star defensive player on the team. When they gave the Finals MVP based scoring some points they basically said "We're going to totally ignore why this team won."

Kevin Garnett stats in 2008 NBA FInals

Game 1
24 points 13 rebounds

Game 2
17 points 14 rebounds

Game 3
13 points 12 rebounds

Game 4
16 points 11 rebounds

Game 5
13 points 14 rebounds

Game 6
26 points 13 rebounds

sorry man....There is nothing, zilch, nada about his performance that is worthy of an NBA FInals MVP. One elite game (when the game was over by halftime) and a big bag of mediocrity.

In none of the close games in that series did Garnett have anything close to having a dominant offensive performance.

His 2010 NBA Finals is even more mediocre.

KG is a great ROBIN, and a great defensive anchor, but I laugh my ass off that some of you consider someone with that stat line (in one of his "Prime" Years) to be better then Tim Duncan or Dirk.

[Jonny Blaze]

Kevin Garnett stats in 2008 NBA FInals

Game 1
24 points 13 rebounds

Game 2
17 points 14 rebounds

Game 3
13 points 12 rebounds

Game 4
16 points 11 rebounds

Game 5
13 points 14 rebounds

Game 6
26 points 13 rebounds

Tim Duncan Stats in 2003 NBA Finals

Game 1
32 points 20 rebounds (and 6 assists)

Game 2
19 points 12 rebounds

Game 3
21 points 16 rebounds (and 7 assists)

Game 4
23 points 17 rebounds

Game 5
29 points and 17 rebounds

Game 6
21 points 20 rebounds 10 assists and 8 blocks.


Do you see a difference in what Duncan is doing in the NBA finals and KG? All the while Duncan is every bit the defender that KG is.

Thats the difference between an NBA Finals MVP and a Great Robin.

[drza]

Kevin Garnett stats in 2008 NBA FInals

Game 1
13 points 9 rebounds

Game 2
17 points 14 rebounds

Game 3
13 points 12 rebounds

Game 4
16 points 11 rebounds

Game 5
13 points 14 rebounds

Game 6
26 points 13 rebounds

sorry man....There is nothing, zilch, nada about his performance that is worthy of an NBA FInals MVP. One elite game (when the game was over by halftime) and a big bag of mediocrity.

In none of the close games in that series did Garnett have anything close to having a dominant offensive performance.

His 2010 NBA Finals is even more mediocre.

KG is a great ROBIN, and a great defensive anchor, but I laugh my ass off that some of you consider someone with that stat line (in one of his "Prime" Years) to be better then Tim Duncan or Dirk.

Um. Your stats are wrong. In game 1 he went for 24 and 13, which is kind of way different from what you wrote. And, you quoted stats from Duncan's peak year and compared it to what KG did in year 13 (only you got that wrong). And... uh...aw, never mind. I don't have the energy tonight.

[Jonny Blaze]

Good catch Ive now edited it. I read the box score wrong.

So instead of one great game, we will change that to two great game and 4 games of mediocrity.

Kevin Garnett stats in 2008 NBA FInals

Game 1
24 points 13 rebounds

Game 2
17 points 14 rebounds

Game 3
13 points 12 rebounds

Game 4
16 points 11 rebounds

Game 5
13 points 14 rebounds

Game 6
26 points 13 rebounds

Dirk Nowitski in 2006 NBA FInals

Game 1
16 points 10 rebounds

Game 2
26 points 16 rebounds

Game 3
30 points 7 rebounds

Game 4
16 points 9 rebounds

Game 5
20 points 8 rebounds

Game 6
29 points 15 rebounds


This was not a great series for Dirk..........Not at all.....but its better then anything that Kevin Garnett did in the 2008 or 2010 NBA Finals.

This series is actually considered one of his weaker playoff series.

[Doctor MJ]

Good catch Ive now edited it.

So instead of one great game, we will change that to two great game and 4 games of mediocrity.

You didn't edit it. Go back and do that.

Responding to your point though, I can't help but notice that in response to me saying "Boston won with defense and Garnett was by far their best defender" you responded with stats which didn't rebut my claim.

This is frustrating to me because I don't know where your mind is at. What is it about my statement that is so extreme it causes you to misunderstand so bad?

[HeartBreakKid]

Huge Margin?

Then where is his NBA Finals MVP trophy?

Oh...there isn't one.

Why?

Because they got it wrong. It was a basketball team that won with defense. Garnett was far and away the star defensive player on the team. When they gave the Finals MVP based scoring some points they basically said "We're going to totally ignore why this team won."

Kevin Garnett stats in 2008 NBA FInals

Game 1
13 points 9 rebounds

Game 2
17 points 14 rebounds

Game 3
13 points 12 rebounds

Game 4
16 points 11 rebounds

Game 5
13 points 14 rebounds

Game 6
26 points 13 rebounds

sorry man....There is nothing, zilch, nada about his performance that is worthy of an NBA FInals MVP. One elite game (when the game was over by halftime) and a big bag of mediocrity.

In none of the close games in that series did Garnett have anything close to having a dominant offensive performance.

His 2010 NBA Finals is even more mediocre.

KG is a great ROBIN, and a great defensive anchor, but I laugh my ass off that some of you consider someone with that stat line (in one of his "Prime" Years) to be better then Tim Duncan or Dirk.

So wait, your rebuttal to me saying that KG was by far the best player on a championship team revolves around him not getting a FMVP? You do realize that you compared him to Duncan, who Tony Parker won a FMVP over him. Could you please explain the rational on how giving someone an award that revolves around one series, some how defines whos the best player on a team for an entire year? I'd love to hear it (btw, extra emphasis on rational when you do make your response).

So if KG is a "Robin", how come he has a ring, and who was the "Batman" on that team? Paul Pierce? I really want you to type that you think Paul Pierce is better than Kevin Garnett.

Third, those stats you listed are not even bad. He averaged a double double on top of elite defense. And it is known that KG did not have a very good finals series, but it's not exactly like he didn't do squat for nearly every other game they played. Saying he's not the man on a championship team because he has no finals MVP is just a blanket statement, it's as naive as saying Duncan is not as good as a defender as KG because he has no DPOY.

Also, how does citing Duncan's numbers from an arbitrary finals series prove anything? If we were to use logic, all that would prove is that Duncan > KG, which would not disqualify KG from being the "Batman" of a championship team. If we want to play that game, then Jordan has better finals numbers than Kobe, I guess Kobe is a great Robin (ironically, Kobe Bryant actually was a Robin on the majority of his titles). Insert the same argument with Hakeem's final stats and a ton of other Centers.

You said that KG was "second to Scottie Pippen". Could you please explain how Scottie Pippen is better, or were you just saying that so you could rustle jimmies since you think it is laughable that KG is a franchise player when even casual fans know he is, much less people who actually look at the game with any shred of analysis?

[ushvinder88]

Good catch Ive now edited it.

So instead of one great game, we will change that to two great game and 4 games of mediocrity.

You didn't edit it. Go back and do that.

Responding to your point though, I can't help but notice that in response to me saying "Boston won with defense and Garnett was by far their best defender" you responded with stats which didn't rebut my claim.

This is frustrating to me because I don't know where your mind is at. What is it about my statement that is so extreme it causes you to misunderstand so bad?

Umm actually he has a point, its much easier to focus on defense when your offensive volume is so small. KG is an overrated playoff performer.

[NO-KG-AI]

Each team should get a player that focuses 0 on offense, and puts all his effort to defense. Could probably hold the other team to 0% shooting.

[richboy]

Good catch Ive now edited it.

So instead of one great game, we will change that to two great game and 4 games of mediocrity.

You didn't edit it. Go back and do that.

Responding to your point though, I can't help but notice that in response to me saying "Boston won with defense and Garnett was by far their best defender" you responded with stats which didn't rebut my claim.

This is frustrating to me because I don't know where your mind is at. What is it about my statement that is so extreme it causes you to misunderstand so bad?

The problem with that thinking is at some point you have to win with offense. Paul Pierce scores 41 points in game 7 and Boston survives being knocked out in the second round. If Paul Pierce doesn't have that game is KG going to take over and carry them to the win. We know the answer.

Paul Pierce completely destroyed the Lakers in the Finals. Granted it was against Luke Walton. When he wasn't being carried off in a wheel chair he was dominating the Lakers offensively. If Paul Pierce isn't as good as he was the Lakers can win that series. Well he didn't dominate Ron Artest two years later and they lost. Take away Paul Pierce KG not good enough to carry an offense in these tough spots.

You disparaged Garnett's stats as essentially being not real while praising Duncan's stats. Your argument was based on the fact that one led to a championship, and therefore the other one was stat stuffing which had something wrong with it...despite the fact that quite literally Minny wins titles if they have the Spurs defense.

Now to what I said before. You didn't address anything. You did what I fully expect. Pretty much say well look at the stats. Ignore the reality of what happened. Instead live in a world of basketball on paper numbers and not the reality of what happens on the court. This statement though shocked me. Your pretty much saying basketball is nothing more than a bunch of numbers. The dynamics of things that happen during the game. The moments that change a potential lost to a victory. Those things are no longer important. If MInnesota matched San Antonio defense they would have been 4 time champs. Perhaps even more.

Let me ask. Why we even playing the games. You know who going to win the title. I know you had OKC as the champ since they played better offense and defense than Miami. Pretty much everyone in the league. Apparently that how the game is played now. Minnesota didn't get out of the first round but apparently we can make the assumption what they would have done in the first, second, third, and the finals. Wow. Can you tell me exactly how many games they won these titles in?

It reminds me of a friend of mine. We use to play golf at a local course and I would always win. I moved away and he practiced hard to improve his skills. He knew exactly what I shot at this course. What he needed to do to beat me. When I was back in town he couldn't wait to say he was now as good if not better than me. We hit the course and I shoot even better than before. He was dumb founded. See he remembered what I shot. He didn't remember that I had such a lead that the last few holes I was no longer even serious.

That is this situation here. You can talk about the stats. I'm looking at the reality of what happened. Unless your God i'm not sure how you can just say well if they played better defense they do what the Spurs did. So if they play equal defense to the Spurs who wins between them and the Spurs? Basketball is not played that way. Its about style, skill, matchups. Will what you do in the regular season work in the playoffs. If you can't do you have the ability to adjust and be productive in other ways.

When I say he wasn't good enough offensively its because there was opportunities for KG to take over games and win games. He was not skilled enough to do it. When its all said and done there only so much fade away jumpers and 20 foot jump shots can get done.

[Regulio]

If KG is at 7th spot on someone's ATG list, Pippen should be in Top10 too then.
They are both very similar all time greats defenders with above average game on offense.
Imagine if Pippen would have scored like 27-30ppg on 58 TS%, he is Lebron James #2.
The same thing is with KG to me, if only he was better at scoring, then I'd call him fascinating.
I just think offense is more valuable than defense.

[Jonny Blaze]

Good catch Ive now edited it.

So instead of one great game, we will change that to two great game and 4 games of mediocrity.

You didn't edit it. Go back and do that.

Responding to your point though, I can't help but notice that in response to me saying "Boston won with defense and Garnett was by far their best defender" you responded with stats which didn't rebut my claim.

This is frustrating to me because I don't know where your mind is at. What is it about my statement that is so extreme it causes you to misunderstand so bad?

Honestly.....whats the point of your statement?

Boston 2008 won with defense and KG was their best defensive player......ok.

Most nights he was the 2nd or 3rd best offensive player.

As good as his defense was....his offensive stats are nowhere comparable to any other NBA Finals MVP.

Ben Wallace was the best defender on the 2004 Pistons (another monster defensive team).......so what?

I put Tim Duncans stats in a post above, because I wanted to illustrate the differences between the stats of a Top Dog and a Robin.

With Duncan you are getting just as good, if not better defense then KG.....and you are getting a much more dominant scorer.

Same thing with guys like Hakeem Olajuwon, Jordan and even Lebron.

I really wouldn't downgrade the Minnesota version of KG too much if he had a bunch of Lebron in cleveland sort of playoff performances and his team still lost.
His playoff performances in Minnesota were good (maybe even real good).....but he only had a few truly great playoff games as a T-Wolve.

The problem for him is that good and pretty good playoff performances were not going to cut it in the early 2000's Western Conference

When you look at KG's playoff resume....Im just not that impressed.
I just cant fathom that certain people would even put his name in the same sentence as Tim Duncan.

The Dirk vs KG debate can be a close one, but Dirk put a huge kabosh in that argument with his 2011 NBA Finals MVP......something that I truly doubt KG will ever win.
Dirk is a more accomplished player....all the while playing three less seasons then Garnett.

If you compare their stats in the 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011 NBA Finals.....its easy to tell who's the Alpha Dog, and who is the Robin.

[drza]

Kevin Garnett stats in 2008 NBA FInals

(snip)

Tim Duncan Stats in 2003 NBA Finals

(snip)

Do you see a difference in what Duncan is doing in the NBA finals and KG? All the while Duncan is every bit the defender that KG is.

Thats the difference between an NBA Finals MVP and a Great Robin.

OK, it's morning and I'm refreshed. I'll play.

As I pointed out last night, you're comparing KG in year 13 to absolute peak Duncan. If we compare apples to apples, the same basic boxscore stats for Duncan's 2007 Finals appearance vs. KG's 2008 Final's appearance at similar points in their careers its a much different story than you're selling. Same if you compare their peak basic stats to each other:

2007 Finals Duncan: 18.3 ppg, 11.5 rpg
2008 Finals KG: 18.2 ppg, 13 rpg

2003 playoffs Duncan: 24.7 ppg, 15.3 rpg
2003/04 playoffs KG: 25 ppg, 14.9 rpg

This level of analysis is so basic as to barely brush the surface of meaning, but I'm meeting you where you are with the stats that you liked to look at. The point is, it's a much more logical comparison to look at them at the same points in their careers than to compare one at their peak to the other in their 30s.

[NO-KG-AI]

Most nights he was the 2nd or 3rd best offensive player.

Lmao, how? He was scoring the most points, the team was playing it's best when he was on thecourt, and he had the most 4th quarter points. He was taking more shots, and scoring more points. KG beat Pierce even in offensive measures.

He was the best player offensively, and led them to one of the greatest defenses of all time, while neither the 2 or 3 guy on the team had any appreciable impact on.

There is a better argument that Westbrook is the first option over Durant(also aburd).

[Texas Chuck]

Truth was an important part of the defense--lets slow down here in trying to pump up KG. For Example his defense on Kobe in the finals was significant. KG being the best and most important player doesnt render other's contributions to nil.

[HeartBreakKid]

Truth was an important part of the defense--lets slow down here in trying to pump up KG. For Example his defense on Kobe in the finals was significant. KG being the best and most important player doesnt render other's contributions to nil.

Pierce might be my favorite player, but let's be real, Pierce is not a terrific defender. He's above average (he was elevated due to KG to be honest), he's nowhere near an all-defensive caliber player. KG was the reason the Celtics D was the way it is (him and Thibs).

[NO-KG-AI]

No. Ray Allen was the one doing a good job on Kobe actually. And Posey. If Truth was so important to the defense, they wouldn't have been just as good defensively with or without him. They were .9 points per 100 possessions better in the regular season and 1.4 points worse in the post season. (with Pierce on the floor)

[ushvinder88]

Kevin Garnett stats in 2008 NBA FInals

(snip)

Tim Duncan Stats in 2003 NBA Finals

(snip)

Do you see a difference in what Duncan is doing in the NBA finals and KG? All the while Duncan is every bit the defender that KG is.

Thats the difference between an NBA Finals MVP and a Great Robin.

OK, it's morning and I'm refreshed. I'll play.

As I pointed out last night, you're comparing KG in year 13 to absolute peak Duncan. If we compare apples to apples, the same basic boxscore stats for Duncan's 2007 Finals appearance vs. KG's 2008 Final's appearance at similar points in their careers its a much different story than you're selling. Same if you compare their peak basic stats to each other:

2007 Finals Duncan: 18.3 ppg, 11.5 rpg
2008 Finals KG: 18.2 ppg, 13 rpg

2003 playoffs Duncan: 24.7 ppg, 15.3 rpg
2003/04 playoffs KG: 25 ppg, 14.9 rpg

This level of analysis is so basic as to barely brush the surface of meaning, but I'm meeting you where you are with the stats that you liked to look at. The point is, it's a much more logical comparison to look at them at the same points in their careers than to compare one at their peak to the other in their 30s.

2007 Duncan playoffs PER: 27.4
2008 KG playoffs PER: 23.0

Its not as impressive when you see how much more impactful duncan was in the advanced stats metric, Kg's efficiency was so mediocre. Make a poll 2007 duncan vs 2008 kg and duncan will mop the floor with him.

[Texas Chuck]

No. Ray Allen was the one doing a good job on Kobe actually. And Posey. If Truth was so important to the defense, they wouldn't have been just as good defensively with or without him. They were .9 points per 100 possessions better in the regular season and 1.4 points worse in the post season. (with Pierce on the floor)

Dont care what your stats show. I watched those games and Truth was on Kobe when it counted and was doing a terrific job.

And again because this always gets missed--Im not saying he was a better defender than KG, a more important player than KG, a more valuable player than KG. I am saying his ability to create offense on his own was important as was his individual defense on Kobe. Did he deserve FMVP over KG? No but I get it. Lifelong Celtic, scoring same as KG and again his end of game defense on Kobe. Its hardly the outrage its made out to be.

[WhateverBro]

Truth was an important part of the defense--lets slow down here in trying to pump up KG. For Example his defense on Kobe in the finals was significant. KG being the best and most important player doesnt render other's contributions to nil.

Not really. Pierce was an average to barely above average defender that year. Posey was far more important defensively and if you want to give their perimeter defense any props it should go to Posey and Rondo. The defense on Bryant shouldn't be appointend to anyone in particular, it was a team effort. They swarmed him on most possessions and made him either give up the ball or take a tough shot. To say that Pierce defense on Kobe was significant proves that you either don't know what you're talking about or have forgotten all about that series.

Just watch this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nepmd2ygMK4

Don't pay attention to what he's saying but just watch the clips of Kobe trying to attack the basket or post up. They swarmed him everytime possible.

[HeartBreakKid]

Yup, Celtics fouled the hell out of Kobe and collapsed on him all the time. It was a great team effort.