The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[G35]

What I don't get is the drastic revisionist history when it comes to how good KG was viewed around the league. Everyone that says there's no debate between KG and TD as players...tell that to EVERYONE who was actively having that debate throughout the 2000's, even BEFORE KG won a title and DURING the Spurs' title runs. Everyone saw the crappy situation KG was in during his Minnesota years, and saw the monster statistical production he was putting up, and everyone wondered what would have happened if KG and Duncan switched places, and KG vs Duncan was THE debate when both were in their primes.

KG was considered arguably the best player in basketball BEFORE the 04 season...meaning he was still in the conversation in the minds of many AFTER Duncan won back to back MVPs and AFTER Duncan had his lauded championship run in 2003. I remember this because my Nets announcers were discussing how KG was arguably the best player in basketball during the Nets home opener of the 03-04 season when they hosted the T'Wolves.

Now, I don't really care about general consensus all that much, but I'm just pointing this out for the people that act it's ridiculous to compare their skillsets and their abilities as players, because it wasn't such a ridiculous notion during their primes.

BTW, if winning is that important...why aren't more people ranking Parker over Kidd and Nash? I want to know. Because I'm guessing a lot of the arguments would come down to "coaching" and "teammates" and "stats". In which case, why can't these be used in favor of KG, who clearly has similar or even better statistical production than Duncan during his prime, and clearly had worse coaching and worse teammates?

The Spurs would not have 4 championships because Duncan came into the league All NBA 1st team. KG was not. I wish people would stop forgetting KG came in and was playing SF because he was a beanpole and his impact wasn't anywhere near Duncan's.......

[WhateverBro]

If the idea is that if you give KG a 18 point scorer your going to have a championship level offense. The reality is he had 18 point per game scorers in the past and wasn't winning championships. Not only that but was not a great offensive team at any point.

The 2004 Minnesota Timberwolves are one of the most overrated teams on Realgm. How many times do they bring that team up. Lets not forget that they barely had the best record in the West. That the Spurs had lost Duncan for a stretch. The Kings had Webber for just over 20 games. In the playoffs he was pretty much playing on one leg. The Lakers were in the middle of the Kobe/Shaq issue. Also with both missing part of the year. Same with Karl Malone at the time.

It took an act of god to get KG that deep in the West. If not for Duncan injury he probably the MVP of the league again that year. Instead they finished 1 game behind Minnesota which gave everyone the go ahead to make KG the MVP. He plays all year they are a 60 plus win team and at the top of the league standings.

Getting Spree, Cassell, and KG weren't that good of a squad either. The pretending that KG was a few decent players away from dominating the league is just crazy. He has been on one team that dominated the regular season in the weak East that scraped by to win the title instead of going out early. For KG to have similar success to Duncan he would have needed a top tier player.

What is a championship level offense anyway? Detroit in 04 had an offense ranked 18th in the league. In 2010, Boston made the finals with a 15th ranked offense etc. There is no such thing as a championship level offense, you win championship with your overall production on the court.

The only times he has had an 18 ppg scorer on his team in his prime was in 2002 (Szczerbiak), 2004 (Cassell), 2006 (Ricky Davis, lol..) and in 2008 (Pierce). The first time, he won 50 games and got bounced in the first round. The second time he went to the WCF. Third time was Ricky Davis and the fourth time he won a championship. How is this an argument against him? Except for the year with Ricky Davis, which I won't even argue about why it's stupid to think that he should be a real second option, Garnett has had great success with 18 ppg second options.

And yes, I agree that the 04 Minny team is overrated but not the way you find them overrated. The cast is overrated but what they managed to produce isn't. Sure, it's great that you list all other teams issues without addressing that Minnesota missed Szczerbiak for 2/3s of the season, Hudson for the season and Cassell was playing on one leg during the playoffs when he wasn't missing games. As crazy as it sounds, Wolves might've even went to the finals if they still had Hudson healthy for the playoffs because it would've allowed Garnett to still play PF and bump Derrick Martin to the bench. If Cassell was fully healthy, there's no doubt in my mind that they make the finals that year.

And no, Duncan wasn't winning the MVP in 04 even if he had played in all games. Garnett was flat out better that year.

[FJS]

What I don't get is the drastic revisionist history when it comes to how good KG was viewed around the league. Everyone that says there's no debate between KG and TD as players...tell that to EVERYONE who was actively having that debate throughout the 2000's, even BEFORE KG won a title and DURING the Spurs' title runs. Everyone saw the crappy situation KG was in during his Minnesota years, and saw the monster statistical production he was putting up, and everyone wondered what would have happened if KG and Duncan switched places, and KG vs Duncan was THE debate when both were in their primes.

KG was considered arguably the best player in basketball BEFORE the 04 season...meaning he was still in the conversation in the minds of many AFTER Duncan won back to back MVPs and AFTER Duncan had his lauded championship run in 2003. I remember this because my Nets announcers were discussing how KG was arguably the best player in basketball during the Nets home opener of the 03-04 season when they hosted the T'Wolves.

Now, I don't really care about general consensus all that much, but I'm just pointing this out for the people that act it's ridiculous to compare their skillsets and their abilities as players, because it wasn't such a ridiculous notion during their primes.

BTW, if winning is that important...why aren't more people ranking Parker over Kidd and Nash? I want to know. Because I'm guessing a lot of the arguments would come down to "coaching" and "teammates" and "stats". In which case, why can't these be used in favor of KG, who clearly has similar or even better statistical production than Duncan during his prime, and clearly had worse coaching and worse teammates?

I think the revisionist it's just what you have doing here.
KG was never considered as good as Duncan before 04. (Duncan MPVs in 02 and 03 for example). I was posting here since 2002, and reading it since 2001 and I can tell you KG love has been increased a ton since he is a Celtic. Before that he was considered an excellent player and comparable to Duncan in best case, but not better than him.

[HeartBreakKid]

There was certainly an argument between KG and Duncan in 2003. Duncan was obviously the more popular pick because of his team record, but let's not act like there was no discussion.

People always speculated how good KG really is back then, don't get why people are pretending this is revisionist history. There's a reason the guy was considered a star.

[FJS]

I don't say this was not a discussion, but in 2004 KG was not considered better in NBA all time rankings better than Duncan, Malone or Barkley.
Recently I watch some poster putting him as a top 4 of NBA history. Really?

I respect KG, but he was not as good as people want to make him.
Poor suporting cast... Iverson made finals with poor suporting cast. I'm not saying Iverson was better, of course, but he played with several good players like Marbury, Brandon, Billups as PG, and other good role players like Wally (before injuries) and he was not able to pass the first round.
If their suporting cast were good enough to win 50 games, you should at least to pass one time 1st round. I don't ask him to win it all.
He was 3 years without playoffs... Other superstars with questionable talent in his team did not missed it... at least 3 times in a row. Name one of the top 20 who missed 3 years in a row playoffs (or 3 years in all his carreer)

I repeat it. KG love has increased a lot since he is a Celtic. Before that he was considered one of the best player in the league, but not the best (He has the best season by any player in 2004, but I don't think nobody would have take him over Shaq or Kobe who were sharing the ball each other and with Payton and Malone)

[NO-KG-AI]

KG was on 50 win teams, getting beat by better and much more talented teams. Not like he was losing to lesser teams (Like Malone and Stockton).

[colts18]

KG was on 50 win teams, getting beat by better and much more talented teams. Not like he was losing to lesser teams (Like Malone and Stockton).

He lost twice with HCA.

[NO-KG-AI]

KG was on 50 win teams, getting beat by better and much more talented teams. Not like he was losing to lesser teams (Like Malone and Stockton).

He lost twice with HCA.

Lol ok JB. Was it not twice to a Laker team with far better help? give me a break, one was in the WCF with one legged Cassell.

The 51 win Wolves lost to a 50 win Laker team that only won that few games because Shaq was hurt.

Quite an upset. The Wolves definitely should have been favored to win, right? lol.

[WhateverBro]

KG was on 50 win teams, getting beat by better and much more talented teams. Not like he was losing to lesser teams (Like Malone and Stockton).

He lost twice with HCA.

Irrelevant. He never lost when his team was favored to win a series, not even with the Celtics.

[colts18]

Irrelevant. He never lost when his team was favored to win a series, not even with the Celtics.

How many series has he won as the underdog?

[WhateverBro]

Irrelevant. He never lost when his team was favored to win a series, not even with the Celtics.

How many series has he won as the underdog?

Off the top of my head; Lakers in 2008, Cavs in 2010 and Orlando in 2010.

[therealbig3]

Irrelevant. He never lost when his team was favored to win a series, not even with the Celtics.

How many series has he won as the underdog?

I think the 08 Lakers were the favorites over the 08 Celtics.

I don't think the Wolves were really a favorite against the Kings. Coming into that series, IIRC, most people considered that series a toss-up (and it pretty much was).

9/10 ESPN "experts" picked the Lakers in 08: http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/ser ... ies=lalbos

Can't find predictions for the 04 Wolves-Kings series.

[ElGee]

Irrelevant. He never lost when his team was favored to win a series, not even with the Celtics.

How many series has he won as the underdog?

What relevance does that have to how good Garnett is?

[colts18]

What relevance does that have to how good Garnett is?

Losing as the underdog is a 2 way street. Yeah he is expected to lose, but you would think at least once in 12 years he would win a series he wasn't supposed to. Teams with HCA in 2nd round on win 75% of the time, which means 1/4 of the time they are upsetted. Not only did KG's teams never win those series (I didn't expect them to), they were never competitive in those series. They had like a total of something like 7 playoff wins in 7 years. and the closest they came to a series win was winning 2 games in a series. Plenty of underdogs have been more competitive like the 10 Celtics, 08 Hawks, 06 Cavs, 13 Warriors, etc.

[WhateverBro]

Irrelevant. He never lost when his team was favored to win a series, not even with the Celtics.

How many series has he won as the underdog?

I think the 08 Lakers were the favorites over the 08 Celtics.

I don't think the Wolves were really a favorite against the Kings. Coming into that series, IIRC, most people considered that series a toss-up (and it pretty much was).

9/10 ESPN "experts" picked the Lakers in 08: http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/ser ... ies=lalbos

Can't find predictions for the 04 Wolves-Kings series.

Lakers were indeed heavy favorites in 2008.

Not sure if Sacramento were favored in 2004, can't remember but I'm pretty sure they were favorites to close out the series because of Cassell re-injuring his hip early in the series causing back spasms throughout the rest of the series and playoffs. They were definitely not favorites against Lakers though, for obvious reasons.

[ElGee]

What relevance does that have to how good Garnett is?

Losing as the underdog is a 2 way street. Yeah he is expected to lose, but you would think at least once in 12 years he would win a series he wasn't supposed to. Teams with HCA in 2nd round on win 75% of the time, which means 1/4 of the time they are upsetted. Not only did KG's teams never win those series (I didn't expect them to), they were never competitive in those series. They had like a total of something like 7 playoff wins in 7 years. and the closest they came to a series win was winning 2 games in a series. Plenty of underdogs have been more competitive like the 10 Celtics, 08 Hawks, 06 Cavs, 13 Warriors, etc.

I'm still not clear on what any of that has to do with Kevin Garnett as a basketball player. You keep talking about KG's teams -- what does that have to do with KG?

[ElGee]

What relevance does that have to how good Garnett is?

Losing as the underdog is a 2 way street. Yeah he is expected to lose, but you would think at least once in 12 years he would win a series he wasn't supposed to. Teams with HCA in 2nd round on win 75% of the time, which means 1/4 of the time they are upsetted. Not only did KG's teams never win those series (I didn't expect them to), they were never competitive in those series. They had like a total of something like 7 playoff wins in 7 years. and the closest they came to a series win was winning 2 games in a series. Plenty of underdogs have been more competitive like the 10 Celtics, 08 Hawks, 06 Cavs, 13 Warriors, etc.

I think you should watch out for labels. "Underdog" does not mean all underdogs are the same. "Second round opponent" does not mean all competition in the 2nd round is the same. If you were addressing a question about second-round opponents, then the quality of the opponent wouldn't matter. But it seems to me you are trying to connect team performances based on quality, are you not?

If so, this is a confounding error -- It will lead you to a faulty conclusion...

[colts18]

I'm still not clear on what any of that has to do with Kevin Garnett as a basketball player. You keep talking about KG's teams -- what does that have to do with KG?

He was a big reason why his teams underperformed in the playoffs. His numbers consistently fell off and the Wolves offense fell as a result. His O rating in his peak 02-04 years was something like 102. That is not good enough for your star player. Its hard for a team to overcome their star player shooting with Allen Iverson efficiency as the Knicks this year learned too. Going from 55 to 51 TS% is a huge downgrade.

[therealbig3]

The Spurs would not have 4 championships because Duncan came into the league All NBA 1st team. KG was not. I wish people would stop forgetting KG came in and was playing SF because he was a beanpole and his impact wasn't anywhere near Duncan's.......

What about the 00 playoffs, with KG and Robinson healthy for the playoffs instead of the Spurs losing Duncan, with Kobe still pretty green and not close to what he would later become?

What about the 04-06 playoffs, when Duncan was injured throughout those years? In 06, the Spurs probably don't do anything with KG instead of Duncan, since Duncan played like a monster anyway, but in 04 and 05, when Duncan was pretty unimpressive relative to his own standards (especially in 04, that was a straight up bad playoff run for him)?

What about the fact that KG aged better than Duncan? How would the Spurs have done in 08, 11, and 12 with KG instead of Duncan, when KG was clearly better than Duncan? Duncan was better than KG in 09 and 10, but he wasn't an MVP-level player anymore and the Spurs weren't contenders anymore either, so it wouldn't have mattered either way.

[ElGee]

I'm still not clear on what any of that has to do with Kevin Garnett as a basketball player. You keep talking about KG's teams -- what does that have to do with KG?

He was a big reason why his teams underperformed in the playoffs. His numbers consistently fell off and the Wolves offense fell as a result. His O rating in his peak 02-04 years was something like 102. That is not good enough for your star player. Its hard for a team to overcome their star player shooting with Allen Iverson efficiency as the Knicks this year learned too. Going from 55 to 51 TS% is a huge downgrade.

OK so what does the statement about his team have anything to do with him? Why not say "he underperformed" and reference HOW he underperformed, instead of creating a Red Herring?

You've attempted to equate something over an 8-year period to Kevin Garnett (team) but when I ask you what it has to do with him you cite individual ORtg and shooting in 3 years. Do you see the Herring?