The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[microfib4thewin]

You know it's getting tiresome how so and so's favorite player doesn't win a title or can't get anywhere and it's all the front office's fault.

Every front office messes up.

So you claim that every FO has made mistakes, but you are telling us we shouldn't simply fault the FO?

Pray tell, what has the Wolves done ever since they're 'freed' of KG's contract? About the only good moves they have made is dump Mike Miller's useless ass for Rubio, someone who wasn't even projected to land at #5, drafted Pek, and got Riley to make one of his rare blunders in the Ricky Davis trade. They've either squandered their picks by getting the wrong players(Wes Johnson, Jonny Flynn), or they traded them away (Lawson, Koufos) as well as take on overrated players(Darko, Webster, Beasley, Randolph).

Malone/Stockton never had that third piece EVERY title team needs to give it a lift in it's offense.

Where's this second piece and a competent coach for KG when he was with Minnesota?

But it's always Stockton's fault for not taking over. Why isn't it ever KG's fault for not stepping up?

But did Stockton step up when they made their two Final runs? You could make an argument that he's no longer a star player in 98 and he didn't exactly wow the world in 97. The most questionable thing about Stockton when it relates to his team's success is that the Jazz fielded a better offense when they start slowing their pace and rely more on Malone to run the offense. Their team's offensive efficiency over the course of the 90s seem to support this.

As for KG, maybe he did step up contrary to popular belief and maybe he didn't, but the Wolve's FO incompetence has nothing to do with how much KG got paid.

The Lakers have messed up this year gambling on a 37 year old Nash re-creating the magic he had with D'Antoni. They are still gambling on Dwight and I think they should sign and trade his arse.

I knew you would get to the Lakers eventually. Only in this reality would getting Dwight and Nash be considered bad moves when all they gave up was a player that didn't even play this season and a TPE that would have gone to waste if it wasn't used on Nash. Seeing as how Nash turned down bigger offers the Lakers actually underpaid for his service. The four picks were necessary to entice the Suns as they have no reason otherwise to S&T their star player to a division rival.

The fact that it didn't work out falls on the players because this team didn't underperform from a talent standpoint, they underperformed because they have no chemistry. The FO cannot fix chemistry no matter how good the fit is on paper, and there are no better complimentary players for a volume scorer than a pass-first PG who can space the floor and a defensive big who is great(supposedly) at playing above the rim.

I believe KG has made the most money of any one single player in NBA history......

Don't worry, after next year Kobe will only be 34 million behind KG in terms of salary earned. Eventually you can turn around and say how much value the Lakers got out of Kobe instead of talking about how much KG got paid over the years.

[G35]

You know it's getting tiresome how so and so's favorite player doesn't win a title or can't get anywhere and it's all the front office's fault.

Every front office messes up.

So you claim that every FO has made mistakes, but you are telling us we shouldn't simply fault the FO?

Pray tell, what has the Wolves done ever since they're 'freed' of KG's contract? About the only good moves they have made is dump Mike Miller's useless ass for Rubio, someone who wasn't even projected to land at #5, drafted Pek, and got Riley to make one of his rare blunders in the Ricky Davis trade. They've either squandered their picks by getting the wrong players(Wes Johnson, Jonny Flynn), or they traded them away (Lawson, Koufos) as well as take on overrated players(Darko, Webster, Beasley, Randolph).

Malone/Stockton never had that third piece EVERY title team needs to give it a lift in it's offense.

Where's this second piece and a competent coach for KG when he was with Minnesota?

But it's always Stockton's fault for not taking over. Why isn't it ever KG's fault for not stepping up?

But did Stockton step up when they made their two Final runs? You could make an argument that he's no longer a star player in 98 and he didn't exactly wow the world in 97. The most questionable thing about Stockton when it relates to his team's success is that the Jazz fielded a better offense when they start slowing their pace and rely more on Malone to run the offense. Their team's offensive efficiency over the course of the 90s seem to support this.

As for KG, maybe he did step up contrary to popular belief and maybe he didn't, but the Wolve's FO incompetence has nothing to do with how much KG got paid.

The Lakers have messed up this year gambling on a 37 year old Nash re-creating the magic he had with D'Antoni. They are still gambling on Dwight and I think they should sign and trade his arse.

I knew you would get to the Lakers eventually. Only in this reality would getting Dwight and Nash be considered bad moves when all they gave up was a player that didn't even play this season and a TPE that would have gone to waste if it wasn't used on Nash. Seeing as how Nash turned down bigger offers the Lakers actually underpaid for his service. The four picks were necessary to entice the Suns as they have no reason otherwise to S&T their star player to a division rival.

The fact that it didn't work out falls on the players because this team didn't underperform from a talent standpoint, they underperformed because they have no chemistry. The FO cannot fix chemistry no matter how good the fit is on paper, and there are no better complimentary players for a volume scorer than a pass-first PG who can space the floor and a defensive big who is great(supposedly) at playing above the rim.

I believe KG has made the most money of any one single player in NBA history......

Don't worry, after next year Kobe will only be 34 million behind KG in terms of salary earned. Eventually you can turn around and say how much value the Lakers got out of Kobe instead of talking about how much KG got paid over the years.

You are using the Wolves FO as the whole reason why KG wasn't successful. So if we use that logic it's not due to KG's ability that the Wolves weren't great, it's because of management. So you can't attribute any potential success to Garnett.

That's the whole argument that Jordan had with Jerry Reinsdorf that management makes teams not players.

So if the whole argument is that great players that didn't win (Malone/Stockton, Nique, Barkley, Drob, Ewing) KG isn't the only player that has a complaint. Essentially KG needs to get in line if you want to use the FO argument.

And Kobe does bring more value to the Lakers than KG brought to the Wolves. His game is more pleasing to the eye, his jersey sales are always near the top.....and 5 rings don't hurt.....

[sp6r=underrated]

Where's this second piece and a competent coach for KG when he was with Minnesota?

I agree with almost all of what you are saying but I have to disagree with this part. KG did have a good basketball coach. Despite his reputation Flip Saunders strengths as an offensive coach more than outweigh some of his questionable decision making when it comes to defense.

Detroit improved dramatically on offense and turned in far better regular seasons than they did under Brown. Sanders critics will say what about the playoffs, and rightly so. Detroit in the final year under Brown won a very close series with Miami due in the eyes of many to Wade's injury. They gave a good account of themselves vs SAS in large part because Duncan couldn't jump due to the ankle injury he still hadn't recovered from. In 06, they played the same Miami team and lost a very close coin toss series. I don't see that as an example of regression rather I see that as a pretty natural outcome when you have two evenly matched teams play back to back.

07 was a dud and he should be criticized for it.

In 08, Detroit played an extremely tough Boston team and gave a great account of themselves. I have a hard time buying the idea he underachieved.

Both Detroit and Minnesota regressed once Flip was canned in large because their offenses cratered once Sanders was gone.

He isn't a GOAT level coach by any means.But he's very good and his strengths outweigh his negatives

[WhateverBro]

Lol at not seeing KG play. Dude was one of the biggest stars in the league his entire prime, was mvp of the league team was in the playoffs the majority of his career. Everyone saw KG play, some people just don't put him on the pedastal the Garnett fanatics do.

Uhm, no.. I remember the year I first got league pass (2005? 2006?) and one thing I loved was that Minnesota had very few games on national TV because back then those games were blacked out on ILP. So I'm pretty sure not alot of people saw him play because Minnesota wasn't a team that was on TV a whole lot and he didn't have many playoff games under his belt during his Minny career. Someone like me who's in europe, I had to buy games on pontel.com and get them sent home to me on VHS to watch him play, lol..

[FJS]

It's curious, because being foreing then I have watch a lot more of Garnett than most of the american poster there....

I always remind this game (altough I'm watching him since 99-00, 2nd year of his prime)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8v0hsyswwo[/youtube]

[Swimmer]

Just to add some context, found this article:
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S2234.shtml

For the 2004-05 season, the wolves were on national TV 26 times: 2x ABC, 9x ESPN, 6x TNT, and the rest on NBA TV. Realistically, 17 shots at watching them on standard TVs.

[Texas Chuck]

Right, but no one is watching every national NBA game plus they were playing hardly any PS games. They only won 2 PS games twice in the 7 years prior to 04 so in addition to only playing one round even that round was over quickly, then didnt make the PS from 05-07. The chances of most people on this board seeing more than 7-8 games max of KG each year is slim. Its easy to imagine people saw 2x as many Dirk games over that stretch and easily 3-4 times more for Duncan and probably more than that for Kobe or Shaq.

KG was a big star for sure, but Minny was never a glamour team not even in 2004. Teams like the Kings, Mavs, and Suns were simply much more athestically pleasing in addition to the powerhouse teams SAS and LAL. Plus this was the Yao era so the Rockets were getting a lot of play.

[microfib4thewin]

You are using the Wolves FO as the whole reason why KG wasn't successful.

No. My original argument is that the Wolves FO is so bad KG's salary has no bearing on how terrible the Wolves' roster has been, and the Wolves continuing to be badly managed despite not needing to deal with a contract of KG's size is proof of it.

So if the whole argument is that great players that didn't win (Malone/Stockton, Nique, Barkley, Drob, Ewing) KG isn't the only player that has a complaint. Essentially KG needs to get in line if you want to use the FO argument.

Because every player's situation is the same and there is absolutely no difference in circumstances between the all time greats.

[WhateverBro]

Just to add some context, found this article:
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S2234.shtml

For the 2004-05 season, the wolves were on national TV 26 times: 2x ABC, 9x ESPN, 6x TNT, and the rest on NBA TV. Realistically, 17 shots at watching them on standard TVs.

Thats the season after Minny hade made the WCF and was first in the west and second in the league. Im very confident that that season or the 03-04 season were the years they were nationally televised the most.

Pretty tough to find any info on this but after some googling I've found that Wolves were nationally televised 19 times in 05-06 and less than 14 times in 06-07. And remember this is with NBA TV being counted as national TV.

[Texas Chuck]

No. My original argument is that the Wolves FO is so bad KG's salary has no bearing on how terrible the Wolves' roster has been, and the Wolves continuing to be badly managed despite not needing to deal with a contract of KG's size is proof of it.

yeah I never understand holding KG's contracts against him. He just got really lucky with his timing and being able to land that first huge deal right before the max contract came into play. Minny had no choice but to keep giving him huge money to keep him. And I completely agree the Joe Smith saga and the post-KG era highlight the struggles of Minny ownership/FO. Do people really believe Tim Duncan or Dirk or whomever wouldnt have taken those same contracts had they been lucky enough to have KG's timing? I think thats a huge assumption with little basis in reality other than post-prime Duncan taking a pay-cut and Dirk "setttling" for 4/80 to make one last run at it.

[HeartBreakKid]

T-Wolves haven't even made the playoffs since KG was playing there, got no idea why people are pretending like the T-Wolves staff was even remotely competent.

[WhateverBro]

T-Wolves haven't even made the playoffs since KG was playing there, got no idea why people are pretending like the T-Wolves staff was even remotely competent.

Wolves hadn't even won 30 games in a season without KG until this year, when they won 31 games.

[NO-KG-AI]

T-Wolves haven't even made the playoffs since KG was playing there, got no idea why people are pretending like the T-Wolves staff was even remotely competent.

This is the first time in Wolves history that they've won 30+ games without KG(31).

[FJS]

Still, with all the respect, I don't get it.
Reading here, you can watch the consensus is KG was a superstar in his Wolves days and his supporting cast was poor. Then, still pairing with decent pgs like Stephon, Brandon or Billups never got close in any 1st round except 98.
97: 3-0 vs Houston rockets
98: 3-2 vs Sonics
99: 3-1 vs Spurs
00: 3-1 vs Blazers
01: 3-1 vs Spurs
02: 3-0 vs Dallas
03: 4-2 vs Lakers

I know, they were more talented teams. Curiously the most balanced series were in 02, when Dallas had a nice team but Wolves too. (Wally, Billups, Joe Smith)

KG points in the elimination game, win or go home
97: 17 (43%) Guggliota 27, Garret 26, West 16 and Marbury 14.
98: 7 points (27%) (Porter 14, Mitchell 16 and Peeler 28 outscored him)
99: 20 points (30%) (Brandon 27 points)
00: 17 points (25%),
01: 19 points (46%) (Wally 20, Brandon 17)
02: 22 points (47%) (Peeler & Wally 20 points, Billups 16)
03: 18 Points 42.9 % FG (Hudson 18)
04: Vs Kings game 7, his 1st great elimination game, they won, 32 points (52%). Only game with more than 50% in FG and more than 30 points on that kind of games
Then vs Lakers: 22 points (45%) (Spree 27)

One game with more than 30. He had several teanmates with at least his offensive production (altough the consensus is they sucked)

You can watch and watch any game by Duncan, Malone, Dirk, Barkley or another top PF you can think about. KG was a great all around player, but he, as the franchise player, wasn't able to put the wheight of his team in his shoulders. He used to underperform in clutch situations, in dead or alive games.

[G35]

You are using the Wolves FO as the whole reason why KG wasn't successful.

No. My original argument is that the Wolves FO is so bad KG's salary has no bearing on how terrible the Wolves' roster has been, and the Wolves continuing to be badly managed despite not needing to deal with a contract of KG's size is proof of it.

So if the whole argument is that great players that didn't win (Malone/Stockton, Nique, Barkley, Drob, Ewing) KG isn't the only player that has a complaint. Essentially KG needs to get in line if you want to use the FO argument.

Because every player's situation is the same and there is absolutely no difference in circumstances between the all time greats.

I don't hear you arguing for Erving, Malone, Kobe, Dirk, Ewing or Robinson. In fact that's my whole point about the FO excuse. 90% of fans hate their front office/owner/coach. Why aren't you arguing for Pau Gasol when he was getting eliminated three straight years in the first round and they didn't put enough around him? Then he gets traded to the Lakers and now Pau is the best/most skilled front court player in the game.


"Opinions are like ****. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks."

You can monday morning QB circumstances for your favorite player but OTHER people don't care. That is why winning is important. Because you can't argue with results.

Everyone has circumstances but it comes out like you are whining.....

[ElGee]

I'd love to back up here for a second if anyone is willing to come with me. No worries if you want to stay behind and argue in circles, but indulge this thought for a second. This is what the standard KG thread always looks like as far as I can tell:

1. People make a bunch of claims about scoring, clutch and 1st options.
2. People make a bunch of claims about team success.
3. They don't explain why No. 2 or No. 3 are things that are required to be better than Player X
4. They cite selective evidence (Pierce in 08! Dallas in 02! Atlanta Hawks!) to support point No. 1

5. The "pro-KG" crowd comes in and debunks point No. 4.
6. The "anti-KG" crowd falls back to point No. 2 (and No. 1).
7. The "pro-KG" crowd goes through exhausting detail about differences in supporting casts. In short:
8. The "anti-KG" crowd says "So what?" and seems genuinely perplexed at how a difference in team quality could result in a difference in team result.

And that's where we find ourselves again, with people like FJS saying "I just don't get it." So here's what I offer at this juncture. It's not "proof" of anything. It doesn't mean we all have to agree. But it's a gap-filler. Because if we can't agree on the following, how can we ever discuss team basketball? A team is as good as it's best player (KG) and his "Supporting Cast" (teammates and coaching).

TEAM TOTAL = Star + Supporting Cast

Therefore, it's possible for KG to be one of the best players in the league, have a bad supporting cast, and we expect Minnesota to lose to teams with a higher "TEAM TOTAL," not because of the KG part of the equation, but because of his teammates and the respective quality of the opponent.

Examples:

Spoiler:

KG = +5. SC = -4.
TD = +6. SC = 0.

We expect SAS to win comfortably, and we can observe one of the few better players in the league happens to play on that team. Or

KG = +7. SC = -4.
Shaq = +6.5. SC = -2.

We expect LAL to win, and we can observe that KG was also the best player in the series.

[ElGee]

You are using the Wolves FO as the whole reason why KG wasn't successful.

No. My original argument is that the Wolves FO is so bad KG's salary has no bearing on how terrible the Wolves' roster has been, and the Wolves continuing to be badly managed despite not needing to deal with a contract of KG's size is proof of it.

So if the whole argument is that great players that didn't win (Malone/Stockton, Nique, Barkley, Drob, Ewing) KG isn't the only player that has a complaint. Essentially KG needs to get in line if you want to use the FO argument.

Because every player's situation is the same and there is absolutely no difference in circumstances between the all time greats.

I don't hear you arguing for Erving, Malone, Kobe, Dirk, Ewing or Robinson. In fact that's my whole point about the FO excuse. 90% of fans hate their front office/owner/coach. Why aren't you arguing for Pau Gasol when he was getting eliminated three straight years in the first round and they didn't put enough around him? Then he gets traded to the Lakers and now Pau is the best/most skilled front court player in the game.

Hold on...you don't see the same people who are viewed as pro-KG as arguing "for" Nash, Malone, Robinson, Dirk, etc.?

[G35]

No. My original argument is that the Wolves FO is so bad KG's salary has no bearing on how terrible the Wolves' roster has been, and the Wolves continuing to be badly managed despite not needing to deal with a contract of KG's size is proof of it.



Because every player's situation is the same and there is absolutely no difference in circumstances between the all time greats.

I don't hear you arguing for Erving, Malone, Kobe, Dirk, Ewing or Robinson. In fact that's my whole point about the FO excuse. 90% of fans hate their front office/owner/coach. Why aren't you arguing for Pau Gasol when he was getting eliminated three straight years in the first round and they didn't put enough around him? Then he gets traded to the Lakers and now Pau is the best/most skilled front court player in the game.

Hold on...you don't see the same people who are viewed as pro-KG as arguing "for" Nash, Malone, Robinson, Dirk, etc.?

No. I see people arguing for their favorite players. If you are going to make a circumstantial argument, make the same argument for the guy you are arguing against. If people are trying to not be "impartial" by using stats then be all the way impartial for EVERYONE and I'm saying every single player......

[drza]

KG points in the elimination game, win or go home
97: 17 (43%) Guggliota 27, Garret 26, West 16 and Marbury 14.
98: 7 points (27%) (Porter 14, Mitchell 16 and Peeler 28 outscored him)
99: 20 points (30%) (Brandon 27 points)
00: 17 points (25%),
01: 19 points (46%) (Wally 20, Brandon 17)
02: 22 points (47%) (Peeler & Wally 20 points, Billups 16)
03: 18 Points 42.9 % FG (Hudson 18)
04: Vs Kings game 7, his 1st great elimination game, they won, 32 points (52%). Only game with more than 50% in FG and more than 30 points on that kind of games
Then vs Lakers: 22 points (45%) (Spree 27)

One game with more than 30. He had several teanmates with at least his offensive production (altough the consensus is they sucked)

You can watch and watch any game by Duncan, Malone, Dirk, Barkley or another top PF you can think about. KG was a great all around player, but he, as the franchise player, wasn't able to put the wheight of his team in his shoulders. He used to underperform in clutch situations, in dead or alive games.

I much prefer detailed discussions to broad generalizations. And we have so much added detail for this generation about player impact on both his team and his opponents that should really help us get even better answers. But I recognize that sometimes, in a debate, you have to meet your opponent where they live.

So even though you first cherry-picked to only look at the elimination game... then compounded that by only looking at scoring...and then on top of that, having set the criterion (win-or-go-home games), you even left out several of those games (one in '2000, '01, and '04)...I'll still meet you where you live. I'll start with your elimination game theme, and I'll even stipulate that he wasn't the player in his first couple of playoffs that he would eventually become. But I'll add just the slightest bit of added contextual data: scoring margin, rebounds and assists.

So, over KG's 10 elimination games from 1999 - 2004, KG averaged:

22.5 points
14.8 rebounds
5.2 assists

In the 6 losses (by an average of 10.5 points) he averaged 19.7, 14.5 and 5.3

In the 4 wins (by an average of 4.3 points) he averaged 27.3, 15.3 and 5.0

So, KG's teams in Minnesota, which were admitted by all to be outgunned vs. the teams they were playing, went 4 - 6 in elimination games once he approached his prime.

Keeping to the theme of extremely broad analysis, In the losses (by about 11 ppg in average), with all other things being equal KG would have had to average more than 30 points to go with the 15 boards, 5 assists and 1-man defense in order to make up that 11 point gap. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of the other power forwards that you mentioned consistently averaged 30/15/5/ridiculous-1-man-defense against vastly superior competition. Would you like to argue that further?

Interestingly, by the time KG started peaking in 2003, he actually COULD do that pretty regularly. In the 2 series that the Wolves were eliminated those years, both of them by a final tally of 4 - 2, you want to guess what KG averaged in the 4 wins?

30.5 points
16 rebounds
4.5 assists

Among the 6 losses, he had games of:

28/18/5
28/13/9
25/16/3
23/14/7
22/17/2
16/10/2

That breaks down to an average of about 24/15/5. They lost those games by an average of 13 points/game. So I guess even him doing the 30/15/5/defense thing wouldn't have helped much there, huh? I wonder if that would be considered a case of just not having enough help...

[G35]

I'd love to back up here for a second if anyone is willing to come with me. No worries if you want to stay behind and argue in circles, but indulge this thought for a second. This is what the standard KG thread always looks like as far as I can tell:

1. People make a bunch of claims about scoring, clutch and 1st options.
2. People make a bunch of claims about team success.
3. They don't explain why No. 2 or No. 3 are things that are required to be better than Player X
4. They cite selective evidence (Pierce in 08! Dallas in 02! Atlanta Hawks!) to support point No. 1

5. The "pro-KG" crowd comes in and debunks point No. 4.
6. The "anti-KG" crowd falls back to point No. 2 (and No. 1).
7. The "pro-KG" crowd goes through exhausting detail about differences in supporting casts. In short:
8. The "anti-KG" crowd says "So what?" and seems genuinely perplexed at how a difference in team quality could result in a difference in team result.

And that's where we find ourselves again, with people like FJS saying "I just don't get it." So here's what I offer at this juncture. It's not "proof" of anything. It doesn't mean we all have to agree. But it's a gap-filler. Because if we can't agree on the following, how can we ever discuss team basketball? A team is as good as it's best player (KG) and his "Supporting Cast" (teammates and coaching).

TEAM TOTAL = Star + Supporting Cast

Therefore, it's possible for KG to be one of the best players in the league, have a bad supporting cast, and we expect Minnesota to lose to teams with a higher "TEAM TOTAL," not because of the KG part of the equation, but because of his teammates and the respective quality of the opponent.

Examples:

Spoiler:

KG = +5. SC = -4.
TD = +6. SC = 0.

We expect SAS to win comfortably, and we can observe one of the few better players in the league happens to play on that team. Or

KG = +7. SC = -4.
Shaq = +6.5. SC = -2.

We expect LAL to win, and we can observe that KG was also the best player in the series.

I hear this all the time that "it's been debunked". Debunked what? That KG never was able to anchor an elite defense in Minnesota? That he is one of least efficient big men particularly in the playoff's (playoff career .524 TS% and that's after bringing it up in the past few years in Boston when he wasn't the first option on offense). Not a big time playoff performer going out in the first round 7 times in Minnesota. Debunked the theory that he is more Scottie Pippen than a franchise changing big man? Debunked the theory that his jump shooting based game is better suited for the regular season than the playoff's? That KG rarely deviates from his 18-22 pts/10-14 reb's a game average no matter the circumstances? Debunked the idea that KG would not be able to replicate what Duncan did in SA? I think the pro-KG crowd says what they think are killer points that debunk anyone else's argument but it really doesn't......