The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[colts18]

KG's numbers in elimination games for Minnesota (per 36 minutes)

12 games
17 PPG, 10.9 Reb, 4.2 AST, 1.2 STL, .484 TS%, 13.8 avg game score

In 7 out of the 12 elimination games he posted a sub .500 TS%. He had 3 elimination games of under .400 TS% while only having 3 elimination games over .540 TS%. He had a 20+ game score just 2 times in those 12 elimination games.

[FJS]

ElGee, I understand KG it's a great player.
I can understand pleople who has him in between 20 and 30 rank. What I don't get it it's because he is considered top 10-12 so much people with the proof he wasn't able to take his team to next level. Lebron do it with teammates like Wally (a pretty worse version of Wolves days), Boobie Gibson or Jamario Moon starting. It's due to that I consider Lebron a top 10 already. To do what he is doing that it's impressive too, but it's normal to win with Bosh and Wade.
Moses do it in Houston.

If KG was so dominant, he should have made more impact in RS and PS that he did.
So, i'm not discussing if KG was or wasn't a great player. I'm discussing he doesn't deserve to be at the same level of players who carry in their shoulder all the weight of their team an made their teams better, still with little help.

KG being considered as an deffensive anchor, it's more about since he was in C's. What greats Centers or PF where playing in the East since 2008?
In wolves he didn't stop (or slow down) Shaq, Webber, Gasol, Duncan, Sheed, Malone, Yao to name a few. Of course he was an excellent defender, but he has not the body to fight vs those ones (except young Gasol).
Wolves weren't an special defensive team.

[WhateverBro]

KG's numbers in elimination games for Minnesota (per 36 minutes)

12 games
17 PPG, 10.9 Reb, 4.2 AST, 1.2 STL, .484 TS%, 13.8 avg game score

In 7 out of the 12 elimination games he posted a sub .500 TS%. He had 3 elimination games of under .400 TS% while only having 3 elimination games over .540 TS%. He had a 20+ game score just 2 times in those 12 elimination games.

Why did you choose to use per 36 mins for such a small sample size? Doesn't make sense to me. I understand when using per 36 makes sense, comparing two players over a season or whatever but for 12 elimination games, what's the point? No star is going to play 36 minutes in an elimination game.

[colts18]

KG's numbers in elimination games for Minnesota (per 36 minutes)

12 games
17 PPG, 10.9 Reb, 4.2 AST, 1.2 STL, .484 TS%, 13.8 avg game score

In 7 out of the 12 elimination games he posted a sub .500 TS%. He had 3 elimination games of under .400 TS% while only having 3 elimination games over .540 TS%. He had a 20+ game score just 2 times in those 12 elimination games.

Why did you choose to use per 36 mins for such a small sample size? Doesn't make sense to me. I understand when using per 36 makes sense, comparing two players over a season or whatever but for 12 elimination games, what's the point? No star is going to play 36 minutes in an elimination game.

KG averaged 44 minutes per game in those games which would inflate his per game average. Most people on this site use per 36 minutes to compare on an equal playing field.

[HeartBreakKid]

ElGee, I understand KG it's a great player.
I can understand pleople who has him in between 20 and 30 rank. What I don't get it it's because he is considered top 10-12 so much people with the proof he wasn't able to take his team to next level. Lebron do it with teammates like Wally (a pretty worse version of Wolves days), Boobie Gibson or Jamario Moon starting. It's due to that I consider Lebron a top 10 already. To do what he is doing that it's impressive too, but it's normal to win with Bosh and Wade.

I'm confused, if you rank James in the top ten already, how does this help your argument? Also, what did James do - go to the finals in the east? Is that more impressive than going to the WCF in the West? If KG was in the East, do you really think he'd have a problem going to the finals?

Moses do it in Houston.

Props to him, though he was still in a weaker conference and he did have Calvin Murphy.

If KG was so dominant, he should have made more impact in RS and PS that he did.
So, i'm not discussing if KG was or wasn't a great player. I'm discussing he doesn't deserve to be at the same level of players who carry in their shoulder all the weight of their team an made their teams better, still with little help.

Relative to who?

KG being considered as an deffensive anchor, it's more about since he was in C's.

He was considered a defensive anchor way before that.

What greats Centers or PF where playing in the East since 2008?

Why does this master? Being a defensive anchor means you're the foundation for the entire defensive scheme, he is beyond simply guarding the best big. Ironically, the best center in the league was Dwight (given Yao's injury problem) was in the East at this time.

In wolves he didn't stop (or slow down) Shaq, Webber, Gasol, Duncan, Sheed, Malone, Yao to name a few. Of course he was an excellent defender, but he has not the body to fight vs those ones (except young Gasol).
Wolves weren't an special defensive team.

He actually did, and as a quick reference I pulled up KG's MVP season

He certainly stopped Pau Gasol on more than one occasion

Same with Yao Ming

Stopped Chris Webber every game they played including the playoffs

Destroyed Rasheed Wallace

Flat out shutdown Tim Duncan twice, and slowed him down to an 18 PPG game. Duncan only went off 1/4 games

Not even going to humor Malone in 04, so I looked at his games 2 seasons prior. Half the games Malone had in 03 against the Timberwolves were pitiful, and he had one bad game in 02 season against him.

Shaq had a 17 point game, 16 point game, 21 point game on 45 FG% (that's 3 game stretch where one of the GOAT scorers averaged less than 20 PPG) and a 30 pointish game against T-Wolves in the RS.

Game 2 against the T-Wolves, Shaq had a game where he had 14 points on 40%. He had 3 more games of 22, 17 and 19 on good %, so he was certainly slowed down.


I could post the numbers for all those guys btw, and I did not bother to take into account rebounding which at a glance KG held an advantage over nearly all of them by a large amount.

Hell, I don't even know if KG was primarily guarding these guys, but since you were so confident in that he could not slow down any of those players, I just wanted to show you were wrong. Again, if you'd like the numbers, I'll gladly post them, but they're all on basketball reference so I did not feel the need to spam the thread with numbers.

[colts18]

Why are you mentioning Shaq and giving credit to KG when he wasn't guarding Shaq because he was 100 lbs lighter Give that credit to Rasho and Ervin Johnson.

[HeartBreakKid]

Why are you mentioning Shaq and giving credit to KG when he wasn't guarding Shaq because he was 100 lbs lighter Give that credit to Rasho and Ervin Johnson.

That's actually my point. The guy I quoted listed all these guys (some being centers) and said that KG did not slow them down, even though it was not even his job to guard them (said that literally in the same post that you're laughing at).

So my question is, what is that statement even based on? According to their numbers, none of those bigs routinely gave the Timberwolves trouble.

I'm also going to go out on a limb and say KG probably did help guard against those guys, it's not like help defense does not count.

[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.

I hear this all the time that "it's been debunked". Debunked what?

Point No. 4. The evidence that people cite to support claims about scoring, clutch, 1st options and correlations to team success.

"KG can't be the leading scorer on a title team."
"KG can't be a 'No. 1 option' on a good team."
"KG falls apart in the clutch."
"Dirk torched KG"

These things are factually incorrect.

[WhateverBro]

KG's numbers in elimination games for Minnesota (per 36 minutes)

12 games
17 PPG, 10.9 Reb, 4.2 AST, 1.2 STL, .484 TS%, 13.8 avg game score

In 7 out of the 12 elimination games he posted a sub .500 TS%. He had 3 elimination games of under .400 TS% while only having 3 elimination games over .540 TS%. He had a 20+ game score just 2 times in those 12 elimination games.

Why did you choose to use per 36 mins for such a small sample size? Doesn't make sense to me. I understand when using per 36 makes sense, comparing two players over a season or whatever but for 12 elimination games, what's the point? No star is going to play 36 minutes in an elimination game.

KG averaged 44 minutes per game in those games which would inflate his per game average. Most people on this site use per 36 minutes to compare on an equal playing field.

You didn't compare him to anyone though..

[colts18]

KG's postseason clutch numbers through 2008 (per 48):

25.8 PPG, 11.7 Reb, 1.2 AST-1.6 TOV, .498 TS%, -26.9 plus/minus

I don't know how anyone can deny that is a huge dropoff in clutch time. His rebounding and assists dropped significantly. So did his efficiency. And his teams were outscored by 27 points per 48 in those minutes. Thats a lot of close games that they didn't close out because he wasn't as efficient as he should be.

[colts18]

KG's postseason clutch numbers through 2008 (per 48):

25.8 PPG, 11.7 Reb, 1.2 AST-1.6 TOV, .498 TS%, -26.9 plus/minus

I don't know how anyone can deny that is a huge dropoff in clutch time. His rebounding and assists dropped significantly. So did his efficiency. And his teams were outscored by 27 points per 48 in those minutes. Thats a lot of close games that they didn't close out because he wasn't as efficient as he should be.

Career 4th quarter numbers in the playoffs (per 36 minutes):

17.6 PPG, 11.2 Reb, 2.5 AST-2.5 TOV, .522 TS%, -2.4 plus/minus

Not great

[microfib4thewin]

KG's numbers in elimination games for Minnesota (per 36 minutes)

12 games
17 PPG, 10.9 Reb, 4.2 AST, 1.2 STL, .484 TS%, 13.8 avg game score

In 7 out of the 12 elimination games he posted a sub .500 TS%. He had 3 elimination games of under .400 TS% while only having 3 elimination games over .540 TS%. He had a 20+ game score just 2 times in those 12 elimination games.

2002 - 2010

11 games, 6-5

24.8/7/3.5/1.7/50.3% TS, 15.2 game score, 43 minutes, 91 Poss.

Won by an average of 10 and lost by an average 24. If we are going to use numbers from facing eliminations to determine a player's clutchness then I guess we should also start talking about Kobe and whether he's really a winner.

[colts18]

2002 - 2010

11 games, 6-5

24.8/7/3.5/1.7/50.3% TS, 15.2 game score, 43 minutes, 91 Poss.

Won by an average of 10 and lost by an average 24. If we are going to use numbers from facing eliminations to determine a player's clutchness then I guess we should also start talking about Kobe and whether he's really a winner.

There is only 1 poster on this forum that continues to tout the narrative of Kobe being clutch. No one else buys into it.

[microfib4thewin]

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.

So your highness, how many players do I need to make a case for before I can start talking about KG? I don't even like KG, but you are the one who started giving nonsense reasons for why KG doesn't have team success ranging from his salary to randomly listing his former teammates that people remember the name of to him not being a 'Batman' scorer. Others have already explained ad nausem why those reasonings are flawed. If you don't accept them, fine, but you have no right to tell others to do more work on their end when you're taking the lazy route and have everyone give proof on why you're wrong while you give no proof yourself aside from the obvious that we already know and have been rebutted numerous times.

No, I will not take a detour and discuss a dozen of other players in order to make a case for KG. Why don't you support KG, since he won a ring he's technically a winner in your book, right?

[G35]

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...

Hmmmm not one advanced stat in the whole post....I like it......

[G35]

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.

So your highness, how many players do I need to make a case for before I can start talking about KG? I don't even like KG, but you are the one who started giving nonsense reasons for why KG doesn't have team success ranging from his salary to randomly listing his former teammates that people remember the name of to him not being a 'Batman' scorer. Others have already explained ad nausem why those reasonings are flawed. If you don't accept them, fine, but you have no right to tell others to do more work on their end when you're taking the lazy route and have everyone give proof on why you're wrong while you give no proof yourself aside from the obvious that we already know and have been rebutted numerous times.

No, I will not take a detour and discuss a dozen of other players in order to make a case for KG. Why don't you support KG, since he won a ring he's technically a winner in your book, right?

Every single player you think KG is better than.

I will listen to your whole story about why KG was not put in a position to succeed. I will nod and listen and clap my hands and shout to the mountain tops that KG wasn't given a fair shot!

As long as you listen that Drob had a worse team around him than KG did. That he did more with the players that were put around him than KG ever did. That management did a disservice to Robinson's prime.

That Philly blew Charles Barkleys prime. They made horrendous trades and never brought anyone that could matchup with Chicago. That Barkley carried a horrible Sixer team into the second round as an underdog.

That Karl Malone and John Stockton were hampered by Utah not being a choice FA destination. That Jerry Sloan stuck to a system that worked in the regular season but held Stockton/Malone back in the playoff's. That Utah never brought in a versatile scorer because that type of player didn't fit into Sloan's system.

That Julius Erving could have dominated in the NBA from the beginning and had several MVP's and championships but never had a center to matchup against the Lakers and Celtics frontlines.

See it's not hard to do. We all have a narrative we can spin but some people feel their narrative/version of the story is the right one and try to portray it as fact. I really can't understand how you feel that you give your explanation for something and that's the final word. Well why don't you just talk to people who only agree with your opinion and you will be happier for it. KG arguments are just going to frustrate you......

[drza]

Every single player you think KG is better than.

I will listen to your whole story about why KG was not put in a position to succeed. I will nod and listen and clap my hands and shout to the mountain tops that KG wasn't given a fair shot!

As long as you listen that Drob had a worse team around him than KG did. That he did more with the players that were put around him than KG ever did. That management did a disservice to Robinson's prime.

That Philly blew Charles Barkleys prime. They made horrendous trades and never brought anyone that could matchup with Chicago. That Barkley carried a horrible Sixer team into the second round as an underdog.

That Karl Malone and John Stockton were hampered by Utah not being a choice FA destination. That Jerry Sloan stuck to a system that worked in the regular season but held Stockton/Malone back in the playoff's. That Utah never brought in a versatile scorer because that type of player didn't fit into Sloan's system.

That Julius Erving could have dominated in the NBA from the beginning and had several MVP's and championships but never had a center to matchup against the Lakers and Celtics frontlines.

See it's not hard to do. We all have a narrative we can spin but some people feel their narrative/version of the story is the right one and try to portray it as fact. I really can't understand how you feel that you give your explanation for something and that's the final word. Well why don't you just talk to people who only agree with your opinion and you will be happier for it. KG arguments are just going to frustrate you......

Part of the frustration in discussing these things with you is that you'll sometimes say things like this that sound halfway reasonable, and someone will engage you...only to have you pivot off into another direction right when it seems like we should be making progress.

For example. I have absolutely no problem saying that David Robinson also didn't have a good situation in his prime, that Barkley's situation could have been better, that perhaps Malone and Stockton could have used an athletic/iso wing talent, and that Doc was more of a beast than his NBA ring count would indicate. Those are all reasonable, supportable statements to make.

But the thing is, the key to having a good discussion on it is to look at both degree and context. And if there is disagreement in assessing those things for each case, we should discuss those areas of disagreement until some sort of consensus is reached. I don't think that this is the right thread to go into depth for any of these discussions, but in cliff notes I'd say that:

*I disagree that Robinson's casts were worse than Garnett or that he did more with less. I'd argue that Robinson's 8 years pre-Duncan roughly corresponds to KG's last 8 years in Minnesota. First there was Robinson’s Cummings/Elliott/Strickland phase that roughly corresponded to the Brandon/Wally portion of KG’s career. Then, there was the Rodman/Elliott period that corresponded roughly to the ’04 Cassell/Spree season. Then, there was the peak Elliott/Avery Johnson team for DRob vs. 4 coaches and 3 completely different supporting casts in KG’s last 3 Minnesota seasons (culminating in the horror of Mark Blount/Ricky Davis as sidekicks with Randy Wittman as a coach). I think in each of those cases Robinson's support, though less than what other superstars have had, was a bit better than Garnett's. I'd say both of them just about maximized the amount of regular season success possible for their given teams.

*Barkley joined a Philly team that was on the downside of a long stretch of contention that included 2 old legends in Doc and Mo. That's not the worst way to cut your teeth in the pros. Philly definitely didn't do a good job transitioning from the old legends to building a new team around Chuck, but on the flip side we got to see Barkley play with some loaded Phoenix teams while he was still in his late 20s. So while the poor teams in Philly may have affected his number of chances to go for a ring, I don't think it deprived us of seeing what Barkley could do at his peak with strong support.

*Malone and Stockton maybe could have used that 3rd scoring wing...but on the other hand, they always had EACH OTHER on every team. They never got hurt, had a good coaching system, and several at least interesting parts among their various role players. I humbly submit that Garnett never had the 2nd All history level player to work with at least until he got to Boston, and that this lack really hurts his team results when compared to someone like Malone who jus thad a better situation.

*Dr. J was my first favorite player, and I have absolutely nothing negative to say about him. I enjoy discussing his situation just because of that. But again, I don't think it's remotely feasible to say that his teammate support situation at any of his stops in the NBA were comparable to KG's.

Again, the point here isn't to go on tangents about these other great players. And it's not to say that they weren't also in situations that could have been better. But I'd argue that each of their situations were better than Garnett's. And if you disagree, then THAT is a logical place to debate as we try to quantify just how good an individual player is. But your MO, as far as I've seen, would be to not hone in on where we might find common ground on this comparison but instead to pivot off and start counting rings (while minimizing KG's time in Boston), or to start calling Garnett a Pippen (without supporting it), or into some other direction that can-and-has-been discussed but that also requires a good deal of time/detail to have a productive conversation.

If you actually read to the end of this long message, I'd say that the last sentence is the ultimate point (and what ElGee was alluding to earlier): a Garnett debate isn't simple. His skill set is unusual to the point of uniqueness, his team circumstances are unusual to the point of uniqueness, and his production is unusual to the point of uniqueness. For any conversation to really hone in on how good KG was or wasn't, you have to take the time and energy to put a bunch of unique things into context and THEN look at what can and can't be quantified. But jumping from topic to topic, and keeping the analysis surface and general, will never result in a satisfactory debate. Instead it will just lead to both sides getting frustrated and digging their heels in...you know, kind of like what we've seen (again) in this thread.

[G35]

Every single player you think KG is better than.

I will listen to your whole story about why KG was not put in a position to succeed. I will nod and listen and clap my hands and shout to the mountain tops that KG wasn't given a fair shot!

As long as you listen that Drob had a worse team around him than KG did. That he did more with the players that were put around him than KG ever did. That management did a disservice to Robinson's prime.

That Philly blew Charles Barkleys prime. They made horrendous trades and never brought anyone that could matchup with Chicago. That Barkley carried a horrible Sixer team into the second round as an underdog.

That Karl Malone and John Stockton were hampered by Utah not being a choice FA destination. That Jerry Sloan stuck to a system that worked in the regular season but held Stockton/Malone back in the playoff's. That Utah never brought in a versatile scorer because that type of player didn't fit into Sloan's system.

That Julius Erving could have dominated in the NBA from the beginning and had several MVP's and championships but never had a center to matchup against the Lakers and Celtics frontlines.

See it's not hard to do. We all have a narrative we can spin but some people feel their narrative/version of the story is the right one and try to portray it as fact. I really can't understand how you feel that you give your explanation for something and that's the final word. Well why don't you just talk to people who only agree with your opinion and you will be happier for it. KG arguments are just going to frustrate you......

Part of the frustration in discussing these things with you is that you'll sometimes say things like this that sound halfway reasonable, and someone will engage you...only to have you pivot off into another direction right when it seems like we should be making progress.

For example. I have absolutely no problem saying that David Robinson also didn't have a good situation in his prime, that Barkley's situation could have been better, that perhaps Malone and Stockton could have used an athletic/iso wing talent, and that Doc was more of a beast than his NBA ring count would indicate. Those are all reasonable, supportable statements to make.

But the thing is, the key to having a good discussion on it is to look at both degree and context. And if there is disagreement in assessing those things for each case, we should discuss those areas of disagreement until some sort of consensus is reached. I don't think that this is the right thread to go into depth for any of these discussions, but in cliff notes I'd say that:

*I disagree that Robinson's casts were worse than Garnett or that he did more with less. I'd argue that Robinson's 8 years pre-Duncan roughly corresponds to KG's last 8 years in Minnesota. First there was Robinson’s Cummings/Elliott/Strickland phase that roughly corresponded to the Brandon/Wally portion of KG’s career. Then, there was the Rodman/Elliott period that corresponded roughly to the ’04 Cassell/Spree season. Then, there was the peak Elliott/Avery Johnson team for DRob vs. 4 coaches and 3 completely different supporting casts in KG’s last 3 Minnesota seasons (culminating in the horror of Mark Blount/Ricky Davis as sidekicks with Randy Wittman as a coach). I think in each of those cases Robinson's support, though less than what other superstars have had, was a bit better than Garnett's. I'd say both of them just about maximized the amount of regular season success possible for their given teams.

*Barkley joined a Philly team that was on the downside of a long stretch of contention that included 2 old legends in Doc and Mo. That's not the worst way to cut your teeth in the pros. Philly definitely didn't do a good job transitioning from the old legends to building a new team around Chuck, but on the flip side we got to see Barkley play with some loaded Phoenix teams while he was still in his late 20s. So while the poor teams in Philly may have affected his number of chances to go for a ring, I don't think it deprived us of seeing what Barkley could do at his peak with strong support.

*Malone and Stockton maybe could have used that 3rd scoring wing...but on the other hand, they always had EACH OTHER on every team. They never got hurt, had a good coaching system, and several at least interesting parts among their various role players. I humbly submit that Garnett never had the 2nd All history level player to work with at least until he got to Boston, and that this lack really hurts his team results when compared to someone like Malone who jus thad a better situation.

*Dr. J was my first favorite player, and I have absolutely nothing negative to say about him. I enjoy discussing his situation just because of that. But again, I don't think it's remotely feasible to say that his teammate support situation at any of his stops in the NBA were comparable to KG's.

Again, the point here isn't to go on tangents about these other great players. And it's not to say that they weren't also in situations that could have been better. But I'd argue that each of their situations were better than Garnett's. And if you disagree, then THAT is a logical place to debate as we try to quantify just how good an individual player is. But your MO, as far as I've seen, would be to not hone in on where we might find common ground on this comparison but instead to pivot off and start counting rings (while minimizing KG's time in Boston), or to start calling Garnett a Pippen (without supporting it), or into some other direction that can-and-has-been discussed but that also requires a good deal of time/detail to have a productive conversation.

If you actually read to the end of this long message, I'd say that the last sentence is the ultimate point (and what ElGee was alluding to earlier): a Garnett debate isn't simple. His skill set is unusual to the point of uniqueness, his team circumstances are unusual to the point of uniqueness, and his production is unusual to the point of uniqueness. For any conversation to really hone in on how good KG was or wasn't, you have to take the time and energy to put a bunch of unique things into context and THEN look at what can and can't be quantified. But jumping from topic to topic, and keeping the analysis surface and general, will never result in a satisfactory debate. Instead it will just lead to both sides getting frustrated and digging their heels in...you know, kind of like what we've seen (again) in this thread.

I agree with your points but not the final conclusion.

I think Robinson's teams were comparable to KG's but Drob was getting his team 1-4th seeds and making it out of the first round. KG went out in the first round 7 straight years. That's a huge black mark that get's glossed over with excuse of "context" and "poor management". It wasn't like KG was out there with the Charlotte Bobcats roster.

In Barkley's case I would say that he had worse rosters than KG but he was at least able to get out of the first round with a lacking support group and he upset a higher seeded team something KG was never able to do. Typically you will hear that the West was stacked so what can you expect. I expect greatness and a departure from expected results. With KG you knew what was going to happen. He never had that epic playoff game that carried his team to victory.

With Malone/Stockton yes they had each other and that's a lot. However they did produce a lot also. 20+ years of straight playoff appearances, 5 conference finals appearances and 2 finals appearances is as much as you can expect when they had a team not built for the playoff's. KG had a stacked team when he went to Boston and you can say that they underachieved for the talent that they had. If you put Ray Allen as the third player on the Utah Jazz I think they win multiple championships.

When I mentioned Dr. J who was my first favorite player it wasn't that he was in a bad situation, but he came to a team that was overloaded with talent that didn't fit. But he led them to three finals appearances but people look at him as some sort of failure because he wasn't able to beat those stacked Lakers/Celtics teams. I take Dr. J over KG any day seeing as he is as close as you get to Lebron without the ball handling skills.

I don't disagree that KG didn't go through a less than desirable situation. What my point is, what did KG show that makes him a better player than any of these other greats? If you substituted Barkley, Malone, Duncan, Erving, Robinson, Kareem, Hakeem, Pau Gasol, I think they could have equaled or bettered what KG was able to do. To me 7 first round losses and three straight years of lottery appearances and I don't see why KG is on a pedestal. What did he do that another couldn't have done in his exact situation?

This is where we begin to diverge is no one on the KG front wants to concede that KG might have underachieved as being a franchise player in Minnesota.

KG is unique. What other top 20 player missed the playoff's three straight years?

What other top 20 big man is as inefficient as KG was as a first option?

Why wasn't KG able to anchor a great defense in Minnesota since his defensive ability has so much impact?

My argument is that KG is much more dependent on having competent teammates than the other greats are and he is not capable of individually lifting his team with his own ability. KG was put in the perfect situation for his talents in Boston and he still was only able to win one ring and that playoff run had it's uniqueness also.....

[ElGee]

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......

Of course, but who is doing this? I'm not going to ask you to call out posters, so is this something you think I do? Or one of the mods? (Mods don't mind being called out. )

I spend much time arguing "for" players I'm not much of a fan of, and plenty of time arguing against players I like. It really just depends on who they are pitted against, and what the argument is. I don't know if thats the case with everyone, but I've personally never seen guys providing heavy KG information turn around and trash Malone, Erving, etc. for their circumstance. I agree this would be inconsistent.

As to your last three questions, this is what I was alluding to in my post with the 8-steps of a KG thread: These questions have been answered in detail, ad nauseum. I've even said to you before, "we've been over this before." Which gets to what drza was speaking to -- it's unclear to me if you (and others) want to hear anything that is being said. To me, it feels like you want to align against an opinion, instead of trying to understand and improve your own opinion. If you start from the end and work back, you are always going to miss the answers to these questions.

Here's the thing G -- knowing these questions doesn't force an opinion upon you. You can have your own opinions. But if you aren't ever willing to update your opinions, then you literally, from a cognitive perspective, won't "hear" what's being said, which will lead to questions that have already been answered in depth before. (I'll put a recap of the answers below if you are interested.) There's a difference between having the same information and having the same conclusions -- if you don't think it's important to have accurate information, then I hope you'll say so so people can stop answering your questions.

I've been antagonistic in the past, and that's sub-optimal for this forum. It's less productive, and it's less fun. I'd love for you to participate in the Survey Project. I'd love for you to offer your unique perspective, chime in with questions in projects, etc. but it doesn't feel like a sincere effort on the "let's get accurate information" front when you keep rehashing the same questions or pivot to something unrelated to what was just asked. Know what I mean?

Questions:

What other top-20 player missed the PS 3 straight years?

Spoiler:

In terms of uniqueness among these players, Minnesota missing the PS for 3 consecutive seasons was a function of the rules of the playoff seeding and the imbalance of the league. The following all-time greats had 3-year stretches on the following teams (by SRS) when they played:

Jordan
-0.5
-1.7
1.3

Kareem
1.4
0.2
2.7

Wilt
0.9
2.6
-1.9
(-4.4 in 1965 too)

Oscar
2.6
-0.8
-1.3

Kobe
-1.5
2.5
0.2

Moses
0.3
-0.2
-0.4

Garnett
1.7
-1.4
-2.2

ONLY Garnett's Wolves missed the PS all three years in those stretches. And they missed the PS not because of win%, but because they were playing in the hardest conference in NBA history to make the postseason. Minnesota missed the PS with 44 wins -- an extreme rarity. Since 1986, 5 of the 131 teams (3.8%) with that many wins have missed the PS, all from the same period in the Western Conference.

What other top 20 big man is as inefficient as KG was as a first option?

Spoiler:

I assume you are talking about shooting efficiency (TS%). I also assume you are speaking of "offensive" first options, and not overall best player on a team. (Bill Russell would then be the obvious first answer.)

If we don't adjust for defensive quality, Wilt Chamberlain, for one. If we adjust for defensive quality (my preference), then we see the following bigs in the same efficiency boat, with Garnett at the bottom:

Tim Duncan
Moses Malone
Patrick Ewing
David Robinson
Karl Malone
Kevin Garnett

Elgin Baylor would be worse if considered a big and/or top-20. These players are all within less than 3% points of efficiency both in absolute TS% and when we adjust for opponent. So besides Bill Russell, Garnett would be the "worst" of the top-20 big-men ITO of efficiency, and the difference in that efficiency at his ~21 TS attempts per game amounts to 1.2 fewer points per game than Tim Duncan's efficiency (top of this group).

Why wasn't KG able to anchor a great defense in Minnesota since his defensive ability has so much impact?

Spoiler:

Teammates have a big impact on defense. Many years Garnett was playing with atrocious defensive teammates. Despite this, Garnett never had a bad defense. Here are his team values while he is on the court (using NBA.com) relative to the league average:

2001 -0.1
2002 -0.3
2003 -1.2
2004 -4.4
2005 +0.5
2006 -1.5
2007 -0.3

If his teams didn't fall apart when he went to the bench, he would have been on "great" defenses.

Coaching/scheme matter too. As the league increased spacing and emphasis on PnR, Garnett's value as a help defender and someone who could blow up the PnR increased. He and Thibs were a perfect marriage in this sense, as Garnett's skills as a defender complemented Thibs defensive team concepts, which is why his on-court team defensive number in 2008 was 97.3, or 10.2 points better than league average.

[colts18]

Elgee, where are you getting those league average values from? Those numbers are extremely inflated. For example, KG wasn't -3.1 in 01 and 02. He was about league average those 2 years.