What I dont like about him is that his teams rarely won in the playoffs.
So you don't like KG because the
'entire team' rarely won in the playoffs? Makes sense
Do you not have the ability to seperate KG's basketball ability and his teams performance?
I mean, if KG's career started in Boston where he and his team won the chip his first year and then had their dominate playoff/regular season run and then he got traded to the Wolves and had his earlier playoff performances with the same team, no one would be questioning him because finally, to those who say 'you have to win in the playoffs' would see that he did.
Just because KG wasn't as big of a volume scorer as other's doesn't mean he is any less valuable. Otherwise, I can list a whole bunch of big time volume scorers who couldn't get the job done as the man and who needed more help and fitment to get the job done.
'If my boxscore stats give the perception that I did all I could to help my team...I get the pass. If I can't really understand or break the game down any further than that and still have great boxscore statistics, the higher the ppg the more that person tried to will their team to victory.
Minnesota built a franchise around Kevin Garnett and they were rewarded with a whopping two playoff victories.
KG, was so lucky to have such fantastic teams built around him. I think at one point both Duncan and Shaq asked to be traded to Minny because they wanted to be part of a real future.
Moses Malone took two different teams to the NBA Finals.
He did? Amazing, all you need is Moses, you don't even need a team. Moses + current Celtics = trip to finals. The problem here is that you undervalue supporting casts and overvalue your perception of impact the perceived best player on the team has. It's been explained to you here many times already.
In my world that makes the thread over.
Yes, well at least your being honest here. It would just be nice for others to at least objectively look at soem of the facts presented here instead of locking themselves into the Matrix and watching their perceived reality.
If Kevin Garnett's whole playoff career was 2002-2004 then I wouldn't criticize him as much as I do, but those three years are the exceptions and not the norms. The rest of his career he is an average playoff performer.
This makes zero sense? You must really dislike MJ than, right? His earlier playoff failures. He scored more than almost anyone else yet as those valuable ppg that you luv so much couldn't push his team ahead. Oh, wait, because he won as the undisputed best player, you'll give him the pass, because it then falls on having the right mix. And even though the Bulls had a front office who made fantastic moves to get him the best fitting talent they could, it's like people can't imagine MJ that if they Bulls don't make those moves, his legacy could be much less. And well, the rest is history. Again, did you see the teams KG faced in those first rounds? And then he joins a better team in Boston and they win first year. The Heat didn't even accomplish that, so credit the man be being a huge piece of the teams success here.
If he was putting up monster stats every year and his teams were still losing (ala Lebron in Cleveland) then I wouldn't hold that against him.
Yes, as I mentioned above this is the problem here. What JonnyBlaze perceives to be valuable is and nothing else makes the cut. You know, we have seen in the past that hero ball isn't the most successful way to win in the game of basketball. TRoss just hit 51 last night in a lost. I am happy for him as a player but if you cannot see what it does to the rest of the team when someone gets in the zone like that than I don't know what to tell you. MJ's team used to just stand around and watch him go to work, great for him, but your team isn't in the flow as much. And if you don't have a balanced mix, sorry you're not making it too far. Look at the production LA is now getting from their players for example? Labelled overachievers yet most just never had a chance to flourish they way they currently are because of their role. Sure, it works when you have the right mix but look no further than SA to see what a great mix of players can do for you. Unless you're packing a Shaq Kobe 1, 2 punch, chances are this hero ball philosophy looses once you met up with a team who plays smart basketball as the Spurs did in 07 in 4. Hence why the Heat, once they trusted each other, and hieracy was established are so dominate. How some of Kobe's 30+ppg efforts went to losing the series etc. There are just as many times, I could question pass don't shoot versus don't pass and shoot. KG was unselfish but
AGAIN if Boston didn't show you what he could do with the right mix of players, than you really do not understand the full body of basketball.
When he was in the Western Conference he was consistently outplayed by the opposing teams superstar player in the playoffs.
Do you want to name me who these players were? I think I might have a trend for you here
If you analyze Kevin Garnett's career there are very few playoff series where he is the best player in the whole series.
Its not until 2004 that he is ever the best player in a series.
Who the hell was better than KG?
I could maybe buy what you KG fans try to sell (that his defense and intangibles makeup for the fact that he is not that great a scorer) if he had playoff success like the Spurs, Lakers or Mavericks.
Why don't you just say, I don't understand defensive impact and only care about scoring?
In fact.....I take that back. I could buy what you KG fans try to sell if he had more playoff success period. Two playoff victories in 12 years as a franchise player tells me that his lack of scoring ability was a big issue.
Well KG wasn't a franchise player out of the box, same as Kobe. It took them some years to get brought up to speed here. Duncan isn't a huge volume scorer but I bet you luv his game. I wonder if the Spurs never won how you'd change your impression on him. Title = Impact without understanding what it was because title takes away all the guess work.
I could maybe buy what you guys sell (that his "amazing" defense makes up for his lack of scoring) if he was on a Detroit or San Antonio type of team that was at the top of the league in defense every year, and had the playoff success to back it up.
Yes, because they only had one anchor on each of their teams
The thing that truly weirds me out about KG fans is the extent that you all will try to disvalue scoring.
I am not even a true KG fan but I can appreciate his game. All you care about is scoring so I could say you weird me out because you only understand one side of the game.
The goal of basketball is not to put up the best stats in the most categories....its to outscore your opponent.
Well no, not unless you're taking your 'team' deep into the post season all by yourself
But what about defense???? Defense is just as important as scoring
"
Well, yeah it makes outscoring your team easier if you can stop the other team from doing so.
If KG's teams won as much as Detroit or San Antonio they I could maybe buy it.....but they did not. He won two playoff series in 12 years.
KG didn't have those teams, he had his. Again see Boston and 04. He showed with a good roster what he and the teams could do.
In those 12 years he was consistently outscored by the opposing teams top player. That tells me is defensive impact wasn't that dominant.
It tells me you do not understand defense because it doesn't involve putting the basket into the net. You seem to think that a defensive anchor should be able to act like a volume scorer, where you can see 35ppg in the boxscore. Defense doesn't work that way, it's a team effort, and if one moving piece doesn't work with the other, it all blows up. Or I guess you never seen Pop's call a time out for a blown defensive assignment. The great teams make it look effortless, and if your not, it can appear non exsistent. However, placing Duncan or Hakeem on KG's Minny teams, wouldn't make them any less defensive players even if teams were still scoring on them and them losing in the post season. Remember, both of them were legit 5's, where KG wasn't built for the same grind they could face.
Make no mistake about it.....the best players in NBA history were also the most dominant scorers.
Really, all of them? Show me.
Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan can do everything KG can do on defense....but at their core they were dominant scorers.
See this is where you just lose all credibility and are just arguing for the sake of arguing. It's like you don't know KG at all and how he played. And you certainly do not know the difference between Hakeem and Duncan. I mean, dominant scorers, at times sure but overall throughout their careers??...I'll just leave it at that.
Thats why those two have 5 NBA FInals MVP's between the two of them and KG has zero.
Fantastic logic here.
. You must be in a good mood today, knowing that I didn't even quote you to be responding here. Read the quote I was responding to before making silly claims that have no meaning to the poster who I originally responded to. He was pretty clear in what he was saying and hence my response. Like you, it is a 'win the ring' or you suck mentality. I think you should know what getting the job done means G35. And you should know that I don't lower players rankings simply based off this accomplishment.