Purch wrote:See, but the thing is it doesn't matter what defense KG played against, cause this was a career long dip, even when he was on the #1 seed celtics. I'm not understanding what you actually think would change. The dip is there no matter what teams he faced, and no matter what seed he did it as
All that would mean is that his efficiency dipped that playoffs run.
In 08 in particular, the league average DRtg was 107.5. KG faces:
03 only faced the Lakers +1.1 02 only faced Dallas +3.2 01 only faced the Spurs -5.0
etc.
Each playoff run isn't the same. Note that this is just how I'd look at it (and I use it more for adjusting team performances, since i don't play around with box score stats much), I think others do so in terms of TS% allowed. I think earlier in this thread as opposed to looking at averages, they were separating defenses into ranges (<-3, >+3, and everything else).
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
Those post-up numbers are curious. And I wonder how much Synergy's questionable categorization matters.
Then again, "post" is a pretty broad area. KG was not a low-post phenom, ever. He had two moves that produced 40-something percent shots and blew at drawing fouls for a big, so that much is clear... But the high post is still a post zone and there, KG was excellent. A lot like Old Webber, actually, but a better shooter and despite flashiness, I think a more effective passer. I'd love to see that comparison, actually.
So, is there subjective valueto the difference between the low pos and the high? Can we quantify a vakue difference in DrawF when the lower-draw guy is a much better FT shooter? The per-possession data seems to do good things for RS Garnett, which shouldn't surprise that much, and with a career that started in his teens, we should give KG some leeway for switching to PF from SF and then from PF to part-time C as he aged. In Boston and on lower volume, hi low post game was consiserably better.
Garnett's another of those guys whom, while I haven't let them rise in my estimation of greatness, I do have an increasing appreciation of his ability.
That said, Garnett did have scoring issues in the PS; these are well-documented. When you're a 25-28% USG guy like KG was for miny and Boston, that hurts.
You're talking about a 7-point drop-off from RS to PS in his Minny ORTG (103 in the PS) and 5 in Boston. He was a lot worse on O in the playoffs. Less efficient, more prone to turnovers, etc, and to an extent that is in line with others who are considered chokers by some. That's an objectively problematic drop-off, and it didn@5 improve much with more surrounding talent, although that comment is complicated by his aging body as he shifted to Boston.
He's a tough one to evaluate, is KG. Not an elite scorer, that's essentially irrefutable at this point. Noticeably worse in the playoffs as a scorer. Very good passer, very good spacing threat, very good as a second option and facilitator of ball movement. Very good defender, and of course his overall impact on offense seems in-line with other second-tier stars, his defense elevating him further. Clearly capable of functioning as a key piece on a title squad.
We come down to a key question, though:
What do we mean when we say "greatness?"
Winning bias is inescapable because past a given point, opportunity is the only separation of any meaningful sort in a conversation of this sort. Say what you will aboutBird, for example, but few players in league history have accomplished what he did. We need to quantify average PS performance drops across our panel of candidates before murdering him in this debate, IMO. We've seen that done via PER, but then we needto determine to what level that drop takes the player. MJ didn't elevate his PER in the playoffs, but he roughly maintained his insane RS level, so that's incredible. How do we approach that concept with others?
How do we approach players who never had the weak league/conference or talent-rich roster necrssary to compete? Do we penalize the forunate? Is that not just an extension of the Jordan narrative, the work-til-it-works thing that depends upon management and coaching? How vulnerable are we to pleasing narratives?
Garnett doesn't strictly compare in ability as a scorer, postseason performance, team success or individual accolades to many of his contemporaries at this level of the conversation. We are reversing old thoughts and narrative and that's good, but at some stage we need to decide upon how to account for those who have such thigs and hise who do not.
And of course, we need to examine things like playoff format and league environment, as we sometimes already do. The breadth of information to which we now have access is bewildering, and it'll be fun to see where we go from here.
Purch wrote:See, but the thing is it doesn't matter what defense KG played against, cause this was a career long dip, even when he was on the #1 seed celtics. I'm not understanding what you actually think would change. The dip is there no matter what teams he faced, and no matter what seed he did it as
And this is where I once again point out that Garnett on the Celtics, outside of 08, became a role player on offense, who basically just shot jumpers the whole time. His efficiency is obviously going to fluctuate.
In 08, yes, his efficiency drops, but pretty much only in the Finals against a pretty stacked front line. He was destroying teams offensively throughout the EC playoffs. In the Finals, he averages 18.0 ppg on 47.0% TS and a 99 ORating...and he was STILL probably the most valuable Celtic in that series, because his defense was amazing. Just goes to show how overstated his supposed inability to score really is.
And you can compare that to Duncan in that very playoff run against the Lakers: 22.4 ppg on 46.5% TS and a 98 ORating.
The unfortunate thing about Garnett, and why everyone says his prime was wasted, is that we only got to see him on ONE good team during his prime, and then he got injured and was never the same after that.
ronnymac2 wrote: Not being able to defend Shaq isn't an indictment on one's defense in my opinion.
That's not my point... KG should've at least been there TRYING. Instead he was spending time showing on all picks and helping on shooters instead of guarding the part of the floor the Lakers were wreaking havoc.
And honestly, is it so much to expect a peak KG in 2004, the MVP and clear best player in the league, to do at least a serviceable job on a past his prime Shaq? Considering the guy was shooting over 70% in the paint for the Lakers, I'd expect him to at least TRY.
Shaq in 2004 WCF: 20.7 PPG, 56.9 FG% Shaq in 2004 Finals against one of the best defenses in history: 26.6 PPG, 63.1 FG%
Garnett played him better than Duncan and Wallace that postseason as far as holding down his scoring volume and efficiency.
1. KG wasn't the primary defender on Shaq.
2. Shaq averaged 10.3 FTAs vs. SAS, 15.5 vs. MIN, and 11 FTAs vs. DET.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
therealbig3 wrote:To respond to your 2nd point...first of all, I don't consider him on Pop's level as an offensive coach.
Minor point, but I don't think Pop was that great of an offensive coach around 02 and 03. Duncan was still averaging 40 minutes and he led the league in FG and FT made on 2002. No matter what Pop was running I have trouble believing it was some smart offensive schemes that were ideal for Duncan. A quick look over at B-R and the Spurs didn't even hit top 10 in 3PA until 2007.
ardee wrote:Then in 2003, again the Wolves get destroyed in the paint against the Lakers. LA shot 67% in the paint! Playoff best. That's up there with elite paint finishers today as PLAYERS, and this was a whole team!
Same story in 2004. The Lakers eliminated the Timberwolves by shooting 64% in the paint. And drza, don't tell me KG's talents were better served helping on 3 point shooters like in the Dallas series against the Lakers, Shaq and Kobe LIVED in the paint and that's where they ate the Magic alive.
Not being able to defend Shaq isn't an indictment on one's defense in my opinion.
That's not my point... KG should've at least been there TRYING. Instead he was spending time showing on all picks and helping on shooters instead of guarding the part of the floor the Lakers were wreaking havoc.
And honestly, is it so much to expect a peak KG in 2004, the MVP and clear best player in the league, to do at least a serviceable job on a past his prime Shaq? Considering the guy was shooting over 70% in the paint for the Lakers, I'd expect him to at least TRY.
In my opinion, putting your best player on Shaq isn't a good idea unless he's a guy you know Shaq will have to defend, too (so basically, if you're Hakeem). I really wouldn't want KG's legs tiring out or KG getting into foul trouble because of O'Neal, and quite frankly, having KG as the primary guy on Shaq isn't going to do anything anyway because he's too small. You essentially need a massive super-physical brute to hold Shaq's initial move so that help can come.
There are aspects of KG's defense that are relative weaknesses no doubt, but not being able to stifle an offense led by perhaps the most destructive offensive duo in history just isn't something I can ding him too hard for.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
PCProductions wrote:Shaq in 2004 WCF: 20.7 PPG, 56.9 FG% Shaq in 2004 Finals against one of the best defenses in history: 26.6 PPG, 63.1 FG%
Garnett played him better than Duncan and Wallace that postseason as far as holding down his scoring volume and efficiency.
Better stats but worse performance.
The Pistons weren't even trying to guard Shaq. The plan was to let Shaq get his and shut down the rest of the team. Watch the games, they're focusing more on Kobe, and aren't really bothered whenever Shaq scores. They never sent doubles because they wanted to make sure no one else besides him got going, and it worked.
The very next year the Wallace brothers shut down Shaq (comparatively).
And like I said, KG didn't guard him anyway. He was too busy being the 'middle linebacker'.
Speaking of which, I think it's time to take a shot every time someone calls KG the 'middle linebacker'.
Oh please. If you are going to use the argument "This player puts up good numbers because the opposing defense was interested in shutting down everyone else" then the same should also apply against Kobe in the 01 and 08 WCF where the Spurs tried to cover Kobe mano a mano in a futile effort. Quite frankly this argument is just asinine because it would make zero sense to not try to shut down the best player on the court.
Purch wrote:See, but the thing is it doesn't matter what defense KG played against, cause this was a career long dip, even when he was on the #1 seed celtics. I'm not understanding what you actually think would change. The dip is there no matter what teams he faced, and no matter what seed he did it as
And this is where I once again point out that Garnett on the Celtics, outside of 08, became a role player on offense, who basically just shot jumpers the whole time. His efficiency is obviously going to fluctuate.
In 08, yes, his efficiency drops, but pretty much only in the Finals against a pretty stacked front line. He was destroying teams offensively throughout the EC playoffs. In the Finals, he averages 18.0 ppg on 47.0% TS and a 99 ORating...and he was STILL probably the most valuable Celtic in that series, because his defense was amazing. Just goes to show how overstated his supposed inability to score really is.
And you can compare that to Duncan in that very playoff run against the Lakers: 22.4 ppg on 46.5% TS and a 98 ORating.
The unfortunate thing about Garnett, and why everyone says his prime was wasted, is that we only got to see him on ONE good team during his prime, and then he got injured and was never the same after that.
Dominating teams in 08? More like inefficient the whole post season in 08?
The only series he didnt drop from his season efficency was vs the Cavs, every other series you see a drop, and a significant one. And like said Duncan has very few series in his prime where you see a dip in efficency.
KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker KG is a middle linebacker
I think that would people need to understand is that even if Garnett had a career 50 TS% he'd still be a superstar. His decline in TS% in the post-season, which is actually pretty average compared to other stars, is being blown out of proportion here.
Also in general, from my experience, it's easier to cover up a star player slacking on defense in the post season, than it is to cover up a star player becoming a less reliable offensive option in the playoffs
acrossthecourt wrote:I think that would people need to understand is that even if Garnett had a career 50 TS% he'd still be a superstar. His decline in TS% in the post-season, which is actually pretty average compared to other stars, is being blown out of proportion here.
It's not being blown out of proportion. Is Youre comparing Kg to elite bigs who play both ends of the floor, it sticks out when one of their efficiencies continuously drop in the post season when it matters
ronnymac2 wrote:In my opinion, putting your best player on Shaq isn't a good idea unless he's a guy you know Shaq will have to defend, too (so basically, if you're Hakeem). I really wouldn't want KG's legs tiring out or KG getting into foul trouble because of O'Neal, and quite frankly, having KG as the primary guy on Shaq isn't going to do anything anyway because he's too small. You essentially need a massive super-physical brute to hold Shaq's initial move so that help can come.
There are aspects of KG's defense that are relative weaknesses no doubt, but not being able to stifle an offense led by perhaps the most destructive offensive duo in history just isn't something I can ding him too hard for.
But see that's a big problem for me with KG. Duncan did guard Shaq at times, as did Hakeem, Zo, Deke, Rodman, Big Ben. How is KG on their level if he historically didn't do as well against actual bigs.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
acrossthecourt wrote:I think that would people need to understand is that even if Garnett had a career 50 TS% he'd still be a superstar. His decline in TS% in the post-season, which is actually pretty average compared to other stars, is being blown out of proportion here.
It seems KG is the Parker Lewis of the NBA.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
ronnymac2 wrote:In my opinion, putting your best player on Shaq isn't a good idea unless he's a guy you know Shaq will have to defend, too (so basically, if you're Hakeem). I really wouldn't want KG's legs tiring out or KG getting into foul trouble because of O'Neal, and quite frankly, having KG as the primary guy on Shaq isn't going to do anything anyway because he's too small. You essentially need a massive super-physical brute to hold Shaq's initial move so that help can come.
There are aspects of KG's defense that are relative weaknesses no doubt, but not being able to stifle an offense led by perhaps the most destructive offensive duo in history just isn't something I can ding him too hard for.
But see that's a big problem for me with KG. Duncan did guard Shaq at times, as did Hakeem, Zo, Deke, Rodman, Big Ben. How is KG on their level if he historically didn't do as well against actual bigs.
None of those guys defended Shaq well in the playoffs either. My point is that Shaq is not a usual big; he's an outlier.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
It's interesting that this thread has become KG vs Duncan, but I'm always down for a good KG vs Duncan debate.
Anyway, on topic, I made a post two threads ago comparing KG's and Duncan's scoring efficiency in the regular season and postseason across their careers, attempting to put it into some context. I went a bit further than just opponent defensive ratings, because as some have pointed out, what a player is required to do on defense can also affect their efficiency. Anyway, here it is. As I said, it fits into the current conversation like it was written for it.
Default case of Duncan's postseason scoring over KG's, and initial rebuttal stance
Spoiler:
andrewww wrote:For those in the KG boat and you've certainly made great points to expand on what I already knew of KG as a player...statistcs and especially advanced statistics really favour KG because of his all-around game on both ends of the ball including all-time great defense. No noticable weakness on offense minus volume scoring and it's a great recipe to build a team around, which was validated with the Celtics.
Fundamentally speaking, it is easier to build around a big man (PF/C) with great defensive skills blended in over a high scoring guard with a significantly lesser impact on defense (eg. Kobe). I get that.
But KG was always exposed when called up to be the focal point of the offense as a bonafide number 1 option. In other words, I think of him as a 6-11 version of Scottie Pippen who was one of the 2 best wing defenders ever imho (along with Bobby Jones). A great player especially on defense, but someone who was best served as a number 2 or 3 option on offense. Duncan was always someone while watching that I felt was more reliable when called upon to get some sure fire buckets.
This is why I ask myself, what if I threw KG into Duncan's shoes? I'm confident the Spurs wouldn't have as many as the 5 championships theyve currently won. There were times in those runs against the Suns, Lakers, Pistons and Heat where he delivered in the clutch, much moreso than when KG finally had a title-level team around him in Boston.
Duncan was on a higher level offensively and thus his standing as an overall player as well imho.
This post was actually from a couple threads back, but I brought it into this thread so I could reply. Being in Vegas was like being in a time warp, so I feel like I've been missing some good conversations. But I wanted to address this, because I believe it's a common viewpoint in here. That Duncan and Garnett may be similar scorers in the regular season, but in the postseason that Duncan ramps his scoring up more than Garnett and thus that Duncan is on "a higher level" offensively. The oft-given basketball reasoning given to explain this difference is a mixture of:
Duncan maintains his efficiency because he's a more traditional low-post scorer. He puts pressure on defenses that KG never could with his more high-post game. KG is content to sit back and shoot fadeaways! He doesn't even draw fouls like Duncan.
With the conclusion that clearly Duncan's scoring style is just more valuable in the postseason, as evidenced by his efficiency, and that's why Duncan is the true alpha and KG is the glorified Pippen.
Obviously, I've never agreed with this line of reasoning. For more than a decade now I've been pointing out just how much KG had to do to both get his team to the postseason and then to give them any chance to compete once they get there. In an old post (I think from the Peaks project) I made the case that Duncan's slightly higher scoring efficiency a) was in the noise as far as determining their relative impacts and b) was NOT based on him playing more in the paint than KG. Instead, I argue that the difference between Duncan's postseason scoring efficiency and Garnett's comes primarily from having less overall help when playing against higher levels of competition.
Both Duncan and Garnett are the type of do-everything player that are ultra portable because they can fit their games into any team need. If a team needs more scoring, they can be primary scorers. If the team needs more rebounding, they can ramp that up. Need defense? They can be the best in the league. Etc.
But at some point, even for them, it becomes a zero-sum game. One player can't consistently have to maximize in every possible way without there being some degree of slippage somewhere. For both Duncan and Garnett, when their teams were grossly outmanned their slippage tended to show up in the scoring efficiency categories. Ironically, ElGee pointed out that small differences in individual scoring efficiency doesn't have a big affect on postseason odds even though it is at the foundation of every major box score stat that we have (e.g. PER, win shares, offensive rating, true shooting %).
Duncan and Garnett prime postseason scoring and "advanced" box score stats, no context
Spoiler:
So let's relate the above to Duncan and Garnett. If you look over their primes (1999 - 2008) in the postseason, you see these "advanced" box score stats:
"It's not a large margin, but it's a significant margin" is the common thought process, "and this difference in postseason effectiveness is the margin that Duncan has over Garnett"
Hmmm. Just to be sure of that, let's take a look at the source box score numbers that generated those "advanced" stats:
Duncan: 23.6 ppg (on 17.5 FGA + 8.8 FT = 21.4 shot possessions used), 13 reb, 3.6 ast (3.1 TO) Garnett: 22.3 ppg (on 18.8 FGA + 5.8 FT = 21.3 shot possessions used), 12.7 reb, 4.5 ast (2.9 TO)
So that formerly significant seeming difference in the advanced box score stats comes from Duncan scoring 1.3 more ppg on almost exactly the same number of shot attempts (including possessions that end in FTs). That's it. That's the difference. And while of course, if given the choice anyone would take that extra point, that difference is minor at best. And you could argue that volume-wise, that 1.3 points is countered by KG averaging an extra .9 assists at the same turnover rate. But I'm hoping that looking at this, the point is clear: there WAS hardly any playoff scoring efficiency difference across their primes when taken as an average across years.
I find this convincing. But if you don't, I still say that these numbers don't reflect Duncan being more effective than Garnett as a playoff scorer. Instead, I believe that this sample is skewed by Garnett's Minnesota teams consistently facing only stacked teams. And that Duncan's efficiency in similar situations mirrored Garnett's.
Before we dig deeper in the postseason situations, let's first look at Duncan and Garnett in the regular season so that you can get a feel for just how similar they were as scorers in their primes. In the regular season, from 1999 - 2008:
Prime Garnett and Duncan had almost exactly the same regular season scoring efficiency
Celtics Garnett (2008 - 2013) had almost the exact same scoring efficiency in the POSTSEASON as 2008 - 2013 Tim Duncan .
Next, let's look at their postseason numbers from 2008 - 2013 (Garnett in Boston vs Duncan in similar team caliber situation) in their late-prime/post-prime time periods:
So, KG and Duncan have almost the exact same scoring efficiency in the regular season in their primes and also a very similar scoring efficiency in the playoffs in their late prime/post-prime. So if there really is a difference in their postseason scoring in Duncan's favor, it would have to show up in their actual primes. So, let's look more closely at that time period.
In-context comparison method for postseason scoring for KG and Duncan
Spoiler:
(Note: Normally I would move forward with the understanding that Duncan's casts tended to be more talented/stronger than Garnett's. I think that's not just a supportable point, but a very clear one. However, there's been pushback in this project that Duncan's 01 - 03 casts were worse than Garnett's 2002 cast in particular, and that notion has gained enough traction (plus I know from experience debating with Baller 24) that if I argue that point here it will deflect away from the point I'm trying to make.)
So as we review their postseason performances for each year of their early prime thru peak (1999 - 2004), I'm going to not factor Duncan's or Garnett's team strength in. I'll instead compare them using a descending hierarchy of methods to get their performances on as similar of a plane as possible:
1) Performance against common opponent in the same postseason 2) Performance against the most similar caliber positional defense in the same postseason 3) Performance against highest quality opponent in the same postseason
1999 - 2001: Postseason performances in Early Prime against all-history defensive power forwards
Spoiler:
In 1999 and 2001, all eight of KG's playoff games had him facing one of the 2 best defensive power forwards in NBA history: Tim Duncan. Duncan also had those eight games against the other best defensive power forward in NBA history in Kevin Garnett...but in addition he had 22 other games in those two postseasons that were not against that level of positional defense. Let's compare:
Garnett against Duncan: 21.4 points (52.5% TS), 12 rpg, 4.1 apg (2.4 TO) Duncan against Garnett: 20.7 points (51.4% TS), 11.9 rpg, 3.4 apg (2.2 TO) Duncan against everyone else: 24.8 points (56.6% TS), 13.1 rpg, 3.2 apg (3.8 TO)
In 2000, Duncan missed the playoffs with an injury while Garnett faced off against the Portland Trailblazers, whose starting front line was Rasheed Wallace, Scottie Pippen and Arvydas Sabonis. If KG and Duncan are 1-2 on the defensive power forward list of this era, Rasheed Wallace is a comfortable third. And of course, he had Sabonis clogging the paint defensively with Pippen able to provide help as well.
In that series, Garnett averaged 18.8 points (44.1% TS), 10.8 rpg, 8.8 apg (3.3 TO)
Everything looks reasonable except for the awful scoring efficiency. KG was clearly (CLEARLY) the focal point of the Wallace-led Blazers defense that series, which really hurt his scoring efficiency overall. He did do a good job of taking advantage of the extra attention he was receiving to find teammates, as reflected by his excellent assist numbers, and Terrell Brandon was able to do well in the expanded space he had to work with. But the focus in this debate is KG's scoring efficiency vs. Duncan's. So let's go there.
Duncan didn't face the Blazers (or anyone else) that postseason, but he did face them three times in the regular season. Let's look at the four Garnett postseason games, and the three Duncan regular season games:
Of course one was in the playoffs and one was in the regular season so it's not a full apples-to-apples comparison, but I see a similar trend. Both postseason KG and Duncan had two very underwhelming scoring performances against the 2000 Trail Blazers. Duncan had one berzerk game as well, while postseason KG had 1.5 reasonably good scoring efforts. But looking at this, I see no reason to believe that in the postseason Duncan would suddenly have been putting up his normal scoring output against the Blazers. Especially if he was called on to also have much more complete floor games in the postseason than he did in the regular season.
Conclusion: If you look at the overall scoring eficiency/"advanced" box score stats of playoffs KG to playoffs Duncan for 1999 - 2001, it appears that Duncan gives you a solid advantage. However, if you actually go into the match-ups and compare Duncan's performance (or expected performance) against the same level of power forward-specific defense that KG faced in those postseasons, I see no evidence that Duncan scored any better or more efficiently than KG did when in KG's circumstances.
My conclusion - early prime KG was just as good of a postseason scorer as early prime Duncan by both volume and efficiency. It wasn't Duncan's interior offensive style that led to the better numbers, it was instead the relative level of competition difference.
2002: Postseason performance at (Duncan) & near (KG) peak against elite team
Spoiler:
In 2002 Garnett's Timberwolves faced the 57-win Mavs in the postseason. In 2002 David Robinson was injured in the playoffs, so when Duncan's Spurs faced the 58-win Lakers Duncan's squad was overmatched. So, let's look at the scoring efficiencies and overall output in these two series as well as Duncan's opening round series against the 45-win Supersonics.
KG vs Dal: 24 ppg (51.3% TS), 18.7 reb, 5 asts (4 TO) TD vs LA: 29 ppg (51.7% TS), 17.2 reb, 4.6 ast (4.6 TO) TD vs Sea: 25.8 ppg (60.5% TS), 11 rpg, 5.5 apg (3.5 TO)
My conclusion: against the stronger teams where they were called upon to do everything, again, Garnett's and Duncan's lines look very similar. Both put up video game counting stats but at poor efficiency. Against Seattle Duncan didn't have to do as much and both his scoring and passing efficiencies were much better.
2003 - 2004: Postseason performance at peak against the same team both years
Spoiler:
In both 2003 and 2004, Duncan's Spurs and Garnett's Wolves matched up with the same Lakers' squads as their toughest tests. Here's how their numbers compared:
KG vs LA: 25.4 ppg (52.9% TS), 14.6 rpg, 4.9 apg (3.4 TO) TD vs LA: 24.4 ppg (55.6% TS), 12 rpg, 4.1 apg (3.5 TO)
This is the first of these comparisons where Duncan has slightly higher scoring efficiency, but it is very close. On the flip side, Garnett had better passing efficiency (as measured by assists vs turnovers). On the whole, these are exceedingly similar performance levels on offense.
My conclusion: again, against (in this case the exact same) competition, Garnett and Duncan look remarkably the same in the postseason.
Overall conclusion: Duncan has already been voted in several threads ago, so this post isn't intended to make you place KG over Duncan on your lists. That ship has sailed. Instead, I just want you to consider what it was about Duncan that made you trust him as a playoffs focal point more than Garnett. My belief is that as scoring options (in the regular or postseason), Duncan and Garnett are so similar it's ridiculous. Stylistically there are differences (Duncan's approach is more low-post while Garnett's is more high-post), but there's no inherent advantage of one method over another...it's all about results. A quick glance at the basketball-reference stats pages would seem to indicate that Duncan was a better scorer than Garnett in the postseason to a small (but noticeable) degree. However, as I illustrated above, if you really look at the context of their postseason scoring, when KG and Duncan were in similar situations they scored in an almost eerily similar levels.
So. Duncan's and KG's offensive styles stay pretty consistent from the regular season to the postseason. It seems to me that the primary "advantages" that Duncan had as a postseason scorer were because traditionally low-post offense was thought to be more efficient and effective at warping defenses... and then that the Basketball-reference stats indicated that Duncan DID have a postseason advantage. However, historical trends indicate that, overall, the spacing effect of a big man with shooting range and a big man able to run the offense through the high-post are very conducive to good team units. And Garnett's scoring efficiency was almost exactly the same as Duncan's in the regular season over their primes, in the postseason in their late/post primes, AND (when put into context) in the postseasons of their actual primes and peaks.
Thus, if your reasoning for feeling that Garnett shouldn't be ranked in the top-10 is in any way due to your belief that his postseason scoring isn't strong enough to warrant that, I ask that you just examine again what I laid out above. And then really consider whether you were giving Garnett a fair review in light of the way that you view Duncan.
Clyde Frazier wrote:Outside of a longer prime, I don't see how he has the edge in production. Again it's close, but i think bird has a clear edge.
Regular Season per 100: 80-88 Bird: 31/8/13 on 57% TS 24.2 PER 01-10 Kobe: 38/7/7 on 56% TS 24.6 PER
Playoffs: 80-88 Bird: 28/7/14 on 56% TS 21.9 PER 01-10 Kobe: 36/7/7 on 55% TS 23.5 PER
Which is more valuable, six rebounds and an assist, or seven points? I'd be more inclined to take the rebound stat. Ditto in the playoffs. Kobe scores more (on marginally lower efficiency), but I would argue that Bird actually produces more.
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Kobe did more with his support than Bird.
Well, I think that Phil and Shaq had more to do with Kobe's championships than Kobe did. One thing that has been discussed is 'winners bias', where you want to reward players on teams that won. It gets even more silly if that player wasn't the best player on their team, ala the Horry effect. At what point do we stop crediting team success to a player who isn't actually the best on their team?
therealbig3 wrote:The unfortunate thing about Garnett, and why everyone says his prime was wasted, is that we only got to see him on ONE good team during his prime, and then he got injured and was never the same after that.
One? Really? If you are stating the injury in 09 is what ends his prime then stating one good team is flat incorrect. If like some other KG supporters, you suggest his prime ends as early as 05(crazy imo) then I'd still say that's flat wrong. Prior to 04 KG played on 3 other 50 win teams and several other decent teams. Those are good teams with some pretty good teammates including guys who made the all-star team next to KG along with a whole slew of very useful role players.
I get KG didnt have the level of support some other players did, but please don't exaggerate to make that point. If you want to say only in 04 and 08 did he have a championship-level team then that's fine, but don't scream ONE either way please.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Baller2014 wrote: and b) because they were recovering from a series of bad moves (some of which Kobe forced on them. Want to know how not to rebuild? Keep Shaq, or at least take your time trading him after you get a bidding war going- Kobe forced them to trade him right after the 04 season with little leverage, because he wouldn't re-sign until Shaq was gone).
Why do you keep spreading lies? Shaq wasn't traded because of Kobe. He was traded because the Lakers didn't want to pay him a max deal. Shaq even said that himself. Shaq wanted to get paid and the Lakers didn't want to pay that much for a 30+ player. Turns out the Lakers were right in not giving him that max deal.
Like Rdogs said, Phil Jackson is the source, though it's 11 Rings in my case (not The Last Season). When you look at what other people said, and what actually happened, it's pretty freaking obvious too (i.e. West saying Kobe "refused to defer to Shaq", Kobe saying he was "sick of being a damn robin", Kobe trying to talk about his future with the Clippers, Shaq being traded so hastily and then Kobe re-signing the day after they dumped Shaq, etc). Sure, there were other factors, but Kobe wanting him gone was the decisive one (for Phil too).
magicmerl wrote:Well, I think that Phil and Shaq had more to do with Kobe's championships than Kobe did. One thing that has been discussed is 'winners bias', where you want to reward players on teams that won. It gets even more silly if that player wasn't the best player on their team, ala the Horry effect. At what point do we stop crediting team success to a player who isn't actually the best on their team?
Its one thing to believe Shaq (and Phil, I guess) had more to do with those titles than Kobe did. But the Lakers almost certainly don't win any of those titles without Kobe even with as dominant as Shaq was. So yes Kobe should absolutely get some credit for those titles. Just like everyone wants to give Pop and Manu and TP tons for credit for Duncan's or how we should give Pippen some credit for Mike's and so on.
Trying to discredit Kobe's rings? Nope I can't really get behind that. He was integral on every one of those teams.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
