[POLL] Kevin Garnett: Where do you rank him?

[The Infamous1]

Instead of complaining about the results of the RealGM 100 - why don't you provide solid evidence that he is in fact not as good as some of his peers? I've been reading throught he whole project and thread after thread just keeps making Garnett stronger, while the majority of supporters of other players are whining about the results, rather than showing what makes other players a better choice than KG.

Just look at the thread for the 11th spot. I find it mind boggling that people can actually question KG at 11th place after the discussions held in that thread. He's a polarizing figure because he's not your typical all-time player (volume scoring, winning) but that does not mean that he isn't an all-time player. Tim Duncan would most likely suffer from the same thing if he was drafted by a team as poorly ran as Minnesota.

Because it's borderline-pointless. The only criticism one can have about Garnett is that, somehow, in spite of all his perceived statistical impact, his teams got spanked year after year in Minnesota. Somehow, in spite of all statistical evidence, the apparently 11th-greatest player of all time could only win more than one playoff game twice in seven years. Guys like Wade in 09 or Kobe in 2006 managed to pull similarly awful casts to Game 7, KG could only get to the final game (in that case Game 5, because it was the old format) a single time. His failure to actually produce wins is his only flaw as a player. But no one in that thread seems terribly concerned about discussing it so why scream into the wind?

There is no statistical argument against KG, because he obviously was a beast in that regard, and certain advanced stats (particularly RAPM) are even more glowing about his impact. If you are laser-focused on stats KG is a god. If you are focused on only wins KG is mediocre (in terms of all-time greats). I think when factoring in stats + how that translated into winning KG is somewhere in the latter part of the top 20, which seems to be the general consensus of this poll as well. But the voting group in the Top 100 project for the most part has disregarded whether the stats translated into wins because they just shrug and say "Minnesota's teams sucked, KG couldn't have done better" in spite of other greats actually doing as good or better with similarly poor rosters. That is their prerogative, of course, but I have seen no evidence to suggest they listen to anything but raw numbers when it comes to Garnett and in raw numbers KG is nigh untouchable.

Sorry if that seems a bit harsh. I've been reading the threads in the Top 100 project with great interest, and have learned quite a bit from them and appreciate the knowledge I've gained from it. But the KG discussion has almost wholly dismissed the disconnect between his advanced statistical impact and what actually occurred in reality for nearly a decade, and it has sort of put a damper on my enthusiasm. I'm sure it will pick back up as the project rolls on, since I was really looking forward to hearing of guys in the 21-100 range more anyway because those are the ones who rarely get lionized.

Ok, so exactly what happened when KG played in Boston? Did he simply learn how to translate his impact into wins? Did he improve as he aged? It seems like most of your concerns should disappear with what happened in Boston.

What do you believe KGs results wouldve been if he had played with Bostons 08-13 squads during his prime?

What do you believe any all time greats results would be if they played with 2 HOF's(Pierce/Allen)and an all star 4th player(rondo) in their primes?

[WhateverBro]

O yes, when he suddenly when under Thibs(a coach who has produced elite defenses with and without Garnett) he was able to anchor an elite defense after putting up the 21st worst defense the season before.

Please the reason that Boston team won the championship was because their defense was so much better and so different than the rest of the league in 08. But if you put those same defensive teams around KG in the beggining of the 2000's that's not the case. The Pistons were a better defensive team than the 08 celtics, the Spurs were elite defensively, and better than the celtics offensively, so please inform me on how the celtics would steamroll through the league , when even in the year they one they had one of the least dominant playoff runs in nba history. Yea the 08 celtics go to 7 against the Cavs and the Hawks, but if they had prime Kg they'd be on the same level as the 3 peat lakers

1. Thibs is not the sole reason why Celtics defense was great (look at Celtics defense after he left).
2. Pistons '04 were not a better defensive team than Celtics '08.
3. I did not say that they would steamroll through the league (although, that's quite possible).

My point was that Garnett actually won a title, and went to the finals twice, and made the ECF - out of his prime. Yet, somehow, people still believe that Garnett wasn't good enough to get out of the first round in his prime.

[Hornet Mania]

Instead of complaining about the results of the RealGM 100 - why don't you provide solid evidence that he is in fact not as good as some of his peers? I've been reading throught he whole project and thread after thread just keeps making Garnett stronger, while the majority of supporters of other players are whining about the results, rather than showing what makes other players a better choice than KG.

Just look at the thread for the 11th spot. I find it mind boggling that people can actually question KG at 11th place after the discussions held in that thread. He's a polarizing figure because he's not your typical all-time player (volume scoring, winning) but that does not mean that he isn't an all-time player. Tim Duncan would most likely suffer from the same thing if he was drafted by a team as poorly ran as Minnesota.

Because it's borderline-pointless. The only criticism one can have about Garnett is that, somehow, in spite of all his perceived statistical impact, his teams got spanked year after year in Minnesota. Somehow, in spite of all statistical evidence, the apparently 11th-greatest player of all time could only win more than one playoff game twice in seven years. Guys like Wade in 09 or Kobe in 2006 managed to pull similarly awful casts to Game 7, KG could only get to the final game (in that case Game 5, because it was the old format) a single time. His failure to actually produce wins is his only flaw as a player. But no one in that thread seems terribly concerned about discussing it so why scream into the wind?

There is no statistical argument against KG, because he obviously was a beast in that regard, and certain advanced stats (particularly RAPM) are even more glowing about his impact. If you are laser-focused on stats KG is a god. If you are focused on only wins KG is mediocre (in terms of all-time greats). I think when factoring in stats + how that translated into winning KG is somewhere in the latter part of the top 20, which seems to be the general consensus of this poll as well. But the voting group in the Top 100 project for the most part has disregarded whether the stats translated into wins because they just shrug and say "Minnesota's teams sucked, KG couldn't have done better" in spite of other greats actually doing as good or better with similarly poor rosters. That is their prerogative, of course, but I have seen no evidence to suggest they listen to anything but raw numbers when it comes to Garnett and in raw numbers KG is nigh untouchable.

Sorry if that seems a bit harsh. I've been reading the threads in the Top 100 project with great interest, and have learned quite a bit from them and appreciate the knowledge I've gained from it. But the KG discussion has almost wholly dismissed the disconnect between his advanced statistical impact and what actually occurred in reality for nearly a decade, and it has sort of put a damper on my enthusiasm. I'm sure it will pick back up as the project rolls on, since I was really looking forward to hearing of guys in the 21-100 range more anyway because those are the ones who rarely get lionized.

Ok, so exactly what happened when KG played in Boston? Did he simply learn how to translate his impact into wins? Did he improve as he aged? It seems like most of your concerns should disappear with what happened in Boston.

What do you believe KGs results wouldve been if he had played with Bostons 08-13 squads during his prime?

In Boston he had two future Hall of Fame teammates who still had juice left in the tank, a young Rondo, useful garbageman Perkins and a feisty bench(Posey in particular was very good in those playoffs, I recall PJ Brown had a few moments as well). Obviously that team was far superior than anything he had to work with in Minnesota and the results proved as much. Plenty of great players could be plugged into a team that perfectly hides the flaws in their game (as the 08-10 Celtics did for KG) with two other lower-tier Hall of Famers and find a way to win. That's a pretty low hurdle. And it's worth noting that Boston did not cakewalk through the 2008 playoffs. Atlanta and Cleveland both took them 7 games, if the Lakers hadn't blown a 20-point lead that series would have gone 7 as well.

No one is holding it against KG that he did not win championships in Minnesota, and if they are then they obviously have an agenda. The flaw in his resume is that he couldn't win more than one playoff games five times in seven years. Only once in those seven years was his team even able to push their opponents to the limit, and that was a best of 5 series. Basketball is a sport where it has been proven time and time again that a singular all-time talent can propel an inferior cast over a better group of players. Wade pushed Atlanta to Game 7 in 2009. Kobe pushed the SSOL Suns to Game 7 in 2006. Hakeem won a title in 1994 with a bunch of role players, Duncan did the same in 2003. Lebron dragged a miserable Cavs roster to at least the 2nd round every single time. If I wracked my brain I could come up with more examples. Losing in the first round, usually in decisive fashion, seven straight seasons is a huge black mark. It defies statistical explanation. What other all-time great in the top 15 players of all time had seven straight years where his team didn't advance to the 2nd round of the playoffs? How many of them never won two games in five of those seven tries?

You are correct he didn't magically learn how to win in 2008. I would never argue that point because it's obviously a foolish thing to say. I'm simply questioning how the 11th greatest player of all time, in a sport where singular talents have a disproportionate impact on results, never managed to pass the first round in his first seven tries or even come particularly close to doing it on a semi-regular basis.

Saying "KG winning from 2008-2010 proves he always could" is just as simplistic, in my opinion, as saying "KG magically learned to win in 2008". Surely he deserves some blame for those consistent Minnesota beatings, maybe not a ton but at least a bit, and I don't see him getting much if any in the Top 100 project.

[WhateverBro]

What do you believe any all time greats results would be if they played with 2 HOF's(Pierce/Allen)and an all star 4th player(rondo) in their primes?

Hey, stop with the hypotheticals! We have evidence of what actually happened in Boston, you KG haters always want to play the hypothetical games!

We saw what happened, they won a title. They went to the finals twice. Coulda, woulda, shoulda with you guys!

But seriously, Garnett never got to play with that group all in their primes so I don't understand the point you're making?

[Purch]

The funniest thing about the 08 celtics is the amount of impact guys want to attribute to Garnett. He produced sub par defenses for most of his career, then he goes to play for the best defensive coach of our generation, and suddenly he's referred to as a defensive god. The same defensive coach who has shown his abilty to produce elite defensive teams in chicago (regardless of how injured his roster is)consistently without KG, something KG hasn't been able to do without Thibs.

[ceiling raiser]

Don't have a GOAT list, but I think more poll choices are needed to get a good read.

Just a note everybody, the project threads aren't locked after the voting is completed. If you have any compelling counter-arguments to the posts being made with specific points and supporting evidence, there's no reason the conversation has to end. I'm sure everybody participating is receptive to novel knowledge/analysis (otherwise there would be little to gain from the discussion).

[The Infamous1]

O yes, when he suddenly when under Thibs(a coach who has produced elite defenses with and without Garnett) he was able to anchor an elite defense after putting up the 21st worst defense the season before.

Please the reason that Boston team won the championship was because their defense was so much better and so different than the rest of the league in 08. But if you put those same defensive teams around KG in the beggining of the 2000's that's not the case. The Pistons were a better defensive team than the 08 celtics, the Spurs were elite defensively, and better than the celtics offensively, so please inform me on how the celtics would steamroll through the league , when even in the year they one they had one of the least dominant playoff runs in nba history. Yea the 08 celtics go to 7 against the Cavs and the Hawks, but if they had prime Kg they'd be on the same level as the 3 peat lakers

1. Thibs is not the sole reason why Celtics defense was great (look at Celtics defense after he left).
2. Pistons '04 were not a better defensive team than Celtics '08.
3. I did not say that they would steamroll through the league (although, that's quite possible).

My point was that Garnett actually won a title, and went to the finals twice, and made the ECF - out of his prime. Yet, somehow, people still believe that Garnett wasn't good enough to get out of the first round in his prime.

You have to also take Competition into account though. The east was garbage While the west was goat level during KG's prime. If KG in this hypothetical scenario had the same amount of help he wouldn't be facing horrible teams like the 08 hawks in the first round in The West

[Basketballefan]

Instead of complaining about the results of the RealGM 100 - why don't you provide solid evidence that he is in fact not as good as some of his peers? I've been reading throught he whole project and thread after thread just keeps making Garnett stronger, while the majority of supporters of other players are whining about the results, rather than showing what makes other players a better choice than KG.

Just look at the thread for the 11th spot. I find it mind boggling that people can actually question KG at 11th place after the discussions held in that thread. He's a polarizing figure because he's not your typical all-time player (volume scoring, winning) but that does not mean that he isn't an all-time player. Tim Duncan would most likely suffer from the same thing if he was drafted by a team as poorly ran as Minnesota.

People actually did explain why Kg shouldnt be that high and over Kobe. Its guys like you that choose to have blinders on about it. Not trying to be rude but it is what it is.

[Blast Tyrant]

Jordan
Russell
Chamberlain
Johnson
Bird
Abdul-Jabbar
Duncan
O'Neal
Bryant
Nowitzki
Robertson
Olajuwan
Thomas
Moses Malone
Walton
Nash
Kidd
James


In no order all had better careers in my opinion. This is so objective though. He realistically could be anywhere from 15-25.

??????????
Walton has no business anywhere near the top 20, he only had a few healthy seasons.

Yeah but he was the best player in the world at the time. (Aside from Kareem) He was KG before KG. Leading the league in rebounds and blocks, being a big man with a mid range game and great passing. I see your side of it, being that he had zero longevity. But his 77 season is better than Garnett's 04 season in my opinion.

[Basketballefan]

What do you believe any all time greats results would be if they played with 2 HOF's(Pierce/Allen)and an all star 4th player(rondo) in their primes?

Hey, stop with the hypotheticals! We have evidence of what actually happened in Boston, you KG haters always want to play the hypothetical games!

We saw what happened, they won a title. They went to the finals twice. Coulda, woulda, shoulda with you guys!

But seriously, Garnett never got to play with that group all in their primes so I don't understand the point you're making?

Kg advocates also like to play hypotheticals. "If he didn't have garbage casts he would've had more success in Minnesota". Its nothing but excuses. He didnt have enough help so he didnt win a lot there, get over it.

[Purch]

O yes, when he suddenly when under Thibs(a coach who has produced elite defenses with and without Garnett) he was able to anchor an elite defense after putting up the 21st worst defense the season before.

Please the reason that Boston team won the championship was because their defense was so much better and so different than the rest of the league in 08. But if you put those same defensive teams around KG in the beggining of the 2000's that's not the case. The Pistons were a better defensive team than the 08 celtics, the Spurs were elite defensively, and better than the celtics offensively, so please inform me on how the celtics would steamroll through the league , when even in the year they one they had one of the least dominant playoff runs in nba history. Yea the 08 celtics go to 7 against the Cavs and the Hawks, but if they had prime Kg they'd be on the same level as the 3 peat lakers

1. Thibs is not the sole reason why Celtics defense was great (look at Celtics defense after he left).
2. Pistons '04 were not a better defensive team than Celtics '08.
3. I did not say that they would steamroll through the league (although, that's quite possible).

My point was that Garnett actually won a title, and went to the finals twice, and made the ECF - out of his prime. Yet, somehow, people still believe that Garnett wasn't good enough to get out of the first round in his prime.

1. What do you mean? The celtics were running the exact same defensive schemes after Thibs left. Did you think they suddenly threw out the schemes that led them to elite defenses? You can't be serious . You can check the tapes of how they defended the pick and roll, the post up, and how they helped on defense. They didnt change their scheme once Thibs left. Thibs changed the way defense was played in the zone era

2. Yes they are.

3. Please a team that barley made it past the 1st and second rounds was suddenly gonna be able to beat superior teams in a tougher conference, just because they have Garnett's slightly better offense( which means less possessions for Pierce?)

[SactoKingsFan]

Spoiler:

Jordan
Russell
Chamberlain
Johnson
Bird
Abdul-Jabbar
Duncan
O'Neal
Bryant
Nowitzki
Robertson
Olajuwan
Thomas
Moses Malone
Walton
Nash
Kidd
James


In no order all had better careers in my opinion. This is so objective though. He realistically could be anywhere from 15-25.

??????????
Walton has no business anywhere near the top 20, he only had a few healthy seasons.

Yeah but he was the best player in the world at the time. (Aside from Kareem) He was KG before KG. Leading the league in rebounds and blocks, being a big man with a mid range game and great passing. I see your side of it, being that he had zero longevity. But his 77 season is better than Garnett's 04 season in my opinion.

Walton's injury issues were so bad he only had two somewhat healthy prime seasons (77, 78) and played less than 500 games over his entire career. And he only played 65 and 58 games in 77 and 78. I just don't see how he could be anywhere near Top 15-20.

[WhateverBro]

1. What do you mean? The celtics were running the exact same defensive schemes after Thibs left. Did you think they suddenly threw out the schemes that led them to elite defenses? You can't be serious . You can check the tapes of how they defended the pick and roll, the post up, and how they helped on defense. They didnt change their scheme once Thibs left.

2. Yes they are.

3. Please a team that barley made it past the 1st and second rounds was suddenly beat superior teams in a tougher conference

1. No, they weren't. Lawrence Frank actually handled their defense after Thibs left. And after him Longabardi. While alot of it was similar stuff, you can't give credit to Thibs after he left. Defense isn't static, it's dynamic. You change is based on personell and how the league evolves. Thibs wasn't running their defense in 2012 and it didn't look like the defense they played in 2008 neither. It's not as simple as saying just keep Thibs schemes and you'll have a great defense, if so, every team in the league could implement Thibs defense. Look at Chicagos defense today, it's not the same defense as the '08 Celtics played. Everyone implements new stuff, especially someone like Thibs.


2. Again, no they aren't.
(Indiana obviously collapsed during the 2nd half of the season and should not be #1 on the list, but the rest of the list is correct).

3. Well, you would be removing bum knee KG, and adding a peak / prime KG on those teams.....

[lorak]

The funniest thing about the 08 celtics is the amount of impact guys want to attribute to Garnett. He produced sub par defenses for most of his career, then he goes to play for the best defensive coach of our generation, and suddenly he's referred to as a defensive god. The same defensive coach who has shown his abilty to produce elite defensive teams in chicago (regardless of how injured his roster is)consistently without KG, something KG hasn't been able to do without Thibs.

The thing is that while Thibodeau's defenses in Chicago were very good, they weren't as good as Celtics with KG on the floor:

Code: Select all

YEAR   w/ KG   CHI
2008   -10,2   ---
2009   -9,7   ---
2010   -5,5   ---
2011   -9,2   -7
2012   -6,7   -6,3
2013   -6,6   -2,7
2014   -3,3   -6,2


-9 or -10 is all time GOAT level stuff and it's not like without KG Celtics were also as good (or even close to that):

Code: Select all

YEAR   w/o KG
2008   -6,1
2009   -2,5
2010   -0,9
2011   -2,9
2012   -5,2
2013   2,4
2014   2,4


So except of 2012 KG improved his teams defenses on all time great level and without him Thibodeau's defensive schemes simply weren't as effective - even in Chicago, when he had so good defensive players like Deng and Noah.

[WhateverBro]

What do you believe any all time greats results would be if they played with 2 HOF's(Pierce/Allen)and an all star 4th player(rondo) in their primes?

Hey, stop with the hypotheticals! We have evidence of what actually happened in Boston, you KG haters always want to play the hypothetical games!

We saw what happened, they won a title. They went to the finals twice. Coulda, woulda, shoulda with you guys!

But seriously, Garnett never got to play with that group all in their primes so I don't understand the point you're making?

Kg advocates also like to play hypotheticals. "If he didn't have garbage casts he would've had more success in Minnesota". Its nothing but excuses. He didnt have enough help so he didnt win a lot there, get over it.

I was making a joke on how Garnett supporters are usually the ones accused of using hypotheticals, yes.

[Purch]

1. What do you mean? The celtics were running the exact same defensive schemes after Thibs left. Did you think they suddenly threw out the schemes that led them to elite defenses? You can't be serious . You can check the tapes of how they defended the pick and roll, the post up, and how they helped on defense. They didnt change their scheme once Thibs left.

2. Yes they are.

3. Please a team that barley made it past the 1st and second rounds was suddenly beat superior teams in a tougher conference

1. No, they weren't. Lawrence Frank actually handled their defense after Thibs left. And after him Longobardi. While alot of it was similar stuff, you can't give credit to Thibs after he left. Defense isn't static, it's dynamic. You change is based on personell and how the league evolves. Thibs wasn't running their defense in 2012 and it didn't look like the defense they played in 2008 neither. It's not as simple as saying just keep Thibs schemes and you'll have a great defense, if so, every team in the league could implement Thibs defense. Look at Chicagos defense today, it's not the same defense as the '08 Celtics played. Everyone implements new stuff, especially someone like Thibs.

And then Longabardi. While alot of it was similar stuff, it's mind boggling that you believe that you can just remove a coach and just have the schemes running based off what Thibs had done in the past. Everyone changes their schemes, even Thibs. It's not static, it's dynamic and has to do with personell etc. If it was as simple as just "keeping the schemes from Thibs" then guess what, every team in the league would be a defensive juggernaut.

2. Again, no they aren't.
(Indiana obviously collapsed during the 2nd half of the season and should not be #1 on the list, but the rest of the list is correct).

3. Well, you would be removing bum knee KG, and adding a peak / prime KG on those teams.....

1. One the fact you think Lawrence Frank came In their and suddenly changed the defensive schemes that had given Boston an elite defense two years in a row is mind boggling. Do you really think Doc would actually allow that ? What did they defend differently under Fank?

2. Again yes they are. A collapse has nothing to do with how good they were on defense, which they proved in the playoffs

3. I know

[WhateverBro]

1. What do you mean? The celtics were running the exact same defensive schemes after Thibs left. Did you think they suddenly threw out the schemes that led them to elite defenses? You can't be serious . You can check the tapes of how they defended the pick and roll, the post up, and how they helped on defense. They didnt change their scheme once Thibs left.

2. Yes they are.

3. Please a team that barley made it past the 1st and second rounds was suddenly beat superior teams in a tougher conference

1. No, they weren't. Lawrence Frank actually handled their defense after Thibs left. And after him Longobardi. While alot of it was similar stuff, you can't give credit to Thibs after he left. Defense isn't static, it's dynamic. You change is based on personell and how the league evolves. Thibs wasn't running their defense in 2012 and it didn't look like the defense they played in 2008 neither. It's not as simple as saying just keep Thibs schemes and you'll have a great defense, if so, every team in the league could implement Thibs defense. Look at Chicagos defense today, it's not the same defense as the '08 Celtics played. Everyone implements new stuff, especially someone like Thibs.

And then Longabardi. While alot of it was similar stuff, it's mind boggling that you believe that you can just remove a coach and just have the schemes running based off what Thibs had done in the past. Everyone changes their schemes, even Thibs. It's not static, it's dynamic and has to do with personell etc. If it was as simple as just "keeping the schemes from Thibs" then guess what, every team in the league would be a defensive juggernaut.

2. Again, no they aren't.
(Indiana obviously collapsed during the 2nd half of the season and should not be #1 on the list, but the rest of the list is correct).

3. Well, you would be removing bum knee KG, and adding a peak / prime KG on those teams.....

1. One the fact you think Lawrence Frank came In their and suddenly changed the defensive schemes that had given Boston an elite defense two years in a row is mind boggling. Do you really think Doc would actually allow that ? What did they defend differently under Fank?

2. Again yes they are. A collapse has nothing to do with how good they were on defense, which they proved in the playoffs

3. I know

1. Frank actually has great defensive principles that he worked with in Boston and tried to implement on the Nets too, this year. Again, Doc hired Frank to run the defense.. If he wanted to run the exact same defense as Thibs did, why didn't he just do that himself? Do you believe Frank was hired to do what... watch Doc run Thibs defense?

2. I edited the post, the picture was messed up. Again, they were not better defensively than the Celtics. The collapse I was referring to was Indianas during the 13-14 season.

[Reservoirdawgs]

People actually did explain why Kg shouldnt be that high and over Kobe. Its guys like you that choose to have blinders on about it. Not trying to be rude but it is what it is.

And apparently the voters are being more swayed by the KG arguments over the Kobe arguments. I am not a voter, but I was surprised when I saw KG brought up early but the more I read from the people supporting him the more I became convinced about what they were arguing. It's not like people are making up numbers, and I hardly see how someone being voted in front of Kobe Bryant (since this is obviously what the issue is for people) means that it's a black mark against Kobe versus a positive for KG.

If I was a voter trying to change people's minds to Kobe, then I would recommend them to stop getting so emotional and irrationally lashing out at a metric that many of them have shown to not understand and instead use the metric AS WELL AS OTHERS to formulate their opinion. Some have, but I don't see the mix of quantitative and qualitative data to be as well-defined and illustrated as what Doctor MJ, DRZA, Shutupandjam, and others have presented versus what the Kobe supporters have made.

You're also insinuating that voting for KG means people are intentionally putting blinders on. I think that's silly. For some, maybe, just like some Kobe supporters have blinders because they want him to be ranked a certain way. From my view, most of the Kobe arguments lean on the same arguments we've all heard. With KG, very articulate and smart people have brought forth some data that changes how I view KG's game and brings a lot of questions people have had into context by combining qualitative and quantitative data.

To answer this poll, I had KG ranked between 11-15 before this project. Since then, I have moved him to #8 because the KG supporters have done a banged-up job of supporting their view that makes sense to me and answers some lingering questions I initially had about Garnett.

[Purch]

The funniest thing about the 08 celtics is the amount of impact guys want to attribute to Garnett. He produced sub par defenses for most of his career, then he goes to play for the best defensive coach of our generation, and suddenly he's referred to as a defensive god. The same defensive coach who has shown his abilty to produce elite defensive teams in chicago (regardless of how injured his roster is)consistently without KG, something KG hasn't been able to do without Thibs.

The thing is that while Thibodeau's defenses in Chicago were very good, they weren't as good as Celtics with KG on the floor:

Code: Select all

YEAR   w/ KG   CHI
2008   -10,2   ---
2009   -9,7   ---
2010   -5,5   ---
2011   -9,2   -7
2012   -6,7   -6,3
2013   -6,6   -2,7
2014   -3,3   -6,2


-9 or -10 is all time GOAT level stuff and it's not like without KG Celtics were also as good (or even close to that):

Code: Select all

YEAR   w/o KG
2008   -6,1
2009   -2,5
2010   -0,9
2011   -2,9
2012   -5,2
2013   2,4
2014   2,4


So except of 2012 KG improved his teams defenses on all time great level and without him Thibodeau's defensive schemes simply weren't as effective - even in Chicago, when he had so good defensive players like Deng and Noah.

Except you're attributing this to the impact of 1 player for some strange reason. Regardless of weather he was on or off the floor, it's impossible to Isolate KG's impact from the schemes he was running. What you're basically saying is that the defense of the celtics wasn't as good when Boston went Small when KG wasn't in the game. Thats like saying if there's a drop off defensively when Noah is out the game it means he's the mastermind behind the defense and not Thibs. In reality, unless KG and Noah are playing outside of Thibs defensive schemes, there's no way to separate them from the schemes they were running. Whiles on the other hand Thibs has produced elite defenses without either of them at a given time.

Again your stat is basically punishing Thibs for not having a back up who had the size and speed, to defend the paint like he needs in his system. Regardless of whether Chicago was as good as Boston defensively they were still elite, whiles on the other hand the Minny defenses ranged from averge to below averge

[Purch]

1. No, they weren't. Lawrence Frank actually handled their defense after Thibs left. And after him Longobardi. While alot of it was similar stuff, you can't give credit to Thibs after he left. Defense isn't static, it's dynamic. You change is based on personell and how the league evolves. Thibs wasn't running their defense in 2012 and it didn't look like the defense they played in 2008 neither. It's not as simple as saying just keep Thibs schemes and you'll have a great defense, if so, every team in the league could implement Thibs defense. Look at Chicagos defense today, it's not the same defense as the '08 Celtics played. Everyone implements new stuff, especially someone like Thibs.

And then Longabardi. While alot of it was similar stuff, it's mind boggling that you believe that you can just remove a coach and just have the schemes running based off what Thibs had done in the past. Everyone changes their schemes, even Thibs. It's not static, it's dynamic and has to do with personell etc. If it was as simple as just "keeping the schemes from Thibs" then guess what, every team in the league would be a defensive juggernaut.

2. Again, no they aren't.
(Indiana obviously collapsed during the 2nd half of the season and should not be #1 on the list, but the rest of the list is correct).

3. Well, you would be removing bum knee KG, and adding a peak / prime KG on those teams.....

1. One the fact you think Lawrence Frank came In their and suddenly changed the defensive schemes that had given Boston an elite defense two years in a row is mind boggling. Do you really think Doc would actually allow that ? What did they defend differently under Fank?

2. Again yes they are. A collapse has nothing to do with how good they were on defense, which they proved in the playoffs

3. I know

1. Frank actually has great defensive principles that he worked with in Boston and tried to implement on the Nets too, this year. Again, Doc hired Frank to run the defense.. If he wanted to run the exact same defense as Thibs did, why didn't he just do that himself? Do you believe Frank was hired to do what... watch Doc run Thibs defense?

2. I edited the post, the picture was messed up. Again, they were not better defensively than the Celtics. The collapse I was referring to was Indianas during the 13-14 season.

I don't like that way of thinking cause it's basically punishing the Pistons for producing 4 less points because the league averge wasn't as high. Also by that regard the Pacera would somehow be a better defensive team than the Pistons