Texas Chuck wrote:Huh? Larry Bird has some other advantages over KG besides just ring count. Better offensive player for starters. I think its reasonable to conclude KG should be ranked above Bird overall--tho I personally disagree, but I don't think its reasonable to say Bird's only advantage is ringgggzzzzzz
Sure, if you start dissecting what they both brought to the table, it's obvious that Bird was better at some things and Garnett was better at other things, but I made that comment while having the big picture in mind - i.e. a quick mental calculation of the overall package they had, and honestly, KG comes out on top to me.
As you know, the box-score metrics generally measure offense much more (and much better) than defense, and here's how Bird and Garnett compare between age 23 and 35 (which was Bird's entire career) based on those:
PER:
Garnett: 24.5
Bird: 23.5
Points per 100 possessions + TS% (can't use raw PPG because pace was higher in Bird's era):
Bird: 30.3 (56.4% TS)
Garnett: 29.3 (55.6% TS)
WS/48:
Garnett: 21.0
Bird: 20.3
BPM:
Bird: 7.2
Garnett: 6.6
Bird looks better in the playoffs, but Garnett was either playing with poor supporting casts in Minnesota, or a bit past his prime in Boston. Bird played a lot more games with good supporting casts in his absolute prime, this is the biggest reason why his game seems to translate to playoffs better than Garnett's.
The way I see it is - if those metrics are skewed in favor of offense, and Bird is considered so much better as an offensive player by almost everybody, but Garnett is still so close to him based on those offense-oriented metrics, it means that Bird's advantage on offense isn't nearly as big as people believe (I mentioned scoring earlier, but position-relative, Garnett was also a special playmaker, so was Bird). Garnett is widely (and rightfully) considered a superior defender than Bird, therefore box-score stats fail to capture more of his overall positive impact, than in Bird's case. And guess what - we have +/- stats that make Garnett look like a monster defensively, and a monster overall, perhaps the most impactful player of his generation. You know, like in Chamberlain vs Russell debate, box-score does a much better job capturing Wilt's impact (well, actually it overstates his impact to some extent), than Bill's impact (which is vastly understated because of the lack of defensive stats in a box-score, particularly during Wilt's and Bill's careers, before the NBA started tracking steals and blocks).
Not to mention that KG had other good seasons which bring some value to his career - in 1998, 1999 and 2013, he was the best player on playoff teams. These are not really prime seasons, but still good enough (all-star quality) that I wouldn't ignore them.
