Kevin Garnett's Scoring Ability........

[Alphabet]

Bringing it more directly on-topic. Garnett absolutely had the aptitude to score at higher volumes. Many here have suggested that he could have scored more, but that he wasn't wired to. I think that was a common sentiment when he was playing, as well. However, and I refer back to the Anthony Davis comp and hypothetical from above, the ultimate point for a player on the court is NOT to score the most points as an individual at the highest efficiency. High efficiency individual scoring is a means to possibly make a big impact, it's not the impact itself!

Garnett's reticence for high-volume scoring (particularly as a big man) wasn't hesitation for the sake of hesitation, it was because he had an understanding (that now seems well ahead of its time) that volume scoring from a big man is VERY rarely the best way to lead to the best result for the team! The analytics continue to bear that out, and it's a point that I've seen some here start to recognize. Unless your big man is Shaq, Dirk, or Kareem (or a limited handful of others in history), it very rarely leads to high-impact offense.

No, instead the analytics just keep bearing out that it is passing and getting teammates involved that correlates much more strongly with positive TEAM impact than individual volume scoring.

So, full circle, I believe that Garnett's "scoring aptitude" (using the terms from above) was outstanding. He had a great ability to score from the post, he had a great turn-around, he was an excellent volume-midrange shooter, and he had the athletic ability and handle to attack well off the dribble. There weren't (m)any scoring skills that he didn't have the ability to utilize.

However, when trying to figure out what/why he scored or didn't score more, which in this thread is being referred to as "scoring ability", I think in addition to scoring aptitude we also have to look at scoring attitude. If Garnett's reticence to more heavily volume score is because either he couldn't or just didn't want to for poor reasons when it could have helped his team, then this is a weakness that decreased his scoring ability. If, on the other hand, his scoring style was an example of playing the right way, and was ultimately helping his team to better results than if he'd have shot the ball more, then I just don't see that as a weakness in scoring ability

I guess, my overall point is that you can only separate scoring from overall offense to a certain extent. Because ultimately, overall offensive impact (I would argue) is the goal and scoring just a means of getting there.

I am as big a fan of KG as anyone here but I would respectfully disagree here. It's hard for me to believe that KG knew that volume scoring from a big man was inefficient compared to that of a guard, although I do believe that KG had the mindset that playing smart basketball by moving the ball around to create easy looks was indeed the best form offense (which can be done even if you are the focal point of the offense: for example - Chris Paul). Unfortunately, a lot of times I am not entirely certain if that is the best way to win in late-game situations.

In terms of the comparison between AD and KG: while both have the same body frame, I like the similarities of AD to David Robinson much better than I do with KG. In fact, both had the same growth trajectory while they were in their late-teens, and their stats are much more aligned (and I do believe that Robinson like Garnett would benefit greatly from the modern era and possibly even stretch out his game to three-point territory). While KG had the skillsets to be a great scorer with high volume like AD and Robinson, like many others have said he lacked the aggression and often shied away from contact. This is also the reason why he is less efficient than both, as as he would try to fade away rather than attack the basket for an easy bucket/get called for the foul. All great high-volume scorers need a high volume of FTA unless that player is Stephen Curry. Of course, AD and Robinson both lacked the other offensive traits that made KG such a threat, while AD currently lacks the defensive talents of either.

[90sgoat]

I never saw prime Garnett, as I only saw post-knee surgery KG. So I'll preface my statement with that. However, when I was looking through his stats, I noticed that he never had a season where he averaged over 25 PPG (he topped out at 24), and never scored more than 35 in a playoff game, despite being far and away the best player on his team in Minnesota. From the highlights I've seen so far, he looked extremely athletic back then, and of course, KG always had his feathery jump shot. So what prevented him from producing gaudier point totals?

Lack of back to basket game mostly. For someone his size and skill he should definitely have developed a smooth post game like Chris Webber. It's difficult to be a high scoring big man without a back to basket game.

As others have mentioned, he didn't like contact much in general and did a lot of fadeaways from mid range intead of taking to the hoop. Got called soft first few seasons for that reason.

[JulesWinnfield]

There have been a lot of comments on this thread regarding Garnett's aversion to contact... and while he was never the most muscular big in the league, it's hard to lead the league in rebounding a handful of times if you have an aversion to contact. That doesn't merely happen on length and athleticism alone, not at the level Garnett did it.

I think as an offensive hub KG just felt better attacking the game when facing the basket than he did with his back to it, it does give you a lot more freedom as a creator. He certainly didn't show an aversion to contact positioning for his gaudy rebounding totals

[90sgoat]

Here's a skinny KG as a rookie scoring 33:

Watch on YouTube

I think it shows some things, not a single point scored from a post hook, not a single dropstep or spinmove, excatly one up and under. He just has never had a polished scoring arsenal back to basket. Otherwise, it's insane to see how talented KG was at 18 years old. The original high school phenom. I think he actually came into the league as a SF due to having a massive growth spurt in senior year in high school and the first few years in the NBA.

[HeartBreakKid]

Your proof for him not having a polished back to the basket game is a highlight as a rookie small forward?

KG had a back to the basket game and it was polished, he preferred to play face up. It's not much more complicated than that.

[90sgoat]

Your proof for him not having a polished back to the basket game is a highlight as a rookie small forward?

KG had a back to the basket game and it was polished, he preferred to play face up. It's not much more complicated than that.

Proof? No, just a vid, you're welcome to showcase his skills back to basket (dropstep, post hook, spin).

[Goudelock]

Your proof for him not having a polished back to the basket game is a highlight as a rookie small forward?

KG had a back to the basket game and it was polished, he preferred to play face up. It's not much more complicated than that.

Proof? No, just a vid, you're welcome to showcase his skills back to basket (dropstep, post hook, spin).

Watch on YouTube

The video starts with turnaround jumpers, but diversifies about halfway through.

[90sgoat]

Your proof for him not having a polished back to the basket game is a highlight as a rookie small forward?

KG had a back to the basket game and it was polished, he preferred to play face up. It's not much more complicated than that.

Proof? No, just a vid, you're welcome to showcase his skills back to basket (dropstep, post hook, spin).

Watch on YouTube

The video starts with turnaround jumpers, but diversifies about halfway through.

It's a lot of great moves, but this is for an entire season and I would say 80-90% are still fall away jumpers or spin jumpers. Don't you agree? I also notice KG in this frequently has to use a lot of dribbles to get into position, has a low center of gravity, looks a bit herky jerky, if you compare to Tim Duncan, the difference is striking, just jump through the vid:

Watch on YouTube

Notice how little movement is wasted with Duncan, one-two-three, always power and decisive in his moves, looks simple and easy, KG always seems to be working really hard for his points. Do you agree?

[Goudelock]

Proof? No, just a vid, you're welcome to showcase his skills back to basket (dropstep, post hook, spin).

Watch on YouTube

The video starts with turnaround jumpers, but diversifies about halfway through.

It's a lot of great moves, but this is for an entire season and I would say 80-90% are still fall away jumpers or spin jumpers. Don't you agree? I also notice KG in this frequently has to use a lot of dribbles to get into position, has a low center of gravity, looks a bit herky jerky, if you compare to Tim Duncan, the difference is striking, just jump through the vid:

Watch on YouTube

Notice how little movement is wasted with Duncan, one-two-three, always power and decisive in his moves, looks simple and easy, KG always seems to be working really hard for his points. Do you agree?

I mean, all you asked for was a video that showcased some of his back to the basket skills. That videos showed that he did have those skills, even if he didn't utilize it as much as he probably could have.

And you're not going to get an argument for me about TD being a better post player than KG. TD is maybe the best post guy along with Hakeem and McHale in NBA history when it comes to an effective arsenal of moves in the low post. I wouldn't exactly say that's a strike against KG though.

[90sgoat]

No I asked for specific skills: Dropstep, Post Hooker (also known as shoulder hook), Spin Move and mostly saw fadeaway jumpers, albeit nice ones.

[tone wone]

The hole in Garnetts offense was his lack of FTs. A 1st option with a FTr below 40% is not ideal. He only cracked 40% twice (2005 & 2006) and spent bulk of career in the low to mid 30s. Hell, it took him 6yrs to crack 30%. This is a MAJOR flaw and can NOT be handwaved as unimportant.

It points to a larger issue...how much is he actually compromising defenses? Honestly, his face-up game should've been devastating ala D-Rob. His entire development as a scorer is kinda baffling. I understand the lack of leverage hampering his back to the basket game but why wasn't he more threatening as a face up player. He had all the tools both athletically and skill wise.

[so_bored]

LMAO at "he would would have if he wanted to" remarks. He was simply never an elite scorer. His turnaround fadeaway was his go to move, a highly inefficient shot.

[rebirthoftheM]

The hole in Garnetts offense was his lack of FTs. A 1st option with a FTr below 40% is not ideal. He only cracked 40% twice (2005 & 2006) and spent bulk of career in the low to mid 30s. Hell, it took him 6yrs to crack 30%. This is a MAJOR flaw and can NOT be handwaved as unimportant.

It points to a larger issue...how much is he actually compromising defenses? Honestly, his face-up game should've been devastating ala D-Rob. His entire development as a scorer is kinda baffling. I understand the lack of leverage hampering his back to the basket game but why wasn't he more threatening as a face up player. He had all the tools both athletically and skill wise.

This is a very important question. From watching KG, I think his offensive gravity should have been far greater than it was. It appears KG chose to a play a particular style of basketball, and it just so happened that this style of basketball was not conducive to dominance as far as scoring went or pressuring defenses. This to me indicates a problem at the mental level. I mean, why would a superstar 2 way player chose to play such a non-imposing style of ball? Particularly given his reputation for defensive aggressiveness? The mysteries of creation...

A lot of interesting points in the raised, and hopefully as times goes on, I hope the position that "KG didn't score more because he didn't want to" is reflected on more deeply headed into the future. IMO he didn't score more because his style of game prevented it (and not because KG made a conscious choice not to be a far more dominant threat), evidenced by the fact that even when he did try to become more aggressive, his production was mediocre.

[rebirthoftheM]

However, when trying to figure out what/why he scored or didn't score more, which in this thread is being referred to as "scoring ability", I think in addition to scoring aptitude we also have to look at scoring attitude. If Garnett's reticence to more heavily volume score is because either he couldn't or just didn't want to for poor reasons when it could have helped his team, then this is a weakness that decreased his scoring ability. If, on the other hand, his scoring style was an example of playing the right way, and was ultimately helping his team to better results than if he'd have shot the ball more, then I just don't see that as a weakness in scoring ability

I guess, my overall point is that you can only separate scoring from overall offense to a certain extent. Because ultimately, overall offensive impact (I would argue) is the goal and scoring just a means of getting there.

These are very important points, and the crux of the debate. It all comes down to reading the game on the offensive end and a deep understanding of momentum.

To me, KG shying away from volume scoring was overall a weakness, albeit an unavoidable weakness because his style of play prevented him from being a dominant scorer. It is not as if KG could "turn it on", as if he had some inherent ability to be dominant in that area.

I say it is weakness relative to other ATGs.

A great example is KG's 05-06 season. The Timberwolves ended up with 31-45 in games KG played, his metrics look very good (albeit not peak level) and he was relatively healthy. He was undoubtedly surrounded by trash, and Wally was traded half way through the season (although it should be noted that they had a losing record in the games the two played together prior to the trade) but does his poor supporting cast, and poor coaching (if you'd like to give him that) justify 31 wins (in his prime) in debates with other ATGs?

IMO it doesn't. A good case example is comparing Kobe and KG that season. Both players played in the same conference that season, and Kobe's team ended up with a record of 45-35 in games he played. Their metrics that season were a wash at best (KG probably had an advantage). Kobe had a relatively better supporting cast and better coaching (although IMO Phil Jackson's coaching on poor quality teams is not his strongest suit). Was the significant gap in wins that season explainable by Kobe's relatively better context?

I do not think so. On poor quality offensive teams during that era (post 2004 rule changes), what was more impactful was your lone superstar putting constant pressure on defenses and lifting his team on his back. Sharing the ball in that context would be more damaging, as there is no point playing the "right way" in a context like that. Kobe knew this, and played accordingly. I do not think for example Kobe's style of play to start the 07-08 season when Bynum emerged would bode well for the lakers in 05-06 as they needed vortex mode that season.

With KG however, it appears his style of play was far more constant, and while it may be said it was good in certain contexts, was horrible in certain other contexts. KG had two seasons in the latter stage of his prime, where his teams faltered horribly, and which required KG to lift his team on his back. However, KG, due to his approach to the game, was incapable of doing so. He lacked the adaptability that other ATGs did. This is a major weakness IMO.

We're then left with KG from 02-05 as his team did well relative to the talent on his teams. KG evidently played better in those years, but I don't think KG's peak play during those season is the major reason for why his teams fared much better relative to latter seasons. I think the two big factors are that the style of offense and defense during that era IMO masked KG's incapability of lifting his teams as well as other ATG and second, he was surrounded with more aggressive, volume scorers that helped him carry that offensive pressure and load. KG could then go about his defensive wizardry and playing "the right way".

The impact of the ability to put pressure on opposing team's defenses is crazily underrated...

[Ryoga Hibiki]

There have been a lot of comments on this thread regarding Garnett's aversion to contact... and while he was never the most muscular big in the league, it's hard to lead the league in rebounding a handful of times if you have an aversion to contact. That doesn't merely happen on length and athleticism alone, not at the level Garnett did it.

I think as an offensive hub KG just felt better attacking the game when facing the basket than he did with his back to it, it does give you a lot more freedom as a creator. He certainly didn't show an aversion to contact positioning for his gaudy rebounding totals

It's not a matter of going back or front to the basket, it's how much you use your defender's body when you decide to attack.
You can do this even fronting, just look at Dirk's numbers.
Garnett was not doing this, and that resulted in somehow awkward moves that were less effective and generating less FTA.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

It points to a larger issue...how much is he actually compromising defenses? Honestly, his face-up game should've been devastating ala D-Rob. His entire development as a scorer is kinda baffling. I understand the lack of leverage hampering his back to the basket game but why wasn't he more threatening as a face up player. He had all the tools both athletically and skill wise.

the thing is that I'm not sure he really had the skills to be that threatening as a face up player.
he had a very solid shot, but he was not Dirk, it was not a good enough first option. Defences were more than happy to block the other options and let him take it.
at the same time he couldn't really put it on the floor and attack the way wingman would and he was not really that good of a finisher in traffic to be an elite roller like Amare.
I believe there's a bit of a mismatch between what were his actual skills and the perception about them.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

You have to keep that in mind, when evaluating KG's scoring ability. "Scoring ability", in fact, is too broad of a term. It's comprised of scoring aptitude (e.g. ability to score) plus player evaluation of "playing the right way" (/Larry Brown voice). It's (at least) a two-part issue, and a strong scoring aptitude alone does not, IMO, connote strong scoring ability. And this thread has provided a perfect case to illustrate what I'm talking about.

In principle I'm fine, but I think we should clarify a few things in Garnett's case:
- how good his overall offensive impact actually? Was he really so impressive in al the "other things" he was doing? I'm with you that volume+efficiency don't tell you the whole story, but I don't see where Garnett's impact should be comeing from. Dirk was much more than what his numbers suggested as he was forcing the defence to change the whole strategy. Wa KG the same? Definetly not close in my view, and the reason is that he was not enough of a scoring threat to force them to adjust.
- could he actually do the things Davis is doing or Amare used to do? To me it's a clear no. He was not as effecting pulling up after one dribble not cutting to basket to finish. He didn't "decide not to" he just couldn't, because 1) when he tried he was not good enough and 2) it would have been the right choice and it would have added so much to his game.

This doesn't mean that he was a bad offensive player and I'm not even sold Davis is now better than him on offence, but I'm not sure you're properly recognizing his limits, to be honest.

[NO-KG-AI]

IMO it doesn't. A good case example is comparing Kobe and KG that season. Both players played in the same conference that season, and Kobe's team ended up with a record of 45-35 in games he played. Their metrics that season were a wash at best (KG probably had an advantage). Kobe had a relatively better supporting cast and better coaching (although IMO Phil Jackson's coaching on poor quality teams is not his strongest suit). Was the significant gap in wins that season explainable by Kobe's relatively better context?

I do not think so.

This actually comes up a lot, and it really doesn't have any basis. KG's early to mid 2000's advanced metrics show him lifting his teams as much, and most of the time more than anyone, and people come back to this argument of "His teammates couldn't have been that much worse... because I just don't feel like they were."

2006 for example wasn't KG's peak season at all, but the teams problems were nothing to do with his ability to volume score. His Wolves teammates some of those years were ridiculously bad, both on and off the court. The numbers back up that they were probably the worst, and KG was already lifting them beyond what should be reasonably expected.

It's kinda crazy that KG's value as a player or how he is ranked ultimately comes down to what his teams did or didn't do when the coaching was trash, the surrounding talent was trash, and management was giving away and throwing away draft picks

[Ryoga Hibiki]

This actually comes up a lot, and it really doesn't have any basis. KG's early to mid 2000's advanced metrics show him lifting his teams as much, and most of the time more than anyone, and people come back to this argument of "His teammates couldn't have been that much worse... because I just don't feel like they were."

2006 for example wasn't KG's peak season at all, but the teams problems were nothing to do with his ability to volume score. His Wolves teammates some of those years were ridiculously bad, both on and off the court. The numbers back up that they were probably the worst, and KG was already lifting them beyond what should be reasonably expected.

It's kinda crazy that KG's value as a player or how he is ranked ultimately comes down to what his teams did or didn't do when the coaching was trash, the surrounding talent was trash, and management was giving away and throwing away draft picks

It's not just a matter of the team being trash (I never like this kind of argument, an all time great should be able to achieve more anyway), but how the overall chemistry was shot and Garnett visibly lost his "positive" energy after so many years trying to lift the franchise and having made so significant steps a few years before.
I don't think it's really fair to hold those years against him, on the other hand I'm not sure how to interpret the stats, both impact or boxscore based, when he pretty clearly (to me, at least) he was not the same player he used to be, at that point.

[packforfreedom]

regarding the supporting casts of KG and Kobe 2005-2006.

lakers second best player was prime Lamar Odom, who was a rock solid player. they also had a a decent point guard for the triangle in Smush Parker and a servicable center in Kwame Brown.
twolves second best player was Wally but he was traded halfway through the season (the wolves were 1 game below .500 at this point).

Their starting 5 after that trade was

Anthony Carter
Trenton Hassell
Ricky Davis
Kevin Garnett
Mark Madsen

i mean: when you have to relay on 40 (!) minutes/g of Ricky Davis (yes the infamous I shoot at my own basket to grab the rebound to get the triple double Ricky Davis) as your second best player. your're in deep trouble

Kobe's supporting cast wasn't great by any means this year, but this was something else.