NO-KG-AI wrote:rebirthoftheM wrote:
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
Most of my judgements are based on watching KGs teams during that season as there was whole lot of hoopala about KG coming to LA. After witnessing Kobe's offensive impact that season, I would look at KG and see a superstar who was not very threatening on offense and who you could single cover more often on offense. KG, despite his gaudy stats did not "scare" me, and those were thoughts back in those days. Never did i think "lord, KG is going to impose his will on his game...teams in danger". I saw him as a perfect complementary player.
To answer packforfreedom also, the difference between Minny and the Lakers that season was that LA had a far far more potent offense. Granted, Kobe had a relatively better offensive supporting cast and a better coach than KG, but they were still trash offensively minus Bryant.
I mean Smush Parker has been mentioned, but the dude only became offensively serviceable playing with Kobe, but then preceeded to decline as the season went on, both in terms of his impact on his game but also in terms of aptitude. Kwame Browns offensive impact meanwhile consisted of setting great screens for Kobe and bunnies under the rim. Lamar was relatively good that season, but he peaked much later in the season when he began to understand the triangle system and could share initating duties with Kobe more effectively. Even then, he was defs not at his peak.
They made it into the top 10 on O IIRC because of Kobe's extrodinary offensive impact that season, and that is why they managed to have a 45-35 record in the games he played in. His offensive gravity that season was remarkable, and the lakers as a whole benefited greatly from his aggression. I havent even looked at the offensive stats from that season, but i am confident they bear this all out. LA had no business being top 10 in offense that season, and thats why they overachieved.
So yes, I think KGs medicore offensive gravity (relative to most other other ATGs) and his inability to dominate the game per scoring was a major negative for Minny that season. When you're a bottom 3 team in offense (if my memory serves me correctly), your superstar needs to step up. KG didnt because he couldnt, and to refer to drza post, this hurt his teams success. This doesnt mean they'd be world beaters or even make the playoffs if he did, but they wouldnt be as bad as they were.
