PockyCandy wrote: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?
Last time I wrote about more philosophical things, but this time a few general thoughts on a more practical level based on the OP and some of the impressions one would get from this thread, and just some things that need to be considered here:
rebirthoftheM wrote:This "it wasn't his game" implies that if he decided to, KG could have been a pretty great scorer. I have always found this argument to be somewhat weak, as KG's style of scoring imo required elite execution for this to be true, which I don't think he was capable of. (snip)
This is partially the reason why I've never been high on KG as many others have been. His scoring was mediocre for a true 2 way player such as himself
so_bored wrote:LMAO at "he would would have if he wanted to" remarks. He was simply never an elite scorer.
*Kevin Garnett was an exceptional scorer. It's strange to have to lead with that, but based on the tone and words always used to describe KG's scoring ability (like those quoted above), it has to be said. He wasn't the GREATEST scorer, but as I've pointed out before, Garnett would have been a Hall of Famer for his offense alone. Looking purely at scoring...
He scored 26,000+ points (17th all-time) He scored more than 20 ppg nine straight times He peaked as the 2nd leading scorer in the NBA, with the most total points in the NBA that season He was the leading scorer and usage leader on four straight top-6 offenses He's been the leading playoffs scorer on 3 different teams that made the conference finals, all w/ different 2nd leading scorers He's been the leading playoff scorer on a champion
It's one thing to say KG wasn't as good of a scorer as Dirk or Kobe (both said in this thread), but there's a vast, chasm-abyss-like difference between not being as good of a scorer as two of the best handful of scorers of all-time, and "mediocre for a true 2 way player". There's no definition of scoring in NBA history in which Garnett isn't a great scorer. Even when comparing him to the all time great scorers, even if they surpass him in this area, he's still great as a scorer.
*Pace and team defense. One reason why Garnett peaked a 24 ppg, Duncan at 25 ppg, and Dirk at 26.6 ppg is the era in which they peaked. The early 2000s is one of the toughest eras for volume scoring in league history. The pace was very slow, the defensive schemes were complex, and the rules had not been changed yet to foster more offense. In fact, those rule changes to benefit offense were expressly BECAUSE of how hard it was to score in that era. Thus, it's hard to just look at absolute scoring averages or totals and compare them with other eras.
Factoring only one of these things, pace, into the equation helps even the playing field some. Consider these 10-year averages, per 100 possessions, for a few great scoring bigs:
Larry Bird (1980 - 90): 30.8 pts/100, 56.7% TS, 7.8 ast, 3.9 TO Playoffs: 28.4 pts/100, 55.5% TS, 7.5 ast, 3.7 TO
Chris Webber (97 - 03): 29.7 pts/100, 52% TS, 5.8 ast, 3.8 TO Playoffs: 28.5 pts/10, 49.4% TS, 5.3 ast, 4.2 TO
Kevin Garnett (99 - 08): 30.2 pts/100, 55% TS, 6.6 TO, 3.7 TO Playoffs: 29.5 pts/100, 52.3% TS, 5.9 ast, 3.9 TO
Again, much like the first point, this is a general point. I'm not particularly arguing Garnett's prowess as a scorer vs any of these players, here. Instead, I'm pointing out that, with a basic pace adjustment, Garnett's scoring averages look a lot like players from previous generations that were more commonly thought of as all-history players based on their offense. And while no, pace adjusting isn't a perfect 1-to-1 transfer as far as we know, it does indicate the common sense that if they were playing at the pace of previous eras, Garnett (without changing his shooting frequency) would have likely had averages more like nine straight seasons around 25 ppg with a career high around 28. Duncan around 28.5 or 29. And Dirk around 30 - 32 at his peak. Or something. The point is, answering the OP, peaking at a time when pace/defense/league rules depressed scoring makes Garnett's scoring numbers look worse historically than they actually are. And as for why I included Webber...
90sgoat wrote: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.
*Garnett had a great post scoring game.First, point blank, Garnett was a better offensive player than Webber. And keep in mind, I shortened Webber's time window so as to avoid the time after his knee injury, and his averages were still weaker than KG's decade. So the foundation of that quote is off. But, with that said, we should talk about post scoring. There've been a bunch of posts on it in this thread, some with video, discussing whether Garnett had post-moves and how effective he was as a post scorer. To the discussion, I bring a few numerical rankings conclusions from Synergy:
shutupandjam wrote:Consider this: according to synergy, Garnett was top 2 in points per possession from post-ups (among guys who had 250 post up possessions) every year from 2005 (the first year with synergy data) to 2008. Cut the minimum possessions to 100 and he's still top 5 from 2005-2007 and #7 in 2008.
I never had Synergy, so I have to quote someone here that did. But Garnett was a SUPERB post scorer. Among high volume scorers for four late prime years, he was among the best in the league in a purely SCOUTING software. Nothing remotely +/- related, nothing defensive, not passing, just purely scoring from the post, and KG was among the best in the league? What? Crazy, right?
Conclusion: Nothing particularly deep here. Just pointing out some things that seem blatantly obvious to me, which makes it hard sometimes when I keep reading the same misconceptions, incorrect assumptions and faulty narratives over and over (and over and OVER). Garnett wasn't as great of a scorer as Dirk Nowitzki? OK, I'm with you. Garnett wasn't as great a scorer as Kobe? Bet, I can work with that. But Garnett was an outstanding scorer, clearly a Hall of Famer with offense alone, and that is completely without hyperbole. It's hard to have a meaningful conversation about his place in history, strengths and weaknesses compared to his peers, etc. until we can at least agree on some basic stuff that is thoroughly supported by volumes of basic stats and scouting. Otherwise, how will we ever be able to realistically discuss the more complicated factors like context, or what the (gasp) dreaded +/- numbers mean?
Chris Webber in 2000-01 scored 27.1ppg on 31.6 USG% on 48/70 and 6.6 FTA
KG topped out in 2003-04 at 24.1ppg on 29.6 USG% on 50/79 and 5.7 FTA
The following year Webber got hurt and never played a full season afterwards.
Webber simply seems to be able to be equally effective as KG on a higher USG%.
Why does KG have a bunch of seasons with only 15-17 FGA? If he is so effective? Could it be because Garnett was more limited, he had to work more for his shots, they didn't translate as well when more attempts were needed, compared to Webbers more diverse game?
Webber has considerably fewer FTA than Garnett too in most seasons.
90sgoat wrote:Chris Webber in 2000-01 scored 27.1ppg on 31.6 USG% on 48/70 and 6.6 FTA
KG topped out in 2003-04 at 24.1ppg on 29.6 USG% on 50/79 and 5.7 FTA
The following year Webber got hurt and never played a full season afterwards.
Webber simply seems to be able to be equally effective as KG on a higher USG%.
Since you apparently missed the important parts of drza's post, I will supply a quote from his post.
drza wrote:Again, much like the first point, this is a general point. I'm not particularly arguing Garnett's prowess as a scorer vs any of these players, here. Instead, I'm pointing out that, with a basic pace adjustment, Garnett's scoring averages look a lot like players from previous generations that were more commonly thought of as all-history players based on their offense.
drza is clearly not comparing these players one on one, rather showing that Garnett certainly belongs in the "great scorers of all time" category. However, I will refute your notion that Webber is a better scorer.
First, let's look at pace adjusted stats. I think we are smart enough to understand what difference pace can have on the game, no? Second, Usage contains far more than just scoring, and I also doubt you know how it is actually calculated, as using it when comparing scoring for playmakers is an incorrect usage of the usage stat (punny...I know).
Chris Webber: 34.0 PTS, 51.6 TS (-.2% Rel LG AVG), .282 FTR (-.2 Rel LG AVG), 8.3 FTA Kevin Garnett: 33.2 PTS, 54.7 TS (+3.1 Rel LG AVG), .289 FTR (-.2 Rel LG AVG), 7.8 FTA
When you say stuff like
Webber simply seems to be able to be equally effective as KG on a higher USG%.
, it makes you sound downright foolish, no offense.
Chris Webber: 5.3 AST, 20.6 AST%, 3.5 TOV, 9.6 TOV% Kevin Garnett: 6.8 AST, 24.4 AST%, 3.5 TOV, 10.5 TOV%
Where is this "extra usage" coming from? Is it simply Webber shooting 4 more shots per game? He isn't generating more points by his shots. He isn't making more plays for his teammates than Garnett did either, evidenced by the assist numbers. For a side note, Kevin Garnett is regarded as one of the greatest screen setters of all-time. Moving or not, his screen setting was having a massive impact on offense (along with his ability to shoot out of the pick, pass out of the pick, or drive out of the pick).
Does this extra "Usage" you mention account for defensive effort? Even if I conceded that Garnett and Webber were equal offensive players, defense just puts this comparison to rest. However, I am not going to concede that Garnett was an equal offensive player to an inferior offensive player...inferior player like Chris Webber. The Sacramento Kings had a 105.3 ORtg with Webber on the court, yet a 106.2 ORtg with Webber off the court. The Timberwolves on the other hand had a 108.3 ORtg with Garnett on the court, yet a 93.8 (good enough for one of the worst offenses of all-time) with Garnett on the bench.
Again, where is Webber being used more? And how is it benefiting his team more than the load Garnett was carrying for his team?
Why does KG have a bunch of seasons with only 15-17 FGA? If he is so effective? Could it be because Garnett was more limited, he had to work more for his shots, they didn't translate as well when more attempts were needed, compared to Webbers more diverse game?
Webber has considerably fewer FTA than Garnett too in most seasons.
Kevin Garnett has a lot of seasons with 15-17 FGA because that is what Garnett needed to do to manage top 6 offenses 5 times. The most impressive part of these teams that Kevin Garnett led to great offenses is the fact that they were pathetic offensive rebounding teams (outside of Garnett) and pathetic at getting to the free throw line because of all the mid-range action that Flip Saunders absolutely "loved" to run.
When you are questioning why a player did something, do you always lead with such negative connotations? You are here assuming that Garnett was "limited offensively"? This seriously leads me, and many others, to question your ability to watch a player like Kevin Garnett, one of the most active players of all time. He had to work more for his shot? Of course he did, look at the great point guards he played with for a majority of his career. Kevin Garnett was often times the best playmaker on his team and the best passer.
Webber does not have a more diverse game in any sense of the imagination, on either side of the ball.
Conclusion: Nothing particularly deep here. Just pointing out some things that seem blatantly obvious to me, which makes it hard sometimes when I keep reading the same misconceptions, incorrect assumptions and faulty narratives over and over (and over and OVER). Garnett wasn't as great of a scorer as Dirk Nowitzki? OK, I'm with you. Garnett wasn't as great a scorer as Kobe? Bet, I can work with that. But Garnett was an outstanding scorer, clearly a Hall of Famer with offense alone, and that is completely without hyperbole. It's hard to have a meaningful conversation about his place in history, strengths and weaknesses compared to his peers, etc. until we can at least agree on some basic stuff that is thoroughly supported by volumes of basic stats and scouting. Otherwise, how will we ever be able to realistically discuss the more complicated factors like context, or what the (gasp) dreaded +/- numbers mean?
There are a few things that need to be said here.
First, i was trying to say that KG was incapable of being a dominant scorer in the vein of a Dirk, Hakeem, Shaq, Barkley etc, and not comparing him to players like Chris Webber. I think this has a lot to do with KG's non threatening offensive style of game (which was detailed earlier by Ryoga Hibiki and others) and his lack of elite execution (relative to the above for e.g.) of the moves he did have on offense. This isn't a matter of simple scoring averages, because you could argue KG was a more consistent scorer than a lot of other ATGS (consistently in the low 20s). It is to me a matter of "flicking the switch" and to read momentum of games and take over games on the offensive end, primarily through scoring but also through your mere presence on that end. It is about putting endless pressure on opposing D's, forcing them to react and switch because of your offensive aggressiveness. It is about the threat.
KG in this respect was inferior, and yes I'd say mediocre relative to those other guys I just listed for the reasons littered through this thread.
Second, and to reiterate the above, as you mentioned in your first post, there are other factors at play when considering the impact a player's scoring has on a team. Not all points are of equal value because their consequences on the flow of the game might vary significantly. Hitting a 3 to "stop the bleeding" as Mark Jackson would say would be more valuable than a three where the momentum is not against your team. Going on a scoring binge for a 5 minute stretch in a quarter and demoralising opponents might have telling impact on the entire trajectory of the game. These are matters that metrics at the moment cannot fully quantify, and require watching games. One could see in an advanced box score that two players had identical points and similar efficiency, but would not be able to fully grasp their impact on the offensive end. I always bring up Kobe, because he was the perfect example of the type of offensive player who could go for 7-22 and still impact the game offensively in a plethora ways that cannot be grasped completely by a statistical analysis.
These are the type of areas that lead me to conclude that KG was mediocre relative to other ATGs, because although his averages looked relatively good (through his productivity in 20+ FGA games left a lot to be desired), he was not as good in certain other key areas of offense that don't necessarily show up on the box score, and which are greatly important to offensive impact, and ultimately winning. I mean, the dude average 22 on 59% TS and led his team to a bottom 3 offense (has this ever occurred with another ATG? Not really sure). Something has to give there. The early 2000s mediocre outlier offensive era was perfect for KG as it masked his incapability of being a dominant offensive machine (relative to other stars). When the league returned to some normalcy post 2005, KG's scoring averages did not drop significantly but his teams offensive proficiency fell off the cliff because the game dun changed and KG's offensive impact was laid bare for the world to see. The "playing the right way" on poor offensive quality teams simply did not cut it no longer if you wanted to win games. This even goes beyond the NBA. I would say this applies to organised basketball in general.
Third, and this might be a side point, but underlying this whole discussion is the value of offensive impact on a game. I am of the opinion that in general, on poor quality teams, what is more impactful is your lone superstar carrying his team offensively and compromising opponent's defensive schemes, as i think this has a greater correlation to winning. I also think in general that aggressive offensive play and being a consistent threat on offense (both through scoring and breaking down defenses) is the most valuable aspect that a superstar can bring to his team. In general, I'ma take great offensive play over great defensive play, because I find one players ability to move the needle on offense is far greater than their ability to do so on D. As the old adage goes "great offense beats great defense".
This is again why i always valued Dirk over KG, despite all the hate he used to receive as a soft player. Still remember that 02 series when Dirk murked the Wolves, and KG couldn't respond due to his relatively mediocre offense, but the world was still enthralled with KG because of his "all around impact". KG established for me why "all around impact" can be overrated.
G35 wrote:Those three all played for a long time. It was not just the lack of playoff games during his prime that hurts his numbers. I just used career number to REMOVE bias. We take the best years KG had vs the other two. I mean honestly, its unfair to Dirk and Tim that KG gets to inflate his numbers by only playing in the first round while they went further in the playoffs versus elite competition....
No, you did it for biased reasons. It's incredibly obvious. If you wanted to remove bias you would use prime years.
KG played elite teams in the first round with Minnesota. TD was the one who got to boost his numbers against weaker teams. drza has laid out this data many, many, many times on this board.
Don't lie. I'm going to test your theory.
Duncan's prime from '99-'08 playoff competition SRS average is 3.93. His production seems to be the same or increase across the stat board against stronger opponent than weaker opponent. So this theory of your is flat out a lie!
G35 wrote: Duncan and Dirk are far more efficient with their shots and getting to the free throw line. Duncan is one step above KG and Dirk is like two. Then in the playoffs both Dirk/Duncan take their scoring up a notch while KG does not.
FGA (career) Duncan 14.6 Dirk 16.2 KG 14.5
FTA (career) Duncan 6.1 Dirk 5.8 KG 4.2
PPG (career) Duncan 19.0 Dirk 21.8 KG 17.8
PS FGA (career) Duncan 15.7 Dirk 18.2 KG 15.5
PS FTA (career) Duncan 7.0 Dirk 8.3 KG 4.1
PS PPG (career) Duncan 20.6 Dirk 25.3 KG 18.2
~50% of KG's playoff games were when he was 33+. Using career stats is disingenuous.
Duncan has 36 percent over 33 not to mentio has more games when it comes to 37 up it not like his numbers will not be thrown off because of it as well. Duncan has 1000 more minutes play will being 37 and up which can throw a lot off as well.
I wasn't trying to claim it was perfect for Duncan. Just not quite as bad a representation as with KG.
Rapcity_11 wrote: No, you did it for biased reasons. It's incredibly obvious. If you wanted to remove bias you would use prime years.
KG played elite teams in the first round with Minnesota. TD was the one who got to boost his numbers against weaker teams. drza has laid out this data many, many, many times on this board.
Don't lie. I'm going to test your theory.
Duncan's prime from '99-'08 playoff competition SRS average is 3.93. His production seems to be the same or increase across the stat board against stronger opponent than weaker opponent. So this theory of your is flat out a lie!
It's not a theory of mine. The data has been presented a bunch of times on this board.
Where's efficiency in the stats above?
And anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that claiming Duncan had harder playoff opponents than KG makes no sense.
I think he was making the point that they had to go through more teams in series were they game plan for them. I mean the west was the hardest division for the longest time and there were a lot of good teams. I think he meant that it is harder to keep it up because you can go off in a series then not do so well the next KG only deep round near his peak was 2004 and his efficiency went down more so then Dirk or Duncan 2008 was pretty good but still less effient then Duncan in 2007 and Dirk in other runs.
Rapcity_11 wrote: No, you did it for biased reasons. It's incredibly obvious. If you wanted to remove bias you would use prime years.
KG played elite teams in the first round with Minnesota. TD was the one who got to boost his numbers against weaker teams. drza has laid out this data many, many, many times on this board.
Don't lie. I'm going to test your theory.
Duncan's prime from '99-'08 playoff competition SRS average is 3.93. His production seems to be the same or increase across the stat board against stronger opponent than weaker opponent. So this theory of your is flat out a lie!
It's not a theory of mine. The data has been presented a bunch of times on this board.
Where's efficiency in the stats above?
And anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that claiming Duncan had harder playoff opponents than KG makes no sense.
His efficiency is very much identical regardless of the competition. , It is disrespectful to put KG in the same player as Duncan. Duncan is just a different animal when playoff roll around. In fact like I always said, both are just different animal in the PS and it is why Duncan is clearly ahead of KG.
2klegend wrote:Don't lie. I'm going to test your theory.
Duncan's prime from '99-'08 playoff competition SRS average is 3.93. His production seems to be the same or increase across the stat board against stronger opponent than weaker opponent. So this theory of your is flat out a lie!
It's not a theory of mine. The data has been presented a bunch of times on this board.
Where's efficiency in the stats above?
And anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that claiming Duncan had harder playoff opponents than KG makes no sense.
His efficiency is very much identical regardless of the competition. , It is disrespectful to put KG in the same player as Duncan. Duncan is just a different animal when playoff roll around. In fact like I always said, both are just different animal in the PS and it is why Duncan is clearly ahead of KG.
Conclusion: Nothing particularly deep here. Just pointing out some things that seem blatantly obvious to me, which makes it hard sometimes when I keep reading the same misconceptions, incorrect assumptions and faulty narratives over and over (and over and OVER). Garnett wasn't as great of a scorer as Dirk Nowitzki? OK, I'm with you. Garnett wasn't as great a scorer as Kobe? Bet, I can work with that. But Garnett was an outstanding scorer, clearly a Hall of Famer with offense alone, and that is completely without hyperbole. It's hard to have a meaningful conversation about his place in history, strengths and weaknesses compared to his peers, etc. until we can at least agree on some basic stuff that is thoroughly supported by volumes of basic stats and scouting. Otherwise, how will we ever be able to realistically discuss the more complicated factors like context, or what the (gasp) dreaded +/- numbers mean?
There are a few things that need to be said here.
First, i was trying to say that KG was incapable of being a dominant scorer in the vein of a Dirk, Hakeem, Shaq, Barkley etc, and not comparing him to players like Chris Webber. I think this has a lot to do with KG's non threatening offensive style of game (which was detailed earlier by Ryoga Hibiki and others) and his lack of elite execution (relative to the above for e.g.) of the moves he did have on offense. This isn't a matter of simple scoring averages, because you could argue KG was a more consistent scorer than a lot of other ATGS (consistently in the low 20s). It is to me a matter of "flicking the switch" and to read momentum of games and take over games on the offensive end, primarily through scoring but also through your mere presence on that end. It is about putting endless pressure on opposing D's, forcing them to react and switch because of your offensive aggressiveness. It is about the threat.
KG in this respect was inferior, and yes I'd say mediocre relative to those other guys I just listed for the reasons littered through this thread.
Second, and to reiterate the above, as you mentioned in your first post, there are other factors at play when considering the impact a player's scoring has on a team. Not all points are of equal value because their consequences on the flow of the game might vary significantly. Hitting a 3 to "stop the bleeding" as Mark Jackson would say would be more valuable than a three where the momentum is not against your team. Going on a scoring binge for a 5 minute stretch in a quarter and demoralising opponents might have telling impact on the entire trajectory of the game. These are matters that metrics at the moment cannot fully quantify, and require watching games. One could see in an advanced box score that two players had identical points and similar efficiency, but would not be able to fully grasp their impact on the offensive end. I always bring up Kobe, because he was the perfect example of the type of offensive player who could go for 7-22 and still impact the game offensively in a plethora ways that cannot be grasped completely by a statistical analysis.
These are the type of areas that lead me to conclude that KG was mediocre relative to other ATGs, because although his averages looked relatively good (through his productivity in 20+ FGA games left a lot to be desired), he was not as good in certain other key areas of offense that don't necessarily show up on the box score, and which are greatly important to offensive impact, and ultimately winning. I mean, the dude average 22 on 59% TS and led his team to a bottom 3 offense (has this ever occurred with another ATG? Not really sure). Something has to give there. The early 2000s mediocre outlier offensive era was perfect for KG as it masked his incapability of being a dominant offensive machine (relative to other stars). When the league returned to some normalcy post 2005, KG's scoring averages did not drop significantly but his teams offensive proficiency fell off the cliff because the game dun changed and KG's offensive impact was laid bare for the world to see. The "playing the right way" on poor offensive quality teams simply did not cut it no longer if you wanted to win games. This even goes beyond the NBA. I would say this applies to organised basketball in general.
Third, and this might be a side point, but underlying this whole discussion is the value of offensive impact on a game. I am of the opinion that in general, on poor quality teams, what is more impactful is your lone superstar carrying his team offensively and compromising opponent's defensive schemes, as i think this has a greater correlation to winning. I also think in general that aggressive offensive play and being a consistent threat on offense (both through scoring and breaking down defenses) is the most valuable aspect that a superstar can bring to his team. In general, I'ma take great offensive play over great defensive play, because I find one players ability to move the needle on offense is far greater than their ability to do so on D. As the old adage goes "great offense beats great defense".
This is again why i always valued Dirk over KG, despite all the hate he used to receive as a soft player. Still remember that 02 series when Dirk murked the Wolves, and KG couldn't respond due to his relatively mediocre offense, but the world was still enthralled with KG because of his "all around impact". KG established for me why "all around impact" can be overrated.
First, as I pointed out in the last post, "not as good a scorer as Dirk" isn't the same as mediocre. The terminology is wrong. No one would say, "since Karl Malone isn't as good at basketball as Jordan, that makes him mediocre". It's a matter of scale. Once you get to the point that you're delineating between the greats at something, it doesn't really make sense to speak in those terms. And KG is, conservatively, one of the greatest scorers that ever played in the NBA.
Second, I notice how carefully you chose your counter-example from my post. Here's what I wrote:
Factoring only one of these things, pace, into the equation helps even the playing field some. Consider these 10-year averages, per 100 possessions, for a few great scoring bigs:
Larry Bird (1980 - 90): 30.8 pts/100, 56.7% TS, 7.8 ast, 3.9 TO Playoffs: 28.4 pts/100, 55.5% TS, 7.5 ast, 3.7 TO
Chris Webber (97 - 03): 29.7 pts/100, 52% TS, 5.8 ast, 3.8 TO Playoffs: 28.5 pts/10, 49.4% TS, 5.3 ast, 4.2 TO
Kevin Garnett (99 - 08): 30.2 pts/100, 55% TS, 6.6 TO, 3.7 TO Playoffs: 29.5 pts/100, 52.3% TS, 5.9 ast, 3.9 TO
Here's what you replied:
First, i was trying to say that KG was incapable of being a dominant scorer in the vein of a Dirk, Hakeem, Shaq, Barkley etc, and not comparing him to players like Chris Webber.
Clearly, Webber wasn't the point of what I wrote. And in case it wasn't clear, in my post, I followed up by explicitly saying that I only included Webber specifically because 90sgoat had brought him up, in reference to a post-up game.
No, my point that you skated past, was that with basic pace adjustment and reasonable context given about the caliber of defenses in the early-2000s vs other eras in NBA history, Garnett's scoring volume was roughly on par with players like Larry Bird or Moses Malone who are super-duper-stars largely due to their offense. This partially addresses the OP's question about KG topping out at 24 ppg and one of the early responses that Duncan topped out at 25 ppg and Dirk at 26 and some change. The era when they peaked was the lowest-scoring era for reasons outside of themselves, and I was laying out some of that context.
Third...the good stuff. Offensive impact outside of the box scores. Yes, please, let's discuss. The rest of your post deals a lot with these concepts, and your opinions of them. I absolutely endorse this line of thinking, as to me that's one of the major issues with the default to "scoring volume + true shooting percentage" as a proxy evaluation of a player's offense, if not a player's game overall. Scoring volume + efficiency only gives us a small part of the story, but many want to over-emphasize that. And it's not good analysis. So, let's start with what I think was your money quote along those lines, and go from there:
rebirthoftheM wrote:underlying this whole discussion is the value of offensive impact on a game. I am of the opinion that in general, on poor quality teams, what is more impactful is your lone superstar carrying his team offensively and compromising opponent's defensive schemes, as i think this has a greater correlation to winning. I also think in general that aggressive offensive play and being a consistent threat on offense (both through scoring and breaking down defenses) is the most valuable aspect that a superstar can bring to his team. In general, I'ma take great offensive play over great defensive play, because I find one players ability to move the needle on offense is far greater than their ability to do so on D. As the old adage goes "great offense beats great defense".
I'm glad to see your thought process, and what you value. You're a little all over the place, though, particularly over the rest of that post that I didn't quote, as you lay out a lot of broad premises, give anecdotal evidence to partially support, then make strong conclusive statements. So, I really feel like we need to take a step back and discuss some things about Garnett's scoring more generally in terms of non-boxscore contributions. I'll break it into 3 parts here: gravity, spacing and facilitating team offense.
1) Gravity. Gravity is the concept of grabbing a defense's attention and pulling it towards a given player. In your quote, you reference "compromising opponent's defensive schemes", and gravity is a big way to do this. Shaq was the posterchild for this in the early 2000s era...he wasn't a dominant scorer just because he scored 30 ppg at high efficiency. He was a dominant scorer because opponents would focus their entire attention on him, throwing creative doubles- and triples- at him, always being aware of where he was and what he was doing, whether he had the ball or not. It made life mega easier for his teammates, and it was obvious.
Outside of the Shaq tier, there wasn't really another big that had MORE offensive gravity than Garnett in his Timberwolves days. Like Duncan, he was very regularly doubled if he tried to operate from the low-post. And on the Timberwolves, a doubled Garnett in the post was prohibitive to their offense because they needed him to directly create for others. Thus, they moved Garnett all around when they wanted to post him. Sometimes he posted on the block. Often he posted on the elbow. Sometimes more of the extended block. Sometimes at the free throw line. He was comfortable operating from each of these locations, and had both moves and counter-moves to score at good volume and efficiency from each of these locations. And because he could post and score from further out, this made it more difficult for opponents to easily trap him all of the time. But make no mistake...the gravity effect was still there. Doubles still came with high frequency (I don't know if Synergy kept track, but live-action I remember people quoting stats that would have Garnett and Duncan as the next-most doubled players in the NBA after Shaq). But when he posted at extended locations and doubles couldn't reasonably come without leading directly to easy buckets off his passes, if you could pan the camera out from any Garnett post-up you'd see the opponents playing a couple of steps off their men and looking at Garnett, almost as if they were pulled by...gravity. These extended post-ups by Garnett were, you could consider them, a counter-move to the traditional big man getting doubled in the post and having to kick-it-out and re-post. They were a way to allow him to attack the defense in ways other bigs couldn't. But they were still high-gravity plays.
2) Spacing. Dirk Nowitzki is the spacing king of his era, and one of the (if not THE) GOAT(s) in this area. Spacing can be accomplished by any player that can knock down shots from the perimeter, but big-man spacing is FAR more effective than little-man spacing because bigs are pulling other bigs out of the paint and into areas where they can't easily play help defense. It's why Dirk's spacing impact is much higher than someone like Kevin Durant or even Ray Allen, who may be better 3-point shooters with more volume and range, but are pulling wings out instead of bigs. Dirk is a spacing monster, and it's a big reason why his regular-season +/- profile is one of the best that we have on record.
Outside of the Dirk tier, there really wasn't another big that had MORE of a spacing impact than Garnett. He didn't shoot the 3-pointer like Dirk, but he had very consistent range at high volume out to about 20 feet. At the Sloan Analytics conference this year, Celtics Analytics Director Mike Zarren was telling an anecdote about why they went after Brandon Bass as a free agent. But as part of the anecdote, he pointed out that on long-range 2-point shots, the three players in the NBA who shot with the most volume and efficiency from that range at that time were Dirk, Chris Paul, and Garnett. And like Dirk, Garnett was pulling an opposing big man out to that 20-foot range with him. Often, it was the best defensive big man on the opposing team. As such, this really opened up the paint for the guards, wings and other big on his teams to operate. Most defensive schemes rely on their bigs to anchor the D, so if he's pulled out of his comfort zone, not only is it easier to score at the rim, but just in general offensive plays work better and defensive schemes are less equipped to slow them without their anchors in place.
People often point out that the jumper isn't as high-efficiency as operating in the paint, which is true. People also point out that mid-range jumpers don't draw fouls at the same rate as going to the rim, which is also true. And since both of those things are in the boxscores, those have traditionally been considered winning arguments. However, as Dirk helped the analytics community realize, big-man offensive spacing is (very conservatively) as important to offensive impact as scoring efficiency or drawing fouls, and very likely more impactful than either. And outside of Dirk, KG was often one of (if not the) best spacing bigs of his generation.
3) Facilitating team offense. This point would obviously go along with great passing ability, which Garnett had, but this thread is about scoring so I'm going to leave passing out for the most part. Garnett's ability to be a very legitimate scoring threat from non-traditional big men areas in itself was huge for improving team offense. Some of that is wrapped into the gravity and spacing effects mentioned in the above two points, but it also shows up in Garnett's pick-and-play (roll/pop) game. Actually, that could be considered two non-boxscore strengths for KG: pick-setting and the two-man game playing off the pick. Garnett was excellent at both. But, like passing, pick-setting doesn't fall under the purview of scoring so let's concentrate on the second one.
Garnett is routinely recognized as perhaps the best defender of the pick-and-roll that the game has seen. But he isn't as often credited with being one of the greatest pick and roll/pop threats on offense as well. But Garnett was a killer as the pick-setter out top for a ball-handler, because he left the defense no options. If he rolled, the guard wasn't big enough to stop him from scoring so the team would have to rotate their other big off his man and into the paint to stop Garnett. This would create lots of defensive imbalance to exploit. If the defense didn't do that and the point guard was competent to get him the ball, this could lead to lots of alley-oops (seen most often in the Sam Cassell and 2009 Rajon Rondo era pre-KG injury).
But it was far more common for Garnett to pop off that pick than roll. Some of that was likely due to the point guards that he was working with during the majority of his peak years being more scorers than true point guards, but it was also do to how much pressure the Garnett pop put on opposing defenses. He was, consistently, one of the highest percentage/volume shooters in the NBA from that distance, which meant that if they didn't focus on him it would lead to an easy shot. If they did focus on him, that imbalanced the defense and, from his position out-top Garnett could see the whole floor and make the correct pass to lead to an open shot (this was a big part of how Wally Szczerbiak scored a lot of easy points in his career). Often, the defense would dedicate both defenders in the play to Garnett, which would lead to easy offense for the ball-handler (Troy Hudson and Rajon Rondo say hello).
Summing up. As I pointed out in my last post, Garnett had outstanding boxscore scoring numbers. Not as good as Dirk or Kobe, but at least on a similar level with other offensive superstars such as Larry Bird or Moses Malone when put in context. However, you rebutted that there is a big part of scoring that isn't captured in the box scores. And I couldn't agree with you more. But whereas I feel that you made sweeping statements with little but anecdotal comments to partially support, here I've tried to lay out some very specific mechanisms by which Garnett was one of the best non-boxscore contributing scoring threats of his generation. He didn't produce as much gravity as Shaq, but he was right there in the next tier down with the best of the other bigs. He didn't produce as much spacing as Dirk, but he was right there in the next tier down with the best of the other bigs (and maybe on that next tier by himself). And when it came to facilitating offense from non-traditional locations, Garnett might not take a backseat to any other player of his generation if you can factor in passing...and even without the passing, he was right there with anyone else.
Altogether, these non-boxscore contributions are a large reason why Garnett's offensive impact was significantly larger than what you would predict based on the "scoring volume + TS%" analysis that many do. Thus, if you're inclined to look beyond the boxes and evaluate overall impact, this helps put Garnett's scoring ability into a more proper context.
maybe an oversight, but you don't think Dirk also provided more gravity than KG? I'd be interested to hear more details on that if that's actually the case.
Edit: maybe you are just referencing during KG's Minny days? If that's the case ignore this because Dirk wasn't spamming the high post game frequently until KG went to Boston.
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.
Drza, do you have any argument to those who critique Garnett for not being able to elevate his volume when needed?
Maybe I am off base, but I believe posters have shown that Garnett's career lacked explosive scoring outbursts, particularly in the postseason. I see that he was, on average, level with some other all time greats with respect to offensive efficiency / volume per possession (although, the effect of possessions isn't linear), but it would seem that Bird, Malone, etc. had more high volume scoring games in the postseason.
Is that also a possible result of less possessions / opportunities? He is critiqued for not having a scorers mentality / the ability to raise volume, and that may have helped him in certain situations. A contested shot for KG, a player who was efficient across every spot on the court, is sometimes preferable to a more open shot by a lesser player.
FGA Restricted All-Time Draft
In My Hood, The Bullies Get Bullied PG: 2013 Mike Conley, 1998 Greg Anthony SG: 2005 Manu Ginobili, 2015 Khris Middleton SF: 1991 Scottie Pippen PF: 1986 Larry Bird, 1996 Dennis Rodman C: 1999 Alonzo Mourning
maybe an oversight, but you don't think Dirk also provided more gravity than KG? I'd be interested to hear more details on that if that's actually the case.
Edit: maybe you are just referencing during KG's Minny days? If that's the case ignore this because Dirk wasn't spamming the high post game frequently until KG went to Boston.
I was referring to his offensive prime years, which yeah, would have been primarily in Minnesota. I guess, also, it's kind of hard to quantify non-boxscore concepts like these to any granularity. The +/- stats helped identify spacing, gravity, team facilitation etc. as actual individual non-boxscore contributions that directly impact the team's scoring margins, but that's a slush measure that includes everything that a player does. I guess I say that to say that outside of the blatantly obvious (like Shaq's gravity, Dirk's spacing, etc.) it can be hard to separate out shades of elite.
From your edit it sounds like it's not really a debate point anyway, but I'd have been fine with stipulating Dirk as a gravity monster too. My point with that post, much like the one before when I was pointing out the per-100 scoring stats, was more about establishing the range than arguing placement. In other words, I was pointing out that KG was great at those various non-boxscore offensive contributions, on the elite tier for each, but I'm not so concerned exactly where he places in any of those categories with respect to the best-of-the-bests as that's not necessary for the general point to come across.
Rapcity_11 wrote: It's not a theory of mine. The data has been presented a bunch of times on this board.
Where's efficiency in the stats above?
And anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that claiming Duncan had harder playoff opponents than KG makes no sense.
His efficiency is very much identical regardless of the competition. , It is disrespectful to put KG in the same player as Duncan. Duncan is just a different animal when playoff roll around. In fact like I always said, both are just different animal in the PS and it is why Duncan is clearly ahead of KG.
2klegend wrote:His efficiency is very much identical regardless of the competition. , It is disrespectful to put KG in the same player as Duncan. Duncan is just a different animal when playoff roll around. In fact like I always said, both are just different animal in the PS and it is why Duncan is clearly ahead of KG.
Thanks for the info. Even though that's not quite identical...Looks fairly close to the type of drop KG typically had from RS to PS.
The fg% efficiency is literally identical. The TS% difference of 1% can be attributed to free throw consistency.
And what drop? Duncan Reg and Playoff TS% is IDENTICAL while KG drop is about a 3% difference. Do you even know what are you talking about now?
I think the bigger question is...does 3% of TS really matter? And if so, how much? If it's a small percentage of 1 aspect out of many that make up a player's offense...I'd argue that it doesn't matter all that much, if even at all. If you'd argue differently, what's your reasoning? Let's talk this out...
drza wrote: First, as I pointed out in the last post, "not as good a scorer as Dirk" isn't the same as mediocre. The terminology is wrong. No one would say, "since Karl Malone isn't as good at basketball as Jordan, that makes him mediocre". It's a matter of scale. Once you get to the point that you're delineating between the greats at something, it doesn't really make sense to speak in those terms. And KG is, conservatively, one of the greatest scorers that ever played in the NBA.
I disagree with the way you have chosen to interpret my point. When I was thinking about the ATGs KG was mediocre in relation to, neither Moses Malone nor Larry Bird came to mind. In fact, I listed the players I was making a comparison with. It is my view that KG in relation to those specific players had a mediocre offensive impact. In short, his offensive impact IMO was pronouncedly inferior than those players, and I will touch upon this below. Mediocre was a catch-all description of what I thought about KG in comparisons with those other ATGs. This is all semantics. The substance is the same, irrespective of the usage of the word “mediocre”.
To start, my view of KG throughout his entire career was that he did a lot of things right/at a good level, but in the areas that provide substantial impact, he was noticeably inferior than several ATGs, some of who I listed earlier in this thread. In the areas that he was elite in (against all others), it just so happened that overall, these areas had lesser impact on the game as other areas (say KG’s defensive impact v Dirk or Kobe’s offense). KG was the master of “all roundness” but it was fool’s gold relative to the impact his contemporaries were having on games, and most importantly, winning. Your description of KG’s offensive game and impact perfectly ties into it.
You first spoke about gravity.
First and as a precursor to this discussion (which I’m sure you will be in agreement with), one does not necessarily have the higher gravity because he is capable of doing a lot of things. You brought up Shaq, but Shaq was predominately working in the low post, and it is here that he saw most of his doubles/attention as he was devastating from that position. Shaq could not score from the pinch post in the Triangle offense, or hit a wing jumper. His all roundedness was therefore limited, but yet his gravity was GOAT level.
As a matter of offensive impact, a post player who can get great position, and can pass, will excel in these aspects against all others. Again, this is a matter of common sense, as shooting from the paint with good position has a high potential of either leading to 2 points or a trip to the line. If the player who is getting great position in the low-post is a great passer, he becomes double the risk, as there is only so much a defender who wants to come and help can do- the spacing between the perimeter and the low-post will cause nightmares in such a scenario. Zone defences have obviously eroded the effectiveness of this all, but it is nonetheless still a nightmare when you have a beast low post player who can pass out. I would contend, that as far as gravity goes, a player fitting this description will have a very very high ceiling, with the only type of player capable of exceeding this impact being an elite perimeter player (in all senses of the word).
How does this relate to KG? Well to begin, KG, relative to other ATG offensive bigs (minus Dirk, which I will get to latter), was not on the same level in this aspect. Shaq was obviously in another stratosphere, but KG was not as good as Tim Duncan as getting good position in the low post and forcing defensive teams to scramble. I was just rewatching the 2006 WCSF Spurs v Mavericks, and what I noticed right off the bat, was how well Duncan was position himself as other big bodies such as Dampier and Diop. KG simply could not do this, as he could not push around other 4s and 5s in the same as Duncan Do. Neither could he get the same position as Hakeem, whose turn around fadeaways and jumpshots were often far closer to the rim. Nor could he bully his way inside like a Barkley. You might suggest that this has to do with KG having to fill other areas of Minny’s offense, but I don’t find this argument convincing, because it was KG’s skill set that prevented him from doing what other ATG could do. KG was inferior from the low post and closer to the rim relative to other ATG bigs.
Second, a part of offensive gravity being meaningful is the ability for a player who is creating such attention to, at times (i stress at times, not always), assertively taking on this added attention, by aggressively attacking doubles and traps. It is not enough that you simply receive that attention, because if defences notice that whenever they throw some tough defence your way, you pass the ball up, then your offensive threat is lessened. The end result of this, is that in comparisons to players who are able to take on the added attention, such a player will see less potent defensive attention (the proverbial ‘throwing the kitchen sink) and the consequences of this includes, inferior scoring opportunities for the rest of your team. Kobe is a great example of a player who, because of his will to take on tough defences, created cleaner opportunities for his teammates. Your reputation as a player does count here. This is especially important on offensively challenged teams.
What is also meaningful is for you to be somewhat successful at attacking the increased attention, because again, if you are not capable of successfully attacking these defences but are still adamant nonetheless to attack them, teams will throw the kitchen table at you, knowing that you will not pass. Thus the aggressiveness to attack that added attention, and the capability punish them accordingly, is a big part of offensive gravity. Teams will fear you, and there can be huge positive consequential impacts.
How does this relate to KG? Well for starters, KG did not assertively attack defences on the same level that a Dirk Nowitzki did. It is often said about Dirk that all he needs is an inch to score, and if he gets that inch, he has the ability to score. One criticism about KG through out his entire career is that he was too passive as far as taking teams on. Perhaps this was overstated, but IMO, KG in a comparison with other ATGs who saw crazy pressure was least likely to take on those defences. He was more content of passing the ball, and “playing the right way” which was admirable in some situations, but a negative in other areas. Consequently, KG’s offensive gravity in this respect was obviously muted. He was not seen as the threat that others. Again, I would contend that this aspect is also a major of offensive gravity, and as it turns out, Dirk was elite in this category, and KG in comparison, was not.
Third, and on a related point, another major aspect to offensive gravity, and which I alluded to previously, is a player’s reputation as an offensive threat. If X player has shown the ability to score big numbers in short stretches, then teams will always be worried about him blowing up at any moment. Consequently, he will always see tough defences, no matter how poor he is shooting (Kobe being a prime example of this- he had major offensive impact even in games he was shooting atrociously in). This will in turn impact the game in many ways that a player who does not possess such a reputation could only dream of having. This again is especially important on offensively challenged teams.
If that player does indeed have the capability of scoring big at critical junctures (as opposed to mere reputation), then his offensive impact reaches another stratosphere, as he has the added ability of single-handedly altering the momentum of games, and carrying his team on his back.
IMO, and I don’t see this as a controversial point, KG was inferior in this respect to the other ATGs I listed, including Tim Duncan. Whilst Duncan was not an elite scorer in the vein of a Dirk, Shaq or Kobe, he was superior to KG as far as imposing his will offensively when desperately needed. Per eye test, I saw Duncan (particularly when the spurs had mediocre offensive talent), moreso than KG, taking on defences on consecutive possessions, and being ultra aggressive at critical junctures. Again, I would contend that this aspect is also a major of offensive gravity, and as it turns out, KG comes out looking worse for wear, particularly in the playoffs. KG and Duncan might be even in terms of averages, but those averages do not tell you when and how those points were being scored.
So to summarise, in the three most important aspects of offensive gravity, KG comes out looking worse for wear. Given this, what did KG do better/as good as anyone else? You mentioned spacing and facilitating team offense. Granted KG was good in both categories, but both categories are largely impacted by a player’s offensive gravity and his aggressiveness for the reasons I have mentioned earlier. I would contend that the offensive gravity and impact aspects I mentioned above have a far larger impact on these two aspects (spacing and playmaking abilities) than vice versa. And given that all of this discussion comes under the banner of offensive impact, these areas of KG’s game should not be analysed in isolation to other aspects of his offensive game/style. When KG’s spacing and playmaking abilities are analysed within this broader context (outlined in the 3 points above), then they lose some of their impressiveness.
So to sum up: KG does a lot of things on a good level, but he comes out looking worse for wear (relative to the previously listed ATGs) in the most impactful of aspects. And it is for the reasons above that I asserted that he was relatively mediocre.
Now I imagine someone will raise Minny being a top 5 offensive teams in 03 and 04, and I will get around to that when the time calls for it...
Rapcity_11 wrote: Thanks for the info. Even though that's not quite identical...Looks fairly close to the type of drop KG typically had from RS to PS.
The fg% efficiency is literally identical. The TS% difference of 1% can be attributed to free throw consistency.
And what drop? Duncan Reg and Playoff TS% is IDENTICAL while KG drop is about a 3% difference. Do you even know what are you talking about now?
I think the bigger question is...does 3% of TS really matter? And if so, how much? If it's a small percentage of 1 aspect out of many that make up a player's offense...I'd argue that it doesn't matter all that much, if even at all. If you'd argue differently, what's your reasoning? Let's talk this out...
Yes. It is the equivalent of a 50fg% player vs a 44%fg% player if that make it easier for you to understand. Better yet, it is the equivalent of an AI vs a D-Wade 2pts goal efficiency if that help if you understand better.
2klegend wrote:The fg% efficiency is literally identical. The TS% difference of 1% can be attributed to free throw consistency.
And what drop? Duncan Reg and Playoff TS% is IDENTICAL while KG drop is about a 3% difference. Do you even know what are you talking about now?
I think the bigger question is...does 3% of TS really matter? And if so, how much? If it's a small percentage of 1 aspect out of many that make up a player's offense...I'd argue that it doesn't matter all that much, if even at all. If you'd argue differently, what's your reasoning? Let's talk this out...
Yes. It is the equivalent of a 50fg% player vs a 44%fg% player if that make it easier for you to understand. Better yet, it is the equivalent of an AI vs a D-Wade 2pts goal efficiency if that help if you understand better.
But it's not, though. Here is what that 3 percent of true shooting percentage translates to, practically. Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett, playoffs, from 1999 - 2008:
Duncan: 23.6 ppg (on 17.5 FGA + 8.8 FT = 21.4 shot possessions used), 3.6 ast (3.1 TO) Garnett: 22.3 ppg (on 18.8 FGA + 5.8 FT = 21.3 shot possessions used), 4.5 ast (2.9 TO)
Duncan scored 1.3 more points on a similar number of shot attempts. Garnett had 0.9 more assists with a similar number of turnovers.
It is NOT the same as AI vs D'Wade's 2 pt goal efficiency. It isn't REMOTELY in the same vicinity. Seriously, look at the actual source numbers again. Duncan and Garnett, in the playoffs, in their primes, both used a tad oer 28 possessions per game. And they produced almost exactly the same number of points for their teams, at least as measured by the box scores. The difference is in the decimal points, in either direction.
This is NOT a big difference. Is it? Pretend for a moment that I understand the concepts of true shooting percentage and field goal percentage perfectly, and instead explain to me why the minuscule differences illustrated above (in by the way a measure that doesn't NEARLY cover the entirety of offense anyway), are the basis for a near universal argument of one player's superiority over another. Please do, because THAT is one thing I've never understood.
drza wrote: I think the bigger question is...does 3% of TS really matter? And if so, how much? If it's a small percentage of 1 aspect out of many that make up a player's offense...I'd argue that it doesn't matter all that much, if even at all. If you'd argue differently, what's your reasoning? Let's talk this out...
Yes. It is the equivalent of a 50fg% player vs a 44%fg% player if that make it easier for you to understand. Better yet, it is the equivalent of an AI vs a D-Wade 2pts goal efficiency if that help if you understand better.
But it's not, though. Here is what that 3 percent of true shooting percentage translates to, practically. Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett, playoffs, from 1999 - 2008:
Duncan: 23.6 ppg (on 17.5 FGA + 8.8 FT = 21.4 shot possessions used), 3.6 ast (3.1 TO) Garnett: 22.3 ppg (on 18.8 FGA + 5.8 FT = 21.3 shot possessions used), 4.5 ast (2.9 TO)
Duncan scored 1.3 more points on a similar number of shot attempts. Garnett had 0.9 more assists with a similar number of turnovers.
It is NOT the same as AI vs D'Wade's 2 pt goal efficiency. It isn't REMOTELY in the same vicinity. Seriously, look at the actual source numbers again. Duncan and Garnett, in the playoffs, in their primes, both used a tad oer 28 possessions per game. And they produced almost exactly the same number of points for their teams, at least as measured by the box scores. The difference is in the decimal points, in either direction.
This is NOT a big difference. Is it? Pretend for a moment that I understand the concepts of true shooting percentage and field goal percentage perfectly, and instead explain to me why the minuscule differences illustrated above (in by the way a measure that doesn't NEARLY cover the entirety of offense anyway), are the basis for a near universal argument of one player's superiority over another. Please do, because THAT is one thing I've never understood.
Try look at the PS again. KG missed the playoff in '05, '06, '07. You might as well compare them from '99 to '04 if we are to be really fair here.
From To FG% PTS TRB AST STL BLK TOV Duncan 1999 2004 0.505 24.3 13.6 4.1 0.8 3.0 3.5 KG 1999 2004 0.455 23.5 14.2 5.3 1.4 1.9 3.5
From PER TS% WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP Duncan 1999 27.0 0.561 15.1 0.2 4.3 4.7 9.0 8.6 KG 1999 24.5 0.513 5.5 0.2 1.2 5.2 6.4 3.6
A 1pt difference in a massive efficiency. Advance stat are better for Duncan across the board. Also Duncan played more games, 73 to 49 on KG. And this is including Duncan missing '00 PS in his prime form.
