That's the gist of it for KG, and it's not stuff you're going to disprove by listing his PPG and TS%, or pretty much any box-score derived stat, because that's not where KG makes his mark. Similar to how it's not where Bill Walton made his mark, and yet, people seem to have no problem considering him to have outplayed Kareem in their playoff matchup, despite the vast difference in box score production in that series. Walton also seems to have one of the more revered peaks in NBA history, since he's considered an ATG based on what, 1.5 seasons of peak play?
People have long wondered what prime Bill Walton would have been if he wasn't injured and played for a long time. Well, we actually saw it. It was KG.
It's a little weird to also see the same people continue to get confused about how KG is not a guy whose box score really tells you anything about him, that it describes maybe 15% of what he does on the court (random number, not scientifically backed). You've seen these arguments over and over again, and yet, when it comes down to it...his PPG, his TS%, and box-score derived stats that are heavily influenced by PPG and TS% (like PER) are used to "prove" that he shouldn't be ranked over Robinson and has no business being in the top 10 discussion. It's like talking to a wall sometimes.
And it's not like +/- was the only thing being used to defend KG's rank (although the vitriol against it is unwarranted, it's extremely valuable information that pretty much answers what EVERYONE is trying to figure out at the end of the day...how much did this player help his team? Pretty box score stats aren't the point of basketball). drza has obviously done a lot of great work with regards to KG, but a few posts by ElGee and SSB really stood out to me with regards to why KG is pretty awesome on both ends of the court and why he's absolutely an ATG worthy of discussion at this point, and why he's really not a guy that you can even stop or slow down in the playoffs, because a lot of what he does is not really "stoppable". His individual scoring volume/efficiency is almost superfluous to who he actually is. A lot like Bill Walton or Tim Duncan, actually.
ElGee wrote:I'm compiling some WOWY data for the WOWY thread and something struck me: In Boston, from 2008-2011 Kevin Garnett played 142 games (controlling for all starters also in the lineup) and missed 55. In those 4 years, Boston was a 9 SRS team with him and a 2.8 SRS team without him. This is all-time level stuff, both in terms of the impact and height of the team...colts18 wrote:For the KG guys, how do you account for the fact that KG's offense fell of quite a bit when facing good defenses?Spoiler:
And I think this is a great question. But did it really fall off "quite a bit?" Especially relative to Duncan?
(1) Using the arbitrary benchmark "top-10" obfuscates the fact that Kevin Garnett played in a significantly lower scorer era than David Robinson. Avg. PS defense from 99-08 for KG was 103.5, versus 106.5 for Robinson from 90-98.
(2) Is Duncan really a better offensive player than Garnett?Tim Duncan is categorically not on that Mount Rushmore of offensive players, so why are people OK with anointing him but not KG? Really, so what if Tim Duncan is slightly better at isolation Hero-Ball? The better the situation, the less this is needed.
Did you know that the 2002 Wolves were +4.5 on offense? +5 after Terrell Brandon went down? Wally, young Billups, Rasho, Peeler, Joe Smith...+5 offense. Remember, Magic Johnson's 1984 Lakers were +2.9. The 2000 Wolves with Brandon and KG were +5 as well. The 03 Wolves with Wally +5.4. The 04 Wolves +3. The 05 Wolves +3.5 with Cassell. The 08 Celtics +2.8 w KG. 09 +2.0 (and the Celtics were heavily slanted toward defensive strategy, abandoning the offensive boards).
San Antonio had one Tim Duncan-centered offense above +3.
(3) Hero Ball on Bad TeamsGuys, you won't understand why we value KG so highly unless you can buy-in that evaluating players on bad teams is not an accurate reflection of their value to all teams. Or that basketball is not a one-on-one game.
That's really a key to the counter-argument here -- "when you need a bucket, who can get you one?" The more your team has to implement that strategy, the worse off they are. We're interested in the overall performance of the race car and you want to talk about how well it handles in the rain...only it doesn't rain that much. You might think "wait, it rains a lot in the NBA! Teams really need buckets at key times."
But the evidence says that isolation Hero-Ball is generally a bad idea.
(4) And really, how much better is Duncan at Hero Ball?The counter-argument is that KG's offensive game is less effective against top defenses relative to Duncan. There's truth in that, but to what degree? There are 2 key factors here:
(1) This difference is probably very small (data forthcoming)
(2) The better the teammates, the less this difference is really relevant
Garnett's relative TS% in 99-08 PS games was +0.1%. Tim Duncan was +2.9%. (Kobe +2.9%. Jordan +4.1%.) He scores at 29.7 pts/100 in that span. Duncan scores at 32.1...8% more per 100. Do you know how easy it is to redistribute those possessions to better opportunities? Or make up for them in other ways? Or to not run them at all in place of much better scoring paths on higher quality teams?
If you give Duncan Garnett's teams and KG Pop, Manu, Parker, etc. you think that their stats will remain the same?
(5) Their situations aren't the same
Posted this earlier -- perhaps no one saw it:"Shoulder all load" 03 Duncan v LA: 29.0 ppg 51.7% TS 25.1% ast 14.1% TOV 103 ortg
"Shoulder most load" 03 KG v LA: 27.0 ppg 53.9% TS 23.4% ast 10.7% TOV 105 ortg
"Shoulder most load" 04 KG v LA: 23.7 ppg 51.8% TS 22.1% ast 13.8% TOV 100 ortgSpoiler:
You brought up pace too. Just so people can understand what we're looking at here:
Wilt 1962 28.7 pts/75 (estimated)
KG (03-04 PS) 27.4 pts/75
Duncan 03 PS 26.6 pts/75
Adding context -- LA's defense in 2003 was +2 with Shaq. In 2004 with the Big 4 in, it was -3.3. I have a hard time seeing a clear difference here in Garnett and Duncan's scoring statistics, so I'll post a bunch more in a second...
(6) Clutch (Hero Ball) statisticsI think that's what you're referring to when you ask someone to substantiate Garnett's scoring game. (e.g. all the "1st option" criticisms.) Who can "score when the team needs it?"
Again, if the team needs it a lot, they ain't a good team. But what do the numbers actually say? How much better productions did Duncan get out of his stronger base, bank shot and rolling hook compared to KG's pull-ups, fadeaways and spins?Spoiler:
(7) "First Option" Importance v TeamTrying to get at the heart of the matter for people because I've gone through the machinations myself. Here are the best healthy teams by SRS since Jordan:
14 Spurs (11.8 SRS)
04 Pistons (10.2 SRS)
00 Lakers (9.7 SRS)
08 Celtics (9.7 SRS)
12 Spurs (9.6 SRS)
09 Celtics (9.3 SRS)
05 Spurs (9.1 SRS)
Who were the "1st options" on those teams? (Hint: It's a trick question)
If you don't look at the results and see a clear trend that screams "you don't need a great iso scorer to build a great team around, you'll never understand why KG is so valued. It's also why I value Duncan so highly -- I don't think of him as an all-time great offensive player. I just think the hang-up is that Duncan has better low-post isolation scoring (and by what, 3%? 5%?) and people default to that difference over everything else. But as we just saw, that difference is almost negligible. Give Duncan in the nod for isolation buckets, but Garnett will still be there to score key buckets (without a "falling of a quite a bit") as well as his spacing and passing that scales up to better teams.
Finally, I really sympathize with people on Garnett. We ask everyone to update their mental file of basketball in ways that seem counter-intuitive and challenge status quo. The mainstream feeds you a steady diet of scoring, scoring, and some flash thrown in. Accepting defensive impact is one thing. But here it's practically geometry analytics. It's a clear shift. And people accept many of these things about Garnett, and slowly come along with their evaluation, and then all of a sudden -- BOOM -- another jump is asked of them. Based largely on new considerations of longevity, and careers, and in conjunction with the most data-rich era in NBA history that also can be overwhelming. And you end up thinking "I'm being fair to KG, how can someone vote him 4th?!"
To that I say this: Don't identify with your rankings. The more I research, the more two my favorite basketball savants slide (Magic and Bird). So what? Doesn't change how great they were. Doesn't change how entertaining or unique they were. It just means that I have a clearer picture of them as well as other players and the sport. And sometimes, more guys just come along. I have Jerry West closer to 20 than to 5. Do I think Jerry West is absolutely awesome? Yup. But he was injured all the time. Do I think KG can hang with any of the GOAT offensive players, let alone scorers? Nope. But when you're all-time good defensively and have a really good offensive package and your longevity is sick...you're going ahead of West, and Magic, and Bird...NB: That's why I have Tim Duncan ahead of them as well.
PS If I thought David Robinson could pass or possessed the outside shot KG had, AND he had Garnett's longevity, I'd have him in my top-10 too.
ElGee wrote:fpliii wrote:I'm still struggling with the four bigs. Hopefully I'll figure something out in the next couple of days. Just a couple of questions for anybody who has time:
1) How do we feel about KG's defensive game horizontally compared to Hakeem's?
2) How many more years of 84-88 level Bird would you guys need to see to consider him here? How many years at his 80-83 level instead? I'm not trying to take into account years Bird didn't play, don't get me wrong. Just trying to get an idea of how big the perceived gap is between the current batch and him.
I'll address No. 1 because I'll post on Bird later. I've broken down film in past projects on KG if anyone wants to search (as well as 2010/11 film supported by stat-tracking). With Hakeem I've never gone into that detail on the site, so with both those caveats, I'll give you my general take:
-KG is better horizontally than maybe anyone ever, including Hakeem. I'll exclude Russell for a second because my point mostly centers around the 2 and 3-man game concept that is so prevalent today. Alert: If you're criteria is for 2005-present rules, pay attention! Kevin Garnett is like Ray Lewis against the pick and roll. This basically impacts the whole court, and it's why I think his defensive RAPM scores are so good in Boston.
-guarding the screener: Garnett, because of his length and coverage, has an incredible balance of showing against the ball handler around a screen while still simultaneously sticking with his man. His communication on this front is matched by no one I've seen -- constant talking and communicating about the timing of switching on/off and showing. The inability to allow a team to gain an advantage via the PnR -- the most common shot-creation method in the current NBA rules -- blows up weak side and strong side threats because KG and his man still stick to the ball handler and screener and there is no breakdown (no help needed) on the backside of the defense.
-as the helper: Here's where KG really flexes his Middle Linebacker. He reads offenses like Manning and Brady read defenses. PnR advantages are about who is involved -- usually who is dribbling -- but it's also about angles and spacing of the screener in relation to the other guys on the court. Garnett's positioning in this regard -- what used to be illegal in the illegal D days -- is scary good. It's human chess. Go watch game tape of the 08 or 10 playoffs -- he always moves the proper distance out to the screen action while keeping track of not just his man, but the help-the-helpers (because KG, in accordance with the defensive scheme) has communicated to his guys to slide into helping position on a screen. This was the strength of the historically good Boston D, and it started with him, and it's a lot of the reason why (again, IMO) his RAPM numbers were amazing in Boston despite a diminished rim presence.
PS I'm sure there's youtube breakdowns or a Lowe analysis of this somewhere on the net with visuals/video. Don't have to time to it here myself, but if you find a game, just watch how he handles these situations...to me, that's the horizontal impact.
SideshowBob wrote:Garnett's offense can be broken down like this:
-Spacing
-PnR (Roll/Pop)
-High-Post
-Low-Post
-Mid-Post
-Screens
Remember, there is overlap between these offensive skills/features; I'm trying to give a broad-strokes perspective here.
Let's talk about his shooting really quick, and then dive in. What I want to consider is how and which of these traits show up in the box-score, as well as which would be resilient in the face of smarter defenses.
-Has range out to the 3 pt line but practically/effectively speaking, he's going out to ~22 feet.
-From 10-23 feet, shot 47.7% in 03 (9.6 FGA/G), 45.2% in 04 (11.0 FGA/G), 44.6% in 05 (8.3 FGA/G), 48.4% in 06 (8.4 FGA/G)
-16-23 ft range, he's assisted on ~77% over those 4 years
-Shooting at the big-man positions is a conundrum - shooting 4/5s are often associated with weak (breakeven) or bad (negative) defense. Garnett is one of the few exceptions in that not only is he an elite shooter, there's virtually no defensive opportunity cost to playing him over anyone in history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he's on the ball, he can utilize his exceptional ball-handling skills to create separation and knock it down. When he's off the ball, he's always a threat to convert - the fact that he's assisted so frequently on 16-23 ft shots means they're mostly coming on a Pick and Pop or a drive and kick, which means a lot of them are open. He's usually shooting around 45% overall from there, so we're looking at high 40s on open shots and low-mid 40s on created ones. BOTH of those numbers are strong, and that's where the first offensive trait comes; Spacing. His shooting spaces the floor. A LOT - despite the fact that he doesn't shoot 3s, he forces bigs out of the paint and opens up the lane. Because he's not a 3-point shooter though, this effect doesn't really show up in the box-score. And yet, this effect will always be present; doesn't matter how much a defense slows down his raw production in the playoffs, the spacing effect will always be present - he's going to try and create shots from out there and he's going to pop/spot-up; give him space/leave him open and he'll convert at .95-1.00 PPP (which is very strong in the halfcourt). Cover him/recover on him with a little guy and he'll just shoot right over. His man has to come out and try and cover him, and this means that there will always be a marginal improvement for the rest of the team with regards to the lane being open. The only real way to reduce this? Have someone at the 1-3 that can cover him (has the size/strength to cope with his shot/inside game for stretches at a time), but even then, you might yield a disadvantage with one of your bigs covering a small ball-handler.
So next, his PnR game. Crucially, he's a dual threat, he's deadly popping out (as demonstrated above) but even crazier rolling to the basket (high 60s-70ish finishing, that includes post/isolation, thus baskets on the roll would likely be higher. The rolls are similar (though not equal) to drives to the basket and aside from finishing offer an opportunity to kick it out. THIS aspect is captured fairly well by the box-score (rolls into finishes - FG%, finishes - PTS, kick outs - direct assists). This is also one that good PnR defense teams can slow down. Close off the PnR by stopping the ball handler (aggressive blitz/trap to force the ball out their hands before the PnR is initiated, or drop center, ice sideline to deny the ball-handler middle), or rely on strong rotations into the lane to close off easy baskets off a roll. When we talk about his postseason dips (mainly PPG and TS%), this is mostly where they're coming from (and face up game which I'll get to later).
So now, the post options. The high post probably yields the largest fraction of his offensive impact. His scoring skills (again, ball-handling to set up midrange game, quickness/explosion to attack the basket straight on, catch&shoot/spotup, etc.) means that he draws a great amount of attention here, again, pulling a big away from the restricted area and up to the free throw line. This is significant because he can spot and capitalize on any off ball movement, use his passing to force rotations until an opportunity is created, play the give and go with a small. Essentially, there are a ton of options available here due to his gravity and diversity, yet almost none of this will show up in the box-score. Unless he hits a cutter with a wide open lane or a shooter with a wide open corner, he's not going to be credited with the assist.
Imagine - he sucks/turns the attention of the defense to himself, a cutter sees an opening and zips in from the wing, which forces a defender from the corner to come over and protect the basket, leaving a shooter open. Garnett hits the cutter who dishes it out, or he kicks the ball out to the perimeter and it is swung around to the open shooter. Garnett's pressure created the opening, and his passing/vision got the ball where it needed to go, but he's given no credit in the box-score.
Give and go is another example - at the top of the key, he gets the ball, his man (a big) is now worried about his shot and starts to close in, the lane has one less protector, the PG who just threw it in to him now curls around him with a quick handoff, his defender now runs into Garnett or his man and the PG gets an open lane to the basket. If someone has rotated over, a shooter will be open, if not, free layup for the PG, or a kick out for a reset for Garnett in the high/mid-block area. IF it works out that the PG gets an opening up top on the handoff, then he may get a pullup and Garnett is credited with an assist, but in most scenarios, it will play out that again, Garnett gets no box-score credit.
The effect of this play on the offense is resilient, its going to remain present against strong defenses. It doesn't matter how strong your rotations are or what kind of personnel you have, the key is that adjustments have to be made to combat a talented high-post hub, and when adjustments are made, there is always a cost (which means the defense must yield somewhere) and therein lies the impact. This is one of the most defense-resistant AND portable offensive skillsets that one can have (you're almost never going to have issue with fit) and its what made Garnett, Walton, 67 Chamberlain, so valuable.
Mid-Post and face-up game are a little more visible in the box-score (similar to PnR). Mostly comprised of either blowing by the defender and making quick moves to the basket (and draw a foul) or setting up the close-mid-range shot. This is his isolation offense, something that will tend to suffer against stronger, well equipped defenses that can close off the lane, which sort of strips away the "attack the basket, draw free throws" part and reduces it to just set up mid-range jumpshots. Garnett's obviously great at these, but taking away the higher-percentage inside shots will hurt his shooting numbers, volume, and FTA bit. The key then is, how disciplined is the defense. Yes they can close the paint off, but can they do so without yielding too much somewhere else - was there a missed rotation/help when someone left his man to help cover the paint. If yes, then there is impact, as there is anytime opportunities are created, if no then its unlikely any opportunity was created and the best option becomes to just shoot a jumper. This is the other feature of his game that isn't as resilient in the face of smart defenses.
The low-post game is crucial because it provides both a spacing effect and the additional value of his scoring. While he lacks the upper body strength to consistently finish inside against larger bigs, he can always just shoot over them at a reliable % instead, and against most matchups he's skilled enough back-to-basket and face-up that he can typically get to the rim and score. Being able to do this means that he draws attention/doubles, and he's one of the best at his position ever at capitalizing by passing out to an open shooter or kicking it out to swing the ball around the perimeter to the open guy (in case the double comes from the opposite corner/baseline) and all of this action tends force rotations enough that you can get some seams for cuts as well. Outside of scoring or making a direct pass to the open guy, the hockey assists won't show up in the box-score. But, more importantly, there is a crucial utility in having a guy diverse enough that he can play inside and out equally effectively - lineup diversity. He fills so many staples of an offense himself that it allows the team to run more specialized lineups/personnel that might not conventionally work, and this forces defenses to adjust (! that's a key word here). He doesn't have to do anything here that shows up in the box-score, all he needs to do is be on the floor. You can argue the low-post ability as a 50/50 box-score/non-box-score, but I'd lean towards giving the latter more weight.
Finally screens. The effect of Garnett's screens is elite, because of his strong lower body base and because of the diversity of his offensive threat (and he just doesn't get called for moving screens). Its tough for most players to go through/over a Garnett screen, which makes him ideal for setting up jumpers and cutters off the ball. When he's screening on the ball, everyone involved has to worry about his dual scoring threat, and when that happens, that gives the ball-handler that much more space to work with. Marginal on a single possession, significant when added up over the course of ~75 possessions, and extremely resilient - how do you stop good screens? You don't really, you just stay as disciplined as possible. And this effect is completely absent in the box-score.
So what's important now is to consider the fact that most of Garnett's offense does not show up in the box-score! And I wouldn't call what he does on the floor the "little things" (this is just something people have been conditioned to say, most things that aren't covered in the box-score have become atypical/unconventional or associated with grit/hustle, despite the fact that these are pretty fundamental basketball actions/skills). Something like 75-80% of his offensive value just simply isn't tracked by "conventional" recordkeeping, yet the focus with Garnett is almost always on the dip in scoring and efficiency. So what if the 20% that is tracked has fallen off. Even if that aspect of his game fell off by 50% (it hasn't), the rest of his game is so fundamentally resilient that I'm not even sure what degree of defense it would take to neutralize it (at least to an effective degree, I'm welcome to explanations), and that still puts him at 80-90% of his max offensive impact (given the increased loads he was typically carrying in the playoffs, I doubt it even went that low). The generalized argument against him of course tends to be "where are the results", and quite frankly it needs to be hammered home that his Minnesota casts were actually that bad. Not mid 2000s Kobe/Lebron bad, like REALLY bad, like worst of any top 10 player bad.
