Where do you rank Kevin Garnett all time?

[jdzimme3]

Garnett led his team to a championship.

Clearly if "team success" is your argument against him, you're rating players higher based on them winning more. Players have won more than gretsky.

This would be a good argument if I said winning more is everything but as I have pointed out twice, I don’t believe that to be so.

Comparing Garnett to Gretzky is, to me, unreasonable


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Comparing a clear cut goat to a not clear cut goat is obviously unreasonable, hence why no such comparison was made. If garnett's winning isn't what keeps him from contention as a top ten all timer, then what does?

Feels like you have gone from complaining about me saying he should be 15-30 to the real issue, you don’t agree with my reasoning. Maybe he original question should have been, why is it unreasonable to have him in the top 10.

Jordan
Russell
Kaj
Lebron
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Kobe
Bird
Magic
Wilt

These guys to me all have clear arguments over Garnett, at least part of that argument is team success in most cases. These are guys who willed their teams to titles, Had higher peaks, and were generally more dominant.

Garnett was awesome but he wasn’t the dominant go to scorer who took over games. To me his impact is pippen+ which is in no way meant to be a slight.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[freethedevil]

This would be a good argument if I said winning more is everything but as I have pointed out twice, I don’t believe that to be so.

Comparing Garnett to Gretzky is, to me, unreasonable


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Comparing a clear cut goat to a not clear cut goat is obviously unreasonable, hence why no such comparison was made. If garnett's winning isn't what keeps him from contention as a top ten all timer, then what does?

Feels like you have gone from complaining about me saying he should be 15-30 to the real issue, you don’t agree with my reasoning. Maybe he original question should have been, why is it unreasonable to have him in the top 10.

Jordan
Russell
Kaj
Lebron
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Kobe
Bird
Magic
Wilt

These guys to me all have clear arguments over Garnett, at least part of that argument is team success in most cases. These are guys who willed their teams to titles, Had higher peaks, and were generally more dominant.

Garnett was awesome but he wasn’t the dominant go to scorer who took over games. To me his impact is pippen+ which is in no way meant to be a slight.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

1. Dominant scoring doesn't scale well. If you're building a great team, dominant scoring becomes rendundant. Passing and defense do not.

2. There are several player son your list who garnett arguably peaked higher than.

3. Garnett's impact #'s, metrics which correlate highly with winning and some of which already have winning baked into the methodolgy rate garnett's prime, peak, and career higher than multiple on your list.

Given that, the notion it is unreasonable to put garnett above the people you've listed seem itself unreasonable. As for team success, the difference between two rings and one is a farcry from the difference between two and 5, so I'm not really seeing how such a standard would keep garnett from contention while not also rendering hakeem> kobe unreasonable.

[jdzimme3]

To second FTD’s point here, the problem is you are not clear about what you are ranking, or even what you are arguing player-to-player. Baylor is somehow in your top fifteen despite accomplishing nothing and having metrics not remotely befitting a supposed top fifteen player (beyond some superficial and pace-inflated scoring numbers). And since your top fifteen appears to be in some intentional order, there is also the implication that Lebron is only eighth on your personal list. Your values seem to often be grossly at odds with more “supportable” values, but you refuse to even offer your values up to criticism by explaining them in any definitive sense.

Feels like you are putting words in my mouth. The order of my list was as they came to my head no specific order. I would have Lebron higher than 8. I didn’t think saying kg was 20ish was an outlandish statement and therefore didn’t assume I needed to post 45 min worth of thoughts to support it.

Someone disagreeing with me is fine but I think t is silly to act like people providing a reasonable range is somehow and insult if it isn’t accompanied by a diatribe of info.

There are statements in here about kg being top 4 all time, just because I personally didn’t go to lengths to refute those statements doesn’t make them reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[liamliam1234]

For those of us not placing Garnett among that top eleven tier, I think that response reads as mostly just another dodge. The case for Garnett as a top ten player invariably tends to consistently refer to “impact” and scalability. The case is a lot wider out of the top eleven, when the list of people who won multiple NBA titles and exhibited over a decade of MVP-level play, as we see in the top eleven, effectively ends. So, acknowledging that Garnett won a title as the best player, won a strong MVP, has many all-NBA years, has fantastic advanced metrics, and has rare longevity, I think having you quantify what puts him below Elgin Baylor should not be something we need to beg you to do. If you do not want to refute the top-ten arguments, the majority here will take that at face value. But you should bother to give some reasoning as to what puts him below others in his generally accepted tier.

[jdzimme3]

Comparing a clear cut goat to a not clear cut goat is obviously unreasonable, hence why no such comparison was made. If garnett's winning isn't what keeps him from contention as a top ten all timer, then what does?

Feels like you have gone from complaining about me saying he should be 15-30 to the real issue, you don’t agree with my reasoning. Maybe he original question should have been, why is it unreasonable to have him in the top 10.

Jordan
Russell
Kaj
Lebron
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Kobe
Bird
Magic
Wilt

These guys to me all have clear arguments over Garnett, at least part of that argument is team success in most cases. These are guys who willed their teams to titles, Had higher peaks, and were generally more dominant.

Garnett was awesome but he wasn’t the dominant go to scorer who took over games. To me his impact is pippen+ which is in no way meant to be a slight.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

1. Dominant scoring doesn't scale well. If you're building a great team, dominant scoring becomes rendundant. Passing and defense do not.

I disagree and think it is no surprise that the vast majority of championship teams have a scorer superior to kg. Kgs inability to take over a game on offense and get a bucket when needed in the clutch is a disadvantage compared to the top 10.

2. There are several player son your list who garnett arguably peaked higher than.



3. Garnett's impact #'s, metrics which correlate highly with winning and some of which already have winning baked into the methodolgy rate garnett's prime, peak, and career higher than multiple on your list.

Kg was on multiple really good teams that never won anything. That to me is a problem when comparing to this list.

Given that, the notion it is unreasonable to put garnett above the people you've listed seem itself unreasonable. As for team success, the difference between two rings and one is a farcry from the difference between two and 5, so I'm not really seeing how such a standard would keep garnett from contention while not also rendering hakeem> kobe unreasonable.

This is so detached from the actual argument. Hakeem lead low talent teams to back to back titles. Was possibly the greatest defensive player of all time while still being by far the teams number 1 option on offense. You don’t want to argue that kg is better because he wasn’t, so instead you argue that if Hakeem was better than Kobe kg could have been better too. Feels like desperate grasping for straws.

I think Garnett is a tier 2 guy. He wasn’t a dominant scorer and didn’t raise his game in the playoffs. I have him at 20ish and think of him similar to how I think of David Robinson, who I love.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[freethedevil]

Feels like you have gone from complaining about me saying he should be 15-30 to the real issue, you don’t agree with my reasoning. Maybe he original question should have been, why is it unreasonable to have him in the top 10.

Jordan
Russell
Kaj
Lebron
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Kobe
Bird
Magic
Wilt

These guys to me all have clear arguments over Garnett, at least part of that argument is team success in most cases. These are guys who willed their teams to titles, Had higher peaks, and were generally more dominant.

Garnett was awesome but he wasn’t the dominant go to scorer who took over games. To me his impact is pippen+ which is in no way meant to be a slight.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

1. Dominant scoring doesn't scale well. If you're building a great team, dominant scoring becomes rendundant. Passing and defense do not.

I disagree and think it is no surprise that the vast majority of championship teams have a scorer superior to kg. Kgs inability to take over a game on offense and get a bucket when needed in the clutch is a disadvantage compared to the top 10.

2. There are several player son your list who garnett arguably peaked higher than.



3. Garnett's impact #'s, metrics which correlate highly with winning and some of which already have winning baked into the methodolgy rate garnett's prime, peak, and career higher than multiple on your list.

Kg was on multiple really good teams that never won anything. That to me is a problem when comparing to this list.

Given that, the notion it is unreasonable to put garnett above the people you've listed seem itself unreasonable. As for team success, the difference between two rings and one is a farcry from the difference between two and 5, so I'm not really seeing how such a standard would keep garnett from contention while not also rendering hakeem> kobe unreasonable.

This is so detached from the actual argument. Hakeem lead low talent teams to back to back titles. Was possibly the greatest defensive player of all time while still being by far the teams number 1 option on offense. You don’t want to argue that kg is better because he wasn’t, so instead you argue that if Hakeem was better than Kobe kg could have been better too. Feels like desperate grasping for straws.

I think Garnett is a tier 2 guy. He wasn’t a dominant scorer and didn’t raise his game in the playoffs. I have him at 20ish and think of him similar to how I think of David Robinson, who I love.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

So that we're clear here, your argument for hakeem against kobe, who was far more successful, is his impact?
http://www.backpicks.com/2018/06/10/aupm-2-0-the-top-playoff-performers-of-the-databall-era/
Funny, that literally any measure of impact puts kg not merely above, but a tier ahead of kobe.

2004 KG had a near unanimous mvp(kobe has never come close to that) as his "low talent" team got the first seed in the west and took the lakers to 6 in the cf with their second best player injured. Then Garnett, at 35, went ahead and won a ring as his team's clear cut #1.

You may think garnett was a tier 2 guy, but until you support that claim, I'm not going to take it seriously.

[freethedevil]

To second FTD’s point here, the problem is you are not clear about what you are ranking, or even what you are arguing player-to-player. Baylor is somehow in your top fifteen despite accomplishing nothing and having metrics not remotely befitting a supposed top fifteen player (beyond some superficial and pace-inflated scoring numbers). And since your top fifteen appears to be in some intentional order, there is also the implication that Lebron is only eighth on your personal list. Your values seem to often be grossly at odds with more “supportable” values, but you refuse to even offer your values up to criticism by explaining them in any definitive sense.

There are statements in here about kg being top 4 all time, just because I personally didn’t go to lengths to refute those statements doesn’t make them reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

If you can't address the argument, you are in no position to assert if it's reasonable or not.

If no "reasonable argument" can be made for him being higher than 13th, then surely you can explain how this take is unreasonable?
http://www.backpicks.com/2018/03/19/backpicks-goat-8-kevin-garnett/

[jdzimme3]

I already explained why I think that take is unreasonable, quoted my issue from the site and everything.

Sorry if the word “reasonable” was too divisive to handle. That’s it for me on this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Jaivl]

2004 KG had a near unanimous mvp(kobe has never come close to that) as his "low talent" team got the first seed in the west and took the lakers to 6 in the cf with their second best player injured. Then Garnett, at 35, went ahead and won a ring as his team's clear cut #1.

Wait, what? Surely you mean at 32?

[Morb]

For which formula? 33% peak + 33% prime + 33% career? I think Top 10. Great physics, great defense, good skill.

[Hal14]

2004 KG had a near unanimous mvp (kobe has never come close to that) as his "low talent" team got the first seed in the west and took the lakers to 6 in the cf with their second best player injured. Then Garnett, at 35, went ahead and won a ring as his team's clear cut #1.

You may think garnett was a tier 2 guy, but until you support that claim, I'm not going to take it seriously.

You'e really showing your bias towards Garnett at this point. You simply won't let it go if anybody tries disagreeing with your opinion that KG is a top 10 player of all-time.

1) KG was not 35 when he won a ring with the Celtics. He was 32 and for the vast majority of that season he was 31. He turned 32 during the playoffs.

2) KG was not the clear cut #1 guy on the 2008 Celtics championship team. He was arguably the #1 guy but Paul Pierce carried that team to the title just as much as KG did. Pierce was the NBA finals MVP...not KG. Pierce led the team in points per game, minutes per game, he was better than KG in FG%, 3 point % and FT %.

3) Let's not put too much stock in KG being the near unanimous MVP winner in 2004. This was an era where the NBA had some very questionable MVP winners. We all know Kobe should have won it in 2009 - not LeBron. It's very debatable whether Steve Nash deserved to win either of his MVPs in 2005 and 2006. Many people think Iverson didn't deserve the MVP in 2001..I could go on....

4) We're supposed to be impressed that KG led his team to the #1 seed in the western conference ONE TIME? But then despite being the higher seeded team, his team lost in the WCF, that's supposed to help your argument for KG?

Not to mention you've posted a link to that backpicks article that ranks KG #8 all-time about 15 different times in this thread...we get it, you like KG. While the backpicks article makes some good points it does some very biased (bias in favor of KG, bias against MJ, etc) seems to put too much emphasis on longevity and impact stats/advanced stats but hey, we're all entitled to our own criteria..

If only KG liked his teammates as much as you like him! What do I mean? Take a look at this thread where the discussion was KG vs Robinson. There was some good debates on both sides but the consensus seemed to be that Robinson was slightly better. One of the most interesting comments from the thread was the one made by G35 here about some of the altercations KG got in with teammates over the years:

viewtopic.php?t=1832046

Leadership and how good of a teammate you are. Intangibles like this don't seem to factor in to your beloved backpicks article. The other players that most on here have in the top 10 ahead of KG don't have those types of issues.

[Hal14]

So, acknowledging that Garnett won a title as the best player, won a strong MVP, has many all-NBA years, has fantastic advanced metrics, and has rare longevity, I think having you quantify what puts him below Elgin Baylor should not be something we need to beg you to do.

Won a strong MVP? Sure, I'll give you that. Winning an MVP over guys like Shaq, Duncan, LeBron, Dirk and Kobe is impressive. But it's just 1 season.

Baylor made the all-NBA first team 10 times. KG only made it 4 times.

Dr. J is one of the most respected players the game has ever seen. Dr. J has Baylor ranked in his top 5 of all-time, while KG does not make the list.

Watch on YouTube

Elgin Baylor holds the all time record for most points in an NBA finals game. He scored 61 on the 1962 Celtics, a team that went on to win the title led by Russell. It's not like Baylor was only a scorer. He was also an insanely good passer:

Watch on YouTube

Baylor revolutionized the way the game was played. Never before had the NBA seen a player who was so good of a rebounder at such a small height...he averaged 13.5 rebounds a game at only 6-foot 5. Never before had the NBA seen a player as big as Baylor who could shoot, handle the ball and pass as well as he could. Never before had the NBA seen a player who was as strong, quick, athletic and explosive, while combining that with sharp basketball skill as well as high basketball I.Q. Even though they didn't call it the small forward position back then (teams just had 2 forwards, not small forward and power forward) Baylor was the one who future small forwards like Dr J, Rick Barry, Larry Bird, Bernard King, James Worthy, Dominique Wilkins and Alex English modeled their games after.

Baylor averaged 40 minutes per game for his career. He averaged over 40 minutes per game 9 out of his 12 full seasons in the league. He averaged 44.4 MPG in the 61-62 season. That's the way the game was back then. If you were a star player you didn't come out of the game. You played through the pain. You did what it took for your team to win. Baylor played those minutes, despite the fact that it was a much faster paced game, much more physical game so the guys back then really took a pounding - they played through it. Not to mention there was less days off to recover in between games, and the guys back then didn't have the advantage that KG and others do today when it comes to modern sports science, weight training, nutrition, etc.

KG meanwhile averaged 34 MPG for his career, much less than Baylor. His career high for MPG was 40.5, obviously much less than Baylor. KG only had 2 seasons his entire career where he averaged over 40 MPG, much less than Baylor.

By all accounts, Baylor was very well respected by his teammates and opponents. You won't see anything negative about him in the press, like you do with KG in this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=1832046

[liamliam1234]

So, acknowledging that Garnett won a title as the best player, won a strong MVP, has many all-NBA years, has fantastic advanced metrics, and has rare longevity, I think having you quantify what puts him below Elgin Baylor should not be something we need to beg you to do.

Won a strong MVP? Sure, I'll give you that. Winning an MVP over guys like Shaq, Duncan, LeBron, Dirk and Kobe is impressive. But it's just 1 season.

Baylor made the all-NBA first team 10 times. KG only made it 4 times.

Dr. J is one of the most respected players the game has ever seen. Dr. J has Baylor ranked in his top 5 of all-time, while KG does not make the list.

Watch on YouTube

Elgin Baylor holds the all time record for most points in an NBA finals game. He scored 61 on the 1962 Celtics, a team that went on to win the title led by Russell. It's not like Baylor was only a scorer. He was also an insanely good passer:

Watch on YouTube

Baylor revolutionized the way the game was played. Never before had the NBA seen a player who was so good of a rebounder at such a small height...he averaged 13.5 rebounds a game at only 6-foot 5. Never before had the NBA seen a player as big as Baylor who could shoot, handle the ball and pass as well as he could. Never before had the NBA seen a player who was as strong, quick, athletic and explosive, while combining that with sharp basketball skill as well as high basketball I.Q. Even though they didn't call it the small forward position back then (teams just had 2 forwards, not small forward and power forward) Baylor was the one who future small forwards like Dr J, Rick Barry, Larry Bird, Bernard King, James Worthy, Dominique Wilkins and Alex English modeled their games after.

Baylor averaged 40 minutes per game for his career. He averaged over 40 minutes per game 9 out of his 12 full seasons in the league. He averaged 44.4 MPG in the 61-62 season. That's the way the game was back then. If you were a star player you didn't come out of the game. You played through the pain. You did what it took for your team to win. Baylor played those minutes, despite the fact that it was a much faster paced game, much more physical game so the guys back then really took a pounding - they played through it. Not to mention there was less days off to recover in between games, and the guys back then didn't have the advantage that KG and others do today when it comes to modern sports science, weight training, nutrition, etc.

KG meanwhile averaged 34 MPG for his career, much less than Baylor. His career high for MPG was 40.5, obviously much less than Baylor. KG only had 2 seasons his entire career where he averaged over 40 MPG, much less than Baylor.

By all accounts, Baylor was very well respected by his teammates and opponents. You won't see anything negative about him in the press, like you do with KG in this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=1832046

1. So did Bob Cousy. Baylor being the fifth or sixth best player if the 1960s does not make him a top fifteen guy.
2. Player opinions are widely variable and often dumb.
3. I already acknowledged the superficial volume scoring. And I like how you try to diminish Garnett’s season-long MVP as isolated, while having a good Finals game is apparently super meaningful. (And again, pace is a major element for volume statistics like that.)
3. Playing more minutes adds value, but as you said, it was part of the era and probably why many retired “early”. Who has more career minutes?
4. He would be better with modern science, but that hardly makes up for the massive talent gap. And unlike the top four of that era, his skills scale much less.
5. For the rest, I recommend you read his backpicks entry. He was a grossly overrated scorer and passer, and a pretty weak defender.

[Timmyyy]

We all know Kobe should have won it in 2009 - not LeBron.

Wait, what? We all know that? That is common knowledge? I must have missed that.

2) KG was not the clear cut #1 guy on the 2008 Celtics championship team. He was arguably the #1 guy but Paul Pierce carried that team to the title just as much as KG did. Pierce was the NBA finals MVP...not KG. Pierce led the team in points per game, minutes per game, he was better than KG in FG%, 3 point % and FT %.

Yeah, you compare offense only. The fact that KG was the co anchor on offense how you just analyzed (where the Celtics weren't even all that good), while being the clear cut most important player on defense, anchoring a historically great defense, IS making him the clear cut best player on the team.

[Hal14]

We all know Kobe should have won it in 2009 - not LeBron.

Wait, what? We all know that? That is common knowledge? I must have missed that.

2) KG was not the clear cut #1 guy on the 2008 Celtics championship team. He was arguably the #1 guy but Paul Pierce carried that team to the title just as much as KG did. Pierce was the NBA finals MVP...not KG. Pierce led the team in points per game, minutes per game, he was better than KG in FG%, 3 point % and FT %.

Yeah, you compare offense only. The fact that KG was the co anchor on offense how you just analyzed (where the Celtics weren't even all that good), while being the clear cut most important player on defense, anchoring a historically great defense, IS making him the clear cut best player on the team.

How I just analyzed, what? You're trying to twist my words around. I didn't say KG was the co-anchor on offense. I said Garnett was arguably the #1 guy...meaning the overall #1 guy on the team, not on offense. Yes, KG was their best defender but Pierce was also a strong defender. And the fact that Pierce outscored KG by 3 points per game and also out-performed him in all of those other categories I mentioned previously (not all of the categories were offense, what about minutes per game?)

Co-anchor on offense? Pierce was the go-to scorer on that team, Allen was their 2nd leading scorer in the finals, KG was also an important part of the offense and none of them would have been as effective without Rondo's playmaking. To say that KG was the clear cut #1 player on that team is a stretch IMO. Even KG would tell you that was Pierce's team.

[Zeitgeister]

We all know Kobe should have won it in 2009 - not LeBron.

Wait, what? We all know that? That is common knowledge? I must have missed that.

2) KG was not the clear cut #1 guy on the 2008 Celtics championship team. He was arguably the #1 guy but Paul Pierce carried that team to the title just as much as KG did. Pierce was the NBA finals MVP...not KG. Pierce led the team in points per game, minutes per game, he was better than KG in FG%, 3 point % and FT %.

Yeah, you compare offense only. The fact that KG was the co anchor on offense how you just analyzed (where the Celtics weren't even all that good), while being the clear cut most important player on defense, anchoring a historically great defense, IS making him the clear cut best player on the team.

How I just analyzed, what? You're trying to twist my words around. I didn't say KG was the co-anchor on offense. I said Garnett was arguably the #1 guy...meaning the overall #1 guy on the team, not on offense. Yes, KG was their best defender but Pierce was also a strong defender. And the fact that Pierce outscored KG by 3 points per game and also out-performed him in all of those other categories I mentioned previously (not all of the categories were offense, what about minutes per game?)

Co-anchor on offense? Pierce was the go-to scorer on that team, Allen was their 2nd leading scorer in the finals, KG was also an important part of the offense and none of them would have been as effective without Rondo's playmaking. To say that KG was the clear cut #1 player on that team is a stretch IMO. Even KG would tell you that was Pierce's team.

KG was the leading scorer in the playoffs and to say Pierce was a strong defender in a comparison to KG just doesn't track at all. KG was several deviations above Pierce as a defender and the primary reason the team's defense was historically great. Their defense was the reason they were as good as they were.

[HeartBreakKid]

KG was the leading scorer during the RS, PS, best passer, best rebounder and best defender on a championship team - yet you have people say that Paul Pierce was just as good as him. Meanwhile guys like Magic and Bird get their ass kissed all the time cause they won a lot when they played with guys who would crush Paul Pierce.

[Bad Gatorade]

We all know Kobe should have won it in 2009 - not LeBron.

Wait, what? We all know that? That is common knowledge? I must have missed that.

2) KG was not the clear cut #1 guy on the 2008 Celtics championship team. He was arguably the #1 guy but Paul Pierce carried that team to the title just as much as KG did. Pierce was the NBA finals MVP...not KG. Pierce led the team in points per game, minutes per game, he was better than KG in FG%, 3 point % and FT %.

Yeah, you compare offense only. The fact that KG was the co anchor on offense how you just analyzed (where the Celtics weren't even all that good), while being the clear cut most important player on defense, anchoring a historically great defense, IS making him the clear cut best player on the team.

How I just analyzed, what? You're trying to twist my words around. I didn't say KG was the co-anchor on offense. I said Garnett was arguably the #1 guy...meaning the overall #1 guy on the team, not on offense. Yes, KG was their best defender but Pierce was also a strong defender. And the fact that Pierce outscored KG by 3 points per game and also out-performed him in all of those other categories I mentioned previously (not all of the categories were offense, what about minutes per game?)

Co-anchor on offense? Pierce was the go-to scorer on that team, Allen was their 2nd leading scorer in the finals, KG was also an important part of the offense and none of them would have been as effective without Rondo's playmaking. To say that KG was the clear cut #1 player on that team is a stretch IMO. Even KG would tell you that was Pierce's team.

Why do only the finals matter?

For a team to be "carried to a title", they need to win 4 rounds, not just one, and KG (+10.3 on, +19.8 on/off) was quite clearly the best Celtic on their way to the title. Pierce was +7.9 and +8.6 in these metrics. If KG played at the same level as Pierce, they quite arguably don't beat the Hawks, nor do they beat the Cavs (both series were won in 7 games).

If you aren't a fan of impact metrics, then note that KG was also handily ahead in most box score metrics, such as PER (23.0 to 17.4), WS/48 (0.199 to 0.145) and BPM (6.4 to 3.9). It's competitive when we look at PPG and TS% (20.4 and 54.2 for KG, 19.7 and 57 for PP); in fact, one could give the edge to Pierce here if they value efficiency highly. It is, however, worth noting that KG was ahead in ORTG (112 to 110) which is an overall offensive box score efficiency measure (i.e. it also includes turnovers, assists and offensive boards). So, across the entirety of the playoffs, their offensive contributions, as measured by the box score, at the very least seem in the same ballpark.

Claiming that Pierce outperformed KG in MPG as a non-offensive category when he played 38.1 minutes to 38.0 is... interesting analysis, to say the least.

But KG is known for having impact that's not in the box score... so how did these 3 compare in the playoffs in terms of Net ratings? I'll use a 5 year sample from 2008-2012.

On their own, Paul Pierce was -9.85 (282 minutes), Allen was -5.74 (248 minutes), KG was +38.1 (30 minutes only).

The combination of these guys (i.e. 2 on, one off) -
Pierce/Allen was -16.89 (303 minutes)
KG/Pierce was +6.91 (402 minutes)
KG/Allen was +12.20 (369 minutes)

All 3 together was +6.43 (1937 minutes).

I generally think these sample sizes are small, but the NBA finals was a grand total of 288 minutes, and considering your previous metric was looking at PPG and efficiency in only 288 minutes of data, I feel like sample sizes aren't of great use to you.

But I digress - note how even with Pierce and Allen, the Celtics were just not that great in the playoffs, but they consistently fared well with Garnett? And it's been a consistent theme with Garnett his entire career - teams have constantly played better with him when he is on the court.

Also, I do think that Pierce is a good defender, and in general, I feel like Pierce is quite underrated historically, but KG Is an all time great defender, who had a lethal combination of size, athleticism and awareness that few players ever had. Most larger scale RAPM samples (including the 2012-2016 sample, where KG led the league FROM AGES 35 TO 39) place KG as the best defender in the league since his move to Boston, and as a top 5 defender prior to that. Of course, I do suspect that KG could have been ranked #1 with the Wolves had he not been tasked with quarterbacking the offence for those teams too (where, from 2002-2006, he was actually ranked 3rd in ORAPM too!)

But of course, Pierce was a better scorer in a 6 game finals series, so he's the arguable best player and the #1 option, right?

Was Tony Parker a better player than Tim Duncan because he was a better scorer than him in a finals series in 2007?

[Timmyyy]

We all know Kobe should have won it in 2009 - not LeBron.

Wait, what? We all know that? That is common knowledge? I must have missed that.

2) KG was not the clear cut #1 guy on the 2008 Celtics championship team. He was arguably the #1 guy but Paul Pierce carried that team to the title just as much as KG did. Pierce was the NBA finals MVP...not KG. Pierce led the team in points per game, minutes per game, he was better than KG in FG%, 3 point % and FT %.

Yeah, you compare offense only. The fact that KG was the co anchor on offense how you just analyzed (where the Celtics weren't even all that good), while being the clear cut most important player on defense, anchoring a historically great defense, IS making him the clear cut best player on the team.

How I just analyzed, what? You're trying to twist my words around. I didn't say KG was the co-anchor on offense. I said Garnett was arguably the #1 guy...meaning the overall #1 guy on the team, not on offense. Yes, KG was their best defender but Pierce was also a strong defender. And the fact that Pierce outscored KG by 3 points per game and also out-performed him in all of those other categories I mentioned previously (not all of the categories were offense, what about minutes per game?)

Co-anchor on offense? Pierce was the go-to scorer on that team, Allen was their 2nd leading scorer in the finals, KG was also an important part of the offense and none of them would have been as effective without Rondo's playmaking. To say that KG was the clear cut #1 player on that team is a stretch IMO. Even KG would tell you that was Pierce's team.

It wasn't my intention to put words into your mouth. I wrongly gave you the benefit of the doubt, since I thought there is no way to deny that KG was the second leading scorer in the RS only 0.8 PPG behind Pierce and the leading scorer in the playoffs while being a really important playmaker. But you made it, by reducing the whole season to the finals. A 6 game sample. Why stop there? I am pretty sure Perkins had a game where he outscored KG too, so maybe he was also a more valuable scoring option than KG.

Thing is KG and Pierce were the Go-to scorer no matter how hard you try to deny it. KG and Pierce also both were important playmaker although Rondo was the engine. Allen was the off ball threat. All in all these 4 shared responsibilities quite evenly on offense. But overall the offense wasn't even all that great so why would I give so much credit to to an individual that played in an offense with shared offensive load that wasn't even the reason for the big time success the team had?

The defense was what made this team so great and KG was the heart and soul of that and 'Pierce was a good defender too' doesn't compare to what KG did. KG had a humongous impact with a huge role on D, while having a good impact in a big (although shared) role on O. Pierce had a good impact in a big (although shared) role on offense, while having a good impact in a smaller role on defense. So yes, it is pretty clear who the best player on that celtics team was and you guessing that KG would tell us otherwise isn't changing that (it would only prove that KG is either humble or an idiot).

Edit: Thanks Bad Gatorade, great post. That was the analysis I was to lazy to do.

[Hal14]

So, acknowledging that Garnett won a title as the best player, won a strong MVP, has many all-NBA years, has fantastic advanced metrics, and has rare longevity, I think having you quantify what puts him below Elgin Baylor should not be something we need to beg you to do.

Won a strong MVP? Sure, I'll give you that. Winning an MVP over guys like Shaq, Duncan, LeBron, Dirk and Kobe is impressive. But it's just 1 season.

Baylor made the all-NBA first team 10 times. KG only made it 4 times.

Dr. J is one of the most respected players the game has ever seen. Dr. J has Baylor ranked in his top 5 of all-time, while KG does not make the list.

Watch on YouTube

Elgin Baylor holds the all time record for most points in an NBA finals game. He scored 61 on the 1962 Celtics, a team that went on to win the title led by Russell. It's not like Baylor was only a scorer. He was also an insanely good passer:

Watch on YouTube

Baylor revolutionized the way the game was played. Never before had the NBA seen a player who was so good of a rebounder at such a small height...he averaged 13.5 rebounds a game at only 6-foot 5. Never before had the NBA seen a player as big as Baylor who could shoot, handle the ball and pass as well as he could. Never before had the NBA seen a player who was as strong, quick, athletic and explosive, while combining that with sharp basketball skill as well as high basketball I.Q. Even though they didn't call it the small forward position back then (teams just had 2 forwards, not small forward and power forward) Baylor was the one who future small forwards like Dr J, Rick Barry, Larry Bird, Bernard King, James Worthy, Dominique Wilkins and Alex English modeled their games after.

Baylor averaged 40 minutes per game for his career. He averaged over 40 minutes per game 9 out of his 12 full seasons in the league. He averaged 44.4 MPG in the 61-62 season. That's the way the game was back then. If you were a star player you didn't come out of the game. You played through the pain. You did what it took for your team to win. Baylor played those minutes, despite the fact that it was a much faster paced game, much more physical game so the guys back then really took a pounding - they played through it. Not to mention there was less days off to recover in between games, and the guys back then didn't have the advantage that KG and others do today when it comes to modern sports science, weight training, nutrition, etc.

KG meanwhile averaged 34 MPG for his career, much less than Baylor. His career high for MPG was 40.5, obviously much less than Baylor. KG only had 2 seasons his entire career where he averaged over 40 MPG, much less than Baylor.

By all accounts, Baylor was very well respected by his teammates and opponents. You won't see anything negative about him in the press, like you do with KG in this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=1832046

1. So did Bob Cousy. Baylor being the fifth or sixth best player if the 1960s does not make him a top fifteen guy.
2. Player opinions are widely variable and often dumb.
3. I already acknowledged the superficial volume scoring. And I like how you try to diminish Garnett’s season-long MVP as isolated, while having a good Finals game is apparently super meaningful. (And again, pace is a major element for volume statistics like that.)
3. Playing more minutes adds value, but as you said, it was part of the era and probably why many retired “early”. Who has more career minutes?
4. He would be better with modern science, but that hardly makes up for the massive talent gap. And unlike the top four of that era, his skills scale much less.
5. For the rest, I recommend you read his backpicks entry. He was a grossly overrated scorer and passer, and a pretty weak defender.

I'll assume that the rest of my post was rock solid since you only have issues with these 5 parts.

1. So did Bob Cousy? I don't even know where this comparison came from? Baylor and Cousy both did what exactly? I said many things about Baylor. Which also applies to Cousy? I assure you, just because Cousy may have done one thing similar to Baylor, doesn't mean I am saying that Cousy = Baylor. You're twisting my words around. Hmmm, top players from the 60s: Wilt/Russell, then West/Big O and then right behind them is Baylor. So he's the fifth best player of the 60s. Look, I don't even have Baylor in my top 15. I have him in the 16-20 range, and I have KG in the 21-25 range. Yes, I do think it's fair that the fifth best player of the 60s could be a top 20 player all-time.
2. hmm, not buying it. So your opinion matters more than a guy who's a hall of fame player, one of the most respected players of all time, who later went on to be Vice President of RDV Sports and Executive Vice President of the Orlando Magic as well as a basketball analyst on TV? I'm not saying that I agree completely with the Doctor's top 5, but I do take the fact that he has Baylor ranked so highly into account.
3. Robert Parish played more minutes than anyone ever, so what? I'd rather of a guy that was a an absolute animal for 12 years over a guy who was good for 19 years. Hence, why guys like Jordan, Wilt and Russell are still consensus top 10 players of all-time despite having what you might consider a "short" career..
4. Massive talent gap between KG and Baylor? You could debate which player was more talented but to say there's a massive talent gap between the two is a stretch. As I said in my previous post, Baylor revolutionized the game. Never before had we seen a player of his size who could rebound so well, a player of his size who could pass, handle the ball and shoot it from the perimeter so well. He could score from anywhere on the floor and is one of the greatest passing forwards of all time as well as a strong defender.
5. Does he look like an overrated passer on in that video I posted? Scoring 69 points in the finals against arguably the greatest defender of all-time and against arguably the greatest team of all time is overrated? I'll check out the backpicks article, but he seems to be pretty biased against players from that era and biased in favor of the modern era..