The KG conundrum

[G35]

To me the key thing is how how easy is find the other pieces to have around a certain player to have a good or great offense, especially from a PO POV.
What I think a little bit gets overlooked sometimes by the biggest Garnett supporters is that you need a ballhandler that is very likely a max guy, and this makes the teams construction more difficult and the player himself less valuable.
There are very few big men that can work without such player (Dirk and Jokic) and some other than can get away with it (Shaq, Hakeem, Timmeh), but Garnett needs actually a real high level primary creator next to him, and those are easy to find.


___
Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

Stephon Marbury
Terrell Brandon
Chauncey Billups
Sam Cassell

That's more than a lot of players get.

Barkley didn't get that until he got to PHX
Kobe never played with a high level creator
DRob never played with a high level creator
I wouldn't say Hakeem played with a high level creator on those championship Rockets teams

You do expect a lot from your superstar players, they have and should fill multiple roles especially in a building/rebuilding situation.

You can't ask a franchise to put everything around a star player right away...it takes time.

Jordan didn't have all those pieces initially, it took time for the Bulls to draft Horace, Scottie, BJ Armstrong, trade for Bill Cartwright.

Actually, Larry and Magic had it easy, they both got to play with high level players right away, so they didn't have some of those issues.

But when the Lakers traded Shaq and it was Kobe and Lamar....there were issues and Kobe was expected to cover up those issues. Same thing with Lebron...same thing with Kevin Durant.

If you look at the Warriors, no one expects Curry to be a high level distributor...all he has to do is shoot well and apply gravity. But why not? Because the Warrior fill a team with role players...high functioning role players, but still role players. Having these do it all players puts a lot of pressure on that star player to do everything.

Curry - shoot logo 3's
Klay - shoot 3's at high volume, defend
Draymond - QB the defense, facilitate, provide energy/emotion
Wiggins - defend, rebound misses, and be energetic
Looney - defend and rebound

If you get a star player that does one thing really well like scoring, then I think its easier to build around them. Because then you can go and find role players on the cheap that can do the things your star player can't do or should not have to do.

The problem with KG is he brings the ball up, he facilitates, he rebounds, he's doing the scoring...so when posters talk about all the things that KG can do, its like so what....the team would be better if he focused on his strengths and let other role players do those things at a higher level....

[henshao]

In response to the OP I would consider Magic a "2nd option" and he could easily be more valuable than the primary scorer in any given year.

[capfan33]

In response to the OP I would consider Magic a "2nd option" and he could easily be more valuable than the primary scorer in any given year.

I definitely don't view Magic as a 2nd option, even though I probably should have been a little clearer in what I define as a 2nd option.

[Doctor MJ]

Just out of curiosity - did you include all Duncan Spurs seasons, or only first 13 of his career?

Whole career. Feel free to point out details that make the comparison more apples-to-apples. This was just easiest.

Thanks for the answer. I think Duncan's past prime seasons may mislead the overall difference between their rosters, because he played on very strong teams after 2010. Still, I would expect that the gap would be still noticeable.

A reasonable point. Thank you for the clarification.

[capfan33]

And to be clear, I full-well understand the value players can have not scoring the ball, but generally speaking I think that it's much easier to win when your best player is a reliable #1 option on offense that can score (or playmake) well enough to win a title. Russell is a bit of an anomaly in that regard.

[eminence]

I think part of what KG may be a victim of is playing in the post MJ era where the best player/talent was expected to be a great offensive player(though that perception has existed for longer). Even Duncan back then was pretty great offensively. Then you had Shaq, Kobe, AI, Tmac etc. So I think KG being this uber talented athletic specimen was expected to become a very good scorer but that's not really the best way to use his talent. So instead of finding another player to also fill the #1 scoring role his team expected him to fill it and that was part of the problem. That isn't the only thing but I think it's part of it. In Boston he was no longer expected to fill that role.

The bigger problem in Minnesota is only one season [2004] did they ever add a player who was top 20-25 for the season. Hardly anyone ever wins when none of his teammates are top 20-25.

Dirk didn't have a single top 25 player after 2004. He won 50 games the next 7 years, including twice over 60 and made two trips to the Finals, including a title.

So it can definitely be done.

And before anyone suggests I am saying the Wolves and Mavs rosters were equal in talent I am not, and I am not interested in going back down the rabbit hole where everyone tries to diminish every teammate. Just pointing out it can be done, and done consistently.

And I think it goes to the heart of the question in the OP.

I also think KG was every bit the basketball player Dirk was, have no issues that most on this forum think he was better, and when I try and compare them against each other mostly just throw my hands up, and say both are great, both are among the 15 best players ever. But I do think Dirk establishes a higher floor, while conceding KG in theory at least provides for a higher ceiling.

Josh Howard was likely a top 25 player multiple years.

[Texas Chuck]

The bigger problem in Minnesota is only one season [2004] did they ever add a player who was top 20-25 for the season. Hardly anyone ever wins when none of his teammates are top 20-25.

Dirk didn't have a single top 25 player after 2004. He won 50 games the next 7 years, including twice over 60 and made two trips to the Finals, including a title.

So it can definitely be done.

And before anyone suggests I am saying the Wolves and Mavs rosters were equal in talent I am not, and I am not interested in going back down the rabbit hole where everyone tries to diminish every teammate. Just pointing out it can be done, and done consistently.

And I think it goes to the heart of the question in the OP.

I also think KG was every bit the basketball player Dirk was, have no issues that most on this forum think he was better, and when I try and compare them against each other mostly just throw my hands up, and say both are great, both are among the 15 best players ever. But I do think Dirk establishes a higher floor, while conceding KG in theory at least provides for a higher ceiling.

Josh Howard was likely a top 25 player multiple years.

Was he? Never remotely all-NBA so he starts at 16. Once an all-star(top 30) but only as an injury replacement and only in the 67 win year where Dallas was so far in front of the field at the break they felt like they had to get a 2nd Mav on the team.

He was a good, but not great offensive player, and about an average defender. The idea that 5 or more teams didn't have a single player as good as him, knowing multiple teams clearly had 2 or 3 players better than him? Yeah that seems optimistic for Howard.

[Cavsfansince84]

Was he? Never remotely all-NBA so he starts at 16. Once an all-star(top 30) but only as an injury replacement and only in the 67 win year where Dallas was so far in front of the field at the break they felt like they had to get a 2nd Mav on the team.

He was a good, but not great offensive player, and about an average defender. The idea that 5 or more teams didn't have a single player as good as him, knowing multiple teams clearly had 2 or 3 players better than him? Yeah that seems optimistic for Howard.

My sense with Dallas(after Nash left) is that they never had a guy I considered to be a second star but a collection of guys who were better than average at their positions with pretty good benches. Once they got a good defensive big it was enough to make them champs. It always seemed like Dirk with a collection of guys who flourished due in some part to getting to play with prime Dirk except for Kidd who was like 36.

[eminence]

Dirk didn't have a single top 25 player after 2004. He won 50 games the next 7 years, including twice over 60 and made two trips to the Finals, including a title.

So it can definitely be done.

And before anyone suggests I am saying the Wolves and Mavs rosters were equal in talent I am not, and I am not interested in going back down the rabbit hole where everyone tries to diminish every teammate. Just pointing out it can be done, and done consistently.

And I think it goes to the heart of the question in the OP.

I also think KG was every bit the basketball player Dirk was, have no issues that most on this forum think he was better, and when I try and compare them against each other mostly just throw my hands up, and say both are great, both are among the 15 best players ever. But I do think Dirk establishes a higher floor, while conceding KG in theory at least provides for a higher ceiling.

Josh Howard was likely a top 25 player multiple years.

Was he? Never remotely all-NBA so he starts at 16. Once an all-star(top 30) but only as an injury replacement and only in the 67 win year where Dallas was so far in front of the field at the break they felt like they had to get a 2nd Mav on the team.

He was a good, but not great offensive player, and about an average defender. The idea that 5 or more teams didn't have a single player as good as him, knowing multiple teams clearly had 2 or 3 players better than him? Yeah that seems optimistic for Howard.

I've got Howard very solidly above average on the defensive side of the ball, which Team USA agreed with - wanting to bring him in along with Battier as a defensive specialist for the '06 FIBA tournament. Only 'article' I could find as of now mentioning it - (https://www.espn.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/1400/espn-mag-josh-howard-turned-down-team-usa).

Consistently a very good player for the Mavs from '05-'09.

[Colbinii]

I think part of what KG may be a victim of is playing in the post MJ era where the best player/talent was expected to be a great offensive player(though that perception has existed for longer). Even Duncan back then was pretty great offensively. Then you had Shaq, Kobe, AI, Tmac etc. So I think KG being this uber talented athletic specimen was expected to become a very good scorer but that's not really the best way to use his talent. So instead of finding another player to also fill the #1 scoring role his team expected him to fill it and that was part of the problem. That isn't the only thing but I think it's part of it. In Boston he was no longer expected to fill that role.

The bigger problem in Minnesota is only one season [2004] did they ever add a player who was top 20-25 for the season. Hardly anyone ever wins when none of his teammates are top 20-25.

Dirk didn't have a single top 25 player after 2004. He won 50 games the next 7 years, including twice over 60 and made two trips to the Finals, including a title.

That may or may not be true but its always nice to look. Im just referencing back to the OBPM and specifically addressing Ryobi's point of Garnett needing a superstar offensive creator next to him.

In 2005 Dirk had Jason Terry as a solid 2nd option [3.0 OBPM] but clearly worse than Cassell [4.1 OBPM in 2004] and Brandon [3.9 OBPM in 2000].

2006 is where the talent level for Dirk's teammates start to recover [specifically as a #2 and #3 option] as Terry [3.6 OBPM] and Howard [2.2 OBPM] emerge.

2007 we see them improve and peak [3.9 OBPM for Terry and 2.7 OBPM for Howard]

So it can definitely be done.

And before anyone suggests I am saying the Wolves and Mavs rosters were equal in talent I am not, and I am not interested in going back down the rabbit hole where everyone tries to diminish every teammate. Just pointing out it can be done, and done consistently.

And I think it goes to the heart of the question in the OP.

It does. I dont see a reason KG couldn't win with an ensemble like the 2010/2011 Mavericks.

I mean, put KG closer to his peak on the 2011 or 2012 Celtics and they are significantly better as a cast than any Timberwolves roster and the team is likely title favorites [and I don't consider that version of Pierce/Allen/Rondo as elite] and the rest of the roster is relatively weak.

At the end of the day, talent and roster balance win championships. The 2004 Pistons are one of the more talented champions when looking at their 1 through 4 and when your #3 option is 34-year old Latrell Sprewell or you have 36-year old Eddie Jones starting 36 games, you aren't winning a championship unless your #2 is an All-time great.

[Texas Chuck]

It does. I dont see a reason KG couldn't win with an ensemble like the 2010/2011 Mavericks.

Without question. Would need to be a slightly difference mix, but I see zero reasons prime KG can't lead a veteran team like that to a title. I mean despite Cassell being the best player on either team, I'd have the 11 Mavs a clearly stronger supporting cast than the 04 Wolves and if Cassell doesn't hurt himself, who knows? But WCF after a 1st overall seed tells you, that was a contending level team that ran into the end of a dynasty with only a shell of their 2nd best player(and by a lot)

My point was more, with those lineups that aren't full of smart, hungry veterans, that Dirk's ability to influence an offense probably provides a higher floor than KG's great two-way game that isn't quite as dominant as Dirk's offensive anchoring.

Just like put both guys on an already good team and KG makes basically any construction you can think of an elite, immediate championship contender, but there are some mixes where Dirk probably doesn't do that.

[jdzimme3]

This idea that one person can contribute equally on the defensive end as they can on offense to me is a fallacy. When I think of top 20 guys all time, the ability to impose your will on offense when needed is an important characteristic. 1 guy can go get buckets, 1 guy can not d up a whole team. It is great to celebrate defensive players but offense is still king. There are very few star players that are weak on offense, there are tons that are weak on d.

[Colbinii]

This idea that one person can contribute equally on the defensive end as they can on offense to me is a fallacy. When I think of top 20 guys all time, the ability to impose your will on offense when needed is an important characteristic. 1 guy can go get buckets, 1 guy can not d up a whole team. It is great to celebrate defensive players but offense is still king. There are very few star players that are weak on offense, there are tons that are weak on d.

Garnett was actually helping on both Kobe and Shaq in 2004 [I posted pictures in the 2017 Top 100 Project].

I also posted pictures of Garnett switching onto LeBron multiple times in the same possession.

If anyone was capable of guarding and helping on multiple stars on one possession, it would have been KG.

We also saw LeBron hold peak Derrick Rose to something like 6.3 FG% over the course of 2 games.

[DQuinn1575]

Josh Howard was likely a top 25 player multiple years.

Was he? Never remotely all-NBA so he starts at 16. Once an all-star(top 30) but only as an injury replacement and only in the 67 win year where Dallas was so far in front of the field at the break they felt like they had to get a 2nd Mav on the team.

He was a good, but not great offensive player, and about an average defender. The idea that 5 or more teams didn't have a single player as good as him, knowing multiple teams clearly had 2 or 3 players better than him? Yeah that seems optimistic for Howard.

I've got Howard very solidly above average on the defensive side of the ball, which Team USA agreed with - wanting to bring him in along with Battier as a defensive specialist for the '06 FIBA tournament. Only 'article' I could find as of now mentioning it - (https://www.espn.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/1400/espn-mag-josh-howard-turned-down-team-usa).

Consistently a very good player for the Mavs from '05-'09.

Howard made the one all-star game and was 25th in All-NBA voting. The only other year he got votes he was 36th.
He was a good player, but calling him top 25 is a reach, and I think the poster's comment is pretty spot on.


https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/howarjo01.html

[DQuinn1575]

Theoretically that is true, but how many times has a player who was not the best offensive player led a team to a championship.

What do you mean by "led"?

If you're asking how many times the best player on title team wasn't their best offensive player, then it happened quite a few times:

2004: Ben Wallace was likely their best player
2005: Duncan wasn't Spurs best offensive player, but he was the best player.
2007: you can argue that Manu was better offensively than Duncan, but Duncan was clearly the best
2008: again, you can argue Pierce but KG was clearly the best
2014: this team didn't have clear best player, but both Duncan and Kawhi were more important defensively than offensively
2020: you can argue that Davis was Lakers best player and LeBron was clearly better on offense

The most recent that would even have a semi-argument would be the 2004 Pistons and they did not really have a "best player", they had a compilation of players that played well together and then they still had to go and get Rasheed from the Hawks to put them over the top.

Rasheed trade helped them mostly on defense, not on offense though.

The 2008 Celtics are similar, they had a group of players that if you take away one then I don't think they win. Even if people want to say KG was the best player, he was incrementally...fractionally better than Paul Pierce. Then they still had Ray Allen, Rondo, Big Baby, Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins making big contributions.

By that logic, you can say that with basically any championship run. It doesn't make any sense, Curry wouldn't have won the title without Klay, Iggy or Green in 2015 either. Same with most LeBron titles.

Garnett wasn't better "fractionally" than Pierce, it's not up to debate who was Celtics best player.

Now you can say that all teams have players making big contributions, but the 2008 Lakers did not have Bynum at all for that series and he was a solid starter. So that Lakers team showed they could have won without Bynum. Take one of those players away from the Celtics and its sketchy. That is the whole argument for 2009 and 2010, is that they didn't have a healthy KG in 2009 or Perkins in 2010.

So your argument is that Lakers could win it all without Bynum, but Celtics would struggle without Big Baby? Seriously?

All the way back until 1980, I can't see the best player who was not also the best offensive player. The only possibilities are the original Bad Boy Pistons who had a similar team construction of high level players who were not quite elite. But Isiah is still considered the best player and the leader of those teams.....

Again, that's because you don't rank defense high enough. I already mentioned quite a few examples from 21st century, but here are more:

1999: you can make a case for Robinson
1990: this one isn't clear cut
1989: another tough one
1982: not sure if Kareem was still better offensively than Magic at that point, but he was clearly the best player on Lakers team
1979: another tough one
1978: Hayes was likely their best player and he wasn't their best offensive player
1976: Cowens
1974: Cowens
1972: Wilt
1969: Russell
1968: Russell
1959-66: Russell

I could argue some, but that's not the point.
Most of the time when you don't have the best player being the offensive leader it is a question who the best player is.

Or, in other words, since the merger, how many times has a top 3 player led his team to a title without being the best offensive player on his team?

[NO-KG-AI]

KG was both a better offensive player, and the more featured offensive player than Paul Pierce over the course of their career, and was responsible for more in the playoffs, and 4th quarters when they won a title. They were pretty evenly featured, but it was still a slight edge to KG.

Neither KG or Robinson are second options unless your team has another high level hall of famer, but even then, it’s relative.

The dude has led a title team as the highest scorer and best passer on the playoff squad… he’s led top 5 offenses with mediocre talent, and he’s been near the top of the league in ppg.

Raw point scoring is his weakest point, but it’s relative because he’s one of the handful of best defenders ever, a record breaking rebounder, and on the very short list of true bigs as a passer.

[LakerLegend]

If you put Garnett on the Spurs instead of Duncan he's probably nearly as successful.

He had two years in his prime with contending level talent, 2004 and 2008 and look what happened.