How many KG years over Peak Ewing?

[Owly]

Not sure what point you are making. No one is saying that his age 19 year is his prime. ...

The poster suggest you are saying it is part of it. And you'll forgive the confusion ...

In Garnett's first 12 years in the NBA (his prime)

Especially when you still seem to be trying to broadly defend it with this ...

Most players have their defensive primes when they are younger.

At 19 though?

his inability to impact defenses for the Wolves is telling

That seems to be somewhere between not knowing of better tools or not caring. For an 11 year spell (97-2007 i.e. from the start of the play by play era to his departure) Minnesota do 12.2 points better overall with him on the court. Long term RAPM studies show him to be a substantially impactful player. Looking at at 97-14 (Googlesites), 97-22 and 97-24 (w playoffs) RAPM all have him as one of the best defenders over that span (7th, 3rd, 1st) and generating the larger proportion of his impact on defense (roughly between a little under 2/3s to approaching 3/4 - eyeballing the numbers).

I will not engage further in the 19-year-old matter, it is nonsense. I stated in his first 12 years. If you are telling me that players are not better defensively in their first 12 years, well, I can't have a serious discussion with you. Either way, it is a straw man argument with no value.

I concur this should be a last go round on this.

This thread of discussion is entirely your doing. You labelled a span including a rookie year straight out of high school as "prime" but excluded a serious MVP contention year and actual DPoY year in a discussion increasingly focused on defense. You were challenged on this by another poster and half denied it.

No one is saying that his age 19 year is his prime

and half defended it in imprecise terms

Most players have their defensive primes when they are younger.

Younger than what?

You continue to do the same again saying it's a straw man - myself and the original poster have made clear it is merely a repetition of your own statement - and posting an adjacent defense of an imprecise position ...

If you are telling me that players are not better defensively in their first 12 years, well, I can't have a serious discussion with you

Better than what?

To be clear - and in a similarly final intended post in this exchange - in post 12 "Garnett's first 12 years in the NBA" is called "(his prime)" - it is unambiguous ...

In Garnett's first 12 years in the NBA (his prime)

A post queries this definition, specifically that your definitions leads to an inclusion of straight out of high school Garnett but not 2008 defensive player of the year Garnett.

At this point I can only read the defensiveness on this matter: suggesting it is others you can't have a serious discussion with, standing by the 12 year definition, without any attempt to clarify, as seeking to defend the choice to exclude 2008 from Garnett's prime (and latterly based on phrasing about defense, his defensive prime) whilst including his rookie year. I don't want to believe that's the position taken, because it seems, on the face of it, absurd, but I struggle to come to any other conclusion.

On the chance that this is a serious attempt to engage

I am not suggesting KG is not a great defender. He absolutely is. He just isn't as impactful as Ewing. RAPM is a highly limited stat. It is interesting but not one that I put great faith in to compare players with. I don't dismiss it, but it is not a comprehensive measure to be used for player comparison. By the way, what is Ewing's RAPM?

Again, how can the defenses KG was on while at Minnesota be explained? How could he not elevate defenses when great rim protecting big men like Ewing, Robinson, Duncan, Russell and Olajuwan could?

I'm not that into parsing out credit on particular ends. The framing of Garnett versus Ewing would depend on definitions. Any long term RAPM for Ewing would essentially be entirely outside his prime as the play-by-play era starts in 96-97. There isn't one number as people have calculated different versions as stated in the previous post. But for what it's worth, post-prime Ewing looks strong defensively ranking (and these players will have different size samples and different confidence intervals) 19th, 166th and 69th in the aforementioned respective long-term RAPM studies.

You ask for Minnesota's performance to be explained. And whilst I think no one believes RAPM (or a RAPM) is foolproof, various runnings of the methodology find that lineups with KG are far better defensively than ones without him and that weak teammates are dragging him down. Different studies will vary on individuals by degree but when looking at the highest minutes Timberwolves between 96-97 and 2006-07 - the start point dictated by the start of the play-by-play era, though also usefully not including a teenage Garnett as part of his in prime picture) we see impact stats suggest Szczerbiak ... negative defender; Peeler ... negative defender; Trenton Hassell ... negative defender; older Sam Mitchell ... negative defender - now this is where negative just means below average without any positional adjustment (smaller players have tended to be more positive on offense and negative on defense) and a quick skim of the first few minutes leaders across some of the RAPMs cited, one could of course dive into every teammate look at the various RAPM calculations account for the two numbers and see how they fit and see how they match up with comprehensive defensive film study, defensive defensive reputations and/or the raw on-off number. The thing is, whilst it isn't infallible and my understanding of it isn't complete, it is comparing the different lineups in a far more comprehensive way than I suspect most who just say "Why aren't the Timberwolves better?" Especially if it is as clankily and perhaps misleadingly phrased as "he never had the individual impact on defense to improve the overall effectiveness of the team defense" where of course, a cursory glance at Minnesota's splits would let you see that their defense improved substantially with him on court - for instance in 2003 - 102.4 Drtg with him on; 110.9 with him off - or 2004 - 98.5 with him on; 104.6 with him off.

And, whilst I'm not so into the specific defensive comparison as it depends on definitions I think ignoring the elite 2008 Celtics defense and the role Garnett played in it (and later Celtics defenses) would require either a very large blind spot or willful ignorance. Or if flipped and the question is "why not great team results every time" one can ask why the Knicks' defenses were never better than 2 points above average and typically around average through to 1991. And whilst some of the answer will be in players fluctuating, growing, getting hurt etc, the simple answers is at least four other players play, when you're on the bench 5 and coaches impact defenses too. The crude team level stuff doesn't explain why choose a particular player on the team, either. One could technically accurately, if misleadingly, say that the Knicks don't get good on defense until Anthony Mason arrives and tab him as their star defender rather than Ewing.

[eminence]

Top 10-15 defenses in a 23 team vs 30 team league was amusing.

Both led pretty mediocre defenses up until about age 30, then both went on an all-time run.

I prefer KG defensively, but the error bars are there to go Ewing if one wanted. The team results and awards stuff are not too dissimilar. Ewings age 31+ impact indicators are decent, but seem a step down from KG at a similar age or seasons played. I feel KG was pretty solidly better in his best Minnesota years than he was in Boston, while I don't feel Ewing was meaningfully better in ~'90 than he was in '94/'95.

Overall I'd take a handful of KG seasons, with the gap mostly being on offense. A ton better passer than Ewing.

I'll go with '03-'08 as a tier up. '00-'02 and '10-'12 arguable. '05 arguable the other way, maybe KG really did have his impact crater that season for whatever reason.

Edit:

Note, that's for 'goodness' if we were going with greatness instead I'd only have '04/'08 clearly above Ewing, though still a handful of others arguable imo.

[Djoker]

I'd take a couple of KG seasons over Ewing... at least 2003 and 2004 off the top of my head. Overall, he's the better player.

The defensive error bars are quite large. I strongly believe that KG is the better defender though whether it's by a little or by a lot is debatable. Ewing is the better vertical defender/rim protector which does give him a boost in that discussion.

On offense, neither guy is really well suited to being the #1 option on a title team, albeit for different reasons. KG lacks in terms of taking over games as a scorer while Ewing lacks the passing ability to be an offensive hub. I see them as pretty equal on that end.

[Smoothbutta]

At least six years of KG's prime.

Ewing has nearly zero first place votes for MVP for a reason, he had midrange yet didn't have exceptional shooting efficiency, top 10 biggest black holes, he is roughly a top 20 all-time defender not a top 3-5 like KG.

[Red Beast]

Top 10-15 defenses in a 23 team vs 30 team league was amusing.

Both led pretty mediocre defenses up until about age 30, then both went on an all-time run.

I prefer KG defensively, but the error bars are there to go Ewing if one wanted. The team results and awards stuff are not too dissimilar. Ewings age 31+ impact indicators are decent, but seem a step down from KG at a similar age or seasons played. I feel KG was pretty solidly better in his best Minnesota years than he was in Boston, while I don't feel Ewing was meaningfully better in ~'90 than he was in '94/'95.

Overall I'd take a handful of KG seasons, with the gap mostly being on offense. A ton better passer than Ewing.

I'll go with '03-'08 as a tier up. '00-'02 and '10-'12 arguable. '05 arguable the other way, maybe KG really did have his impact crater that season for whatever reason.

Edit:

Note, that's for 'goodness' if we were going with greatness instead I'd only have'04/'08 clearly above Ewing, though still a handful of others arguable imo.

I think I may not engage you after this. You are being intellectually dishonest. There were only 23 teams in the league for Ewing's first three years. This includes his rookie year which was the year he took the team from 19th to fifth place. In his third year, his team was 7th of 23.

There can be no denying that overall, Ewing had better defenses, for a significantly longer period. Ewing only had one year with a poor defense (his second). That year he only played 63 games. In the 12 years Garnett was in Minnesota his defenses were in the bottom half of the league 7 times. That happened to Ewing once in his first 12 years. To summarise, Ewing had good defenses with virtually no bad defenses, and several great defenses. Garnett had several bad defenses, several average defenses and a couple of good defenses. This is over a 12-year period, so not small. Ewing has good defensive teammates at the end but many average and poor teammates (defensively) at the beginning.

How can someone be considered a top 3-5 defender of all time (ludicrous) when they are just not impacting the game enough? Sadly, many of the posters of this board only look at RAPM as a measure of efficacy but do not consider other indicators. RAPM is a great stat but cannot be used reliably as a comparison tool to determine which player is better than others. People do not think that Bill Russell is the greatest defender of all time because of his RAPM, their opinion is based on the fact that he led the number one defense in the NBA for 12 of his 13 years in the league. In the year he didn't, he came second. There are also no comprehensive RAPM stats for 20th century players which diminishes their reputation. I'd love to see the RAPM stats for Hayes, Cowens, Unseld, DeBusschere etc.

Again, and you still haven't done this (or can't), how do you explain Garnett's lack of impact on defense for the first 12 years of his career?

[FuShengTHEGreat]

0....Show me one playoff series from KG as good as Ewing vs heavily favored Boston in 1990? NY had no business even being on the floor with the much more talented Boston Celtics in that series and looked like deer in the headlights the first 2 games.

That for me is the greatest individual underdog comeback playoff performance in NBA history.

He had next to 0 offensive help vs eventual champions Detroit, the only game NY won he put up a sublime 45/13.

Ewing 90 1st rd: 28.2 OA pts/75 on +7.4 opp adj rTS
KG 08 ECF: 28.1 OA pts/75 on +6.7 opp adj rTS

WOW! What a big difference!

Yeah, no. A 32 year old KG who wasn't even having the most offensive role on his team, and wasn't at his peak in scoring, was similar to a 28 yr old Ewing at his offensive peak with a trash team vs an old ahh Celtics. It's not close.

Give me 2000-08, 10, and 12 over 90 Ewing. Argument for 99, 11, and 13 as well.

So as much as 14 years over peak Ewing. I side around 11 years.

Stop making me laugh . He had FAR more help in 08. How on earth did KG compares to Patrick putting up a 32-11 series with a bunch of scrubs alongside him to upset Boston? That Knicks team wasnt even as talented as any team KG played with in Minnesota that people are crying on RealGM about not having help.

How did KG get to the ECF in the first place that year?

Off the back of what ended up as what I consider the most underwhelming title run in NBA history. On a stacked Boston team that went 16-10 that year.

Needed a tonne of help to beat the lowly under .500 8th seeded Atlanta Hawks. Then played spectator in game 7 to the LBJ vs PP duel.

If prime Patrick had that sort of help, NY beats both Chicago and Houston in the 90s and is a top 5 Center ever.

MVP KG was shooting in the mid 40s throughout the playoffs, he wasn't even getting out the 1st rd vs 1990 Boston in Ewings shoes.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Most likely none.

A 30ppg C with Defense on par with Hakeem is really hard for a PF to compete with. KG plays the least important position wasting his defense on role players and being the easiest position to double team. On top of that KG just isn't a franchise player on offense and can't carry teams.

Wow! Truer words never more spoken. The bolded sums up his performance vs Dallas in 02 and overrated defense many on RealGM rave about. They needed KG to cut off the head from the snake aka Dirk who was red hot and where was this guy? For the most part roaming around guarding no one of worth and getting cooked by Dirk the few times he was brave enough to.

Of course the Knicks gave Olajuwon different looks in 94 with Oak and Mase, but Ewing for the most part guarded Olajuwon and did a very good job in not letting him explode like what took place in the next years playoffs vs Robinson. It was his offence that series that was dogcrap.

Imagine Hakeem roasting NY and Ewing spending large portions on defense guarding some scrub like KG vs Dallas with Dirk going nuclear?

[FuShengTHEGreat]

At least six years of KG's prime.

Ewing has nearly zero first place votes for MVP for a reason, he had midrange yet didn't have exceptional shooting efficiency, top 10 biggest black holes, he is roughly a top 20 all-time defender not a top 3-5 like KG.

To begin with the first few years, Ewing and Cartwright were getting in the way of one another playing the same position.

Then shortly after that much of Ewings career was intertwined with the prime/peak versions of Olajuwon and Robinson. And then when Shaq came on the scene it was hard enough to even make an all NBA team. Most of KGs prime seasons wouldn't get him in the MVP conversation either competing vs the seasons Olajuwon, Robinson & O'Neal were having in the mid 90s.

[70sFan]

At least six years of KG's prime.

Ewing has nearly zero first place votes for MVP for a reason, he had midrange yet didn't have exceptional shooting efficiency, top 10 biggest black holes, he is roughly a top 20 all-time defender not a top 3-5 like KG.

To begin with the first few years, Ewing and Cartwright were getting in the way of one another playing the same position.

Then shortly after that much of Ewings career was intertwined with the prime/peak versions of Olajuwon and Robinson. And then when Shaq came on the scene it was hard enough to even make an all NBA team. Most of KGs prime seasons wouldn't get him in the MVP conversation either competing vs the seasons Olajuwon, Robinson & O'Neal were having in the mid 90s.

Garnett literally competed with prime Shaq and Duncan for the MVP.

Ewing didn't lose his MVPs to Olajuwon, Robinson or O'Neal. He wouldn't get a single MVP even if all these 3 wouldn't exist.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

At least six years of KG's prime.

Ewing has nearly zero first place votes for MVP for a reason, he had midrange yet didn't have exceptional shooting efficiency, top 10 biggest black holes, he is roughly a top 20 all-time defender not a top 3-5 like KG.

To begin with the first few years, Ewing and Cartwright were getting in the way of one another playing the same position.

Then shortly after that much of Ewings career was intertwined with the prime/peak versions of Olajuwon and Robinson. And then when Shaq came on the scene it was hard enough to even make an all NBA team. Most of KGs prime seasons wouldn't get him in the MVP conversation either competing vs the seasons Olajuwon, Robinson & O'Neal were having in the mid 90s.

Garnett literally competed with prime Shaq and Duncan for the MVP.

Ewing didn't lose his MVPs to Olajuwon, Robinson or O'Neal. He wouldn't get a single MVP even if all these 3 wouldn't exist.

My post was referring to who Ewing was competing against....at his Center position for all NBA honors vs who KG in Minnesota was competing at, at PF for his accolades when one talks of MVP voting.

During a 3 year stretch from 1993-1996 Ewing averaged an impressive 24ppg - 11rpg and 2 blocks a night while leading NY on average to over 50 wins a season......and couldn't even make an all NBA team.

[One_and_Done]

I really worry about the mobility of Ewing today, given his relative weight and knee issues. He used to look exhausted even in the grind it out 90s, I feel like his impact would be reduced. It's also tough to keep the weight off when you have 2 bad knees.

[70sFan]

To begin with the first few years, Ewing and Cartwright were getting in the way of one another playing the same position.

Then shortly after that much of Ewings career was intertwined with the prime/peak versions of Olajuwon and Robinson. And then when Shaq came on the scene it was hard enough to even make an all NBA team. Most of KGs prime seasons wouldn't get him in the MVP conversation either competing vs the seasons Olajuwon, Robinson & O'Neal were having in the mid 90s.

Garnett literally competed with prime Shaq and Duncan for the MVP.

Ewing didn't lose his MVPs to Olajuwon, Robinson or O'Neal. He wouldn't get a single MVP even if all these 3 wouldn't exist.

My post was referring to who Ewing was competing against....at his Center position for all NBA honors vs who KG in Minnesota was competing at, at PF for his accolades when one talks of MVP voting.

During a 3 year stretch from 1993-1996 Ewing averaged an impressive 24ppg - 11rpg and 2 blocks a night while leading NY on average to over 50 wins a season......and couldn't even make an all NBA team.

Your post was refering to the MVP conversation, you now changed the narrative to all-nba votes.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Garnett literally competed with prime Shaq and Duncan for the MVP.

Ewing didn't lose his MVPs to Olajuwon, Robinson or O'Neal. He wouldn't get a single MVP even if all these 3 wouldn't exist.

My post was referring to who Ewing was competing against....at his Center position for all NBA honors vs who KG in Minnesota was competing at, at PF for his accolades when one talks of MVP voting.

During a 3 year stretch from 1993-1996 Ewing averaged an impressive 24ppg - 11rpg and 2 blocks a night while leading NY on average to over 50 wins a season......and couldn't even make an all NBA team.

Your post was refering to the MVP conversation, you now changed the narrative to all-nba votes.

They are intertwined

[Hook_Em]

I’d take 99-08’ KG over any version of Ewing.

[Owly]

My post was referring to who Ewing was competing against....at his Center position for all NBA honors vs who KG in Minnesota was competing at, at PF for his accolades when one talks of MVP voting.

During a 3 year stretch from 1993-1996 Ewing averaged an impressive 24ppg - 11rpg and 2 blocks a night while leading NY on average to over 50 wins a season......and couldn't even make an all NBA team.

Your post was refering to the MVP conversation, you now changed the narrative to all-nba votes.

They are intertwined

My view

FuSheng was consistently talking about both, including the list of centers ahead of Ewing for both (post 28).
The post they initially responded to by Smoothbutta wasn't (post 24).
They aren't intertwined. I mean the players in front of him for Center accolades will likely be in front of him for other accolades. But there's a several great centers ahead of him on All-NBA isn't a great defense for MVP finishes. Maybe at the margin you could argue perception eventually gets changed by all-league voting?

vs who KG in Minnesota was competing at, at PF for his accolades when one talks of MVP voting

This is a touch odd in two senses the first that it smushes the two accolades/categories together ... "competing at, at PF [positional specific competition] for his accolades when one talks of MVP voting [not position specific]"; the second that it seemingly dismisses, without explicit mention of, who Garnett was competing against ... where his entire prime aligns with that of probably the best player ever at his position (or perhaps his rival for that, depending on perspective) and another circa top 20 all time player (Duncan and Nowitzki). And then for what it's worth, though clearly lower, there's another player on a similar timeline whose box apex actually surpasses Ewing's (2006 Brand's season better by PER; WS/48; BPM; playoff PER; playoff WS/48 and playoff BPM than any Ewing season). You could argue that the top-end (the specifically) mid-90s center competition was even higher or that specifically for all-league purposes the combined forward positions meant potentially less penalty at a loaded position. But not actually acknowledging the very high level, long-term competition seems off.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Your post was refering to the MVP conversation, you now changed the narrative to all-nba votes.

They are intertwined

My view

FuSheng was consistently talking about both, including the list of centers ahead of Ewing for both (post 28).
The post they initially responded to by Smoothbutta wasn't (post 24).
They aren't intertwined. I mean the players in front of him for Center accolades will likely be in front of him for other accolades. But there's a several great centers ahead of him on All-NBA isn't a great defense for MVP finishes. Maybe at the margin you could argue perception eventually gets changed by all-league voting?

vs who KG in Minnesota was competing at, at PF for his accolades when one talks of MVP voting

This is a touch odd in two senses the first that it smushes the two accolades/categories together ... "competing at, at PF [positional specific competition] for his accolades when one talks of MVP voting [not position specific]"; the second that it seemingly dismisses, without explicit mention of, who Garnett was competing against ... where his entire prime aligns with that of probably the best player ever at his position (or perhaps his rival for that, depending on perspective) and another circa top 20 all time player (Duncan and Nowitzki). And then for what it's worth, though clearly lower, there's another player on a similar timeline whose box apex actually surpasses Ewing's (2006 Brand's season better by PER; WS/48; BPM; playoff PER; playoff WS/48 and playoff BPM than any Ewing season). You could argue that the top-end (the specifically) mid-90s center competition was even higher or that specifically for all-league purposes the combined forward positions meant potentially less penalty at a loaded position. But not actually acknowledging the very high level, long-term competition seems off.

Puhleeze. KG wasnt even as good as Olajuwon, O Neal or even pre injury Robinson at either end of the floor that Ewing was vying against for regular season awards. Not even Duncan nor Dirk ever once led the NBA in scoring, rebounding or shotblocking, nor won a DPOY like the 3 aforementioned Centers who managed 1 or even more than 1 of those feats.

Obviously Ewing had major individual flaws but to hold him not being in the MVP conversation against him without factoring in who was ahead of him those years at the same position, is a biased argument without context as far as I'm concerned.

If Ewing couldnt supplant prime/peak Olajuwon, prime O'Neal, prime/peak Robinson on a all NBA team then obviously he wouldn't have been in the MVP conversation. There is no shame in coming up a bit short vs any of those guys. And the same would've happened to KG for MVP conversation
if he had to compete with any of those 3 for all NBA accolades for a good stretch of his career.

[Top10alltime]

0....Show me one playoff series from KG as good as Ewing vs heavily favored Boston in 1990? NY had no business even being on the floor with the much more talented Boston Celtics in that series and looked like deer in the headlights the first 2 games.

That for me is the greatest individual underdog comeback playoff performance in NBA history.

He had next to 0 offensive help vs eventual champions Detroit, the only game NY won he put up a sublime 45/13.

Ewing 90 1st rd: 28.2 OA pts/75 on +7.4 opp adj rTS
KG 08 ECF: 28.1 OA pts/75 on +6.7 opp adj rTS

WOW! What a big difference!

Yeah, no. A 32 year old KG who wasn't even having the most offensive role on his team, and wasn't at his peak in scoring, was similar to a 28 yr old Ewing at his offensive peak with a trash team vs an old ahh Celtics. It's not close.

Give me 2000-08, 10, and 12 over 90 Ewing. Argument for 99, 11, and 13 as well.

So as much as 14 years over peak Ewing. I side around 11 years.

Stop making me laugh . He had FAR more help in 08. How on earth did KG compares to Patrick putting up a 32-11 series with a bunch of scrubs alongside him to upset Boston? That Knicks team wasnt even as talented as any team KG played with in Minnesota that people are crying on RealGM about not having help.

How did KG get to the ECF in the first place that year?

Off the back of what ended up as what I consider the most underwhelming title run in NBA history. On a stacked Boston team that went 16-10 that year.

Needed a tonne of help to beat the lowly under .500 8th seeded Atlanta Hawks. Then played spectator in game 7 to the LBJ vs PP duel.

If prime Patrick had that sort of help, NY beats both Chicago and Houston in the 90s and is a top 5 Center ever.

MVP KG was shooting in the mid 40s throughout the playoffs, he wasn't even getting out the 1st rd vs 1990 Boston in Ewings shoes.

You are literally helping my case. When there is minimal difference in scoring, with KG not even being the primary scorer on his team, and having multiple people taking the scoring load off you (to be the defensive anchor of that team), and you still are similar to peak Ewing scoring in the playoffs, it just shows KG is better as a scorer.

Those Knicks had Maurice Cheeks, Kiki Vandeweghe, Charles Oakley, and Mark Jackson who is better than anyone KG had in the Timberwolves. Every one of these players clears anyone on the KG led wolves. It's a miracle he even led those teams to the playoffs, let alone making the ECF .

KG led a squad headlining Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Trenton Hassell, Wally Szceribak, and Fred Hoiberg to a 66 win pace with him on the court (+5.7 rORtg and -4.0 rDRtg), and a 58-24 record. He then took a team with an injured Sam Cassell (as we all know, bigs need ball-handlers, and he was the primary), and a bunch of nobodies to a gentleman sweep vs the Nuggets.
And then proceed to winning Game 7 vs a Kings team that beat the Dirk+Nash Mavericks, in a gentleman sweep, and held them to 8.8 points below their average offense , and they also went to the 2002 WCF. KG had one of the greatest Game 7 performances in NBA history, with 32/21/2/4/5 on 57.5 TS%, certainly better than anything Ewing showcased in his career.
KG then takes a team with no Cassell (only relevant player on the roster), and a bunch of nobodies to a game 6 vs the super stacked team 04 Lakers, with Bryant, Shaq, K.Malone, G.Payton, and Fisher to a game 6, with his leading scorers being Latrell Sprewell and Wally Screziabak (WHO :lol; ) KG's 04 season alone surpasses Ewing's entire career accomplishments

KG performed well vs the Hawks, his teammates didn't. He played well that playoffs, better than Ewing.

If 04 KG has the same help Ewing had in 90, they go the distance. If Ewing had 04 KG help, they get a top pick.

KG would not only beat Boston in 90 in Ewing's shoes, but would win the championship as well. That's how good he is.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

You are literally helping my case. When there is minimal difference in scoring, with KG not even being the primary scorer on his team, and having multiple people taking the scoring load off you (to be the defensive anchor of that team), and you still are similar to peak Ewing scoring in the playoffs, it just shows KG is better as a scorer.

Those Knicks had Maurice Cheeks, Kiki Vandeweghe, Charles Oakley, and Mark Jackson who is better than anyone KG had in the Timberwolves. Every one of these players clears anyone on the KG led wolves. It's a miracle he even led those teams to the playoffs, let alone making the ECF .

KG led a squad headlining Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Trenton Hassell, Wally Szceribak, and Fred Hoiberg to a 66 win pace with him on the court (+5.7 rORtg and -4.0 rDRtg), and a 58-24 record. He then took a team with an injured Sam Cassell (as we all know, bigs need ball-handlers, and he was the primary), and a bunch of nobodies to a gentleman sweep vs the Nuggets.
And then proceed to winning Game 7 vs a Kings team that beat the Dirk+Nash Mavericks, in a gentleman sweep, and held them to 8.8 points below their average offense , and they also went to the 2002 WCF. KG had one of the greatest Game 7 performances in NBA history, with 32/21/2/4/5 on 57.5 TS%, certainly better than anything Ewing showcased in his career.
KG then takes a team with no Cassell (only relevant player on the roster), and a bunch of nobodies to a game 6 vs the super stacked team 04 Lakers, with Bryant, Shaq, K.Malone, G.Payton, and Fisher to a game 6, with his leading scorers being Latrell Sprewell and Wally Screziabak (WHO :lol; ) KG's 04 season alone surpasses Ewing's entire career accomplishments

KG performed well vs the Hawks, his teammates didn't. He played well that playoffs, better than Ewing.

If 04 KG has the same help Ewing had in 90, they go the distance. If Ewing had 04 KG help, they get a top pick.

KG would not only beat Boston in 90 in Ewing's shoes, but would win the championship as well. That's how good he is.

You on the other hand are literally making me die of laughter

They beat a Nuggets team they were supposed to beat with the MVP KG shooting in the mid 40s. I'll give him credit here, he was active in all other facets of the game that series. Although that isn't beating Boston in Ewings shoes.

Then vs Sacto, whoop di do. Beating up on a injury riddled CWebb who only managed to play 23 games that year and was shipped outta town shortly afterwards.

Pace, otrg, dtrg? KG never had a damned 40 point game in his entire playoff career....where is any of that in your T/S% yadda yadda? How is he gonna overcome a 2-1 deficit in Ewing's shoes vs a Boston team with 3 all stars and put up 44/13 facing elimination?

So the great KG is gonna overcome the 90 Pistons and win the title when Ewing couldn't....when MICHAEL JORDAN at his near zenith couldn't according to you?

[Owly]

They are intertwined

My view

FuSheng was consistently talking about both, including the list of centers ahead of Ewing for both (post 28).
The post they initially responded to by Smoothbutta wasn't (post 24).
They aren't intertwined. I mean the players in front of him for Center accolades will likely be in front of him for other accolades. But there's a several great centers ahead of him on All-NBA isn't a great defense for MVP finishes. Maybe at the margin you could argue perception eventually gets changed by all-league voting?

vs who KG in Minnesota was competing at, at PF for his accolades when one talks of MVP voting

This is a touch odd in two senses the first that it smushes the two accolades/categories together ... "competing at, at PF [positional specific competition] for his accolades when one talks of MVP voting [not position specific]"; the second that it seemingly dismisses, without explicit mention of, who Garnett was competing against ... where his entire prime aligns with that of probably the best player ever at his position (or perhaps his rival for that, depending on perspective) and another circa top 20 all time player (Duncan and Nowitzki). And then for what it's worth, though clearly lower, there's another player on a similar timeline whose box apex actually surpasses Ewing's (2006 Brand's season better by PER; WS/48; BPM; playoff PER; playoff WS/48 and playoff BPM than any Ewing season). You could argue that the top-end (the specifically) mid-90s center competition was even higher or that specifically for all-league purposes the combined forward positions meant potentially less penalty at a loaded position. But not actually acknowledging the very high level, long-term competition seems off.

Puhleeze. KG wasnt even as good as Olajuwon, O Neal or even pre injury Robinson at either end of the floor that Ewing was vying against for regular season awards. Not even Duncan nor Dirk ever once led the NBA in scoring, rebounding or shotblocking, nor won a DPOY like the 3 aforementioned Centers who managed 1 or even more than 1 of those feats.

Obviously Ewing had major individual flaws but to hold him not being in the MVP conversation against him without factoring in who was ahead of him those years at the same position, is a biased argument without context as far as I'm concerned.

If Ewing couldnt supplant prime/peak Olajuwon, prime O'Neal, prime/peak Robinson on a all NBA team then obviously he wouldn't have been in the MVP conversation. There is no shame in coming up a bit short vs any of those guys. And the same would've happened to KG for MVP conversation
if he had to compete with any of those 3 for all NBA accolades for a good stretch of his career.

I would encourage you to read the posts you're quoting.

This post seems primarily to regard Ewing's competition at MVP among players who happen to be centers.
From my post ...

the players in front of him for Center accolades will likely be in front of him for other accolades

i.e. you're telling me back something I've already said. But with a weird caveat that their playing the same position particularly matters for MVP purposes with explaining why ...

to hold him not being in the MVP conversation against him without factoring in who was ahead of him those years at the same position, is a biased argument without context as far as I'm concerned

... and with language "hold ... against him" that doesn't reflect the discussion we've had.

And you seem intent on conveying that the centers were a particularly high level of competition. Whilst it will depend on the specific year for the specifics with health playing a role you will note

You could argue that the top-end (the specifically) mid-90s center competition was even higher or that specifically for all-league purposes the combined forward positions meant potentially less penalty at a loaded position

Which is an acknowledgement that the high end centers were elite and that I had not been seeking to go too deep on a comparison, merely noting your dismissal of Garnett's power forward rivals was ... a little odd.


On areas where there is a clear, significant stated difference ...

Not even Duncan nor Dirk ever once led the NBA in scoring, rebounding or shotblocking, nor won a DPOY like the 3 aforementioned Centers who managed 1 or even more than 1 of those feats.

Whoa ... that's the player assessment criteria? Okay well that ... might explain some things. We might be far enough apart for this not to have much more value.

And for what it's worth on

There is no shame in coming up a bit short vs any of those guys. And the same would've happened to KG for MVP conversation
if he had to compete with any of those 3 for all NBA accolades for a good stretch of his career.

For the first sentence I agree (and would argue "shame" would be an odd language choice in assessing any great player). There are two points that would read as (perhaps?) implied that I would disagree with:
1) I would disagree that it's a given that Garnett would "fall short" and particularly so if that is to say he'd have done no better than Ewing. I don't much care about MVP. It's narrative heavy, historically anonymous and only indirectly a reflection of play. But fwiw, Garnett got a near unanimous MVP at his apex and with a 29.4 PER, .272 WS/48, 10.2 BPM (all league-leading, all substantially above Ewing's peak) - I don't know whether he'd get the MVP in some time travel parlor game, that will depend on how one plays the time travel stuff and how the years align and what the narrative fit is and what information is available to voters and I don't so much care about any of that.
2) Others have noted these players weren't the only barrier. You say if he had to compete with "any of those 3" it would have been a barrier to all-NBA which is a pivot back to all-NBA which hasn't been the discussion. It has been the unbacked assertion that position and positional competition (rather than all competition) particularly matters for MVP.
But fwiw, Olajuwon is the player that most closely lines up chronologically and would consistently be an accolade barrier. But you will note that MVP wise, for a stretch of six years - 87-92 - half of which time he's the only rival at center (Robinson comes later) ... league-wide views of Hakeem weren't great. This, in concert with non-contention from Houston, sees him enter a single solitary somewhat significant MVP bid (in 1989 - 0.211 MVP shares). In all other years for that span he's at less than .100 MVP shares. Though clearly an excellent player, he wasn't so highly regarded as perhaps in retrospect with the title halo. Saying this I'm aware that with team situation, Garnett didn't tend to contend for MVP for many of his best years either. As I've said accolades can be arbitrary and narrative driven and adding time travel to this will only make it more meaningless. But Olajuwon wasn't some indomitable barrier to MVP for 87-92 nor for All-NBA - whilst, as I've said, the "one slot" nature of center could be harmful, and Robinson emerges I don't think it''s true that any one of these is necessarily always a barrier. And the Shaq, Ewing prime overlap is probably 3 years with Shaq missing 28 games from the third.

But honestly the use of any argument ... even if as a shorthand ... that would put Marcus Camby (or Marcus Smart or Alvin Robertson or Hassan Whiteside or Serge Ibaka or DeAndre Jordan or Andre Drummond ...) above Tim Duncan

Not even Duncan nor Dirk ever once led the NBA in scoring, rebounding or shotblocking, nor won a DPOY

means I'm not seeking to engage further.

[Red Beast]

The poster suggest you are saying it is part of it. And you'll forgive the confusion ...

Especially when you still seem to be trying to broadly defend it with this ...

At 19 though?


That seems to be somewhere between not knowing of better tools or not caring. For an 11 year spell (97-2007 i.e. from the start of the play by play era to his departure) Minnesota do 12.2 points better overall with him on the court. Long term RAPM studies show him to be a substantially impactful player. Looking at at 97-14 (Googlesites), 97-22 and 97-24 (w playoffs) RAPM all have him as one of the best defenders over that span (7th, 3rd, 1st) and generating the larger proportion of his impact on defense (roughly between a little under 2/3s to approaching 3/4 - eyeballing the numbers).

I will not engage further in the 19-year-old matter, it is nonsense. I stated in his first 12 years. If you are telling me that players are not better defensively in their first 12 years, well, I can't have a serious discussion with you. Either way, it is a straw man argument with no value.

I concur this should be a last go round on this.

This thread of discussion is entirely your doing. You labelled a span including a rookie year straight out of high school as "prime" but excluded a serious MVP contention year and actual DPoY year in a discussion increasingly focused on defense. You were challenged on this by another poster and half denied it.

No one is saying that his age 19 year is his prime

and half defended it in imprecise terms

Most players have their defensive primes when they are younger.

Younger than what?

You continue to do the same again saying it's a straw man - myself and the original poster have made clear it is merely a repetition of your own statement - and posting an adjacent defense of an imprecise position ...

If you are telling me that players are not better defensively in their first 12 years, well, I can't have a serious discussion with you

Better than what?

To be clear - and in a similarly final intended post in this exchange - in post 12 "Garnett's first 12 years in the NBA" is called "(his prime)" - it is unambiguous ...

In Garnett's first 12 years in the NBA (his prime)

A post queries this definition, specifically that your definitions leads to an inclusion of straight out of high school Garnett but not 2008 defensive player of the year Garnett.

At this point I can only read the defensiveness on this matter: suggesting it is others you can't have a serious discussion with, standing by the 12 year definition, without any attempt to clarify, as seeking to defend the choice to exclude 2008 from Garnett's prime (and latterly based on phrasing about defense, his defensive prime) whilst including his rookie year. I don't want to believe that's the position taken, because it seems, on the face of it, absurd, but I struggle to come to any other conclusion.

On the chance that this is a serious attempt to engage

I am not suggesting KG is not a great defender. He absolutely is. He just isn't as impactful as Ewing. RAPM is a highly limited stat. It is interesting but not one that I put great faith in to compare players with. I don't dismiss it, but it is not a comprehensive measure to be used for player comparison. By the way, what is Ewing's RAPM?

Again, how can the defenses KG was on while at Minnesota be explained? How could he not elevate defenses when great rim protecting big men like Ewing, Robinson, Duncan, Russell and Olajuwan could?

I'm not that into parsing out credit on particular ends. The framing of Garnett versus Ewing would depend on definitions. Any long term RAPM for Ewing would essentially be entirely outside his prime as the play-by-play era starts in 96-97. There isn't one number as people have calculated different versions as stated in the previous post. But for what it's worth, post-prime Ewing looks strong defensively ranking (and these players will have different size samples and different confidence intervals) 19th, 166th and 69th in the aforementioned respective long-term RAPM studies.

You ask for Minnesota's performance to be explained. And whilst I think no one believes RAPM (or a RAPM) is foolproof, various runnings of the methodology find that lineups with KG are far better defensively than ones without him and that weak teammates are dragging him down. Different studies will vary on individuals by degree but when looking at the highest minutes Timberwolves between 96-97 and 2006-07 - the start point dictated by the start of the play-by-play era, though also usefully not including a teenage Garnett as part of his in prime picture) we see impact stats suggest Szczerbiak ... negative defender; Peeler ... negative defender; Trenton Hassell ... negative defender; older Sam Mitchell ... negative defender - now this is where negative just means below average without any positional adjustment (smaller players have tended to be more positive on offense and negative on defense) and a quick skim of the first few minutes leaders across some of the RAPMs cited, one could of course dive into every teammate look at the various RAPM calculations account for the two numbers and see how they fit and see how they match up with comprehensive defensive film study, defensive defensive reputations and/or the raw on-off number. The thing is, whilst it isn't infallible and my understanding of it isn't complete, it is comparing the different lineups in a far more comprehensive way than I suspect most who just say "Why aren't the Timberwolves better?" Especially if it is as clankily and perhaps misleadingly phrased as "he never had the individual impact on defense to improve the overall effectiveness of the team defense" where of course, a cursory glance at Minnesota's splits would let you see that their defense improved substantially with him on court - for instance in 2003 - 102.4 Drtg with him on; 110.9 with him off - or 2004 - 98.5 with him on; 104.6 with him off.

And, whilst I'm not so into the specific defensive comparison as it depends on definitions I think ignoring the elite 2008 Celtics defense and the role Garnett played in it (and later Celtics defenses) would require either a very large blind spot or willful ignorance. Or if flipped and the question is "why not great team results every time" one can ask why the Knicks' defenses were never better than 2 points above average and typically around average through to 1991. And whilst some of the answer will be in players fluctuating, growing, getting hurt etc, the simple answers is at least four other players play, when you're on the bench 5 and coaches impact defenses too. The crude team level stuff doesn't explain why choose a particular player on the team, either. One could technically accurately, if misleadingly, say that the Knicks don't get good on defense until Anthony Mason arrives and tab him as their star defender rather than Ewing.

If you don't know what a strawman argument is, you should look it up. The argument about 19-year-old Garnett is the perfect exemplar of a strawman argument. To make it clear (from AI), "A strawman is a logical fallacy that involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Instead of addressing the actual argument, the arguer creates a distorted, weaker version—the "straw man"—and then argues against that distorted version. This fallacy avoids engaging with the relevant points of the original argument by attacking an inaccurate caricature." Thereby, by focusing on the almost irrelevant and incorrect assumption that I was stating that 19-year-old Garnett was in his prime, he avoided addressing the primary point, which was Garnett's inability to lead good defenses for the first 12 years of his career.

I've not yet encountered a rational explanation for Garnett's poor defensive record in Minnesota. He was on some terrible teams, but he was also on some decent teams, which had decent defensive players. I don't ignore Boston at all. However, the Boston defense utilised a revolutionary defensive structure created by Tom Thibodeau. When Thibodeau left Boston, he went to Chicago who then had the best defense in his first year.

Now, to be clear, I think Garnett is a great defensive player. I was a Garnett fan when he played and always wanted him to be the Spurs and Lakers. The issue I have currently, is the amount of people revising his status as a player purely because of RAPM. There are some people that call him one of the top five defensive players of all time. This is ridiculous. Nobody ever thought that when he played. Garnett was great defensively, but not perfect. His biggest issue was that he lacked strength. He was a good but not great post defender; he was a good but not great rim protector. Mobility is great, but rim protection is the most valuable defensive skill in basketball. His skill set meant that he could be a very valuable member of a great defense but could not elevate average teammates into a good defense.

This also highlights the limitations of RAPM. It measures how better a team operates when a player is on court compared to his team when he is off court. Think of the variables that must be factored in. Who did he play with? Who played when he was not playing? What is the sample size? People always quote Garnett's defensive RAPM for 03/04. He played 39.4 minutes a game in a season where they won 58 games. This means that you are measuring his on-court performance against the 8 minutes a game he did not play. How many of those minutes were pure garbage minutes? What on earth can you discern from that sample size. It is pure nonsense; the data is virtually meaningless. Yet, I've seen people claim that as the greatest defensive season of all time, purely based on the RAPM.

Again, I think that Garnett was a great defensive player but to be top 5 or even 10, you need to have the ability to anchor great defenses above their expected level. He just couldn't do it. A case in point. Tim Duncan did not have a defense ranked lower than 5 for the first 12 years of his career (in fact apart from his 12th year, they ranked no lower than 3). Many years he had Robinson as his center; however, he still had great defenses with Francisco Elson, Fabricio Oberto, Nazr Mohammed and Rasho Nesterovic as his center partner. In 02/03 Rasho played with Garnett on the 16th ranked defense. The next year, he was the starting center on the 1st place defense on the Spurs. I can list about a dozen examples of great rim protectors who led top 5 defenses with average to poor teammates, many worse than Garnett's. We don't have their RAPM but they did play, and the outcome of their efforts yielded better results than Garnett could muster. The only explanation I get for to counter this concern is, "yeah but RAPM". It is not good enough.