The Kevin Garnett thread: the most fascinating player on RGM

[The Infamous1]

Prime Pippen as a second option and his one season as a first was scoring in the same range that KG was scoring in minnesota THE guy, 20-24 PPG.

Prime Pippen

91-17.8
92 21.0
93-18.6
94-22.0
95-21.4
96-19.4
97-20.4
98-19.1

KG
00-22.9
01-22.0
02-21.0
03-23.0
04-24.2
05-22.2
06-21.8
07-22.4

Again on the same tier as scorers, what makes it even more impressive is that Scottie was doing mostly as a number 2 next to Jordan.

[NO-KG-AI]

Tim Duncan:
23.2
22.2
25.5
23.3
22.3
20.3
18.6
20
19

Like I said, same tier.

[The Infamous1]

Same tier doesn't mean better, you posting Duncan is proof that you have no argument for Garnett being "way" better As a scorer then Pippen. I'm not even a big fan of using PPG to determine who's a better scorer because its flawed but even just watchig the 2 i dont see how KG is on some other level. Chris bosh is in the same tier as KG as well

Bosh from 06-10: 22.8 PPG, .582 TS%
KG from 03-07: 22.7 PPG, .559 TS%

KG never was some dominant or great scorer in the RS and ESPECIALLY in the PS.(9 30 point games in his ENTIRE PS career) It's revisionist to think otherwise and that's why he makes a perfect Robin to a legit 28- 30 PPG scorer in the playoffs

[Jonny Blaze]

Same tier doesn't mean better, you posting Duncan is proof that you have no argument for Garnett being "way" better As a scorer then Pippen. I'm not even a big fan of using PPG to determine who's a better scorer because its flawed but even just watchig the 2 i dont see how KG is on some other level. Chris bosh is in the same tier as KG as well

Bosh from 06-10: 22.8 PPG, .582 TS%
KG from 03-07: 22.7 PPG, .559 TS%

KG [b]never was some dominant or great scorer in the RS and ESPECIALLY in the PS.(9 30 point games in his ENTIRE PS career) It's revisionist to think otherwise and that's why he makes a perfect Robin to a legit 28- 30 PPG scorer in the playoffs[/b]

You and I have similar thoughts.

Dirk in the 2011 NBA playoffs had more 30 point playoff games then Kevin Garnett (9) has had in his entire career.

Think about that for a second.....and some people will vehemently argue that KG is better then Dirk.

KG has never been as dominant a scorer as Tim Duncan or Dirk. His lack of being able to take over games with this scoring is the main reason why the Timberwolves didn't do better in the playoffs.

Its the main reason I rank him as the 2nd best Robin behind Scottie Pippen.

Do you guys want to see what true greatness looks like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9WkNo3J3Ic

Some (a lot) of you act like Kevin Garnett could have done the same things that Duncan is doing in that video if only he had landed in San Antonio.


Do you guys see all the things that open up for Duncans teammates? This is due to Duncan being such a dominant low post scorer. The opposing team has to focus so much energy on trying to stop Duncan from scoring that it leaves his teammates with wide open shots.

KG has never been able to consistently dominate opponents on the offensive end like Duncan does in that video.....and he's rarely been able to make his teammates better offensive players.



Thats the difference between an NBA Finals MVP and a NBA Finals MVP runner up.

One is Batman and the other is a Robin.

[drza]

I don't see Pierce on Kobe that much. Mostly it was Allen guarding him. Even then, Boston's defense has never been about man to man defense like the 90s Bulls, they're about directing the ballhandler to the paint right at KG and Perkins which either forces him to shoot an off-rhythm midrange shot or turn the ball over.

While I don't like certain arguments that are in favor of KG because it sounded more like flip-flopping than consistent reasoning(i.e Team offense/defense good = KG's credit, bad = fault of his teammates) KG should unquestionably be the Finals MVP.

I agree with most of this post, but I thought the underlined makes a point that I'd like to emphasize. Trying to apportion how much credit for a good team unit (offense or defense) is one of the big reasons that folks use the +/- data. If a team has a great offense, but the player in question has negligible offensive +/- impact, it would argue that said player isn't the key to the great offense. Similarly, if a team has a bad defense, but the player in question has an outstanding defensive +/- impact, it would argue that said player is actually playing outstanding defense but that his teammates were playing awful around him.

This, then, is a big reason why Garnett is looked at so favorably in these situations. When his team was great offensively, his offensive +/- scores were at the top of the NBA. When the team was average defensively, his defensive +/- scores were among the best in the league and by far the best on his team. Then, when his team was great defensively, his defensive +/- scores were even better. Thus, if you subscribe to +/- stats having value, they strongly support exactly the underlined notion: when the units were good, KG should get the credit because he was the main reason they were good...and when the units were bad, analysis seems to show that KG was still pulling majorly in the positive direction and the rest of the team just let him down.

Now, you may not value +/- stats, and if not then that's your decision. But I just wanted to point out that there IS a methodology for helping to apportion credit and blame for team performance these days, it's not just a flip-flop. The reasoning is consistent.

[PP 4 Three]

Kevin Garnett stats in 2008 NBA FInals

Game 1
24 points 13 rebounds

Game 2
17 points 14 rebounds

Game 3
13 points 12 rebounds

Game 4
16 points 11 rebounds

Game 5
13 points 14 rebounds

Game 6
26 points 13 rebounds

sorry man....There is nothing, zilch, nada about his performance that is worthy of an NBA FInals MVP. One elite game (when the game was over by halftime) and a big bag of mediocrity.

In none of the close games in that series did Garnett have anything close to having a dominant offensive performance.

His 2010 NBA Finals is even more mediocre.

KG is a great ROBIN, and a great defensive anchor, but I laugh my ass off that some of you consider someone with that stat line (in one of his "Prime" Years) to be better then Tim Duncan or Dirk.

This is the most ridiculous post I've seen in a while. KG's 2008 Final series was his worst of the Playoffs that year and he still had a very legitimate argument for Finals MVP. The fact is, take KG out of those Finals and the impact is far, far greater than taking out any other individual (Yes, including Pierce. Every Celtic fan would agree).

Pierce was guarded by Luke Walton, if he didn't have a great Finals offensively it would have been a flat out disgrace. KG's worst series (being his Finals series) was arguably better than Pierce's best series that year (also his Finals series), and much better than any Ray Allen series in his entire career as a Boston Celtic. In that Finals series, KG was the Celtics best offensive player in two of their four wins. He was being doubled for much of the series and by much better defenders than Luke Walton and Vlad Rad (the guys who defended Pierce, one on one btw).

On the other hand, KG lead the Celtics in EVERYTHING that Playoff run (scoring including, best 4th quarter numbers as well). He was their overall best offensive AND defensive player throughout that Playoff run and the numbers back it up completely. In fact, Pierce and Allen were flat out mediocre for much of the Playoffs (which is why we struggled against the Hawks/Cavs) and KG's greatness is what propelled us to the Finals in the first place.

And bringing up his 2010 stats is moot. He was less than one year removed from knee surgery and wasn't the same player at all (In fact, that was his worst year in Boston).

Edit: Just saw you discredit KG's game 6 performance because "the game was over at half time". Um...KG is the REASON the game was over by half time. He dominated the first half and put the nail in the Lakers coffin. It was Pierce and Allen who got their numbers after the game was out of reach (Pierce had like an 0-4 or 0-5 start IIRC), KG was dominating throughout.

[drza]

I also had stopped posting itt and got sucked into to it to defend Truth. I really need to stay out of KG threads tho. Im just beating my head into a wall for no purpose. But I did need to post one last time to acknowledge that I clearly didnt know what the heck I was saying.

FWIW, I don't think you should stay out of any thread just because people disagree with you. To me that's the point of this place, to hash out those disagreements and see if something comes from it. Even the most stringent disagreement can be productive, as long as both sides are listening/hearing even in cases when they don't agree. Just my 2 cents.

[NO-KG-AI]

I also had stopped posting itt and got sucked into to it to defend Truth. I really need to stay out of KG threads tho. Im just beating my head into a wall for no purpose. But I did need to post one last time to acknowledge that I clearly didnt know what the heck I was saying.

FWIW, I don't think you should stay out of any thread just because people disagree with you. To me that's the point of this place, to hash out those disagreements and see if something comes from it. Even the most stringent disagreement can be productive, as long as both sides are listening/hearing even in cases when they don't agree. Just my 2 cents.

I agree with this. Reading and following threads that disagree with a previous conclusion I had come to has changed my outlook radically a lot of times. Some guys have moved up in my mind massively(or down) just by threads like this.

[richboy]

The problem with that thinking is that you aren't looking to try to factor in two different things together. In the end you need to get buckets, but in the end you need to stop buckets too. There are plenty of times where the team's best offensive player is the team's best player, but if it's not clear to you that it can be the team's best defensive player instead then you're not going to come up with reasonable conclusions.

Re: "Piece completely destroyed the Lakers". That's a crazy statement. The dude scored less than 4 points more than Garnett.

Re: wheelchair. The wheelchair is a reason to mock Pierce not praise him. Obviously he didn't need the wheelchair or he wouldn't have kept playing.

Re: take away KG. Is Pierce good enough to carry a defense through these tough spots? If you aren't LMFAO with that statement you need to take a step back. If I can simply play the symmetrical card you play and the entire thing becomes a joke that tells us everything we need to know about the comparison.

This would be a relevant point if it actual delt with the argument. I never said KG wasn't Boston's best player. I said KG can't carry an offense to a championship. In reality his title run in Boston was exact proof of that. He didn't carry Boston's offense to a title.

You saying well KG only averaged 4 points less is doing exactly what I said. Which is ignore history. Try to make basketball a game of stats. Ignore how the games exactly played out. Instead of just say well look at that number. Who cares if KG had a big points in blowouts. Who cares if the Lakers were forced to double team Pierce making him rack up assist like crazy in the series. How he was making the big shots or plays late in the game. That people who watched the series suddenly thought Paul Pierce was the best player in basketball. Just ask Michael Wilbon. Then say well KG averaged 4 points less. Really that how you determine things? If Bosh scores 20 and Lebron scores 24 you figure they close to the same.

Which is why I said before. When the Lakers had Artest. Pierce couldn't put up those monster numbers anymore. Series was very different then. But then we have well KG was injured. Which is always the thing with KG fans. Which is pretty much a bag full of excuses. Either it was injuries or it was his teammates fault.

Take away KG is Pierce good enough to win? That an easy question. No. But when was that question asked. See I can say that. It going to take an act of God for you to say KG couldn't carry an offense to a title. Ask you this? Can KG good enough defensively to anchor a defense without Kendrick Perkins to a title?

You talk like you can only have a great defense if KG is on it. Paul Pierce is a championship level offensive player because when the game is on the line he makes step back jump shots over and over again. You can win close playoff games having a guy like that on your team.

You know why I say Duncan is better offensively than KG. Because Duncan had the dominate post play. The game is on the line he not launching long fadeaway jumpers. Your not going to win a championship just making Pick and Pop jump shots. That why you telling me what they did offensively doesn't matter to me.The game is on the line Tim Duncan is going in the low block and can dominate. KG pulling up for jump shots like a SG

Me tearing the foundation of your reasoning to shreds is not me insisting on stats over watching the game. If there are flaws in your chain of reasoning then you're not going to draw proper conclusions about the actual basketball.

What's interesting is that I run into things like this all the time. This is nothing knew, though of course, the accusations when I talk politics or religion or science aren't typically that I'm a stathead, though some other epithet is common.

No it is because you don't actual say anything about the actual games. You just say well the numbers say this would have happened.

I considered Miami a heavy favorite over OKC. Have we met before?

Why. Your saying Minnesota could win just like San Antonio if they played better defense. Well OKC was statically better than Miami on offense and defense. So apparently there must be something that would have happened in the game that makes you say Miami would have won the series.

If you want to point out that there's luck involved in the game and so we don't truly know what would have happened that's fine by me. I've pointed that out to you often enough, it would make me happy to know you were listening.

Obviously when I make a statement about what would have happened it's a statement of what would likely have happened. Minnesota with a far better defense is clearly a far better team which it would be absurd to say couldn't possibly win a title. I make the case I do because you make statements implying that what Garnett and Minny did was essentially not real because they didn't win a title, not because I'm trying to proclaim omniscience. I keep it more succinct because I think at times more details only confuse people.

Are you saying if they created better defensive results in the playoffs and that would have led to them winning titles. When in fact Minnesota actually played really well defensively in the playoffs some years and it was often there offense that failed them. I guess you could make the statement if they shut out everyone they be the greatest team ever. The reality of basketball isn't the stats. Its how one team enforces its will on another team. You can be a great offensive team like the Knicks and now struggling to score in the playoffs. You can be a great defensive team like the 01 Spurs and watch Kobe and Shaq score on you at will. 2005 when the Spurs are a great defensive team but in the playoffs teams are scoring on them so they had to raise there offense.

I look at what happened too. I look at everything from the top down and figure out the good and the bad to the best of my ability. I can be wrong no doubt about that, but I'm going to be right more often than people who can't see the flaws in a success or the strengths in a failure.

Actually that is impossible. Unless you have some program there that telling you how each of these series played out. I mean you must have this window into another dimension where Minnesota has a better defense and now they are dominating the league. So please give us the history of the Shaq/Kobe vs the new and improved Timberwolves. Tell us what happened game 7 NBA finals vs the Detroit Pistons. I'm so excited about this new era of basketball. After this can you tell me what would have happened if the Knicks of the 90s were better offensively. I'm trying to think if I should pencil Ewing for 4 rings or 6. No wonder you have KG so high. You saw him win 4 titles.

To be clear I don't disagree with any of that. Minny didn't exactly have a habit though of getting upset all the time in the playoffs so why is it you think of them in this way?

What you mean. See in my dimension the Twolves didn't do squat in the playoffs. In my world teams control there own destiny. They control there seeding. They go as far as they want to go. In my world I see lower seeds win in the playoffs all the time. Apparently in your world KG was given a seed by the basketball gods. Played super teams in the first round that he couldn't get past. Perhaps it was just illegal for lower seeds to win. I'm just glad your not coaching Golden State. Could you imagine. This series is over. They they higher seeded team. How did Memphis even get past the first round. They didn't have homecourt.

[G35]

Tim Duncan:
23.2
22.2
25.5
23.3
22.3
20.3
18.6
20
19

Like I said, same tier.

Not the same tier. During the regular season Duncan is more willing to defer to his teammates. The playoff's Duncan turns it up:

23.2
24.4
27.6
24.7
22.1
23.6
25.8
22.2
20.2

TS% .554

KG in the playoff's

15.8
21.8
18.8
21.0
24.0
27.0
24.3
20.4
15.0

TS% .521

Not even close.....

[NO-KG-AI]

Uh, no. Duncan, KG, and Scottie are all on the same tier as scorers. The PPG was already listed. I'm sick of talking about circumstances, or other stats. PPG plz.

[G35]

Uh, no. Duncan, KG, and Scottie are all on the same tier as scorers. The PPG was already listed. I'm sick of talking about circumstances, or other stats. PPG plz.

Sure was. But KG is a regular season king. He doesn't turn it up in the playoff's which is why he needs more help in the playoff's plz......

[NO-KG-AI]

Yea, he needed a 18ppg scorer and a 16 ppg scorer to make a dominant team.

I agree, he needed more help than he got in Minnesota.

[richboy]

Yea, he needed a 18ppg scorer and a 16 ppg scorer to make a dominant team.

I agree, he needed more help than he got in Minnesota.

Actually he had more than that in Minnesota. But the West much stronger than the East. Even that Boston team. You could make a case that KG had teams in Minnesota that could have won the East.

They barely beat a Cleveland team that wouldn't have made the playoffs in the West. A team with 45 wins. Wasnt a top 10 defense and a bottom of the league offense. They found a way to get a 100 ORTG against that team. If not for Paul Pierce and a PJ Brown jump shot they would have went home then. Of course that was before they went 7 games with the 37 win Atlanta Hawks. Wow that is some dominance.

[Andre3822]

Yea, he needed a 18ppg scorer and a 16 ppg scorer to make a dominant team.

I agree, he needed more help than he got in Minnesota.

Actually he had more than that in Minnesota. But the West much stronger than the East. Even that Boston team. You could make a case that KG had teams in Minnesota that could have won the East.

They barely beat a Cleveland team that wouldn't have made the playoffs in the West. A team with 45 wins. Wasnt a top 10 defense and a bottom of the league offense. They found a way to get a 100 ORTG against that team. If not for Paul Pierce and a PJ Brown jump shot they would have went home then. Of course that was before they went 7 games with the 37 win Atlanta Hawks. Wow that is some dominance.

That Celtic team played up to their competition in my opinion - for some reason.

It's not easy to turn around from 24-58 to 66-16 within a season while winning the title... KG was the best player that year in terms defense/offense combined.

[drza]

KG never was some dominant or great scorer in the RS and ESPECIALLY in the PS.(9 30 point games in his ENTIRE PS career) It's revisionist to think otherwise and that's why he makes a perfect Robin to a legit 28- 30 PPG scorer in the playoffs

So now we have a definition for a "legit" so-called Batman: 28 - 30 ppg scorer in playoffs.

I just thought I'd point out that out of 58 NBA champions in the shot clock era, only 18 had someone average at least 28 points in the playoffs.

If we drop the criterion to at least 27 ppg in the playoffs, we can up that to 22 teams with a "legit" so-called Batman...again, out of 58 champions.

Not only was KG not a Batman, but...

Magic Johnson wasn't a Batman in any of his championships.
Wilt Chamberlain wasn't a Batman in any of his.
Tim Duncan wasn't Batman in any of his.
Of course Bill Russell wasn't Batman. With his scoring averages he didn't even deserve a cape.
Kareem and Bird were only Batman once each in their combined 9 titles.

Also, with the expanded 27 ppg Batman threshold...

The '67 Sixers had a Batman that wasn't Wilt, despite '67 Wilt being one of the greatest peaks in history. No, the Batman on that team was actually Hal Greer. I guess that makes '67 Wilt arguably the greatest Robin in history.

Similarly, Bob Petit was really the Robin on his only championship (despite being NBA MVP in 2 of the surrounding 4 seasons) because Cliff Hagan was the one to hit the "playoff Batman" criterion.

If only the vast majority of NBA champions ever would have been lucky enough to be led by a "legit" Batman...

Or...and I know this is a radical concept...but perhaps there are other ways to lead a team to a title besides individual scoring. I know that sounds silly, but...since more than 60% of all NBA champions did it without the "legit" so-called Batman scorer, maybe we can at least entertain the notion that there's more than one way to get the job done.

[HeartBreakKid]

KG never was some dominant or great scorer in the RS and ESPECIALLY in the PS.(9 30 point games in his ENTIRE PS career) It's revisionist to think otherwise and that's why he makes a perfect Robin to a legit 28- 30 PPG scorer in the playoffs

So now we have a definition for a "legit" so-called Batman: 28 - 30 ppg scorer in playoffs.

I just thought I'd point out that out of 58 NBA champions in the shot clock era, only 18 had someone average at least 28 points in the playoffs.

If we drop the criterion to at least 27 ppg in the playoffs, we can up that to 22 teams with a "legit" so-called Batman...again, out of 58 champions.

Not only was KG not a Batman, but...

Magic Johnson wasn't a Batman in any of his championships.
Wilt Chamberlain wasn't a Batman in any of his.
Tim Duncan wasn't Batman in any of his.
Of course Bill Russell wasn't Batman. With his scoring averages he didn't even deserve a cape.
Kareem and Bird were only Batman once each in their combined 9 titles.

Also, with the expanded 27 ppg Batman threshold...

The '67 Sixers had a Batman that wasn't Wilt, despite '67 Wilt being one of the greatest peaks in history. No, the Batman on that team was actually Hal Greer. I guess that makes '67 Wilt arguably the greatest Robin in history.

Similarly, Bob Petit was really the Robin on his only championship (despite being NBA MVP in 2 of the surrounding 4 seasons) because Cliff Hagan was the one to hit the "playoff Batman" criterion.

If only the vast majority of NBA champions ever would have been lucky enough to be led by a "legit" Batman...

Or...and I know this is a radical concept...but perhaps there are other ways to lead a team to a title besides individual scoring. I know that sounds silly, but...since more than 60% of all NBA champions did it without the "legit" so-called Batman scorer, maybe we can at least entertain the notion that there's more than one way to get the job done.

Don't think anyone is gonna be replying to this one, pretty much debunks the whole myth around what a championship franchise player should be.

[NO-KG-AI]

People believing that you need a high volume scorer to win titles is really a new phenomena really. Another one of those post Jordan fallacies I suppose.

[ElGee]

I'm interested to see how people respond to drza's post. It seems to me that it's perfectly reasonable to just think basketball is scoring dominated and that title teams have Michael Jordans. But when you dig deeper -- which is what drza did -- that turns out to not be true. This little misstep in memory and processing is about as shocking as the sun coming up. No big deal.

Is that actually new information that people will be synthesizing, or is it something that the Batman Thesis holder already new and drza is missing something about his original point?

Per this thread, I was reminded of a brilliant game Kevin Garnett played in 2010, dragging his non-healed leg around the court at 34 for 22 points and 10 rebounds in the closeout game versus Cleveland. He had a huge defensive game as well. Which then reminded me that in...


G7 2010 of the NBA Finals he was 8-13 from the floor (although the defense was subpar).

G7 in 2008 against Atlanta he was dominant (9-13) with 18-11-3 in 27 minutes.

G5 in 2008 against Detroit he had 33 points (74% TS).

G6 in 2008 v LA 26 pts 11 reb (62% TS) in 36 minutes.

He didn't play a playoff game before that from 05-07...

In 2004, G3 (1-1 series) 30 pts 15 reb (56% TS) v Sac
In 2004, G7 v Sac 32-21-4 5 blck 4 steals (58% TS) in a GOAT-level G7
In 2004, G5 v LAL (against elimination) 30 pts 19 reb (54% TS)

In 2003 he had a bad shooting game in G6 elimination v LAL (9-21), 27 ppg on 54% TS for the series. Which means:

-Doesn't it seem like Kevin Garnett has actually played incredibly well in most of his biggest PS games?
-Wasn't Kevin Garnett actually very much a "Batman" level scorer, according to other people's definitions?

[richboy]

Yea, he needed a 18ppg scorer and a 16 ppg scorer to make a dominant team.

I agree, he needed more help than he got in Minnesota.

Actually he had more than that in Minnesota. But the West much stronger than the East. Even that Boston team. You could make a case that KG had teams in Minnesota that could have won the East.

They barely beat a Cleveland team that wouldn't have made the playoffs in the West. A team with 45 wins. Wasnt a top 10 defense and a bottom of the league offense. They found a way to get a 100 ORTG against that team. If not for Paul Pierce and a PJ Brown jump shot they would have went home then. Of course that was before they went 7 games with the 37 win Atlanta Hawks. Wow that is some dominance.

That Celtic team played up to their competition in my opinion - for some reason.

It's not easy to turn around from 24-58 to 66-16 within a season while winning the title... KG was the best player that year in terms defense/offense combined.

Didn't argue if KG was best player. I said he was the best player. You can say Ben Wallace was the best player on the Pistons. That doesn't mean he the key to a dynasty.

They didn't play down. They were a tough PJ Brown shot away from going home in the second round. In a series they struggled to score. It took Paul Pierce coming up with 40 points to match the fact that Cleveland played a decent offensive game.

I don't undesstand why this has to be some kind of indictment on KG. I have KG in the mix of top 20 player ever and battling all-time greats as the second best PF of alltime.

But lets be real. Some of you think KG is the best player of his generation. That he comparable to Shaq. Even better than Duncan. That he is way better than Dirk. For these opinions to hold water you need KG to be considered great on offense and defense.

His numbers is the most irrelevant aspect to this conversation though. Scottie Pippen was not a number 2 because of his numbers. He was a number 2 because he lacked some dynamic skills that would have made him a number 1. Pippen was mediocre if not below average off the bounce. Really couldn't shoot off the dribble. Had a decent post up game but wasn't Michael Jordan. Was a pretty good shooter but nothing great. He also got assist but was not really a creator.

KG isn't a dominate offensive player because he doesn't have a dominate offensive game. He was good in the post but relied on tough fadeaway shots. He was a great midrange shooter but teams are fine giving you that. Despite having some dynamic ability for his size he was not that dynamic in terms of scoring off the dribble. He was not Dirk who had unstoppable two dribble pull ups that he was hitting from all over the floor. He needed more to take his game to that next offensive level. Especially in the low block.