Kevin Garnett's Scoring Ability........

[Goudelock]

I never saw prime Garnett, as I only saw post-knee surgery KG. So I'll preface my statement with that. However, when I was looking through his stats, I noticed that he never had a season where he averaged over 25 PPG (he topped out at 24), and never scored more than 35 in a playoff game, despite being far and away the best player on his team in Minnesota. From the highlights I've seen so far, he looked extremely athletic back then, and of course, KG always had his feathery jump shot. So what prevented him from producing gaudier point totals?

[JulesWinnfield]

I don't think he had shortcomings from a skill standpoint that prevented him from scoring higher volume. He just didn't have a big time scorers appetite, and on top of that was a phenomenal passer who saw the entire floor and didn't have the tunnel vision high volume scorer guys often do. He just didn't see the game through the eyes of a volume scorer

The thing about basketball that I love is that your personality can often reveal itself through your game, and on a very basic level Kevin Garnett never felt comfortable playing anything that resembled selfish offensively, sometimes to a fault. He just didn't see the game through the eyes of a scorer. Some guys don't, even if they possess the talent for it. He was a phenomenal passer and had unselfish instincts offensively. I felt similarly about Grant Hill for much of his career, another guy who I think had a higher scorers ceiling than he ever showed, although he was trending upward in this respect before injury derailed him..... Through it all though it's still worth noting that Garnett did manage to score over 26,000 points in the league.

[HeartBreakKid]

Got points through assist instead of scoring.

Might be worth noting that Duncan only averaged 25 PPG once in his career, and an offensive oriented player like Dirk only had 3 or 4 seasons of 25-26 PPG also.

[Joao Saraiva]

I think some reasons are he was more of a consistent scorer than an explosive one. That's why he didn't have many great scoring games.

He also did a lot of work all across the board: rebounding, playmaking, defending. So that takes a lot of his energy.

In some of his better years he missed the playoffs, and when he got there he usually faced some really difficult competition.

[wablty]

He never needed to be an extremely high volume scorer to impact the game. I think a lot of people who missed his prime forget that he was one of if not the best distributing bigs of all time. 10 straight seasons averaging over 4 assists, straight over 5, all while still logging 20/10's like it was nothing. 8 straight seasons with over 20% assist percentage. He often played point forward.

[mischievous]

Kg didn't like to bang down low as much as some other bigs.

[NO-KG-AI]

KG never was a guy that tried to bait or draw fouls as much as he could have/should have either. He was more inclined to try to free up a better look at the basket than to just barrel into a defender and fling the ball at the basket.

There weren't a whole lot of shots on the floor that were really bad shots for him, so he could always generate a pretty high percentage look, even if the defense packed the paint and forced him into the high post or further out. He had length and athleticism to get off post moves over just about anyone, or create space for his high, long fadeaway that was pretty high percentage. Great finisher, absolutely marvelous big man in transition, and could drive from the perimeter with the best of them.

He's an unselfish guy though. Passing up shots to get guys open looks just came more natural to him, and I don't think he ever cared about point totals or trying to prove he could throw up a million shots.

[Ron Swanson]

This is my biggest criticism when it comes to KG. He had the ability to put up scoring outputs much like Anthony Davis is doing right now. Like other posters remarked, he was unselfish almost to a fault, and he too often shied away from contact and getting to the line (career 4.4 FT attempts per 36). Some of it was his body type not being as conducive to the era he played in (was much more of a modern 4), but also because he fell in love with that mid-range jumper.

[Texas Chuck]

This is my biggest criticism when it comes to KG. He had the ability to put up scoring outputs much like Anthony Davis is doing right now.

I'm not at all sure that he did actually. I mean this as no knock on KG at all. But Anthony Davis is clearly a superior scorer to KG and definitely more capable of exploding for big numbers.

Volume scoring was never really KG's game, but as others above have pointed out, its not like he didn't score a lot of points either. Kevin Garnett was never motivated by his own individual stats, but on how best for his teams to win games. So in Minny he actually took on more of a volume scoring role than was probably ideal and certainly more than suited how he "wanted" to play. But he also wanted to win and looked around and realized, if not me, who?


The irony here is that AD exploded onto the scene, was expected to be the defensive successor to KG, only with more shot-blocking. And if you had been around the PC board 3 years ago you would have heard tons of GOAT talk about him already, and I was one of a few suggesting to tap the breaks before even suggesting he would match KG. And what we are actually getting out of AD is this terrific offensive player whose defense has lagged behind our expectations.

[rebirthoftheM]

This "it wasn't his game" implies that if he decided to, KG could have been a pretty great scorer. I have always found this argument to be somewhat weak, as KG's style of scoring imo required elite execution for this to be true, which I don't think he was capable of. As has been mentioned before, KG generally shielded away from contact (relative to other great scorers) and lacked a 3 point game, which both contributed to his limited scoring production.

When KG tried to up his scoring production, the results were not pretty. I did a calculation (generally accurate, but there might be very slight errors) of KG's scoring production in games where he took 20+ shots between 03-05. I think selecting the 20+ parameter is reasonable given KG was a 17-19 FGA type of player. Obviously it is not an exhaustive analysis of his scoring proficiency, but imo it indicates that KG simply did not have the skill to be a good volume scorer.


2002-2003 KG regular season (82 games played)

Games where KG took 20+ shots
Number of Games: 23 games
PPG: 27
FGA: 22.6
TS%: 54 (-1.3 %)

2003-2004 KG regular season (82 games played)

Games where KG took 20+ shots
Number of Games: 40 games
PPG: 25.8
FGA: 22.9
TS%: 51 (-3.7%)

2004-2005 KG regular season (82games played)

Games where KG took 20+ shots
Number of Games: 15 games
PPG: 26.13
FGA: 23
TS:%: 48% (-8.7%)

03-04 which is considered KG's peak, and which is also the season he recorded a career high in terms of the 20+ FGA he had, is a perfect example of the above. In about half his games that season, he shot the ball 20+ times, and his production imo was at best, mediocre. I can think of a list of players who if you gave 23 FGA's too, could be more effective than KG.

This is partially the reason why I've never been high on KG as many others have been. His scoring was mediocre for a true 2 way player such as himself, and as far as being the man, I think his teams would have benefited greatly if KG had the ability to take over the game by scoring and being aggressive offensively, instead of the high amount of assists he dished out. High scoring and high FGA's has been discredited in recent times, but I believe its impact in certain contexts can have a much higher impact than any other aspect of basketball. This is also the reason why I believe Dirk is the better player, but that is another story....

[Ron Swanson]

This is my biggest criticism when it comes to KG. He had the ability to put up scoring outputs much like Anthony Davis is doing right now.

I'm not at all sure that he did actually. I mean this as no knock on KG at all. But Anthony Davis is clearly a superior scorer to KG and definitely more capable of exploding for big numbers.

Volume scoring was never really KG's game, but as others above have pointed out, its not like he didn't score a lot of points either. Kevin Garnett was never motivated by his own individual stats, but on how best for his teams to win games. So in Minny he actually took on more of a volume scoring role than was probably ideal and certainly more than suited how he "wanted" to play. But he also wanted to win and looked around and realized, if not me, who?


The irony here is that AD exploded onto the scene, was expected to be the defensive successor to KG, only with more shot-blocking. And if you had been around the PC board 3 years ago you would have heard tons of GOAT talk about him already, and I was one of a few suggesting to tap the breaks before even suggesting he would match KG. And what we are actually getting out of AD is this terrific offensive player whose defense has lagged behind our expectations.

I think it's more a result of different eras than it is different abilities. KG would be the perfect modern-day stretch-4 in today's NBA much like AD is on offense. KG was a bit ahead of his time in the sense that traditional defensive anchors still played primarily under the basket. In 2017? I think prime KG would thrive even more on both ends of the court due to his outside shooting and face-up scoring ability, and switching/weak-side help in modern defensive schemes.

So maybe we're both half right? I think KG had the ability to put up numbers similar to what AD is doing in the present day, but offense in the mid-90s and early-2000s still favored dominant post-play and not the face-up stretch big quite like it does today.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

A guy with KG's talent can score in the high 20s on average, even with respectable efficiency, if he decides to.
It doesn't mean it would be a good idea from a team offence standpoint, though.
The thing is that he had a good post game but he was not a low post machine ready to fight for position at every possession, he tended to use mostly the turnaround fallaway (that is not by the definition a very high percentage shot) rather than tak the middle and had a tendency of avoiding contact and hence he was not drawing fouls at a good rate.
At the same time, his outside game was, he had an excellent mid range set shot but it was not something you could build your offence around. His game from there was actually limited (for a top scorer), in terms of pulling up from the dribble or attacking the basket.
Put all this together and you don't have a dominant scorer compared to guys like Duncan or Dirk, who instead had their own position where you could build your offence around.

[mischievous]

Kg's scoring efficiency also fell off oftentimes in the playoffs, so I don't know why people are acting like he had some hidden scoring ability that he didn't use.

[ItsThatEasy]

This is my biggest criticism when it comes to KG. He had the ability to put up scoring outputs much like Anthony Davis is doing right now.

I'm not at all sure that he did actually. I mean this as no knock on KG at all. But Anthony Davis is clearly a superior scorer to KG and definitely more capable of exploding for big numbers.

Volume scoring was never really KG's game, but as others above have pointed out, its not like he didn't score a lot of points either. Kevin Garnett was never motivated by his own individual stats, but on how best for his teams to win games. So in Minny he actually took on more of a volume scoring role than was probably ideal and certainly more than suited how he "wanted" to play. But he also wanted to win and looked around and realized, if not me, who?


The irony here is that AD exploded onto the scene, was expected to be the defensive successor to KG, only with more shot-blocking. And if you had been around the PC board 3 years ago you would have heard tons of GOAT talk about him already, and I was one of a few suggesting to tap the breaks before even suggesting he would match KG. And what we are actually getting out of AD is this terrific offensive player whose defense has lagged behind our expectations.

You both make great points and it goes back to the mentally of a player.

KG had all the skills in the world and was a killer mentally in every aspect of the game but scoring.

It's so interesting that a guy can be as intense as KG or as laid back as AD but when it comes to scoring AD is far more aggressive. KG has been the focal point of a poor offense just as much as AD has been but he just didn't have that desire to score. Being a playmaker is perfectly fine but there's something to be said about deciding to dominate via putting the ball in the basket yourself.

I think KG's relationship with Marburry is a great example of his mentality in general. He was perfectly fine playing 2nd fiddle to Steph on offense and just anchoring the team in every other way. Steph was the one who felt like he wasn't getting enough shine for whatever reason (mostly $$$) yet KG was as unselfish as a star of his caliber could be on offense.

[drza]

This is my biggest criticism when it comes to KG. He had the ability to put up scoring outputs much like Anthony Davis is doing right now.

I'm not at all sure that he did actually. I mean this as no knock on KG at all. But Anthony Davis is clearly a superior scorer to KG and definitely more capable of exploding for big numbers.

Volume scoring was never really KG's game, but as others above have pointed out, its not like he didn't score a lot of points either. Kevin Garnett was never motivated by his own individual stats, but on how best for his teams to win games. So in Minny he actually took on more of a volume scoring role than was probably ideal and certainly more than suited how he "wanted" to play. But he also wanted to win and looked around and realized, if not me, who?


The irony here is that AD exploded onto the scene, was expected to be the defensive successor to KG, only with more shot-blocking. And if you had been around the PC board 3 years ago you would have heard tons of GOAT talk about him already, and I was one of a few suggesting to tap the breaks before even suggesting he would match KG. And what we are actually getting out of AD is this terrific offensive player whose defense has lagged behind our expectations.

You both make great points and it goes back to the mentally of a player.

KG had all the skills in the world and was a killer mentally in every aspect of the game but scoring.

It's so interesting that a guy can be as intense as KG or as laid back as AD but when it comes to scoring AD is far more aggressive. KG has been the focal point of a poor offense just as much as AD has been but he just didn't have that desire to score. Being a playmaker is perfectly fine but there's something to be said about deciding to dominate via putting the ball in the basket yourself.

I think KG's relationship with Marburry is a great example of his mentality in general. He was perfectly fine playing 2nd fiddle to Steph on offense and just anchoring the team in every other way. Steph was the one who felt like he wasn't getting enough shine for whatever reason (mostly $$$) yet KG was as unselfish as a star of his caliber could be on offense.

There's an expression in the game of dominoes: All money ain't good money. It means that, if it's your turn to play, and you see a way you can score (for example) 10 points on your turn, but that it would leave your opponents set up to score MORE points on their turn, that it's better to leave those 10 points (that "money") on the table, because it's not good money. You'd have more points yourself, but by getting those points you'd be increasing your chances of losing the game.

You have to keep that in mind, when evaluating KG's scoring ability. "Scoring ability", in fact, is too broad of a term. It's comprised of scoring aptitude (e.g. ability to score) plus player evaluation of "playing the right way" (/Larry Brown voice). It's (at least) a two-part issue, and a strong scoring aptitude alone does not, IMO, connote strong scoring ability. And this thread has provided a perfect case to illustrate what I'm talking about.

This Anthony Davis vs KG as a scoring sub-thread is fascinating to me, because it's touching on a point that I made years and years ago in an argument on this board. My point at the time was that many people care more about scoring (volume and efficiency) than they do about actual impact. I gave in my example a hypothetical question:

In a playoffs series loss, which performance do you think would be better for star player with everything/everyone else held equal:

*19 points (40% TS), 9 assists, outstanding defense, cast shoots 50% from field
Team loses series 3 - 1, scoring margin of -3

or

*30 points (60% TS), 1 assist, mediocre defense, cast shoots 45% from field
Team loses series 3 - 0, scoring margin of -10

I believe that many people, using the scoring volume/efficiency over all approach, would say that the second player played better. Whereas I, using an approach that also incorporates impact analytics, would say that the first player played better.

And Anthony Davis makes a wonderful test case for this sentiment. Because, superficially, he does resemble KG on the court. He was expected, by many, to be a player very similar to-/the evolution of- Garnett. But thus far in his career, he has played much more like the second player in the comparison. He's put up gorgeous volume scoring and efficiency stats, with overall mediocre defense and little setting up for his team on offense. And many believe Davis to be the better offensive player. At the very least, in this thread, Davis is thought of as the better scorer. But is he?

Does scoring at a higher volume and efficiency make you a better scorer, when perhaps the ideal strategy for your team would have been for you to shoot less so that others can get theirs?

All Money ain't good money.

Bringing it more directly on-topic. Garnett absolutely had the aptitude to score at higher volumes. Many here have suggested that he could have scored more, but that he wasn't wired to. I think that was a common sentiment when he was playing, as well. However, and I refer back to the Anthony Davis comp and hypothetical from above, the ultimate point for a player on the court is NOT to score the most points as an individual at the highest efficiency. High efficiency individual scoring is a means to possibly make a big impact, it's not the impact itself!

Garnett's reticence for high-volume scoring (particularly as a big man) wasn't hesitation for the sake of hesitation, it was because he had an understanding (that now seems well ahead of its time) that volume scoring from a big man is VERY rarely the best way to lead to the best result for the team! The analytics continue to bear that out, and it's a point that I've seen some here start to recognize. Unless your big man is Shaq, Dirk, or Kareem (or a limited handful of others in history), it very rarely leads to high-impact offense.

No, instead the analytics just keep bearing out that it is passing and getting teammates involved that correlates much more strongly with positive TEAM impact than individual volume scoring.

So, full circle, I believe that Garnett's "scoring aptitude" (using the terms from above) was outstanding. He had a great ability to score from the post, he had a great turn-around, he was an excellent volume-midrange shooter, and he had the athletic ability and handle to attack well off the dribble. There weren't (m)any scoring skills that he didn't have the ability to utilize.

However, when trying to figure out what/why he scored or didn't score more, which in this thread is being referred to as "scoring ability", I think in addition to scoring aptitude we also have to look at scoring attitude. If Garnett's reticence to more heavily volume score is because either he couldn't or just didn't want to for poor reasons when it could have helped his team, then this is a weakness that decreased his scoring ability. If, on the other hand, his scoring style was an example of playing the right way, and was ultimately helping his team to better results than if he'd have shot the ball more, then I just don't see that as a weakness in scoring ability

I guess, my overall point is that you can only separate scoring from overall offense to a certain extent. Because ultimately, overall offensive impact (I would argue) is the goal and scoring just a means of getting there.

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

I'm not at all sure that he did actually. I mean this as no knock on KG at all. But Anthony Davis is clearly a superior scorer to KG and definitely more capable of exploding for big numbers.

Volume scoring was never really KG's game, but as others above have pointed out, its not like he didn't score a lot of points either. Kevin Garnett was never motivated by his own individual stats, but on how best for his teams to win games. So in Minny he actually took on more of a volume scoring role than was probably ideal and certainly more than suited how he "wanted" to play. But he also wanted to win and looked around and realized, if not me, who?


The irony here is that AD exploded onto the scene, was expected to be the defensive successor to KG, only with more shot-blocking. And if you had been around the PC board 3 years ago you would have heard tons of GOAT talk about him already, and I was one of a few suggesting to tap the breaks before even suggesting he would match KG. And what we are actually getting out of AD is this terrific offensive player whose defense has lagged behind our expectations.

You both make great points and it goes back to the mentally of a player.

KG had all the skills in the world and was a killer mentally in every aspect of the game but scoring.

It's so interesting that a guy can be as intense as KG or as laid back as AD but when it comes to scoring AD is far more aggressive. KG has been the focal point of a poor offense just as much as AD has been but he just didn't have that desire to score. Being a playmaker is perfectly fine but there's something to be said about deciding to dominate via putting the ball in the basket yourself.

I think KG's relationship with Marburry is a great example of his mentality in general. He was perfectly fine playing 2nd fiddle to Steph on offense and just anchoring the team in every other way. Steph was the one who felt like he wasn't getting enough shine for whatever reason (mostly $$$) yet KG was as unselfish as a star of his caliber could be on offense.

There's an expression in the game of dominoes: All money ain't good money. It means that, if it's your turn to play, and you see a way you can score (for example) 10 points on your turn, but that it would leave your opponents set up to score MORE points on their turn, that it's better to leave those 10 points (that "money") on the table, because it's not good money. You'd have more points yourself, but by getting those points you'd be increasing your chances of losing the game.

You have to keep that in mind, when evaluating KG's scoring ability. "Scoring ability", in fact, is too broad of a term. It's comprised of scoring aptitude (e.g. ability to score) plus player evaluation of "playing the right way" (/Larry Brown voice). It's (at least) a two-part issue, and a strong scoring aptitude alone does not, IMO, connote strong scoring ability. And this thread has provided a perfect case to illustrate what I'm talking about.

This Anthony Davis vs KG as a scoring sub-thread is fascinating to me, because it's touching on a point that I made years and years ago in an argument on this board. My point at the time was that many people care more about scoring (volume and efficiency) than they do about actual offensive impact. I gave in my example a hypothetical question:

In a playoffs series loss, which performance do you think would be better for star player with everything/everyone else held equal:

*19 points (40% TS), 9 assists, outstanding defense, cast shoots 50% from field
Team loses series 3 - 1, scoring margin of -3

or

*30 points (60% TS), 1 assist, mediocre defense, cast shoots 45% from field
Team loses series 3 - 0, scoring margin of -10

I believe that many people, using the scoring volume/efficiency over all approach, would say that the second player played better. Whereas I, using an approach that also incorporates impact analytics, would say that the first player played better.

And Anthony Davis makes a wonderful test case for this sentiment. Because, superficially, he does resemble KG on the court. He was expected, by many, to be a player very similar to-/the evolution of- Garnett. But thus far in his career, he has played much more like the second player in the comparison. He's put up gorgeous volume scoring and efficiency stats, with overall mediocre defense and little setting up for his team on offense. And many believe Davis to be the better offensive player. At the very least, in this thread, Davis is thought of as the better scorer. But is he?

Does scoring at a higher volume and efficiency make you a better scorer, when perhaps the ideal strategy for your team would have been for you to shoot less so that others can get theirs?

All Money ain't good money.

Bringing it more directly on-topic. Garnett absolutely had the aptitude to score at higher volumes. Many here have suggested that he could have scored more, but that he wasn't wired to. I think that was a common sentiment when he was playing, as well. However, and I refer back to the Anthony Davis comp and hypothetical from above, the ultimate point for a player on the court is NOT to score the most points as an individual at the highest efficiency. High efficiency individual scoring is a means to possibly make a big impact, it's not the impact itself!

Garnett's reticence for high-volume scoring (particularly as a big man) wasn't hesitation for the sake of hesitation, it was because he had an understanding (that now seems well ahead of its time) that volume scoring from a big man is VERY rarely the best way to lead to the best result for the team! The analytics continue to bear that out, and it's a point that I've seen some here start to recognize. Unless your big man is Shaq, Dirk, or Kareem (or a limited handful of others in history), it very rarely leads to high-impact offense.

No, instead the analytics just keep bearing out that it is passing and getting teammates involved that correlates much more strongly with positive TEAM impact than individual volume scoring.

So, full circle, I believe that Garnett's "scoring aptitude" (using the terms from above) was outstanding. He had a great ability to score from the post, he had a great turn-around, he was an excellent volume-midrange shooter, and he had the athletic ability and handle to attack well off the dribble. There weren't (m)any scoring skills that he didn't have the ability to utilize.

However, when trying to figure out what/why he scored or didn't score more, which in this thread is being referred to as "scoring ability", I think in addition to scoring aptitude we also have to look at scoring attitude. If Garnett's reticence to more heavily volume score is because either he couldn't or just didn't want to for poor reasons when it could have helped his team, then this is a weakness that decreased his scoring ability. If, on the other hand, his scoring style was an example of playing the right way, and was ultimately helping his team to better results than if he'd have shot the ball more, then I just don't see that as a weakness in scoring ability

I guess, my overall point is that you can only separate scoring from overall offense to a certain extent. Because ultimately, overall offensive impact (I would argue) is the goal and scoring just a means of getting there.

Quality post. I think its very logical and brings some important context to the debate.

It reminds me a lot of whenever Nash v Stockton gets discussed around here. And the one edge that everyone keeps coming back to in choosing Nash over Stockton is his ability to volume score when the situation calls for it. I mean their career scoring numbers are really very similar, but it is true that Nash gets to his average by having a significantly higher number of 20+ and 30+ games mixed in whereas Stock is much more consistent in his game by game output.

As one who takes Stockton over Nash I've often mentioned an idea similar to the one you bring up here regarding KG--that it was less about Stockton's inability to amp the volume(see the 1989 series against the Warriors where Stockton was putting up almost 20 shots a night and providing 27/14) and more about Stockton playing the way his coach wanted him to play.

Now I would concede that Nash did in fact have more ability to put up the big numbers than John did---it wasn't all simply a matter of how they elected to play. And I would say the same thing here between KG and AD. Yes KG could have scored in more volume quite easily had he chosen that route---and again his RL volume was nothing to sneeze at. He had 8 seasons in the top ten in FGM and 9 seasons in the top ten of 2PFGA,

And I agree that we shouldn't spend so much time isolating scoring from offense. It's one of the things that always frustrated me in the Dirk v KG debates-that so many posters would say well Dirk is a better scorer than KG, but KG is at least as good an overall offensive player because of passing, O-rebounds, etc. When obviously Dirk's scoring process was setting up so many good things for the Mavericks offense overall. So the same should be true of KG in reverse against volume scorers who don't provide everything Dirk does. For instance I'd say without question that KG was a better offensive player than a guy like Melo.

All that said, I do still believe that AD has more scoring talent--ie a more advanced skill set than KG did. Even more range than KG, and just as accurate if not more from mid-range, draws fouls at a higher rate, better in the low post, etc... But I'm not willing to say that AD is yet a better overall offensive player than KG just yet. And everything KG did was why I was so stunned 2 years ago how many people were already prepared to declare that AD would be a superior player and have a superior career in comparison with KG. He still might of course---AD is an absurd talent and he's still pretty young. But KG certainly set a very high bar for a very long time....

[ItsThatEasy]

Spoiler:

You both make great points and it goes back to the mentally of a player.

KG had all the skills in the world and was a killer mentally in every aspect of the game but scoring.

It's so interesting that a guy can be as intense as KG or as laid back as AD but when it comes to scoring AD is far more aggressive. KG has been the focal point of a poor offense just as much as AD has been but he just didn't have that desire to score. Being a playmaker is perfectly fine but there's something to be said about deciding to dominate via putting the ball in the basket yourself.

I think KG's relationship with Marburry is a great example of his mentality in general. He was perfectly fine playing 2nd fiddle to Steph on offense and just anchoring the team in every other way. Steph was the one who felt like he wasn't getting enough shine for whatever reason (mostly $$$) yet KG was as unselfish as a star of his caliber could be on offense.

There's an expression in the game of dominoes: All money ain't good money. It means that, if it's your turn to play, and you see a way you can score (for example) 10 points on your turn, but that it would leave your opponents set up to score MORE points on their turn, that it's better to leave those 10 points (that "money") on the table, because it's not good money. You'd have more points yourself, but by getting those points you'd be increasing your chances of losing the game.

You have to keep that in mind, when evaluating KG's scoring ability. "Scoring ability", in fact, is too broad of a term. It's comprised of scoring aptitude (e.g. ability to score) plus player evaluation of "playing the right way" (/Larry Brown voice). It's (at least) a two-part issue, and a strong scoring aptitude alone does not, IMO, connote strong scoring ability. And this thread has provided a perfect case to illustrate what I'm talking about.

This Anthony Davis vs KG as a scoring sub-thread is fascinating to me, because it's touching on a point that I made years and years ago in an argument on this board. My point at the time was that many people care more about scoring (volume and efficiency) than they do about actual offensive impact. I gave in my example a hypothetical question:

In a playoffs series loss, which performance do you think would be better for star player with everything/everyone else held equal:

*19 points (40% TS), 9 assists, outstanding defense, cast shoots 50% from field
Team loses series 3 - 1, scoring margin of -3

or

*30 points (60% TS), 1 assist, mediocre defense, cast shoots 45% from field
Team loses series 3 - 0, scoring margin of -10

I believe that many people, using the scoring volume/efficiency over all approach, would say that the second player played better. Whereas I, using an approach that also incorporates impact analytics, would say that the first player played better.

And Anthony Davis makes a wonderful test case for this sentiment. Because, superficially, he does resemble KG on the court. He was expected, by many, to be a player very similar to-/the evolution of- Garnett. But thus far in his career, he has played much more like the second player in the comparison. He's put up gorgeous volume scoring and efficiency stats, with overall mediocre defense and little setting up for his team on offense. And many believe Davis to be the better offensive player. At the very least, in this thread, Davis is thought of as the better scorer. But is he?

Does scoring at a higher volume and efficiency make you a better scorer, when perhaps the ideal strategy for your team would have been for you to shoot less so that others can get theirs?

All Money ain't good money.

Bringing it more directly on-topic. Garnett absolutely had the aptitude to score at higher volumes. Many here have suggested that he could have scored more, but that he wasn't wired to. I think that was a common sentiment when he was playing, as well. However, and I refer back to the Anthony Davis comp and hypothetical from above, the ultimate point for a player on the court is NOT to score the most points as an individual at the highest efficiency. High efficiency individual scoring is a means to possibly make a big impact, it's not the impact itself!

Garnett's reticence for high-volume scoring (particularly as a big man) wasn't hesitation for the sake of hesitation, it was because he had an understanding (that now seems well ahead of its time) that volume scoring from a big man is VERY rarely the best way to lead to the best result for the team! The analytics continue to bear that out, and it's a point that I've seen some here start to recognize. Unless your big man is Shaq, Dirk, or Kareem (or a limited handful of others in history), it very rarely leads to high-impact offense.

No, instead the analytics just keep bearing out that it is passing and getting teammates involved that correlates much more strongly with positive TEAM impact than individual volume scoring.

So, full circle, I believe that Garnett's "scoring aptitude" (using the terms from above) was outstanding. He had a great ability to score from the post, he had a great turn-around, he was an excellent volume-midrange shooter, and he had the athletic ability and handle to attack well off the dribble. There weren't (m)any scoring skills that he didn't have the ability to utilize.

However, when trying to figure out what/why he scored or didn't score more, which in this thread is being referred to as "scoring ability", I think in addition to scoring aptitude we also have to look at scoring attitude. If Garnett's reticence to more heavily volume score is because either he couldn't or just didn't want to for poor reasons when it could have helped his team, then this is a weakness that decreased his scoring ability. If, on the other hand, his scoring style was an example of playing the right way, and was ultimately helping his team to better results than if he'd have shot the ball more, then I just don't see that as a weakness in scoring ability

I guess, my overall point is that you can only separate scoring from overall offense to a certain extent. Because ultimately, overall offensive impact (I would argue) is the goal and scoring just a means of getting there.

Quality post. I think its very logical and brings some important context to the debate.

It reminds me a lot of whenever Nash v Stockton gets discussed around here. And the one edge that everyone keeps coming back to in choosing Nash over Stockton is his ability to volume score when the situation calls for it. I mean their career scoring numbers are really very similar, but it is true that Nash gets to his average by having a significantly higher number of 20+ and 30+ games mixed in whereas Stock is much more consistent in his game by game output.

As one who takes Stockton over Nash I've often mentioned an idea similar to the one you bring up here regarding KG--that it was less about Stockton's inability to amp the volume(see the 1989 series against the Warriors where Stockton was putting up almost 20 shots a night and providing 27/14) and more about Stockton playing the way his coach wanted him to play.

Now I would concede that Nash did in fact have more ability to put up the big numbers than John did---it wasn't all simply a matter of how they elected to play. And I would say the same thing here between KG and AD. Yes KG could have scored in more volume quite easily had he chosen that route---and again his RL volume was nothing to sneeze at. He had 8 seasons in the top ten in FGM and 9 seasons in the top ten of 2PFGA,

And I agree that we shouldn't spend so much time isolating scoring from offense. It's one of the things that always frustrated me in the Dirk v KG debates-that so many posters would say well Dirk is a better scorer than KG, but KG is at least as good an overall offensive player because of passing, O-rebounds, etc. When obviously Dirk's scoring process was setting up so many good things for the Mavericks offense overall. So the same should be true of KG in reverse against volume scorers who don't provide everything Dirk does. For instance I'd say without question that KG was a better offensive player than a guy like Melo.

All that said, I do still believe that AD has more scoring talent--ie a more advanced skill set than KG did. Even more range than KG, and just as accurate if not more from mid-range, draws fouls at a higher rate, better in the low post, etc... But I'm not willing to say that AD is yet a better overall offensive player than KG just yet. And everything KG did was why I was so stunned 2 years ago how many people were already prepared to declare that AD would be a superior player and have a superior career in comparison with KG. He still might of course---AD is an absurd talent and he's still pretty young. But KG certainly set a very high bar for a very long time....

Agreed.

The previous post made some great points, and I would certainly say KG is a better offensive player as a whole but AD is simply a better scorer to me, regardless of KG's "desire" to not volume score.

[HeartBreakKid]

Isn't a significant portion of Anthony Davis' offense generated by others compared to Kevin Garnett's? I could be off on that, but I think Garnett is used more as a guy starting a play as opposed to one ending it, in which case, wouldn't the former always be more efficient?

[NO-KG-AI]

Isn't a significant portion of Anthony Davis' offense generated by others compared to Kevin Garnett's? I could be off on that, but I think Garnett is used more as a guy starting a play as opposed to one ending it, in which case, wouldn't the former always be more efficient?

Davis is more of a finisher, but it's not really from teammates doing anything special. Just holding the ball longer until he gets to his spots, etc.

I think one of the bigger differences is just era based. Davis is an aggressive guy in a league that sends everyone to the line for everything, and is from a generation of players that have grown up just barreling into guys for foul shots. It's pretty for the numbers, but I'm not sure it's always the best strategy, because it relies on so many factors out of your control.

[NO-KG-AI]

All that said, I do still believe that AD has more scoring talent--ie a more advanced skill set than KG did. Even more range than KG, and just as accurate if not more from mid-range, draws fouls at a higher rate, better in the low post, etc... But I'm not willing to say that AD is yet a better overall offensive player than KG just yet. And everything KG did was why I was so stunned 2 years ago how many people were already prepared to declare that AD would be a superior player and have a superior career in comparison with KG. He still might of course---AD is an absurd talent and he's still pretty young. But KG certainly set a very high bar for a very long time....

Just being nitpicky as a guy that loves and has watched a massive volume of both... I don't think AD is better in the low post or from mid range than KG was. Not particularly close in terms of low post moves, footwork, or ability to pass from there. Mid range is fairly close, and their range to 3 is close. I don't think Anthony is benefiting by taking 3's, and KG cut that part of his game off pretty early too.

Anthony is certainly more aggressive going for offensive boards and drawing fouls. Not sure it's ALWAYS a good thing, but sometimes it definitely is.

What makes him really special to me in terms of how he ranks compared to the top 4's to ever play, is how high his at the rim %'s are, even in comparison to great finishers like KG and DUncan.