Reply With Quote
I looked it up and did the math. Took me about 5 minutes. Do it and you will see. Or don't, but then shut the up, tbh.
kg had plenty of decent talent for years and with the exception of the 04 year, never even got out the first round
on the other hand, when was nowitzki ever in position to have the talent garnett had from 08-12? yet kg only came out of it with 1 ring and 0 fmvps
I looked it up and did the math. Took me about 5 minutes. Do it and you will see. Or don't, but then shut the up, tbh.
No, he didn't. '04 Cassell was the best player he played with as a Timberwolf and he strangely turned in a career season at 33-34. He never had so much as a top 15 player.
Nowitzki inarguably played with significantly more talent throughout their primes.
Had Garnett not injured his knee in '09, they probably go back-to-back and had Perkins not broken his leg and missed game 7 in '10, they easily could have won that too. Finals MVP is overblown. He was playoffs MVP in '08.
what top 15 player did dirk ever have?
terry and howard > pierce and allen?
i dont disagree that they could have won more, but we could say plenty of coulda woulda stuff for dirk as well
had he not gotten injured in 03 they coulda beat the spurs
had the league not given stackhouse a weak suspension they probably win game 5
had cubes not dismantled the team in 11-12 they may have had a chance to win
we can do this all day. fact is, dirk put a team on his back in a way kg never did.
really? what award is that? never heard of it.
First, it doesn't have KG over Timmy. Duncan is 7th on the list.
Then, I didn't say it was perfect, I didn't even say I agreed with it. Simply that it is an interesting list that ranks players without any bias whatsoever. They just use a set of different metrics and whatever result they get, that's what they write. I don't agree with many things on the list, but I respect it and does make me consider some things.
It shows on the playoffs by having Duncan averaging a mind blowing 0.8 pts more per game than Garnett.You continue to apply narratives to me that I don't even claim or believe in. I never said kg is a choker, and I think it's a heavily overused label for many players. I simply said kg doesn't have the same level of scoring skills that guys like Dirk and Timmy have. and it shows come playoff time when you have to compete against the best defenses giving full effort every night
a big difference than regular seasons when you are facing teams that either completely suck defensively, don't care as much bc it's regular season, or both.
Less capability of affecting the game? Garnett is arguably the most complete bigman in history. He could affect the game in a lot more ways than Dirk. Dirk was unique with his skillset for a 7 footer, but his "game affecting" skills were solely limited to scoring.I fully agree that to an extent you can't always blame lack of team success on a single player, there's only so much he can do. but kg also had some pretty good teams that underachieved as well. and there were times that as the leader and best player on the team, his shortcomings at scoring were part of the reason his teams couldn't get over the hump. defenses simply didn't fear him the way they feared guys like dirk and timmy. I don't really consider it a fault, as much as it simply is something he wasn't capable of doing. ranking him lower than dirk isn't due to faults of kg, as opposed to simply having less capability of affecting the game the way dirk did. dirk literally transformed basketball. kg was basically a lesser version of hakeem.
Yet, he has the same amount of hardware to show while spending most of his prime years in much lesser teams.truth is, kg was generally not on the level of a postseason performer that dirk was.
I never applied the choker label on Dirk. Not even when my war vs the mavkrew was it its peak (good times, tbhand it's funny how you want to say that the choker label is unfair to use (despite me never once using that label for kg), then conveniently want to apply it to dirk every chance you get). I'm just using Dirk as an example of mindless NBA fans going with the flow on empty narratives.
Did you read the analysis on that website? They came up with a non-arbitrary way of determining the level of a player's supporting cast.oh and then you want to criticize people for using what you referred to as the "eye test" but you conveniently want to use the eye test to claim that kg had no good teammates ever in minny, while dirk always was just surrounded by good talent. and then you want to conveniently ignore that kg won a championship with two hof teammates in their primes, while dirk won with a team that had no fellow allstars, nor a single player in the prime of their careers except maybe tyson.
There's nothing contradictory or inconsistent about my arguments. My main argument here is that players are perceived according to the cir stances they fall in, rather than their actual level of play.I really couldn't care less if you simply prefer kg (I mean you consider manu one tier below MJ, LeBron and Timmy for goodness sake) I just don't get your inconsistent arguments. you keep jumping all over the place, making stuff up, and picking and choosing.
If I say that Manu is a better player than Allen Iverson because Manu does literally everything better than Iverson on a basketball court (seriously: shooting, rebounding, blocking, defense, clutchness, making smart decisions, leadership, you name it) people laugh at me because Iverson won NBA MVP and Manu was a 6th man.
This is the same, if I say that KG is better than Dirk becasue he had a bigger impact on games (proved by metrics) some folks Will argue with me because he lost a lot in the first round and didn't have a "killer instect" or "eye of the tiger" or whatever other corny phrase they want to come up with.
Link? I personally did the math myself. I have no problem to admit if I commited a mistake.to add to it, including his decrepit brooklyn season, it appears that his averages in the 2nd 3rd and 4th rounds combined actually are 17.9, not 18.6 as he claims
so since his career playoff average is 18.2, and his averages in rounds 2/3/4 are 17.9, that must mean his first round average is... well we can let him "do the remaining math"
obviously reading isnt your strong suit as i didnt say that. i said russell was ahead of tim
what proof do you have that there is no bias?
if you dont agree with it, then why bother to try to use it as some sort of conclusive proof that kg > dirk?
so that means garnett is about as skilled as timmy?
yet dirk was the one who is viewed as transcendent, and a guy who completely changed the way basketball is played in the nba
obviously his one way of affecting the game was much bigger than all of kgs
some of his prime years
then some of them he spent with 2-3 hof players in their primes and only has 1 ring to show for it
lol okI never applied the choker label on Dirk. Not even when my war vs the mavkrew was it its peak (good times, tbh
i dont disagree about cir stances, but in the end, you can only prove what actually happened. its the same reason that no matter how much people want to argue it, mike will continue to be greater than lebron, despite all the arguments for bron being a better basketball player
dirk had a more impressive career than kg, plain and simple. he changed the league and put a team on his back to win a ring. kg did neither of those.
go do the math and you will realize you failed miserably at it
Then explain how he has 18.8 ppg in the finals? Show your work. I did. He averaged 18 in 08 and 15 in ‘10. I don’t see how that equals 18.8 ppg. And since you have no problem admitting that you’re wrong just say I was wrong and KG didn’t have a finals scoring average of 18.8
Nash's last few seasons as a Maverick were about that level, but the likes of Finley and even Terry were clearly better secondary options than what Garnett had as a Timberwolf.what top 15 player did dirk ever have?
terry and howard > pierce and allen?
i dont disagree that they could have won more, but we could say plenty of coulda woulda stuff for dirk as well
had he not gotten injured in 03 they coulda beat the spurs
had the league not given stackhouse a weak suspension they probably win game 5
had cubes not dismantled the team in 11-12 they may have had a chance to win
we can do this all day. fact is, dirk put a team on his back in a way kg never did.
really? what award is that? never heard of it.
I wasn't basing it off just the 2nd and 3rd best players at a particular point, genius. I meant depth of talent.
Nah, but the difference is, they destroyed the Lakers in '08 and were still better than them in '09. There's every reason to believe they repeat. '10, I'd actually argue the Lakers win either way, but the Celtics needed Perkins against them more than any other team.
Even the NHL is smart enough to realize 4 rounds are greater than 1.
I just did again. Still getting the same results. Now I would like to know your source.
I didn't say he averaged 18.8 ppg on the finals. I said that in the finals, the conference finals, and conference semis combined, he had a combined average of 18.6. which is higher than his Carrer playoffs and therefore it is also higher than his first round average.
Did you read the article?
You and the other dude were the ones that wanted evidential proof that KG > Dirk. Well it doesn't get any more detailed than that, tbh.if you dont agree with it, then why bother to try to use it as some sort of conclusive proof that kg > dirk?
Garnett is arguably the most skilled bigman ever, which it isn't the same as saying he's the best bigman ever, tbh.so that means garnett is about as skilled as timmy?
And Garnett isn't viewed as a transcendent player?yet dirk was the one who is viewed as transcendent, and a guy who completely changed the way basketball is played in the nba
Says who? What did Dirk accomplished so far ahead of KG in the NBA to say that it was "obviously much bigger"?obviously his one way of affecting the game was much bigger than all of kgs
2008 he won it all. 2009 Celtics didn't repeat because Garnett got injured. 2010 Celtics would have won if not for Perkins getting injured. From then on, bye prime. So, Garnett made the most out of the only prime injury free year he had of playing with a good team.some of his prime years
then some of them he spent with 2-3 hof players in their primes and only has 1 ring to show for it
It's not arbitrary because it uses mathematical analysis. I guess you could say the way to come up with the formulas can be considered arbitrary. Still, is a lot more objective than going "obviously his one way of affecting the game was much bigger".
And I say, KG did both. See? That's why a list like the one on that blog has more merits than a simple "your word vs mine" argument.I dont disagree about cir stances, but in the end, you can only prove what actually happened. its the same reason that no matter how much people want to argue it, mike will continue to be greater than lebron, despite all the arguments for bron being a better basketball player
dirk had a more impressive career than kg, plain and simple. he changed the league and put a team on his back to win a ring. kg did neither of those.
Last edited by DAF86; 06-24-2020 at 08:43 PM.
sam cassell and spree were multiple time all-stars. terrell brandon was a multiple time all star. wally made an all star team. stephon marbury obviously made some all-star teams. he also had chauncey billups a couple seasons who went on to make many all-star teams.
jason terry never made a single all-star game, so i dont see how you can say he was clearly superior to all of these guys who made multiple all-star teams
he had plenty of solid contributors as well through those years, such as joe smith, kendall gill, anthony peeler, rasho, candiman, laphonso ellis, gary trent. they all were more than average role players, several of them being 15+ ppg scorers on other teams, in addition to the aforementioned all-star players
whos to say that even with KG, they beat a red-hot magic squad?
coulda woulda shoulda
basketball reference. and some simple addition and division. not that hard. well apparently for you it is.
i did. i saw nothing to prove theres no bias.
i actually never once asked for evidential proof that kg > dirk
originally, i was simply stating that its debatable that he was "by far" the best player on the 08 celtics team, and disproved your claim that in his prime he was putting up the same kind of scoring numbers dirk was putting up
lol i want some of what youre smokin
youthful hype doesnt make you transcendent. he was great, but nothing the league had never seen before. i suppose one could consider him transcendent, but he certainly didnt have the effect on the game of basketball that dirk did. not even close.And Garnett isn't viewed as a transcendent player?
he actually put a team on his back, overcame tough compe ion and odds, and won a championship as the unquestioned best player and leader of his team
no guarantee they win with him
no guarantee they win with perkins
but hey, theres another interesting aspect. the excuse that an injury to a mediocre center was what prevented KG from winning it all. yet in 2011 dirk lost his #2 scorer in caron butler for the season, and in the finals they lost brendan haywood. yet they still went out there and won.to dirk for overcoming injuries, which apparently kg cant do
well you are literally doing the same thing by saying the ways kg affects a game are much bigger. lol at your double standards.
so exactly how did KG change basketball?
Here are KG’s stats. I suppose I can choose ty Garnett stats too like his Nets years but his resume sucks enough as is. 7 first round exits
These are his 1st round averages
97. He averaged 17.3
98: 15.8
99: 21.8
00: 18.8
01: 21
02: 24
03: 27
04: 25
05: 0 ppg in playoffs
06: 0 ppg in playoffs
07: 0 ppg in playoffs
08: 21
10: 15.8
12: 18.7
These are his Semi final averages
04 SF: 23.9
08: 19.6
10: 18.8
12: 19.7
So far he is 50% in averaging more on the second round than the 1st round.
He does much better in the CF though. When KG gets there, he comes to play. Except 2010. He was trash there.
2004 WCF: 23.7
Close out game 6 he had 4 points in the 4th quarter and deferred to Sprewell
2008 ECF: 22.8
He showed up big in the 4th of close out game 6 but still deferred to Pierce to close out the game.
2010 ECF: 10.3
He didn’t show up at all in close out Game 6. He had zero points in the 4th quarter and let Pierce take over the game. Even Perkins had more 4th quarter points than Garnett
2012 ECF: 19.1
He choked in game 7. He had 14 points well under his average of 19 and 2 points in the 4th quarter which is a theme with Garnett only this time Pierce didn’t come to his rescue.
He’s 50/50 here too. Still didn’t match his career playoff series high like in the 1st round but mostly impressive nonetheless. Kevin Garnett is a stat stuffer but when you dive deep you find what I said. He defers in the 4th to others. He scores well until crunch time when he wants no part of the ball. In his biggest moments where the pressure is the most, Garnett shrinks. You can’t just look at stats. You have to dive deeper. 2 points in the 4th isn’t gonna cut it. Neither is zero points or 4 points. These are moments where stars are supposed to step up but he never really did.
Dude, just take the total of pts scored in the first round and divide them by the number of games played. Then do the same with the pts and games of rounds 2, 3 and 4 and you get your results. It is not rocket science.Here are KG’s stats. I suppose I can choose ty Garnett stats too like his Nets years but his resume sucks enough as is. 7 first round exits
These are his 1st round averages
97. He averaged 17.3
98: 15.8
99: 21.8
00: 18.8
01: 21
02: 24
03: 27
04: 25
05: 0 ppg in playoffs
06: 0 ppg in playoffs
07: 0 ppg in playoffs
08: 21
10: 15.8
12: 18.7
These are his Semi final averages
04 SF: 23.9
08: 19.6
10: 18.8
12: 19.7
So far he is 50% in averaging more on the second round than the 1st round.
He does much better in the CF though. When KG gets there, he comes to play. Except 2010. He was trash there.
2004 WCF: 23.7
Close out game 6 he had 4 points in the 4th quarter and deferred to Sprewell
2008 ECF: 22.8
He showed up big in the 4th of close out game 6 but still deferred to Pierce to close out the game.
2010 ECF: 10.3
He didn’t show up at all in close out Game 6. He had zero points in the 4th quarter and let Pierce take over the game. Even Perkins had more 4th quarter points than Garnett
2012 ECF: 19.1
He choked in game 7. He had 14 points well under his average of 19 and 2 points in the 4th quarter which is a theme with Garnett only this time Pierce didn’t come to his rescue.
He’s 50/50 here too. Still didn’t match his career playoff series high like in the 1st round but mostly impressive nonetheless. Kevin Garnett is a stat stuffer but when you dive deep you find what I said. He defers in the 4th to others. He scores well until crunch time when he wants no part of the ball. In his biggest moments where the pressure is the most, Garnett shrinks. You can’t just look at stats. You have to dive deeper. 2 points in the 4th isn’t gonna cut it. Neither is zero points or 4 points. These are moments where stars are supposed to step up but he never really did.
Total of pts scored in rounds 2, 3 and 4 of the playoffs: 1046
Total of games played in those rounds: 56
1046 % 56 = 18.67
I guess mathematical formulas are biased now.I did. i saw nothing to prove theres no bias.
That's actually less of a debate than the KG/Dirk one.I actually never once asked for evidential proof that kg > dirk
originally, i was simply stating that its debatable that he was "by far" the best player on the 08 celtics team, and disproved your claim that in his prime he was putting up the same kind of scoring numbers dirk was putting up
Which other bigman you know that could do as many things as Garnett, all at such a high level? The dude even played Point guard for stretches.lol i want some of what youre smokin
Nothing the league hadn't seen before?youthful hype doesnt make you transcendent. he was great, but nothing the league had never seen before. i suppose one could consider him transcendent, but he certainly didnt have the effect on the game of basketball that dirk did. not even close.
Tell me, how many 7 footers chasing around opposing perimeter players did you see before and after Garnett? Also, how many 7 footers playing PG?
So did Garnett.he actually put a team on his back, overcame tough compe ion and odds, and won a championship as the unquestioned best player and leader of his team
OK, fair enough. No guarantee of either of those things. The fact still remains that in Garnett's only prime season with that team, he rang.No guarantee they win with him
no guarantee they win with perkins
The difference is that advanced metrics actually back up my point.well you are literally doing the same thing by saying the ways kg affects a game are much bigger. lol at your double standards.
Already said it. Unlimited defensive range. 7 footer playing PG. One of the greatest 20 players of all-time.so exactly how did KG change basketball?
But there's no context that way. My way shows you that he basically always did better in the 1st round than the later rounds. Also it shows you what a major complaint about KG is and his clutchness and crunch time play in high pressure games. it's easy to see that he averaged 23 ppg but how many in the 4th? Does he rise to the occasion of big games or does he kind of whimper. KG is the type of player that when things are going good then KG will do fine but when there's any type of resistance or any bad momentum or just a need for a big play, he won't show up. When KG loses he goes out with a whimper in the Conference Finals. And that's KG in a nuts . When guards want to fight him he's all in their face acting tough, when other bigs go after him he runs away. When the going gets tough for KG, he folds
and where exactly did you get 56 games from? I see 75 games played in those rounds.
they absolutely can be. but not everything he did was based on math. much was based on his personal observations of video. so yes there is plenty of room for bias.
its actually not.
hakeem and ad quickly come to mind, both of whom are easily more skilled than kg. but that wasn't even what was being talked about. the comparison was his scoring skillset to Timmy scoring skillset. not comparable, Timmy blows him out of the water
hakeem was pretty capable of those things. and let's not overrate kgs perimeter proficiency, he was good for a big man but certainly not someone you WANT running point or guarding the tony parker's of the world. it certainly wasn't anything like how dirk changed the fact that the league now basically requires at least big man on each team to shoot 3s effectively and have some sort of perimeter skills.Nothing the league hadn't seen before?
Tell me, how many 7 footers chasing around opposing perimeter players did you see before and after Garnett? Also, how many 7 footers playing PG?
then he would have won finals mvp. he didn't.
kudos to him, I was very happy that he did
to a degree. but to some degree they don't, they actually favor dirk in ways
nope, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten ate up by dirk virtually every time they played
decently, not proficiently.
I don't disagree necessarily, but I thought you only post unbiased facts backed up with math?
Goal post moving much?
This whole thing started because you said that the only reason KG had a similar pppg average to Duncan in the playoffs was because KG played mostly first rounds and that first rounds were easier (ignoring the fact that, the Wolves being usually lower seeds often played the best teams in the first round
The list don't lie, tbh.
I did the math. 56 games played between 2nd round, conference finals and NBA finals. 13 with the Wolves, 43 with the Celtics. I don't know where you got 75.
Ok, I can concede that. You still have to respect the fact that is one of the most statistically detailed rankings out there. Of the ones I've seen, is by far the best in that regard. You can agree or not but you have to respect the amount of work put into it. On a debate tournament that ranking trumps any other thing I've read.they absolutely can be. but not everything he did was based on math. much was based on his personal observations of video. so yes there is plenty of room for bias.
It is. The KG/Dirk debate is a close one and even I, being on KG's side, can understand a person arguing for Dirk. KG not being the Celtics best player in 2008 is completely ignorant and I have zero tolerance for such level of stupidity. I already proved to you, with evidence, that Garnett in 2008 had a much more dominant season than most others championship winners that were considered the undisputed alphas of their respective teams.its actually not.
Saying that KG wasn't head and shoulders the Celtics best player throughout both the regular season and playoffs is like saying Duncan wasn't the Spurs best player in 2007 or Curry for GS in 2015 because they didn't win finals MVP. Actually, Duncan didn't finish 3rd in MVP voting in 2007, so it's actually worse to say that KG wasn't the Celtics best player in 2008, than to say Duncan wasn't the Spurs best player in 2007.
When did Hakeem and AD played perimeter defense or played PG? And I would argue that Duncan had more strength than KG to bully people inside. It wasn't so much a difference of skills.hakeem and ad quickly come to mind, both of whom are easily more skilled than kg. but that wasn't even what was being talked about. the comparison was his scoring skillset to Timmy scoring skillset. not comparable, Timmy blows him out of the water
I would argue that it was the rule changes, more than Dirk, that forced teams to play smallball.hakeem was pretty capable of those things. and let's not overrate kgs perimeter proficiency, he was good for a big man but certainly not someone you WANT running point or guarding the tony parker's of the world. it certainly wasn't anything like how dirk changed the fact that the league now basically requires at least big man on each team to shoot 3s effectively and have some sort of perimeter skills.
You want to talk about a guy that trully influnced a change in the NBA? Manu ing Ginobili. There you trully have a game changer regardless of rule modifications. Eurostep, flooping, no-midrange inefficiency. A guy ahead of his time. But not because of that I'm going to say that he's better than players that didn't change but were in fact better. Being a trend setter doesn't make you a better player.
I guess Curry wasn't the unquestioned best player of the Warriors in 2015.then he would have won finals mvp. he didn't.
Yet you say he only has 1 ring to show by playing with 2 other Hall of famers. Well, no he has only one ring, he only played one season in his prime with those guys.kudos to him, I was very happy that he did
In what "degrees" do they favour Dirk?to a degree. but to some degree they don't, they actually favor dirk in ways
If by getting eaten alive you mean 23 ppg on lower than normal efficiency. I guess, sure, Dirk ate KG alive.nope, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten ate up by dirk virtually every time they played
https://www.landofbasketball.com/gam...0in%20Playoffs.
He did it. Thing that no other 7 footer in history did.decently, not proficiently.
KG being a top 20 player is backed up by pretty much any math out there, tbh.I don't disagree necessarily, but I thought you only post unbiased facts backed up with math?
2008 Hawks were talented but very young. 3 starters 22 aged or younger.I like that 2008 Celtic team. But if they were so great why were they getting pushed to the brink by the hawks
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions