Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register
The Offical Matrix Groupchat is online! >>CLICK HERE<<

Greatest Peaks Ep. 11 | Kevin Garnett 2003-04 (Patreon)

Published:
2021-02-09 16:01:01
Imported:
2023-07

Content

We are back! A pretty clear year selection for KG: 2002 didn't have the physical strength and scoring polish on offense, especially in the post, and 2005 didn't have the same defensive motor/intensity that '04 did. 

Reminder: If you have access to this post, you are invited to vote in the Patreon Top-10 peaks at the end of this series. Voting will take place after the final player profile and will be revealed as part of the final episode of this series.

($7 subscribers will receive most videos in this series a week before they are released to the public, $4 subscribers a few days later).

Files

Garnett peak final comp.mp4

This is "Garnett peak final comp.mp4" by Ben Taylor on Vimeo, the home for high quality videos and the people who love them.

Comments

Anonymous

This is how I win, Ben

Anonymous

In my opinion he is the most underrated player in NBA history. Followed by Reggie Miller and David Robinson.

Anonymous

Watching these highlights, he honestly reminded me of a 2K character that's 7'2" and has 99 in every attribute.

Anonymous

BuT He ChOcKeD iN ThE PlAyOfFs

Anonymous

Curious about what Ben and others will think of this; https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=86037180#p86037180 --- Garnett's playstyle was one of the contributing factors to the offensive struggles they had. Yes, his teammates in general were bigger part of the issue but he didn't command such defensive attention from his opponents like Olajuwon, O'Neal or Duncan did. The latter 3 put their teammates in high value scoring spots with their scoring volume. Garnett didn't. Surely, Garnett was more versatile than any of the 3 but versatility doesn't automatically mean for the better.

Anonymous
>>53288678

I mean for someone fighting for a top 5 or 10 peak all-time according to some, he wasn't that great in the PS.

Anonymous
>>53329362

Your right. He couldn't overwhelm his man in single coverage through strength, quickness, low-post repetoire like those guys could and it showed when you compare his creation for others being not that great despite being easily a better passer than all of them.

Anonymous
>>53329362

Those guys had more on-ball value. KG had more off-ball value.

Anonymous
>>53329362

What?.. Garnett is the most ball dominant of the 4, who almost played like point forward, had more off-value than Shaquille O'Neal? That is like saying LeBron James having more off-ball value than Stephen Curry. It's an interesting thing to say because Garnett had the least off-ball value on offense among those 4. If you open up the link I gave and look at it, you'd see that Duncan, O'Neal and Nowitzki put their teammates at higher value positions because their off-ball values were higher. It's proven in numbers.

Anonymous

Somewhere Laker Killer Troy Hudson is still waiting for a shout out 😭

Anonymous

Considering that offense is a bit more important than defense, I don't understand why you conclude that KG had one of the greatest peaks ever when he had such a low efficiency on offense combined with "just" good passing.

Anonymous
>>53462542

...he didn't have "just" good passing, he had fantastic passing, and his efficiency was poor with mediocre support carrying heavy loads; kg was functionally a all star guard on offense, shooting, good scoring, and strong perimeter level creation. And that is just his on ball value, his finishing and lob gravity, offensive rebounding, quick shots and scoring moves, and short roll passing added a lot of value as well.

Ben Taylor
>>53329362

There's enough in that post that a response requires it's own piece of content ...but I'll say in advance that it's just a derivative of the same critiques that have existed since 2003. Don't agree at all with the comment about Duncan's off-ball value.

Ben Taylor
>>53462542

Do you not think he would have been an All-Star on offense if he was a neutral defender?

Anonymous

This was maybe my most anticipated episode purely because I feel KG is the most misunderstood superstar of all time. He's gonna be up there with players like curry in the most scaleable of all time and I reckon his defensive attributes would be even better today. Yet most people would laugh if you suggested he has a strong argument for best PF of all time

Anonymous
>>53288678

Well that is a pretty big part of it. Like yes, his passing is great, but it only matters so much if you can't force rotations and create pressure with your scoring. Since you asked: KG (2003 and 2004 Playoffs)-24 games played Opponent Defense: +0.4 22.8 pts/75 (rTS% of -0.1), 13.6 Rebs/75, 4.7 assists/75, 1.3 stls/75, 1.9 blks/75, 5.2 Shots Created per 100 possessions PER-25 WS/48-0.158 BPM 2.0- 6.6 2003PS RAPTOR- 2.13 RAPTOR Offense/4.88 RAPTOR Defense(RAPTOR Total-7.01) Predator Offense-2.54/Predator Defense-4.92 (Predator Total-7.47) 2004 PS RAPTOR- 1.71 RAPTOR offense/ 3.73 Raptor Defense (RAPTOR Total-5.45) Predator Offense-2.39/Predator Defense-3.47 (Predator Total-5.86) PIPM- 3.0 (2.5 O-PIPM and 0.5 D-PIPM) AuPM-6.5 Backpicks BPM-6.05

Anonymous
>>53288678

In comparison someone like Tim Duncan looks much more impressive during his 2-year peak: Tim Duncan (2002 and 2003 Playoffs)- 33 games played Opponent Defense: -1.4 (So Duncan played the tougher defenses) 24.2pts/75 (rTS% of 5.5%), 14.3 Rebs/75, 4.9 assists/75, 0.6 stls/75, 3.4 blks.75. 3.8 Shots Created per 100 possessions PER-29.3 WS/48-0.270 BPM2.0-10.5 PIPM-6.9 (5.4 O-PIPM and 1.5 D-PIPM) AuPM-9.2 Backpicks BPM-7.7 02 RAPTOR PS O-3.78 D-5.10 Total-8.88 Offense/Defense/Total Predator O-4.04 T-3.92 Total-7.96 03 PS RAPTOR O-4.94 D-5.03 Total-9.97 Predator O-4.59 D-4.52 Total-9.11

Anonymous
>>53288678

Well, the only thing that says to me is that you can't compare stats without watching film! I don't think there's a gap betweem these two players, they're pretty close IMO

Ben Taylor
>>53288678

Well, this is addressed in both Garnett's & Duncan's video -- but you have to account for context in the data and you have to consider noise/variance in these samples. If you take them at face value, you'll have Duncan as slam dunk for your top-3 peaks ever and then you won't think that highly of him in his surrounding years.

Ben Taylor
>>53462542

@Matthew Let's assume Felix agrees with you (we can just use it as a talking point)...what would you base the change on? My guess is that you're using a few basic stats in small samples and then inferring a big drop off? Larger sampled data, context of those series (injuries and opponent matchup) and watching the game don't really warrant much of a change to me...

Anonymous
>>53462542

With that passing, shooting, oreb, post game and handle he is looking at least like a diet jokic on offense, so... Were is all this doubt coming from?

Anonymous
>>53462542

The problem with his offense in my opinion is that he shot a lot of midrangers (over 50% of his attempts) without boosting his efficiency very much with FTs (FTr of 29% in 03 and 32% in 04) and 3 pointers. His assist rate is only 25% in these two seasons. Good, but not great. TS only slightly above average. I'm unsure if his offense by itself is All-Star worthy. Duncan, Nowitzki, Stojakovic were contemporary forwards with better offense than KG.

Anonymous
>>53462542

Let's put it this way: I would rank David Robinson's peak (the other superstar without much help and a dubious playoff reputation) higher than KG's peak bc he was much better on offense and not that far away on defense compared to KG.

Anonymous
>>53329362

Garnett never commanded such (Duncan level) attention from opponent’s defense. But let’s assume Garnett’s and Duncan’s off ball value per possession being on the same level or slight edge to Garnett for conversation’s sake. Garnett played way more on-ball oriented than Duncan. How is Garnett’s off ball value in a game is bigger than Duncan’s?.. Another thing, this already a Duncan-Garnett comparison because you had some small jabs already in the video. Like this; “And amazingly when both KG and Duncan were on the court for those 12 games, their teams scored the exact same number of points.” This is a statement of you in the video and it looked like a underhanded jab (if I ever see one from you) because those games were decided within 2.5 ppg, both legends were in the top percentile of the +/- data, and you made that statement sound like it was 2005-07 or 2012-14 era Spurs and the games ended with 10-15 ppg gaps.

Ben Taylor
>>53329362

Woah -- that statement means it's incredible that two rivals played each other over 12 games and finished perfectly tied on the scoreboard. Not sure what the "jab" would even be. Haha

Ben Taylor
>>53329362

As for off-ball vs on-ball, Duncan's on-ball game was very deliberate and grinding. Big time of possession. Watch for it in his video. Off-ball value comes from shooting (big edge to KG), extra passing (edge to KG) offensive rebounding (both have this), and movement (edge to KG).

Anonymous
>>53329362

O’Neal was an awful shooter and he was arguably the most bending off-ball presence ever. I agree that Garnett was a better shooter than Duncan (it’s not something to agree though, it’s a fact in numbers). Though Duncan’s scoring drew bigger attention than Garnett’s shooting/scoring. While Garnett was rarely doubled in general, Duncan was doubled before he got the ball on some occasions. Also considering Duncan’s unassisted fgm%, I don’t think shooting particularly matters for off-ball presence in this one. Garnett was the better facilitator through his better passing. To pass the ball, or leverage your ability to pass the ball, you should have the ball though. Garnett spent less time on the ball when he touched the ball but on overall he spent more time on the ball because he touched the ball more. The time they spent as an off-ball value favours Duncan by off-ball definition.

Anonymous
>>53462542

The context e feel you are missing is that KG wasn't on similar situations to other players in this list. The Wolves were just a porly constructed team with score first players that couldn't play off ball by either shooting or cutting consistently, who were also bad defenders that couldn't keep their man in front of them and were slow on rotations. And to cap it of, the coach was mediocre at best. Whatever you guys think Garnett should've or could've done to be a better offensive player, you shoul also consider the team. If shooting less midrangers and attacking the rim is the solution, wich is clear to me he was able to do given his handle, skill and athleticism, how can he do it consistently with the lane clogged? If taking 3s is the solution, is hard to even try if you coach highly discourage it. Free throws were on him for not being good at drawing them. Moving off-ball rolling, running in trasintion, drifting to the dunker spot were thing he did that could boost his efficiency, but again, no one was hitting him on those. As of his playmaking, for all of the estimated gravity from pressuring the defense and drawing double teams you keep mentioning he doesn't have, his box creation ranks higher than both shaq and duncan on eihter prime years. Creating easy shots for teammates wasn't the problem, hitting those shot were. Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, even Robinson all had better shooters and finishers around them. And when playing in boston, his passing was better, but rondo was the primary creator. Garnett could go iso-ball and not suck at it, but is hard to do it well when the other team is loading up on you and your team can't punish them. You can put Duncan, Shaq, Jordan or Lebron on this teams, the result won't change. Garnett took this mixbag of a team to the conference finals amd took an old and dysfunctional, but still loaded Lakers team to 6 games, that's not shrinking on the PS. His numbers would look much better if he played on a team such as the Lebron lead Cavs (the 2000s Cavs), for as problematic as they were they had better defenders and off-ball players than the Wolves. But again, is not like your ridiculously long train of thought is wrong, but in my eyes, Garnett would look like a much better offensive player if his team just took 3s, had better cutters and just 1 above averege creator that wasn't hurt.

Anonymous
>>53329362

Not clear on this point? Why? ""Off-ball value comes from shooting (big edge to KG), extra passing (edge to KG) offensive rebounding (both have this), and movement (edge to KG)."" This evaluation lacked scoring's importance on off-ball value. Drawing opponent defense's attention even when not having the ball is part of off-ball value. Duncan was a better scorer than Garnett and he also drew more attention than Garnett in off-ball play for it. Opponent defenses worked harder to deny the ball from reaching Duncan compared to Garnett. Garnett spent more time on the ball than Duncan. Yeah, when Duncan got the ball he spent more time on it but on overall, Garnett was more ball-dominant between the two. Even if we agree that Garnett's off-ball value per second (or minute) is greater, Duncan spent more time without the ball and it would make his per possession (or game) impact greater. You made a case for Garnett's off-ball value being greater. I did the same for Duncan.

Anonymous
>>53329362

Are you basing this on stats or watching film? Because it doesn't seem to make sense to me either way. Saying "to pass the ball you should have the ball" concluding it's not an off-ball skill is the same as saying "you need the ball to dunk" concluding that alley-oops aren't off ball game. Note he said "extra-passing", meaning when you catch the ball and immediately move to a better spot. But what seems to be the bigger problem to me is both the idea that Garnett had trouble drawing attention and that drawing attention with deep position is more valuable than things like shooting, passing and finishing off the ball. The first one is weird, because by watching a couple of his playoff games, feels like he is getting all the attention. He drew doubles and attentions like an regular all-star big would, but his teammates had trouble making good entry passes and punishing denials. They also had trouble drawing attention, as they would mostly shoot long 2s and would rarely captalize on the attention they got by passing. And yet, Garnett has the highest Box Creation numbers (estimate of open shots creates to teammates) than any other big ever. So I don't get where this hypothetical lack of attention is coming from. Now for the next topic... I will go ahead and assume that you mean that the simple presence of Duncan, Shaq or other bigs on the paint, looking for the ball, creates gravity enough to open shots for the rest of the team without them even touching the ball. And yes, I belive so, I don't belive it's more important than getting the defense glued on you by the threat of the shooting opening the lane. Or the ability to quickly make a play whem catching the ball (by either passing or shooting), and overall, the value of drawing attention by strong interior presence doesn't create a huge off ball advantage as you seem to belive. And lastly, I do not understand how do you really belive Duncan played more off ball than KG. Garnett did handle the ball more, but overall, his game was more catch-and-shoot/pass, moving around without the ball while Duncan was grinding in the post, long time of posetion, readind the floor before passing, little movement without the ball.

Ben Taylor
>>53462542

Matthew, those are many good points — many of which are part of my process. But there’s more to it for me: -PS impacts: From 02-04 KG has some of the best PS on/off ever recorded. Still a small sample (27g). But 00-02 is +11. His 08-11 (clearly past peak) was +10.2. ’11-13 +18.2. There’s basically no player in playoff history that matches this 10-year consistency outside of LeBron. -KG’s scoring sample *does* have noise for the relevant seasons. This is a big deal to me. He was a fairly improved scorer by 04 vs 00 — I’m not even comfortable having to use 02 in the sample (but only 3g). Half his sample in 03/04 is vs LAL, but from 02-04 against LAL in the regular season he averaged 21.9/75 on 53.9% TS. Not an easy matchup for him. (Note LA’s true D also much better due to their injuries.) Still, compare his stats vs strong defenses with Duncan (including PS): 02-06 KG: 22.7/75 +2.6% 01-05 TD: 23.4/75 +2.2% How can I see a large difference in their scoring games based on this data? KG also draws plenty of doubles + good extra passing. His playmaking estimates generally &gt; Duncan’s, despite Duncan being in a more structured system for his passing. KG also looks like a better playmaker on film. What do I mean by context here? Olajuwon as the No. 1 option without 3-pt shooters doesn’t look so hot either, despite being an excellent scorer. Since just about every star has scoring stats impacted by teammates (and opponent quality), how can I ignore this with KG (or KG vs TD)?

Anonymous
>>53329362

According to those box creation numbers, Shaquille O'Neal had less off-ball value than Kevin Garnett. Would you agree with that? That is an estimate calculated with high regards for assists numbers. Ray Allen has higher box creation than Reggie Miller, Allen's the better off-ball player, yes?.. --- Off-ball value is not solely off-ball movement. If it was put as off-ball movement, it's very easy to agree with Garnett being better at it. But off-ball value has other components as I discussed a few times now. If you didn't see how hard the Pistons tried to deny the ball from reaching Duncan in 2005 Finals or similarly in entire 2002 and 2003 playoff runs, then I can't do much about it. Inside scoring presence, forcing the opponent defenses collapse on you even before you had the ball, those are also important. In a time Shaq, Duncan and Garnett played, those were more important than facilitating. --- I have my notes stating that Garnett spent roughly 4-4.5 seconds per possession on ball in the 1st half of the '00s and Duncan spent around 2.5 seconds. Your point is like as if Duncan tried to shoot the ball in every single possession. Even in his grinding style at his most often point in 2001-02 season, Duncan's time topped at 3.1 seconds (Garnett peaked at 4.8 seconds in 2002-03). That is a pretty considerable difference.

Anonymous
>>53329362

I used Box Creation as a counter to your argument that other bigs drew more attention than Garnett, not as an off ball measure. --- Again, I don't belive forcing teams to deny you without even touching that ball creates such a big advantage. If they don't touch the ball and demand the defense to commit, the advantahe (open teammates on the perimeter) is very small. And if you do catch the ball, you have to be a good playmaker. Spacing, movement and quick decisions are as important or more to create advantages. --- By a lack of guards or playmakers on hia teams, Garnett handled the ball more than Duncan. This doesn't mean he is a worse off ball player. Duncan was a worse dynamic passer, moved less, shot worse and was more reliant on bully ball and isolations than Garnett. My point is Duncan didn't create a lot of advantages without the ball, even of he didn't just shoot it when he had it. --- Duncan was clearly a better scorer, but I'm not sure it makes him a better offensive player.

Anonymous
>>53329362

Garnett drew less attention than O'Neal, Nowitzki and Duncan however you look at it. It's an interesting thing to say. --- You made your case, I made mine. To me, you're looking at what happened in that time via this heavy spacing era glasses. --- "By a lack of guards or playmakers on hia teams" I think you need to realize that 2002 and 2003 Spurs had worse playmakers / ball handlers than 2003 and 2004 Wolves to begin with. It should be interesting for you to realize that Garnett had better help on offense from his team even though Duncan had better help on overall thanks to Robinson/Rose/Bowen on defense. --- Duncan's production on offense gradually got better in the playoffs. Duncan's numbers in 2001-02 and 2002-03 seasons; per game numbers 24.4 pts 3.2 oreb 3.8 ast on .570 ts (+5.0 rts, +1.9 ts add per 36), 5.2 obpm on a 96.3 ppg team in R. Seasons 21.5 pts 3.4 oreb 5.3 ast on .594 ts (+9.8 rts, +3.1 ts add per 36), 5.2 obpm on a 94.6 ppg team in Playoffs 1st rounds 27.2 pts 3.9 oreb 5.2 ast on .560 ts (+4.7 rts, +2.0 ts add per 36), 6.8 obpm on a 94.0 ppg team in Playoffs after 1st rounds --- ORtg numbers The team had 105.8 ORtg with Duncan on court and 99.6 without him in regular season. The team had 107.8 ORtg with Duncan on court and 89.5 without him in playoffs after 1st rounds. The team had 104.4 ORtg with Duncan on court and 90.0 without him in playoff 1st rounds. --- The defenses Duncan faced in those 4 playoff series after 1st rounds; 2002 LAL, 7th in DRtg with -2.8 rDRtg 2003 LAL, 19th in DRtg with +1.1 rDRtg 2003 DAL, 9th in DRtg with -1.3 rDRtg 2003 NJN, 1st in DRtg with -5.5 rDRtg With number of games played considered, that's -2.1 rDRtg on average. --- Another thing is Duncan's scoring (and assists) carried harder the Spurs offense as it got tougher for the team. Duncan's points and assists accounted for 34.00% of Spurs total in 2001-02 and 2002-03 regular season. If we look at the time when Duncan was on court, it's 40.95%. In 2002 and 2003 first rounds, those numbers are 32.88% & 40.41%. (These numbers include the game 4 of 2002 1st round against the Sonics which Duncan missed.) In 2002 and 2003 playoffs after first rounds, those numbers are 41.23% and 45.53%. --- If you look at Garnett's track record in 2003 and 2004 postseason in that sense, it's really worse than that by considerable margin. I wouldn't want to include them in here to avoid, if you want to see, you can check my post about this on 35th page of Ben's Peak Series thread on RealGM PC board, I'm Odinn21. When Duncan drew more attention, his production still went up. That can not be said for Garnett. I also highlight the offensive help they got in that post. It really should be interesting to realize that Duncan had no one to create an offense or a good shot by himself. Heck, here's the direct link; https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=88838118#p88838118