Author Topic: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?  (Read 11958 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #75 on: March 11, 2013, 11:23:32 AM »

Offline dinome18

  • Sam Hauser
  • Posts: 156
  • Tommy Points: 7
Dirk ahead of KG? :o. That's plain silly. lol

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #76 on: March 11, 2013, 11:34:41 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544

But I'd say KG strikes me kind of like Skip said .....an all time great, but not near all time greatest. Just in his era I'd put both Duncan and Dirk ahead of him.

Are you kidding me?  No way is Dirk better than KG.  Not ever!  Dirk was a completely one dimensional player (offense) for much of his career.

KG is better than Duncan also, in my opinion, but I'd concede it's very close.

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #77 on: March 11, 2013, 11:49:28 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
The top 6 PF's are Malone, Duncan, Garnett, Barkley, Mchale, and Nowitzki (I have Elgin Baylor as a SF and thus is not on this list). I think you could make an argument for any one of those guys being the best, but I personally believe it is Malone.  He was by far the most prolific scorer, was a comparable rebounder to the other 6, and was a very under rated defender.  He also was still winning league MVP's at the age of 35. 

Malone's career numbers are 25.0 p, 10.1 r, 3.6 a, 1.4 s, 0.8 b per game.  That includes the beginning and end of his career when all players are far from their peak.  To put that type of scoring in perspective Garnett has never even averaged 25 points a game for a season and Duncan and McHale each only did it 1 time.

After Malone, I have in order Duncan, Barkley, Garnett, McHale, and Nowitzki.  Duncan is pretty clearly #2 to me.  Winning matters and he was by far the best player on 3 title teams (and may have been better than Robinson for the first).  You can't ignore that, but at the same time Malone did more with less (those teams were Malone, Stockton who wasn't a scorer and a bunch of crap for the most part) and had far superior numbers so I gave him the nod at #1.  Dirk loses points because he is a much weaker rebounder than the others and I had to dock McHale because he was never his teams best player and thus never had to be the man.  I think he could have done it just fine, but he was never in that position so it is hard to say.  Barkley and Garnett were close for me, but I gave the edge to Barkley due to his far superior numbers, which to me outweigh KG's 1 title, which came after he was on an ensemble team rather than the man.

So for me the 6 greatest PF's in history are

1. Malone
2. Duncan
3. Barkley
4. Garnett
5. McHale
6. Nowitzki

I think a guy like Rodman despite being totally worthless on the offensive end probably would come in at 7 because he was the greatest rebounder in history (compared to league average) and perhaps the greatest defender in league history as well. 
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 12:23:36 PM by Moranis »
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #78 on: March 11, 2013, 12:09:30 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I think Rodman is totally underrated and I'm annoyed he never made an Olympic team, when he clearly shows what American freedom can be all about.

He's the only guy I ever saw defend a prime Shaq man to man straight up. I couldn't believe what I was seeing

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg3BiOw4TWo
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 12:16:13 PM by eja117 »

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #79 on: March 11, 2013, 12:21:20 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Dirk ahead of KG? :o. That's plain silly. lol
Dirk beat the big three of Miami face to face and didn't have tons of help. 

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #80 on: March 11, 2013, 12:30:43 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Large 2 guards don't lead the league in rebounding for years at a time. The notion KG is just an overgrown 2 guard is preposterous. There is only one guy in league history that have ever done 20/10/5 over 6 straight years, KG.


Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #81 on: March 11, 2013, 01:49:37 PM »

Offline drza44

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 749
  • Tommy Points: 187
And I don't buy the teammate argument in this. If you give KG Tony Parker and Manu and you give Duncan PP and Ray and Rondo what happens? 

Wait.  The teammate argument deals with when they were in their primes.  If you gave KG PP, Ray and Rondo during the years when Duncan was winning championships then teammates would never be brought up.

The real swap is if you gave Duncan teams featuring the pu pu platter from Minnesota and gave KG Robinson, Parker and Manu what would happen?  And it's a much different answer.

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #82 on: March 11, 2013, 01:55:00 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
And I don't buy the teammate argument in this. If you give KG Tony Parker and Manu and you give Duncan PP and Ray and Rondo what happens? 

Wait.  The teammate argument deals with when they were in their primes.  If you gave KG PP, Ray and Rondo during the years when Duncan was winning championships then teammates would never be brought up.

The real swap is if you gave Duncan teams featuring the pu pu platter from Minnesota and gave KG Robinson, Parker and Manu what would happen?  And it's a much different answer.
Well I guess technically we need to give them 4 clones...or clone 4 more Duncans and 4 more Garnetts.

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #83 on: March 11, 2013, 02:08:55 PM »

Online hpantazo

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24882
  • Tommy Points: 2700
Wow, I always viewed KG as equal to Tim Duncan even before he came to the celtics and won a ring. I never, ever considered Dirk close to their level. Dirk is a great player, had a nice run for a few seasons, but nowhere near KG or Duncan in terms of consistent domination and how they impact the game overall.

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #84 on: March 11, 2013, 02:10:07 PM »

Offline CelticsFan9

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1571
  • Tommy Points: 116
  • Everyone's excited for the new era.
Jeez, McHale is being underrated here, in my opinion.  I wasn't alive when he played, but from what I've read, and from what I've watched, the guy was a monster on the block, arguably the best post player ever.  If his feet don't give out, the guy probably could've played into his forties.

Duncan is better than KG.  For starters, he has more rings.  Second, he could play any style.  He won two titles during the era when defense beats offense, he won another title during the era where the league was adjusting to new rules, and he won another when the league became offense, small ball oriented.  Even today, he is performing at an incredibly high on a team that has consistently won year after year after year.  Finally, he could adapt to any game or situation.  If the Spurs needed 30 points, he'd do it.  If they needed 20 rebounds, he'd do it.  If they needed him to play defense and do the dirty work, he'd do it.  I don't think the same could be said for KG (just personal opinion).

KG is all-time great.  I love the guy, and he probably became the first guy who was an elite player that was a jump shooting big.  I'd go as far to say there's no Kevin Durant game today if it weren't for KG.  His defense and intensity are characteristics I'll always appreciate.

Malone is one of those guys who did great things, but in the end left you wanting more.  I'm a firm believer that if he wasn't so scared in the clutch, those Jazz teams could have knocked off the Bulls.  He was the best running big man ever, one of the most well conditioned players ever, and his PNR game with Stockton was one of the most unstoppable plays ever.

Nowitzki probably did the most globally out of all these PFs.  After winning the title, his fame skyrocketed across the world, even after being loved worldwide, especially in Europe.  I'd also venture to say his championship was the most improbable out of any of these PFs.  Against the Blazers, everyone thought Dallas would choke, because they always did (and they collapsed in the Brandon Roy Game 4 masterpiece).  But they pulled it out, and then SWEPT the defending champs, without HCA.  That is impressive in itself.  Then, Dirk single-handedly destroyed the Thunder, and capped off the playoff run by humiliating the Heat.

All that being said, my list goes like this:

Duncan
McHale
Garnett/Malone (it could really go either way)
Nowitzki

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #85 on: March 11, 2013, 02:36:52 PM »

Offline CelticG1

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4201
  • Tommy Points: 288
Jeez, McHale is being underrated here, in my opinion.  I wasn't alive when he played, but from what I've read, and from what I've watched, the guy was a monster on the block, arguably the best post player ever.  If his feet don't give out, the guy probably could've played into his forties.

Duncan is better than KG.  For starters, he has more rings.  Second, he could play any style.  He won two titles during the era when defense beats offense, he won another title during the era where the league was adjusting to new rules, and he won another when the league became offense, small ball oriented.  Even today, he is performing at an incredibly high on a team that has consistently won year after year after year.  Finally, he could adapt to any game or situation.  If the Spurs needed 30 points, he'd do it.  If they needed 20 rebounds, he'd do it.  If they needed him to play defense and do the dirty work, he'd do it.  I don't think the same could be said for KG (just personal opinion).

KG is all-time great.  I love the guy, and he probably became the first guy who was an elite player that was a jump shooting big.  I'd go as far to say there's no Kevin Durant game today if it weren't for KG.  His defense and intensity are characteristics I'll always appreciate.

Malone is one of those guys who did great things, but in the end left you wanting more.  I'm a firm believer that if he wasn't so scared in the clutch, those Jazz teams could have knocked off the Bulls.  He was the best running big man ever, one of the most well conditioned players ever, and his PNR game with Stockton was one of the most unstoppable plays ever.

Nowitzki probably did the most globally out of all these PFs.  After winning the title, his fame skyrocketed across the world, even after being loved worldwide, especially in Europe.  I'd also venture to say his championship was the most improbable out of any of these PFs.  Against the Blazers, everyone thought Dallas would choke, because they always did (and they collapsed in the Brandon Roy Game 4 masterpiece).  But they pulled it out, and then SWEPT the defending champs, without HCA.  That is impressive in itself.  Then, Dirk single-handedly destroyed the Thunder, and capped off the playoff run by humiliating the Heat.

All that being said, my list goes like this:

Duncan
McHale
Garnett/Malone (it could really go either way)
Nowitzki

McHale rightfully loses points for his lack of longevity, which imo is a huge thing to look at when considering all time greats.

I dont really get your point about his feet. Yeah if no one got injured or aged they could play until they're 40

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #86 on: March 11, 2013, 02:39:59 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
Jeez, McHale is being underrated here, in my opinion.  I wasn't alive when he played, but from what I've read, and from what I've watched, the guy was a monster on the block, arguably the best post player ever.  If his feet don't give out, the guy probably could've played into his forties.

Duncan is better than KG.  For starters, he has more rings.  Second, he could play any style.  He won two titles during the era when defense beats offense, he won another title during the era where the league was adjusting to new rules, and he won another when the league became offense, small ball oriented.  Even today, he is performing at an incredibly high on a team that has consistently won year after year after year.  Finally, he could adapt to any game or situation.  If the Spurs needed 30 points, he'd do it.  If they needed 20 rebounds, he'd do it.  If they needed him to play defense and do the dirty work, he'd do it.  I don't think the same could be said for KG (just personal opinion).

KG is all-time great.  I love the guy, and he probably became the first guy who was an elite player that was a jump shooting big.  I'd go as far to say there's no Kevin Durant game today if it weren't for KG.  His defense and intensity are characteristics I'll always appreciate.

Malone is one of those guys who did great things, but in the end left you wanting more.  I'm a firm believer that if he wasn't so scared in the clutch, those Jazz teams could have knocked off the Bulls.  He was the best running big man ever, one of the most well conditioned players ever, and his PNR game with Stockton was one of the most unstoppable plays ever.

Nowitzki probably did the most globally out of all these PFs.  After winning the title, his fame skyrocketed across the world, even after being loved worldwide, especially in Europe.  I'd also venture to say his championship was the most improbable out of any of these PFs.  Against the Blazers, everyone thought Dallas would choke, because they always did (and they collapsed in the Brandon Roy Game 4 masterpiece).  But they pulled it out, and then SWEPT the defending champs, without HCA.  That is impressive in itself.  Then, Dirk single-handedly destroyed the Thunder, and capped off the playoff run by humiliating the Heat.

All that being said, my list goes like this:

Duncan
McHale
Garnett/Malone (it could really go either way)
Nowitzki

McHale rightfully loses points for his lack of longevity, which imo is a huge thing to look at when considering all time greats.

I dont really get your point about his feet. Yeah if no one got injured or aged they could play until they're 40

Yeah, you have to factor injuries.  Otherwise, if KG doesn't go down with his knee injury, there's a strong possibility he has a 3-peat on his resume.

KG would have the title as best PF ever locked up if that happened.

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #87 on: March 11, 2013, 03:06:35 PM »

Offline gar

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2629
  • Tommy Points: 247
  • Strength from Within
My Reply

Name me another player that has 25000 points 10000 rebounds 5000 assists almost 2000 blocks and over 1000 steals......


OH THATS RIGHT... THERE ISNT ANY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man is in a league of his own.

Factor in the way he makes those around him play harder, and the way he anchors a defence.

You have an all time great there

The Arc of K.G.s career is unprecedented. Some have won more championships, some have shot more 3's; but none have done it all the way that K.G. has.

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #88 on: March 11, 2013, 03:43:11 PM »

Offline CelticsFan9

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1571
  • Tommy Points: 116
  • Everyone's excited for the new era.
Jeez, McHale is being underrated here, in my opinion.  I wasn't alive when he played, but from what I've read, and from what I've watched, the guy was a monster on the block, arguably the best post player ever.  If his feet don't give out, the guy probably could've played into his forties.

Duncan is better than KG.  For starters, he has more rings.  Second, he could play any style.  He won two titles during the era when defense beats offense, he won another title during the era where the league was adjusting to new rules, and he won another when the league became offense, small ball oriented.  Even today, he is performing at an incredibly high on a team that has consistently won year after year after year.  Finally, he could adapt to any game or situation.  If the Spurs needed 30 points, he'd do it.  If they needed 20 rebounds, he'd do it.  If they needed him to play defense and do the dirty work, he'd do it.  I don't think the same could be said for KG (just personal opinion).

KG is all-time great.  I love the guy, and he probably became the first guy who was an elite player that was a jump shooting big.  I'd go as far to say there's no Kevin Durant game today if it weren't for KG.  His defense and intensity are characteristics I'll always appreciate.

Malone is one of those guys who did great things, but in the end left you wanting more.  I'm a firm believer that if he wasn't so scared in the clutch, those Jazz teams could have knocked off the Bulls.  He was the best running big man ever, one of the most well conditioned players ever, and his PNR game with Stockton was one of the most unstoppable plays ever.

Nowitzki probably did the most globally out of all these PFs.  After winning the title, his fame skyrocketed across the world, even after being loved worldwide, especially in Europe.  I'd also venture to say his championship was the most improbable out of any of these PFs.  Against the Blazers, everyone thought Dallas would choke, because they always did (and they collapsed in the Brandon Roy Game 4 masterpiece).  But they pulled it out, and then SWEPT the defending champs, without HCA.  That is impressive in itself.  Then, Dirk single-handedly destroyed the Thunder, and capped off the playoff run by humiliating the Heat.

All that being said, my list goes like this:

Duncan
McHale
Garnett/Malone (it could really go either way)
Nowitzki

McHale rightfully loses points for his lack of longevity, which imo is a huge thing to look at when considering all time greats.

I dont really get your point about his feet. Yeah if no one got injured or aged they could play until they're 40

It's impossible for people to not age.  It is possible for people to have healthy careers.

Strongly disagree about all players being able to pay in to their forties if they stayed healthy.

For example, look at Rondo.  Even if that injury never happens, he still wouldn't last that long in the league (maybe until he's 34 or 35) unless he changes his game.  Whenever a person a ages (especially athletes), they tend to lose athleticism, right?  Rondo, a guy who relies heavily on athleticism, would be a significantly worse player in his later years.  You know why Kidd is still playing?  Because he can pass and shoot.  If he still couldn't shoot, I'd argue he'd be out of the league.  Same goes for Rondo.  That's why this injury scares me so much.  If Rondo loses a chunk of athleticism, he'll never be the great player he has the potential to be.

The reason a guy like McHale could play into his forties is because the way he played would've been unstoppable, whether he was 20 or 40.  His endless array of post moves worked on anybody from when he entered the league to when he was forced to leave it.  What makes you think those moves wouldn't have worked past that time.  I'd bet they would.

And lack of longevity?  Well, then I'd argue KG loses points there.  The guy has a freaking minutes restriction for crying out loud.  Yeah, the argument could be made that he has that because he injured his knee, but then why can't I use that argument for McHale?  It goes both ways.

Re: ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?
« Reply #89 on: March 11, 2013, 03:49:13 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Jeez, McHale is being underrated here, in my opinion.  I wasn't alive when he played, but from what I've read, and from what I've watched, the guy was a monster on the block, arguably the best post player ever.  If his feet don't give out, the guy probably could've played into his forties.

Duncan is better than KG.  For starters, he has more rings.  Second, he could play any style.  He won two titles during the era when defense beats offense, he won another title during the era where the league was adjusting to new rules, and he won another when the league became offense, small ball oriented.  Even today, he is performing at an incredibly high on a team that has consistently won year after year after year.  Finally, he could adapt to any game or situation.  If the Spurs needed 30 points, he'd do it.  If they needed 20 rebounds, he'd do it.  If they needed him to play defense and do the dirty work, he'd do it.  I don't think the same could be said for KG (just personal opinion).

KG is all-time great.  I love the guy, and he probably became the first guy who was an elite player that was a jump shooting big.  I'd go as far to say there's no Kevin Durant game today if it weren't for KG.  His defense and intensity are characteristics I'll always appreciate.

Malone is one of those guys who did great things, but in the end left you wanting more.  I'm a firm believer that if he wasn't so scared in the clutch, those Jazz teams could have knocked off the Bulls.  He was the best running big man ever, one of the most well conditioned players ever, and his PNR game with Stockton was one of the most unstoppable plays ever.

Nowitzki probably did the most globally out of all these PFs.  After winning the title, his fame skyrocketed across the world, even after being loved worldwide, especially in Europe.  I'd also venture to say his championship was the most improbable out of any of these PFs.  Against the Blazers, everyone thought Dallas would choke, because they always did (and they collapsed in the Brandon Roy Game 4 masterpiece).  But they pulled it out, and then SWEPT the defending champs, without HCA.  That is impressive in itself.  Then, Dirk single-handedly destroyed the Thunder, and capped off the playoff run by humiliating the Heat.

All that being said, my list goes like this:

Duncan
McHale
Garnett/Malone (it could really go either way)
Nowitzki

McHale rightfully loses points for his lack of longevity, which imo is a huge thing to look at when considering all time greats.

I dont really get your point about his feet. Yeah if no one got injured or aged they could play until they're 40

It's impossible for people to not age.  It is possible for people to have healthy careers.

Strongly disagree about all players being able to pay in to their forties if they stayed healthy.

For example, look at Rondo.  Even if that injury never happens, he still wouldn't last that long in the league (maybe until he's 34 or 35) unless he changes his game.  Whenever a person a ages (especially athletes), they tend to lose athleticism, right?  Rondo, a guy who relies heavily on athleticism, would be a significantly worse player in his later years.  You know why Kidd is still playing?  Because he can pass and shoot.  If he still couldn't shoot, I'd argue he'd be out of the league.  Same goes for Rondo.  That's why this injury scares me so much.  If Rondo loses a chunk of athleticism, he'll never be the great player he has the potential to be.

The reason a guy like McHale could play into his forties is because the way he played would've been unstoppable, whether he was 20 or 40.  His endless array of post moves worked on anybody from when he entered the league to when he was forced to leave it.  What makes you think those moves wouldn't have worked past that time.  I'd bet they would.

And lack of longevity?  Well, then I'd argue KG loses points there.  The guy has a freaking minutes restriction for crying out loud.  Yeah, the argument could be made that he has that because he injured his knee, but then why can't I use that argument for McHale?  It goes both ways.
KG is in his 18th season.  McHale was in the HOF 18 years after he started playing professionally.

EDIT: The thing with McHale is he wasn't a great rebounder, never averaged 10 a game, and he wasn't a great defender (he was good, but far from great).  He was a highly gifted offensive player in the post, but he wasn't taking you out of the paint to score either and he rarely had to face double teams because he was never the man.  Players often look a lot different when they don't have to be the man then when they are the man.  Since you never saw McHale lead a team as the man, you just don't know how effective he truly could have been when he was getting double teamed constantly (which he never was because of Bird, Parish, and DJ surrounding him).
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip