ESPN: Is Garnett an All-Time Great?

[CelticsFan9]

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.

Did KG go to college for four years?

Would KG have a ring had he not been traded?

Could KG have been the outright best player on a championship team?

The answer to those questions is no.

I think even if McHale hadn't been on the Celtics, he could've been a champion, if he played with a great second banana (like a Wade to LeBron).  Was KG our best player in 2008?  Probably.  But it was close.  Pierce played at an unreal level all year, and then took it to another level in the postseason.  And going by his years in Minnesota, he couldn't get it done.  Even the year he had a great supporting cast (Cassell and Sprewell), he still couldn't get it done.  Now, I think Cassell got hurt, but shouldn't that mean the star steps it up?

Edit:  in response to your edit:

McHale was a great defender; McHale was as good a rebounder as KG;  while not being near the athlete KG was and is; McHale has an elite jump shot that you had to respect.

[LooseCannon]

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.

Garnett is in the top ten in minutes played.  Karl Malone is the only PF who allows you to use a lack of longevity argument against Garnett.

[CelticsFan9]

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.

Garnett is in the top ten in minutes played.  Karl Malone is the only PF who allows you to use a lack of longevity argument against Garnett.

True, but that doesn't answer my question.

Again, I have no problem with people saying, "If KG doesn't injure that knee in '09, he'd be an even greater player."  I have a problem with people who say that this isn't a valid argument: "If Kevin McHale doesn't break his foot, he'd be an even greater player."  What's the difference?

[Snakehead]

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.

Garnett is in the top ten in minutes played.  Karl Malone is the only PF who allows you to use a lack of longevity argument against Garnett.

Good response, hilarious post.  KG just went into the top 10 minutes played!  He was run into the ground in Minny.

[KGs Knee]

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.

Garnett is in the top ten in minutes played.  Karl Malone is the only PF who allows you to use a lack of longevity argument against Garnett.

True, but http at doesn't answer my question.

Again, I have no problem with people saying, "If KG doesn't injure that knee in '09, he'd be an even greater player."  I have a problem with people who say that this isn't a valid argument: "If Kevin McHale doesn't break his foot, he'd be an even greater player."  What's the difference?

You're right, if one is allowed, the other must also be.

My point I made earlier is, neither should be allowed.  Injuries are a part of your career.  They count against you, fair or not.

[CelticsFan9]

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.

Garnett is in the top ten in minutes played.  Karl Malone is the only PF who allows you to use a lack of longevity argument against Garnett.

True, but http at doesn't answer my question.

Again, I have no problem with people saying, "If KG doesn't injure that knee in '09, he'd be an even greater player."  I have a problem with people who say that this isn't a valid argument: "If Kevin McHale doesn't break his foot, he'd be an even greater player."  What's the difference?

You're right, if one is allowed, the other must also be.

My point I made earlier is, neither should be allowed.  Injuries are a part of your career.  They count against you, fair or not.

Alright, so now that we're on the same page, the question becomes why do you think KG was/is better than McHale?

Is it because he won the MVP?  Is it because he has been the best player on a team (despite that team never achieving anything significant other than short-term relevancy)?  Is it because you just like him better?

[Fafnir]

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.

Garnett is in the top ten in minutes played.  Karl Malone is the only PF who allows you to use a lack of longevity argument against Garnett.

And before he came to Boston KG never missed games, he was like LeBron with how freakishly healthy he was. All while knocking out 40+ MPG seasons year after year.

[Roy H.]

McHale was as good a rebounder as KG;  while not being near the athlete KG was and is

I love McHale, but what is this based upon?  McHale's career high in TRB% (total rebound percentage) is 14.8%.  KG has bested that in 15 out of 18 seasons.

McHale has an elite jump shot that you had to respect.

Similarly, I wouln't call McHale an "elite" jump shooter, especially by today's standards.

[LooseCannon]

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.

Garnett is in the top ten in minutes played.  Karl Malone is the only PF who allows you to use a lack of longevity argument against Garnett.

True, but http at doesn't answer my question.

Again, I have no problem with people saying, "If KG doesn't injure that knee in '09, he'd be an even greater player."  I have a problem with people who say that this isn't a valid argument: "If Kevin McHale doesn't break his foot, he'd be an even greater player."  What's the difference?

To be an All-Time Great, you have to perform at a high level for a long period of time.  KG would have an even greater career if he hadn't been injured, but despite that injury, he has been in the game for a very long time while performing at a very high level.

The difference is that KG doesn't need any talk about "what if" to be in the conversation while, arguably, McHale does.  345 games and 17,514 minutes (and counting) matter greatly.  If say that they have played at close to the same level, Garnett has done it for 1.5 times as long, so there's not really a good argument for McHale unless you are believe that McHale was much better or if you are giving championship rings a tremendous weight, something that I would argue is ridiculous in a team sport where you can't single-handedly carry mediocre teammates to a title.

[LooseCannon]

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.

Garnett is in the top ten in minutes played.  Karl Malone is the only PF who allows you to use a lack of longevity argument against Garnett.

True, but http at doesn't answer my question.

Again, I have no problem with people saying, "If KG doesn't injure that knee in '09, he'd be an even greater player."  I have a problem with people who say that this isn't a valid argument: "If Kevin McHale doesn't break his foot, he'd be an even greater player."  What's the difference?

You're right, if one is allowed, the other must also be.

My point I made earlier is, neither should be allowed.  Injuries are a part of your career.  They count against you, fair or not.

Intangible like that matter if it's close.  I'd argue it's not close if you are looking at entire careers and not just peaks.

[CelticG1]

These mchale and KG comparisons baffle me.

"kG's great cast in Minny" haha. If you want to be a little more credible at least state something like "kg's underrated cast" even tho those guys flat out sucked

At least make a real arguement, something like this:

Mchale was superior offensively, and. Very close defensively as welll as rebounding wise. If his career wasnt cut so short he possibly could have been the greatest pf of all time.

But claiming McHale could have been a number 1 guy (he never was) and saying KG couldnt (he was) for a champuonship team is ludicris. Its also ludicris just ignoring McHales shorter career and just claiming that he would have been better or just as good until he was 40 pretty much out of thin air with no basis whatsoever

[nickagneta]

I see someone said that McHale wasn't a great rebounder because he never averaged 10 per game in his career.

But let's add some context to that. When McHale was playing he usually played alongside Bird, Parish, Maxwell, Walton, and Pinckney. All were very good to elite rebounders. That definitely took away from rebounds that would be available for him.

Remember years like 1984 and 1985? Bird and Parish both played in excess of 34 MPG and both averaged over 10.4 RPG those two years. McHale had 7.5 and 9.0 RPG those two years while playing over 30 MPG.

I contend McHale was an excellent rebounder. He just played in an era where just about every team had an elite rebounder and the Celtics had 3.

[Roy H.]

I see someone said that McHale wasn't a great rebounder because he never averaged 10 per game in his career.

But let's add some context to that. When McHale was playing he usually played alongside Bird, Parish, Maxwell, Walton, and Pinckney. All were very good to elite rebounders. That definitely took away from rebounds that would be available for him.

Remember years like 1984 and 1985? Bird and Parish both played in excess of 34 MPG and both averaged over 10.4 RPG those two years. McHale had 7.5 and 9.0 RPG those two years while playing over 30 MPG.

I contend McHale was an excellent rebounder. He just played in an era where just about every team had an elite rebounder and the Celtics had 3.

Eh...  Yes, McHale's rebounds were limited by playing next to Larry and Parish.  However, even in '89 -- when Bird played a total of 6 games -- McHale's TRB% was a pedestrian 12.7%.

I don't think there's any actual evidence that McHale was an excellent rebounder.  His numbers probably would have gone up a bit if he was the best big man on his team, but it was never a particular strength, especially when compared to his peers.

[Eja117]

I see someone said that McHale wasn't a great rebounder because he never averaged 10 per game in his career.

But let's add some context to that. When McHale was playing he usually played alongside Bird, Parish, Maxwell, Walton, and Pinckney. All were very good to elite rebounders. That definitely took away from rebounds that would be available for him.

Remember years like 1984 and 1985? Bird and Parish both played in excess of 34 MPG and both averaged over 10.4 RPG those two years. McHale had 7.5 and 9.0 RPG those two years while playing over 30 MPG.

I contend McHale was an excellent rebounder. He just played in an era where just about every team had an elite rebounder and the Celtics had 3.

It's true that when you look at it that way his numbers are somewhat comparable with Parish and Kareem

Basically if you look at it between their ages of 27-32 you have Bird averaging 8, McHale 9, Parish 10...and Kareem was like 11 and Bill Laimbeer was around 12ish. A very young Malone was like 10, 11

[nickagneta]

I see someone said that McHale wasn't a great rebounder because he never averaged 10 per game in his career.

But let's add some context to that. When McHale was playing he usually played alongside Bird, Parish, Maxwell, Walton, and Pinckney. All were very good to elite rebounders. That definitely took away from rebounds that would be available for him.

Remember years like 1984 and 1985? Bird and Parish both played in excess of 34 MPG and both averaged over 10.4 RPG those two years. McHale had 7.5 and 9.0 RPG those two years while playing over 30 MPG.

I contend McHale was an excellent rebounder. He just played in an era where just about every team had an elite rebounder and the Celtics had 3.

Eh...  Yes, McHale's rebounds were limited by playing next to Larry and Parish.  However, even in '89 -- when Bird played a total of 6 games -- McHale's TRB% was a pedestrian 12.7%.

I don't think there's any actual evidence that McHale was an excellent rebounder.  His numbers probably would have gone up a bit if he was the best big man on his team, but it was never a particular strength, especially when compared to his peers.

After '87 I have to admit his ability to rebound was effected by his bad foot. Sort of like when KG's numbers dipped after his knee injury. I am not saying he was an elite rebounder. He wasn't. But he was excellent and usually surrounded by other excellent rebounders.

For instance, in that 1989 season, Parish had his best rebounding season ever averaging 12.5 per. 2 Celtic guards averaged over 4,6 RPG and Pinckney and Kleine combined had over 10 RPG and a TRB% average of 14.2%.

Still remember watching his work under the boards both offensively and defensively and thought he was an excellent rebounder.