Take Your Shot
Posted by SBG on Monday, December 31st, 2007 at 7:17 am
It's been a while since we've heard any good KG's-not-that-good talk. Have at it.
This entry was posted by SBG on Monday, December 31st, 2007 at 7:17 am and is filed under Kevin Garnett. It is one of 2369 entries by the author. We are no longer accepting Letters to the Editor on this post. Why?
34 LTEs
Sorry, The WGOM is no longer accepting Letters to the Editor on this article.
Loading ...
Kevin Garnett's not that good.
There. I feel better.
KG is not the greatest player ever to have played the game.
Okay, I can live with that statement.
The Über-Pippen.
The Über-Pippen.
Heh-heh.
Why would I ever want to say anything critical about the greatest athlete in Minnesota sports history?
Oh, wait... I was thinking of Dave Winfield. Sorry.
Judging from the photo, it looks like KG can take a punch, after all. I'll have to give him that.
I noticed that his old club is 4-25. Must be because of the loss of Mark Blount.
It's not really his old club anymore, but you must know that.
Kevin Garnett is not as
goodtall as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.nor as good. which isn't exactly a criticism.
Kareem was unstoppable on offense and a great defensive player and passer to boot. I feel sorry for those of you who only remember his bald-headed dotage. In his prime, he was a majestic player with the single most unstoppable move in the history of the game (Shaq's power notwithstanding). Graceful, powerful, elegant. My first real NSMC in sports.
You're talking about "The Sky Hook", right? Unstoppable.
His dominance at UCLA prompted the NCAA to adopt the "no-dunk rule" (The Lew Alcindor Rule) after his sophomore season. Dude was a thoroughbred.
Graceful, powerful, elegant.
Also a jazz fan who could fly an airplane or give Bruce Lee all he could handle!
Kareem even in his later years was still pretty great. It's unfortunate that the only journalist still writing about him, that I know of, is someone who grew up hating Kareem only because he prevented the Celtics from winning a couple more titles. I grew up hating the Lakers, too, but I always had the greatest respect for Kareem.
he prevented the Celtics from winning a couple more titles
One of the reasons I loved the Lakers. Those days are long gone now (thanks Shaq, Kobe).
Yeah, KG's no Kareem. Kareem was an unbelievable player. Listed at 7'2, I've heard he is every bit of 7'4. If you look at the KG Watch (which I've been updating!), he's pretty much at the top everywhere (although KG does have him in steals). Six MVPs!
I think that KG's best comparison among the all-time greats is Russell. Never saw Russell play (obviously), but he was a defense first team player. KG's a much better scorer (Russell got 15 a game in a much higher scoring league), Russell had an obscene number of rebounds (many more chances back in the day due to faster pace and lower shooting percentages), and was reportedly a phenomenal shot blocker (the league didn't keep block shot stats back then). Of course, Russell's got the 11 rings, KG none. But, Russell also played in a different era with a team loaded like none before or since.
I doubt that Russell took the last shot a whole lot -- but then again, great teams win games by wide margins. The 2007-08 Cs are leading basketball in defense by a wide margin and have 21 double digit wins. Only two other teams have more than 21 wins, period.
Russell also played... with a team loaded like none before or since
I'm sure that has a lot to do with why Russell averaged just 15.1 ppg, too.
I think KG shares Russell's mentality towards the game. But I get the impression that Russell was more of a post man, on both ends of the floor. Plus, Russell was a rebounding fiend (22.5 rpg, career), which can't be written off by talking about the context of his era (aside from Wilt Chamberlain, nobody in NBA history comes within 6 rbs of Russell's career avg), and nobody ever had to excuse his history against Chamberlain by saying, "Well, nobody could guard Wilt."
Russell played HUGE minutes. from 1958-59 through 1965-66, he averaged over 42 min/g every year (including 5 straight years over 44 min/g). He averaged 40 min/g in 1966-67 and 38+ in 1957-58 (his second season). In his last season, 1968-69, he averaged 42.7 min/g.
obviously, that doesn't refute 'wig's point about his rebounding rate. But combine those silly minutes with the fact that the average NBA team averaged over 100 FGA/g during his career (high of 109.4 in 1960-61) meant there were a lot of rebounds available for him (the average team during his career pulled in almost 70 rebounds per game).
Last year, the average team had 3366 rebounds. In 1960-61, the average team had 5789 rebounds. The league average shooting percentage in 1960-61 was 41.5%. Russell, a post player shot 42.5%. It was an eight team league. Wilt and Russell dominated it. I think neither would dominate in today's league like they did.
My comment about Russell and KG is that KG's more like him in terms of mentality and overall approach to the game than anyone else. He's been criticized here as being content to get rebounds, play defense, and look for others to score. That's what Russell did -- and he's been universally regarded as one of the ten best players of all time (if not higher than that).
That's what Russell did -- and he's been universally regarded as one of the ten best players of all time (if not higher than that).
Because, as you say, he and Wilt dominated their era. Even in a time when the average team collected a couple-thousand more rebounds than the average of today, no individual but Russell and Wilt were grabbing anything close to 22 boards a game through a career. And, at least by reputation, nobody ever really dominated the lane on defense like Russell did, either.
When a player is one of the two greatest rebounders in history, far and away, and reputedly the best defensive Center ever, who also won 11 titles in 13 years, people might be inclined to cut him some slack for taking a secondary role on offense.
Yeah that 11 titles thing sorta sticks out. Like "Another One for the Thumb", even though all 10 fingers are sporting jewelery. SBG said Russell played "with a team loaded like none before or since". Seven HOF (by my count) over the course of his career. Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey, Sam Jones, KC Jones, and John Havlicek. Russell is the only one of them to have 11 titles. I also wonder how many of these guys would be in the Hall if they hadn't played with Russell.
And don't forget, Russell won two NCAA championships at the University of San Francisco and a Gold Medal in '56 Olympics.
I'm one of the fortunate ones who remember Kareem during his prime (I was 10 when he started in the NBA). Even us short white kids tried to emulate the sky hook when we played. And you are right, KG isn't as good as Kareem, but its hard to name even a couple of guys who were.
Marc Stein still has the Celtics #2. Here's his justification:
Over the same time frame, the Celtics are 15-2 with 13 double-digit wins.
The C's are 21-0 in games decided by 10 or more points.
Well sure... if you're going to use facts then it doesn't make any sense. Better just not to use facts that call your predetermined point into question. Then you can write whatever the $%#@ you want.
By similar reasoning:
Their last game being a victory in Boston is only one justification for the Twins claim to the No. 1 spot. For all you "win the big one" devotees, here's No. 2: The Twins are the only team in the last three months to defeat the Sox in the final game of a series.
And the '86 Twins beat them just last night, too.
The Colts are the last team to beat the Patriots, so they must be the best team in the NFL.
They also won the Super Bowl last year, which counts for something, I think.
You're darn-tootin' it does. Last time I checked, the Colts are still the defending Champions. And they played the Patriots to within a TD without Marvin Harrison. I'm not saying the Colts are better. The Patriots are still the ones that went 16-0, but I don't think you can hand Brady the Lombardi Trophy just yet. /end rant
The above post was just to follow Big Mak (and Stein's) line of reasoning, but then I got all riled up.
Of course he will be blamed when they do not win the championship this year and the same old critiques of his game will be magnified, since he his finally on the national stage he so richly deserves.
I've caught a couple of Celtics games this season, and I've noticed one thing that seems different about the system around KG. (Other than Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.) On defense, when KG gets a rebound or especially when he gets a steal, it seems like it becomes an instant fast break opportunity for the Celtics, with KG whipping it down the court to someone heading towards the basket. When he was with the Wolves, all I can remember in those situations is KG looking down the court, not seeing anything, and idly flipping it to whichever stiff was going to dribble down and run the half-court offense.
I have no empirical evidence to support this observation, so there's a good chance I just wasn't paying enough attention the last couple of years, but that stood out to me, especially watching the Celtics play the Sonics the other night.
I haven't paid close attention to the Celtics' play on the fast breaks, so I'll be looking for that in the future, but I think the Celtics did play an unusual sort of game for them that night because the Sonics a) have a poor interior defense (Kurt Thomas does what he can, but he doesn't get much help), and b) they like to run and gun. So I noticed KG posting up on set plays a lot more often than usual, and the Celtics may have been running more than usual, too.
I don't think the Celtics are a running and gunning team, their pace is 21st in the league at 93.1 possessions a game (the Wolves are 12th at 95.5, which may be about teams running on them). Then again, maybe their possession totals are low because they are suffocating the other team on defense, forcing them to the end of the shot clock a lot.
Well, it's true that this isn't going to happen a zillion times per game. So far this season, KG's averaging about 8.5 defensive rebounds per game and 1.5 steals per game. Even if KG did this most of the time he gets a chance, I don't know that it would increase their possessions per game very much.
There seems to be some consensus around here that KG didn't "roll" enough when he set picks with the Wolves, so I was curious if this was something that KG didn't do much with the Wolves.
I think your original point bears watching. KG still doesn't roll to the basket much.
I took a look at the Hollinger rankings today and noticed that Hollinger has the Knicks below the Wolves! The Wolves are awful, but at least they don't have $90M committed towards next year's payroll.
The gift that just keeps on giving. Isiah to remain as coach of the Knicks.
In a couple of weeks they'll reevaluate a new reason for him to remain as coach.
Or something.