Big 3 Celtics were unjustly named that..

[dankok8]

KG was far and away the most impactful player on those teams.

I mean look at these lineups. Every lineup without KG was awful deep in the negative and every lineup with him was positive. I included Rondo too.

It makes sense when you consider that KG was the best defender in the league (only Dwight was close) during those seasons.



https://i.postimg.cc/yY9dXD6w/Big-3-Celtics-WOWY.jpg

[RRR3]

That’s like saying the Big 3 Heat were unjustly called that because LeBron was by far the most impactful :lol

Big 3 just means 3 stars it doesn’t mean one isn’t superior to the other 2

[Im Still Ballin]

Boston went 18-7 (58-win pace) without him in 2009, won a playoff series, and almost made it to the ECF. I'd caution putting too much stock into advanced statistics, play-by-play data, and RAPM numbers. Garnett was a great player but I feel he's often overrated by analytics types.

Some of these individuals even put him in the top 10-15 players ever. I'm not sure I agree.

[SouBeachTalents]

Boston went 18-7 (58-win pace) without him in 2009, won a playoff series, and almost made it to the ECF. I'd caution putting too much stock into advanced statistics, play-by-play data, and RAPM numbers. Garnett was a great player but I feel he's often overrated by analytics types.

Some of these individuals even put him in the top 10-15 players ever. I'm not sure I agree.
RealGM is convinced he’s top 10, or just outside of it. I for real don’t understand it :lol

[tontoz]

OP is exaggerating a bit but it's true that only KG was All NBA in 2007 prior to them joining up, and it was only 3rd team.

[Baller234]

I'll say this.

When it was announced that Ray Allen was headed to the Celtics, I thought they were gonna be a contender in the eastern conference. Even before it was announced that Garnett was going too.

[SouBeachTalents]

I'll say this.

When it was announced that Ray Allen was headed to the Celtics, I thought they were gonna be a contender in the eastern conference. Even before it was announced that Garnett was going too.
Of course :lol The suck ass Cavs just won the conference.

[dankok8]

RealGM is convinced he’s top 10, or just outside of it. I for real don’t understand it :lol

Top 10 is too much but top 15 is reasonable.

I think KG is that good defensively arguably the best defender in the last 30 years IMO.

[dankok8]

These are the individual ON-OFF numbers by the way.

2008-2012 Celtics - Postseason

Garnett ON: +7.43
Garnett OFF: -5.35

+12.78

Pierce ON: +2.58
Pierce OFF: +2.46

+0.12

Allen ON: +3.82
Allen OFF: -1.56

+5.38

Rondo ON: +3.73
Rondo OFF: -1.85

+5.58

[Jasper]

Proz
Brown
Brogdon

maybe Tatum

[ArbitraryWater]

Please, they were a couple bounces from the ECF without him in 2009.

[HoopsNY]

I'm not sure about that...

'08 BOS w/o KG: 9-2
'09 BOS w/o KG: 18-7
'10 BOS w/o KG: 6-7
'11 BOS w/o KG: 7-4

Total: 40-20 (.667%)

As others mentioned, they pushed it to a game 7 in the ECSF without KG in 2009. And that was after finishing 18-7 without him during the regular season.

As for being the best defensively in the last 30 years, then I'm taking Hakeem and Ben Wallace over KG. I might also take Duncan.

[warriorfan]

Boston went 18-7 (58-win pace) without him in 2009, won a playoff series, and almost made it to the ECF. I'd caution putting too much stock into advanced statistics, play-by-play data, and RAPM numbers. Garnett was a great player but I feel he's often overrated by analytics types.

Some of these individuals even put him in the top 10-15 players ever. I'm not sure I agree.

RealGM’s latest list

2023 List
1. LeBron James
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Wilt Chamberlain
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Kevin Garnett
10. Magic Johnson
11. Steph Curry
12. Larry Bird
13. Kobe Bryant

:lol

I’m pretty big on KG but yeah, this is insane

[HoopsNY]

RealGM’s latest list

2023 List
1. LeBron James
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Wilt Chamberlain
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Kevin Garnett
10. Magic Johnson
11. Steph Curry
12. Larry Bird
13. Kobe Bryant

:lol

I’m pretty big on KG but yeah, this is insane

Ben Taylor has KG 8th all time on thinkingbasketball.net. I agree it's insane.

[HoopsNY]

RealGM’s latest list

2023 List
1. LeBron James
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Wilt Chamberlain
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Kevin Garnett
10. Magic Johnson
11. Steph Curry
12. Larry Bird
13. Kobe Bryant

:lol

I’m pretty big on KG but yeah, this is insane

This just goes to show how revisionist thinking can spread like wildfire. When I was a kid, the big 4 were MJ, Magic, Larry, and Russell. Due to the LeBron era and trying to prove him being the GOAT through longevity, Kareem gained considerable ground. Otherwise, anyone who was around in the early to mid 90s remembers this wasn't really the case.

[Im Still Ballin]

I don't doubt that Garnett's a great player. I just think the argument for his alleged greatness is unlike most other all-timers. It's heavily reliant on numbers: on-off play-by-play data, adjusted RAPM numbers, and advanced statistics. It's also dependent on devaluing the level of support he had in Minnesota, which I think gets underrated these days.

- All-Star Tom Gugliotta
- Stephon Marbury
- Terrell Brandon
- All-Star Wally S
- Chauncey Billups
- All-Star and All-NBA 2nd Team Sam Cassell
- Latrell Sprewell
- Fred Hoiberg (best 3pt shooter in the league)

People just get hung up on the Joe Smith thing. McHale wasn't even a bad GM; he made a number of great moves people ignore and other more respected general managers haven't.

He drafted the best player in Timberwolves history and signed the best coach they've ever had. He drafted Marbury; when he wanted out he traded him for Terrell Brandon and a draft pick that would become Wally S. He brought in solid guys like Chauncey, Cassell, and Sprewell.

He also traded KG for a promising Al Jefferson and then finished his tenure off by trading OJ Mayo for Kevin Love.

Minnesota's problem was that they were in a very tough conference. They make the finals at least once in the East; ECF at least twice.

[RRR3]

I don't doubt that Garnett's a great player. I just think the argument for his alleged greatness is unlike most other all-timers. It's heavily reliant on numbers: on-off play-by-play data, adjusted RAPM numbers, and advanced statistics. It's also dependent on devaluing the level of support he had in Minnesota, which I think gets underrated these days.

- All-Star Tom Gugliotta
- Stephon Marbury
- Terrell Brandon
- All-Star Wally S
- Chauncey Billups
- All-Star and All-NBA 2nd Team Sam Cassell
- Latrell Sprewell
- Fred Hoiberg (best 3pt shooter in the league)

People just get hung up on the Joe Smith thing. McHale wasn't even a bad GM; he made a number of great moves people ignore and other more respected general managers haven't.

He drafted the best player in Timberwolves history and signed the best coach they've ever had. He drafted Marbury; when he wanted out he traded him for Terrell Brandon and a draft pick that would become Wally S. He brought in solid guys like Chauncey, Cassell, and Sprewell.

He also traded KG for a promising Al Jefferson and then finished his tenure off by trading OJ Mayo for Kevin Love.

Minnesota's problem was that they were in a very tough conference. They make the finals at least once in the East; ECF at least twice.
This post is just hating.

-Gugliotta was last on the Wolves when KG was 21 and hadn't entered his prime.
-Marbury was not in his prime when he played with Garnett, his efficiency was awful and he wasn't even scoring that much.
-Terrell Brandon was good but hardly an elite second option.
-Szczerbiak was a good but not great scorer and a very poor defender.
-Listing Billups is trolling, he was not a good player when he was teammates with KG.
-Cassell was great in 2004. And Garnett came close to making the finals with him. Maybe he would have if Cassell didn't get injured.
-Sprewell was pretty washed on the Wolves and horribly inefficient.
-Fred Hoiberg scored 5.4 PPG for his career and he was there for offense. Crazy to list him as "help".

[Im Still Ballin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jcQAxYkvR4&ab_channel=All-aroundNBA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC1v7WQ2SYs&pp=ygUUc2FtIGNhc3NlbGxsIDIwMDQgNDA%3D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiAy7lzwR1s&pp=ygUUc2FtIGNhc3NlbGxsIDIwMDQgNDA%3D

[Im Still Ballin]

Fun Fact: Wally Szczerbiak was putting up 20.1 ppg on 49.5% FG, 40.6% 3PT, and 89.6% FT before being traded in 05/06.

Half a season's worth of games in that sample. 40 games.

Includes a 22-game stretch of putting up 23.9 ppg on 54.4% FG, 48.9% 3PT, and 88.6% FT.

[1987_Lakers]

This just goes to show how revisionist thinking can spread like wildfire. When I was a kid, the big 4 were MJ, Magic, Larry, and Russell. Due to the LeBron era and trying to prove him being the GOAT through longevity, Kareem gained considerable ground. Otherwise, anyone who was around in the early to mid 90s remembers this wasn't really the case.

To be fair, it was ridiculous Kareem wasn't considered the big 4 back in the day. He started to gain some respect among fans in the early 2010's it seems, by that point most had him in the top 3, realgm had him #3 in 2011.

Magic & Bird were insanely popular, pretty much saved the NBA and both were loved by fans. Kareem on the other hand wasn't very marketable and the media disliked him, this unfairly distorted the perception of some fans. No way should Magic & Bird be ranked ahead of Kareem on any all-time list.

[1987_Lakers]

RealGM’s latest list

2023 List
1. LeBron James
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Wilt Chamberlain
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Kevin Garnett
10. Magic Johnson
11. Steph Curry
12. Larry Bird
13. Kobe Bryant

:lol

I’m pretty big on KG but yeah, this is insane

I wasn't even aware they came up with a new list. It almost mimics Ben Taylor's list (thinking basketball), which makes sense because he used to post on realgm before he started his youtube channel and had a huge following there while he posted.

[RRR3]

Dude is posting individual game highlights from a season in which Billups averaged 12.5 PPG :lol

[JohnMax]

He made it out of the first round one time in his 12 years with Minnesota.

If you watched games back then the Wolves lost a lot of close fourth quarter games because KG just didn’t have it. And he was a great defender but not a lock down on his position. His center of gravity was so high guys like Dirk, Rasheed, Tim, just bumped him off his spot and then went to work.

I honestly think he is the Scottie of big men - the absolute best 1B a team can have. Both capable of being the best player on a title team but will definitely need someone who can make clutch iso shots.

[Im Still Ballin]

Don't forget the playoffs! Damn. If only KG had more help...

https://i.ibb.co/N7hLDDF/wow.png
https://i.ibb.co/ygRngfK/woww.png

[RRR3]

Don't forget the playoffs! Damn. If only KG had more help...

https://i.ibb.co/N7hLDDF/wow.png
https://i.ibb.co/ygRngfK/woww.png
3 game sample size lol. And he was facing Dirk who's help was Nash and Michael Finley which even you have to admit is better. Nick Van Exel as well. Billups was not even a full time starter until the following year, and did not make an all-star team until 2005-06, bizarre to act like he was the guy he is known as now in 2002 because he had 3 good playoff games. Like saying Dillon Brooks was great help for Ja in 2021 because he averaged 25.8 PPG on 59.5 TS% in a 5 game series.

[Im Still Ballin]

3 game sample size lol. And he was facing Dirk who's help was Nash and Michael Finley which even you have to admit is better. Nick Van Exel as well. Billups was not even a full time starter until the following year, and did not make an all-star team until 2005-06, bizarre to act like he was the guy he is known as now in 2002 because he had 3 good playoff games. Like saying Dillon Brooks was great help for Ja in 2021 because he averaged 25.8 PPG on 59.5 TS% in a 5 game series.

I ain't reading all that

I'm happy for you though or sorry that happened

[NBAGOAT]

Don't forget the playoffs! Damn. If only KG had more help...

https://i.ibb.co/N7hLDDF/wow.png
https://i.ibb.co/ygRngfK/woww.png

kg's offensive help was decent but he had woat level defensive help. isnt troy hudson considered one of the worst defenders of all time

[Johnny32]

This just goes to show how revisionist thinking can spread like wildfire. When I was a kid, the big 4 were MJ, Magic, Larry, and Russell. Due to the LeBron era and trying to prove him being the GOAT through longevity, Kareem gained considerable ground. Otherwise, anyone who was around in the early to mid 90s remembers this wasn't really the case.

Lol uh and someone born 10 years before you can make the exact same argument. The top 4 players when they were growing up were wilt, kareem, big o and russell.

[ralph_i_el]

All that means is that the drop-off to his backup was huge, which it was. KG didn't have the on-demand shot creation of Pierce. Pierce couldn't do the dirty work like KG. Ray Allen was as good a player as you could get to play his role with low ego.

[SouBeachTalents]

ISB making some very ImKobe/tpols esque arguments in this thread, I expected better of him.

[tontoz]

He made it out of the first round one time in his 12 years with Minnesota.

If you watched games back then the Wolves lost a lot of close fourth quarter games because KG just didn’t have it. And he was a great defender but not a lock down on his position. His center of gravity was so high guys like Dirk, Rasheed, Tim, just bumped him off his spot and then went to work.

I honestly think he is the Scottie of big men - the absolute best 1B a team can have. Both capable of being the best player on a title team but will definitely need someone who can make clutch iso shots.



I saw kg in a gym once in Atlanta and he looked like he would get knocked down by a stiff breeze. I am sure I could have bullied him at the time and I was only 6'2" 195 lbs.

[dankok8]

I'm not sure about that...

'08 BOS w/o KG: 9-2
'09 BOS w/o KG: 18-7
'10 BOS w/o KG: 6-7
'11 BOS w/o KG: 7-4

Total: 40-20 (.667%)

As others mentioned, they pushed it to a game 7 in the ECSF without KG in 2009. And that was after finishing 18-7 without him during the regular season.

As for being the best defensively in the last 30 years, then I'm taking Hakeem and Ben Wallace over KG. I might also take Duncan.

The ON-OFF is more telling that W-L records.

By the way they were 2-4 without KG in 2012 and 5-8 in 2013. So overall 47-32 (0.595) without KG. And I bet the games without KG were on average also easier games.

The 2009 playoffs isn't much of an argument as they barely beat a 41-win negative SRS Bulls team and it took a few insane OT games to do so. And then they lost to a good Magic team getting outscored by 30 points over 7 games. So even though they pushed it to 7 games the point differential shows that they got soundly beaten actually.

The following season with KG, Boston beat the Magic in 6 games outscoring them by 17 points.

[Wally450]

Kg was like 3 times the defender Pierce and Allen were. Of course they were a lesser defensive team with him off the floor. KG wasn’t the offensive player that Pierce and Allen were, so it all evened out. Hence the Big 3 name, with KG being the best of the 3.

[HoopsNY]

To be fair, it was ridiculous Kareem wasn't considered the big 4 back in the day. He started to gain some respect among fans in the early 2010's it seems, by that point most had him in the top 3, realgm had him #3 in 2011.

Magic & Bird were insanely popular, pretty much saved the NBA and both were loved by fans. Kareem on the other hand wasn't very marketable and the media disliked him, this unfairly distorted the perception of some fans. No way should Magic & Bird be ranked ahead of Kareem on any all-time list.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I think the narratives have changed because LeBron and his media fanbase have redefined the lines of what constitutes all time greatness. Longevity wasn't a thing back then. I wasn't around in the 1960s-80s (born in the mid 80s), but I doubt longevity was as important then either.

It's just interesting that the ideas that existed for more or less 60 years suddenly shifted somewhere after 2013-2014. It is what it is. I suppose 50 years from now, some new player will come along and change the (now) narrative to whatever it will become. And people like yourself and others from this generation will say something similar to what I'm saying now. Who knows, really.

[HoopsNY]

Lol uh and someone born 10 years before you can make the exact same argument. The top 4 players when they were growing up were wilt, kareem, big o and russell.

Clearly you missed the point. If Kareem wasn't top 4 immediately after retiring, it wouldn't make sense for him to suddenly climb the ladder 30+ years later. The only way that happens is if the lines of greatness became redefined based on criteria.

[HoopsNY]

ISB making some very ImKobe/tpols esque arguments in this thread, I expected better of him.

He's not wrong. I have spoken about this before. KG's first 7 playoff appearances shows his ability to choke repeatedly and more often than not, be outplayed by his inferior teammates in the biggest games.

[HoopsNY]

The ON-OFF is more telling that W-L records.

By the way they were 2-4 without KG in 2012 and 5-8 in 2013. So overall 47-32 (0.595) without KG. And I bet the games without KG were on average also easier games.

The 2009 playoffs isn't much of an argument as they barely beat a 41-win negative SRS Bulls team and it took a few insane OT games to do so. And then they lost to a good Magic team getting outscored by 30 points over 7 games. So even though they pushed it to 7 games the point differential shows that they got soundly beaten actually.

The following season with KG, Boston beat the Magic in 6 games outscoring them by 17 points.

2012 and 2013 aren't fair samples to use in the data because the team had regressed considerably by then. In 2012, they had the 5th best record in the East and 2013 they were barely .500.

On/Off data is valuable but the fact remains is that they were an excellent team without him in their best years, thus proving they did in fact have a big 3.

[Im Still Ballin]

The true measure of a player's value isn't how his team performs when he's on the bench. It's how they play when he doesn't. Rotations, lineups, and schemes are still influenced when a player is on the bench. Remove him completely from the game and the entire team could implode. It's very much like Jenga.

I take more from how a team plays with a player vs. how they play without him. The ON/OFF stuff doesn't tell you as much as you'd think.

[Johnny32]

Clearly you missed the point. If Kareem wasn't top 4 immediately after retiring, it wouldn't make sense for him to suddenly climb the ladder 30+ years later. The only way that happens is if the lines of greatness became redefined based on criteria.

The irony is you're missing the point and I'm not explaining it to your simple ass lol.

[HoopsNY]

The irony is you're missing the point and I'm not explaining it to your simple ass lol.

There's no point for me to miss when I originally made the point. At this point, I'm done responding to your posts because you're not interested in discourse. Go play roblox or something kid.

[Johnny32]

Run before I embarrass you fat kid, run.

[Im Still Ballin]

I think Garnett is a great player. An all-timer. I'm just not as high on him as the RealGM/Thinking Basketball/Analytics crowd is. As I mentioned earlier, his argument is unlike any other of the greats. It's heavily dependent on play-by-play data, RAPM, advanced statistics, and devaluing his Minnesota supporting cast.

All-time lists are quite arbitrary all things considered. The more I think about them the less I'm sure of their legitimacy. And what are we even talking about? What are we asking? Who was better at their best? Who provided the most value over the course of their career? Accumulation?

It's incredibly hard to evaluate individual players in a team game. It's difficult to accurately assign credit to individuals in a team game.

[dankok8]

2012 and 2013 aren't fair samples to use in the data because the team had regressed considerably by then. In 2012, they had the 5th best record in the East and 2013 they were barely .500.

On/Off data is valuable but the fact remains is that they were an excellent team without him in their best years, thus proving they did in fact have a big 3.

The 2012 Celtics were still very good and gave the champions Heat the strongest test by far. You can exclude 2013 and I won't complain. In fact KG himself fell off after 2012.

Without KG those Celtics teams were decent about 49-win pace but they weren't contenders. With him they were strong contenders.



The true measure of a player's value isn't how his team performs when he's on the bench. It's how they play when he doesn't. Rotations, lineups, and schemes are still influenced when a player is on the bench. Remove him completely from the game and the entire team could implode. It's very much like Jenga.

I take more from how a team plays with a player vs. how they play without him. The ON/OFF stuff doesn't tell you as much as you'd think.

Good post.

I'm not even a huge proponent of ON/OFF the way some people are but it can tell a lot and especially when it includes stretches where players miss games.

That KG OFF data includes the 2009 postseason...

[HoopsNY]

I think Garnett is a great player. An all-timer. I'm just not as high on him as the RealGM/Thinking Basketball/Analytics crowd is. As I mentioned earlier, his argument is unlike any other of the greats. It's heavily dependent on play-by-play data, RAPM, advanced statistics, and devaluing his Minnesota supporting cast.

All-time lists are quite arbitrary all things considered. The more I think about them the less I'm sure of their legitimacy. And what are we even talking about? What are we asking? Who was better at their best? Who provided the most value over the course of their career? Accumulation?

It's incredibly hard to evaluate individual players in a team game. It's difficult to accurately assign credit to individuals in a team game.

I agree with you 100%. If you look at KG's first 8 years, he failed when it mattered the most. Guys like Peeler, D. Smith, Brandon, etc were outplaying him in the elimination games. Anyone who watched KG back then remembers that the number one criticism against him was that he couldn't take over games and that he couldn't show up in the 4th.

He then comes through in 2004 which is to his credit. But from 2005-07 the T-Wolves miss the playoffs every single year. So we're looking at what, 12 years? And what saves his grace is forming a superteam?

[RRR3]

I agree with you 100%. If you look at KG's first 8 years, he failed when it mattered the most. Guys like Peeler, D. Smith, Brandon, etc were outplaying him in the elimination games. Anyone who watched KG back then remembers that the number one criticism against him was that he couldn't take over games and that he couldn't show up in the 4th.

He then comes through in 2004 which is to his credit. But from 2005-07 the T-Wolves miss the playoffs every single year. So we're looking at what, 12 years? And what saves his grace is forming a superteam?
What players do you think would have made the playoffs with the roster he had in 2005-07 lol

[HoopsNY]

The 2012 Celtics were still very good and gave the champions Heat the strongest test by far. You can exclude 2013 and I won't complain. In fact KG himself fell off after 2012.

Without KG those Celtics teams were decent about 49-win pace but they weren't contenders. With him they were strong contenders.

Yea, not saying they were a trash team, but while being the best defensive team in the league, they were 27th offensively. Also, consider that it was a shortened season, and Allen missed 20 games, Rondo missed 13, and Pierce missed 6.

'12 BOS w/KG: 99.3 DRTG
'12 BOS w/o KG: 98.9 DRTG

Yea they were a really good team, but I still think the team was far from what they were in previous years. I just don't think we can overlook a 40-20 record over the span of 4 seasons, while one of those years seeing them 1 game away from making the ECF. It sounds a lot like the claim that the Bulls weren't stacked in the early 90s because they "only" made it to the ECSF game 7 against NY.

[HoopsNY]

What players do you think would have made the playoffs with the roster he had in 2005-07 lol

KG got 20/5/4/1 from his #2 in the combination of Szczerbiak and Davis in '06. Neither of these guys could play defense but it's not as if he had zero support, and certainly not indicative of having the second worst record in the conference. I can't think of another all time great who, in the midst of their prime, while having another 20 PPG scorer, had that bad of a season?

But I didn't mention those years because of the expectation that KG would have made the playoffs. I mentioned it because up until the formation of the superteam, we had 12 years of what exactly? What warrants him having such a high ranking on ThinkingBasketball or RealGM? 12 seasons where only 1 of them really stands out and the rest of such playoff performances are very disappointing.

[Real Men Wear Green]

To many fans have an obsessive need to give all the credit to one guy. Garnett was the best player no Austin but Pierce and Allen were both vital, no championship without them. If a team doesn't have a big 3 of one guy is the best player then there had never been a big 3.

[dankok8]

I agree with you 100%. If you look at KG's first 8 years, he failed when it mattered the most. Guys like Peeler, D. Smith, Brandon, etc were outplaying him in the elimination games. Anyone who watched KG back then remembers that the number one criticism against him was that he couldn't take over games and that he couldn't show up in the 4th.

He then comes through in 2004 which is to his credit. But from 2005-07 the T-Wolves miss the playoffs every single year. So we're looking at what, 12 years? And what saves his grace is forming a superteam?

Which year do you think KG underachieved in Minnesota?

He wasn't going to beat teams like the Lakers, Spurs, Blazers, or Mavs in those years. Those teams had way more talent than KG's Wolves and on top of that he had bad luck with teammate injuries in 2004. If Cassell was healthy good chance the Wolves win the title IMO.


Yea, not saying they were a trash team, but while being the best defensive team in the league, they were 27th offensively. Also, consider that it was a shortened season, and Allen missed 20 games, Rondo missed 13, and Pierce missed 6.

'12 BOS w/KG: 99.3 DRTG
'12 BOS w/o KG: 98.9 DRTG

Yea they were a really good team, but I still think the team was far from what they were in previous years. I just don't think we can overlook a 40-20 record over the span of 4 seasons, while one of those years seeing them 1 game away from making the ECF. It sounds a lot like the claim that the Bulls weren't stacked in the early 90s because they "only" made it to the ECSF game 7 against NY.

I think the 2012 Celtics were better than the 2011 Celtics especially considering Rondo got injured in the 2011 playoffs.

One game from making the ECF is misleading. The only team they beat without KG is a 41-win Bulls team with a negative SRS and they needed a bunch of overtimes to do it. And they handily lost to the Magic on point differential (-30). Lost Game 7 at home by 19 points.

The ON-OFF numbers show that KG was far superior in impact to any of his teammates. And given his dominant defense, it makes sense.

[HoopsNY]

Which year do you think KG underachieved in Minnesota?

He wasn't going to beat teams like the Lakers, Spurs, Blazers, or Mavs in those years. Those teams had way more talent than KG's Wolves and on top of that he had bad luck with teammate injuries in 2004. If Cassell was healthy good chance the Wolves win the title IMO.

'98 vs Seattle? They went to 5 games and KG choked in game 5. He shot 3-11 with just 7 points and 10 turnovers.

My point wasn't that they would have won every series. My point is that KG consistently came up short in the biggest moments of those series. He would all but disappear, particularly in the 4th quarters and in elimination games (or both).


I think the 2012 Celtics were better than the 2011 Celtics especially considering Rondo got injured in the 2011 playoffs.

One game from making the ECF is misleading. The only team they beat without KG is a 41-win Bulls team with a negative SRS and they needed a bunch of overtimes to do it. And they handily lost to the Magic on point differential (-30). Lost Game 7 at home by 19 points.

The ON-OFF numbers show that KG was far superior in impact to any of his teammates. And given his dominant defense, it makes sense.

Yea, that just proves they were an already great team that became even better with KG. If they weren't a big 3, then what were they, really? They were a 55 win paced team without KG from 2008-11; you included the next two years and okay, they're a 49-50 win pace team. That's a pretty significant success rate overall spanning 6 seasons.

[RRR3]

KG got 20/5/4/1 from his #2 in the combination of Szczerbiak and Davis in '06. Neither of these guys could play defense but it's not as if he had zero support, and certainly not indicative of having the second worst record in the conference. I can't think of another all time great who, in the midst of their prime, while having another 20 PPG scorer, had that bad of a season?

But I didn't mention those years because of the expectation that KG would have made the playoffs. I mentioned it because up until the formation of the superteam, we had 12 years of what exactly? What warrants him having such a high ranking on ThinkingBasketball or RealGM? 12 seasons where only 1 of them really stands out and the rest of such playoff performances are very disappointing.
Wally was there for half the year and Ricky Davis was a terrible player.

[dankok8]

'98 vs Seattle? They went to 5 games and KG choked in game 5. He shot 3-11 with just 7 points and 10 turnovers.

My point wasn't that they would have won every series. My point is that KG consistently came up short in the biggest moments of those series. He would all but disappear, particularly in the 4th quarters and in elimination games (or both).



Yea, that just proves they were an already great team that became even better with KG. If they weren't a big 3, then what were they, really? They were a 55 win paced team without KG from 2008-11; you included the next two years and okay, they're a 49-50 win pace team. That's a pretty significant success rate overall spanning 6 seasons.

KG also had some very strong decisive games. He had a monster 32/21 Game 7 against Sacramento in 2004 for instance.

49-50 win teams aren't title contenders. I never claimed the Celtics were bad just that KG was their best and most impactful player by far.

[HoopsNY]

Wally was there for half the year and Ricky Davis was a terrible player.

Yea, you're not wrong, but my mentioning it was more so that we don't have any data, really, aside from literally one year prior to him joining Boston. That's 12 years to hinge KG's all-time rating on the formation of a superteam and his MVP season? I think that's problematic.

[HoopsNY]

KG also had some very strong decisive games. He had a monster 32/21 Game 7 against Sacramento in 2004 for instance.

49-50 win teams aren't title contenders. I never claimed the Celtics were bad just that KG was their best and most impactful player by far.

Correct...2004. 8 years after he came into the league, he finally has a breakout playoff year. The previous 7 seasons were filled with him choking. You're old enough to remember those days. He was referred to as being the poor man's Tim Duncan and that he couldn't takeover games, particularly in the biggest moments.

[dankok8]

Correct...2004. 8 years after he came into the league, he finally has a breakout playoff year. The previous 7 seasons were filled with him choking. You're old enough to remember those days. He was referred to as being the poor man's Tim Duncan and that he couldn't takeover games, particularly in the biggest moments.

Funny you mention Tim Duncan because KG played Duncan to a draw in their 1999 and 2001 meetings. Timmy had way better teams around him.

KG was also quite good in the 2002 and 2003 playoffs IIRC.

Yes he couldn't take over game the way Timmy could. That's why Duncan > Garnett and you won't hear me disagree. However, Duncan also had way better teams around him until KG went to Boston. Both can be true.

[HoopsNY]

Funny you mention Tim Duncan because KG played Duncan to a draw in their 1999 and 2001 meetings. Timmy had way better teams around him.

KG was also quite good in the 2002 and 2003 playoffs IIRC.

Yes he couldn't take over game the way Timmy could. That's why Duncan > Garnett and you won't hear me disagree. However, Duncan also had way better teams around him until KG went to Boston. Both can be true.

Yea, and KG folded when it mattered most. I mean, this was a general trend for him and he was known for it. Look at their elimination games in the playoffs for their prime years.

KG '98-'08: 20 PPG on 43.5% FG%, 49.1% TS%

Duncan '99-'09: 25 PPG on 46.6% FG%, 53.2% TS%

Sure, Duncan had better teams, but what's KG's excuse for getting outplayed by Dean Smith, Anthony Peeler, Terrell Brandon, or Troy Hudson?

[RRR3]

Yea, and KG folded when it mattered most. I mean, this was a general trend for him and he was known for it. Look at their elimination games in the playoffs for their prime years.

KG '98-'08: 20 PPG on 43.5% FG%, 49.1% TS%

Duncan '99-'09: 25 PPG on 46.6% FG%, 53.2% TS%

Sure, Duncan had better teams, but what's KG's excuse for getting outplayed by Dean Smith, Anthony Peeler, Terrell Brandon, or Troy Hudson?
Kobe had similar numbers in elimination games and no one calls him a choker.

[HoopsNY]

Kobe had similar numbers in elimination games and no one calls him a choker.

Kobe faired better. From 2000-12 he averaged 24.4 PPG on 51% TS%. He also didn't take 7 years to really show up in a big game. Kobe's resume is more impressive and didn't need a superteam to win a title.