Blaming KG

Back when Kevin Garnett was a fantastic player stuck in crappy teams in Minnesota, Bill Simmons was in the habit of blaming the Timberwolves' lack of success on Garnett, rather than on his bad teammates. Then Garnett got traded to Boston! And Boston became the best team in the NBA! And Simmons loved Garnett! But now Boston seems to be underperforming in the playoffs, so naturally Simmons blames KG. But in truth, Garnett's playing almost exactly the same -- a few more minutes, leading to more points but with a slightly lower FG% (though a slightly higher FT%) and rebounds and he's managed to turn the ball over slightly less often.

Consider instead blaming Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Leon Powe who are actually playing substantially worse than they did during the regular season leading, naturally enough, to worse outcomes for Boston.

Comments

I enjoy Simmons, but it's best to ignore him when he's talking about Boston area teams.

Posted by David | May 22, 2008 3:01 PM

Not sure we should blame Pierce, who seems to have pulled his head out over the last few games, including saving their bacon in game 7 of the Cleveland series.

Ray, on the other hand, has been a disaster. I think it was Wilbon who made the guess that Ray's shot may have disappeared because his ankles are shot. That may explain why he's still stunningly accurate from the foul line - something like 30 of 31 - but throwing up brick after brick from the field. If he's got to jump to shoot, he's got a problem.

It's getting to the point where I'm yelling at the teevee for Doc to put Tony Allen in. That's a sure sign of derangement.

Posted by TedL | May 22, 2008 3:01 PM

Matt, until you find the "clutch" "crunch time" or "shots passed up at the end of close games" stats, you might want to just stick to politics.

Granted, it's not just Garnett - Doc Rivers has probably been the main catalyst behind the Celtics' roller coaster ride in the playoffs - but you really can't argue that Garnett rarely comes up big in big games. Stats don't explain everything. They really don't.

Posted by Peezle | May 22, 2008 3:02 PM

Paul Pierce is playing worse? Leon Powe is playing worse?

Huh?

Yes, Pierce is not shooting at a very high percentage, but his defense on LeBron James is the reason why the Celtics advanced against Cleveland.

His defense against James was HUGE. And to do that, he had to sacrifice some offense. Yet in the biggest game of the year - Game 7 vs. Cleveland - Pierce scores 41 to propel Boston to Victory and holds James to a poor shooting night on defense.

Pierce played like a stud again two days ago vs. Detroit.

Not sure Pierce is the problem.

Leon Powe played pretty damn well until Doc benched him like the idiot Doc is.

Ray Allen there is no excuse for. How did he forget how to shoot? Ray is one of the best shooters of ALL TIME! Unbelievable.

Agree that KG is playing just like...KG. Very, very good on offense, but not aggressive enough to be great, and great on D.

Posted by Wake Up Sauce | May 22, 2008 3:04 PM

I thought this has been debated and settled: Bill Simmons is an idiot.

Posted by Jennifer | May 22, 2008 3:04 PM

"...you really can't DISAGREE that Garnett rarely comes up big..."

FTFY.

Posted by Peezle | May 22, 2008 3:05 PM

I read that piece and thought, not for the first time, that anybody can be a professional sportswriter. I swear, most of these guys don't even pretend to think.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 3:06 PM

Can you link some columns where Simmons blamed the Timberwolves lack of success on KG? As a Minnesotan and a Simmons reader, that doesn't jive with my recollection of his writing.

Posted by timmah | May 22, 2008 3:07 PM

Simmons's point is entirely consistent with what you're saying. Simmons has consistently said that KG's problem is that he always plays at the same high level, and doesn't kick it into another gear in crunch time.

As a Boston fan i thought this was an over the top article, but this post seems like it was written before reading the guy.

Posted by ml | May 22, 2008 3:07 PM

And I think "playing exactly the same" is proving Simmons' point, not yours. Agree or disagree, but his argument is that true superstars RAISE their games during the playoffs. Garnett really hasn't, although as a Celts fan I thought his Game 1 performance against the Pistons was encouraging.

Posted by Yossarian | May 22, 2008 3:10 PM

...consider instead blaming Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Leon Powe...

Or consider instead blaming the fact that Boston didn't have to play 100% of its regular season games against two teams (one really athletic, and one with LeBron James) that match up particularly well against them. Detroit to my eyes doesn't look as strong a matchup against the Celtics, and they've in fact one three out of their last four against the Pistons.

Posted by Jasper | May 22, 2008 3:12 PM

Rush Limbaugh was a comic. Bill Simmons wass a comic. When either tries to do analysis, they are not doing what made them popular. Until they start with the comedy, ignore them. MY is an analyst. When he starts with the comedy (Pierce has been playing poorly), ignore him.

As others have noted above: Garnett is great. Pierce has done a whale of a job. Ray Allen has been terrible. Sportswriters are idiots.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | May 22, 2008 3:15 PM

I agree with the bottom line that KG isn't the problem here (and wasn't in Minnesota), but I don't come at it the same way as Matt.

You've got other offensive stars on this team that should be carrying their share of the burden, no doubt. But having 3 really good offensive players isn't really what separated Boston from, say, the Washington Wizards for example. What makes them a superior basketball team is their incredible defense. I would argue that, for whatever reason, their defense on the road has been awful in the postseason and that has hurt them as much anything on offense (they have actually played well at home in the postseason despite Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, etc. sucking there, too).

Therefore, if you think KG is the Defensive Player of the Year because he single-handedly made Boston super awesome on defense during the regular season, then I could see why you'd blame him. But I don't think that premise is accurate anyway.

Posted by Brent | May 22, 2008 3:15 PM

Rush Limbaugh was a comic. Bill Simmons was a comic. When either tries to do analysis, they are not doing what made them popular. Until they start with the comedy, ignore them. MY is a political analyst. When he starts with the comedy (Pierce has been playing poorly), ignore him.

As others have noted above: Garnett has been fine. Pierce has done a whale of a job. Ray Allen has been terrible. Sportswriters are idiots.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | May 22, 2008 3:16 PM

Matt, until you find the "clutch" "crunch time" or "shots passed up at the end of close games" stats

Here are some. Almost all of KG's stats get worse at the end of close games, most notably FG% and FT%. His rebounds per 48 minutes go up, but so do his turnovers.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 22, 2008 3:16 PM

Arguments about "clutch performers" are overwhelmingly likely to be as empiricaly based as arguemnts about the Rapture being near.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 3:20 PM

I think the biggest problem has been Doc Rivers's penchant for sitting Rajon Rondo and neglecting what had been an effective bench in the regular season in favor of older guys who haven't been with the team for very long. Cassel has been worse than PJ Brown, but I think it's been a mistake on Doc's part to play either of them so much.

Posted by mark f | May 22, 2008 3:21 PM

Yglesias name checks Simmons a lot. I think MY is just desperate to get invited on the Sports Guy podcast.

Posted by vanya | May 22, 2008 3:27 PM

Simmons's point is entirely consistent with what you're saying. Simmons has consistently said that KG's problem is that he always plays at the same high level, and doesn't kick it into another gear in crunch time.

As a Boston fan i thought this was an over the top article, but this post seems like it was written before reading the guy.

Posted by ml | May 22, 2008 3:27 PM

Okay, I'm willing to accept and would have assumed that Pierce and Allen have just as big a role in the losses as Garnett. Hell, I would have even bought Perkins or Rondo.

But if you want to tell me that Leon Powe, who has played 10 mpg in the Celtics losses, is bigger part of those losses than Kevin Garnett, who has played 40 mpg in those losses and is also playing worse in those losses than he did in regular season losses (win score per minute .300 vs .269), then I have to call bullcracky. And I don't use that word lightly.

Apparently, people will believe anything Dave Berri says at this point.

Posted by Nick | May 22, 2008 3:31 PM

As a Boston fan whose watched KG in the playoffs, I completely agree with Simmons. It's not that KG is choking or playing obviously badly during the game. To the contrary, the frustration with KG is there'll be stretches (particularly in the first quarter of games), where he'll just be demolishing the opposition, and just when you think he's going to go off, take over the game, and put it out of reach, he'll disappear for long periods. It's not (to me at least) that he performs horribly in the 4th quarter of close games; it's just that you don't know he's the best player on the team in those 4th quarters. If you watch KG and then watch Chris Paul or Kobe, you can see the difference between players who take over games and players that don't (even if his stats are similar). Also, the teams the Celtics have been playing against really aren't in their class, so there's plenty of blame to go around.

Posted by JM | May 22, 2008 3:31 PM

Can you say "artificial controversy"? Sportswriters depend upon the occasional obvious idiocy to keep the gawkers coming back.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 22, 2008 3:35 PM

As others have said, that Garnett is playing exactly the same as the regular season is the problem. It's expected that some of the younger players will not play as well in the playoffs as they did in the regular season. It's up to the stars to fill in the gaps.

Last year before the playoffs, Simmons wrote something like, "If you want to win a championship, Tim Duncan is the best player for achieveing that particular goal." At the time, I thought it was a weird statement. What other goal is there?

But looking at the playoffs, I see what he means. Amare Stoudamire or Garnett or even Rasheed Wallace might be objectively better power forwards. But Duncan is the best at channeling his skills toward winning a championship.

In a league where a team can have one superstar, if you want to win a championship, Garnett may not be your guy.

The problem is that in our sports commentary world, that is seen as a character flaw.

Posted by JohnMcG | May 22, 2008 3:37 PM

The Celtics had one of the most dominating regular seasons in NBA history. However, they are at best legitimate title contenders and not favorites because of the nature of KG's play. Most basketball games come down to the last few minutes. Sure, if everyone played the same for the whole game, these minutes would be no more important than any others. But because that's not true, b/c BB is a game with memory, b/c most people perform worse under pressure and b/c you can employ strategies that give you a better chance of catching up quickly even if not yielding a better average point differential, those last few minutes are critical.

KG does not play well in the last few minutes of games. First, he is a choker. This has been shown empirically. Secondly, his game is not well-designed for these circumstances. Some players have offensive moves that they can pull out in clutch situations to significant advantage. If you can hit jump shots very reliably, are dominant on the low post or get to the hoop on the drive, you perform well in these situations. KG's mid-range post game does not work very well in these situations. It is easy to force him to give up the ball. Dirk Nowitzki has a similar problem. He was almost able to overcome it for one season, but shooting fall-away jumpers is not a path to an NBA title.

As a result, the Celtics will underperform in the playoffs. They could still win a title if Doc Rivers doesn't stop them b/c they are so good naturally, but I don't think the odds are in their favor.

Posted by mpowell | May 22, 2008 3:40 PM

Antid, if I read the chart correctly, Garnett was in 27 "clutch situations" this year, comprising about 135 minutes. Making a judgement about a player's "clutchness", based on such a sample size, is problematic. This is a recurring problem with evaluating "clutchness", in almost all sports.

Garnett has always struck me as a historically great defensive player, while being an extremely good scorer, and for some reason this Hall of Fame-worthy combination of skills has left some unsatisfied.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 3:49 PM

I don't know about you, but if I was Garnett, I wouldn't mind being blamed for where a team is, when that team is 1-0 in the Eastern Conference finals.

Posted by Robinson Eaton | May 22, 2008 3:58 PM

mpowell, please point me to the empirical data, with suitably large sample sizes. Also, please explain how it is possible that a team is certain to underperfrom in the playoffs while still retaining a chance to win the title.

If the Celtics don't win the title the overwhelmingly most likely reason is because their bench sucks, especially on the road, where marginal 6th and 7th men are typically exposed, and because Ray Allen may not be better than simply average at this point.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 4:02 PM

Given that it is a magazine piece, I have a feeling it was written in the aftermath of game 6 in Cleveland, and is actually quite embarrassing now that they are up 1-0 over Detroit.

That said, I echo the commenter who noted KG dominates early, then disappears for stretches. It's not that he chokes, but defers to Pierce too often. I'd love to see him take 28 shots one of these games.

Posted by Andruw | May 22, 2008 4:05 PM

I think its very clear what KG is. A very, very good player whose not quite good enough to be the best player on an NBA championship team. Now I'm not saying that Pierce is better or has had a better career. But I do believe he has to be the best player on the floor for the Celtics to have a chance at winning at all. Game 7 of the Cleveland series is a perfect example. Pierce was the best Celtic on the floor. KG can't carry a team through the playoffs. His offensive game is far too limited.

Posted by Stacy | May 22, 2008 4:17 PM

Agree with mmpowell about the nature of KG game. Even more, if you try to remember names of great "clutch" players you find that most of them were perimeter players and relatively few were big men. The reason is that to be a "clutch" player you need to be able to get a good shot under maximum defensive pressure (often when the offense has broken down) and with little time on the clock; it's very hard for a big man (who often needs to gain position and then have the ball passed to him) to do this. Even Duncan is probably more a great player whose abilities made it easy to create a great team around him than a great clutch performer.

Posted by Charrua | May 22, 2008 4:21 PM

JohnMcG,
Sorry, but I don't think anybody would say that KG or Rasheed are objectively better PF than Duncan. KG might have gotten more attention this year, but I gotta believe if you switched Duncan and KG, their playoffs thus far would be drastically different. The Celtics would have swept Atl and the Spurs certainly would have lost to NO.

Posted by Stacy | May 22, 2008 4:25 PM

It's very common fan behavior, in almost every sport, to blame the team's best player when the team isn't winning. I know it's counterintuitive, but that's the way it seems to work.

Posted by Seitz | May 22, 2008 4:28 PM

As others have said, that Garnett is playing exactly the same as the regular season is the problem.

So Garnett plays great in the regular season and the celtics are killing. Then the celtics get to the playoffs and they start not killing, just sort of scraping by, but Garnett is playing the same (great) and three other guys, two of whom play a ton of minutes, start playing substantially worse. This is a reason to think Garnett is the problem?

That doesn't make very much sense. It may very well be that Garnett plays worse close and late, but if the Celtics were playing as well as they had in the regular season, there wouldn't be very much close and late. In fact, based on how well the Celtics were playing to the rest of the league, the Celtics wouldn't have much close and late if Pierce, Allen, and Powe had just declined less precipitously then they have.

Imagine what these two series would have been like if Ray Allen's shot had been as reliable as it was during the season and if Pierce hadn't waited to the last two games to start playing like himself. Now think about how we should feel about who to pin the celtics less than spectacular play on. I don't think the one guy holding up his part of the deal is where we should be looking.

Posted by MrTImbo | May 22, 2008 4:29 PM

KG is a great player statistically. As for his playoff performance, Kobe Bryant wasn't able to get out of the 1st round without Shaq and does anyone think the Lakers would be in the conference finals if they hadn't been giftwrapped Gasol by the Grizzlies? This is only the second time in KG's career he's made a meaningful playoff run, so it's a little ridiculous to make sweeping statements about what he's like as a playoff performer.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 22, 2008 4:30 PM

Even Duncan is probably more a great player whose abilities made it easy to create a great team around him than a great clutch performer.

Right -- the problem with water-cooler sports commentary is that we over-value "clutch," and think of it as a moral success/failure if a player does or doesn't perform well under those circumstances.

So observing that Garnett is not as valuable in the playoffs as some other players puts people like MY on the defensive. It needn't be so. Garnett is a wonderful basketball player, and, as far as I can tell, a terrific human being. It's just that his skill and makeup may not be aligned with winning a championship.

Which is OK. MY's stlye of commentary is probably a poor match for, say, the New York Times's OpEd page. That's not a moral failure on MY's part.

Posted by JohnMcG | May 22, 2008 4:30 PM

Well, Stacy, you might gotta believe that, but that doesn't mean it's true. The Spurs are a carefully constructed team, of course, and you couldn't just sub KG for Duncan and expect them to be just as good. But if you put KG on the Spurs early in his career -- or you surrounded him with Spurs-quality teammates when he was young -- I think he could have won as many titles as Duncan. They're both historically great players, probably top 20-25 all-time. I think Duncan will be remembered as greater, but maybe only because he had better teammates.

But leave aside whether KG is better than Duncan. You said earlier that KG was never good enough to be the best player on a championship team. Throughout KG's career (at least not counting his first 2-3 years) he's been one of the top 5 players in the league. In his prime, from about 02 to 05, he was easily one of the top 3 players. I understand if you subscribe to the theory that the team with the best individual player always wins it all, but I don't think that's a good theory. If it was, LeBron would have a title already.

Posted by too many steves | May 22, 2008 4:34 PM

Yeah, MrTImbo, but when you're the guy who supposedly "changed the whole attitude of the franchise," you gotta bring it a little bit more in the playoffs. Let's not pretend that Garnett has been playing THAT well. His regular season was overhyped as well, and I think that is becoming obvious. To even mention him in the MVP race was an insult to Kobe, Lebron, and CP.

Posted by Stacy | May 22, 2008 4:34 PM

As a Cal Bear, I have to firmly object to criticism of Leon Powe. First, look at the minutes. When he's give back-up forward minutes, he plays great. When he gets garbage minutes, not so great. Yell about Ray Allen and his obvious collapse in the Play offs, but leave the second-year back up out of it.

Posted by z_adura | May 22, 2008 4:35 PM

Yglesias name checks Simmons a lot. I think MY is just desperate to get invited on the Sports Guy podcast.

MY, you really need to get on that podcast, Klosterman was on this week, and it was probably the best one yet

Posted by andrew | May 22, 2008 4:35 PM

I probably watched about 70% of the Celtics regular season games this year, and have seen all of their playoff games. I have nothing but praise for Pierce. His offensive underperformance in some of the Cleveland games (but not the most important one) was due to his having to work like a dog to guard one of the best players in the game, a player who isn't just a dangerous scorer, but is also very strong and physical. He gets a special merit badge in my book. Of the "big three", he has been the one most ready to play and perform in the playoffs, but his job has gotten harder because of the play of some of his teammates.

The playoffs are a completely different scene than the regular season. And so far, Garnett hasn't shown me that he is willing to take really big shots. I disagree that that is because he lacks the requisite offensive moves. In addition to his midrange game, he has a variety of crossover moves, and very good ball and body fakes. He is almost always significantly quicker than the man playing him. When he wants to get to his spot and get his shot, he can do it. But to me he has looked tight and intimidated in the playoffs, especially on the road. He passed up some wide open ten footers in the fourth quarters of the road games in Atlanta. Watch him after he hits his first shot in the game tonight if the camera is on him. You might see a big exhale, as though he was holding his breath up to that point and is, well, really nervous. Garnett made the Celtics great this year by showing leadership and getting on everyone's back, especially at the defensive end. But in the playoffs he has looked more intense and introverted.

But the main problem with the Celtics is clear: Ray Allen is totally sucking! I'm convinced he is having some kind of physical problems. His elevation wasn't very good in the latter part of the season. Maybe it's just old age. But it has snowballed into a serious failure of confidence and loss of offensive aggression. He is hesitating on his shot when he catches it in an opening, and then shooting afterthought bricks. This is the key reason the Celtics don't look as good as they looked most of the season. The Celtics were so dangerous because they would move the ball very quickly and a shot could come from almost anywhere on the floor. The collapse of Ray Alley has really bogged their offense down.

I would also say that Doc Rivers gets a B+ so far, but has not adjusted 100% to the playoffs. I have heard him complain about too many "hero shots". And there have been times when he has put the breaks on Rondo and sent the kid the wrong message in my view, especially with the whole Sam Cassell experiment. But this isn't some regular season road game against the Bobcats. And playoff basketball isn't some magical, slick "beautiful game" full off lovely ball movement the way it is drawn up on the blackbhoard. The refs allow defenses to get away with a lot in the playoffs, and the offenses bog down. Ultimately, great players have to make great shots in the playoffs with great defenders all over them. If Rajon Rondo has the stones to take and make "hero shots" because Ray Allen can't throw it in the ocean and Kevin Garnett is wetting his pants, then let the kid be a hero!

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 22, 2008 4:36 PM

As others have said, that Garnett is playing exactly the same as the regular season is the problem.

So Garnett plays great in the regular season and the celtics are killing. Then the celtics get to the playoffs and they start not killing, just sort of scraping by, but Garnett is playing the same (great) and three other guys, two of whom play a ton of minutes, start playing substantially worse. This is a reason to think Garnett is the problem?

That doesn't make very much sense. It may very well be that Garnett plays worse close and late, but if the Celtics were playing as well as they had in the regular season, there wouldn't be very much close and late. In fact, based on how well the Celtics were playing to the rest of the league, the Celtics wouldn't have much close and late if Pierce, Allen, and Powe had just declined less precipitously then they have.

Posted by MrTImbo | May 22, 2008 4:37 PM

Will: Just out of curiosity, not because I actually plan to do more research on statistics that I generally mistrust also, what would be a suitably large sample size?

Posted by Antid Oto | May 22, 2008 4:40 PM

Too Many,
Listen, I don't doubt for a second where KG's career goes down among the all-time greats. He won an MVP and deservedly so. Even this year, when he got the third most votes for MVP, I still think he needs defer to Pierce for them to have a chance at winning it all. His offensive game is too limited. While he and Duncan can both hit 12-15 footers, KG seems incapable of taking it to the hole when its absolutely necessary. KG might be a top 25 player, but I'm pretty sure Duncan will retire as a top 10. Now granted, this probably has something to do with him learning from quality players(Robinson)but I still think Duncan is in another class right now.

Posted by Stacy | May 22, 2008 4:41 PM

Folks, Kevin Garnett has played two seasons with high quality teammates, and zero seasons with a high quality bench. In the first season he essentially lost his best guard to injury upon gaining the conference finals, and in this season, during the playoffs, his bench has absolutely sucked, and Ray Allen has played very poorly. From this one is to conclude that Garnett is inadequate for playoff basketball?

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 4:44 PM

This is idiotic, absolutely idiotic commentary.

KG is hands-down the best defensive player in the league this year. Probably for the past 10 years.

KG's defense never changes, it is ALWAYS GREAT.

In the playoffs, in clutch situations, he plays clutch D.

Who does it better?

Nobody.

But for some reason, when people talk "clutch" they only talk offense. Maybe because those clutch talkers are all stats geeks who should be baseball fans instead, because stats geeks don't know crap about hoops, because you can't measure clutch or greatness in just stats when talking hoops.

Now, Paul Pierce's 41 in Game 7 v LeBron was clutch, but more clutch was his hounding a hot shooting LeBron into a low-percentage shooting night (again, as he did all series), but even MORE CLUTCH was Pierce diving after a loose ball off a tip in the last minute, diving in front of LeBron, the play that essentially put the series away. SUPER CLUTCH! The kind of play KG makes all the time. The kind of play that can't be measured in stats.

Look, KG is not an All-NBA first team offensive talent. Never has been. He is probably 2nd team, due to his scoring (which is excellent) and his assists (which are tremendous for a big man). But he has never been "the guy" on offense, that's not his game. Anymore than being a defensive stopper isn't LeBron James game. But I didn't hear the world saying LBJ wasn't clutch after he pathetically let Paul Pierce steal that ball from him off the tip (a pathetic play by James, a five year old knows that if you want it more you hit the floor for loose balls...at least The Truth knows that).

So is LBJ not clutch? Since he choked on the biggest moment of the year?

Come on guys! Get a clue! Defense is half the game! KG is a FORCE on D, he is sickly good, sickly motivated, sickly talented, ultimately skilled, the best on the ball, the best team defender. He is otherworldly on D!

Get a clue, you win championships with DEFENSE!

That's why the Spurs, Pistons, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers (with defensive role players Rick Fox, Fisher, Horry) won championships!

KG's team is now in the final 4 of the NBA, up 1-0 over the former champs Detroit, and has home court advantage through the playoffs.

He is in pole position!

And you are complaining about him!

You are all totally clueless. Totally. Clueless.

Posted by Mr. Spaulding | May 22, 2008 4:44 PM

But if you put KG on the Spurs early in his career -- or you surrounded him with Spurs-quality teammates when he was young -- I think he could have won as many titles as Duncan. They're both historically great players, probably top 20-25 all-time. I think Duncan will be remembered as greater, but maybe only because he had better teammates.

Which is kind of the point of Simmons' article; it's not surprising tht KG doesn't rise to the occasion because he hasn't had much experience with the occasion. By landing on a team that was already a perennial playoff contender Duncan was, like Kobe, thrust into high-pressure playoff situations very early on. Environments shape people, and while raw talent matters, it's highly affected by personality and circumstance. I'm not going to say that KG is done evolving, but he kind of is who he is by now, and he's not had nearly as many opportunities to be Duncan as, well, Duncan has.

Posted by Quarterican | May 22, 2008 4:49 PM

Mr. Spaulding,
I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but I think there are obvious reasons why clutch is restricted more to offense. Because defense isn't as streaky. Good defensive players and good defensive teams tend to do so very consistently. And while I think "clutch" is a ridiculous and arbitrary term, its hard to argue a player like Robert Horry's career. Never the best, or even second best player on his team, but he consistently hit down big shots. Its obviously just easier to judge.

Posted by Stacy | May 22, 2008 4:50 PM

Stacy, you really think Duncan is top-10 all-time? He's past his prime, so he's not getting better. Who's he better than, on this list: Jordan, Magic, Bird, Russell, Wilt, Oscar Robertson, Kareem, Dr. J, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor. Oh, and I forgot to save a spot for LeBron.

Posted by too many steves | May 22, 2008 4:51 PM

Actually, Spaulding, so called "stats geeks" tend to be extremely suspicious about the "clutch" or "choker" labels.

Also, I'd like to revise my assertion regarding Garnett's teammates the year he made the conference finals against the Lakers. They were above average, but not greatly so. Garnett made Cassell and Sprewell look much better than they were.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 4:53 PM

Too Many,
I think you could make an argument that he was as good as Dr. J, West, and Baylor. He's still playing a very high level, and is the best PF of all time. I belive he has 2 regular season MVP's, 8 time 1st team all NBA, and has 3 finals MVP. And he is still playing at a very high level. I'm not even a huge Duncan, or Spurs fan, but you could definitely debate him being a top 10 player.

Posted by Stacy | May 22, 2008 4:58 PM

Too Many,
Can we just expand the "Top 10" to "Top 13-15 or so?"

Posted by Stacy | May 22, 2008 5:04 PM

In fact, Pierce is the first teammate that Garnett has had who is an elite player. One season. That's pretty remarkable, and worth considering the next time somone says that there have been 20 better players than Garnett. How would we view Karl Malone if his guards had been mostly guys like Stephan Marbury or Troy Hudson?

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 5:09 PM

Duncan's only the best PF of all time because there have been fewer great players at PF than any other position, and because he played alongside Robinson and got pegged as a 4 for the rest of his career, even though he's naturally a 5. If you call Duncan a center, he's maybe the 5th or 6th best of all time, after Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Hakeem and (maybe) Shaq. Shaq's a tough one because he was better than Duncan at his peak, but his peak didn't last long. Of course, Shaq can only blame is own fat, lazy self for that.

Anyway, those 10 were just the first that came to mind. I'd say Duncan is probably in the 15-20 range, all-time, and KG is in the 20-25 range. They're both better than Karl Malone, thank God, so we don't have to hear his name anymore when people talk about the greatest PF. I still think Barkley was better than Malone, anyway.

I give LeBron 2 or 3 more years until he's legitimately in the top 10, and not in a "saving space for him" sense.

Posted by too many steves | May 22, 2008 5:15 PM

Tim Duncan is definitely better than Dr. J. That's not even close. Dr. J's rep far exceeds how great he was in terms of leading a team to victories. Great dunker, changed the game. But never was a NBA winner until he got Moses Malone, who was EASILY the best player (and the leader) of those great Philly teams.

Jerry West and Baylor were great players but if you are starting a team, you take Tim Duncan over either of those guys in a flat second. There is a reason neither one was a winner, well, West until he got Wilt, who again was the best player on West's best team.

I'd take Tim Duncan over either of those guys.

NBA greats Top 10 I go in no order:

Bird, Magic, Jordan, Oscar, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan, with Lebron and Kobe fighting it out over the 10th spot, with Kobe winning that at this early stage of LBJ's career.

Posted by Mr. Spaulding | May 22, 2008 5:16 PM

Antid, I don't know basketball as well as I do football and baseball, but off the top of my head, if you could compile about 10,000 minutes of "clutch time", you might have something large enough to draw strong conclusions from. Maybe not, however. Like football, basketball is infinitely harder than baseball to evaluate individual performances, although football is much harder still than basketball. Given you very seldom can hold quality of teammates constant, and the quality of your teammates has a huge impact on how easily one can get one's shot, evaluating "clutchness" in basketball is extremely problematic.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 5:25 PM

Shaq's a tough one because he was better than Duncan at his peak, but his peak didn't last long.

So many Shaq haters. Shaq is 4 years older than Duncan. Shaq's peak lasted through 2002 at least. He won a title with Wade and not much else in 2006. Duncan's peak lasted through about 2005. He's 32 now, and showing his age. I think his decline may not be as precipitous as Shaq's, but Shaq was very dominant through 32-33 years of age. Maybe some of it was his own fault, but you're not going to be able to last as long as a Kareem when your game is based on being the biggest and strongest and still reasonably quick.

I pretty much agree with Mr. Spaulding's list, though I disagree with his assessment of Garnett's defensive prowess (he's not quite that good, in my opinion). The only guy I am uncertain about is Oscar, b/c I don't know enough about him. It's also no coincidence that the list is dominated by Centers (or guys who should have been centers, like Duncan).

Posted by mpowell | May 22, 2008 5:28 PM

That's why the Spurs, Pistons, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers (with defensive role players Rick Fox, Fisher, Horry) won championships!

Right. It's also whey Bill Russell has eleven rings, and was the best player on each of those eleven championship teams, despite the fact that he's probably not among the top 200 offensive NBA players.

Posted by Jasper | May 22, 2008 5:37 PM

Who do you think is a better defender in the league right now than KG?

The only big that has a case is Duncan, and yet Duncan just can't do all the things KG does (like guard guards). And KG can do everything Duncan can. (As much accolades as he gets, Marcus Camby just doesn't fit in this discussion in my book. And Dwight Howard is a force, but is way too inconsistent at this point).

After KG and Duncan, you're talking Bruce Bowen, Kobe Bryant & Ron Artest in terms of All-NBA level elite defenders. I love all threes game on D, but just don't see them effecting all their teammates the way KG does. Part of KG's defensive greatness is that he not only plays the best D in the league, but INSPIRES his teammates to play better.

Is Paul Pierce's GREAT defensive performance on LBJ even thinkable without KG goading him into it? Challenging him? If making your teammates better is a quality of greatness - which most agree it is - then what KG has done to inspire Paul Pierce, who was considered a one-dimensional player for years, into making LBJ look like he needed a lot more shooting lessons...well, it was simply what champions do to lift their teams to greatness.

Curious who else in the league deserves this type of praise on the defensive end.

I don't think another player is even that close.

Posted by Mr. Spaulding | May 22, 2008 5:39 PM

Simmons has descended into self-parody. Since I and from Cleveland and, by and large, hate all Boston sports teams, I hardly read him anymore.

Classic Boston/East Coast tunnel vision.

Posted by Invisible Man | May 22, 2008 6:07 PM

I've been acused of being a Shaq-hater, but I'm really not. Shaq affected games like no other player for a good period of time. I just wish I was sure that he had exhausted all possibilities to improve from the line, and I don't think he did, although I can't be absolutely sure. A Shaq who was reliable from the line is a scary thing to contemplate.

Also, Olajuwon's greatness gets overlooked sometimes, I think. I'll always remember him simply destroying a great defensive center, David Robinson, in the playoffs. In my alternate NBA reality, the Rockets trade Ralph Sampson for the Bulls' draft pick, obtain Jordan and Olajuwon on the same day, and are now mentioned with the Russell Celtics as the greatest dynasty ever.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 6:09 PM

Mr. Spaulding,
So what it breaks down to is who else is a great defender and also a GREAT team leader. Yeah, that list would be pretty small. Kobe and Duncan would be the only other players that come close, I think.

Posted by Stacy | May 22, 2008 6:12 PM

Invisable Man,
I really used to like Simmons, but his affection for Boston sports, east coast sports, and AL baseball in general has made him difficult to read. His MVP article when he said he wasn't going to be bias, but then had KG as his MVP was the last straw. Anyone who thinks that KG was better or a More VP than Kobe, CP, or Lebron simply wasn't paying attention.

Posted by Stacy | May 22, 2008 6:14 PM

1) While 82games clutch stats show KG not having a great year this year, he was consistently rated well in them in the years around his MVP season.

2) This whole debate shows precisely how important narrative is in these sorts of things. The narrative is that KG shirks from big games or big moments, so mediocre performances last because they fit into the narrative, whereas great performances like the game 7 against the Kings a few years ago to get to the conference finals where KG scored 32 points (14 in the the 4th) and had 21 rebounds gets forgotten. That's why his 18/11/4 in 27 minutes in game 7 in Atlanta gets overlooked. It's also why people don't care to notice that he's raised his points, rebounds, and assists while decreasing turnovers in these playoffs compared to the regular season.

That stuff doesn't fit the narrative. But if he happens to fade down a stretch in a game, you can almost guarantee that someone like Bill Simmons is going to write an article about it to propel the narrative.

The idea that KG is this player who just can't handle the big time, if there ever was much truth to it, has long since passed. But enough people believe in the narrative that the idea continues on.

Posted by Will | May 22, 2008 6:20 PM

i enjoy simmons comments on the NBA (besides boston), but thats just about it. His baseball and football comments are almost unbearable. All he does is add to the douche-baggery of boston.

Posted by I'm the reason that your block is vacant | May 22, 2008 6:29 PM

I love reading Bill Simmons, but be careful not to confuse his commentary as anything resembling analysis.

He's more like the Maureen Dowd of sports.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | May 22, 2008 6:31 PM

Will,
The same thing seems to have happend to T-Mac. He's had some very good playoffs, but won't be able to shake the stigma until he wins a round. But I don't think KG shirks from big games, I just don't think he's a good enough offensive player to take games over.

Posted by Stacy | May 22, 2008 6:31 PM

Will, if every sportswriter were made to prove that he could expain the signifigance of sample size, sportswriting would improve immenesly. Political punditry would as well, for that matter, if pundits were made to do the same.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 6:32 PM

if you could compile about 10,000 minutes of "clutch time"

You can't. That'd be, by my mental math, about 60 years of games, assuming KG's rate of clutch minutes per season is about representative.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 22, 2008 6:39 PM

It seems to me you should be able to make do with a much smaller sample size for free throw percentage, at least.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 22, 2008 6:46 PM

Yeah, that was just off the top of my head, and now that I think of it, 3300 or so minutes might give you a chance to make some non-tenuous conclusions, which means there isn't enough data for for just about anybody not named Kareem Abdul Jabbar. "Clutchness" is largely an unproven theory, and will remain so. Michael Jordan was likely great in "the clutch" because he was great, period.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 6:48 PM

I think you could make non-tenuous conclusions with about 1,500 minutes, which is half of a full season for a full-time player. It's pretty rare for a guy to play completely out of his head for a half season. 10 or 20 games, sure, but by 40 games the league leaders in your various statistical categories are the guys you would expect.

Posted by too many steves | May 22, 2008 6:55 PM

>> But I don't think KG shirks from big games, I just don't think he's a good enough offensive player to take games over.

yes. that and it's just not in his dna. kg is a marvelous all-around player but he is not, nor has he ever been, a "scorer".

Posted by Skyhook | May 22, 2008 7:37 PM

You may be right, steves, although I'd like to see an analyis of players' best half seasons, and how much they deviated from their career numbers. Even at 1500 minutes, however, the percentage of players who will give us a large enough sample size is pretty low. Evaluating athletic performance is hard, hard, hard.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 7:45 PM

You may be right, steves, although I'd like to see an analyis of players' best half seasons, and how much they deviated from their career numbers. Even at 1500 minutes, however, the percentage of players who will give us a large enough sample size is pretty low. Evaluating athletic performance is hard, hard, hard.

Posted by Will Allen | May 22, 2008 7:49 PM

I think Matt has missed the point. First, since when has Simmons "loved" Garnett as a Boston Celtic? I don't recall any such endorsement, but, rather it seems that Simmons has retained his harsh criticism of Garnett's inability to emerge late in the game and take charge of the momentum. Kobe Bryant, in last night's game, did exactly this. When is the last time we've seen KG do anything even remotely similar to what Kobe did and has done repeatedly in his career once he developed the skills necessary to do so. Matt is correct to point out the severe drops in both Pierce and Allen's numbers, but, in the playoffs, numbers usually drop owing to defensive pressure and more precise offensive execution, so I think this argument is misplaced. Where Matt truly misses the point, however, is in regard to Simmons' critique of Garnett...Matt argues that his numbers remain the same...this isn't Bill's point. His point references his inability to make big plays AT THE END OF THE GAME...it doesn't matter that his stats replicate regular season numbers...what does matter, and what Matt misses, is that he's incapable of showing up at the end of the game. As I watch the end of game two....Garnett is once again invisible.

Posted by Ryan | May 22, 2008 11:19 PM

His point is stupid, in that there is vastly more to winning basketball than being the main scorer at the end of the game. Ask Bill Russell.

Posted by Will Allen | May 23, 2008 12:51 PM