# Pippen "Garnett is an underachiever and overrated"



## GM3 (May 5, 2005)

He just said that on the pregame show on ABC.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

For some reason Pippen always comes of as being extremely biased in some cases. I dont think he ever really liked Garnett either


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

"Kevin Garnett is more underrated than overrated and is one the greatest players we've ever seen and you're gonna miss him when he's gone" ~ tone wone


----------



## LBJthefuturegoat (Nov 13, 2004)

tone wone said:


> "Kevin Garnett is more underrated than overrated and is one the greatest players we've ever seen and you're gonna miss him when he's gone" ~ tone wone


 :cheers:


----------



## nwt (Apr 24, 2005)

I beleive Tone Wone said it best when he said "Kevin Garnett is more underrated than overrated and is one the greatest players we've ever seen and you're gonna miss him when he's gone"


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

I agree with Pip. Though I also agree that Garnett has had little help through out his career.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

He won't be underachieving for much longer, when he goes to play with Kobe this summer. KGLA!


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

As Pippen said before KG puts up great numbers, but has no impact on wins and losses. I agree with Pippen and feel often times as fans we gets nice stats confused with true dominance. I have always felt KG would be better in a complimentry role due to his style of play. I did notice the career stats they posted about KG vs. Webber though. They're career stats are remarkably similar. Pippen was pointing out that KG gets the credit of being at top 3 PF of alltime due to his career stats, but the blame for his teams lack of success falls on his teammates shoulders while in all actuality Webber has the same stats and is known as a loser.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

I think KG is built as a REALLY good number 2 option, ala Pippen.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

> As Pippen said before KG puts up great numbers, but has no impact on wins and losses


I once said KG is very Marion like. Matter of fact you could call Marion KG-lite, some thought I was crazy.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

ralaw said:


> As Pippen said before KG puts up great numbers, but has no impact on wins and losses. I agree with Pippen and feel often times as fans we gets nice stats confused with true dominance. I have always felt KG would be better in a complimentry role due to his style of play. I did notice the career stats they posted about KG vs. Webber though. They're career stats are remarkably similar. Pippen was pointing out that KG gets the credit of being at top 3 PF of alltime due to his career stats, but the blame for his teams lack of success falls on his teammates shoulders while in all actuality Webber has the same stats and is known as a loser.


 2 wrongs dont make a right

just cause Webber is wrongly labeled as loser doesn't mean KG should have that label too. Forget the fact that Garnett is a better player...their situations have been terribly different.



> I once said KG is very Marion like. Matter of fact you could call Marion KG-lite, some thought I was crazy.


you are crazy for that one. But whatever...when he gets traded to Detroit this summer the amount of love he'll recieve will be 03-04 like


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Hbwoy said:


> I once said KG is very Marion like. Matter of fact you could call Marion KG-lite, some thought I was crazy.


Hence Pippen's comments about KG being overrated. If Pippen said Marion was overrated there wouldn't have been a thread about it because people say it all the time.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Pippen has always disliked Garnett. Even in his early Portland days he had little good to say abt him.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

ralaw said:


> Hence Pippen's comments about KG being overrated. If Pippen said Marion was overrated there wouldn't have been a thread about it because people say it all the time.


I dont think KG is overrated, underachiever yes but definitely not overrated.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Hbwoy said:


> I dont think KG is overrated, underachiever yes but definitely not overrated.


I actually thought that myself, but then I thought. "If KG is an underachiever doesn't that make him overrated?" It seems to me they go hand-in-hand. I actually don't believe KG is an underachiever or overrated, but I do believe his career would have been 10 times better if he was in a complimentry role simlar to Pippen due to their style of play.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

> Pippen "Garnett is an underachiever and overrated"


thats f****ed up

LOL


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Scottie Pippen is probably my favorite player of all-time, but I think some of his opinions are way off. This one is no exception. Kevin Garnett is underrated right now, simply for the fact that he is still a top 10 player in the league in his worst prime year, and nobody talks about him at all anymore.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Scottie Pippen is probably my favorite player of all-time, but I think some of his opinions are way off. This one is no exception. Kevin Garnett is underrated right now, simply for the fact that he is still a top 10 player in the league in his worst prime year, and nobody talks about him at all anymore.


I don't think Pippen was or is denying Garnett's talent, but more so Pippen has a problem with how people perceive KG's overall statistical impact on the actual game and perceived dominance as compared to a player such as Webber.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

That's pretty funny, but it don't apply to him though.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

Garnett is a once in a lifetime player, and 25 years from now we'll be desparately searching for the "next Garnett" even moreso than we do now. I don't care if he's not a true #1 on offense, neither were Bill Russell or Scottie Pippen and they're still two of the greatest ever.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Like A Breath said:


> Garnett is a once in a lifetime player, and 25 years from now we'll be desparately searching for the "next Garnett" even moreso than we do now. I don't care if he's not a true #1 on offense, neither were Bill Russell or Scottie Pippen and they're still two of the greatest ever.


There are several players who have KG's style of play, actually KG can be attributed with this new form of multi-skilled bigmen coming into the league. KG won't be missed anymore than we miss Karl Malone or Charles Barkley.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

None of those guys can average 20-10-5 with ease, play PG, and be at the front of a zone defense.


----------



## Arti (Nov 6, 2004)

Like A Breath said:


> None of those guys can average 20-10-5 with ease, play PG, and be at the front of a zone defense.


But they can have large impacts on their respective teams and win consistently, if not in the finals (some guy named Michael Jordan stopped them)


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Like A Breath said:


> None of those guys can average 20-10-5 with ease, play PG, and be at the front of a zone defense.


Again Pippen (including myself) are not denying KG's statistical accomplishments, but what impact does he have on wins and loses? Let me guess, KG's team's lack of success is falls on his teammates shoulders?


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

Sorry if I was vague, I was referring to other "KG clones" not Barkley and Malone.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

ralaw said:


> There are several players who have KG's style of play, actually KG can be attributed with this new form of multi-skilled bigmen coming into the league. KG won't be missed anymore than we miss Karl Malone or Charles Barkley.


Give me examples of who.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

ralaw said:


> Again Pippen (including myself) are not denying KG's statistical accomplishments, but what impact does he have on wins and loses? Let me guess, KG's team's lack of success is falls on his teammates shoulders?


A lot of it does. Even Dwight Howard(who I think is already a great player) won't be making the playoffs for the third straight time next year if his teammates don't start stepping up.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Juxtaposed said:


> Give me examples of who.


If I name a player such as Dirk you will say he can't play defense like KG, if I name Chris Bosh you will say he doesn't pass like KG, if I name Pau Gasol you will say he doesn't handle like KG therefore I am not going to fall into that trap. KG puts up great numbers and is considered an all-time great talent, but one thing I noticed he has that all of the guys mentioned above is 0 rings. This is Pippen's point. KG has great stats and no one is denying that, but what has that accomplished for his team?



Like A Breath said:


> A lot of it does. Even Dwight Howard(who I think is already a great player) won't be making the playoffs for the third straight time next year if his teammates don't start stepping up.


LOL.... cute attacking my favorite player and team..clever. However, Howard isn't even considered in the top 25 off all-time PF's in league history. The is the basis of Pippen's argument. KG is considered to be a top 3 PF off all-time due to his STATS, but when discussing team success the blame goes to his teammates, but in comparing those STATS to Webber the similarities are strikingly similar, yet Webber is considered a loser.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

I wasn't attacking D12, I'm just stating the obvious that it takes more than one player to win in this league. KG made the playoffs for however many straight years and gets no credit for it, yet players like LeBron James get heat for not making the playoffs his first two years. It's worth something, isn't it? And if it's championships that matter, then Karl Malone and Barkley are just as much losers as KG. To me, they're all great players and they don't need rings to prove it.

I don't consider Webber a loser, with the Kings he almost got to the finals if it weren't for some shoddy officiating and an improbable shot by Horry. Webber was also never the defender or quite the rebounder that KG was, which I consider to be pretty important for a big man.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Like A Breath said:


> I wasn't attacking D12, I'm just stating the obvious that it takes more than one player to win in this league. KG made the playoffs for however many straight years and gets no credit for it, yet players like LeBron James get heat for not making the playoffs his first two years. It's worth something, isn't it? And if it's championships that matter, then Karl Malone and Barkley are just as much losers as KG. To me, they're all great players and they don't need rings to prove it.
> 
> I don't consider Webber a loser, with the Kings he almost got to the finals if it weren't for some shoddy officiating and an improbable shot by Horry. Webber was also never the defender or quite the rebounder that KG was, which I consider to be pretty important for a big man.


I agree with everthing in this post. However I will say LeBron has been taking his share of heat from fans and the media and Webber averages *1* less career rebound then KG.


----------



## Kirk64 (Oct 19, 2005)

Grandmazter3 said:


> He just said that on the pregame show on ABC.


I'm thinking that Pippen should thank his lucky stars he played with MJ.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Kirk64 said:


> I'm thinking that Pippen should thank his lucky stars he played with MJ.


Would that change the reality of Pippen's comments?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

ralaw said:


> Again Pippen (including myself) are not denying KG's statistical accomplishments, but what impact does he have on wins and loses? Let me guess, KG's team's lack of success is falls on his teammates shoulders?


That's right, it falls on the players who are hurting the team, which would be the non-productive players. It doesn't fall on the guy who's putting up some of the best production of all-time, requiring double-teams and playing great defense.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Kirk64 said:


> I'm thinking that Pippen should thank his lucky stars he played with MJ.


Just because he's a bad analyst doesn't make his playing legacy any less impressive.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

To me, it doesn't start with KG, it starts with Management. They have failed miserably to build a team around a player who has been top 5 in the nba for so many years now. They just failed, thats it.


----------



## D.J. (Mar 9, 2006)

tone wone said:


> "Kevin Garnett is more underrated than overrated and is one the greatest players we've ever seen and you're gonna miss him when he's gone" ~ tone wone



If anyone is underrated, it's Garnett. If you want to talk about overrated, it's Shaq. Everyone says he is a great player. He is not a great player, he is a dominant player.


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

I agree.


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

ralaw said:


> As Pippen said before KG puts up great numbers, but has no impact on wins and losses. I agree with Pippen and feel often times as fans we gets nice stats confused with true dominance. I have always felt KG would be better in a complimentry role due to his style of play. I did notice the career stats they posted about KG vs. Webber though. They're career stats are remarkably similar. Pippen was pointing out that KG gets the credit of being at top 3 PF of alltime due to his career stats, but the blame for his teams lack of success falls on his teammates shoulders while in all actuality Webber has the same stats and is known as a loser.


You hit it on the spot.


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

Like A Breath said:


> I wasn't attacking D12, I'm just stating the obvious that it takes more than one player to win in this league. KG made the playoffs for however many straight years and gets no credit for it, yet players like LeBron James get heat for not making the playoffs his first two years. It's worth something, isn't it? And if it's championships that matter, then Karl Malone and Barkley are just as much losers as KG. To me, they're all great players and they don't need rings to prove it.
> 
> I don't consider Webber a loser, with the Kings he almost got to the finals if it weren't for some shoddy officiating and an improbable shot by Horry. Webber was also never the defender or quite the rebounder that KG was, which I consider to be pretty important for a big man.


Malone when deep in the Playoffs. I bet K.G has lost more games than won in the Playoffs. So that means you are a loser. Karl was not a champ. But he wasn't a loser like K.G in the Playoffs. He won more games than he lost. That is a winner, but never a champ.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

There is no doubt that KG is one of the greatest of all-time. (top 5 of all-time?)
Like Barkley, he is in the category of MJ, Magic and Bird, but he is really hughly underachieve.


----------



## Kirk64 (Oct 19, 2005)

ralaw said:


> Would that change the reality of Pippen's comments?


There is no reality in Pippen's comments.


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

Ballscientist said:


> There is no doubt that KG is one of the greatest of all-time.
> Like Barkley, he is in the category of MJ, Magic and Bird, but he is really hughly underachieve.


I think K.G is overrated. Cause people love his smile. If Tim Duncan would of had the career of K.G, oh the hate the man will receive. But cause of his cute smile people feel sorry for him. Karl Malone used to get hated, but I respected the man. People hated his personality. K.G everyone feels sorry for him.


----------



## Kirk64 (Oct 19, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Just because he's a bad analyst doesn't make his playing legacy any less impressive.


Point is that he is basically slamming Garnett for not being dominant when the reality is that he has had mostly terrible teammates. Pippen never won a thing without a great teammate(s). Neither did MJ for that matter. One guy can't carry a team of CBAers in the NBA.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Magic Johnson has the word on KG's achievement.

KG, One of all-time great = Magic 5 NBA rings?


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

D.J. said:


> If anyone is underrated, it's Garnett. If you want to talk about overrated, it's Shaq. Everyone says he is a great player. He is not a great player, he is a dominant player.


Are you serious? :raised_ey 



Kirk64 said:


> Point is that he is basically slamming Garnett for not being dominant when the reality is that he has had mostly terrible teammates. Pippen never won a thing without a great teammate(s). Neither did MJ for that matter. One guy can't carry a team of CBAers in the NBA.


I have no problem with that argument as long as it goes both ways. My problem is people are quick to give the superstar all of the credit when their team is doing well, but when that same team is playing poorly the blame is put on the teammates. In my opinion KG has as much to do with his teams lack of playoff success as every teammate he has ever played with because it is a team game as many as his apologist keep saying.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

ralaw said:


> Would that change the reality of Pippen's comments?


Defintiely would, NO MJ=NO rings. NO rings= NO one would really give a crap about who Pippen was.


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Defintiely would, NO MJ=NO rings. *NO rings, opinions dont mean as much*.


Barkley.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

D.J. said:


> . If you want to talk about overrated, it's Shaq. Everyone says he is a great player. He is not a great player, he is a dominant player.


Nah... you cant dominate the game night in and nigh out ,win 3 championships in your career and not be considered great...just not possible.


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

I love KG but he does not have that scorer's mentality. the killer edge. the instinct to take over a game when he needs to. he has that ability but not that mentality. He had it when he won the MVP and now he's back to his old ways. I love Pip too but these comments were unjustified. maybe its his way of trying to fire up KG or something.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

DiceMoney said:


> Barkley.


You got me..i edited it.


Barkley? He's in TNT to add color in the cast. nothing more...


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Defintiely would, NO MJ=NO rings. NO rings= NO one would really give a crap about who Pippen was.


That's the typcial response when trying to downgrade Pippen's impact on the Bulls, however, that has nothing to do with KG having no rings, so.......


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

ralaw said:


> That's the typcial response when trying to downgrade Pippen's impact on the Bulls, however, that has nothing to do with KG having no rings, so.......


A reality of what? that KG is overrated?..Sir that is nothing but a stated opinion. no one is questioning Pippens impact on the Bulls, but no one should even dare start an argument on how far that impact may lead the Bulls without MJ vice versa, just in case someone would....we're drfiting here so ill go back on what I have said.

My reply was simply to advise that Pippens opinions may not matter as much had he not won a Championship...Winners gets your attention, makes you think about it and gets you to start a thread. Losers gets your attention, shrugs it off and laugh.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> My reply was simply to advise that Pippens opinions may not matter as much had he not won a Championship...Winners gets your attention, makes you think about it and gets you to start a thread. Losers gets your attention, shrugs it off and laugh.


That is understood but still really isn't that true (see when Barkley makes comments) However, regardless of that I took it that you were trying to punish Pippen (the NO MJ=NO rings part, which is nothing but speculation) for playing with Jordan which I find unfair on many levels, but since you say you weren't I'll take it for what it is.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

ralaw said:


> That is understood but still really isn't that true (see when Barkley makes comments) However, regardless of that I took it that you were trying to punish Pippen (the NO MJ=NO rings part, which is nothing but speculation) for playing with Jordan which I find unfair on many levels, but since you say you weren't I'll take it for what it is.


I was in no way trying to punish Pippen, I may came in a wrong way lol. Matter of fact I respect Pippen a lot, it takes a lot of pride and dedication to keep up that style of play, bust his *** night in and night out as a 2nd best player in the team and hear no complains about it. :cheers:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> no one is questioning Pippens impact on the Bulls, but no one should even dare start an argument on how far that impact may lead the Bulls without MJ


Why? Pippen led the Bulls pretty far without Jordan and with no other prior All-Stars in 1993-94.



> My reply was simply to advise that Pippens opinions may not matter as much had he not won a Championship


No one's opinions matter because of whether they won or not. Opinions matter based on their truth value and how well reasoned they are. Jordan's opinions don't carry any weight just because he won titles if he can't support them with reason. Same for Pippen.

I'm a huge Pippen fan, but I think his comments about Garnett are highly invalid. Just because Pippen's a "winner" doesn't make what he's saying any more credible. It just means he was a great player with a great team...it says nothing about his analysis skills.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

KG and his stats are not overratted. He simply doesn't have the horses to get it done. Give him a solid and consistent supporting cast similiar to the one in 0304, and he can compete for titles just like anybody else. I think Pippen is way off base here.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

do you think MJ with a prime KG would have won just as much, if not more than with a prime pippen?


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Avalanche said:


> do you think MJ with a prime KG would have won just as much, if not more than with a prime pippen?


Who knows, but I do know if you replaced KG for Pippen you would be changing the whole dynamic of those Bulls championship team, thus assuming Jordan would have won more due to the fact KG put up better career stats then Pippen is irrational. Pippen did things for those Bulls teams that stats don't show.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I don't know why people are just seeing this now. Yes his stats wow you, but if anyone is seriously looking for the next Garnett, they must be also looking for playoff futility at it's finest. 

Garnett doesn't want to be the MAN. He just wants to be paid like the man. The only thing that separates him from Lamar Odom, is that he's simply more talented. The game against the Blazers where he was like 12-13 from the field but didn't demand the ball in the final 9 minutes of the game, said it all to me. The team ended up losing.

The guy is going to say he wants out and then proceed to not win rings wherever else he goes.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

HKF said:


> I don't know why people are just seeing this now. Yes his stats wow you, but if anyone is seriously looking for the next Garnett, they must be also looking for playoff futility at it's finest.
> 
> *Garnett doesn't want to be the MAN. He just wants to be paid like the man*. The only thing that separates him from Lamar Odom, is that he's simply more talented. The game against the Blazers where he was like 12-13 from the field but didn't demand the ball in the final 9 minutes of the game, said it all to me. The team ended up losing.
> 
> The guy is going to say he wants out and then proceed to not win rings wherever else he goes.


thats ridiculous, KG took a pay cut to try and give his team a chance to win, and he is one of the most fiery and determined competitors in the L.
he doesnt want the money anymore, he wants that ring.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Why? Pippen led the Bulls pretty far without Jordan and with no other prior All-Stars in 1993-94.
> .


I was speaking more on a championship level...so winning 55 games and helping his team reach the playoffs is pretty mute, this of course compared to what Pip and MJ have accomplished together as duo.



Minstrel said:


> No one's opinions matter because of whether they won or not. Opinions matter based on their truth value and how well reasoned they are. Jordan's opinions don't carry any weight just because he won titles if he can't support them with reason. Same for Pippen..


Of course it doesnt, its an opinion. What seems to make the other person right, doesnt necessarily equate to the other being person as wrong. All people can state their opinions sure, but there's a reason why these players who analyze their game are selected and are hand picked to comment.

Pippen is a proven winner, though it is true that it hardly does not make any impact on his analysis, it does get a certain amount of attention when it is coming from a player with his stature.

If Tom Tolbert said that KG is overrated and an underachiever, the response from this thread will obviously change and will most likely see nothing but laughing emoticons posted

A good example will be when Magic Johnson and Charles Barkley analyze a game in TNT, and though I may say IMO that neither one of them has the advantage over the other when it comes to analysis, Its only normal to somehow agree to Magic Johnson being that he knows how to win, compared to Barkley. These a re all generalizations of course as each analysis differs in terms of what is being discussed.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Avalanche said:


> thats ridiculous, KG took a pay cut to try and give his team a chance to win, and he is one of the most fiery and determined competitors in the L.
> he doesnt want the money anymore, he wants that ring.


What does fiery even mean? Sure anyone can get fired up. But can anyone have the stones to take and make the big shots. The answer to that is no.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> A good example will be when Magic Johnson and Charles Barkley analyze a game in TNT, and though I may say IMO that neither one of them has the advantage over the other when it comes to analysis, Its only normal to somehow agree to Magic Johnson being that he knows how to win, compared to Barkley.


Magic knows how to win? You mean, he knew to play with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy and a host of great role-players, while Barkley didn't know to do that? 

Anyway, do you really think more people automatically agree with Magic over Barkley due to championships won by Magic? I'm fairly dubious about that being true...it never even occurs to me when they talk. If anything, I think Barkley gets more sympathy for his views because he's seen as more charismatic as a talker.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

HKF said:


> But can anyone have the stones to take and make the big shots.


Yes. Almost all of these players have been doing it since they entered organized sports. That's why they've made it to the highest level of competiton; because they're the best, they've handled pressure and are confident in their abilities. Those who aren't those things wash out in one of the winnowing stages.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

HKF said:


> What does fiery even mean? Sure anyone can get fired up. But can anyone have the stones to take and make the big shots. The answer to that is no.


would intensity be a better word for it then?

people forget that just 2 years ago KG carried a team to a 58 win season and the WCF

if he moves teams next season he's gonna start winning again, i dont even care where he goes


----------



## DaBigTicketKG21 (Apr 27, 2003)

We all saw what KG did with Sam and Spree. We also saw how many games he could win by himself, 50+ wins with basically no help. I dont see Kobe and Lebron doing that these last 2 years. However, they are getting praise for just leading their team to the playoffs. Imagine if KG had big Z or Lamar.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

DaBigTicketKG21 said:


> We all saw what KG did with Sam and Spree. We also saw how many games he could win by himself, 50+ wins with basically no help. I dont see Kobe and Lebron doing that these last 2 years. However, they are getting praise for just leading their team to the playoffs. Imagine if KG had big Z or Lamar.


1- Sam Cassel has always been underrated. He was the difference-maker in that Wolves team, not KG;

2- Kg has always had help. People seem to forget it for obvious reasons.

3- KG is the sole MVP winner to not be able to get his team to the playoffs the next year since 1980. KG is threatening to be the sole player to miss 2 years in a row the playoffs after being named the MVP.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Magic knows how to win? You mean, he knew to play with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy and a host of great role-players, while Barkley didn't know to do that? .


Yes, knowing how to play the right game along with the right players who are buying into the system is equal to knowing how to win. Of course it may not be Barkley's fault that his teammates may not be as good as Magic's or his coach is not as sharp as Pat Riley. Bottom line is when two players arguing/debating/analyzing an issue when it comes to winning, it only makes sense to _pay attention more closely _ to what a proven winner has to say said but not necessarily disregard the other persons opinion who has not proven themselves on a big stage.



Minstrel said:


> I think Barkley gets more sympthy for his views because he's seen as more charismatic as a talker.


I disagree with the notion that Barkley gets more sympathy for his views because he is a charismatic talker, Barkley is a colorful guy, he gets attention because he does not know any limits when talking to people....far from being charismatic.

A great example of a charismatic talker is Michael Jordan, he can pretty much use his charm be selective with his response and say it over and over again and people listens as if its a brand new release song in the radio.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> Bottom line is when two players arguing/debating/analyzing an issue when it comes to winning, it only makes sense to _pay attention more closely _ to what a proven winner has to say said but not necessarily disregard the other persons opinion who has not proven themselves on a big stage.


No, that doesn't make sense. Who one's teammates were doesn't have any bearing on how well one knows the game.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> No, that doesn't make sense. Who one's teammates were doesn't have any bearing on how well one knows the game.


I was only stating that because you were telling me your point of view between the difference of Magic Johnson knowing how to win and knowing how to play with what he has.



Minstrel said:


> Magic knows how to win? You mean, he knew to play with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy and a host of great role-players,.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> I was only stating that because you were telling me your point of view between the difference of Magic Johnson knowing how to win and knowing how to play with what he has.


I don't understand what you mean.

I'd be willing to believe that Magic knows the game better than Barkley, as he ran offenses as a point guard, but he'd have to prove it with well-reasoned arguments. Not just because he won championships; I don't see that as a qualification between two great players as to who understands the game better.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

HKF said:


> Garnett doesn't want to be the MAN. He just wants to be paid like the man. The only thing that separates him from Lamar Odom, is that he's simply more talented.


The only thing that separates Kobe Byrant from Micheal Redd is that Kobe's more talented.

see how easy that was. Now, if you put Redd & Odom on the same team they'll be what ever laker fan wants....KG/Kobe duo..

if they were more talented of course


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Compare KG to Odom?

If Odom played for Wolves this season, can Wolves make the playoffs?


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

tone wone said:


> "Kevin Garnett is more underrated than overrated and is one the greatest players we've ever seen and you're gonna miss him when he's gone" ~ tone wone


i will take scottie pippen's opinion's over yours anyday


----------



## universal! (Mar 5, 2006)

Tragedy said:



> To me, it doesn't start with KG, it starts with Management. They have failed miserably to build a team around a player who has been top 5 in the nba for so many years now. They just failed, thats it.


I was thinking of how hard it actually is to build a winning team that capitalizes on Garnett's skills. Problem is, he can do too many things, but does not dominate games.

For instance what type of game does the team play primarily? Modified triangle with KG on the block so he can either post up, turn and shoot, or pass to open man/cutters? Run n gun style that uses KG's defense, rebounding, speed, and ball handling? Half court grind it out game where the team passes inside to KG all the time? Which type of game will maximize KG's vast skill set?


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Ballscientist said:


> Compare KG to Odom?
> 
> If Odom played for Wolves this season, can Wolves make the playoffs?


no

neither can KG


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Ballscientist said:


> Compare KG to Odom?
> 
> If Odom played for Wolves this season, can Wolves make the playoffs?


they would struggle to a game, let alone make the playoffs.

i have no idea why or how odoms name ever came up in a topic comparing KG.

not even close to being on the same level


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Avalanche said:


> they would struggle to a game, let alone make the playoffs.
> 
> i have no idea why or how odoms name ever came up in a topic comparing KG.
> 
> not even close to being on the same level


Yes they are close to being on the same level and Laker fans should hope to stay away from a Kobe/KG combo if they are giving up Odom. They will be marginally better at best.

Nobody is asking KG to have to T Pups in title contention but they should be at least in the running for the freaking playoffs if he is as good as some of you stat freaks say. They are 10 games below .500 I think. Shaq, Duncan, Magic, Bird, Barkley, Pippen or any other of the truly great players would never, ever be on a team that bad. The Wolves are not devoid of talent either...that is some crap. If KG was truly as good as some in this thread think then he could have led Ricky Davis, Blount, Jaric, Griffin, Hassell, etc. To the playoffs...heck a .500 record would be nice.

However, after saying all that...I hope the Grizzlies trade for him. He would be a good compliment to The Spaniard!!!


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

I've stated hundreds of times, KG has the physical abilities and talent to dominate, but he chooses to be multi-facet, or versatile. It doesnt help his team as much however. 
He should shooting the ball 20-23 times a game average.

KG is overrated since he is commonly put among the greatest power forwards of all time, without any major team accomplishments. And that year the wolves made the WCF, it was Cassel who was the difference maker, Garnett was his usual 20+/10+/5+ player, but it was Cassel who pushed that team over the edge, Spree was also playing well. An uninspired Cassel and unmotivated Spree... Wolves outside the playoffs.


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

all i have to say is, if KG was in Tim Duncans position HE would be considered one of the greatest PF if not THE greatest of all-time, i mean look at KG's 03-04 run, he had Sam Cassell and Latrell Spreewell, both class players, but they werent all-stars like u see in the Spurs and Suns outfits these days.....KG is definetly NOT overrated, he is THE most complete big man you will ever see in the game.....


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> Yes they are close to being on the same level and Laker fans should hope to stay away from a Kobe/KG combo if they are giving up Odom. They will be marginally better at best.
> 
> Nobody is asking KG to have to T Pups in title contention but they should be at least in the running for the freaking playoffs if he is as good as some of you stat freaks say. They are 10 games below .500 I think. Shaq, Duncan, Magic, Bird, Barkley, Pippen or any other of the truly great players would never, ever be on a team that bad. The Wolves are not devoid of talent either...that is some crap. If KG was truly as good as some in this thread think then he could have led Ricky Davis, Blount, Jaric, Griffin, Hassell, etc. To the playoffs...heck a .500 record would be nice.
> 
> However, after saying all that...I hope the Grizzlies trade for him. He would be a good compliment to The Spaniard!!!


You killed it!!!!!!!!! and KG is no longer a top 10 player.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

dwade3 said:


> all i have to say is, if KG was in Tim Duncans position HE would be considered one of the greatest PF if not THE greatest of all-time, i mean look at KG's 03-04 run, he had Sam Cassell and Latrell Spreewell, both class players, but they werent all-stars like u see in the Spurs and Suns outfits these days.....KG is definetly NOT overrated, he is THE most complete big man you will ever see in the game.....


REPPED


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

1 Penny said:


> And that year the wolves made the WCF, it was Cassel who was the difference maker, Garnett was his usual 20+/10+/5+ player, but it was Cassel who pushed that team over the edge


Obviously Cassell was the difference-maker, the way you're defining it. Garnett was there before and during, so obviously Cassell, who wasn't there before, was the difference.

It's like saying that Pippen was the real difference maker to the Bulls, not Jordan. Jordan, after all, was his usual 30/5/5 player, but it was Pippen who pushed that team over the edge.

Which would have made that Timberwolves team worse, losing Garnett or losing Cassell? Clearly, losing Garnett...therefore, he was the difference-maker.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Give KG manu, parker and bowen and he'd have a title aswell IMHO


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

1 Penny said:


> I've stated hundreds of times, KG has the physical abilities and talent to dominate, but he chooses to be multi-facet, or versatile. It doesnt help his team as much however.
> He should shooting the ball 20-23 times a game average.


just because he isn't what you think he _should_ be doesn't mean he isn't great or as good as people say. I might be the biggest Garnett fan on this site and yea, I wish he was more of scorer...but he isn't and yet he's still might be the best player in the game


1 Penny said:


> KG is overrated since he is commonly put among the greatest power forwards of all time, without any major team accomplishments. And that year the wolves made the WCF, it was Cassel who was the difference maker, Garnett was his usual 20+/10+/5+ player, but it was Cassel who pushed that team over the edge, Spree was also playing well. An uninspired Cassel and unmotivated Spree... Wolves outside the playoffs.


who knew adding talent puts a team over the top. and having that talent not perform at the all-nba 1st team level (a level in which he'd never performed before playing with KG) would make that team not as good.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> Yes they are close to being on the same level and Laker fans should hope to stay away from a Kobe/KG combo if they are giving up Odom. They will be marginally better at best.


huh??? been drinking tonight??


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

How embarrassing for Pip.



MemphisX said:


> Yes they are close to being on the same level and Laker fans should hope to stay away from a Kobe/KG combo if they are giving up Odom. They will be marginally better at best.


Oh good Lord...



MemphisX said:


> Nobody is asking KG to have to T Pups in title contention but they should be at least in the running for the freaking playoffs if he is as good as some of you stat freaks say.


And the 8 or 9 years straight he had them in the playoffs? Oh, then he needed to have them in title contention. The one season he had them in title contention? Oh, then he needed to win a title. You can say that now, but I can't recall ever hearing that when that's exactly what he was doing.


----------



## dastrey (Dec 30, 2003)

Avalanche said:


> Give KG manu, parker and bowen and he'd have a title aswell IMHO


Not so fast. Duncan makes all of the above players better because he can operate on the low block. He commands double teams which open up lanes for Parker and Manu; which also results in open looks for Bowen. Replacing Duncan with Garnett would keep the Spurs a great team, but there is no way they would have beaten the Pistons in the Finals. 

Sure, Garnett is probably the most versatile player in the NBA. He can guard 4 positions and has a nice 15 footer, but he doesn't dominate both sides of the floor like Duncan can. Having to defend Duncan is a chore and results in easy baskets for him, or foul trouble for the defender. With Garnett you know he won't dominate and can live with his shooting percentage.

Garnett is a very, very good basketball player. He is just not at Tim Duncan's level. If you put him at Duncan's level then you are overrating him.


----------



## abwowang (Mar 7, 2006)

this statement from pippen really came as a shock to me.

pippen is my all time favorite player, and KG is my current favorite player. And I never thought Pippen would say something about my main man KG 

Of course, I think KG this year is underachieving and perhaps maybe a little bit overrated this year as he is not trying as hard right now.... until maybe tonight.

But then again, many people think that Pippen is overrated and he is only talked about so much because he had MJ... 

either way i dont really care what people say that much, but what did piss me off a little bit was comparing KG with Webber.

OH PLEASE. KG > webber any day. Maybe KG doesnt 'dominate' a game enough, but KG can definitely do it, and as for webber, i dont think he could if he tried.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

dastrey said:


> Not so fast. Duncan makes all of the above players better because he can operate on the low block. He commands double teams which open up lanes for Parker and Manu; which also results in open looks for Bowen. Replacing Duncan with Garnett would keep the Spurs a great team, but there is no way they would have beaten the Pistons in the Finals.
> 
> Sure, Garnett is probably the most versatile player in the NBA. He can guard 4 positions and has a nice 15 footer, but he doesn't dominate both sides of the floor like Duncan can. Having to defend Duncan is a chore and results in easy baskets for him, or foul trouble for the defender. With Garnett you know he won't dominate and can live with his shooting percentage.
> 
> Garnett is a very, very good basketball player. He is just not at Tim Duncan's level. If you put him at Duncan's level then you are overrating him.


Duncan has hardly 'dominated' anything this season... KG can take over a game whether it be offense or defence just as well as duncan can.. even more so on the defensive end.
simply making reference to the fact Twolves management havnt been able to put **** around an NBA MVP to compete.

speaking of switching teams, pip on this current twolves team wouldnt make the playoffs.


----------



## abwowang (Mar 7, 2006)

KG > webber - no contest
KG > lamar - no contest
KG > duncan - debateable. 

i think KG is overall better than duncan... and its ok for them 2 to be compared, but to hear u guys talkin about KG and webber, KG and Lamar... 

wow.

wow. just wow.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

abwowang said:


> KG > webber - no contest
> KG > lamar - no contest
> KG > duncan - debateable.
> 
> ...


completely agree.
overall, talent wise i think KG just has the edge over duncan.
odom should be out of this thread.
oh and as for cwebb, i dont know why hes so bashed on this forum... he may not be great anymore but hes still almost at 20/10 and hes had a great career. he was a force early on


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> Nobody is asking KG to have to T Pups in title contention but they should be at least in the running for the freaking playoffs if he is as good as some of you stat freaks say. They are 10 games below .500 I think. Shaq, Duncan, Magic, Bird, Barkley, Pippen or any other of the truly great players would never, ever be on a team that bad.


In '94, Shaq averaged 29 and 13. He had Penny and Nick Anderson, who was a 20 ppg scorer for the previous two seasons and was a good defender, as well as solid players in Dennis Scott and Scott Skiles. First round exit -- swept by the Pacers. Why? Lack of a power forward and bench meant that this team just wasn't good enough.

In '90, Hakeem Olajuwon averaged 24/14 and 5 blocks. He had a 17/9 guy who played good defense in Otis Thorpe, as well as Mitchell Wiggins and Sleepy Floyd and Buck Johnson, who weren't horrible. They won 41 games and lost 3-1 in the first round. Why? No solid players outside of Olajuwon and Thorpe; only one reliable three-point shooter.

In '88, Charles Barkley averaged an amazingly efficient 28 and 12. He had a few good players on his team -- Cliff Robinson (not the one still in the league), the 17/11 Mike Gminski, and Maurice Cheeks. They won 36 games after a first round exit the previous season. The reason? Injuries to Robinson and Gminski meant that lesser players had to step up. With a lesser supporting cast, Barkley just couldn't propel the team to the playoffs. 

This sort of thing has happened too often for us to stupidly resort to the "he's not winning so he's overrated" argument. We really should know better.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> In '94, Shaq averaged 29 and 13. He had Penny and Nick Anderson, who was a 20 ppg scorer for the previous two seasons and was a good defender, as well as solid players in Dennis Scott and Scott Skiles. First round exit -- swept by the Pacers. Why? Lack of a power forward and bench meant that this team just wasn't good enough.
> 
> In '90, Hakeem Olajuwon averaged 24/14 and 5 blocks. He had a 17/9 guy who played good defense in Otis Thorpe, as well as Mitchell Wiggins and Sleepy Floyd and Buck Johnson, who weren't horrible. They won 41 games and lost 3-1 in the first round. Why? No solid players outside of Olajuwon and Thorpe; only one reliable three-point shooter.
> 
> ...


 :clap: 
Also add MJ, the GOAT when he played for the Bulls early on, they weren't even a .500 team but still made the playoffs to be easily disposed of in the 1st Round.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> In '94, Shaq averaged 29 and 13. He had Penny and Nick Anderson, who was a 20 ppg scorer for the previous two seasons and was a good defender, as well as solid players in Dennis Scott and Scott Skiles. First round exit -- swept by the Pacers. Why? Lack of a power forward and bench meant that this team just wasn't good enough.
> 
> In '90, Hakeem Olajuwon averaged 24/14 and 5 blocks. He had a 17/9 guy who played good defense in Otis Thorpe, as well as Mitchell Wiggins and Sleepy Floyd and Buck Johnson, who weren't horrible. They won 41 games and lost 3-1 in the first round. Why? No solid players outside of Olajuwon and Thorpe; only one reliable three-point shooter.
> 
> ...


Are you really Hakeem? I really don't know anything about 1990.

KG is no Hakeem. He is like Barkley at best.


----------



## Kirk64 (Oct 19, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> Yes they are close to being on the same level and Laker fans should hope to stay away from a Kobe/KG combo if they are giving up Odom. They will be marginally better at best.
> 
> Nobody is asking KG to have to T Pups in title contention but they should be at least in the running for the freaking playoffs if he is as good as some of you stat freaks say. They are 10 games below .500 I think. Shaq, Duncan, Magic, Bird, Barkley, Pippen or any other of the truly great players would never, ever be on a team that bad.


Barkley was on two teams that were that bad, with better supporting casts.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> In '94, Shaq averaged 29 and 13. He had Penny and Nick Anderson, who was a 20 ppg scorer for the previous two seasons and was a good defender, as well as solid players in Dennis Scott and Scott Skiles. First round exit -- swept by the Pacers. Why? Lack of a power forward and bench meant that this team just wasn't good enough.
> 
> In '90, Hakeem Olajuwon averaged 24/14 and 5 blocks. He had a 17/9 guy who played good defense in Otis Thorpe, as well as Mitchell Wiggins and Sleepy Floyd and Buck Johnson, who weren't horrible. They won 41 games and lost 3-1 in the first round. Why? No solid players outside of Olajuwon and Thorpe; only one reliable three-point shooter.
> 
> ...


You cherry picked one specific year in those players career. KG has been in the league 11 years. 7 1st round exits, 3 missed playoffs and only one significant playoff appearance. 1 freaking time he has made it out of the 1st round and even then his team went out the minute Sam I Am got hurt. I would be shocked if any player in the NBA's 60 greatest has such a pathetic postseason resume.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> You cherry picked one specific year in those players career. KG has been in the league 11 years. 7 1st round exits, 3 missed playoffs and only one significant playoff appearance. 1 freaking time he has made it out of the 1st round and even then his team went out the minute Sam I Am got hurt. I would be shocked if any player in the NBA's 60 greatest has such a pathetic postseason resume.


None of the upper echelon HOF'ers that had more postseason success than KG had supporting casts as bad as KG's. Try that for starters. Then there's the fact that HOF'ers such as Jerry West, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and Kobe Bryant have led their teams to lotto seasons, with Jordan basically doing the same thing when his Bulls team won 30 odd games in the mid 80's. And what about KG compared to Pau Gasol, who has never led the Grizzlies to a single postseason victory in his career, while going lotto twice. 

Then again, didn't you also say Elton Brand wasn't a good player because the Clippers were always in the lottery? What happens when the Clippers win ~ 50 games this season and make the playoffs? Did Elton suddenly learn how to play "winning" basketball in one summer?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

EHL said:


> None of the upper echelon HOF'ers that had more postseason success than KG had supporting casts as bad as KG's. Try that for starters. Then there's the fact that HOF'ers such as Jerry West, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and Kobe Bryant have led their teams to lotto seasons, with Jordan basically doing the same thing when his Bulls team won 30 odd games in the mid 80's. And what about KG compared to Pau Gasol, who has never led the Grizzlies to a single postseason victory in his career, while going lotto twice.
> 
> Then again, didn't you also say Elton Brand wasn't a good player because the Clippers were always in the lottery? What happens when the Clippers win ~ 50 games this season and make the playoffs? Did Elton suddenly learn how to play "winning" basketball in one summer?


Pau Gasol? Elton Brand? Are you trying to say they are top 10-15 All time type players. MAybe you need to keep up the conversation. I am looking over the entire body of his career. 11 seasons. The only season he ever did something worthwhile he had a teammate that was an MVP canidate. (The same player with Brand during his breakout year and the same player with Hakeem during his only two titles :eek8: ). If you want to say KG is a very good player, I agree. When you start comparing him to legends, you are flat out wrong. I guarandamntee you that if KG had the same playoff record and his stats were 19/9/4 nobody would even consider him a top 15 player. His reputation is a product of boxscores, fantasy hoops and stats. He hasn't done anything significant when it counts.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

his reputation comes from being in that 1% of players in the NBA you can build an entire franchise around.
he has carried a terrible team on his back for years.
he is the heart and soul of a franchise and an MVP.
a trade to a half way decent team this offseason would prove this.
the wolves management is horrible


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

Where was all this talk of KG being an "underachiever and overrated" when his team was still making the playoffs?? The thing is, if your team sucks critics always blame the team's superstars even though the superstar (KG) is still putting up the same numbers only his suporting cast is now much worse, how about blaming the GM?


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

osprey said:


> Where was all this talk of KG being an "underachiever and overrated" when his team was still making the playoffs?? The thing is, if your team sucks critics always blame the team's superstars even though the superstar (KG) is still putting up the same numbers only his suporting cast is now much worse, how about blaming the GM?


exactly right.
WCF one year and he's the mvp.
misses the playoffs and hes overrated.
hes not in control of the rest of his team.
he works as hard and plays as well as he ever has


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

dwade3 said:


> all i have to say is, *if KG was in Tim Duncans position HE would be considered one of the greatest PF if not THE greatest of all-time,* i mean look at KG's 03-04 run, he had Sam Cassell and Latrell Spreewell, both class players, but they werent all-stars like u see in the Spurs and Suns outfits these days.....KG is definetly NOT overrated, he is THE most complete big man you will ever see in the game.....


Pippen said people talk about this guy like if has won Championships. Just by your response. Pippen is right. This loser gets away with his losing cause of the sympathy I have a cute smile factor. You just proved Pippen right.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> You cherry picked one specific year in those players career. KG has been in the league 11 years. 7 1st round exits, 3 missed playoffs and only one significant playoff appearance. 1 freaking time he has made it out of the 1st round and even then his team went out the minute Sam I Am got hurt. I would be shocked if any player in the NBA's 60 greatest has such a pathetic postseason resume.


I didn't cherry pick years. From 1988 to '92, the Olajuwon-led Rockets won 42, 46, 45, 41, 52 and 42 games respectively. They lost to a 39-win team in the second round in '87. They lost in the first round each of the next four seasons, and did not even make the playoffs in '92. He was deemed a loser, just as KG is now. They said it was Ralph Sampson who had carried the '86 Rockets to the Finals (just as you guys say it was Cassell who carried the 58-win Wolves). After he won the titles and became popular, people made the excuse that he wasn't in his prime then. But that's just not true. He was scoring 24 ppg and was the best defender and rebounder in the league. The Rockets kept losing for the simple reason that most of the rest of the players on the team were pure crap.

It was a similar thing when people claimed that Jordan was a stat-stuffer and a ball-hog. Similar thing with Ewing, too, until he very nearly beat the Bulls and then made it to the Finals the next year. Similar thing with Shaq until he won in 2000 (after his initial few years of popularity). Similar thing with Barkley until he made it to the Finals.

Btw, KG has been in the league for 11 years, but he has only been elite for 7. In those seven years, his team won 50, 47, 50, 51, 58 and 44 games, with around 40 games by the end of this season. He has never had a championship-caliber supporting cast.



MemphisX said:


> I guarandamntee you that if KG had the same playoff record and his stats were 19/9/4 nobody would even consider him a top 15 player.


No one would consider Jordan a top-15 player if he had had those stats, even with the six titles.


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

abwowang said:


> KG > webber - no contest
> KG > lamar - no contest
> *KG > duncan - debateable. * i think KG is overall better than duncan... and its ok for them 2 to be compared, but to hear u guys talkin about KG and webber, KG and Lamar...
> 
> ...


That is not debateable Duncan is flat out better. and a winner. K.G a proven loser. Not even close.


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

Hakeem said:


> In '94, Shaq averaged 29 and 13. He had Penny and Nick Anderson, who was a 20 ppg scorer for the previous two seasons and was a good defender, as well as solid players in Dennis Scott and Scott Skiles. First round exit -- swept by the Pacers. Why? Lack of a power forward and bench meant that this team just wasn't good enough.
> 
> In '90, Hakeem Olajuwon averaged 24/14 and 5 blocks. He had a 17/9 guy who played good defense in Otis Thorpe, as well as Mitchell Wiggins and Sleepy Floyd and Buck Johnson, who weren't horrible. They won 41 games and lost 3-1 in the first round. Why? No solid players outside of Olajuwon and Thorpe; only one reliable three-point shooter.
> 
> ...


The fact is K.G has had lot of shots. Is not like one or two. That guy with any team underachieves consistently. Is all the likeability factor that makes people not that credible.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

DiceMoney said:


> The fact is K.G has had lot of shots. Is not like one or two. That guy with any team underachieves consistently. Is all the likeability factor that makes people not that credible.


What are you talking about? The Wolves have consistently *overachieved* prior to the past season and a half.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

DiceMoney said:


> That is not debateable Duncan is flat out better. and a winner. K.G a proven loser. *Not even close*.


damn this forum is frustrating some times lol.
the one season KG made the WCF he had sam cassel and spreewell
do you think they are as good as parker and manu? no one would argue that.
KG has done well with what he has had to work with.
he single handidly carried a team to the playoffs year after year and then when cassel got injured in the WCF he still managed to take a game or 2 off the 'all star' lakers.. with who as the second best player.... troy hudson??

please

EDIT
Socco repped... exactly right, the wolves have gone further than they ever should have before last season..


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

Avalanche said:


> damn this forum is frustrating some times lol.
> the one season KG made the WCF he had sam cassel and spreewell
> do you think they are as good as parker and manu? no one would argue that.
> KG has done well with what he has had to work with.
> ...


LOL. One lucky year. Duncan has never gotten send home in the first round. That will indicate the difference between this guys.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Lucky?? dude cmon
lucky is having the number 1 ping pong ball pop up when lebron james is in the draft.

making the playoffs and getting to the conference finals is not luck, its an 82 game season and 7 game playoff series' that aint luck


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

Avalanche said:


> Lucky?? dude cmon
> lucky is having the number 1 ping pong ball pop up when lebron james is in the draft.
> 
> making the playoffs and getting to the conference finals is not luck, its an 82 game season and 7 game playoff series' that aint luck


Wow, Duncan has won 3 titles. And 3 Finals MVP's. And he always gets far in the Playoffs. Or at least the second round. K.G one WCF appearance. always first round victim. And two years straight of not making the Playoffs. Big difference. Big time.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

DiceMoney said:


> Wow, Duncan has won 3 titles. And 3 Finals MVP's. And he always gets far in the Playoffs. Or at least the second round. K.G one WCF appearance. always first round victim. And two years straight of not making the Playoffs. Big difference. Big time.


I'm not doubting duncans ability, the guys awesome and his HOF spot is well reserved for him
but even the biggest duncan fan would admit he has been lucky with the teams he has played on.
D.Robinson early on and now manu, parker along with the rest of the cast are very impressive second and third options.
dont try to tell me timmy would have 3 titles and 3 finals mvp's if he had played on the wolves teams KG had been on.


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

Avalanche said:


> I'm not doubting duncans ability, the guys awesome and his HOF spot is well reserved for him
> but even the biggest duncan fan would admit he has been lucky with the teams he has played on.
> D.Robinson early on and now manu, parker along with the rest of the cast are very impressive second and third options.
> *dont try to tell me timmy would have 3 titles and 3 finals mvp's if he had played on the wolves teams KG had been on.*


 :rofl: DiceMoney owned by Avalanche on this post


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

Avalanche said:


> I'm not doubting duncans ability, the guys awesome and his HOF spot is well reserved for him
> but even the biggest duncan fan would admit he has been lucky with the teams he has played on.
> D.Robinson early on and now manu, parker along with the rest of the cast are very impressive second and third options.
> dont try to tell me timmy would have 3 titles and 3 finals mvp's if he had played on the wolves teams KG had been on.


I think what got Pippen a little bit upset is the fact people act like K.G has won a title. And the funny part he has yet to be close to it. Is not like Karl Malone nice battle vs Jordan. WCF don't mean much. There is ton of players that done way more than K.G, but for some reason he receives the sympathy treatment. Specially the fact he has not gotten close to a title ever.


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

osprey said:


> :rofl: DiceMoney owned by Avalanche on this post


What is to respond. Some fantasy what if's. What if Jordan never had Pippen. What if Shaq never had Kobe. That is just plain dumb.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

DiceMoney said:


> I think what got Pippen a little bit upset is the fact people act like K.G has won a title. And the funny part he has yet to be close to it. Is not like Karl Malone nice battle vs Jordan. WCF don't mean much. There is ton of players that done way more than K.G, but for some reason he receives the sympathy treatment. Specially the fact he has not gotten close to a title ever.


2nd best record in the NBA in 03-04. And ya they "only" got to the WCF, but you can't just ignore the fact that Sam Cassell didn't play most of that series, and was completely ineffective the little time he was in. And he wasn't just some role player, he was 2nd team all-nba, and was arguably the best PG that season. That's like the Lakers losing Kobe during their title run. Darrick Martin started at PG for the Wolves that series, and the backups were Fred Hoiberg and Garnett himself. You can't just ignore these type of things.

Garnett doesn't get the "sympathy treatment" from people. There are just some people who realize that a team's success does not rest squarely on the shoulders of their star player. If you put a great player on a bad organization, there likely won't be much success.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

socco said:


> Garnett doesn't get the "sympathy treatment" from people. There are just some people who realize that a team's success does not rest squarely on the shoulders of their star player. If you put a great player on a bad organization, there likely won't be much success.


Its a testimant to garnett he has the reputation he has, without the ring..

Tmac, Malone and stockton, payton, AI, .... only so many star players can win a ring, theres 30 teams in the L and only 1 can win it all


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Is KG the only superstar (in the history) who has never played in NBA Finals?


----------



## TwiBlueG35 (Jan 24, 2006)

sherako said:


> He won't be underachieving for much longer, when he goes to play with Kobe this summer. KGLA!


I like KG, but I really don't want Lakers to lose Odom. I like the way Kobe and Lamar play......


----------



## spearsy (Mar 20, 2006)

The sad thing is people act like if you haven't won a ring you aren't a winner. There's more to being a winner than winning it all. It's easy to set here as a fan and say well the guy can't get it done when it matters, but who are we to define when it matters? Why isn't getting to the playoffs enough? When the t-wolves first got to the postseason everybody was happy, but over time it becomes not enough we want more. It progresses to why can't they get a ring, instead of stepping back and looking at it as an accomplishment to make the playoffs we say "well been there done that." It isn't fair to let our expectations and greed set a rediculously high standard.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

socco said:


> What are you talking about? The Wolves have consistently *overachieved* prior to the past season and a half.


Wtf? So before KG rode Sam I Am's jock, he never played on a team with enough talent to make the playoffs? He has had numerous All Star teammates and still hasn't done squat. Remember, I am not talking NBA finals. He hasn't been good enough for 4 games to get out of the 1st round 7 times.

Other than the NCAA Title game TO, what makes KG better than C Webb? 

When you have to go to fantasy land (what if ot if it wasn't for) to make a player's case, he isn't one of the top 20 players of all time. Comparing him to Hakeem is laughable, especially since he carried a team to a title. KG can't carry a team to the 2nd round.


----------



## DiceMoney (Mar 4, 2006)

I think why people like me. have sympathy for Reggie and Karl and Barkley they when deep in the Playoffs. The usually got pass the first round. K.G is a joke. People think oh poor K.G. I don't feel bad for him. Alonzo had better regular seasons. He did flop some Playoffs. But noone is crying about Alonzo. Poor K.G, that dude is way more of a loser than Reggie, Karl, Barkley and even Zo. And some people act like if Duncan never won nothing. Is like the most under appreciated champion ever. And K.G is the most appreciated loser of all time. Pippen had to step up for the Champions. A 6 time winner.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> Pau Gasol? Elton Brand? Are you trying to say they are top 10-15 All time type players. MAybe you need to keep up the conversation. I am looking over the entire body of his career. 11 seasons.


Well for one, I don't consider Kevin Garnett a top 10-15 all time player. I think it's pretty ridiculous to rank him that high. He's a first ballot lock, though. 



> The only season he ever did something worthwhile he had a teammate that was an MVP canidate. (The same player with Brand during his breakout year and the same player with Hakeem during his only two titles :eek8: ).


Cassell was never an MVP candidate in 03-04, that's a little absurd. KG was the heart and soul of that team, pretty much any Twolves fan will tell you the same. 

And Cassell was hardly anything noteworthy when he played with Hakeem. 



> If you want to say KG is a very good player, I agree. When you start comparing him to legends, you are flat out wrong. I guarandamntee you that if KG had the same playoff record and his stats were 19/9/4 nobody would even consider him a top 15 player.


19/9/4 isn't really bad if you're an annual DPOY candidate as KG has been for pretty much his entire prime (though quite obviously KG wouldn't be known for being as good as he is today without his actual 22/12/5 stats). Additionally, he's the most consistent superstar in the league night-in and night-out, next to Duncan of course. And of course, comparing his playoff record to legends makes him look good considering he was never the leader of a lotto team (in his prime) until recently. 



> His reputation is a product of boxscores, fantasy hoops and stats. He hasn't done anything significant when it counts.


Neither has Pau Gasol. Yet you said you'd take Gasol over Garnett, and that was just after KG's 03-04 MVP season too. 



MemphisX said:


> He has had numerous All Star teammates and still hasn't done squat


lmao, like who, All Star reserve Wally World a few seasons ago? Yeah, dude has been tearing up the league his entire career. Not. 

But yes, KG did play with one legit All Star, and his name was Sam Cassell, during the 03-04 season. And guess what, 2nd best record in the league and two wins short of a Finals appearance.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> Other than the NCAA Title game TO, what makes KG better than C Webb?


The two most obvious things are much better rebounding and infinitely better defense.



> Comparing him to Hakeem is laughable, especially since he carried a team to a title. KG can't carry a team to the 2nd round.


The point is that Olajuwon was viewed in the same light as KG until he won a title. If that passable supporting cast hadn't come along, he wouldn't have won. He would not be considered an all-time great despite being the exact same player. If KG never gets a decent supporting cast, he'll never win, and will be forever underrated.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> The two most obvious things are much better rebounding and infinitely better defense.


KG averages *1* more career rebound than Webber!

I think a lot of you KG apologist (not directed at you Hakeem) are missing the point. Pippen and others are not denying KG's talent, what we are denying however is his overall statistical impact on wins and losses across his career, yet many still want to defend him as being in a bad situation. The only defense KG apologist have are his STATS, but we aren't doubting his STATS becuase they are plain to see; however, how have those STATS helped his team across his career? 

*This is the point of Pippen's argument:* 

_KG is considered a top 3 PF of all-time due to his STATS alone, but Webber has those same stats and isn't even considered to be in the top 10 of PF all-time!_ Therefore there is an inconsistency in how we are judging these two PFs. You can't judge one based on STATS and the other on team success when they both have the same STATS and say one is better over the other. It is fundamentally wrong!

In my opinion KG is nothing more than a hyped up Shawn Marion!


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

ralaw said:


> KG averages *1* more career rebound than Webber!


Webber came out of college and was thus closer to his best as a rookie than KG was. Garnett took a while to develop into the player he is today. Webber's rebound rate hovered around 15. KG's is 20. 



> KG is considered a top 3 PF of all-time due to his STATS alone, but Webber has those same stats and isn't even considered to be in the top 10 of PF all-time![/I] Therefore there is an inconsistency in how we are judging these two PFs. You can't judge one based on STATS and the other on team success when they both have the same STATS and say one is better over the other. It is fundamentally wrong!


It's not KG's stats that make him better than Webber. As has been said, it's his rebounding and defense. A player who is unselfish, a very good scorer and passer, a versatile, top-5 defender, _and_ the best rebounder in the league, is incredibly valuable. The stats are an indicator of his massive contributions.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

How would a team with KG, Divac, Peja, Christie, Bibby, B. Jackson, etc would have done: as good and possibly better then Webbers kings.

I mean I don't personally like Garnett: a lot of over the top posturing and the like but the talent level of his teams have never been that good. People should be posting about Kevin Mchale's inability to add any modicum of reasonable talent to a top 5 player and not KG


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> The two most obvious things are much better rebounding and infinitely better defense.
> 
> 
> The point is that Olajuwon was viewed in the same light as KG until he won a title. If that passable supporting cast hadn't come along, he wouldn't have won. He would not be considered an all-time great despite being the exact same player. If KG never gets a decent supporting cast, he'll never win, and will be forever underrated.


KG has had equal if not better supporting cast than Hakeem's first championship roster.

Hakeem's first championship team:

PG- Jet;
SG-Mad Max;
SF- Horry;
PF - Thorpe;
C- Hakeem;

bench: Mario Elie and Sam Cassell(and pretty much nothing more)

vs

For instance, the Wolves' 2001-2002 roster:

PG- Chauncey Biilups;
SG- Wally;
SF/PF- Joe Smith;
PF/SF- KG;
C- Rasho

bench: Peeler and Trent

Can one say, disregarding the franchise players, that one team is clearly better than the other? IMHO, we can't.
The difference was that Hakeem was tearing up the league (27.3 on .528FG%, 11.9, 3.6, 3.7bpg and 1.6 spg) AND even upping some stats in the playoffs. And he "made his teammates better" (yeah, the old cliché): not only was he securing the paint and stoping penetration, the constant double-teams he recieved in the post made Jet's and The Mad Bomber's living.

I agree with you, Hakeem, when you say that Hakeem-the-player was viewed KG-like (untill he got his first ring): a great player who couldn't deliver. But the same was said about Jordan, btw, and Hakeem's context was way superior to KG's: Hakeem had to battle centers like Shaq, D-Rob, P-Ew, Mutombo, Zo, and other post players such as Karl, Barkley and others.

And what is KG's competiton in the post this last few years? Shaq, Duncan and...
And still he can't carry his team to great hights.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> it's his rebounding and defense. A player who is unselfish, a very good scorer and passer, a versatile, top-5 defender, _and_ the best rebounder in the league, is incredibly valuable. The stats are an indicator of his massive contributions.


That also sounds like Shawn Marion, however, he isn't given the same respect as being a top 5 talent of all-time! You are getting this impression of KG from looking at his stats, but sometimes as fans we get stats confused with true dominance and KG doesn't dominate anyone similar to Marion.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

socco said:


> 2nd best record in the NBA in 03-04. And ya they "only" got to the WCF, but you can't just ignore the fact that Sam Cassell didn't play most of that series, and was completely ineffective the little time he was in. And he wasn't just some role player, he was 2nd team all-nba, and was arguably the best PG that season. That's like the Lakers losing Kobe during their title run. Darrick Martin started at PG for the Wolves that series, and the backups were Fred Hoiberg and Garnett himself. You can't just ignore these type of things.
> 
> Garnett doesn't get the "sympathy treatment" from people. There are just some people who realize that a team's success does not rest squarely on the shoulders of their star player. If you put a great player on a bad organization, there likely won't be much success.


It is suprising how many people for get this. KG's second banana was flat out injured and ineffective vs LA (actually against the Kings by the end of the series I believe). How can that just be ignored? That Wolves team was very good on both ends of the floor when healthy and KG was the best scorer and defender on that team. 

If Garnett gets a conistent and solid supporting cast he can compete for titles. Until then it will be difficult for him to single handedly get his team in the playoffs every season.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

ralaw said:


> That also sounds like Shawn Marion, however, he isn't given the same respect as being a top 5 talent of all-time! You are getting this impression of KG from looking at his stats, but sometimes as fans we get stats confused with true dominance and KG doesn't dominate anyone similar to Marion.


Marion hasn't been near the scorer and offensive player KG has been since he entered his prime in 2002-03. If Marion was much better on offense, and better on defense (something the stats don't pickup quite as well as the offensive numbers+blocks+steals) then he would be comparable to Garnett. KG has a bigger effect on games than Marion does by a pretty large margin.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Nikos said:


> Marion hasn't been near the scorer and offensive player KG has been since he entered his prime in 2002-03. If Marion was much better on offense, and better on defense (something the stats don't pickup quite as well as the offensive numbers+blocks+steals) then he would be comparable to Garnett. KG has a bigger effect on games than Marion does by a pretty large margin.


The comparison isn't as far off as you are making it seem. KG's prime scoring years according to you has been since 2003-03 and he only averages 22.5 ppg, while Marion who probably is just hitting his prime year as of last year is putting up 20 ppg. Since 2002-03 the only stat he dwarfs Marion is in assist. The rest of the stats across the board are similar. KG is a talented guy, but his style of play is more suited for a complimentry type role. We have to remember having talent doesn't always equal a franchise cornerstone. KG is nothing more than an extremelly talented complimentry type player who gets great stats similar to Marion.

Now don't get me wrong KG is way more talented than Marion, but his overall impact from game to game is similar.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

EHL said:


> Well for one, I don't consider Kevin Garnett a top 10-15 all time player. I think it's pretty ridiculous to rank him that high. He's a first ballot lock, though.


I am at least glad of this but Nique wasn't 1st ballot and his career/impact is comparable to KG.





> Cassell was never an MVP candidate in 03-04, that's a little absurd. KG was the heart and soul of that team, pretty much any Twolves fan will tell you the same.


It seems in any argument for KG it is always something intangible like "heart and soul". Is he not the heart and soul now?



> And Cassell was hardly anything noteworthy when he played with Hakeem.


I think Sam was a significant contributor on both title teams.





> 19/9/4 isn't really bad if you're an annual DPOY candidate as KG has been for pretty much his entire prime (though quite obviously KG wouldn't be known for being as good as he is today without his actual 22/12/5 stats). Additionally, he's the most consistent superstar in the league night-in and night-out, next to Duncan of course. And of course, comparing his playoff record to legends makes him look good considering he was never the leader of a lotto team (in his prime) until recently.


Shawn Marion is just as consistent with the same defense and he is just now entering his prime. At the end of their careers, their numbers will be a lot alike.





> Neither has Pau Gasol. Yet you said you'd take Gasol over Garnett, and that was just after KG's 03-04 MVP season too.


You took the quote out of context. At the time I was saying I would not trade Pau for Gasol because Memphis would have to add Miller or Battier to match salaries and KG was not significantly better. Now the Gasol has stepped up his play, I wouldn't even trade them straight up. Pau's impact on the court is much more than KG. Unlike KG, Pau has never, ever had the luxury of playing with another All Star. If he had another All Star or dare I say, someone good enough to make the All NBA 2nd team, I am sure he could crank out 58 wins easily.





> lmao, like who, All Star reserve Wally World a few seasons ago? Yeah, dude has been tearing up the league his entire career. Not.
> 
> But yes, KG did play with one legit All Star, and his name was Sam Cassell, during the 03-04 season. And guess what, 2nd best record in the league and two wins short of a Finals appearance.


Have you forgotten: Marbury, Tom Gugliota, Terrell Brandon, Christian Laettner. The argument can be made that KG has not had the team to win a title but to say he hasn't had enough talent on his team to win 3 games in the playoffs borders on silly.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> Wtf? So before KG rode Sam I Am's jock, he never played on a team with enough talent to make the playoffs? He has had numerous All Star teammates and still hasn't done squat. Remember, I am not talking NBA finals. He hasn't been good enough for 4 games to get out of the 1st round 7 times.


really??? who Wally

if anything sam rode his jock. He now has his plan mapped out....follow the great bigman. First it was garnett...now its Brand & he'll probably end up in Houston next year to ride Yao's coattails. And people will give him all the credit for "putting the team over the top"

And maybe just maybe Memphis might win a playoff GAME this year....but when they get bounced out again in the 1st rd I wonder what your response will be.....Pau aint good enough or Chucky Atkins & Lerenzo Wright aint gonna cut it???


----------



## djtoneblaze (Nov 22, 2004)

This is 100% more the fault of Kevin McHale (the worst GM ever) than Kevin Garnett.

Y'all blaming the wrong Kevin for the lack of Minni's success.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

djtoneblaze said:


> This is 100% more the fault of Kevin McHale (the worst GM ever) than Kevin Garnett.
> 
> Y'all blaming the wrong Kevin for the lack of Minni's success.


As long as we give Kevin McHale 100% of the credit for getting the Wolves to the 2004 West Conference Finals I have no problem with this belief.


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

I have the feeling that the only reason Pippen made this statement is make KG more aggressive or for him to neccesitate a trade this summer.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

osprey said:


> I have the feeling that the only reason Pippen made this statement is make KG more aggressive or for him to neccesitate a trade this summer.


Actually Pippen said KG is one of his favorite players, but he hasn't been playing like it.


----------



## Kirk64 (Oct 19, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> I would be shocked if any player in the NBA's 60 greatest has such a pathetic postseason resume.


Without even doing the research on any others in the top 60, I can tell you that Oscar Robertson's post-season record through age 29 was just about as pathetic.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

ralaw said:


> As long as we give Kevin McHale 100% of the credit for getting the Wolves to the 2004 West Conference Finals I have no problem with this belief.


If McHale helped the team to the WCF in 2004, then why did he let it go right away after Sam Cassell's injury and ego woes? It could say the same to Sprewell's demanding "I got children to feed". A good general manager must make it possible every day.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Juxtaposed said:


> If McHale helped the team to the WCF in 2004, then why did he let it go right away after Sam Cassell's injury and ego woes? It could say the same to Sprewell's demanding "I got children to feed". A good general manager must make it possible every day.


So you believe KG should get the credit when the team does well and McHale should take the blame when the team plays poorly? 

If I remember correctly Sprewell and Cassel wanted contract extensions and McHale refused to sign either aging veterans to a long term contract. Which if he had all of you KG apologist would have been screaming that he made a mistake. This was following the lone year the team made the conference finals after the team won 58 games. McHale has made his share of bonehead decisions, but KG also plays a role in this teams failure to win consistently and many of you KG apologist fail to realize this.


----------



## Kirk64 (Oct 19, 2005)

Ballscientist said:


> Is KG the only superstar (in the history) who has never played in NBA Finals?


Top 60 guys who never made the Finals:

Connie Hawkins
Dominique Wilkins
Pete Maravich
Dave Bing
George Gervin

Top 60 guys who didn't make the Finals before age 30:

Nate Archibald
Patrick Ewing
Hal Greer
Jerry Lucas
Karl Malone
Oscar Robertson
David Robinson
Bill Sharman
John Stockton
Bob McAdoo
Reggie Miller


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

That is hilarious, the most overated player in the history of professional sports just called KG overated, you have to be kidding, just how many titles does Pippen think he would have if he didn't ride the coat-tails of Michael Jordan his entire career. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Kirk64 said:


> Top 60 guys who never made the Finals:
> 
> Connie Hawkins
> Dominique Wilkins
> ...


My only question is by the age of 30 were any of these guys considered to be top 2-3 all-time at their position as Garnett is?


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

vandyke said:


> That is hilarious, the most overated player in the history of professional sports just called KG overated, you have to be kidding, just how many titles does Pippen think he would have if he didn't ride the coat-tails of Michael Jordan his entire career. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.


This argument is old and played out! May I ask another old and played out question in how many did Jordan get without Pippen? Believe it or not Jordan and Pippen go had-in-hand and if you take one of them out of the equation you do not have 6 championships for the Chicago Bulls. Jordan allowed Pippen to Pippen and Pippen allowed Jordan to be Jordan.


----------



## Kirk64 (Oct 19, 2005)

ralaw said:


> My only question is by the age of 30 were any of these guys considered to be top 2-3 all-time at their position as Garnett is?


Well, I am not sure how many people consider Garnett to be top 2-3 all-time at his position (not too many), but I would say that Malone, Stockton, and the Big O were definitely considered to be in the top 2-3 by age 30.


----------



## scooter (Oct 22, 2003)

Pippen is a horse's ***.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Wtf? So before KG rode Sam I Am's jock, he never played on a team with enough talent to make the playoffs? He has had numerous All Star teammates and still hasn't done squat. Remember, I am not talking NBA finals. He hasn't been good enough for 4 games to get out of the 1st round 7 times.


lol, I never said that. I said the teams he played on always performed better than the sum of their parts. One player does not win a playoff series either. Remember, the Wolves have never been favored to win a playoff series other than the times they did. And he didn't "ride Sam I Am's jock", though saying that clearly shows any bias you may have in this discussion. You might recall that he almost unanimously won the MVP award that season, and completely dominated game 7 of the second round series. I'm not even going to go into the "he has had numerous all star teammates and still hasn't done squat", as you probably know I hate dumb people and I don't want to get myself in trouble here.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Kirk64 said:


> Well, I am not sure how many people consider Garnett to be top 2-3 all-time at his position (not too many), but I would say that Malone, Stockton, and the Big O were definitely considered to be in the top 2-3 by age 30.


Maybe the Big O (I wasn't alive then), but Malone and Stockton didn't receive that type of talk until later in their careers.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Kirk64 said:


> Well, I am not sure how many people consider Garnett to be top 2-3 all-time at his position (not too many), but I would say that Malone, Stockton, and the Big O were definitely considered to be in the top 2-3 by age 30.


Big O probably, I wasn't around. Malone was but he also did not have a string a 1 and dones like KG. Same with Stockton.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Kirk64 said:


> Top 60 guys who never made the Finals:
> 
> Connie Hawkins
> Dominique Wilkins
> ...


Pippen's argument is not that KG is not a good player, it is that KG is not the top 25 all time great that he is made out to be. I wonder howmany of these guys went 1 for 11 in getting out of the 1st round?


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

For those who put KG down because of his lack of *team* success, I ask you where you rank Oscar Robertson after considering:

1961 Royals: 33-46, failed to make playoffs
1962 Royals: 43-37, first round exit
1963 Royals: 42-38, second round exit
1964 Royals: 55-25, second round exit
1965 Royals: 48-32, first round exit
1966 Royals: 45-35, first round exit
1967 Royals: 39-42, first round exit
1968 Royals: 39-43, failed to make playoffs
1969 Royals: 41-41, failed to make playoffs
1970 Royals: 36-46, failed to make playoffs

Oscar had an All-NBA *First* Teamer in Jerry Lucas for most of those seasons. He didn't win a ring until he was traded to the Bucks in 1970 and played second-fiddle to the most dominant player at the time in Kareem, yet Oscar is still considered a GOAT candidate despite the lack of team success while he was on the Royals.

Individual players can't win on their own. It's a team game yet people still want to judge an individual by wins and losses. I just don't get it.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> Pippen's argument is not that KG is not a good player, it is that KG is not the top 25 all time great that he is made out to be. I wonder howmany of these guys went 1 for 11 in getting out of the 1st round?


I've been saying that throughout this thread. Pippen as with myself believe KG is a great player, but much of perceived greatness has to do with his stats, however, his stats are similar to Webber's yet Webber is considered a loser while KG is considered a top 3 PF of all-time who played on bad teams.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

The Elton Brand example EHL brought up is actually perfect. Brand was considered a loser who puts stats up on bad teams not too long ago (just last season, actually). What did it take to stop that? Any change in Elton's play? An improved jumper, but he's the same Elton he's always been. 

So how did he make that huge jump from perennial loser to *MVP candidate* in only one season? The guy got a good squad around him, mostly due to the arrival of Sam Cassell, a point guard who can effectively run the show. Loser to MVP candidate in only one season! Just like it only took one season for KG to do serious playoff damage after getting a point guard who can run the show and hold things together. There isn't a point guard in the league better than Cassell at invoking a sense of control and management out on the court, which other than his butter mid-range shooting is his most valuable and impactful attribute.

KG/Brand/Kobe/LeBron/MJ/Wade/Shaq/Nearly every superstar ever - they couldn't/didn't do it alone. People really think it was only a coincidence that the *one season* KG gets some solid help, his team makes the Western finals? Come on, now. It doesn't make sense that you'd give more credit to that help than to the guy who actually won the MVP, either, for the Wolves making it so far.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

GTA Addict said:


> For those who put KG down because of his lack of *team* success, I ask you where you rank Oscar Robertson after considering:
> 
> 1961 Royals: 33-46, failed to make playoffs
> 1962 Royals: 43-37, first round exit
> ...


The irony is Baylor is widely considered to be the most versatile player ever, yet he didn't win anything until he came to a team with a *truly* dominant player. The ironic/funny part is KG is considered one of the most versatile players ever as well, but doesn't dominate in any area (similar to Baylor). Therefore in your attempt to prove KG detractors wrong you actually proved our point that KG is too versatile for his own good, thus making him more effective along side a truly dominant player (as was Baylor) as opposed to be the stat monster who is getting confused as being the go-tp-guy.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> I've been saying that throughout this thread. Pippen as with myself believe KG is a great player, but much of perceived greatness has to do with his stats, however, his stats are similar to Webber's yet Webber is considered a loser while KG is considered a top 3 PF of all-time who played on bad teams.


And people such as yourself consider a KG loser based on stats too, playoff wins. You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing others of doing, you just choose different stats.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Spriggan said:


> The Elton Brand example EHL brought up is actually perfect. Brand was considered a loser who puts stats up on bad teams not too long ago (just last season, actually). What did it take to stop that? Any change in Elton's play? An improved jumper, but he's the same Elton he's always been.
> 
> So how did he make that huge jump from perennial loser to *MVP candidate* in only one season? The guy got a good squad around him, mostly due to the arrival of Sam Cassell, a point guard who can effectively run the show. Loser to MVP candidate in only one season! Just like it only took one season for KG to do serious playoff damage after getting a point guard who can run the show and hold things together. There isn't a point guard in the league better than Cassell at invoking a sense of control and management out on the court, which other than his butter mid-range shooting is his most valuable and impactful attribute.


That is fine and dandy, but Brand isn't considered to be a top 3 PF of all-time as KG is and this is Pippen's basis for the arugment!


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> And people such as yourself consider a KG loser based on stats too, playoff wins. You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing others of doing, you just choose different stats.


I actually never called KG a loser, and me judging his playoff success is just what it is, playoff success vs. playoff failure.


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

ralaw said:


> The irony is Baylor is widely considered to be the most versatile player ever, yet he didn't win anything until he came to a team with a *truly* dominant player. The ironic/funny part is KG is considered one of the most versatile players ever as well, but doesn't dominate in any area (similar to Baylor). Therefore in your attempt to prove KG detractors wrong you actually proved our point that KG is too versile for his own good, thus making him more effective along side a truly dominant player (as was Baylor) as opposed to be the stat monster who is getting confused as being the go-tp-guy.


I'm assuming that by Baylor you mean Oscar Robertson. Oscar was a dominant scorer, rebounder, and playmaker for his position nearly every year he was with the Royals. KG is a dominant rebounder, one of the best playmakers at his position, and has been one of the top defensive players in the game for the past 6 or 7 seasons (in which he's been First Team All-Defense every year). The point is that an *individual*'s dominance (even if said individual is a GOAT candidate, as Oscar is) can't translate to *team* success if he doesn't have a competent supporting cast.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> I actually never called KG a loser, and me judging his playoff success is just what it is, playoff success vs. playoff failure.


I said "people such as yourself". You want people to look at the stats and ask why they're so great, so why do you refuse to look at the playoff failure and ask why? You claim people just look at the stats and say he's great because of that, but you just look at his playoff resume and says he's not as great because of that. Why won't you actually assess the reasons why he's only made it out of the 1st round once?


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

GTA Addict said:


> I'm assuming that by Baylor you mean Oscar Robertson. Oscar was a dominant scorer, rebounder, and playmaker for his position nearly every year he was with the Royals. KG is a dominant rebounder, one of the best playmakers at his position, and has been one of the top defensive players in the game for the past 6 or 7 seasons (in which he's been First Team All-Defense every year). The point is that an *individual*'s dominance (even if said individual is a GOAT candidate, as Oscar is) can't translate to *team* success if he doesn't have a competent supporting cast.


Opps! My fault I meant Robertson (where did I get Baylor from?) I agree with you that one player doesn't carry his team by himself, but my major concern is people want to give KG the credit when the team does well (2003-04) and blame his teammates when the team struggles to get out of the first round.



socco said:


> I said "people such as yourself". You want people to look at the stats and ask why they're so great, so why do you refuse to look at the playoff failure and ask why? You claim people just look at the stats and say he's great because of that, but you just look at his playoff resume and says he's not as great because of that. Why won't you actually assess the reasons why he's only made it out of the 1st round once?


KG is a great, great player; however, in my opinion he is a hyped up version of Shawn Marion and looking at his stats alone to prove his greatness and successes, and blaming his teammates and GM for his failures is inconsistent. When I look at KG I see a stat monster who is better suited to be a complimentry player to a truly dominant player. KG would be the best second fiddle to play the game due to his ability to impact the game in so many different areas.


----------



## Kirk64 (Oct 19, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> Big O probably, I wasn't around. Malone was but he also did not have a string a 1 and dones like KG. Same with Stockton.


Their playoff record was pretty bad - their peak was the Conference Finals, just like KG. And remember that each was playing with another slam-dunk first-ballot HOFer. KG has never had that luxury.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> KG is a great, great player; however, in my opinion he is a hyped up version of Shawn Marion and looking at his stats alone to prove his greatness and successes, and blaming his teammates and GM for his failures is inconsistent. When I look at KG I see a stat monster who is better suited to be a complimentry player to a truly dominant player. KG would be the best second fiddle to play the game due to his ability to impact the game in so many different areas.


First of all, I have to disagree, Tim Duncan is a much better second option. The thing is, people don't "blame" his team and GM for "his" failures in the playoffs. It's not us that are doing anything. It IS his team and GM's fault that the Wolves haven't had much playoff success. Do I really need to go over all the horrible moves this franchise has made? Without Garnett they're basically the Clippers of the past decade. These aren't excuses, they're reasons. If you want to think KG is not a dominant player, all I can suggest is to watch him, I can't force you to actually know anything about him. But you cannot ignore the teams that have been around him when looking at team success.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> First of all, I have to disagree, Tim Duncan is a much better second option. The thing is, people don't "blame" his team and GM for "his" failures in the playoffs. It's not us that are doing anything. It IS his team and GM's fault that the Wolves haven't had much playoff success. Do I really need to go over all the horrible moves this franchise has made? Without Garnett they're basically the Clippers of the past decade. These aren't excuses, they're reasons. If you want to think KG is not a dominant player, all I can suggest is to watch him, I can't force you to actually know anything about him. But you cannot ignore the teams that have been around him when looking at team success.


I must admit KG has played on some bad, bad teams, but KG is as much accountable for his team lack of success as the next guy considering he is the leader and "superstar" player. Again, my main problem is when people give KG the credit for his teams successes and blame his teammates for his teams failures. To me that is inconsistent.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

Here's the problem with holding KG's first round playoff losses against him:

Most of those teams had no buisness being in the playoffs in the first place. They were not good teams. KG was carrying them and had them overachieving every year so they could get 8 seeds and lose to the Lakers. The first time they actually had homecourt they went to the conference finals.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> I must admit KG has played on some bad, bad teams, but KG is as much accountable for his team lack of success as the next guy considering he is the leader and "superstar" player. Again, my main problem is when people give KG the credit for his teams successes and blame his teammates for his teams failures. To me that is inconsistent.


Were the Wolves that much better in 03-04 because of KG? No. Are the Wolves this much worse now because of KG? No. It just seems to me that you're scapegoating him for their failures. I know you're going to probably say that we do the same with his teammates. The difference there is that one of us is right. This is a bad organization that hasn't given KG the opportunity to have much team success. He has always played at an elite level. Naturally people will give a star player more credit when his team wins, but that's true with all players. I don't think anybody has suggested in this thread that the Wolves were so great their WCF year just because of Garnett, and have sucked the past year and a half because of his teammates.


----------



## Adol (Nov 25, 2004)

Pipper is way off here. He's never liked KG. 
All you KG haters should be downright ashamed of yourselves. Let me tell you something...It's really not that simple in the NBA. Playoff success doesn't just happen and neither do championships. A lot more goes into the equation then "He should elevate his team"...KG has never really had a good supporting cast. The Wolves have never had a good front office. KG's cast is always changing, there's no stability. Look at some of the best players in the L and you'll see they haven't had playoff success either: Brand, Gasol, McGrady...Hell, even Nash, Dirk, Lebron, Jermain..THe list goes on. There are very few spots first of all, and a first or second round exist is easy to achieve. But make no mistake, they are all GREAT players; the competition in the league is just incredible. Only INSANELY good teams, usually with two LEGIT super stars ever get to the finals. The past 6 years has been dominated by Kobe/Shaq, Duncan/Robinson/Manu/Parker and Detroit (Possibly the best starting 5 for a very long time). It's not about lifting your teammates on your shoulders...Get realistic people. It's about having the right pieces. Bird, Magic, Jordan? They all had incredible talent around them. That's why they won. Barkley, Dominique Wilkins? Not so much. But people don't seem to apply the same rules to nostalgic eras of past as they do today. To hate on a talent like KG just shows how fickle and petty some of you really are.


----------



## manu20 (Jun 24, 2005)

manu > kg


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> KG has had equal if not better supporting cast than Hakeem's first championship roster.


Don't know about "better", but I get your point. And I agree. KG certainly isn't as good as Hakeem Olajuwon. He is also worse than Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Robinson, Ewing, Malone and Barkley. And those are just the greats I've seen. But he's not far behind them at all. And he's better than Kobe, McGrady and Drexler, IMO.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> I am at least glad of this but Nique wasn't 1st ballot and his career/impact is comparable to KG.


Nique career, nor stats, and certainly not his impact are comparable to KG. Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test. Nique is about as one-dimensional a HOF candidate as you can get. 



> It seems in any argument for KG it is always something intangible like "heart and soul". Is he not the heart and soul now?


Yes, he's the heart and soul of the Twolves currently. And?



> I think Sam was a significant contributor on both title teams.


He was a role player on those Rocket teams. Hardly something to write home about. 



> Shawn Marion is just as consistent with the same defense and he is just now entering his prime. At the end of their careers, their numbers will be a lot alike.


Marion can't sniff KG's defense. How many All D teams has Marion made? Btw, Marion can't sniff KG's passing or dribbling ability, and still isn't as good as rebounder or scorer as KG has been in his prime so far. So, uh, no, you're wrong here.



> You took the quote out of context. At the time I was saying I would not trade Pau for Gasol because Memphis would have to add Miller or Battier to match salaries and KG was not significantly better. Now the Gasol has stepped up his play, I wouldn't even trade them straight up. Pau's impact on the court is much more than KG. Unlike KG, Pau has never, ever had the luxury of playing with another All Star. If he had another All Star or dare I say, someone good enough to make the All NBA 2nd team, I am sure he could crank out 58 wins easily.


Kevin Garnett has actually won playoff games without an All Star by his side. Pau Gasol has not. Sorry, KG wins this argument every time. No one in their right mind picks Gasol over KG if impact is at all valued. 



> Have you forgotten: Marbury, Tom Gugliota, Terrell Brandon, Christian Laettner. The argument can be made that KG has not had the team to win a title but to say he hasn't had enough talent on his team to win 3 games in the playoffs borders on silly.


Gugliota? Brandon? Laettner? Is that some sort of bad joke? And Marbury was there when both players had not entered their primes. Btw, Marbury's career fits your exact standards of "impact" as KG does, so you're actually contradicting yourself if you're going to use Marbury in this discussion.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

ralaw said:


> My only question is by the age of 30 were any of these guys considered to be top 2-3 all-time at their position as Garnett is?


Is he?

What position? PF?

I'll EASILY grade Malone, Duncan, Barkley and Petitt over him.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Is he?
> 
> What position? PF?
> 
> I'll EASILY grade Malone, Duncan, Barkley and Petitt over him.


That's not my opinion Paulo (just what I have read) and I must say I agree with you.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

GTA Addict said:


> For those who put KG down because of his lack of *team* success, I ask you where you rank Oscar Robertson after considering:
> 
> 1961 Royals: 33-46, failed to make playoffs
> 1962 Royals: 43-37, first round exit
> ...


1- Yes, individual players can't win on their own.

2- Pulling Oscar's stats is a no-no. There are some players who, eventhough they didn't win enough, were simply far and away better than 99.9% of NBA players all thorought history. Wilt (only 2 rings) and Oscar (0 rings till Kareem - i agree with you here) are CONSENSUS Top-7, Top-5 players in the history of the game. Why? Because they DOMINATED the sport. Wilt was the biggest and greatest offensive juggernault the game has ever seen. Oscar is the greatest all-around player the game has ever seen. That is the particular quaility KG lacks: DOMINACE (like ralaw has been saying).

KG only excells in rebounding, and that will only take you so far. He is a good scorer, but not a DOMINANT one. He is a good passer (for his position), but he can't change the outcome of games with it. KG is a good defender, but not a DOMINANT one. In fact, i'll even go ahead and say he doesn't INTIMIDATE people (a great, great asset on defense) ENOUGH. dirk in the playoffs proved me that.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Don't know about "better", but I get your point. And I agree. KG certainly isn't as good as Hakeem Olajuwon. He is also worse than Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Robinson, Ewing, Malone and Barkley. And those are just the greats I've seen. *But he's not far behind them at all. And he's better than Kobe, McGrady and Drexler, IMO*.


Like always, you provide good points, Hakeem.

I'm undecided on the Kobe/T-Mac/KG comparison. IMHO, Kobe's the best player in the league right now (because of Duncan's down year). Still, he won't win the MVP. So, what does that say to me about KG's one? Nothing, in fact, except that he was (and is) a top player in the league.

I take T-Mac from the equation because i think he is a slacker and a loser, and because (unfortunately), it seem injuries will derail a certain stellar-career. Drexler, i loved, but in no way, sahpe or form, was he ever one of the Top-5 players in the league (notwithstanding All-Nba first selections, due to positioning).

Kobe or KG? Hmmm... It's a tough call. Both are lousy franchise players. Kobe excelled in the Robin role (and i have no doubts KG would, too). I think it's too early to tell the difference between those players (although i would personally go with Kobe). Maybe in 2/3 years.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

EHL said:


> Nique career, nor stats, and certainly not his impact are comparable to KG. Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test. Nique is about as one-dimensional a HOF candidate as you can get.


You make me wanna cry, EHL.

How can you say that about Nique?


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> Kobe or KG? Hmmm... It's a tough call. Both are lousy franchise players. Kobe excelled in the Robin role (and i have no doubts KG would, too). I think it's too early to tell the difference between those players (although i would personally go with Kobe). Maybe in 2/3 years.


I think both are legitimate franchise players who are stuck with bad teammates. But I can't believe I forgot Magic in the list of players I've seen who were better than KG.

(And 'Nique was a selfish loser who didn't play defense.)


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> (And 'Nique was a selfish loser who didn't play defense.)


That's a low-blow, Hakeem, and because i dig you, i'll try to answer it without profanities... 

Dominique Wilkins was a heck of a player. He was an astounding offensive threat who provided the glamour, the punch and the swagger to a low-life franchise.

Nique carried the Hawks franchise on his back since day one. Who do you remember playing wiith Nique? Doc rivers? Sure, he was a capable PG. Kevin Willis? Mo Malone? Talk about ballhoggers, who, combined, would't even get HALF of Nique's apg... 

Nique was the franchise player for a franchise who topped 50 wins like 5 times in his tenure. Vince Carter couldn't hold his jock.

Was he a loser? Yes, by yours and mine understanding: the same way i'll call KG and T-Mac losers. 
He didn't play defense? Heck, people are just throwing the notion around: "____ didn't play no defense". Come on, dudes, nor Bird, nor Nique, nor Barkley (to name a few so-called "terrible defenders") weren't getting lit up by 40 a night, man! Wake up. Individual defense is so, so overrated this days. One would think that Dirk never scored 35 on KG!!!! 

Dominique Wilkins was a deadly baller. He just didn't have the right surroundings around him.


EDIT: Oh, one more thing: Nique was selected #3 in the 1982 draft. The Lakers were picking #1. Can you imagine what Nique's career would be like, playing alongside Magic and Cap?


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

EHL said:


> Gugliota? Brandon? Laettner? Is that some sort of bad joke? And Marbury was there when both players had not entered their primes. Btw, Marbury's career fits your exact standards of "impact" as KG does, so you're actually contradicting yourself if you're going to use Marbury in this discussion.


Actually Terrell Brandon was very good in his tenure as a Timberwolf -- but eventually he got injured in 2002 as well. But when Terrell wasn't injured they never really had a third gun or a solid defensive supporting cast. Wally didn't come into his own until 2002. I guess it would be similiar to a Duncan/Parker combo without a Ginobili type or even a Bruce Bowen. 50 wins sounds about right for a KG/Brandon combo, considering KG wasn't in his prime then.

It is funny how posters mention Marbury and Gugliotta -- but Marbury wasn't in his prime, neither was KG. Also in the 1998 NBA Playoffs Gugliotta was injured, and they took a 61 Sonic team to 5 games. Portland in 2000 was too tough for the KG/Brandon combo.

The way I see it, KG didn't have solid and consistent enough support to make a serious run at the title. He did in 2003-04, but that was shot down with Cassell's injury.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

The Duncan vs Garnett debate arises again, Duncan is no way near as versatile as KG, Duncan doesnt dribble the ball down and act as a mediocre play maker for the Spurs.. he does his job, which is dominate the inside painted area.. and he happens to be the best at it.

KG is good at everything for a big guy, people say he is a good playmaker, yes!.. compare to Dampier or any other 7 footers. But compare to real play makers he is mediocre, why? Because he simply doesnt have the skill set to be a playmaker. What he has is an amazing physical attribute and talent. But he does not focus on a facet of the game that helps his team or atleast LEAD his team to victories. 7 feet with good atheletism (compared to all other front court players), talented (again compared to all front court players)... yet doesnt dominate the area of front court players.

He is suited to be a second option, and he would thrive as a second option... win wise.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> That's a low-blow, Hakeem, and because i dig you, i'll try to answer it without profanities...
> 
> Dominique Wilkins was a heck of a player. He was an astounding offensive threat who provided the glamour, the punch and the swagger to a low-life franchise.
> 
> ...


shutup.

Irony is a *****. In a thread in which make arguments against and attack those who make "excuses" for Garnett you write an essay making excuses for Wilkins

There's not one damn thing on the basketball court Nique did better than McGrady...unless you count dunking


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

tone wone said:


> shutup...
> 
> There's not one thing on the basketball court Nique did better than McGrady.


Way to counter with a good arument, lol.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

Nique scored just as frequently and just as good as McGrady. McGrady averaged 30 ppg game once in his career. Nique did it twice, and almost a third time in 1993. His career averages are higher than McGrady's as well. In fact for his prime, his scoring numbers are better than McGrady's.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

Check these Nique scoring stats from his prime.
21.6, 27.4, 30.3, 29.0, 30.7, 26.2, 26.7, 25.9, 28.1, 29.9, 24.4, 29.1, 26.0

That stretch of scoring averages are some of the best in history. And look how many years he did it. I would say Nique was a better scorer than T-Mac. Though we have yet to see McGrady's full career pan out. But even McGrady's best numbers don't match those of Nique's.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

tone wone said:


> shutup.


Don't be rude, now, Tone Loc... :naughty: 



> Irony is a *****. In a thread in which make arguments against and attack those who make "excuses" for Garnett you write an essay making excuses for Wilkins


Did you bother to read my post?
I said Nique was a *loser*, althought he was a *great player*. It's EXACTLY the same with KG.

It's all about context, baby. Nique didn't have a great supporting cast. KG hasn't have a great supporting cast. IF they did, who knows? That's the whole point of my post.

But we can't deal with "What ifs". Nique will go down as one of the best SF ever. And a loser. KG? We will see about that.



> There's not one damn thing on the basketball court Nique did better than McGrady...unless you count dunking


T-Mac is a slacker and a quitter. Nique had his heart broken when the Hawks screwed him over and traded for Danny freaking Manning.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Did you bother to read my post?
> I said Nique was a *loser*, althought he was a *great player*. It's EXACTLY the same with KG.
> 
> It's all about context, baby. Nique didn't have a great supporting cast. KG hasn't have a great supporting cast. IF they did, who knows? That's the whole point of my post.
> ...


still I find it funny that you seem have some sort of sympathy for 'Nique's career but are so damn relentless in your hate for Garnett ...& McGrady too. But then again _haters_ are weird creatures



PauloCatarino said:


> T-Mac is a slacker and a quitter. Nique had his heart broken when the Hawks screwed him over and traded for Danny freaking Manning.


whatever. I actually like Nique (from what my uncles and older cousins told me about him) but he still aint on McGrady's level when it comes to talent & skill.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

tone wone said:


> still I find it funny that you seem have some sort of sympathy for 'Nique's career but are so damn relentless in your hate for Garnett ...& McGrady too.


That's because Nique was always a genuenely (sp?) great guy. Nothing but love for the Human Highlight Film. And, off course, his game always blew my mind, when i was a kid.

KG and T-Mac... meh.



> But then again _haters_ are weird creatures


We are, aren't we? :nah: 



> whatever. I actually like Nique (from what my uncles and older cousins told me about him) *but he still aint on McGrady's level when it comes to talent & skill.*


Is that what your uncles and older cousins say?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Dominique's highest PER was 24.6 which McGrady has surprassed in the 4 out of the last 5 seasons significantly (24.9, 25.1, 30.3, and 25.3). So McGrady at his best seems is IMO a better offensive player in he contributes much more then Nique (better passer, rebounder, pretty equivalent scorer).

Now the nice thing about Nique he had a very long and productive career (6 seasons with a PER better then 23 and a long stretch over 20). Don't know if Tmac can keep that sort of consistent production up with his history of injuries, if he can there is really no arguing that McGrady is the better player.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> Dominique's highest PER was 24.6 which McGrady has surprassed in the 4 out of the last 5 seasons significantly (24.9, 25.1, 30.3, and 25.3). So McGrady at his best seems is IMO a better offensive player in he contributes much more then Nique (better passer, rebounder, pretty equivalent scorer).
> 
> Now the nice thing about Nique he had a very long and productive career (6 seasons with a PER better then 23 and a long stretch over 20). Don't know if Tmac can keep that sort of consistent production up with his history of injuries, if he can there is really no arguing that McGrady is the better player.


I'm not looking into "PER" through. I am strictly speaking on a scoring basis, Nique did it for 10+ years and had really high scoring averages.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

The MAMBA said:


> I'm not looking into "PER" through. I am strictly speaking on a scoring basis, Nique did it for 10+ years and had really high scoring averages.


In a much different offensive environment. McGrady is a two-time scoring champion, so I don't think McGrady takes a backseat to Nique as a pure scorer.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

The MAMBA said:


> I'm not looking into "PER" through. I am strictly speaking on a scoring basis, Nique did it for 10+ years and had really high scoring averages.


 The problem with scoring averages is does not take possessions and thus overall scoring into account.

Possessions were higher and scoring as a whole was much higher in the 80's, so comparing straight scoring averages between now and the 80's is difficult as they are not normalized. That is why PER is a valuable tool as it compares how players do on a per possession basis and is easier to compare players from different eras and different teams


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Grandmazter3 said:


> He just said that on the pregame show on ABC.


I haven't read all 13 pages of this thread, but this isn't the first time Pip has taken a shot at KG. Pippen was a great all around players, just as KG is in today's game. I thought Pippen would have taken a liking to him, guess not. 

As far as KG underachieving and being overrated. I'm torn. It's true, outside of one trip to the Western Conference finals, KG has not produced team success the way one would expect of a player with his talent. But he has achieved alot of individual success being named all nba offense and defense I believe every year of his career. He won the league MVP. He's a 20-10-5 guy, and they are rare. So it's tough to say he's overrated and underachieving, what you can say is ten years in the league and only one trip out of the first round isn't going to look good when evaluating any players overall success. If KG could some how produce team success the way he has individually, he would gain more reckognition and move higher on everyone list of greatest players of all time.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Scottie Pippen is probably my favorite player of all-time, but I think some of his opinions are way off. This one is no exception. Kevin Garnett is underrated right now, simply for the fact that he is still a top 10 player in the league in his worst prime year, and nobody talks about him at all anymore.


Who wants to talk about a team that is not even in the playoffs? When Lakers wasn't in the playoff, people trash Kobe to no end (well, even now). How come whenever Wolves fail, KG is ALWAYS clean. And don't give me that sh1t that Kobe has more help than KG. I don't buy that. 

It's time to question KG and I think Pippen has the right to say KG is overrated.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

IV said:


> I haven't read all 13 pages of this thread, but this isn't the first time Pip has taken a shot at KG. Pippen was a great all around players, just as KG is in today's game. I thought Pippen would have taken a liking to him, guess not.
> 
> As far as KG underachieving and being overrated. I'm torn. It's true, outside of one trip to the Western Conference finals, KG has not produced team success the way one would expect of a player with his talent. But he has achieved alot of individual success being named all nba offense and defense I believe every year of his career. He won the league MVP. He's a 20-10-5 guy, and they are rare. So it's tough to say he's overrated and underachieving, what you can say is ten years in the league and only one trip out of the first round isn't going to look good when evaluating any players overall success. If KG could some how produce team success the way he has individually, he would gain more reckognition and move higher on everyone list of greatest players of all time.


Yup. And you almost want to question maybe it was Sam Cassel that brought Wolves' success to WCF because Sam is doing it again for Clippers this year. Either way, KG needs to be questioned and I agree Pippen can be a bit harsh sometimes.


----------



## fobbie (Dec 26, 2005)

to be honest i hadnt watch alot of nba game this season due to work, but i dont think is fair to blame everything on KG. KG IMO is a top 5 PF, and when given the right supporting cast he can lead a team. but to say he's overrated and underachiever is a bit too harsh on the guy. how many player do you see average 20-10-5 night in and out? basketball is a team game and the wolf hasnt done a goodjob getting help. they traded sam for jaric..., drafted Michale O, and then got screw over with the joe smith thingy. a player can only do so much for his team. look at yao, over the last couple of game yao number have been crazy 25/15? but if u watch the game, they lettin him score early and then late in game they double team him and make someone else beat them. same goes for KG, he's getting his points/rebs early, but late in game someone need to step up. i mean is easy to pick on a guy when his team is losing, how come no1 say anything bout pippen after MJ retired and he begin to stink up?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

fobbie said:


> how come no1 say anything bout pippen after MJ retired and he begin to stink up?


Pippen didn't exactly stink it up once MJ retired. Rather he aged, but he aged well. He played very good basketball in Houston. Take away of the contraversy between egos, barkley and pip.... houston could have favored much better. Then he went on to Portland and lead them to the WCF finals, and was one quarter away from going to the NBA finals. As players get older, their games regress. Pip in the final years of his career, post MJ, shared the team success as a leader that most players in their primes have yet to experience.


----------

