In what was another dismal year overall for Minnesota Timberwolves fans, Kevin Love emerged last season as a bright spot, averaging just over 20 points and a staggering 15.2 rebounds per game. This year he's upped his scoring to 25 ppg and he's still banging boards like they're bitches at 13.7 rebounds.* As a stat freak, I was curious how these numbers compared to Kevin Garnett's numbers from back in the day. As we all know, Garnett fled Minnesota with our hearts to capture a title in Boston, but he will nonetheless be the standard by which Wolves fans judge players--big men in particular--for at least a generation or two to come.
In comparing the numbers between Love and Garnett a few fun facts popped out right away. For all his prowess on the boards, KG never averaged 15 a game. His closest was 13.9 in 03-04. Also, it remains to be seen if Love will be able to continue or improve his current pace, but Garnett never averaged 25 ppg in a season. His best scoring season was also 03-04--his MVP year--where he averaged 24.2 per contest.
These were just a couple cursory observations on my part, but after taking in the data what really stuck with me was KG's consistency. As a sucker for a well-rounded stat-line (see Albert Pujols stats), I couldn't help but notice the nine consecutive seasons between 98-99 and 06-07 with Minnesota that Garnett averaged 20 & 10. I also couldn't help but notice that, despite reduced scoring and rebounding in Boston, he's still averaging the career double-double at 19.4 and 10.6.
This level of consistency in scoring and on the boards has been matched in this era only by San Antonio's Tim Duncan. Now, as a biased fan, I've long thought that KG's greatness has been under-appreciated specifically because of Tim Duncan. Despite what I think is an expert consensus (if only by a slight margin) that Duncan is technically the better player, I've always felt very strongly that I'd rather have Kevin Garnett leading my team. After looking at the stats, I now know I'm right.
Born just 24 days apart back in 1976, the similarities only begin there. Both listed at 6'11'' and about 255, these guys were both, at their prime, among the most intimidating defensive/rebounding forces in the game. Garnett, the fifth overall pick in '95 and a 9-time All-NBA selection, has been selected to 11 All-Defensive teams. Tim Duncan, 1997's top pick after two years at Wake Forest, was selected to 13 All-Defensive teams in his first 13 All-NBA seasons, a feat never before accomplished.
Now firmly in their mid-30s, both of these guys have seen some drop-off in their productivity over the last couple seasons, but there can be no arguing that they are each among the greatest power forwards of all-time. Based on the hardware, the edge is clearly Duncan's (2 MVPs & 4 Championships) over KG (one of each). This, though, is not as objective as looking at the raw numbers, as the Spurs were a much, much better team than the Wolves, where KG spent the majority of his career.
Stat Lines (PLAYER: PPG/Reb/Blk/Ast/FG%/FT%):
Garnett: 19.4/10.6/1.5/4.1/.498/.788
Duncan: 20.4/11.3/2.2/3.1/.507/.688
So, what do we see here? I can tell you what I see, and it's pretty damn close to even. Having played two more full NBA seasons than Duncan (which are much more grueling on the body than an NCAA season), I think KG's marginal deficits in PPG and rebounding are pretty excusable, particularly when you also consider the learning curve he faced jumping directly from high school to the NBA. By contrast, a two-years-older Duncan averaged 21.1 points out of the gates for the Spurs in his first season in 97-98. While Kevin Garnett has averaged 0.7 fewer blocks per game, his full assist more per game I feel at least evens this out. Also, the slight disadvantage KG has in FG%, which is so small as to be essentially irrelevant, is much more than made up by his being a full 10% more accurate from the line.
So if the stats are this close, how can they make me more sure than ever that I'd rather have Kevin Garnett starting for my team? It's simple really--the X factor. In any statistical dead heat, I'm going to side with the person or idea that has that ethereal something. In this case, the something is personality. Kevin Garnett is a motherfucking competitive force on the hardwood. He'll yell, he'll scream, he'll get in somebody's face. He's vocal. You can see it in his face when he's pissed the fuck off and, other times, you'll feel the levity in his jumping to goal-tend an opponent's post-buzzer shot. He's not just a leader by example, he's a vocal and emotional leader on the court.
Tim Duncan, on the other hand, is boring. Not just boring, actually, but boring as fuck. Assuming no detriments to team chemistry (which is, obviously, very important), I don't think there is any reason to believe that substituting KG for Duncan would have resulted in a single fewer championship for the Spurs. Given that fact, and given Duncan's uncanny boringness, I think it's clear from this examination that my original (if previously biased) theory on KG's superiority is correct.
If you could have essentially the same individual results but with greater entertainment value as well as a greater likelihood of inspiring those around you, isn't that who you'd want to be? Well, it's who I'd like to be and it's why KG will always be the man.
~Jeff N.
*-Good time to mention all stats are as of February 7th, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment