View Full Version : Vescey on Garnett
04-23-2002, 01:15 AM
Tonight on TNT, he said that Garnett is overrated. Yet again I have to disagree with Vescey on this one. I believe Garnett would be a better player if he had a better supporting cast around him. Garnett can do everything. On Sunday, he might of not shot too well against the Mavs on sunday but he still managed to pull down a bunch of rebounds and provide a few assists.
04-23-2002, 01:32 AM
I think Garnett is just an amazing ball player, but.... I have to say that his status as an "NBASuperStar" (TM) is overrated, that's for sure. He's never had anyone around him, true. But superstars as such have been known to carry their teams moreso than he has been able to.
As a player, talent, or just dude, Garnett isn't overrated.
04-23-2002, 11:48 AM
It seems to me that he played in the league for a couple of years and then ESPN the magazine put him on the cover with the word Superstar and it just stuck. He is good; he is great. But he isn't Jordan or Shaq.
04-23-2002, 12:17 PM
I knew it was a matter of time before people started saying this about Garnett. The reason they were dubbing him the next GOD of basketball was because he was young and the improvements he made were tremendous for someone so young. Therefore everyone assumed that the older he got he would become even more of a studd. So now several years later and first round exits of the playoffs the past few years, everyone is saying he's overrated.
That's BULL! The guy is NOT overrated, he is AMAZING. He has had the most UNSTABLE team in the NBA the past few years, there's NO ONE other than Sam Mitchell whose been on the team for a significant period of time. He can't do it by himself, he needs help for sure, and if he doesn't have a supporting cast around him then what does people expect.
That's why I get scared when people keep expecting Dirk to be the next GOD of basketball, because should his numbers NOT improve anymore than they are now, and the Mavericks don't win a championship over the next few years, watch and see the people who start bashing him...
04-23-2002, 01:26 PM
<< The reason they were dubbing him the next GOD of basketball was because he was young and the improvements he made were tremendous for someone so young. >>
Actually Kid, it seems to me that you are making the point that Garnett is over-rated. Because he is not the "GOD of basketball". He is a great player. He also appears to be a great player who has generally reached his potential. Maybe not, but there is not much change between last year's and this year's numbers and while they are impressive numbers, if this is Garnett's plateau, it is significantly lower than what a lot of people envisioned for him--he's a top 10 player, but not top 3, possibly not even top 5, and a lot of people thought he would be the best.
Those whose vision of Garnett is still based on the potential and not on the actuality DO over-rate him.
04-23-2002, 03:30 PM
Well I think he probably has hit his plateau, but I still think the guy is tremendous and one of the elite players in the league. People still have a tough time stopping him, he can defend just about every position, he's tremendous.
I don't think he's overrated, I'm saying that's the populations perception that he's overrated. I'm saying I think his exit in the first round of the playoffs has more to do with the inconsistency of his teams more so than it does him. He's been the ONE player whose been there throughout and he gives his all each time and puts up some impressive numbers doing so, I'm sorry I just don't think he's overrated.
I was also saying that I don't want people to start saying that of Dirk that if he doesn't improve his numbers significantly because alot of people base his talent and how they view him based on his upside too.
04-23-2002, 06:55 PM
yes, he is a very good player... i'd say a top 10-12 player..which is definitely good.
however, i think he is and will continue to be a bit limited on offense.. he doesn't excel in any one area offensively..he's simply average to good in most areas offensively.
is there anything wrong with this?..no, but it will forever keep him from reaching the next level.. he'll probably never be a guy that takes many games over offensively in the playoffs
04-23-2002, 07:24 PM
<< Well I think he probably has hit his plateau, but I still think the guy is tremendous and one of the elite players in the league. People still have a tough time stopping him, he can defend just about every position, he's tremendous. >>
I called him one of the top 10 players in the league. I define that as elite :-)
<< I don't think he's overrated, I'm saying that's the populations perception that he's overrated. >>
Its always hard to get a gauge on this. And there are different categories--is he over-rated by the national media? by the casual fan? by the Minnesota fan? etc. I think that Garnett is over-rated by the casual fan, in large part because up until recently he has been over-rated by the national media.
Now, as is typical for the media, having blown KG's rep higher than he can sustain it, they will turn on him when all he has done is play quality ball.
<< I'm saying I think his exit in the first round of the playoffs has more to do with the inconsistency of his teams more so than it does him. He's been the ONE player whose been there throughout and he gives his all each time and puts up some impressive numbers doing so, I'm sorry I just don't think he's overrated. >>
I agree. One player, even an elite player, is not enough as the Magic are also demonstrating. He needs help. If Marbury had stayed (and I don't care for Marbury, but he is better than anything they have on that team currently), I think they would have already gotten out of the first round.
And as I say, I think we need to define 'over-rated' and by whom. I don't think you have over-rated him in what you have been saying. I am saying that right up until the last month or so, I have heard people--both people I talk to in rl and mediat types, who have claimed KG is one of the top 3 or 4 players. I think that is over-rating him.
<< I was also saying that I don't want people to start saying that of Dirk that if he doesn't improve his numbers significantly because alot of people base his talent and how they view him based on his upside too. >>
True. Although at this point I think Dirk is still slightly under-rated on the national stage because of lack of exposure.
04-23-2002, 08:03 PM
If people are categorizing Garnett as an MVP-type player, then yes he is over-rated, but the guy plays hard, plays well and is one of the top players in the league, so I don't think I would use overrated as a word to describe Garnett.
04-23-2002, 08:03 PM
And by the way...Vescey is a complete and total frigging moron!
04-23-2002, 08:04 PM
Garnett is definitely an MVP type player.
04-23-2002, 08:48 PM
i beileve garnett may be in the top 10 or so in mvp voting..but, i don't see him contending for the mvp
04-23-2002, 08:50 PM
Hales- he is an MVP on his team, but I just don't ever see him winning the league MVP. I am definitely not bashing Garnett here....I think he is as good a player as there is in the league...just not the top 5 or 6 IMHO.
04-23-2002, 09:09 PM
<< I believe Garnett would be a better player if he had a better supporting cast around him. >>
Agree. Not so much overrated as undersupported. And KG is talented enough to LEARN how to assert himself and take over games in the clutch. Mavericks had better bring their A-game defensively against KG in Game 2.
I will confess to having thought Michael Jordan was overrated in the days before Pippen and Grant emerged as first-tier support.
04-23-2002, 09:13 PM
Thank god Vescey said it- and not someone who actually knew his head from his ass. That is such crap I cant even reply. He is a Superstar- Period. Over-rated? OMG.
04-23-2002, 09:17 PM
once again..when people start throwing out terms like star and superstar.. it really depends on what someone's definition of a star or superstar is..
i think kg is a top 10 guy probably..but i wouldn't call him a superstar
04-24-2002, 04:11 AM
I remember at the beginning of the season when the Twolves were 10-2 and in first place in the west. Every analyst was labeling Garnett as the the potential MVP for the 01-02 season. Now its playoff time and Vescey is saying he is overrated.
04-24-2002, 04:46 AM
Vescey annoys me so so much. Like you say, whenever anyone's doing poorly, he bashes them severely. But when they are doing well they are BRILLIANT. There is never a neutral conclusion
04-24-2002, 06:15 PM
Scrack, you're right I remember that as well. However I didn't think he was MVP then, and I don't know. His teams decline at the end of the season STILL doesn't make me think any less of him. I hear people saying on TV, he needs to do more, he disappears. The man almost had 20 pts and 20 rebounds in the first game and his team lost... DAMN, if Raef put those numbers up along with the numbers Dirk puts up, there is NO TEAM that would be us.. NONE!!!!
04-24-2002, 07:07 PM
i think people are overreacting to what others say about kg.
most people are saying that he's a top 10-12 guy..
nothing wrong with that.
it's not disrespecting him...
should others ask him to do more?..well, his defensive numbers were nice ..his rebounds were off the charts in the first game.. however, he didn't do crap offensively
the wolves might have been better served if just about anyone else had taken the shots that kg took in the first game.
now, does that mean that someone else should have the shots?.. no, not at all..he had a bad game offensively.
he'll bounce back
well, maybe not..not if you take a look at his playoff scoring stats
04-24-2002, 07:28 PM
<< ... DAMN, if Raef put those numbers up along with the numbers Dirk puts up, there is NO TEAM that would be us.. NONE!!!! >>
Well, obviously anyone in the league would take Garnett over Raef. The WORST thing that is being said about Garnett is that he may be the greatest second banana to ever play. I don't think that's much of a criticism, and I think it has some value. If you put Garnett, with his passing and defensive abilities, on a team with any of the great scorers in the league (Dirk, Duncan, Pierce, etc) then you would have a championship lock for years to come. Because that's the thing about Garnett: he is a great player. He is not a great scorer. And I think it is likely he never will be.
04-24-2002, 07:40 PM
and it's his lack of scoring that will probably keep him from being a top 5 player..
nothing wrong with it..nothing at all
04-24-2002, 08:10 PM
Solution: Raef and NVE (throw in Esch and Tariq to make #s work) for KG. Win/win. Everyone's happy.
Dallas trades: PG Nick Van Exel (18.4 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 6.6 apg in 34.7 minutes)
SG Tariq Abdul-Wahad (5.6 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 1.0 apg in 18.4 minutes)
C Raef LaFrentz (13.5 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 1.1 apg in 31.5 minutes)
C Evan Eschmeyer (2.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.3 apg in 9.7 minutes)
Dallas receives: SF Kevin Garnett (21.2 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.2 apg in 39.2 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -18.3 ppg, -5.5 rpg, and -3.8 apg.
Minnesota trades: SF Kevin Garnett (21.2 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.2 apg in 39.2 minutes)
Minnesota receives: PG Nick Van Exel (18.4 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 6.6 apg in 72 games)
SG Tariq Abdul-Wahad (5.6 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 1.0 apg in 24 games)
C Raef LaFrentz (13.5 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 1.1 apg in 78 games)
C Evan Eschmeyer (2.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.3 apg in 31 games)
Change in team outlook: +18.3 ppg, +5.5 rpg, and +3.8 apg.
Due to Dallas and Minnesota being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Dallas and Minnesota had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Nash, Fin, KG, Dirk, Mantis....
04-24-2002, 08:31 PM
Change in Dallas team outlook: -18.3 ppg, -5.5 rpg, and -3.8 apg.
This just shows how retarded stats can be sometimes.
04-25-2002, 01:21 AM
If Minnesota would do it, of course Cuban would jump on it. But of course Minnesota wouldn't do it. Garnett might be (and its still not proven) the best second banana in league history but that still makes him worth more than Lafrentz+Van Exel. If Minnesota ever decides to trade Garnett they are going to want a franchise player back.
04-25-2002, 10:16 AM
Listen, Garnett had a bad game one... The man scores 22 points a game, everyone make that seem like that's something to sneeze at. Garnett COULD score more but he does pass the ball alot. (5 assists per game for a big man is OUTSTANDING) If he decided not to pass the ball as much and set other players up, he could score 25 a game. Do I think that Garnett is not capable of average another 3 points more a game???? Second most double-doubles in the NBA behind Duncan, I'm sorry, he is NOT a top 5 guy right now but is he capable, HELL YES!
3. Kobe (I hate putting him here)
04-25-2002, 12:04 PM
thekid..no reason to argue about this..i think we all agree.. kg is a great player..somewhere towards the bottom part of the top 10..
nothing wrong with that.
yes, there are things to criticize..along with any player..
but i think just because some people are focusing on a couple of things he could improve upon doesn't mean that they aren't aware of how good of a player kg is...
04-25-2002, 01:21 PM
I don't have a problem with anyone saying he needs to improve on things. But there are people saying the words OVER-RATED, that should NOT be attached with his name at all, IMO.
04-25-2002, 01:30 PM
if alot of people rate him as top 3-4 player in the league..they are overrating him...
alot of people do overrate him. but..not by much
04-25-2002, 08:17 PM
I think the definition of "over-rated" is at issue here.....not how everyone feels about Garnett. It seems like we all agree KG is a top 10 guy, but to rate him as a top 5 guy might be a stretch. or somesuch.
04-25-2002, 08:40 PM
Ok- here goes. Do you guys agree that Pipen was a top-five player in the championship years when Jordan was on the team? I think most of you do. Did Jordan's game help Pip? HELL YES. That is my point on Garnett. Minny is good, but if you think about it, what other weapon do they have other than Garnett? Szerbiac(sp)? Smith? Come on. Teams can and DO double Garnett all the time- and you cant blame them. I am not making excuses for KG, but you put him on an offense where they cant key on him- and watch those numbers increase- dramatically I might add. Not to mention- he is one of three players EVER who had 20-15-5 three years in a row(info. from the kid)...very very scary...
04-25-2002, 08:55 PM
you act as though this team has nothing offensively other than KG
give me a break..look at the numbers.. they had no problem scoring this year and wally is one of the better #2 options in the NBA.. they had 5 guys that averaged in double digits (even though one was injured for about half the year)..they were one of the best scoring teams in the nba. they are a good shooting team.
This team can score and does have decent options. when is the whining about kg having no supporting cast gonna end?
when will someone take a look at the numbers and justify their claims?
KG averaged what he averaged because that's the type of player he is. he is a good scorer..not among the elite offensively.
no, his supporting cast doesn't compare to what the mavs have..but what team's does compare?
do they have some good scorers on the team? yes. Do they have an all-star that always shoots around or above 50% from the field in wally? Yes.
do they have an additional bigger player that can put some points on the board? yes, joe smith
do they have a couple of guards that can score at a good clip besides wally? yes..brandon and billups (yes, i know brandon is hurt)
quit acting like he has no supporting cast..
04-25-2002, 09:01 PM
When you compare what KG has with what say ...Dirk has....it makes it look like a weaker supporting class, but KG has some damn good teammates.
04-25-2002, 09:28 PM
I am just saying Smith & Wally dont scares teams. They dont put the fear of god in the teams playing them. Sure they will score- they play pro ball in the NBA. BUT- they dont scare you to a point where teams say "we cant double garnett- smith or wally will be us". Sure, Smith and Wally will beat you once and a while, but not enough where teams fear them. JMHO
04-25-2002, 09:34 PM
When I think of Great teams- I think of teams that have at least ONE more GREAT weapon besides their SUPERSTAR. Bostons teams had Bird, but stop him (not a chance), they had Mchale,Parrish,Johnson,etc...Stop Magic, Jabbar,Worthy,Silk,cooper would kill u..Jordan- well, Pip could hurt ya...Stop Shaq now and Kobe will kill u....Dallas- Stop Dirk- you can still lose by 20 with Fin,NVE,Nash,etc... I just cant put smith and wally as those type of supporting casts...
04-25-2002, 10:03 PM
wally is one of the better second options in the NBA today.
much better than you are giving him credit for
One big thing.... KG isn't near the scorer as many of the guys that you would put in the superstar category.
how does he compare offensively to any of the leading scorers for championship teams of the past decade?
not very well
one of minnesota's main problems is that their "superstar" isn't nearly as good of a scorer as most "superstars"
wally would look like a much better scoring option if KG was capable of consistantly taking over a game offensively
you're putting KG in a classification in which he doesn't deserve to be in
04-26-2002, 12:58 AM
<< When I think of Great teams- I think of teams that have at least ONE more GREAT weapon besides their SUPERSTAR. Bostons teams had Bird, but stop him (not a chance), they had Mchale,Parrish,Johnson,etc...Stop Magic, Jabbar,Worthy,Silk,cooper would kill u..Jordan- well, Pip could hurt ya...Stop Shaq now and Kobe will kill u....Dallas- Stop Dirk- you can still lose by 20 with Fin,NVE,Nash,etc... I just cant put smith and wally as those type of supporting casts... >>
That's true. And I don't think that's in disagreement with anything anyone else is saying. First, look at your examples--in several of the cases, you are pointing out that the 'superstar' (Bird, Magic) was backed up by at least one Hall of Famer. In other cases (contemporary LA, Dallas) you may not be talking about Hall of Famers as the 'sidekicks' but you are talking about players who are in the top 5 for their position in the league. So yes, pair Garnett with any other top player in the league (and I mean top player--Duncan, Kobe, Pierce, Dirk, Iverson--not just an all-star like Wally) and you are talking a contender.
But the rest of those top players who come to mind are scorers. And that is not where Garnett's strength is. Ask yourself, take a list of your top 10 players, now, is ther *any* of them that you wouldn't rather have taking the last second, game winning shot more than Garnett? He doesn't have a single 'go-to' move down in the post. He can score in the post but when he does, its because of his incredible natural athletic ability--he's 7ft, long arms, soft hands, fast feet--and not because of any extraordinary skill (see the Big Fundamental for a contrast). The same thing with his jumpshot. He can shoot over anybody and he has good hand-eye coordination, but no one is ever going to confuse his shot with Ray Allen's, Dirk's, Peja's, etc. That leaves penetration. And again, he is a very good ball-handler for a 7-footer, he's as good as most small forwards who are 4-6 inches shorter than him. But he's not as good as a guard. Dirk is averaging 3! steals a game in this series. And most of those are against Garnett.
My point is that what Garnett is great at is everything in the game but scoring--rebounding, passing, defense. His total physical ability makes him a good scorer, but he is not a great scorer--and it is even a reflection of his talent and his game intelligence that he knows what he can do and what he can't do and so he normally makes good decisions about when to go for his own points and when to give it up. But every other top 10, 15 player in the league is a great scorer. Pairing Garnett with any of them would make each of them a better scorer, but pairing them with Garnett wouldn't make him a better scorer; I really doubt his points per game would go up much--but his assists would. And that is what I, at least, mean when I say that Garnett may be the greatest sidekick of all time.
Kobe, without Shaq, Dirk without Nash, Fin, and you'all would be saying the same thing.
Basketball is a team sport, did someone forget this? KG is a great player, I personally don't like Wally puss, but he is a great player as well. One player can not carry a team. Not even two, i.e. Lekers, it takes 12, 26 counting all our coaching assistants to make it work. It helps of course when you have a Shaq, but even he can't do it alone..............
KG just needs the right team=other players. Simple. Quit bashing the guy! He's one of the greats. We are lucky, we have 6-10 of the next greatest to be over the next few years.
04-26-2002, 10:23 AM
Meister you hit on a point. You're talking about other players who are top five at their position...
That's my point...
After Dirk, the Mavs have other players that are probably in the top five at their position.
KG... he doesn't! So yes he has a supporting cast but it's not that strong. Wally as good as he is is NOT one of the top five shooting guards (IMO), Billups, HELL NO, Joe Smith, NOPE, Nastorovich, should be but he's not, and from that point on it goes down hill.
That's what I'm saying... I'm not saying he has no supporting cast because that's just a flat out LIE, but does he have the supporting cast that will get help him get over that hurdle. I think someone said it on this board, Marbury alot of people don't like but someone with his talent, would make ALL the difference in the world. It opens things up MUCH MORE!!!!
04-26-2002, 10:26 AM
what i'm saying is that kobe,dirk,shaq,duncan.. all of these guys are a level above kg offensively
put those guys in the same situation as kg and they are more successful offensively
04-26-2002, 12:34 PM
All that says to me is that those players are better, which is the case, but that doesn't mean that KG isn't on superstar level...
04-26-2002, 12:38 PM
This whole discussion might be a little clearer if we stop using the 'superstar' term either way. I mean there actually seems to be a lot of agreement on the more objective standard: Garnett is a top 10 player, not a top 5 player. If there's a difference on superstar it seems to be on those who define superstar as top 5 and those who define it as top 10.
04-26-2002, 04:24 PM
absolutely Hoops...well said.
04-26-2002, 06:29 PM
you guys are right- there are better superstar "scorers" than Garnett. Does that mean Garnett is not a superstar? Hell no..Plus- Garnett has advantanges over them in other areas...ex. Rebounding. BLOCKS. Good passing big man...etc....That more than makes up for his lack of great scoring games...
04-26-2002, 06:47 PM
no reeds, it simply doesn't
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.