Kevin Garnett finished 2nd in the 2003 MVP voting, 17 first place votes short of the winner, Tim Duncan. This was Duncan’s 2nd MVP, back to back, and he was arguably the best player in the world at that point. Now these were 2 all time great seasons and the players were similar in a lot of ways (not stylistically). Both being defensive juggernauts who were the primary scoring options for their team, controlled a lot of the offense and were responsible for a lot of playmaking. Both the players were insanely impactful to their teams and have really strong cases to be the MVP to me. Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Shaquille O’Neal and Ben Wallace (!) also received some first place votes. However it was mainly a 2 horse race between Garnett and Duncan.
Here’s why I think KG should’ve been the 2003 MVP.
Kevin Garnett in the 2002/03 season averaged 23.6 Points per 75 on +3.4% rTS. He averaged 6 assists, 13 rebounds and was one of the best defenders of all time. His movement, passing and scoring threat made him one of the best big men playmakers of all time, and was also an elite playmaker in the league. Literally running an entire offense as a 7 footer.
He’s one of the most unique and versatile players of all time, possibly the player who impacts the game in more ways than any player ever. The Minnesota Timberwolves desperately needed his versatile skillset and do it all type of style because of how little talent the team had. They were simply not a good team at all, the personnel and roster construction wasn’t good and did not complement Garnett’s skillset and traits at all. Despite the roster problems, KG was able to provide historic lift, the Wolves finished with a 51-31 record and a +2.46 SRS in the 2002-03 NBA season. They finished 4th in the league behind the Spurs, Mavericks and Kings and this is really impressive considering the team.
So why is the record so impressive and how was KG’s supporting cast?
2002-03 Minnesota Timberwolves (outside of KG)
- Wally Szczerbiak (52 games)
- Troy Hudson
- Rasho Nesterovic
- Anthony Peeler
- Kendal Gill
- Joe Smith (54 games)
- Rod Strickland (47 games)
- Gary Trent
- Marc Jackson
This cast of players was not great at all. Wally was a good shooter, but not great at creating his own shot or for teammates, nor was he good defensively. The Wolves lost Terrell Brandon and Chauncey Billups from the previous season, so they had to bring in Troy Hudson and a 36 year old Rod Strickland for their point guard rotation. This was Troy’s first season starting and Rod was washed up by that point. Troy was a fine scorer and playmaker, though not good enough to run the offense by himself. He was also not a good defender, and this is a common theme here, the players outside of Garnett were not good defenders. Peeler and Gill weren’t good defenders either. Rasho was fine defensively, although his offense wasn’t great. This team lacked shooting, they finished 27th in 3PA, awful roster construction considering how good of a passer and playmaker Garnett was. The team didn’t have great passers or decision makers and were also thin on scoring. Heck, they were thin on players. For most of the year they had no backup point guard, Wally got injured and missed the last 20 games, while also being out for the first 10 or so. Their big man rotation sucked, their wing rotation sucked, there was simply not many NBA calibre players. Flip Saunders was a very innovative coach, however I’m not sure how good he was. Especially on defense.
Offensive Impact
With all these roster problems, Garnett played the point forward role on offense as a 7 footer and was responsible for most of the decision making and playmaking. Kevin was an excellent passer and decision maker. He was the offensive hub of the team, bringing the ball up a lot, coordinating the entire offense from the perimeter and post and creating a lot of open shots. The Wolves took advantage of him being one of the best passers in the league and one of the most athletic players of all time, he was a proper initiator who also did a lot of his scoring on and off the ball. A great post game, though the scoring wasn’t that elite. A lot of jumpshots, his inability to get to the line with ease hurt his efficiency a bit. He wasn’t that physical in the post, but so crafty and great footwork to make up for it. He was incredible off ball, amazing at finishing plays. Whether it was shooting off the catch, offensive rebounding, rim running or quick catch and attacks. Also one of the better decision makers in the league, once he got the ball in the high post, it was either in the hands of an open shooter or in the hands of a ball handler where Garnett was setting a screen. The amount of versatility in his offensive game was ridiculous.
His playmaking and overall offensive impact is very underrated by most, he was creating a lot of shots for his team with the amount of defensive attention he demanded in the post and his ability to perfectly set up teammates with elite passing. The idea of KG being the primary decision maker surrounded by shooters is amazing… except the Wolves really did not have the best 3 point shooting to complement his playmaking skills. The average team took around 16 3 pointers per 100 possessions, compare this to the Wolves who only took 11. This team didn’t have the best finishers either, so Garnett’s layup passes weren’t converted at the rate you’d like.
The Wolves shot profile wasn’t that pretty, over 60% of their shots came from the mid range (league average was about 50%). Garnett did take a lot of those mid range shots, but surrounding him with guys who weren’t primarily 3 point snipers and elite off ball players feels criminal. Even with these roster problems, Garnett was an elite playmaker. He averaged 6 assists a night and even this underrates his actual playmaking value. We ignore things like: the amount of space he was creating with his shooting threat and perimeter style, his off ball capabilities adding more dimensions to the offense, him often taking away the rim protector of the opposing team which allowed his team to get better shots at the rim, his decision making and how quick it was. KG had very efficient offensive tendencies, not holding the ball for long, quick processing and moving to screen/space which created advantages for his team, shooting value, etc.
Playmaking and the ability to initiate the offense is, in my opinion, a clear advantage Garnett had over Duncan that season. The Wolves in 2003 were the 5th best offense in the league despite having a very uninspiring group of players. Scroll up to have a look at the players they had, I’m not sure if people would expect that group of players surrounding 1 man to be an elite offense. To add to that, consider the fact that his second best offensive teammate only played 50 games. That is really insane. KG’s teammates efficiency and scoring rate both fell off a lot when KG was not playing with them (smaller sample), this is expected because of how rough the offense was without Garnett to create easy looks for others.
Duncan on the other hand, although being a very good playmaker, was clearly inferior to Garnett with the number of shots he created and how valuable his offensive tendencies and skillset was. Duncan averaged about 4 assists a night, and was a worse passer. I think you can say he demanded equal if not more defensive attention, but his ability to provide space and open up the court for teammates isn’t as good as Garnett’s. He was also a worse off ball player and a less willing passer (although very willing himself).
Looking at Garnett and Duncan’s scoring, I think it’s fair to say Duncan had the clear edge this season. He scored 26.2 Points per 75 on +4.6% compared to Garnett’s 23.6 on +3.6%. Duncan’s high free throw rate, more physical post style of play allowed him to score more and more efficiently. While Duncan was clearly the better scorer here, I do want to say: helping your team score better is definitely more important than scoring yourself. And I think a player’s playmaking and creation (in all forms) holds more value than a player’s scoring.
That being said, here’s some +/- data and impact metrics which measure their offensive impact at a global level and not only from the box:
- With Garnett on the floor the Wolves were a +4.7 offense
- With Garnett off the floor the Wolves were a -11.1 offense
- +4.7 Scaled Adjusted Offensive +/- per game
- +4.91 Offensive PIPM
These are all signs of insanely good lift and value. I mean the team was a -11.1 offense when Garnett sat. When you get into the lineup combinations, it points to Garnett being insanely valuable.
Duncan’s +/- stats paint him to be a little less valuable on this end, he has slightly worse impact metrics and his offensive swing is lower. Duncan’s Scaled Adjusted +/- is at +2.2 and his Offensive PIPM is at +3.83. Now it is important to know, these stats are noisy, especially in single season samples. Lineups, who you’re replaced by, quality of teammates all heavily influence this. It’s simply measuring their value in their role relative to their teams construction, not how good the player actually was independent to his team. That’s kinda what we’re getting to though, Garnett’s teams were actually much worse than Duncan’s, and he possibly provided more lift to his team than Duncan did to his.
I think there’s more to looking at just their box scores, and Garnett’s versatility and shot creation for teammates allows him to help his teams at historic levels. And what makes it even more impressive is, these teams are laughably bad when Garnett sits. KG’s perimeter point forward, facilitating and off ball hybrid style clearly generated great results. Even if they weren’t fully captured by the box score, +/- data clearly points to him being super impactful. The Wolves were 11 points below average when Garnett sat on offense, shows how bad the cast was. And there’s some obvious noise with the data, Garnett playing with a lot of the main units, playing so damn much and others not getting as many minutes without Garnett affects this. But then again you watch the Wolves and see how much KG impacted this team offensively.
I also want to talk about Duncan’s offense and how important it was to his team. I’ve talked about how the 2003 Wolves lacked talent, and actually the Spurs were in a similar situation. Their offense and roster wasn’t that great either on offense. Tim Duncan was responsible for a lot of their scoring, especially from the post. He was great at drawing fouls, getting post position, banging hard for easy shots. Great footwork, a good face up game, a lot of counters and strength down play which made it really hard for defenders. He had a good mid range game, especially short mid range. A great offensive rebounder and a really physical player. He put so much scoring pressure on opponents which opened up playmaking opportunities, despite some passing holes. He was definitely a good passer, not an elite one though. He created a lot of shots for teammates with kickouts when doubled in the post, had a good feel for interior dimes, though lacked consistency. Had some minor vision problems but they really didn’t affect his playmaking as much.
Sophomore Tony Parker was on that team, and he was actually pretty good already. Not that good a shooter or as developed a passer yet, but he was a pretty nice self creator who could get to the basket and finish very well. A good playmaker too which definitely helped. A 37 year old David Robinson was there, not involved in the offense as much anymore but could still finish plays and pass a bit. He didn’t actually hold much offensive value though. Bowen was a good shooter, especially from the corners but lacked any ball skills. Stephen Jackson had some scoring value on this team, but he really wasn’t a great offensive player. Rookie Manu Ginobili was there, but he wasn’t as good just yet, he didn’t add much value to the team. All in all, this Spurs team outside of Duncan weren’t that great offensively, and as a result Duncan had to ceiling raise the offense quite a bit with his post scoring style.
The Spurs with Duncan on the floor were a +3.6 offense. And without him they were a -7 offense. Really historic lift by Duncan, but his teams offenses weren’t reaching the heights Minnesota did with KG and they weren’t as bad as Minnesota without KG either. I think so much of this is pointing to the same thing, Garnett was more valuable offensively to his team than Duncan was to his.
Defensive Impact
Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan didn’t help their teams on offense nearly as much as they did on defense. Both were all time great defenders, I think of them as the 2 best defenders of the 21st century and top 5-10 defenders of all time. Both were incredible on that end but very different stylistically and helped their teams in very different ways.
Starting off with Garnett, his defensive value and role on the team. KG in 2003 had one of his best defensive years of his career, with him being an all time great athlete, defensive mind, having an all time great motor, being one of the most versatile defenders ever. He covered so much ground with insane mobility, size and a very high revving motor. He had an insane agility and quickness for a guy his size, his roaming ability and court coverage was crazy. Garnett’s instincts and processing speed was incredible, this along with his length and athleticism made him one of the greatest help defenders ever. He was helping off the ball so much, making the court smaller and shots harder to get for the opposition. The quickness and frequency of his rotations is at an all time great level, him rotating so early lowered the efficiency of possessions and made life tougher for the offense. Him being in the right spots at the right time, and with his frame and size, teams had to take other offensive routes to get off shots. This off ball defensive ability outside the paint was truly unprecedented for a 7 footer as most guys that tall were usually in the paint mainly protecting the rim. Garnett was affecting shots at a really high rate even before the play truly developed. To complement his off ball defense outside the paint, he was also an all time great rim protector and paint defender. Again everything about his instincts, awareness, quickness, size, leaping ability applies here. KG was a really quick leaper, had a really long wingspan and had amazing timing which made him really good at altering and blocking shots. He was always making sound backline rotations to prevent easy shots at the rim and he didn’t make many mistakes either.
His mobility allowed him to be a super effective pick and roll defender and really versatile schematically. The Wolves used him in a lot of different roles that season (although they were a lot more traditional than previous years). He played minutes at the small forward, power forward and center slot. His inability to switch onto guards and bigs was incredible. Kevin Garnett is also one of the best man defenders and most versatile defenders of all time. I think he was legitimately spending time on most positions and players, often switching onto them and picking them up when he needed to (even if it wasn’t as frequent as younger KG because of the weight he added). His defense in the post was incredible, that size, strength, length really made it difficult to get clean shots against.
His versatility on defense, really the ability to do everything at a very high level helped the Timberwolves a lot. A team that did not have great defenders at all, really got saved by Garnett’s all time great defensive prowess. Troy Hudson, Wally Szczerbiak, Anthony Peeler weren’t good defenders at all. Slow footed players who struggled to stay infront of their man and provide any resistance on the perimeter. Didn’t really affect plays off the ball and weren’t that smart either. Garnett really had to cover for these guys, mostly on his own. Rash was a good defender, but that’s really it if I’m being honest. That defensive cast was awful and Garnett was carrying some of the largest defensive loads ever.
His defensive profile combined with role on the Wolves is reflected in the team results and on/off data.
- The Timberwolves with Garnett on the floor were a -1.2 defense
- The Timberwolves with Garnett off the floor were a +7.1 defense
- Garnett had a +2.5 Scaled Defensive Adjusted +/-
To put this into perspective (remember negative defense means good), the Wolves were a top 10 defense with KG was playing and the worst defense in the league when he sat. Even with taking into account the lineups, bench units being awful, bad defensive coaching, this is incredible impact and really shows how hard KG was carrying these teams on that end too.
Moving on to Duncan, his defensive style was a lot different to Garnett’s. He was more of a traditional center staying more in the paint and being close to the rim at most times. His standing reach, length, discipline, IQ, timing made him one of the best rim protectors of all time. The guy was really, really tall and could alter, deter and block any shot around the rim. His mobility is also underrated, though he wasn’t as active outside the paint and especially not close to KG. He was probably a little slower in help situations than KG, but his size and length made up for it. His man defense was very good, being one of the best post defenders ever. He wasn’t that versatile when switching however, not like he needed to do it anyways.
His presence in the paint made the Spurs one of the best paint protecting teams of all time, and his ability to do a little bit of everything else to a good extent made them one of the best defenses in the league. He lead the third best defense in the league that year, much better than Garnett’s Wolves. But here’s the thing we need to contextualize, Duncan’s help on defense and supporting cast was also far better than what KG had around him. I think he was aided a lot by having David Robinson, who was 36 years old and played fewer minutes, but was still a very good defender. And by very good I mean he was clearly and by far better than anyone Garnett had on defense, his impact on defense for the 26 minutes he played was at a high level. His rim protection, paint coverage and communication all made him a very good complement to Duncan. Another amazing defender was Bruce Bowen, one of the best man defenders of all time, he was by far the best perimeter defender out of the Wolves and Spurs. The whole team had good defensive pieces who really helped Duncan and complemented his paint defense very well. Also a big difference, Gregg Popovic. One of the best coaches of all time compared to Flip Saunders, who wasn’t really considered a good defensive coach.
Duncan’s defensive impact comes out to be a little lower than Garnett’s, relative to the team situation, due to these reasons. I think Garnett’s versatility and ability to do literally everything, along with being an all time great rim protector (worse than Tim) was insanely valuable. Him also playing with worse defenders makes his value higher.
The Spurs were a -5.1 defense when Duncan was on the court. That would be the 2nd best defense in the league. And with Duncan off the court they were a -0.8 defense, right in the middle of the league. Compare this to the Timerwolves, this unit without Duncan is far far better than the unit without KG. Look at the on/off data, watch the teams play with and without their star players, watch the players on defense, consider everything and I think it’s pointing to KG probably adding more defensive value than Duncan. Obviously there is noise with stuff like this and it shouldn’t be taken at face value, but it’s pretty clear to me how good the Spurs defensive cast was compared to the Wolves and how much TD and KG had to do on defense.
Kevin Garnett in the 2002-03 provided some of the greatest lift to his team we have ever seen. Really made a god awful team on both ends into a 50 win team with his unique impact. Tim Duncan also had some of the best impact of all time, but I do think, as explained in the article, KG was actually helping his team more on both ends by a little bit. Remember this is with respect to their teams situation in the regular season and not just the players themselves.
Boardman 