Is Garnett a clutch player?

[Lurker]

I have been tossing this idea around in my head for a while (lots of room up there for it to bounce around).  DRob was often criticized for not raising his game in the playoffs.  Mostly IMO because he played at what he considered his highest level all the time.  IS KG the same type of player?  One who plays with the same intensity in November as he does in May? 

Bill Simmons has written an article that takes this point of view and expresses it better than I probably ever could.

THE SPORTS GUY
Let's play word association: KG. Warrior? Sure. 2008 MVP? Maybe. Clutch? Eh.
by Bill Simmons

During the last few minutes of Game 6 of Boston's second-round series with Cleveland, poor Kevin Garnett looked like Forrest Gump right after Jenny pulled her top down in her dorm room. On one play, the ball swung to KG at the foul line; no Cav was within 10 feet of him. Strangely, he panicked, thinking about shooting an open J before realizing, Wait, I'm seven feet tall, that would be dumb, and barreling toward the basket to rush a clumsy jump hook. For a former MVP who makes $22 million a year, it was an astoundingly incompetent sequence.

It also wasn't a surprise. Garnett's crunch-time woes have been the dirty little secret of this storybook Celtics season. Sure, he saved the franchise and made the C's relevant again. He's also the reason they might not win the 2008 championship. Put simply, Garnett shrinks from pressure more times than he comes through. The NBA is a simple league to figure out: In a playoff series, the best player prevails unless his supporting cast is significantly inferior to the other team's. So when Boston's best player can't dominate close games against a quality opponent ? um, that's a problem.

Fans spend an inordinate amount of time analyzing the mental makeup of their favorite players, so you can only imagine how many hours I've spent thinking about Garnett. After all, I'm the same guy who once wasted an entire afternoon trying to figure out Hickory High's box score in that final game in Hoosiers. (If you care, I had Chitwood down for 30 on 14-of-18 shooting.) The intriguing wrinkle with Garnett is he plays differently down the stretch by not playing differently. Selfless and passionate for 48 minutes a game, eight months a year, he can't raise his game because it's already raised. Like Nigel Tufnel's guitar, he's already up to 11.

Sometimes, when Garnett's adrenaline kicks in during crunch time it's like watching a diabetic in the midst of a sugar rush. His body can't handle it. When he succeeds, he loses his mind, pounding his chest, belting out profanities and hollering at the crowd like a crazy person. When he fails (and it's happened a few times this season), his mistakes are unbelievably amateurish?intentional fouls when the team doesn't need them, taking too many steps on his signature fall-away, that kind of stuff. The pressure gets to him. You can see it. In Game 4 of the first-round series with Atlanta, after a near-altercation with Zaza Pachulia, the camera found KG on the bench and he was practically hyperventilating.

Now, Garnett isn't the only NBA star who has struggled in big moments. Wilt was famous for it. The Mailman choked so many times I once wrote, "You know you're watching ESPN Classic if it's 2 a.m. and Karl Malone looks like he's about to throw up." David Robinson was an extremely nice guy who played like one in big games.

C-Webb passed the basketball like it was a hand grenade in the clutch. Clyde Drexler always seemed like he'd just downed too much caffeine. Even one of my favorite Celtics, Kevin McHale, got the yips. In Game 2 of the 1984 Finals, his legs shook after he missed that free throw before Gerald Henderson's famous steal.

The list of guys who came up short is as endless as the one of those who repeatedly came through in the clutch (Michael Jordan, Sam Jones, Reggie Miller, Dennis Johnson, Robert Horry, Larry Legend ? ). The question is, how do you end up on one list or the other? What makes for clutch? Is it part of your DNA, or something that's honed through experience and repetition?

Here's my answer: It's both. One of the most fascinating things about Jordan's career wasn't that he nailed the title-winning shot against Georgetown as a freshman, but that Dean Smith called the play for him. If someone is born with ice water in his veins, you know it. Smith knew it. Then again, get enough reps with anything in life, and you're more likely to succeed. Trying not to sound nervous when I started to do TV and radio a few years ago, I'd overthink and make myself nervous, battling a rush of adrenaline right before my segment started. I've learned to channel that energy now?I can speak in front of large crowds and everything. Why? Because I got my reps.

How far can experience actually get you in matters of clutchness? After Garnett jumped from high school to the NBA, he played eight years without ever getting past the first round. Fellow high schooler Kobe Bryant landed on a talented Lakers team, failing famously as a rookie (remember his hideous air balls that ended the series against the Jazz in 1997?), then getting swept by the '98 Jazz and '99 Spurs. Name me one memorable Kobe moment from his first three springs. You can't. But 28 meaningful playoff games provided him with valuable pressurized situations. By the time the 2000 postseason rolled around, Kobe was asserting himself, capping it off with an MJ moment in Game 4 of the Finals for a championship team.

By contrast, poor Garnett was trapped on lousy and half-decent teams until 2004, when he carried the Timberwolves to the Western Conference finals, submitting an ESPN Classic game of his own against the Kings (32 points, 21 rebounds in Game 7) in the second round. But just when it seemed as if he was getting the hang of clutch, Minnesota imploded, missing the playoffs in its next three seasons with KG. Now he's slightly past his prime. Can you blame him for not being clutch when he never got those reps in his formative years? Probably not. Think of his career like a video game: Spend a ton of time playing Grand Theft Auto, and you're much more likely to complete a mission than some guy who doesn't own a PS3, right?

Fair or unfair, Garnett will always be measured against Tim Duncan, who has already carried the Spurs to four titles. It's easy to forget now that TD had his own blips and stumbles along the way, or that he played in 71 playoff games before famously demolishing the Nets with a 21/20/10 line in the clincher of the 2003 Finals. Wired very much like Garnett?completely selfless, phenomenally competitive, thoughtful as a teammate?Duncan learned to channel his intensity, saving peak performances for when they mattered most. He figured out that there was a crucial difference between a ho-hum January game in Atlanta and a must-win playoff game in LA. He's clearly developed a reliable mental alert: All right, unless I grab 20 rebounds tonight, we're going to lose. Or: If I don't take over this game right now and score every time down the floor, we're cooked.

Bill Russell had that switch. So did MJ, Bird and Magic. Well, Garnett doesn't have it. Like every other Celtics fan, I've been looking for it, waiting for it ? and it's just not there. A wonderful all-around player, ultimately he's only as good as his teammates. Even during the emotional Game 7 victory over Cleveland, Garnett was nearly invisible down the stretch. So if we can't find a way to stick him with Kobe, LeBron or someone of that ilk, he's probably not getting a ring unless Paul Pierce has a few more 41-point explosions in him.

And we can think about what might've happened if he'd somehow switched places with Duncan back in 1997 and gotten all those playoff reps. Maybe things would have been different for Kevin Garnett.

Maybe.

[Derek Bodner]

It amazes me that Garnett is averaging 21/10 on 52% shooting in the playoffs and he's getting an article written about him like this when Ray Allen is averaging 13 ppg on 39% shooting making $16 million.

For what it's worth, Garnetts career playoff stats (22 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.7 bpg) are better across the board than his regular season stats (20.4 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 4.4 apg, 1.6 bpg).

I think people expect him to step up and be a dominant scorer who takes over games with his offense down the stretch, when that's never been his game.  People confuse that with not being "clutch".

[westkoast]

It amazes me that Garnett is averaging 21/10 on 52% shooting in the playoffs and he's getting an article written about him like this when Ray Allen is averaging 13 ppg on 39% shooting making $16 million.

For what it's worth, Garnetts career playoff stats (22 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.7 bpg) are better across the board than his regular season stats (20.4 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 4.4 apg, 1.6 bpg).

I think people expect him to step up and be a dominant scorer who takes over games with his offense down the stretch, when that's never been his game.  People confuse that with not being "clutch".

That is the problem with being the best player on a team that has high expectations.  In Minny this never came up because the Wolves were never expected to do much.  Now that Boston looks like a team that could hoist up the trophy he is expected to score every single trip down going 10/10 in the final 3 minutes.


You bring up a great point about "clutch".  People were saying Pierce is a clutch player for his offense against the Cavs.  They had a bunch of articles after game 7 saying that he finally shed his 'not clutch' label.  That I disagree with it.  I don't think he's clutch.  I think he had a good game 7.  If he was "clutch" he wouldn't have let Chauncey Billups get that layup last night.  That is one part of KGs game that people over look that actually is clutch, his defense.  He's came up big making key defensive plays when his team has needed it (for the most part)

[Lurker]

It amazes me that Garnett is averaging 21/10 on 52% shooting in the playoffs and he's getting an article written about him like this when Ray Allen is averaging 13 ppg on 39% shooting making $16 million.

For what it's worth, Garnetts career playoff stats (22 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.7 bpg) are better across the board than his regular season stats (20.4 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 4.4 apg, 1.6 bpg).

I think people expect him to step up and be a dominant scorer who takes over games with his offense down the stretch, when that's never been his game.  People confuse that with not being "clutch".

He also plays 41.5 minutes per game in playoffs vs 38 for the regular season.  So if you standardize his stats to 48 minutes then he doesn't step up for the playoffs. 

Per 48 minutes Reg/Playoff:
Points  25.84   25.45
Reb     14.18   14.46
Assts    5.57     5.32
Blks      2.03     1.97


Maybe using "clutch" to define this is the wrong word.  But I remember DRob being constantly criticized for not taking his playoff game to a new level.  And I think that is what Simmons is getting at.  Kobe takes his game to another level.  Jordan did.  Even Simmons says that Duncan does.  His point is that KG does not shift to a higher level.

[Derek Bodner]

Per 48 minutes Reg/Playoff:

I'm not a particularly firm believer in PER48 and just assuming that his production would stay the same.  Nor do I really think you should expect KG to score more than 22-23 ppg, as that's simply never been his greatest attribute.  That's the whole point of Boston and why it could/should work.  Boston has scorers to go to down the stretch so KG can excel at what he excels at.  If there's a problem scoring down the stretch, then Pierce and Allen shoulder that blame.  Outside of the last 3 games for Pierce, they've both been very bad.  I mean, during a 3 game span Ray Allen averaged 7.3 ppg.  That's where the failure's coming.

His point is that KG does not shift to a higher level.

If you're talking about offense, yes, because he's not a dominant offensive player.  I think KG's defense does generally get notched up in the playoffs.

[Skandery]

I'm in agreement with Derek here.  I mean there's more to basketball than scoring but generally at the end of a close game and if you're the star, unless you score, you are labled by the general populace as "not clutch". 

To me one of the most clutch players in ALL of basketball is Tayshaun Prince.  If you need a guy to get that one deflection, that one block, make that one good pass for a momentum swinging dunk in the closing seconds of a game, Tayshaun is the guy to do it.  But I'll bet very few NBA fans would label Tayshaun Prince "clutch". 

The perception that scoring is the ONLY thing you can do to make sure your team wins at the end of a close game is what hurts Garnett.  Because as has been stated, scoring is nowhere near the most valuable thing Garnett brings to the table.  Now he will never, EVER, NEVER, NEVER throw up a 4 point stinker (here is looking at you Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, etc.), he is much too skilled and too consistent to do that.  At the same time he's not going to score 20 points in the 4th quarter to steal a win.

 

[Reality]

^^ and Bob Horry.  Tipped passes, screens, bodychecks, back adjustments.
Bob does it all.

[WayOutWest]

^^ and Bob Horry.  Tipped passes, screens, bodychecks, back adjustments.
Bob does it all.

Horry is considered clutch because of his offense, his 3 point shooting in particular.

[Wolverine]

bodychecks, back adjustments.

Okay, I have to admit, THAT was funny.

[rickortreat]

Absolutely Garnett is a clutch player.  But Pierce is the scorer that you have to stop to derail Boston. 

Kevin doesn't step it up in the playoffs, because he consistently plays at a high level.  The players who seem to play at a higher level in the playoffs are slackers, because they don't put forth the same effort in the regular season.

But Kevin isn't the player to get you that last shot in a game, so he won't ever be known as clutch.

[westkoast]

Absolutely Garnett is a clutch player.  But Pierce is the scorer that you have to stop to derail Boston. 

Kevin doesn't step it up in the playoffs, because he consistently plays at a high level.  The players who seem to play at a higher level in the playoffs are slackers, because they don't put forth the same effort in the regular season.

But Kevin isn't the player to get you that last shot in a game, so he won't ever be known as clutch.

I have five reasons to disagree with you:

Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Paul Pierce, and  Chris Paul.

[rickortreat]

Absolutely Garnett is a clutch player.  But Pierce is the scorer that you have to stop to derail Boston. 

Kevin doesn't step it up in the playoffs, because he consistently plays at a high level.  The players who seem to play at a higher level in the playoffs are slackers, because they don't put forth the same effort in the regular season.

But Kevin isn't the player to get you that last shot in a game, so he won't ever be known as clutch.

I have five reasons to disagree with you:

Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Paul Pierce, and  Chris Paul.

I'm not sure what you're point is.  They are all clutch players and they all bring it every night.  And I'd like all of them to take the last shot in the game for a winner over KG.

Incidentally, Duncan is NOT who the Spurs go to when they need a basket at the end.  TD is a lousy free-throw shooter, and Parker is small, which means that it's less likely that they will call a foul if he gets hit on that last play.  That's why the Spurs use Manu.

Additionally, why would you give the ball to KG in that situation, if you have Paul Pierce on your team?

With all that said, I'd still want KG there under the basket when Paul takes his shot!