Can KG be the best scorer on a championship team?

[Roy Hobbs]

I know most people ignore the "CB draft" threads, but in there, there's a debate going on whether KG can be the #1 scorer on a good team.

The reasoning:

1) KG didn't lead the Celtics in scoring during the 2008 season;

2) As a lead scorer, the Twolves generally lost in the first round, and only once advanced far into the playoffs;

3) If KG leads the team in scoring this season, we're doomed.

The counter-argument:

1) KG only finished 0.8 points behind Pierce during the regular season in the 2008 season;

2) KG led all Celtics in scoring, and fourth quarter scoring, in the playoffs.  He was also 2nd in field goal percentage among rotation players;

3) He was able to carry Minnesota to the Western Conference Finals as a leading scorer, and league MVP, in 2004.

4) So long as the rest of the roster is healthy, KG leading the team in scoring would be a very good thing, and would bode well for our chances at a title.

Thoughts?  I side firmly with the counter-argument, but I guess some folks bought into the recent "KG is overrated" article by Charlie Rosen.  Championships don't count for much any more, I guess.

[indeedproceed]

Add to the reasoning that KG's scoring has never been the calling card of his game. While he was far from an elite scorer last year at 15.8 points, he was still an elite defender and rebounder.

If KG scores 20 ppg it will be the first time in 3 years. He's on the wrong side of 30 to be making a comeback to his prime scoring days...but he's on the right side of 30 to remain the best man to man defender and top 3 rebounder in the league.

[PosImpos]

The counter argument is much stronger, in my opinion.

The fact that he scored as much as he did during our championship run pretty much puts to rest the question of whether we can win when he is the leading scorer.  

Would we have won the title if Pierce had scored one fewer basket a game and KG one more basket?  Of course.

[zerophase]

You cannot correlate his scoring averages directly to his team's performance. He was the best scorer on the TWolves and had to score every game. Therefore you cannot say that his scoring average lead to a first round exit or the conference finals- you must also look at the opponents, match ups, and team mates. It's faulty cause and effect if you do not.

As far as the Celtics go, I don't think he can be the leading scorer because of the way he scores. Usually high scorers in this decade shoot 3 pointers (exclude Shaq). In the post he is usually doubled and we cannot affirmatively say he is currently the best player on our team. In order to rate KG, you should not look at his personal statistics but rather his on court impact.

[Redz]

Could he, yes, I suppose so.

Should he?  Not so sure it would be in the best interest of the Celts, unless his scoring is coming off of dunks and layups (low post stuff).

[Roy Hobbs]

Add to the reasoning that KG's scoring has never been the calling card of his game. While he was far from an elite scorer last year at 15.8 points, he was still an elite defender and rebounder.

If KG scores 20 ppg it will be the first time in 3 years. He's on the wrong side of 30 to be making a comeback to his prime scoring days...but he's on the right side of 30 to remain the best man to man defender and top 3 rebounder in the league.

KG's career scoring average is 20.2. 

Also, keep in mind the argument was "KG could *never* be the best scorer on a championship team", which I find to be patently ridiculous.  It's that old "KG needs to be the second or third option for a team to be successful".

[Jon]

It all depends on what you define as "best scorer."  Could he be the leading scorer?  Sure.  As you pointed out, he only finished .8 ppg behind Pierce in 2008-09, meaning had a few rim outs and here and there gone different ways, he might've been the leading scorer.  

However, I do question whether he could be the "best scorer" if we define "best scorer" as the guy you go to in the fourth quarter.  KG is an insanely good player, but for all his skills, his weakest might be creating his own offense.  Most of his baskets seem to come on jumpers and post-ups that are more a credit to his height and athleticism than quality of his moves.  

Plus, I think clearly Paul Pierce was the go to guy in the fourth quarter, and Ray was arguably the second option.  

Of course this begs the question, had PP and Ray been inferior scorers, could the C's have won the title?  The answer is most likely no.  However, you could reciprocally ask the question, had they been replaced with inferior scorers, but even better defenders, could they have won?  Maybe.  But I still have my doubts.  

Overall, I think Garnett is the best player on the team.  But I don't totally trust him as a go-to scorer in the 4th quarter.  There's nothing wrong with that though.  Bill Russell wasn't that guy either, and he was still clearly the best player on the Celtic Dynasty teams of the '50s and '60s.  

[Roy Hobbs]

The fact that he scored as much as he did during our championship run pretty much puts to rest the question of whether we can win when he is the leading scorer.  

Would we have won the title if Pierce had scored one fewer basket a game and KG one more basket?  Of course.

Thank you.  That's exactly how I see it.  The inverse argument just seems silly to me.

[Roy Hobbs]

However, I do question whether he could be the "best scorer" if we define "best scorer" as the guy you go to in the fourth quarter.  

. . . Overall, I think Garnett is the best player on the team.  But I don't totally trust him as a go-to scorer in the 4th quarter.

KG was our leading fourth quarter scorer in our championship run.

[BballTim]

  On a per48 basis KG outscored Paul in both the regular season and the playoffs when we won the title. The reason that Paul was our leading scorer was Doc kept KG's minutes down during the regular season.

[Roy Hobbs]

 On a per48 basis KG outscored Paul in both the regular season and the playoffs when we won the title. The reason that Paul was our leading scorer was Doc kept KG's minutes down during the regular season.

Yep.  Strong point.

[indeedproceed]

Add to the reasoning that KG's scoring has never been the calling card of his game. While he was far from an elite scorer last year at 15.8 points, he was still an elite defender and rebounder.

If KG scores 20 ppg it will be the first time in 3 years. He's on the wrong side of 30 to be making a comeback to his prime scoring days...but he's on the right side of 30 to remain the best man to man defender and top 3 rebounder in the league.

KG's career scoring average is 20.2. 

Also, keep in mind the argument was "KG could *never* be the best scorer on a championship team", which I find to be patently ridiculous.  It's that old "KG needs to be the second or third option for a team to be successful".

Where did I say KG could "never be" the best scorer on a championship team. I don't think he can be this year. That's what I said and I don't think its incredulous.

[JSD]

Lets ask the real question Hobbs,

How would KG's team fair, with him as the leading scorer and no other scorers around him? Take away Ray Allen and Paul Pierce for instance, would that team have success?

[perks-a-beast]

If KG led the team in scoring it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world since he has 4 players behind him who are fully capable of picking up the scoring. Let's say that next season Garnett scores 18.5ppg, Pierce scores 18.0ppg, Ray scores 16.2ppg, Rondo scores 13.0ppg, and Wallace scores 10.9ppg. We wouldn't be "doomed" at all since there are 4 guys behind Garnett who can give you 4th quarter scoring/clutch baskets every night.

But on the timberwolves, Garnett HAD to do a majority of the scoring since the 4 guys behind him (Cassell, Sprewell, Hoilberg, and Sczerbiak) were so on and off and hardly the caliber of players that Paul, Ray, Rondo, and Sheed are. That's why the Timberwolves that year, were NOT a championship type team.

So my answer is yes, Garnett can be the leading scorer on a championship team.

[MMacOH]

This is a pretty silly argument to me.  KG didn't win championships in the past because he was the only option on the floor at the time.  Your team is easy to defend when you only have one option on the floor (i.e. the Cavs a couple of years ago).  No team will ever win a championship with one star alone.

Now he is in Boston with much better teammates around him.  He doesn't need to lead the team in scoring.  He plays team basketball.  He scores when he has an opportunity and defers when he doesn't.  

KG has seemed to disappear every now and again, but on a team as talented as the Celtics, that is going to happen (and really isn't a big deal).

KG is a complete basketball player whose worst attribute is probably his potty mouth.  He may not be the best scorer on the Celtics (that is Pierce), but I think he is the best player.