The Big 3's career stats

by **celtic fan** Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Sooo i started this on another site I enjoy during the first year of having the new big 3 together in Beantown and continued from time to time because I enjoy this dorky kinda of stuff. I'll start with my first post and post my most recent post. Would love to get thoughts and feedback from everyone.

Points Scored Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #26 21055
Ray Allen #43 18998
Paul Pierce #60 17773

Rebounds Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #23 11581
Ray Allen N/A 4047
Paul Pierce #207 4893

Assists Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #61 4501
Ray Allen #123 3441
Paul Pierce #158 3052

Steals Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #37 1432
Ray Allen #92 1110
Paul Pierce #59 1234

Player Efficiency Rating (PER) Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #14 23.83
Ray Allen #60 19.84
Paul Pierce #37 21.18

Here's a few more that one player or another will excel at

Blocks Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #22 1720

3 Pointers made Rank Total
Ray Allen #2 2203 (-357 away)
Paul Pierce #17 1308

Free Throws Made Rank Total
Paul Pierce #29 4841

FT% Rank Total
Ray Allen #6 .8905

Now for an ugly stat
Turnovers Rank Total
Kevin Garnett 30 2597
Ray Allen 70 2147
Paul Pierce 51 2384

by **beat** Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:08 pm

I am a bit surprised to see Garnett with more assissts than either RA or PP.

beat

by **celtic fan** Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:20 pm

So those were their rankings as of January 21st 2009, here they are as of today.

Initally posted: Jan 21st 08/09 Season
First Update: End of 08/09 Season
Updated: December 15, 09/10 Season
Updated: Sept. 2010

Points Scored Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #22 22,267 (+3)
Ray Allen #28 20,965 (+9)
Paul Pierce #36 19,899 (+12)

Rebounds Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #20 12,188 (+2)
Ray Allen N/A 4434
Paul Pierce #173 5417 (+14)

Assists Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #56 4719 (+4)
Ray Allen #105 3755 (+4)
Paul Pierce #130 3401 (+7)

Steals Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #33 1513 (+3)
Ray Allen #69 1204 (+6)
Paul Pierce #49 1349 (+3)

Player Efficiency Rating (PER)
Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #15 23.59 (NC)
Ray Allen #77 19.38 (-6)
Paul Pierce #48 20.80 (-3)

Here's a few more that one player or another will excel at

Blocks Rank Total
Kevin Garnett #19 1790 (+1)
Paul Pierce #178 561 (+ Cool

3 Pointers made Rank Total
Ray Allen #2 2444 (-116 away)
Paul Pierce #14 1467 (NC)

Free Throws Made Rank Total
Paul Pierce #20 5422 (+4)
Kevin Garnett #49 4292 (+3)
Ray Allen #67 3863 (+7)

FT% Rank Total
Ray Allen #5 .8940 (NC)

Now for an ugly stat
Turnovers Rank Total
Kevin Garnett 29 2716 (+1)
Ray Allen 56 2337 (+10)
Paul Pierce 32 2655 (+5)

Interesting tibits:
If Ray can score 1300 pts (below his previous 3 yr average) He'll crack
the top 23 scorers of all time.
Ray Allen will become the all time leader in 3 pointers made. The 2nd closest active player is surprisingly Peja Stojakovic.
He's a whopping 741 behind Allen as of now.
An okay season of 60 steals by KG will move him into the top 25 all time
An okay seaon of 80 steals by Pierce will let him crack the top 40 all time

by **celtic fan** Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:22 pm

So here's KG as of now.

Top 25 all time PPG
Top 22 all time RPG
Top 56 all time APG
Top 33 all time SPG
Top 19 all time BPG

NBA Champion
MVP
DPOY

Does KG's accomplishments make him an all time top 20 player?

I am hesitant to say for sure because of the yrs in Minny where he was the alpha dog and their continued lack of success save for the time he had Sam Cassel (a winner IMO) and Latrell Spreewell (a solid piece to any team with a star or leader)

by **beat** Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:30 pm

CF

Here we go with the ALL TIME individual stuff (within a team game). It is so hard to compare stats of different eras. We all know that wilt and russ blocked more shots than anyone ever BUT no stats for blocks were kept when they played.

I'd quantify it like this, is the player in question top 5-10 in "his era"?, and leave it at that.

Sort of an apples to grapes comparison but would Babe Ruth in his prime hit 60 home runs in todays game? I doubt it. And I wonder how good he would be. But in his era, there was no doubt how good he was.

beat

by **celtic fan** Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:54 pm

Of course the physical differences will be there in an all-era discussion, but doesn't mean we can't have some fun with it.

I'm a fan of basketball, not just the Celtics team. I follow various players and wonder how they stack up historically or even against their contemporaries.

If I just followed a team in a sport, I think I'd grow bored of said sport.
I like stats so it's fun to look at them as well.

Team accomplishment is the ultimate thing to look at but some guys got stuck with bad owners and shitty teams. Without stats, pointing and saying their team didn't accomplish much is a slap in their face IMO.

by **bobc33** Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:48 pm

Just my quick take on this. When I saw "The Big 3's...." in the title I had only one thought - "This is about Bird, McHale and Parish."

Call me old school.

by **celtic fan** Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:50 pm

lol I shoulda put 'the new big 3' but when I originally posted it, it was the 1st season with KG and Ray on the team.

And because the original big 3 played the majority of their careers together they wouldn't stack up as favorably in career rankings

by **tjmakz** Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:43 pm

beat wrote:CF

Here we go with the ALL TIME individual stuff (within a team game). It is so hard to compare stats of different eras. We all know that wilt and russ blocked more shots than anyone ever BUT no stats for blocks were kept when they played.

I'd quantify it like this, is the player in question top 5-10 in "his era"?, and leave it at that.

Sort of an apples to grapes comparison but would Babe Ruth in his prime hit 60 home runs in todays game? I doubt it. And I wonder how good he would be. But in his era, there was no doubt how good he was.

beat

Very good post Beat.

by **worcester** Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:24 pm

Why is it that we men love stats?

by **celtic fan** Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:57 pm

because it's quantifyable and tangible?

going off of someone else's word or observations leaves too much bias to factor in. Making a point about your thoughts on a player and then backing it up with some statistics make your point more believeable than just saying I believe Dee Brown is the greatest Celtic of all time.

I believe a blend of observation and statistics help make a valid point.
Then again I also enjoy doing all era-mock drafts, comparing players from different era's and not over analysing a single game in an 82 game season but that's just me.

p.s. my last point comes from being a member of a site where there's a huge group of knee-jerk over reactionary Blazers fans that made me basically tired of reading their posts after every game and tired of that site in general.

by **mrkleen09** Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:55 pm

celtic fan wrote:Does KG's accomplishments make him an all time top 20 player?

Yes.

KG is Top 3 or 4 at his position x 5 positions on the court = Top 20 for sure.

by **celtic fan** Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:09 pm

mrkleen09 wrote:
celtic fan wrote:Does KG's accomplishments make him an all time top 20 player?

Yes.

KG is Top 3 or 4 at his position x 5 positions on the court = Top 20 for sure.

my hesitance to say he's one of the 20 greatest players of all time is the fact that he's not a leader when it counts the most. When he played with the T-Pups KG was happy to be one of the guys in crunch time and would pass on wide open shots that he could hit to feed a less talented guy a shot. The fact that the T-Wolves lost 7 years in a row in the 1st round, only went past the 1st round once with KG there (and IMO that was more to due with Sam Cassell and Latrell Spreewell being there) and add in the fact that the T-Wolves missed the playoffs 4 yrs in a row...well I find it hard to think of any other all time great who would allow that to happen to their own team.
I know the T-Wolves were abysmal as a franchise when it came to surrounding KG with the talent that was needed to do well and contend for a title, but at some point your star has to deliver more than 1 year out of the 1st round of the playoffs. I can't help but think he's the ultimate Robin and needed a Batman or at least another star to take the big shots and shoulder the crunch time responsibility.

Other than that, love his all around game, love the intensity he brought to the Celtics D and love that he helped the C's win a title.

does anyone else think I have a valid point?

by **mrkleen09** Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:17 pm

celtic fan wrote:my hesitance to say he's one of the 20 greatest players of all time is the fact that he's not a leader when it counts the most.

Wait, arent you the same person that said "winning championships is about TEAM and no one player can win a title by themselves." in the Jo Jo White thread?

So Karl Malone gets a pass on not winning while playing with one of the greatest PG in history, yet KG gets down graded for not winning in Minnesota with a team with far less talent than any of Malone's Jazz teams?

Now I am confused.

by **celtic fan** Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:44 am

Yes winning is about team but a superstar has a certain responsibility to be the reason for a team winning or losing. Karl Malone lead his team to 2 finals and lost to a better superstar and team in Jordan and the Bulls. I give any other star ofthe 90's a bit of a pass because well no one beat Jordan and the Bulls in their prime.

There's a line of judgement that has to be there with a guy who is to be considered a superstar during his playing days and therefore an all time great. IMO that line cannot be won a title or not to determine a players ultimate merrits. Otherwise tons of great players are automatically disqualified because they played in the 60's or 90's and didn't play on the Celtics or Bulls respectively.

I think that if you plugged in Malone, Bird, Tim Duncan heck even McHale and you'd have seen a lot more 2nd round and perhaps 3rd round exits by the T-Wolves. I don't reasonable thing any player coulda taken that group and won a title as team wasn't good enough. But a great player shoulda been able to get them to play a little bit better and carried the team a bit more to a 2nd round appearance. With KG too often he shied away from taking over the 4th quarter with the game undecided and tried to blend in and involve his team mates. That's really a great quality but even Larry Bird went into 'screw I'm winning this game' mode from time to time.

p.s. you're not confused, you're stirring the pot.

by **mrkleen09** Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:29 pm

celtic fan wrote:p.s. you're not confused, you're stirring the pot.

KG led a MUCH LESS TALENTED team to the Western Conference Finals in 2004 and 8 straight playoff appearances. Oh yeah, and he won one in Boston in case you have forgotten.

PS - when someone is making ridiculous justifications....it is not called stirring the pot, it is called setting the record straight. But carry on.

by **celtic fan** Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:55 pm

ah but the year he did make the WCF's he had two proven winners who could and would take care of business down the stretch, allowing KG to be the ultimate Robin to their not so perfect Batman in Sam Cassell who's always come up big in pressure situations, kinda like his ex-team mate Robert Horry and Latrell Spreewell who had his share of big game experience playing for NY.

Again in Boston he was part of the system not the main reason why the Celtics won the title. Larry, Bill, Magic, Jordan, Jerry West, Kareem, Dr. J etc etc were all legends who lead their team to success, KG never really did that.

and how are my justifications ridiculous? Do you disagree that any other play who would be consider an all time great and probably one of the 20 greatest players of all time wouldn't have been able to lead their team out of the 1st round of the playoffs more than once in their prime? Even with a shit team like the T-Wovles? Intangibles are a big part of what makes the great players great and IMO KG didn't really have that experience/know how to lead a team that shouldn't win a series to a win.

Again I point out that pretty much every single straight from HS player doesn't have that quality to go with their impressive athletic and basketball skills save for Kobe, who took 13 years to get it and he had the luxury of playing with one of the greatest coaches of all time and one of the most dominant big men of all time and was on a Lakers team with loads of expereince.. and again it took that straight from HS player 13 years to get it.

by **mrkleen09** Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:13 pm

celtic fan wrote:Again in Boston he was part of the system not the main reason why the Celtics won the title. Larry, Bill, Magic, Jordan, Jerry West, Kareem, Dr. J etc etc were all legends who lead their team to success, KG never really did that.

Where do you get this stuff?

On a team that won with teamwork and DEFENSE - you are telling us the NBA Defensive Player of the Year didnt "lead his team to success"? Are you joking?

celtic fan wrote:and how are my justifications ridiculous? Do you disagree that any other play who would be consider an all time great and probably one of the 20 greatest players of all time wouldn't have been able to lead their team out of the 1st round of the playoffs more than once in their prime? Even with a shit team like the T-Wovles? Intangibles are a big part of what makes the great players great and IMO KG didn't really have that experience/know how to lead a team that shouldn't win a series to a win.

WHO makes these arbitrary distinctions? You?

You can bring up all the points you want.....KG WON A TITLE....PERIOD. Barkley and Malone DID NOT. That can never be taken away from him, by someone who cherry picks the stats to suit his own argument.

KG will retire as a Top 20 player, with or without your blessing. Makes no difference what you say. He is a better player than Charles Barkley - so no matter what order you put them in, he is one of the top 4 power forwards of all time.....and that alone makes him a Top 20 player.

by **celtic fan** Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:09 pm

mrkleen09 wrote:
Where do you get this stuff?

On a team that won with teamwork and DEFENSE - you are telling us the NBA Defensive Player of the Year didnt "lead his team to success"? Are you joking?

Not joking at all. As I have previously stated, KG is a second banana player, a great one but a second banana. Paul and Ray were the guys who you could count on to get a key basket or make the play that lead to the basket moreso than KG. The proof is in the lack of success KG had prior to joining the Celtics. scroll up and try reading all that I've typed, I'm not rehashing what I've already said. KG has never been a guy to take over a game and carry a team on his back down the stretch, I want that from an all time great. Hell even Isiah Thomas had that extra gear to take over games and it's why I'd rather have him than John Stockton on my team.

mrkleen09 wrote:
WHO makes these arbitrary distinctions? You?

You can bring up all the points you want.....KG WON A TITLE....PERIOD. Barkley and Malone DID NOT. That can never be taken away from him, by someone who cherry picks the stats to suit his own argument.

KG will retire as a Top 20 player, with or without your blessing. Makes no difference what you say. He is a better player than Charles Barkley - so no matter what order you put them in, he is one of the top 4 power forwards of all time.....and that alone makes him a Top 20 player.

sooo what you say is golden but my sayso is cherry picking and just full of arbitrary distinctions? niiice logic. I've watched the game long enough to be able to make some distinctions thanks.
Using your simple arguement, James Worthy won 4 titles, should he be an all time great too? Well I'd say no, because while he was an important part to the Lakers success, he wasn't the leader on that team, it was Magic. With Boston it's a bit more unique as Paul, Ray and KG never had sustained playoff success without each other, but to say KG was the clear cut guy who made the Celtics title winners is cloudy at best. He was a very important part of it, but I'd say it worked because Paul and Ray were there to close out games, something KG has never done well.
The Pistons won a title with 5 good to very good players on the floor, but none of them are going down as all time greats, just a really good team that clicked. Winning a title does not make KG better than Malone. Barkley... I'd see the argument either way and would agree to any good points for Charles or KG. As for the Pistons players, none of them are automatically better for having won a title over contemporaries at their positions.

Again using the teams success to validate or devalue a player can be flawed at time. Take Mitch Richmond, is he a bad player because he first got stuck with Don 'gimmick offense' Nelson as his head coach then was traded/banished to the pre-maloof Kings? No he's still a very good SG who was unfortunate enough to be on the wrong teams. He wasn't a winner until his last year as he road the coattails of the Lakers to a title. I know some ppl believe winning is the only thing, but when you're stuck with a bad owner and or GM can you really blame the player?

let me ask you this, if KG was such a leader, who come his team missed the playoffs 4 years in a row? Do you think any other top 20 player would allow that to happen? Did you actually see KG play at all in the late 90's/early 00's?

by **mrkleen09** Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:44 pm

celtic fan wrote:Did you actually see KG play at all in the late 90's/early 00's?

Nope, never heard of him before he came to the Celtics.

by **cowens/oldschool** Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:29 pm

celtic fan

KG was everything that first year in Boston,he was first team all NBA and Defensive Player of the Year.He did everything for that team and its a shame he got injured the next year because before he got injured we still had an unbelievable team as our record showed,we tore through the league.He had unbelievable length,skill and intensity for the position.I fondly remember saying on the old board that I never knew Garnett was this good,that his defense is the best I've ever seen for his position,that hes taken it to a whole new level.It was so much fun to watch him breath on and spit out Chris Bosh,I've seen alot of ball and never seen defense like that.

With the right pieces he showed what he could do,how phenomenal he could lead.Those last few years in Sota who was he playing with?Mark Blount,Trent Haskell,Wallyworld?Bird and Magic couldn't win with that supporting cast either.For me he has much more ability to grab and take over the game defensively than Malone and his offensive game is different,but may be just as good as hes got great perimeter stroke and is clever passer that can pick you apart. I have him and Duncan as my top 2 at the PF position and its not like Malone has a slew of 4th quarter clutch shots in his resume either.

cow

by **celtic fan** Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:31 pm

mrkleen09 wrote:
celtic fan wrote:Did you actually see KG play at all in the late 90's/early 00's?

Nope, never heard of him before he came to the Celtics.

good to know, now about the other 2 questions...

by **celtic fan** Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:52 pm

cowens/oldschool wrote:celtic fan

KG was everything that first year in Boston,he was first team all NBA and Defensive Player of the Year.He did everything for that team and its a shame he got injured the next year because before he got injured we still had an unbelievable team as our record showed,we tore through the league.He had unbelievable length,skill and intensity for the position.I fondly remember saying on the old board that I never knew Garnett was this good,that his defense is the best I've ever seen for his position,that hes taken it to a whole new level.It was so much fun to watch him breath on and spit out Chris Bosh,I've seen alot of ball and never seen defense like that.

With the right pieces he showed what he could do,how phenomenal he could lead.Those last few years in Sota who was he playing with?Mark Blount,Trent Haskell,Wallyworld?Bird and Magic couldn't win with that supporting cast either.For me he has much more ability to grab and take over the game defensively than Malone and his offensive game is different,but may be just as good as hes got great perimeter stroke and is clever passer that can pick you apart. I have him and Duncan as my top 2 at the PF position and its not like Malone has a slew of 4th quarter clutch shots in his resume either.

cow

KG certainly did gain a lot of confidence being on the C's with 2 guys who wanted to win a title as badly as he did. It breathed new life into him as it did for Paul Pierce as well and to some extent Ray Allen who IMO always put forth his best effort on every team he played for. I know he can do a lot on both sides of the court, but where was that leadership in Minny? Yeah the teams sucked but only 1 trip out of the 1st round? It bugs me that he never accomplished more with the team he was given.

As for KG's offense being close to Malone? I have to whole heartedly disagree there. Malone had a killer post game built on speed and strength and he added a extremely reliable jumper that he could get off vs anyone as he faded away from taller C's and PF's guarding him. His ability to get out on the fast break and be available and finish passes from Stockton was vastly under rated too. The only PF I'd say who could get up and down the court faster was Shawn Kemp.

Given Malone's ability to play at such a high level for so damn long, I have him as the best PF of all time. Karl was winning his first MVP at age 33, Tim Duncan has already started to drop off from his prime at the same age and looks much slower out on the court.
The argument for Duncan is that he was able to win 4 titles, while Malone (playing in a tougher era of ball IMO) was unable to deliver a title.
I'd tip my hat to anyone saying Duncan was better, but as a player I think Malone's own personal performance was better while the Spurs had a better team built around Duncan.

I'd put KG 3rd overall, then Barkley then McHale.

by **mrkleen09** Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:45 pm

celtic fan wrote:I'd put KG 3rd overall, then Barkley then McHale.

There you go getting me confused again.

Top 3 x 5 positions = 15. So by your own math, KG is a Top 15 player. But weren't you just arguing a few posts ago that he was not Top 20?

by **celtic fan** Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:05 pm

since when does the top 20 have to be 5 at each position?

isn't it possible that -gasp- more than 5 of the top 20 all time great players were oh I don't know, Point guards... or centers???

hmmm we'll need a committee to discuss this, but only using conjecture and opinion.. no stats allowed Wink

by Sponsored content

The Big 3's career stats

The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats

Re: The Big 3's career stats