RealGM Top 100 List #6

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#41 » by ardee » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:14 am

Baller2014 wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Strange, I didn't hear a peep from you when I had Duncan all alone at PF.....

FYI, I used the same logic last time around. It's much easier for me to parse out players by comparing them to others at the same positions to start with, then I can look at the last 5 and pick a winner.

As for Petitt, he and ALL five PFs I mentioned were Top 20 last time around. I have already brought up Kobe, so why would I need tricks to mention him? I flatout said I'm going Kobe after Magic, so I'm not sure what you're even getting at. If that bothers you, oh well.

I don't get why you can't just tell us who the next 3-4 best players are in your mind. This way it's being left very vague, as though your order can be shifted 180 degrees as circumstances change. It shouldn't matter who the "best shooting guard" or "best power forward" left is, just who the "best player" remaining is. I mean, nobody is going to question your right to rank them how you like, and you've already admitted you're voting for Kobe next (when most people here aren't even going to consider him until spot #11), so why can't you just tell us who the next 3-4 best players are in your mind? I'm happy to tell you my top 10 list as I currently see things.


Why is it a problem how UBF does his evaluations?

Let everyone vote for whoever they want to and use whatever reasoning they want to. It seems that now Duncan is in your next agenda is to make sure Kobe gets voted in as low as possible.
Baller2014
Banned User
Posts: 2,049
And1: 519
Joined: May 22, 2014
Location: No further than the thickness of a shadow
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#42 » by Baller2014 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:24 am

I just thought an open exchange of information might further discussion. So if his order is X then Y then Z, I can see where he's coming from and appeal to his views. A lot of people have changed their mind during this project already, where they've said stuff like "I had Wilt ranked much lower, but then I realised if I wasn't going to punish Shaq for off the court problems I can't be so hard on Wilt for it". Part of changing people's minds is understanding what they're actually thinking in the first place, so if his current order is A,B then C I can look at that order and try to win him around to a different point of view (or just say "I agree").

Anyway, I notice nobody has talked much about this guy yet:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSI1_eVuhs[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HT96azPZHs[/youtube]
I know he doesn't have the most longevity, but he has enough to be discussed soon IMO. He's got one of the best peaks left, and best primes. Even as a rookie, his impact was sufficient to turn a 29 win team in to a 61 win team, and after his rookie year he got better.
magicmerl
Analyst
Posts: 3,226
And1: 831
Joined: Jul 11, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#43 » by magicmerl » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:25 am

To me this pick comes down to Shaq vs Magic vs LeBron. All 3 have similar periods of dominance, even if magic perhaps was never the hands down best player in the league the way Shaq and LeBron were.
Gregoire
Analyst
Posts: 3,509
And1: 662
Joined: Jul 29, 2012

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#44 » by Gregoire » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:24 am

Right now I choose from 4 players: Hakeem, Shaq, Lebron and Bird. With Bird being clear underdog due to lack of longevity...
Heej wrote:
These no calls on LeBron are crazy. A lot of stars got foul calls to protect them.
falcolombardi wrote:
Come playoffs 18 lebron beats any version of jordan
AEnigma wrote:
Jordan is not as smart a help defender as Kidd
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,433
And1: 16,019
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#45 » by therealbig3 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:24 am

I'm going to stick with Shaq here. Best peak out of anyone left, and very good longevity. I give him the slightest of edges over Hakeem (who I'll vote for next).

ElGee did a fantastic job of breaking down the careers of Magic and Bird and why Magic's impressive box score numbers overrate the impact he was actually having. He wasn't actually the Magic we all know and love until 1984. That still gives Magic 8 years of super-high impact. Bird gives you 80-88 as super-high impact years...but I do dock him for his injuries in 85 and 88. Overall, I see their primes as basically equal, but Magic wins this based on a better non-prime career imo (80-83 Magic is better than 90 and 91 Bird). Kind of a lame tiebreaker, but that's what I have to use for this comparison.

However, it just shows me that both players have weak longevity, and I already consider their peaks to be lower than Shaq's. So not only do I have Shaq ahead of them, I have Hakeem and Garnett ahead of them too.

Vote: Shaquille O'Neal
User avatar
markdeez33
RealGM
Posts: 13,336
And1: 2,238
Joined: Nov 30, 2002
Location: Augusta, GA
Contact:
         

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#46 » by markdeez33 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:33 am

I gotta go with Hakeem here!

This project is about discussion. A post like this adds nothing to the debate.
Image
Baller2014
Banned User
Posts: 2,049
And1: 519
Joined: May 22, 2014
Location: No further than the thickness of a shadow
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#47 » by Baller2014 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:01 pm

Basketballefan wrote:
Purch wrote:Considering that bigs seem to be favored in this project, it might be time to copy and revive the arguments for Karl Malome last project that got him voted in at #12 last project

There's no way he gets voted that high this time around. Id be shocked if he made top 15.


I have Karl Malone in my top 15.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,007
And1: 9,693
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#48 » by penbeast0 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:38 pm

Last time I was really up in the air and open to changing my vote until the deadline. Still close this time.

Shaq -- the key for me is how Shaq warped the game around him. Opposing coaches changed their defenses to gimmicks (Hack a Shaq), opposing offenses changed their focus to pick and pop or pulling centers off the low post. The only player that ever seemed to have this kind of impact other than Shaq was Wilt. The defense numbers that I have been seeing here are pretty good; that was one of my big questions about Shaq.

LeBron -- the key for LeBron is his versatility. You can play him on ball or off ball, play him anywhere from the 1 to the 4 (true of Magic but to a lesser degree because of Magic's defensive weakness). People keep saying he hasn't accomplished enough yet but 11 full years in the league is a pretty solid and long career and his playoff history has generally been very strong.

Close behind are Magic and Hakeem and I am keeping an open mind but right now I have the first two a hair above them.

Vote (subject to change -- some great posts here have changed my vote once so far) -- Shaq
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
User avatar
Ryoga Hibiki
RealGM
Posts: 12,330
And1: 7,560
Joined: Nov 14, 2001
Location: Warszawa now, but from Northern Italy

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#49 » by Ryoga Hibiki » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:43 pm

Can I be added to the voting?
Слава Украине!
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,859
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#50 » by drza » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:57 pm

Garnett's defense

I debated holding off on this post for a thread or two, but I think I better get it in now. Unfortunately (and fortunately) I'm going to be limited in my posting for much of the next week. The good thing is that I'm going to Vegas to check out the Summer League. The bad part is that I won't have much time to post the way I like in here. So, I guess now is the best time for me to post this.

Here is ThaRegul8r's long post requesting evaluation of KG's defense
Spoiler:
ThaRegul8r wrote: Moved here because no one's going to go in the other thread anymore:

ThaRegul8r wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:As for KG...it's really based on how similar their defensive games are. Garnett is really the one who plays like a modern-day Russell on defense, combining the horizontal and vertical defensive games, and while I think Russell gets underrated offensively, KG is clearly superior on offense. Trying to figure out just how good KG is on defense in relation to Russell is difficult. KG does pretty much everything right on defense except, as I said, rebound and block shots like Russell...

The second question doesn't apply to me because all I care about is how good you are as a player. The offense of Howard/Robinson doesn't impress me anyway. Ewing's offense I see clearly below KG, and if KG vs. Russell isn't clear to me and Russell is getting the edge anyway, no way does Ewing go ahead.


Thank you for your response. I see the runoff is over, but I'm more interested in discussion not the rankings, and I would like to continue this because I want to sink my teeth into this. If necessary, I can copy this into the next thread.

I've kept track of the various "next Russells," which was why I named both Ewing and Robinson, who both received the tag. Regarding the latter, in 1999, Sam Smith wrote:

With Strong Supporting Cast, Robinson Has Look Of Russell

June 15, 1999 | By Sam Smith.

What does one associate with Bill Russell?

Winning. Eleven championships in 13 years, voted the greatest player in NBA history before Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan came into the league. Perhaps the greatest winner ever in pro team sports.

And what does one associate with David Robinson?

Talented, but not tough? An MVP, but never a champion.

OK, consider this: Bill Russell comes into the NBA in 1989 and joins a team without a starter beside him who ever will play in an All-Star Game again, and in the next decade plays with just one player, Sean Elliott, who even makes an All-Star team with him. And even though he is a defensive specialist, he is surrounded with poor offensive players, poor or limited-range shooters such as Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro, a rebounding star in Dennis Rodman who cannot make simple layups.

Now, how about this: David Robinson comes into the NBA in 1956, an angular, athletic, bright young man who is asked to do two things, rebound and block shots. He is teamed with three of the great offensive players of the era, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman and Tom Heinsohn, who will make All-Star teams for years to come, as well as the Hall of Fame. The next season, he gets Sam Jones, another Hall of Famer, who would become one of the greatest shooters in the history of the NBA.

Who do you think would have the 11 championships?

Not Bill Russell. We would be calling David Robinson one of the great players in NBA history. Robinson was supposed to be Bill Russell with a better shot.

Does anyone remember Russell trying to shoot?

It was painful, something of a cross between Chris Dudley and Eric Montross.

Russell barely shot beyond six feet from the basket and averaged 44 percent in his career. And he was Shaq-like at the free throw line, averaging 56 percent in his career. Heck, he won a championship one season when he shot 49.2 percent on free throws.

So, get off Shaq's back!

Get off David Robinson's back!

David Robinson was supposed to be Bill Russell. He could chase down players and block the ball from behind, recover from the weak side to block the ball and rebound. He has led the league twice each in blocks and steals. But he also had to lead the league in scoring because he came to a team without an offensive star and it became progressively poorer on offense.

He had no postup game, but he had to score against the great centers of the era: Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal and Patrick Ewing, all among the 50 greatest players. And then he had to keep them from scoring and lead the fast break. He was voted the leaque's best defensive player and won a scoring title.

But he wasn't a scorer.

"I'm not a Michael Jordan-type player," admits Robinson. "I don't handle the ball. I can't go out there and take 30 shots a game. That's not my style. I had to figure out what is my style. That's part of what's great about being where we are right now."

Which is four victories from Robinson's first NBA championship.

Robinson and the Spurs are overwhelming favorites over the New York Knicks in the NBA Finals starting Wednesday in San Antonio. While the Knicks stunned everyone coming out of the eighth seed in the Eastern Conference to land a spot to the Finals, the Spurs methodically mowed down Minnesota, Los Angeles and Portland with an 11-1 record, sweeping the last two series.

"Four more games and I will have vindication," says Robinson.

It perhaps is no coincidence that in his second season ever with the first all-NBA player Robinson has played with, Robinson is going to the NBA Finals as a favorite.

All it took was adding Tim Duncan, to whom Robinson ceded the principal offensive role this season. Robinson finally was able to be a defensive specialist and opportunistic offensive player.

OK, who said this, Red Auerbach or Gregg Popovich?

"Defensively, he's just a monster. Weak-side defense, off-ball defense, power forward guarding, blocking shots, rebounding. We really feed off him."

That, of course, was Spurs coach Popovich talking about Robinson after Duncan went out of Game 3 of the conference finals against Portland and Robinson dominated with a playoff-high seven blocks.

Gee, that sounds Russell-like.

"When I first came in," offers Robinson, "all I heard was, `You're great, you're great. You (media) tear a guy down and build him back up again. I'm not as good as when they're saying nice things about me. I'm not as bad as when they're saying bad things about me."

And Robinson, like Russell, like all the greats really, is only as good as the teammates that surround him and the role he is asked to play. How many titles did Jordan have with Brad Sellers and Sam Vincent? David Robinson, for the first time this year, was asked to play like Bill Russell. And the Spurs are on the way to one of the best seasons in NBA history.

Yes, David Robinson is a winner.


Though Russell has the competitive edge―as well as the big-game performances that Robinson was criticized for lacking, Robinson was someone I'd wanted to get some people's thoughts on.

Among current players, Duncan and Garnett were two I've been drawing parallels to in my notes, the former for his team-centric approach to the game, anchoring the second-greatest defensive dynasty to Russell's Celtics, and the Duncan/Popovich relationship has drawn comparisons to Russell/Auerbach. The latter, though, was a better stylistic comparison defensively, though Duncan keeps shots in bounds like Russell as a study showed.

I confess I started paying more attention to Garnett in Boston than in Minnesota, because I wanted to see how he played. Mike Fratello said of Garnett, “If he wanted to be known as a defensive specialist—à la Bill Russell or Dennis Rodman—he would have to concentrate on that part of his game. He cannot do that. He has to play center sometimes. Sometimes he plays power forward. He’s in a tough situation. Rodman always had the teammates to have the luxury to concentrate on defense. Russell too, although he was mainly a shot blocker. He could be the best defensive player in the game, but it would hurt his team.” So in Boston, with Pierce and Allen as his Havlicek and Jones, I was curious to see how he'd do.

In 2008, he won Defensive Player of the Year, and grabbed 16.8 percent of available rebounds and 25.1 percent of available defensive rebounds in his first season there, as opposed to 19.5 percent of available rebounds and a league-leading 30.8 percent of available defensive rebounds the year before. In his prime in Minnesota, Garnett won four consecutive rebounding titles from 2003-04 to 2006-07, with averages of 13.9, 13.5, 12.7, and 12.8, grabbing 20.1, 20.3, 19.6 and 19.5 percent of all available rebounds. Garnett led the league in defensive rebounds for five consecutive years from 2002-03 to 2006-07, grabbing 858, 894, 861, 752, and 792, grabbing 28.5, 30.0, 30.2, 29.7 and 30.8 percent. So Garnett was able to focus on defense, but he didn't rebound like he himself did prior to that, with more responsibilities. In the postseason, he did up it to 17.5 percent of available rebounds and 25.3 percent of available defensive rebounds, but that's below his own standard.

In the 2013 postseason, Garnett grabbed 23.2 percent of available rebounds and 37.9 percent of available defensive rebounds in 35.3 minutes per game in six games, averaging a playoff-leading 13.7 rebounds per game with a playoff-leading 90 defensive rating, while averaging 12.7 points a game on 56.3 percent true shooting and 3.5 assists. That's better, as Russell grabbed 23.3 percent of all available rebounds in the '64 postseason. But Russell also had shotblocking in addition to the horizontal game. In ’03-04, Garnett had a 4.0 block percentage as he blocked 2.17 shots per game to go with his 20.1 percent rebound rate and 30.0 percent defensive rebound, but that was his career high.

I once posted this:

Assessing KG: The low-impact defender
by Dennis Hans / February 7, 2005

Kevin Garnett reminds me of my Aunt Mildred’s aerobics class: low impact.

“Low impact” is a good thing for little old ladies looking to minimize the risk of injury when working out. It’s not such a good thing if you’re supposed to be an NBA superstar.

KG is a great player, but he’s not special. Perhaps coach Flip Saunders doesn’t demand enough of him, or perhaps he’s evolved into a too-cautious player to ensure that he never gets in foul trouble and thus is there for his teammates 40 minutes every game, including every second of crunch time. Maybe he lacks the killer instinct of a Bird, Magic, Jordan, Isiah, Iverson, Kobe or Shaq.

It’s also possible that he’s playing up to his potential and simply doesn’t have the raw talent to be a high-impact stud. Maybe the reason he doesn’t play like Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan and David Robinson (at both ends of the court) or Bill Russell, Ben Wallace or Dikembe Mutombo (at the defensive end) is that he can’t.

Whatever the reason or combination of reasons, KG rarely dominates. Consistency is his hallmark; most every night, he merits a grade of “very good.” He puts up numbers and plays a well-rounded game. But it seems to me that he’s not being all that he can be.

What makes the six centers or center/forwards listed above special is that all five on-court members of the opposing team are (or were) aware of the stopper’s presence. Russell revolutionized the NBA game with his defensive prowess. He would shut down his own man (unless that man was named Wilt Chamberlain) while serving as a constant nuisance to the other four foes. Russell was forever in the head of every opposing player.

That’s not the case with KG. Generally, the four guys on the other team who aren’t being guarded by KG aren’t hearing – or imagining – his footsteps. If one of those guys takes it to the hoop or shoots a runner in the lane, KG is more likely to be carving out rebounding position in the event of a miss than taking action to make the guy miss.

For his career, KG averages an anemic 1.8 blocks per game in 38 minutes. This season, in his physical prime at age 28, he’s averaging a truly pathetic 1.38 blocks in 39 minutes. Through games of Feb. 6, he’s the 30th best shot blocker in the league right behind a converted small forward (Shawn Marion), two guys who play about half as many minutes as KG (Dan Gadzuric and Chris Andersen) and one guy who puts in one-third the minutes (Steven Hunter). Tim Duncan is blocking twice as many shots as KG despite playing just 35 minutes per game. Andrei Kirilenko blocks a shot every 8 minutes; KG blocks one every 28 minutes. Even Yao Ming swats more shots than KG.

David Robinson in his 30-and-younger seasons averaged anywhere between a low of 3.2 blocks and a high of 4.5. Hakeem Olajuwon’s prime seasons featured 3 or 4 blocks per night. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar blocked 4 a game in the season that he turned 32. Russell, with the same frame as KG but listed an inch shorter, played before blocks became an official NBA stat. Given the fear he instilled, he likely averaged at least 4 blocks for his career.

Ben Wallace, who might not even be the 6-9 he’s officially listed as, blocked 3.5 and 3.2 shots per night in his two Defensive Player of the Year seasons. Also, Ben usually accumulates at least as many steals as KG. Hakeem averaged many more steals in his prime seasons than either Ben or KG.

There’s a reason why smart people rarely think of KG as a candidate for Defensive Player of the Year: They sense the absence of his defensive “presence.”

Now here’s what I’m not sure about: Is KG physically incapable of being a defensive monster, a guy who causes nightmares for players because he’s seemingly everywhere, so that even if he doesn’t get your shot you nevertheless think he will and so you shoot too soon or overdo the arc?

Considering that KG is 6-11 with very long arms, great coordination and excellent timing, and considering that he’s a good jumper who is quick off his feet and has long, effortless strides that allow him to cover ground in a hurry, he would seem to have the ingredients to be a standout swatter. He should be able to average 3 blocks a game and still be a good man-on-man defender and passing-lane hawk, a la Russell, Big Ben and Hakeem.

Two related attributes of great shot blockers are (1) they don’t have to gather before jumping, and (2) they get off the floor incredibly quickly. KG’s teammate Eddie Griffin barely gets off the ground, but the combination of his length, timing and lightning-quick but low-altitude jumps make him a terrific swatter (1.7 in only 22 minutes a night, which would be 3.0 a night if he played KG’s minutes and maintained his pace). Although KG appears to me to get off the floor in non-gathering situations pretty quickly, it’s possible he lacks the blinding reflex-jumping quickness of a Kirilenko, Russell or young Mutombo.

Thus, it’s possible KG’s swat potential is, say, 2.4 per game rather than 4.2, and if he tried to lead the league he’d hurt his team by continually taking himself out of rebounding position while blocking or changing relatively few shots. But it’s hard for me to believe that he’s helping the Wolves as much as he can at 1.4 per game.

There’s only one way to find out if KG’s anemic swatting numbers are primarily the product of physical limitations or KG’s lack of a swatter’s mentality and the failure of Flip Saunders to help him develop one: Saunders must challenge KG to be a defender in the style of Russell, Big Ben, Mutombo and Hakeem.

In this two-month-long experiment, KG will assume the identity of “The Wolfman” and go after enough shots that opposing players become keenly aware of his presence. After two months, KG and the Wolves braintrust can assess the results and adjust his swatting mindset to whatever is best for the Wolves. If he’s a dismal failure as Wolfman, he’ll have to dial back his approach, though maybe not all the way back to what we’ve seen so far this season. If Wolfman is a howling success, then there’s nothing to change.

More than likely, he’ll probably have to tone things down at least a tad, reserving 100-percent Wolfman for full moons. But the experiment is an absolute necessity to establish how much of a defensive force KG is capable of being. Because right now, the answer is a disappointing “Not much.”


And your response was:

ronnymac2 wrote:I need to respectfully disagree with this article. Simply looking at KG’s blocked shot averages ignores context. He isn’t a traditional interior anchor, but a hybrid interior-perimeter anchor. His strength is disrupting connecting parts of an offense, of altering offensive plays and covering for his teammates. In this last regard, he is very Russell-like imo, right down to that effect not showing up in the stat sheet.


Now, Russell himself said:

Bill Russell wrote:Good defense sometimes does not result in a turnover or blocked shot or steal or anything. Good defense will get the offensive team out of a rhythm and one of the keys to shooting is rhythm. That is why you see guys with open shots not make them. Well, good defense makes you shoot before you want to shoot or after you want to shoot, not when you want to shoot. Defense can sometimes be deceptive and you’ll say, well, they’re not shooting well and they had open shots. Well those shots aren’t open. A guy is standing there by himself, but he has to shoot the ball before the defense gets there or fake and shoot after he leaves. So he isn’t shooting when he wants to shoot and that will throw your rhythm off. What looks like a good shot is not really a good shot.


Though, vis-a-vis Russell, Russell does had that block shot element, adding an intimidation factor, as Russell himself said it's more the threat of the block than the block itself. TMACFORMVP once said:

One aspect of Russell's game that I just marvel at is his speed. We talk about the torrid pace they played at in the 60's to downgrade their stats (and rightfully so), but we fail to appreciate how well conditioned these athletes must have been to play large minutes at such a fast pace, especially Russell. This guy was all over the place, quick enough to come out on the pick and roll, and then recover fast enough to block the shot. He ran the fast break, fought for every rebound, competed on every possession, and played over 40 MPG nearly every season of his career.

Someone asked, what's the difference between Garnett and Russell, and I'd point to their defense. I'm probably alone in this mind-set, but I think Garnett has been slightly overrated defensively; not neccessarily his impact with Boston, but his years in Minnesota. Don't get me wrong, Garnett is an all time great defender, and one of the best the league has seen, but recently, I've started to notice that people are equating Garnett with automatically anchoring a top 5 sort defense, and on the same caliber with guys like Hakeem, Russell, or D-Rob. I think what made them all such terrifying defenders was because of their same ability to rotate, much like Garnett, but also be the best shot blocking threats in the league, something Garnett really hasn't/wasn't been for his career.

Granted so much goes into team defense, it's unfair to completely judge Garnett's Minnesota teams defensively (when afterall, his supporting cast sucked), but his Minnesota teams were generally average defensively, barring his one year in 03-04. And again, I understand shot blocking isn't a one and all metric for defense, but those three players had similar capability in rotating and defending the pick and roll that KG did, but they were also far more intimidating factors in the paint. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Timberwolves best defensive season came when KG was most intimidating at the rim. I understand he hasn't been any better a shot blocker with Boston, so how do we explain that, but there are more factors as mentioned with coaching, and better personnel.

I just think it's slightly overrating Garnett, when I've seen many people claim Garnett has anchored elite defenses ever since he came into the league and became an established player (and that's the part I'm saying is overrated, because otherwise, no one has had real more defensive impact in the league when Garnett finally got some personnel and coaching, the only other with an argument being Howard.

*First column is team DTRG, then opponents points, and finally opponent FG%.

Hakeem Olajuwon

Code: Select all
84-85: 4th - (10th in points, 6th in FG%)
85-86: 14th - (13th in points, 13th in FG%)
86-87: 3rd - (3rd in points, 6th in FG%)
87-88: 4rd - (13th in points, 2nd in FG%)
88-89: 4th - (9th in points, 7th in FG%)
89-90: 1st - (9th in points, 5th in FG%)
90-91: 2nd (6th in points, 5th in FG%)
91-92: 10th - (11th in points, 10th in FG%)
92-93: 3rd - (3rd in points, 3rd in FG%)
93-94: 2nd - (5th in points, 3rd in FG%)
94-95: 12th - (14th in points, 2nd in FG%)
95-96: 14th - (17th in points, 14th in FG%)


Total: 6.08 (9.5 in points, 6.3 in FG%)

David Robinson

Code: Select all
89-90: 3rd (5th in points, 3rd in FG%)
90-91: 1st - (5th in points, 1st in FG%)
91-92: 1st - (3rd in points, 1st in FG%)
92-93: 10th - (8th in points, 4th in FG%)
93-94: 9th - (2nd in points, 4th in FG%)
94-95: 5th - (12th in points, 7th in FG%)
95-96: 3rd - (10th in points, 3rd in FG%)


Total: 4.57 (6.4 in points, 3.8 in FG%)

Obviously Robinson has had better coaching, but it's interesting to note that they were a slightly worse defensive team relative to the year with Rodman, opposed to the previous seasons without. Nonetheless, I'd say both had better supporting casts than Garnett, but both Robinson and Hakeem faced fluctuations with their roster as well, and no one else of real significance of All-NBA defensive caliber either, yet for the most part, they anchored top 10 - near top 5 defenses every year of their career.

Garnett on the other hand, in his Minnesota years:

Kevin Garnett

Code: Select all
98-99: 11th (16th in points, 15th in FG%)
99-00: 12th (11th in points, 9th in FG%)
00-01: 16th (14th in points, 22nd in FG%)
01-02: 15th (16th in points, 13th in FG%)
02-03: 16th (18th in points, 10th in FG%)
03-04: 6th (7th in points, 4th in FG%)
04-05: 15th (9th in points, 7th in FG%)
05-06: 10th (8th in points, 9th in FG%)
06-07: 21st (19th in points, 15th in FG%)



Total: 13.5 (13.1 in points, 11.5 in FG%)

Again, I feel I have to clearly explain what I'm trying to say; in no way am I saying that Garnett isn't an elite defender, but I'm not completely sold he's as good an anchor as guys like Hakeem, or Robinson, and especially Russell. Garnett's strengths defensively lie within his impeccable rotation and pick and roll defense, arguably in that regard having a case for top three all-time. He's a terrific vocal leader on the court, and his passion inspires teammates to play to the best of their ability. BUT, I think those I've mentioned, provide the same impeccable rotations, while being a double threat with all time great shot blocking, something Garnett lacks compared to his peers. And Russell especially even exceeds the leadership Garnett displays on the court.

Garnett does everything exceptional, but Russell did all those same things at the absolute best one could possibly do it - including shot blocking, where the big difference lies.

Garnett is an all time great defender, and the prototypical player at the PF position, along with Duncan, BUT I still think he's not in the same tier as Russell, or the other aforementioned centers defensively. Similar versatility on pick and rolls and rotations, but Russell possesses even greater leadership (again, player coach for two seasons), with far greater intimidation.


So, in comparison with Russell, Russell has the horizontal game plus shotblocking that Garnett never did, and rebounded at a level that Garnett didn't do in Boston where he could concentrate on defense. This is something you mention as well. So Garnett's a better two-way player, but when he was in a situation where he could play like Russell, he didn't rebound like him or block shots like him. So if Garnett is the floor, it's something to ponder. Additionally―rightly or wrongly―Garnett's "clutchness" was questioned during the title run, while Russell was regarded as clutch when he played, and Russell was actually a name I saw brought up against Garnett in a couple of articles as someone who possessed the "clutchness" Garnett didn't.


This is in response to the above post by ThaRegul8r that pointed out how Robinson, Olajuwon and Garnett are all compared to Russell and he asks how KG fits into that comparison. He notes that he didn't watch much of KG in Minnesota, cites some opinions that KG's defense wasn't actually as impactful as the others, and asks for a more complete scouting report/review of KG's defense. You've made it a point in all of your posts so far that you want to be told both sides of the story. I try to do that here. I'm brutally honest about areas where I feel like KG isn't as strong on D, but I also cover in a lot of depth where I think that he's uniquely strong. Bottom line, my evaluation is that KG might just be the prototype for maximum defensive impact in the modern post-rule-changes version of the NBA. Without further ado (and be warned, this is LONG. I got my teeth into this one, and tried to go in depth over a career that spans two decades).

Let's start with the Russell comparisons. In some ways those comps make sense because Russell and KG share some traits: excellent lateral movement, length/speed over power, excellent defensive IQ. However, as a straight stylistic comp there are clear differences as well. Russell was a much better shot-blocker than Garnett's ever been. Garnett's defense is even more horizontal than Russell's, at times out beyond the 3-point line. Defense of the on-ball pick was a much bigger part of Garnett's era than Russell's, while 1-on-1 post defense was a bigger part of the earlier era than it is today. So the direct comparison of Russell to Garnett on defense isn't a perfect fit...I'd say, in fact, that Olajuwon or Robinson might share more stylistic similarities to Russell than KG does.

Where I do think the Russell/Garnett comparisons are apt, though, are in the sense that each used their blend of length and athleticism in ways that previously weren't the norm. In Russell's time, the convention was that big men weren't supposed to jump to block shots...then Russell showed that blocking shots was another, even better way to dominate on defense. Ironically, by Garnett's time the convention was that the best way for a big man to play defense was to block shots and protect the paint...then Garnett showed that going horizontal and hindering the offenses percentages in the mid-range could be a different way to achieve defensive dominance. Garnett also shares Russell's appreciation for the mental aspects of defense...knowing everyone's role on defense and where they should be, knowing everyone's role on the OFFENSE and knowing where they want to go, playing mental games with opponents...it is here that Garnett clearly followed in Russell's footsteps. So while Garnett doesn't mirror Russell stylistically, I think that he's the closest that we've seen to the evolutionary version of who Russell was as a defender.

So, let's now look closer at what Garnett brought to the table on defense.

One important point is that Garnett's defensive skills and approach changed over time. There were definite eras of KG defense, if you will. And this could work either to KG's advantage or disadvantage, in this type of evaluation session, because there were different strengths and weaknesses at each time.Let's start with his 1-on-1 defense through the eras.

KG's 1-on-1 defense through the eras:

Early 1-on-1 wing defense:
Spoiler:
Early Garnett was the most explosive and athletic, but also the lankiest. Late 90s thru early 2000s KG played a lot of small forward. He was the full-time cover for several elite wings, usually to good result (though I recall Jordan torching him in his Wizards year...of course, even Wizards Jordan was quick for a SF and by then KG really should have been at full-time PF). He was maybe a step slower in terms of lateral movement than the best of the small forwards, but he was still ridiculously quick for a true 7-footer and he used his mantis arms and angles to excellent results. He could play a bit further off to discourage the drive, while still getting a threatening hand in the face of s ahooter. He could funnell drivers to where he wanted them to go, leading them into traps or difficult shots on the move. The most famous example of KG's defensive efforts on a wing were on Tracy McGrady in the 2003/2004 time period.

Over those two years, if you recall, McGrady was peaking...he led the NBA in scoring both seasons (35.4 ppg on 56.4% TS in 2003, 28 ppg on 52.6% TS in 2004). The Timberwolves played the Magic four times in that two-year window. In 2003 Garnett was the primary defender on McGrady, whereas in 2004 he was more of the main help defender. In all four years the Timberwolves devoted their main team defensive efforts to stopping McGrady (as pretty much all teams did at the time), so I don't want to give the impression that KG was just out there on an island with McGrady. Nevertheless, KG played the lead role in dramatically reducing TMac's output in those games. Of the four games, McGrady had two good games and two terrible games on his way to averages of 21.5 points on 49.6% TS . From the write-up to one of the terrible games:

Kevin Garnett recorded his seventh career triple-double and shut down Tracy McGrady. (snip)

Guarded mostly by Garnett, McGrady struggled with his shooting touch all night. McGrady, who scored 31 and 24 points in Orlando's first two games -- victories over Philadelphia and Miami -- went six for 15 for 18 points, 14 in the second half.

"That's the best I've ever been defended," McGrady said. "Ever.""


http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/02/sports/sp-nba2


Prime 1-on-1 big man defense:
Spoiler:
By the time the 90s were coming to an end, KG was in his early 20s and starting to fill out. His listed weight went from the 220 pounds of his rookie year up to about 253 pounds by 2004. The 2003 season was the last year that KG spent a significant amount of time playing small forward, and by the fall of 2003 he was settling in as a full-time 4. In one-on-one circumstances, this version of KG was excellent on every big man south of Shaq. KG could really lock into post-scoring threats like Tim Duncan, versatile talents like Chris Webber, or even more perimeter based bigs like Rasheed Wallace. This versatility would serve him extremely well in this era, as the 2000s have been characterized by much more diversity at the 4 slot...from pure stretch 4s all the way down to more old-school post-up types. KG had the length and quickness to play great post-denial defense, making entry passes very difficult. He had to do his work early to prevent post position because he still wasn't the heaviest player, but even when post-players got position it was still very difficult to finish over those extendo-arms. And on the flip side, Garnett also had the quickness to hound his man all the way out to the 3-point line and beyond. He may have no longer been quick enough to guard small forwards full time, but he was still very possibly the quickest big man in the NBA. Good examples of KG's defense on the two extremes came in the 1999 (Tim Duncan) and 2000 (Rasheed Wallace) playoffs.

1999 Playoffs: Duncan averaged 15.9 pts/36 on 51.6% TS against KG, then 20.5 pts/36 on 58.8% TS against everyone else on way to title

2000 Playoffs: Wallace averaged 11.5 pts/36 on 57.1% TS against KG, then 19.2 pts/36 on 55.1% TS against everyone else

In Sheed's case the scoring efficiency was similar, but his volume was down by almost 40%. In Duncan's case, KG limited both his efficiency (7.2% TS difference) and volume (~23% down).


Late Garnett 1-on-1 defense:
Spoiler:
KG had a major knee injury in 2009, and never had the same explosiveness afterwards. However, he did modify his game and maintain a strong defensive impact. By this time he had "old man strength", enough to be able to defend centers full-time as needed. Despite his lesser athletic ability, though, he still was quicker than most bigs and was able to defend out to the perimeter as needed. Garnett's post defense may have improved a bit because of his strength, but he still had to do much of the work before his man received the ball. He would push them out of the lane on the entry pass, use his arms to deny, pull the chair...essentially using old man tricks to get the job done. There's an outstanding article on his defense, including this technique and a lot more, as well as KG's role in the analytics revolution in the NBA, from ESPN the Magazine in 2012 (link below the quote, but it's Insider):

REALLY, IT WAS JUST A SMALL THING: During the second quarter of a January game against Orlando, Kevin Garnett pushed Dwight Howard out of the paint. A moment later, as the Magic center reached up to catch an entry pass, Garnett shoved him even farther from the hoop. Howard took two dribbles, got stuck and kicked it out to Hedo Turkoglu. When the forward tried to send it back to his big man, KG knocked the ball away, sprinted down the court, took the pass under the hoop and, as three defenders converged on him, kicked it out to Brandon Bass for a wide-open jumper. Swish.


http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/ ... fresh=true

When dealing with more perimeter oriented bigs, Garnett pulled out the tricks that he used to use against small forwards in his youth...he'd take a step back while using length to prevent the jumper, and then use his footspeed to funnel them towards help or low percentage shots on the move. Interestingly, this period produced some of the more egregious examples of KG "shutting down" his competition.

Here were some examples during the regular season of 2012:

(snip) Below are 10 such match-ups that I looked into which include the top-3 (and five of the top 8) scoring centers (one of them twice) in the NBA and two of the top-3 (and four of the top-7) scoring power forwards. I chose situations in which I remember Garnett as the primary defender for those players (i.e. I didn't include Blake Griffin, because I know for a good chunk of the game KG was on DeAndre Jordan). And in each case I went back through the play-by-play log to see how the player scored when he was on the court with KG, and compared that to how he was scoring in the 5 games preceding the Celtics match-up. Here is what I found:

Code: Select all

                   On court with KG       5 previous games (per 36)
                 Min       Pts     TS%      Pts   TS%
Nowitzki 1/11    30.2      14      55.4      20.1   53.9
Howard 1/23      12.4      3      19.6       21.3   55.6
Howard 1/26      21.4      5      37         21.3   55.6
Hibbert 1/27     16.3      6      30         18.4   57
Bynum 3/11       32.9     18      57.1       20     70.3
Smith 3/19       26.7      6      27.3       22     54.3
Gooden 3/22      19.4      6      33.8       21.2   63
Jefferson 3/28   21.9      8      40.9       22.3   59
Love 3/30        26.6      8       38.8      29.3   62.8
Bosh 4/1         25.7      4       20        19.6   58.3
Total (per 36)             12      37.9%     21.8   59.3%


On the whole, with Garnett as their primary defender their scoring volume is cut in HALF with a more than 20% drop in scoring efficiency compared to what they were doing coming into the game. That's unheard of! The only ones with anywhere near normal production were Andrew Bynum and Nowiztki, and even they were down a bit in either shooting efficiency or volume. But the rest?

Over 2 games, KG held Dwight Howard to eight total points on less than 28% true shooting percentage in almost 34 minutes as his primary defender!

Love had been averaging more than 33 points on 63% TS in the five games leading up to running into the buzz saw and getting shut down!

Poor Big Al, Bosh, and Josh Smith scored 18 points TOTAL on 29% true shooting in more than 74 minutes. That's a combined 8.7 points/36!


http://www.celticsblog.com/2012/4/3/292 ... ompetition


Here is a breakdown of his defensive shut-downs in the playoffs during the 2010 Finals Run:

[spoiler]
In an old post I went through the play-by-plays and figured out exactly what Garnett's defensive match-up scored when he was on the court, as opposed to when he was off.

First round
Beasley against Cs (Garnett on court): 9.3 points/36 min, 32% FG
Beasley against Cs (Garnett off court): 23.4 points/36 min, 62% FG
Beasley reg season: 17.9 pts/36 min, 45% FG

Second round
Jamison against Cs (Garnett on court): 11.2 pts/36, 38% FG
Jamison against Cs (Garnett off court): 26.0 pts/36, 56% FG
Jamison playoffs non-Cs: 19.4 pts/36, 51% FG

ECF
Lewis against Cs (Garnett on court): 5.1 pts/36, 24% FG
Lewis against Cs (Garnett off court): 17.3 pts/36, 48% FG
Lewis playoffs non-Cs: 16.4 pts/36, 54% FG

NBA Finals
(#s through first 5 games only, because breakdown harder after Perkins went down)
Gasol against Cs (Garnett on court): 11.5 pts/36, 52% FG
Gasol against Cs (Garnett off court): 20.0 pts/36, 51% FG
Gasol playoffs non-Cs: 18.6 pts/36, 57% FG


KG's help defense through the eras

Young KG (Up through 2001) played during the time before the illegal defense rule change.
Spoiler:
He was playing a lot of both forward positions, so sometimes his man was on the perimeter and sometimes he was guarding more post-oriented players. But even when he was playing the best-of-the-best, his head was always on the swivel for help opportunities. The Wolves played a pretty vanilla defensive style, but KG gave them a disruptive wild card. This is when he was most athletic, and he used his long arms aggressively in the passing lanes and to block shots. Unlike Duncan, who seemed to get a lot of his blocks in 1-on-1 defense opportunities, Garnett's blocked shots seemed to come most often as weakside or topside rotations. It made for interesting angles on the Wolves defense, having their best shot-blocker often swooping down to the rim from the perimeter. This was when Garnett was setting his career highs in steals and combined steals and blocks.

We have prior-informed RAPM with defensive breakdowns starting from 1998, right in this era. From 1998 - 2000, KG averaged a normalized Defensive RAPM (Doc MJ's method) of right around +5. For perspective, in this scale, the best 5-year defensive RAPM peak for a non-big-man is Shane Battier with a 5-year average of +4.3, while Ben Wallace's 5-year peak (excluding 2001 & 2002 due to lacking data) was +5.5. So young KG in his hybrid forward role of the late 90s measured out as a defender on that scale, with more impact than the peak of the best defensive SF on record but not quite up to the level of the peaks of the Wallace brothers (Sheed was also around +5.5).


2002 gets its own category. Starting for the 2002 season, the NBA changed the rules to allow zone defenses.
Spoiler:
For most teams this wasn't a huge deal. For Minnesota it was, because they had Flip Saunders as coach and KG as their star. Flip gets maligned sometimes for his coaching ability, but I always thought he was a solid coach. If nothing else, he was creative. He coached as though he were still coaching a college or semi-pro team. There were always jokes about how thick his offensive playbook was compared to other coaches. So when the NBA started allowing zone defenses, Flip was ready to take advantage with this never-before-seen concept: Put a mobile, aggressive 7-footer at the top of the zone and let him guard...everybody. I don't know how many of you remember watching the Timberwolves in 2002. First, I should point out that the other starters to begin the year were Terrell Brandon, Wally Szczerbiak, Joe Smith and Rasho Nesterovic. Brandon had quick hands but wasn't very physical or good at staying in front of his man; Wally had been slow-footed for a small forward which made him grossly slow for a SG but he had good size and was rugged; Joe Smith was solid at positioning and drawing charges but not very physical/good on the boards; Rasho was a legit 7-footer but he was more "known" for his offense than his defense or rebounding.

Now, to that zone. The concept was that none of the other defenders were very talented at defending their man, but in this zone defense they didn't have to be. They only had to remain in their quadrant and try to hinder anyone in that area. And KG would be there to help them...no matter where it was on the floor. KG would start at the very top of the zone, extended beyond the top of the 3-point line. When the PG came down on the dribble, KG would accost him. When he passed to the wing, KG followed the ball and trapped. If the pass went to the corner, KG followed it there. To the post, KG followed it there. Essentially, his role was to follow the ball everywhere and help everyone. Then to go get the rebound.

And to start the year, it actually worked! It was something that no other team was doing, so teams didn't know how to prepare for it. Meanwhile, starting Wally at the 2 gave him a size edge on offense, and since he was hidden on defense it made the offense more potent and closer to a real tripole (KG, Brandon and Wally). The Wolves started out the year 30 - 10, among the best records in the league. This earned Wally his first (and only) All Star appearance as the 2nd leading scorer on a contender. But...there was a little problem. Point guard Terrell Brandon got hurt (with an injury that turned out to be career-ending), and back-up Chauncey Billups moved into the starting line-up. At this point in his career Chauncey was proving to be a talented scorer, but he wasn't really a natural point guard yet. He had better size and shooting range than Brandon, if he was more streaky, but he couldn't run the offense the same way. Clearly Wally, Smith and Rasho weren't remotely capable of handling the ball or creating offense on their own. So KG had to take on more offensive responsibility than he ever had. He did, but it seemed to come at the expense of some of his defensive energy. Plus, by now teams had seen the crazy Flip zone and were starting to adjust. After starting the season 30 - 10, the Wolves finished 20 - 22 to finish 50 - 32. Their reward was a first round match-up with the 57-win Mavs.

This series is the elephant in the room when it comes to discussing KG's postseason defense. Because the Mavs absolutely torched the Timberwolves' defense, and Dirk Nowitzki (nominally KG's man, as the PF) had an absolutely other-worldly scoring series. If you didn't watch the series it is easy to believe that Dirk must have torched KG. Instead, between that Wolves zone and the other Wolves' over-reliance on KG's help defense (even in man-to-man situations) KG actually spent very little time defending Dirk that series. The scenes that are seared into my memory from that series involve the Mavs running a Steve Nash, Nick Van Exel, Michael Finley, Dirk Nowitzki and Raef Lafrentz line-up out there. Chauncey Billups flat could not stay in front of Nash. Anthony Peeler (SG who got more run against the Mavs 2 PG look) was even more helpless to stay with Van Exel. Wally Z would get torched in the Iso by Finley. And Raef and Dirk would spread out beyond the arc, forcing Rasho to come out to guard one of them (not his forte). The Mavs would spread out, then let the man with the ball take his man off the dribble (usually not even requiring a pick). KG would have to drop to the foul line in help to cut them off. The ball would swing around until it reached the open man (often Dirk). Swish. Rinse and repeat. In my mind's eye I see KG running around, always a step too far away to prevent the shot, then diving to the lane to grab the board (he averaged about 19 rpg that series).

In the end, I don't know how to evaluate 2002 as far as KG's defense. Obviously the bottom line was that he couldn't do enough with his help D to make it a viable system against that particular Mavs match-up, though a round later the Kings would beat the Mavs easily. The only offensive match-up worse for the Wolves' defense in those days was the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, who could overwhelm their defender before KG could effectively help and destroy them. That crazy zone (thankfully) never got much run again outside of spurts, so I guess Flip learned that it was better as a surprise gimmick than a mainstay. The RAPM numbers for 2002 are partial, and all from the end of the year (when the Wolves were in a tailspin). So...I don't know. Not KG's best hour, though I don't know how much to put on him.


Peak KG (2003, 2004).
Spoiler:
Coming off of 2002, the Wolves went back to their more vanilla defensive schemes with KG playing more PF more regularly. By 2004 he was a full-time PF. In 2003 the Wolves' other starters on defense ranged from average (Rasho) to terrible (Troy Hudson, Anthony Peeler and Wally Z). In 2004 there were actually some reasonable defenders (Hassell and Spree) to go along with a walking 6 fouls center (Erv Johnson, Mark Madsen or Olowokandi) and the below average (defensively)Cassell. Garnett was taking on the largest offensive responsibilities that he would ever carry, so he couldn't concentrate wholly on defense in either year. But with this being the height of his peak, he was still able to dominate on D. His steal numbers weren't quite as high as early KG, but he did hit a career-high in blocks in 2004. Playing more often at PF, his help defense was finally coming from the paint out instead of from the top-down like it often had been before. This also left him closer to the rim, which is when he started really vacuuming in the defensive boards (led the league in rebounds for 4 straight years, starting in 2004). This is when KG was hitting the best balance between offense and defense (e.g. in 2003 he ranked 2nd in the NBA in offensive RAPM and 7th in defensive RAPM; while in 2004 he ranked 1st offensive RAPM and 3rd in defensive RAPM).

Speaking of RAPM, using the normalized PI RAPM calculation, KG averaged a +5.41 defensive RAPM in those two years. For reference, this value would have put him almost exactly on the level of the 5-year peaks of Ben and Rasheed Wallace.

The lost years (2005 - 2007):
Spoiler:
The Wolves had 4 different coaches with 4 different defensive systems betweeen 2005 and 2007. They also had several big trades and lots of roster turnover, including big changes around midway through all 3 seasons (coach changes in 2005 and 2007; big trade in 2006). It is thus very difficult to coherently evaluate KG's help defense in those years. On the whole I'd say that his help defense remained roughly constant, but the end results were variable. He averaged 2.8 steals/blocks per year over those 3 years, down a bit from his norm (actually his career-lows as a full time starter at that time). He probably wasn't quite as athletic as he'd been at peak and before, but he was also grabbing more rebounds than ever before (leading the league in rebounds with defensive rebound percentages over 30%). His defensive RAPM marks in 2005 and 2006 were the lowest of his career (average +2.3 normalized D RAPM), which is interesting because the 2006 team defense was actually reasonable (#10 in the league). The 2007 defense finished #21 in the league (worst of any KG team), but that's a bit misleading because the defense imploded any time KG left the court. With KG on the court, their team defensive rating was (from memory) about #14 in the league. But when KG wasn't on the court (including the 6 games he missed), the defense was cartoon-level bad (from memory something like a 125 or 130 team defensive rating in those games). Thus, despite how awful the team defense was, 2007 marked the first time that KG finished with the highest defensive RAPM in the league (+5.56, slightly below his then career-best +5.69 from 2004).

The late-prime Celtics years (2008 + 2009).
Spoiler:
As we all know, KG went to the Celtics in 2008 and, at the end of his fading prime, showed what kind of defensive impact he could have in a good defensive system when he didn't have to be a 1-man mission on offense. The Thibideau system fit him like a glove. He blew up the pick-and-roll like no one ever had, cementing his reputaiton as the best PnR defender in the NBA. Even with his mobility shy of what it had once been, he provided excellent help defense anywhere within the 3-point line. He had a (then) career-low 1.3 blocks per game, but I remember someone doing a film study and concluding that KG wasn't getting many blocked shot attempts because he was rotating so quickly that he was beating the offensive player to the spot and preventing the shot before it could be taken. Thus, he was lowering field goal percentages and causing play resets into scrambles that also led to lower percentage looks for the opponents. There's no place in the box score that accounts for that type of help defense, but it showed up in the team Defense (which had one of the historic years in NBA history) and it also showed up in KG's defensive RAPM scores (his +6.9 and +7.44 marks in 2008 and 2009 (pre-injury) were higher than the career-best marks of Duncan, David Robinson (post 1997), or any of the Wallace brothers. Only Mutombo and Mourning (and, randomly, Jason Collins) have seasons on record with higher defensive RAPM scores than that, and Mouning's and Mutombo's were from the era before the offensive and defensie rule changes when being a rim protector might have been more valuable than it is now.

From 2010 - 2013, after the knee injury, KG had lost his fastball.
Spoiler:
He was still mobile for a big man, but he was no longer a freak. He went through stretches, especially in 2010, when he wasn't quick enough to rotate onto smaller players the way he used to or even stay with his own man. Some of those 2010 games were downright sad to see. But like an ace pitcher after Tommy John surgery, he learned to adapt to his new situation. He studied the defensive sets and his opponent's offensive sets so much that he knew where everyone was supposed to be on either team at all times, and he communicated it (loudly) to his teammates. Just ask former Nets coach Avery Johnson:

Nets coach Avery Johnson was whimsically whinin' with an Avery Johnson-sized smile about KG's tendency for knowing everything about basketball that there is to know. Loudly.

From Thursday night's pregame scrum, via Mike Mazzeo at ESPN New York:

"The funny thing is, I wish he would be quiet on the floor and not call out your plays," the Nets coach said in a bemused and complimentary tone Thursday morning prior to his team's nationally-televised contest against KG's Celtics. "He's seen so much. We'll call a play and he'll say, 'Joe [Johnson] is going over here and Deron [Williams] is going here.' It's not funny anymore, OK?


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball- ... --nba.html

Another thing that I noticed KG relying on more was using mind games to throw people off balance. He'd always done that as one of the biggest trash talkers in the NBA for the last two decades, but maybe I just noticed it more when he got older. Or maybe he did it more. Sometimes trash talk/physical play/mind games backfires (the way that BIll Simmons believes that it did against LeBron in the 2012 playoffs). But often it works, especially late in games against hot players.

Here's an example of it working on Al Jefferson at the end of a game where Jefferson had been smoking, but KG made him lose his head on a crucial possession late.

Kevin Garnett wormed his way into Al Jefferson’s head at a time when the Celtics needed an edge and the Jazz couldn’t afford to crack.

It started with a simple trick. With the Jazz trailing, 98-94, in last night’s game, Jefferson had Garnett posted, ready to go to work, and Garnett pulled the chair out from under Jefferson.

Then, the talking started.

Referee Joey Crawford issued warnings, double technicals, and more warnings. Garnett was face-to-face with Jefferson the entire time. Celtics coach Doc Rivers has a rule against fourth quarter technicals, but Garnett shouted at Rivers, saying, “I didn’t say anything.’’

He was still mouth-to-ear with Jefferson at that point, and Jefferson was the picture of frustration.

Play resumed, and Jefferson got the ball back in the post, and when a double-team from Garnett and Rajon Rondo came, he immediately traveled.

Up until that point, the Jazz had forced the Celtics into a breakneck back-and-forth that they wanted no part of after already drag racing with Golden State and going 0-to-60 with the Nuggets.

Garnett’s mind games were like an emergency brake in what ended up a 107-102 Celtics win over Utah.

“Even though Kevin got a technical, the next play he got a travel,’’ said Paul Pierce, who hit a 3-pointer that made it 101-96. “That was big. That’s what Kevin does. Defensively, he gets in guys’ heads. Al had it going, and that was a crucial possession.’’


http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball ... p_up_jazz/

On the whole, KG's overall defense has remained elite even into his later years. According to the same defensive RAPM study, KG's average defensive score for 2010 - 2012 (+5.9) would have put his impact right between the 5-year peaks (from 1998 on) of the big Spurs (Duncan (+6.2) and David Robinson (+6.2)) and the Wallace brothers (+5.5 and +5.5 for Ben and Sheed).

Bottom line: KG's defense has changed a lot through the years, as his roles have changed. At every iteration he was a hugely impactful defender, and at his best he was the most impactful defender of the post rule-changes era in the NBA. His absurd combination of PnR defense, middle linebacker abilities, defensive IQ, length/athletic ability ratio, mind games and aggressiveness make him a unique beast. He isn't perfect. in his prime he could have (and did) guard pretty much anyone between Jordan and Shaq, but you wouldn't have actually wanted to put him on Jordan or Shaq (though in his career he actually was the primary defender for both Jordan and Shaq at different times). His mind games often work, but sometimes they backfire. When Flip Saunders asked him to play the closest that I've ever seen to a 1-man team defense, he eventually came up short against a team with too many offensive weapons. And while he measured out as one of the best defensive players of his era while in his offensive peak, his defensive peak came later in a situation that was more conducive to defensive impact. So there were limits. But those limits were very few, very far between, and surrounded one of the most brilliant defensive careers that the NBA has seen. Was KG the evolutionary Bill Russell? Not for me to say. But I will say that he's the best defensive player that I've ever watched live action, and he certainly has an argument that he could walk in Russell's shoes. Which is about as big of a compliment as any defensive player can receive.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
User avatar
MacGill
Veteran
Posts: 2,766
And1: 565
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: From Parts Unknown...
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#51 » by MacGill » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:10 pm

Vote: Shaquille O'Neal

Won't really be available too much after today for the next day or so, so I want to be sure my vote gets locked in.

We've had about 3 threads now highlighting the positives and negatives of Shaq (so I'm not going to go much into it here) and the defensive information presented (Colts18) has surprised many posters versus their previous perceptions. Plain and simple, he has a top 2-3 peak of all-time, very good prime and good longevity. Much better defensively than his critics give him credit for and his game meshes nicley with other higher volume stars for a fantastic 1-2 punch. He has his faults, no doubt, but I think the biggest win for him here is that statistical breakdowns go against the grain of the perceived laziness and low impact defensively. Surely, at times, this was the case, it wouldn't be criticized if not true, however, not to the extent some here make it out to be.

Basically, he's just the reverse of what most stereotypical centers are supposed to be by definition: He was offense first and defense second. And if poster's are good with offenses comparable to Shaq's defense, than there should be no reason why his defense shouldn't get the same merit in comparison. Especially as his offense against some, may exceed the defensive difference between the said players.

With this, I have Magic, Bird, Hakeem & LBJ (in no order yet) rounding out my top 10. Going to keep an openmind with the information presented but from what I have read, I am starting to lean towards a Hakeem vs LBJ for my next spot. LBJ's career is already long enough to go against both Larry & Magic IMO, but this will be a very interesting part of the project for me.
Image
Baller2014
Banned User
Posts: 2,049
And1: 519
Joined: May 22, 2014
Location: No further than the thickness of a shadow
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#52 » by Baller2014 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:24 pm

Ok, I think I've talked myself around to Magic after watching some of his games today, and comparing their impact/careers. Magic's prime isn't entirely consistent, but only in the sense that he got better and better the longer he played. His rookie year was still an amazing, top 5 in the NBA type year IMO. Shaq had the potential to be better than Magic, but IMO he never really realised it. It's close, but I think Magic has the better prime, and gives up very little in terms of longevity (given Shaq's collapse as a significant player almost immediately after his prime). Magic is basically the greatest offensive player of all time, and he showed he could carry weak-ish teams into top of the NBA juggernauts. I just feel like if I started an NBA franchise with Magic over Shaq, I'd win more. It's tough to vote here, because there are so many good options; Shaq, Magic, Lebron, Bird, and Hakeem right after them.

I could be talked around, but I think I have to go with the Laker GOAT.

Vote- Magic Johnson
User avatar
MacGill
Veteran
Posts: 2,766
And1: 565
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: From Parts Unknown...
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#53 » by MacGill » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:37 pm

Baller2014 wrote:Ok, I think I've talked myself around to Magic after watching some of his games today, and comparing their impact/careers. Magic's prime isn't entirely consistent, but only in the sense that he got better and better the longer he played. His rookie year was still an amazing, top 5 in the NBA type year IMO. Shaq had the potential to be better than Magic, but IMO he never really realised it. It's close, but I think Magic has the better prime, and gives up very little in terms of longevity (given Shaq's collapse as a significant player almost immediately after his prime). Magic is basically the greatest offensive player of all time, and he showed he could carry weak-ish teams into top of the NBA juggernauts. I just feel like if I started an NBA franchise with Magic over Shaq, I'd win more. It's tough to vote here, because there are so many good options; Shaq, Magic, Lebron, Bird, and Hakeem right after them.

I could be talked around, but I think I have to go with the Laker GOAT.

Vote- Magic Johnson


See, now you're just making statements that you can't prove and I do not understand why?

Please tell me what Shaq's potential limit was? How far away was he from reaching this potential?

Shaq was a great player for over a decade? :o

Or is this the same ol' I am going to throw out the ultra inconsistent card because it has been getting some attention here. But as I stated in the last thread.....no mention of Magic's attitude threatening to go back to college if he didn't join LA and KAJ, to have this ATG career that he had, and well there is the fact that he got his coach fired.

Let's stop the double standard here. I am all for the discussion but be consistent with pros/cons. In other words, pretend every player is Shaq and it shouldn't be a problem.
Image
User avatar
Narigo
Veteran
Posts: 2,775
And1: 869
Joined: Sep 20, 2010
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#54 » by Narigo » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:53 pm

From the last thread

Shaq, without a doubt is one of the best offensive players of all time. At his peak, he was one of the most dominant players the league has ever seen. In his third year, Shaq was already the best player in the league in my opinion. He was a good defender when he was motivated. He was intimidating defender because of his strength and size. Despite his injury woes and out of shape issues, his prime was long (94-03).
He was definitely a great low post scorer. In his prime, it was impossible to guard him one on one. His abiltiy to draw double and triple teams makes it easier for his teammates.

Though he coasted in the regular season from time to time, he plays well on both sides of his court come playoff time. His prime is longer and better than both Magic and Bird.


Vote: Shaq
Narigo's Fantasy Team

PG: Damian Lillard
SG: Sidney Moncrief
SF:
PF: James Worthy
C: Tim Duncan

BE: Robert Horry
BE:
BE:
Baller2014
Banned User
Posts: 2,049
And1: 519
Joined: May 22, 2014
Location: No further than the thickness of a shadow
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#55 » by Baller2014 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:54 pm

What Magic did before his career even started has no impact on his actual career as it happened (the same is true of Kobe and Shaq, who pulled the same sort of thing before their careers started, though Shaq failed to actually get traded to the Lakers).

I don't get why you're accusing me of inconsistency. This is my list from before the project started, and I have Magic at #4 (one spot above Shaq):
viewtopic.php?p=40162841#p40162841

Shaq's a totally worthy choice here too, I just think I've talked myself into Magic because the career he had gives you more impact, and thus more success.
batmana
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,823
And1: 1,425
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#56 » by batmana » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:00 pm

My vote for the No. 6 (may be the easiest since Jordan) is Shaquille O'Neal.

If we were voting actual best players instead of greatest (where titles and legacies count a lot), I'd have Shaq firmly at No. 2 behind Jordan.

He was the most dominant center (and player) in the league throughout his prime. He won three straight titles during his absolute prime and was a monster in the Finals (I won't be posting the numbers again but like another poster mentioned, he didn't have a single bad GAME in those series). He won an additional title after his prime in Miami where he was arguably their 2nd most important player even though his role was diminished in the Finals. He was unstoppable offensively to the point where the best move against him would be to foul him. He fouled out entire frontlines and hack-a-Shaq was used most excessively on him to slow him down, not as much to disrupt the Lakers' offense (whereas hack-a-Howard is currently used to slow down Houston offensively and play with his head). Shaq had a significant impact on defense as well even though he didn't give 100% on that end in multiple seasons. Still, his dominance and GOAT-level peak is good enough for this spot.

IMO, his competition here is Magic, Bird and LeBron. I don't see Hakeem's case against those as compelling enough. I think Shaq beats all of them in peak and dominance and that's the bottomline for me.
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,672
And1: 5,657
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#57 » by An Unbiased Fan » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:04 pm

Baller2014 wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Strange, I didn't hear a peep from you when I had Duncan all alone at PF.....

FYI, I used the same logic last time around. It's much easier for me to parse out players by comparing them to others at the same positions to start with, then I can look at the last 5 and pick a winner.

As for Petitt, he and ALL five PFs I mentioned were Top 20 last time around. I have already brought up Kobe, so why would I need tricks to mention him? I flatout said I'm going Kobe after Magic, so I'm not sure what you're even getting at. If that bothers you, oh well.

I don't get why you can't just tell us who the next 3-4 best players are in your mind. This way it's being left very vague, as though your order can be shifted 180 degrees as circumstances change. It shouldn't matter who the "best shooting guard" or "best power forward" left is, just who the "best player" remaining is. I mean, nobody is going to question your right to rank them how you like, and you've already admitted you're voting for Kobe next (when most people here aren't even going to consider him until spot #11), so why can't you just tell us who the next 3-4 best players are in your mind? I'm happy to tell you my top 10 list as I currently see things.

I literally did this in nearly every thread. This is from the last one....
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Hmm, still leaning towards Magic for #5, then Kobe/Duncan. Hakeem talk is interesting, though I don't feel his 2 year playoff span vaults him into my Top 10. Don't think I've seen a single Bird post yet, when he was getting alot of attention last time around.

^
How is that not telling the "the next 3-4 best players"?

The irony of in all of this, is that by rating every player by position first, my rankings are very easy to see & predict. And as ardee pointed out above, its obvious you're just interested in making sure Kobe is not Top 10, the same way you wanted Duncan Top 5. If that's your goal, then you can stop because I doubt Kobe makes it Top 15 or even Top 20 considering how disliked he is around here. I'm here for the discussions, not to count votes until "my guy" wins plurality, or whine because "my guy" didn't get voted in. This is just a message board thread, take a breath and relax. It's not that serious.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
User avatar
ronnymac2
RealGM
Posts: 11,003
And1: 5,070
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#58 » by ronnymac2 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:07 pm

Vote: Shaquille O'Neal

Spoiler:
ronnymac2 wrote:Vote: Shaquille O'Neal

I've been hemming and hawing on O'Neal vs. Olajuwon. To be honest, they are similar in terms of longevity. They had all-time great rookie years that I can't count as prime years simply because they were waayy too flawed. But then they have dominant sophomore seasons. They arrive. We've got superstars now. Top-5 players in the league. Each would stay like that for the next dozen years. Shaq hit his peak in year 8. Hakeem hit his peak in year 9. Even that part is similar.

I'm voting for Shaq because...well, it's so close that on any given day, one could be ahead of the other for me. Today is a Shaq day.

Really though, Shaq had a great career. He's a wonderful 5 vs. 5 basketball player because of his creative, unselfish passing, which he displayed from day 1. It took him a year or two to acclimate himself to handling doubles and triples and pseudo zones and the speed of the NBA defenses, but once he learned that, he did a great job of melding his own offensive talents with the talents of other players on his team. He had a lot of different types of offensive support in his career, with pretty much amazing results each time. Unipolar offense in 1994 with very little help (good ball-handling since Skiles was still there). 1995-1996, ridiculous offensive talent in the starting lineup, one of the best offensive players even in Penny, GOAT role player in HoGrant, and 2 40 percent shooters from 3. The offense was flawed for sure (only one reliable ball-handler, and they didn't need Anderson's individual offense), but they were dominant offensively. I'd say the flaws could be more detrimental for Penny since he had all the pressure as the lone ball-handler. Pretty amazing what Penny was able to do.

1997-1999, flawed but talented peripheral scorers but no true second creator, no system, no PF, and a really stupid team in general. Pretty sure they were top-3 in 1998 and 1999.

2000, finally gets an elite perimeter creator. Crap 3-point shooting and peripheral individual scoring talent, but excellent spacing because of the Triangle and having smarter players playing more minutes. That's basically how it'd be for all of his remaining Laker tenure, except at certain times when Fisher/Horry/Fox would get hot from 3 in the playoffs. Actually 2005 is similar but with better 3-point shooting (Eddie and Damon Jones were crazy that year) and Wade replacing Kobe as the elite creator.

Defensively, Shaq has clear weaknesses. Even when he was 100% svelte and fit, he was too big and too heavy to be able to shift his monentum and his weight to combat misdirection plays and pick-n-rolls. That's one part of his genetic talent that I always thought got brushed aside. He was perfectly built for offense in basketball, but he was always going to be limited defensively relative to the other all-time great defensive Cs. He'd be able to do the basic things like protect the rim, defend post players REALLY well, and blocks shots and knock people down, but shooters and misdirection would always give him trouble.

Just an observation: I sometimes wish teams had built around Shaq more like the 2001 team. For the first several years of his career, teams were built around him and had the same problem as the 2004 Mavericks had. If you've got Nash and Nowitzki, there's no point in adding additional scorers and creators and 20 PPG players. Just give them defensive support. I don' think Shaq had great defensive support pre-2001. Even in 2000, having Rice and Green at the forward positions is horrific. :lol: I would shifted the emphasis offensively and went more for a defense-first approach if I were building around Shaq, because I think I could build a dominant defense around Shaq and still have awesome offense even with...simpler talent.

I can't say I have ever seen one guy take more of a beating than Shaq. Check out highlights of Game 2 of the 2000 NBA Finals. Indiana was mauling him. If that stuff happened today to say, Andre Drummond or DeAndre Jordan, the guys fouling them would be kicked out of the game. I think Shaq took 39 foul shots that game. Still dropped 40 and 24.


Just to add to what's in the spoiler...I'm voting for Shaq because his prime was just as long and as good as Magic's and Hakeem's, and longer than Bird's or LeBron's, and he's got a peak to match any of them.

Shaq's most clutch moment ever was the 2002 WCF. His team was down 3-2 to arguably the best team in basketball, the Sacramento Kings. SAC had HCA and a higher SRS than LA in the REG SEA, and they matched up very well with LA because they had high post bigs and plenty of shooting and depth.

Shaq delivered in games 6 and 7. Averaged 38/15 and shot 75 percent from the free throw line over the 2 games. In Game 7 at Arco, he scored 6 of LA's 12 points in OT to help the team win.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
User avatar
MacGill
Veteran
Posts: 2,766
And1: 565
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: From Parts Unknown...
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#59 » by MacGill » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:08 pm

I am not accusing...I am just asking for the same. And you haven't answered what his actual basketball ability limit was? and how far he was from it?

You were the first to bring up, as you did here, all the negatives that come along with the good. But you don't seem to do this on the same level for the players you vote in. I am not saying you haven't said good about Shaq, but your posts seem to concentrate on the negatives much more for the player you're not voting for and much more positive for the ones you are leaving out the negatives. With your post around Magic, you just highlighted everything good and left things out.

So, what do you then think of Magic getting his coach fired? And regardless of what anyone else did, Magic selecting to play with KAJ changed the outcome of his career.
Image
Baller2014
Banned User
Posts: 2,049
And1: 519
Joined: May 22, 2014
Location: No further than the thickness of a shadow
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#60 » by Baller2014 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:13 pm

The negative you brought up for Magic was before his NBA career even began. It had zero impact on his actual career as it happened, it's unfair to judge that. I'm all for judging negatives we can actually detect that affect on the court play, but agent machinations before you arrive in he NBA isn't in that category.

Magic getting his coach fired counts, except it turns out Magic was right... so by doing that he actually helped the team a lot. Shaq's negatives weren't him making tough decisions to help the team, they were Shaq putting himself ahead of the team, and I gave a tonne of examples in the last few threads. I appreciate what Shaq did, he's totally worth to be discussed here and I'd take him top 5 all-time (see my list). I just feel like he underachieved, and rarely played like he could have (in his short peak). If I started a team with Magic, I just feel I'd win more, because his overall impact was more.

Return to Player Comparisons