RealGM Top 100 List #10

[PCProductions]

My vote for #10 all time: Kevin Garnett

I voted for him as high as #8 and continue to insist that both his longevity, portability and impressively high peak are as good or better than anyone not voted in yet.

Longevity: This is where Garnett absolutely takes the cake. He's on the short list of most durable and reliable players in NBA history with Kareem and Duncan. He had an extended prime much like Duncan as well as a soft decline in his post prime. 2009-2013 are still strong years that kept his teams in contention much due to his two-way impact. 2014 was the first where he looked incapable of being noteworthy, but I'm still interested in seeing if this was the true ending of his career rather than a confused state of a rotating door of a team.

Portability: I briefly mentioned this in the #8 thread, but his immediate impact on that 2008 Boston team should seal the deal for his portability. They were an immediate, all-time level defense whose identity started and ended with Garnett at the "middle linebacker" position. He was also transformative offensively as their offense fell to league-average without him on the floor, furthering the case of his offensive game being conducive to success without needing to be the main scorer like he was in Minnesota.

Peak: KG's 2004 season is on the short list of greatest two-way seasons by any player ever. +/- data equates this season with the likes of '09 Lebron of statistical madness while leading the league in points and rebounds. Game 7 vs. Sacramento was among his most impressive individual performances of his career. This was a super season.

Why not these guys?

Kobe: The longevity is there and we have yet to see how he truly looks after that achilles injury, so the jury is still out on this one. Even then, up to this point, he's an all timer in that category. However, I think his defense has been way too inconsistent throughout his career and even then I thought it was slightly overrated in his peak years. It also fell off a cliff after 2010, though 2008 and 2009 were nice years on that end. He's an all timer offensively, but it doesn't make up for his wavering defense throughout his career.

Bird: An all time favorite of mine and genius of the sport, but his longevity just isn't there. His peak is among the highest of anyone to lace 'em up, and his defense is slightly underrated. He might be the GOAT offensive player, so even being a net neutral on defense is enough to qualify him for contention for GOAT peak. He's got probably the most portable offensive game of anybody's who's ever played, too. The fact is, Garnett's just netted too many quality years over him to be behind when contrasting careers.

D-Rob: I loved ElGee's write-up comparing Robinson and Garnett, especially in regards to their contrasting offensive playstyles. Robinson's offensive game just never struck me as very portable, and even then it wasn't an ultra-high impact one in the years that the team was molded around it. Combine that with a Bird-like longevity, and I don't think you've got too strong an argument for Robinson in facet against Garnett.

[ardee]

It makes me sick to my stomach that I'll be voting for Bird to be out of the top 10, but such were the results prior to this...

Ardee, you had Bird over Kobe in your pre-list:

8. Larry Bird
9. Kobe Bryant

What has changed here?

Couple things.

I think I was overestimating Bird's defensive utility. The standout games you see, like game 5 of the Hawks series in '86 or his championship triple double, make him look like this amazing help defender who was always in the faces of the entry passers, and harassed bigs 24/7. I think I was guilty of highlight bias. There aren't too many games available on youtube but after doing some more watching he seems to be more of a scrappy, complimentary guy on that end. A lesser version of Andrei Kirilenko if you will, instead of the LeBron or Scottie he looks like in some other games. Still an impact guy on that end, especially in his younger years, but Kobe's consistent man defense was more impactful during 2000-2004 and 2008-10.

On a rethink, I also thought I wasn't giving enough credit to Kobe for being so careful with the ball. 9 TOV% in 2006, with a 37 USG! He was a better handler than Bird, and I think you can argue that it showed when he played the stingy defenses of the 2000s Spurs.

And like I said, he had more overall years at what was (IMO) a championship level anchor. Put pretty much any 2000s Kobe season other than 2004 and 2005 on the mid 80s Celtics and you're getting the same results. The way defenses played back then, he'd own the league.

In fairness if you transport Bird to the 2000s he'd kill it too. He'd be better than Dirk ever was and Dirk is pretty damned good.

It's a virtual coin flip. I have Kobe ahead by a hair. Bird certainly has his advantages (though I'd rather be as bald as Kobe than have that dead rodent that Bird wore).

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Texas Chuck]

Longevity: This is where Garnett absolutely takes the cake. He's on the short list of most durable and reliable players in NBA history with Kareem and Duncan.

What about Karl Malone, John Stockton, Dirk Nowitzki?

KG has tremendous durability and great longevity, but he's not some outlier in this regard really at all when we are discussing top 20 candidates. Karl Malone in particular is more durable and more reliable than KG.

[penbeast0]

I'm having the same problem with Bird as I did comparing him to Hakeem. I want to support him, but "it just wont write." When I try to write it out, I keep coming back to
(a) longevity -- Bird falls behind the straight out of HS guys . . . yes, it's a modern game advantage that wasn't available to guys like Wilt who went pro (to the Globies) after his freshman year but had to wait 3 years to go to the NBA . . . but even discounting those first 2 years, Kobe and Garnett have a significant advantage.
(b) stats -- Bird clearly has a statistical edge on Garnett as he should since a significant percentage of Garnett's value is defensive while Bird was a below average defender (despite the All-D Awards). But against Kobe (who is a slightly above average defender for career from what I've seen -- sort of in the Jordan mode of not defending every play but being able to turn it on when he wanted to put in the extra effort), Bird comes up short both defensively and is at best around the same in terms of statistical value.
(3) Results -- Winner's bias is a commonly used attack here but the point of the game is to win and guys who won more (or less) than I expected considering the talent around them get a bonus. The only one of the three who really surprised me with extra wins over my expectations (though not necessarily the expectations of others) was Kobe. I didn't think those Gasol/Bynum teams were championship teams but they won anyway. Now, I give Phil Jackson a lot of that credit -- that crazy stat about coaches playoff wins over expectations confirmed my beliefs that were already in place about Phil's value and exceeded them -- but still, Kobe was without a question the leader of those later Laker championship teams.

So, much to my surprise, I am leaning toward Kobe over Bird or Garnett. The trouble is, I've always thought Jerry West was the better player with the Lakers and maybe I'm just being swayed by popular opinion and the particular comps being made. So, not ready to vote yet but I am ready to move off Bird; until talked back into it.

(That's the trouble with trying to go into these threads with an open mind -- makes you seem wishy washy and inconsistent even to yourself)

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

Outside of a longer prime, I don't see how he has the edge in production. Again it's close, but i think bird has a clear edge.

Regular Season per 100:
80-88 Bird: 31/8/13 on 57% TS 24.2 PER
01-10 Kobe: 38/7/7 on 56% TS 24.6 PER

Playoffs:
80-88 Bird: 28/7/14 on 56% TS 21.9 PER
01-10 Kobe: 36/7/7 on 55% TS 23.5 PER

Kobe's production was higher than Bird's, and he did it for more seasons.

For kobe's first 3 titles, he was the #2 next to one of the most dominant offensive forces in NBA history. For his last 2, he was the #1, but still had an all NBA level big who was one of the best passers in the game alongside him. Gasol also had a very good case for finals MVP in 2010, but we know he had no chance of actually winning it. Odom was an excellent 3rd option in 09 specifically.

Without those guys, he never made it out of the first round of the playoffs. I wasn't trying to discredit him. It was more of a comment about people touting guys who won with "(little to) no help", although hopefully we won't hear as much about that since hakeem's been voted in.

I see what your'e saying. I think in comparison to Bird, Kobe maximized his support better.

Career with SRS Advantage:
00-12 Kobe: 20-1
80-90 Bird: 20-5

Kobe's one loss to to a lesser SRS team was in 2011 to Dallas, the eventual champs. Kobe didn't play well dropping 23 ppg on 52% TS.

Bird however lost to a team with lesser SRS 5 out the the 10 years.

1980: The #1 seed Celtics lose 1-4 to the 76ers in the ECF, with Dr. J dropping 25 ppg in the series. Can't blame rookie Bird here that much, and game 3 was pretty epic.

1982: Again, the #1 seed Celtics lose to the 76ers. Bird's shooting was off the mark, 18.3 ppg on 45% TS. He did board & assist well though.

1983: Boston swept by the Bucks. Bird shoots 18.7 ppg, on 45% TS

1988: Detroit finally upsets Boston. McHale drops 27 ppg on 63% TS. Bird shoots 19.8 ppg on 45% TS.

1990: Knicks upset Boston in the 1st round. Bird was good though dropping 24/9/9 on 54% TS.

^
Kobe did more with his support than Bird.

I was looking at slightly different years (82-90 for bird and 01-11 for kobe), and was going by raw production as well as TS%, net OFF/DEF RTG, and WS/48. Since you used per 100 possessions, here are those figures for the years are I was using:

Bird 82-90 per 100
RS: ~32 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 8 APG, 2 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.8 TOPG
51% FG, 37% 3PT 89% FT, 57% TS, 117/102 OFF/DEF RTG, .221 WS/48

PS: ~29 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 7.8 APG, 2 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.6 TOPG
48% FG, 35% 3PT, 89% FT, 56% TS, 116/105 OFF/DEF RTG, .181 WS/48

Kobe 01-11 per 100
RS: ~37.6 PPG, 7.6 RPG, 7 APG, 2 SPG, .6 BPG, 4.2 TOPG
~45.5% FG, 34% 3PT, 84% FT, 56% TS, 113/105 OFF/DEF RTG, .195 WS/48

PS: ~36 PPG, 7 RPG, 6.6 APG, 2 SPG, .7 BPG, 4 TOPG
~45% FG, 34% 3PT, 82.5% FT, 55% TS, 111/106 OFF/DEF RTG, .174 WS/48

I'll agree that per 100 helps kobe's case, but no, I don't see a clear advantage for him there. Kobe's role on the lakers was always as a scorer above all else, and while bird was the primary scoring option, his role largely included being a general playmaker on yes, a more balanced roster. Having access to per 100 stats for players now is great to look at. We shouldn't push aside raw production completely, though, as there are always context to #s (positive or negative).

[Purch]

Longevity: This is where Garnett absolutely takes the cake. He's on the short list of most durable and reliable players in NBA history with Kareem and Duncan.

What about Karl Malone, John Stockton, Dirk Nowitzki?

KG has tremendous durability and great longevity, but he's not some outlier in this regard really at all when we are discussing top 20 candidates. Karl Malone in particular is more durable and more reliable than KG.

The Durability and longevity of Malone trumps anyone here IMHO, and it's not really close once you break it down.

Comparing the longevity of Karl Malone and Hakeem

Seasons played

Malone-19
Garnett-19

Seasons played averaging 30+ Minutes

Malone-19
Garnett-15

Seasons averaging 20+ PPG

Malone-17
Garnett-9

Post Seasons averaging 20+ PPG

Malone-18
Garnett-6


All Nba 1st teams

Malone-11
Garnett-4

Seasons shooting 50%TS or more

Malone-19
Garnett-17

Seasons with an offensive rating of 100+ or more

Malone-18
Garnett-18

Seasons playing 80 or more games

Malone- 17
Garnett-7

Seasons missing 20+ games

Garnett-4
Malone-2

Seasons being Top 5 in WIN SHARES

Malone-13
Garnett-4

Seasons being Top 5 in PER

Malone-13
Garnett-5

Seasons being Top 10 in Mvp award shares


Malone-14
Garnett-7


There's no one that was able to maintain their high level of play for as long as Malone, whiles virtually guaranteeing 80+ games every season. Most of them either had to drasticlly decreaase their minutes, or you see a significant drop off in production.

[PCProductions]

Longevity: This is where Garnett absolutely takes the cake. He's on the short list of most durable and reliable players in NBA history with Kareem and Duncan.

What about Karl Malone, John Stockton, Dirk Nowitzki?

KG has tremendous durability and great longevity, but he's not some outlier in this regard really at all when we are discussing top 20 candidates. Karl Malone in particular is more durable and more reliable than KG.

That's true. Not mentioning Malone seems shortsighted and Dirk is also quietly having a similar looking career trajectory. I think I may have been wrongfully excluding those two in my evaluation of #10 all time. Stockton isn't there for me, though he too has an all-timer's level of longevity.

[ceiling raiser]

Do you happen to have his, Dirk's and Duncan's PPP and #possessions on post-ups each year from 05-09 (just for a comparison)? Would love to see how they compare.

No problem, here are those numbers for Garnett Dirk and Duncan 2005-2009 (this is their offense from post-ups only - i.e., it doesn't include pass outs):


2005: Garnett 1.005ppp (588 poss), Dirk 0.868ppp (164 poss), Duncan 0.904ppp (502 poss)
2006: Garnett 1.024ppp (606 poss), Dirk 1.014ppp (281 poss), Duncan 0.870ppp (663 poss)
2007: Garnett 1.059ppp (474 poss), Dirk 0.983ppp (232 poss), Duncan 0.993ppp (695 poss)
2008: Garnett 1.019ppp (481 poss), Dirk 1.009ppp (319 poss), Duncan 0.937ppp (615 poss)
2009: Garnett 0.934ppp (259 poss), Dirk 0.970ppp (474 poss), Duncan 0.971ppp (579 poss)


Really interesting to me that, as they got older, Garnett started abandoning the post game and Dirk embraced it. I wonder to what extent that affected Dirk's ability to remain extremely effective on offense and Garnett's sharp offensive decline.

Thanks a ton! From Synergy, I get the following for later seasons:

2010: Garnett 0.93ppp (423 poss), Dirk 1.06ppp (534 poss), Duncan 1.01ppp (670 poss)
2011: Garnett 0.98ppp (358 poss), Dirk 1.10ppp (556 poss), Duncan 0.90ppp (383 poss)
2012: Garnett 0.94ppp (440 poss), Dirk 0.93ppp (405 poss), Duncan 0.83ppp (381 poss)
2013: Garnett 0.92ppp (361 poss), Dirk 1.02ppp (227 poss), Duncan 0.93ppp (474 poss)
2014: Garnett 0.90ppp (84 poss), Dirk 1.04ppp (590 poss), Duncan 0.93ppp (484 poss)

Unless the results pre-Synergy are wildly different (and with a 10-year sample, covering prime and post-prime years for all three guys, this is unlikely, though still a possibility), I think I've badly gauged Garnett's scoring. Wow. The primary separating factor in my mind when comparing the three guys has been low post scoring (at Dirk's best, it's worth noting that he seems to be on another level, going completely God Mode in the title year), but I don't think I can reasonably say that anymore.

As you said, Synergy doesn't including pass outs, so it's possible that KG doesn't draw the same attention and as such his passing isn't as effective as that of the others. But it's really hard for me to look past this data.

Now, obviously we don't have the same data for Bird, but given the monster defensive edge (much appreciation to drza and others for the qualitative breakdowns to pair with some of the RAPM analysis we have) and the huge difference in longevity (thanks to ElGee's championship odds for opening my eyes to its' significance viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1197767), I absolutely have to vote for Kevin Garnett here. I don't think I should take early results into account, but having a five spot separation between Duncan and Garnett seems hard to swallow (this isn't to say Duncan isn't a viable top 5 candidate, he unquestionably is...I just think it's problematic that KG hadn't substantial gotten traction until this thread. I don't personally keep a GOAT list, but I'm really going to have to think long and hard about both guys, as well as Dirk and Robinson).

Anyhow, I'm really interested in hearing what others have to say about the data above. Thanks again shutupandjam, you've really opened my eyes up here.

EDIT: Damn, tried typing on my phone, ton of errors. Think I caught them all.

[MacGill]

I would be interested in reading (if not already done) a Kobe vs KG comparison. To me, this is like eye test versus advanced statistic test, if you will. I know it's much more than this but the two arguments I have read have longevity in common but then much different criteria. The weakest one I have read is the Peer reputation recognition.

I also think we are at the point where we can start introducing other amazing players who may not have the same 'team' luck or complied as many accolades. I am interested in thoughts around Dr. J/Oscar who have the merit to go head to head with some of these stars.

[Jim Naismith]

-In terms of peak play, Bird was better at his absolute zenith, but Kobe gives you 7 years at that level: 2001, 2003, 2006-10, while Bird has 1984-88. The two extra years make a real difference, at that level.

How about 1981-83 Bird?

While not at his peak, young Bird was nonetheless three-peat MVP runner-up during those years.

[Purch]

Do you happen to have his, Dirk's and Duncan's PPP and #possessions on post-ups each year from 05-09 (just for a comparison)? Would love to see how they compare.

No problem, here are those numbers for Garnett Dirk and Duncan 2005-2009 (this is their offense from post-ups only - i.e., it doesn't include pass outs):


2005: Garnett 1.005ppp (588 poss), Dirk 0.868ppp (164 poss), Duncan 0.904ppp (502 poss)
2006: Garnett 1.024ppp (606 poss), Dirk 1.014ppp (281 poss), Duncan 0.870ppp (663 poss)
2007: Garnett 1.059ppp (474 poss), Dirk 0.983ppp (232 poss), Duncan 0.993ppp (695 poss)
2008: Garnett 1.019ppp (481 poss), Dirk 1.009ppp (319 poss), Duncan 0.937ppp (615 poss)
2009: Garnett 0.934ppp (259 poss), Dirk 0.970ppp (474 poss), Duncan 0.971ppp (579 poss)


Really interesting to me that, as they got older, Garnett started abandoning the post game and Dirk embraced it. I wonder to what extent that affected Dirk's ability to remain extremely effective on offense and Garnett's sharp offensive decline.

Thanks a ton! From Synergy, I get the following for later seasons:

2010: Garnett 0.93ppp (423 poss), Dirk 1.06ppp (534 poss), Duncan 1.01ppp (670 poss)
2011: Garnett 0.98ppp (358 poss), Dirk 1.10ppp (556 poss), Duncan 0.90ppp (383 poss)
2012: Garnett 0.94ppp (440 poss), Dirk 0.93ppp (405 poss), Duncan 0.83ppp (381 poss)
2013: Garnett 0.92ppp (361 poss), Dirk 1.02ppp (227 poss), Duncan 0.93ppp (474 poss)
2014: Garnett 0.90ppp (84 poss), Dirk 1.04ppp (590 poss), Duncan 0.93ppp (484 poss)

Unless the results pre-Synergy are wildly different (and with a 10-year sample, covering prime and post-prime years for all three guys, this is unlikely, though still a possibility), I think I've badly gauged Garnett's scoring. Wow. The primary separating factor in my mind when comparing the three guys has been low post scoring (at Dirk's best, it's worth noting that he seems to be on another level, going completely God Mode in the title year), but I don't think I can reasonably say that anymore.

As you said, Synergy doesn't including pass outs, so it's possible that KG doesn't draw the same attention and as such his passing isn't as effective as that of the others. But it's really hard for me to look past this data.

Now, obviously we don't have the same data for Bird, but given the monster defensive edge (much appreciation to drza and others for the qualitative breakdowns to pair with some of the RAPM analysis we have) and the huge difference in longevity (thanks to ElGee's championship odds for opening my eyes to its' significance viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1197767), I absolutely have to vote for Kevin Garnett here. I don't think I should take early results into account, but having a five spot separation between Duncan and Garnett seems hard to swallow (this isn't to say Duncan isn't a viable top 5 candidate, he unquestionably is...I just think it's problematic that KG hadn't substantial gotten traction until this thread. I don't personally keep a GOAT list, but I'm really going to have to think long and hard about both guys, as well as Dirk and Robinson).

Anyhow, I'm really interested in hearing what others have to say about the data above. Thanks again shutupandjam, you've really opened my eyes up here.

EDIT: Damn, tried typing on my phone, ton of errors. Think I caught them all.

Does that also account for the difference in double teams that Duncan saw in the low post compared to the other two (Not saying the other two didn't get double teamed, but their double teams tended to come from different spots on the court). Prime Duncan tended to see doubles whenever he would start to make his initial move in the post ( Especially early in his career when he was much more aggressive looking to score,, and wasn't as effective as a passer). Or when he'd pass out of the post due to a double team.

[therealbig3]

Kevin Garnett gives them the best chance of winning imo, moreso than Duncan and especially Robinson.

You can make that argument against Admiral I guess, but its hard for me to look at the historical record of 4 titles in Duncan's prime and think he's not good at making good teams championship teams. Now he got more chances at it then KG did so we don't know for sure what KG might have achieved in better circumstances, but considering the era KG played in its really hard for me to believe a fair projection is more than what Duncan actually achieved, no?

And I completely respect that. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the guy that led his team to 4 titles is a totally understandable position.

[FJS]

Seasons missing 20+ games

Garnett-4
Malone-2

Karl Malone only missed in his last season more than 20 games... Maybe are you counting 99 season as one of them? This season was shortened to 50 games, and Karl played 49.

[ceiling raiser]

Does that also account for the difference in double teams that Duncan saw in the low post compared to the other two (Not saying the other two didn't get double teamed, but their double teams tended to come from different spots on the court). Prime Duncan tended to see doubles whenever he would start to make his initial move in the post ( Especially early in his career when he was much more aggressive looking to score,, and wasn't as effective as a passer). Or when he'd pass out of the post due to a double team.

I understand where you're coming from completely, and that was one thing I noted in my post:

As you said, Synergy doesn't including pass outs, so it's possible that KG doesn't draw the same attention and as such his passing isn't as effective as that of the others. But it's really hard for me to look past this data.

I don't think KG warps the floor as much as Duncan (in no small part due to over-reliance on his turnaround jumper), but I think his superior passing ability/vision does help close the gap in terms of creating scoring opportunities. I know ElGee has done a ton of work in researching opportunities created, so I'm interested in hearing what he has to say.

That being said though, I'm not necessarily suggesting that KG should be above (or even equal to) Duncan's level. I just can't justify there being a very large gap, when low post scoring volume/efficiency was my primary separating factor between the two of them offensively.

The actual data is hard to digest for me, I really didn't expect it to look the way it does.

[Purch]

Seasons missing 20+ games

Garnett-4
Malone-2

Karl Malone only missed in his last season more than 20 games... Maybe are you counting 99 season as one of them? This season was shortened to 50 games, and Karl played 49.

Lmaoooooooooo, I completly forgot about the lockout season when I was factoring these

[acrossthecourt]

Bird got into a bar fight in the middle of the 85 playoffs which hurt his hand and causes him to shoot poorly from then on out which resulted in the celtics losing in the finals with HCA for the first time in their history. Could you imagine if that was Kobe(or any modern superstar to be honest)?

Lol there would be all the media talk about how he's not a leader and a poor teammate etc.

this simply isnt true. Mike would be out all night gambling and what not and never got criticized because people are smart enough to look at your body of work as a whole. Bird getting in a fight isnt enough to block out the rest of his career. A guy like Kobe tho who has shown time and again that he has personal agendas that at times took precedence over the team would and should be looked at differently for things like the situation in Colorado.

Its not becasue people like Bird and don't like Kobe. Track Record matters.

The difference is Gambling never affected Jordan's play come playoff time. The fight at the bar with bird did

Gambling never affected Jordan? There's of course this infamous story:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/27/sport ... caper.html

And there's this weird game from Kobe I remember:

Bryant tried to keep the Lakers in it in the first half by scoring 23 points on 8-of-13 shooting. The league's leading scorer, Bryant netted 50 points in Game 6.

But in a puzzling disappearing act, Bryant deferred to his teammates in the second half Saturday, taking just three shots and scoring one point on a technical free throw.

http://www.nba.com/games/20060506/LALPHX/recap.html

Plus ... from 1990 to 1998 his TS% in the regular season is 59. Why are the stats you posted so low?

Check again.

Man I hate troubleshooting. Found my error. We are completely aligned now. Robinson 90-98

EDIT: These should be correct now.

vs. +3 defenses: 26.9 pts/36 | 63.8% TS 3.5 ast/36
vs. -3 defenses: 23.1 pts/36 | 56.4% TS 2.5 ast/36

Duncan 99-08 is

vs. +3 defenses: 22.5 pts/36 | 58.7% TS | 3.4 ast/36
vs. -3 defenses: 20.6 pts/36 | 53.0% TS | 2.5 ast/36

Garnett 99-08 is

vs. +3 defenses: 21.0 pts/36 | 56.8% TS | 4.8 ast/36
vs. -3 defenses: 20.0 pts/36 | 52.5% TS | 4.2 ast/36

Robinson stays at about 10 FTA/36. TD around 7. Garnett just under 5.5. Keep in mind, Robinson plays significantly easier defenses than KG or Duncan. If we ran the same numbers but vs. 109/103 defenses...

Robinson

vs. 109 (221g) 25.9 pts/36 | 61.8% TS | 3.1 ast/36
vs. 103 (46g) 22.5 pts/36 | 55.5% TS | 3.2 ast/36

Duncan

vs. 109 (89g) 21.8 pts/36 | 57.5% TS | 3.3 ast/36
vs. 103 (219g) 20.6 pts/36 | 53.4% TS | 2.9 ast/36

KG

vs. 109 (89g) 20.8 pts/36 | 57.4% TS | 4.4 ast/36
vs. 103 (244g) 20.5 pts/36 | 53.4% TS | 4.5 ast/36

Garnett also has one more assist than Robinson. And I'm pretty sure that when you take turnovers (and assists) it no account, Garnett looks better.

One issue is that the teams you face below -3, or whatever it is, aren't the same for every player, hence why I try to make adjustments and estimates from regression.

Getting to the line is very valuable on the surface, but when you consider the other factors - e.g., foul trouble and future bonus situations, it's even more valuable than it seems. Every study I have done with regressing stats onto rapm, apm, etc. support this as well.

What seems odd about this to me is that these benefits are some of the most notable examples of things that the APM family of stats can't measure:
-Getting your team closer to the bonus or penalty has ramifications later on in the quarter, and might boost or hurt the point differential of the guys who come in later on. They'll end up being credited with that point differential, not the guys who got the team into the bonus in the first place. Sometimes this won't be a problem, if a player stays in for the remainder of the quarter, but it's definitely an area that RAPM doesn't capture completely. For what it's worth, I've seen J.E. discuss this issue on the APBR board and say he found that team fouls at times of substitutions didn't have a significant effect, which would undermine the theory that it's valuable, but I'm not sure I trust that 100% without seeing more data.
-Getting opposing players out of the game due to foul trouble won't give your RAPM a boost, because the strength of opposing players is accounted for. All that matters is how well you do relative to your opponent's strength; you don't get bonus points even if you're the reason your opponent puts a less strong lineup out there. (On the other hand, if your opponent keeps their best player in there but he plays worse defense because of foul trouble, then you will get credit for that in RAPM.)

Really good points, and I think you're right that rapm probably isn't capturing the full effect of foul trouble/bonus situations. Regardless, I think my points about the value of getting to the line still hold true. For some reason, and I bet if we brainstorm we can think of a lot of reasons, regressions against rapm consistently show that getting to the line is more valuable than one would expect given how much of a possession ftas use. And whether or not rapm catches it, I think the bonus situation/foul trouble effect does make drawing (shooting) fouls extra valuable.

A question for Garnett supporters (and ftr I'll be voting for Garnett very soon), are you at all concerned by his relatively low free throw rates over the course of his career?

If you value ASPM, then you're implicitly trusting RAPM.

So I compared Garnett's ASPM and his RPI RAPM year to year from 1998 to 2010 (no 2001.) The average rank disparity was 10.8, meaning ASPM was underrating him. I even took the natural log of the rank because even with one season ranked 34th can have a big effect on the numbers. The log disparity is 0.7.

For David Robinson the numbers are -4.25 and -0.4. ASPM is overrating him a little, so I'd say if we had 2001 the results would be a little closer to 0.

Besides the mid-00's when he had crazy numbers, ASPM consistently underrates Garnett. Thus you cannot use the ASPM argument to pick Robinson over Garnett, as Garnett is underrated and does more to contribute outside of the box score than Robinson, in my opinion.

I don't think it's quite fair to do this with PI RAPM because Garnett has the huge benefit of having his prime in the prior for his later years while Robinson doesn't.

Looking at the rapm/spm disparity with npi rapm (and this makes sense because npi rapm was the dv in my spm), Garnett's spm overrates his ranking by 13 spots on average (and overrates his production by 0.3 on average) while Robinson's spm overrates his ranking by 4 spots on average (and overrates his production by 0.2). Now npi rapm is more volatile and since Garnett has more seasons, he has more chances with a large disparity because of randomness, but even if I take out the big outliers in terms of (rapmrank - spmrank), he's still overrated by my spm on average.

Yeah but NPI RAPM is pretty crappy.

The priors don't start in Garnett's peak. One starts in 1998. Another starts in 2001.

[Purch]

Does that also account for the difference in double teams that Duncan saw in the low post compared to the other two (Not saying the other two didn't get double teamed, but their double teams tended to come from different spots on the court). Prime Duncan tended to see doubles whenever he would start to make his initial move in the post ( Especially early in his career when he was much more aggressive looking to score,, and wasn't as effective as a passer). Or when he'd pass out of the post due to a double team.

I understand where you're coming from completely, and that was one thing I noted in my post:

As you said, Synergy doesn't including pass outs, so it's possible that KG doesn't draw the same attention and as such his passing isn't as effective as that of the others. But it's really hard for me to look past this data.

It's the same issue I brought up earlier about Barkley's interior scoring efficency vs Amare. When one guy sees double teams as soon as he dribbles the ball in the post, that has to be factored in. For Prime Duncan defenses played his post game like it was his biggest threat, I don't think any teams schemed against Garnett like he was primarily a post player, Especilly considering how willing he was to settle for long mid range jumpers.

[Owly]

I don't think the NBA was irrelevant prior to 1980. If it was I'd hardly have championed Kareem for #2. But the NBA was pretty weaksauce in Pettit's time, and we need to be very cautious about how we reward Pettit for playing well in a weak league. Russell and Wilt were at least transcendent in Pettit's time, but Pettit sure wasn't. He won the title once in a year Russell got hurt, basically a fluke, and was not in the same category of player at all. You want to talk about Oscar around now? Great. I think Dr J has a great case at #11. But Pettit (and even moreso Mikan) are different, they are a long way from being real candidates.

We shouldn't punish players for being born too late either. Pettit wouldn't make the West all-star team last season. I'm worried that you think that's irrelevant.

Hardly a fluke. Especially since you were one of those saying that Russell ranked behind guys like Kareem because he had all those other HOF level players (Cousy/Sharman/Heinsohn/etc.). Pettit singlehandedly took over that final game in his championship year for probably the single most dominant 4th quarter clutch perfomance in the history of NBA basketball.

Pettit was the best player pre-Russell, then led the best of the west through the early years of Russell's career until Jerry West combined with Baylor (and Cliff Hagan's prime tailed off). Should rank higher than Barkley at least since his offensive impact relative to his era was similar but, unlike Barkley, was a solid defender and an outstanding team leader. His abilities look lower because he played through the second greatest change in NBA history, the 59-61 period where the game revolutionized itself . . . and he was pretty much the only great able to still be a true great from before that period to after it.

Your prejudice against pre-1970s players is blinding you to the relatively few true greats of that era, one of whom was Bob Pettit.

I'm not anti-Pettit but that title was pretty flukey.

1) The Russell injury (and the Cousy and Sharman injuries, and Loscutoff and Risen iirc). Lucky
2) A team being outscored by 27 over 6 games (an average of 4.5 per game) winning the series. Lucky
3) Cliff Hagan playing as he did in the playoffs. Lucky (at very least for Pettit, even if you don't think the small sample size suggests luck on Hagan's part).
4) 5.02 SRS team defeated by 0.82 (I think that gap might look bigger by standard deviations because there were generally a lot of teams clustered between plus and minus 2). Lucky.

If that title was the central support for a case of Pettit's greatness I think it would be a very flawed foundation on which to base an argument.

I don't think it typically is used in that way though, it's just another nice accomplishment to point out. But I would suggest it was lucky. That certainly doesn't make Pettit a bad player though. I'm not sure he warrants very serious consideration yet, but he shouldn't be too far away, and has frequently been touted as the 2nd greatest PF of all time (after Duncan).

Given their SRS people might mention Pettit in the weakest supporting cast for a title winner conversations that seem to go on (not terribly worthwhile for my tastes but ... ) the backcourt (aging Slater Martin and Jack McMahon)'s boxscore metrics are pretty weak (though Martin was supposed to be a good defender and they did a good job on Boston's guards on D in the finals, which is when it matters if you're enganging in "x supporting cast to win a ring" argument, ie there's no point saying player X dragged a mediocre team to a title if the supporting cast didn't play mediocre in the playoffs, which ends up being one of the problems in these discussions).

[An Unbiased Fan]

I'll agree that per 100 helps kobe's case, but no, I don't see a clear advantage for him there. Kobe's role on the lakers was always as a scorer above all else, and while bird was the primary scoring option, his role largely included being a general playmaker on yes, a more balanced roster. Having access to per 100 stats for players now is great to look at. We shouldn't push aside raw production completely, though, as there are always context to #s (positive or negative).

Oh, I agree with you about just looking at raw production. The margins are slim offensively between Kobe/Bird based on production, but for me, longevity is where Kobe gains separation.

Also, I would argue that Kobe was LA's primary playmaker, and had just as much impact there as Bird. Bird's whole career, he had quality distributing PGs, while Kobe hasn't.

Boston playmakers:
1980: Tiny 8.4, Bird 4.5
1981: Tiny 7.7, Bird 5.5
1982: Tiny 8.0, Bird 5.8
1983: Tiny 6.2, Bird 5.8
1984: Bird 6.6, DJ 4.2
1985: DJ 6.8, Bird 6.6
1986: Bird 6.8, DJ 5.8
1987: Bird 7.6, DJ 7.5
1988: DJ 7.8, Bird 6.1
1990: Bird 7.5, DJ 6.5

Laker playmakers:
2000: Kobe 4.9, Shaq 3.8
2001: Kobe 5.0, Fisher 4.4
2002: Kobe 5.5, Fox 3.5
2003: Kobe 5.9, Fisher 3.6
2004: Payton 5.5, Kobe 5.1
2005: Kobe 6.0, Chucky 4.4
2006: Odom 5.5, Kobe 4.5
2007: Kobe 5.4, Odom 4.8
2008: Kobe 5.4, Odom 3.5
2009: Kobe 4.9, Pau 3.5
2010: Kobe 5.0, Pau 3.4
2011: Kobe 4.7, Pau 3.3

^
What becomes apparent is that Kobe had to create shots for himself, and the team. Non-PGs like Pau, Shaq, Fox were second in assists half the years which is telling and shows how much he had to carry. Kobe was essentially LA's point.

To expand even further. While Bird's assists per game were slighty higher, Kobe's AST% was higher than Bird's.

[DHodgkins]

My vote is for Larry Bird again.

- Made the All Star game every year of his healthy career
- One of the greatest ever three year runs from 84-86
- For forwards, he is an all time great passer, shooter and rebounder
- Despite longevity issues ... 4TH all time in career MVP shares

- 17th career PPG
- 41st career RPG
- 42nd career APG
- 26th career SPG

Top 42 all time for 4 major stats!