RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10

[ardee]

At this piont, I'm just going to vote to prevent this project from becoming a joke with KG in the top 10.

1st Vote: Bird
2nd Vote: Kobe

Gotta make an argument for your vote to count man.

[Jaivl]

At this piont, I'm just going to vote to prevent this project from becoming a joke with KG in the top 10.

1st Vote: Bird
2nd Vote: Kobe

Yeah, this is ridiculous. Sign me out of this.

[Purch]

At this piont, I'm just going to vote to prevent this project from becoming a joke with KG in the top 10.

1st Vote: Bird
2nd Vote: Kobe

Vote for who you believe deserves the spot. Anything else is doing the project a disservice.

I'm pretty sure the reason the 2nd vote was implemented was to eliminare the need for strategic voting

[ardee]

At this piont, I'm just going to vote to prevent this project from becoming a joke with KG in the top 10.

1st Vote: Bird
2nd Vote: Kobe

Vote for who you believe deserves the spot. Anything else is doing the project a disservice.

I'm pretty sure the reason the 2nd vote was implemented was to eliminare the need for strategic voting

He obviously doesn't think Garnett belongs in the top 10 (he's correct, he doesn't), so he is voting the ones he does. I don't see how this is strategic voting. As long as he provides an argument there is no issue. Not like he's voting for Eddy Curry.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

[ardee]

At this piont, I'm just going to vote to prevent this project from becoming a joke with KG in the top 10.

1st Vote: Bird
2nd Vote: Kobe

I don't know how long I can continue in this project if there's just going to be a bunch of strategic voting. It's not about KG. He could be #35 as far as I'm concerned. I just don't have the energy or the desire to deal with this kind of stuff.

If you don't care about him being 35 why are you voting for him now? Obviously you want him this high, hence the arguments in his favor and the vote.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

[THKNKG]

At this piont, I'm just going to vote to prevent this project from becoming a joke with KG in the top 10.

1st Vote: Bird
2nd Vote: Kobe

I don't know how long I can continue in this project if there's just going to be a bunch of strategic voting. It's not about KG. He could be #35 as far as I'm concerned. I just don't have the energy or the desire to deal with this kind of stuff.

If you don't care about him being 35 why are you voting for him now? Obviously you want him this high, hence the arguments in his favor and the vote.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

Think he belongs this high =/= having an agenda or manipulating voting

But you know there's a difference so I don't know why I'm responding

[ardee]

No time to really be on here right now. So, re-posting a Garnett/Bird post I'd written before. Seems very relevant for this thread, as it compares them directly. Before that, though, here's a link to the more scouting-based comp of Bird, KG and Hakeem from last round:

Spoiler:

Olajuwon, Garnett and Bird: continuum

My three top candidates for this spot are Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin Garnett and Larry Bird. They make an interesting compare/contrast group, because in many was they form a bit of a skillset and production continuum.

The style makes the fight

I've written about each of these guys before, and I'll draw a bit from that in this section.

Bird: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/146962984416/greatest-players-in-nba-history-larry-bird

My first favorite NBA player was Julius Erving…Dr. J. My second favorite player early on was Earvin Johnson…Magic. As such, my most hated player was Larry Joe Bird. I hated him because he ALWAYS hit the shot…got the call…made the play that made my favorite players’ lives miserable. He was like a robot out there. If he took a key shot I just closed my eyes, because I knew it was going in. If Doc’s 76ers were up by one point with five seconds left I was petrified, because I knew the Celtics were going to go to Bird. Hatred and fear of Larry Bird made the Boston Celtics my least favorite sports franchise.

But here’s the thing…I only hated him because he was so darn GOOD!

On paper Bird was an unlikely superstar. He was a 6-9 combo forward that wasn’t especially quick, couldn’t jump especially high, and wasn’t especially strong. But my gosh, was he an offensive genius. He could make every shot in the gym, and what’s more he KNEW that he could make every shot in the gym. Bird’s confidence and swagger were out of this world, which is why he made so many huge shots. But Bird’s impact was about much more than scoring…he was also blessed with some of the greatest court vision that I’ve ever seen. Outside of Magic Johnson, I’ve never seen another player that big who could see the court and pass like that. Add in a real knowledge of angles and grittiness that also made Bird very strong on the boards and deceptively good as a team defender, and you get an extremely potent combo. Bird had a real sense of the moment, and relished the high pressure moments. He's also one of the greatest trash talkers in NBA history.

Olajuwon: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=57114830#p57114830
Hakeem always struck me as athletic, but not in the same way that Robinson was. Robinson was longer, seemed faster, and seemed to jump higher. Olajuwon always seemed to be built like a tall short guy (if that makes sense. In other words, he was so proportioned that he didn't give the overwhelming impression of height that Robinson, Kareem or Sampson gave). I also don't have memories of overwhelming speed from Olajuwon, though he seemed quick enough to get his hand on everything in the paint (be it a block or a steal) so that impression isn't exactly air-tight. His agility and maneuverability were amazing, though, and I remember how whenever this would be noted the announcers would always point out his background as a soccer player.

Defensively, I remember Hakeem coming out on guards if necessary (most famous example being his block against the Knicks) but the vast majority of my impressions of him are at/near the rim. From that, even though he had the ability to go horizontal, I would say I'd expect his "horizontal defense" to be more similar to young Duncan's or Robinson's (and perhaps Russell's) than Garnett's. It was pretty ironic that the lasting images (for me anyway) of that 1995 match-up were Robinson being so badly fooled by Olajwon's feints and head-fakes, because I kind of feel like Olajuwon would have also fallen for those fakes. Both Olajuwon and Robinson tended to look for the block a lot, which sometimes caused them to over-commit. I feel like this is a weakness for both when compared to Tim Duncan, who almost always seemed to play steady post defense without going for the fakes. I think that Garnett also tended to be better at this area, as he relied on being so darned long that I don't remember him often joining the para-troopers club when defending on-ball.

Olajuwon incredibly artistic post moves, and he used them to maximal effect with a volume-scoring mentality. Olajuwon was both naturally agile and fluid of the group, and that played out with his post moves. Olajuwon also had an excellent handle for a center, and could attack off the face-up. Olajuwon was never really as efficient a scorer as Robinson in the regular season, and I think in large part that's because he didn't share Robinson's proclivity for getting the "easy" shots (fast breaks, alley-oops) nor did he attack and draw fouls like the Admiral. However, his post moves were the exact opposite on the skill/strength continuum. Olajuwon began his career primarily as a finisher, but he did develop into a solid passer that helped him become an outstanding offensive hub at his absolute peak. His scoring threat drew the defense to him, and his passing set his team up with easy shots.
His volume/efficiency could potentially hinder his portability with respect to his peers, as we don't have a positive example of him scaling down his volume for the sake of team success if circumstances dictated the way that we do for the others in the group. But on the other hand, Olajuwon could ramp up his volume scoring to absolutely elite in the playoffs in a way that few could replicate.

Garnett: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=44647718#p44647718

In 2003, while watching a game in the first round of the playoffs, it just hit me that I was watching the best player in the world. I had been a Garnett fan for a few years at that point, had been in a BUNCH of KG vs Duncan debates...Shaq was still the baddest man in the NBA, and Kobe was in his Fro-be stage and wearing the number 8. Garnett was playing in a game against both Shaq and Kobe, who were at the time leading the three-time defending champion Lakers. He hit some ridiculous turnaround, fadeaway baseline jumper when falling out of bounds, and I just realized that I was watching a game featuring both Shaq and Kobe...but that Garnett was the best player on the court.

But why was he the best? Conventional wisdom said that he was playing the game all wrong...he was a 7-footer, but he wasn't parked in the paint. He was an excellent post player, but instead of using that post-game all the time he would spend more time posting on the elbows...shooting baseline fadeway jumpers...running the pick-and-pop and shooting 18 foot jumpers. It was enough to drive basketball purists, including many former NBA players turned analysts, crazy. If he was in the post more, he could suck the defense in. He'd be able to draw more fouls. He'd be able to score at a higher volume...or at a higher efficiency...especially in the playoffs, where everyone knew that the key to winning was scoring in the paint. The thing is...conventional thinking wasn't correct. Garnett's unusual style of play, as comfortable on the outside as on the inside, was actually making life WAY easier for his team. Once the analytics movement kicked in, we were able to see that by posting up outside of the paint, Garnett was warping the defense away from the rim and out towards him. Because he was able to hit jumpers at such a strong clip, he was spacing the defense even further. And because he was arguably the best passing big man ever, and he was able to act as the initiator of the offense like a floor general, Garnett was able to actually directly create offense for teammates in ways that very few non-point guards ever had.

Defensively, Garnett's approach and skills changed at different phases. In his younger years, he was playing combo forward, and thus found himself regularly defending both perimeter players and big men. As he got older, Garnett played pure power forward for a good chunk of time, and matched up primarily with opposing power forwards. Then, as his career wound down, he shifted a bit more to forward/center. As such, Garnett is one of the few players that can claim to have guarded Michael Jordan, Tracy McGrady, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowtizki, Shaquille O'Neal, Dwight Howard and even Yao Ming as the primary defender. His versatility, on that front, is pretty unique. As far as team defense, he is likely the best pick-and-roll defender of all-time, one of the most horizontal big man defenders which meant that his area of influence was more inside the arc as opposed to at the rim. And of course, he was both an excellent defensive mind and a very effective communicator, which helped him to earn his rep as a middle linebacker on the court.

Cliff note stylistic summary: Bird was an offensive genius, an off-ball threat that was an elite scoring forward from the perimeter-in, that was also one of the greatest forward passers and offense initiators of all time. He was an average-to-solid defender, on the whole, with a penchant for getting steals and playing angles that helped make up for his relative lack of athleticism. He had a reputation for shining in big moments.

Olajuwon is one of the best defensive players and scorers of all-time, combining unique athleticism and timing to amass blocks and steals at a rate rarely achieved in the modern era (only David Robinson's really a peer). Olajuwon's scoring ramped up extremely well in the postseason, a fact that was true throughout his career. At his peak, his scoring spiked and his passing and offensive understanding had improved to the point that he could peak as one of the best offensive centers of all time.

Garnett had great post moves, though not as good as Hakeem. He was an excellent offense-initiating forward, but not to the level of Bird. He was a great scorer, but didn't do so at the volume of either Bird or Hakeem. On defense, Garnett was a great rim protector but not to Hakeem's level. However, he had more defensive coverage area and was a better perimeter defender than either Olajuwon or Bird, which gave him levels of defensive versatility that were unique. But on the whole, on both offense and defense, there is a reasonable continuum between these three players.

OK, a challenge. Give me a reason not to vote for Larry Bird (and for Garnett fans, to support Kevin Garnett over David Robinson other than longevity) . . .

OK, now I'll take a stab at the first part and compare Garnett with Bird. I'll start with a box score stats summary from their primes:

KG vs Bird, per 100 stats over prime seasons

Regular season
80 - 88 Bird: 30.9 pts (57% TS), 12.7 reb, 7.6 asts (3.9 TOs), 24.2 PER
99 - 08 Garnett: 30.2 pts (55% TS), 16.8 reb, 6.6 asts (3.7 TO), 25.5 PER

Playoffs
80 - 88 Bird: 28.4 pts (55.5% TS), 12.4 reb, 7.4 asts (3.7 TOs), 21.9 PER
99 - 08 Garnett: 29.5 pts (52.3% TS), 16.8 reb, 5.9 asts (3.9 TOs), 23.9 PER

OK, I'll admit to being surprised that their scoring per 100 possessions is so close. I knew that the 80s was a higher pace, and I also know that pace adjusting isn't perfect, but still.

Box scores aside, at this point we know how these players played. Bird is on the short list of greatest offensive players ever, an off-ball savant as coined by Doc MJ, who could weave seamlessly between volume scoring and running the offense without being the primary ball-handler. Bird also has three all-defensive team nods, highlighting a part of his game that isn't often mentioned. All Defensive teams can be deceptive, but in Bird's case he actually was a good positional defender that recognized defensive angles with the same facility that he recognized offensive angles. He was used to playing off the ball, and his ability to recognize what the offense needed to do (no matter who had the ball) allowed him to defend better than his athletic ability should have allowed. Plus he was a great rebounder. With his style and substance, if there were RAPM data for the 80s I would expect Bird's offensive RAPM to be in the same range as LeBron's or Dirk's (the 2 highest scoring forwards in offensive RAPM in Doc MJ's 1998 - 2012 spreadsheet), perhaps a bit higher. On the flip side, though he was solid on defense, I don't think his defensive RAPM would be better than LeBron's.

In some ways, Garnett is his mirror: on the short list of greatest defensive players ever, while also a better-than-you-think on offense. Only, in Garnett's case, that "better than you think on offense" was pretty strong. He led four straight top-6 offenses in Minnesota from 2002 - 2005, with four different starting point guards and three different 2nd leading scorers (he led all four teams in scoring, and two of them in assists). Last thread I saw Olajuwon described as one of the few Bigs that could be dominant on both sides of the ball. For those that give any credence to RAPM, Garnett is the only player since 1998 to have measured out as the #1 offensive player in a given year (2004) as well as the #1 defensive player in a given year (multiple times). Those peaks came in different years, however, in 2004 in the PI RAPM study he measured out as the #1 offensive player and the #3 defensive player in the same season. In 2003 he measured out #2 on offense and #7 on defense. In 2008 in Boston he measured out #1 on defense and number 18 on offense. No one else in the 15 years we have RAPM for has approached that kind of balance, neither over a career nor especially in any given season.

Longevity
Above I listed 9 years for Bird's prime and 10 years for Garnett's. After sitting out almost all of 1989, Bird had another good year in 1990. So call it 10 prime years each at this point.

Outside of that window, Bird had 1991 in which he missed 22 regular season games but was able to play solid when on the court:

1991 Bird reg season: 19.4 ppg (53% TS), 8.5 reb, 7.2 asts (3.1 TO) in 38 mpg
1991 Bird playoffs: 17.1 ppg (49% TS), 7.2 reb, 6.5 asts (1.9 TO) in 39.6 mpg

Clearly it's not what he once was, but this was a definite positive contributing season.

Then, Bird's final year was 1992. He was only able to play in 45 regular season games (though his production was better than 1991), but his body broke down and he was only able to play in 4 of Boston's 10 playoff games (and only able to start 2 of those games). While he was great when on the court, the fact that he could only play in half of the games and couldn't face the postseason makes it hard to count this season as value added for Bird.

Garnett, on the other hand, is about to play in his 20th season. Let's throw out season 19, because I don't know what the heck happened in Brooklyn (either KG got old really fast or Kidd had no idea how to use him). Let's also throw out his rookie season since he didn't move into the starting line-up until the 2nd half of the season. Even if we do this, we're looking at a huge longevity advantage. Garnett was an All Star in 1997 and 1998, 2009 (knee injury ended season early), 2010, 2011 and 2013 among the years not listed as his prime. He wasn't All NBA in any of those seasons, but he was all defense in three of them (two 1st teams and a 2nd team). Stepping away from accolades, the more statistical approach...

In the first year that we have PI RAPM (1998), Garnett measured out as the #5 player in the league. He was extremely raw, but already making strong contributions as a 3rd year player at 21 years old.

In 2010 Garnett was obviously slowed as he recovered from 2009 knee surgery, but his impact (especially on defense) was clearly the difference between a 2nd round Celtics squad (2009) and a team that was championship caliber.

In the last year in DocMJ's spreadsheet, 2012, Garnett measured out as the #5 player in the league. He capped that season by averaging 19.2 ppg (54% TS), 10.3 reb, and breaking the +/- scale with his defense while leading the Celtics to Game 7 of the ECF against the eventual champion Heat. This was Garnett's 17th season.

In year 18 he measured out well on ShutUpandJam's PI RAPM list, though he was only playing 29.7 min/game. He then averaged 12.7 points, 13.7 rebounds and 3.5 assists in 35.3 mpg in the playoffs.

Bottom line: I take longevity with a grain of salt outside of extreme cases because I value primes. I voted for Russell over Kareem, and I'd have voted LeBron over Karl Malone. That said, it's food for thought and I know longevity is of more import for many. Garnett clearly has a longevity edge, and with his overall game I value his prime with Bird's as well. All told, I think that Garnett was the better player for longer.

I am not going to vote for Garnett anytime soon, but you make great posts.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

[penbeast0]

I know there is a limited footage on Mikan, but if you could/are aware, please provide some scouting on him. For instance, how did he impact his teams offense? What were his go to moves? How was he as a post passer? What was his 'defensive' style?

I'm not old enough to have seen him either. I'm going purely off statistics and anecdotal evidence here. I could write you a post about it but it would also be based off the same limited footage you can find with a Youtube search:

[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]
[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]
[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]

[kayess]

Vote: Kevin Garnett
Alt: David Robinson

I'm taking DRob over the elite 2-way wings due to his better superstar longevity, and, imo, higher peak. I can't see him over Garnett at the moment, as that would hinge on him being a far superior defender than Garnett was... which is a tough argument to make. If someone can show that he's just as capable of blowing up PNRs on the perimeter, I would probably take DRob due to his superior rim protection.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote: Kevin Garnett

I have voted for KG several threads in a row. In comparison to Bird his longevity is an advantage. While Bird arguably peaked higher, the earlier and later years as not top 10 player of all time level and run into some playoff shooting % issues. So does KG, but he makes an impact offensively every game before even getting to the boxscore shooting %.

In regards to Kobe, he does deserve consideration here as both his longevity and playoff record is good. I'm of the opinion though that the gap between KG and Kobe's value defensively is greater than the offensive difference and I much prefer his intangibles.

2nd: Larry Bird

[RCM88x]

Vote: Larry Bird

I believe Larry's peak and prime are both solidly in the top 10, however obviously longevity is the problem for Bird.

However, from 1980-1988 Bird put up:

WS/48: .217
WS: 123.7
PER: 24.2
TS% .570
BPM: 7.6
VORP: 66.6

PS WS/48: .183
PS WS: 23.6
PER: 21.9
TS% .555
BPM: 7.4
VORP: 14.6

That is quite strong for a 9 season stretch and borderline top 10 player in my books, to come into the league and immediately put up elite numbers for the first 8 seasons of one's career is quite impressive and allowed Boston to basically dominate the East alongside Philly and also once Philly was long gone from the Title contending picture.

Despite the criticism Bird receives for his inconsistent playoff performance, I believe his peak play in '87 to be the 3rd best for any perimeter player, a combination of elite efficiency and passing is something that to me is extremely valuable in a first option offensively.

I also want to include Joao's post, which is quit a nice post and also inline with my thinking here when putting Bird over Kobe.

Spoiler:

1st vote - Larry Bird

Well I voted for Kobe as my alternate last thread. But I've given a bit more thought about it. The question is always about Bird's prime and peak advantages being enough to surpass Kobe's edge in longevity. And looking at it, I think yes.

Bird from 83 to 88 achieved a level in the regular season that I think it's better than most Kobe RS seasons (with the exception of Kobe 06).

So I'd probably say Bird has 6 of the top 7 regular seasons among them. I think in the RS the gap is pretty clearly going Bird's way prime wise, even if Kobe accumulated more RS value between them. (According to my formula, Kobe did just that, and both these statements are correct).

In the playoffs I had a feeling Kobe had been the most consistent between them. But going trough their careers again...

According to my formula, here are the top playoff runs among them:

Bird 1986 - 142,59
Bird 1984 - 142,65
Kobe 2001 - 132,69
Bird 1981 - 131,4
Kobe 2009 - 130,14
Bird 1987 - 126,25
Kobe 2008 - 122,11
Bird 1985 - 119,08
Bird 1988 - 108,58
Kobe 2002 - 106,89
Kobe 2004 - 104,66

Not that I take this into account only to make my votes (Otherwise Karl Malone would be getting my vote), but I think at this point all major Kobe runs are in here. However, among these 11 runs, Bird owns 6 of them (more than 50%) and he's usually up on Kobe (1st and 2nd spot, 4th, 6th...)

I think Kobe's 08 run might be a bit underrated by my numbers, I'd put it really close to his 09. I also think Bird's 1981 year is overrated by the numbers. But still, I think despite all that Larry Bird's advantage peak and prime wise are good enough to surpass Kobe's longevity, when looking at their gretest runs side by side.

After giving it a lot of thought I'm gonna go with:



2nd vote Kobe Bryant

I think Oscar Robertson could also be a nice choice for this spot.

The only difference being my 2nd vote goes to West over Bryant, mostly due to his superior peak and playoff performance.

2nd Vote: Jerry West

[Narigo]

Vote: Karl Malone
Second Vote: Kevin Garnett

going to edit this a bit later

[drza]

Garnett's postseason results Part 1 . . . I've demonstrated above some examples to illustrate what the skill-set argument suggests, that KG's offensive impact isn't much affected by small changes in scoring efficiency....

KG's efficiency drops .025 for his career which is reasonably significant as efficiency changes go. In 2000, it dropped .110! That's a MAJOR drop, arguably a disastrous one for what you call an MVP caliber player who is the primary scoring option on his team.

You argue that his gravity more than made up for this, and maybe it partially did. But his team's offensive efficiency went from an average .525 to .506 in that 2000 series, mainly due to poor shooting by Garnett (the rest of his team stayed pretty flat). That would make the team bottom 5 in the NBA that season with only the 3 worst teams and the Iverson Sixers being that miserable on shooting efficiency. Skill set is fine but only if it produces results. I'm not convinced that his offensive woes didn't hurt his team.

I do believe great defense is more consistent, or at least harder to prove. You can still make a Russell type argument that his defense was so great that his offense doesn't matter but I don't get the impression that anyone is arguing that Garnett was THAT much better than someone like David Robinson; I get the impression that his offensive prowess (and longevity) were the key advantages, particularly in the playoffs which is where Robinson's rep takes a bigger hit than Garnett's.

Yes!

I LOVE this response, and really hope that you will continue to engage me on this, because there's a chance this can become the kind of discussion that makes these projects worthwhile.

Now, let me start with the first underlined part above, and add the second underlined part right below it:

"KG's efficiency drops .025 for his career which is reasonably significant as efficiency changes go. In 2000, it dropped .110! That's a MAJOR drop, arguably a disastrous one for what you call an MVP caliber player who is the primary scoring option on his team."

"I'm not convinced that his offensive woes didn't hurt his team."

Is Garnett's drop in scoring efficiency significant, ramping to disastrous?

OK, now let's unpack this. It could be a key insight into the minds of people that really want to determine how much impact a player has on his team's ability to win, as opposed to being tied to any one individual boxscore contribution like scoring efficiency. Some facts to consider:

*In 2000, Kevin Garnett averaged 22.9 points on 55% TS in the regular season. In the playoffs, he averaged 18.8 points on 44% TS. The Timberwolves lost their series to the Trail Blazers, 3 games to 1.

*In 2000, the Timberwolves ABSOLUTELY depended on Garnett to compete. He finished second in season-long RAPM, which broke down to 15th in O-RAPM and 11th in D-RAPM. This indicates (among other things) that a) as expected, the Timberwolves' overall fortunes hung on Garnett, b) he was the biggest influence on the offense AND c) he was the biggest influence on the defense.

*With Garnett having an outstanding regular season as recorded by the boxscores AND the +/- numbers, the Wolves were "only" able to manage 50 wins.

Now, you're telling me that in the playoffs, Garnett's 11% drop in scoring efficiency is "arguably disastrous for the primary scoring option on the team". OK, that's fair based on historical expectations. The RebirthoftheM, I believe, suggested that Garnett needed his excellent boxscore numbers in the regular season to have his huge impact, and that his much lower scoring efficiency in the playoffs therefore means that he couldn't have been having the same level of impact as he was having when his shot was falling in the season. OK, that's fair. This all fits with the mindset of 99% of historical analysis approaches.

But, if that's true...

Then how on earth did the Wolves make the transcendant Trail Blazers WORK so hard? The Blazers won 59 regular season games, and were absolutely 1-2 with the Lakers all season (and in the playoffs) as by-far the two best teams in the league.

The Trail Blazers beat the #2 seeded team in the West, the Jazz (with their 55 wins) by a total of 55 points in their 4 - 1 series blowout in the second round.

The Wolves only managed 50 wins with Garnett playing at MVP level during the season and scoring very well. And the +/- numbers confirmed that the team was ULTRA reliant on Garnett for whatever regular season success they had. And Garnett had a DISASTROUS scoring 1st round...

...yet, these weak Wolves only lost to the dominant Trail Blazers with a MOV of 2 points/game? The same dominant Trail Blazers that dominated the much better regular season Jazz with an 11 pts/game MOV, and went on to have a 15-point lead in the 4th quarter of Game 7 against the eventual champion Lakers?

How do you explain that?

Is it a fluke? Does it not matter, since Portland won anyway? How could the Wolves as a team perform BETTER than expected against a dominant Trail Blazers squad, if they were dependent upon Garnett and his scoring efficiency was as disastrous as you say it is?

Was 2000 a fluke?

Let's say, for whatever reason, that the 2000 Trail Blazers were looking past the Wolves. It happens, right? Well, let's then look at the season before and the season after, to see if there are any patterns. One pattern I notice right off:

1999 Spurs: Dominant; #1 seed; pro-rated 61 wins
Round 2 vs Lakers (pro-rated 51 wins): 4 - 0 sweep, MOV +8.0
Round 3 vs POR (pro-rated 57 wins): 4 - 0 sweep, MOV +10.3
Round 1 vs Wolves (pro-rated 41 wins): 3 - 1 win, MOV +6.3

2001 Spurs: #1 seed, 7.9 SRS, 58 wins
Round 2 vs 53-win Mavs: 4 -1 win, MOV 11.6
Round 1 vs 47-win Wolves: 3 - 1, MOV 6.4

So, now we've got a 3-year stretch where the Wolves were much weaker than their opponents, based upon their regular season results. But in all three years, the Wolves would push their opponent harder than their regular season numbers would expect. AND, they pushed their opponents harder than their subsequent round opponents, all of which had much better regular season records and expected value. Hmm.

OK, let's go out another year in each direction.

1998: Wolves were 45 - 37. Their opponent, the Sonics, were 61 - 21.
*Regular season, Garnett averaged 18.5 points on 53% TS. Garnett #5 in PI-RAPM, leading team on both sides of ball. Leading scorer Tom Gugliotta injured at game 41, never returned.

*Playoffs: Gugliotta didn't play at all. Stephon Marbury averaged 13.8 points on 42% TS.
Garnett's scoring average dropped to 15.8 points on 50% TS (including a HEINOUS game 5...arguably the worst game Garnett ever played in his career).

Yet, the Wolves managed to push the series to 5 games with a MOV of only 5.6 points

2002: Wolves were 50 - 32. Their opponents, the Mavs, were 57 - 25. Mavs swept. Games were competitive, though. We have +/- data now, and we see that when KG was on the court, the Wolves outscored the Mavs by 4 points in Game 1, then were outscored by the Mavs by 7 in G2 and 11 in G3. This leads to a 3-game MOV of 4.7 points while Garnett was on the court.

Summary: From 1998 - 2002

*Wolves average regular season wins: 46.6

*Wolves' opponents avg reg season wins: 59.2

*Garnett's scoring went from 21.1 points, 53% TS in the regular season to 19.9 points, 50% TS. He was the unquestioned top scoring option on all 5 teams, and his scoring dropped in both volume and efficiency.

*Yet, his teams were CONSISTENTLY more competitive than expected, based on regular season results. And in the cases where their first round opponents went on to win further series, in EVERY situation the weaker Wolves put up more of a challenge in the playoffs than teams with much better records.

Conclusion: the 2000 result we discussed above wasn't a fluke. Garnett's teams in the playoffs in this period outperformed expectation, even as Garnett himself experienced a drop in scoring efficiency and volume. Oh, and for the record, there wasn't a single starter that started in each of those 5 series, besides Garnett. So, there's no phantom teammate that stepped up to explain this phenomenon.

Maybe this is normal...let's look at David Robinson's pre-Duncan years

In your last underlined portion, above, you mentioned David Robinson in comparison to Garnett. Both considered elite defensively, and Robinson also gets docked for playoff offense drop. So, maybe the phenomenon I pointed out above where the scoring efficiency drops but the team gets more competitive than expected, is more normal than I realized. Maybe when Robinson had terrible scoring efficiency series, he was also able to show his impact in other ways that kept his team more competitive than their regular season expectations.

Or, maybe not.

For the sake of time, I'm going to paste something I wrote before, comparing Garnett's 2000 playoffs against the Trail Blazers to Robinson's 1994 series against the Jazz:

KG's worst scoring efficiency drop, a 44% TS effort, came against the Trailblazers in 2000, a championship-caliber team that was MUCH better than the Wolves (9 more wins, SRS 3.7 points higher in regular season). But in that series KG had 2 triple-doubles in 4 games; was obviously drawing the defenses attention (I like NO-KG-AI's description on page 1: "that was about as much double and triple teaming as I've ever seen a team do") and distributing well (9 apg) which helped contribute to teammates shooting well; he defensively impacted the best player on the opposing team in his 1-on-1 match-up (Sheed averaged 13.5 ppg in 42 min/game against Wolves in round 1, 22.3 pp42 against Jazz and Lakers in next 2 rounds), and was the anchor for a defense that held the Blazers to 3 pp 100 possessions fewer than the Jazz and Lakers were able to in the next 2 rounds (Blazers averaged 97.5 ppg, 47% FG reg season; 87.3 ppg, 43.6% against Wolves).

Robinson's worst TS% in his prime years came in '94, which was right at his peak. His 47.1% TS was better than KG's in the previous example, and like KG it was also over 4 games, though against a Jazz team that was a bit worse than Robinson's Spurs in the season (2 fewer wins, SRS 1.0 points lower). But whereas Garnett was demonstrably making a huge impact outside of his shooting efficiency, Robinson wasn't able to contribute as much without his. His primary defender (Karl Malone) drastically outperformed him (Malone outscored him by more than 9 ppg with a FG% higher than Robinson's TS%); Robinson averaged only 3.5 assists (not much of setting up his teammates), and the Jazz team offense as a whole was reasonably effective (by their standards) against the Spurs (Reg season averaged 101.9 ppg, 47.7% FG; against Spurs averaged 96.3 ppg, 46.8%).

1994 Spurs: 55 - 27, 5.1 SRS. Heavily dependent on David Robinson (his on/off +/- of +19.9 led NBA)
1994 Jazz: 53 - 29, 4.1 SRS
Robinson's scoring reg season: 29.8 pts, 58% TS
Robinson's scoring playoffs: 20 pts, 47% TS

Series: Underdog Jazz won 3 - 1, MOV 8.3 in four games

Conclusion (kind of): Disclaimer: this was only looking at Garnett's and Robinson's WORST series, as far as scoring volume and efficiency drop in the playoffs go. And you can't build a satisfying conclusion on one series. BUT. Earlier in the post, I went through 5 straight series for Garnett, the worst ones of his prime in Minnesota, and there was NOTHING like what happened with Robinson in the 1994 playoffs. Garnett's scoring volume (18.8 points vs 20) and scoring efficiency (44% TS vs 47% TS) were lower than Robinson's. But Garnett was a dominant distributor and clearly made a mark as a defensive anchor in the series. Robinson's offense, without the scoring, just didn't have enough other ways to make an impact, and his defense (both as an individual and as an anchor) didn't seem to have much effect on his opponent.

Garnett's Timberwolves still fought the much better Trail Blazers tooth and nail, a MOV of 2. Robinson's Spurs, which were better in the regular season than the Jazz, instead got beat with a MOV of 8.3.

So, no, to me Garnett's and Robinson's playoff performances (at their worst) have nothing in common. Robinson had a terrible playoffs. Garnett, to me, had a great playoffs in 2000. His scoring volume and efficiency sucked...but he CLEARLY was still having a huge positive impact on his team. At least, as far as how I read the evidence.

But my question to you, that I have the most interest in and hope you respond to is...when you look at the whole of the evidence, in context, do you still believe that Garnett was NOT majorly helping his teams even in the years that his scoring efficiency dropped? And if not...how do you explain his teams' performances?

[drza]

Vote: Kevin Garnett
2nd: Larry Bird

[Doctor MJ]

Doc's alt vote for Dirk is 2017's version of his vote for KG at 4 in 2014.

Now that Hakeem is in, it's between KG and DRob for me. Then the Oscar/West/Dr J/Kobe/Dirk group follows

I'll admit to the analogy to a degree, but I really thought through that KG vote. With the Dirk alt, I'm definitely seeking insight from others because I'm being pulled in a few different directions.

[2klegend]

Alright I'm going to make my argument to prevent KG camp from making a joke out of the Top 10.

With so many people center on KG impact based on his RAPM (mostly on the Regular Basis because that is where he shine the most). BUT what people don't understand is that when you are evaluating all-time level talent, especially those in the Top 10, you MUST account for what they do in the postseason. This is WHY Hakeem is the consensus SUPERIOR player to D-Rob and rank several GOAT rank higher despite the fact D-Rob is better than Hakeem in every statistical measurement in the regular season.

With RAPM limit to regular and year basis, the closest we can use is the simple box-score based OBPM and DBPM. I like to see at these two players we are going to argue the most in here, Bird vs KG.

In Playoff OBPM,

Bird was...

10th in 1980
3rd in 1981
10th in 1982
7th in 1983
2nd in 1984
1st in 1986

KG was...

7th in 2001

You got that right, just ONE time in the Top 10 PS OBPM performer.


Defensively, while KG showed much stronger argument but Bird wasn't actually that bad!

Bird was...

6th in 1980
2nd in 1981
2nd in 1982
2nd in 1983
6th in 1984
8th in 1987
8th in 1988

KG was

3rd in 1998
8th in 1999
5th in 2000
6th in 2001
3rd in 2003
2nd in 2004
8th in 2011
1st in 2013
6th in 2014

All in all, it appears their defensive performance relative to their era and league leader were close enough but offensively, Bird was on a different universe and level than KG in the postseason. This is why we must evaluate Top-10 level in the PS production.

1st pick: Bird
2nd pick: Kobe

[Zeitgeister]

I'm not really sure why you are trying to equate BPM and RAPM, the way they reach their conclusions are very different from one another. BPM is a box score estimate, RAPM is based on +/-. If you were trying to be honest you'd look at +/- as that would be much closer to what RAPM measures even if it's very noisy in small samples.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Okay, I skipped a beat there unintentionally. Fortunately it does not seem like it would have mattered, which is concerning actually., But anyway, back to it:

10) Larry Bird
11) Karl Malone

And btw what is this dubious arguing Kevin Garnett for 6 spots and never even bringing up a player who virtually across the board achieved more, in Karl Malone? Who BTW was the GOAT PF as recently as 12-15 years ago?

On Larry Bird

When you were in high school, or if you're still there, as you head toward graduation...if you have two people in the running for valedictorian, one of whom got straight A's all the way through from Frosh to Senior year, and then another one who got a mix of As and A- grades, but put in some extra summer work as well, which one is your valedictorian? The answer isn't the A- student.

Larry Bird did absolutely everything you are ever supposed to do in his first 9 years in the league. It was almost a perfect career. it didn't mean he won every year, but it meant he was right at the heart of one of the all time dynasties every single year, and they were in the championship race every year. He finished 4th in the MVP voting as a rookie. For the next 8 years he never finished lower than 3rd. he won 3 straight MVPs as the nearly universally declared best player in the game, and almost swept the MVP voting in those years. None of the rest of these guys, any of them, can make nay sort of claim like that (except perhaps the ancient Mikan example). They were great players, and a number of them had a few years at that level, but none of these other guys were faces of the whole league for a whole decade.

When you look at MVP shares, Bird in his 12 year career dwarfs the totals of guys like Garnett, Kobe, whoever you want to throw up there:

Bird
79-80 .068 (4)
80-81 .613 (2)
81-82 .588 (2)
82-83 .485 (2)
83-84 .858 (1)
84-85 .978 (1)
85-86 .981 (1)
86-87 .347 (3)
87-88 .659 (2)
89-90 .005 (10)
90-91 .026 (9)
91-92 .003 (14)
----------------------
Total: 5.611

Garnett
98-99 .008 (10)
99-00 .337 (2)
00-01 .122 (5)
01-02 .013 (12)
02-03 .732 (2)
03-04 .991 (1)
04-05 .012 (11)
06-07 .005 (9)
07-08 .532 (3)
12-13 .001 (12)
--------------------
Total: 2.786

Kobe: 4.202

Garnett, if that is the boondoggle here, was not and never will be in Larry Bird's class. There are legends, defining players, and then there are guys were great. Truly great, but great. KG was great. Top 20 all time player. Larry was a legend. Its even worked into his nickname. There is a difference. You can be great, or you can be the guy everyone fears, every year.


On Karl Malone

Per Games and Efficiency
Mailman 25.0pts (.577TS%) 10.1reb 3.6ast 1.4stl 0.8blk 3.1TO 23.9PER
Hakeem 21.8pts (.553TS%) 11.1reb 2.5ast 1.7stl 3.1blk 3.0TO 23.6PER
Garnett 17.8pts (.546TS%) 10.0reb 3.7ast 1.3stl 1.4blk 2.2TO 22.7PER

Totals
Mailman 1476gms 54852min 36928pts 14968reb 5248ast 14x All Star, 14x All NBA (11/2/1), 4x All Defense (3/1), 2xMVP
Hakeem 1238gms 44222min 26946pts 13748reb 3058ast 12x All Star, 12x All NBA (6/3/3), 9x All Defense (5/4), 1xMVP, 2xDPOY
Garnett 1462gms 50418min 26071pts 14662reb 5445ast 15x All Star, 9x All NBA (4/3/2), 12x All Defense (9/3), 1xMVP, 1xDPOY

Advanced
Mailman Winshares 234.6 Win/48: .205 BPM 5.4 VORP 102.5 ORTG 113 DRTG 101
Hakeem Winshares 162.8 Win/48: .177 BPM 4.9 VORP 77.1 ORTG 108 DRTG 98
Garnett Winshares 191.4 Win/48: .182 BPM 5.4 VORP 94.0 ORTG 110 DRTG 99

Now we can theoretically tip the scales to Hakeem -- I know I was -- based on his amazing playoff work. But that's still an enormous mountain for him to climb. And how can Garnett have been getting arguments all the way into the Top 5 when he basically inferior by every statistical measure we have to Mailman. Mailman was relentless. THERE is your all time durability/persistence king. He scored 10,000 more points than guys like Garnett, Duncan, Hakeem. That's an entire career for most guys.

[Joao Saraiva]

Can somebody make some vote counting? The KG vs rest of the world is heating up

[Joao Saraiva]

Karl Malone is certainly a difficult player to evaluate. I feel like he has a case over Bird, Kobe or Dirk... but I really can't get over some lack of playoff performance (by this standards, I don't mean he was horrible or something most of the time, but he certainly decreased his play in playoff time).

I'd say 92, 94 and 98 were his best runs, at all time great level. But for a guy with so many playoff runs it doesn't seem like a good ratio when competing for such high spot.

If I'm allowed I'll still vote for him above KG, but I don't think Malone will get my vote before Bird, Kobe and Dirk.