In Today's Game Who You Pick? #4 ~ Charles Barkley Vs Kevin Garnett

[Hair Jordan]

Barkley. KG is the most overrated player ever. 7 first round exits in his prime in a row. He’d be even worse today.

But this is sort of clownish.

First, it ignores what happened after, and second, it ignores what went into those exits.

It's like me saying Jordan couldn't win more than 50 games for the first 5 years of his career. Or that he got smoked in the first round 3 straight years, and got swept twice by Boston in the postseason.

It isn't the full story.

Here’s the full story: 13 series won, 13 series lost, 70-73 overall in the playoffs with 7 consecutive 1st round exits. Barkley was a better floor raiser by far.

[tsherkin]

Here’s the full story: 13 series won, 13 series lost, 70-73 overall in the playoffs with 7 consecutive 1st round exits. Barkley was a better floor raiser by far.

But again, that's clumsy and lacking context.

Barkley was drafted to a team that had won 58 games the year prior to his arrival and had been in the ECFs.

His Philly career went: semis, 1st round, NO PLAYOFFS, 1st roudn, semis, semis, NO PLAYOFFS.

Then he went to Phoenix for a stretch of 4 seasons. Finals, semis, semis, 1st round (.500 ball).

And then after that, he went to Houston for his final 4 seasons. WCFs, 1st round, 1st round, NO PLAYOFFS.

And each time he went further than KG, he was working with a LOT more.

Context matters, man. Arguing in bad faith isn't going to get you anywhere here.

[Hair Jordan]

Here’s the full story: 13 series won, 13 series lost, 70-73 overall in the playoffs with 7 consecutive 1st round exits. Barkley was a better floor raiser by far.

But again, that's clumsy and lacking context.

Barkley was drafted to a team that had won 58 games the year prior to his arrival and had been in the ECFs.

His Philly career went: semis, 1st round, NO PLAYOFFS, 1st roudn, semis, semis, NO PLAYOFFS.

Then he went to Phoenix for a stretch of 4 seasons. Finals, semis, semis, 1st round (.500 ball).

And then after that, he went to Houston for his final 4 seasons. WCFs, 1st round, 1st round, NO PLAYOFFS.

And each time he went further than KG, he was working with a LOT more.

Context matters, man. Arguing in bad faith isn't going to get you anywhere here.

I’m not arguing. It’s just my opinion. It’s as valid or worthless as yours or anyone else’s.

[tsherkin]

I’m not arguing. It’s just my opinion. It’s as valid or worthless as yours or anyone else’s.

Yes, you're stating your opinion. However, this is a discussion board, and in particular the PC Board. If you're going to state an opinion as rife with issue and fallacy as that, it will get discussed. That's what we do here

[Red Beast]

Barkley is without a doubt better on offense but KG is one of the all-time great defenders, while Barkley doesn't have a particularly strong reputation on that side of the ball.

In terms of overall impact I think KG takes the cake clearly, even though I'm among the people who do believe he can be a bit overrated on here.

If KG was truly one of the all time greatest defenders, it would have shown in Team Defensive Ratings. From 1996-2007, the TWolves finished with a Top 10 Defense only twice, and never finished Top 5. And before you bring up supporting casts, I've seen actual all time great bigs lead top defenses with equal or lesser teammates. Or quote advanced metrics that can't capture all the variables.

It is fair to say advanced metrics can't capture all the variables. We don't have a million copies of each player to run through every lineup and every coach and be absolutely precise.

"All-time great" and "all time greatest" which are slightly different phrasings which to my ear are already invoking slightly different ranges ... are fuzzy enough terms that it's difficult to get much footing on any argument (and understand, know or care - whether or not one is naturally inclined to one side)...

The problem I see is arguing that "advanced metrics ... can't capture all the variables" but advocating for a much less nuanced, much less precise measure in terms of straight up team level Defensive rating which doesn't make any attempt to capture nuances such as variation in the the defensive caliber of teammates or even any distinction between how the team does with the player on court versus performance with them off it.

As I say, terms are fuzzy, defense is hard to measure I don't have an all time defensive ranking and peoples criteria when discussing it could easily differ so I don't really have a stance on the particulars of the outcome but the process doesn't seem the best or, given the criticism of "advanced metrics", entirely consistent.

I don't disagree with anything you have written. However, just because information isn't the best, does not mean that it is not valid. 12 years of mediocre and bad defenses while in your prime is meaningful. It must be accounted for. I've seen many dismiss his poor team defensive records with "bad teammates" and wave it all away. However, that is way too simplistic. He played on some teams with decent players and still had poor results. There is also the problem that many highly regarded defensive players played on teams with equally or worse individuals and achieved far better results. Again, this must be accounted for. It can't be waived away. KG is undoubtedly a better defender than Barkley, but I just can't agree that he is a top ten ATG defensive player. Even in his prime, he was viewed as a great defensive player, but never an all-time great.

Personally, I would always choose Barkley. He has a far rarer skill set that could be maximised in today's game. From an offensive view he is at least 2 tiers above KG. If you paired him with a stretch big, he could provide production on the ball, off ball as a screener, he'd murder offensive boards and is a good enough passer to make you pay for overcommitting. Good defense can be built around him.

[Owly]

If KG was truly one of the all time greatest defenders, it would have shown in Team Defensive Ratings. From 1996-2007, the TWolves finished with a Top 10 Defense only twice, and never finished Top 5. And before you bring up supporting casts, I've seen actual all time great bigs lead top defenses with equal or lesser teammates. Or quote advanced metrics that can't capture all the variables.

It is fair to say advanced metrics can't capture all the variables. We don't have a million copies of each player to run through every lineup and every coach and be absolutely precise.

"All-time great" and "all time greatest" which are slightly different phrasings which to my ear are already invoking slightly different ranges ... are fuzzy enough terms that it's difficult to get much footing on any argument (and understand, know or care - whether or not one is naturally inclined to one side)...

The problem I see is arguing that "advanced metrics ... can't capture all the variables" but advocating for a much less nuanced, much less precise measure in terms of straight up team level Defensive rating which doesn't make any attempt to capture nuances such as variation in the the defensive caliber of teammates or even any distinction between how the team does with the player on court versus performance with them off it.

As I say, terms are fuzzy, defense is hard to measure I don't have an all time defensive ranking and peoples criteria when discussing it could easily differ so I don't really have a stance on the particulars of the outcome but the process doesn't seem the best or, given the criticism of "advanced metrics", entirely consistent.

I don't disagree with anything you have written. However, just because information isn't the best, does not mean that it is not valid. 12 years of mediocre and bad defenses while in your prime is meaningful. It must be accounted for. I've seen many dismiss his poor team defensive records with "bad teammates" and wave it all away. However, that is way too simplistic. He played on some teams with decent players and still had poor results. There is also the problem that many highly regarded defensive players played on teams with equally or worse individuals and achieved far better results. Again, this must be accounted for. It can't be waived away. KG is undoubtedly a better defender than Barkley, but I just can't agree that he is a top ten ATG defensive player. Even in his prime, he was viewed as a great defensive player, but never an all-time great.

Personally, I would always choose Barkley. He has a far rarer skill set that could be maximised in today's game. From an offensive view he is at least 2 tiers above KG. If you paired him with a stretch big, he could provide production on the ball, off ball as a screener, he'd murder offensive boards and is a good enough passer to make you pay for overcommitting. Good defense can be built around him.

Going to be brief ... you were polite enough ... I disagree.

I don't see a particular need to "account" for a bad case when there are better measures that say Garnett was a highly impactful defenders.

Bad defenders (and bad defense with him off court) is a significant part of where those team Ds are.

Honestly I'm not going too much further into it but if you want to state what teams you mean WRT

He played on some teams with decent players and still had poor results

maybe someone can engage meaningfully with you on that but without specifics it's not possible.

There is also the problem that many highly regarded defensive players played on teams with equally or worse individuals and achieved far better results. Again, this must be accounted for.

Two points here.
1) Reread my post ...

"All-time great" and "all time greatest" which are slightly different phrasings which to my ear are already invoking slightly different ranges ... are fuzzy enough terms that it's difficult to get much footing on any argument (and understand, know or care - whether or not one is naturally inclined to one side)...

The fact that maybe one could say ... "well Nate Thurmond showed this much impact or David Robinson showed this much impact" ... maybe those years are better than the Garnett year in question. Maybe in those contexts they were better defenders. Maybe they were just better defenders in absolute terms. That wouldn't preclude Garnett from being an all-time great defender. Unless one is planting a really specific flag about where exactly he lands then it doesn't make sense to someone needs to account for broad non-specific maybe trend to say that would somehow preclude a player from being in a fuzzy overall range ... doesn't really make sense to me.

2) cf other posters. Mutombo led a middle of the pack defense whilst playing with All Defensive 2nd Team and perennial high impact signal player Mookie Blaylock. He did it earlier in Denver. Yet we know looking at on off and better more complex measures derived from it that he's a highly impactful defender. So it's not just KG we could apply archaic tools to. But we have much better ones so why would we, for anyone where we have decent tools.

At one point you seem to tag "all time great" and "a top ten ATG defensive player" as synonymous. In a sense this is helpful as it would allow for a discussion with precision. You would however have to be aware that not everyone would see that as the cutoff for "all time great" ... and of course criteria vary.

Regarding Barkley over Garnett see earlier post (6) in this thread. He's worse in his time for both production and impact peaks, some of what made him effective (granted moreso later in his career) has been taken out of the game, he's weaker on intangibles in important ways. Here you seem to want a stretch 5 that's also a rim protector ... he's doing neither of the core things you want from a big these days ... or is this big a switchy defender and is Barkley the 5 on D so maybe (maybe, depending on the opposing 5) he doesn't have to defend out in space, switch and run a high defensive motor that ... wasn't there for the bulk of his prime (in a less dynamic game).

As before Barkley was great. It would be interesting to see what he could so (a shame Zion had some many injuries as the nearest thing to that archetype). But Barkley was worse in his own time, is projecting further out and fits worse into the modern game.

[Red Beast]

It is fair to say advanced metrics can't capture all the variables. We don't have a million copies of each player to run through every lineup and every coach and be absolutely precise.

"All-time great" and "all time greatest" which are slightly different phrasings which to my ear are already invoking slightly different ranges ... are fuzzy enough terms that it's difficult to get much footing on any argument (and understand, know or care - whether or not one is naturally inclined to one side)...

The problem I see is arguing that "advanced metrics ... can't capture all the variables" but advocating for a much less nuanced, much less precise measure in terms of straight up team level Defensive rating which doesn't make any attempt to capture nuances such as variation in the the defensive caliber of teammates or even any distinction between how the team does with the player on court versus performance with them off it.

As I say, terms are fuzzy, defense is hard to measure I don't have an all time defensive ranking and peoples criteria when discussing it could easily differ so I don't really have a stance on the particulars of the outcome but the process doesn't seem the best or, given the criticism of "advanced metrics", entirely consistent.

I don't disagree with anything you have written. However, just because information isn't the best, does not mean that it is not valid. 12 years of mediocre and bad defenses while in your prime is meaningful. It must be accounted for. I've seen many dismiss his poor team defensive records with "bad teammates" and wave it all away. However, that is way too simplistic. He played on some teams with decent players and still had poor results. There is also the problem that many highly regarded defensive players played on teams with equally or worse individuals and achieved far better results. Again, this must be accounted for. It can't be waived away. KG is undoubtedly a better defender than Barkley, but I just can't agree that he is a top ten ATG defensive player. Even in his prime, he was viewed as a great defensive player, but never an all-time great.

Personally, I would always choose Barkley. He has a far rarer skill set that could be maximised in today's game. From an offensive view he is at least 2 tiers above KG. If you paired him with a stretch big, he could provide production on the ball, off ball as a screener, he'd murder offensive boards and is a good enough passer to make you pay for overcommitting. Good defense can be built around him.

Going to be brief ... you were polite enough ... I disagree.

I don't see a particular need to "account" for a bad case when there are better measures that say Garnett was a highly impactful defenders.

Bad defenders (and bad defense with him off court) is a significant part of where those team Ds are.

Honestly I'm not going too much further into it but if you want to state what teams you mean WRT

He played on some teams with decent players and still had poor results

maybe someone can engage meaningfully with you on that but without specifics it's not possible.

There is also the problem that many highly regarded defensive players played on teams with equally or worse individuals and achieved far better results. Again, this must be accounted for.

Two points here.
1) Reread my post ...

"All-time great" and "all time greatest" which are slightly different phrasings which to my ear are already invoking slightly different ranges ... are fuzzy enough terms that it's difficult to get much footing on any argument (and understand, know or care - whether or not one is naturally inclined to one side)...

The fact that maybe one could say ... "well Nate Thurmond showed this much impact or David Robinson showed this much impact" ... maybe those years are better than the Garnett year in question. Maybe in those contexts they were better defenders. Maybe they were just better defenders in absolute terms. That wouldn't preclude Garnett from being an all-time great defender. Unless one is planting a really specific flag about where exactly he lands then it doesn't make sense to someone needs to account for broad non-specific maybe trend to say that would somehow preclude a player from being in a fuzzy overall range ... doesn't really make sense to me.

2) cf other posters. Mutombo led a middle of the pack defense whilst playing with All Defensive 2nd Team and perennial high impact signal player Mookie Blaylock. He did it earlier in Denver. Yet we know looking at on off and better more complex measures derived from it that he's a highly impactful defender. So it's not just KG we could apply archaic tools to. But we have much better ones so why would we, for anyone where we have decent tools.

At one point you seem to tag "all time great" and "a top ten ATG defensive player" as synonymous. In a sense this is helpful as it would allow for a discussion with precision. You would however have to be aware that not everyone would see that as the cutoff for "all time great" ... and of course criteria vary.

Regarding Barkley over Garnett see earlier post (6) in this thread. He's worse in his time for both production and impact peaks, some of what made him effective (granted moreso later in his career) has been taken out of the game, he's weaker on intangibles in important ways. Here you seem to want a stretch 5 that's also a rim protector ... he's doing neither of the core things you want from a big these days ... or is this big a switchy defender and is Barkley the 5 on D so maybe (maybe, depending on the opposing 5) he doesn't have to defend out in space, switch and run a high defensive motor that ... wasn't there for the bulk of his prime (in a less dynamic game).

As before Barkley was great. It would be interesting to see what he could so (a shame Zion had some many injuries as the nearest thing to that archetype). But Barkley was worse in his own time, is projecting further out and fits worse into the modern game.

Firstly, let me say that I think Garnett is a great defender. I don't think he is an all-time great. To be precise, I don't think he had the same impact as the elite rim protectors. I am highly skeptical of the advanced metrics that many use as comparison tools. I don't think that they can be used that way with any real accuracy. In fact, your claim that one way of measurement is better than another is fraught. When being used as a point of comparison, I don't think you can make that claim definitively in all cases, at all times. To be clear, I don't think team defense is an accurate measure, but I am aware of its limitations. This notwithstanding, it still means something, and I assert strongly that it cannot be ignored. Yet, you choose to ignore it without explanation because you prefer a different (but also flawed) measure. This is intellectual dishonesty. Facts cannot be dismissed outright. Particularly when there are so few examples (if any) of this occurring with other great defensive players.

A sample size of 12 years is significant. Why could he never elevate the defense if he was that good? There must be a rational answer. My answer is this: he was not impactful enough as a rim protector, and he wasn't an elite post defender. He was an elite help defender that needed a particular system and team to maximise his strengths.

By the way Mutombo and Blaylock played three years together with the Hawks. In two of those years, they had the second and third best defense in the NBA. Also, in his first 12 years Dikembe played in 7 top ten defenses (6 top 5). That was for 3 different teams and multiple coaches. There were some mediocre years, but he still had top defenses in his first 12 years. Here are some other top defenders' records for top 5 defenses in their first 12years (remembering KG had zero):
Hakeem 8
Ewing 7
Robinson 9
Duncan 12
Russell 12
Elvin Hayes 7
Wilt 10
Eaton 5 (4 out of the 5 years he played more than 30 minutes/game)
Ben Wallace 5
Rudy Gobert 5 (out of 11)
Draymond Green 6

Now let's consider poor defensive teammates:
David Robinson was able to have a number one defense with Rod Strickland, Sean Elliot, Willie Anderson and Terry Cummins. A number three defense with Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Sean Elliot and Charles Smith.
Hakeem had a number four defense with Rod McCray, Sleepy Floyd, Allen Leavell and Jim Petersen.
In his rookie season (85/86) Ewing took a defense that was 19th to fifth with a bunch of no name players.
In his rookie season Elvin Hayes took an expansion Rockets team from 10th (of 12) to third in defense.
Dwight Howard had a few top defenses with very average defenders.
Find just about any all-time great defender, and you will find them leading a very good defense with a mediocre cast. Why couldn't KG do it?

[Owly]

I don't disagree with anything you have written. However, just because information isn't the best, does not mean that it is not valid. 12 years of mediocre and bad defenses while in your prime is meaningful. It must be accounted for. I've seen many dismiss his poor team defensive records with "bad teammates" and wave it all away. However, that is way too simplistic. He played on some teams with decent players and still had poor results. There is also the problem that many highly regarded defensive players played on teams with equally or worse individuals and achieved far better results. Again, this must be accounted for. It can't be waived away. KG is undoubtedly a better defender than Barkley, but I just can't agree that he is a top ten ATG defensive player. Even in his prime, he was viewed as a great defensive player, but never an all-time great.

Personally, I would always choose Barkley. He has a far rarer skill set that could be maximised in today's game. From an offensive view he is at least 2 tiers above KG. If you paired him with a stretch big, he could provide production on the ball, off ball as a screener, he'd murder offensive boards and is a good enough passer to make you pay for overcommitting. Good defense can be built around him.

Going to be brief ... you were polite enough ... I disagree.

I don't see a particular need to "account" for a bad case when there are better measures that say Garnett was a highly impactful defenders.

Bad defenders (and bad defense with him off court) is a significant part of where those team Ds are.

Honestly I'm not going too much further into it but if you want to state what teams you mean WRT

He played on some teams with decent players and still had poor results

maybe someone can engage meaningfully with you on that but without specifics it's not possible.

There is also the problem that many highly regarded defensive players played on teams with equally or worse individuals and achieved far better results. Again, this must be accounted for.

Two points here.
1) Reread my post ...

"All-time great" and "all time greatest" which are slightly different phrasings which to my ear are already invoking slightly different ranges ... are fuzzy enough terms that it's difficult to get much footing on any argument (and understand, know or care - whether or not one is naturally inclined to one side)...

The fact that maybe one could say ... "well Nate Thurmond showed this much impact or David Robinson showed this much impact" ... maybe those years are better than the Garnett year in question. Maybe in those contexts they were better defenders. Maybe they were just better defenders in absolute terms. That wouldn't preclude Garnett from being an all-time great defender. Unless one is planting a really specific flag about where exactly he lands then it doesn't make sense to someone needs to account for broad non-specific maybe trend to say that would somehow preclude a player from being in a fuzzy overall range ... doesn't really make sense to me.

2) cf other posters. Mutombo led a middle of the pack defense whilst playing with All Defensive 2nd Team and perennial high impact signal player Mookie Blaylock. He did it earlier in Denver. Yet we know looking at on off and better more complex measures derived from it that he's a highly impactful defender. So it's not just KG we could apply archaic tools to. But we have much better ones so why would we, for anyone where we have decent tools.

At one point you seem to tag "all time great" and "a top ten ATG defensive player" as synonymous. In a sense this is helpful as it would allow for a discussion with precision. You would however have to be aware that not everyone would see that as the cutoff for "all time great" ... and of course criteria vary.

Regarding Barkley over Garnett see earlier post (6) in this thread. He's worse in his time for both production and impact peaks, some of what made him effective (granted moreso later in his career) has been taken out of the game, he's weaker on intangibles in important ways. Here you seem to want a stretch 5 that's also a rim protector ... he's doing neither of the core things you want from a big these days ... or is this big a switchy defender and is Barkley the 5 on D so maybe (maybe, depending on the opposing 5) he doesn't have to defend out in space, switch and run a high defensive motor that ... wasn't there for the bulk of his prime (in a less dynamic game).

As before Barkley was great. It would be interesting to see what he could so (a shame Zion had some many injuries as the nearest thing to that archetype). But Barkley was worse in his own time, is projecting further out and fits worse into the modern game.

Firstly, let me say that I think Garnett is a great defender. I don't think he is an all-time great. To be precise, I don't think he had the same impact as the elite rim protectors. I am highly skeptical of the advanced metrics that many use as comparison tools. I don't think that they can be used that way with any real accuracy. In fact, your claim that one way of measurement is better than another is fraught. When being used as a point of comparison, I don't think you can make that claim definitively in all cases, at all times. To be clear, I don't think team defense is an accurate measure, but I am aware of its limitations. This notwithstanding, it still means something, and I assert strongly that it cannot be ignored. Yet, you choose to ignore it without explanation because you prefer a different (but also flawed) measure. This is intellectual dishonesty. Facts cannot be dismissed outright. Particularly when there are so few examples (if any) of this occurring with other great defensive players.

A sample size of 12 years is significant. Why could he never elevate the defense if he was that good? There must be a rational answer. My answer is this: he was not impactful enough as a rim protector, and he wasn't an elite post defender. He was an elite help defender that needed a particular system and team to maximise his strengths.

By the way Mutombo and Blaylock played three years together with the Hawks. In two of those years, they had the second and third best defense in the NBA. Also, in his first 12 years Dikembe played in 7 top ten defenses (6 top 5). That was for 3 different teams and multiple coaches. There were some mediocre years, but he still had top defenses in his first 12 years. Here are some other top defenders' records for top 5 defenses in their first 12years (remembering KG had zero):
Hakeem 8
Ewing 7
Robinson 9
Duncan 12
Russell 12
Elvin Hayes 7
Wilt 10
Eaton 5 (4 out of the 5 years he played more than 30 minutes/game)
Ben Wallace 5
Rudy Gobert 5 (out of 11)
Draymond Green 6

Now let's consider poor defensive teammates:
David Robinson was able to have a number one defense with Rod Strickland, Sean Elliot, Willie Anderson and Terry Cummins. A number three defense with Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Sean Elliot and Charles Smith.
Hakeem had a number four defense with Rod McCray, Sleepy Floyd, Allen Leavell and Jim Petersen.
In his rookie season (85/86) Ewing took a defense that was 19th to fifth with a bunch of no name players.
In his rookie season Elvin Hayes took an expansion Rockets team from 10th (of 12) to third in defense.
Dwight Howard had a few top defenses with very average defenders.
Find just about any all-time great defender, and you will find them leading a very good defense with a mediocre cast. Why couldn't KG do it?

Last go round on this ...

In fact, your claim that one way of measurement is better than another is fraught. When being used as a point of comparison, I don't think you can make that claim definitively in all cases, at all times.

You are wrong here.

Team defensive rating versus team rating when on court is definitively worse in all cases. Throwing out irrelevant minutes in which the player could not impact play makes the measure better.

To be clear, I don't think team defense is an accurate measure, but I am aware of its limitations. This notwithstanding, it still means something, and I assert strongly that it cannot be ignored. Yet, you choose to ignore it without explanation because you prefer a different (but also flawed) measure. This is intellectual dishonesty. Facts cannot be dismissed outright. Particularly when there are so few examples (if any) of this occurring with other great defensive players.

This is annoying. You don't know what measure's I'd prefer you suggest my approach is "intellectual dishonesty", "outright dismissal" of "facts".

A fact would be to state the teams Drtg. To use as a measure of the individual is now mixing in opinion. To do so with even looking at how when the player isn't playing where this is possible is mixing it with bad opinion.

A sample size of 12 years is significant. Why could he never elevate the defense if he was that good

A leading statement that draws an incorrect conclusion. Besides the gerrymandering of an arbitrary cutoff to fit prior conclusions. "Why could he never elevate the defense" establishes a prior point of view. He does raise defenses as seen in the impact family of statistics. How much and where that leaves him all-time is open to debate. Starting with incorrect assumptions though is wrong.

Mutombo ...

I didn't make claims regarding the generality of Mutombo's career I've used a specific data point - one already cited by others - and highlighted a quality teammate ... which highlights that this measure is crude and can be very misleading. That it is not always that bad isn't a justification for using it when better data is available.

Naming 11 players you think better ..

See prior posts. All time great is fuzzy. I haven't argued for a specific ranking.

But whilst we're here

This is intellectual dishonesty

Yeah that was annoying in and of itself.
And then listing Wilt Chamberlain's "records for top 5 defenses" in an 8 and 9 team league. Russell, his teams would be up there anyhow, I can live with it. Chamberlain's below mean (despite expansion diluting the average), 5th place in a 9 team league ... pretending that's equivalent to a 29 team league, giving no caveat ... is a little rich.

Now let's consider poor defensive teammates:
David Robinson was able to have a number one defense with Rod Strickland, Sean Elliot [sic], Willie Anderson and Terry Cummins[sic].

Fwiw I think Robinson is a better defender but
- not a great start to get two names spelt wrong
- Depending in degree on the year Elliott and Strickland were regarded as above average to good defenders.
- Cummings was in the 80s, as more a combo forward regarded as a less than attentive defender, latterly he sticks around when his "Defense is [his] best asset" (Barry and Cohn, '96) and he shows significant impact signal despite being less productive (particularly '96). I am not of the opinon, under Brown he was a poor defender (or that Brown would have played him that much if he was).
- Anderson too has contemporary sources regarding him as circa average.

A number three defense with Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Sean Elliot [sic] and Charles Smith.

'96 backcourt are bad defenders. Elliott has been covered. Smith ... was a good defender over his career. Sometimes had a "soft" label but broadly regarded as effective though less so after injuries. Knicks were probably mistaken using him as a 3 some even as he got older. But defensively he's still productive.

Yeah Robinson's really good. I don't know that these are actually poor defensive teammates. Robinson is providing huge lift. But then that wasn't ever in question.

Hakeem had a number four defense with Rod McCray, Sleepy Floyd, Allen Leavell and Jim Petersen.

McCray was a highly regarded defender. Peterson was competent defensively , a reasonably mobile big body. Between Peterson, Sampson and JBC (in addition to HA) Houston are playing a very big team a fair amount of the time. Looking at Barry and Cohn, contemporary sources the next year are calling Floyd and Leavell average; thus far the only one's their scale has concurred were poor are the San Antonio backcourt of '96. By no means an infallible tool, but given you're throwing these names out there with no reasoning ...
Notable also here 4th here is 4th of 23 and relative -2.3. Not bad. Not exceptional.
Not going to do this for everyone ...
Howard is in the databall era ...
he is on 3 very good defensive teams (2009-2011)
In those years he providing lift on good teams (see for instance https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/1690/onoff#tab-team_efficiency) sometimes with a good defensive backup.
Even here though it's unclear who you think the poor defenders are and at first glance they don't seem to have been a bad defensive team with him off the court over an extended spell.


As before there isn't a set number of players that are all time great defenders so per the above the debate is meaningless unless you commit explicitly to what that means you aren't going to get anywhere with anyone.

But regardless given what was thrown around here I don't think this is going anywhere. So unless there's anything compelling, which I'm not expecting, I'm out on this particular discussion.

[nate33]

These are two of the all time great hyper competitive players. I really love both of them. But in today's game, I'd lean toward Garnett.

In a nutshell, the rules have shifted in the past decade to emphasize team play over individual play. Dominant iso scorers just don't help as much as they used to unless they are also great playmakers because defenses can double team off the ball, play zone, front the post, and do all kinds of things they couldn't do in Barkley's era. Barkley was a dominant offensive player, but he really benefited from the defensive rules that just let you put 3 guys on the other side of the court and allow Barkley to go one-on-one or play a 2-man game against little defensive help. I think Barkley on offense would look a lot like Giannis on offense today, but Barkley doesn't bring Giannis' elite defense. Giannis without elite defense is a top 12-ish player, not an MVP candidate.

Garnett's was kind of the anti-Barkley in these respects. As an iso-scorer, he wasn't all that impressive - relying on turnaround jumpers and a midrange game which are inherently low percentage. Where Garnett thrived offensively was as a high post passer, a ball mover, a screen setter, and a reliable midrange shooter who helped facilitate good team offense and spacing without necessarily doing all of the scoring work himself. That skillset is even more valuable today because teams know how to stop iso scorers.

Likewise on defense, Garnett's help defense, switchability, and arguably GOAT level pick-and-roll defense would be an even greater asset against todays pick-and-roll heavy offenses.

So however you compare the two players, I think it's pretty fair to argue that Garnett's skillset would be enhanced a bit under current rules, whereas Barkley's skillset would be slightly less applicable. I consider the two players to be pretty close overall, so Garnett would be the better player in the modern era. The only way to rank Barkley better than Garnett in the modern era would be if you thought he was significantly better in his era. Maybe one can make that argument, but I certainly wouldn't.

[Red Beast]

Going to be brief ... you were polite enough ... I disagree.

I don't see a particular need to "account" for a bad case when there are better measures that say Garnett was a highly impactful defenders.

Bad defenders (and bad defense with him off court) is a significant part of where those team Ds are.

Honestly I'm not going too much further into it but if you want to state what teams you mean WRT

maybe someone can engage meaningfully with you on that but without specifics it's not possible.


Two points here.
1) Reread my post ...

The fact that maybe one could say ... "well Nate Thurmond showed this much impact or David Robinson showed this much impact" ... maybe those years are better than the Garnett year in question. Maybe in those contexts they were better defenders. Maybe they were just better defenders in absolute terms. That wouldn't preclude Garnett from being an all-time great defender. Unless one is planting a really specific flag about where exactly he lands then it doesn't make sense to someone needs to account for broad non-specific maybe trend to say that would somehow preclude a player from being in a fuzzy overall range ... doesn't really make sense to me.

2) cf other posters. Mutombo led a middle of the pack defense whilst playing with All Defensive 2nd Team and perennial high impact signal player Mookie Blaylock. He did it earlier in Denver. Yet we know looking at on off and better more complex measures derived from it that he's a highly impactful defender. So it's not just KG we could apply archaic tools to. But we have much better ones so why would we, for anyone where we have decent tools.

At one point you seem to tag "all time great" and "a top ten ATG defensive player" as synonymous. In a sense this is helpful as it would allow for a discussion with precision. You would however have to be aware that not everyone would see that as the cutoff for "all time great" ... and of course criteria vary.

Regarding Barkley over Garnett see earlier post (6) in this thread. He's worse in his time for both production and impact peaks, some of what made him effective (granted moreso later in his career) has been taken out of the game, he's weaker on intangibles in important ways. Here you seem to want a stretch 5 that's also a rim protector ... he's doing neither of the core things you want from a big these days ... or is this big a switchy defender and is Barkley the 5 on D so maybe (maybe, depending on the opposing 5) he doesn't have to defend out in space, switch and run a high defensive motor that ... wasn't there for the bulk of his prime (in a less dynamic game).

As before Barkley was great. It would be interesting to see what he could so (a shame Zion had some many injuries as the nearest thing to that archetype). But Barkley was worse in his own time, is projecting further out and fits worse into the modern game.

Firstly, let me say that I think Garnett is a great defender. I don't think he is an all-time great. To be precise, I don't think he had the same impact as the elite rim protectors. I am highly skeptical of the advanced metrics that many use as comparison tools. I don't think that they can be used that way with any real accuracy. In fact, your claim that one way of measurement is better than another is fraught. When being used as a point of comparison, I don't think you can make that claim definitively in all cases, at all times. To be clear, I don't think team defense is an accurate measure, but I am aware of its limitations. This notwithstanding, it still means something, and I assert strongly that it cannot be ignored. Yet, you choose to ignore it without explanation because you prefer a different (but also flawed) measure. This is intellectual dishonesty. Facts cannot be dismissed outright. Particularly when there are so few examples (if any) of this occurring with other great defensive players.

A sample size of 12 years is significant. Why could he never elevate the defense if he was that good? There must be a rational answer. My answer is this: he was not impactful enough as a rim protector, and he wasn't an elite post defender. He was an elite help defender that needed a particular system and team to maximise his strengths.

By the way Mutombo and Blaylock played three years together with the Hawks. In two of those years, they had the second and third best defense in the NBA. Also, in his first 12 years Dikembe played in 7 top ten defenses (6 top 5). That was for 3 different teams and multiple coaches. There were some mediocre years, but he still had top defenses in his first 12 years. Here are some other top defenders' records for top 5 defenses in their first 12years (remembering KG had zero):
Hakeem 8
Ewing 7
Robinson 9
Duncan 12
Russell 12
Elvin Hayes 7
Wilt 10
Eaton 5 (4 out of the 5 years he played more than 30 minutes/game)
Ben Wallace 5
Rudy Gobert 5 (out of 11)
Draymond Green 6

Now let's consider poor defensive teammates:
David Robinson was able to have a number one defense with Rod Strickland, Sean Elliot, Willie Anderson and Terry Cummins. A number three defense with Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Sean Elliot and Charles Smith.
Hakeem had a number four defense with Rod McCray, Sleepy Floyd, Allen Leavell and Jim Petersen.
In his rookie season (85/86) Ewing took a defense that was 19th to fifth with a bunch of no name players.
In his rookie season Elvin Hayes took an expansion Rockets team from 10th (of 12) to third in defense.
Dwight Howard had a few top defenses with very average defenders.
Find just about any all-time great defender, and you will find them leading a very good defense with a mediocre cast. Why couldn't KG do it?

Last go round on this ...

In fact, your claim that one way of measurement is better than another is fraught. When being used as a point of comparison, I don't think you can make that claim definitively in all cases, at all times.

You are wrong here.

Team defensive rating versus team rating when on court is definitively worse in all cases. Throwing out irrelevant minutes in which the player could not impact play makes the measure better.

To be clear, I don't think team defense is an accurate measure, but I am aware of its limitations. This notwithstanding, it still means something, and I assert strongly that it cannot be ignored. Yet, you choose to ignore it without explanation because you prefer a different (but also flawed) measure. This is intellectual dishonesty. Facts cannot be dismissed outright. Particularly when there are so few examples (if any) of this occurring with other great defensive players.

This is annoying. You don't know what measure's I'd prefer you suggest my approach is "intellectual dishonesty", "outright dismissal" of "facts".

A fact would be to state the teams Drtg. To use as a measure of the individual is now mixing in opinion. To do so with even looking at how when the player isn't playing where this is possible is mixing it with bad opinion.

A sample size of 12 years is significant. Why could he never elevate the defense if he was that good

A leading statement that draws an incorrect conclusion. Besides the gerrymandering of an arbitrary cutoff to fit prior conclusions. "Why could he never elevate the defense" establishes a prior point of view. He does raise defenses as seen in the impact family of statistics. How much and where that leaves him all-time is open to debate. Starting with incorrect assumptions though is wrong.

Mutombo ...

I didn't make claims regarding the generality of Mutombo's career I've used a specific data point - one already cited by others - and highlighted a quality teammate ... which highlights that this measure is crude and can be very misleading. That it is not always that bad isn't a justification for using it when better data is available.

Naming 11 players you think better ..

See prior posts. All time great is fuzzy. I haven't argued for a specific ranking.

But whilst we're here

This is intellectual dishonesty

Yeah that was annoying in and of itself.
And then listing Wilt Chamberlain's "records for top 5 defenses" in an 8 and 9 team league. Russell, his teams would be up there anyhow, I can live with it. Chamberlain's below mean (despite expansion diluting the average), 5th place in a 9 team league ... pretending that's equivalent to a 29 team league, giving no caveat ... is a little rich.

Now let's consider poor defensive teammates:
David Robinson was able to have a number one defense with Rod Strickland, Sean Elliot [sic], Willie Anderson and Terry Cummins[sic].

Fwiw I think Robinson is a better defender but
- not a great start to get two names spelt wrong
- Depending in degree on the year Elliott and Strickland were regarded as above average to good defenders.
- Cummings was in the 80s, as more a combo forward regarded as a less than attentive defender, latterly he sticks around when his "Defense is [his] best asset" (Barry and Cohn, '96) and he shows significant impact signal despite being less productive (particularly '96). I am not of the opinon, under Brown he was a poor defender (or that Brown would have played him that much if he was).
- Anderson too has contemporary sources regarding him as circa average.

A number three defense with Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Sean Elliot [sic] and Charles Smith.

'96 backcourt are bad defenders. Elliott has been covered. Smith ... was a good defender over his career. Sometimes had a "soft" label but broadly regarded as effective though less so after injuries. Knicks were probably mistaken using him as a 3 some even as he got older. But defensively he's still productive.

Yeah Robinson's really good. I don't know that these are actually poor defensive teammates. Robinson is providing huge lift. But then that wasn't ever in question.

Hakeem had a number four defense with Rod McCray, Sleepy Floyd, Allen Leavell and Jim Petersen.

McCray was a highly regarded defender. Peterson was competent defensively , a reasonably mobile big body. Between Peterson, Sampson and JBC (in addition to HA) Houston are playing a very big team a fair amount of the time. Looking at Barry and Cohn, contemporary sources the next year are calling Floyd and Leavell average; thus far the only one's their scale has concurred were poor are the San Antonio backcourt of '96. By no means an infallible tool, but given you're throwing these names out there with no reasoning ...
Notable also here 4th here is 4th of 23 and relative -2.3. Not bad. Not exceptional.
Not going to do this for everyone ...
Howard is in the databall era ...
he is on 3 very good defensive teams (2009-2011)
In those years he providing lift on good teams (see for instance https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/1690/onoff#tab-team_efficiency) sometimes with a good defensive backup.
Even here though it's unclear who you think the poor defenders are and at first glance they don't seem to have been a bad defensive team with him off the court over an extended spell.


As before there isn't a set number of players that are all time great defenders so per the above the debate is meaningless unless you commit explicitly to what that means you aren't going to get anywhere with anyone.

But regardless given what was thrown around here I don't think this is going anywhere. So unless there's anything compelling, which I'm not expecting, I'm out on this particular discussion.

Look, I'm sorry but your argument is not good. You are basically covering your ears and eyes and saying, there are some issues with the measure, so I will discard it all and not regard it at all, in any way. That is intellectually dishonest. While this phrase may annoy you. It is accurate. You simply cannot discard evidence wholesale. Your attempt to nitpick (spelling a name wrong, really?) cannot discount all the evidence. I would be very interested in an explanation regarding KG's defensive record. I haven't heard a legitimate one yet that can explain why it is so poor. If he is an all-time great defensive player, there must be a legitimate explanation. Remember, he was playing over 40 minutes most of the time, so he had a significant opportunity to affect his own team's defense. Yet, he couldn't.

I've demonstrated that no other player with a similar defensive reputation to KG has ever gone 12 years with such a poor team defensive record. I can go through year by year to show you that he played with some competent defensive players, but I don't think I should have to. There is enough data there to create some concern. On second thought, I'll give you an easy one, the 01/02 Wolves. Garnett played with Rasho, Billups, Joe Smith, Peeler, Szczerbiak and Brandon. It was the 15th best defense in the NBA (out of 29). Therefore, average to weak. The next year Billups played on the 4th best defense (Pistons) and two years later Rasho played on the best defense (Spurs). Joe Smith was not seen as a bad defensive player. The rest were average to slightly below but not completely awful. With that same team, if you swapped KG with Duncan, do you think you would have the 15th best defense, I don't.

To summarise, the fact is this: KG couldn't manage one, zero, top 5 defense in his first 12 years, he only managed to be on two top 10 defenses. This cannot be said of any other defensive player with a similar (or sometimes lower) defensive reputation. I've listed many of those players and their records. Quite a number of those players played with teammates just as bad as KG had yet had better results. I provided some examples, there are lots more. The evidence is clear, they could do it when KG couldn't. Why couldn't he? If you can't answer that question or need time to look into it, I'll understand. But the question is worthy of asking.

I am more than happy to concede to an actual explanation that addresses what may be an anomaly. What I cannot accept, is that KG's team defense record, over 12 years, is meaningless and not worthy of consideration. That is a nonsense, and to claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest, whether you like it or not. I'll leave it there as this may descend into a circular argument.

[JimmyFromNz]

Personally, I would always choose Barkley. He has a far rarer skill set that could be maximised in today's game. From an offensive view he is at least 2 tiers above KG. If you paired him with a stretch big, he could provide production on the ball, off ball as a screener, he'd murder offensive boards and is a good enough passer to make you pay for overcommitting. Good defense can be built around him.

I know you're in the midst of a back and forth with another poster. But reading through this paragraph jumped out, particularly when the phrase 'intellectually dishonest' is being thrown around a bit.

What is the rarer skillset that CB has over KG?

In describing Charles' strengths (agree on all of them) you should at least acknowledge KG possesses those as well, production on the ball, off the ball, an elite screener, and elite offensive rebounder and a seriously accomplished passer/ball handler from the high post, in the paint and out of screen action - demonstrated to the point we know very well he would be elite in the modern era. Clearly the on the ball scoring from Charles is a decisive difference - at least from the 90s perspective.

On the defensive side - if fixating on team defensive rating, you should couple that with the advanced +/- data for KG rather than dismiss it. That gives you the clear picture of individual defensive impact i.e. the explanation you seem to be searching for, and its pretty clear in the data that he reached all time levels. You can be skeptical of it, that's healthy, but be skeptical on all of the data not just the ones that don't suit your position.

Its not hard to articulate that 12 years of middling defensive teams with poor talent (lets not pretend Wally Sczerbiak, Rasho a mediocre version of Chauncey, Sprewell, Cassell, Marbury, Brandon a hobbled Joe Smith are pushing the needle anywhere) and zero all defensive calibre teammates puts a dampener on the team statistical outputs. Yet they are countered with incredible individual impact statistics, basic metrics and obvious recognition as a defensive player of the year candidate through out. It is interesting you reference the 2002/3 season, because that is notable for the Wolves attempts to implement a Zone defense that had KG as the point of attack defender who would then play drop in the post - a complete admission that the Wolves had no other ideas on how to maximise KG to mitigate his teammates weaknesses - an interesting summary article that actually has specifics on KG's defense with the Wolves is found here: https://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/150844038866/mechanisms-of-greatness-scouting-kevin-garnetts. The conclusion isn't that complex and it doesn't need to be, the Wolves were a mess.

Then move beyond the 12 year window you've drawn and consider it holistically with the 12 all defensive spots and defensive player of the year anchoring one of the best modern defensives ever where you can't rely on team defensive rating. You've demonstrated the Wolves team defenseis an outlier, great, its only one part of the puzzle and if you consider everything else together and compare that additional information with other all time defenders - the argument loses its steam.

The real question becomes - what actual evidence beyond average team defense #s in a dire Minnesota situation - is there to suggest he isn't an all time defender?

It's a well trodden path, so the ball really is in your court on this one, at least an explanation to the point where it doesn't feel like you're just overcooking the issue to support your Barkley case.

[Red Beast]

I apologise if I am labouring on a point. Perhaps, I am presenting it in a clumsy way, or my position is not clear. Firstly, let me say, I do not dismiss advanced stats. I take them very strongly into consideration. However, I understand their limitations and what they are intended to measure. It seems that RAPM is the measure de jour. It is an excellent stat. But many worship too strongly at its altar. If one player has an RAPM better than another player that is a strong indicator that they may be a better player, but that is not what RAPM measures. Yet, I think that there are many that believe that it does measure that. It is an indicator. It is one of our better indicators, but it cannot tell me, with any certainty, that one player is better than another. I hope I don't have to go into why this is so. But, if you understand RAPM, you will understand that it has fundamental limitations as a comparison tool.

Team defense is also an important indicator. It has very significant limitations as a measure of an individual player. However, basketball is one of the few team sports where a single player can have a significant impact on a team outcome. Of course, it is far easier for an individual to have an impact on offense than defense. This is important. It is also why the greatest defenders have the greatest impact on defense. Why do we know that Russell was one of the greatest defenders in history? We don't know his RAPM. What we do know is that he was the best defender on the best defense for 12 of the 13 years he played (the other year they came second). That is the ultimate measure of his brilliance. He played with some excellent teammates but the starting five was completely different from the first to the last. So, we can assume that as the best defender, and starting centre, he was doing something incredible.

Now, I believe that KG is a great defensive player. RAPM means something, he also played on brilliant defenses in Boston. What I do contest, is that his defense is as great as the best rim protectors of all time. For 12 years, with many different teammates and coaches, he just couldn't raise the level of his team's defense to the same level that the all-time greatest could and did. Many of those greats had teammates that were as bad or worse than KGs, yet they had better defenses. Minnesota was dire. No, they weren't dire all of the time. I followed them when KG played for them. They were dire at the end, promising at the beginning, decent in the middle, never great. This seems to be a convenient comment made to defend KG but it just isn't true.

You say you want actual evidence, but I have provided actual evidence that hasn't yet been addressed. Why were his defenses so poor? There are examples of other great defenders that had much better defenses with poor teammates. Why could they manage and not KG? He is one of the only players with his reputation to not have a top five defense in his prime. Why?

Regarding Barkley. I think you underestimate how much better an offensive player Barkley is than KG. He is not in the same class as Barkley as an offensive force. Part of the issue, is that many think that KG being competent in many areas means that he is dominant. He just wasn't. Barkley was a far superior offensive rebounder. Barkley's TS% is nearly 50 points higher. Barkley put pressure constantly on the defense. He has a FTr 261 points higher than KG over their career. KG was an excellent passer for a forward but not enough to offset Barkley's advantages. I would argue that Barkley was the better creator as he actually attacked the defense. In terms of overall skillset, Barkley has the rarest skill, which is high efficiency on ball creation. Barkley could generate offence for himself and others. KG was not good enough to do that. As such, if I had to pick one to start a team as the best player, I pick Barkley. If I had a second-round pick, I would probably pick KG after I have picked the best offensive player. Unless, of course, there was an ATG rim protector available.

[xb3at band1tx]

Garnett, he was essentially the basketball version of an MLB Five-Tool Player

[Redmoon]

In terms of pure impact Garnett would be favored here. His strengths on defense and offensive game translates well into todays game. Barkleys defensive problems are well known, and even though he is a good passer, sometime tends to hold the ball too long on offense.

As a fan though Id probably take Barkley just for the sheer entertainment. Barkleys build is very rare in the nba and he’s essentially like a healthy Zion. Barkley with modern training would be an even scarier athlete, and likely be able to play even longer than his real career. His rebounding skills would be a terror to deal with and unlike zion he had a midrange game as a counter for his inside game. At the end of the day championships is the goal and prime Barkley can easily make a team a contender from his sheer offensive force.

[homecourtloss]

I apologise if I am labouring on a point. Perhaps, I am presenting it in a clumsy way, or my position is not clear. Firstly, let me say, I do not dismiss advanced stats. I take them very strongly into consideration. However, I understand their limitations and what they are intended to measure. It seems that RAPM is the measure de jour. It is an excellent stat. But many worship too strongly at its altar. If one player has an RAPM better than another player that is a strong indicator that they may be a better player, but that is not what RAPM measures. Yet, I think that there are many that believe that it does measure that. It is an indicator. It is one of our better indicators, but it cannot tell me, with any certainty, that one player is better than another. I hope I don't have to go into why this is so. But, if you understand RAPM, you will understand that it has fundamental limitations as a comparison tool.

Team defense is also an important indicator. It has very significant limitations as a measure of an individual player. However, basketball is one of the few team sports where a single player can have a significant impact on a team outcome. Of course, it is far easier for an individual to have an impact on offense than defense. This is important. It is also why the greatest defenders have the greatest impact on defense. Why do we know that Russell was one of the greatest defenders in history? We don't know his RAPM. What we do know is that he was the best defender on the best defense for 12 of the 13 years he played (the other year they came second). That is the ultimate measure of his brilliance. He played with some excellent teammates but the starting five was completely different from the first to the last. So, we can assume that as the best defender, and starting centre, he was doing something incredible.

Now, I believe that KG is a great defensive player. RAPM means something, he also played on brilliant defenses in Boston. What I do contest, is that his defense is as great as the best rim protectors of all time. For 12 years, with many different teammates and coaches, he just couldn't raise the level of his team's defense to the same level that the all-time greatest could and did. Many of those greats had teammates that were as bad or worse than KGs, yet they had better defenses. Minnesota was dire. No, they weren't dire all of the time. I followed them when KG played for them. They were dire at the end, promising at the beginning, decent in the middle, never great. This seems to be a convenient comment made to defend KG but it just isn't true.

You say you want actual evidence, but I have provided actual evidence that hasn't yet been addressed. Why were his defenses so poor? There are examples of other great defenders that had much better defenses with poor teammates. Why could they manage and not KG? He is one of the only players with his reputation to not have a top five defense in his prime. Why?

Regarding Barkley. I think you underestimate how much better an offensive player Barkley is than KG. He is not in the same class as Barkley as an offensive force. Part of the issue, is that many think that KG being competent in many areas means that he is dominant. He just wasn't. Barkley was a far superior offensive rebounder. Barkley's TS% is nearly 50 points higher. Barkley put pressure constantly on the defense. He has a FTr 261 points higher than KG over their career. KG was an excellent passer for a forward but not enough to offset Barkley's advantages. I would argue that Barkley was the better creator as he actually attacked the defense. In terms of overall skillset, Barkley has the rarest skill, which is high efficiency on ball creation. Barkley could generate offence for himself and others. KG was not good enough to do that. As such, if I had to pick one to start a team as the best player, I pick Barkley. If I had a second-round pick, I would probably pick KG after I have picked the best offensive player. Unless, of course, there was an ATG rim protector available.

From the posts that you have made, it seems that you do not understand at all what RAPM measures or what it even is.