#11 Highest Peak of All Time (Garnett '04 wins)

[drza]

I mentioned it was small sample size. I don't think the Heat are a 86 O rating team without Wade but they are worse just like the Wolves are not a -20 team without KG but they are worse.

Based on those +/-, Do you believe that 04 KG was making a bigger impact in the playoffs than 09 LeBron/12 LeBron and 11 Dirk? If so, why didn't that actually result in improved team performance despite having a 2nd team All-NBA for 16 out of 18 games?

As I pointed out a few threads ago, KG didn't have a 2nd team All-NBA for 16 out of 18 games.

Cassell and the Wolves' offensive support in the 2004 playoffs

One of the frustrating aspects of this part of the project coming up right when the baby was born is that I just don't have much opportunity to post right now. I had been working on a long one over night during the baby's awake sessions that responded to your first post about Duncan's scoring efficiency, but I hadn't finished and when I got up this morning the computer had re-started so I lost it. Go figure.

Anyway, to this specific point, neither Cassell nor his production were "fine" for the 2004 playoffs...at least, for once it mattered. His hip issue wasn't acute, it was chronic, which means that he was trying to battle through it long before it got so bad that he had to start missing games. There were rumors of his being hurt at the time during the Kings series, but it wasn't really paid attention to until he just couldn't go in the Lakers series. But if you look at his production on a game-by-game basis in the postseason, it's easy to see that he was battling to start the playoffs and rapidly declined as they went along.

Cassell had a huge game 1 in round 1 (extra rest), then scuffled for a few games, had a big game 5 round 1 and a huge game 1 of round 2 (again, extra rest). Then he went off a cliff afterwards. To put numbers to it, let's isolate his three big games (which all occurred in the first 6 games of the 18-game postseason) to really get a feel for the Cassell that played in more than 80% of that postseason:

Sam Cassell in 2004 playoffs
Games 1, 5 and 6: 33 ppg, 71.5% TS, 23.9 avg game score
11 other games played: 14.2 ppg, 50.3% TS, 8.6 avg game score
4 other games where he couldn't play/played less than 5 minutes

So if you look in any kind of realistic context, Cassell was NOT a 17 point/58% TS player in the 2004 postseason. In more than 83% of the game action, Cassell was either a 14 point/50% TS player or not on the court at all.

Now let's bring it to the rest of the Wolves' '04 Cast: Sprewell, Hassell, Erv Johnson starting, with Wally (playing 12/18 games through three fractured vertebrae), Hoiberg, Darrick Martin (picked up late season on 10-day contract), Mark Madsen, and Michael Olowokandi off the bench. The only person that could even pretend to get their own shot was Sprewell, and when he tried to create for himself it was very low efficiency (average 49% TS for final 5 years of his career, of which this was year 4). Wally (when he played) and Hoiberg could knock down a shot when they had been set-up, and Sprewell was more reasonable off the set-up as well. Hassell, Erv, Martin, Madsen and Olowokandi (HEMMO) were just bad offensive players.

So in summary, for 15 of the 18 playoffs games injuries reduced the '04 Wolves supporting cast to a below average point guard (Cassell's average game score was 8.6 when he played), Sprewell, 2 spot-up shooters and whatever you could get from HEMMO.

As much as Parker and Ginobili weren't ready, Stephen Jackson and Speedy Claxton were inconsistent, David Robinson was Methuzala old, Malik Rose was just a good bench scorer, and Bruce Bowen was a defensive specialist...their offensive cast was still much more ready to produce (outside of Duncan) than the '04 Wolves were outside of Garnett with Cassell hobbling. All four of Parker, Ginobili, Jackson and Speedy could get their own shot. Rose was offensively crafty and solid for a 3rd big, and Robinson as a shadow of himself was still much better offensively than Erv/Madsen.

Conclusion: I'm going to close this post here without even getting into the defensive side of the ball, for reasons of length and complexity. I want it easily digestible what the '04 Wolves cast actually was on offense in the 2004 playoffs, because I think that's often obscured by the names of Cassell and Sprewell and the success of the regular season. In the 2004 playoffs, what KG actually had to work with offensively may well have been the weakest offensive cast that he ever had in a postseason in his career. Ironically.

[colts18]

Mystic, it is just MISERABLE interacting with you lately. You are rude, dogmatic, and lol at everything. This is just unproductive and not fun, and then sometime your points aren't even logical. I know English is your second language, but if you can't READ then don't be such an ass. That's all I'm going to say about that.

What a poor excuse. You said clearly "how well Dallas was built from the get-go (and considered Chandler top-20, for instance)". What do you mean by this, if you don't want to say that you mean before the season started? When did you consider Chandler top-20? Does "from get-go" mean something else than "from the start"?
The Mavericks made the trade for Chandler in July. They were basically done with their team building at that point. Having Nowitzki, Chandler, Kidd, Terry, Marion, Haywood, Butler, Barea, Mahinmi, Beaubois, Stevenson, etc. all under contract already. Is that really unreasonable to interpret your statement as if you knew how well the team was build at that point? Or did they make some incredible great roster moves later, which let you reconsider your initial idea about the Mavericks?

Dirk was the catalyst of the team, not Chandler or Marion or Terry. The Mavs won because they had the best lineup in the NBA (Kidd/Terry/Marion/Dirk/Chandler). That lineup was +29.23 when on the court in the regular season or playoffs. When that lineup was on the court but without Dirk, it was -0.22.

Offense
W/Dirk: 123.8 pts/100, .628 TS%
W/O dirk: 112.0, .568 TS%
Diff: 11.8 pts/100, +6.0 TS%

Defense
W/ Dirk: 94.8 pts/100, .485 TS%
W/O Dirk: 112.3, .543 TS%
diff: -17.5 pts/100, -5.9 TS%

So the difference in lineups is Net 29+ points and 12.0+ TS%. This is the lineup that won the Mavs a title and it sucked when Dirk was off the court.

[ardee]

I think that's a fair point. But I give Kobe the benefit of the doubt more so because he demonstrated excellent perimeter D when he was younger. His actual defensive ceiling from other parts of his career was higher than Mac's IMO. But I'm also asking how to handle this theoretically -- if your peak season ITO of skill, concentration, "putting it all together" etc. only happens on a unipolar team, and what I really care about is how you do on +1, +4, +5 SRS type teams...then don't I really want to know the "goodness" of one's defense, which will certainly regress to the mean if their role on such Bobcat-like teams is to BE the offense? (Unless, maybe, they are from Akron.)

I'll get into Kobe v Kobe when the time comes, but I think 2008 was the best years you mentioned of his offense, and 2006 and 2007 would be the other options. Best balance of athleticism, skill (jumper), and creation/passing, and it showed in the results.

It seems to me that TMac also demonstrated excellent perimeter D when he was younger. TMac first burst onto the scene in Toronto, in fact, as a great defensive energy player. His first three seasons, he averaged 1.5 steals/36 and 1.9 blocks/36 (18.4 min/game) in year 1; 1.7 steals/36 and 2.1 blocks/36 in 22.6 minutes in year 2; and 1.3 steals with 2.2 blocks/36 in 31.2 min/game in year 3. He was downright disruptive on defense, and that was how he made his name for himself. In fact, when TMac and Grant Hill signed with the Magic in 2001, the plan was for Hill to be the "Jordan" and TMac to be the "Pippen" because the thought was that TMac could do all of the defensive things that Scottie did. It wasn't until Hill was hurt and TMac was the only option that anyone realized that he could score like that.

Of course, with the scoring and offense carrying came a loss in the defensive intensity for TMac. But in the hypothetical you're proposing about fitting in with a good team, TMac wouldn't have to carry everything completely on offense which should allow the defensive proclivities he showed in his first few years to shine through.

Just an fun side not, drza, if Hill had stayed healthy, how do you see the Hill-TMac duo panning out?

[An Unbiased Fan]

I think that's a fair point. But I give Kobe the benefit of the doubt more so because he demonstrated excellent perimeter D when he was younger. His actual defensive ceiling from other parts of his career was higher than Mac's IMO. But I'm also asking how to handle this theoretically -- if your peak season ITO of skill, concentration, "putting it all together" etc. only happens on a unipolar team, and what I really care about is how you do on +1, +4, +5 SRS type teams...then don't I really want to know the "goodness" of one's defense, which will certainly regress to the mean if their role on such Bobcat-like teams is to BE the offense? (Unless, maybe, they are from Akron.)

I'll get into Kobe v Kobe when the time comes, but I think 2008 was the best years you mentioned of his offense, and 2006 and 2007 would be the other options. Best balance of athleticism, skill (jumper), and creation/passing, and it showed in the results.

It seems to me that TMac also demonstrated excellent perimeter D when he was younger. TMac first burst onto the scene in Toronto, in fact, as a great defensive energy player. His first three seasons, he averaged 1.5 steals/36 and 1.9 blocks/36 (18.4 min/game) in year 1; 1.7 steals/36 and 2.1 blocks/36 in 22.6 minutes in year 2; and 1.3 steals with 2.2 blocks/36 in 31.2 min/game in year 3. He was downright disruptive on defense, and that was how he made his name for himself. In fact, when TMac and Grant Hill signed with the Magic in 2001, the plan was for Hill to be the "Jordan" and TMac to be the "Pippen" because the thought was that TMac could do all of the defensive things that Scottie did. It wasn't until Hill was hurt and TMac was the only option that anyone realized that he could score like that.

Of course, with the scoring and offense carrying came a loss in the defensive intensity for TMac. But in the hypothetical you're proposing about fitting in with a good team, TMac wouldn't have to carry everything completely on offense which should allow the defensive proclivities he showed in his first few years to shine through.

This isn't quite accurate. Tmac left Toronto because he didn't want to be Vince's Pippen. He chose Orlando because they were trying to build a super team with Hill/TD.

And while he was a good defender back in Toronto, Tmac abandoned all of that once he landed in Orlando. The gaudy BPG numbers you posted, fell like a rock. Orlando's defense was actually worse with Tmac, than before he got there.

Again, if we're talking about impact, and a meaningful peak, it should be pointed out that Orlando was a 41-41 (0.38 SRS) team without Tmac in 2000, and that Tmac's never really improved them much at all in any of his peak years.

[colts18]

As I pointed out a few threads ago, KG didn't have a 2nd team All-NBA for 16 out of 18 games.

Cassell and the Wolves' offensive support in the 2004 playoffs

One of the frustrating aspects of this part of the project coming up right when the baby was born is that I just don't have much opportunity to post right now. I had been working on a long one over night during the baby's awake sessions that responded to your first post about Duncan's scoring efficiency, but I hadn't finished and when I got up this morning the computer had re-started so I lost it. Go figure.

Anyway, to this specific point, neither Cassell nor his production were "fine" for the 2004 playoffs...at least, for once it mattered. His hip issue wasn't acute, it was chronic, which means that he was trying to battle through it long before it got so bad that he had to start missing games. There were rumors of his being hurt at the time during the Kings series, but it wasn't really paid attention to until he just couldn't go in the Lakers series. But if you look at his production on a game-by-game basis in the postseason, it's easy to see that he was battling to start the playoffs and rapidly declined as they went along.

Cassell had a huge game 1 in round 1 (extra rest), then scuffled for a few games, had a big game 5 round 1 and a huge game 1 of round 2 (again, extra rest). Then he went off a cliff afterwards. To put numbers to it, let's isolate his three big games (which all occurred in the first 6 games of the 18-game postseason) to really get a feel for the Cassell that played in more than 80% of that postseason:

Sam Cassell in 2004 playoffs
Games 1, 5 and 6: 33 ppg, 71.5% TS, 23.9 avg game score
11 other games played: 14.2 ppg, 50.3% TS, 8.6 avg game score
4 other games where he couldn't play/played less than 5 minutes

So if you look in any kind of realistic context, Cassell was NOT a 17 point/58% TS player in the 2004 postseason. In more than 83% of the game action, Cassell was either a 14 point/50% TS player or not on the court at all.

Now let's bring it to the rest of the Wolves' '04 Cast: Sprewell, Hassell, Erv Johnson starting, with Wally (playing 12/18 games through three fractured vertebrae), Hoiberg, Darrick Martin (picked up late season on 10-day contract), Mark Madsen, and Michael Olowokandi off the bench. The only person that could even pretend to get their own shot was Sprewell, and when he tried to create for himself it was very low efficiency (average 49% TS for final 5 years of his career, of which this was year 4). Wally (when he played) and Hoiberg could knock down a shot when they had been set-up, and Sprewell was more reasonable off the set-up as well. Hassell, Erv, Martin, Madsen and Olowokandi (HEMMO) were just bad offensive players.

So in summary, for 15 of the 18 playoffs games injuries reduced the '04 Wolves supporting cast to a below average point guard (Cassell's average game score was 8.6 when he played), Sprewell, 2 spot-up shooters and whatever you could get from HEMMO.

As much as Parker and Ginobili weren't ready, Stephen Jackson and Speedy Claxton were inconsistent, David Robinson was Methuzala old, Malik Rose was just a good bench scorer, and Bruce Bowen was a defensive specialist...their offensive cast was still much more ready to produce (outside of Duncan) than the '04 Wolves were outside of Garnett with Cassell hobbling. All four of Parker, Ginobili, Jackson and Speedy could get their own shot. Rose was offensively crafty and solid for a 3rd big, and Robinson as a shadow of himself was still much better offensively than Erv/Madsen.

Conclusion: I'm going to close this post here without even getting into the defensive side of the ball, for reasons of length and complexity. I want it easily digestible what the '04 Wolves cast actually was on offense in the 2004 playoffs, because I think that's often obscured by the names of Cassell and Sprewell and the success of the regular season. In the 2004 playoffs, what KG actually had to work with offensively may well have been the weakest offensive cast that he ever had in a postseason in his career. Ironically.

By those same standards, the Wolves lost because KG didn't play like his usual self. During the regular season his game score was 22. He had 2 real good games based on his standards with a 23 and 27 game scores. He had a 19 game score which is decent but not to his standards. They went 2-1 in those games. He 3 real bad games where his game score was 11.9 and they lost those 3 games by an average of 8.7 PPG. If he played to his standards, they win those games. So thats half the games where they didn't get MVP KG but just mediocre offense KG with good defense.

[drza]

So if you look in any kind of realistic context, Cassell was NOT a 17 point/58% TS player in the 2004 postseason. In more than 83% of the game action, Cassell was either a 14 point/50% TS player or not on the court at all.

Now let's bring it to the rest of the Wolves' '04 Cast: Sprewell, Hassell, Erv Johnson starting, with Wally (playing 12/18 games through three fractured vertebrae), Hoiberg, Darrick Martin (picked up late season on 10-day contract), Mark Madsen, and Michael Olowokandi off the bench. The only person that could even pretend to get their own shot was Sprewell, and when he tried to create for himself it was very low efficiency (average 49% TS for final 5 years of his career, of which this was year 4). Wally (when he played) and Hoiberg could knock down a shot when they had been set-up, and Sprewell was more reasonable off the set-up as well. Hassell, Erv, Martin, Madsen and Olowokandi (HEMMO) were just bad offensive players.

So in summary, for 15 of the 18 playoffs games injuries reduced the '04 Wolves supporting cast to a below average point guard (Cassell's average game score was 8.6 when he played), Sprewell, 2 spot-up shooters and whatever you could get from HEMMO.

Conclusion: I'm going to close this post here without even getting into the defensive side of the ball, for reasons of length and complexity. I want it easily digestible what the '04 Wolves cast actually was on offense in the 2004 playoffs, because I think that's often obscured by the names of Cassell and Sprewell and the success of the regular season. In the 2004 playoffs, what KG actually had to work with offensively may well have been the weakest offensive cast that he ever had in a postseason in his career. Ironically.

By those same standards, the Wolves lost because KG didn't play like his usual self. During the regular season his game score was 22. He had 2 real good games based on his standards with a 23 and 27 game scores. He had a 19 game score which is decent but not to his standards. They went 2-1 in those games. He 3 real bad games where his game score was 11.9 and they lost those 3 games by an average of 8.7 PPG. If he played to his standards, they win those games. So thats half the games where they didn't get MVP KG but just mediocre offense KG with good defense.

You're attempting to play word games when there's nothing there. Game score is a reasonable quick approximation for Cassell because it captures most of what he does. Game score does little on defense, which (as I've pointed out several times) is why you need to look at more in depth game context to get a fuller indication of what KG was doing and +/- scores if you want to attempt to quantify it. I've made a bunch of posts on this subject in this project (in addition to citing some other in depth posts that I've written previously, such as in the top-100 project), so if you want my take on what was going on in Minnesota in the postseason back to like 1999 there should be plenty for you to read. And if you just don't want to put any credence into my take, then it's pointless for us to keep circling when I've already given my answers (lengthy and in depth) for all of the points you're bringing up.

[drza]

Just an fun side not, drza, if Hill had stayed healthy, how do you see the Hill-TMac duo panning out?

That is an interesting question. At the time I wasn't enamoured with it, as I didn't think either was as good as Jordan and I didn't see the 2-wing driven team working short of that level of talent (especially as they didn't have that third big man talent to work with, on the order of a Grant/Rodman or these days a Bosh).

That said, at the time I didn't realize that TMac had as much ability as he did. In a perfect world, TMac's and Hill's games could fit perfectly and synergize with each other. Hill (ironically based on the initial perception) could have played more of a Pippen distributor/2nd scoring role (better scorer, not quite as good of a passer) with TMac as more of a scorer/finisher that can also pass in the Jordan mold. And because they'd have been sharing the load on offense, they'd have both had more energy to put some into defense as well...and both were good defenders when they put their minds to it. Best case scenario, they could have been the evolutionary bridge between Jordan/Pippen and LeBron/Wade.

But.

We also have to acknowledge that TMac has a history of perhaps taking his talent for granted and not having the best attitude about working hard, and as UBF points out there were rumors of ego friction between the cousins while he was in Toronto. So there's no guarantee that he could have found that successful synergy even with Grant Hill, though Hill's reported nice-guy-ness may have helped build the bridge. Just no telling.

Either way, though, I think they would have needed more to really be title contenders. I could see them as the team to beat from the East from 2001 - 2005, but unless they added that Big presence I don't see them really making the Lakers or the Spurs blink.

[ardee]

I think that's a fair point. But I give Kobe the benefit of the doubt more so because he demonstrated excellent perimeter D when he was younger. His actual defensive ceiling from other parts of his career was higher than Mac's IMO. But I'm also asking how to handle this theoretically -- if your peak season ITO of skill, concentration, "putting it all together" etc. only happens on a unipolar team, and what I really care about is how you do on +1, +4, +5 SRS type teams...then don't I really want to know the "goodness" of one's defense, which will certainly regress to the mean if their role on such Bobcat-like teams is to BE the offense? (Unless, maybe, they are from Akron.)

I'll get into Kobe v Kobe when the time comes, but I think 2008 was the best years you mentioned of his offense, and 2006 and 2007 would be the other options. Best balance of athleticism, skill (jumper), and creation/passing, and it showed in the results.

It seems to me that TMac also demonstrated excellent perimeter D when he was younger. TMac first burst onto the scene in Toronto, in fact, as a great defensive energy player. His first three seasons, he averaged 1.5 steals/36 and 1.9 blocks/36 (18.4 min/game) in year 1; 1.7 steals/36 and 2.1 blocks/36 in 22.6 minutes in year 2; and 1.3 steals with 2.2 blocks/36 in 31.2 min/game in year 3. He was downright disruptive on defense, and that was how he made his name for himself. In fact, when TMac and Grant Hill signed with the Magic in 2001, the plan was for Hill to be the "Jordan" and TMac to be the "Pippen" because the thought was that TMac could do all of the defensive things that Scottie did. It wasn't until Hill was hurt and TMac was the only option that anyone realized that he could score like that.

Of course, with the scoring and offense carrying came a loss in the defensive intensity for TMac. But in the hypothetical you're proposing about fitting in with a good team, TMac wouldn't have to carry everything completely on offense which should allow the defensive proclivities he showed in his first few years to shine through.

This isn't quite accurate. Tmac left Toronto because he didn't want to be Vince's Pippen. He chose Orlando because they were trying to build a super team with Hill/TD.

And while he was a good defender back in Toronto, Tmac abandoned all of that once he landed in Orlando. The gaudy BPG numbers you posted, fell like a rock. Orlando's defense was actually worse with Tmac, than before he got there.

Again, if we're talking about impact, and a meaningful peak, it should be pointed out that Orlando was a 41-41 (0.38 SRS) team without Tmac in 2000, and that Tmac's never really improved them much at all in any of his peak years.

Perhaps that's because Grant Hill fell off the map completely?

[An Unbiased Fan]

It seems to me that TMac also demonstrated excellent perimeter D when he was younger. TMac first burst onto the scene in Toronto, in fact, as a great defensive energy player. His first three seasons, he averaged 1.5 steals/36 and 1.9 blocks/36 (18.4 min/game) in year 1; 1.7 steals/36 and 2.1 blocks/36 in 22.6 minutes in year 2; and 1.3 steals with 2.2 blocks/36 in 31.2 min/game in year 3. He was downright disruptive on defense, and that was how he made his name for himself. In fact, when TMac and Grant Hill signed with the Magic in 2001, the plan was for Hill to be the "Jordan" and TMac to be the "Pippen" because the thought was that TMac could do all of the defensive things that Scottie did. It wasn't until Hill was hurt and TMac was the only option that anyone realized that he could score like that.

Of course, with the scoring and offense carrying came a loss in the defensive intensity for TMac. But in the hypothetical you're proposing about fitting in with a good team, TMac wouldn't have to carry everything completely on offense which should allow the defensive proclivities he showed in his first few years to shine through.

This isn't quite accurate. Tmac left Toronto because he didn't want to be Vince's Pippen. He chose Orlando because they were trying to build a super team with Hill/TD.

And while he was a good defender back in Toronto, Tmac abandoned all of that once he landed in Orlando. The gaudy BPG numbers you posted, fell like a rock. Orlando's defense was actually worse with Tmac, than before he got there.

Again, if we're talking about impact, and a meaningful peak, it should be pointed out that Orlando was a 41-41 (0.38 SRS) team without Tmac in 2000, and that Tmac's never really improved them much at all in any of his peak years.

Perhaps that's because Grant Hill fell off the map completely?

Hill wasn't on the Magic in 2000 though, he was still in Detriot.

The 2000 Magic won 41-41 (0.38 SRS) had Rivers as the COY, but no one on that roster had a PER above 20, nor did they have an All-Star, or All-NBAer. So one would think Tmac's presence would elevate this team somewhat....except it never did. In fact, their SRS was worse in 2001. Conversely, Toronto didn't missed a beat without Tmac in 2001.

I would characterize Tmac's peak as great individual boxscore numbers, poor defense, zero leadership, minimal impact on team success.

[drza]

Official vote:

2004 Kevin Garnett

[colts18]

You're attempting to play word games when there's nothing there. Game score is a reasonable quick approximation for Cassell because it captures most of what he does. Game score does little on defense, which (as I've pointed out several times) is why you need to look at more in depth game context to get a fuller indication of what KG was doing and +/- scores if you want to attempt to quantify it. I've made a bunch of posts on this subject in this project (in addition to citing some other in depth posts that I've written previously, such as in the top-100 project), so if you want my take on what was going on in Minnesota in the postseason back to like 1999 there should be plenty for you to read. And if you just don't want to put any credence into my take, then it's pointless for us to keep circling when I've already given my answers (lengthy and in depth) for all of the points you're bringing up.

As I said before net +/- in the playoffs has little value to me because of the extreme off court values. KG only was on the bench for 86 minutes in 04 and just 18 during the Lakers series. That's not even close to a great sample. Even 1000 minutes of off court action through the years is not huge because a lot of it is garbage time and the fact that 1000 minutes is still small sample as far as off court data. For example, KG missed 1600 minutes of time in 2008. 1000 minutes spread over 11 years is not that much. The error rate on that has to be high when you factor that APM has a 5-10 error rate for 1 year adjusted +/- with big minute players. As far as on court +/-, that has value to me. Its more valuable than off court data in telling me a players value. If you look at those leaderboards, its a better indicator of who are the good players than the off court data

[Baller 24]

Been reading for awhile, I'm just here to chime in, not voting.

The 2000 Magic won 41-41 (0.38 SRS) had Rivers as the COY, but no one on that roster had a PER above 20, nor did they have an All-Star, or All-NBAer.

So one would think Tmac's presence would elevate this team somewhat....except it never did. In fact, their SRS was worse in 2001.

Except the team had major changes in its roster, only 4 players remained from the prior season, remember they had maximum cap room that summer, they almost potentially lured in Tim Duncan along with Hill and McGrady.

Conversely, Toronto didn't missed a beat without Tmac in 2001.

Again, roster changes on the Raptors, including a major coaching change by Lenny Wilkins that implemented an offensive system that exploited the ability of Vince Carter.

I would characterize Tmac's peak as great individual boxscore numbers, poor defense, zero leadership, minimal impact on team success.

The Orlando roster without Grant Hill is absolutely dismal, it's a below average roster, probably in terms of talent amongst the worst in the league. If you look at it correctly with McGrady in 2001, 2002, and 2003 they got as much as they possibly could in terms of wins. They had an entirely other offensive weapon they were missing in Grant Hill, who with his previous production can be responsible for 10-12 wins (which puts them amongst the best teams in the eastern conference).

Poor defense? Well I don't know how you measured that, their perimeter defense amongst the seasons McGrady came into play: '01: 13th, '02: 8th, '03: 5th. With the last two of those seasons being his absolute peak. 2002 T-Mac was great, but 2003 T-Mac seemed to have it all figured out. He had a terrible supporting cast and was on a 42 win team, although I hate bringing some this accolade, he still became the first wing to lead the league in offensive win shares since Jordan, he's only a handful of players (including the likes of Jordan, Dantley, and Kareem) to do that on a sub 45 win team. He had a 10 game stretch where he averaged 38.3/9.3ast/5.4/52%/38%/2STL/1.2BLK including 2 triple doubles (46/13/10), and the game before he dropped 52 in three quarters. If there were no leadership characteristics shown on that team, they wouldn't be making the playoffs continuously, like I stated a healthy Grant Hill accounts for a solid 10-12 wins, putting them amongst the elite. Just my two-cents. I think it's a little too early for him to be brought up, but am looking forward to it in the later part.

[therealbig3]

Maybe the defense getting worse with T-Mac in 2001 had something to do with Ben Wallace leaving?

Just going by how good the Magic were year by year totally ignores roster and coaching changes.

[Doctor MJ]

Are you noticing the trend here? Garnett ALWAYS has ridiculous postseason +/- numbers. We're now talking samples with 4000 minutes on court and more than 1000 minutes off court, all told. So it's not sample size. We're now talking one title team, one Finals team, 2 other conference finalists, a 2nd round team and two first round teams...so it's not "ceiling effect" or "easier to lift poor teams". We're talking superstar-with-poor-help, best-star-on-team-with-two-other-stars, and ensemble cast after a major KG injury...so it's not some type of role artifact.

Garnett always shows up as a HUGE positive in the postseason.

Do you know how many times in the last decade Dirk has posted an on/off +/- of +16 or better in even a single postseason? Twice (2009 and 2011)

How about Wade? Once (2006)

Steve Nash? Once (2006)

Kobe? Never, but came closest in 2009 (+13.4)

Duncan did it four times (2003, 2006, 2010, 2012; don't have 2002 score for Duncan, could be a fifth)

drza, if you've got a current source, or a spreadsheet that'd be awesome. 82games' old data pages aren't showing up.

[therealbig3]

BTW, voting so far:

04 Garnett - 7 (Dr Positivity, therealbig3, ardee, DavidStern, bastillon, ElGee, drza)

06 Wade - 1 (JordansBulls)


Looks like a blowout...

[Doctor MJ]

I'm going to join in the blow out:

Voter: Garnett '04

People've made some great arguments, and y'know, the truth is I am more confident in Garnett's impact than the historical Erving & Walton. That can't be the only factor, else I'd have a huge bias toward modern guys simply because of when I was born, but Garnett's impact truly was astounding. Even if I fully push my estimation of the older guys to the max I could possibly see them being, they still don't have an inarguable lead on Garnett, and in the direction, with skepticism, Garnett's lead is sizable.

I tip my hat to one of the greats, who many saw play tons throughout his career, and yet still didn't grasp how spectacular he was (and is).

[Doctor MJ]

Incidentally folks, if we get more KG votes soon, I'll call it and move us to the next thread as KG will have clinched it.

[therealbig3]

^It'll only take one more vote, since there are only 16 voters on the panel, and he already has 8.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'll reserve my posts for the next thread, then.

[Josephpaul]

KG 04 for me as well, just looking over the stats and how big force he was , 11 spot is good place for him