RealGM Top 100 List #8

[HeartBreakKid]

What's the point of bringing up someone if one doesn't think they actually belong in the 8th spot? These threads are long enough, they should not be used as advertisements for up and coming threads. No one is going to forget about Barkley, Malone and Julius etc.

Not to be a dick to anyone in particular for I see quite a few people doing this, but it just seems unnecessary.

[Doctor MJ]

Again, lineups themselves have separate functions. There are defensive rotations, offensive rotations, small ball, big rebounding lineups, crunchtime lineups, and a ton more depending on the coach, his roster, and his system.

Because you're using lineup data as a base, and not individual numbers, everything produced is reflective of rotational trends, nothing more. Rashard out did Dwight in 2009 because of how Stan used him, NOT because "he was inserted into a lineup and the result was an improvement"

That's the problem, the very premise of RAPM as an individual measurement is flawed. Its fine for rotational data, but that's it. There's nothing in its calculation, that separates the individual from the group. You instead get lineup trends

If I were to ask you whether there's a correlation between RAPM and actual impact, would you say yes? Assuming you would, then it's worth asking cause there to be less than perfect correlation between the two. And from there you can talk about specific things. The things that get in the way. If you could do that perfectly. See all the things in the way, then you'd boil your way right down to get it all perfect.

What I'm saying is that I don't demand perfect tools, since they don't exist. I go with the best estimates I can. If I can't see any specific reason why RAPM is off in a particular situation, then I don't assume it's off.

Now, my entire holistic opinion on a guy isn't based just on RAPM. We're talking about weighing different things with different levels of confidence. The point is always, I don't throw out RAPM simply because it disagrees with other things.

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

I get that your point is that you see these things as just two entirely different things, but I see you talking about Divac down below. You're specifically able to see how RAPM deviates from the pure impact in that situation. That means you know there's a relationship, and what you're really objecting to is that fact that there can be factors that skew the results.

And my point is that that in and of itself is not a reason to dismiss the stat in using it like this. Thinking like that is essentially saying "the could be some other factor here we don't see, so I'm just going to assume there is and that that factor is so huge it overwhelms everything else".

There's also the matter when you talk about using it for lineup analysis only, that any coach/GM using it for that is most certainly not going to forget about what they see when they evaluate the player as a whole. A player who has found a way to work in a lineup is a guy they are going to want to keep paying and playing, because he's doing his job. There are other variables involved in that bottom line sure, but the connection between the two is so clear cut that no coach/GM would ever see them as unrelated.

2)Kobe's DRAPM is deflated because his backcourt running mates were Derek Fisher, Chucky Atkins, Smush Parker, and they spent a good amount of time with him on offensive rotations. You also have the effect of Phil always wanting either Kobe or Pau on the floor, so Kobe spent good stretches with weak defense up front. Conversely La went through Pau/Bynum a bit more when Kobe was off court, and had big lineups more equipped for defense. in the 3peat days it was the same except you had guys like Slava/Samaki in Kobe's rotations more.

Good to see you address this.

I won't say I'm entirely convinced, but it's a good thought. The "A" in APM is meant to adjust for this, and it seems unlikely that years and years and years would never pick up on this even as turnover happened, but yes in theory the tendency of a coach to basically have offensive-oriented vs defensive-oriented lineups would skew the splits. Of course that means that Kobe was being played with more offensive lineups which inflated his offensive RAPM if true.

RAPM is nothing but rotational trends. Nash will do great because Phoenix had no floor general like him, and a unique system that depended on his skill. It's not "noise" that screws up the results, based on the methodology, all that 'noise" is supposed to be there. You're just expecting the data to be something its not, instead of what it is.

To paraphrase the first line:

Nash looks great on RAPM because with him Phoenix found a way to create the most successful offenses known to man, and for some reason they struggled to find a back up point guard who could also do this.

Doc, there's nothing advanced about RAPM. No offence, but i don't understand why everytime it comes up, you act like people who don't subscribe to it..."just don't get it". We get it, the problem is that its very process revolves around lineup based datasets that can't be used to find individual influences. The function of RAPM as it's conducted is to find trends in rotations/lineups through the course of a NBA season. That's literally what it does. What people call "noise' is supposed to be there, and all they have to do is analyze the specific team's lineups and players to see what caused it.

And sorry, but at no point in your reply did you address WHY Divac was rated above the other centers. Of course, I gave you the answer in this post, but that leaves you with two choices. Either you're stuck with it just being "noise", or you admit that RAPM is nothing but a reflection of rotations. Either way, using it for individual comparisons becomes void.

Well see this is what I think too. People are intimidated by RAPM's math, but you could teach it to high schoolers no problem. People just struggle with it because they aren't really used to picking it up on their own.

So no I don't want to call it "advanced"...but at the same time when I explain things to you I'm using all sorts of well established terms for dealing with issues in data, and I never see anything from you that shows you understand it. I asked for you to give a place where you thought regression analysis really worked, and still haven't seen anything from you. I've talked about all sorts of things that deal with coming to knowledge in the face of partial data, haven't hear you come back to me with any of these things.

It's not too late. Maybe you'll now say "Oh that's all you need? Well, A, B, C, D...Z. See it works there, but basketball....", and then I'll say "Great Scott, you're right!", but as is I'm laying out all sorts of thought process based on what it takes to make something out of data in general in science, and the only thing I get back from you is "but...lineups".

All of that might seem like I'm trying to play the ivory tower card: If I make up a word, and you don't know what it means, then I must know more than you. I'm not trying to play that card, it's just that we're dealing with tools here that come from outside of basketball and the pros and cons are well known, and as such there's vocabulary for such things to try to make clear precisely what's meant. And when I use that vocabulary with you, you don't use it like someone who knows exactly what's meant and then fold it back teaching me something, you use it like someone who doesn't buy any of it.

You just saying, "y'know, it just not my thing" would be one thing, but that isn't what you're doing. Instead you're telling me I'm using it all wrong. I'm the one who appears to have more of a background in this stuff (and I'm not the only one like this), you seem to struggle with the vocabulary, but I'm just wrong, and you with your more conventional opinions from back before the databall era happen to be the one who has seen to the crux of it.

It's not impossible, but it's really not something you should be confident in, unless you actually truly understand all of this vocabulary and make a point of using vague non-technical language just to mess with the pencilnecks.

Re: Divac. As I've said before, the idea that RAPM doesn't perfectly capture how a player should be ranked in a particular case just isn't a showstopper. It's expected. The data is incomplete, it is imperfect. It's something to be used, and not something to be assumed to be biased, and that's kinda all there is too it.

I'll be honest I haven't spent a lot of time looking at Divac's numbers. It's entirely possible that at some point I would have looked at them and thought "whoa that's better than I thought", and started taking his defense more seriously. And if I did that, and we got in some debate, and you made a great point explaining why the numbers overrated him, then I'd change my mind. That's how the process works not just with RAPM but with everything.

[An Unbiased Fan]

How exactly can Pop use him in lineups that makes the team much, much better that has nothing to do with Manu given that we also account for the competition and his teammates? People say similar things like this all the time, but I have no idea what they mean. What are these rotation relics that cause Manu to be rated him year after year, and why is it basically only Manu and I guess Odom for like three years (hm two players known for passing ... nah that's a coincidence)?

San Antonio has changed its lineup many times as well as their style. Manu has gone from not starting to starting again and then coming off the bench. It's not how he's "used" in the rotation.

I said he was first in non-prior informed too. It wasn't just the prior.

it's not "rotation relics", it's simply the rotations used by Phil & Pop. Doesn't matter whether he started or not, he was used much the same way by Pop over the years. Pop has always typically put Manu in units where his skillset can be utilized most effectively. That's why he's a great coach.

Defensive players are not more likely to be in defensive lineups. That's not even true. Coaches often go with more balanced lineups and someone like Asik has to play with Harden and a small PF. Basketball isn't so specialized teams go with all defensive lineups for five minutes and then sub them all out and go with all offensive players. It's usually quite mixed.

Uh, defensive players actually ARE more likely to be in defensive units. I never said that coaches threw out 5 defensive players either. Coaches have differing rotations to deal with matchups. A great perimeter defender like Bowen will be key if the opposition have a scoring wing, and a defensive anchor big will be used if the opponent is good at attacking the basket. i could keep going on, but you get the point.

And again it's adjusted for who your teammates are. If your lineup has great defenders in it, you're not simply getting credit because they defend well. The lineup has to perform better than expected, and we then give that player the credit ... which makes sense!

Sure you are. Just look at Rashard in 2009. if player A is in the lineup with player B the exact same time, they will have the exact same numbers. So with RAPM you're just finding rotational trends between lineups. At no point are you extrapolating the individual, you're similar comparing groups.

I honestly have no idea what this rotations stuff is. This was the old criticism with raw plus/minus, and it was valid. Ostertag has ridiculous raw plus/minus some seasons because he plays a lot with Malone and Stockton. So what you do is adjust for your teammates, opposition, and homecourt advantage to get rid of the pesky rotation problems.

That's the issue...there is no mechanism to "adjust for teammates". Hence, we're back to the "rotations stuff".

You would need individual based datasets like Synergy to do this.

Is it something about how Manu only plays with lineups that gel and none of the troubling ones? That he's saved for the best lineups? Even then, Manu played most of the minutes in his prime, was there in crunch-time, so I don't see how he can be saved for super specific rotations and possessions where he can trick RAPM.

There's nothing super specific about Manu. It's simply how he's used by Pop, that's it. Again, there's no magic to RAPM, it's pretty straight-forward. His numbers aren't a trick, they're an accurate representation of the rotations he was involved in. No different from Vlade or Rashard.

The problem is when those numbers are misinterpreted as having individual value, when they don't.

[andrewww]

This spot comes down to Hakeem vs. Magic vs. Bird. Love the discussion in this slot thus far, but to be expected since there isn't a polarizing player legitimately in the discussion yet or has already been voted in.

On deck for me would be Kobe/KMalone/KG/Admiral/Dirk/Barkley/Oscar/West/Dr J/Moses.

Hakeem vs very clearly the best remaining center on what most would consider the top tier of bigs in history (Russell/Wilt/Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem/Kareem). GOAT-level impact on both sides of the ball at his peak. An extended prime, but questionable team impact despite the incredible skill in contrast to someone like Shaq.

Magic is very much in the discussion if not the favourite for the greatest offensive player of all time. His versatility despite being common knowledge isn't promoted enough in comparison to how LeBron's versatility especially on the defensive end is championed. The knock on him like Bird is average defense as a whole.

Bird perhaps peaked the earliest out of this group. No noticeable weakness on offense either, and was a better team defender than generally portrayed. His playoff numbers are not widely regarded as having raised his level of play, and the short career doesn't help either.

I have these 3 above the rest because at their absolute best, I don't feel as though any of the other candidates match them on overall impact over a sustained period of time. All have their own noticable weaknesses as well. Difficult to pinpoint obvious weakness(es) among Hakeem/Magic/Bird.

Bird's relatively short but pronounced peak kind of has me leaning towards Magic/Hakeem for now.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Spoiler:

Again, lineups themselves have separate functions. There are defensive rotations, offensive rotations, small ball, big rebounding lineups, crunchtime lineups, and a ton more depending on the coach, his roster, and his system.

Because you're using lineup data as a base, and not individual numbers, everything produced is reflective of rotational trends, nothing more. Rashard out did Dwight in 2009 because of how Stan used him, NOT because "he was inserted into a lineup and the result was an improvement"

That's the problem, the very premise of RAPM as an individual measurement is flawed. Its fine for rotational data, but that's it. There's nothing in its calculation, that separates the individual from the group. You instead get lineup trends

If I were to ask you whether there's a correlation between RAPM and actual impact, would you say yes? Assuming you would, then it's worth asking cause there to be less than perfect correlation between the two. And from there you can talk about specific things. The things that get in the way. If you could do that perfectly. See all the things in the way, then you'd boil your way right down to get it all perfect.

What I'm saying is that I don't demand perfect tools, since they don't exist. I go with the best estimates I can. If I can't see any specific reason why RAPM is off in a particular situation, then I don't assume it's off.

Now, my entire holistic opinion on a guy isn't based just on RAPM. We're talking about weighing different things with different levels of confidence. The point is always, I don't throw out RAPM simply because it disagrees with other things.

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

I get that your point is that you see these things as just two entirely different things, but I see you talking about Divac down below. You're specifically able to see how RAPM deviates from the pure impact in that situation. That means you know there's a relationship, and what you're really objecting to is that fact that there can be factors that skew the results.

And my point is that that in and of itself is not a reason to dismiss the stat in using it like this. Thinking like that is essentially saying "the could be some other factor here we don't see, so I'm just going to assume there is and that that factor is so huge it overwhelms everything else".

There's also the matter when you talk about using it for lineup analysis only, that any coach/GM using it for that is most certainly not going to forget about what they see when they evaluate the player as a whole. A player who has found a way to work in a lineup is a guy they are going to want to keep paying and playing, because he's doing his job. There are other variables involved in that bottom line sure, but the connection between the two is so clear cut that no coach/GM would ever see them as unrelated.

2)Kobe's DRAPM is deflated because his backcourt running mates were Derek Fisher, Chucky Atkins, Smush Parker, and they spent a good amount of time with him on offensive rotations. You also have the effect of Phil always wanting either Kobe or Pau on the floor, so Kobe spent good stretches with weak defense up front. Conversely La went through Pau/Bynum a bit more when Kobe was off court, and had big lineups more equipped for defense. in the 3peat days it was the same except you had guys like Slava/Samaki in Kobe's rotations more.

Good to see you address this.

I won't say I'm entirely convinced, but it's a good thought. The "A" in APM is meant to adjust for this, and it seems unlikely that years and years and years would never pick up on this even as turnover happened, but yes in theory the tendency of a coach to basically have offensive-oriented vs defensive-oriented lineups would skew the splits. Of course that means that Kobe was being played with more offensive lineups which inflated his offensive RAPM if true.

RAPM is nothing but rotational trends. Nash will do great because Phoenix had no floor general like him, and a unique system that depended on his skill. It's not "noise" that screws up the results, based on the methodology, all that 'noise" is supposed to be there. You're just expecting the data to be something its not, instead of what it is.

To paraphrase the first line:

Nash looks great on RAPM because with him Phoenix found a way to create the most successful offenses known to man, and for some reason they struggled to find a back up point guard who could also do this.

Doc, there's nothing advanced about RAPM. No offence, but i don't understand why everytime it comes up, you act like people who don't subscribe to it..."just don't get it". We get it, the problem is that its very process revolves around lineup based datasets that can't be used to find individual influences. The function of RAPM as it's conducted is to find trends in rotations/lineups through the course of a NBA season. That's literally what it does. What people call "noise' is supposed to be there, and all they have to do is analyze the specific team's lineups and players to see what caused it.

And sorry, but at no point in your reply did you address WHY Divac was rated above the other centers. Of course, I gave you the answer in this post, but that leaves you with two choices. Either you're stuck with it just being "noise", or you admit that RAPM is nothing but a reflection of rotations. Either way, using it for individual comparisons becomes void.

Well see this is what I think too. People are intimidated by RAPM's math, but you could teach it to high schoolers no problem. People just struggle with it because they aren't really used to picking it up on their own.

So no I don't want to call it "advanced"...but at the same time when I explain things to you I'm using all sorts of well established terms for dealing with issues in data, and I never see anything from you that shows you understand it. I asked for you to give a place where you thought regression analysis really worked, and still haven't seen anything from you. I've talked about all sorts of things that deal with coming to knowledge in the face of partial data, haven't hear you come back to me with any of these things.

It's not too late. Maybe you'll now say "Oh that's all you need? Well, A, B, C, D...Z. See it works there, but basketball....", and then I'll say "Great Scott, you're right!", but as is I'm laying out all sorts of thought process based on what it takes to make something out of data in general in science, and the only thing I get back from you is "but...lineups".

All of that might seem like I'm trying to play the ivory tower card: If I make up a word, and you don't know what it means, then I must know more than you. I'm not trying to play that card, it's just that we're dealing with tools here that come from outside of basketball and the pros and cons are well known, and as such there's vocabulary for such things to try to make clear precisely what's meant. And when I use that vocabulary with you, you don't use it like someone who knows exactly what's meant and then fold it back teaching me something, you use it like someone who doesn't buy any of it.

You just saying, "y'know, it just not my thing" would be one thing, but that isn't what you're doing. Instead you're telling me I'm using it all wrong. I'm the one who appears to have more of a background in this stuff (and I'm not the only one like this), you seem to struggle with the vocabulary, but I'm just wrong, and you with your more conventional opinions from back before the databall era happen to be the one who has seen to the crux of it.

It's not impossible, but it's really not something you should be confident in, unless you actually truly understand all of this vocabulary and make a point of using vague non-technical language just to mess with the pencilnecks.

Re: Divac. As I've said before, the idea that RAPM doesn't perfectly capture how a player should be ranked in a particular case just isn't a showstopper. It's expected. The data is incomplete, it is imperfect. It's something to be used, and not something to be assumed to be biased, and that's kinda all there is too it.

I'll be honest I haven't spent a lot of time looking at Divac's numbers. It's entirely possible that at some point I would have looked at them and thought "whoa that's better than I thought", and started taking his defense more seriously. And if I did that, and we got in some debate, and you made a great point explaining why the numbers overrated him, then I'd change my mind. That's how the process works not just with RAPM but with everything.

Doc, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I don't want to takeover the thread with RAPM stuff. We've been going back & forth for the last 4 years on it, and I don't see that ending here.

But thanks for the good replies.

[Doctor MJ]

I understand though if what you're really taking issue with is me saying something along the lines that Dirk is a one-trick pony. I don't like calling him that either. It's not how I see him, but if I were to some of the situation like this:

Dirk is the better overall scorer
Garnett is the better offensive player outside of that
Garnett is the better defensive player

Can you see why I find it frustrating when someone goes into great nuance analyzing the first part, and then waves their hands at the rest and says "but really, by how much?" essentially making the assumption that it can't be that big. It's the bulk of what is being done by the 10 players on the court at any given time, but how important is that really? Can't we get them to sell concessions instead?

How is it not fair to parcel out the difference between being a better scorer and distorting defense when, materially, scoring here seems to be a measure of Volume x Efficiency. It's also worth differentiating because NOT players who measure out similarly on the volume x efficiency paradigm actually cause comparable amounts of "defensive havoc," for lack of a better term.

What is everything else? Passing. dribbling, and setting picks? That deserves it's own classification of "everything else" absolutely no more than Dirk's defense-distortion does.

My personal opinion has always been KG is a historically underrated offensive player, and he actually does offer a lot of the same "distortive" qualities (just not to the same degree), but I can't agree with the way you presented that. Dirk is/was a MUCH better offensive player than KG. The defensive gap is just even bigger.

Scoring isn't a measure of volume x efficiency though, that's the entire reason why I fought so hard for people to understand the issue with Wilt. By volume & efficiency Wilt looks like a great scorer, but use him as if that's all there is to consider when deciding who your scorers will be and you'll get burned.

In fact as I think about it, it's appropriate you brought that up because Wilt probably got voted in no small part due to people's tendency to separate out "that other issue" as if it's something truly unrelated to his scoring process, and then assume that there'd be some cure for it that modern coaches would figure out. Obviously though, I don't think it's so straight forward.

Re: volume + efficiency = defensive havoc. Not at all. I remember watching Dirk in the 2011 playoffs and just marveling at how much more deadly he had become. His volume + efficiency was in the same ballpark as it had been a half decade before, but now he was an engineer. Now he knew to take that dribble, suck the defender in, and pass to the right guy at the right moment.

Now, you might take that point and say "Okay, and isn't that something worth talking about as something Dirk might be better at?". Absolutely it is, but it's also a part of other things. We can absolutely talk about it, but it's not really very useful to try to split and split and split things down for the sake of finding some small little thing that Player X is better at imho.

[D Nice]

I understand though if what you're really taking issue with is me saying something along the lines that Dirk is a one-trick pony. I don't like calling him that either. It's not how I see him, but if I were to some of the situation like this:

Dirk is the better overall scorer
Garnett is the better offensive player outside of that
Garnett is the better defensive player

Can you see why I find it frustrating when someone goes into great nuance analyzing the first part, and then waves their hands at the rest and says "but really, by how much?" essentially making the assumption that it can't be that big. It's the bulk of what is being done by the 10 players on the court at any given time, but how important is that really? Can't we get them to sell concessions instead?

How is it not fair to parcel out the difference between being a better scorer and distorting defense when, materially, scoring here seems to be a measure of Volume x Efficiency. It's also worth differentiating because NOT players who measure out similarly on the volume x efficiency paradigm actually cause comparable amounts of "defensive havoc," for lack of a better term.

What is everything else? Passing. dribbling, and setting picks? That deserves it's own classification of "everything else" absolutely no more than Dirk's defense-distortion does.

My personal opinion has always been KG is a historically underrated offensive player, and he actually does offer a lot of the same "distortive" qualities (just not to the same degree), but I can't agree with the way you presented that. Dirk is/was a MUCH better offensive player than KG. The defensive gap is just even bigger.

Scoring isn't a measure of volume x efficiency though, that's the entire reason why I fought so hard for people to understand the issue with Wilt. By volume & efficiency Wilt looks like a great scorer, but use him as if that's all there is to consider when deciding who your scorers will be and you'll get burned.

In fact as I think about it, it's appropriate you brought that up because Wilt probably got voted in no small part due to people's tendency to separate out "that other issue" as if it's something truly unrelated to his scoring process, and then assume that there'd be some cure for it that modern coaches would figure out. Obviously though, I don't think it's so straight forward.

Re: volume + efficiency = defensive havoc. Not at all. I remember watching Dirk in the 2011 playoffs and just marveling at how much more deadly he had become. His volume + efficiency was in the same ballpark as it had been a half decade before, but now he was an engineer. Now he knew to take that dribble, suck the defender in, and pass to the right guy at the right moment.

Now, you might take that point and say "Okay, and isn't that something worth talking about as something Dirk might be better at?". Absolutely it is, but it's also a part of other things. We can absolutely talk about it, but it's not really very useful to try to split and split and split things down for the sake of finding some small little thing that Player X is better at imho.

This is fine but it still missed the points of how is it worthwhile to mention Garnett being better at "everything else on offense" when...

1. Functionally, you seem to account for defensive "reactivity" in your valuation of scorers. That's great, but it's not fair to assume that is the modus operandi we're addressing because most people here clearly aren't doing that.

2. You still aren't addressing that people who score at similar rates are not always defended similarly because of some style/efficacy-based nuance (for example KG & Duncan, or a lower-tier example Manu Ginobili and Michael Finley).

If "everything else" doesn't add up to offsetting the scoring differential (that you seem to be against Chuck parceling out) it's not fair to talk about those "other things" KG does, which as I stated, amount to setting picks, passing the ball, and dribbling.

[Doctor MJ]

This is fine but it still missed the points of how is it worthwhile to mention Garnett being better at "everything else on offense" when...

1. Functionally, you seem to account for defensive "reactivity" in your valuation of scorers. That's great, but it's not fair to assume that is the modus operandi we're addressing because most people here clearly aren't doing that.

2. You still aren't addressing that people who score at similar rates are not always defended similarly because of some style/efficacy-based nuance (for example KG & Duncan, or a lower-tier example Manu Ginobili and Michael Finley).

If "everything else" doesn't add up to offsetting the scoring differential (that you seem to be against Chuck parceling out) it's not fair to talk about those "other things" KG does, which as I stated, amount to setting picks, passing the ball, and dribbling.

Well, okay, if you're saying I made things to simple, I can't really disagree with you.

What I was addressing was someone going into great detail about scoring and then skimping over the rest as part of an overall argument in which he was championing the scorer. An excessive focus on scoring in basketball analysis is as classic of a problem as there ever was, and so I felt the need to jump on it, and to also talk about what was happening and why new data metrics that measure other things were so important to correcting that bias that we are all prone to.

[rico381]

it's not "rotation relics", it's simply the rotations used by Phil & Pop. Doesn't matter whether he started or not, he was used much the same way by Pop over the years. Pop has always typically put Manu in units where his skillset can be utilized most effectively. That's why he's a great coach.

Pretty amazing that there were 30 minutes every game that Manu could be used in lineups catered just to his skillset, and that he could make those lineups amazing. Even more amazing that those lineups weren't nearly as good when Manu wasn't on the floor. And that even though Manu went from the bench to starting and back several times, and just about every player on the Spurs over the past 10+ years has had plenty of minutes spent with him and another large sample of minutes without him, Pop still only put him in the huge variety of situations where he would succeed and none of the ones where he would fail. Glad we could find an explanation for 10 years of overwhelming data that boils down to "eh, it's probably a fluke of a lucky situation.... er, hundreds of different lucky situations"

And again it's adjusted for who your teammates are. If your lineup has great defenders in it, you're not simply getting credit because they defend well. The lineup has to perform better than expected, and we then give that player the credit ... which makes sense!

Sure you are. Just look at Rashard in 2009. if player A is in the lineup with player B the exact same time, they will have the exact same numbers. So with RAPM you're just finding rotational trends between lineups. At no point are you extrapolating the individual, you're similar comparing groups.

Orlando in 2009 has been discussed multiple times, and I wish you'd stop bringing it up, because anyone who knows RAPM knows not to use it in that situation, at least once they're made aware of the details. It's a situation with a ton of collinearity, where the difference between the Dwight/Gortat pairing and the rest of Orlando's lineup basically boils down to a few dozen minutes per season. Complaining about Rashard outscoring Dwight in RAPM is like saying "DeAndre Liggins averaged 72 points and 36 rebounds per 36 minutes! The stat says he's better than LeBron! Per-minute stats are useless". Every stat gets wonky with small sample sizes.

The thing is, this collinearity is incredibly rare. Orlando in the Dwight/Gortat years is the single go-to example for where collinearity can occur. In most cases, we have an incredibly varied sample of lineups to look at. Just like we recognize that points per minute isn't a good measure to look at for DeAndre Liggins, but still use it to evaluate Kevin Durant, we can recognize that RAPM has a tiny sample size for comparing centers to non-centers on the 2009 Magic, and still make use of it in the 99% of the time when it does have an adequate sample.

I honestly have no idea what this rotations stuff is. This was the old criticism with raw plus/minus, and it was valid. Ostertag has ridiculous raw plus/minus some seasons because he plays a lot with Malone and Stockton. So what you do is adjust for your teammates, opposition, and homecourt advantage to get rid of the pesky rotation problems.

That's the issue...there is no mechanism to "adjust for teammates". Hence, we're back to the "rotations stuff".

You're indicating a total lack of knowledge of how APM/RAPM is calculated when you say this. Each player gets a score, and the sum of the scores of all players on the floor is taken into account. If I play with Tony Allen, who has a +2 individual defensive score, and the team has a +2 defense, and then I play with James Harden, who has a -2 individual defensive score, and the team has a -2 defense, my score will be the same either way. I come out to a neutral impact. This is a bit of a simplification, but it'll do for now.

If there was some huge shift in strategy as rotations changed, this might make sense. If Popovich went around saying: "The starters are benched, so now only play defense. Just screw around and do whatever you want on offense," and then he turned around and said "Ok, starters. Just let them score. All I care about is how much you score," and then after that he said "Now, Manu's out, so just play awfully on both ends so he looks like he's making a huge impact by comparison", then I'd get it. It would make sense that "But.... LINEUPS!" is your rebuttal to every single thing anyone says about RAPM. But as it is, you just have basketball lineups. Every lineup tries to maximize their level of play on both ends. Sure, you have defensive lineups that are defensive lineups because they feature better defensive players, but APM/RAPM adjusts for that. That's what the A stands for.

[lorak]

Spoiler:

I'll concede the "what if his supporting casts were just that bad" is a possibility, but I think the most likely explanation isn't that.

Why? During his career in Cincinnati Royals were 18 wins team without Oscar. Sure, lot of noise in such data, but it's pretty consistent from season to season and what is the basis of your claim that they weren't bad enough to explain that Royal's offenses weren't better (while they still were the best in the 60s!)?

Well first off, let me hammer in again the line of mine I quoted. I'm not making a claim, I'm simply saying what I think is most likely.

Of course, but the question is why are the reasons you think that’s the most likely? If that’s only what you named “observations”, then ok, but if not, I would like to know if there’s more.

Some observations though:

1. It was very difficult to be THAT bad for that long back then. It's an era where teams winning less than 50 were still contenders, and many years there was nobody even in the 18 win tier of bad teams.

It’s always very difficult to be that bad for that long, because usually every team has some kind of superstar or star. But we are talking here about team w/o superstar and in that kind of situation it’s very probable team was that bad.

2. The Royals got Jerry Lucas. I used to be considerably higher on Lucas than I am now, but Lucas was an absolute giant of a prospect who was forced to defer to Oscar. Now, Oscar's so talented that that deference made sense, but if Lucas had gotten to develop into the alpha he'd been in college I don't believe for a minute that that Cincy would have been winning 18 games every year.

First off all, no offense Doc, but what are you doing here isn’t a double standard? In one of the previous post you’ve said: Sure, and that's an explanation for what Oscar might have been able to do. But in terms of what he actually did and my best assessment for how impressive that was, it's not GOAT.
So we either focus only on what actually happened or we apply “if, would, could” to both sites of argument.

Second, Lucas was probably negative impact player! (And it shouldn’t be surprise considering his skillset: very poor defense, midrange oriented offensive game, while he wasn’t exactly great shooter [below 80% from FT] – and only great shooters among bigs have positive impact on offense; also know for stat padding – he was fighting for rebounds with his own teammates!). Some time ago ElGee did in/out study:

Code: Select all

year   Gmissed   net with vs w/o   team MOV with player   SIO
1965   (13g)   -2   2   -1,47
1970   (22g)   -1,1   -4,7   -1,36


That’s one of the worst results among players ElGee included in his study. And it’s from two different seasons, different situations, both pretty big samples and they say the same story, so we can’t explain it by “noise”.

3. The Royals didn't go back to winning 18 after Oscar left. It was far less dramatic than that.

In 1971 it was almost completely different roster: only 3 players from 1970 team also played in 1971 (well, there were also two others, but they played 44 minutes COMBINED in 1971) and Cousy wasn’t a rookie coach anymore.

Besides I’m not saying that Royals were 18W team w/o Oscar all the time – that’s just average over longer period of time. For example in 1970 Royals were 4-9 without Robertson, so around 25 wins over whole season, and 32-37 with him, so around 38 wins. Next year they won 33 games, so improved by +7 wins in comparison to how they were doing w/o him in 1970. So it seems 1971 team was better, because almost whole roster was different.

4. The whole WOWY thing back then is a bit tricky, for the same reason that +/- would be virtually useless even if we had it: When your star is playing 45 MPG, there basically is no back up plan. There's Plan A, and then there's suffering. If there ISN"T suffering when the player is out, then that's telling as it probably means there's some serious poor optimization in Plan A, but if there is, well you can't just throw someone out there and tell them to emulate Oscar Robertson.

Again Doc, and I really mean no offense, I think that’s double standard again. Because on one hand, when you are using that kind of argumentation, you want to focus on context, play some kind of “what if” (in this case “if there would be plan B, Oscar wouldn’t look so great”), but on the other hand you dismiss all context from pro Robertson perspective (for example 60s more difficult for perimeter players than 80s or 00s).

Besides, in 1972 Bucks had good players to replace Oscar’s playmaking (Allen and Jones) and yet we see that even in that situation Oscar’s impact was BIG. Actually according to ElGee’s study it’s the best ever, better than Walton in 1977 and 1978, Duncan in 2005 or Jordan in 1992 and 1993. Oscar’s SIO in 1971 is +10.82, 18 games sample, so really big.

What of Garnett? Isn't his time in Minny like Oscar's in Cincy? Well, it's the overall trend with Garnett that makes me find him so compelling. As stated, I had no qualms putting him below Duncan back when he was in Minny. It's the fact that no matter where he went he found a way to have that same impact that gets me...

Which I think gives you an opportunity to tee off: "Well, when Oscar went to Milwaukee, damned if he didn't have that same impact!"

I too am very impressed with his pivot in Milwaukee, and by no means would I say I'm unimpressed with Oscar in general. Any criticism I've directed toward him here is only done because we're having to pick at straws. He's amazing, but there are a few others I find a bit more amazing.

Well, but you didn’t exactly answer to question about Oscar in Milwaukee. Really, what is the difference between what Oscar (KG) did in Cincinnati (Minnesota) and then how he impacted Bucks (and KG Celtics)?

Put another way: If I believed that Oscar was the best player on that team, then yes, I'd be voting for him now.

Good to know that. So my question is: how do you explain 1972, when Bucks had good players to replace Oscar’s playmaking and yet his impact still looks GOAT like?

EDIT
From your other post:

That brought us to the acid test though: If we could see Garnett succeed overwhelmingly with talent around him that didn't justify such lofty expectation, then it wouldn't make sense any more to assume that the Minny supporting cast was just another normal supporting cast.

Exactly the same applies to Oscar.

(BTW, even their situation during 2nd season in BOS/MIL is similar - injury and data showing big impact.)

[magicmerl]

If you go and look at the Boston roster the the previous season, and ordered the players by DRtg, the Celtics literally kept every good defender, and traded every bad defender away. Again, this is analysis that you can do before their championship season even starts.

That's not even true. Al Jefferson was second on the team in DRtg (with at least 1000 minuets) and was traded. He was the highest rated big man besides Olowokandi, who played like 300 minutes and retired. Plus DRtg is a pretty awful evaluator of individual defense.

Sorry, I misspoke. Of the players with more than 500 minutes from the 2007 season, the 5 players Boston kept were in the top 6 DRtg. Al Jefferson was the sole exception, but I'm ok with that when I get KG in return.

[Baller2014]

Boston wasn't favored to win the NBA championship in 2008, I don't even think they were favored to win their conference.

This is technically true, but it's meaningless. The Celtics weren't favoured because commentators didn't know who guys like Rondo, Perkin and Tony Allen were, and were sceptical how much vets like PJ Brown and Posey had left in the tank, and how much time they needed to gel. Ray Allen, Pierce and KG were also 3 stars the media was down on, because they'd been on losing teams lately. But looking at it objectively with hindsight, there was nothing unexpected about the season they had. They were a stacked, stacked team. We should assess them based on that, not based on false media perceptions (which were soon corrected). Most people still had them winning 50 games or more, so it's not like they were projected to be some bum team here.

Other times, like say Lebron's 2009 or 2010 Cav runs, hindsight makes what Lebron did only look more impressive, not less. That's not the case here though, and we shouldn't pretend KG was on some underdog team overcoming the odds in 2008. He had the deepest and most stacked support cast in the NBA that year. He deserves plenty of credit too of course, but this was not some carry job.

[Baller2014]

Since Hakeem fans keep insisting they have no problem with Hakeem's pre-93 years as being comparable, I'm going to make reference to several (never answered) posts from thread #5.

Spoiler:

I'll start off with arguments you haven't refuted and still stand.

1. Hakeem is a better athlete than Duncan
2. Better individual playoff performer
3. Played tougher competition in his peak
4. Had less team support throughout his career
5. Duncan had a GOAT level coach over Hakeem
6. Duncan was a worse scorer in both the RS and PO
7. Duncan has a lower peak
8. Duncan is worse defensively as an individual (steals, blocks and defensive assignments)

I'm troubled you don't think these points were addressed in the Duncan v Hakeem mega thread, because they all were.
1. It is irrelevant if Hakeem is a better athlete, we only care who was a more impactful player
2. I have no idea what you are basing your claim that Hakeem was a better playoff performer on. I've directed you multiple times to the table which shows Duncan and Hakeem's stats side by side with pace and minute adjustment, and Hakeem's advantage vanishes... and that's regular season, Duncans stats go up in the playoffs... consistently, not just cherry picking a 4 game series where Hakeem put up big stats. Of course, in his 93-95 prime Hakeem's playoff impact (and all around impact) is Duncan like, but that's 3 years.

I saw a lot of this sort of "big stat" argument made in the Stockton thread, where his supporters would say "yeh, he lost to this bad team, but he put up good individual stats". If peak Lebron put up great individual stats but lost to a 39 win team in the playoffs I don't think his critics would just give him a pass. What really matters is how your stats translate into impact, into wins. This is devastating for Hakeem, because he consistently had good team mates in his post Sampson pre-93 years (87-92) and the team was not good. I posted on this extensively several posts above this one. Hakeem is 100% accountable for that. We don't rank players by volume stats. Even in 93, when Hakeem finally put it together, he was unable to overcome the Sonics "illegal" defense, which owned him time and again in the regular season and playoffs, an illegal defense that it was totally legal for teams to employ against Duncan.
3. Yup, the Xavier McDaniel Sonics, the Blackman Mavs, the Payton/Kemp Sonics, were clearly superior competition. How could Hakeem compete with these giants of NBA lore? Here are some of the teams who won more games than Hakeem's team did in 1990 (that year he had another all-star big on his team, Sleepy Floyd and a number of good to solid role players); the Fat Lever Nuggets, the Alvin Robertson-Jay Humphries Bucks, the Mark Price Cavs (crushed by injuries), the Reggie Miller Pacers, and they were tied with the D.Ellis/X-Man Sonics and the Hawks. In 1992 when you missed the playoffs the Clippers made it. The Clippers, who were in the middle of a 26 year run with only 1 season above 500. (and your win% with Hakeem healthy is still less than the Clippers won this year). Sure, Hakeem lost to the odd good team in the playoffs during this period, but if he'd won more games in the regular season like Duncan's crappy Spurs teams from 01-03 then he wouldn't be playing the Showtime Lakers in round 1.
4. I agree, he generally did have less support (though not by nearly as much as you make it out to be). However he also turned in far worse results than Duncan too, so it's not like we're comparing like for like here. What we can look at then is when both guys had bad teams, how did they do? Duncan had no problems from 01-03. Hakeem had huge issues from 87-92 (and even issues in 93, 96, etc, being totally unable to counter the Sonics now legal zone D)
5. a) Coaching can be overestimated in some ways, a good coach knows how to get out of the players way, but he doesn't make the team. Talent makes the team. b) Pop grew in the role. His offensive systems in the early Duncan days were extremely primitive, they just threw the balls into Duncan and waited for him to make something happen. c) Hakeem had 2 HoF coaches, Fitch and Rudy, and that does not seem to have been the difference. They tailed off before Fitch left, and they didn't get immediately better under Rudy either. Hakeem got better as a player. Even if you were to blame coaching for underutilizing Hakeem, it is irrelevant, because we are judging the careers they actually had, not the one they might have had if things had played out differently.
6. See the table on page 1 and point 2. This is actually not even true, especially in the playoffs.
7. Hakeem might have peaked higher, it's certainly a debate you could win, but that was for 2-3 years, and then the rest of his career doesn't stand up to Duncan's prime at all. Nor does he have Duncan's longevity.
8. I'll take Duncan as a better man defender, though Hakeem was better on help D.

Spoiler:

In reply to 90'sDecade:

Looking at Hakeem's career during this period; 42 wins in 1987 (lost to the 39 win Sonics who were barely a playoff team), 46 wins in 88 (lost to the solid but not great Mavs), 45 wins in 1989 (lost to the X-Man Sonics again), 41 wins in 1990 (lost to the Showtime Lakers, but if Hakeem had helped them win more games they never have to play the Lakers in Rnd 1), 1991 they go out in the first round again, and in 92 they did not even make the playoffs (and the injury to Hakeem is an insufficient excuse, because their record with him was only 40-30, hardly comparable to what Duncan was doing with weak support casts in 01-03.

Hakeem often had plenty of good team mates, and until his peak in 93-95 (when he finally put it together) he was not carrying them in remotely the same way as Duncan proved he could. Let's take his support cast in 1990 when they won 41 games for instance. Hakeem had Otis Thorpe, a 17-9-3 all-star, defensively tough power forward with killer efficiency at 548. FG%; Sleepy Floyd, still in his prime at 29 years old, and having made an all-star team several years earlier. He had Mad Max, a fierce defender and talented player (who much like Artest, often gunned it too much from the 3pt line), and solid to excellent role players like Buck Johnson, Wiggins, Lucas and Woodwon (for most of the season anyway). 41 wins? Are you kidding me? Hakeem had most of those guys, including Thorpe and Sleepy, the previous season too.

Even when he put it together in 93, he still lost to the Sonics in the playoffs (who always seemed to own him, by employing a borderline illegal defense which, very importantly, would be totally legal in today's game... Hakeem was very fortunate he didn't have to play those same Sonics in 94 or 95 IMO, and of course they took him down in 96- through the regular season and playoffs Hakeem just seemed hopeless against the Sonics, and it was all by using a tactic that is now legal- a worrying point).

Sure, Duncan had more help in general over his career... and he met or surpassed expectations in all those years when he had good talent around him. But when he didn't have help, in 01-03, he still delivered. Hakeem didn't when the chance to carry bad teams arose, and he had plenty of chances. Those Rocket teams I referred to from 87-92 were positively brimming with talent compared to the 01-03 Spurs support casts.

I mean, these questions have been asked over and over, and the Hakeem advocates just seem to be ignoring them. I actually don't have as much of a problem with his flaws now, given the guys he's currently again. He should be one of the next 3 voted in. But the assertion he was just as good prior to 93 is simply false.

[ardee]

I saw an argument for Dirk over KG that to me looked like this:

1.Dirk is objectively the better offensive player and here's proof: PPG, TS%, etc.
2. Sure Garnett's better on defense, but by how much really?

Now, my first quibble here is that the 'proof' about Dirk's superior focused entirely on scoring, which is only one part of offense. I certainly don't deny that in this case that one facet of offense is enough to give Dirk the overall nod on offense, but it's the imbalance of the argument in striking because Garnett's not only better on defense than Dirk, he's also better at all the other facets of offense, yet the weight of the argument seemed to lump the 90% of the game that's not individual scoring into something that can be waved away.

That was me, and you're skipping over the substance of the argument.

When someone is giving up approximately 17-20 ORtg points on higher volume, the issue becomes bigger than scoring. A guy like Dirk, rocking 30+% USG on 120+ ORtg, is going to be a virtual black hole on the court. Rewatch the 2011 Playoffs, he sucks defenders toward him from all sides of the court. Even if he doesn't have the ball, defenders are always splitting attention because his mere PRESENCE on the court is a threat. It causes them to sag off their men, and that half-yard of space leads to easy buckets. This is all without Dirk ever touching the ball. Leave alone when he gets the ball, the double comes, and the entire floor gets distorted for the defense.

If you want, I'll dig up video and show you dozens of individual plays where Dirk does this.

THAT'S the offensive impact Dirk has. The threat of scoring he presents is far more dangerous than the actual scoring he does.

KG may be a better passer skill-wise but the assist numbers are a little hollow to me, because it's not like he was ever drawing doubles and getting his team-mates open shots. Why? Because he was never the threat Dirk was.

KG's passing is a non-factor to me in this comparison. The only reason his assist numbers are higher than Dirk's is because the Mavs are so damn good at swinging the ball around that Dirk just got a lot of hockey assists. Dirk's opportunities created FAR outnumber KG's.

So really, when you look at it holistically, your argument that KG does "all the other things on offense better" is wrong. It's not a question of individual skills but the whole package. And because of Dirk's gargantuan gap in scoring, he is able to use his skills to the betterment of his team far more. It's all well for KG to be a good passer, but it's not helping his team a third as much as Dirk if he's not drawing attention to open up the floor for his teammates.

So I disagree that you think scoring is only 10% of the game: when you're as good at it as Dirk, it's far more, because it's not just the scoring but the THREAT of scoring that makes a huge difference.

[lorak]

When someone is giving up approximately 17-20 ORtg points on higher volume, the issue becomes bigger than scoring.

Why do you think individual ortg describes offensive value better than for example ORAPM?

Also, you still didn't show that Dirk's offense > KG's defense and without that it's impossible to say that Dirk was as valuable (or more) as Garnett.

The only reason his assist numbers are higher than Dirk's is because the Mavs are so damn good at swinging the ball around that Dirk just got a lot of hockey assists.

Since hockey assist data is available it seems that factor is a little bit overrated, because players don't average a lot such assists (league leaders average around 2 per game). Anyway, last season, when KG was clearly much worse offensively than before, while Dirk still was very good, their hockey assists and potential assists per 36 minutes:
KG 0.5 and 4.6
Dirk 0.7 and 5.8

So it doesn't seem like Dirk is better passer regardless of team offensive system, unless of course you think 5-10 years back Nowitzki was much better and KG the same... what's very unlikely, because it's rather other way around.

[mtron929]

What needs to be accounted for in the statistical argument is the fact that the NBA is a long season with virtually half of the teams making the playoffs. Accordingly, top players realize that they can slack off in the regular season (e.g. Shaq in the 3 peat times), save energy, and exert more effort in the playoffs. Now, if the goal of the NBA was to win as many regular season games as possible with the largest scoring margins, then I would have to think that guys like Shaq and Lebron during the Heat era would have played a lot differently.

That is, they would have played like how KG plays.

KG is getting overrated in the statistical arguments because he always plays really hard. But that is not necessarily prudent. And I don't necessarily think that this is a positive attribute in the context of winning a championship. But it sure did wonders for his +/- stats.

Two issues with this:

1) If this were true and agreed to be true then Garnett would have all sorts of regular season accolades based on this success, and he doesn't. If you'd like to stand up and say that most people are clueless as to how good Garnett is in the regular season before coming back to the playoffs and saying "but it turns out they are right in the end" I suppose you can, but it's quite the coincidence you end up agreeing with the status quo despite this zig zag and that you don't seem to think that others who miss the zig zag are doing anything wrong.

I don't understand this argument. If it is indeed true that Garnett worked harder than other superstars in meaningless situations, he should have had more accolades. Why?

2) There really isn't a basis for saying that Garnett is a big disappointment in the playoffs. In Minny his team only got "upset" twice, and both time it was to a Laker team that everyone knew had played below its capabilities in the regular season, and in Boston there was no such track record for getting upset at all.

Now I recognize that that kind of slacking off in the regular season the Lakers did is exactly the thing you're talking about, but make sure you recognize that the Lakers are a completely different animal than everyone else. It's not that everyone else slacks off in the regular season except Garnett. Most teams don't. Most teams recognize that they are being judged quite a bit on the regular season. It's really only extreme cases like a repeating champion led by older and/or lazy talents where this becomes a big issue.

That said, of course I'm talking about Shaq here, and that can be used to make the following argument:

If Shaq's +/- data is that impressive given how lazy his ass was, imagine what it would be if he played 100% all the time.

It's pretty crazy to consider actually.

There are different levels of slacking off. There are superstars who were notorious for not taking the regular season seriously (Shaq) and there are superstars who made it a point to swat every jump shot with vigor even after the play was dead (Garnett). And then you have rest of the superstars in the middle of this spectrum.

Also, +/- stat (if I am understanding it correctly) really rewards a player who plays high intensity basketball when the game is out of hand (either due to the winning or losing) because this is when everyone starts to lose their edge a bit. So you're the one guy playing hard when everyone else (including your teammates) are gearing towards their next game - of course your +/- is going to be off the chart.

Now, I am not attacking +/- per se. It is probably really valuable. But I am trying to figuring out reasons on why KG fairs so well upon looking at this metric. Why? Mostly because my eye test tells me that although KG is a great player, he is not a top 5-10 all time player. And there must be a reasonable explanation on why he is beating someone like Lebron (who is clearly better than KG) using that metric. And I suspect that 95+% of the NBA fans agree with me.

[Purch]

Well first off, your point by point break down is a bit more of a direct comparison debate than I'm trying to start. LeBron is already in, LeBron's peak impact I've already said I think is bigger than Garnett's. So a true Garnett vs LeBron comparison here isn't needed.

That said to your points:

1. Celtic bench better. Well the Heat's depth has been pretty variant as its gone alone, and part of that is raw ability, but part of that also comes from the top. People were lamenting the Heat bench...until they started praising it...and then they bashed it again. It was honestly funny seeing the whiplash Battier's name was getting along the way.

2. Celtics better coaching. Yes and no, and how much does it really matter?

Yes, in the sense I have more respect for what Thibs did.
No, in the sense that there's no reason to think Thibs could work the exact same magic everywhere, and Spo actually did a great job building a new scheme around his team after the first year.
Really matter? I mean it does some, but while Thibs is great, he was never so great that the Celtics D looked great when Garnett went out. In the end the allocation of credit between coach and player just shouldn't be seen as zero sum.

3. 2008 D took the league by surprise. It did, but it also continued to look great basically as long as Garnett was healthy. I understand why you might think the Spurs have 'solved' that paradigm now, but I don't think that's really how it works. Garnett & co got old, or they'd still be together with a dominant defense now. The Spurs are awesome and would do about as well against that defense as anyone, but it would still be a tougher for them than other defenses.

4. You neglect to recognize that the Celtics actually coasted (and were injured) to that 66-16 record. That year they started 29-3, and the next year they started 28-4. The team looked every bit as dominant as the record suggested and then some.

As for the playoff struggles, they took a while to get started - as did the Spurs. As I said to people this year when they doubted the Spurs: Don't judge a contenders' ceiling based on the first round.

All that said I agree with you that the '14 Spurs are the more impressive team based on what I saw at the end. The '08 Celtics were the most impressive team since the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, and now the '14 Spurs are.

5. "Duncan had a near identical role in '14." Hmm, I'll go with you there. Duncan played the Celtic Garnett role on a team that didn't win because of anything like the reasons why the Celtics won. That's the difference.

If you look at any of the +/- data from the year, you'll see a stark contrast. Here's the pure raw stuff:

Duncan +452
Garnett +921

1. In no year of the Heat's run, did they every have a collection of bench players as talented as House, Pj Brown, Tony Allen, James Posey and Powe.

2. Why is there no reason to think Thibs could work that same Magic elsewhere? If anything there's more reason to think Thibs could replicate it than KG, looking at those T wolves defenses. Thibs has been able to create elite defenses the past 4 years, with clearly inferior defensive personel. Thibs has been able to create top defenses in the league, whiles playing Carlos Boozer significant minutes.

3. Teams have adjusted to the overloading, the trapping, and the "matchup zone" principles that have evolved out of that era. Dont get me wrong obviously it would be difficult for the Spurs, but the offense they've evolved over the past four years is the perfect counter to that. The triangle offense, was not.

4. There's a difference between costing, and playing 28 different starting lineups throughout the season. The thing is.. The spurs did both, and were only 4 games behind the celtics. A 16-10 playoff record, and 2 consective 7 game series against inferior teams whiles having home court doesn't impressive me.

5. Timmy played less than 30 minutes per game, and was 6 years older than him during their respective runs.

[Texas Chuck]

I understand though if what you're really taking issue with is me saying something along the lines that Dirk is a one-trick pony. I don't like calling him that either. It's not how I see him, but if I were to some of the situation like this:

Dirk is the better overall scorer
Garnett is the better offensive player outside of that
Garnett is the better defensive player

Can you see why I find it frustrating when someone goes into great nuance analyzing the first part, and then waves their hands at the rest and says "but really, by how much?" essentially making the assumption that it can't be that big. It's the bulk of what is being done by the 10 players on the court at any given time, but how important is that really? Can't we get them to sell concessions instead?

First, I disagree with your conclusion that KG is the better offensive player outside of pure scoring. I also disagree with calling it double counting in regards to Dirk when he draws added defensive attention thus creating wide open shots for teammates, but calling it "the GOAT passing big man" when KG does something similar via his passing skills. That doesnt feel fair. I understand its his scoring ability that generates many of those looks for Dirk's teammates, but Kobe isnt having a similar effect, or Barkley, or Malone. So we need to account for it with Dirk in some way.

And I haven't waived my hands at anything KG. My post was specifically offense-related because that was the portion of your post I was questioning. I then specifically listed a number of areas KG was clearly superior to Dirk offensively. I didn't address overall rebounding or defense because I didn't feel it particularly relevant to this specific conversation. I apologize if you interpreted that as me sweeping KG's advantages under the rug.

If you want me to talk about defense and these two I'd be happy to. KG is a vastly superior defender. KG defends almost every single possession of his entire career. Dirk has taken a lot of defensive possessions off. Dirk frequently concedes buckets with almost no resistance at all. Yes, some of that is intentional to avoid fouls, but it's still a negative we must mention in regards to Dirk. KG's not the world's best shot-blocker, but he's better than Dirk. He's a more versatile defender being able to guard any player but the quickest of PG's(and no one can really guard these guys anymore.) Dirk is really only effective guarding guys in the post. KG covers infinitely more ground than Dirk. KG's defensive instincts are vastly superior to Dirk. KG's ability to be a defensive signal-caller is very valuable. Dirk does not possess this ability. KG is great at defending the PNR, an extremely valuable skill in the era both guys played in. I think you get the idea.

Dirk is a decent man post defender. Dirk is good and consistent at closing out on shooters. Dirk is a really good defensive rebounder. Dirk gets back on defense almost all the time. Even when he's barking at refs about getting hit on the arm he's doing it as he's running back on D. Dirk has quick hands, is 7 feet tall, and understands what offensive guys are trying to do.

Dirk also played defense to avoid fouling particularly early in games. Dirk is a liability when asked to guard someone on the perimiter. His footwork which is tremendous offensively for a man of his size, isnt very good on the defensive end. Dirk is a decent defender. KG is a GOAT defender.

[Texas Chuck]

Now, you might take that point and say "Okay, and isn't that something worth talking about as something Dirk might be better at?". Absolutely it is, but it's also a part of other things. We can absolutely talk about it, but it's not really very useful to try to split and split and split things down for the sake of finding some small little thing that Player X is better at imho.

One of the places where we are disagreeing is that some of us don't see Dirk's ability to distort defenses by his mere presence on the court "some small little thing". If you feel like it is, then that explains a big part of our disconnect.

[penbeast0]

This spot comes down to Hakeem vs. Magic vs. Bird. Love the discussion in this slot thus far, but to be expected since there isn't a polarizing player legitimately in the discussion yet or has already been voted in.

On deck for me would be Kobe/KMalone/KG/Admiral/Dirk/Barkley/Oscar/West/Dr J/Moses.

Hakeem vs very clearly the best remaining center on what most would consider the top tier of bigs in history (Russell/Wilt/Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem/Kareem). GOAT-level impact on both sides of the ball at his peak. An extended prime, but questionable team impact despite the incredible skill in contrast to someone like Shaq....


I have these 3 above the rest because at their absolute best, I don't feel as though any of the other candidates match them on overall impact over a sustained period of time. ...

Again, at the risk of being a broken record, at some point we are going to have to deal with George Mikan as wll. If your key is "overall impact over a sustained period of time," then Mikan may be the strongest candidate left assuming the time we are looking at him Is enough to be considered "sustained." At the same time there are huge questions needing to be answered about him but soon (after Hakeem? After Moses?) we need to a least look at his candidacy.