RealGM Top 100 List 2017: #11

[Winsome Gerbil]

West was incredibly dominant at the guard position in his time, and whose talent translated into more impactful team success than Oscar imo. From a pure talent POV though, serious consideration can be given to KD.

I think getting to play with Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich, and Wilt Chamberlain probably helped the ole "team success" too.

[therealbig3]

So, I read that Garnett's box score production fell apart in the playoffs, which is a really odd thing to read, because now instead of just his TS% going down, apparently everything declined? And it declined to the point that he no longer looks like a superstar? How did that argument come about?

FWIW, if we compare some advanced box score metrics to Kobe during their peak playoff years, they actually look pretty similar.

Kobe (06-10): 24.9 PER, .186 WS/48, 6.1 BPM
KG (99-08): 23.9 PER, .172 WS/48, 6.4 BPM

So Kobe has a minuscule edge, while KG destroys him as a defensive player, which is poorly captured in box score stats. He destroys him in +/-. And he had the worse team most of the time. How that isn't a big deal is beyond me.

I get it, Kobe was on a perennial playoff team and won championships, but are we really going to compare the 08-10 Lakers to what Garnett had on the T-Wolves? When KG had a similar supporting cast, he led his team to the title too (08). And when Kobe had similar supporting casts as Garnett's Wolves teams, he led them to the lottery and 1st round exits (05-07).

That's another important point here...Kobe had 3 teams throughout his entire prime that could even remotely compare to most of KG's teams in Minnesota (05-07 Lakers)...KG had 2 teams throughout his entire prime that could compare to most of Kobe's teams with the Lakers (04 Wolves and 08 Celtics). Obviously the team success is going to be different.

EDIT: if we include Kobe's 01-04 stretch (was just focusing on him as the 1st option on his own team originally):

Kobe (01-04): 22.0 PER, .170 WS/48, 4.5 BPM

Kobe (01-10): 23.5 PER, .178 WS/48, 5.3 BPM

[therealbig3]

I should also add that I actually personally don't really care about those box score stats, other than as a quick reference as to overall production, and I don't normally use BPM or WS/48 at all. I'm just trying to address the "KG doesn't have the box score production in the playoffs" argument, because he matches up favorably to Kobe when you look at some of the composite box score stats.

KG was just the clearly superior player imo based on the eye test, and pretty much all of the numbers back that up. Throwing out +/- when both of these guys played in the data ball era and we have A TON of +/- data on both of them, when they were both in a variety of roles, is extremely misguided imo.

[therealbig3]

However, I'll also extend this olive branch (somewhat): I think KG is arguably the best defensive player post-Russell, and he would be my pick personally, but I think it's fair to point to the low block numbers and conclude that he wasn't the rim protector that other guys were and that rim protection is more important than his GOAT-level PnR coverage, and thus, he isn't as good as some of the other elite defenders like Hakeem or Duncan or Robinson.

Fair point, but that conclusion is up for debate, especially as the game has evolved, because I would say shutting down the PnR is the most important defensive action a player can do, even more so than traditional rim protection, but with that said: do we have numbers on how players shot at the rim against KG? With his length, height, and athletic ability, I always felt that he was extremely good at contesting shots and forcing misses, even if he wasn't recording a lot of blocks.

Do we have numbers on how players (or teams) shot at the rim against him, and how that would compare to a more traditional shot blocker like Duncan? Or even old man Robinson? Hard to really separate the two, because they both played with each other, but what about Duncan post-Robinson?

[JoeMalburg]

KG was just the clearly superior player imo based on the eye test, and pretty much all of the numbers back that up.

Two totally different things here. The numbers clearly say KG was better, but the eye test favors Kobe by a landslide. Maybe not to you or I, but we're weirdos who look for different things than the average fan, to the vast majority of fans and former players Kobe is among the greatest ever, Garnett is not.

[carlquincy]

FWIW, if we compare some advanced box score metrics to Kobe during their peak playoff years, they actually look pretty similar.

Kobe (06-10): 24.9 PER, .186 WS/48, 6.1 BPM
KG (99-08): 23.9 PER, .172 WS/48, 6.4 BPM

So Kobe has a minuscule edge, while KG destroys him as a defensive player, which is poorly captured in box score stats. He destroys him in +/-. And he had the worse team most of the time. How that isn't a big deal is beyond me.

I thought WS and BPM are catch all stats that include defense?

[AdagioPace]

So Kobe has a minuscule edge, while KG destroys him as a defensive player, which is poorly captured in box score stats. He destroys him in +/-. And he had the worse team most of the time. How that isn't a big deal is beyond me.

nonsense
Nobody destroys nobody in terms of +/-

it's like saying Garnett destroys Kobe(a policeman) in the field of cooking

[Senior]

'03 of course the only reason he had that shot was because Webber got injured the round before. That's another example. So, Webber doesn't get hurt, the Kings were the favorites to win it all that season, and crushed the Mavs the year before in the playoffs either 4-1 or 4-0, the Lakers were not what they had been...so the Kings go on and win it. Webber finishes his career normally without the abrupt mid career change. He's now a champion, maybe even multiple if they come back again the next year...where does that leave him?

But I was thinking of other things here.

For instance:

Karl Malone never won a title. People ascribe nearly infinite importance to his playoff work so they can bump one of the 3 or 4 most productive players of all time down a ridiculous amount. Meanwhile, during the Jordan "hole" it was Hakeem, long viewed as a bit of a malcontent and underachiever (one of my two fave players at the time (Barkley) but it was true) who steps forward and wins those titles. Really the only ones truly available to win during the heart of Mailman's career. But then Hakeem fades off and deteriorates, meanwhile Mailman actually does reach the Finals twice, the same number of times as Hakeem (well, except for Hakeem's early Twin Tower appearance). But instead of a drab Knicks team with John Starks at SG, or a young Orlando team, Mailman finds Michael Jordan and the Bulls waiting for him, looking to win title #5 and #6 in the decade.

Was what Mailman did in reaching the Finals twice really any less impressive than what any other guy did in reaching the Finals twice? He just met a nearly unbeatable opponent. Just a matter of timing that really didn't have much to do with him. Just flip the timing, nothing else, the Mailman teams meat the Knicks and Magic, the Hakeem teams meet the Bulls dynasty...there's every chance that Mailman is the two time champion, and Hakeem the two time loser. Does that change their assessment? Should it?

The same thing goes for Barkley v. Dirk. Chuck made the Finals too, just in time to run into the MJ Bulls a the end of their first three peat. Does failing to stop MJ from winning his 3rd of 6 actually count against Chuck and for Dirk when you compare them? Really? Great as Dirk was in 2011, were those 2011 Mavs going to beat MJ at the peak of his powers before his retirement? I have sincere sincere doubts. And things like that are just timing and luck. And one of the reasons btw why I have never put overwhelming importance on playoff results. Some of it is out of a players' hands.

Sorry man, it's impossible for me to take those examples seriously when both Karl Malone AND Barkley had their chances in 94 and 95 with MJ gone. Hakeem's Rockets eliminated their teams both years on the way to the title, so it's not a matter of luck at all. Malone/Chuck had their chances to win with MJ gone, but Hakeem outplayed them both. If they played better in their series against the Rockets they'd be the ones with the ones avoiding MJ, not Hakeem. Too bad.

It is not out of the player's hands at all. Players and teams are responsible for their own destiny, and playing better makes a lot of the playoff draws irrelevant. Both the Suns and Jazz were very close to winning those series. Suns gave away the first 2 games at home and let Paxson make a game winner. Jazz were in plenty of close games in their two finals. These were not impossible series at all, and had Phoenix/Utah simply played better, it'd be a totally different story. Even after all that, Barkley and Malone had plenty of years where they didn't make the Finals, so they could've given themselves more chances to play non-MJ teams in the Finals...had they played better.

With Webber, if the Kings just played a tiny bit better in the Lakers series all that stuff in 03 wouldn't even matter. Kings had plenty of chances to put the Lakers away and didn't take any of them. Game 4 they blew the 20 whatever lead. Game 7 they choked by missing half their FTs in an OT loss. It is because they failed to make the big plays in 02 that this hypothetical in 03 even comes up. Dirk didn't have many real chances, but he capitalized on one of the few chances he got. That's more than you can say for Malone, Webber, and Chuck.

Not playing as well as other players isn't luck.

[kayess]

Trex: edited my post with the vote.

[penbeast0]

I think getting to play with Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich, and Wilt Chamberlain probably helped the ole "team success" too.

This is from another thread and excludes a couple of good Baylor years but it gives a good picture of the second star that West and Oscar played with in their prime.

Obviously Baylor's early years as a superstar putting up unreal numbers when he wasn't called away for military service blow away Lucas's late years as a role player splitting time with oft injured Willis Reed on the Knicks but, during the years both were in the league, 1964 to 1970 (Elgin was injured in the 1970 season and played only 11 games after that), how would you rate their impact:

Lucas (ppg/rpg/apg/ts%)
1964 17.7/17.4/2.6/.578 *led league in fg% and ts%
1965 21.4/20.0/2.4/.551
1966 21.5/21.1/2.7/.499
1967 17.8/19.1/3.3/.508
1968 21.5/19.0/3.1/.565
1969 18.3/18.4/4.1/.590 *led league in fg% and ts%
1970 15.1/14.2/2.6/.554 (traded to Nate Thurmond's Warriors 4 games into season)

Baylor
1964 25.4/12.0/4.4/.487
1965 27.1/12.8/3.8/.463
1966 16.6/9.6/3.4/.456 (only played 30.1 mpg)
1967 26.6/12.8/3.1/.491
1968 26.0/12.2/4.6/.505
1969 24.8/10.2/5.4/.500
1970 24.0/10.4/5.4/.537

Pretty consistent pattern . . . Lucas would get you 20/19/3 with excellent efficiency, Baylor 25/12/4 with slightly below average consistency. Lucas was a 4/5, Baylor a 3/4, they each played with one of the two great PGs of the era. Baylor was 3rd once and 4th 3 times in scoring during this period and was voted 1st team All-NBA every year but 1970 (where he was hurt 2/3 of the way through the season), Lucas was top 5 in rebounding every year but 1970, 1st team All-NBA 3 times and 2nd team twice in this period in addition to leading the league in shooting efficiency twice.

Not to take anything away from Baylor, but people dismiss Lucas as a stat hound (he checked his numbers during games . . . of course, so did Jordan) but he was a much better rebounder and much more efficient scorer with probably better shooting range than Baylor during the same period. He always seemed to be one of the most underrated NBA players here on the PC board whereas much of the criticism of Elgin seems accurate.

And, of course, West with aging Wilt and Goodrich compared to Oscar with young Kareem and Bob Dandridge is another similar comparison.

[Joao Saraiva]

Seems like Kobe is going in! And after that maybe it's KG's turn. But I'm still voting Dirk, Malone and Oscar before KG.

[Purch]

Let me repost this

I think its about time to talk about Charles Barkley

The only player to win an Mvp over Jordan in his absolute prime.

Charles Barkley

Career Leaders and Records for Offensive Rating

1. Chris Paul 122.44 (G)
2. Reggie Miller 121.48 (SG)
3. Magic Johnson* 120.79 (PG-Point F)
4. John Stockton* 120.55 (PG)
5. Kiki Vandeweghe 119.49 (SF-SG)
6. Sidney Moncrief 119.40 (CG-PG)
7. Charles Barkley* 119.31 (PF)

SHOT MADE/MISS DIFFERENTIAL STAT-
(minimum 15,000 shot attempts)

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: +3,367.5
2. Shaquille O'Neal: +3,200.5
3. Wilt Chamberlain: +1,865
4. Charles Barkley: +1,434

NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating


1. Michael Jordan* 27.91
2. LeBron James 26.91
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.43
4. David Robinson* 26.18
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
6. Dwyane Wade 25.65
7. Bob Pettit* 25.35
8. Chris Paul 25.22
9. Tim Duncan 24.84
10. Neil Johnston* 24.63
11. Charles Barkley* 24.63

NBA & ABA Career Playoff Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating


1. Michael Jordan* 28.59
2. George Mikan* 28.51
3. LeBron James 26.31
4. Shaquille O'Neal 26.12
5. Hakeem Olajuwon* 25.69
6. Tim Duncan 25.43
7. Dirk Nowitzki 24.75
8. Tracy McGrady 24.66
9. Dwyane Wade 24.56
10. Charles Barkley* 24.18

Nba all time career leaders in True Shooting %

1. Cedric Maxwell .6294
2. Artis Gilmore .6227
3. Dave Twardzik .6184
4. James Donaldson .6177
5. Adrian Dantley .6166
6. Tyson Chandler .6166
7. Reggie Miler .6139
8. Charles Barkley .6120

Most seasons with a 2 point percentage of 60% or more ( playing at least 60 games)

1 Artis Gilmore 1981 1986 6
2 Charles Barkley 1987 1991 5
3 Tyson Chandler 2007 2013 5
4 Wilt Chamberlain 1967 1973 3


The common theme you see in a lot of these efficiency stats, is that role players who have a lot of baskets created for them are near the top. However, with Barkley you have a player near the top in all these effiency stats, who at the same time was one of the single most double teamed players in nba history.



Charles Barkley playoff games
Charles Barkley – 1 (50 point playoff game)
Charles Barkley- 5 (40 point playoff game)
Charles Barkley- 28 (30 point playoff games)

For comparison Kevin Garnett has only scored 30 points in 9 playoff games.

The more I watch of Barkley and Garnett, the more I'm convinced that the gap between them offensively, is almost as substantial as the gap between them defensively. With Barkley you literally have a 6'4 power foward, scoring the ball with Shaq level efficiency during his prime.

For four straight years during his prime he led the league in True shooting percentage.

1986-1987- .660
1987-1988- .665
1988-1989- .653
1989-1990- .661

For comparison sake, Kevin Garnett does not have a single season of 60 TS% or better. Whiles Barkley is ranked #9 in career TS% and has a career TS% of .6120, Kevin Garnett is ranked #193 all time with a TS% of only .5472 for his career.


And he was doing this whiles being one of the most double teamed players in nba history.There's literally less than a handful of players in nba history who have been able to score as much at as high an efficiency against both playoff and regular season defenses as Charles Barkley. The only guys who have, have already been voted in as top 5 players in this project.

Also I forgot to add on, just how good Charles Barkley was on the offensive glass. For three straight seasons he led the league in offensive rebounds

1986-1987- 390 offensive rebounds
1987-1988- 385 offensive rebounds
1988-1989- 403 offensive rebounds

For his career he's ranked 6th all time in offensive rebounds

1. Moses Malone -7382
2. Artis Gilmore - 4816
3. Robert Parish -4598
4. Buck Williams- 4526
5. Dennis Rodman-4329
6. Charles Barkley- 4260

This is even more impressive considering he only played a 15 year career, and a lot of those were after his body broke down.

Sir Charles is right up there with Adrian Dantley as the most efficient superscorer not yet selected; however, while you can get away with terrible defense sometimes as a wing or even a point, it's more damaging as a big and why he is behind Garnett, KMalone, and probably Bob Pettit on my list. His locker room issues are a real thing too, sliding him behind Dirk as well. So, he is probably 5th among the remaining 4's. I probably rank DRobinson, Moses, and Ewing ahead of him as well though Ewing I'd have to think about because of Barkley's playoff numbers.

It's interesting that you say that, because I think Barkley actually did well on defense considering his lack of good defensive centers throughout his career. Even Dirk had some pretty good shotblockers next to him with Chandler/Camby. I'd probally argue that the best defensive center he played next to was an aging Moses. The thing is Barkley realized this, and as a result focused on generating steals, which lead to one of the highest spg average in league history. I'm not saying that he was a positive, but he definitly used his hands as a way to disrupt defenses in the absence of any real shotblockers.

[ardee]

I should also add that I actually personally don't really care about those box score stats, other than as a quick reference as to overall production, and I don't normally use BPM or WS/48 at all. I'm just trying to address the "KG doesn't have the box score production in the playoffs" argument, because he matches up favorably to Kobe when you look at some of the composite box score stats.

KG was just the clearly superior player imo based on the eye test, and pretty much all of the numbers back that up. Throwing out +/- when both of these guys played in the data ball era and we have A TON of +/- data on both of them, when they were both in a variety of roles, is extremely misguided imo.

If it's so "clear" then why do only a few people on this forum and nowhere else hold this view

[scrabbarista]

11. Kobe Bryant
12. Karl Malone

My webpage timed out and I lost my post, so I'll make this brief.

I. Kobe, Malone, and Bob Pettit are tied among remaining players in my MVP voting metric.

II. Kobe and Malone are first and third among remaining players in my "Honors" metric, around Jerry West.

III. Malone is the only player, along with Kareem, to have over 60,000 career regular season points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks. Kevin Garnett, in fourth all-time, has 50,074. This gigantic number for Malone is a major part of his case for being so high despite his relatively "lackluster" playoff resume.

IV. Kobe finishes eighth all-time in that simple regular season metric, but has the championship pedigree to put him a tier above Malone on any ATG List. In fact, he is sixth all-time in my "Winning" metric. Or call it a success metric, if you like.

The emphasis here is that based on two simple but valid metrics, an argument can be made for Kobe as the 8th best RS player and 6th best PS player of all-time. He is the only remaining player who belongs in "The Pantheon," and I deeply hope our list ends up reflecting that.

[scrabbarista]

I should also add that I actually personally don't really care about those box score stats, other than as a quick reference as to overall production, and I don't normally use BPM or WS/48 at all. I'm just trying to address the "KG doesn't have the box score production in the playoffs" argument, because he matches up favorably to Kobe when you look at some of the composite box score stats.

KG was just the clearly superior player imo based on the eye test, and pretty much all of the numbers back that up. Throwing out +/- when both of these guys played in the data ball era and we have A TON of +/- data on both of them, when they were both in a variety of roles, is extremely misguided imo.

If it's so "clear" then why do only a few people on this forum and nowhere else hold this view

Agreed. In fact, as someone who has KG 16th all-time, I have the eye-test as the primary reason for wanting to keep him in that 14-18 range - or maybe a couple spots on either end with a more unconventional/experimental approach.

I do use a formula, but I try to make it conform to the eye-test, and Garnett is likely to always end up somewhere around 15th on any formula I devise...

[andrewww]

I should also add that I actually personally don't really care about those box score stats, other than as a quick reference as to overall production, and I don't normally use BPM or WS/48 at all. I'm just trying to address the "KG doesn't have the box score production in the playoffs" argument, because he matches up favorably to Kobe when you look at some of the composite box score stats.

KG was just the clearly superior player imo based on the eye test, and pretty much all of the numbers back that up. Throwing out +/- when both of these guys played in the data ball era and we have A TON of +/- data on both of them, when they were both in a variety of roles, is extremely misguided imo.

There's nothing "clearly" superior about KG from the eye test. The numbers back up KG as a fantasy basketball stat sheet stuffer, but the actual stats that count reflect Kobe as the superior player imo. IMO this is the lowest possible reasonable ranking when you look at his overall body of work. Only a few players like MJ/Kareem/Duncan can lay claim to 5+ rings and 10+ 1st team all nba selections.

Furthermore, I've always maintained that KG is a 6-11 Scottie Pippen. Decent offensive player for an ATG standard, but calling card was defense and in those years with a better offensive cast than defensive for KG (05-07), did KG lift the team defense the same way Kobe lifted a poor offensive squad to multiple top 10 offenses and playoff appearances including one near upset of a superior team?

Stats also don't reflect the game plan Phil implemented against Phoenix in 2006; in the RS Kobe was INSTRUCTED to gun by Phil, but then against a run and gun team (even at the expense of his raw stats) Kobe scaled back his scoring and played more of a facilitator role in the best interests of the team WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL HELD BELIEF THAT HE WAS SELFISH. A selfish player doesn't scale back his stats (including what he did in the 3peat) for the betterment of the team, period. What he did was the opposite of say how the Cavs played in this past 2017 Finals against GSW... trying to beat GSW at their game was foolish, but I guess averaging a triple double was the best Lebron could do right? They (the Cavs) had more success slowing the game down because you can't beat an opponent at what they do best, which is why Phil didn't want the Lakers to try and outgun Phoenix at their own game. STATS (at least as far as I'm aware) DONT SHOW THIS.

KG's game is best suited alongside score-first players, Kobe has shown time and time again just one elite big and his teams are in serious championship level contention. If thats not impact then I dont know what is.

MJ punched out Steve Kerr in practice, Shaq called out Dr. Buss in practice and left on bad terms with the Magic/Lakers/Heat. Howard has proven to be quite childish at times. Magic had a falling out with Paul Westphal. What's my point? You can find a black mark in terms of "team dynamics" for almost every ATG save for perhaps Duncan/Russell/Bird. Kobe has his faults like most other ATGs, but none of them are under the scrutiny that he suffers from.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #116:

Kobe - 10
Garnett - 7
Mikan - 2
Erving - 2
Karl - 1


Thread will be open until this afternoon sometime. Get your contributions in before then....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

.....but the actual stats that count reflect Kobe as the superior player [to Garnett] imo.

I disagree. I'm going to repost some of my previous post, which looked at some broad-strokes statistical comparison using the "all-in-one" box-based rate metrics: PER, WS/48, BPM, and efficiency differential.
Few things it's important to acknowledge too.....
PER puts a lot of value in volume scoring and low turnover rate.
WS/48, BPM, and efficiency differential all have some degree of "winner's bias", as the actual player value is drawn somewhat from the team result:
*Total WS is constructed such that the total for a team is going to be somewhat close to the team's actual number of wins (thus WS/48 is affected by this).
**BPM and ORtg/DRtg are curved towards the team's scoring differential.

What that means is: if Player A and Player B had the EXACT same box stats (exactly the same ppg, orpg, drpg, apg, spg, bpg, topg, and FG/FT numbers in the EXACT same mpg)........but Player A's team had a better record or MOV, then Player A will be rated better by WS/48, BPM, and efficiency differential.
Not saying this isn't justifiable or without reason (I've often suggested it's one thing to put up a particular stat line for a basement level team, quite another to do so for a good team); but merely pointing out that these metrics (all other things being equal) do have winner's bias.

This could be relevant in a Kobe v Garnett comparison, as Kobe had the better teammates (and thus team results) over much of their respective careers. One could debate that they had things pretty even (as far as quality of supporting casts) from '05 on if they want; but no one can really argue (with sincerity) that Kobe didn't have it better from '03/'04 and earlier. And yet.....

Kobe peak statistical year ('06): 28.0 PER, .224 WS/48, +5.8 BPM, 114 ORtg/105 DRtg (+9) in 41.0 mpg
Garnett peak statistical year ('04): 29.4 PER, .272 WS/48, +9.9 BPM, 112 ORtg/92 DRtg (+20) in 39.4 mpg
*KG in '05 and arguably '06 as well, both statistically superior to Kobe's best year, fwiw

Kobe '00-'13 (14 seasons): 24.1 PER, .190 WS/48, +4.7 BPM, 112 ORtg/105 DRtg (+7) in 38.8 mpg
Garnett '99-'12 (14 seasons): 24.4 PER, .207 WS/48, +6.5 BPM, 111 ORtg/98 DRtg (+13) in 36.7 mpg

^^^I would say there's a not huge but clear edge to Garnett in the rs.


Playoffs swing things closer, but still very nearly a draw:

Kobe in playoffs '00-'12: 23.0 PER, .166 WS/48, +4.8 BPM, 110 ORtg/106 DRtg (+4) in 41.5 mpg
Garnett in playoffs '99-'11: 22.1 PER, .162 WS/48, +5.5 BPM, 106 ORtg/99 DRtg (+7) in 38.8 mpg


I'm just not seeing how this clearly reflects Kobe as the superior player. And this before getting into on/off, RAPM, or other impact indicators (which largely paint Garnett as superior).

So Kobe has a minuscule edge, while KG destroys him as a defensive player, which is poorly captured in box score stats. He destroys him in +/-. And he had the worse team most of the time. How that isn't a big deal is beyond me.

nonsense
Nobody destroys nobody in terms of +/-

it's like saying Garnett destroys Kobe(a policeman) in the field of cooking

We can debate the semantics of a word like "destroys", but on/off and RAPM do [fairly heavily at times] favor Garnett in this comparison.

[janmagn]

Changing my vote from last one

Vote: Karl Malone
2nd vote: Kevin Garnett

Yes, after thinking through this, I'm putting Karl Malone over Kevin Garnett. Just five years ago, Malone was the GOAT PF. Garnett may be a better defender and had a ring, but IMO Malone is clearly the superior offensive talent, and in his prime lacked the supporting cast that KG had when getting that ring. Stockton may be better than either of Pierce and Allen, but combined they are better than over 35 year olds Stockton and Hornacek when Utah made the Finals. Malone faced some of the best competition of all time, much better than KG ever did. (sorry Kobe)

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[Doctor MJ]

KG was just the clearly superior player imo based on the eye test, and pretty much all of the numbers back that up.

Two totally different things here. The numbers clearly say KG was better, but the eye test favors Kobe by a landslide. Maybe not to you or I, but we're weirdos who look for different things than the average fan, to the vast majority of fans and former players Kobe is among the greatest ever, Garnett is not.

The eye test isn't a statement of what casual fans see. It's a personal thing.

Casual fans don't actually see anything other than the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums