RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #11 (Kevin Garnett)

[DQuinn1575]

oops - double posted, sorry

[Odinn21]

I would at least argue the advantage is significantly more marginal than many realize. Avg season for Lakers/Royals from '61-'68.

Lakers +1.9 SRS, 47 wins (adj to 82-game schedule), +2.3 Ortg, +0.5 Drtg, +1.8 Net
Royals +0.8 SRS, 44 wins, +3.7 Ortg, +2.9 Drtg, +0.8 Net

Peaks:
Lakers +5 SRS ('68), 55 wins ('62), +4.9 Ortg ('68), -1.2 Drtg ('61/'63), +4.7 Net ('68)
Royals +4.4 SRS ('64), 56 wins ('64), +4.7 Ortg ('62), -0.1 Drtg ('64), +4.4 Net ('64)

The Lakers playing in the much weaker conference really inflates their historical standing. They were nothing resembling a historical dynasty prior to Wilt.

I think it's worth noting that SRS scale was different back then.
https://i.imgur.com/Z5CfYO7.png

+1.9 SRS average would put a team on the top half, and +0.8 SRS would be in the bottom half except for two or three seasons in the '60s.

Those numbers are not like +1.9 SRS being 8th-10th in 30 team league and +0.8 SRS being 14th. The disparity between those numbers at the time was bigger.

SRS is points. A point is a point, unless you want to scale it against total points scored. (You can argue a point is worth more in a 80 point game vs a 110 point game).the scale didn’t change, I believe the variance changed. So the Lakers were about 1 point better.

I don't know it's intentional but there's no need for double posting.

The scale has indeed changed. Saying only the variance changed is statistically wrong. The number of teams did not stay the same. Distribution is significantly different.

[eminence]

I would at least argue the advantage is significantly more marginal than many realize. Avg season for Lakers/Royals from '61-'68.

Lakers +1.9 SRS, 47 wins (adj to 82-game schedule), +2.3 Ortg, +0.5 Drtg, +1.8 Net
Royals +0.8 SRS, 44 wins, +3.7 Ortg, +2.9 Drtg, +0.8 Net

Peaks:
Lakers +5 SRS ('68), 55 wins ('62), +4.9 Ortg ('68), -1.2 Drtg ('61/'63), +4.7 Net ('68)
Royals +4.4 SRS ('64), 56 wins ('64), +4.7 Ortg ('62), -0.1 Drtg ('64), +4.4 Net ('64)

The Lakers playing in the much weaker conference really inflates their historical standing. They were nothing resembling a historical dynasty prior to Wilt.

I think it's worth noting that SRS scale was different back then.
https://i.imgur.com/Z5CfYO7.png

+1.9 SRS average would put a team on the top half, and +0.8 SRS would be in the bottom half except for two or three seasons in the '60s.

Those numbers are not like +1.9 SRS being 8th-10th in 30 team league and +0.8 SRS being 14th. The disparity between those numbers at the time was bigger.

The scale is certainly more volatile in a smaller league, but I don't think your full takeaway is accurate. The larger point being the Lakers really were a ~10th equivalent - solid playoff team, not a real contender on average from '61-'68.

On halves - Lakers 6/8 seasons in the top half, Royals 4/8.

[Odinn21]

I would at least argue the advantage is significantly more marginal than many realize. Avg season for Lakers/Royals from '61-'68.

Lakers +1.9 SRS, 47 wins (adj to 82-game schedule), +2.3 Ortg, +0.5 Drtg, +1.8 Net
Royals +0.8 SRS, 44 wins, +3.7 Ortg, +2.9 Drtg, +0.8 Net

Peaks:
Lakers +5 SRS ('68), 55 wins ('62), +4.9 Ortg ('68), -1.2 Drtg ('61/'63), +4.7 Net ('68)
Royals +4.4 SRS ('64), 56 wins ('64), +4.7 Ortg ('62), -0.1 Drtg ('64), +4.4 Net ('64)

The Lakers playing in the much weaker conference really inflates their historical standing. They were nothing resembling a historical dynasty prior to Wilt.

I think it's worth noting that SRS scale was different back then.
https://i.imgur.com/Z5CfYO7.png

+1.9 SRS average would put a team on the top half, and +0.8 SRS would be in the bottom half except for two or three seasons in the '60s.

Those numbers are not like +1.9 SRS being 8th-10th in 30 team league and +0.8 SRS being 14th. The disparity between those numbers at the time was bigger.

The scale is certainly more volatile in a smaller league, but I don't think your full takeaway is accurate. The larger point being the Lakers really were a ~10th equivalent - solid playoff team, not a real contender on average from '61-'68.

On halves - Lakers 6/8 seasons in the top half, Royals 4/8.

I was strictly speaking about the gap between +1.9 and +0.8 SRS being more significant than what we're used to. Was talking about those +1.9 and +0.8 particularly. Other than that, surely. I provided that graphic and thought as a side note and not a counter argument.

[eminence]

.

Ahh, mis-read from me then

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I would rather have peak Robinson than Peak KG.
Mikan and Oscar probabl were farher ahead of the average players in their own time than any of the later generation players were.
But, do you judge Mikan and Oscare relative to thier own era or relative to current playes? In a hypothetical time trave I think Mikan would still be a better than average player in the current NBA after he adjusted to the modern gamee.

Old West was very effective. I wasn't so impressed woth old Bucks version Oscar. After watching video with Oscar backing up the court with the Bucks I thought he really changed from his Cincinati videos.

And why do you prefer peak Robinson?

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1832046&start=80
It is a little late for this thread but above is a Robinson vs KG thread

My eyes preferred peak Robinson to KG.
From Russell until sometime recently shot blocking was very important because teams were trying to score by going through the paint. Shots altered and shots not taken don't show up in stats. The value of the shot blocking center has gone down some now that centers have to defend screens at the 3 point line.

I preferred younger Robinson to higher scoring 1995 Robinson. I thought higher scoring Robinson had lost a little defensive intensity. Higher scoring Robinson was still a more efficient scorer than KG but lower scoring Robinson was more efficient than higher scoring Robinson.

Robinson also had better scoring efficiency than KG. KG had 3 more assists per game but even after adjusting for that I would argue that peak Robinson had the better stats than peak KG in addition to my subjective feeling that Robinson was having a greater impact on the game than KG did.

Robinson did have a better team. Sprewell and Cassel were old. Even if on off stats look better for KG I would go with Robinson. I don't think they have on off stats for the early 1990s. KG's replacement player may have been worse.

I am not holding the Warriors beating the Spurs against Robinson. Robinson did his job but the Spurs were not prepared to face small ball sort of like the 2007 Mavericks were not prepared to face small ball and the Run TMC Warriors shot well.

Both KG and Robinson were very mobile big men. Robinson was a little big. I think Robinson was faster than KG in straight lines but KG a little quicker laterally and maybe KG had quicker reactions and better defensive IQ. I don't doubt that KG was a better man defender against smaller players or that KG's type of help required better decision making. But the center was a more important defensive positron than power forward. A good shot blocking center was so important to team defense.

I am not sure about the wisdom of not having KG and Duncan (after Robinson's retirement) play center. If they wear down by being full time centers then the full time centers deserve credit for playing center. If you remove the big centers that played with KG and Duncan and play power forwards instead the team gets faster and can rotate faster.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinda01.html
1990-91 1991-92
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2004.html

[Hal14]

2) More people doing a particular activity does not necessarily mean that those people are now doing that activity any better than before when less people were doing the activity. Your logic = more people in the world so basketball players are better. By that logic, I suppose truck drivers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose railroad workers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose electricians are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose dog groomers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose politicians are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose NBA coaches are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose writers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose gymnasts are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose horesback riders are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose hip hop rappers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose guitar players are better than they were 20 years ago. No! It doesn't work like that. More people doing something does not mean those people are doing it better. Some professions - the people doing them are doing them better today than they did 20 years ago, while in others they are not. Unfortunately, we can't just rely on data to tell the whole story. We have to use the eye test and basketball IQ.

Seriously, enough of these apples to giraffes strawmen. We've been thru it repeatedly; it's so intellectually dishonest, and yet you keep doing it. It borders on trolling.

Oh, but it's perfectly okay for people to repeatedly make the weak argument that greater population automatically = better basketball competition? I'm just saying, more people doing something does not mean they are doing it any better. If there's 100 dudes in one gym playing basketball and they're all throwing up airballs, but the other gym has 10 guys in it who are swishing every shot, you're saying the gym with 100 dudes in it has more talent?

[penbeast0]

I would say that for the players at the very top (that we are talking about now), the distribution of talent may be uneven. These are the extreme outliers even in the already extreme outlier of NBA caliber athletes. However, as we progress more toward the more normal level of all-stars and all-NBA basketball talent (and we never even remotely approach the middle, we are always at the top end), like most talent/ability curves, I would guess it would start to approach a bell curve shape with the outliers like LeBron or Jordan separating themselves more from the 10-20 range players than the 60th and 61st rated players separate themselves from the 70th-80th rated players.

In fact it will most likely start to approach the shape of a bell curve. Then the ideas about greater talent pools will start to have more relevance than they do at the extreme top end. And, because the guys at the extreme top end are playing more normally distributed (though still outstanding) talent, guys who play in eras where expansion outstripped the growth of the talent pool will tend to play against overall weaker talent and thus probably have fancier stats. So, I would expect the top players from the 70s, for example, to have inflated stats relative to the 60s (pre-drastic expansion) or 00s. This is the concept of the weaker league, not that there might now be a Kareem level player in that weaker league who is one of the 5 greatest to ever play. And, the degree of international talent is one of the major factors driving the idea that modern players face a deeper talent pool. This doesn't mean that LeBron is a better player than Michael Jordan, but it probably does mean that players in the 2020 NBA face better talent on an average night than players did in the 1980s.

And yes, as a former coach of a school with around 60 total high schoolers, I would expect that, assuming no special recruiting, etc. the average player I got is probably not at the level of a high school with a similar socioeconomic mix where there are 1200 high schooler like where I went to school. Doesn't always ring true, my previous school was known for recruiting (put on probation for it at least twice) and had a top 25 in the USA prospect even though it wasn't much bigger than the school I am at now. But for the general mix of student outside of that one or even two special guys (again, with no recruiting, etc.) a small school will usually have less talent. That's the reason you have public high schools separated out on the basis of school population.

[Odinn21]

BTW, while I was looking over top 30 range players, this thought popped in my head. I don't know if I'd stick with it or not, wanted to share to get some feedback on it.

Baylor is usually considered negative notion on West's part because we tend to look through West's window. Baylor himself was a top 30 level player / talent. Compared to West, less portable to modern times surely. And I felt like Baylor is Wade of West's case. As in, Wade and James had each other, which was great but before Wade's injury forced him to take a permanent back seat, they did not have the perfect fit together. I still have 2011 Wade as the best teammate James ever had, but he was more compatible with 2020 Davis.
I don't know if I'd draw a similarity between their quality levels as West/James and Baylor/Wade. I just had this thought that Baylor and West were not the greatest fit possible, like Wade and James, and we do not penalize Wade for it or make that a pro for James' case and maybe we're too harsh on Baylor and West not having the perfect fit is not that big of a deal. Especially when the comparison is between West and Robertson.

I mean we're about to have a high impact player who wasted his majority of his prime on an incapable team other than himself on the list in KG. Robertson had the worst rosters on average when we compare the rosters the big 4 players of the '60s had.

Interestingly, I'm yet to cast a vote on my ballots for Garnett and this is the 2nd time around I had Robertson on my ballot. I'm not saying Robertson should get the same treatment for the same extent and I don't know if this is consistent thinking. Just take this post as thinking aloud.

[KPT1867]

Here is what I put for Kobe

My vote is for Kobe Bryant. From a talent and skill perspective he was just as good a Jordan. He played 20 seasons, allowing him to be 4th in points, 17th in steals, 31st is assists, 118th in rebounds.

He basically had two HoF careers. His first career where he had to find his way with Shaq. He won 3 of 4 Finals appearances. Including some dominant performances against the 76ers and Nets. He then had a second career where he was the main man and needed supporting pieces around him. He won 2 of 3 Finals appearances, including a dominant performance against the Magic.

I watched the 81 point game. That was not a game, where they were simply feeding him to pad the numbers. That was a game where they were down and he had to kick it into another gear to get the Lakers that victory

My second vote would be for the Big O. He plays so cool and so calm. It’s like he has complete control of the offense when he is on the court. Luka reminds me of him actually. And we can see the effect of his presence on his teams offense

[Magic Is Magic]

2) More people doing a particular activity does not necessarily mean that those people are now doing that activity any better than before when less people were doing the activity. Your logic = more people in the world so basketball players are better. By that logic, I suppose truck drivers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose railroad workers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose electricians are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose dog groomers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose politicians are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose NBA coaches are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose writers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose gymnasts are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose horesback riders are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose hip hop rappers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose guitar players are better than they were 20 years ago. No! It doesn't work like that. More people doing something does not mean those people are doing it better. Some professions - the people doing them are doing them better today than they did 20 years ago, while in others they are not. Unfortunately, we can't just rely on data to tell the whole story. We have to use the eye test and basketball IQ.

Seriously, enough of these apples to giraffes strawmen. We've been thru it repeatedly; it's so intellectually dishonest, and yet you keep doing it. It borders on trolling.

Oh, but it's perfectly okay for people to repeatedly make the weak argument that greater population automatically = better basketball competition? I'm just saying, more people doing something does not mean they are doing it any better. If there's 100 dudes in one gym playing basketball and they're all throwing up airballs, but the other gym has 10 guys in it who are swishing every shot, you're saying the gym with 100 dudes in it has more talent?

Hal, wouldn't you say the talent pool in which the NBA has to draw talent from has grown much wider and deeper? Namely with regard to international scouting? Jokic, Luka, Giannis just to name a few. One was the rookie of the year, another is the reigning 2-time MVP, and another is an absolute stud that defeated the Kawhi/PG13 Clippers.

[DQuinn1575]

I think it's worth noting that SRS scale was different back then.
https://i.imgur.com/Z5CfYO7.png

+1.9 SRS average would put a team on the top half, and +0.8 SRS would be in the bottom half except for two or three seasons in the '60s.

Those numbers are not like +1.9 SRS being 8th-10th in 30 team league and +0.8 SRS being 14th. The disparity between those numbers at the time was bigger.

SRS is points. A point is a point, unless you want to scale it against total points scored. (You can argue a point is worth more in a 80 point game vs a 110 point game).the scale didn’t change, I believe the variance changed. So the Lakers were about 1 point better.

I don't know it's intentional but there's no need for double posting.

The scale has indeed changed. Saying only the variance changed is statistically wrong. The number of teams did not stay the same. Distribution is significantly different.

Sorry, goofed on the posting off another device. Maybe I didnt read the whole argument; I assumed the point was that the Lakers weren't really that much better the Royals, about 3 wins a year, and about 1 point a game.

[DQuinn1575]

The ABA looked more "modern" because other than Gilmore the good centers were in the NBA. The ABA was a forwards' league, the NBA a center's league.

Let's look at who the center were in the ABA in 75, the year Doc was talking about. 10 teams:

1. (KEN) Gilmore was indeed the best.
Dan Issel (his PF) was a marginal all-star at center in the NBA for another 8 years
2. (NYN) Bill Paultz went on to have a solid NBA career
3. (StL) Maurice Lucas was a marginal all-star type in the NBA as well (mainly at PF)
4. (MEM) Mel Daniels, the ABA's second best center ever, was aging out and splitting time with
Tom Owens who became a weak starter, top reserve for the next 8 years in the NBA (3-4 as a starter)
5. (DEN) Mike Green became an NBA reserve averaging about 20 mpg the next few years
His backup, Dave Robisch, had 3 more starting years in the NBA after the merger (though I agree he was more a decent reserve -- which is what he was in the ABA this year)
6. (SAS) Sven Nater started most of the next 7 years after the merger in the NBA and won a rebounding title
7. (UTAH) Moses Malone -- was never heard of again?
8. (SD) Caldwell Jones -- had 14 more years AFTER the merger including facing Kareem in the finals though he wasn't used as a scorer the way he was in San Diego

Only Virginia had a gaping hole at center as they drafted a 7' kid named David Vaughn and threw him into the starting role . . . where he failed. They were pretty awful everywhere.

That's a stronger average starting center than the average NBA team had. The ABA was indeed a forward's league but as Dave Cowens (I think) was quoted in Terry Pluto's "Loose Balls," their strength at center surprised all the NBA big men. It was their guards who were the league's weakest position (Gervin was still playing SF that year, David Thompson came into the league the next year).

Well you can't really count a 19 year-old Moses for center quality. The second team all-ABA guy was Swen Nater, a solid guy, but the NBA had 4 MVPS in their 20s - Unseld, Jabbar, Cowens,McAdoo, - add Thurmond and Lanier, and we can argue later how Gilmore ranks against any of them (other than Kareem), but there are 6 superstars versus a league with one. I think I used the term, thought of, not fact. Additionally, the 10 ABA guys averaged 23.6 in age versus 26.0 for the NBA group, which helped the image.

The other narrative regarding Mel Daniels and his MVP years is Zelmo Beaty, who made a couple of NBA all-star teams when almost 1/2 the NBA starters did in 8-10 team leagues. Beaty was an above average NBA center who went to the ABA and was 2nd and 3rd in MVP voting, and playoff MVP - basically considered Daniels equal. And he is the number 2 center in ABA history. Note Lucas played power forward in the NBA, which is similar to Connie Hawkins and Spencer Haywood - NBA forwards who had to play center in the NBA.

Numbers-wise, if I take the 1975 WS/MIn for the 10 ABA guys and translate it to NBA equivalents, I get .117, versus the NBA guys of .126 - not a huge margin, but the average NBA guy is a little better based on Win Shares, as well as the narratives above. The NBA did start a group that included Dennis Awtrey (hatchet man on Kareem), Mel Counts, John Gianelli, and an older Clyde Lee, so they were a lot of teams that would have loved to have the average ABA center playing.

[Doctor MJ]

West was “held back” by Baylor but also had a much better team around him in large part because of Baylor (and I say that as something of a Baylor hater). Given how well Oscar fit with the Bucks, I do not think I really buy that he was advantaged by having a worse roster. Maybe Baylor slowed the development of West’s passing, but that is hardly a unique situation.

We're not having a debate about had greater team success. Everyone agrees West had more team success, Oscar has the edge in volume stats, and he has that edge in part because he had worse teammates, which means that in a very real sense he was advantaged in the perception of others by having worse teammates.

Can you make the argument that Oscar was hurt worse in perception because of his lack of team success? Yes, but these things don't simply "cancel out", and it is undeniably the case that Oscar got WAY more attention early in their career precisely because of the numbers he was putting up.

Re: how well Oscar fit with the Bucks. They acquired Oscar to play Oscar. Oscar got to be the floor general, and thus was not held back in either situation the way West was early on. I'll add that Oscar seems to have been able to have every single team he played on adjust to allow his brilliance to shine all the way back to high school when he was busy losing to the real life "Hoosiers" team.

The same is true for LeBron who I voted for at #1 so I'm not looking to hate on guys whose talent is so obvious that basically every coach uses him pretty well, but it doesn't really make sense to talk about Oscar being highly portable simply because he could go to a more pass-first orientation when he had Kareem as a teammate. Oscar was still allowed to have control pretty much his entire career whereas West had to adapt to a variety of different on vs off ball styles of play in addition to playing a more serious form of defense.

Re ...hardly a unique situation. Well right, and it's something a serious analyst should be looking to examine in every single situation.

I dont think considering a player's ability to maintain value on op teams is meaningless, I'd say when --its close-- being beter on better teams is worth more and its always nice to see a proof of concept of a player on a atg team.

All that said, I do think when you're assesing cieling raising, it eels like you treat cieling raising as "seperate" from floor riasing when its really just an extension of floor raising, or more speficially, how much impact you retain on a top team. Portability is nice, But if there's a significant enough gap in floor raising, even a less portable floor raiser could also be a better "cileing raiser."

Floor raising is the basis of cieling raising, being able to keep value is nice and all assumign you have value to maintain in the first place.

You bring up Lebron, and this "unportable=/not cieling raiser" logic really shows up with him, where he posts the most valuable seasons ever, by a significant margin, on a 66 win team, but then he gets knocked down on the assumption that he'd essenitlaly be worth 20 less wins on a team taht was say, 5 wins better.


This is all to say, I think if the gap in floor raising is large enough, player a can proabbly ends up being better than player b as a cieling rasier, even if they're not that portable.

I don know if this applies to oscar+west, but I dont think you can just say "portable" and assume player b is better on better teams.

I'm a bit confused, did I talk about ceiling? I'm not saying you're talking about stuff that's off-topic, but seems like you're aiming to respond to a specific thesis of mine, but my prior post is a hodge podge of responses to someone else's points, not me laying out my beliefs. Perhaps I said something in an earlier post?

Anyway to just speak to your points:

Re: ceiling raising as an extension of floor raising. I would disagree. I'd say both are emergent properties of lift. The former is specifically a question of the shape of lift on good teams, the latter on bad teams, we could have phrase "middle raising" that would be the 3rd component of this.

So, in the sense that in the end we're just talking about lift, there's a lot in common with all forms of lift, and thus for the most part a guy associated with floor raising is going to impact the game pretty similarly to a guy associated with ceiling raising. The points of divergence though mean a lot to us specifically because we care so much about who wins the championship.

Interestingly, if all we really cared about was making the playoffs then the divergence would be relevant in the other direction: Floor-raising would be everything.

Re: how much you retain it on a top team. An issue with the term "scalability" is that it implies that we're ascending some ever more challenging summit with everyone suffering but some being better able to handle said suffering. Consider someone like Draymond Green and how much more valuable he becomes when he has good shooters around him. Perfectly fine to give those shooters some of the credit when Green does well, but forget about "credit", aren't passers more effective when there's others worth passing to?

The term "scalability" makes Oscar/LeBron essentially look optimally scalable because they can play their role against the toughest of competition, but consider the distinction between the concepts of robustness vs anti-fragility. There's a difference between holding up to more pressure and crystalizing into a brilliant gem because of it.

So again, while I'm not going to knock Oscar/LeBron's scalability, there's more going on that being able to still be competent in your role with scale, and to this point I'd say we lack the parlance for. What I'm talking about here is associated with portability and versatility, but I don't think either of those terms cut to the quick of the meaning.

Lately I've been thinking of the analogue of an epiphyte - meaning, an organism that grows atop another organism. And to be clear, while such symbiotic relationships can be parasitic, I'm thinking here in terms of mutualism. Is this a player that can "grow atop" his teammates in the sense of finding ways to add value in the context allotted to him?

I would argue that Larry Bird was the GOAT at this, and I think West is on the all-time shortlist.
I would say that by contrast Magic & Oscar are more the type of guys who say "I'm the tree, grow on me."

Now I've got Magic over Bird so this isn't me asserting one over the other, but part of why I'm enamored with West is that he's the most switchy of this quartet. Dude can play on ball as a classic point guard, shoot more or pass more, or he can play more off-ball and thrive in a motion offense, all while having freakingly long arms to go with a quick body and a quicker mind, and unlike Bird, he stayed relevant longer than his contemporary rival.

To your last, I don't think I'd disagree. Portability and ceiling raising are not synonyms despite having some common root factors.

[Doctor MJ]

BTW, while I was looking over top 30 range players, this thought popped in my head. I don't know if I'd stick with it or not, wanted to share to get some feedback on it.

Baylor is usually considered negative notion on West's part because we tend to look through West's window. Baylor himself was a top 30 level player / talent. Compared to West, less portable to modern times surely. And I felt like Baylor is Wade of West's case. As in, Wade and James had each other, which was great but before Wade's injury forced him to take a permanent back seat, they did not have the perfect fit together. I still have 2011 Wade as the best teammate James ever had, but he was more compatible with 2020 Davis.
I don't know if I'd draw a similarity between their quality levels as West/James and Baylor/Wade. I just had this thought that Baylor and West were not the greatest fit possible, like Wade and James, and we do not penalize Wade for it or make that a pro for James' case and maybe we're too harsh on Baylor and West not having the perfect fit is not that big of a deal. Especially when the comparison is between West and Robertson.

I mean we're about to have a high impact player who wasted his majority of his prime on an incapable team other than himself on the list. Robertson had the worst rosters on average when we compare the rosters the big 4 players of the '60s had.

Interestingly, I'm yet to cast a vote on my ballots for Garnett and this is the 2nd time around I had Robertson on my ballot. I'm not saying Robertson should get the same treatment for the same extent and I don't know if this is consistent thinking. Just take this post as thinking aloud.

Good food for thought, but as you might expect, I see some unevenness in the analogy.

1. Wade & LeBron played together for 4 years, Baylor & West played for 12.
2. Wade knew LeBron was the Man, Baylor most definitely didn't treat West this way.
3. The bulk of Wade's legacy is about the 7 years he played before LeBron joined him, the bulk of Baylor's legacy coincides with West's presence.
4. Important maybe only to me: LeBron chose to play with Wade instead of his better fitting teammates, so I don't think "bad fit" is much of an excuse. West was drafted on to Baylor's team

So yeah, it's really not the same to me.

Re: West & Robinson. Ah, but as I've said, these things don't cancel out. West had more help, Oscar had better fit - both in teammates and autonomy - to have more impact. Both of these truths exist and it's why it's possible to have a wrong bias in either direction. The important thing about resisting bias is not simply to resist being pulled in a direction but to resist dimensionality reduction that obscures more nuanced truth.

[Odinn21]

BTW, while I was looking over top 30 range players, this thought popped in my head. I don't know if I'd stick with it or not, wanted to share to get some feedback on it.

Baylor is usually considered negative notion on West's part because we tend to look through West's window. Baylor himself was a top 30 level player / talent. Compared to West, less portable to modern times surely. And I felt like Baylor is Wade of West's case. As in, Wade and James had each other, which was great but before Wade's injury forced him to take a permanent back seat, they did not have the perfect fit together. I still have 2011 Wade as the best teammate James ever had, but he was more compatible with 2020 Davis.
I don't know if I'd draw a similarity between their quality levels as West/James and Baylor/Wade. I just had this thought that Baylor and West were not the greatest fit possible, like Wade and James, and we do not penalize Wade for it or make that a pro for James' case and maybe we're too harsh on Baylor and West not having the perfect fit is not that big of a deal. Especially when the comparison is between West and Robertson.

I mean we're about to have a high impact player who wasted his majority of his prime on an incapable team other than himself on the list. Robertson had the worst rosters on average when we compare the rosters the big 4 players of the '60s had.

Interestingly, I'm yet to cast a vote on my ballots for Garnett and this is the 2nd time around I had Robertson on my ballot. I'm not saying Robertson should get the same treatment for the same extent and I don't know if this is consistent thinking. Just take this post as thinking aloud.

Good food for thought, but as you might expect, I see some unevenness in the analogy.

1. Wade & LeBron played together for 4 years, Baylor & West played for 12.
2. Wade knew LeBron was the Man, Baylor most definitely didn't treat West this way.
3. The bulk of Wade's legacy is about the 7 years he played before LeBron joined him, the bulk of Baylor's legacy coincides with West's presence.
4. Important maybe only to me: LeBron chose to play with Wade instead of his better fitting teammates, so I don't think "bad fit" is much of an excuse. West was drafted on to Baylor's team

So yeah, it's really not the same to me.

Re: West & Robinson. Ah, but as I've said, these things don't cancel out. West had more help, Oscar had better fit - both in teammates and autonomy - to have more impact. Both of these truths exist and it's why it's possible to have a wrong bias in either direction. The important thing about resisting bias is not simply to resist being pulled in a direction but to resist dimensionality reduction that obscures more nuanced truth.

In comparison to Wade and James duo, I mostly had 2011 in mind. Did not think it as over many years. It was a matter of the fit not being perfect between two superstars and how we did not penalize either one for anything about their fit, that's why 2011 Heat duo popped in my head.

All of your points are on point. My main focus was on the fit and not the circumstances of that fit.

About the comparison between West and Robertson; I was not saying both situations should cancel each other out. I was saying maybe West being held back by Baylor's presence shouldn't matter that much because it was also beneficiary (the other aspect that made 2011 Heat pop in my head).
For instance, as good as he was, I don't see 23 year old - sophomore West leading the Lakers to NBA Finals and forcing a game 7 while at it without Baylor because he was not the player we know as for creating a proper offense quite yet.

[Jaivl]

I'm back for good this time, I think. Shame I couldn't come back earlier to give KG his deserved #10 spot.

#1 Kevin Garnett
Best career avaliable by a big margin, and best player avaliable, period.

#2 Kobe Bryant
These picks feel pretty wide open to me. Kobe, Oscar and Dirk were potent offensive engines for around a decade, with decent enough defense. The Kobe-Dirk comparison is kinda easy to make because they were contemporaries, and Dirk doesn't manage to be clearly ahead until 2011 and on (and well, 2005). Ultimately they peaked at about the same level IMO (and that speaks volumes about Dirk's scoring, as Kobe was a vastly better ballhandler and passer), but Dirk took a long, long time to get there, so ITO career value Kobe ranks ahead for me.

Oscar comp is way tougher. Lack of film, lack of data, different era, etc. At the end of the day I estimate him at being around a CP3-level player, but way more consistent and physically resilient. Considering that, a decade + change at that level (and taking into account the worse conditions of the 60s affecting longevity) is probably more impressive than what Kobe managed to produce. But I'll be conservative with my pick for now and go with the one I'm sure about.

#3 Oscar Robertson
Sidenote: He may not have been a better player than West, but he easily had the more reliable career.

I'm pretty confident about Dirk as my #4.
Not really considering Moses or Mikan for now, maybe will discuss in a few threads. Find myself agreeing with the Ewing vs Moses comparisons.

[KTM_2813]

2) More people doing a particular activity does not necessarily mean that those people are now doing that activity any better than before when less people were doing the activity. Your logic = more people in the world so basketball players are better. By that logic, I suppose truck drivers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose railroad workers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose electricians are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose dog groomers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose politicians are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose NBA coaches are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose writers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose gymnasts are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose horesback riders are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose hip hop rappers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose guitar players are better than they were 20 years ago. No! It doesn't work like that. More people doing something does not mean those people are doing it better. Some professions - the people doing them are doing them better today than they did 20 years ago, while in others they are not. Unfortunately, we can't just rely on data to tell the whole story. We have to use the eye test and basketball IQ.

Seriously, enough of these apples to giraffes strawmen. We've been thru it repeatedly; it's so intellectually dishonest, and yet you keep doing it. It borders on trolling.

Oh, but it's perfectly okay for people to repeatedly make the weak argument that greater population automatically = better basketball competition? I'm just saying, more people doing something does not mean they are doing it any better. If there's 100 dudes in one gym playing basketball and they're all throwing up airballs, but the other gym has 10 guys in it who are swishing every shot, you're saying the gym with 100 dudes in it has more talent?

I haven't been following the exact arguments that other people are making, so I'll give my take as best I can.

There was a level of basketball player quality in, say, 1985 and a level of basketball quality in, say, 2015. What exactly those levels of quality were is probably impossible for you or I to say. We don't have access to all the games, we don't know exactly how all people were preparing off the court, we don't have access to all that statistics, etc. So unless you're God or the Universe or some all-knowing force, you kind of just have to take a best guess.

Most people will probably just use the eye test, which is fair enough. The problem is that the eye test can be quite subjective. We've all seen the study where they interviewed a large number of people who saw the same car accident, and almost everyone had a different recollection. In this case, I watch basketball today and it looks three levels higher than basketball from 20 years ago. It's not even close, IMO. However, some people disagree and prefer older basketball. Fair enough, we've reached a stalemate.

At this point, basically the only way to continue the conversation is by trying to intelligently infer about basketball player quality today versus yesterday using what we do know. To be clear, we only know so much. No one is going to be able to figure this out perfectly, but we can make educated guesses. And what we do know is that the available talent pool to draw from is significantly higher today, we know that players have more resources available for training and recovery, we know that people are learning more about how to effectively play basketball (e.g. the value of the three-point shot), we know that teams have bigger coaching and player development staffs, etc.

So, yea... There are good reasons to believe that basketball players are better today than 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago on average. I'm not going to bet my life on it or anything, but it seems fairly clear to me. If you disagree, cool, but I also think you have to understand how unconvincing "Don't use data, use the eye test!" is when there is so much evidence to the contrary, IMO.

[Jordan Syndrome]

I'll keep these short as I am still busy but I should have more time tonight and tomorrow to focus on next thread.

1. Kevin Garnett

Best player left by a clear margin. Highest Peak, extremely portable both with in his era and into the modern era. Doesn't have a weakness defensively.

2. Dirk Nowitzki

One of the best offensive anchors left who I believe is of similar offensive value as Magic Johnson. Insane amount of gravity for a medium passer and contorted defenses anywhere and everywhere from the 3 point line in. His defense was significantly better than my next guy.

3. Steve Nash

Revolutioned modern day basketball. Lead elite (all-time) offenses for a decade plus. Fits perfectly with other ball dominant offensive players and makes them and players who need set-up more efficient players.

[penbeast0]

Well you can't really count a 19 year-old Moses for center quality. The second team all-ABA guy was Swen Nater, a solid guy, but the NBA had 4 MVPS in their 20s - Unseld, Jabbar, Cowens,McAdoo, - add Thurmond and Lanier, and we can argue later how Gilmore ranks against any of them (other than Kareem), but there are 6 superstars versus a league with one. I think I used the term, thought of, not fact. Additionally, the 10 ABA guys averaged 23.6 in age versus 26.0 for the NBA group, which helped the image.

The other narrative regarding Mel Daniels and his MVP years is Zelmo Beaty, who made a couple of NBA all-star teams when almost 1/2 the NBA starters did in 8-10 team leagues. Beaty was an above average NBA center who went to the ABA and was 2nd and 3rd in MVP voting, and playoff MVP - basically considered Daniels equal. And he is the number 2 center in ABA history. Note Lucas played power forward in the NBA, which is similar to Connie Hawkins and Spencer Haywood - NBA forwards who had to play center in the NBA.

Numbers-wise, if I take the 1975 WS/MIn for the 10 ABA guys and translate it to NBA equivalents, I get .117, versus the NBA guys of .126 - not a huge margin, but the average NBA guy is a little better based on Win Shares, as well as the narratives above. The NBA did start a group that included Dennis Awtrey (hatchet man on Kareem), Mel Counts, John Gianelli, and an older Clyde Lee, so they were a lot of teams that would have loved to have the average ABA center playing.

Moses wasn't the player he would become but he was already a force in year one and probably above average. Notice that while Lucas and Haywood were ABA centers (Haywood earlier in the weaker years of the ABA) that moved to forward in the NBA, Issel was a forward who moved to center in the ABA (They listed Moses at forward for Utah too but he played more like a center than Jim Eakins who was a finesse jump shooter type so I considered Moses the center). It was more about team needs and coaches' systems in both leagues.

Also remember that there are nearly twice as many teams in the NBA as the ABA, so if you considered Virginia as nothing (pretty accurate), there would be as many centers in the ABA as the Western Conference of the NBA, not the whole league. But my point wasn't that the ABA was stronger at center, without Kareem it couldn't be (he was THAT great). My point is that centers in the ABA weren't the complete trash the post I was responding to called them.