Does Dirk with title surpass KG

[Doctor MJ]

I understand what your saying. Like you say though Lebron for example +- drops not because he has changed as a player. Because he plays with better teammates. When he isn't on the floor he now has a Dwade to run the show. That the reason why to me those stats are great in showing how valuable you are for your team. I don't think they are truly useful as measuring a players skill.

KG might have the best +- in the league on the Twolves. Remind you I think Dirk was a league leader in that category as well. My issue Add Tim Duncan, Dwight Howard, and Chris Paul on the Wolves and suddenly its possible they could play better with him on the bench.

We play the game for impact. Its already been said that perhaps KG didn't have impact defensively like a dominate center. Well if he not going to have great dominate level impact then I think Dirk has a good case to be a better player. If your saying KG has a Dwight Howard like impact on defense then I can see why you take him. I would take Dwight Howard over Prime Dirk. I would really consider taking Dirk over KG. It would depend on the team and what I needed. If I had a blank page I would go with Dirk.

Well, let's be clear that LeBron's APM isn't dropping though because he has better teammates. It's dropping because he has redundant teammates. He and Wade have some redundancy, and thus neither has the impact they would otherwise have. You may say "Same difference", but the reality is that while a ball dominant scorer is almost certain to experience redundancy with a better supporting cast, such is not so certain with players of other roles.

Agree though that APM says more about value than true skill, I would argue though that all stats say less about true skill that we like to think.

Re: Dirk a league leader in APM. First let's be clear that what makes KG so impressive here is that he's doing it with a sample size of several years, and has ridiculous gaps at his peak over everyone else in the league. There should be no debate whether Dirk has matched KG's peak +/- impressiveness, he hasn't. With that said, Dirk's been improving on this front over recent years while KG has been increasingly showing old age (injury, stamina). Dirk may indeed surpass KG's career eventually if he stays at this level for a long time.

Re: "my issue...". I don't know where you're going with the idea of how things would look on a superteam. I mean, it's certainly true that concentrating talent into a super-NBA would change the relative ranking of current NBA players, and it would cause +/- and every other stat to have some different values, but I don't see how this is any more damning to KG than anyone else. In fact it would be less damning to him that guys with more redundant skill sets. It's easy to imagine a super-league where Joe Johnson isn't good enough to even get a contract but Joakim Noah still starts.

Re: "Its already been said that perhaps KG didn't have impact defensively like a dominate center."

I didn't say that, and I don't concede it. He's no Russell, but no one is. As I state in the article drza graciously links to, I consider KG the top defender of the past decade.

[Rapcity_11]

I personally have much to offer in this thread, but I do want to say it was a very good read all the way through. Well except, the sidebar about how good Wally-Z was...

Anyway, I tend to agree with drza, Doc and mysticbb when it comes to their analysis during this thread. For now I definitely still have KG over Dirk all-time but a few more years of Dirk playing like he is now will start to really complicate things. (And I see no reason why Dirk won't continue like this for a few more years at least)

Another point of mine is that APM continues to be a very misunderstood statistic.

And yet again, KG's defensive versatility and ability to defend the pick and roll at which he is right up among the best all-time continues to be underrated. I mean, how often and pick and rolls run in the NBA...

[JordansBulls]

I already have Dirk ahead of KG.

Can we create a page just for ridiculous AUF posts?

Why is this? I'm not saying Dirk is ahead of KG, but if the Mavs win, Dirk's overall impact when he won would be greater than KG's when he won. In 2008 you werent' getting a 2003 or 2004 KG on that team.

[colts18]

My problem with KG is that he didn't really impact his team defense as much as he should have:
Since KG became a starter:
97: 15th D; 17th O
98: 23rd D; 7th O
99: 11th D; 19th O
00: 12th D; 8th O
01: 16th D: 11th O
02: 15th D; 4th O
03: 16th D: 5th O
04: 6th D; 5th O
05: 15th D; 6th O
06: 10th D; 28th O
07: 21st D; 25th O

That's an average of 14.6 on D which is basically league average. With 2 top 10 defenses and 0 top 5 defenses, 4 seasons above the league average. By comparison Dirk has averaged a 4.3 finish in Offense and a 14th place finish on Defense. He has 5 top 10 finishes, 1 top 5 finish, 8 above average finishes. Why is that KG's defenses have done worse than Dirk's despite Dirk having a weaker defensive supporting cast?

Take a look at the 2003 Mavericks

Nash
Finley
Adrian Griffin
Dirk
LaFrentz

Why were they better than any KG except for 04? How about the 05 Mavs
Terry
Finley
Howard
Dirk
Dampier

They finished 9th

2008 Mavs
Harris/ Kidd (for 29 games)
Terry/Eddie Jones (yes that old Eddie Jones)
Howard
Dirk
Dampier

They finished 9th. Are you telling me that KG's supporting cast was so bad that they could drag down the best defensive player of his to a level below a Don Nelson coached team?

[Kumar]

Anyone who thinks Steve Nash, Michael Finley, Jerry Stackhouse, Devin Harris, Jason Terry, Josh Howard, and Antawn Jamison aren't better than Troy Hudson, Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Wally Szczerbiak, Kendall Gill, Trenton Hassell, and Anthony Peeler should quit watching basketball.

Dirk has had more success in terms of winning basketball games but as you can clearly see from above the talent one has played with (before KG went to BOS - which is why I left out Kidd, Chandler, Marion, Caron) is clearly one-sided.

Good TEAMS win more basketball games, and the Mavericks have always been stacked.

Let's not forget Troy Hudson was KG's second option for a few seasons of his career.

Now, are we going to say ("prime") Troy Hudson was a real good player?

No, I didnt think so.

[colts18]

Anyone who thinks Steve Nash, Michael Finley, Jerry Stackhouse, Devin Harris, Jason Terry, Josh Howard, and Antawn Jamison are better than Troy Hudson, Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Wally Szczerbiak, Kendall Gill, Trenton Hassell, and Anthony Peeler should quit watching basketball.

Dirk has had more success in terms of winning basketball games but as you can clearly see from above the talent one has played with (before KG went to BOS - which is why I left out Kidd, Chandler, Marion, Caron) is clearly one-sided.

Good TEAMS win more basketball games, and the Mavericks have always been stacked.

Let's not forget Troy Hudson was KG's second option for a few seasons of his career.

Now, are we going to say ("prime") Troy Hudson was a real good player?

No, I didnt think so.

That's not the point. They are better because they are better offensive players. Can you honestly tell me that a team starting Nash and Dirk (guys who gets trashed for Defense), Finley, Griffin, and LaFrentz should be better than every single defense of KG's Minnesota tenure except 1? If they aren't better, than that means the T-Wolves supporting cast was 2010/2011 Toronto Raptors bad on defense?

[Kumar]

Can you at least agree that Dirk has had much, MUCH more talent around him in his career?

If you can't answer that question honestly I cannot take anything you say seriously and will stop this debate.

[Kumar]

Troy Hudson, Anthony Peeler, Wally Sczerbiak, Rasho Nesterovic.

That was KG's main core while he was in MN. I would take the 2010-2011 Raptors' defense over that garbage "any day of the week".

[colts18]

Can you at least agree that Dirk has had much, MUCH more talent around him in his career?

If you can't answer that question honestly I cannot take anything you say seriously and will stop this debate.

Of course he has which is why he has had so many 50+ win seasons and playoff successes compared to KG's lack of success. The question is how much different were there supporting casts. I can tell you that if you believe that KG is an all-world Defender and Dirk is mediocre and then you believe that teams with Nash, Finley, LaFrentz were better defenders than what KG had, then something is wrong with you.

[Kumar]

Let's not compare KG's talent-less Wolves to Dirk's stacked Mavs squads. Let's compare KG's Celtics to Dirk's Mavs. Fair, no?

Someone do the research, I'm too lazy and incompetent to do so.

I'm excited to see the results. =)

[Kumar]

Can you at least agree that Dirk has had much, MUCH more talent around him in his career?

If you can't answer that question honestly I cannot take anything you say seriously and will stop this debate.

Of course he has which is why he has had so many 50+ win seasons and playoff successes compared to KG's lack of success. The question is how much different were there supporting casts. I can tell you that if you believe that KG is an all-world Defender and Dirk is mediocre and then you believe that teams with Nash, Finley, LaFrentz were better defenders than what KG had, then something is wrong with you.

I would take Nash, Finley, Adrian Griffin, and LaFrentz over Hudson, Peeler, Wally-Z, and Rasho.

There is nothing wrong with me.

Please no personal insults to "back up" your argument.

[colts18]

Can you at least agree that Dirk has had much, MUCH more talent around him in his career?

If you can't answer that question honestly I cannot take anything you say seriously and will stop this debate.

Of course he has which is why he has had so many 50+ win seasons and playoff successes compared to KG's lack of success. The question is how much different were there supporting casts. I can tell you that if you believe that KG is an all-world Defender and Dirk is mediocre and then you believe that teams with Nash, Finley, LaFrentz were better defenders than what KG had, then something is wrong with you.

I would take Nash, Finley, Adrian Griffin, and LaFrentz over Hudson, Peeler, Wally-Z, and Rasho.

There is nothing wrong with me.

Please no personal insults to "back up" your argument.

At best those guys are marginally better than the T-Wolves group but I doubt it because Nash is all-time bad on defense and Finley was bad on defense too. Garnett was finishing league average with those guys while Dirk was finishing 9th with those guys. Let's say Dirk is average defensively and that team finishes 10-12th without Dirk. The only way KG is all-world defensively is if you believe that his defenses would finish in last place or 15 places worse than Dirk's talentless defensive casts. I find that hard to believe.

[Doctor MJ]

Why is that KG's defenses have done worse than Dirk's despite Dirk having a weaker defensive supporting cast?

...

They finished 9th. Are you telling me that KG's supporting cast was so bad that they could drag down the best defensive player of his to a level below a Don Nelson coached team?

Skepticism when being told that a guy on mediocre defenses is the best in the league is completely understandable. I think the general points to consider are these:

-Has there ever been any debate about whether Dirk was in KG's league as a defender?

No there has not. You seriously want to dispute that? Go for it, launch into detail.

I'll also add that your statement that Dirk's literally accomplished more defensively despite having a weaker supporting cast really demands you launch into such detail. As you say, if Dirk's had less help then he must be the better defender. However, if you cannot explain how Garnett was getting more help than Dirk, then you're clearly just going by individual reputations, and that's essentially worthless.

Let's also note that despite the fact it's fashionable to bash Nelson as knowing nothing about defense, he actually is more known for architecting incredibly successful playoff upsets than any other coach I can think of, and this has by no means come simply from smart moves on the offense.

-Do we have good reason to believe that the impact of one defender is so large that he dwarfs the rest of the team?

No we do not. You may not like the specific results of +/- numbers, but generally they are telling us that the impact of a particular defender on defense in the modern game is nowhere near 10 points per 100 possessions, and that it's tough to even reach 5. The gab between the best & worst defenses is regularly well over 10 points per 100 possessions so if a guy is on a horrendous defensive team, we should expect his defensive teams will stink.

Everyone, regardless about their opinion about Garnett, needs to get that in their heads.

Bottom line though, Garnett always had the reputation of being a top 5 defender, despite playing on mediocre defenses. +/- is a way we can test this generally held belief, and by that test, Garnett passes with flying colors. So both expert beliefs and the stats tell us that someone knocking Garnett simply for team defensive results is thinking too simplistically.

[Doctor MJ]

but I doubt it because Nash is all-time bad on defense

And it's statements like this that are part of the problem. Nash is a very smart team defender who often makes heady plays. His lack of lateral quickness and size means that he's on the whole a below average defender, but "all-time bad"? Certainly not.

Let's also consider: The thinking behind making a statement of "all-time bad" defense kind of implies a kind of thinking where there are some defender hurting their team at drastic levels something like what an "all-time good" defender does to help to help the team. And if you believe that one good defender should make an elite team, wouldn't one bad defender have some major effects in the other direction.

If Dirk was seriously plagued with someone like that, and other "bad defenders", we really think he'd be able to will the team to solid defense?

[colts18]

but I doubt it because Nash is all-time bad on defense

And it's statements like this that are part of the problem. Nash is a very smart team defender who often makes heady plays. His lack of lateral quickness and size means that he's on the whole a below average defender, but "all-time bad"? Certainly not.

Let's also consider: The thinking behind making a statement of "all-time bad" defense kind of implies a kind of thinking where there are some defender hurting their team at drastic levels something like what an "all-time good" defender does to help to help the team. And if you believe that one good defender should make an elite team, wouldn't one bad defender have some major effects in the other direction.

If Dirk was seriously plagued with someone like that, and other "bad defenders", we really think he'd be able to will the team to solid defense?

Personally I think Nash is a top 3 offensive player of all-time (at least the 04-11 version). The evidence points to it. The only explanation for his lack of success in the playoffs is his bad defense and the bad defense of the rest of the Suns players (and Dantoni for being a bad coach).

[rrravenred]

colts, can you think of any specific situations where Nash's man-D or poorly-chosen helf D dictated the course of a series?

[Doctor MJ]

Personally I think Nash is a top 3 offensive player of all-time (at least the 04-11 version). The evidence points to it. The only explanation for his lack of success in the playoffs is his bad defense and the bad defense of the rest of the Suns players (and Dantoni for being a bad coach).

So a guy leading the 2nd best team in the league must have all-time bad defense to prevent his all-time good offense? Asymmetry much?

Look, Duncan > Nash, not because Nash is bad on defense but because Duncan is very, VERY good. You need to adjust your scale. The gap between an average point guard on defense and Nash is essentially negligible compared to the offensive gap. The reality is that if you pay attention all point guards look bad right now because a great offensive point guard cannot be stopped by one man.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Short answer = no.

Long answer = no, and thinking he does reveals you as either a Dirk partisan or somebody who does not understand basketball any deeper than point totals.

[richboy]

KG has impact like Dwight Howard? Yet KG never anchored an elite defense in Minnesota like Dwight Howard. Howard plays with the worst group of defenders I've ever seen. He has played with no other players on the team that can block a shot. No other elite rebounders. He has played with Rashard Lewis at PF. Hedo T at SF. Jameer at the point. Find me a worse 1,2 4 defensively in the league. There I can see impact. Elite defensive still. No rebounders but they still out rebound there position.

Which to me says the reality doesn't support the numbers. KG played 40 minutes a game and almost never was the Wolves elite defensively. He played with better defensive players than Dirk and most years had a worse defensive teams.

Yet people are using adjusted plus minus to say not only is he better than Dirk. Not only is he better than Howard. That he has more defensive impact than any big man. Adjusted plus minus tells us that. What else does it tell us.

Apparently Nene is equal if not a better defensive player than prime Duncan. Forget about it Garnett blows Duncan out of the water. Apparently Josh Smith is a more impactful defensive player than Dwight Howard. Matter of fact looks like Dwight needs to work to get to Jeff Foster level.

Apparently Toronto doesn't need to trade for this dominate defensive big man that they all say they need. Amir Johnson has a better adjusted plus minus than Dwight Howard as well.

Adjusted plus minus tells us that Kobe Bryant is actually one of the weaker defensive players in the league. That Vince Carter was the better defensive player.

Apparently Danny Ainge has been subscribing to adjusted plus minus. Because it told him that Kendrick Perkins had little impact. Nenad Krstic was the better defensive player.

Plus minus is what suppose to tell me that Garnett has huge defensive impact. Yet it also tells me these other things to start with. Why cherry pick and say well its right about Garnett. Unless your telling me you believe all the things that it tells you. Mind you in the scope of this argument its not like Dirk does badly in these fields. He was also right at the top of the league.

To me though something doesn't add up. Some in this thread think KG is close to Dirk offensively. I don't buy it. I think games like monday night show that KG isn't close to Dirk offensively. Some also say that KG has by far the biggest impact defensively in the league. If both of these hold true why hasn't KG had more individual success before Boston. If both of these are true wouldn't he be a better player than Duncan. Wouldn't he have a case to be better than Larry Bird. Why wasn't Minnesota dominating defensively. Why wasn't Minnesota players getting wide open jumpers as teams did everything to slow down KG. IMO it sounds like your describing prime David Robinson. In my book KG isn't close to a prime David Robinson.

I think I'm pretty fair with KG overall. I have him as a top 30 player all-time. Probably close to 20 and comparable to Barkley and Malone. I just don't think he was good enough offensively to warrant much higher. Although a great defender and rebounder. Was not the rim protector to warrant that kind of jump.

Just to say something about the blog. If your looking for blocks to tell you that Dwight Howard is a much better rim protector than KG then I don't know what to tell you. You play against a beast like that you need to know where he is on the floor at all time. KG is a great defender in the sense he can do things that you don't expect a PF to do. At the same time the things you want a big man to do he not necessarily great at. He was not great at protecting the rim. He was not that great defending individually against strong physical players.

I look at KG kind of like how I looked at Pippen. Pippen was a great defender and amazing all around player. He lacked the offensive capability to be a number 1 on a championship level team. Although he was a great defender he is still just a SF. Would not have the impact of a great big man defensively. He could be the best player on a championship level team but he would need a better offensive player on the floor.

[NO-KG-AI]

You missed the entire point about sample size.

I ask this all the time too, but year after year, the Magic don't perform that badly defensively with Dwight on the bench, not nearly as bad as Boston or Minnesota with KG on the bench. Why? Is his intimidating rim protection also effective while riding pine?