Real GM Top 100 List #11

[Baller 24]

Or it could be that Robinson averaged 26.3 PPG, 12.8 Reb, 4.0 AST, 2.9 Blk, 1.4 STL on .526 TS%. Last time I checked those numbers are higher than KG's playoff averages in every single category. I guess it was Sean Elliot's 17.6 PPG .417 Shooting or Avery Johnson's 13.4 PPG on .495 that was the difference So with Robinson shooting so low, he was still somewhat efficient. This is what I am talking about when it comes to a different standard for KG than Robinson. You want to guess what KG's playoff FG% was in Minnesota? .458. So you deride Robinson for poor shooting, but ignore KG doing that for a whole 12 years while not making it up by drawing FT's. What about KG's AI-like .511 TS% in the playoffs. Let me guess, when Iverson comes up you will talk about his poor efficiency, but conveniently ignore that AI's TS% in his career is actually higher than KG's Minnesota playoff TS%. It's hard to lead an effective offense when you have a guy who can't draw FT shooting about 45%. With Robinson, he could score on 45% because of his FT drawing ability.

His team was somewhat effective because they had better players assembled around Robinson. Garnett never had that kind of help except for '04, and we saw exactly what he was capable of doing in that amazing peak season.

You're still ignoring the fact that the serious flaw in his game has cost Robinson numerous playoff series losses where he was predicted to win. Garnett with the Twolves has lost every single series that he wasn't predicted to win, what's so wrong with that?

And what exactly does going to the FT line do? I'm still dumbfounded you're using this as an argument to vouch for Robinson. Garnett has a better peak, he can play back-to-basket ball effectively, he can facilitate an entire offense, grab rebounds, and play elite defense at the same time while surrounded by a mediocre cast. Garnett's ability to facilitate an offense from the post is much much harder than attempting a free-throw.

Listen, I know you're new but you should go browse the other threads and take a look at ElGee's & Drza's posts, they've answered pretty much every single argument your'e trying to make in an effective an informative manner.

[Baller 24]

For clarification, PTS% is a stat I came up with based on AST%, TRB%, and the like. Here's the formula:

PTS% = 100 * (Pts * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * Tm Pts)

Lol

[ElGee]

The "mentally soft" talks were swirling and luckily the '04 season came and quieted the whispers because otherwise he would be forever branded as a loser.

Take a step back and look at what you just wrote. Then come back to the computer. I know the cognitive dissonance is in full swing right now, but it's OK to smile at yourself. Really, you just called Kevin Garnett lucky because in the 12 years he was in Minnesota the greatest thing to happen was Sam Cassell and an aging Latrell Sprewell joined the team.

That's like calling a slave "lucky" for not being whipped a lot.

well, as someone else pointed out Lebron took the same Wally Z and Joe Smith but 7 years older and twice as injured and took 66 W's.

Again, take a week, come back, and see how it sounds. "the same X but 7 years older" is a contradiction of epic proportions, not to mention that if we remove Wally and Smith from both teams the comparative rosters look ridiculously unbalanced because, you know, Wally and Smith were two totally different players 7 years later. It's like saying "Jordan took the same Parish, but even 10 years older, to 72 wins. Jordan > Bird."

i really don't see it - and YES. I DID WATCH HIM PLAY.

And when you watched him play, did you judge him based on how his team did? Did you keep track of the scoreboard and note "it's looking like another Minny loss coming up, so I've got to downgrade KG's lack of winningness and therefore his play in this game?" Or did you, you know, judge him on how *he played?*

I challenge you to watch a game and see if you know the exact differential without tracking it. So it seems to be the only one retroactively engineering their opinions is you, from the Win-Loss column backwards.

And for the love of this project, can we stop trying to judge all the moving parts around these players and judge the players?

[An Unbiased Fan]

For clarification, PTS% is a stat I came up with based on AST%, TRB%, and the like. Here's the formula:

PTS% = 100 * (Pts * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * Tm Pts)

Lol

Why are you laughing?

[Laimbeer]

How were Erving's ABA title teams worse than Garnett's T-Wolves?

[Doctor MJ]

Drexler missed 32 games in the regular season and came back to the playoffs so the injury excuse doesn't fly considering Drexler missed more games than Shaq and Kobe combined. The 03 Lakers were simply not as good as before. They had Samaki Walker, Madsen, and Medvedenko combine for 72 starts that year. That doesn't even include Horry's 26 starts. The 03 Lakers got exposed in the next round by the Spurs. Either way, winning in 4 against this Blazers team while being the underdog (no HCA) is more impressive than losing in 6 as the favorite (HCA) to that unmotivated Lakers team in 6.

Eh, that's the best anecdote/spin you can find for cherry picking? Bummer.

Anyway, bottom line:

iirc, Garnett's team has lost twice with HCA in his career. Both times they lost to Lakers teams that most of us expected to beat the Wolves because we knew that the Lakers hadn't taken the regular season that seriously. To let that be any kind of deciding factor in a debate so rich with really useful information is silly.

[italianleather]

Drexler missed 32 games in the regular season and came back to the playoffs so the injury excuse doesn't fly considering Drexler missed more games than Shaq and Kobe combined. The 03 Lakers were simply not as good as before. They had Samaki Walker, Madsen, and Medvedenko combine for 72 starts that year. That doesn't even include Horry's 26 starts. The 03 Lakers got exposed in the next round by the Spurs. Either way, winning in 4 against this Blazers team while being the underdog (no HCA) is more impressive than losing in 6 as the favorite (HCA) to that unmotivated Lakers team in 6.

Eh, that's the best anecdote/spin you can find for cherry picking? Bummer.

Anyway, bottom line:

iirc, Garnett's team has lost twice with HCA in his career. Both times they lost to Lakers teams that most of us expected to beat the Wolves because we knew that the Lakers hadn't taken the regular season that seriously. To let that be any kind of deciding factor in a debate so rich with really useful information is silly.

You will have a case if both those Lakers teams won the championships in those respective years. But they didnt.

'11 Mavs were expected to bow down to the 2 time defending champs too, why didnt they?

The '03, '04 and '11 Lakers are flawed. Lets not mystify them into some super teams.

[drza]

KG and Doc is closer … but I don’t think it’s possible for people who weren’t there to understand the extra impact Julius Erving had on teams/teammates simply be being Julius Erving. We are talking about one the top 5 players of all time in the NBA in terms of respect, admiration, and genuine liking. This is very different from being a great player or being a nice guy. When Moses Malone—not exactly a friendly or emotional guy—says “This was for the Doc. I wanted to be able to say that I played on a world championship team with Dr. J." it tells you something. This is not a case where players thought “Gee, it would be nice if Julius Erving won an NBA title.” Julius Erving got players to play better by dint of personality and respect. I am not saying that Kevin Garnett (or Karl Malone) did not have those qualities. I am saying that didn’t have them to (nearly the) same degree.

There are times and players where individual qualities transcend statistics, and this necessarily weakens numerical analysis. That transcendency is something that is recognized, if not quantified. And if everything else was even—which, IMO, it isn’t; I still have Julius Erving with the best peak, best postseason play, longest run of post season success, and a super long peak period—I think that alone would put Julius Erving ahead.

This is an interesting point, and one I would like to explore a bit more. Doctor J was my first favorite player, and Kevin Garnett is my current favorite player. I'd like to think that I recognize the "transcendency" that you mention in both of them. In fact, this is the kind of intangible that doesn't show up in the stats, and is best heard in the words of contemporaries who get to witness the off-court things that we as a public don't get to see. Other such intangibles are leadership, mentoring, and building a strong locker room. I won't try to compare KG to Doc J in this area, but I will say that this is most definitely a big strength of his. But I won't make you take my word for it, here are some things that his contemporaries and teammates have said about him through the years.

Transcendence

Paul Pierce: "Let's face it: Without Kevin we can't win a championship. I'm replaceable, Ray's replaceable, Rondo. But you can't replace Kevin." -- http://www.redsarmy.com/home/2010/05/yo ... able-.html

Paul Shirley in 2007 (pre Boston trade): " Having spent a similar amount of time in the semi-intimate company of both men, I can say confidently that two people couldn't be more different. Kevin Garnett is one of the most impressive humans I've ever been around. Kobe Bryant isn't. As a strict contrarian, I wish it weren't so. But in this case, there have been no mischaracterizations. Garnett is noble, loyal, and larger-than-life. And, again, Bryant isn't." ... "Garnett is a throwback superstar, a Bill Russell for the modern age. When some people conjure up Russell they visualize the consummate winner, a man who led his teams to 11 NBA championships. But I link the two men by personality. By all reports, Russell shares Garnett's intelligence, grace, and intensity." -- http://www.slate.com/id/2169154/pagenum/all/#p2

76ers assistant coach Jim Lynam and Doc Rivers: "That guy," Jim Lynam said, speaking of Boston's Kevin Garnett, "it's easy to say you like him because his talent is that obvious. But he's got something else, something special about how he comes at you. Something almost Birdlike." He said the last part quieter, as if it should be more solemn than the rest. It is not something the Sixers assistant coach says lightly, or often. "No," Lynam agreed. "It is not."

"The other night, I felt like we won by 1,000 points, and I was worried about this one," Boston coach Doc Rivers said. "It's the kind of game that can be a trap against a team that plays as hard as Philly. But the reason I didn't have to worry was I knew Kevin would not let them let down." Rivers was given the Bird analogy, for fierceness of play, for sheer competitiveness, and he nodded. "Yes," Rivers said, "and Russell. He's got that demeanor. Bird and Russell." -- http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... n-mvp.html

Leadership

Celtics legendary announcer Mike Gorman, who has been with team since Bird's rookie year, on leadership: "Sometimes, you love your job, but there is one part of it that you don' t like," Gorman relates. "That's how I see Pierce. With Garnett, Paul does not have to do that anymore. Paul tried to be the vocal leader, but it is not in his nature to stand up and speak in the locker room. Ray Allen is a great leader, but he is not very demonstrative. Garnett would give me a glare if he heard me say this, but ultimately, he will be the defining guy on this team." -- http://www.patsfans.com/molori/display_ ... ry_id=3181

"I don't think there is any question Kevin is the leader of the team," Gorman said..."Garnett is such a once-in-a-lifetime character. I've been doing this for 27 years. I've seen players have equally intense moments as Kevin Garnett has had, but I've never seen a player who has so many of them. It's been remarkable to be around him. He just raised the bar for everybody." -- http://www.boston.com/sports/other_spor ... n/?page=2#

Garnett makes Pierce follow: Early in the season, the Celtics were running suicides in practice. Garnett was hustling ahead of the group, quickly becoming the leader Celtics brass knew he could be and the team needed. Many wondered how Pierce, the titular head of a previously bad team, would respond. He didn't seem jealous, but this day he was in one of his typical Joe Cool moods, languidly running the drill. Garnett stopped as he hit midcourt and yelled back at Pierce: "Are you going to run with me?!"

A tone was set for everyone to hear. -- http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/article ... z0vkefbJHB

Brian Scalabrine in 2008: I try to get a sense of what ethereal elements might have altered the chemistry of the Celtics, but I am told that the difference is not intangible; it's tangible, and it's not complicated. "This is my seventh year in the N.B.A. I've been to the finals twice, and those teams were great. But they were not like this team," Scalabrine says. "And the reason why is Kevin Garnett. The media perception about Garnett is real. When Kevin walks into the facility and the weight room, he jokes around and makes fun of guys. But then about 15 minutes before practice, it's all focus. It's all work. If he is not clear about something, we don't move on until we are all clear. He solves a lot of problems. I mean, I've played with good players. I played with Jason Kidd, and Kidd is an incredible gamer. But he was never as demanding of his teammates the way Kevin is. Not half as much. Not a quarter as much.

He is also, by all accounts, an ideal teammate. He's uninterested in media opportunities and goes out of his way to distract self-adulation. Though Garnett is clearly the club's highest-profile commodity, Pierce, the team captain, remains the last player announced over the P.A. when the Boston starters are introduced; this is the kind of gesture that has no practical application, but it symbolizes a lot within the insular society of the team. It's especially significant to someone like Pierce

"Look, I can keep saying a million clichés, but those clichés are going to be true," Scalabrine says. "Are we more focused? Yes, we are more focused. That is true. But here's the basic thing: Basketball involves only five guys, playing both offense and defense. The impact of one person can be immense. It's much larger than in any other sport. So when you add Kevin Garnett, the defensive intelligence he brings is huge. It's not just that he's adding 20 points and 10 rebounds a night. There are other guys who can get you 20 and 10 who are not the player that he is. He demands a different level of focus from everybody. So that sounds cliché, but it's the truth. It's the truth." --
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sport ... ref=slogin

We talkin' about practice!: In the middle of the Celtics' scrimmage, head coach Doc Rivers toots his whistle and tells Garnett to take a blow. Turkish big man Semih Erden reluctantly tags out KG. Reluctantly, because this minor event can resemble going to the dentist: It's something you do only when you have to. Erden proceeds to allow a crisp pass to fly off his hands and out of bounds.

Meanwhile, rather than take a seat or a swig, Garnett, who is 34, but has played more minutes than all but 13 players in NBA history, breaks into wind sprints on the sideline. Up. Back. Up. Back. Up. Back. Touching the end line every time, like a ninth-grader trying to make JV. "Never seen another NBA player do that," says Phil Galvin, the facility's basketball director. And Galvin has seen a lot: Not only is the Olympic Club the oldest such facility in the country, it's where most NBA teams practice when they drop into the Bay Area.

As the pink glow of sunset pours through the 40-foot-high window along the baseline, Garnett continues to run. Up. Back. Up. Back. Sweat rains off his dome. After 10 round-trips, each one all out, Rivers has seen enough. He motions his star back onto the court. As the 6'11" power forward passes by his coach, he says, "I hate f--ing sittin' out, Doc! Let's go!" Rubbernecking Sky Gym staffers watch from the sideline, mouths agape.

No wonder the typical Celtics workout lasts barely an hour. As Rivers says later, "The only way to get KG to rest is to end practice." -- http://espn.go.com/blog/BostonCeltics/p ... ce-message

Mentoring the youngsters

Doc Rivers: "Kevin's a great teacher," Celtics coach Doc Rivers said on Thursday. "Actually, the best teacher that I've ever coached, by far." -- http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/ ... ad-classes

Avery Bradley: "He's one person -- not to say I don't look up to everyone else -- but he's one person that I look at . . . he's the person that makes me want to work harder than everybody, every single day," Celtics rookie Avery Bradley told CSNNE.com. "Just to see the things that he does, he comes in every day, every single day and works hard. Our fans don't notice that, but he does it every single day. Only a few people get to see that, and I'm one of them, and I appreciate it. Me being a young guy, that's what I want to be like playing in this game. I really look up to him. He just gives his all on both ends of the floor." http://www.csnne.com/12/27/10/Garnett-i ... eedID=4022

Randy Foye on missing Garnett: "'One thing I miss about him is, he just let me go. That's why I was so successful my rookie year,' said Foye, who has sputtered in the season-plus since. 'No matter what happened, if I made a mistake, I'd look at him and he'd go [Foye balls up a fist and pumps it], like 'It's all right. Keep your head up.' It makes you feel better. It'd be like that for anyone in their work, if there was a legend who pumped you up. For a young player, that just boosted my confidence. Sometimes, in my rookie year, I felt like an All-Star out there because he let me do what I wanted and when I got it going, he let me go.' In games, Foye said, it was like having your big brother there to hold your coat in a schoolyard fight. 'There was a swagger,' he said. 'KG would come out and hit a shot, and it was like, 'Everybody, we're in this together. I'm patrolling it, but everybody who's got a white jersey on, we're in it together.'' -- http://coachcooley.blogspot.com/2008/11 ... kevin.html

Former 12th man Gabe Pruit: "I remember when we were overseas I got a call and it said come to Glen (Davis') room. So [the rookies] went to Glen's room and there was a guy with two suit racks. KG walks in and is like, 'Pick out three suits, it's on me.' We looked at each other like, 'Whoa' and started shopping through them and picked out three suits. They're really nice suits from Italy and that was my first time really getting a suit like that because I don't really wear suits. But I was pumped that he said that when I walked in and saw the selection and they custom made everything -- the shoes, the jacket, all that stuff -- so I was pretty excited about that." "For the most part he's always full of energy and full of stories. Every day you come looking forward to another story that happened to him these past years. When he comes in you're looking forward to it and he stops and sits down and you get into it, it's like 'I wonder what's next.' There's always something that makes you say, 'Oh wow,' something crazy like that. He's always full of energy, always keeping spirits up. If you're down, he's somebody who will pull you to the side and talk to you. He's a real clam off the court and on the court he's energetic and crazy, but he's a really good guy both ways. He really helps me out when I need help or times when stuff comes up, he's the guy I go to and talk to." -- http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=7841

[NO-KG-AI]

How were Erving's ABA title teams worse than Garnett's T-Wolves?

I know you won't buy any pro Garnett arguments, and I'd personally have Doc higher anyway, but his teams were the top defense both times, and Doc was shouldering a massive load, but you really can't lead a top tier defense without commitment and a solid support, even if it's not other star defenders.

There is really no argument what so ever that Doc's title teams were the worst supporting cast in the entire ABA.

I think everyone has this idea that all bad teams, or poor situations are equal. If a team doesn't have another star, it's all the same, etc.

[NO-KG-AI]

How were Erving's ABA title teams worse than Garnett's T-Wolves?

I know you won't buy any pro Garnett arguments, and I'd personally have Doc higher anyway, but his teams were the top defense both times, and Doc was shouldering a massive load, but you really can't lead a top tier defense without commitment and a solid support, even if it's not other star defenders.

There is really no argument what so ever that Doc's title teams were the worst supporting cast in the entire ABA.

I think everyone has this idea that all bad teams, or poor situations are equal. If a team doesn't have another star, it's all the same, etc.

[Doctor MJ]

You will have a case if both those Lakers teams won the championships in those respective years. But they didnt.

'11 Mavs were expected to bow down to the 2 time defending champs too, why didnt they?

The '03, '04 and '11 Lakers are flawed. Lets not mystify them into some super teams.

Nuance is your friend brother. Just because a team is not championship good does not they aren't better than their record. There is room in between those two poles.

The '02-03 Lakers were a 5th seed because before the new year they were 13-19. From that point on, they went 37-13, good for a 60 win pace. Of course, at their peak those Lakers teams were a hell of a lot better than even that, so it's perfectly reasonable to say that this team wasn't as good as it had been, but anyone paying attention would have told you that the Lakers were playing a level above the Wolves before the series began.

The '03-04 Lakers on the other hand actually were the freaking Dream Team, albeit one with a ton of health and chemistry issues. They were erratic as hell, but when they began the year 18-3, again everyone paying attention would have told you that when this team was firing on all cylinders, they were the best in the league.

For perspective: Malone missed half the season. In the games he played, they were 33-9, a 64 win pace. And what happened in the playoffs? Well Malone was rocking about 40 MPG against Minny - WAY up from his regular season numbers, and then he got re-injured, and in the 3 games in Detroit, he played a TOTAL of 39 minutes. To make the loss to those Lakers a referendum on Garnett is ridiculous.

Look guys, when I see these statements made against Garnett, it really baffles me because from my perspective, these years JUST happened...I know it was actually almost a decade ago. It's no great sin if you simply weren't following the NBA that closely back then. I wasn't around in the 60s & 70s, and I don't let that stop me from doing analysis.

If that's the issue here, that you just weren't paying that much attention, then your takeaway needs to be a general one about the danger of making big statements based on a couple of events over the course of a player's career.

Of course, if you were around back then, and paying as much attention then as now, well, then you need to ask yourself, whether you're paying as much attention as you think you are.

[Gongxi]

Swamped, but I'll nominate Pettit.

[Doctor MJ]

How were Erving's ABA title teams worse than Garnett's T-Wolves?

Putting me in a tough place here. I'm voting for Garnett, and yet, I've always been a loud proponent that Erving in the ABA was seriously on the GOAT shortlist.

I think it's instructive to look at LeBron's last two years.

That Cleveland team, without him was the worst in the league.
That Miami team, without him would still easily make the playoffs.

Yet, with LeBron, they were both about as good. What does that say?

That a supporting cast for a star is about both talent and fit. Miami has more talent, but Cleveland had better fit.

While anyone who can take a bunch of guys that would be the worst in the league without to a championship (in Erving's case) or near one (in LeBron's case) deserves to be praised to the moon. It does not make sense to say "See, they did it with no help!". Put them on a similarly talented roster, with much worse fit, and the results will be not nearly as good.

I do rate Erving's peak ahead of Garnett's, but those last couple years in Minny were a perfect storm of bad talent, bad fit, and injuries. Erving and LeBron would not have been able to make a title contender out of them.

[shawngoat23]

I'm wavering on my John Havlicek nomination. Someone tell me why Bob Pettit or Dwyane Wade or Dirk Nowitzki or someone else deserves the nomination instead.

[mysticbb]

The '02-03 Lakers were a 5th seed because before the new year they were 13-19. From that point on, they went 37-13, good for a 60 win pace. Of course, at their peak those Lakers teams were a hell of a lot better than even that, so it's perfectly reasonable to say that this team wasn't as good as it had been, but anyone paying attention would have told you that the Lakers were playing a level above the Wolves before the series began.

Lakers with O'Neal that season were a 4.0 SRS team, better than the Timberwolves.

The '03-04 Lakers on the other hand actually were the freaking Dream Team, albeit one with a ton of health and chemistry issues. They were erratic as hell, but when they began the year 18-3, again everyone paying attention would have told you that when this team was firing on all cylinders, they were the best in the league.

For perspective: Malone missed half the season. In the games he played, they were 33-9, a 64 win pace. And what happened in the playoffs? Well Malone was rocking about 40 MPG against Minny - WAY up from his regular season numbers, and then he got re-injured, and in the 3 games in Detroit, he played a TOTAL of 39 minutes. To make the loss to those Lakers a referendum on Garnett is ridiculous.

The Lakers started the year with Malone at a +7.3 level. The Timberwolves were indeed weaker than that. We also have to see that the Pistons in 2004 with Rasheed Wallace as a regular starter had a +13.3 over 21 games. That is more than usual championship level. That team was highly underrated.

But well, why do I bother? The guy thinks that Bibby-Artest-Miller + X was a terrible lineup in 2007.

[mysticbb]

I do rate Erving's peak ahead of Garnett's, but those last couple years in Minny were a perfect storm of bad talent, bad fit, and injuries. Erving and LeBron would not have been able to make a title contender out of them.

I have Erving over Garnett, would be my #12 and then #13 respectively. Some people seem to only look at the 3 years right after Erving joined the Sixers, in which he had worse numbers and they seem to conclude that the ABA was not legit. BUT they completely ignore that Erving got a more important role from 1979 on, his numbers went up again and the Sixers became BETTER. Unlike other discussion in which I have to deal with people claiming that a lesser role and worse play are an indicator for being a great player when the team does better overall, we see a case in which a bigger role and increased playing level led to more team success.
Not only can we show that Erving's numbers in the ABA are legit by looking at his numbers from 29-33, but we also can conclude that Erving had indeed such big impact on the game. Erving has a legit case of being #10 All-Time.

[drza]

Kevin Garnett vs Karl Malone

I've done a lot of writing in this thread about Garnett's positives, but I have yet to make a specific case for Garnett vs Malone while many have pointed out Malone's benefits in the direct comparison. So, here are my thoughts on them as candidates for this spot.

Longevity. This is the one area that is universally used to make Malone's case. And yes, he does have incredible longevity. Malone played 19 seasons in which he was almost never hurt until the very end, is second on the NBA minutes played list only to Kareem, and was an impact player throughout. He is second on the all-time scoring list and 6th on the all-time rebounding list for a reason, as he was doing it at an extremely high level for an extremely long time. That deserves respect.

On the other hand, I think Garnett's longevity has been pretty understated. He just completed his 16th NBA season, and is currently 13th on the all-time NBA minutes played list. If the league doesn't lock out, he will be top-10 in minutes played by the time the season ends. He's a 14-time All Star, and the only reason it's not 15-time is because there was no All Star game in '99 due to the lockout. He sees Malone's total points and rebounds marks, and responds as the only player in recorded NBA history to wrack up more than 23,000 points, 12,000 rebounds, 4800 assists, 1800 blocks and 1600 steals. According to Englemann's RAPM study Garnett is in the top-5 for most impactful player over the last four seasons (Garnett's 13th thru 16th season), and in season 16 was 3rd overall in impact and #1 overall in defensive effect. I mean seriously, Malone is a longevity beast but Garnett is no slouch in that area either.

Quality of play. I've gone over this in several posts in these threads, but just to review in one place: Garnett measured out as arguably the best player of the 2000 - 2010 decade across the various advanced box score stats (PER, win shares, WARP, wins produced) and clearly the best player of that decade according to the multi-year APM studies. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1125974&start=30

Garnett also had a huge postseason impact, very arguably the biggest of this generation. His combination of all-history defense, offensive production (both as a scorer and as a facilitator) and rebounding gave him a postseason impact that could be quantified and shown to be well, well beyond what you could glean just by examining the box scores. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1126186&start=15

Based on this, I would say that Garnett had a clear argument as potentially the best player of his generation even over some others that have already been voted onto this list. But how does he directly compare to Malone? Here is something that I wrote in an older thread:

"Malone clearly scored more at a better efficiency than Garnett. I don't think anyone is disputing that Malone was a better scorer in his career. There are some, including me, that would question the degree to which Malone was better and suggest that there were some factors that mitigate the differences that the numbers suggest. Nevertheless, I don't have any problem saying Malone was the better scorer.

I do believe that Garnett was better on the whole, though, than Malone. I believe that his defensive impact is dramatically greater than Malone's. That Malone was a very good defensive player, but that Garnett is an All-Time defensive player and that there is a clear and large difference between the two at that end of the court.

I also believe that Garnett was used more as an offensive initiator than Malone was, while Malone was used more as a finisher. Neither one is necessarily inherently greater, but it uses a different skill set. And when I factor in that Garnett was often asked to (and able to) initiate the offense, facillitate for his teammates, and also finish effectively I think that his offensive impact on the whole is often very underrated. Perhaps Malone's offense on the whole is still better, because he finished at a volume/efficiency combo rarely matched in history while also passing decently himself. But I don't think the offensive gap is as wide as the defensive gap."

Longevity vs Peak Some believe that Malone was both a better player than KG and had better longevity as well. This section isn't for you. But there are many that feel that Garnett had the better peak, but that Malone had more longevity. So, how do you weigh one vs the other? ElGee has broken it into a type of equation in which Malone's extra top-flight years (however many you believe they are) should be worth more in championship-building opportunities than whatever gap you might believe there was between KG's and Malone's peaks. But I don't agree with his equations, for a couple of reasons.

1) All championship-opportunities are not created equal.
2) Winning a championship is hard, and requires top talent in addition to other uncontrollable factors

Suppose you believe Malone has 14 top-level seasons vs KG's 11. On the other hand, suppose you believe Garnett's peak was better. To my way of thinking, I'd rather have a multi-year peak with the best possible chance to win a title as part of a decade-plus window of elite play instead of a few extra years in length without ever reaching the same heights. Winning championships is just too difficult, and I want the player that will give me the best shot at it. Now yes, I'd take Malone's 14 years over Bill Walton's 2 or 3, despite Walton having a better peak, because then the longevity difference is ridiculous. But if a player is giving me a better peak and excellent longevity, as Garnett does, I prefer that.

Overall: Malone is an excellent player. In my opinion, one of the three best power forwards of all-time. I would expect to be voting him in within the next couple of votes, myself. But on the whole I just don't think he was quite as good as Garnett, and his (now) slight longevity advantage isn't enough to bridge the gap.

[Dipper 13]

BUT they completely ignore that Erving got a more important role from 1979 on, his numbers went up again and the Sixers became BETTER.

+ his knees.



Sports Illustrated - November 05, 1979

Erving has revitalized knees.

The Erving knees, heavily braced against chronic weakness for six seasons, are no longer under wraps after Doc spent the summer undertaking a concentrated leg-strengthening program supervised by Joseph Zohar, a Long Island physical therapist. Erving opened the season with a 27-point night in Washington and followed it with an NBA career-high 44 points in the second game, against Houston. He had a 27-point average, six over his three-year NBA scoring rate, through last week.

"Julius is getting points more quietly than he did in the ABA," says Bobby Jones. "You used to stop and just watch him. Now he just goes and goes and you hardly notice him. When he scored 44 I thought it was more like 20." Which is not to say that he has given up flying like the Dr. J of yore. For the New York television audience on Friday night he did a couple of incredible scooping lay-in drives and one classic behind-the-head breakaway jam on his way to 27 points in a 127-116 win over the Knicks.

[Dr Positivity]

Lmao.

Look, I have no problem with people not voting for KG, I think there is legitimate arguments for MAlone, Doc, Oscar, Logo, ETC ETC, but the arguments that are actually used are just downright terrible.

You can say we don't know what KG would have done with more talent, or in better situations, but lets stop pretending his teams were just run of the mill mediocre, or that he didn't get probably the biggest shaft of any cornerstone player.

KG might have got the shaft, but he did nothing out of it. Kobe got the shaft also and made the playoffs and had the same amount of playoff wins in one series against a good team than KG had from 1999-2002 in the playoffs. You can't tell me the 1999-02 T-Wolves were worse than Kobe's 06 cast.

LeBron certainly got the shaft. Instead of complaining, he won 8 playoff series in 6 years, made the finals and took his team to 2 60+ win seasons (more than KG has).

Dirk got the shaft in 2011. It might not have been to the extent of 2007 Wolves, but his talent was not comparable to LA, OKC, and Mia. KG would have lost to that Lakers team and his supporters would make excuses about it. Dirk instead swept LA without HCA. You can't tell me that Dirk's cast was better than KG's 02 or 04 cast. In 2002, KG had all-star Wally Z who averaged 19-5 on .580 TS%, Terrell Brandon, Joe Smith, Chauncey Billups, and Rasho. Dirk's 2011 cast was not better than that. He didn't have an all-star at all or close to that. He didn't have a PG on Billups level or a perimeter player of Wally's caliber. Even Joe Smith was solid, an 11-6 on .571 TS%, 16 PER big man. At best Dirk's cast is slightly better yet Dirk won the title. His team wasn't good as evidenced by their 2-7 record without him and awful +/-. And KG's 2004 cast was certainly better considering he had a 2nd team All-NBA player.

Dirk's supporting cast was much better in my opinion. I can already feel the rest of the 2011 Mavs getting MASSIVELY disrespected in the future, 94-95 Rockets style

The 2011 Mavericks are one of the best team passing teams I have ever seen, live or on video. That's not going to show up on statistics or simply comparing talent level. Elite passing, elite 3pt shooting, the most high efficiency finisher/rolling Cs in the league, one of the best 6th men scorers in the league who went off at a 20 PER in the playoffs, a backup PG playing the best ball of his life. Then you add in the defensive difference which is gigantic. Chandler and Marion are two of the best defensive players and rebounders at their position. Kidd still did things. The Mavs backup C Haywood was better defensively than basically anyone KG played with. Then clearly superior defensive coaching and an elite system approach by everyone

Overall between the passing/decision making intelligence, defense and depth, I don't see any comparison between the 2011 Mavs supporting cast and say, 2002 KG's

[Dr Positivity]

IMO... this is actually an accurate comparison between the 2011 Mavs and a classic KG Twolves team

Barea/Beaubois
Terry/Brewer
Peja/Dominique Jones
Garnett/Mahimni
Cardinal/?

You'd got the perimeter headlined by the one 'all-star' scorer and some skill guys, but embarrasingly atrocious defense. You've got a big rotation made of soft jumpshooters beside the star. And then you've got the bench filled out by complete scrubs because KG's contract and the 4 1sts shut down the ability to fill out.