drza wrote:ElGee wrote:Actually, the crux of my point is that "longevity" isn't just a span of goodness. (eg Jack Nicklaus winning majors 24 years apart.) What actually happens IN that span is the essence of it, if one cares about how much a player gives you over his career. (That's the focus of my criteria, is it not yours or everyone else's?)
All MVP's aren't the same. Nor are all-nba teams. Therefore, KG giving me 2, 3, 4, 6 extra years as an all-star piece is BARELY shrinking the longevity gap between him and Malone, because Malone's extra seasons were so close to his best seasons...over and over...
I've already outlined comparative players, and have yet to hear it refuted. I really don't understand what's happening here; maybe people just think Malone wasn't top-5 in each of these individual seasons. That's cool. But I'm guessing there's a disconnect between how people value him and what he provided over his career. He's actually very similar to KAJ in many ways ITO of evaluating career impact.
I understood your point before, but I'm not sure that you're quite getting what I was saying. Or maybe you do, but just don't agree. Either way, especially while I'm already on my defensive soap box, let me try again to clarify.
My point w.r.t. Malone and KG is that you're no longer talking about longevity alone, you're having to make a value judgment as well. To my way of thinking, KG's 13 years from 1999 - 2011 match up well, longevity-wise, with Malone's 14 years from 1988 - 2001. Where you are rebutting me is on the question of VALUE (or QUALITY, as it were). Your stance seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Malone in his 14 years was better than the 2000 KG that went 2nd in the MVP vote or the Celtics version of KG that still measures out at the very top of the league in the APM measures. That there was a period in that 13 years where KG was comparable to Malone, but that at the edges of the period Kg has been "just" an All Star piece and not as good as Malone.
But if I'm correct in your stance, in order for me to rebut it I have to frame an argument about how good KG is vs how good Malone is in a given year, NOT an argument about how long they did it. You feel where I'm coming from? It's a different type of discussion. In fact, let's get into it a bit. And let's start at the end.
Garnett, for the last three years, has been a 15 and 8 player. Meanwhile, in Malone's years 11 - 13 of that stretch, he was closer to 25 and 10. I absolutely get that, and for many the comp ends there. But to me, along the same lines as what we've been talking about with Russell, you shouldn't even start with offense when describing Celtic KG. Instead, for Celtics KG, defense is exactly where it begins. What made late-Malone great is that he was still one of the best offensive players in the league, capable of anchoring and leading his team on that front. But what makes late-KG great is that he is still one of the best defensive players in the league, capable of anchoring and leading his team on that front. In his time in Boston KG has been the best defensive player in the league, even factoring in for his post-injury difficulties in 2010.
Here's a blog post written in May of 2010, comparing the 2010 Celtics through 14 postseason games with the 2009 Celtics (who played a total of 14 games before elimination).
http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/Diffe ... BD2074.htm . The post points out that, individually, in 2010 the 4-some of Rondo, Pierce, Allen and KG had almost the exact same box-score numbers of the 2009 Rondo/Pierce/Allen/Baby Davis combo. But that the biggest difference between why the '09 Celtics were out after 14 games while the '10 Celtics were then 11 - 3 in the postseason, was the defense, which looked like this:
'08 Celtics Defense: 89 ppg allowed, 43% FG, 19 apg, 14 TOs
'09 Celtics Defense: 102 ppg allowed, 45% FG, 20 apg, 14 TOs
'10 Celtics Defense: 90 ppg allowed, 43% FG, 17 apg, 17 TOs
I would argue that in his time in Boston, KG's defensive impact has been as impressive as Malone's offensive impact over the last 4 years of his "All NBA" stretch. And I wouldn't just argue it anecdotally, I would say that this is the biggest reason that KG DOES measure out in a tie for 2nd most impactful NBA player of the last 4 years according to APM along with several other names (Nash, Dirk, Howard, Paul and Wade) that by accolade and acclaim have been considered among the very best in the game. Thus, I don't see these last few years as "just All Star" years for KG. No, he's still right there at the top of the league in impact, just doing it in a way that doesn't capture the eye. Again, I grant you that his minutes are down and that he missed the end of 2009 injured, which counts against a machine like Malone. So, say, give KG credit for 12 stud years to Malone's 14. Still a slight longevity advantage for Malone. But again, the advantage is getting slight. In my view, longevity-wise, if there's no lockout and KG does play a couple more years at the level of last year the Malone longevity argument won't really hold much weight for me anymore.
