RealGM Top 100 List #8

[DQuinn1575]

Why are people arguing Garnett versus Robinson, Dirk, or Duncan?

Since a few people are arguing in favor of Garnett, others are countering that argument by essentially saying "Garnett can't be in yet, he's no better than Robinson/Dirk." Garnett supporters are arguing "Duncan was voted in at #5 and Garnett is as good as him." So it has less to do with those other guys and more to do with whether we should be voting for Garnett at this point.

If anyone is curious I believe the vote at the moment is Bird 3, Magic 3, Hakeem 2 and KG 1. In my mind that's the order for the next 4 candidates too, and then we start to get into slightly dicier territory with Dr J v.s K.Malone, etc.

Right now we have 1 guy out of 9 voting for KG - to me at this point it doesn't matter if Garnett is better than Robinson and Dirk.

If the KG guy(s) think he is 8 they should be arguing that he is better than Bird,Magic, Hakeem.

There has been nothing argued that would make me change my mind that Garnett is better than any of those 3.

[Texas Chuck]

Dirk NEVER had another reliable shot creator on his team. Yet, here are the offensive results for his teams:

Dirks teams:
2001: 4th best Offense
2002: Best Offense in the League
2003: Best Offense in the League
2004: Best Offense in the League
2005: 4th best
2006: Best Offense in the League
2007: 2nd best
2008: 8th best
2009: 5th best
2010: 10th best
2011: 8th best

.

This simply isnt true, especially not if you are citing Nash years. Nash was absolutely a reliable shot creator.

[ardee]

Dirk NEVER had another reliable shot creator on his team. Yet, here are the offensive results for his teams:

Dirks teams:
2001: 4th best Offense
2002: Best Offense in the League
2003: Best Offense in the League
2004: Best Offense in the League
2005: 4th best
2006: Best Offense in the League
2007: 2nd best
2008: 8th best
2009: 5th best
2010: 10th best
2011: 8th best

.

This simply isnt true, especially not if you are citing Nash years. Nash was absolutely a reliable shot creator.

My bad I was talking from the post Nash teams, completely forgot to mention that.

You know me, I'm a huge Nash fan, going to be trying to get him into the top 20. I'd never intentionally spew lies about him.

[Clyde Frazier]

I certainly appreciate the amount of RAPM data being laid out, as I've really only started to look at it closely over the last 6 months.

While posters have provided qualitative support for the RAPM #s, I just can't get on board with it being the premier way to evaluate players. Again, i just see it as another tool (for now, anyway).

I understand the notion that "perceived impact" can skew what's really going on during the games, but if we consider ourselves knowledgeable enough, forming opinions based on watching the games should be just as important. I'm a big fan of evaluation by stats, and new stats being introduced (i've wasted a ton of time on the sportVU tracking data), but they can only take you so far.

I will say that i find RAPM much more useful than WARP. Both rely on sample size to be most effective, but I think there are clear flaws in WARP that supporters push aside in championing for the stat.

[ardee]

So here's the problem with people wanting to dock Garnett because of RAPM:
1) By RS numbers, David Robinson is top five ever, depending on how you deal with longevity. But the problem is the post-season where he was embarrassed in his prime. Robinson's post-season failures are more pronounced than Garnett's. Someone broke down Garnett's post-season "failures" and they're not as bad as people think. Just because a guy is fairly or unfairly known for not scoring well in the playoffs doesn't mean he's as bad as Robinson.
2) People say if Garnett is top ten by RAPM, then why don't you choose Dirk first? But Garnett's numbers are better. I don't see what's going on here because Garnett clearly has an edge. I think people want Dirk to be top 15, and the Garnett backers agree. There was a large push for this last season, and that was before Dirk put up yet another quality season while Garnett barely a weird year in Brooklyn. Garnett's older and has more seasons under his belt. That was another argument for him over Dirk.

D-Rob was just as good in the Playoffs as KG, if not better.

I'm not sure about this, but it's food for thought that Garnett's defense is his most lauded trait, and Robinson was a BETTER defender while he DIDN'T underperform in the Playoffs on that end.

And if you want to knock D-Rob's Playoff scoring, remember Garnett did 22.3 ppg on 52.5% TS for his 9 year prime. For all the flak, Robinson in '90-'96 was 24 ppg on 55.7% TS. I feel his Playoff 'failures' are overblown, just like Bird's. Take a look:

'90: 24-12-2, 53% FG, 58% TS, 4 blocks per game. Beat Denver in 4, lost to the loaded Blazers who were the eventual WC champion. Great for a rookie, hell, that'd be the second best performance of Dwight Howard's career!

'91: 26-14-2, 69% FG, 76% TS, 2 steals, 4 blocks per game. Somehow drags his team with one other player rebounding over 6 a game and a sophomore Sean Elliot to 55 wins, loses to the TMC Warriors in the first round. His supporting cast allows TMC to go off for over 70 combined ppg on ridiculous efficiency. How much better can you perform individually then that? Not his fault at all.

'92: Misses POs with an injury.

'93: Beats a weaker Portland in 4 games with the defense/rebounding/passing thing (19/15/5/5), and then loses to WC Champions Phoenix and Barkley in 6. 26/11/4 with 3 blocks and 2 steals on 49% from the field and 55% TS is nothing to sneeze at.

'94: His worst Playoffs easily, not going to bother going into it, it was awful.

'95: Beats a weak as hell Denver team in a sweep, then devastates the Lakers to the tune of 30-16-4-4-2. Admittedly he shot 52% TS but when you're playing like that in other areas, I think that can be forgiven! This was a great performance, only everyone forgot it because Hakeem made him his bitch the next round. You know what? I can live with that. Who did Hakeem NOT make his bitch in that two year span? Ewing, Shaq, everyone was getting their behinds kicked by Hakeem. Others can look at it whatever way they want, but I don't think D-Rob's performance was even half as bad as Ewing in '94, and people don't crucify him for THAT when ranking him all-time. It was a great performance by a player on a GOAT level hot streak, short of peak Shaq or Wilt I don't think anyone could've played Hakeem that year, and I'm not comparing D-Rob to those two.

'96: Probably his best Playoffs. 24-10-3 with 3 blocks per game on 57% TS, following up an MVP caliber (would've won it if Jordan hadn't come back) regular season, great all-around year.

Then, I feel his '98 and '99 runs are not phenomenal, but '99 is probably only a notch or two below KG's '08 run which everyone goes crazy about here. In particular '99, he was freed of offensive responsibility by Duncan like KG was by Pierce and Ray, and anchored a 95.1 defense: -8 relative to the weighted ORtgs of the teams he faced.

So, yeah, that essay should hopefully help people understand why I feel DRob gets a raw deal. He was just as good a Playoff performer as KG or probably a little worse, and he's one of the top 5 or 6 regular season performers EVER. If you have a consistent perimeter scorer like a Pierce or a Manu/Parker, you can go to war with DRob in the Playoffs every year with a confident shot at the title. It's no wonder his efficiency dropped sometimes, he had literally NO help, and defenses were able to key in on him all the time... Unlike Garnett, who at least had decent players at times like Wally, Casssell or Sprewell (when he was sane).

[RSCD3_]

I have a philosophical question

We have heard how well Garnett is at stopping the pick and roll and how much space he can guard.

But by defending players out on the perimeter can leave the middle open to drives with mobile bigs away from the rim. This method relies on his supporting cast to be well versed in rotations and on the same page defensively. So the defense if dependent more on the team than KG himself.

With rim protectors like Duncan and Robinson, Hakeem to a bigger extent, they don't need to rely on this as much, as they can simply deter drives better from near the basket.

Is this why Garnett's impact might be lower or higher depending on his teammates while other rim protectors value is the same under less contributing casts.


Also can someone talk about KG's rim protection and post defense, I know he was an elite range defender but that's all I hear about his defense


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Texas Chuck]

My bad I was talking from the post Nash teams, completely forgot to mention that.

You know me, I'm a huge Nash fan, going to be trying to get him into the top 20. I'd never intentionally spew lies about him.

Why does nobody but me remember and care that Nash played in Dallas?

Obviously it was an oversight on your part, but it amazes me still how forgotten that period is especially when those Mavs teams were entertaining as hell.

[RSCD3_]

Restating this so people can see it more clearly

How good was

1. Garnett's rim protection

2. His post defense


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[MacGill]

Hey a quick check-in. Have any KG supporter posted a KG versus Hakeem comparison yet? If so, could you link me please?

If not, do you feel his defensive impact was greater than Hakeem's? And how do you incorporate their respective offensive games?

[andrewww]

My takeaways thus far for those in the KG debate.

KG's impact as a defensive player is unquestioned, but was he really even better than somone like Admiral who had a great impact on defense, but like KG isn't a number 1 option on offense? I do think Dirk had only one real elite shot creator in Nash, but being in a system like Dallas' has enabled him to play to his strengths while somewhat minimizing his not so strong point on defense.

A lot of posters who use the favourable advanced stats on KG in Minnesota as a point of emphasis...even though the raw numbers would suggest otherwise are using this as justification that a smaller sample size in Boston represents how his career would have unfolded had he ben in Boston since day one. Thats a dangerous argumen to make imo.

I think Dirk and KG are neck and neck depending on whether you believe KG's defensive impact over Dirk was greater than Dirk's advantage on offense over KG. Garnett is for lack of a better comparison a 6-11 version of Pippen. I do believe that this project had trended away from the actual results, and elite scorers like Dirk and Kobe are being a little underrated.

[Purch]

I just can't get over how underwhelming the defenses were that KG anchored in Minnasota. I always knew they werent elite but they never even reached top 5, the majority of them weren't even average In fact most of them were below average. I think this is swaying me into believing Dirk is a better player, because for a supposed all time great defensive anchor, the defenses he anchored were average to below average(aside from one year) until he got traded into playing into Thibs' genius defensive schemes (that Boston kept employing after Thibs left, and Miami copied during their championship run).

[acrossthecourt]

Rasho was a solid center defensively, helped co-anchor some epic Spurs defenses with Timmy in the mid 00s. I don't know or care what his RAPM was, but his defensive On/Off from '05 and '06 was -6. He was definitely capable of making a good defensive impact.

Billups we all know was one of the premier defensive point guards in the league in Detroit.

Trenton Hassell, a real defensive specialist.

Sam Cassell, who colts18 earlier claimed was a better defensive player than early 2000s Kobe.

Other serviceable if not solid like Blount and Peeler.

Rasho kinda sucked actually. You don't care what his RAPM was but your'e using raw on/off? Do you see what the problem is there? Raw on/off is really awful for role playing starters.

That was before Billups was a great defender though. And he only played two seasons in Minnesota.

Four seasons in Minnesota, but yes he was solid. Though not great.

As I've said before he only played one and a half seasons in Minnesota ... so they were supposed to have a great defense because he played 1.5 seasons? His full season was their best defensive year.

Anthony Peeler is a guard and does not move the needle.

It's a pretty uninspiring cast on defense if that's the best you could come up with. Meanwhile Duncan played with David Robinson and Bowen coached under Popovich.

I think people are also using the names, just the names, to discredit him like with Cassell. Garnett was supposed to have a great defense for almost a decade because Cassell played with him for a full season and then a season with 1260~ minutes.

[colts18]

DRob 90-98 vs. KG 97-08 vs. top 10 defenses in the playoffs:

DRob: 22.1 PPG, .536 TS%, 11.9 Reb, 3.1 AST/2.5 TOV, 1.2 Stl, 3.3 blk
KG: 20.1 PPG, .510 TS%, 11.4 Reb, 4.3 AST/2.9 TOV, 1.2 stl, 1.3 blk

vs. not top 10 defenses:
DRob: 24.9 PPG, .564 TS%, 12.4 Reb, 2.7 AST/3.4 TOV, 1.3 stl, 3.0 blk
KG: 23.3 PPG, .531 TS%, 13.4 Reb, 4.6 AST/3.0 TOV, 1.5 stl, 1.9 blk

[acrossthecourt]

I just can't get over how underwhelming the defenses were that KG anchored in Minnasota. I always knew they werent elite but they never even reached top 5, the majority of them weren't even average In fact most of them were below average. I think this is swaying me into believing Dirk is a better player, because for a supposed all time great defensive anchor, the defenses he anchored were below average to below average(aside from one year) until he got traded into playing into Thibs' genius defensive schemes

Please don't vote based on the team results of Garnett on one of the worst franchise runs ever. He didn't have help on defense.

By the way, Minnesota defended *much* better when Garnett was on the court. When he went to the bench, like in 2003 for instance, they gave up 111 points per 100 possessions. The last place team in defensive rating in 2003 was at 109.5 (the Warriors.) When Garnett was on the floor they were a top 8 team.

So without Garnett, they defend like one of the worst defensive teams ever. Garnett's team ratings get dragged down by an awful bench. If you want to penalize Garnett for how his teammates played without him, go ahead....

Even with coach Thibs, Boston's defense was typically a lot worse without Garnett.

[Gregoire]

My vote still goes to Hakeem here. Comparable or better 1, 2, 3year peak with each of guys left in the discussion. Most well-balanced guy left in the discussion considering offense+ defense. Only player left who could be elite offensive and elite defensive anchor. Played in the toughest are along with GOAT and many others superstars. Was very mentally tough, didnt fear anybody. Unique skillset and very portable and versatile player.

[Jim Naismith]

KG's impact as a defensive player is unquestioned, but was he really even better than somone like Admiral who had a great impact on defense, but like KG isn't a number 1 option on offense? I do think Dirk had only one real elite shot creator in Nash, but being in a system like Dallas' has enabled him to play to his strengths while somewhat minimizing his not so strong point on defense.

Do you mean:

was he really even better than someone like Admiral who had a great impact on defense and (unlike KG) also is a number 1 option on offense

[Purch]

I just can't get over how underwhelming the defenses were that KG anchored in Minnasota. I always knew they werent elite but they never even reached top 5, the majority of them weren't even average In fact most of them were below average. I think this is swaying me into believing Dirk is a better player, because for a supposed all time great defensive anchor, the defenses he anchored were below average to below average(aside from one year) until he got traded into playing into Thibs' genius defensive schemes

Please don't vote based on the team results of Garnett on one of the worst franchise runs ever. He didn't have help on defense.

By the way, Minnesota defended *much* better when Garnett was on the court. When he went to the bench, like in 2003 for instance, they gave up 111 points per 100 possessions. The last place team in defensive rating in 2003 was at 109.5 (the Warriors.) When Garnett was on the floor they were a top 8 team.

So without Garnett, they defend like one of the worst defensive teams ever. Garnett's team ratings get dragged down by an awful bench. If you want to penalize Garnett for how his teammates played without him, go ahead....

Even with coach Thibs, Boston's defense was typically a lot worse without Garnett.

I'm sorry but thats a hard pill to swallow. Garnett played close to 40 minutes game , for 11 straight years, yet in 10 out of 11 of those years, his team was below average defensively? If you're going to say he has a defensive impact on the same level as Russell or Hakeem, there's no way he can play nearly the whole game, yet allow his team to still be so poor defensively. We always say that bigs are the most important position to teams defensively, so how is a big playing 40 minutes, more than any player on the floor, with defense you guys claim is comparable to Russell allowing such poor defense?

You expect to see a drop off defensively without your best defensive player, but there's absolutly no way I can buy that the little time the league leader in minutes is off the court, that small amount of time amounts for such sub par defenses for 10 years straight. That's ridiculous.



And yes, Boston's first unit was better than their bench defensively, I am well aware. Yet I'm also well aware that Thibs took his same defensive schemes to Chicago, a team filed with significantly worse defensive personal, and created an elite defensive team that won 60+ games.

And your bit about 2003 him leading the team to a top 8 defense is weird, because that isn't elite by the standers of the bigs you guys claim he's on par with.

[ardee]

My bad I was talking from the post Nash teams, completely forgot to mention that.

You know me, I'm a huge Nash fan, going to be trying to get him into the top 20. I'd never intentionally spew lies about him.

Why does nobody but me remember and care that Nash played in Dallas?

Obviously it was an oversight on your part, but it amazes me still how forgotten that period is especially when those Mavs teams were entertaining as hell.

Well in my defense that was the part of my basketball viewing life when I was about, "WOOOOAH DUNK" and "THREEEEE". Didn't actually pay attention until Shaq left the Lakers. Nice introduction to being an NBA fan, that.

But yeah that was as close as we ever saw to a real "5 out" team.

[Purch]

Even in 2011, in the absolute worst year of Duncan's career supported by awful defenders in Blair and Bonner inside, Timmy still anchored a top 11 defense in the league. Even when their best defender was probally Richard Jefferson. I'm sorry but I cannot buy this at all, that is to long a stretch of defensive mediocrity for a guy who people hold in such elite company defensively.

Honestly, some of these defenses are close to the level of Barkley led teams, when he played next to no shot blocker

[acrossthecourt]

Because defense is all about the TEAM.

We can show this in many ways. The best defenders are, like, +5 to maybe =8. So if you have poor defensive starters, you can easily be dragged down to an average level, and with a bad bench you'll look a lot worse.

So ....
1) KG isn't elite defensively because his teams were mediocre on defense
2) KG was a part of the greatest defense since Russell but it doesn't count because I said so