Basketballefan wrote:KG's playoff numbers look like they do because he faced the cupcake frontline of the Sixers and Heat. He didn't face any real big men in that playoff run. You could argue KG had a better postseason i suppose but regular season no way, not even close. 2013 KG over Kobe is just laughable sorry. Kobe 27 6 6 57 TS% 23 PER, KG 15 7 54 TS% 19 PER, i think you overrate KG's defensive impact in 2013 he didn't make an all defensive team or the all star game. The Celtics' defense also slipped that year. Kobe had to deal with that disaster that was the lakers that season, all those injuries ,bad coaching etc. He was the reason the Lakers even made the playoffs and anyone who watched NBA that year knew this was true, and knew Kobe>KG that year. Saying KG>Kobe that year would be like saying Duncan was better than Melo this year, it's just dumb.
KG did have great defensive impact in 2013. The only reason the defense slipped is because of the minutes KG was off the court
on court: 99 defensive rating (better than the #1 rated Pacers) off court: 108 defensive rating (equivalent to 25th best defense)
That's massive impact
You can't credit Kobe for taking the 2013 Lakers to the playoffs with all the turmoil while not acknowledging that he was a big reason for all of it. Any time with an alleged top 5 player plus Dwight Howard should have no business finishing with 45 wins. A big reason why they underachieved is because Kobe took plays off on defense for the whole year. His defense was a disaster in 2013 which won't show up in the PER stats.
Why did the 2013 Celtics play better with KG than the 2013 Lakers played with Kobe if Kobe had the much better supporting cast?
2005 KG
on court: 106.6 DRtg off court: 105.3 DRtg
Going by the methodology you use, I suppose 2005 KG, one year removed from his peak, was a negative on defense?
Kobe wasn't great on help defense in 2013 but he was no worse than a ton of other perimeter stars like Curry, Melo, or Harden and he was still a beast of a man defender, better than any of those. Those guys were all bona-fide top 10 players and top 5 candidates in 2013, it's only Kobe who people love to rail on.
There are tons of perimeter players who aren't the best of team defenders, but it's not a big part of the game... If a big makes a lot of defensive mistakes, it screws up the team. A perimeter defender, good or bad, doesn't influence the game TOO much on help defense (unless you're peak Jordan, LeBron, Pippen, Kobe or Artest).
It's only for Kobe that these things are brought up, because obviously the aim of most of the people in this discussion is for Kobe to be voted in as low as possible
It's not enough that he wasn't in the top 10 when most reasonable people rank him from 8-10... No, why stop there? It has to be 15 or lower to satisfy some people on this project.
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Injuries. When somewhat healthy, they did fine enough. They finished the season at a 25-11 clip.
Dwight Howard played 76 games. There is no excuse for their underachievement. You are the guy who said they were a 73 win team when healthy so 25-11 is a massive underachievement. KG's team had a lot of injuries too (Rondo). Even with injuries, Kobe's cast was better. Howard was a much better player than anyone Kobe had.
Just wondering, is it reasonable to start arguing for Baylor now or soon? From what I've read, he was held in a similarly high regard to Oscar at the time (when I get home, I'll upload some articles from the time about the two). He also seems like a guy who would definitely benefit from improved spacing (giving him room to work on the floor) and modern offensive schemes in general.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
I'd like to repeat a shot case for Bill Walton. I know that he only had 6 seasons when he played more than 50 games, but he is still one of the greatest centers ever.
MVP, Finals MVP, 6th Man of the Year, 2x Champion. Although guys usually get docked for playing in the watered down era when the league was split, unlike Dr. J, Walton earned his accolades after the merger.
Lead the league in rebounds and blocks per game in 77, a feat few have managed, since contesting shots usually takes you out of position to get a rebound.
Lead the league in DRB% 4 times, and was second once. 5 top 5 finishes in TRB%, including 2 first-place finishes. 4 top 10 finishes in blocks per game, including 3 top 10 finishes. 5 top 10 finishes in DRTg, including 2 first-place finishes and one 2nd place finish.
Nice post game and bank shot, one of the best passing centers of all time, unselfish, extremely high motor. Walton was one of the most complete basketball players ever, and might have the highest peak of guys remaining here. He's like KG but more vertical in his defense than horizontal, and actually had team success.
Basketballefan wrote:KG's playoff numbers look like they do because he faced the cupcake frontline of the Sixers and Heat. He didn't face any real big men in that playoff run. You could argue KG had a better postseason i suppose but regular season no way, not even close. 2013 KG over Kobe is just laughable sorry. Kobe 27 6 6 57 TS% 23 PER, KG 15 7 54 TS% 19 PER, i think you overrate KG's defensive impact in 2013 he didn't make an all defensive team or the all star game. The Celtics' defense also slipped that year. Kobe had to deal with that disaster that was the lakers that season, all those injuries ,bad coaching etc. He was the reason the Lakers even made the playoffs and anyone who watched NBA that year knew this was true, and knew Kobe>KG that year. Saying KG>Kobe that year would be like saying Duncan was better than Melo this year, it's just dumb.
KG did have great defensive impact in 2013. The only reason the defense slipped is because of the minutes KG was off the court
on court: 99 defensive rating (better than the #1 rated Pacers) off court: 108 defensive rating (equivalent to 25th best defense)
That's massive impact
You can't credit Kobe for taking the 2013 Lakers to the playoffs with all the turmoil while not acknowledging that he was a big reason for all of it. Any time with an alleged top 5 player plus Dwight Howard should have no business finishing with 45 wins. A big reason why they underachieved is because Kobe took plays off on defense for the whole year. His defense was a disaster in 2013 which won't show up in the PER stats.
Why did the 2013 Celtics play better with KG than the 2013 Lakers played with Kobe if Kobe had the much better supporting cast?
Dwight Howard was not Dwight Howard that year and we all know it. Nash was totally washed up, Pau was hurt all year and outside of that their role players were trash. You must also consider the disparity in conferences, Celtics would've had no chance of playoffs in the West.
fpliii wrote:Just wondering, is it reasonable to start arguing for Baylor now or soon? From what I've read, he was held in a similarly high regard to Oscar at the time (when I get home, I'll upload some articles from the time about the two). He also seems like a guy who would definitely benefit from improved spacing (giving him room to work on the floor) and modern offensive schemes in general.
You know I've always thought of him as an ancestor of Melo and Golden Era 80s SFs, but his on-ball playmaking seems so much better than any of those guys. Even better than 2014 Durant. I certainly wouldn't put him with LeBron, but he was extremely creative. I've also always believed him to be one of the greatest athletes I've ever seen.
Game 7 against the Lakers, with 1/8th of his kneecap removed, he pulled off a move only Michael Jordan and maybe Dr. J would attempt. 20 feet out, he jumped, palming the ball in one hand, pulled it back, and then shot with one hand while still hanging in midair. Score the bucket. I remember watching that game a few years ago and replaying that part because I didn't believe what I had seen.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
Going by the methodology you use, I suppose 2005 KG, one year removed from his peak, was a negative on defense?
Earlier in this project I did argue that 2005 KG was down year defensive and that Shaq was comparable defensively that season.
Kobe wasn't great on help defense in 2013 but he was no worse than a ton of other perimeter stars like Curry, Melo, or Harden and he was still a beast of a man defender, better than any of those. Those guys were all bona-fide top 10 players and top 5 candidates in 2013, it's only Kobe who people love to rail on.
Man defense doesn't matter if Kobe was a disaster on help defense (which he was). Overall his impact defensively was negative by a huge margin which is what matters. Is it a coincidence that the Lakers sucked defensively all year when Kobe was on the court, but were better when he was off?
It's not enough that he wasn't in the top 10 when most reasonable people rank him from 8-10... No, why stop there? It has to be 15 or lower to satisfy some people on this project.
Who are the "reasonable" people? Are they the pundits. I put literally no stock in the opinions of media pundits. The average RealGM poster is much smarter.
And 2013, KG didn't get a SINGLE DPOY vote. Not even fifth place. I don't know how you can say that he was at that level. If 120 or so voters all didn't consider him even worth a fifth-place vote, where is the question of this mysterious impact being so evident? He was a role player that year, nothing more.
The media voters don't mean much to me at all. How else do you explain Kobe having the same number of defensive all-NBA teams as KG? Their opinion does nothing for me on defensive voting because they have proven in the past that they know little.
The voters weren't able to see KG's impact. 18 of the voters voted for LeBron even though his impact was nowhere near KG's
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Injuries. When somewhat healthy, they did fine enough. They finished the season at a 25-11 clip.
Dwight Howard played 76 games. There is no excuse for their underachievement. You are the guy who said they were a 73 win team when healthy so 25-11 is a massive underachievement. KG's team had a lot of injuries too (Rondo). Even with injuries, Kobe's cast was better. Howard was a much better player than anyone Kobe had.
Dwight was like 60% and coming off back surgery. He actually came back too early that season. The rest of the cast from the starters to roleplayers were hurt left and right.
2013 Lakers: 1.49 SRS 2013 Celtics: -0.62 SRS ^ What are you even arguing?
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
Anyone ranking KG over Kobe in 2013 is reaching. Really, REALLY reaching beyond any kind of common sense. KG on the Lakers instead of Kobe would have meant they probably don't reach even 25 wins.
The number of games Kobe literally won for the Lakers by himself was insane.
30/6/7 in a 1 point win over Charlotte. 21/9/14 in an 8 point win over OKC. 34/5/5 in a 6 point win over the Knicks. 40/7/4 in a 4 point win over Portland. 38/12/7 in a 4 point win over the Mavs. 34/6/4 in a 1 point win over the Hawks. 42/7/12 in a 6 point win over the Pelicans. 41/6/12 in a 2 point win over the Raptors. 47/8/5/3/4 in a 7 point win over the Blazers. (The last 3 even PRIME KG would struggle to replicate) 34/5/5 in a 2 point win over the Warriors (The achilles game when the Lakers sealed qualification)
I doubt even prime KG could replicate this kind of production, let alone a broken down shell of him playing 29 mpg.
The mpg is another thing people seem to be ignoring. Kobe averaged 46 mpg in the last six games that were key to the Lakers making the Playoffs, averaging 29-8-8 in the process.
It really is insane that I have to break down this comparison. We're talking a guy ESPN voted 4th in their top 30 nba players at the time, while KG didn't even make the list. The comparison at that given point is like comparing Michael Jordan to Sam Bowie.
realbig3 and AUF have put some serious efforts into KG vs Kobe and that's cool. One thing I've seen AUF focus on that I don't agree with is the longevity issue. I'm going to put scaled PI RAPM numbers here, which is something similar to what realbig3 did to illustrate what I mean:
Okay so, as I've said before, my current spreadsheet only goes up to 2012. I'll readily concede that one might think I'm cutting things off here because the numbers say Garnett looks good there, but really it's just because of the issues of trusting the data I can procure.
My argument: That while Kobe's body has had better longevity than Garnett as evidenced by the minutes he plays, if we're talking about number of big time impact seasons Garnett has the advantage not only in surviving later into his career like this, but starting well before Kobe.
If we were to define a year with a rating north of +6 as a superstar year, Garnett hits that 12 times in 14 years and barely misses it the other two. Kobe only hits it 5 times. Between that and the peak edge, it's not remotely close.
Now, let's note trends while avoiding judgment here:
By this data, Kobe looks like a top tier superstar only once he gets his alpha groove going in '05-06, and he keeps that up through '09-10 when he wins his last championship. What's going on in the time before that and after that?
Well, in '98 was a sophomore and a back up. In a normal comparison that wouldn't be held against Kobe in any way because it's just clear that you don't expect such a player to be a superstar.
In '99 he's a starter, and you can argued that the prior causes him to be underrated, but at the same time, no one saw him as anything like a superstar at this point.
Once we get to '00 though, and going through '04, we've got a serious discrepancy. In that era Kobe was largely seen as an absolute superstar. RAPM says otherwise. Without judging what that says about Kobe's career, what in the data caused that? Welp, those were years he played with Shaq. While we've seen that you can absolutely have superstar RAPM numbers while playing with Shaq (see Dwyane Wade), it's hard to fathom it's a coincidence that Kobe's RAPM jumps up to superstar range only after Shaq leaves. Simply put, this means that when you control for Shaq's presence out there, there isn't much correlation between Kobe's presence and team success.
Putting the judgment back in, because c'mon that's what we're doing here: It seems to me that the explanation to that is most likely that Kobe was never really playing consistently in a manner that truly took advantage of Shaq's presence. The fact that he shot so much with Shaq out there, and the fact that his efficiency wasn't really helped by having such a massive space creator out there, tells it pretty well.
Note: You'll see 2001 is missing. Another quirk of the data. Unfortunate, because I wonder if we'd see something different in 2001. I think we might.
What about the tail end? Well, it's like I say. For some types of players, fading a little individually can have a huge effect on their team impact. It's most true of volume scoring bigs, but it's true of volume scorers in general. There's that, and then there's also a matter of a quirk of the game of basketball: If your team is consistently doing well when you're out there with 90% focus, is there really a reason to give more? I believe Kobe's impact suffers in later years in part because he coasts when he can, and the team is just so strong without him that he can only impact the results a lot by going all out.
Alright now on the other side we've got Garnett, and there that's just not that much to tell. He's basically just always looking like a superstar, from a very early age to a very late age. One can point out he played in more limited minutes in later year, and maybe someone will post a cume impact thing with that in mind (function of RAPM and minutes), but Garnett is just an impact machine. Doesn't matter if his teammates were weak or strong, whether he was running a unipolar offense or a defensive specialist. He's just always lifting his team.
It's this type of stuff when I look at it that makes it so clear cut to me who to rank higher. Again, Kobe doesn't come off looking like less than an all-timer to me here. There are "flaws" shown here with him, but so do most players. Garnett happens to be one you basically don't see such flaws unless you jump in with extremely high standards
.
A few questions Doc.
1) Why does KG's gaudy RAPM not translate into team success, or acknowledgement from his peers?
By your +6 dividing line....98 & 99 KG are not just superstars, but having ATG great level seasons. Yet...Minny logs a 0.17 SRS(even though Starbury is there) in 1998, and -0.17 in 1999. In neither season is KG viewed as having MVP impact, or anything beyond All-NBA 3rd in 99.
98-99 Garnett: 19.3 ppg, 4.3 apg, 9.9 rpg on 51.3% TS ^ Is that superstar level play? According to RAPM.....this span is better than any 2 year span for Kobe.
2) 2011 KG is apparently better than any version of Kobe.
11 Garnett: 14.9 ppg, 2.4 apg, 8.9 rpg on 58% TS
3) 2007 KG is rated much higher than 2007 Kobe...yet Kobe took an injured LA squad to the playoffs in the same conference where KG's team won 32 games. LA still ranked #7 ORtg even when they had crappy support, yet Minny was a dismal #21 DRtg.
4) Kobe's offensive impact has been consistently greater than KG's defense throughout the years. I don't see how RAPM numbers negate the 5 extra years of All-NBA level play from Kobe. KG was not Top 10 past age 31, or before he was around 22.
1) Why doesn't KG's impact translate to team success? "Impact" IS team success, or rather impact is your ability to add to your team's success. The end. I know you're not convinced of the connection between RAPM and impact, and that's your right, but nothing changes the fact that if you have teammates who aren't doing well without you, that's going to make it harder to win championships.
Re: +6 dividing line. I actually chose the line specifically so Kobe's '05-06 year would qualify. So yeah, it's totally arbitrary but certainly not designed to help KG:
A 5+ cutoff would give Garnett a 14 to 6 advantage. A 6+ cutoff gave Garnett a 12 to 5 advantage. A 7+ cutoff would give Garnett a 10 to 4 advantage.
It's all telling about the same story.
You ask about '98 & '99, listing Garnett and asking how that could possibly match the impact of peak Kobe. In all honesty I've never tried to make that particular comparison before, but just for perspective here, if we compare Offensive RAPM of Garnett in those years to Kobe's peak two year run in Offensive RAPM it looks like this:
It's no contest. You're listing stats that are predominantly offensive and asking: How can that beat Kobe? They don't. Peak Kobe is a far more impactful offensive player. There's more to the game than that though.
Of course I know that you believe Kobe was an impactful defender, so that's not going to convince you, so it leaves us at an impasse I think. I'll acknowledge as you pointed out that a player can be paired disproportionately with offensive or defensive oriented lineups, and that could make Kobe look weaker by RAPM on defense...but only by making his offense look stronger than it is.
2) "'11 KG better than all versions of Kobe". Well there are certainly caveats here:
-'11 KG played in limited minutes. I'd imagine that if you made a total impact function using RAPM and minutes played it's tough for older KG to beat peak Kobe. -PI RAPM allows one year to bleed into the other, so it's not a great judge of absolute peak, and it's not a great measure for a player who didn't sustain his prime well. That undoubtedly underrates Kobe in '06, so maybe if it hadn't Kobe's peak RAPM would beat '11 KG. -As has been said, folks like me will use words like "impact", "lift", or "value" as a way of describing what RAPM is, but actual goodness is something tougher. -Exactly how big of an edge you need to say one player is confidently rated higher than the other in a given study is pretty debatable. I feel much more confidence when I see a slew of unrelated studies say the same thing.
All that said, your argument here seems to be to try to use how definitive the results are supporting KG as a reason to disregard the stat, and to me that's just the wrong way of doing things. You make a judgment of how much confidence you have in a stat based on thinking about what it means and seeing data in general. If the data in general doesn't match at all what you think you know you're going to be skeptical of it I understand, but that's really not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a comparison between two guys who both won an MVP and who have vastly different styles.
Put another way, there's a kind of implicit challenge to a statement like you made along the lines of: "Are you seriously telling me that I/we watched basketball constantly for all these years and we saw everything that wrong? That we just missed how much better KG is than Kobe?"
To which I'd say: Unless when you watched them play you had the though "Wow, KG's teams really die whenever he leaves the court in a way Kobe's just don't", you clearly did miss that aspect of things. I'll emphasize the "Wow" here. It's obviously a pretty large gap. It sure surprises me, and if people are honest, I think it surprises them. Unless you went "Wow" when you watched, you missed it, like most of us.
3) "but Kobe's team was better". Yeah, you keep saying this, and the rebuttal is always the same. The basic argument for KG says right from the start that he had a weak supporting cast. That explains every possible variation of "so why didn't the team do better".
This is not to say that for the audience here you can't bring up the general point and your disagreement with it, say "I just don't buy that his supporting cast was that bad", but no new single event is going to shift anyone's stance on the argument.
2nd one: RAPM doesn't negate 5 extra years of All-NBA. Well, sure it does, or it least it certainly can. All-NBA is just people's opinion. I think they were sometimes wrong. The end. Not saying you have to believe that, but the appeal to authority here goes nowhere.
And of course there's the matter of: "How dare you think you know better than All-NBA voters?". Pretty simple. If I'm in a room with them discussing RAPM, data analysis, epistemology, or any other thing relating to be a scientist/engineer figuring things out, you think they are explaining things to me or the other way around? They may or may not be interested in what I'm saying, but no, they aren't likely to be even thinking that they know these things better than me, and they know full well at this point that almost all NBA teams are using these tools.
I don't want to be all Dave Berri or Wayne Winston here. I don't believe that you can look at a single stat and know everything you need to know. I love learning from the people who have lived and breathed basketball from the trenches for a career. But there are some things that human beings bias if they don't use the right tools, and we have a lot more "right tools" now than we used to...and most mainstream folks don't really know how to use them. Until that really changes, which may very well be never, there are pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that they are likely to mislay that nerds can help them with.
3rd: KG was only Top 10 from 22 to 31. You are entitled to your opinion. I would just hope that it's at least interesting to you that KG"s +/- numbers don't see any kind of massive falloff when you go outside that range either on the early side or the late side.
Here is a comparison on defense for 2013 Kobe. The list is how Kobe did with the same 4 man lineups that the players listed below did. For example, this counts all the 4 man lineups that Kobe played in then compared them to the same 4 man lineup but the only difference was Steve Nash for example.
Player Defense Poss Pau Gasol -15 607 Antawn Jamison -2 951 Jodie Meeks -6 1639 Steve Nash -15 689 Metta World Peace -14 1231 Earl Clark -2 770 Dwight Howard -20 661 Steve Blake -9 993 Chris Duhon 0 416 Darius Morris 5 638
As you can see, defensively the only ones Kobe did better than were Morris and Duhon. Even when Kobe played with the same lineups as Nash, the defense was 15 points per 100 possessions worse with Kobe than Nash. With Howard it was 20 points per 100 worse. With MWP it was 14 points per 100 worse.
Everyone was talking about how bad Kobe's defense was.
Zach Lowe pointed out a lot of Kobe plays where he was imitating Harden on defense. Its great that he put 27 PPG on good efficiency, but his defense took away a lot of his offensive value
I respect his game a lot, and don't think it's weird to mention him here - obviously I did - but I'm noting people aren't really talking about West on their short list. I'm guessing what that means is that people are putting Oscar & West in the same "bin", rating Oscar ahead, and thus not seeing much need to consider West until Oscar is in.
If this is the case for you I'd urge to reconsider because Oscar vs West is a very good debate, and I'll just be brief here regarding Oscar:
-Didn't Cincy's weak records make you question Oscar's impact? -If so, what assuaged your fears? -If it was in any way shaped by the WOWY numbers that seem to "match" Oscar's box score in being superstar-like, consider that the most complete data we have on that front (ElGee's numbers) make West look even better than Oscar. -All while West played on a contender and had to sacrifice primacy for much of his career to an inferior players with a lot of redundancy.
As an Oscar advocate
Cincinatti's weak record hasn't really made me question Oscar impact or at least it hasn't led me to change it. Firstly to acknowledge my biases I'm more familiar with boxscore metrics and so use them more. In general I've seen that in seasons close to their stats apex, my top 3 (Jordan, Jabbar, Wilt) had losing seasons (and others have had great individual seasons with teams around that level; McGrady '03, Wade '09, M Malone, Garnett etc).
Insofar as the weak record caused a concern my position/opinion has always been that the Royals were a cheap, poorly run franchise.
- The WoWY numbers aren't a big factor. They help to confirm or make you take a second look. But the little bit that I did and what I've seen from Elgee(so far as I'm comprehending it, and trusting it's accuracy) Robertson's impact looks huge from rookie to '68 (assuming, given his boxscore similarity his impact was around the weighted average of his impacts during that time. I'd suggest that meant he built a sizable lead in value added over his first three (perhaps even four, given West's injury in '64 and slightly smaller WoWY impact). But maybe I'm not great at interpreting this stuff and am looking for pro-Robertson stuff.
- Was Baylor a redundancy or was someone who freed up West for easier shots? And was West ready for prime-time right away (i.e. isn't their a reason, a valid one for the first 3 seasons, why West was the 2nd banana)? Was West getting any less shots than Robertson? And weren't West's continued absences (a) somewhat artificially inflating Baylor's usage and (b) forcing LA to retain Baylor as insurance against such injuries.
I'm not absolutely confident to the answer to all these questions. But my interpretations tend towards a sympathy towards Robertson.
And then too there's the fact that Oscar played those extra minutes, which too me, are valuable.
A final addition would be that every critical ranking until Bill Simmons' called Robertson better (well except the Thompson one noted below, it was a bizzare numbers including accolades based affair with Heinsohn at 16.5, Mel Daniels at 26.5, McGinnis at 37, I basically tend to write that list off) . Robertson was always listed as better, occasionally first and has an average ranking that had him at the bottom end of the Jordan, Wilt, Russell, Magic, Kareem, Bird tier (newer players excluded because you don't know when to start counting their votes). Then came Shaq (if you exclude an outlier ranking 38th all-time in 1996) and next but a clear distance behind, comes West. And from the bits I've seen around the time it's always been Robertson, West sometimes mentioned as the minority choice. I don't think critics get it right all the time. But for all of them to have got it wrong, and boxscores to have done so too (career metrics are close, despite Oscar's role change and with Oscar playing more minutes and Oscar peaking higher) I'd need something compelling. Maybe I haven't looked closely enough (e.g. at ElGee's stuff) but I haven't seen it yet.
I don't think it's crazy to choose West. He's got arguments for him (playoffs, defense - which is hard to gauge but certainly some very strong reviews, maybe WoWY). But I'd lean Oscar.
Maybe I'm just an Oscar fan whose stuck in a long held perception of Oscar's superiority. But there are my reasons.
Here's what I'd written for Oscar earlier, WoWY stuff takes the lead because that seemed to be a big part of the discussion at the time so I'd looked at Robertson's largest (prime) absence.
Owly wrote:Though open to persuasion, my vote at this time goes to Oscar Robertson
I'll start with my case earlier, though now, this isn't so much for him to be in the argument as it is, "he's my choice right now".
Owly wrote:Just because he hasn't got any traction so far, some of the arguments for Oscar Robertson.
With without in ’68 (chosen because it’s his largest absence, I haven’t done this with other years) is pretty huge. Obviously preface this with: (a) With without is noisy, it is measuring things that aren’t what you’re trying to measure (quality of backup, coaching adjustments, schedule etc). (b) It’s a small sample Over the year Cincinnati were -69 (82 games), with Robertson they were +118 (65 games, +1.815385 per game). That means without him they were -187 without him (17 games, -11 per game). That suggests a value of roughly 13 points (in that particular context, with all the caveats above) over his reserve (Guy Rodgers).
And with regard to the numbers it’s not the triple double average across his first six years. And obviously his rebounding prowess is overstated by pace, more misses back then and high minutes. But you can go too far denigrating his rebounding, I’ve seen it noted that he was 7th on his team in rebounding percentage in his largest boxscore rebounding year (’62 12.5 rpg), but that needs placing in context, firstly they rebounded by committee and there are a bunch of players grouped together, and then amongst actual rotation players Robertson is 4th behind the center, backup center and power forward. And it wasn’t like this was a team on which it was easy to grab rebounds, Wayne Embry who on a weaker team had competed with Chamberlain and Russell in rebound rate. The Royals rebound total is slightly below the average but this is misleading because they took less than the average amount of fgas, made the highest percentage of them and given opponents ppg presumably allowed a high fg% so I don’t think there were a lot easy rebounds available. Then too consider his burden amongst guys with a playmaking responsibility, you have Wilt as a better rebounder in that era, and one year of Gola (a role player) then it’s Robertson for the first half of the http://bkref.com/tiny/kVq7w and that’s per minute.
His assist numbers aren’t inflated given the slightly lower fg% and in particular the much tighter/meaner scorekeeping on assists which pretty much counteracts the increased pace. And because composite boxscore metrics are based on the modern era assumptions/estimations of the value of an assist Robertson is somewhat cheated here. And here too note the margin of superiority over the next best guard. Guy Rodgers had a couple of seasons where he snatched the assists crown, and another year with 10.7, but then the rest of his career he couldn’t get over 9 a game. From 60-61 to 68-69 Robertson averaged 10.5 per game, Rodgers is closest over that span (and it nicely matches his career) with 8.3 (now Rodgers does have a per minute edge, but played on some very fast and some gimmicky teams, and the reason he wasn’t on court as much as Robertson is he was so far off at everything else, plus Robertson had to call his own number more often) http://bkref.com/tiny/WLTix . It’s notable how far Robertson and Rodgers are ahead of the rest of the pack in assist% (for the years we have it, the later half of the 60s, and Robertson racked up more of his assists in the first half of the decade, whilst Rodgers did better in the latter half than he had earlier).
Put off by the lack of team success? Look at what the management did with talent around him. Jerry Lucas and Larry Siegfried lost to ABL, with Siegfried somehow lost to Boston when the ABL folded; Mel Daniels to ABA; Bob Boozer traded for nothing of value; Bob Love exposed to expansion; Freddie Lewis exposed to expansion; Louie Dampier went to ABA; draft picks either wasted or never given minutes, not developed and/or given away for nothing or simply traded for less than equal value (for those who weren’t worthless Flynn Robinson, Wayne Embry, Happy Hairston and Jim Fox). Cincinnati were cheap and poorly managed. Of course the ABA guys wouldn’t have been in the 60s NBA as they were in the 60s ABA. But they could play, and be assets.
The icing on the cake would be the accolades and critics rankings (First Team All-NBA, called the best player by Koppett, consistently top 10 in all published rankings including two first place rankings, plus being voted player of the century by the NABC). Actually one ranking had him outside the top 10. Keith Thompson’s Heroes of the Hardcourt. It had him 19th. Behind Heinsohn. So all published, non-insane rankings.
I understand if this is too much advocacy for some peoples taste and welcome reactions against Robertson being in the discussion at this point. Just that for me he's at least worthy of being in the discussion here, so I pulled together the main cases for him.
My reasons for him over Bird. Longevity - prime wise: (higher mpg; better in terms of boxscore off the bat, though team level impact would seem to favour Bird; but particularly because he didn't suffer a major injury so early), and then in his post prime, Oscar found a very nice niche and helped a team be incredible, whilst Bird struggled somewhat, both in terms of clear boxscore diminuation, but also in finding a role, plus his D after the injury, from what I've heard, kept getting worse (iirc McHale and an annoymous teammate, supposedly Jim Paxson, felt or said at times Bird was taking too many shots).
My reasons for him over Olajuwon. Well it's doubts about Olajuwon's O. Others have noted some problems with his With/Without numbers in that area, and his his TS% was closer to average than great, despite his fabled post moves. Plus whilst he could make a lightning quick move upon recieving the ball, I get the sense that he held on to the ball a little too much (may be too influenced by Simmons saying he did so).
Iirc someone said something about not being convinced about him being better than West, but I can't find the quote so won't address it fully unless it comes up again here. But I think his D might be underrated and his combination of offensive efficiency at individual and team level whilst carry many large burdens (shot creation, playmaking-passing, very large rebounding responsibility for a guard) really resonates with me (also West got injured a lot). I'm not fully convinced Magic (generally, and here, considered his superior) was better tbh.
I also like how Oscar did in all-star games back when the games were competitive both in terms of accolades and team record (including victories over teams with Chamberlain and Russell, 3x MVP, plus once perhaps assisting in Adrian Smith winning it, cf Tall Tales p199). It suggests to me, albeit on very limited evidence that he could perhaps have had even more impact with good teammates (and at least reassures me this wasn't just numbers on a bad team, though tbh once efficiency is factored in, there's limits to how much being on a bad team helps your stat line).
Admittedly I'm not super systematic with this and the "reasons" (for Robertson over players x and y) are more rationalizations (I don't get my order by explicitly comparing each candidate at each spot (the sheer number of comparisons would be daunting, I just do my ad hoc "who's better" calculations. Not entirely happy with by process and internal consistency but would have to dedicate more time than I have- and even then not all source material is available the same for all eras. Anyway I put the "reasons"/reasoning in as I think Elgee kinda wanted some, probably rightly so).
Going by the methodology you use, I suppose 2005 KG, one year removed from his peak, was a negative on defense?
Earlier in this project I did argue that 2005 KG was down year defensive and that Shaq was comparable defensively that season.
Kobe wasn't great on help defense in 2013 but he was no worse than a ton of other perimeter stars like Curry, Melo, or Harden and he was still a beast of a man defender, better than any of those. Those guys were all bona-fide top 10 players and top 5 candidates in 2013, it's only Kobe who people love to rail on.
Man defense doesn't matter if Kobe was a disaster on help defense (which he was). Overall his impact defensively was negative by a huge margin which is what matters. Is it a coincidence that the Lakers sucked defensively all year when Kobe was on the court, but were better when he was off?
It's not enough that he wasn't in the top 10 when most reasonable people rank him from 8-10... No, why stop there? It has to be 15 or lower to satisfy some people on this project.
Who are the "reasonable" people? Are they the pundits. I put literally no stock in the opinions of media pundits. The average RealGM poster is much smarter.
And 2013, KG didn't get a SINGLE DPOY vote. Not even fifth place. I don't know how you can say that he was at that level. If 120 or so voters all didn't consider him even worth a fifth-place vote, where is the question of this mysterious impact being so evident? He was a role player that year, nothing more.
The media voters don't mean much to me at all. How else do you explain Kobe having the same number of defensive all-NBA teams as KG? Their opinion does nothing for me on defensive voting because they have proven in the past that they know little.
The voters weren't able to see KG's impact. 18 of the voters voted for LeBron even though his impact was nowhere near KG's
1. 2005 KG was 98% as good as 2004 KG at everything. Nothing suggests he was having a down year. I hate it when people look at a single miserable stat like On/Off or RAPM and let it contradict every logical thing that observation and common sense dictates.
2. Again, you're only going off On/Off. Provide evidence that Kobe was more of a negative on defense than Harden or Melo and I'll be willing to listen. At the rate this is going we might as well rename the project the top 100 players by RAPM/some form of plus-minus.
3. I mean anyone who actually forms their own opinions and doesn't blindly look at RAPM or on-off oranother advanced stat and use it as gospel.
4. So you're telling me each and every one of the 120 voters was blind? It's not like he got a low number of votes, he didn't get ANY votes. This would literally be the first time in history that someone supposedly deserved an award and NO ONE considered them. Not a few, not even one or two, but NO ONE. That smells like too big of a coincidence to me.
And if you think KG > LeBron defensively in 2013, I think there's no way we're going to agree, so we might as well end the conversation right now. LeBron was a deserved 2nd place, I actually had him no. 1 after the Playoffs defensively. KG hadn't had that kind of impact since 2008.
I am not going by RAPM or any +/- stats but KG has no argument over Kobe in 13 IMO. Yeah, Kobe was a sieve defensively but he carried that team offensively. Forget the 27/6/6 without Kobe they don't make the playoffs. Sure Kobe contributed to the mess that season was but Howard was not himself, Nash was done, Gasol was injured and not that good when he did play. It was Kobe basically putting the team on his back and carrying them to the playoffs before he tore his achilles.
Edit: Also KG was not a better defender than LeBron in 13. LeBron was the co-defensive anchor of that team along with Bosh. He started the season slow defensively but was great by the time the streak started and in the playoffs was without a doubt one of the best defenders. He was guarding West/Lance/PG (though Wade was mostly guarding PG) and then against the Spurs he did a great job on Parker.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
Notanoob wrote:I'd like to repeat a shot case for Bill Walton. I know that he only had 6 seasons when he played more than 50 games, but he is still one of the greatest centers ever.
MVP, Finals MVP, 6th Man of the Year, 2x Champion. Although guys usually get docked for playing in the watered down era when the league was split, unlike Dr. J, Walton earned his accolades after the merger.
Lead the league in rebounds and blocks per game in 77, a feat few have managed, since contesting shots usually takes you out of position to get a rebound.
Lead the league in DRB% 4 times, and was second once. 5 top 5 finishes in TRB%, including 2 first-place finishes. 4 top 10 finishes in blocks per game, including 3 top 10 finishes. 5 top 10 finishes in DRTg, including 2 first-place finishes and one 2nd place finish.
Nice post game and bank shot, one of the best passing centers of all time, unselfish, extremely high motor. Walton was one of the most complete basketball players ever, and might have the highest peak of guys remaining here. He's like KG but more vertical in his defense than horizontal, and actually had team success.
Unless you're voting for him now (which is unclear), I don't see why you'd bring him into the discussion when his career as a whole isn't on par with the others. Also, aside from a finals MVP, i'm not sure if you have the years mixed up or something, because Dr. J won an MVP in 81 and championship in 83, which is after the merger. He also made 7 all NBA teams (5 of which were 1st team) and finished top 5 in MVP voting 4 other times.
MVP Shares per near-prime Seasons 87-01 Mailman - 0.286 99-13 KG - 0.183
I don't really think it's much of a debate. Malone is a better scorer, but KG is the superior defender, rebounder and passer/playmaker. KG also had the more impressive peak.
While I don't disagree, it's worth noting imo that Malone has the edge in durability and consistency. Same number of seasons, but Malone has 99 more rs games to his credit (and 50 more playoff games, fwiw), and the '12 lock-out only accounts for 16 of those.
And where box-score metrics are concerned, he was more consistently among the elite or near-elite class. While KG had the higher peak, his career arc definitely has more of a distinct high-point ('04), with a noticably semi-steep slope off of either side (with one or two little sub-peaks jutting upward, like in '08). Whereas Malone's is closer to a plateau, or at least a much gentler slope on the front-side. Simplified snap-shot:
Seasons of 20+ PER: Karl--16 KG--14
Seasons of 22+ PER: Karl--13 KG--10
Seasons of 25+ PER: Karl---9 KG---5
Malone was often playing higher mpg, too.
How well this is reflected in RAPM data is a bit fudged, as there's limited available for Malone's career. His RAPM in '98 thru '00 look pretty good, though......"generally competitive" with the league's elite (especially in '98).
With the exception of '04, the vast majority of KG's hyper-elite RAPM seasons came in years where he was playing reduced minutes (<33 mpg every year since '07, and even <30 three times). Doctor MJ, probably the biggest proponent of RAPM data here, has made comment---months ago in a debate about John Stockton, and his near-stellar RAPM stats during the twilight of his career---about how impact stats often improve with reduced minutes. So presumably the same applies to KG. Malone's RAPM in the late 90's is comparable to KG's RAPM stats for all years he was playing big "star level" minutes (again, with the exception of '04, when KG was insanely good).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Notanoob wrote:I'd like to repeat a shot case for Bill Walton. I know that he only had 6 seasons when he played more than 50 games, but he is still one of the greatest centers ever.
MVP, Finals MVP, 6th Man of the Year, 2x Champion. Although guys usually get docked for playing in the watered down era when the league was split, unlike Dr. J, Walton earned his accolades after the merger.
Lead the league in rebounds and blocks per game in 77, a feat few have managed, since contesting shots usually takes you out of position to get a rebound.
Lead the league in DRB% 4 times, and was second once. 5 top 5 finishes in TRB%, including 2 first-place finishes. 4 top 10 finishes in blocks per game, including 3 top 10 finishes. 5 top 10 finishes in DRTg, including 2 first-place finishes and one 2nd place finish.
Nice post game and bank shot, one of the best passing centers of all time, unselfish, extremely high motor. Walton was one of the most complete basketball players ever, and might have the highest peak of guys remaining here. He's like KG but more vertical in his defense than horizontal, and actually had team success.
Unless you're voting for him now (which is unclear), I don't see why you'd bring him into the discussion when his career as a whole isn't on par with the others. Also, aside from a finals MVP, i'm not sure if you have the years mixed up or something, because Dr. J won an MVP in 81 and championship in 83, which is after the merger. He also made 7 all NBA teams (5 of which were 1st team) and finished top 5 in MVP voting 4 other times.
I did not put in a vote because I haven't decided. I personally am going by peak player here, so I feel that he's worthy of discussion, but I am sure that I am alone in this.
Dr.J's ABA accomplishments are ignored by some due to it being considered a weaker league. So that's 3 ABA MVPs, 4 1st-team All-ABA and one 2nd-Team All-ABA, some other awards and honors, plus those wicked stats that he put up. I personally don't ignore them, I was speaking more towards the perception that guys who played in the 70's (Kareem, Barry, A-Train, etc.) dominated more because the league was split into two and expansion watered down the teams. Since Walton's best years were after the merger, he should get no such criticism.
Notanoob wrote:I'd like to repeat a shot case for Bill Walton. I know that he only had 6 seasons when he played more than 50 games, but he is still one of the greatest centers ever.
MVP, Finals MVP, 6th Man of the Year, 2x Champion. Although guys usually get docked for playing in the watered down era when the league was split, unlike Dr. J, Walton earned his accolades after the merger.
Lead the league in rebounds and blocks per game in 77, a feat few have managed, since contesting shots usually takes you out of position to get a rebound.
Lead the league in DRB% 4 times, and was second once. 5 top 5 finishes in TRB%, including 2 first-place finishes. 4 top 10 finishes in blocks per game, including 3 top 10 finishes. 5 top 10 finishes in DRTg, including 2 first-place finishes and one 2nd place finish.
Nice post game and bank shot, one of the best passing centers of all time, unselfish, extremely high motor. Walton was one of the most complete basketball players ever, and might have the highest peak of guys remaining here. He's like KG but more vertical in his defense than horizontal, and actually had team success.
Unless you're voting for him now (which is unclear), I don't see why you'd bring him into the discussion when his career as a whole isn't on par with the others. Also, aside from a finals MVP, i'm not sure if you have the years mixed up or something, because Dr. J won an MVP in 81 and championship in 83, which is after the merger. He also made 7 all NBA teams (5 of which were 1st team) and finished top 5 in MVP voting 4 other times.
I did not put in a vote because I haven't decided. I personally am going by peak player here, so I feel that he's worthy of discussion, but I am sure that I am alone in this.
Dr.J's ABA accomplishments are ignored by some due to it being considered a weaker league. So that's 3 ABA MVPs, 4 1st-team All-ABA and one 2nd-Team All-ABA, some other awards and honors, plus those wicked stats that he put up. I personally don't ignore them, I was speaking more towards the perception that guys who played in the 70's (Kareem, Barry, A-Train, etc.) dominated more because the league was split into two and expansion watered down the teams. Since Walton's best years were after the merger, he should get no such criticism.
Everyone has their own criteria and how it's weighted, but I almost feel like going solely by peak could be its own project. Probably doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things, though.
Yes, many of Dr. J's accolades were achieved in the ABA, and I agree that they should be strongly considered in his overall body of work. You just seemed to be implying that Walton made his mark post merger as opposed to Dr. J, where he clearly was very successful post merger as well.
