Does Dirk with title surpass KG

[JNelson43]

Say once again that this is a very interesting discussion. Right now I'd say that I'm siding with Richboy just a bit. Garnett is obviously a great defender, obviously. But if you want to put a guy on a pedestal as if other guys aren't even comparable, I want to see tangible team results, not just +/-. If you're talking Dwight Howard, nobody is going to argue that he has great defensive help, but you still get the advanced stats, regular stats, and tangible team results. Nowitzki's teams had tangible results.

But I'm sure I'm not as knowledgeable as some here when it comes to advanced stats, so I'm not going to argue too much. It just seems as if KG is the guy who was great, but didn't get the same results of a Duncan, Shaq, and other dominant big men.

As far as the larger debate, again with perception... if it does come down to Heat vs. Mavs for a second time, so much of Dirk's legacy will be riding on it, rightly or wrongly.

[NO-KG-AI]

Say once again that this is a very interesting discussion. Right now I'd say that I'm siding with Richboy just a bit. Garnett is obviously a great defender, obviously. But if you want to put a guy on a pedestal as if other guys aren't even comparable, I want to see tangible team results, not just +/-. If you're talking Dwight Howard, nobody is going to argue that he has great defensive help, but you still get the advanced stats, regular stats, and tangible team results. Nowitzki's teams had tangible results.

But I'm sure I'm not as knowledgeable as some here when it comes to advanced stats, so I'm not going to argue too much. It just seems as if KG is the guy who was great, but didn't get the same results of a Duncan, Shaq, and other dominant big men.

As far as the larger debate, again with perception... if it does come down to Heat vs. Mavs for a second time, so much of Dirk's legacy will be riding on it, rightly or wrongly.

Are you Richboy? The last time someone agreed with him, he was busted for having a dual account he used to agree with himself.

[drza]

I have no doubts that Boston KG is an elite defender. I just want to know why his teams were mediocre on defense during his tenure in Minnesota despite his all-world defense.

I just made a long post to try to address this point, but I recognize that long posts aren't always read in threads so let me attempt a shorter "proof" as well (that, of course, would be strongly supplemented by what I wrote in the longer post). Let's combine what you wrote earlier with what Dr. MJ just referenced, and flesh it out.

Wolves' Team DRTG and rank:

1994-95 (last year before KG): DRTG 112.4, 26th out of 27 NBA teams
1995 - 96 (KG playing partial minutes): DRTG 109.8, 20th out of 29 teams
1996 - 2007 (KG starting): DRTG avg 104.6, 14.6th out of 30 teams
2007-08 (first year post KG): DRTG 111.2, 27th out of 30 NBA teams

So, immediately before KG the Wolves were arguably the worst defense in the NBA. With KG they were an average defense. Then, when KG was gone again, the Wolves again immediately became arguably the worse defense in the NBA. Just based on that, one could make a legit argument that Garnett was the difference between the worst defense in the league and a respectable one.

Then, you add the fact that the advanced defensive stats and defensive accolades from his tenure in Minnesota argued strongly that Garnett was quite possibly the best individual defender in the league and that yes, his defensive support was that bad.

Then, you add that when put KG with a reasonable defensive cast past his prime he immediately led the team to a historic defense.

And finally, in his post-prime years, Garnett has still consistently measured out as the most irreplaceable player on the best defense in the league. And, oh yeah, that his individual defensive marks look similar but not-quite-as-good as what he was able to do in his prime in Minnesota.

To me, this is open and shut. Taking a worst-in-league cast to reasonable is a huge individual defensive impact. And KG re-proved himself past his prime by taking a solid cast to historic. I'm not sure what else is left for him to prove, defensively. Every piece of evidence, when taken in context, supports what the multi-year APM marks tell us about Garnett...his impact at that end of the court was ridiculous.

[colts18]

I'll take a crack at this one. First, though, we must note that we only have the Defensive APM stats starting from 2003-04 through 2011 (8 year sample). I strongly and firmly believe that KG was doing excellent defensive work before that, but for the sake of argument clarity we should probably stick with the time period we have the data for. So, completing your chart for the years under consideration, these are the results from Garnett's teams:

04: 6th D; 5th O
05: 15th D; 6th O
06: 10th D; 28th O
07: 21st D; 25th O
08: 1st D, 10th O
09: 2nd D, 6th O
10: 5th D, 15th O
11: "2nd" D, 18th O

More below.

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

2005 Wolves:
Garnett, Wally, Sprewell, Hudson, Griffin

This season was a big step downward as far as reasonable individual defense. Sprewell was in his last season before retirement, visibly on fumes. Wally, always a bad defender, was coming off of a series of injuries that robbed his already poor lateral quickness and made him unable to even offer token resistance on defense. Even Eddie Griffin, who got minutes at center and was known for being a shot-blocker, was not as good as Madsen or Johnson were at actually staying in between his man and the rim on the post. He could weak-side swat shots, but he couldn't defend the point of attack at center. And then there's Troy Hudson, who was playing on a glass ankle, and who received one of my favorite public dressing downs ever from Dan Rosenbaum:

"Troy Hudson probably gets the award for the being the worst defender in the league. He is dead last among point guards in both the statistical and adjusted plus/minus ratings and his adjusted plus/minus ratings are consistently horrible. He is playing a game on the defensive end that is not remotely like anyone else’s in the league."

Now again, my stance is that Garnett was the best help-and-recover defender in the NBA, and he was at his peak. But in this situation he was surrounded by defenders that couldn't even offer marginal resistance to the opponent, and often the opponent didn't require picks to get open. Garnett became the boy trying to stop the dam with his fingers...too many holes to plug. He did great work even getting them to league average.

2006 Wolves:
KG; Wally/Ricky Davis; Hassell; Jaric; Eddie Griffin/Mark Blount; new coach Dwane Casey

The '06 Wolves had a lot of stuff going on. They were breaking in a first year coach in Casey, who had a defensive pedigree and installed a reasonable defensive system but was HORRID as an offensive coach and didn't have any head coaching experience. Next, this was the first year after the infamous Cassell/Jaric trade that actually behooved the team to lose games over the last month or so of the season.

That said, the team finished with a solid 10th ranked defense. The support was mildly worse than the below-average '04 squad, but better than the frankly bad '05 support. Jaric wasn't good for much, but like Hassell he could at least make his opponent work for a second (or, in the case of quicker PGs that torched him) could use his length to try to funnel them to Garnett. After the big midseason trade Davis and Blount were pretty awful, but again, KG was able to take a pack of misfits to a top-10 defense.

2007 Wolves
I have written about this group several times, including making a legitimate case that they are the worst supporting cast in league history ( viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1075089 ). But here is what I wrote about them specifically on defense, in a different thread:

"Mark Blount, Ricky Davis and Mike James were all really, really bad defensive players in Minnesota. Blount was an extremely soft defensive big man, unwilling or unable to deny easy post position nor stop his man once the ball was received. Neither Davis nor James were able to prevent consistent dribble penetration from their position. Hassell had earned a reputation as a "defensive stopper" in 2004 when what he really was was an energy defender, someone that would work hard and annoy his opponent without having the actual athletic ability to truly shut someone down, but with a great interior defense behind him he was able to be more aggressive. But in 2005 Hassell lost his starting job to Wally Szczerbiak, and from then on seemed to form the opinion that he needed to spend more energy on his fledgling offense if he wanted to play. By 2007 he was no longer the energy defender that he once was, but he also wasn't as awful as the other 3 starters. Also, all four of those players were poor rebounders for their positions. The end result was that the Wolves' defense couldn't hope to stop anyone, unless Garnett was able to get there in time to help (possible with Hassell, less likely with the others who simply got beaten too quickly for help defense). Moreover, the Wolves couldn't hope to get a reasonable level of defensive rebounds unless Garnett was the one to do it. I've seen posters like ElGee point out that offense is more important than defense because one man can't defend five, but for those Wolves Garnett was asked to come awfully close. (This was a common theme in Minnesota during the 2000s, but 2007 may have been the most glaring year for it.)"

Here are the D ratings for Garnett on/off court from 05-07:
05: 107.8 on; 106.1 off: +1.7
06: 105.8 on; 106.8 off: -1.0
07: 107.3 on; 113 off: -5.7 (backup was Mark Madsen)
Average: 107.0 on; 108.6 off; -1.7

Average defensive ranking was 15.1 (worse than league average). I just don't see his impact defensively other than in 03 and 04.

Well guess what? He got that average defensive support in Boston, and led them to a historic defense. Which would seem to really vindicate the story that the accolades and stats were giving in Minnesota.

No way is Boston average defensively without Garnett. Rondo, Pierce, perkins, Allen and Posey were all real good defenders. Big Baby, Allen were average to above average defenders.

[NO-KG-AI]

adjusted?

[colts18]

I have no doubts that Boston KG is an elite defender. I just want to know why his teams were mediocre on defense during his tenure in Minnesota despite his all-world defense.

I just made a long post to try to address this point, but I recognize that long posts aren't always read in threads so let me attempt a shorter "proof" as well (that, of course, would be strongly supplemented by what I wrote in the longer post). Let's combine what you wrote earlier with what Dr. MJ just referenced, and flesh it out.

Wolves' Team DRTG and rank:

1994-95 (last year before KG): DRTG 112.4, 26th out of 27 NBA teams
1995 - 96 (KG playing partial minutes): DRTG 109.8, 20th out of 29 teams
1996 - 2007 (KG starting): DRTG avg 104.6, 14.6th out of 30 teams
2007-08 (first year post KG): DRTG 111.2, 27th out of 30 NBA teams

So, immediately before KG the Wolves were arguably the worst defense in the NBA. With KG they were an average defense. Then, when KG was gone again, the Wolves again immediately became arguably the worse defense in the NBA. Just based on that, one could make a legit argument that Garnett was the difference between the worst defense in the league and a respectable one.

This is completely misleading. You should compare 1995 to 1997 (first season where KG played extensive minutes) or 98 (his breakout year). In 95 they were 26th. In 97 they were 15th, then 23rd in 1998. Not a huge impact. But the comparison is misleading because those were completely different teams. Here are the big minute players in 95:
Rider
laettner
West
Gugliotta
Rooks
Garland
Marshall
Martin

Here it is in 1997:
Garnett
Gugliotta
Marbury
West
Mitchell
Garrett
Porter

That means the only 2 players (including scrubs) who played in both 95 and 97 are Gugliotta and Doug West.

The 2007 T-Wolves weren't even good defensive team with KG (21st in the league). They finished 27th the next year which would indicate some impact but those rosters were completely different due to the KG trade. The top 5 MPG players on the 07 Wolves didn't play in 08. The only guys who played 20+ MPG in both seasons is Jaric and Randy Foye. They both increased their minutes and certainly aren't good defensive players. The guys the T-Wolves brought back weren't good defenders either (Jefferson, Telfair, Green).

[colts18]

adjusted?

Not adjusted. Just the real +/-. I don't buy too much in the adjusted +/- because of the way NBA playing time is handed out. Stars play 40+ minutes per game usually with the same players. Then the bench players play there 8-15 minutes mostly together with maybe 1 or 2 starters. I don't see how Adjusted +/- can separate Kobe and Gasol not to mention Fisher and Artest who play a lot with Kobe.

[Doctor MJ]

No the bad assumption is thinking that shot blocking is the measure of impact for a defender.

You think Garnett's not a defensive anchor. Are you telling me this isn't because of his lack of shot blocking? Please elaborate.

Bogut then has a case to be a better shot blocker than Tim Duncan. Is there really a point. I'm going to say Duncan is still a better defender than Duncan. I've never had a Buck fan argue that Bogut was as good as Dwight defensively.

Then you haven't been paying attention. It's a minority opinion, but it exists.

Also you have to take things into account to the era he plays. Your pretty much dismissing an entire era. Ignoring the fact that maybe its not as easy to block shots today as it was in the past.

In 1990 the average NBA team took 550 3 point shots during the year. In 2010 the average team took nearly 1500 3 point shots during the year. Nearly 1 in 4 shots is a 3 point shot. Its not easy for big men to block 3 point shots. Back then teams on average took 400 more free throws. Tells us more inside play. Add in the fact that possessions are down from those days. Getting even 3 block shots per game now is really tough. You may never see 4 block shots per game again.

You make my point for me.

Shot blocking used to be more valuable than it is now. The assumption that the best defender must be a shot blocker first and foremost no longer holds.

That said, let's not pretend that Howard's blowing his contemporaries out of the way on this front. Besides the Boguts of the world, the Ben Wallaces and Marcus Cambys surpass Howard's peak on this front. And this season even Jevale McGee and Serge Ibaka blocked more per game than Howard despite the fact they play way less minutes.

Howard is a good but not mind-blowing shot blocker in an era where shot blocking matters less than ever. So what makes you so sure he's a superior anchor to Garnett other than just looking at team results?

I understand its insane. Problem is are you saying Garnett >>>>>>> all other big defenders. He played 40 minutes per game at his prime and the Twolves were middle of the league defensively. His +- suggest he was very valuable to the wolves. Maybe more valuable than any player in the league. It doesn't suggest that he is a better player than Tim Duncan. He probably blows prime Shaq away in plus minus. Yet who is taking KG over Shaq.

To be perfectly honest, back when Garnett was with the T-Wolves, I thought similarly to you. I figured that despite the fact that adjusted +/- removes the biases, you had to give a big bonus to a guy leading a great defense.

Then Garnett went to Boston, and led the single greatest turnaround in NBA history based around defense, and his defensive adjusted +/- basically stayed just as it had always been: An order of magnitude better than his contemporaries.

That he is able to put up such out lier numbers both on the bad T-Wolves and the great Celtics convinces me that the numbers are no illusion.

You put out there that his huge advantage in that state suggest how good he was. To me it suggest that the stat is bad. As great as KG was there no way I would say he had a huge defensive advantage over Duncan, Mourning,Wallace, Mutombo. Add in the fact that it also says some other ridiculous things. How far am I going to take this stat.

And how is the stat bad? Not asking this rhetorically at all. I'd love to hear what's wrong with the stat.

This is the problem that I have with people when I talk about this. In the end, they're against the stat because they're set in their opinions. You're entitled to your opinion, but recognize how weak an argument this is.

And when you talk about "says some other ridiculous things", I want to make clear here that you cannot look at all of +/- as one thing. I mean this at a very fundamental level. Every stat you use, you need to ask why you use it, and what you can expect from it. This means validity and reliability.



+/- is a stat with relatively low reliability because of the effect other players have on a player's score. However, weaknesses in reliability are corrected with better sample size. These studies I quote to you have massive sample size. So quoting some silly fact that occurs with small sample size is not something that makes for a reasonable argument here.

I've never watched a game where a commentator said Minnesota Timberwolves have given up 110 points but KG adjusted plus minus is off the charts. At the end of the night people want to see results.

Seriously, you're going to use argumentum ad populum against me in a debate involving concepts like these?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPGDfjPjdWg[/youtube]

You can't claim best defensive big in the game by far.

I can throw you a bone here though. While I can really can claim this, and back it up with a hell of a lot of data, I'm fine with others not going as far as me.

What I cannot abide though, it people actually trying to debate Dirk vs KG on defense. Flogging will continue while this persists.

[Doctor MJ]

adjusted?

Not adjusted. Just the real +/-. I don't buy too much in the adjusted +/- because of the way NBA playing time is handed out. Stars play 40+ minutes per game usually with the same players. Then the bench players play there 8-15 minutes mostly together with maybe 1 or 2 starters. I don't see how Adjusted +/- can separate Kobe and Gasol not to mention Fisher and Artest who play a lot with Kobe.

Huh. Well, I'll grant you that if you don't think there's enough mixing, that's a problem.

Seriously though, Gasol played 600 minutes this year without Kobe, and we're talking about studies that go across multiple years. Nobody's talking about drawing conclusions based on what happened in a handful of minutes.

[drza]

Well guess what? He got that average defensive support in Boston, and led them to a historic defense. Which would seem to really vindicate the story that the accolades and stats were giving in Minnesota.

No way is Boston average defensively without Garnett. Rondo, Pierce, perkins, Allen and Posey were all real good defenders. Big Baby, Allen were average to above average defenders.

But the thing is, this is testable. Completely outside of perception, we can look at exactly how the Celtics have played with and without Garnett, and because of injuries we have a huge sample size to work with for the Celtics both with and without KG. I spent some time looking through 82games.com's 5-man units and this is what it told me about how the Rondo/Allen/Pierce units have played with every combination of big man the Celtics have had:

Garnett and Perkins: 112.4 points/100 possessions, 97.3 points allowed/100 poss
Garnett w/o Perkins: 111.9 points/100 possessions, 99.3 points allowed/100 poss
Perkins w/o Garnett: 109.5 points/100 possessions, 112.7 points allowed/100 poss

Now, let me be clear. Since Garnett arrived in 2007, the Celtics' main starting group (Rondo, Ray Allen, Pierce, and Perkins) in a Tom Thibideaux defense have given up almost 113 points/100 possessions when any other player besides Garnett was the 5th player on the floor with them. Just for clarity, the worst defense in the NBA this year gave up 112.7 points/100 possessions.

What I want to know is, how is that possible if all 4 of them and the main sub off the bench are all at worst average defenders, with 3 of the starters qualifying as "real good"? And this isn't even a +/- stat...this is purely, the defense of the Celtics starters as a unit featuring 4 "good" defenders and an "average/above average" sub, playing in the system of one of the best defensive minds in basketball.

Something has to give. You can't just distrust every piece of evidence that shows KG's defensive impact. This one is basic, and extremely clear.

[NO-KG-AI]

Doc MJ is spot on, people are discounting any and every stat that doesn't fit their pre-conceived judgment, so why even look at any stat at all?

[joeyAdaMan]

Doc MJ is spot on, people are discounting any and every stat that doesn't fit their pre-conceived judgment, so why even look at any stat at all?

these people are insane that's why......all you have to do is watch KG play in a game maybe 2 games when he's healthy and you can see his value defensively......it's not that hard to see

[JNelson43]

Say once again that this is a very interesting discussion. Right now I'd say that I'm siding with Richboy just a bit. Garnett is obviously a great defender, obviously. But if you want to put a guy on a pedestal as if other guys aren't even comparable, I want to see tangible team results, not just +/-. If you're talking Dwight Howard, nobody is going to argue that he has great defensive help, but you still get the advanced stats, regular stats, and tangible team results. Nowitzki's teams had tangible results.

But I'm sure I'm not as knowledgeable as some here when it comes to advanced stats, so I'm not going to argue too much. It just seems as if KG is the guy who was great, but didn't get the same results of a Duncan, Shaq, and other dominant big men.

As far as the larger debate, again with perception... if it does come down to Heat vs. Mavs for a second time, so much of Dirk's legacy will be riding on it, rightly or wrongly.

Are you Richboy? The last time someone agreed with him, he was busted for having a dual account he used to agree with himself.

I'm only casually following the conversation and haven't really checked out the numbers myself, so I maintain the right to change my opinion if he's whipped too badly.

I wouldn't say I'm siding with him, except that his argument seems to be a pretty modest one. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to deny KG's greatness on defense or somehow claim that DIrk was better defensively, it's more just how much better he is than everybody else, and is it enough for him to be considered better than Dirk with his offensive edge (although I realize you can't completely separate offensive and defensive production either).

Think I'll wait before I make up my mind, I'm flip flopping a lot... the +/- over several years is hard to argue with.

[WhateverBro]

It's funny how Drzas' excellent posts goes unnoticed because no one has any statistics to claim otherwise.

I can't believe anyone can read the posts by Doctor MJ and Drza and not be convinced. As for this thread, it's pretty clear that Dirk won't surpass KG nomatter what he does. Defense is the difference, KG in his prime were both an elite offensive player and defensive player, Dirk however, is an elite offensive player while being avarage defensively.

[richboy]

I have no doubts that Boston KG is an elite defender. I just want to know why his teams were mediocre on defense during his tenure in Minnesota despite his all-world defense.

I just made a long post to try to address this point, but I recognize that long posts aren't always read in threads so let me attempt a shorter "proof" as well (that, of course, would be strongly supplemented by what I wrote in the longer post). Let's combine what you wrote earlier with what Dr. MJ just referenced, and flesh it out.

Wolves' Team DRTG and rank:

1994-95 (last year before KG): DRTG 112.4, 26th out of 27 NBA teams
1995 - 96 (KG playing partial minutes): DRTG 109.8, 20th out of 29 teams
1996 - 2007 (KG starting): DRTG avg 104.6, 14.6th out of 30 teams
2007-08 (first year post KG): DRTG 111.2, 27th out of 30 NBA teams

So, immediately before KG the Wolves were arguably the worst defense in the NBA. With KG they were an average defense. Then, when KG was gone again, the Wolves again immediately became arguably the worse defense in the NBA. Just based on that, one could make a legit argument that Garnett was the difference between the worst defense in the league and a respectable one.

Then, you add the fact that the advanced defensive stats and defensive accolades from his tenure in Minnesota argued strongly that Garnett was quite possibly the best individual defender in the league and that yes, his defensive support was that bad.

Then, you add that when put KG with a reasonable defensive cast past his prime he immediately led the team to a historic defense.

And finally, in his post-prime years, Garnett has still consistently measured out as the most irreplaceable player on the best defense in the league. And, oh yeah, that his individual defensive marks look similar but not-quite-as-good as what he was able to do in his prime in Minnesota.

To me, this is open and shut. Taking a worst-in-league cast to reasonable is a huge individual defensive impact. And KG re-proved himself past his prime by taking a solid cast to historic. I'm not sure what else is left for him to prove, defensively. Every piece of evidence, when taken in context, supports what the multi-year APM marks tell us about Garnett...his impact at that end of the court was ridiculous.

Here some issues I have.

Before KG left Minnesota was already falling. They were 21 in the league in defense. Forget the fact I can't imagine a team with Dwight Howard on it being at the botton of the league in defense. Fact is its very possible Minny was going to be a bad defense with or without KG. Also would point out that they replaced KG with a horrible defensive big in Al Jefferson.

My next issue is KG pulled Minny up to mediocre defense. That very well may be possible. I just don't see how that means KG has greater impact defensively than other dominate defensive big men. Most years of Hakeem's career Houston was an elite defense. Same with Dwight, Zo, Duncan.

No question KG has impact defensively. The question is the impact as great as adjusted plus minus suggest. People are saying Dwight Howard is no KG. KG has bigger impact than Tim Duncan. I'm just looking and wondering what is this based on. Looks like by some KG is playing with a group of HS kids in Minnesota. Because the reality is the only way you can suggest KG is comparable in defensive impact to those top bigs is say well Minnesota may have had the worst starting 5 of all-time.

Remember 00 he played with

Rasho Nesterovich
Anthony Peeler
Terrell Brandon
Sam Mitchell
Joe Smith

they were 12th in defense

the next year they added

Billups
Wally z
Laphonso Ellis

they were 16th in the league in defense and the next year with pretty much the same crew 15th in defense.

The next year they add Kendall Gill. They now have Peeler, Gill, Wally, Rasho, Hudson, Joe Smith in the rotation with KG. They are 16th in the league in defense.

The next year they jump up to 6. They add Cassell and Sprewell. I can't imagine that Sprewell and Cassell are that much better if better at all than the backcourt defensively they had in the past. They did add 2 centers in Michael Olowokandi and Erving Johnson. Two defensive big men that weren't good at much. They were good at protecting the basket. Wolves suddenly jump up to the 6th defense in the league.

I go back to what I said. KG doesn't protect the basket and that is why you have to have a big physical center next to him. There is a reality that many Duncan fans like to say. KG and Rasho made the Wolves into a mediocre defense. Duncan and Rasho together put together a defense with a 94 defensive rating. If I'm correct the best in league history. Much better than even what Boston did with KG. Yet somehow KG has all the impact.

[NO-KG-AI]

Still, in the face of all objective evidence, your argument is "they just can't be that bad" or with someone else "they just wouldn't be that bad".

[rrravenred]

Doc MJ is spot on, people are discounting any and every stat that doesn't fit their pre-conceived judgment, so why even look at any stat at all?

these people are insane that's why......all you have to do is watch KG play in a game maybe 2 games when he's healthy and you can see his value defensively......it's not that hard to see

Despite the fact I agree with your general point, I have to take issue with your post. Humans are AWFUL at pattern recognition, and "watching the game" is subject to all sorts of biases and outright corruptions.

"Just watch the games" is just as questionable as going purely by box scores. It's one perspective that may or may not be backed up by other perspectives and hard evidence. I'm one of those suckers that loves the lightpen breakdowns of a play with experienced commentators dissecting the Xs and Os with fearsome precision. However, they don't do it for every one of the 90-odd possessions in a playoff game, because it's incredibly time consuming and isn't standardised except for the "vibe" on an individual player and the whim of an individual commentator.

APM, PER, WP48, ORtg, DRtg, winshares are all an attempt to strip the human interpretative element and deliver something that can be analysed on a mass, wholesale level. Once that's done, of course, you have to put it through the idiot test (and be prepared to find yourself the idiot if you can't find an adequate counter-explanation) and circumstantial confounders before it's usable, but it's better than using your own imperfect eye, governed by your fallacy-ridden brain to provide a definitive assessment.

[rrravenred]

Bogut then has a case to be a better shot blocker than Tim Duncan. Is there really a point. I'm going to say Duncan is still a better defender than Duncan. I've never had a Buck fan argue that Bogut was as good as Dwight defensively.

Then you haven't been paying attention. It's a minority opinion, but it exists.

Sidebar, your honor?

Comparable or on a par with is usually the argument. Very few have dared make the definitive statement.

Dwight's athleticism means that he's a significantly better defensive rebounder and better "space eater" around the court, wheras Bogut is generally considered (in this view) a slightly smarter positional defender and shotblocker. The charges drawn for each player tends to support this view.

There are some interesting stats around on what happens to the ball AFTER it's been blocked, and Bogut tends to block "to advantage" wheras Howard's end up in the stands. Bogut's also half-a-point better per 100 possessions on the defensive side of the ball, FWIW, although the appalling state of Milwaukee's big-man stocks might have something to do with that.

[richboy]

It's funny how Drzas' excellent posts goes unnoticed because no one has any statistics to claim otherwise.

I can't believe anyone can read the posts by Doctor MJ and Drza and not be convinced. As for this thread, it's pretty clear that Dirk won't surpass KG nomatter what he does. Defense is the difference, KG in his prime were both an elite offensive player and defensive player, Dirk however, is an elite offensive player while being avarage defensively.

KG was not an elite offensive player. He was a good offensive player. Comparing KG to Dirk offensively is a joke. Laughable. Should get you banned. KG was a force fed midrange jump shooter. Had a decent post game but nothing amazing.

In KG career only 1 time did he score over 21 ppg per 36. His numbers get inflated by huge minute totals. Most of his career he is barely 20 points per 36. Dirk is playing less minutes and scoring more. He is well above 21 points per 36 almost every year of his career. Since the start of his career the only year he wasn't was the year Dallas decided to let Antoine Walker and Jamison chuck. People don't realize that Dirk only played 34 minutes during the year. If he had played Kevin Durant minutes he would have been battling for a scoring title.

Dirk >>> KG on offense. You want to say he made it up on defense that is fine. The reason why KG gets overrated on these boards is because somehow people think he is elite offensively. Somehow he is better than Dwight Howard on defense.

[Doctor MJ]

Then you haven't been paying attention. It's a minority opinion, but it exists.

Sidebar, your honor?

Comparable or on a par with is usually the argument. Very few have dared make the definitive statement.

Dwight's athleticism means that he's a significantly better defensive rebounder and better "space eater" around the court, wheras Bogut is generally considered (in this view) a slightly smarter positional defender and shotblocker. The charges drawn for each player tends to support this view.

There are some interesting stats around on what happens to the ball AFTER it's been blocked, and Bogut tends to block "to advantage" wheras Howard's end up in the stands. Bogut's also half-a-point better per 100 possessions on the defensive side of the ball, FWIW, although the appalling state of Milwaukee's big-man stocks might have something to do with that.

I can't disagree with any of the detail you add.