New Franchise: Kevin Garnett vs Moses Malone

[Grandpa Waiters]

KG would beat Moses in a battle on the boards? ROTFL.

So, why has Garnett the higher DRB% in his career and at peak level despite the fact that he played further away from the basket on the defensive end than Moses Malone? Quite curious, isn't it? But well ...

I love when people who probably never even watched Moses play in his prime pretend to know what kind of a player he was by watching a game on ESPN Classic or a few clips on YouTube. I also love when they throw some stat at you as if that proves their point. I love when they'll use a comparison stat from the '80's if it bolsters their argument but if the '80's stat is better they'll dismiss it by using pace or other excuses. Can't have it both ways. Having said that, Moses was a better scorer, rebounder and especially offensive rebounder. However, I don't expect some posters (the ones who never watched Moses play live) to understand. Whatever.

[mysticbb]

So, at the end your argumentation is based on logical fallacies. :)

[Grandpa Waiters]

So, at the end your argumentation is based on logical fallacies.

Nope. It's based on the fact that I've watched both players throughout their careers, not just basing my entire argument off of statistics. Give it time. One day soon you'll be defending Lebron or Kobe while someone who never watched either one of them play will try to prove the correctness of their opinion based off of stats.

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics." - Mark Twain

[nikomCH]

Watching players play live doesn't give you any authority to speak on what kind of a player they were, in fact it worsens your credibility as you are likely forming opinions based on selective memory.

And watching players play in general doesn't make your opinion any stronger than someone who uses stats as it is incredibly arrogant to assume you even know what you're talking about just because you watch the games. It's also ridiculous to assume people who use stats don't watch the games.

[Grandpa Waiters]

Watching players play live doesn't give you any authority to speak on what kind of a player they were, in fact it worsens your credibility as you are likely forming opinions based on selective memory.

And watching players play in general doesn't make your opinion any stronger than someone who uses stats as it is incredibly arrogant to assume you even know what you're talking about just because you watch the games. It's also ridiculous to assume people who use stats don't watch the games.

Watching players play live worsens my credibility to judge them? Wow, that's a new one. So you're telling me that a blind man reading stats out of a Braille basketball guide is as much an authority as someone who watches the games live? That's brilliant. Also, I don't assume people who use stats never watch basketball. I assume people who ONLY use stats to critique a player who peaked over thirty years ago probably didn't watch him play live and therefore are LESS an authority on the subject. I'm not being arrogant. Those who presume to know everything based off of stats are the ones who are being arrogant. Who are you gonna believe....the guy who's telling you what France is like based off of books and videos they've seen or the guy who read those same books and videos and actually lived there? I'm not saying it's absolute but it is more valid when you know the stats and witnessed it firsthand. That's common sense, not arrogance.

[Jonny Blaze]

So, at the end your argumentation is based on logical fallacies.

No. His argument is based on the fact that Moses Malone is clearly a better rebounder. The statistics back this up.

Rodman and Moses Malone are the two most dominant rebounders I have ever seen in my history(early 1980's) of watching the NBA

KG defenders are unbelievable.

Stats dont matter.

Eye ball test doesn't matter.

Team results dont matter

Playoffs dont matter.

But what does matter is some obscure advance statistic which paints my favorite player in the best light.

What matters is the ability to rack up stats in as many categories as possible.

Whats Next?

KG is better then Jordan? Kobe? Lebron? Shaq?

Thats how ridiculous the comparison is between Moses Malone and Garnett.

I actually head a poster say that Garnett had a higher peak then Malone......WTF?????

When did Kevin Garnett ever come close to averaging 31 and 14 in a season?

Has Kevin Garnett ever been an NBA Finals MVP?

Does Kevin Garnett have 3 NBA MVP's?

Did Kevin Garnett ever take two different teams to the NBA Finals?

[G35]

KG would beat Moses in a battle on the boards? ROTFL.

So, why has Garnett the higher DRB% in his career and at peak level despite the fact that he played further away from the basket on the defensive end than Moses Malone? Quite curious, isn't it? But well ...

I don't know if that number is always a good indicator because KG has his highest DRB% this year at 31.6%...are you saying this is KG's best year as a rebounder?

Also Moses has 8 years of a TRB% > than 20.0

KG has 2 years of a TRB% > than 20.0

So while KG does have a greater DRB% he would get killed by Moses on the offensive boards BY DESIGN. Especially considering how lightweight KG is, Moses probably would look forward to battling him. Let KG stay on the perimeter...Moses will dominate on the inside.....

[nikomCH]

Watching players play live doesn't give you any authority to speak on what kind of a player they were, in fact it worsens your credibility as you are likely forming opinions based on selective memory.

And watching players play in general doesn't make your opinion any stronger than someone who uses stats as it is incredibly arrogant to assume you even know what you're talking about just because you watch the games. It's also ridiculous to assume people who use stats don't watch the games.

Watching players live worsens my credibility to judge them? Wow, that's a new one. So you're telling me that a blind man reading stats out of a Braille basketball guide is as much an authority as someone who watches the games live? I don't assume people who use stats never watch basketball. I assume people who ONLY use stats to critique a player who peaked over thirty years ago probably didn't watch him play live and therefore are LESS an authority on the subject. I'm not being arrogant. Those who presume to know everything based off of stats are the ones who are being arrogant. Who are you gonna believe....the guy who's telling you what France is like based off of books and videos they've seen or the guy who read those same books and videos and actually lived there? I'm not saying it's absolute but it is more valid when you know the stats and witnessed it firsthand. That's common sense, not arrogance.

Moses Malone's prime occurred 30 years ago. I don't put much stock into your opinion of him based on what you saw of him at the time considering people have a tendency to remember what they want. And even great basketball minds are prone to bias and misreading what is actually happening on the court. Numbers are often necessary. And numbers go far beyond looking at PPG and RPG, forming definitive conclusions based on that, and writing off stats that argue against them. And the funniest part is mystic wrote up an entire paragraph explaining what his impressions of Malone were indicating that he has some knowledge only obtainable by watching him play but you ignored that.

[bbms]

Imo, if anything, Garnett is underrated, because he wasn't an excellent scorer. And probably could have been an excellent scorer if he had the kind of environment Duncan had. The only time Garnett had a close amount of ball movement, three point shot and pick and roll action in his prime to what Duncan and Dirk had throughout his carreer, was in '04, and we saw the outcome.

All those things could do wonders to his scoring and passing performances. I mean, he had the iso tools, he had the jumper, he had the athleticism and lenght, then, why? Why did the guy settled for the mid range jumper as the main weapon of his scoring game? Coach's orientation? Lack of floor spacing? Lack of BBIQ? Lack of PnR? All the answers before?

Don't get me wrong: I'd never contest Duncan's superiority over Garnett, that is almost a dogma in basketball culture, and it'd be a taboo saying otherwise.

[Grandpa Waiters]

Watching players play live doesn't give you any authority to speak on what kind of a player they were, in fact it worsens your credibility as you are likely forming opinions based on selective memory.

And watching players play in general doesn't make your opinion any stronger than someone who uses stats as it is incredibly arrogant to assume you even know what you're talking about just because you watch the games. It's also ridiculous to assume people who use stats don't watch the games.

Watching players live worsens my credibility to judge them? Wow, that's a new one. So you're telling me that a blind man reading stats out of a Braille basketball guide is as much an authority as someone who watches the games live? I don't assume people who use stats never watch basketball. I assume people who ONLY use stats to critique a player who peaked over thirty years ago probably didn't watch him play live and therefore are LESS an authority on the subject. I'm not being arrogant. Those who presume to know everything based off of stats are the ones who are being arrogant. Who are you gonna believe....the guy who's telling you what France is like based off of books and videos they've seen or the guy who read those same books and videos and actually lived there? I'm not saying it's absolute but it is more valid when you know the stats and witnessed it firsthand. That's common sense, not arrogance.

Moses Malone's prime occurred 30 years ago. I don't put much stock into your opinion of him based on what you saw of him at the time considering people have a tendency to remember what they want. And even great basketball minds are prone to bias and misreading what is actually happening on the court. Numbers are often necessary. And numbers go far beyond looking at PPG and RPG, forming definitive conclusions based on that, and writing off stats that argue against them. And the funniest part is mystic wrote up an entire paragraph explaining what his impressions of Malone were indicating that he has some knowledge only obtainable by watching him play but you ignored that.

I'm not really too concerned what your opinion is concerning MY memory. It's obvious by the way you're dismissing everything (except stats) that you're too young to have witnessed Moses in his prime if you were even alive at all. Stats can be manipulated forwards and backwards to put a particular subject in a positive OR negative light. Again, you're arguing that someone who's never watched the NBA but is armed with an official 2013-2014 NBA Guide is as much of an authority on Michael Jordan vs someone who witnessed his career in its entirety? That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard on this forum. Also, there's no need for you to be defensive. It's all relative. I'm older than some posters, some posters are older than me. I'm older than you and you're older than others. Your opinion is more qualified (not absolute) than others who've only been watching the game for three months. I would never presume to know more about D-Day than a vet who was actually there on the beach. I certainly wouldn't tell him his memories of that day cannot be trusted and that I know more because I'm armed with a book full of stats. That's essentially the argument you're making.

[Okada]

Just skimming these KG arguments is making my brain numb. It is amazing, absolutely amazing, how easily the KG defenders manage to sweep such trivial things as scoring, rebounding, playoff success, and MVPs under the rug, then replace them with random advanced statistics that don't seem to hardly matter, pretend they're just as important as everything Moses did well, and then spout off a list of Moses criticisms as though they somehow mean something. I'm sorry, but pointing out that KG was better in some random stat and then saying that Moses was a poor transition defender is not a real case. Moses was better and it's not even close. I still haven't seen a pro-KG argument that doesn't come off as a complete joke. Can't even take them seriously...

[Grandpa Waiters]

I would much rather have someone that is dominant in one or two areas that a player that is multi-facted but not dominant in any one area.

If that means, it gives a team a better chance to win, I concur. Just that Moses Malone didn't help his team more than Garnett did in terms of creating a better chance to win.

Personally, I would prefer if my CENTER would provide more basket protection than being able to run all over the court.

Well, then why do you choose Moses Malone?

I completely disagree with you that KG has a better skillset to establish a better offense.

Sure, better at moving without the ball, better at handling the ball, better at passing, better as a shooter, why better at seeing the open teammate. And if Garnett would battle against Malone on the board, he would even win that battle. Garnett is just overall better than Moses Malone in terms of skill. I suggest: Watch both play the game and then come back.

After the 2008 season the Celtics offense was HORRIBLE.

The Celtics at a team overall had a 105.9 ORtg from 2009 to 2013, which is 19th in the league. I wouldn't exactly call that "horrible", and especially wouldn't use caps given, that it would make me look like a fool.
The Celtics with Garnett on the court had 109.8 ORtg during that time; only the Nuggets and the Spurs ended up with a higher overall ORtg for that timespan (and the Spurs by just 0.1 point).

"If that means, it gives a team a better chance to win, I concur. Just that Moses Malone didn't help his team more than Garnett did in terms of creating a better chance to win."

Huh? You're crediting Garnett for "creating a better chance (team) to win" even though he STILL lost more than Moses? What? You're saying that Garnett gave his teams a better chance to win? Well, how do you explain his teams losing MORE?

[nikomCH]

It's obvious by the way you're dismissing everything (except stats) that you're too young to have witnessed Moses in his prime if you were even alive at all.

I didn't dismiss everything except stats, I'm dismissing the fact that you think because you watched Moses 30 years ago that your opinion is somehow superior to someone using might only be using stats (which is obviously false in this case as mystic wasn't). Like I said, it's arrogant to assume that just because you were watching him live that you understood everything going on, what he was good at, what he was bad at, etc. Someone else who didn't watch him at all but understands the game much better at a different level could form a much more accurate opinion of him as a player than you could.

Stats can be manipulated forwards and backwards to put a particular subject in a positive OR negative light.

Ok and people's opinions and memories can't?

Again, you're arguing that someone who's never watched the NBA but is armed with an official 2013-2014 NBA Guide is as much of an authority on Michael Jordan vs someone who witnessed his career in its entirety?

No that isn't my point at all, but if the only way you can argue is by making assumptions in absolutes that's your problem. My point is that watching games doesn't inherently make your opinion anymore valid because everyone watches the game with biases and different levels of understanding. Obviously this person will be able to form a better opinion than someone who doesn't care about the NBA at all, but that's not who we are talking about here.

Your opinion is more qualified (not absolute) than others who've only been watching the game for three months.

Is that a fact? Some people have been watching the NBA for 20 years and still have a pedestrian understanding of basketball, while people who started watching 5 years ago are much more knowledgable.

[Grandpa Waiters]

It's obvious by the way you're dismissing everything (except stats) that you're too young to have witnessed Moses in his prime if you were even alive at all.

I didn't dismiss everything except stats, I'm dismissing the fact that you think because you watched Moses 30 years ago that your opinion is somehow superior to someone using might only be using stats (which is obviously false in this case as mystic wasn't). Like I said, it's arrogant to assume that just because you were watching him live that you understood everything going on, what he was good at, what he was bad at, etc. Someone else who didn't watch him at all but understands the game much better at a different level could form a much more accurate opinion of him as a player than you could.

Stats can be manipulated forwards and backwards to put a particular subject in a positive OR negative light.

Ok and people's opinions and memories can't?

Again, you're arguing that someone who's never watched the NBA but is armed with an official 2013-2014 NBA Guide is as much of an authority on Michael Jordan vs someone who witnessed his career in its entirety?

No that isn't my point at all, but if the only way you can argue is by making assumptions in absolutes that's your problem. My point is that watching games doesn't inherently make your opinion anymore valid because everyone watches the game with biases and different levels of understanding. Obviously this person will be able to form a better opinion than someone who doesn't care about the NBA at all, but that's not who we are talking about here.

Your opinion is more qualified (not absolute) than others who've only been watching the game for three months.

Is that a fact? Some people have been watching the NBA for 20 years and still have a pedestrian understanding of basketball, while people who started watching 5 years ago are much more knowledgable.

Now you're just arguing to argue. Obviously there are people who've been watching for years who are less qualified than some who've only watched for a short time. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all things being equal. Also, I never said the opinions of those that have watched for years are always correct, hence the words "not absolute" I've used twice. What I'm saying is that those who watched the game live AND are armed with the stats have a more valid opinion, in general, than those armed only with stats (all things being equal/apples to apples).

[Okada]

It seems to me that some of the stat people on this forum believe that the more complex and obscure your case is, the better it is. Sometimes using a bunch of advanced statistics and putting aside simpler notions can help, but not all the time. Sometimes judging basketball and judging peoples' careers can be pretty simple. I think this is a pretty simple case. Moses had better RS numbers, better playoff numbers, more playoff success, and 3 MVPs to KG's 1 over tougher competition. A handful of selective advanced statistics is not going to negate that.

[NO-KG-AI]

What makes these stats obscure? Because you don't understand them? Lets stop pretending that the KG "fans" are cut from some mold or have an agenda for him. The stats community has embraced KG because he's blowing up all metrics, it's not like people picked and chose one stat.

If anything, it's the anti-KG crowd that seem to all have something in common.

[Okada]

What makes these stats obscure? Because you don't understand them? Lets stop pretending that the KG "fans" are cut from some mold or have an agenda for him. The stats community has embraced KG because he's blowing up all metrics, it's not like people picked and chose one stat.

If anything, it's the anti-KG crowd that seem to all have something in common.

It's a bunch of selective advanced stats trying to spin something that's obviously not true. Moses > KG.

[NO-KG-AI]

It only seems selective because it blows up your pre-conceived notions.

[rrravenred]

Two points for everyone:

DISPUTE THE ARGUMENTS, NOT THE POSTERS
REMAIN POLITE, REGARDLESS OF HOW MIND-NUMBINGLY WRONG YOUR OPPONENT IS

[nikomCH]

What makes these stats obscure? Because you don't understand them? Lets stop pretending that the KG "fans" are cut from some mold or have an agenda for him. The stats community has embraced KG because he's blowing up all metrics, it's not like people picked and chose one stat.

If anything, it's the anti-KG crowd that seem to all have something in common.

It's a bunch of selective advanced stats trying to spin something that's obviously not true. Moses > KG.

Once you stop thinking your preconceived notions are always correct, you'll learn a lot more