Real GM Top 100 List #11

[lorak]

I seriously doubt that. He had teammates good enough to win and he didn't.

How you judge that?!

Shooter who can't hit free throws at the end of the game is good enough to win?
Playmaker who passes to opponent at the end of close game is good enough?
Defensive specialist who lost his assignment and allow opponent to hit game winner is good enough?
Point guards without three point shoot are good enough?
Thee point specialist who in the playoffs can't hit more than 30% of his threes is hood enough?
And so on...
These Spurs teams were built in a wrong way, bad fit, bad chemistry in one case... not all of these losses are Robinson's fault.

And while you say "when doubled Robinson", he wasn't good enough as a passer to get it to the right teammate. Watch the difference between O'Neal in the 95 finals and Robinson in the 95 WCF.

Robinson was very good passing out of double teams - he was doing what was right to do. But his teammates didn't hit open shots, so his assists numbers were lower. Maybe someday someone will count home many open looks were created by Robinson, Shaq or Hakeem...

[mysticbb]

The last three years he's finished 3rd, 5th, and 7th in MVP voting. And his title run was before the 2008 vote, so that wouldn't account for any of the difference.

Wade had 3 All-NBA seasons in 2008, one run the finals and winning the championship. Well, with the difference of winning the championship he had basically Penny Hardaways career resumee in 2008. Now Wade added 3 more All-NBA seasons, he has now 6, as many as Frazier, Kidd, Mikan or Hayes. If we add the fact that we know he had a pretty great peak level, we can very well make the case that Wade jump by 25 or more spots.

[pancakes3]

wade to me is a coin flip away from clyde. wade's a more aggressive scorer and dominant ball-handler whereas drexler played the off-guard in a style that seems pretty much extinct nowadays. there are things that wade can do better but there are things that clyde can do better as well. i don't think either one is much better than the other in terms of peak play. i don't think either one comes into the conversation for top 20 but should be nominated soon.

vote: Dr. J
nominate: Steve Nash

[Baller 24]

Don't forget defensively Wade's made strides to be possibly the best SG defender in the league.

[colts18]

Do you understand that those numbers are reflecting the impact per possession? Garnett played less minutes, but in the minutes he played he was more impactful than those players per possession. That's what the stats tells you. That doesn't take into account that some of those players clearly played more minutes and thus became more important than Garnett, but when we are talking about one possession, Garnett might be very well more impactful than others. We would need to combine the amount of possessions with the RAPM values for those players to get an impression who had overall more impact.

Don't you think there is something wrong with the stat? I don't care that it is per possession, if the stat says Garnett was more impactful per possession than Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul, Pau Gasol, and Dwayne Wade. Let's look at the numbers from other stats:

Garnett: 16-9-3, 21.7 PER
Gasol: 19-10-2, 22.5 PER
Howard: 21-14-2, 24.6 PER
Kobe: 27-6-5, 23.6 PER
Wade: 27-6-5, 26.8 PER
Paul: 20-11-5, 26.8 PER

I don't care what the stat is, if it says that KG had more impact than Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, and Chris Paul per possession, than the stat is extremely flawed. If he had so much impact, why did the Celtics go 40-20 (.667) without him the past 4 years. The Hornets went 18-27 (.400) without Chris Paul the past 4 years.

[mysticbb]

How you judge that?!

Team performance? How about that?

Shooter who can't hit free throws at the end of the game is good enough to win?
Playmaker who passes to opponent at the end of close game is good enough?
Defensive specialist who lost his assignment and allow opponent to hit game winner is good enough?
Point guards without three point shoot are good enough?
Thee point specialist who in the playoffs can't hit more than 30% of his threes is hood enough?
And so on...

You are picking specific examples and are running into a confirmation bias here. That is an issue, you want to see the teammates as the reason, but in reality the teammates performed rather close to expectations. Sometimes their performance level wasn't enough, because the opponent was pretty decent too, but sometimes those games shouldn't have been close at all, if Robinson would have performed like you are thinking he was capable of.

These Spurs teams were built in a wrong way, bad fit, bad chemistry in one case... not all of these losses are Robinson's fault.

Nobody is saying that. Basketball is a teamsport and all have to perform at least at the right time. If that doesn't happen, the team will likely lose. Don't get the impression that I want to blame Robinson alone here, I just want to argue that his teammates were better than most would assume. Would you have thought that Cummings and Elliot could have made such a big difference? I think some of the teammates get underrated, because of the horrible 1997 season, but that was also a decent tank job by the Spurs. And the Spurs had also more injury problems with led to way too many minutes for players like Greg Anderson, Carl Herrera or Cory Alexander. Neither of those players was an important part during the playoffs.
Overall Robinson's teammates had their fair share of failures, no doubt, but that doesn't make Robinson per se a better player.

Robinson was very good passing out of double teams - he was doing what was right to do. But his teammates didn't hit open shots, so his assists numbers were lower. Maybe someday someone will count home many open looks were created by Robinson, Shaq or Hakeem...

Yeah, I really hope, because Robinson wasn't that good. A good amount of his turnovers were bad passes. And his passes weren't as accurate as from other big men. Some of the misses you are talking about are also a result of a not good enough pass. I don't value Robinson's passing very high.

[Baller 24]

Don't you think there is something wrong with the stat? I don't care that it is per possession, if the stat says Garnett was more impactful per possession than Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul, Pau Gasol, and Dwayne Wade. Let's look at the numbers from other stats:

Garnett: 16-9-3, 21.7 PER
Gasol: 19-10-2, 22.5 PER
Howard: 21-14-2, 24.6 PER
Kobe: 27-6-5, 23.6 PER
Wade: 27-6-5, 26.8 PER
Paul: 20-11-5, 26.8 PER

I don't care what the stat is, if it says that KG had more impact than Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, and Chris Paul per possession, than the stat is extremely flawed. If he had so much impact, why did the Celtics go 40-20 (.667) without him the past 4 years. The Hornets went 18-27 (.400) without Chris Paul the past 4 years.

?

Per possession, Garnett played significantly lower minutes than any of those following players. What part of that mathematical analysis are you having trouble understanding? You have to understand what the statistic is stating before you dismantle it, just like ANY other statistic.

[mysticbb]

Don't forget defensively Wade's made strides to be possibly the best SG defender in the league.

Highlight blocks are not the only thing on defense. ;)

Wade gets overrated on defense, he is not that great. Players like Brewer or Allen are far better at defending SG than Wade. If Wade would be that good at defending SG, the Heat would have used him against Terry far more. ;)

[FJS]

I have serious problems with that KG love.

I can live with Malone not being 11# in that list, but I don't think KG deserves to be above Mailman, Dirk, Dr J, Moses or even Barkley.

Reasons?
You can read it before:
His time as the alpha dog did not make to step his team to another level. Only have one year where his team was danregous.
You can say he played with awful teanmates, but he played with several 17-20 ppg in his career:
95-96: Rider, Laettner
96-97: Guggliota,
97-98: Guggliota, Marbury
98-99: Marbury
99-00: Brandon
00-01: None
01-02: Szcerbiak
02-03: Szcerbiak
03-04: Cassell, Sprewell
04-05: None
05-06: Sczerbiak, Davis
06-07: Davis

If you watch for example how many players help Malone in his runs to the WCF from 91-92 to 97-98:
(in bold years Jazz avanced to WCF)
91-92: Jeff Malone
92-93: Jeff Malone
93-94: None
94-95:None
95-96:None
96-97:None
97-98:None

For sure Hornacek and Stockton were better than Brandon/Cassell/Marbury or Sczerbiak, but those guys weren't as bad as some people want to say.
You can't score around 20 ppg in NBA and then say they are awfull.
Billups, Brandon, Cassell, Marbury were allstar in their carreers
Sprewell too, as Sczerbiak
Guggliota made it too.
Plus he played with some good role players as Porter, Mitchell, Sealy (rip), Booby Jackson, Peeler, Joe Smith, Nesterovic (yes he was soft but useful alongside Duncan), Kendan Gill, Rod Strickland...

The problem is the most of those players shined more in other teams, than in Minny. And the problem is the most of those players shined more AFTER playing in Minny. Then, you, as superstar, and as a total player as Garnett is know, must to make better your teammates. But that was not happening.

Don't tell me Garnett played with nobody, because this is not true.
He as the star should make more. He was beaten by better teams, because he was not able to make his team a HCA team.

He is not 11# material.

[Baller 24]

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. I'm actually tired of arguing in behalf of this because many of the arguments have become repetitive, although I agree he shouldn't be #11, he def. is ahead of the likes of Dirk, Barkley, M. Molone, and has a very strong case against K. Malone.

[colts18]

Don't you think there is something wrong with the stat? I don't care that it is per possession, if the stat says Garnett was more impactful per possession than Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul, Pau Gasol, and Dwayne Wade. Let's look at the numbers from other stats:

Garnett: 16-9-3, 21.7 PER
Gasol: 19-10-2, 22.5 PER
Howard: 21-14-2, 24.6 PER
Kobe: 27-6-5, 23.6 PER
Wade: 27-6-5, 26.8 PER
Paul: 20-11-5, 26.8 PER

I don't care what the stat is, if it says that KG had more impact than Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, and Chris Paul per possession, than the stat is extremely flawed. If he had so much impact, why did the Celtics go 40-20 (.667) without him the past 4 years. The Hornets went 18-27 (.400) without Chris Paul the past 4 years.

?

Per possession, Garnett played significantly lower minutes than any of those following players. What part of that mathematical analysis are you having trouble understanding? You have to understand what the statistic is stating before you dismantle it, just like ANY other statistic.

I understand what per possession means. Garnett did not have an impact like Chris Paul or Dwight Howard the past 4 years. It's absurd to think that. I saw CP3 and Howard singlehandedly take crap teams farther than they should have gone. For all of KG's "impact", his team played at a 59 win pace with him and 54 win pace without him. I can tell you that Howard and CP3 aren't only worth 5 wins for their teams. I watched the games, I saw the stats, KG was not as good as CP3 or Howard in the past 4 years. Maybe in 2008, but it hasn't been close since 2009.

[mysticbb]

I don't care what the stat is, if it says that KG had more impact than Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, and Chris Paul per possession, than the stat is extremely flawed.

Why? Do you actually know what kind of difference we are talking about? A value of 5.5 for example means 0.055 points better per possession than an average player. Or taking last season's numbers, Garnett was 0.011 points per possession better than Dwight Howard. Do you honestly think you can see with your eyes that kind of difference? Two players could look perfectly equal to you, but one could have a +1 and the -1, because one player is doing little stuff off the ball which you don't pay attention to and the other isn't doing it.

Garnett has constantly good values, that isn't a fluke here, we are not talking about a player once has a high value and then never again. Garnett constantly had high APM values, that is a sign that he is very good at impacting the game.

And RAPM is predicting the outcome of small game snippets with certain lineups better than any other stat is doing it. The method Engelmann is using is better at predicting out of sample data than any other stat. That is an important thing and tells us much more about the stat than your eye-test.

[pancakes3]

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. I'm actually tired of arguing in behalf of this because many of the arguments have become repetitive, although I agree he shouldn't be #11, he def. is ahead of the likes of Dirk, Barkley, M. Molone, and has a very strong case against K. Malone.

M. Malone as in 3xMVP, finals MVP of the most successful playoff run of all time, 3rd all-time rebounder, 4th career TRB%, 6th all time scorer, career TS% .570, 2nd in FTA and FTM... that M. Malone?

[i'm not saying Moses is definitely ahead of KG. i'm just saying the room for debate is there and KG isn't "definitely ahead" in my opinion]

question: if you don't think he deserves to be #11, why are you making so many posts arguing in his favor in this thread? i think that's where most of the headscratching is coming from per the anti-KG camp. I personally don't find it enjoyable to bash KG but it just didn't seem right that KG was getting so much chatter so early. there were votes for him coming in as soon as Duncan was voted in, which seemed CRAZY premature.

** request: can we change the barkley pic please? it unsettles me.

[pancakes3]

Do you honestly think you can see with your eyes that kind of difference? Two players could look perfectly equal to you, but one could have a +1 and the -1, because one player is doing little stuff off the ball which you don't pay attention to and the other isn't doing it.

i think his point is that the disconnect via the eye test and W/L based on KG's presence is that the two aren't even close in terms of impact, much less being so on par that the difference is almost negligible in measurement - which i think you do understand but are choosing to be snarky for no particularly reason.

[Baller 24]

M. Malone as in 3xMVP, finals MVP of the most successful playoff run of all time, 3rd all-time rebounder, 4th career TRB%, 6th all time scorer, career TS% .570, 2nd in FTA and FTM... that M. Malone?

[i'm not saying Moses is definitely ahead of KG. i'm just saying the room for debate is there and KG isn't "definitely ahead" in my opinion]

question: if you don't think he deserves to be #11, why are you making so many posts arguing in his favor in this thread? i think that's where most of the headscratching is coming from per the anti-KG camp. I personally don't find it enjoyable to bash KG but it just didn't seem right that KG was getting so much chatter so early. there were votes for him coming in as soon as Duncan was voted in, which seemed CRAZY premature.

** request: can we change the barkley pic please? it unsettles me.

I was simply arguing him against David Robinson earlier, nothing else. My choice is Julius Erving.

[Laimbeer]

Your view isn't mainstream, though. It's just kind of weirdly way out there. Did you think that even people in the mainstream think Isiah Thomas was a better basketball player than Dwyane Wade?

Yes.

[lorak]

How you judge that?!

Team performance? How about that?

And we exactly know how Spurs performed without Robinson (efficiency differential in games without DRob):
1992: -3,5
1992 playoffs: -9.5
1997: -9,7 (and +4.8 in these 6 games when he played only 25 MPG!)
1998: +1

Pre Duncan it's bad supporting cast. Almost as bad as Garnett's in Minny.

Shooter who can't hit free throws at the end of the game is good enough to win?
Playmaker who passes to opponent at the end of close game is good enough?
Defensive specialist who lost his assignment and allow opponent to hit game winner is good enough?
Point guards without three point shoot are good enough?
Thee point specialist who in the playoffs can't hit more than 30% of his threes is hood enough?
And so on...

You are picking specific examples and are running into a confirmation bias here. That is an issue, you want to see the teammates as the reason, but in reality the teammates performed rather close to expectations.

No, they didn't. For example 30% from three point line during two seasons isn't something what was expected from Dale Ellis.

And expectations had nothing to do with obvious flaws of Spurs perimeter players, like for example no 3 point shooters among point guards or lack of creativity and offense off the dribble.

Robinson was very good passing out of double teams - he was doing what was right to do. But his teammates didn't hit open shots, so his assists numbers were lower. Maybe someday someone will count home many open looks were created by Robinson, Shaq or Hakeem...

Yeah, I really hope, because Robinson wasn't that good. A good amount of his turnovers were bad passes.

What amount exactly? :p

My impression from watching the games is that most of his turnovers were either offensive fouls or turnovers committed during dribbling, as he relatively often attacked the basket from high post trying to force foul. His passing was at least good, nothing fancy, but fundamentally sound I would say, when he was doubled he usually hit open man.

[colts18]

And what exactly does going to the FT line do? I'm still dumbfounded you're using this as an argument to vouch for Robinson. Garnett has a better peak, he can play back-to-basket ball effectively, he can facilitate an entire offense, grab rebounds, and play elite defense at the same time while surrounded by a mediocre cast. Garnett's ability to facilitate an offense from the post is much much harder than attempting a free-throw.

Listen, I know you're new but you should go browse the other threads and take a look at ElGee's & Drza's posts, they've answered pretty much every single argument your'e trying to make in an effective an informative manner.

Drawing fouls is a huge deal. I did take a look at what ElGee said about it and his opinion is quite valid. Here he breaks it down for you:

On offense, drawing a foul has two effects:

1. Brings a team closer to the penalty
2. Causes foul trouble for opposing starters

When a player is in foul trouble, he loses minutes he would otherwise be on the floor (unless he plays for Don Nelson, apparently). Usually, this is on order of 5-10 minutes, as a player sits for a period before he is no longer in “foul trouble.”

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/03/08/fouls-the-good-the-bad-the-penalty/

Robinson drew about twice the FTA that KG did so I assume he drew about twice the fouls. Those fouls are huge. For example, in the fabled 95 series, Hakeem averaged 4.8 Fouls per game. He had 5 fouls in 5 games. Dikembe averaged 5 fouls per game even though he played 18 minutes in one of the games (he had 5 and 6 fouls the other games). Elden Campbell and Vlade Divac combined for 53 fouls or 8.8 combined and one of those guys fouled in 4 out of 6 games. That is huge. That causes the starter to be in foul trouble. Either a back up comes in who is worse or the starter plays worse with foul trouble. Data shows that this is true:

The value of keeping the affected player out of more severe foul trouble, combined with the propensity of the player to play tentatively on both ends of the floor (avoiding charges, loose defense, etc.) made the option value the better choice in nearly all situations, according to the trio’s data.

http://celticshub.com/2011/03/06/how-much-trouble-is-early-foul-trouble/

KG simply didn't draw fouls. In 2 playoff series vs. Duncan, Duncan averaged 2.75 fouls per game. Rasheed averaged 2.25 fouls per game in in 2000 against KG. Karl Malone averaged 3.8 fouls in 2004.

[Gongxi]

Your view isn't mainstream, though. It's just kind of weirdly way out there. Did you think that even people in the mainstream think Isiah Thomas was a better basketball player than Dwyane Wade?

Yes.

Oh. Well I've never heard anyone say that. I have heard people pretty consistently say Wade is the 3-5 best SG ever. Isiah Thomas really doesn't come close to comparing favorably to him.

So did you first start to think he was overrated after the '06 ECF?

[Laimbeer]

Your view isn't mainstream, though. It's just kind of weirdly way out there. Did you think that even people in the mainstream think Isiah Thomas was a better basketball player than Dwyane Wade?

Yes.

Oh. Well I've never heard anyone say that. I have heard people pretty consistently say Wade is the 3-5 best SG ever. Isiah Thomas really doesn't come close to comparing favorably to him.

So did you first start to think he was overrated after the '06 ECF?

Relax.

The 2006 ECF has nothing to do with it. Jordan and Bird did far more to the Pistons and Jordan is my co-GOAT, and I've defended Bird's position in the "Big Six".

We're just guys on the internet with an opinion, no big deal.