RealGM Top 100 List #8

[acrossthecourt]

Just a minute. Magic made it down all the way to #8? You've got to be kidding me. Who the hell's been voting on this list?

Duncan's latest title and longevity probably sealed it for some people, Wilt was surprising, people were more forgiving of Shaq's missed games, and LeBron has been pretty amazing if you haven't noticed.

Top ten lists don't stay the same forever.

[penbeast0]

You picking and choosing names on every individual statistic I posted, has very little to do with the reason I posted it in the first place. If you look at each one individually, you can find a player who exceeds him, but there's a reason that their names aren't universal to all of these efficiency stats. If you weren't so quick to dismiss him, and rather actually looked at all the stats as a whole (rather than picking and choosing players from each list you feel are superior to him), you'd start to realize that there's less than a hanful of players as efficient as Barkley on that end of the floor. Its an obvious conclusion from watching him play and even more obvious once you realize there's a reason that Barkley's top 5 or top 10 in nearly every offensive efficency stat.

But I can tell by your post that you had no real intention of doing that. Because you already showed last thread that any post you feel that's not about a viable candidate in your head, simply takes away from the discussion right? You did the same thing when I posted about Malone.

I think you are right. I do think that; and you certainly have the right to post things on lesser candidates coming up. I just think premature posting when you don't think that player is legitimate at that slot distracts from the actual debate and makes the debate when that candidate is actually being measured against players who he can legitimately be compared to a bit weaker because the arguments are stale by that point.

If you truly think KMalone and Barkely are legitimate candidates here and would vote for one of them at this spot, then I have no problem. I think the RAPM enthusiasts are making real arguments for Kevin Garnett at this point and would support him being this high; I don't agree but think that's different from what you are doing.

However, again, you have every right to do it . . . this is me the poster, not me the OP/Mod, posting my personal opinion on it.

[Rupert Murdoch]

Just a minute. Magic made it down all the way to #8? You've got to be kidding me. Who the hell's been voting on this list?

*looks at the list of guys who made it already



Not exactly like Smush Parker was voted over him. God forbid anyone thinks Lebron James and Wilt Chamberlain are better players than Magic Johnson

Where's the entire list? And no, Wilt wasn't a better player and he certainly didn't have anywhere near the overall positive impact on his team that Magic did. As for Lebron, he still has a way to go to surpass Magic. He needs at least another ring and Finals MVP before I can put him above Magic.

[colts18]

Where's the entire list? And no, Wilt wasn't a better player and he certainly didn't have anywhere near the overall positive impact on his team that Magic did. As for Lebron, he still has a way to go to surpass Magic. He needs at least another ring and Finals MVP before I can put him above Magic.

This is the only sentence I needed to read to know your exact thought process.


Go over the threads and you will see good arguments for those players. Much better than he has 5 rings so he has to be ahead of 2 ring Wilt.

[HeartBreakKid]

Just a minute. Magic made it down all the way to #8? You've got to be kidding me. Who the hell's been voting on this list?

*looks at the list of guys who made it already



Not exactly like Smush Parker was voted over him. God forbid anyone thinks Lebron James and Wilt Chamberlain are better players than Magic Johnson

Where's the entire list? And no, Wilt wasn't a better player and he certainly didn't have anywhere near the overall positive impact on his team that Magic did. As for Lebron, he still has a way to go to surpass Magic. He needs at least another ring and Finals MVP before I can put him above Magic.

Not everyone here looks at rings. I'm not big on Chamberlain either, but it's not hard how someone could see him to be better than Magic Johnson, certainly plenty of people think that even outside this board.

The list is stickied.

[Purch]

I think Barkley is an offensive force, like a super version of Melo...the small ball 4 that dominates with his combination of quickness, explosion, and power.

However, I have to admit I'm not too high on Barkley, simply because he's a PF with bad defense. That's a pretty big deal for me, especially when we see the kind of defensive impact a PF CAN have (Duncan and KG). That's why I tend to lean towards classical two-way PFs (Duncan and KG), a PF who's primarily an offensive player but also plays great if not historically elite defense (Malone), and a PF that you could probably argue is on Barkley's level offensively but isn't the same defensive liability (Dirk).

A superpowered Melo is kind of an understatement. He was litteraly more efficent than Shaq inside.

I think this Larry Bird quote summarizes it perfectly

Larry Bird was asked
"If you have a Last Second Shot who would get the Ball on the Dream Team?" "I would give to Charles. If you have a 2-Pointer instead of a 3. At that Point he was the Most Unguardable Player in the World "

I don't think I have to remind you just how many efficent scorers were on that dream team

[Rupert Murdoch]

Where's the entire list? And no, Wilt wasn't a better player and he certainly didn't have anywhere near the overall positive impact on his team that Magic did. As for Lebron, he still has a way to go to surpass Magic. He needs at least another ring and Finals MVP before I can put him above Magic.

This is the only sentence I needed to read to know your exact thought process.


Go over the threads and you will see good arguments for those players. Much better than he has 5 rings so he has to be ahead of 2 ring Wilt.

What about the fact that Magic was the greatest and most efficient offensive player of all-time averaging 19 and 11 with an absurd 61% TS% and 121 ORTG for his career? Or the way he transformed a stagnant Lakers organization to the best franchise in the NBA? Magic was also consistently brilliant in the postseason with his PS stats matching if not exceeding his regular season performance. Wilt put up great numbers but his style of play wasn't conducive to winning. Magic could put up zero points and still have a huge positive impact on the game. I would take him on my favorite team over Wilt any day.

[Basketballefan]

Admittedly i'm also a little bothered that Magic is going to get voted as low as he is, however it's not unreasonable to vote Wilt and Lbj over him. For LbJ he was going to pass him sooner rather than later anyhow.

[magicmerl]

Ok, so it looks like the floodgates are open. This seems like it's mainly between Bird and Magic to me, but I can see arguements for Hakeem, KG, Barkley, Kobe, Malone and Dirk. That takes us all the way out to 15 and doesn't even include Oscar. Crazy times.

Here's how they look on a per-100 possession basis in the regular season, ordered by offense-defense:

Code: Select all

Player.. PTS  REB   AST STL BLK TOV PF  TS%  USG% ORtg DRtg OWS   DWS  WS    WS/48
Magic... 25.4  9.4 14.5 2.5 0.5 5.0 2.9 .610 22.3 121  104  110.6 45.2 155.8 .225
Barkley. 30.2 15.9  5.4 2.1 1.1 4.3 4.2 .612 24.8 119  105  123.3 53.9 177.2 .216
Dirk.... 32.8 11.8  3.8 1.3 1.3 2.7 3.6 .582 27.0 117  104  131.6 53.2 184.8 .208
Bird.... 30.3 12.5  7.9 2.2 1.0 3.9 3.2 .564 26.5 115  101   86.8 59.0 145.8 .203
Kobe.... 36.1  7.5  6.7 2.1 0.7 4.3 3.6 .555 31.8 111  105  123.4 49.6 173.0 .182
Malone.. 34.4 13.9  4.9 1.9 1.1 4.2 4.3 .577 29.4 113  101  142.2 92.4 234.6 .205
Robinson 31.3 15.8  3.7 2.1 4.4 3.6 4.3 .583 26.2 116   96   98.5 80.1 178.7 .250
Garnett. 27.7 15.3  5.7 1.9 2.2 3.4 3.6 .547 25.0 110   99   99.2 89.3 188.4 .185
Hakeem.. 30.3 15.5  3.4 2.4 4.3 4.1 4.9 .553 27.1 108   98   68.3 94.5 162.8 .177


And in the playoffs:

Code: Select all

Player.. PTS  REB  AST  STL BLK TOV PF   TS% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS  DWS  WS   WS/48
Magic... 23.9  9.5 15.1 2.3 0.4 4.5 3.4 .595 21.2 122  107  23.1  9.5 32.6 .208
Barkley. 30.0 16.7  5.1 2.0 1.1 3.7 4.3 .584 25.2 118  107  13.6  5.9 19.5 .193
Dirk.... 33.0 13.1  3.3 1.4 1.2 3.0 3.7 .579 27.3 117  107  17.3  5.2 22.6 .196
Bird.... 28.0 12.1  7.6 2.1 1.0 3.6 3.3 .551 24.8 114  104  13.8 11.1 24.8 .173
Kobe.... 34.7  6.9  6.4 1.9 0.9 4.0 4.1 .541 31.0 110  106  21.0  7.3 28.3 .157
Malone.. 32.6 14.1  4.2 1.8 0.9 3.8 4.5 .526 29.9 106  103  11.3 11.6 23.0 .140
Robinson 27.9 16.4  3.5 1.9 3.9 3.5 5.3 .547 25.1 110   96   7.8  9.7 17.5 .199
Garnett. 26.8 15.8  4.9 1.8 1.9 3.5 4.4 .525 25.4 105   99   7.1  9.3 16.4 .149
Hakeem.. 33.7 14.6  4.1 2.2 4.2 3.8 5.0 .569 28.9 112  101  11.9 10.7 22.6 .189


Some thoughts on each player and the numbers reflected here:

Magic: The clear frontrunner here on offense, with his ridiculous assist totals, TS% and ORtg. Assists and Rebounds went up in the playoffs, and all players in POWS/48, all signs that he lifted his game on the big stage. I can't get over how abnormally low his USG% is compared to the other candidates. On the downside, pretty easily the worst defender in the group, with even Kobe getting a lower DWS.

Barkley: Looks like a 'standard' run of the mill big man, until you get to his TS% and ORtg, which are magic-esque. Best rounbounder in the bunch too, although I don't value that as high with him as with other rebounders since he's notoriously bad at defense and rebounding is usually a proxy for that.

Dirk: It's amazing how similarly Dirk and Barkley stack up together, when you consider how different their games were. If Barkley had managed to luck into a championship along the way, or Dirk had not broken through in 2011, I think these guys would be sitting right next to each other in the rankings. I do love his really low turnover numbers. Not turning the ball over is like free points.

Bird: The other 'big name' on this list, the only thing that really makes him stand out here is his passing, and magic does that much better. His numbers generally dropped in the playoffs too. Dead last in Win Shares, although he comes 3rd behind Magic and Kobe in playoff Winshares. I'm mildly surprised that I can't be more positive about his nomination. It feels like he does everything 'pretty well'. But there's nothing that he's bad at (other than a short career).

Kobe: Biggest gunner in the group, his USG% and PTS totals are not really justified given he has one of the poorest TS% and ORtgs here. And the worst defender in the group too. A surprisingly decent passer in this company. 2nd only to magic in playoff WS given his amazing longevity on a contending team. Not a real candidate here but maybe in a couple of picks.

Karl Malone. Wow. 234.6 regular season win shares. That's an ENORMOUS lead over the field. Sadly, the whole doesn't seem to add up to more than attractive stats, since although Karl scored a lot, he did it by taking more shots, but at a (relatively) terrible TS%.given his peers. I don't hold volume gunners in high regard, and in this company, Malone seems to fit that designation. He also had a narrative of choking in the playoffs, and there's statistical support for that viewpoint as his ORtg plummets to 106. His WS/48 is fairly poor as well.

David Robinson: His career took a hit when he got trounced by Hakeem just after being awarded the MVP. 2nd lowest playoff WS total (ahead of only garnett), a sign that he was on not very good teams most of his career. His playoff numbers are generally worse than the regular season, except for defense and rebounding (which actually went up), which I think is due to all of his deep playoff runs coming late in his career as a defensive specialist supporting Tim Duncan teams. I think there's room here for someone with more knowledge than me to break down the differences between Garnett and Robinson in more detail.

Kevin Garnett: I won't be using any variants of RAPM, so I wonder if there are any other box score arguements for the big ticket? His per100 numbers look fairly standard for a big man, although his scoring is slightly deflated due to his well known tendency to over-defer to others. Or maybe it's justified, given his pedestrian ORtg. Suffers from a big dropoff in performance in the playoffs, with the lowest WS and second lowest WS/48. On the defensive side, projects as better than everyone in this group but the admiral. I can't see him making the top10 based on this set of data.

Hakeem: He famously lifted his game in the postseason and we see it here across the board. Like Garnett and Robinson, soldiered away on poor teams early in his career. I really like his playoff scoring given his USG%. I'm not *really* clear on why his ORtg is so low compared to Magic, Barkley and Dirk. I suspect that 3pt shooting and assists are overrated by ORtg as a metric. Probably the second best candidate behind Magic.



So in summary, I think that Magic is the pick here. He's far and away the best offensive player on here. Just a higher level of excellence.

[therealbig3]

Where's the entire list? And no, Wilt wasn't a better player and he certainly didn't have anywhere near the overall positive impact on his team that Magic did. As for Lebron, he still has a way to go to surpass Magic. He needs at least another ring and Finals MVP before I can put him above Magic.

This is the only sentence I needed to read to know your exact thought process.


Go over the threads and you will see good arguments for those players. Much better than he has 5 rings so he has to be ahead of 2 ring Wilt.

What about the fact that Magic was the greatest and most efficient offensive player of all-time averaging 19 and 11 with an absurd 61% TS% and 121 ORTG for his career? Or the way he transformed a stagnant Lakers organization to the best franchise in the NBA? And how about the fact that he was brilliant in the postseason with his PS stats being just as good if not better than his regular season numbers? Wilt put up great numbers but his style of play wasn't conducive to winning. Magic could put up zero points and still have a huge positive impact on the game. I would take him on my favorite team over Wilt any day.

I agree with you on Magic vs Wilt, I think Wilt went too high. But at the same time, it's not like it's un-debatable. You can make a case for Wilt.

Other than that, I don't see anything too heretical about ranking Jordan, Kareem, Russell, LeBron, Duncan, and Shaq over Magic. I would add Hakeem and Bird as well, and I know I'm in the vast minority, but I'd take KG over Magic as well. That puts Magic at 10 on my list.

[acrossthecourt]

I think Barkley is an offensive force, like a super version of Melo...the small ball 4 that dominates with his combination of quickness, explosion, and power.

However, I have to admit I'm not too high on Barkley, simply because he's a PF with bad defense. That's a pretty big deal for me, especially when we see the kind of defensive impact a PF CAN have (Duncan and KG). That's why I tend to lean towards classical two-way PFs (Duncan and KG), a PF who's primarily an offensive player but also plays great if not historically elite defense (Malone), and a PF that you could probably argue is on Barkley's level offensively but isn't the same defensive liability (Dirk).

A superpowered Melo is kind of an understatement. He was litteraly more efficent than Shaq inside.

I think this Larry Bird quote summarizes it perfectly

Larry Bird was asked
"If you have a Last Second Shot who would get the Ball on the Dream Team?" "I would give to Charles. If you have a 2-Pointer instead of a 3. At that Point he was the Most Unguardable Player in the World "

I don't think I have to remind you just how many efficent scorers were on that dream team

Sure and Larry Bird made that awful Scola trade and the Pacers haven't had good decision making in a while.

Please let's not rate players based on what other players say about them. Players are famous for playing not evaluating others.

Hakeem: He famously lifted his game in the postseason and we see it here across the board. Like Garnett and Robinson, soldiered away on poor teams early in his career. I really like his playoff scoring given his USG%. I'm not *really* clear on why his ORtg is so low compared to Magic, Barkley and Dirk. I suspect that 3pt shooting and assists are overrated by ORtg as a metric. Probably the second best candidate behind Magic.

Because he shot worse than a lot of the other players. He was a finesse player who took a lot of midrange and step-back/fallaway shots

And please be wary of rating players by total WS. Otherwise we should have voted in Stockton by now.

[Purch]

I think Barkley is an offensive force, like a super version of Melo...the small ball 4 that dominates with his combination of quickness, explosion, and power.

However, I have to admit I'm not too high on Barkley, simply because he's a PF with bad defense. That's a pretty big deal for me, especially when we see the kind of defensive impact a PF CAN have (Duncan and KG). That's why I tend to lean towards classical two-way PFs (Duncan and KG), a PF who's primarily an offensive player but also plays great if not historically elite defense (Malone), and a PF that you could probably argue is on Barkley's level offensively but isn't the same defensive liability (Dirk).

A superpowered Melo is kind of an understatement. He was litteraly more efficent than Shaq inside.

I think this Larry Bird quote summarizes it perfectly

Larry Bird was asked
"If you have a Last Second Shot who would get the Ball on the Dream Team?" "I would give to Charles. If you have a 2-Pointer instead of a 3. At that Point he was the Most Unguardable Player in the World "

I don't think I have to remind you just how many efficent scorers were on that dream team

Sure and Larry Bird made that awful Scola trade and the Pacers haven't had good decision making in a while.

Please let's not rate players based on what other players say about them. Players are famous for playing not evaluating others.

Hakeem: He famously lifted his game in the postseason and we see it here across the board. Like Garnett and Robinson, soldiered away on poor teams early in his career. I really like his playoff scoring given his USG%. I'm not *really* clear on why his ORtg is so low compared to Magic, Barkley and Dirk. I suspect that 3pt shooting and assists are overrated by ORtg as a metric. Probably the second best candidate behind Magic.

Because he shot worse than a lot of the other players. He was a finesse player who took a lot of midrange and step-back/fallaway shots

And please be wary of rating players by total WS. Otherwise we should have voted in Stockton by now.

Wait so throughout this project, tons of quotes have been flying around about players, but now, in thread 8, it shouldn't be viable anymore?

[Baller2014]

Players say dumb stuff all the time, for PR reasons among other things. I definitely haven't been paying attention to the quotes of players at all.

[Purch]

O well the quote summarized what the numbers already stated.. So....

[acrossthecourt]

A superpowered Melo is kind of an understatement. He was litteraly more efficent than Shaq inside.

I think this Larry Bird quote summarizes it perfectly

Larry Bird was asked
"If you have a Last Second Shot who would get the Ball on the Dream Team?" "I would give to Charles. If you have a 2-Pointer instead of a 3. At that Point he was the Most Unguardable Player in the World "

I don't think I have to remind you just how many efficent scorers were on that dream team

Sure and Larry Bird made that awful Scola trade and the Pacers haven't had good decision making in a while.

Please let's not rate players based on what other players say about them. Players are famous for playing not evaluating others.

Hakeem: He famously lifted his game in the postseason and we see it here across the board. Like Garnett and Robinson, soldiered away on poor teams early in his career. I really like his playoff scoring given his USG%. I'm not *really* clear on why his ORtg is so low compared to Magic, Barkley and Dirk. I suspect that 3pt shooting and assists are overrated by ORtg as a metric. Probably the second best candidate behind Magic.

Because he shot worse than a lot of the other players. He was a finesse player who took a lot of midrange and step-back/fallaway shots

And please be wary of rating players by total WS. Otherwise we should have voted in Stockton by now.

Wait so throughout this project, tons of quotes have been flying around about players, but now, in thread 8, it shouldn't be viable anymore?

I've never liked or wanted to rate players based on player quotes, and it's my right to do so.

I also have the right to try to convince someone to my side.

Players rave about Carmelo Anthony like he's a top five player, but he isn't. That's the warning I'm giving people.

But quotes are useful for the earlier eras to get a sense of how guys played and what they were like. But I wouldn't rely on that to judge how good they were.

I'm also not rating a player based on who I'd want taking the last shot. Otherwise Kerr is moving up the list.

[Purch]

Sure and Larry Bird made that awful Scola trade and the Pacers haven't had good decision making in a while.

Please let's not rate players based on what other players say about them. Players are famous for playing not evaluating others.


Because he shot worse than a lot of the other players. He was a finesse player who took a lot of midrange and step-back/fallaway shots

And please be wary of rating players by total WS. Otherwise we should have voted in Stockton by now.

Wait so throughout this project, tons of quotes have been flying around about players, but now, in thread 8, it shouldn't be viable anymore?

I've never liked or wanted to rate players based on player quotes, and it's my right to do so.

I also have the right to try to convince someone to my side.

Players rave about Carmelo Anthony like he's a top five player, but he isn't. That's the warning I'm giving people.

But quotes are useful for the earlier eras to get a sense of how guys played and what they were like. But I wouldn't rely on that to judge how good they were.

I'm also not rating a player based on who I'd want taking the last shot. Otherwise Kerr is moving up the list.

See but the quote was never the basis of my argument to begin with, the quote just put into words, what the numbers clearly showed.

The quote was about giving the ball to Charles if its inside the three point line, because he's unstoppable. The stats shows that Barkley shot a 2 point% above 60 percent nearly every year of his career, playoffs and regular season.

[magicmerl]

Hakeem: He famously lifted his game in the postseason and we see it here across the board. Like Garnett and Robinson, soldiered away on poor teams early in his career. I really like his playoff scoring given his USG%. I'm not *really* clear on why his ORtg is so low compared to Magic, Barkley and Dirk. I suspect that 3pt shooting and assists are overrated by ORtg as a metric. Probably the second best candidate behind Magic.

Because he shot worse than a lot of the other players. He was a finesse player who took a lot of midrange and step-back/fallaway shots

Going back again, I see that his RS TS% is near the bottom of the group. So that hurts the '2 way player' narrative I think, since it's not borne out by the evidence of his whole career.

Going by the regular season, David Robinson just seems better than Hakeem at *everything*. Although Hakeem was a better scorer in the playoffs, and rebounding aside, a better defender too. So all things being equal, I think you'd want the better player in the playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Kevin Garnett

Alright, so what to say this time? I typed a bunch of stuff, and now I look at it and find it meandering. Might get in the way here, but I think I'm going to cut my losses. There's good stuff in here I think if you go through it, but it could really use another edit that I don't have time for unfortunately.

The complaints about the pro-Garnett crowd failing to go beyond advanced stats, as I've said before, to me they are confused. There's been plenty of detail given pro-Garnett. Nevertheless, clearly it's not enough to really connect with most, and it's worth trying to figure out why.

I saw an argument for Dirk over KG that to me looked like this:

1.Dirk is objectively the better offensive player and here's proof: PPG, TS%, etc.
2. Sure Garnett's better on defense, but by how much really?

Now, my first quibble here is that the 'proof' about Dirk's superior focused entirely on scoring, which is only one part of offense. I certainly don't deny that in this case that one facet of offense is enough to give Dirk the overall nod on offense, but it's the imbalance of the argument in striking because Garnett's not only better on defense than Dirk, he's also better at all the other facets of offense, yet the weight of the argument seemed to lump the 90% of the game that's not individual scoring into something that can be waved away.

It can't be. It is all the time, but it really can't be, and this is why we need statistics. And since the old school statistics don't give us enough information, that's why we need newer stuff which perhaps unfortunately gets marketed as "advanced".

Back on point: The usage of RAPM, etc is there because there's clearly a gaping hole in the middle of player comparison once we get outside of the stuff that people chose to tally back decades back. That's all. It's not that there was some really good system before and we're rocking the boat. The system sucked. People thought of ways to make it better. It's better now than it used to be.

And that data then comes in, and it challenges conventional thinking on particular players, and people get upset. I just saw over on the meta thread thad one voter resigned his vote, and specifically gave votes of Garnett in the 4th spot as a key reason (which I did, and apparently drza did as well). He thinks that's insulting the game. That's a shame.

Believe it or not, I don't particularly like Garnett. Not saying I'm immune to preferences, the other guy I"m often called a homer for is Nash, and I do really like him. Garnett though, he's never been a guy I really cheer for, and when he opens his mouth he tends to say thinks that make me not respect his intellect very much. The association of me as being part of the "Garnett crowd" happened after he went to Boston. I'm an Angeleno. I grew up a Laker fan trying to get all my elementary school chums to call me "Magic". (Didn't work because everyone called themselves Magic when they were out on the asphalt course in Los Angeles in the '80s.) I'd be exaggerated if I said I actually hate the Celtics because my brain just doesn't work that way, but there isn't a trace of Celtic homerdom in my blood.

So where does my tendency to "insult the game" in light of this Celtic phenomenon come from? I'm just playing it where it lies. The old tools we had weren't enough, so we made better tools. I look at all the tool, figure out their strengths and weaknesses, come to general conclusions about how they work, add them into my arsenal and go from there. And then, there's the rub: You go from the general to the specific, and do you do your best not to rationalize the objectivity away.

From the moment we first saw +/- numbers applied to basketball thoroughly, Garnett's were enormous and in fact the Minny camp was trying to use them to sway MVP voters before 82games.com even existed. This incidentally is why it's so funny when I see people talk about watching Garnett and him not imposing his will on the game like a superstar. People have been saying it for forever, and for forever there's been this clear evidence that he's imposing his will on the game far more than people have a tendency to think. There's clearly a subtlety to his impact that people miss. Frankly, I miss it to if I only use my eyes. I can tell he's good, but just how good, that's why I need the data.

As we build to more rigorous versions of the basic stat, and the development of the analytic intuition to go with that, it has taken a very long time relative to the span of a player's career. Garnett was "The Kid" when it started, now he's preparing for his 20th season. It is in this duration that folks such as myself have come to such atraditional views, and at least for myself I'll say, there's a part of me that's been kicking and screaming against it the whole time.

I don't particularly like being in the position I'm in. I knew for a fact that the moment I voted Garnett where I did there would be people who otherwise would have weighed my words with a default of respect now instead dismiss them. It's frustrated to feel dismissed for me as it is for anyone else. But I can't adopt a more normal opinion simply because it's a more normal opinion.

I look at Garnett and see a guy who is great on offense and defense. Not as great on offense as the top tier in any generation, but also clearly better on defense than players of such offensive stature typically are. The question, from a player ranking perspective, then is how it all adds up. And when we finally got data to give an objective answer to that question, it added up like crazy in Garnett's case.

My assessment of the +/- data we have going back into the late '90s is that there are 3 guys clearly above the rest: LeBron, Shaq, and Garnett. If Garnett doesn't actually belong in such rare air, the question then becomes to explain what the bias is. Simply calling it "luck" is not sufficient, when we talk about this much information. Specific points explaining why the data overrates what he was actually doing is the only way to go. Obviously, I haven't found such points, but it's not because I haven't looked, some things I've considered:

1. Garnett had his big impact in an unscalable situation. He was asked to do it all in Minnesota, and clearly he lifted the team, but neither the offensive or defensive scheme seemed like something you'd really want to build around if you were serious about making a contender. By contrast with Duncan, the defense was clear cut contender-worthy, and the model with Duncan as the fulcrum is at least based on a tried & true method.

Obviously this argument seems to have a particular point in time as reference. This goes back to win Duncan vs Garnett was THE argument going on about 10 years ago. And 10 years ago, it worked for me, but since then we've seen that Garnett actually seems unusually well suited to contort the focus of his game in different directions based on the needs of his teammates, that he's absolutely capable of being the head of a top of the line defense, and that really there's something outright problematic with seeing the Duncan-led offenses of the time period as anything like a proven successful model in contrast to what Garnett was giving. (Garnett's offense is not above attack in comparisons with the best offensive players to ever grace the hardwood, but Duncan is not of their ilk nor even a cousin to them.)

2. Garnett's inability to do more with what he had in Minnesota is a sign that he's less than what we expect from a superstar. When Minny really went down the tubes, I bought this, but I never really felt that comfortable justifying the belief.

We always knew that there had to be some kind of ceiling of what we can expect from one player in terms of impact in the NBA. Before rigorous +/- data, I didn't have a clear cut number in my head, but certainly I figured that no one was good enough to take what would be the worst of the normal "bad teams" (not extreme tank teams even), and make a champion out of them reliably. Had someone at the time that a top tier superstar can take you about half the way there, that wouldn't have seemed crazy. I mean, the other 4 guys on the floor, logically, there's going to be away to exploit them if they are weak enough. Taking team from bad to okay, seems like a reasonable compromise.

So how did I know this wasn't basically what Garnett was doing? Sure the last couple years were worse than "okay", but there were also issues that were worse than any normal "bad" thing. The most I could say was that it seemed most likely that this happening to Garnett wasn't a simply luck.

That brought us to the acid test though: If we could see Garnett succeed overwhelmingly with talent around him that didn't justify such lofty expectation, then it wouldn't make sense any more to assume that the Minny supporting cast was just another normal supporting cast.

And of course that's what happened in Boston. As I've said before, it might have been called The Big 3 as a marketing term, but it really wasn't, not by Heatle standards at least. People's assessment of what that supporting cast was before the '07-08 season started wasn't nearly enough to make it a contender, and the assumption was it was going to be an offense-oriented team. Turned out the defense was amazing, and that's what made the team amazing.

Now let's really think about Garnett in his Big 3 vs LeBron in his Big 3.

Here's how Garnett's Celtics did with him on the court in those first 4 years:

'07-08: +15.2
'08-09: +12.8
'09-10+ +7.2
'10-11: +11.9

And LeBron in his 4 Heatle years:
'10-11: +9.7
'11-12: +9.8
'12-13: +12.0
-13-14: +6.8

There's little quibbles you can point out, and sure they'd be enough to disrupt an argument that Garnett should be ranked ahead on this alone, but just take a moment and stare at that:

Garnett in his time in Boston typically was more successful on the court than LeBron in Miami.

If you hand't realized this before, it should make your jaw drop. Again, it wasn't supposed to be this way. No one thought it would be this way. It happened because Garnett was able to slide over and let his inferior teammates do their thing, and create a juggarnaut whenever he was healthy.

For the life of me, I just can't fathom how one can acknowledge this, and think there was some issue with Garnett in his ability to lead a champion. Between that and the epic overall lift he provided Minny, what's there left to address?

I realize that doesn't mean he should win any and all comparisons, but for anyone who looks at Garnett and sees a guy who was just missing X, check yourself. How much of this stems from the way you watched basketball when you were a kid and didn't watch anything but the guy bouncing the ball? Because once you look at the whole court and see that scoring is just one aspect of the game and one that is actually relatively easy to fill up adequately, Garnett comes off as as close to a complete package as you can ever really expect to see.

[Notanoob]

Where's the entire list? And no, Wilt wasn't a better player and he certainly didn't have anywhere near the overall positive impact on his team that Magic did. As for Lebron, he still has a way to go to surpass Magic. He needs at least another ring and Finals MVP before I can put him above Magic.

This is the only sentence I needed to read to know your exact thought process.


Go over the threads and you will see good arguments for those players. Much better than he has 5 rings so he has to be ahead of 2 ring Wilt.

What about the fact that Magic was the greatest and most efficient offensive player of all-time averaging 19 and 11 with an absurd 61% TS% and 121 ORTG for his career? Or the way he transformed a stagnant Lakers organization to the best franchise in the NBA? Magic was also consistently brilliant in the postseason with his PS stats matching if not exceeding his regular season performance. Wilt put up great numbers but his style of play wasn't conducive to winning. Magic could put up zero points and still have a huge positive impact on the game. I would take him on my favorite team over Wilt any day.

His ORTG isn't that impressive once you compare it to the era he was in, average ORTG was higher in his day than it is now. Furthermore, while his efficiency is good, he wasn't carrying a very large scoring burden playing with James Worthy and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

You're also ignoring that Wilt's style of play changed regularly. He wasn't volume scoring his whole career. When he became the passing hub and defensive anchor of his team in 67, they became one of the best teams in NBA history and defeated the great Celtic's dynasty, failing to repeat due to injuries. Wilt is the game's best non-Rodman rebounder of all time, and a great defensive presence.

However, this should be the last such post in this thread, it's a bit off-topic since Wilt's already been voted in. If you want to continue, you should start a separate Wilt vs. Magic thread so as not to derail discussion here.

[Doctor MJ]

I know KG is going to come up again at this spot and I imagine will start to gain a little traction. I'd like to hear from the KG supporters what (other than the obvious longevity) makes them rank him so much higher than David Robinson.

Longevity is the big thing. As for "so much higher", I'm not sure I feel like I will be rating him so much higher. As I mentioned before, I think the gap people see between Hakeem and Robinson is way too big. Realistically though I'll admit that I put Garnett at 4, and Robinson wasn't in my Top 10 pre-list. That does seem like a pretty big gap.

Looking simply to address how I see the players regardless of rank:

As I've said with Garnett, of the databall era, he's the #3 peak behind LeBron & Shaq, and then there's a significant gap before you get to Duncan at the 4th spot.

Were I to say I ranked peaked Duncan ahead of Robinson, I don't think anyone would bat an eye, just transitivity there, based on Garnett vs Duncan, it should make sense to put Garnett ahead of Robinson.

Where I imagine that bothers people is that Garnett and Robinson are in many ways more similar to each other than Duncan, and Robinson seems the more impressive specimen in some clear ways. It's actually pretty easy to imagine Robinson as a rich man's Garnett, capable of elite volume scoring while doing the horizontal game thing and blocking shots at the same time.

I don't actually object to that categorization. Peak-wise, I don't see Garnett as clearly the better player. It may very well be Robinson, and I just look at the longevity and have to side with Garnett (and Duncan too) over him.

On the other hand, I don't take it as an absolute given that Robinson has the peak edge. He's absolutely a better scorer, but he's not in that rare breed category of offensive centers where I have no concerns relating to going full volume scoring with him. Defensively he's certainly excellent, but in the specific area we here so much about Garnett when he truly shined brightest - the middle linebacker, the defensive floor general - this is not how people typically talk about Robinson. In fact, it's been well noted that Robinson was not the type to boss people around on the floor, and that he did what Avery Johnson told him to do.

Perhaps someone will come in with stuff that makes me hesitance seem utterly naive, and if they do awesome, but I think it's so crucial to not assume that other guys did what Garnett did. It's as much a personality trait as anything else, and it's something that's tough to do if you're shy. The combination of agility, intelligence, and chatter in someone as long as Garnett is not anything like a normal combination, and it's that combination which let him become the poster child for directing the state of the art in NBA defense.