rebirthoftheM wrote:Wasn't referring to team overall ratings because this is evidently not fair. The KG defensive indicators I was referring to was his DRAPM (NPI and also Doc's RAPM stuff that Drza has referred to) as well as how his teams fared defensively with him on/off in 05 & 06. These are stuff the KG crowd really base their argument on, as limited game-tape analysis would not give their arguments the same level of authority.
You would expect to see major separation in the Wolves D in 05 & 06 when KG was on versus when he was off, like you saw in other years, yet this is patently not so. You would also expect to see better DRAPM figures. Which begs the question... what went wrong? Did KG stop playing high value D? IMO from all i've read and see, this is not so. Which then leads to the conclusion... there's only so much an elite defender, even a big can do, in the modern era to control his teams defense.
It's possible KG did not play as good defense in 05 and 06. Like for some reason Kawhi had less impact on defense this year, it doesn't feel like he was trying less on that end, but the evidence is against him.
rebirthoftheM wrote:Wasn't referring to team overall ratings because this is evidently not fair. The KG defensive indicators I was referring to was his DRAPM (NPI and also Doc's RAPM stuff that Drza has referred to) as well as how his teams fared defensively with him on/off in 05 & 06. These are stuff the KG crowd really base their argument on, as limited game-tape analysis would not give their arguments the same level of authority.
You would expect to see major separation in the Wolves D in 05 & 06 when KG was on versus when he was off, like you saw in other years, yet this is patently not so. You would also expect to see better DRAPM figures. Which begs the question... what went wrong? Did KG stop playing high value D? IMO from all i've read and see, this is not so. Which then leads to the conclusion... there's only so much an elite defender, even a big can do, in the modern era to control his teams defense.
It's possible KG did not play as good defense in 05 and 06. Like for some reason Kawhi had less impact on defense this year, it doesn't feel like he was trying less on that end, but the evidence is against him.
I think part of the question is just how much like a "big" did KG play defense? Bigs, normally translated to centers, normally are expected to protect the rim/be the last line of defense, and that's precisely why their defense is so critical. They defend their guy, but they also have responsibility for helping on everybody else's. They make everybody look like a better defender, make opposing guards scared to drive past their opponents into the paint, etc.
But was that really KG? I mean, he could fill in at that role, had the height, would swing over. But I don't think he was anywhere near elite in that rim protector role, and if that's not what he was about then what? A great defensive PF able to guard 4s and some 3s and 5s? You can obviously be great at that, and he was, but like the eternal questions with smaller players winning DPOYs, if you are out away from the rim primarily chasing your own guy, are you really as impactful as a rim protector guarding everybody's man at once?
rebirthoftheM wrote:Wasn't referring to team overall ratings because this is evidently not fair. The KG defensive indicators I was referring to was his DRAPM (NPI and also Doc's RAPM stuff that Drza has referred to) as well as how his teams fared defensively with him on/off in 05 & 06. These are stuff the KG crowd really base their argument on, as limited game-tape analysis would not give their arguments the same level of authority.
You would expect to see major separation in the Wolves D in 05 & 06 when KG was on versus when he was off, like you saw in other years, yet this is patently not so. You would also expect to see better DRAPM figures. Which begs the question... what went wrong? Did KG stop playing high value D? IMO from all i've read and see, this is not so. Which then leads to the conclusion... there's only so much an elite defender, even a big can do, in the modern era to control his teams defense.
It's possible KG did not play as good defense in 05 and 06. Like for some reason Kawhi had less impact on defense this year, it doesn't feel like he was trying less on that end, but the evidence is against him.
I think part of the question is just how much like a "big" did KG play defense? Bigs, normally translated to centers, normally are expected to protect the rim/be the last line of defense, and that's precisely why their defense is so critical. They defend their guy, but they also have responsibility for helping on everybody else's. They make everybody look like a better defender, make opposing guards scared to drive past their opponents into the paint, etc.
But was that really KG? I mean, he could fill in at that role, had the height, would swing over. But I don't think he was anywhere near elite in that rim protector role, and if that's not what he was about then what? A great defensive PF able to guard 4s and some 3s and 5s? You can obviously be great at that, and he was, but like the eternal questions with smaller players winning DPOYs, if you are out away from the rim primarily chasing your own guy, are you really as impactful as a rim protector guarding everybody's man at once?
Considering what Draymond is doing right now I don't have a problem with saying on the ground, pick and roll driven defense can be DPOY level
Dr Positivity wrote: It's possible KG did not play as good defense in 05 and 06. Like for some reason Kawhi had less impact on defense this year, it doesn't feel like he was trying less on that end, but the evidence is against him.
I think part of the question is just how much like a "big" did KG play defense? Bigs, normally translated to centers, normally are expected to protect the rim/be the last line of defense, and that's precisely why their defense is so critical. They defend their guy, but they also have responsibility for helping on everybody else's. They make everybody look like a better defender, make opposing guards scared to drive past their opponents into the paint, etc.
But was that really KG? I mean, he could fill in at that role, had the height, would swing over. But I don't think he was anywhere near elite in that rim protector role, and if that's not what he was about then what? A great defensive PF able to guard 4s and some 3s and 5s? You can obviously be great at that, and he was, but like the eternal questions with smaller players winning DPOYs, if you are out away from the rim primarily chasing your own guy, are you really as impactful as a rim protector guarding everybody's man at once?
Considering what Draymond is doing right now I don't have a problem with saying on the ground, pick and roll driven defense can be DPOY level
Yeah, well I notoriously don't really buy the Dray hype anyway, and think Gobert was the clear DPOY this year.
But even so, Dray would fall into a role more like that of Rodman during his DPOY days, and like the quick smothering guards, being very quick relative to size/position is a big key to that style of elite defense. Again, I don't think that's really a great comparison to how KG approached things.
I mean if I was asked by a person who had never watched KG play, but who had otherwise watched the NBA closely, so which great defender did he play the most like...I can't imagine saying "he was a lot like Draymond". Nor can I imagine "he was a lot like Duncan" or "a lot like Eaton" or... What was his super-elite all time GOATy calling card defensively? He was good at a lot of stuff, but I have a hard time remembering the defensive play that would most epitomize him defensively.
1st VoteKobe Bryant 2nd Vote: Undecided, I am between West, Oscar, Dr. J, Dirk, KG, Malone, Mikan, Moses kind of in that order, this is where it starts getting a little hairy. All good choices, but I'm pretty set on Kobe 1st here.
Below is my reasoning again for I believe the 3rd time in a row, so I will add a little to it here at the top: I know people are into this whole winning bias and its great to try to look at things in as many different views as possible...but one thing I can't quite understand against Kobe at this point is was more success actually expected? You take the teams Kobe played on and even the 00-02 Lakers overachieved in many respects, but most definitely the 08-10 Lakers did. I dont know what more could have been expected, which along with the production/accolades/general clout makes it really damn hard to overlook him still. It was a lot of success, not a little... a lot and he played great (majorly responsible) for a hell of a lot of it, especially that 3 time final run from 08-10, it was consistent and impressive. Hell, I have a lot of respect for Lebron (I voted him #2) but the entire heatles team went 2 of 4, which is great, but it seems like people are taking these fancy stats to try to predict impact and take "situation/luck out" but the end results no matter the damn situation are actually really hard to match, I really can't imagine the Lakers having more success with anyone left including some already voted. - Ok and now my rehashed argument again below-
Kobe, I simply think up to this point he is the most accomplished both by his stature he occured by his contemporaries and his results (yes I know you can call it winning bias). He has a very consistant and long prime, where he finished top 5 in mvp voting 12 times. It is an arbitrary cut off, but just being relevant to that extent for that many years is damn impressive, only Kareem (and now LBJ) can say the same and that is impressive company. His All NBA 1st team selections are also pretty much second to none. I trust that he will try to get to the stature he got to under any circumstances, yes he was a complainer at times, but it did also put pressure to change his situation. Has he been fortunate with some teams (and coach) yes, but that is also in some degree in hindsight. Success to that degree only seems very likely because it happened, we are quick to say the outcomes were so probable when in fact there have been many more teams on paper that seemed they would succeed more and didnt. None of what Kobe accomplisehd or any other player/or team is a given, I must credit it because it is extremely important reason why the game is played. He is also one of the best showmen to have ever played, we don't have thousands of threads about him for no reason even if there are polar opposite opinions. From 06-10 he really reached a strong pinnacle in the world as the best basketball player (or 2nd perhaps) but that length of time to have that opinion of you so given was only achieved by perhaps a handful of players, right or wrong. Lastly, he did adapt, he did play many roles and was successful in all but his final role as a shell of himself. You don't go from taking 30 shots to 20 shots next year without adapting (as well as olympics, where his Defense was elite). Anyhow, I take him over the remaing because I feel he has an equal or better 3 year run to anyone remaining from 08-10, and what he did the 6 years before then and 3 years after then is also just as impressive.
Our virtues and our failings are inseparable, like force and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
-Nikola Tesla
Forum so far have this Kobe vs KG so i'll focus on this one. This will be in a way an offense vs defense kind of thing. Because in general we prop them up according on how they anchor their respective expertise.
Kobe's prime years for over a decade anchored a Top 10 offense (given Shaq was there in the early 2000's, Kobe continued that w/o Shaq) which contributed to 5 championships and 7 finals appearances. The consistency on how he did it even with the change in staff and teammates says a lot about Kobe. And its not like he's sleepwalking his way through the competition. Kobe faced some of the best defenses the league has seen.
KG may have a better peak, but Kobe played on an elite level far more than KG. And i'll take that extended pime/peakish years than KG's. Kobe's ranked 10th all time and KG 17th in MVP shares.
Rank Player MVP Shares 1. Michael Jordan* 8.115 2. LeBron James 7.336 3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 6.105 4. Larry Bird* 5.612 5. Magic Johnson* 5.104 6. Bill Russell* 4.748 7. Shaquille ONeal* 4.380 8. Karl Malone* 4.296 9. Tim Duncan 4.278 10. Kobe Bryant 4.202 11. Wilt Chamberlain* 4.173 12. Julius Erving* 3.551 13. David Robinson* 3.123 14. Kevin Durant 3.119 15. Moses Malone* 2.854 16. Mel Daniels* 2.795 17. Kevin Garnett 2.753 18. Bob Pettit* 2.671 19. Hakeem Olajuwon* 2.610 20. Oscar Robertson* 2.459
Kobe's career value is just much greater than KG anywhere you look at it. Kobe's offensive anchoring led to much better results than KG's defensive anchoring so I'm inclined to say here that Kobe's offense is much more valuable than KG's defense when I'm building a franchise.
And its just sad that his legacy will likely diminish overtime as fewer people remember what watching him was like. They'll just turn to numbers w/c don't always tell as efficient a story as other players.
Vote : Kobe Bean Bryant Alt : I'm still studying this one but considering Dirk, Dr J, K. Malone, DRob
Frank Dux wrote:
LeChosen One wrote:Doc is right. The Warriors shouldn't get any respect unless they repeat to be honest.
According to your logic, Tim Duncan doesn't deserve any respect.
ok I lied this is gonna be the KG vs Kobe 5000 page firestorm
also something I've noticed with a defensive evaluation - how much of that is effort vs actual ability vs something else? for example we have these 05/06 defensive metrics looking weaker than normal for KG even though I'm pretty sure he didn't magically lose his defensive talent
same with Kobe in 05-07...dude could clearly defend well starting in 00-01 even if he's not making major impact...and it's almost inarguable that his effort on D dropped as he was asked to carry his team on offense. he's not losing defensive capability in 05-07, especially when you consider that his defense "improved" in 08-09 when he was an "awful" defender for 3 years before.
on the flip side I'm really interested in Kobe's non box-score stuff - we've had 6000 pages detailing KG's non box-score offensive traits but there's definitely a lot there for Kobe too...namely your typical advantages having an elite on-ball playmaker brings to your team. the gap between KG and Kobe's offense might be bigger than implied.
I believe Mikan and Kobe should be the next two. At that point you'd have the complete list of players to win multiple titles as their teams best player and won an MVP award and Finals MVP.
(Mikan won his in the NBL and though the BAA and early NBA never gave an award out, it's safe to say Big George would have won the lions share.)
(Also have to assume the Finals MVP for Mikan, and for that matter Russell, but i guess the trophy being named after you says enough.)
By no means are any of those guys a stretch to be in the top 12 and I think it puts a very objective spin on a painfully subjective process.
Either way, great work by so many of you on this site and thanks for doing this every few years, it really helps me ask the right questions and find the right answers.
Just to get a rough look to see if top ORAPM guys are a bit more consistent than the top DRAPM guys. Single year NPI. '97 through '00 from Ascreaming, rest from JE.
Will note before doing this that I do still have some qualms about splitting RAPM so clearly into two halves. Will do both sides of the ball for the three modern candidates we have. KG 97-13. Kobe 99-13. Dirk 01-14.
Mean: 2.93/1.01 : 3.94 MAD: 0.85/0.47 : 0.46 MADM of total RAPM: 0.11 Off/Def corr: 0.18
Some basic takeaways: -KG's defense was indeed the most variable (by NPI RAPM) side of the ball. -Overall Kobe was slightly more variable year to year, as KG's offense and defense tended to have a bit of an inverse relationship. -Dirk was spectacularly consistent from year to year by this measure.
Other Notes: -Yes, I'm aware MADM isn't exactly perfect here as RAPM scores can be positive or negative (the reason I didn't apply it to individual sides of the ball), but I think it gets the point across clearly enough for our purposes.
Kobe minus '99: Mean: 2.64/-0.01 : 2.63 MAD: 0.54/0.73 : 1.16 MADM of total RAPM: 0.45 Off/Def corr: 0.04
KG minus '13: Mean: 1.65/2.25 : 3.90 MAD: 0.56/1.21 : 1.52 MADM of total RAPM: 0.41 Off/Def corr: -0.03
These guys score closely in career value to me. Erving comes out a bit ahead across the board. He had a higher peak and by my criteria superior longevity. Kobe played more minutes but a substantial chunk of those minutes came post-2012 and pre-2000, and those seasons don't add a ton of value for me (2013 would have added significant value, enough to push him over Erving, had he not been injured late in the season, causing him to miss the playoffs). So, for me, longevity is a push at best and more likely going to Erving. Both players showed the ability to play with other star talent (that said, roster construction as a whole was far superior for Kobe) and both players tend to be overrated defensively.
Erving tends to be underrated altogether IMO. His reputation is such that one may come to believe that he couldn't handle the ball, shoot, or really do anything outside of be athletic and finish at the rim. This likely has to do with his PPG dropping upon entering the NBA. To me, that's on roster construction. You aren't going to convince me that 77-79 Erving was somehow significantly inferior to the 1980 and 1981 MVP winning version.
Lastly, I prefer Erving's less abrasive personality. I have Magic and Bird/Dirk after this pair.
BasketballFan7 wrote:
ardee wrote:
BasketballFan7 wrote:I can see viable arguments for Oscar and West over Erving. My view is that Erving has superior longevity (~53K minutes and standout durability) and IMO a superior peak. I believe he is underrated today due to faulty perception about his capabilities and misunderstanding as to why his numbers dropped off so dramatically in 77-79. It was a bad situation for a volume scorer to be put in. He didn't spontaneously drop off after 76 and resurrect himself in 1980. That said, I can understand West/Oscar over Erving.
I'm a bit more skeptical on Kobe over Erving. I don't doubt that Kobe had a more diverse skill set and that he would fit today's game better. I don't care about era translation though. They have a lot of similarities. Scoring wings who were icons of their leagues, had success with other stars, had long primes, excellent longevities (especially for non-bigs), and inflated defensive reputations (though for different reasons).
For me, Erving gets the edge due to his more impressive peak, less abrasive personality (probably doesn't matter at all for some people but I'm thinking in a team-building context), and better longevity (I don't give Kobe a boost for 2013 - you can't help me win a championship if you are out for the playoffs).
That's just my opinion. I don't find Kobe > Erving heinous by any means. Kobe was a producer.
Why do you think Erving's peak was better? ABA numbers?
And what are your thoughts on the skillset issues I outlined above?
Erving's 1977 playoff run adds validity to his performance. He dominated the Nuggets and the Spurs, two teams that would transition to the NBA the following season with significant roster carryover and achieve 50 and 44 wins, respectively. In particular, the Nuggets team he faced in the finals was excellent by both ABA and NBA standards. The following year the 1977 Nuggets had the best defense in the NBA, as well as the second best expected win-loss. I certainly believe Erving's 1976 to be an upper-echalon quality season.
His NBA production was stymied by poor roster construction. This affected his averages. During the 1977 playoffs he raised his game once again, both overall and in particular in the finals, where he averaged 30-7-5 against Portland after only putting up 21.6 PPG in the regular season. Portland was obviously an excellent team.
I don't have much time to go more in depth, particularly after already having to re-write this
Skill-set wise... I don't put much emphasis into that here. To be clear, Kobe had marvelous versatility. IMO this is valuable because it allowed him to maintain production against damn-near any defense that opposed him. But Erving was so good at what he did do that the inferior versatility doesn't bother me. I find his versatility to be underrated as is. Era-relative, which is all I care for (I have Russell at number one), his handle didn't impede him. You don't do what he did as a slasher without a handle. And he wasn't a non-shooter or non-passer, at least not to the extent where it hindered him.
Kobe's skill-set distinguishes him against players who I feel could be limited against `playoff defenses. For instance, I have Kobe over Malone and Bird (although Bird's playoff drop-off obviously wasn't likely due to versatility issues). I don't feel that Erving had an issue in this regard.
And a related argument:
70sFan wrote:
rebirthoftheM wrote:
70sFan wrote: But it's a matter of rules, not actual abilities. Julius with today handling rules would be just as effective as MJ.
As was the case with Jerry west, who despite his own admission that he couldn't dribble with his left hand, you put down his deficiency to rule differences, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Even rookie Jordan, who was not refined as later Jordan, showed a level of handling abilities in the half-court that simply outshines Erving in the half court. The differences in mechanics are very telling. Quite simply Erving would be ripped in the modern era with the way he dribbled in front of defenders and he ain't splitting doubles and traps like MJ could nor is he breaking down defenses like MJ.
Basketball evolves man. Even in short spans. Each generation learns from the previous and adds to it. MJ learned from Erving and David Thompson in a way that Clyde Drexler evidently did not. We therefore got a revolution in ball handling abilities post-MJ at the wing spot. Such is the world.
But Dr J was elite ballhandler for his position. West wasn't. You don't understand, even with if MJ was a better ballhandler (he was elite so there is nothing strange with that), he handled the ball in illegal way. He couldn't palm the ball in 1970s. Even rookie MJ played in an era when refs started allowing more flashy dribble moves. It would be easier for Julius Erving to handle the ball today. Now everyone carries the ball. Without carrying rules it's so easy that even bigs try to be flashy ballhandlers.
Last point, bolded part is just not true. Julius played in the same league with MJ and he was productive even in his last season. People overrate handling abilities. Elgin Baylor didn't use many dribble moves and he could beat any defender off the dribble. All this behind the back and between the legs stuff isn't really important for basketball player. If you think it is, Dr J was quite flashy ballhandler for his era. Sometimes he was allowed to do more with the ball than the rest because people loved him. He could do all important things to beat defender off the dribble and he could beat double teams with his dribbling. Players now are more comfortable with his dribbling because they basically can't do any illegal dribbles with the way refs call the game. They can also travel in almost any possesion.
If you wish, I can break down Dr J handling ability with video evidence.
FGA Restricted All-Time Draft
In My Hood, The Bullies Get Bullied PG: 2013 Mike Conley, 1998 Greg Anthony SG: 2005 Manu Ginobili, 2015 Khris Middleton SF: 1991 Scottie Pippen PF: 1986 Larry Bird, 1996 Dennis Rodman C: 1999 Alonzo Mourning
1st vote: Kevin Garnett 2nd vote: Kobe Bryant (also giving serious consideration to Karl Malone [dat longevity], and a little to guys like Dirk, DRob, and Dr J)
Am very comfortable with this pick. I know some people are more firmly in the camp of offense > defense, but I am not one of those people except as far as it's worth crediting scorers as [generally speaking] being the guys that put butts in the seats and push the popularity of the sport (also potential larger statistical footprint, for whatever that's worth). And it's not as though Garnett was a bad, or even an "only slightly above average" scorer and offensive player. He was a VERY good offensive player; just arguably not elite, at least for some years of his prime. But always very good at the least. He was simultaneously [generally] an elite defensive player.
By more basic (that is: box-based) advanced metrics he looks very much "in the mix" with the guy(s) I considered for the 2ndary vote:
If anything, Kobe looks like the odd man out in the rs, and Mailman looks like the strongest candidate; but that's before we consider the playoffs (little more on that below), and before considering how this correlates with on-court impact (which I'll move on to presently).....
His impact as measured by the most sophisticated impact metrics (namely RAPM) is almost shockingly good in his prime. If looking at something like best 10-years average, the only players in the last ~23 years who are his peer are Lebron (voted in #3), Shaq (#8), and perhaps [close anyway] Tim Duncan (#5).
Here's some general with/without (games he missed) going from his rookie season thru '13, too, fwiw:
SideshowBob provided some good scouting report type of analysis of his game to better illustrate where some of his potential non-box impact is coming from:
Spoiler:
SideshowBob wrote:
RSCD3_ wrote:If there's one thing I need answered by the PC board intelligentsia on here about Garnett's offense it's this... Forgetting all of the stats I still have one concern about how successful offensively a player can be as a facilitator if he is neither a man who put pressure on teams by A. (Attacking the basket) B. (Launching 3 pointers). If one is neither of these... how much pressure can he apply to smart defenses that try to take away his playmaking?
Remember, there is overlap between these offensive skills/features; I'm trying to give a broad-strokes perspective here.
Let's talk about his shooting really quick, and then dive in. What I want to consider is how and which of these traits show up in the box-score, as well as which would be resilient in the face of smarter defenses.
-Has range out to the 3 pt line but practically/effectively speaking, he's going out to ~22 feet. -From 10-23 feet, shot 47.7% in 03 (9.6 FGA/G), 45.2% in 04 (11.0 FGA/G), 44.6% in 05 (8.3 FGA/G), 48.4% in 06 (8.4 FGA/G) -16-23 ft range, he's assisted on ~77% over those 4 years -Shooting at the big-man positions is a conundrum - shooting 4/5s are often associated with weak (breakeven) or bad (negative) defense. Garnett is one of the few exceptions in that not only is he an elite shooter, there's virtually no defensive opportunity cost to playing him over anyone in history.
When he's on the ball, he can utilize his exceptional ball-handling skills to create separation and knock it down. When he's off the ball, he's always a threat to convert - the fact that he's assisted so frequently on 16-23 ft shots means they're mostly coming on a Pick and Pop or a drive and kick, which means a lot of them are open. He's usually shooting around 45% overall from there, so we're looking at high 40s on open shots and low-mid 40s on created ones. BOTH of those numbers are strong, and that's where the first offensive trait comes; Spacing. His shooting spaces the floor. A LOT - despite the fact that he doesn't shoot 3s, he forces bigs out of the paint and opens up the lane. Because he's not a 3-point shooter though, this effect doesn't really show up in the box-score. And yet, this effect will always be present; doesn't matter how much a defense slows down his raw production in the playoffs, the spacing effect will always be present - he's going to try and create shots from out there and he's going to pop/spot-up; give him space/leave him open and he'll convert at .95-1.00 PPP (which is very strong in the halfcourt). Cover him/recover on him with a little guy and he'll just shoot right over. His man has to come out and try and cover him, and this means that there will always be a marginal improvement for the rest of the team with regards to the lane being open. The only real way to reduce this? Have someone at the 1-3 that can cover him (has the size/strength to cope with his shot/inside game for stretches at a time), but even then, you might yield a disadvantage with one of your bigs covering a small ball-handler.
So next, his PnR game. Crucially, he's a dual threat, he's deadly popping out (as demonstrated above) but even crazier rolling to the basket (high 60s-70ish finishing, that includes post/isolation, thus baskets on the roll would likely be higher. The rolls are similar (though not equal) to drives to the basket and aside from finishing offer an opportunity to kick it out. THIS aspect is captured fairly well by the box-score (rolls into finishes - FG%, finishes - PTS, kick outs - direct assists). This is also one that good PnR defense teams can slow down. Close off the PnR by stopping the ball handler (aggressive blitz/trap to force the ball out their hands before the PnR is initiated, or drop center, ice sideline to deny the ball-handler middle), or rely on strong rotations into the lane to close off easy baskets off a roll. When we talk about his postseason dips (mainly PPG and TS%), this is mostly where they're coming from (and face up game which I'll get to later).
So now, the post options. The high post probably yields the largest fraction of his offensive impact. His scoring skills (again, ball-handling to set up midrange game, quickness/explosion to attack the basket straight on, catch&shoot/spotup, etc.) means that he draws a great amount of attention here, again, pulling a big away from the restricted area and up to the free throw line. This is significant because he can spot and capitalize on any off ball movement, use his passing to force rotations until an opportunity is created, play the give and go with a small. Essentially, there are a ton of options available here due to his gravity and diversity, yet almost none of this will show up in the box-score. Unless he hits a cutter with a wide open lane or a shooter with a wide open corner, he's not going to be credited with the assist.
Imagine - he sucks/turns the attention of the defense to himself, a cutter sees an opening and zips in from the wing, which forces a defender from the corner to come over and protect the basket, leaving a shooter open. Garnett hits the cutter who dishes it out, or he kicks the ball out to the perimeter and it is swung around to the open shooter. Garnett's pressure created the opening, and his passing/vision got the ball where it needed to go, but he's given no credit in the box-score.
Give and go is another example - at the top of the key, he gets the ball, his man (a big) is now worried about his shot and starts to close in, the lane has one less protector, the PG who just threw it in to him now curls around him with a quick handoff, his defender now runs into Garnett or his man and the PG gets an open lane to the basket. If someone has rotated over, a shooter will be open, if not, free layup for the PG, or a kick out for a reset for Garnett in the high/mid-block area. IF it works out that the PG gets an opening up top on the handoff, then he may get a pullup and Garnett is credited with an assist, but in most scenarios, it will play out that again, Garnett gets no box-score credit.
The effect of this play on the offense is resilient, its going to remain present against strong defenses. It doesn't matter how strong your rotations are or what kind of personnel you have, the key is that adjustments have to be made to combat a talented high-post hub, and when adjustments are made, there is always a cost (which means the defense must yield somewhere) and therein lies the impact. This is one of the most defense-resistant AND portable offensive skillsets that one can have (you're almost never going to have issue with fit) and its what made Garnett, Walton, 67 Chamberlain, so valuable.
Mid-Post and face-up game are a little more visible in the box-score (similar to PnR). Mostly comprised of either blowing by the defender and making quick moves to the basket (and draw a foul) or setting up the close-mid-range shot. This is his isolation offense, something that will tend to suffer against stronger, well equipped defenses that can close off the lane, which sort of strips away the "attack the basket, draw free throws" part and reduces it to just set up mid-range jumpshots. Garnett's obviously great at these, but taking away the higher-percentage inside shots will hurt his shooting numbers, volume, and FTA bit. The key then is, how disciplined is the defense. Yes they can close the paint off, but can they do so without yielding too much somewhere else - was there a missed rotation/help when someone left his man to help cover the paint. If yes, then there is impact, as there is anytime opportunities are created, if no then its unlikely any opportunity was created and the best option becomes to just shoot a jumper. This is the other feature of his game that isn't as resilient in the face of smart defenses.
The low-post game is crucial because it provides both a spacing effect and the additional value of his scoring. While he lacks the upper body strength to consistently finish inside against larger bigs, he can always just shoot over them at a reliable % instead, and against most matchups he's skilled enough back-to-basket and face-up that he can typically get to the rim and score. Being able to do this means that he draws attention/doubles, and he's one of the best at his position ever at capitalizing by passing out to an open shooter or kicking it out to swing the ball around the perimeter to the open guy (in case the double comes from the opposite corner/baseline) and all of this action tends force rotations enough that you can get some seams for cuts as well. Outside of scoring or making a direct pass to the open guy, the hockey assists won't show up in the box-score. But, more importantly, there is a crucial utility in having a guy diverse enough that he can play inside and out equally effectively - lineup diversity. He fills so many staples of an offense himself that it allows the team to run more specialized lineups/personnel that might not conventionally work, and this forces defenses to adjust (! that's a key word here). He doesn't have to do anything here that shows up in the box-score, all he needs to do is be on the floor. You can argue the low-post ability as a 50/50 box-score/non-box-score, but I'd lean towards giving the latter more weight.
Finally screens. The effect of Garnett's screens is elite, because of his strong lower body base and because of the diversity of his offensive threat (and he just doesn't get called for moving screens). Its tough for most players to go through/over a Garnett screen, which makes him ideal for setting up jumpers and cutters off the ball. When he's screening on the ball, everyone involved has to worry about his dual scoring threat, and when that happens, that gives the ball-handler that much more space to work with. Marginal on a single possession, significant when added up over the course of ~75 possessions, and extremely resilient - how do you stop good screens? You don't really, you just stay as disciplined as possible. And this effect is completely absent in the box-score.
So what's important now is to consider the fact that most of Garnett's offense does not show up in the box-score! And I wouldn't call what he does on the floor the "little things" (this is just something people have been conditioned to say, most things that aren't covered in the box-score have become atypical/unconventional or associated with grit/hustle, despite the fact that these are pretty fundamental basketball actions/skills). Something like 75-80% of his offensive value just simply isn't tracked by "conventional" recordkeeping, yet the focus with Garnett is almost always on the dip in scoring and efficiency. So what if the 20% that is tracked has fallen off. Even if that aspect of his game fell off by 50% (it hasn't), the rest of his game is so fundamentally resilient that I'm not even sure what degree of defense it would take to neutralize it (at least to an effective degree, I'm welcome to explanations), and that still puts him at 80-90% of his max offensive impact (given the increased loads he was typically carrying in the playoffs, I doubt it even went that low). The generalized argument against him of course tends to be "where are the results", and quite frankly it needs to be hammered home that his Minnesota casts were actually that bad. Not mid 2000s Kobe/Lebron bad, like REALLY bad, like worst of any top 10 player bad.
.......and I'd got just a bare-bones start on some video scouting to better illustrate some of what he'd outlined in writing above (copied from prior thread):
Spoiler:
trex_8063 wrote:Limited scouting report (with video supportive materials) for Garnett; sorta rushed tonight, starting with G1 of '04 WCF (against Lakers), and really only got thru the 1st quarter (will try to come back with materials harvested from other games). I watched more of this game, as well as part of '08 game against Cleveland, another game against the Lakers from '03 (somewhat more of the same). While this report is lolsamplesize (from one quarter of one game), I'd suggest it's perhaps illustrative of how easy it is to find examples of what he does (defensively especially) to help his team......really you just have to click on a game and watch a few minutes to find plenty of examples.
EDIT: Links didn't work the way I wanted, but if you copy/paste the http into new browser window, will bring you to exactly the play I describe.
PnR/PnP Defense [youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=100[/youtube] Cassell gets completely trapped behind a Mailman screen, but no penetration or other major defensive breakdown allowed as KG picks him up. Payton passes to Malone for an open 20-footer (which Garnett perhaps could have contested better, though likely was a conscious decision---baiting him to shoot it and/or feeling it's better to allow that shot than bite too hard on a fake: twilight-years Mailman is only hitting that shot---even uncontested---maybe 36-38% of the time).
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=160[/youtube] Another solid screen by Malone, another penetration attempt totally cut off, goading an aging Payton into a [likely] low % baseline pull-up (and Garnett still recovers to defend any potential roll to the rim AND manages to get into position to box-out for the rebound; unfortunately Cassell fouls the shooter).
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=1146[/youtube] Cuts Kobe off from the middle on the high-screen.
Roving Help [youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=131[/youtube] Kobe got the half-step on Hassell and drew the foul, but note Garnett shading the play; had a foul not occurred, Kobe likely wouldn't have had much of a play near the rim.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=241[/youtube] Again Kobe beats Hassell off the dribble, but ultimately gets no immediate play as it's Garnett (coming from way over on the opposite wing, as he knows Johnson cannot leave Shaq) who cuts him off on the baseline; kicks to Malone who kicks to Payton (open look, misses, Shaq gets OREB and put-back, though).
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=327[/youtube] Lot of things he does on this play. First: flashing off-ball help toward Shaq, preventing the entry pass, recovers nicely to Malone near the perimeter. Second: shades Kobe when he catches a pass at the elbow, forces Kobe to dribble out behind to arc to regroup; then dissuades Kobe on the initial penetration look on the Malone screen-attempt. Third: Comes over on the help to give great contest on the tough runner by Kobe (a miss, TWolves rebound).
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=523[/youtube] Outstanding play on the transition defense: despite there being TWO other Timberwolves who are closer to the play at the time of the rebound, it's still Garnett who gets back to make the chase-down block (note he also makes sincere effort to keep the block in play).
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=545[/youtube] This is immediately after the chase-down block. Note him verbally directing traffic on the defense (he does this a lot). Then he's shading Shaq even before the entry pass, cuts off the baseline on the help D, but is still in position to box out Malone on the weakside as the shot goes up. (hustles downcourt to catch the transition pass and kick out for assist on other end, too, fwiw)
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=634[/youtube] Good help D on the major threat (Shaq right under the rim); leaves his man open for an open 14-foot baseline shot (which is made), but obviously between that and Shaq getting the ball under the hoop.....
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=726[/youtube] Dissuades Kobe from driving middle on the high screen, then shades him on his baseline drive, leaving him with no play (ultimate result a turnover when Kobe steps on the baseline).
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=923[/youtube] Garnett comes from the opposite wing to shade or double-team Shaq in the post, cutting off the middle. Result is a travelling violation by Shaq.
Screen Setting [youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=120[/youtube] Solid screen yields a reasonably clean look for one of the best mid-range shooters of his generation (good contest by Kobe, fwiw).
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=475[/youtube] Another solid screen; ball-handling picked up well, though.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=610[/youtube] Solid screen yields a drive to the bucket for Cassell (misses, but due to Shaq coming over on the help, no one is boxing out Olowokandi who cleans it up on the offensive glass).
rebirthoftheM wrote:.
Found your recent post on Kobe's gravity interesting and somewhat illuminating. My one comment would be noting it's all from '06: trash offensive cast....so of course Kobe has a ton of gravity. With a weak offensive supporting cast, even a player like Garnett (whom I think we'd all agree is a lesser offensive player) can have significant gravity (and note '04 isn't all that bad an offensive cast, too, but below are some examples I found just in a single quarter of play)....
Gravity on Offense (like those presented by rebirthoftheM about Kobe, these are almost meant to be viewed as still-frames) [youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=316[/youtube] Triple-teamed on the elbow (result was turnover, though).
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=366[/youtube] Double-teamed in post, they both chase him out behind arc. The weakest option (Johnson on the baseline) ends up being left open (misses shot).
[youtube]https://youtu.be/YdQlQripVFc?t=455[/youtube] Again sort of swarmed on the elbow, ends up drawing a foul.
I've got no more time tonight for this, unfortunately....
There then may be some comments/concerns regarding playoff performance (though should emphasize the RAPM previously mentioned DOES include playoffs for years that applies (playoff samples weighted more heavily than rs, generally). And drza provided some good data suggesting that maybe his impact is not as hindered by a "poor showing" from a scoring/shooting efficiency standpoint (perhaps because----unlike Kobe and Karl----his primary value is not as a scorer):
Spoiler:
[spoiler]
drza wrote:Garnett's postseason results Part 1
So. What's up with KG in the playoffs?
For many, it is the elephant in the room question mark for Garnett. I, on the other hand, believe Garnett to be very possibly the dominant playoff performer of his generation. Clearly, there's a giant gap between those to perceptions. So...let's take a look. A REAL look. In this project, we have people looking for different things. Some want to see rings, period. Some are ok with fewer rings, as long as you have great boxscore numbers. Some want to evaluate how far a player could lead a team, given his teammates. Some want to see unit results. Some want skillset arguments. We've seen a rise in videos and screen caps in this project, which is very cool. Some like +/- numbers. So, I figured...why not look at Garnett's postseasons using all of the above? Try to come up with the best evaluation possible about his level of production and impact in the playoffs. Let's go.
Regular season discussion: [spoiler]Through the first 18 games, Garnett and Marbury continued to show growth in their games (even if there was clear rust in their shots), as they led the Wolves to a 12 - 6 record out of the gates. Garnett was averaging 19.9 points (45% FG, 74% FT) with 11 boards, 4.3 assists, 2.8 TOs, 1.9 blocks and 2.5 steals. But, it turns out that Googs wasn't the only Wolves star that Steph couldn't get along with anymore. Amid swirling rumors that Marbury was jealous of Garnett's status as the franchise player, Marbury would force a trade that sent him to New Jersey. The Timberwolves could have accepted a young Sam Cassell back in the trade, but instead opted for a talented but injured point guard named Terrell Brandon.
Over the next 32 games, the Wolves would struggle to re-find their balance without Marbury. Brandon only played in 21 of the games as he nursed his injuries, and KG would miss three games as well. The Wolves would close the season 13 - 19, to end the season .500 and make the playoffs for the third straight season. In the last 29 regular season games he played that year, Garnett increased his scoring but saw his blocks fall off the table to the tune of 21.3 pts (47% FG, 67% FT), 10 reb, 4.3 ast, 2.9 TO, 1.5 stl, 1.3 blks.
Garnett finished 6th in the league in PI-RAPM in 1999. Garnett finished slightly behind Duncan in offensive RAPM (34th, vs Duncan's 30th) but ahead in defensive RAPM (Garnett 8th, with Duncan 31st).
Playoffs discussion: In the playoffs, the Wolves would get the #1 seeded (and soon-to-be NBA champion) Spurs led by Tim Duncan and still-prime David Robinson. While the Wolves were clearly outclassed, this gave us our first Garnett vs Duncan head-to-head match-up in the playoffs. They wouldn't disappoint. The Spurs won the series 3 - 1, but the 8th-seeded Wolves challenged them more than any of their higher-seeded foes on the way to their championship. In the head-to-head:
The Wolves (-0.17 SRS) lost the series 3 - 1. The Spurs (7.12 SRS) would go on to sweep the 4th seeded Lakers (2.68 SRS) & the 3rd seed Trail Blazers (5.67 SRS) on their march through the Western Conference.
The Wolves held the Spurs to 1.4 points below their season O-Rtg, 0.7 pts/100 better than expected based on both teams' regular season marks. The Spurs defense stifled them to 6.7 points below their season O-Rtg, bu tthis was actually 0.5 points better than expected.
Bottom line: So, in a season of trades & turmoil, Garnett had an All NBA-level impact to carry the team to the postseason as the eighth seed, measuring out as the best offensive player on the team and one of the best defensive players in the league. In the playoffs, Garnett performed well against Duncan, and the Timberwolves performed better as a team than the Spurs' other much higher ranked Western Conference opponents. Yes, Garnett's TS% in the playoffs was only 48.8%, but I submit that he had an outstanding postseason performance in 1999. Full stop.
Garnett made the leap to MVP level this season. He had grown into his body enough that he was more power forward than wing. Brandon was as healthy as he'd ever be as a Wolf, 2nd year Wally Z was starting to look like a good starter, and KG's childhood idol Malik Sealy gave them a startable shooting guard that could play some semblance of defense.It was a cast that wasn't awful, and Garnett responded by leading them to the first 50-win season in franchise history. His averages of 22.9 points, 11.8 boards, 5 assists, 1.6 steals and 1.5 blocks made him a fantasy basketball feast, and he backed that up in the impact stats to finish second in single-season PI-RAPM, behind only absolute peak Shaq. This score broke down to 15th in the NBA in O-RAPM and 11th in D-RAPM.
Playoffs discussion: As a reward for their best season ever, Garnett and the Wolves got to face one of the two transcendant teams in the NBA in the first round. Portland had a stocked roster, including a defensive masterpiece of a frontline featuring Rasheed Wallace, Scottie Pippen, Arvydys Sabonis and Brian Grant (among others). Now, let's start with the elephant in the room...for the series, Garnett averaged 18.8 points on only 44% TS%, WAY down from the 22.9 points on 55% TS from the regular season. For many, this means that Garnett had a bad playoffs, full-stop. Let's look a bit closer, to see if that assessment holds true.
*The Trail Blazers were doing a lot of double- and triple- teaming of Garnett that series. It clearly affected his individual scoring, which led to the low scoring efficiency. However, it also led to him having an incredible amount of gravity. On offense, Garnett utilized that gravity to try to set up his teammates with excellent looks. Here's a montage of clips to help illustrate my point (I found a couple of short clips on Youtube that were posted by a Trail Blazers fan, and put this together from there):
Example 1: triple-teamed on dribble drive, shot missed
Garnett received an entry pass in the post, guarded by Wallace. As he turns to face-up, Sabonis has sagged off of Rasho with both feet in the lane, and (Pippen?) is sagged to the foul line and looking at Garnett.
Garnett makes his move on Sheed, and has the angle to get to the rim. But, Sabonis has dropped completely to the rim in Garnett’s face while Pippen is also there, having swiped at Garnett’s dribble on the way past. Interestingly, Rasho doesn’t dive to the rim despite now being guarded by Damon Stoudamire.
By the time Garnett rises to shoot, he has a hard double of two 7-footers between he and the rim, and there are two more wings sagged down towards him as well.
[Example 2: Double/triple out-top --> wide open look for Wally
Garnett is doubled out top by Wallace and Pippen.
Garnett split the double-team with a dribble. Wally Szczerbiak’s man now comes to triple Garnett, leaving Wally stank-wide open behind the 3-point arc.
Garnett sees the triple coming, passes to the wide open Szcerbiak…who proceeds to air-ball the 3-point attempt (not shown).
Example 3: triple-team in paint --> wide open look for Sam
KG dribble drive into the paint. Triple-teamed between he and the rim, with fourth player sagging towards rim and fifth player turned to look at Garnett from top of key. Sam Mitchell is stank-wide open for an elbow 3-pointer.
Garnett kicks it out to Mitchell for the naked trey, which he knocks down.
*That was obviously only a brief montage, but it illustrates a few key points.
1) As SideshowBob illustrated in a great scouting post http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=44663914#p44663914 , Garnett's offense has several key components, including (but not limited to) spacing, PnR (Roll/Pop), High-Post, Low-Post, Mid-Post, Screens. And (and this is key)...these elements, in which he makes most of his impact, are not reliant upon his scoring efficiency.
2) In this series, the Trail Blazers were clearly willing to devote their entire defense to overloading and stopping one man from scoring. Garnett could have continued to force the action, got up enough shots to at least get a big scoring volume. But instead, he adapted and started finding those teammates left open by the defense's over-attention. This translated to him averaging 8.7 assists for the series, and notching two triple-doubles in four games.
3) This ALSO resulted in the rest of the Wolves' players operating at or near their capacity as scorers. The team shot so well, in fact, that though the Wolves' O-Rtg decreased by 1.2 points/100 possessions for the series, that was actually 2.1 points BETTER than their expected value in the series based upon the season-long ORtg & DRtg of the units involved.
*Rasheed Wallace averaged 13.5 ppg,(52% FG, 75% FT on 3.0 FTA/g) in 42 min/game against Wolves in round 1, 22.3 pp42 (48% FG, 78% FT on 5.3 FTA/g) against Jazz and Lakers in next 2 rounds
The Wolves (2.7 SRS) lost the series 3 - 1 to the Trail Blazers (6.4 SRS), but they lost by a total of only 8 points. They kept the series much more competitive than Portland's next opponents, the #2 seeded Jazz (4.5 SRS), who lost 4 - 1 and were outscored by the Blazers by 55 points in five games. That Blazers squad could, and probably SHOULD have won the title, but choked away a 15-point 4th quarter lead to Shaq & Kobe in the WCF.
Bottom line: Garnett played at an MVP level in the regular season, and every bit of that level was required to get that Wolves team to 50 wins. In the playoffs, his TS% dropped by 11% as the defense sold out to stop him. Yet...he modified his game, drawing the defense and setting up his teammates for wide open shots, resulting in almost 9 assists per game and a TEAM offense that surpassed expectation. The Wolves still lost to the better team, but they made that team WORK in a way that the supposedly better regular season team, the Jazz, was unable to replicate. Did Garnett fail? Or was he the most impactful player on the court, and playing even higher than his regular season MVP level to keep his outmanned team extremely competitive against a much stronger opponent? I submit that he had another outstanding postseason, full stop.
This has already gotten much longer than anticipated, and I've got a ways to go. So, I'm going to speed up a bit and not hit every year in such detail. The Wolves played Spurs again in the playoffs. Wolves were 47 - 35 (+1.8 SRS), Spurs were 58 - 24 (+7.9 SRS, 1st in league). Garnett was again matched up on Tim Duncan, and here are their averages against each other that series followed by Duncan's averages over the rest of the playoffs (Mavs and Lakers):
Similar story. Garnett balanced with Duncan, roughly cancelling each other out. He obviously suppressed Duncan, though, as all of Duncan's numbers went way up for the rest of the season. And again, the #8 seeded Wolves (SRS +1.8) lost by a total of 26 points over four games, while the Spurs (7.9 SRS) beat the #5 seed Mavs (SRS 4.6) by a total of 58 points over 5 games. Garnett's team lost in the first round, but they were more competitive against the more powerful Spurs than the supposedly better Mavs. I'd submit again, based upon Garnett's personal impact and the team's results, that Garnett had an outstanding playoffs. Full stop.
In the series, Garnett averaged 24 points (51% TS), 18.7 reb (5.3 ORB), 5 ast, 4 TO
Two elephants in the room:
1) KG's TS% was 2.2% lower than the regular season. I have no vid caps of this one, but I've demonstrated above some examples to illustrate what the skill-set argument suggests, that KG's offensive impact isn't much affected by small changes in scoring efficiency. a) His 5 assists/game were just behind Billups' 5.7 assists for team lead. KG's gravity, spacing & passing ability, I contend, were big reasons why Billups and Wally combined for 42 points on almost 56% TS. b) His 5.3 offensive rebounds/game were unusual for him, and helped with the offense as well
2) Nowitzki averaged 33.3 points on 68.6% TS in the series. However... a) Garnett wasn't guarding Nowitzki in the series b) Nowtizki was a finisher only, averaging 0.7 assists vs 2.0 TOs, and only 1.7 O-rebs. This (OBVIOUSLY) isn't a negative in a guy who scored 33.3 points on 69% TS. BUT... c) The Wolves guarded Nowitzki like that by design. Flip Saunders was quoted during that series as saying, paraphrased, that the Wolves' defensive strategy was to let Dirk get his and try to minimize everyone else. d) To an extent, their defensive strategy wasn't completely awful. Despite Dirk's exploits, the Mavs as a team were held 0.3 points/100 possessions under the expected values, based on the regular season O & D ratings.
*In the series, Garnett sat only 16 total minutes. In those 16 minutes, the Wolves were outscored by 18 points. In the first game, this was the difference between a win and a loss (Wolves outscored Mavs by 4 with Garnett on floor).
Wolves were never going to win this series...the Mavs & Lakers that season were their worst match-ups. In the Mavs' case, they just had too much firepower. The two elephants in the room are enough not to declare this an "outstanding, full stop" series the way that the previous three were, but it was still a dang-good performance by KG in the postseason.
I've got to stop here, for now. It's absurdly deep into the AM...the sun is coming up, in fact. I've got to go to bed. I'm hoping to be able to continue this for the rest of Garnett's playoffs appearances, to really shine a light on them.
But even here...I've covered the four seasons in which Garnett shot the worst in the postseason over the stretch (50% TS through those four match-ups). And based upon his contributions, his impact on his team, and his team's performance in those postseasons, I would say that his overall postseason performance from 1999 - 2002 was outstanding. Not just good given his TS%...but outstanding full stop, with the shooting percentage not really a relevant or determining factor.
[/spoiler]
Now admittedly this analysis does sustain a little criticism or at least a cautionary statement that it tends to insinuate that team improvement over expectation in these playoff runs can be credited to Garnett (whereas others have suggested, "hey, maybe his teammates simply picked up some slack for a change"). Not saying these other responders were correct.......but they might be (at least partially).
But anyway, even via some broad strokes standard box-based metrics, Garnett again looks more or less "in the mix" vs Kobe/Malone in the playoffs over similar large sample of years:
.....this before we make any suggestions or speculations regarding how he can impact the game outside the purview of simply being an effect 1st option scorer. And as many of his critics are fond of pointing out, the T-Wolves didn't make the playoffs '05-'07 (absence of those prime years in this sample is probably depressing Garnett's metrics marginally.
So anyway, that is why in a nutshell [bloody big nutshell!] I'm quite comfortable going with Garnett in this spot.
Why Kobe over Malone at this point (given Malone actually looks marginally better in a quick statistical comp)? Well, I'll state I don't object to others putting Mailman over Kobe (I've flip-flopped in the past and had him in front). It boils down to me feeling Kobe is more reliable as an offensive anchor in the playoffs, some influential posts from rebirthoftheM regarding Kobe's gravity (and also how well he handles that gravity; and the fact that he anchored some solid offenses even in these years with poor supporting cast is in his favor, too). Dirk is an intriguing case, though. I really like DRob, and expect I'm probably going to be lending him support sooner than most; he's not super-high right now on basis of a bit more playoff dip than most other candidates as well as the lacking longevity compared to most other present candidates.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
1. Kevin Garnett Longevity is quite important in my all time list (see Kareem ranking above Jordan/LeBron despite having a far worse prime) so it should come as no surprise that KG would rank highly for me. Garnett in his prime wasn't the best offensive or defensive player in the league but his combined impact on both ends of the floor is definitely one of the best. His post-08 Celtics seasons are largely ignored because they are "post prime" but while that is true for his offense, he played some of the best defense anybody has played in probably the last 50 years. Most of the criticism on KG has been his inability to single handedly carry a team's offense like a superstar but I don't see that as much of an issue when he is still a really good offensive player for most of his prime.
2. Dirk Nowitzki Dirk/Kobe/Malone are more or less on the same level for me but Dirk is slightly ahead of the other two as of now. He could potentially drop lower if he stays around as a below average player for too long but that time hasn't come yet.
Rank Player MVP Shares 1. Michael Jordan* 8.115 2. LeBron James 7.336 3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 6.105 4. Larry Bird* 5.612 5. Magic Johnson* 5.104 6. Bill Russell* 4.748 7. Shaquille ONeal* 4.380 8. Karl Malone* 4.296 9. Tim Duncan 4.278 10. Kobe Bryant 4.202 11. Wilt Chamberlain* 4.173 12. Julius Erving* 3.551 13. David Robinson* 3.123 14. Kevin Durant 3.119 15. Moses Malone* 2.854 16. Mel Daniels* 2.795 17. Kevin Garnett 2.753 18. Bob Pettit* 2.671 19. Hakeem Olajuwon* 2.610 20. Oscar Robertson* 2.459
What is surprising to me is that Mel Daniels has more MVP Shares than Hakeem Olajuwon and Kevin Garnett for the simple fact that his ABA career is included
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships." - Michael Jordan
George Mikan is the pick here. Once again, most seasons as the league's best player, most rings as his team's best player. Now, I would guess that some of you consciously or unconsciously secretly practice recency bias. I think that that's legitimate criteria if you sincerely believe in it (I sure don't). I think it's a slippery slope. Would Steph Curry have been an MVP in a era without the three? Etc. . . (trailing off)
For the alternate, I have a group to choose from which includes Kobe, The Doctor, and the scandalously underrated Moses Malone. My gut says Kobe, but let's see here. Kobe vs. The Doctor: Kobe won one MVP and two rings as his team's unquestioned best player. Moses won three MVPs and one ring as his team's best. The Doctor won 4 MVPs. As for rings, no NBA rings as his team's best player. ABA - would the '74 or '76 Nets beaten the Celtics those years? I say that in '74 with those future Spurs at the 4 and 5 they'd have a chance, but still come up short. '76, no way. So he's out. It's very, very close between Kobe and Moses. But his three extra rings as a 1b give him the edge . . .
1-George Mikan 2-Kobe Bryant
"Coach, why don't you just relax? We're not good enough to beat the Lakers. We've had a great year, why don't you just relax and cool down?"
I would take Kobe Bryant here because he was legitimately a top 3 player in the league from 2002 ---2009 that's a long prime and your going get at least 25 a game and maximum effort. Although I don't think Kobe should be a top 10 player in the league I think he is a lock top 12 possibly with only Oscar Robertson ahead.
VOTE 2 Oscar Robertson
My grandpa's friend think's The Big O is the greatest player who has ever lived. And if there is a way to bring the Big O into a time machine, I think he may prove us right as we don't know to the EXACT extent of how good Big O was relatively speaking to this area.
This is why I have Oscar placed 11th. Even in a relatively weak era you have to give credit where it's do and he averaged like 25/9/9 for his career.
rebirthoftheM wrote:So questions re KG's defense. I have asked about what occurred with KG's defense in 05, 06 and 07. The general response has been that KG's D didn't actually really vary too much during these years, just his team situation impacted his defensive indicators most heavily in 05, and also 06. 07 it is said is more reflective of KG's true defensive value.
He supposedly ranked #1 by defensive +/- in 2007. I think in an overall sense it's okay. The 05 team wasn't bad but was result of a strong conference. You can say it was equivalent of Kobe's 06 team - they were only 1 win apart. KG was voted in as being Top 3 in the RPOY threads for 05. Tim Duncan and Steve Nash's MVP year were the only ones ahead.
Kobe's 04 and 05 sequence wasn't all too special and you can maybe counter that with KG's 06, 07.
I am a pretty big supporter of Kobe's offensive prime value - which I think is amongst the very best ever. That being said, Kobe falls short to KG in peak by a good amount. I didn't think Kobe's 08 and 09 were nearly as impressive as KG's 03 and 04 and I think most would agree.
LA Bird wrote:1. Kevin Garnett Longevity is quite important in my all time list (see Kareem ranking above Jordan/LeBron despite having a far worse prime) so it should come as no surprise that KG would rank highly for me. Garnett in his prime wasn't the best offensive or defensive player in the league but his combined impact on both ends of the floor is definitely one of the best. His post-08 Celtics seasons are largely ignored because they are "post prime" but while that is true for his offense, he played some of the best defense anybody has played in probably the last 50 years. Most of the criticism on KG has been his inability to single handedly carry a team's offense like a superstar but I don't see that as much of an issue when he is still a really good offensive player for most of his prime.
2. Dirk Nowitzki Dirk/Kobe/Malone are more or less on the same level for me but Dirk is slightly ahead of the other two as of now. He could potentially drop lower if he stays around as a below average player for too long but that time hasn't come yet.
Again, using longevity as an argument for guys like this with Mailman sitting right there makes little sense.
You can say that Garnett or Dirk were as good as Malone for a while. Maybe. If you born in 1990 or later and don't realize just how relentlessly dominant Mailman was forever and ever.
You can also say that Garnett or Dirk lasted...well, almost as long. Not really actually as there is still a big minutes gap, but you can say they lasted for a very long time themselves.
What you can't say is that Garnett and Dirk lasted as long while being as good as Mailman. In the end, their longevity involved getting old, losing their stuff, and hanging on for years.
In the final 5 years of each of their careers (Dirk's is still going on so his final 5 may even drop):
Again...we blatantly disrespect the 2nd best PF of all time in Karl Malone. And one of the two greatest all time longevity masters. You can use "longevity" as an argument for Garnett or Dirk over IMO superior basketball players still on the board in Admiral and Barkley. But compared to Mailman, also still on the board? Well, the shoe is on the other foot and they might as well be Alonzo Mourning.
I'll make my vote in a few hours. I'm still a bit undecided...
I'm between Kobe, Dirk, Karl Malone and Oscar Robertson. More likely to vote Kobe + Dirk... but that's as low as I'll wait to put Karl Malone in. I don't want to sound biased because he's our biggest icon... But but given how I choose players I think Malone should be in soon.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
