Which players get too much/little credit for their teams success?

[Dutchball97]

I have a hard time with properly grading the offense of Steve Nash. He's obviously a great offensive force but was he so good he's arguably the GOAT on offense? I'm just not quite sure. 2005 especially is messing with my head on this. On one hand Dallas didn't miss a beat without him so it's hard to say he was extremely important for their offense but then he also almost singlehandedly turned the Suns from a below average offense to best in the league on that side of the ball.

His PI RAPM (which is probably the main reason for his hype here) goes from really good in Dallas (+2 to +3 range) to all-time great in Phoenix (+6, +7). The odd thing to me is that there is no significant uptick in terms of usage so it's not like this is simply due to him taking on a much larger role and his boxscore production remains almost the same as well. I'm just not really buying Nash suddenly becoming the best offensive player overnight on the Suns when there is otherwise very little to suggest he's on a completely different level than the last few years in Dallas.

There was a big discussion about Jordan being so effective on offense due to his teams being optimized around him but you never really hear this brought up about Nash. Isn't it fair to say Nash landed in a very helpful environment for him to thrive? The 7 seconds or less offense was more or less build on the skillset of Nash. If someone has a different perspective on this please share as I might very well be missing something.

I dont think the reason people are so high on nash is only his plus-minus metrics as you say. The team offense results are probably a bigger reason why

But either way i am high on him more so because of his skillset. One which was very well complimented by his coach and teammates in phoenix no doubt, but he created goat (no hyperbole) level offense with that opportunity so what more can you ask of him there?

What I meant with the +- stuff is that Nash doesn't particularly stand out among all-time greats in terms of raw production, boxscore stats or team success but it's the +- metrics where he ranks incredibly highly so I assume people who have Nash higher than average are likely taking +- into account pretty heavily. I'm not insinuating Nash shouldn't be getting any type of support as an offensive GOAT candidate, I personally have a hard time seeing the case for him but am open to arguments.

Like the offensive team results are great but obviously like I said how much of that is because of Nash and how much is that because of system/coaching/teammates etc? What I'm getting at with that is that Nash didn't move the needle that much in Dallas but had a huge positive effect for the Suns on offense so it's not as clear for him as for some other players in my eyes.

You can't really ask more of Nash in Phoenix, he did an amazing job. The thing is that the likes of Jordan and LeBron get pretty extreme scrutiny over how much of their offensive success was because of them and if they'd be able to replicate or come close to that level in less fortunate team environments. Because of this divide between his impact in Dallas and Phoenix I have a harder time seeing Nash able to replicate his GOAT level offenses anywhere. Still though I'm not just stating Nash isn't as good offensively as some people here make it seem, I'm saying I can see why people have him that high up but Dallas not really dropping off at all offensively when he left gives reason for doubt. While in most basketball discussions you're up against people who are pretty low on Nash so it rarely comes up but in a more critical and knowledgable board like this I feel like there should be some room to question whether Nash might be getting more benefit of the doubt on his portability than others.

[Wooderson]

in

Too much credit for defense: Kevin Garnett. Perhaps the poster child for when inferences of impact data can supersede reality. He's a RAPM king, but KG never participated in an elite defense until his age 31 season as Boston's starting PF. The 2008 Celtics produced a 101.4 DRTG with KG off the floor, which would've been good for a -6.1 and the #2 defense in the league. Perhaps there's an argument for KG as an ATG defensive ceiling raiser, but as a floor raiser he just doesn't have the supporting evidence

It's a little strange to post on/off data for when the defense was elite in 2008 and ignore it for the other years. KG only had one season where the D without him on the court rates in the top half of the league, but many where they were top half with him on. Half of the seasons the D without him rated at league worst levels. All but two seasons they were -4 or better with him on the court. And of course many of the players where the D drastically drops without him are on the court when he's still playing. Yes most of the defenses weren't elite, but that's because they had crappy defensive talent overall, but the impact still shows (which is why DRAPM is high). You can still play GOAT level defense but not have elite team defense overall.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

Too much credit for defense: Kevin Garnett. Perhaps the poster child for when inferences of impact data can supersede reality. He's a RAPM king, but KG never participated in an elite defense until his age 31 season as Boston's starting PF. The 2008 Celtics produced a 101.4 DRTG with KG off the floor, which would've been good for a -6.1 and the #2 defense in the league. Perhaps there's an argument for KG as an ATG defensive ceiling raiser, but as a floor raiser he just doesn't have the supporting evidence

Wasn't Garnett a GOAT level floor raiser for defense with the Wolves and then a GOAT level defensive ceiling raiser with Boston?

Isn't Garnett on two completely different rosters, one being a "floor raiser" and one being a "ceiling raiser" proving he was both?

Have you compared his On/Off numbers to Duncan, Howard and others since it is your main data point?

The teammate argument for Garnett might be persuasive if I weren't holding him to a standard of literal ATG defenders. If you interpreted the cited on/off numbers as being the basis of my evaluation rather than the additional layer of evidence intended to support it, then I suppose I should provide an explicit "main data point" rather than rely on implicit assumption. So here's Minnesota's DRTG with Garnett on the floor relative to league average:

1997: -4.4
1998: -0.2
1999: -3.1
2000: -2.8
2001: -0.1
2002: -0.3
2003: -1.2
2004: -4.5
2005: 0.0
2006: -1.5
2007: -0.3

Very good in some seasons, but not ATG level impact and especially not so when compared to what Howard did for Orlando prior having his career derailed by back issues:

2007: -2.0
2008: -1.0
2009: -6.5
2010: -4.7
2011: -5.1

That's 3 consecutive seasons from age 23-25, each of which was at a level greater than anything Garnett ever produced in any single season of his entire decade+ tenure with the Wolves. Garnett's MIN resume isn't merely insufficient here, it's utterly indefensible if we're insisting he be placed among the most elite defensive anchors in all of NBA history. We can quibble about teammates, but Garnett gets dwarfed in a direct comparison to Dwight Howard when the Magic were objectively lacking in supporting defensive talent, and yet Howard is rarely mentioned around here in conversations of defensive GOAT, which I suppose is my entire point as it satisfies both my Garnett (too much) and Howard (too little) credit arguments for purposes of this thread

[Colbinii]

Too much credit for defense: Kevin Garnett. Perhaps the poster child for when inferences of impact data can supersede reality. He's a RAPM king, but KG never participated in an elite defense until his age 31 season as Boston's starting PF. The 2008 Celtics produced a 101.4 DRTG with KG off the floor, which would've been good for a -6.1 and the #2 defense in the league. Perhaps there's an argument for KG as an ATG defensive ceiling raiser, but as a floor raiser he just doesn't have the supporting evidence

Wasn't Garnett a GOAT level floor raiser for defense with the Wolves and then a GOAT level defensive ceiling raiser with Boston?

Isn't Garnett on two completely different rosters, one being a "floor raiser" and one being a "ceiling raiser" proving he was both?

Have you compared his On/Off numbers to Duncan, Howard and others since it is your main data point?

The teammate argument for Garnett might be persuasive if I weren't holding him to a standard of literal ATG defenders. If you interpreted the cited on/off numbers as being the basis of my evaluation rather than the additional layer of evidence intended to support it, then I suppose I should provide an explicit "main data point" rather than rely on implicit assumption. So here's Minnesota's DRTG with Garnett on the floor relative to league average:

1997: -4.4
1998: -0.2
1999: -3.1
2000: -2.8
2001: -0.1
2002: -0.3
2003: -1.2
2004: -4.5
2005: 0.0
2006: -1.5
2007: -0.3

Very good in some seasons, but not ATG level impact and especially not so when compared to what Howard did for Orlando prior having his career derailed by back issues:

2007: -2.0
2008: -1.0
2009: -6.5
2010: -4.7
2011: -5.1

That's 3 consecutive seasons from age 23-25, each of which was at a level greater than anything Garnett ever produced in any single season of his entire decade+ tenure with the Wolves. Garnett's MIN resume isn't merely insufficient here, it's utterly indefensible if we're insisting he be placed among the most elite defensive anchors in NBA history. We can quibble about teammates, but Garnett gets dwarfed in a direct comparison to Dwight Howard when the Magic were objectively lacking in supporting defensive talent, and yet Howard is rarely mentioned around here in conversations of defensive GOAT, which I suppose is my entire point as it satisfies both my Garnett (too much) and Howard (too little) credit arguments for purposes of this thread

You are missing the point. Minnesota's defense without Garnett [2000-2004] were Bottom 3/5 defenses without him and average with him. No player in NBA History was making those defense great.

Compare the numbers to Howard and Duncan.

The 2009 Magic were a...wait for it...102.8 Defense WITHOUT HOWARD.

You realize the Magic were only -1.0 better defensively with Howard than without Howard. You mention how the 2008 Celtics were -6 better with Garnett yet LOOK AT THE MAGIC. Its less impressive.

2010 Magic go from 106.2 w/o Howard to 102.9 with Howard [-3.3].

The data provided for Howard [Same data you used for Garnett] actually supports GARNETT here, not Howard.

Be consistent dude. The Magic were much better defensively without Howard than the Wolves were without Garnett.

[Wooderson]

Too much credit for defense: Kevin Garnett. Perhaps the poster child for when inferences of impact data can supersede reality. He's a RAPM king, but KG never participated in an elite defense until his age 31 season as Boston's starting PF. The 2008 Celtics produced a 101.4 DRTG with KG off the floor, which would've been good for a -6.1 and the #2 defense in the league. Perhaps there's an argument for KG as an ATG defensive ceiling raiser, but as a floor raiser he just doesn't have the supporting evidence

Wasn't Garnett a GOAT level floor raiser for defense with the Wolves and then a GOAT level defensive ceiling raiser with Boston?

Isn't Garnett on two completely different rosters, one being a "floor raiser" and one being a "ceiling raiser" proving he was both?

Have you compared his On/Off numbers to Duncan, Howard and others since it is your main data point?

The teammate argument for Garnett might be persuasive if I weren't holding him to a standard of literal ATG defenders. If you interpreted the cited on/off numbers as being the basis of my evaluation rather than the additional layer of evidence intended to support it, then I suppose I should provide an explicit "main data point" rather than rely on implicit assumption. So here's Minnesota's DRTG with Garnett on the floor relative to league average:

1997: -4.4
1998: -0.2
1999: -3.1
2000: -2.8
2001: -0.1
2002: -0.3
2003: -1.2
2004: -4.5
2005: 0.0
2006: -1.5
2007: -0.3

Very good in some seasons, but not ATG level impact and especially not so when compared to what Howard did for Orlando prior having his career derailed by back issues:

2007: -2.0
2008: -1.0
2009: -6.5
2010: -4.7
2011: -5.1

That's 3 consecutive seasons from age 23-25, each of which was at a level greater than anything Garnett ever produced in any single season of his entire decade+ tenure with the Wolves. Garnett's MIN resume isn't merely insufficient here, it's utterly indefensible if we're insisting he be placed among the most elite defensive anchors in all of NBA history. We can quibble about teammates, but Garnett gets dwarfed in a direct comparison to Dwight Howard when the Magic were objectively lacking in supporting defensive talent, and yet Howard is rarely mentioned around here in conversations of defensive GOAT, which I suppose is my entire point as it satisfies both my Garnett (too much) and Howard (too little) credit arguments for purposes of this thread

The Magic weren't crap without Dwight on the floor like KG's Wolves, because they actually had functional defensive teams and coaching. Dwight's on/off numbers below and how the D without out him on the floor compared to league average DRtg.

2007: 104.5 DRtg on, 104.5 DRtg off (off court rates at 8th best D in league)
2008: 106.5 DRtg on, 103.6 DRtg off (off rates at 5th best D in league)
2009: 101.8 DRtg on, 102.8 DRtg off (off rates at 3rd best D in league)
2010: 102.9 DRtg on, 106.2 DRtg off (off rates at 12th best D in league)
2011: 102.1 DRtg on, 104.8 DRtg off (off rates at 7th best D in league)

Compare that to KG below. So KG had much bigger deltas with dropoff when he's on the bench and Dwight's defenses were far better when he was off the floor. In fact they were very good. The worst off court DRtg for the Magic was same tier as the best for KG's Wolves teams from 2000-2007 when comparing to league average.'

KG was in a dumpster fire and no player was carrying those rosters to top 3 defenses year after year. What he did with them with a much bigger offensive responsibility than someone like Dwight was incredible.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

Wasn't Garnett a GOAT level floor raiser for defense with the Wolves and then a GOAT level defensive ceiling raiser with Boston?

Isn't Garnett on two completely different rosters, one being a "floor raiser" and one being a "ceiling raiser" proving he was both?

Have you compared his On/Off numbers to Duncan, Howard and others since it is your main data point?

The teammate argument for Garnett might be persuasive if I weren't holding him to a standard of literal ATG defenders. If you interpreted the cited on/off numbers as being the basis of my evaluation rather than the additional layer of evidence intended to support it, then I suppose I should provide an explicit "main data point" rather than rely on implicit assumption. So here's Minnesota's DRTG with Garnett on the floor relative to league average:

1997: -4.4
1998: -0.2
1999: -3.1
2000: -2.8
2001: -0.1
2002: -0.3
2003: -1.2
2004: -4.5
2005: 0.0
2006: -1.5
2007: -0.3

Very good in some seasons, but not ATG level impact and especially not so when compared to what Howard did for Orlando prior having his career derailed by back issues:

2007: -2.0
2008: -1.0
2009: -6.5
2010: -4.7
2011: -5.1

That's 3 consecutive seasons from age 23-25, each of which was at a level greater than anything Garnett ever produced in any single season of his entire decade+ tenure with the Wolves. Garnett's MIN resume isn't merely insufficient here, it's utterly indefensible if we're insisting he be placed among the most elite defensive anchors in NBA history. We can quibble about teammates, but Garnett gets dwarfed in a direct comparison to Dwight Howard when the Magic were objectively lacking in supporting defensive talent, and yet Howard is rarely mentioned around here in conversations of defensive GOAT, which I suppose is my entire point as it satisfies both my Garnett (too much) and Howard (too little) credit arguments for purposes of this thread

You are missing the point. Minnesota's defense without Garnett [2000-2004] were Bottom 3/5 defenses without him and average with him. No player in NBA History was making those defense great.

Compare the numbers to Howard and Duncan.

The 2009 Magic were a...wait for it...102.8 Defense WITHOUT HOWARD.

You realize the Magic were only -1.0 better defensively with Howard than without Howard. You mention how the 2008 Celtics were -6 better with Garnett yet LOOK AT THE MAGIC. Its less impressive.

2010 Magic go from 106.2 w/o Howard to 102.9 with Howard [-3.3].

The data provided for Howard [Same data you used for Garnett] actually supports GARNETT here, not Howard.

Be consistent dude. The Magic were much better defensively without Howard than the Wolves were without Garnett.

I'm keenly aware of your point, as it's fairly well known to be the underlying argument in support of KG's otherwise tenuous case as a historically elite defender. My contention is that we're comparing individual players, so their individual performance (as it translates to team performance) on the court is what matters here; Minnesota's performance with KG off is less relevant than what they actually did with him on. Any focus on off is subject to distortion by way of variance in replacement quality; Player A could be superior to Player B, but Player B's on/off is greater because his bench was terrible compared to Player A. I don't question that Minnesota was extremely lacking in bench talent, but ATG defenders are supposed to anchor their lineups in a way that overcomes teammate limitations. That's always been the standard except for Garnett

So I'm less concerned with how Minnesota's bench defended than I am with how Minnesota performed when Garnett was on the floor. I cited the instance of KG's off in 2008 Boston as a bit of preemptory context to the outlier level of team performance Garnett participated in at the age of 31 which is often cited as smoking gun evidence of his individual greatness, however I would've foregone the mention altogether had I known it would be misinterpreted as the primary basis of my argument

[Colbinii]

The teammate argument for Garnett might be persuasive if I weren't holding him to a standard of literal ATG defenders. If you interpreted the cited on/off numbers as being the basis of my evaluation rather than the additional layer of evidence intended to support it, then I suppose I should provide an explicit "main data point" rather than rely on implicit assumption. So here's Minnesota's DRTG with Garnett on the floor relative to league average:

1997: -4.4 [+7.1 without Garnett, Net -11.5]
1998: -0.2 [+1.2 without Garnett, Net -1.4]
1999: -3.1 [-0.3 without Garnett, Net -2.8]
2000: -2.8 [+1.4 without Garnett, Net -4.2]
2001: -0.1 [+4.2 without Garnett, Net -4.3]
2002: -0.3 [+4.1 without Garnett, Net -4.4]
2003: -1.2 [+7.3 without Garnett, Net -8.5]
2004: -4.5 [+1.6 without Garnett, Net -6.1]
2005: 0.0 [-1.3 without Garnett, Net +1.3]
2006: -1.5 [-0.7 without Garnett, Net -0.8]
2007: -0.3 [+6.0 without Garnett, Net -6.3]

Very good in some seasons, but not ATG level impact and especially not so when compared to what Howard did for Orlando prior having his career derailed by back issues:

2007: -2.0 [-2.0 without Howard, Net 0.0]
2008: -1.0 [-3.9 without Howard, Net +2.9]
2009: -6.5 [-5.5 without Howard, Net -1.0]
2010: -4.7 [-1.4 without Howard, Net -3.3]
2011: -5.1 [-2.4 without Howard, Net -2.7}

Why are you ignoring Garnett's Boston years? This seems extremely un-objective to do so, especially when you realize just how good the Orlando Magic were without Howard.

Before I post the Garnett numbers with Boston, I would like for you to look at the numbers above. Do you notice how the Orlando Magic were Above Average without Howard every single year. To be objective, you ignore Garnett's numbers with Boston [which actually line-up directly year-by-year to the Dwight Comparison] and line-up in terms of defensive level among team [Using team defensive ratings without the star].

Garnett
2008: -10.2 [-6.1 without Garnett, Net -4.1]
2009: -9.7 [-2.5 without Garnett, Net -7.2]
2010: -5.1 [-0.5 without Garnett, Net -4.6]
2011: --9.2 [-2.9 without Garnett, Net -6.3]

Do you see how these numbers [Similar OFF numbers for both the Magic and Celtics without their superstar Defender] yet Garnett's defensive team performing significantly better?

Garnett is a historically great [Maybe the GOAT] Ceiling raiser defensively--and completely blows Howard out of the water.

When circling back to when Garnett had poor [sometimes horrible defensive casts], Garnett still averaged a higher net +/- [Net On/Off] higher than Dwight accomplished in Orlando.

[homecourtloss]

Too little credit on defense-Draymond Green

From 2015-2020, Draymond Green is 2nd in the NBA in Playoffs PIPM
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/j9xodj/from_20152020_playoffs_the_highest_rated_players/

This is significant because PIPM is too box-score dependent, yet someone like Draymond comes out looking so good in the metric, despite so much of what he does not showing up in the box-score.

It is not just PIPM of box-hybrid models that that are high on Draymond. From 2014-2019, Draymond lead the NBA in PS RAPTOR WAR.

From 15-17, Draymond is 2nd in PS AuPM/G.

And when you consider that Golden State's defense improves from the RS to PS more than almost any dynasty ever, I think it makes sense to look towards Draymond for a lot of Golden State's success.

Watch on YouTube

As a matter of fact, RAPTOR projections considered Draymond to be the NBA player who improved most from the RS to PS in the NBA during that time frame at a whopping 1.4 points per 100 possessions. The next most improved player was Lebron who was at 0.9 pts per 100 possessions. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-raptor-metric-works/

According to AuPM/G, which has data going back to 96-97, no player has improved more in from the RS to PS in their career than Draymond Green. As mentioned in the article, "among players with at least five qualifying runs, Green has the largest improvement in AuPM history. And this isn’t from slow-rolling the regular season either. In the seven seasons he’s played in the postseason, Green’s posted a hefty +3.5 AuPM per game in the regular season and then a whopping +4.7 in the playoffs. That’s like going from the sixth-best player in the league to the second." https://backpicks.com/page/6/

Kevin Pelton also wrote an article about how Draymond was statistically the 2nd biggest playoff riser during some specific time period, but I cannot find it

If you want numbers that look at the pure plus-minus side of things (and does not include anything pertaining to the box-score), I should note, Draymond looks arguably better...

Draymond is #1 in 14-18 PS RAPM, and #1 in 15-19 PS RAPM.

If we know GSW's offense declines in the PS, but their defense makes one of the biggest improvements ever, and we know that Draymond has been the captain of those GSW offenses, and all the data we have suggests he is among the biggest improvers in performance come PS time, I will put my money on him.

Need this on the peaks thread

[Colbinii]

The teammate argument for Garnett might be persuasive if I weren't holding him to a standard of literal ATG defenders. If you interpreted the cited on/off numbers as being the basis of my evaluation rather than the additional layer of evidence intended to support it, then I suppose I should provide an explicit "main data point" rather than rely on implicit assumption. So here's Minnesota's DRTG with Garnett on the floor relative to league average:

1997: -4.4
1998: -0.2
1999: -3.1
2000: -2.8
2001: -0.1
2002: -0.3
2003: -1.2
2004: -4.5
2005: 0.0
2006: -1.5
2007: -0.3

Very good in some seasons, but not ATG level impact and especially not so when compared to what Howard did for Orlando prior having his career derailed by back issues:

2007: -2.0
2008: -1.0
2009: -6.5
2010: -4.7
2011: -5.1

That's 3 consecutive seasons from age 23-25, each of which was at a level greater than anything Garnett ever produced in any single season of his entire decade+ tenure with the Wolves. Garnett's MIN resume isn't merely insufficient here, it's utterly indefensible if we're insisting he be placed among the most elite defensive anchors in NBA history. We can quibble about teammates, but Garnett gets dwarfed in a direct comparison to Dwight Howard when the Magic were objectively lacking in supporting defensive talent, and yet Howard is rarely mentioned around here in conversations of defensive GOAT, which I suppose is my entire point as it satisfies both my Garnett (too much) and Howard (too little) credit arguments for purposes of this thread

You are missing the point. Minnesota's defense without Garnett [2000-2004] were Bottom 3/5 defenses without him and average with him. No player in NBA History was making those defense great.

Compare the numbers to Howard and Duncan.

The 2009 Magic were a...wait for it...102.8 Defense WITHOUT HOWARD.

You realize the Magic were only -1.0 better defensively with Howard than without Howard. You mention how the 2008 Celtics were -6 better with Garnett yet LOOK AT THE MAGIC. Its less impressive.

2010 Magic go from 106.2 w/o Howard to 102.9 with Howard [-3.3].

The data provided for Howard [Same data you used for Garnett] actually supports GARNETT here, not Howard.

Be consistent dude. The Magic were much better defensively without Howard than the Wolves were without Garnett.

I'm keenly aware of your point, as it's fairly well known to be the underlying argument in support of KG's otherwise tenuous case as a historically elite defender. My contention is that we're comparing individual players, so their individual performance (as it translates to team performance) on the court is what matters here; Minnesota's performance with KG off is less relevant than what they actually did with him on. Any focus on off is subject to distortion by way of variance in replacement quality; Player A could be superior to Player B, but Player B's on/off is greater because his bench was terrible compared to Player A. I don't question that Minnesota was extremely lacking in bench talent, but ATG defenders are supposed to anchor their lineups in a way that overcomes teammate limitations. That's always been the standard except for Garnett

I studied the film of Garnett extensively during the 2017 RealGM Top 100 Project. Of note, Garnett was capable [and routinely] defended Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady in the open floor [Fast Breaks, 4 on 5's, Pick and Roll] in the early 2000's, while in the same possession blocking a Shaquille O'Neal shot. His ability to be elite [not just good] when defending the most talented and athletic perimeter players ever, while being one of the fastest defenders ever in terms of rotations simply puts him in a category a guy like Dwight Howard could never emulate [in terms of raw impact].

Hell, there were possessions against 2008 LeBron James where Garnett was able to defend his Drives and force a pass out, then rotate out to the perimeter to defend the player LeBron passed to. No player could ever replicate this.

I actually don't enjoy looking at ON/OFF numbers and saying "LOOK HOW GOOD HE IS" but unfortunately I don't have time to sit with you and watch the 100's of hours of film I have seen of Garnett and point out just how godly he is as a defender.

I find it completely baffling how people [you included] can somehow point at Garnett in Minnesota, when he had Dirk Nowitzki-like offensive responsibilities, and somehow compare him to players with far less offensive responsibilities {Duncan, Howard] as if it makes Garnett a "worse defender". We saw Garnett go from a high usage offensive player to a 1B or 2 in Boston and his defensive metrics topped anyone we have ever had the metrics for.

[Stalwart]

94 & 95 Houston Rockets supporting casts

[Wooderson]

The teammate argument for Garnett might be persuasive if I weren't holding him to a standard of literal ATG defenders. If you interpreted the cited on/off numbers as being the basis of my evaluation rather than the additional layer of evidence intended to support it, then I suppose I should provide an explicit "main data point" rather than rely on implicit assumption. So here's Minnesota's DRTG with Garnett on the floor relative to league average:

1997: -4.4
1998: -0.2
1999: -3.1
2000: -2.8
2001: -0.1
2002: -0.3
2003: -1.2
2004: -4.5
2005: 0.0
2006: -1.5
2007: -0.3

Very good in some seasons, but not ATG level impact and especially not so when compared to what Howard did for Orlando prior having his career derailed by back issues:

2007: -2.0
2008: -1.0
2009: -6.5
2010: -4.7
2011: -5.1

That's 3 consecutive seasons from age 23-25, each of which was at a level greater than anything Garnett ever produced in any single season of his entire decade+ tenure with the Wolves. Garnett's MIN resume isn't merely insufficient here, it's utterly indefensible if we're insisting he be placed among the most elite defensive anchors in NBA history. We can quibble about teammates, but Garnett gets dwarfed in a direct comparison to Dwight Howard when the Magic were objectively lacking in supporting defensive talent, and yet Howard is rarely mentioned around here in conversations of defensive GOAT, which I suppose is my entire point as it satisfies both my Garnett (too much) and Howard (too little) credit arguments for purposes of this thread

You are missing the point. Minnesota's defense without Garnett [2000-2004] were Bottom 3/5 defenses without him and average with him. No player in NBA History was making those defense great.

Compare the numbers to Howard and Duncan.

The 2009 Magic were a...wait for it...102.8 Defense WITHOUT HOWARD.

You realize the Magic were only -1.0 better defensively with Howard than without Howard. You mention how the 2008 Celtics were -6 better with Garnett yet LOOK AT THE MAGIC. Its less impressive.

2010 Magic go from 106.2 w/o Howard to 102.9 with Howard [-3.3].

The data provided for Howard [Same data you used for Garnett] actually supports GARNETT here, not Howard.

Be consistent dude. The Magic were much better defensively without Howard than the Wolves were without Garnett.

My contention is that we're comparing individual players, so their individual performance (as it translates to team performance) on the court is what matters here;

Defensive rating is a team stat whereas you seem to think it's an individual one. Losing the plot imo.

[Colbinii]

94 & 95 Houston Rockets supporting casts

Too much or too little?

On one hand, the spacing the team had around Hakeem was tremendous and the team was red hot from 3 [In 1995]. On the other hand, they didn't have an elite second option like Pippen, Robinson, Kobe, Shaq, or even Pierce/Gasol level.

[penbeast0]

94 & 95 Houston Rockets supporting casts

Too much or too little?

On one hand, the spacing the team had around Hakeem was tremendous and the team was red hot from 3 [In 1995]. On the other hand, they didn't have an elite second option like Pippen, Robinson, Kobe, Shaq, or even Pierce/Gasol level.

Drexler was a decent second option and played at the Paul Pierce level though not, as you say, elite. 1994 was just amazing coaching by Tomjanovich and play by Hakeem and the league had not adjusted to it yet.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

You are missing the point. Minnesota's defense without Garnett [2000-2004] were Bottom 3/5 defenses without him and average with him. No player in NBA History was making those defense great.

Compare the numbers to Howard and Duncan.

The 2009 Magic were a...wait for it...102.8 Defense WITHOUT HOWARD.

You realize the Magic were only -1.0 better defensively with Howard than without Howard. You mention how the 2008 Celtics were -6 better with Garnett yet LOOK AT THE MAGIC. Its less impressive.

2010 Magic go from 106.2 w/o Howard to 102.9 with Howard [-3.3].

The data provided for Howard [Same data you used for Garnett] actually supports GARNETT here, not Howard.

Be consistent dude. The Magic were much better defensively without Howard than the Wolves were without Garnett.

I'm keenly aware of your point, as it's fairly well known to be the underlying argument in support of KG's otherwise tenuous case as a historically elite defender. My contention is that we're comparing individual players, so their individual performance (as it translates to team performance) on the court is what matters here; Minnesota's performance with KG off is less relevant than what they actually did with him on. Any focus on off is subject to distortion by way of variance in replacement quality; Player A could be superior to Player B, but Player B's on/off is greater because his bench was terrible compared to Player A. I don't question that Minnesota was extremely lacking in bench talent, but ATG defenders are supposed to anchor their lineups in a way that overcomes teammate limitations. That's always been the standard except for Garnett

I studied the film of Garnett extensively during the 2017 RealGM Top 100 Project. Of note, Garnett was capable [and routinely] defended Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady in the open floor [Fast Breaks, 4 on 5's, Pick and Roll] in the early 2000's, while in the same possession blocking a Shaquille O'Neal shot. His ability to be elite [not just good] when defending the most talented and athletic perimeter players ever, while being one of the fastest defenders ever in terms of rotations simply puts him in a category a guy like Dwight Howard could never emulate [in terms of raw impact].

Hell, there were possessions against 2008 LeBron James where Garnett was able to defend his Drives and force a pass out, then rotate out to the perimeter to defend the player LeBron passed to. No player could ever replicate this.

I actually don't enjoy looking at ON/OFF numbers and saying "LOOK HOW GOOD HE IS" but unfortunately I don't have time to sit with you and watch the 100's of hours of film I have seen of Garnett and point out just how godly he is as a defender.

I find it completely baffling how people [you included] can somehow point at Garnett in Minnesota, when he had Dirk Nowitzki-like offensive responsibilities, and somehow compare him to players with far less offensive responsibilities {Duncan, Howard] as if it makes Garnett a "worse defender". We saw Garnett go from a high usage offensive player to a 1B or 2 in Boston and his defensive metrics topped anyone we have ever had the metrics for.

I imagine that some people [me included] are more concerned with objectively quantified substance rather than subjectively qualified eye-test extrapolations. Even if we make the leap of taking your analysis of KG's versatility as a fact and say he's the most versatile defensive big of all-time, it still begs the question of whether KG's versatility is greater than the superior interior defense demonstrated by numerous individuals throughout NBA history. Howard is one of these individuals, and tho I don't have Dwight as one of my alltime defensive GOATs, his prime still compares rather favorably to KG

It's interesting that when discussing ATG offensive players, citation of team performance is almost exclusively limited to ON rather than OFF. I'd argue that defense, unlike offense, is pretty simple when it comes to evaluating an individual's historic impact on team. In other words, defense is more likely to be a "one-man team" thing in a relative sense of ATG defenders. Because we might argue form vs function when discussing offense [e.g. whether Nash's playmaking was greater than Durant's scoring], and these differing forms may coexist by the very virtue of their difference, but there's a commonly accepted truism that elite interior defense supersedes all other forms. And this truism exists for good reason as interior scoring still represents the most efficient and voluminous source of team offense (even as scoring has dramatically shifted from midrange to 3pt in recent decades, the average % of team points sourced from the paint has held steady at around 40-43%), and elite rim-protectors generally possess a greater monopoly on team value than do offensive players because the degree of unfeasibility from diminishing returns is far greater at the rim-protector designation than with other positions

the rather narrow physical profile required to excel typically prohibits more than a single elite rim-protector on the floor at any given time (whereas multiples of offensive specialists can produce synergistic collaborations)

If we're gonna boost Garnett by including offensive responsibility, then this is fine in a general sense of asserting that he was likely a better defender than his numbers portray, but it can be a specious argument in direct comparisons unless we give the same accommodation to the opposing player. In any case, I'm less concerned with what could've been than what was, though I do give consideration to exogenous factors when the comparison is otherwise close. In the case of Garnett as a GOAT defender, I don't think it's close

[BenoUdrihFTL]

My contention is that we're comparing individual players, so their individual performance (as it translates to team performance) on the court is what matters here;

Defensive rating is a team stat whereas you seem to think it's an individual one. Losing the plot imo.

I'm pretty well aware that team DRTG is... a team stat. I'm less aware of how you inferred unawareness from the literal post you quoted

individual performance (as it translates to team performance)

[AEnigma]

I'm keenly aware of your point, as it's fairly well known to be the underlying argument in support of KG's otherwise tenuous case as a historically elite defender. My contention is that we're comparing individual players, so their individual performance (as it translates to team performance) on the court is what matters here; Minnesota's performance with KG off is less relevant than what they actually did with him on. Any focus on off is subject to distortion by way of variance in replacement quality; Player A could be superior to Player B, but Player B's on/off is greater because his bench was terrible compared to Player A. I don't question that Minnesota was extremely lacking in bench talent, but ATG defenders are supposed to anchor their lineups in a way that overcomes teammate limitations. That's always been the standard except for Garnett

I studied the film of Garnett extensively during the 2017 RealGM Top 100 Project. Of note, Garnett was capable [and routinely] defended Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady in the open floor [Fast Breaks, 4 on 5's, Pick and Roll] in the early 2000's, while in the same possession blocking a Shaquille O'Neal shot. His ability to be elite [not just good] when defending the most talented and athletic perimeter players ever, while being one of the fastest defenders ever in terms of rotations simply puts him in a category a guy like Dwight Howard could never emulate [in terms of raw impact].

Hell, there were possessions against 2008 LeBron James where Garnett was able to defend his Drives and force a pass out, then rotate out to the perimeter to defend the player LeBron passed to. No player could ever replicate this.

I actually don't enjoy looking at ON/OFF numbers and saying "LOOK HOW GOOD HE IS" but unfortunately I don't have time to sit with you and watch the 100's of hours of film I have seen of Garnett and point out just how godly he is as a defender.

I find it completely baffling how people [you included] can somehow point at Garnett in Minnesota, when he had Dirk Nowitzki-like offensive responsibilities, and somehow compare him to players with far less offensive responsibilities {Duncan, Howard] as if it makes Garnett a "worse defender". We saw Garnett go from a high usage offensive player to a 1B or 2 in Boston and his defensive metrics topped anyone we have ever had the metrics for.

I imagine that some people [me included] are more concerned with objectively quantified substance rather than subjectively qualified eye-test extrapolations. Even if we make the leap of taking your analysis of KG's versatility as a fact and say he's the most versatile defensive big of all-time, it still begs the question of whether KG's versatility is greater than the superior interior defense demonstrated by numerous individuals throughout NBA history. Howard is one of these individuals, and tho I don't have Dwight as one of my alltime defensive GOATs, his prime still compares rather favorably to KG

It's interesting that when discussing ATG offensive players, citation of team performance is almost exclusively limited to ON rather than OFF. I'd argue that defense, unlike offense, is pretty simple when it comes to evaluating an individual's historic impact on team. In other words, defense is more likely to be a "one-man team" thing in a relative sense of ATG defenders. Because we might argue form vs function when discussing offense [e.g. whether Nash's playmaking was greater than Durant's scoring, and these differing forms may coexist by the very virtue of their difference], but there's a commonly accepted truism that elite interior defense supersedes all other forms. And this truism exists for good reason as interior scoring still represents the most efficient and voluminous source of team offense (even as scoring has dramatically shifted from midrange to 3pt in recent decades, the average % of team points sourced from the paint has held steady at around 40-43%), and elite rim-protectors generally possess a greater monopoly on team value than do offensive players because the unfeasibility of diminishing returns resulting from the rather narrow physical profile required to excel typically prohibits more than a single elite rim-protector on the floor at any given time (whereas multiples of offensive specialists can produce synergistic collaborations)

If we're gonna boost Garnett by including offensive responsibility, then this is fine in a general sense of asserting that he was likely a better defender than his numbers portray, but it can be a specious argument in direct comparisons unless we give the same accommodation to the opposing player. In any case, I'm less concerned with what could've been than what was, though I do give consideration to exogenous factors when the comparison is otherwise close. In the case of Garnett as a GOAT defender, I don't think it's close

Weird to write all of this while completely sidestepping this post:

The teammate argument for Garnett might be persuasive if I weren't holding him to a standard of literal ATG defenders. If you interpreted the cited on/off numbers as being the basis of my evaluation rather than the additional layer of evidence intended to support it, then I suppose I should provide an explicit "main data point" rather than rely on implicit assumption. So here's Minnesota's DRTG with Garnett on the floor relative to league average:

1997: -4.4 [+7.1 without Garnett, Net -11.5]
1998: -0.2 [+1.2 without Garnett, Net -1.4]
1999: -3.1 [-0.3 without Garnett, Net -2.8]
2000: -2.8 [+1.4 without Garnett, Net -4.2]
2001: -0.1 [+4.2 without Garnett, Net -4.3]
2002: -0.3 [+4.1 without Garnett, Net -4.4]
2003: -1.2 [+7.3 without Garnett, Net -8.5]
2004: -4.5 [+1.6 without Garnett, Net -6.1]
2005: 0.0 [-1.3 without Garnett, Net +1.3]
2006: -1.5 [-0.7 without Garnett, Net -0.8]
2007: -0.3 [+6.0 without Garnett, Net -6.3]

Very good in some seasons, but not ATG level impact and especially not so when compared to what Howard did for Orlando prior having his career derailed by back issues:

2007: -2.0 [-2.0 without Howard, Net 0.0]
2008: -1.0 [-3.9 without Howard, Net +2.9]
2009: -6.5 [-5.5 without Howard, Net -1.0]
2010: -4.7 [-1.4 without Howard, Net -3.3]
2011: -5.1 [-2.4 without Howard, Net -2.7}

Why are you ignoring Garnett's Boston years? This seems extremely un-objective to do so, especially when you realize just how good the Orlando Magic were without Howard.

Before I post the Garnett numbers with Boston, I would like for you to look at the numbers above. Do you notice how the Orlando Magic were Above Average without Howard every single year. To be objective, you ignore Garnett's numbers with Boston [which actually line-up directly year-by-year to the Dwight Comparison] and line-up in terms of defensive level among team [Using team defensive ratings without the star].

Garnett
2008: -10.2 [-6.1 without Garnett, Net -4.1]
2009: -9.7 [-2.5 without Garnett, Net -7.2]
2010: -5.1 [-0.5 without Garnett, Net -4.6]
2011: --9.2 [-2.9 without Garnett, Net -6.3]

Do you see how these numbers [Similar OFF numbers for both the Magic and Celtics without their superstar Defender] yet Garnett's defensive team performing significantly better?

Garnett is a historically great [Maybe the GOAT] Ceiling raiser defensively--and completely blows Howard out of the water.

When circling back to when Garnett had poor [sometimes horrible defensive casts], Garnett still averaged a higher net +/- [Net On/Off] higher than Dwight accomplished in Orlando.

For my own part, the idea that defenders singularly anchor all-time great defences seems facially ridiculous. Is Dikembe Mutombo not an all-time great defender because of 1995/1996/1998/2000? Is Patrick Ewing the best defender of the past forty years? He anchored a lot of all-time great defences. Why did someone like Hakeem not do the same? Or is Hakeem just overrated because individually he never broke that -5 drtg mark? Regardless, both he and Ewing have better results than someone like Dikembe, even though Dikembe more purely fits this shotblocking archetype you value so completely above all else. Alonzo Mourning has a -6 defence under his belt; does he too have the higher defensive peak?

Interestingly — and with the acknowledgment the core point of this particular argument can be applied to Boston Garnett too — Howard shares something of a defensive through-line with Patrick Ewing and Alonzo Mourning; do you happen to know what it is? Why did the 2006 Pistons and 1992/93 Spurs take such a step back defensively after a certain bench individual left the team? Do we answer the question of best ever defenders by simply glancing at the list of best relative defences and giving all credit to the best defender on the team?

[BenoUdrihFTL]

Weird to write all of this while completely sidestepping this post:

Odd to accuse me of "completely sidestepping" when this Colbinii post was actually his second response to the same post of mine. I replied to his original response and this second response slipped under my radar. Looking at it now, I didn't miss much as it's essentially the same on/off argument he already put forth

For my own part, the idea that defenders singularly anchor all-time great defences seems facially ridiculous.

An interesting take. In any case, I can't claim full ownership of the idea I put forth. I'm saying I agree with the commonly held belief that interior defense is the single most important single element of overall team defense, and elite rim-protectors have a greater impact on their team's interior defense than do other players fulfilling other roles

Is Dikembe Mutombo not an all-time great defender because of 1995/1996/1998/2000?

Mutombo and Atlanta's numbers don't suit your interest here, not sure why you cited him

Is Patrick Ewing the best defender of the past forty years? He anchored a lot of all-time great defences.

Was Patrick Ewing most responsible for New York's dominant defense? That's the relevant question

Why did someone like Hakeem not do the same?

Ugh... teammates? Coaching? I'm aware this is an intended "gotcha" but it fails for reasons that should be clear. To assert that X is most impactful on Y isn't a declaration that non-X is irrelevant

Or is Hakeem just overrated because individually he never broke that -5 drtg mark?

So strawman, much misrepresentation

Regardless, both he and Ewing have better results than someone like Dikembe, even though Dikembe more purely fits this shotblocking archetype you value so completely above all else.

It's becoming a trend, the strawman thing. In any case I suggest you recheck your Deke data

Alonzo Mourning has a -6 defence under his belt; does he too have the higher defensive peak?

I consider peak Zo to be among the most impactful defenders in NBA history, so his performance here doesn't contradict my argument. It rather supports it

Interestingly — and with the acknowledgment the core point of this particular argument can be applied to Boston Garnett too — Howard shares something of a defensive through-line with Patrick Ewing and Alonzo Mourning; do you happen to know what it is?

No? Howard and Mourning both played for SVG but Ewing was coached by Stan's brother

Why did the 2006 Pistons and 1992/93 Spurs take such a step back defensively after a certain bench individual left the team?

Because coaching matters and Larry Brown was an excellent defensive coach?

If the question is whether prime versions of Mutombo, Ewing, Olajuwon and Mourning were more valuable defenders than KG, my answer would be that evidence says they were. If you were trying to dismantle my argument with examples of inferior defenders boosted by what you perceive to be my criteria, you could've done a lot better than these 4 ATG defensive monsters

[BenoUdrihFTL]

To preface I'm basing credit and its amounts on what I've perceived on this board:

Too much credit for offense: Shaquille O'Neal. He's generally regarded as a top 3 ATG peak (ranks 2nd, 2nd, 4th and 3rd on this board's peak projects conducted in 2012, 2015, 2019 and current) and it isn't for defense, yet he's never been a part of what's generally discussed as an ATG offense. This in spite of the fact that prime Shaq was blessed with the ridiculously improbable fortune of 3 consecutive pairings with absolutely elite wing creators. My take is that his FT shooting was a greater general vulnerability than mere specific hack-a-Shaq scenarios would imply, and his relatively tiny scoring range coupled with his dependency on perimeter players to facilitate meant that Shaq wasn't the historically reliable source of go-to halfcourt scoring that the ingrained visuals of his sheer physical dominance would have us believe

Too little credit for offense: Michael Jordan. Similar to Shaq, Jordan isn't synonymous with ATG offenses. But unlike Shaq, Jordan should be. The Bulls offense posted some historic numbers both in absolute and relative terms with Jordan at the helm, they were particularly resilient vs elite defense, and they accomplished all of this with the relatively limited Scottie Pippen as a #2 and no real #3. I've looked at scoring data in series after series where Pippen struggles and all other non-Jordan Bulls players combine to deliver mediocrity at best, and yet Jordan just churns out his consistent volume and Chicago's offense proceeds to dramatically outperform elite defenses over and over and over again

Too much credit for defense: Kevin Garnett. Perhaps the poster child for when inferences of impact data can supersede reality. He's a RAPM king, but KG never participated in an elite defense until his age 31 season as Boston's starting PF. The 2008 Celtics produced a 101.4 DRTG with KG off the floor, which would've been good for a -6.1 and the #2 defense in the league. Perhaps there's an argument for KG as an ATG defensive ceiling raiser, but as a floor raiser he just doesn't have the supporting evidence

Too little credit for defense: Dwight Howard. He presided over a half-decade reign as Orlando's starting center where the Magic were one of the league's most elite defensive teams; from a +7.5 before he was drafted, to a +1.2 and +1.3 in his first two seasons when he was played at PF, 21yo Dwight moved to center in '07 and the rest is (Orlando defensive) history. Magic proceeded to rank 6th (-2.4), 6th (-2.0), 1st (-6.4), 3rd (-4.3) and 3rd (-5.3) defensively until Dwight's back issues manifested in '12. These rosters weren't exactly talented on the defensive end outside of Dwight, in fact his singular presence allowed Orlando to prioritize offense at the expense of defense with Hedo Turkoglu and Rashard Lewis at F and Jameer Nelson at PG. And yet, Dwight with his back's limited lifespan still produced a level of defense in Orlando that was far superior to anything Garnett ever accomplished in his 12 seasons in Minnesota (8 of 12 spent in the defensive red), and Dwight did this in every season of 3 consecutive seasons

What data are you going off for shaq and jordan here?

Bulls were a great offense but i dont think they were as trascendent against great defenses as you put it. Knicks (multiple times), seattle or utah had solid defensive performances against them from what i remember

Shaq lakers run if i am correct produced all time level playoffs offense (wouldnt be surprised if they were unremarkable in reg season tho, shaq health and reg season effort were famously inconsistent)

Jordan's Bulls ORTG vs opponent DRTG in the playoffs:

'85 Bulls: 108.7 vs Bucks 103.6 +5.1
'86 Bulls: Jordan injured
'87 Bulls: 109.8 vs Celtics 106.8 +3.0
'88 Bulls: 109.9 vs Cavs 106.0 +3.9
'89 Bulls: 106.8 vs Cavs 102.9 +3.9; 115.8 vs Knicks 107.5 +8.3; 103.1 vs Pistons 104.7 -1.6
'90 Bulls: 110.5 vs Bucks 108.1 +2.4; 116.7 vs Sixers 108.4 +6.3; 101.4 vs Pistons 103.5 -2.1

Literal overperformance in literally every series from his literal outset not against Detroit (Pippen was at 45.3 and 52.0 TS% in these ECFs) in a manner of consistency that suggests outlier value

Once Pippen came into his own as a viable #2, Jordan's Bulls proceeded to produce historic offensive results in an absolute sense (literally the 2nd and 4th highest team ORTGs of all-time when they occurred)

The deduction is evident; you need only give Jordan the bare minimum in order for him to deliver a degree of ATG team offensive impact that rivals anything else we've seen in NBA history

[AEnigma]

Weird to write all of this while completely sidestepping this post:

Odd to accuse me of "completely sidestepping" when this Colbinii post was actually his second response to the same post of mine. I replied to his original response and this second response slipped under my radar. Looking at it now, I didn't miss much as it's essentially the same on/off argument he already put forth

For my own part, the idea that defenders singularly anchor all-time great defences seems facially ridiculous.

An interesting take. In any case, I can't claim full ownership of the idea I put forth. I'm saying I agree with the commonly held belief that interior defense is the single most important single element of overall team defense, and elite rim-protectors have a greater impact on their team's interior defense than do other players fulfilling other roles

Is Dikembe Mutombo not an all-time great defender because of 1995/1996/1998/2000?

Mutombo and Atlanta's numbers don't suit your interest here, not sure why you cited him

Is Patrick Ewing the best defender of the past forty years? He anchored a lot of all-time great defences.

Was Patrick Ewing most responsible for New York's dominant defense? That's the relevant question

Why did someone like Hakeem not do the same?

Ugh... teammates? Coaching? I'm aware this is an intended "gotcha" but it fails for reasons that should be clear. To assert that X is most impactful on Y isn't a declaration that non-X is irrelevant

Or is Hakeem just overrated because individually he never broke that -5 drtg mark?

So strawman, much misrepresentation

Regardless, both he and Ewing have better results than someone like Dikembe, even though Dikembe more purely fits this shotblocking archetype you value so completely above all else.

It's becoming a trend, the strawman thing. In any case I suggest you recheck your Deke data

Alonzo Mourning has a -6 defence under his belt; does he too have the higher defensive peak?

I consider peak Zo to be among the most impactful defenders in NBA history, so his performance here doesn't contradict my argument. It rather supports it

Interestingly — and with the acknowledgment the core point of this particular argument can be applied to Boston Garnett too — Howard shares something of a defensive through-line with Patrick Ewing and Alonzo Mourning; do you happen to know what it is?

No? Howard and Mourning both played for SVG but Ewing was coached by Stan's brother

Why did the 2006 Pistons and 1992/93 Spurs take such a step back defensively after a certain bench individual left the team?

Because coaching matters and Larry Brown was an excellent defensive coach?

If the question is whether prime versions of Mutombo, Ewing, Olajuwon and Mourning were more valuable defenders than KG, my answer would be that evidence says they were. If you were trying to dismantle my argument with examples of inferior defenders boosted by what you perceive to be my criteria, you could've done a lot better than these 4 ATG defensive monsters

So teammates and coaching systems matter. “Merely” anchoring a -4 drtg is not prohibitive because of teammates and coaching systems. Data matters — we know these defenders are impactful. And on different teams that have better schemes or teammates, or even with changes on the same team over time, we can see drastically different results in team defence.

So apart from simply disbelieving that he could possibly be as important as any all-time rim protector, what is the case against Garnett, who generally had poor defensive support and systems in Minnesota but regularly showed giant impact on his team and at his best had the team playing at elite levels, then went to Boston and anchored historically great defences which also collapsed without him?

[OhayoKD]

So strawman, much misrepresentation

Pointing out that your line of rationale leads to conclusions you're not comfortable with is not a "strawman". If the "off" doesn't matter, and the "on" does, it logically follows that "how good was the defense" determines, or does most of the work determining how good a defender was. The only way Hakeem is a good defender in seasons the defense wasn't good is if the team was horrible defensively without him. The "off", so to speak.