Real GM Top 100 List #11

[Gongxi]

I'm so crazy with rage and emotion right now. Thanks for reminding me to relax, I really needed that. I was thisclose to going on a shooting spree because of your curious ideas about basketball players. Whew.

I'm just saying: your opinion is very left field when it comes to Wade and I can't really believe that you think it's anywhere close to "mainstream". I think that's just something you say here to try to justify it to...I guess yourself, because I don't think anyone else is buying it.

If you think I need some weed or valium or something for pointing that out, I don't really know what to tell you.

[SDChargers#1]

Sorry been out of commission for a little while, just came back home from China and jet lagged like all hell.

This is a really tough vote. There are 5 guys IMO who have a legitimate argument (Dr J, Moses, West, Oscar, Karl). Sorry I don't think Garnett belongs in the top 11 or have an argument over these guys. One stat (APM) doesn't do it for me.

Right now I am leaning toward Moses Malone. His biggest weakness is his passing obviously, but he was a monster rebounder and maybe the best offensive rebounder in history. His scoring was also the second best of the bunch behind only the other Malone (Karl). But what does it for me is his 3 MVPs over the likes of Kareem, and his title where he was clearly the better player than Dr. J. I have a hard time giving Dr. J the nod over him for this very reason (much in the same way people have with Shaq over Kobe).

Dr. J big weakness for me is that the vast majority of his major accomplishments came in a different league, and I simply don't value the ABA like I do NBA.

Oscar and West are right there, I just have a hard time putting guys who didn't win titles as the man (I am sorry, titles do matter to me), and only have 1 combined MVP between them.

Karl Malone is in the same boat, great stats, but couldn't win when it matters and struggled in the playoffs.

Vote: Moses Malone
Nomination: Bob Pettit (I have been convinced)

Vote: Moses Malone

[mysticbb]

And we exactly know how Spurs performed without Robinson (efficiency differential in games without DRob):
1992: -3,5
1992 playoffs: -9.5

First of all, I was talking about team performance WITH Robinson, that those Spurs weren't contenders without him should be clear. Secondly, not only Robinson missed the playoff games, but also their freaking starting wingplayer. They also played the Phoenix Suns, a +5.9 team in the regular season. Now we add the fact that the Suns played two games at home and the fact that the Spurs without Robinson were at -3.5, that makes -10.6 as the expectation! They played them -9.0 (not -9.5).
That is not good at all, that is bad, but doesn't refute the point I made at all.

1997: -9,7 (and +4.8 in these 6 games when he played only 25 MPG!)

No idea what you counted, but the Spurs were -0.5 with Robinson and -8.5 without him. Really, really bad, BUT Robinson was lucky to catch some games in which the Spurs had some players available. He played with Del Negro (missed 10 games), Elliot (missed 43 games), Avery Johnson (missed 6 games) and Perdue (missed 17 games). In 58 games the Spurs started Carl Herrera, a player who got 9 minutes per game in 1996 and 1998. The Spurs gave starting minutes to Greg Anderson and Cory Alexander that season, guys getting 9 respective 8 minutes per game in the season before (all got basically garbage minutes). During the 6 games Robinson played, Herrera, Anderson and Alexander combined for an average of 21.3 minutes, in all other games they combined for 63.4 minutes! Do you think they used those players so heavily in that season, because they thought they were good? Using that season in oder to judge the teammates Robinson PLAYED WITH is complete nonsense. Robinson never played many minutes with a lot of those guys, they were never an important part of the team.

1998: +1

And they were +4.4 with him, not really championship caliber anyway.

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

BS! Garnett had teams which were deep in the -10 without him. That never happened to Robinson, NEVER, not even the bad 1997 season had them playing at such a bad level. And before that they were rather capable of keeping up with the usual championship teams.

On/Off numbers

2011: -6.1 without Nowitzki, -0.5 without James
2010: -3.4 without Bryant, -0.3 without Garnett
2009: -1.4 without Bryant, +0.2 without Howard
2008: +3.1 without Garnett, +0.0 without Bryant
2007: -2.0 without Duncan, -4.0 without James
2006: -7.7 without Wade, -0.6 without Nowitzki
2005: -1.4 without Duncan
2004: -3.6 without O'Neal
2003: -6.2 without Duncan, -2.3 without Kidd

As you can see the support here is quite in the same range as Robinson's. Garnett's Celtics were excellent without him, but other than that we have 15 teams making the finals or winning it all which have a similar support in average as Robinson in 1991 and 1992 for example. And I don't see how it is much different in other season. We had Elliot making a difference between -3.8 and +3.8 for example. Other teams weren't really better.
Robinson had an supporting cast going -3.3 without him in 1992, and clearly showed the same scoring margin with him in 115 games while Cummings was starting. That team was capable of more, but it didn't do it.

And no, that doesn't make him a bad player, just not as valuable as his boxscore stats make it seem.

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

Yeah, and Robinson had 41 fg%? How about Cummings are doing what he was supposed to do in 1990? Or Del Negro or Elliot making their 3's? Or Chuck Person hitting everything? How about that. Yes, as I said, they had they fair share of failures, but that was not just the bad teammates in Robinson's case. And again, I'm not arguing that he under no circumstances belongs into a Top20 All-Time ...

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

Yeah, and from my observation he could have been better, like other big men are/were better than him. ;)

[lorak]

After reading this thread I'm changing my vote from last thread and my vote goes to Dr J

And I want add something about Erving's defense:

2.6 spg, 1.4 bpg vs Celtics in 1980
1.4 spg, 2.9 bpg vs Bucks in 1981
2.3 spg, 2.4 bpg vs Celtics in 1981
1.8 spg, 1.3 bpg vs Bucks in 1982
1.6 spg, 2.6 bpg vs Celtics in 1982
2.0 spg, 1.6 bpg vs celtics in 1985

Nomination: Pettit

And by if I'm not mistaken results so far are:
Dr J 6 (shawngoat23 TMACFORMVP An Unbiased Fan Baller 24 pancakes3 DavidStern)
Karl 5 (Gongxi ElGee mysticbb FJS Bucksfans1and2)
KG 4 (Dr Mufasa Doctor MJ Fencer reregistered therealbig3)
West 2 (penbeast0 cpower)
Moses 2 (JordansBulls SDChargers#1)
LeBron 1 (colts18)


Pettit 11 (penbeast0 Doctor MJ ElGee mysticbb FJS DavidStern Bucksfans1and2 colts18 Gongxi An Unbiased Fan SDChargers#1)
Wade 6 (therealbig3 Black Feet Dr Mufasa cpower Baller 24 ronnymac2)
Drexler 1 (JordanBulls)
Pippen 1 (Fencer reregistered)
Nash 1 (pancakes3)

[Laimbeer]

When does voting close?

[Baller 24]

Dr. J big weakness for me is that the vast majority of his major accomplishments came in a different league, and I simply don't value the ABA like I do NBA.

If we're going to give props for KAJ's, McAdoo's, Cowens, or Havlicek's dominance during that time-frame, you've got to do the same for Erving (Production from '72 to '76):
ABA—110.6 ppg, 49.6 rpg, 23.3 apg
NBA—106.1 ppg, 48.8 rpg, 24.1 apg)

Check out some of those teams he played on to take to multiple championships, see how his dominance against even the best of players (you can even argue that ABA had more top heavy talent than the NBA during that time period), where he had a cast worse than that of KG's Wolves,LeBron's Cavs, or even Bryant's Lakers if we're comparing modern teams. He was a fantastic finals performer, he had games where he would utterly dominate with back-to-back 45 point nights. He was amongst the best finals performers not only of the ABA, but the NBA too.

Right now I am leaning toward Moses Malone. His biggest weakness is his passing obviously, but he was a monster rebounder and maybe the best offensive rebounder in history. His scoring was also the second best of the bunch behind only the other Malone (Karl). But what does it for me is his 3 MVPs over the likes of Kareem, and his title where he was clearly the better player than Dr. J. I have a hard time giving Dr. J the nod over him for this very reason (much in the same way people have with Shaq over Kobe).

You do know that Erving won an MVP over KAJ & Moses (right in the middle of his peak) too right? Right in the start to the dominance of Bird & Magic's careers. And when he arrived in Philly, he might've been the better player that season due to his age, but Erving was right behind him (All-NBA First Team & 5th in MVP Voting). And I'd argue it's a completely different relationship if you're comparing Shaq & Bryant to Erving & Moses. Erving was actually the leader of the team, not Malone. You can go back to TLAF's post for reference or even do a simple search archive. Just like it was Frazier's team in New York, this was Erving's team.

[Baller 24]

When does voting close?

Ending it tonight.

[lorak]

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

BS! Garnett had teams which were deep in the -10 without him. That never happened to Robinson, NEVER, not even the bad 1997 season had them playing at such a bad level. And before that they were rather capable of keeping up with the usual championship teams.

On/Off numbers

2011: -6.1 without Nowitzki, -0.5 without James
2010: -3.4 without Bryant, -0.3 without Garnett
2009: -1.4 without Bryant, +0.2 without Howard
2008: +3.1 without Garnett, +0.0 without Bryant
2007: -2.0 without Duncan, -4.0 without James
2006: -7.7 without Wade, -0.6 without Nowitzki
2005: -1.4 without Duncan
2004: -3.6 without O'Neal
2003: -6.2 without Duncan, -2.3 without Kidd

I can't check all the numbers now, but for example by my calculations Mavs 2011 were -6.6 without Dirk, Celtics 2008 without KG +9.7 (wow, seems to much probably my excel did something wrong ;]), Spurs 2005 without Duncan -0.7 and Spurs 2004 without Duncan +3.7. But I think you have a point.

But I was also talking about fit. Team can perform bad without leader but still be built wise, fit is right, like Mavs 2011. With Robinson's Spurs the problem was that there was no fit. As I said - playmakers without three point shot, perimeter players without much creativity or even Rodman with mentality completely not fit to San Antonio.

[Dr Positivity]

Drza didn't officially vote, but I think we all know what it'd be. If he doesn't show up by tonight, I'd count this as enough:

Overall: Malone is an excellent player. In my opinion, one of the three best power forwards of all-time. I would expect to be voting him in within the next couple of votes, myself. But on the whole I just don't think he was quite as good as Garnett, and his (now) slight longevity advantage isn't enough to bridge the gap.

[colts18]

I can't check all the numbers now, but for example by my calculations Mavs 2011 were -6.6 without Dirk, Celtics 2008 without KG +9.7 (wow, seems to much probably my excel did something wrong ;]), Spurs 2005 without Duncan -0.7 and Spurs 2004 without Duncan +3.7. But I think you have a point.

No it's not a typo. When KG didn't play in 11 games, here were the results:

102.7 PPG
94 PPG against
+8.72 differential

112.7 O rtg
103.1 D rtg
+9.57 differential

To put that into perspective, the Celtics were a 9.31 SRS team. If you subtract -2.34 for their average opponent in that span, you get a 7.23 SRS. To put that into perspective, #2 in SRS was the lakers at 7.34 SRS so basically the Celtics played like the Lakers in that span. Also the Celtics had a better win% when he was out than he played (67.1 win pace without him). They beat two 50+ win teams without him and lost by an average of 2 points in their losses.

[Baller 24]

And I want add something about Erving's defense:

2.6 spg, 1.4 bpg vs Celtics in 1980
1.4 spg, 2.9 bpg vs Bucks in 1981
2.3 spg, 2.4 bpg vs Celtics in 1981
1.8 spg, 1.3 bpg vs Bucks in 1982
1.6 spg, 2.6 bpg vs Celtics in 1982
2.0 spg, 1.6 bpg vs celtics in 1985

Also look at it from a rebounding perspective, his ABA years he's comparable to that of Shawn Marion & during his NBA years, he's very comparable to Melo, LBJ, & Durant. One of the most elite rebounders for the SF position.

And if you're going to compare it from a team defense standpoint, remember that while rosters changed, the foundation of every single team remained consistent with one factor: Julius Erving.

With the Nets, their one of the most elite defensive teams in the league, once he leaves, they're average, before Erving arrived in Philly they're an average defensive team, once he's finally apart of the team, the team is amongst the elite defensively.

[JordansBulls]

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

Woah woah woah here. What makes KG above Moses Malone now?

[Baller 24]

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

Woah woah woah here. What makes KG above Moses Malone now?

That's me personally. I'm not going to full detail until it comes time for me to vote, JB.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm fine with the way this project is going, but one of the things that irks is me is just how much of the arguments are coming down to just throwing out boxscores and stats. I mean how many posts in this thread are actually talking about what Erving, Karl, KG actually do on a court instead of the numbers they put up and what their teammates put up and the result. Stats should be used to help us understand what the player is doing on the court, rather than exist as the argument itself, IMO

[SDChargers#1]

Dr. J big weakness for me is that the vast majority of his major accomplishments came in a different league, and I simply don't value the ABA like I do NBA.

If we're going to give props for KAJ's, McAdoo's, Cowens, or Havlicek's dominance during that time-frame, you've got to do the same for Erving (Production from '72 to '76):
ABA—110.6 ppg, 49.6 rpg, 23.3 apg
NBA—106.1 ppg, 48.8 rpg, 24.1 apg)

Check out some of those teams he played on to take to multiple championships, see how his dominance against even the best of players (you can even argue that ABA had more top heavy talent than the NBA during that time period), where he had a cast worse than that of KG's Wolves,LeBron's Cavs, or even Bryant's Lakers if we're comparing modern teams. He was a fantastic finals performer, he had games where he would utterly dominate with back-to-back 45 point nights. He was amongst the best finals performers not only of the ABA, but the NBA too.

Right now I am leaning toward Moses Malone. His biggest weakness is his passing obviously, but he was a monster rebounder and maybe the best offensive rebounder in history. His scoring was also the second best of the bunch behind only the other Malone (Karl). But what does it for me is his 3 MVPs over the likes of Kareem, and his title where he was clearly the better player than Dr. J. I have a hard time giving Dr. J the nod over him for this very reason (much in the same way people have with Shaq over Kobe).

You do know that Erving won an MVP over KAJ & Moses (right in the middle of his peak) too right? Right in the start to the dominance of Bird & Magic's careers. And when he arrived in Philly, he might've been the better player that season due to his age, but Erving was right behind him (All-NBA First Team & 5th in MVP Voting). And I'd argue it's a completely different relationship if you're comparing Shaq & Bryant to Erving & Moses. Erving was actually the leader of the team, not Malone. You can go back to TLAF's post for reference or even do a simple search archive. Just like it was Frazier's team in New York, this was Erving's team.

I do hold the 70s in lesser regards than other eras. Kareem was picked apart for it in his vote, and I agree to a sense. It was a weaker league (both NBA and ABA), when half of the best players are in a different league you are in a weaker league, period. In Dr. J's first 5 seasons (ABA), his numbers were off the charts he was winning MVPs and Titles, then he switches and all of them plummet. It isn't a coincidence for me.

Dr. J did win an MVP (1), Moses won 3. It's a pretty sizable difference.

And don't let MVP voting fool you into thinking Dr. J was even close to Moses in that title run. He wasn't.

Regular Season -

Moses: 25 ppg / 15 rpg / 1.3 apg / 58% TS%
Erving: 21 ppg / 7 rpg / 4 apg / 57% TS%

Relatively close, but then the post season.

Post Season -

Moses: 26 ppg / 16 rpg / 1.5 apg / 59% TS%
Erving: 18 ppg / 8 rpg / 3 apg / 50% TS%

Kobe was more of a factor in '01 and '02 easily. Honestly this season is comparable to Kobe in '00 compared to Shaq. Moses was huge and absolutely bar none the biggest factor in that championship and it wasn't close.

And as I said, I (mostly because I don't value ABA as highly) just can't put Dr. J over someone who was clearly the better player on HIS OWN TEAM.

[mysticbb]

I can't check all the numbers now, but for example by my calculations Mavs 2011 were -6.6 without Dirk, Celtics 2008 without KG +9.7 (wow, seems to much probably my excel did something wrong ;]), Spurs 2005 without Duncan -0.7 and Spurs 2004 without Duncan +3.7.

I just took the On/Off court numbers (not pace adjusted) here, not the numbers by missed games. The Celtics indeed played very well during the 11 games Garnett missed, as I said that they were an excellent team and still, Garnett made a big impact. It was surprising that they couldn't quite bring their performance level on the road, but they killed the teams at home in the playoffs.

But I was also talking about fit. Team can perform bad without leader but still be built wise, fit is right, like Mavs 2011. With Robinson's Spurs the problem was that there was no fit. As I said - playmakers without three point shot, perimeter players without much creativity or even Rodman with mentality completely not fit to San Antonio.

I agree that the fit is really important. The Mavericks with Nowitzki played so well, because they had the right skillset to succeed. Barea as penetrating guard is useless without Nowitzki, but he is exactly what the Mavericks need to take advantage of the spacing Nowitzki creates. If they would have had a point guard like Andre Miller, a player far better than Barea, he would have been still a worse fit due to his playing style (using midrange, posting up, lack of range, etc.). Also Terry works perfectly with Nowitzki. Their high p&r is great and gives the Mavericks a lot of opportunities. The fit is important, no doubt about that, BUT when we look at Robinson he played on team with a +6.2 in average for two seasons, that is not better than the Mavericks with Nowitzki being at +5.5. The thing is keeping that level in the playoffs, when the game gets tougher and the opponents are getting better. As I said, I think Robinson's playing level is better reflected by his playoff numbers than his regular season numbers, that is basically all. And his playoff numbers are already in the Top15 All-Time anyway.

[Dr Positivity]

My primary reason for not voting Erving here is that I feel West is more valuable than him, as I said before. The reason I believe comes down to their offensive difference

I believe styles like West and Kobe's opens up for the floor for the rest of the offense by drawing defenders to the outside, which was especially important in the non 3pt line days. I feel like West was without question the better facilitator as well as his team's lead guard, running pnrs, etc.

Erving OTOH is more like the best version of Elgin Baylor ever. Obviously the drive and finish game is hugely effective, but I don't see him helping offensive teammates as much through spacing or playmaking/pick and rolls. The best thing he can do is pass when the double comes early but he is not on West's level. Overall I see Erving as an equal scorer at best to West, but West does it on the outside opening the floor and making the game easier for teammates, while Erving is 15 ft and in. West's playmaking is then better. I see West and Oscar as the clear better offensive players than Erving

Is Erving's defense great? Looks like it. So was Jerry West's. Erving has more years, but I agree with drza's assessment that the goal is to create the single best team peak possible since that wins championships and for that reason, I'm inclined to take West (and Oscar) over Erving.

I feel like of the 4 guys getting votes here (Erving, West, Karl, KG), Malone is the best scorer, West is the best playmaker and KG is the best defender. So the argument for Erving would have to come down to all around game. But KG and West are incredible all around players as well...

[mysticbb]

102.7 PPG
94 PPG against
+8.72 differential

112.7 O rtg
103.1 D rtg
+9.57 differential

To put that into perspective, the Celtics were a 9.31 SRS team. If you subtract -2.34 for their average opponent in that span, you get a 7.23 SRS. To put that into perspective, #2 in SRS was the lakers at 7.34 SRS so basically the Celtics played like the Lakers in that span. Also the Celtics had a better win% when he was out than he played (67.1 win pace without him). They beat two 50+ win teams without him and lost by an average of 2 points in their losses.

The Celtics had 8.72 point differential and a -2.43 SOS, that makes 6.29 SRS during those 11 games without Garnett (that is not like the Lakers, especially not like the Lakers with Gasol anno 2008!, they had +11.56 with Gasol and a -1.36 SOS, makes it 10.2 SRS team). With Garnett they had +10.49 and -0.72 SOS, that makes 9.77 SRS. Garnett basically made the difference between the 2011 Bulls (6.53 SRS) and the 1992 Bulls (10.07 SRS). Now, which one of those teams would you pick for winning a 7 games series against the 2008 Lakers?

[Baller 24]

I do hold the 70s in lesser regards than other eras. Kareem was picked apart for it in his vote, and I agree to a sense. It was a weaker league (both NBA and ABA), when half of the best players are in a different league you are in a weaker league, period. In Dr. J's first 5 seasons (ABA), his numbers were off the charts he was winning MVPs and Titles, then he switches and all of them plummet. It isn't a coincidence for me.

That's why you don't look at Basketball-Reference.com and pick and make your votes.

1) You do know that Erving that summer had a very serious knee surgery right? Which was the probable cause for his statistical drop?

2) You do know that Erving's impact was immediately felt in Philly, when he took an average defensive team playing .500 ball to one of the most elite defensive teams, and took them straight to the finals (and would have won if McGinnis wasn't hurt), right ?

3) That impact continued as the Sixers remained an elite defensive team even until the arrival of Moses, you do know that despite Moses winning the MVP that all the head-lines of numerous sources, search archives, and references suggest that he was the leader of that title team, right?

Dr. J did win an MVP (1), Moses won 3. It's a pretty sizable difference.

Yes, but I wanted to showcase that Erving won an MVP in the midst of peak Moses, early prime Bird, late prime KAJ, just like how Moses won in '82 & '83.

And don't let MVP voting fool you into thinking Dr. J was even close to Moses in that title run. He wasn't.

Though it really was, even from a statistical stand-point:

Code: Select all

Player PER:   TS%  WS/48
Moses: 25.1  .578     0.248
Erving: 23.1     .566     0.217


Regular Season -

Moses: 25 ppg / 15 rpg / 1.3 apg / 58% TS%
Erving: 21 ppg / 7 rpg / 4 apg / 57% TS%

Relatively close, but then the post season.

Post Season -

Moses: 26 ppg / 16 rpg / 1.5 apg / 59% TS%
Erving: 18 ppg / 8 rpg / 3 apg / 50% TS%

Finals:

Code: Select all

 
FG%  PPG   RPG APG    SPG  BPG
.507   25.8   18.0   2.0   1.5   1.5
.469   19.0   8.5   5.0   1.3   2.8


Kobe was more of a factor in '01 and '02 easily. Honestly this season is comparable to Kobe in '00 compared to Shaq. Moses was huge and absolutely bar none the biggest factor in that championship and it wasn't close.

Are you just basing this off of Basketball-Reference.com or what? Because the Sixers won the ECF and went to the finals in both '80 & '82, a season prior to Malone's arrival.

How can you suggest a player that's MVP caliber, with an obvious impact from both an offensive and defensive side is not also one of the biggest factors of the team too? Despite the fact that they were championship contenders without him.

The addition of Malone just allowed them to easily dominate, but without him, they still remained championship contenders. And why is it that even with the addition of Malone, that tabloids considered Erving the leader of the team? Why is it that despite him winning in the regular season Erving still was comparable from a statistical impact standpoint, and MVP caliber player (5th in voting/All-NBA 1st) ?

And as I said, I (mostly because I don't value ABA as highly) just can't put Dr. J over someone who was clearly the better player on HIS OWN TEAM.

Arguable, they were elite before him, defensively & offensively. All his impact did was make them a more dominant team, in fact without Malone, the Sixers were still a championship contender since the arrival of Erving onto Philly. While it was always known as "Erving's team", he was the leader of the team. It was his team, he was the leader, not Moses.

[colts18]

102.7 PPG
94 PPG against
+8.72 differential

112.7 O rtg
103.1 D rtg
+9.57 differential

To put that into perspective, the Celtics were a 9.31 SRS team. If you subtract -2.34 for their average opponent in that span, you get a 7.23 SRS. To put that into perspective, #2 in SRS was the lakers at 7.34 SRS so basically the Celtics played like the Lakers in that span. Also the Celtics had a better win% when he was out than he played (67.1 win pace without him). They beat two 50+ win teams without him and lost by an average of 2 points in their losses.

The Celtics had 8.72 point differential and a -2.43 SOS, that makes 6.29 SRS during those 11 games without Garnett (that is not like the Lakers, especially not like the Lakers with Gasol anno 2008!, they had +11.56 with Gasol and a -1.36 SOS, makes it 10.2 SRS team). With Garnett they had +10.49 and -0.72 SOS, that makes 9.77 SRS. Garnett basically made the difference between the 2011 Bulls (6.53 SRS) and the 1992 Bulls (10.07 SRS). Now, which one of those teams would you pick for winning a 7 games series against the 2008 Lakers?

Here are some teams with SRS between 6.09 and 6.49 (+/- 0.2 of 6.29):
10 Cavs
93 Bulls (champs)
06 Pistons
89 Pistons (Champs)
96 Jazz
98 Pacers
63 Celtics (champs)
93 Suns (Finalist)

2008 Celtics without KG (6.29 SRS)

82 Celtics (Champs)
00 Blazers
89 Lakers (Finalists)
84 Celtics (Champs)
95 Magic (Finalists)
94 Knicks (Finalists)
85 Lakers (champs)
09 Magic (finalists)
50 Nationals (Finalists)

So I count 12 finalists and 6 champions in that group. 26 teams in history finished between 6.09 and 6.49 SRS . 24 of them played in 82 game seasons. 24 of out of 24 won 54+ games, 23 out of 24 55+ games, 9 of them won 60+ games. These teams averaged a .725 win% which comes out to 59.5 wins in a season. So the Celtics were basically a legit 60 win team without Garnett. Some people here actually argued that the Celtics were a mediocre defensive team without Garnett. If that is the case, why not mention how they are better offensively without KG?