RealGM Top 100 List #10

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,784
And1: 99,337
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#201 » by Texas Chuck » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:19 pm

therealbig3 wrote: But if you look at when their primes overlap...05-07...Garnett is significantly outproducing Duncan in terms of post-up offense. Turns out, the evidence DOESN'T support Duncan trumping Garnett as a post up player. If anything, it's the opposite. Which makes Garnett's value in other areas of the game a much bigger deal.



But is that really what that data is showing? It shows KG is producing more in the post per possession but Duncan is using significantly more post possessions. Duncan is still very much out-producing KG in the post.

Again I hate to keep harping on the obvious, but your skills only matter insofar as you actually use them.

Spoiler:
shutupandjam wrote:Yes, it accounts for this. Synergy actually breaks it all down though so I'll take a look year by year:


2005:
Garnett:
Post-up Derived offense (includes pass outs): 1.022 PPP on 740 poss
Single covered post-ups: 1.043 PPP on 555 poss
Pass outs: 1.084 PPP on 155 poss
Doubled, no pass out: 0.300 PPP on 30 poss

Duncan:
Post-up Derived offense: 0.981 PPP on 627 poss
Single covered post-ups: 0.938 PPP on 470 poss
Pass outs: 1.288 PPP on 125 poss
Doubled, no pass out: 0.406 PPP on 32 poss


2006:
Garnett:
Post-up Derived offense: 1.034 PPP on 730 poss
Single covered post-ups: 1.049 PPP on 574 poss
Pass outs: 1.08 PPP on 138 poss
Doubled, no pass out: 0.222 PPP on 18 poss


Duncan:
Post-up Derived offense: 0.952 PPP on 834 poss
Single covered post-ups: 0.903 PPP on 636 poss
Pass outs: 1.269 PPP on 171 poss
Doubled, no pass out: 0.111 PPP on 27 poss

2007:
Garnett:
Post-up Derived offense: 1.080 PPP on 511 poss
Single covered post-ups: 1.068 PPP on 470 poss
Pass outs: 1.351 PPP on 37 poss
Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 4 poss

Duncan:
Post-up Derived offense: 0.992 PPP on 864 poss
Single covered post-ups: 1.036 PPP on 669 poss
Pass outs: 0.988 PPP on 164 poss
Doubled, no pass out: 0.065 PPP on 31 poss

2008:
Garnett:
Post-up Derived offense: 1.060 PPP on 580 poss
Single covered post-ups: 1.038 PPP on 472 poss
Pass outs: 1.263 PPP on 99 poss
Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 9 poss

Duncan:
Post-up Derived offense: 0.957 PPP on 678 poss
Single covered post-ups: 0.948 PPP on 600 poss
Pass outs: 1.159 PPP on 63 poss
Doubled, no pass out: 0.467 PPP on 15 poss

2009:
Garnett:
Post-up Derived offense: 0.993 PPP on 290 poss
Single covered post-ups: 0.953 PPP on 254 poss
Pass outs: 1.484 PPP on 31 poss
Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 5 poss

Duncan:
Post-up Derived offense: 1.010 PPP on 675 poss
Single covered post-ups: 0.982 PPP on 563 poss
Pass outs: 1.250 PPP on 96 poss
Doubled, no pass out: 0.563 PPP on 16 poss


Note: the doubled, no pass out isn't actually recorded, I just did the math there. The number of "doubled, no pass out" situations seems awfully low to me (I'm not 100% sure where they draw the line for "double team")...


If we do the math here:

2005 KG: 756.28 points from post possessions(assuming some rounding was done in his figures)
2005 Duncan 615.087 points

2006 KG 754.82
2006 Duncan 793.968

2007 KG 551.88
2007 Duncan 857.088

2008 KG 614.80
2008 Duncan 648.846

2009 KG 287.97
Duncan 742.50

No what this data really shows us is that KG was perhaps more effective in the post than we thought, but the edge remains clearly in favor of Duncan having more impact in the post. I know this board tends to want to minimize volume, but skill in the post is not easily replaced and is quite valuable.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,784
And1: 99,337
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#202 » by Texas Chuck » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:24 pm

fpliii wrote:
Purch wrote:Considering they played in identical weatern conferences for most of their career, I find that hard to buy. Again this is loser bias, you're punishing Duncan for leading his teams to higher seeds , and given KG a pass due to being a lower seed. But it still doesn't explain why his individual post season effiency against the same Western conference teams always drops off. Whiles Duncan's goes up during his prime, against a lot of the same defenders whiles facing more post double teams

The West isn't identical if they're not matching up against the same defenses. It's not "loser bias" per se (since there's no bonus for losing, we're just taking into account context), it's just taking into account defenses faced. If a guy faces -3, -2, -4 teams in a postseason run by virtue of having a lower seed, and another goes up against -1, +1, -2 for instance, we have to take it into account. Definitely can't compare the two at face value.

If we have a big enough sample to compare them against only common opponents in the same seasons, then that could eliminate the need for adjustments.


Can I agree with both of you? It obviously impacts KG's averages in the West that his team was an underdog and lost in the 1st round every year save 1. And Duncan gets the benefit of many series against low-seeded Western playoff teams. But he most years goes on to face multiple tough defenses and if the data Colt18 shows is correct it came out to be roughly the same.

So while we should absolutely look at competition, if we do look at it and see that KG didn't face tougher defensive opposition shouldn't that be a mark in Duncan's favor?
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Purch
Veteran
Posts: 2,820
And1: 2,145
Joined: May 25, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#203 » by Purch » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:25 pm

Also, since when is it a good thing for a player who could score more efficiently in the post, to not play down low and settle for jumpers? If anything doesn't the fact that he doesn't go into the post more support the idea that he didnt have the right mentality on that end of the floor? It's like Josh smith, he makes somewhere around 70% of his shots inside, and yet he settles for jumpers, does the fact he shoots efficiently inside make him a better offensive player, if he goes away from his biggest strength so often? That's why I'm confused about those stats. Dont the best offensive players go to their strengths whenever possible? Why are we rewarding players for shooting in one area efficently, but going away from it way to often? You didn't see Shaq settling for mid range jumpers, because he played to his strengths
Image
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,595
And1: 16,132
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#204 » by therealbig3 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:25 pm

ronnymac2 wrote:1. Duncan's most prolific scoring seasons were in 2002 and 2003.

2. Flip Saunders is a very good offensive coach.


To respond to your 2nd point...first of all, I don't consider him on Pop's level as an offensive coach. Second of all, putting enormous pressure on your best player defensively (because your defensive schemes are lacking) is obviously going to hamper him offensively...can anyone really say that Popovich didn't make Duncan's life easier defensively? When were Duncan's teams not stacked with defensive talent during his prime? Wasn't Popovich one of the first coaches to really popularize the strategy of shutting down the paint and the 3 pointer, and to concede the midrange jumper?

As for Duncan's most prolific scoring seasons...that's true...just like KG was still volume scoring on excellent efficiency after his supporting cast declined badly (05-07). I was referring more to the playoffs...in 02, with Robinson injured and the supporting cast not playing well against the Lakers...Duncan's scoring efficiency dropped like a rock and his TOs went sky-high. In 03, Duncan dominated the Lakers and the Dirk-less Mavs on offense...series that saw various contributors step up like Jackson, Manu, Robinson, and Rose. He actually didn't play that great offensively against the Suns or the Nets. Meanwhile, KG has stepped up when his supporting cast was lacking as well...01 against the Spurs and 03 against the Lakers come to mind. He just couldn't do that all the time. And neither did Duncan. He didn't play well in 01 against the Lakers. He didn't play well in 02 against the Lakers. He didn't play well in 04 against the Lakers. His magnum opus, 03, is really the only instance that people refer to when they say Duncan showed he could carry a weak supporting cast offensively and KG couldn't, but that supporting cast is very underrated, they always had shooters on the court, and they had an elite finishing big man who also took a ton of pressure off Duncan defensively (Robinson). And even back then, the system in SA always did a good job of moving the ball and finding the open man, and Duncan was getting a lot of layups and dunks off that action.
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#205 » by ceiling raiser » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:26 pm

Purch wrote:This is why I used a large sample size, because it's consistent regardless of how hot or cold he was going into the playoffs,or what opponent he was facing, Garnett's effiency consistently goes down in the post season

Right, but you need to adjust for competition faced. It's not "loser bias", but if someone is a lower seed and as such facing better teams with better defenses, we need to take that into account.

Also, players generally don't have the same role year-to-year, so I'm not sure if it's a good idea to combine seasons across multiple years.

If we can agree on which years a guy played the same, and can adjust for defenses faced, then maybe we can draw comparisons this way.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
User avatar
PCProductions
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,763
And1: 3,989
Joined: Apr 18, 2012
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#206 » by PCProductions » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:27 pm

ardee wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:
ardee wrote:Then in 2003, again the Wolves get destroyed in the paint against the Lakers. LA shot 67% in the paint! Playoff best. That's up there with elite paint finishers today as PLAYERS, and this was a whole team!

Same story in 2004. The Lakers eliminated the Timberwolves by shooting 64% in the paint. And drza, don't tell me KG's talents were better served helping on 3 point shooters like in the Dallas series against the Lakers, Shaq and Kobe LIVED in the paint and that's where they ate the Magic alive.


Not being able to defend Shaq isn't an indictment on one's defense in my opinion.


That's not my point... KG should've at least been there TRYING. Instead he was spending time showing on all picks and helping on shooters instead of guarding the part of the floor the Lakers were wreaking havoc.

And honestly, is it so much to expect a peak KG in 2004, the MVP and clear best player in the league, to do at least a serviceable job on a past his prime Shaq? Considering the guy was shooting over 70% in the paint for the Lakers, I'd expect him to at least TRY.

Shaq in 2004 WCF: 20.7 PPG, 56.9 FG%
Shaq in 2004 Finals against one of the best defenses in history: 26.6 PPG, 63.1 FG%

Garnett played him better than Duncan and Wallace that postseason as far as holding down his scoring volume and efficiency.
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#207 » by ceiling raiser » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:28 pm

Chuck Texas wrote:Can I agree with both of you? It obviously impacts KG's averages in the West that his team was an underdog and lost in the 1st round every year save 1. And Duncan gets the benefit of many series against low-seeded Western playoff teams. But he most years goes on to face multiple tough defenses and if the data Colt18 shows is correct it came out to be roughly the same.

So while we should absolutely look at competition, if we do look at it and see that KG didn't face tougher defensive opposition shouldn't that be a mark in Duncan's favor?

Oh certainly. I saw acrossthecourt and a couple of other guys doing similar breakdowns for the Admiral before (I think they used -3 as the cutoff?), so if we want to do the same for KG, I'd have no problem with the results, regardless of how they turn out.

I'm looking to learn more here (as is the case with most participants here, possibly all of us), I'm not particularly interested in advocating for/against any players. :)
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
User avatar
acrossthecourt
Pro Prospect
Posts: 984
And1: 729
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#208 » by acrossthecourt » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:29 pm

Larry Bird

I don't think I need to spell out the reasons here. Is anyone surprised who's in the top ten list? This is what we expected.

In 1988, Boston had 57 wins and a great 6.2 SRS. Larry Bird missed all but a handful of games next season. His minutes were mostly replaced by McHale, Parish, and Reggie Lewis, who had barely played the previous season and was pretty good. They won 42 games with a 1.2 SRS. Boston wouldn't have been a special team without him. They were only "stacked" because of him.
Twitter: AcrossTheCourt
Website; advanced stats based with a few studies:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#209 » by ceiling raiser » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:29 pm

Purch wrote:Also, since when is it a good thing for a player who could score more efficiently in the post, to not play down low and settle for jumpers? If anything doesn't the fact that he doesn't go into the post more support the idea that he didnt have the right mentality on that end of the floor? It's like Josh smith, he makes somewhere around 70% of his shots inside, and yet he settles for jumpers, does the fact he shoots efficiently inside make him a better offensive player, if he goes away from his biggest strength so often? That's why I'm confused about those stats. Dont the best offensive players go to their strengths whenever possible? Why are we rewarding players for shooting in one area efficently, but going away from it way to often? You didn't see Shaq settling for mid range jumpers, because he played to his strengths

From the data posted before, the number of low post possessions for KG (pre-Boston) compared favorably to Duncan/Dirk IIRC.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
microfib4thewin
Head Coach
Posts: 6,275
And1: 454
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#210 » by microfib4thewin » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:31 pm

andrewww wrote:KMalone suffers from a lot of the same arguments against Kobe. Both have extended prime play and were offensive anchors that were competent defenders as a whole. A reasonable argument can be made for any of these 6 bigs (KMalone/KG/Barkley/Dirk/Admiral/Moses).


They are similar players but the criticism that is levied against them are very different. The historical narrative has Malone as a guy who can't come up through the clutch because of his 0 ring even though Kobe is also a terrible 4th quarter performer himself. Malone was never considered the best player in the league while Kobe has simply because he didn't need to go up against old MJ for that honor. As for extended prime, Kobe's prime as an MVP level player was pretty much done after 2009 at his age 30 season, for Karl it would be after his 1999 season at the age of 35. Kobe's prime as an allstar was pretty much over at age 34 while Malone was still one at age 39. Malone has a strong longevity argument. Kobe doesn't.

I still have Kobe above K Malone, but I disagree about the assessment that they share the same types of criticism.
Purch
Veteran
Posts: 2,820
And1: 2,145
Joined: May 25, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#211 » by Purch » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:31 pm

fpliii wrote:
Purch wrote:This is why I used a large sample size, because it's consistent regardless of how hot or cold he was going into the playoffs,or what opponent he was facing, Garnett's effiency consistently goes down in the post season

Right, but you need to adjust for competition faced. It's not "loser bias", but if someone is a lower seed and as such facing better teams with better defenses, we need to take that into account.

Also, players generally don't have the same role year-to-year, so I'm not sure if it's a good idea to combine seasons across multiple years.

If we can agree on which years a guy played the same, and can adjust for defenses faced, then maybe we can draw comparisons this way.

See, but the thing is it doesn't matter what defense KG played against, cause this was a career long dip, even when he was on the #1 seed celtics. I'm not understanding what you actually think would change. The dip is there no matter what teams he faced, and no matter what seed he did it as


fpliii wrote:
Purch wrote:Also, since when is it a good thing for a player who could score more efficiently in the post, to not play down low and settle for jumpers? If anything doesn't the fact that he doesn't go into the post more support the idea that he didnt have the right mentality on that end of the floor? It's like Josh smith, he makes somewhere around 70% of his shots inside, and yet he settles for jumpers, does the fact he shoots efficiently inside make him a better offensive player, if he goes away from his biggest strength so often? That's why I'm confused about those stats. Dont the best offensive players go to their strengths whenever possible? Why are we rewarding players for shooting in one area efficently, but going away from it way to often? You didn't see Shaq settling for mid range jumpers, because he played to his strengths

From the data posted before, the number of low post possessions for KG (pre-Boston) compared favorably to Duncan/Dirk IIRC.

Depends what you mean by favorably. In 06 Duncan had 100+ more post possessions in 07 Duncan had 300 more post possessions . Thats like the difference between the shots Blake Griffin takes inside and Kevin Love
Image
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#212 » by ardee » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:32 pm

ardee wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:
ardee wrote:Then in 2003, again the Wolves get destroyed in the paint against the Lakers. LA shot 67% in the paint! Playoff best. That's up there with elite paint finishers today as PLAYERS, and this was a whole team!

Same story in 2004. The Lakers eliminated the Timberwolves by shooting 64% in the paint. And drza, don't tell me KG's talents were better served helping on 3 point shooters like in the Dallas series against the Lakers, Shaq and Kobe LIVED in the paint and that's where they ate the Magic alive.


Not being able to defend Shaq isn't an indictment on one's defense in my opinion.


That's not my point... KG should've at least been there TRYING. Instead he was spending time showing on all picks and helping on shooters instead of guarding the part of the floor the Lakers were wreaking havoc.

And honestly, is it so much to expect a peak KG in 2004, the MVP and clear best player in the league, to do at least a serviceable job on a past his prime Shaq? Considering the guy was shooting over 70% in the paint for the Lakers, I'd expect him to at least TRY.


This is basically part of the next phase of my argument of why it doesn't make sense to rank KG this high, especially over guys like Kobe and Bird.

He just wasn't decisive enough. When he saw a problem, he didn't react to it. Dirk's supernova series in 2002, the Lakers finishing in 2003 and 2004. Hell, Josh Smith helped the Hawks come back from 2-0 down in 2008 to knot the series, and it took him averaging 24 ppg on 64% TS on a 3 game stretch for KG to finally switch onto him and shut him down. In the Finals in 2008, it took him 6 games to realize that the Lakers weak post defense was worth attacking down low: he averaged 4.4 FGA in the paint in the first 5 games and finally took 9 in the last one.

Contrast that to Kobe. If he sees the teams offense slipping, he grabs the game by the scruff of its neck, scores 15 points in two minutes, and gets them back on track. I don't think I need to cite examples. If a perimeter star is going off on the Lakers, he takes over them. The 2010 run has numerous examples itself, between Westbrook, Rondo, Pierce in game 5 (I'll actually find the video of Kobe telling Phil he's going to take over guarding Pierce and doing so).

KG was a great player, don't get me wrong, but these are real examples of when he wasn't firm enough in how he helped his team. I'd much rather have the guy who knows when it's time to do what's needed for the W, however harsh his manner is about doing so, and that's Kobe Bean Bryant.
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,746
And1: 5,724
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#213 » by An Unbiased Fan » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:33 pm

acrossthecourt wrote:People are way too obsessed with Garnett's scoring. He's best at defense, rebounding, and creating for others via screens and passes and spacing the floor. It's like knocking Kobe for rebounding or Russell for scoring.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Russell's massive defensive impact offset his offensive shortcomings, and no team is looking for their SG as the main rebounder.

The ability to be a reliable 1st option is critical, otherwise guys like Rodman/Big Ben would be in discussions.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,595
And1: 16,132
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#214 » by therealbig3 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:35 pm

acrossthecourt wrote:Larry Bird

I don't think I need to spell out the reasons here. Is anyone surprised who's in the top ten list? This is what we expected.

In 1988, Boston had 57 wins and a great 6.2 SRS. Larry Bird missed all but a handful of games next season. His minutes were mostly replaced by McHale, Parish, and Reggie Lewis, who had barely played the previous season and was pretty good. They won 42 games with a 1.2 SRS. Boston wouldn't have been a special team without him. They were only "stacked" because of him.


Well, a team that's still capable of being above .500 in a tough conference, and still make the playoffs btw, is a pretty good team to add an MVP-caliber player too. A supporting cast that can be over .500 on their own IS "stacked" imo.

And the year after Bird retires, when McHale is a role player off the bench, the Celtics are still a good team and still make the playoffs.
User avatar
acrossthecourt
Pro Prospect
Posts: 984
And1: 729
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#215 » by acrossthecourt » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:35 pm

fpliii wrote:
Chuck Texas wrote:Can I agree with both of you? It obviously impacts KG's averages in the West that his team was an underdog and lost in the 1st round every year save 1. And Duncan gets the benefit of many series against low-seeded Western playoff teams. But he most years goes on to face multiple tough defenses and if the data Colt18 shows is correct it came out to be roughly the same.

So while we should absolutely look at competition, if we do look at it and see that KG didn't face tougher defensive opposition shouldn't that be a mark in Duncan's favor?

Oh certainly. I saw acrossthecourt and a couple of other guys doing similar breakdowns for the Admiral before (I think they used -3 as the cutoff?), so if we want to do the same for KG, I'd have no problem with the results, regardless of how they turn out.

I'm looking to learn more here (as is the case with most participants here, possibly all of us), I'm not particularly interested in advocating for/against any players. :)

From ElGee:
Duncan 99-08 is

vs. +3 defenses: 22.5 pts/36 | 58.7% TS | 3.4 ast/36
vs. -3 defenses: 20.6 pts/36 | 53.0% TS | 2.5 ast/36

Garnett 99-08 is

vs. +3 defenses: 21.0 pts/36 | 56.8% TS | 4.8 ast/36
vs. -3 defenses: 20.0 pts/36 | 52.5% TS | 4.2 ast/36


So Duncan has a 0.5 TS% advantage with 1.7 assist favor in Garnett's corner.

I'll do a more thorough breakdown of Garnett (and Duncan) later adjusting for strength of schedule and seeing if the playoffs change anything. Most of the time it's just noise, except for Olajuwon and Robinson.

Summary stats versus -3 defenses aren't perfect because not all -3 teams are the same (going up against 2011 Boston and 2011 Chicago or two teams barely over the -3 line, for instance.)
Twitter: AcrossTheCourt
Website; advanced stats based with a few studies:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#216 » by ardee » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:36 pm

PCProductions wrote:Shaq in 2004 WCF: 20.7 PPG, 56.9 FG%
Shaq in 2004 Finals against one of the best defenses in history: 26.6 PPG, 63.1 FG%

Garnett played him better than Duncan and Wallace that postseason as far as holding down his scoring volume and efficiency.


Better stats but worse performance.

The Pistons weren't even trying to guard Shaq. The plan was to let Shaq get his and shut down the rest of the team. Watch the games, they're focusing more on Kobe, and aren't really bothered whenever Shaq scores. They never sent doubles because they wanted to make sure no one else besides him got going, and it worked.

The very next year the Wallace brothers shut down Shaq (comparatively).

And like I said, KG didn't guard him anyway. He was too busy being the 'middle linebacker'.

Speaking of which, I think it's time to take a shot every time someone calls KG the 'middle linebacker'.

Image
User avatar
ronnymac2
RealGM
Posts: 11,010
And1: 5,082
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#217 » by ronnymac2 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:39 pm

therealbig3 wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:1. Duncan's most prolific scoring seasons were in 2002 and 2003.

2. Flip Saunders is a very good offensive coach.


To respond to your 2nd point...first of all, I don't consider him on Pop's level as an offensive coach. Second of all, putting enormous pressure on your best player defensively (because your defensive schemes are lacking) is obviously going to hamper him offensively...can anyone really say that Popovich didn't make Duncan's life easier defensively? When were Duncan's teams not stacked with defensive talent during his prime? Wasn't Popovich one of the first coaches to really popularize the strategy of shutting down the paint and the 3 pointer, and to concede the midrange jumper?

As for Duncan's most prolific scoring seasons...that's true...just like KG was still volume scoring on excellent efficiency after his supporting cast declined badly (05-07). I was referring more to the playoffs...in 02, with Robinson injured and the supporting cast not playing well against the Lakers...Duncan's scoring efficiency dropped like a rock and his TOs went sky-high. In 03, Duncan dominated the Lakers and the Dirk-less Mavs on offense...series that saw various contributors step up like Jackson, Manu, Robinson, and Rose. He actually didn't play that great offensively against the Suns or the Nets. Meanwhile, KG has stepped up when his supporting cast was lacking as well...01 against the Spurs and 03 against the Lakers come to mind. He just couldn't do that all the time. And neither did Duncan. He didn't play well in 01 against the Lakers. He didn't play well in 02 against the Lakers. He didn't play well in 04 against the Lakers. His magnum opus, 03, is really the only instance that people refer to when they say Duncan showed he could carry a weak supporting cast offensively and KG couldn't, but that supporting cast is very underrated, they always had shooters on the court, and they had an elite finishing big man who also took a ton of pressure off Duncan defensively (Robinson). And even back then, the system in SA always did a good job of moving the ball and finding the open man, and Duncan was getting a lot of layups and dunks off that action.


Maybe not now, but back then, Saunders maximized the offensive talent on his team in 2 different situations. First in Minny (they had KG, a good scorer/shooter in Wally, and solid offensive contributors/shooters). Then he goes to Detroit. Detroit was a below average offense in 2004 and slightly below average in 2005. Flip comes in 2006 and Detroit becomes a +4.6 offense. Next year they're a +2.4. +3.9 in 2008.

Turns to crap in 2009 with Saunders gone, but at that point Billups is jettisoned for a declining Iverson and the rest of the offensive starters are declining as well, so I wouldn't use that dropoff to say Saunders was great offensively. I would use the Pistons jump in 2006 and consistently strong offenses for the rest of Saunders' tenure there to point to Saunders being an elite offensive coach. If you want to argue he maximizes offense at the expense of defense, I could see that (and that's most certainly something I personally would argue considering he actually had the gall to use KG at the top of a zone for a whole damn season :lol: ...most gross misuse of defensive talent ever??), but he brings offensive results. Of this there is no doubt.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,746
And1: 5,724
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#218 » by An Unbiased Fan » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:39 pm

PCProductions wrote:Shaq in 2004 WCF: 20.7 PPG, 56.9 FG%
Shaq in 2004 Finals against one of the best defenses in history: 26.6 PPG, 63.1 FG%

Garnett played him better than Duncan and Wallace that postseason as far as holding down his scoring volume and efficiency.

KG didn't guard Shaq. Minny threw 4 stiffs at him all series long.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#219 » by ardee » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:41 pm

A monster post from tsherkin illustrating KG's Playoff issues on offense as well.

tsherkin wrote:
drza wrote:We know that Garnett's TS% drops a bit in the postseason and that he isn't the volume scorer that some of these all-time players are.


OK, right off of the bat I want to address this.

Garnett's TS% drops from a career 54.9% in the RS to 52.3% in the PS. That's not "a bit," that's 2.6%. That's a pretty significant drop. Now, some of that includes his very early twenties, but given that he was typically playing 4 games and then being done, it doesn't harm his overall average that much and he's still only had two postseason runs with the Celtics where he was very close to league average TS%. In the title run, he was 0.2% above league average and this past season, he was actually +1.4% over league average. Garnett has been a very, very weak scorer in the playoffs through the majority of his career at all stages thereof... and he's posted an ORTG of 110+ only three times in the PS (97, 01, 08).

Next, I want to point out that on 4-game samples during which he's playing 41-44 mpg, the data is going to be incredibly noisy, so those APM studies are going to have some significant issues. You note this somewhere around the 02-04 range, though, so that's good.

You start to argue quality of teams faced, and that's fine: I think most sensible posters realize that with crap teams, KG was dragging them into the playoffs only to get spanked... usually by the Spurs. He had little hope to beat a lot of the teams he faced and no one should really penalize him for that too harshly. But when you're trying to fashion an argument about who is the best postseason performer of the generation and you take an already second-tier scoring threat and have him decline as much as he did, well, that's less effective. His 01 run was pretty amazing, I mean he rocked a 7.5% TOV (!!!) while doing the 21/12/4 thing on ~ 57% TS. You can make a single-series claim about his efficacy there against the Spurs (who were the best defense in the league that year), but I'm not really seeing how him doing that is a ton better than what Dirk did against them in 2006.

We are, however, getting back to the root of the debate I was trying to generate before, about KG's defensive efficacy versus Dirk's scoring.

The APM data is very interesting, and squares well with his impact (primarily as a defender)... but at the same time, there is a data point that you're excluding, right? From 99-03, KG won 5 games in the postseason, then won 10 in the deep run in 04 and didn't return to the playoffs with the Wolves. Now context. Injuries, abysmal management (Cassell for Marko Jaric? REALLY? JOE SMITH!! YOU BASTARDS! and so forth), but if you're looking at his contributions and you see how one-sided KG's were angling towards the defensive element, then it starts to become an issue. You can't just defend your opponent; in a game of basketball, you can't shut an opponent down, you need to score as well. From everything I've seen, there IS a slight, small bias towards offensive value (at least where star players are concerned) that's not generated via narrative alone. Especially at the paces at which the Wolves and the Spurs/Blazers/etc were playing in the early 00s, the notion that "each possession counts" isn't just a truism, it's a major point of contention.

So I offer a counter-point. Since the number of games isn't that bad, let's look at KG's Minny postseason career and see how it played out from 99-04.

99 versus the eventual-champion Spurs.

Hard to REALLY ream him for this one because they had Duncan and Robinson, but that kind of casually back-slides KG's rep away from where you're going. In any case, he opened up with 21 points on 54.3% TS (9/18 FG, 3/3 FT), 8 boards, 1 assist, 5 blocks, 4 fouls and 5 turnovers. They lost, of course, and for the moment, we'll pretend as if KG's performance comes in isolation so that I don't have to spend 8 years discussing what his teammates did or didn't do in this post. We'll acknowledge their role tacitly. Here we're seeing, though, that Garnett was coughing it up something fierce. 20.6% TOV against 31% USG, not his best game. Game 2, they win. 23 points on 22 shots (11/22 FG, 1/2 FT). 50.3% TS, but there, I think that's a bit misleading to call that a "bad" performance. Certainly not dominant, and this time he brought the rebounding, then added 6 assists to 4 turnovers. Again, not really pushing hard on offense, and given that he didn't have any other scorers, the Wolves would have likely been better off if he'd been a little less effective on D and a little more effective on offense, since everyone and their mom knew that he was basically the only major scorer on that squad, the only real threat. Games 3 and 4, they lost of course. 9/19, 5/6 for 23 points, 12 boards, 2 AST / 3 TOV. Then here's the killer. Game 4 was a 7-point loss and he shot 6/20 FG and 8/12 at the line. Realistically, he left 7-9 points on the board from what he'd have posted just making 45% FG and around 80% FT, very normal numbers for him. This is a single-game, single-series performance at the beginning of his All-NBA era (and he's far from alone in having poor performances), but as we start to watch him coming up short in key moments and close games like that, it begins to detract from the overall picture you're painting of the "most dominant postseason performer from 99-08" kind of thing, right? That right there is a game that kind of mirrors Dirk against the Warriors.

2000, against Portland:

Opens up with a 6/20 performance, no FTAs. 12/10/11 triple-double, but the triple-double belies his overall performance. With 26.2% usage and him shooting 30% FG without any FTAs, that's a rough, rough performance. And it was a 3-point loss. The not-Garnett Wolves shot 53% FG. Meantime, Sheed played well: didn't shoot much, but was 6/10 for 15 points (3/3 FT).

Game 2. 25/10/5, 4 TOV, 4 PF. 50% FG, 7/10 FT, 56.4% TS against 31.4% USG. Really, a good game. 4-point loss. Were he a more dominant scorer, that might have mattered, but Sealy, Wally Z and Sam Mitchell were rough enough that I'll actually post that they shot a combined 7/17. Sheed was crap. So, this one stands as a contrast to the first.

Game 3. A win. Middling TS (52.3%), but actually his best offensive game of the series. 11/22 FG and 1/1 from downtown (heh), he brought the rebounding and passing from the first game (13 boards, 10 assists, 2 turnovers). He played his mind out and his teammates actually supported him a lot (Brandon was 10/16 for 28 points that night).

Game 4. Elimination game #2 in this series and KG goes for a 5/20. 1/2 3P, 6/6 FT. 17 points on 37.5% TS. 10 boards, 9 assists, 3 turnovers. But WOW was he ever bad shooting that night, and that's his second major stinker in the series and his third over two consecutive postseason matchups (e.g. his 3rd in 8 games).

2001 vs SAS:

25/13/6Game 1. , 55.8% TS, really a good game overall. Only 1 turnover, 50% FG, 70% FT (10 FTA), just looking really good. It was a loss, but it can hardly be blamed on KG.

Game 2. Welcome to Crapsville, population, YOU. 5/13 FG, but 8/8 FT gives him a 54.5% TS. 12 boards, 2 assists, 2 turnovers, 112 ORTG. Another rough shooting night for him, though, and he played only 32 minutes because of some foul trouble, but mainly because it was garbage time after 3. The Wolves shot something stupid like a tenth of a percent off of their franchise-worst in the playoffs and they committed 20 turnovers. It was embarrassing. KG was part of a team-wide failure that game. This is, I believe, the year after Sealy was killed and right around Joe Smith time.

Game 3, token win time. 22/8/4, 1 TOV. 8/10 FT. 59.8% TS. KG did a great job of getting to the line in this series, it was very atypical for him. This was a great game from Garnett though, and they won.

Game 4, elimination game. 6/13 shooting, 19/15/5, 2 turnovers, 5 fouls, 7/8 FT for 57.5% TS but they were crushed, a 13-point loss. Duncan shot terribly (8/23) and D-Rob had 4 fouls by the 3rd. Wolves were down 8 after 3, but down only 1 at halftime.

2002, 3-game sweep by Dallas.

Game 1. 6/18 FG, 6/6 FT, 46% TS. 21 rebounds, 6 assists, 3 turnovers. Dirk put 30/15 on the Wolves, shooting 10/19 from the field and 9/10 at the line.

Game 2. PHENOMENAL game from Garnett. 9/19 FG, 13/17 at the line (12-point loss), 18 boards and 4 assists. 58.5% TS. Absolutely fantastic. Wasn't enough, but it's hard to blame him. 25 a piece from Billups and Wally Z (both shooting over 52%, nearly 53% FG). 31/15 from Dirk (42.9% FG, 9/10 FT, 4 steals).

Game 3, elimination time. 9/19 FG, 4/9 FT in a 13-point loss. 47.4% TS. 17 boards, 5 assists, 6 turnovers, 5 fouls. Another weak game at the point of elimination. Minny won the 2nd and 4th quarters, but they permitted Dallas to score 40 first-quarter points and started the game in a 12-point hole from which they never recovered. Down by 10 at the half, they lost the 3rd by 8 points and then won the 4th by 5. Dirk dropped 39/17 on 11/17 FG, 14/16 FT, crushing the Wolves like a bug.

For the record, KG was 3/10 from the field in the second half, hitting his first 2 shots and then going 1/8 after that. He had 4 offensive boards, split a pair of FTs, assisted Wally Z on a 3 and a 21-footer and had a turnover. That was his contribution during the second half of the elimination game. He had a bunch of defensive boards as well, but I wasn't logging those, I was looking at offensive performance, since we've already established that he's been a very high-impact defender. But in an elimination game, to disappear that way in the second half (which raises those old ghosts that people spoke of at the time of KG being a choker in the playoffs) is... not good. And what we're seeing here is the reason that narrative came about, because this isn't the first or second bad game we've seen from him in this stretch as far as poor performance in an elimination game, and over a comparatively small sample of games, we've seen him stinking it up on offense quite a lot... more than once in a game winnable had he performed at a less-than-terrible level. It does tell us that his defense and rebounding were THAT AWESOME, though, to continually show the kind of impact they did... and it also explains that his teammates were really not helping him out a ton on the defensive end at all, as it happens. At times, Brandon (prior to his injury) and Billups (prior to him being moved) were contributors, but it's still clear that they were outmatched. Dirk's Mavs were coming at the Wolves with him, Finley, Nash and Van Exel, right? Nash was 3/9 under the arc in Game 3... but 3/7 from downtown, 10/10 at the line and had 11 assists. Billups was 5/16 and 4/7 at the line. Brandon was gone. Wally Z was 5/12 (though 9/10 at the line). Anthony Peeler was 4/7 from 3 off of the bench (but 2/6 under the arc). Garnett's terrible TS% mostly extends from 4/9 FT shooting and the 3 or 4 points he left on the board are significant but yeah, the biggest issue is how poorly he played in the second half. In his defense, the common motif of saying he's nothing but a jump shooter is at least a little harsh on his rep, because of the 10 shots he took, only one was from farther than 8 feet. Some of those were his favored turn-over-right-shoulder fades from the left block, but he got a four-footer and two shots off of offensive rebounds, one of which drew those 2 FTAs. He just hit nothing when it mattered.

OK, ramble over.

2003 vs Lakers. This is a 6-game series, the longest KG has played in the PS to this point in his career. Two wins!

Game 1. 11/21 FG, 1/4 FT. 14 boards, 7 assists, 2 turnovers, great D. 46 minutes played, loss. 19-point blowout, as it happens. There really wasn't a lot of hope for them to win this series; while the Lakers didn't repeat as champions, it was still the Shaq/Kobe Lakers coming off of their third straight title. Shaq had 32/10 and Kobe carved them up for 39. The Wolves flatly didn't have anyone who could defend either of those guys and Flip Saunders has never been a particularly good defensive coach, so there was no strong scheme in place, either. It was "here's hoping KG is magic!" I mean, they were putting Szczerbiak on Kobe, that's just asking for trouble. They were buried after the first, down 16 points. They never finished a quarter closer than 12 points.

Game 2. Explosion. 15/21 shooting, 4/6 at the line, 20 boards, 7 assists, 2 turnovers, 35 points. I don't even need to post the TS, you know it's insane. Remarkable game, and a win. Just about what was needed from him in order to beat this team. 37 points and 10 assists from Troy Hudson (!!!!!!) certainly helped, though. They were up by 13 at the half and then by 22 after an opening tear in the 3rd.

Game 3. 33/14/4, 2 steals, 4 blocks, 4 turnovers and 6 fouls. 15/31 shooting, one of the most aggressive performances of Garnett's entire career in a 4-point OT win. 27 points from Hudson. One of those "questionable officiating" nights, heh. 3 fouls in 3 minutes in the 4th for Garnett, then fouled out in the opening part of OT. Kobe got a four-point play when Wally Z apparently fouled him without touching him. Then there was that thing with Rick Fox where Wally "stepped out of bounds" as Rick grabbed his jersey, which was unique. They won, though, so it was OK.

4th quarter KG? 4 boards (2 offensive), an assist at the rim and a turnover on an offensive foul. He was 3/8 FG and 2/2 FT for 8 points. He took one shot inside of 10 feet and 4 shots from 14+ feet. Lots and lots of jumpers. Got blocked by Shaq the one time he shot around the rim.

Game 4. 10/21 FG, 1/3 3PA, 7/9 FTA. 18 boards, 5 assists, 4 turnovers. 56.1% TS in a 5-point loss. Solid performance. 34/23 from Shaq didn't help. Kobe shot like crap (7/25) but got to the line at will (16/17 FT). With about 2 minutes left in the third, the Wolves were up by 11 but then the Lakers went on an 8-0 run to close the quarter and Kobe hit a 3 early in the 4th to tie it. About halfway through the fourth, the Wolves were up by 5, but L.A. reeled off another 8-0 run. Stayed close down the wire; Shaq got an OREB off of a Kobe miss to give L.A. a 3-point lead with 19 seconds remaining... and KG missed both free throws when he was fouled. Kobe hit 2 FTs, Garnett stuck a jumper. Shaq had more offensive boards than the Timberwolves. The Lakers had 18 offensive boards and scored 29 points off of them.

Second half play from Garnett.

He had 3 assists and a turnover (Kobe stripped him) in the 3rd. He TECHNICALLY shot 1/7, but that includes a 43-foot heave at the buzzer. He was really 1/6, which is still terrible, missing his last 5 (or 6, counting the 3) shots after hitting a shot around the rim. 2 of his shots were inside of 15 feet.

In the fourth, he was 4/6, including a three, but he was 2/4 at the line, missing two big ones with about 16 seconds left, as I mentioned. He also had an assist. When he stuck the three with about a half-minute left, they were down 1.

Little rough. If he hadn't sucked in the 3rd, they might have built a better cushion and taken that game. Instead, L.A. evened the series.

Game 5. 11/23, 1/2 3P, 2/4 FT, 50.5% TS. 25/16/3, 3 TOV. 30-point blowout. KG played 43 minutes, conjuring that old thought about he gets a bunch of numbers in garbage time. Minny was down 7 at the half, down 21 after 3 and down 30 at the end of the game. We'll look at KG's second half performance, offense-only in the third and then what he did once the game was long-decided in the fourth.

In the third, he got a pass picked off by Kobe, he had an assist and he shot 4/8 for 9 points (1/2 from 3). Pretty solid performance all told, with two shots at the rim and two others within 7 feet. OK, so now we're going to look at the 4th Q, which starts with the Wolves down 21 points, and we're going to see what KG racked up in garbage time.

He played about 9.5 minutes in the fourth, leaving down 28 with about 2:38 to go. 1 offensive rebound (his own miss after getting blocked by Brian Shaw at the rim) and 4 defensive rebounds. It was the only offensive rebound he had all game and 4 of his 15 defensive boards. He split a pair of FTs and shot 1/3 from the field.

Doesn't much look like he racked up too many box score data points. He wasn't dominating and bringing them closer, they were getting pounded and Flip took him out eventually. Again though, it was the reigning champs, so the outcome wasn't really a huge surprise to anyone, especially as the team thinned from a few years prior, as scary as that is to say. They had to play some out-of-their-minds offense in order to get those two wins.

Game 6, elimination time, KG's favorite!

9/21 FG, 0/1 3P, 0/2 FT. 41.1% TS, 83 ORTG. He was terrible on O. 12 boards, 5 assists, 3 steals, 3 turnovers, 18 points. Not a good game. Good box score line, but not a good game. Played 44 minutes in a 16-point loss. Wolves were up by 5 after 1, down 4 after 2, down 6 after 3 and lost the 4th quarter by 10. Shaq had 8 offensive boards to Minny's 11. The 2nd and 4th quarters were the bad ones for Minny. The 4th was bad defensively, but the 2nd was bad offensively, with them scoring only 13 points.

Rough game. Minny went on a 9-0 run to close the third... and then Kobe opened up the fourth with 10 of the 14 points he'd score in the quarter, with L.A. opening the quarter on an 18-2 run. Shaq had 9 assists, Kobe 8 (total, not in the quarter). L.A.'s passing was just ridiculous that game. It took 6.5 minutes for the Wolves to score their first basket in the 4th.

In the 2nd, KG played the last 9 minutes. He had a pair of assists, a picked off pass and shot 2/5, scoring 4 of their 13 points... but involved in 8. Were he a more dominant scorer, that could have helped, but it's hard to nit-pick that performance in this series over much.

4th Q. An assist, two turnovers, 2/5 shooting (including Devean George blocking him), leaves with 1:56 remaining, down by 18.

Purch
Veteran
Posts: 2,820
And1: 2,145
Joined: May 25, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#220 » by Purch » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:42 pm

Also, why shouldn't we get on Garnett for his continuous drops in post season efficency?

How can you blow aside the best player on the team becoming a less reliable first option when it matters?
Image

Return to Player Comparisons