New Franchise: Kevin Garnett vs Moses Malone

[TrueLAfan]

Moses was an unusual type of player. There was a comment earlier about how “Moses made everyone around him better.” That's ridiculous. It wasn't because he was selfish or anything, but Moses was not a team strategy sort of player. He had very little in the way of passing skills. He had poor hands, and that resulted in lots (and lots) of turnovers. He did not have a particularly high basketball IQ. He couldn't be part of a real offensive scheme because of that. And his defense was, well, better than average at his peak...but Moses was not a great defender.

So what did he do well? He was terrifyingly tenacious, got position on the offensive boards better than any C I've ever seen, and hustled constantly. I'm not sure how many of Moses' points resulted from offensive rebounds and putbacks, but I'd bet big money (and give big odds) that it's much higher than any other 20 ppg career scorer. Much much higher. He's the greatest offensive rebounder of all time. And he never averaged 2 assists a game. Where else could the ball go after one of his offensive boards? He's putting it back up and getting fouled a lot.

So, on offense, you had this wonderful gift … a guy who was basically a firewall and got you points, either by putback or by getting fouled after grabbing the offensive board. (Moses led the league in FTA five times and was in the top 4 eight other times.) And that's obviously very valuable. But still … you were playing four on five with him. He couldn't and didn't leave the key to set screens because he had no range and because it would take him away from the paint. He couldn't pass. And, frankly, for a guy who got offensive rebounds close to the basket, he was not a very high percentage shooter.

But you could never accuse Moses of not working hard. He played harder than anyone in the league; Bird loved him. That tenacity and toughness helped him out on D. But Moses was not a smart defensive player; if he had been, he'd have been the John Havlicek of Cs. He wasn't. He figured some things out—enough so that he was a capable defender in the early 1980s with the Sixers (where he had the luxury of having Mo Cheeks, Julius Erving, and Bobby Jones playing D alongside of him).

A couple of people have used 1981 as an example of what Moses could do. Except … wasn't that the year Magic got hurt and came back and laid a brick because he was, well, young and unready? Where there was an unusual amount of parity—seven of the 12 teams in the WC were between 34 and 45 wins? The 1981 Rockets had a good team; Calvin Murphy at or near his peak. A young Robert Reid, who was a fine player. Mike Dunleavy and Allan Leavell made a good guard combo. (In fact, the Murphy/Dunleavy/Leavell trifecta averaged about 33 points and 10.5 assists in under 65 minutes a game on close to 49 percent shooting.) If you're asking how Moses “carried/led” that team to the Finals, maybe you should be asking why the Rockets never cracked 50 wins with Moses. Ever.

In a way, Moses was the ultimate role player. He did not have well rounded skills. But he had specific skills that, when utilized properly, could be extraordinarily valuable. But you had to have the right team around him; Moses was not a guy who could adapt to different offensive schemes. Or any offensive schemes. He did what he did, did it well for a long time, and that was that. I don't see any way to keep him out of the Top 20, and that makes him a great player...I can see an argument for him having a better career than KG.

But the OP asks for who to start a franchise around. I'm, not sure Moses is ideal for that. Certainly, in that context, I rate KG over Moses. I agree with ardee. KG has/had a full set of skills; he could defend wonderfully, pass the rock well, score well, shoot inside and shoot outside. I think would be easier to build a team around a guy like that, or to fit a guy like that onto your team. I think some types of statistical analysis overvalue Garnett a bit … but it would be easier, IMO, to find pieces to put around him to win a title. You could go in more different directions with the draft and free agency.

[nikomCH]

Someone in here said Moses was better offensively than Dirk

Wow, just wow. I've never once before seen such a huge army of Moses defenders appear in one thread at the same time. No wonder the poll is so lopsided in his favor

[Jonny Blaze]

What I read from all that is the 1981 Rockets had a lucky streak to the finals, the 1983 Sixers weren't any better with Moses than without, that his game was dependent on other players, his perception is based around boxscore numbers, and that he was out of the first round a lot.....a lot of that sounds just like KG.

That 2008 Celtics team had a whole lot of luck in the 2008 playoff's i.e. worst record ever for an NBA champion, they played two 7 game series vs a 37 win Hawks team and 45 win Cav's team. They played in a finals against a Laker team without their starting SF and C.



as for as Celtics 2008 - they had a great SRS which is a much better tool to work with than record because it involves strength of opposition and margin of victory into the analysis which is something you have to consider if you are treating it seriously. also Lakers 08 after Gasol's trade were by far their strongest version. results were there regardless of who they were missing. they destroyed western conference in a manner they never repeated. calling those Lakers a team missing starting SF and C is intellectually dishonest considering just how dominant they were with Gasol that year. it makes no sense whatsoever in particular because Sixers never beat a team as good as those Lakers 08.

This entire paragraph is just propaganda.

Its propaganda attempting to prop up the only NBA championship team to lose more then 10 games in a post season.


I dont agree with any of this.

Some advance stat (What does SRS even stand for or measure??) is a more effective way to judge a team then what actually happened on the court??????


The Lakers were more dominant at 57-25 (their record in 2007-08) then they were the next two seasons(65-17, 57-25) that they won the NBA title???????

The Showtime Lakers of 1983 weren't as good as the 2008 Lakers?????

C'Mon man.

I respect any NBA Champion. But the 2008 Celtics (.615) have the lowest playoff winning percentage of any NBA Champion in the history of the league.
They are the only NBA champion to lose more then 10 games in the post season. They never repeated.

These are all facts.

[G35]

Lmao. Everyone would take a contract that makes them the highest paid player.

Not everyone would. Duncan wouldn't.....

Duncan didn't take the max?

Can't recall a player who didn't get whatever he could after his first deal. Besides, pay rate=/= impact on the floor.

If a player could play for 1 dollar, it wouldn't make him the GOAT. Keep reaching though

JB clearly said he isn't going to be the highest paid player in the league.

That was not Duncan. Duncan did not have to worry about getting paid, he had already won a title in his 2nd year.

Duncan did not leave for greener pastures when he could have gone to Orlando and did his own version of a big three wth Tracy and Grant.

Look you can get into the advanced stats of contracts but this is where it stands:

KG
$315 million made

Duncan
$225 million made

That's a difference of $90 million. KG is making more money than Duncan is making this year. I can't think of one year that I would rather have KG over Duncan and that includes 2004 or 2008. Nobody said anything about GOAT except for you......

[MisterWestside]

mysticbb's data on the correlation between OReb% and wins is useful, but other studies show that it's bit of a layered issue that depends on team strategy and personnel: http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=954

Just some food for thought. As for the comparison, tricky to pick one or the other here. Will have to think about this one, but it would be from the aspect of my tier ranking of players.

[G35]

most of the arguments against Moses are about his skillset. there are all kinds of problems with his game particularly with his defense.

as for as Celtics 2008 - they had a great SRS which is a much better tool to work with than record because it involves strength of opposition and margin of victory into the analysis which is something you have to consider if you are treating it seriously. also Lakers 08 after Gasol's trade were by far their strongest version. results were there regardless of who they were missing. they destroyed western conference in a manner they never repeated. calling those Lakers a team missing starting SF and C is intellectually dishonest considering just how dominant they were with Gasol that year. it makes no sense whatsoever in particular because Sixers never beat a team as good as those Lakers 08.

also nobody is hating on Sixers 83, they were a great team. you don't have to convince anybody they were great. but what about the fact that Sixers were perennial championship contenders before Moses even got there? those who say that Celtics 08 were more stacked are absolutely out of their minds because we have seen Celtics play without Garnett extensively and they were nowhere near 80-82 Sixers. Celtics without KG were a playoff team and just that. Sixers without Moses were championship contenders. those are facts. so regardless of how good those Sixers were, you can't use that as something that seperates Moses from other all-time greats because they were already stacked before he even got there.

also, as dominant as those Sixers were, I'm wondering why they never repeated their success in later years. Moses playoff career after 83 is basically meaningless. he did absolutely nothing despite playing on stacked teams for a lot of years. how do you explain him being out in the first round in '84 for example? I can't think of any other all-time great team that would just disappear off the map after their outburst despite being so dominant the year before.

So explain why a team with a great SRS was taken to 7 games by a 37 win 8th seed? To prove that wasn't a fluke a 45 win team also took them 7 games. SRS is obviously not a foolproof indicator of a teams strength, at least in the case of this Celtics team.

The 83 Sixers were truly dominant; they swept a Lakers team that had a SRS of 5.06.

Those Sixers took out a Bucks team 4-1 that had just swept the Celtics who had an SRS of 5.32.

You know it's easy to interpret numbers the way you want to but there comes a time when the what if's have to stop and what actually happens has to count for something. The 2008 Celtics were a shaky team at best and downright fortunate to make it out of the EC at worst. The Sixers dominated in every phase, at every level, against the best teams in the league. Legendary players. Not struggling against Josh Smith in the first round. Those Sixers never struggled against competition as bad as those Celtics did.

And for the record those 2008 Celtics wouldn't have any rings if they had to go up against those Celtics/Lakers/Sixers teams. KG wouldn't be able to handle McHale/Parish/Moses/Kareem......

[NO-KG-AI]

Josh Smith won more games against them than Kobe could manage. You know what that says....dotdotdot...

[G35]

Josh Smith won more games against them than Kobe could manage. You know what that says....dotdotdot...

Yeah it says that SRS doesn't mean anything.....

[Quotatious]

I'm just glad that they're tied in the poll right now. It finally reflects the reality fairly well.

[NO-KG-AI]

Josh Smith won more games against them than Kobe could manage. You know what that says....dotdotdot...

Yeah it says that SRS doesn't mean anything.....

So wins are what matters. HAwks beat the champs more, means they are better than the Lakers. Hawks are better than LA, which means their best player is better than the Lakers best player.

Am I doing it right?

[Jonny Blaze]

I'm just glad that they're tied in the poll right now. It finally reflects the reality fairly well.

Yes.

The reality that Kevin Garnett fans will go to the greatest length's imaginable to prop him up to players that are clearly superior.

Player A is a:
better rebounder,
better scorer,
better post season performer,
took two different teams to the NBA Finals,
won an MVP with two different teams.......oh and he won an NBA Finals MVP.


Player B is none of the above.


But only with KG fans is player B the better player.

Did you all work in DC?
I'm truly not saying this as an insult, but some of you guys would make tremendous money as political operatives.
The spin that some of you put on certain things to prop up you favorite players blows my mind.

[Quotatious]

Player A is a:
better rebounder,
better scorer,
better post season performer,
took two different teams to the NBA Finals,
won an MVP with two different teams.......oh and he won an NBA Finals MVP.

Sure, if you only look at raw stats, as you actually admitted you do, then Moses is clearly better.

Anyway...

But only with KG fans is player B the better player.

That's because most people don't really analyze the game too deeply, unlike what some of us do here. Even former players, guys who theoretically know the game inside out, make some claims that seem to be pretty ridiculous to some of the so called 'stat-heads' on this website. It doesn't really mean that either these statistical analysts or former players/casual fans etc. are right or wrong, it just means that that's a fundamental difference in approach to the matter, which results in impossibility of existence of a true debate between the two groups, because the 'stat-heads' are not willing to adopt a 'common sense' approach and attitiude, and conversely.

[Jonny Blaze]

I always love these start a franchise discussions when it comes to certain players.

Its like we are supposed to act like teams didn't actually start a franchise around these players.

Minnesota built a franchise around Kevin Garnett.

This actually happened in real life.

He was there for 12 years.

Minnesota won two playoff series in 12 years, and went out in the first round for 7 straight years.

The Rockets built a team around Moses and actually won the Western Conference and made the NBA Finals. His teammates in Houston were much worse then Garnett ever had.



Moses goes to Philadelphia and forms a Super team that has one of the top 3 most dominate post season runs of all time and wins NBA Finals MVP.

Kevin Garnett goes to a Super team and does not win NBA Finals MVP.
Partly because he is the 3rd leading scorer for the Celtics in the 2008 NBA Finals.

The 2008 Celtics have the lowest winning percentage of any NBA champion in league history. This is almost the exact opposite of the post season run of the 1983 76ers.

But lets go ahead and keep pretending like these things didn't happen in real life.

Lets use advance stats and video game metrics instead of what actually happened on the court to judge players.

[Quotatious]

Lets use advance stats and video game metrics instead of what actually happened on the court to judge players.

This just means that some of us will have to agree to disagree. There's no way to hold a discussion if there's such a big difference in approach. Okay, I' done with that here, because that's a no-win situation for both parties.

By the way - that's why I like polls here - it usually evens out depending on who votes, and the results are usually a good food for thought because of that.

[NO-KG-AI]

Advanced stats are what happened on the court. Just because you don't understand something, and it doesn't support your favorite player doesn't mean it's made up.

[bastillon]

the difference between KG's Wolves and Moses' Rockets is that the latter actually had a very talented team that underperformed every year he was there. as a matter of fact when Tomjanovich went down Rockets missed him more than they missed Moses. this is actually what happened, record-wise. Wolves on the other hand were just a bunch of scrubs. they had talented PGs from time to time but they were consistently the worst perimeter defense in the league (with the exception of 04), had very little depth and just lack of talent was glaring all over the place.

if you wanna bring up 81 Rockets, it's fine, but it wasn't Moses taking down that Lakers team by himself. he was soundly outplayed by Kareem. Magic was coming off injury and throughout the series was a no-show for the Lakers. Lakers had all kinds of problems at the time and just weren't that good which is what their record shows. that being said, after those Lakers, Rockets beat a bunch of nobodies because that is exactly how pathetic was the western conference in the 80s. it's not even close to stacked early 00s west. this should be common knowledge for anybody who knows a damn about those years.

the fact that you wouldn't even bring those things up shows me that either you're being intellectually dishonest or that your analysis is lazy. the fact of the matter is that you have to take everything into consideration. nobody is questioning whether Rockets got to the finals. nobody is questioning whether Moses put up big numbers. that's undeniable. we are merely pointing out to several significant circumstances that Moses supporters like to dismiss altogether as if they weren't a huge factor. strength of that conference, consistently disappointing results on the team level, all kinds of issues and red flags connected with Moses game etc. this is the stuff that you need to reply to if you wanna take part in a serious conversation around here. see, you are bringing up stuff that everybody knows as if it was a huge news to any of us. consider this: we all know what happened and despite that think Moses is overrated. you are not bringing up anything new.

none of that disputes a plethora of arguments against Moses individual impact, team results etc. guys like fatal, mysticbb, TrueLAFan made in-depth analysis of Moses flaws and it raises many red flags. but you are just shrugging all of that because Moses won a best of 3 series against a choking Magic Johnson as if it was something that should make us forget about all kinds of problems with his game. let me tell you news: we all know he went to the finals. it doesn't change the fact that he was a bad/mediocre defensive player particularly in terms of help-D and it doesn't change the lack of basketball IQ, passing skills, court vision etc. if you wanna be treated seriously, respond to the arguments of the posters that I quoted on previous pages. what you are saying is a complete waste of space on the internet because it has been beaten to death tons of times on this board. you are repeating stuff that was already debunked many times.

[drza]

Many of Garnett's critics attempt to use the 2008 playoffs to criticize Garnett. I've always found this odd. So let's take a closer look at some of those criticisms, and what happens if you apply any logic at all during the thought process.

1) 2008 Celtics were stacked. Usually some version of "most stacked team in history"

2) 2008 Celtics had to go 7 games against the Hawks in the 1st round and the Cavs in the 2nd round which led to them having the "worst" playoff record of any champ.

3) Garnett doesn't deserve much credit for barely winning a title on a stacked team, and/or Pierce/Allen deserve more credit

Those points were paraphrased, but they should sound familiar if you've read this thread (or really any of the Garnett criticism threads on this board). But here's the kicker: It's categorically impossible for all three of the above statements to be true. Despite that detail, these points are argued simultaneously (ad nauseum) by several posters to support a stance against Garnett. The barest application of logic and research disabuses it, whether you're a Garnett fan or not. Consider:

The '08 Celtics played 26 playoffs games. Over the first 13 games they went 7 - 6, while over the last 13 games they went 9 - 4 against much better competition.

So, the entirety of point (2) above (e.g. the Celtics' "poor" playoff performance) focuses on those first 13 games, correct? Now, let's look at those 13 games:

Garnett: 20.9 ppg (52.1% FG, 84% FT), 9.6 rpg, 3.5 apg, 1.7 TO/game
Pierce: 17 ppg (40.7% FG, 77% FT), 4.8 rpg, 4.1 apg, 2.8 TO/game
Allen: 13.4 ppg (39.4% FG, 97% FT), 3.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 1.2 TO/game

Outside of the boxscore, we also know at this time that Garnett was playing amazing defense (with clear agreement between statistics and accolades) and was the on-court focal point of the defense.

Now, can there be any argument that through those 13 games, Garnett is the ONLY reason that they survived? That Pierce and Allen were not contributing nearly to their level, and that were Garnett one whit less effective the team is out of the playoffs within those first 13 games? That, in fact, if Garnett wouldn't have carried them through those 13 games, they would NOT have made even the conference finals (let alone won a title) in 2008? If there is such an argument, now would be the time to voice it so that all those that read this discussion can really assess the points being made.

Conclusion: I kept this extremely basic, and purposefully didn't include any type of "advanced" stats. But check my logic:

IF Garnett doesn't deserve credit because those Celtics were historically stacked, then how come they ONLY made it out of those 13 games due to Garnett's brilliance in the face of a struggling cast?

IF the Celtics were a "weak" champion because of those first 13 games, and they were "weak" over those first 13 games because of the play of Pierce and Allen, then how could they be so "historically stacked" that Garnett doesn't get credit?

It's a double-edged sword. People argue that the team was weak in the postseason as an indictment of KG, then simultaneously want to say that the team was strong and use THAT as an indictment of KG as well. But Garnett was the constant, it was the support...the team around him that alternated wildly between great and struggling. Pierce had a superstar Game 7 against the Cavs and Game 5 against the Lakers along with many other moments both good and bad...Ray had a huge game 5 against the Pistons and a number of big offensive moments in the Finals after his earlier struggles. Over those last 13 games, especially, the other Celtics finally raised their game to the level of support expected of a team capable of +10 SRS in the season and exclamation point victories over strong competition in the last two series. But KG was there the whole time.

In that single playoffs, KG showed the ability to lift his game when necessary and also to allow his teammates to shine when they were ready to perform. The team may have fluctuated as the support did, but Garnett's impact on the team and influence on their winning was consistent, large, and measurable over that postseason. It was every bit worthy of a superstar centerpiece on a championship run. The logic of his critics melts away in the face of the barest common sense application, leaving the double-edged sword blunt all-the-way-around.

[bastillon]

btw, Celtics record in 2008 postseason is very misleading. they weren't squeeking out wins like the record would suggest.

postseason only per 100 possessions:
2008 Celtics 109.4 vs opponents 103.3
1983 Sixers 108.0 vs opponents 101.4

this is the prime example of lazy analysis. the results of this ridiculous analysis was that Celtics 2008 were the weakest champion in NBA history. the fact that you would think you would fool anybody with a statement like that is unbelievable. I think everybody knows those Celtics were one of the best teams of all-time. everybody who watched tchem play remembers their ridiculous defensive rotations and intensity. everybody remembers how they were embarassing one superstar after another forcing turnovers and low efficiency from the field. everybody remembers how they were piling up 3s like crazy and blowing out another all-time great team in the finals by 40 (FORTY) points. so to me anybody who tries to minimize the greatness of those Celtics by pointing out to one cherry-picked stat (team record in the postseason) is a total waste of my time.

as you can see, after looking at the margin of victory you can see that Celtics were one of the most dominant teams ever. they are basically toe-to-toe with Sixers here, despite the difference in W-L. turns out Sixers scored 6.6 more points than their opponents per 100 possessions, and Celtics scored 6.1 more points than their counterparts. is that a significant difference? I would say no.

either way the result is there for anybody to see. it's not a perfect measure because it doesn't take strenght of opponents into consideration. I would say Celtics had a tougher road to the finals. both Hawks and Cavs got hot at the end of the season and continued their progress in later years. Atlanta Hawks despite their record had virtually the same team that was putting up around 50W for the next three years. Cavs were obviously one of the best RS teams ever in 09-10 (though LeBron became a much better player), but even before they went to the finals in 07. they were certainly no scrubs (I'd say they had a strength of a 50-53W team in 08 playoffs). Detroit was coming off 6 straight conference finals and were playing the best basketball since 05 (legit 60W playoff contender). Lakers were incredibly hot after Gasol's trade, steamrolled through the western conference and obviously went on to win back2back titles with injured KG in 09-10 (legit 60-65W team). considering all of the above I would say Celtics had a very tough opposition that year. after Ray Allen came back to life in the middle of conference finals, they were pretty much unstoppable.

and yet despite all that, Celtics still only put up a very similar playoff performances to 83 Sixers. so it is not enough for you to point out to the Celtics record. analysis like that isn't legit. you need to look at all of the factors that mentioned above and only then will you be able to compare those teams.

[ceiling raiser]

Advanced stats are what happened on the court. Just because you don't understand something, and it doesn't support your favorite player doesn't mean it's made up.

Pretty much. I think results do matter (if we take into account circumstances), but in small sample sizes they can be distorted. There will always be a fair amount of noise and chance involved, and this can not be ignored. Looking at W/L, PPG, APG, RPG, and FG% on their own, devoid of context, doesn't tell us all that much.

[NO-KG-AI]

Advanced stats are what happened on the court. Just because you don't understand something, and it doesn't support your favorite player doesn't mean it's made up.

Pretty much. I think results do matter, but in small sample sizes they can be distorted. There will always be a fair amount of noise and chance involved, and this can not be ignored. Looking at W/L, PPG, APG, RPG, and FG% on their own, devoid of context, doesn't tell us all that much.

Mhmm, I totally agree. Luckily, in the case of Garnett, where advanced stats are derided, we have plenty of data (pushing like 60,000 minutes?) over multiple teams, with a ton of different lineups.

Also, KG at C this year.. still getting it done

His impact on the defensive end is almost too big for statistics to grasp, but let’s give it a shot: since January 1st, the Nets have allowed opponents to score 107.2 points per 100 possessions with Garnett off the floor, and 87.9 points per 100 possessions with him on the floor.

I fear stating the numbers doesn’t quantify how ridiculous they are, so let’s make some comparisons. Indiana’s league-best defense allows teams to score 92.8 points per 100 possessions. The Garnett-led Nets in 2014 are nearly a full five points better than that. Utah’s league-worst defense clocks in at around 107.6 points per 100 possessions, just a hair below the Garnett-benched Nets.

In sum: with Kevin Garnett on the floor, the Nets make the league’s best defense look average. With Garnett off the floor, the Nets look like the league’s worst defense. It’s that significant.

In 2014, the Nets allow 47.5 percent shooting on 17.8 attempts per 48 minutes in the restricted area with Garnett on the floor, and 58.7 percent shooting on 25.9 attempts per 48 minutes in the restricted area with him off. The difference is staggering.

- See more at: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1296155&start=30#sthash.KIo8k6XD.dpuf