RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10

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

therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,560
And1: 16,113
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#41 » by therealbig3 » Sat Jul 8, 2017 5:47 pm

mischievous wrote:
Jaivl wrote:
Joao Saraiva wrote:viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here
More or less this.

I'd have to read the thread again since I've changed a few things but nothing really big.

I also have some points for rings, MVP shares (1st 10 spots), finals MVPs but I add those after all the year production calculation. So the values for their runs are actually not effected by those things.

There are also some coefficients for games missed and rounds played. But in that regard Kobe's runs are more than OK, since going to the finals makes me divide the PS value by 1 (played most rounds possible). conference finals - divide by 1,1; 2nd round by 1,2; 1st round by 1,3.

If I'm not mistaken, your formula puts KG ahead of Kobe for peak, prime and longevity :D

mischievous wrote:But man, some of these guys just make me not want to discuss him anymore. It's not an insult to have him 13-15 range.

Why, though? Do you think the """"KG guys"""" have been intellectualy dishonest? You can have KG at #25 or wherever, to each their own (criteria). Is it wrong to have Garnett at #4? Is it bias?

One thing for Garnett with me, when we compare him to a Kobe, I don't think he had as many seasons close to his peak level as Kobe did. Kg has 03 and 04 i guess 05 if generous. Kobe has 01, 03, and 06-09 maybe 10 if generous.


So you just don't like counter arguments?

I don't think anyone has an emotional investment in getting KG into the top 10, but there do seem to be quite a few of you who have an emotional investment in keeping him out.

I just don't understand how discussion and people that support KG actually posting in-depth arguments makes it intolerable to discuss KG. How about actually responding to the arguments put forth instead of just saying they're being unreasonable (when they're not being unreasonable whatsoever).
mischievous
General Manager
Posts: 7,675
And1: 3,485
Joined: Apr 18, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#42 » by mischievous » Sat Jul 8, 2017 6:00 pm

therealbig3 wrote:
mischievous wrote:
Jaivl wrote:If I'm not mistaken, your formula puts KG ahead of Kobe for peak, prime and longevity :D


Why, though? Do you think the """"KG guys"""" have been intellectualy dishonest? You can have KG at #25 or wherever, to each their own (criteria). Is it wrong to have Garnett at #4? Is it bias?

One thing for Garnett with me, when we compare him to a Kobe, I don't think he had as many seasons close to his peak level as Kobe did. Kg has 03 and 04 i guess 05 if generous. Kobe has 01, 03, and 06-09 maybe 10 if generous.


So you just don't like counter arguments?

I don't think anyone has an emotional investment in getting KG into the top 10, but there do seem to be quite a few of you who have an emotional investment in keeping him out.

I just don't understand how discussion and people that support KG actually posting in-depth arguments makes it intolerable to discuss KG. How about actually responding to the arguments put forth instead of just saying they're being unreasonable (when they're not being unreasonable whatsoever).

1. Where did i say people are being unreasonable? But i do think there is a lot of bias involved, which is fine we all have bias but for some reason not everyone has the balls to admit it. And unless i missed something, I haven't seen the Kg supporters point out any of his flaws, which to me just reeks of bias. The way some of you are talking its like he was the perfect player.

2. I don't really care to disput the arguments because one, there's no point when the confirmation bias is set in place and it's obvious they won't change their mind. Secondly, i've been busy lately and don't usually have the time to sit here and do hours of writing and research. I applaude those who do it, but that doesn't make me obligated.

I have no emotional bias for either Kobe or Kg, they are probably only 2-4 spots apart on my list.
Purch
Veteran
Posts: 2,820
And1: 2,145
Joined: May 25, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#43 » by Purch » Sat Jul 8, 2017 6:03 pm

therealbig3 wrote:
mischievous wrote:
Jaivl wrote:If I'm not mistaken, your formula puts KG ahead of Kobe for peak, prime and longevity :D


Why, though? Do you think the """"KG guys"""" have been intellectualy dishonest? You can have KG at #25 or wherever, to each their own (criteria). Is it wrong to have Garnett at #4? Is it bias?

One thing for Garnett with me, when we compare him to a Kobe, I don't think he had as many seasons close to his peak level as Kobe did. Kg has 03 and 04 i guess 05 if generous. Kobe has 01, 03, and 06-09 maybe 10 if generous.


So you just don't like counter arguments?

I don't think anyone has an emotional investment in getting KG into the top 10, but there do seem to be quite a few of you who have an emotional investment in keeping him out.

I just don't understand how discussion and people that support KG actually posting in-depth arguments makes it intolerable to discuss KG. How about actually responding to the arguments put forth instead of just saying they're being unreasonable (when they're not being unreasonable whatsoever).


It's probably the same occurace as the past project.. which was that 85% of the discussion in threads from voting #4-11 were dominated by people pushing the same KG narrative.

Any failures = Teamates faults
Any time his shooting efficiency dropped in the playoffs= It doesnt matter because he still impacted the game in other ways
Any success by the t-wolves = All about Garnett impact.

It basically puts KG in a situation that no other player can compete with. Because nothing negative is ever a result of KG, and any successes on Boston and Minny were completly a result of his impact. No other player gets to live in this kind of bubble.

So I can see where the frustration comes from.
Image
User avatar
Joao Saraiva
RealGM
Posts: 13,457
And1: 6,223
Joined: Feb 09, 2011
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#44 » by Joao Saraiva » Sat Jul 8, 2017 6:03 pm

At this point I think it's fair to say Larry, Kobe, KG, Oscar, Karl Malone, Dirk Nowitzki, Dr. J and Jerry West have a case. My personal choice is Larry Bird and I voted Kobe as the alternate... but won't mind seeing all the others here.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
User avatar
rebirthoftheM
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,787
And1: 1,858
Joined: Feb 27, 2017
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#45 » by rebirthoftheM » Sat Jul 8, 2017 6:06 pm

drza wrote:Garnett's postseason results Part 1

So. What's up with KG in the playoffs?

For many, it is the elephant in the room question mark for Garnett. I, on the other hand, believe Garnett to be very possibly the dominant playoff performer of his generation. Clearly, there's a giant gap between those to perceptions. So...let's take a look. A REAL look. In this project, we have people looking for different things. Some want to see rings, period. Some are ok with fewer rings, as long as you have great boxscore numbers. Some want to evaluate how far a player could lead a team, given his teammates. Some want to see unit results. Some want skillset arguments. We've seen a rise in videos and screen caps in this project, which is very cool. Some like +/- numbers. So, I figured...why not look at Garnett's postseasons using all of the above? Try to come up with the best evaluation possible about his level of production and impact in the playoffs. Let's go.



Nice post in providing some great context. Any suggestion that KG wasn't a very high performing playoff performer is IMO setting the standard way too high.

But some quick questions here:

Was KG guarding Duncan in those series? If so, how often was he doing so? And what were the circumstances under which this occurred (i.e. defensive strategy)? How did Duncan do against KG v Duncan against other players?

Also, who is part of his "generation"? Duncan/Dirk/Kobe? If so, is your entire basis for saying such a thing net on/off ratings? Or something else?

To be honest, I am a bit confused by your suggestion that he could be. KG between 99-04 sees about a 4 minute bump in his minutes in the PS, yes his per 100 scoring shockingly drops by 1.4, as does his assists, steals and blocks. His AST/TO also gets worse in the PS. And his TS% drops by about 2.3%. Only his rebounding gets better, which is not surprising given shifts in minutes.

Honestly, given his reasonable bump his minutes in the PS, the fact that his scoring dipped (and scoring actually directly adds to the scoreboard, unlike some other stuff which don't necessarily do) as did his efficiency by a reasonable amount, and his AST/turnover rate worsening, alongside drops in PER, BPM etc, all in series losses, i have a hard in accepting that he has an argument for best playoff performer of his generation. To me, the sample sizes in the playoffs for on/off ratings are very tiny, and are subject to all types of noise. I'd rather focus on their individual play and then try to project their PS value by reference to their reg. season. And it is obvious that KG was inferior in the PS statistically, especially on the offensive end, and given that he really got his separation from other peers (Dirk/Kobe etc.) because of his elite defensive indicators, which again I tend not to value as highly, and that was he was generally inferior on offense than DIrk/Kobe, I don't see an argument for him. He got worse in the PS it appears not better/not the same, and reasonably so.

And he wasn't facing some GOAT defenses like Kobe saw in 04. Getting doubled, hell even trippled on rare occasions is something any superstar #1 should deal with. It is what you do with it that matters. And quite clearly, KG was not very good at attacking these aggressive defenses, which we see signs off in his reasonable drop in efficiency and his rise in turnovers. His general inability through out his career to aggressively attack these hard defenses in the same vein that we have seen from other guys, is IMO part of the reason why he was inferior offensively, despite having all the talent to surpass all others.

I don't think KG can ever get close on the offensive front against the remaining dudes in contention (Kobe/Dirk/Bird). It is only on defense that he might be able to gain back his advantage.
User avatar
rebirthoftheM
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,787
And1: 1,858
Joined: Feb 27, 2017
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#46 » by rebirthoftheM » Sat Jul 8, 2017 6:18 pm

Jaivl wrote:
mischievous wrote:One thing for Garnett with me, when we compare him to a Kobe, I don't think he had as many seasons close to his peak level as Kobe did. Kg has 03 and 04 i guess 05 if generous. Kobe has 01, 03, and 06-09 maybe 10 if generous.

I do agree with that sentiment. 06-09 Kobe is really close in terms of level (albeit I think 08 is clearly his peak) while it seems that KG clearly peaked in 04. But:

1) Does it really matter if we think KG peaked higher than Kobe? Under that assumption I don't think it matters much.
2) How much of our perceived "peak" is dependant on team context? Meaning, I don't think 06 Garnett and 06 Kobe are that far from their 04 and 08 selves with adequate teams.


I won't comment on KG, but 08 Kobe was defs not his peak version. He was better in 2001 and 2003 (hugely underrated because of the unfortunate misleading conclusions off the back of RAPM), and no doubt 06 which I see as his peak season. 08 Kobe might have been better than 07 Kobe because of his lateral quickness issue and all around defensive problems.

But Kobe's line drives/flat jump shot issues that year, which was causing Kobe to miss many make-able jumpers, and which was exposed in the finals, cancels out any suggestion that it was his peak. 06 Kobe on the 08 Lakers wins the Celtics series because 06 Kobe doesn't miss the jumpers that 08 Kobe did, and could playmake/play defense at the same level. 08 Kobe wasn't also 'wiser' or anything. Just different team roles
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#47 » by ardee » Sat Jul 8, 2017 6:32 pm

I am voting Kobe here. Be warned, this is an extremely long post. A look at his relevant career: 1999-2013:

Early years and emergence as a superstar: 1999-2003

1999: This is an underrated year to kick things off. 20-5-4 on +3.8% TS and being one of the best perimeter defenders in the league. He played all 50 games in the shortened, sped-up season and given the fact he was relatively green, did all right in the Playoffs. Got an early taste of the Spurs, whom he would do nasty things to for the next 10 years on a regular basis. He was probably about as good as maybe 2013 Paul George in this year.

2000: Played the sidekick role perfectly to one of the GOAT peaks. Averaged 23-6-5 on +2.4% TS in a very slow and inefficient era. Doubled up as one of the top perimeter defenders in the league: it's hard to call anyone but Payton definitely better. He torched the Kings in the first round to 28 ppg on 50% from the floor. This was the only series that went the distance so they definitely needed it. In the next round he locked up Jason Kidd: badly. The guy had one good game where he shot 8-13, other than that he went 1-6, 5-9, 1-9, and 3-13. Along with a 25% TOV. Kobe was a beast on defense that year. We all know his heroic games 6 and 7 performances against the Blazers. The Finals were poor, admittedly, but the ankle injury is obvious, and he still won the Lakers a game by himself in game 4 OT.

Overall, I'd say this is on par with any Pippen year outside of '92, '94, and '95. The only players I'd definitely take ahead of him that year were Shaq, Duncan, Malone, KG and Mourning.

2001: The birth of superstar Kobe. I feel everyone knows how good his Playoffs were that year, but his regular season is underrated. Especially in the start of the season, he was outplaying Shaq. Shaq was having trouble with fouls and free-throw shooting (REALLY bad, was going through a sub 40% stretch), so Kobe took over early and averaged 32-5-5 on a 117 ORtg for about 30 games, while Shaq was at about 24-13-4 on 106 ORtg. For the first half of the season before the AS Break, it's arguable Kobe was the best player in the league, considering if you remember Kobe was still ELITE on defense that year.

He then began suffering some niggling injuries, and the team suffered. Then Shaq got his groove back, and once Kobe was healthy as well the team was clicking on all cylinders. They were both more or less on cruise control against the Blazers, and then took turns dropping 40/15 games on the poor Kings. Kobe had his best ever series against the Spurs, and was 32-7-6 on 121 ORtg against the entire Western conference. He really was playing better than Shaq at that point. If someone wants to use the Finals gap (Kobe still did play well after game 1, 27-9-6 on 55% TS) to rank Shaq ahead for the whole Playoffs, I guess its fair, but Kobe WAS the driving force for the offense for the majority of the Playoffs for the best Playoff team ever.

He was undoubtedly second to only Shaq that year. I can't see any reason to rank Duncan over him that year, not when Duncan had a real solid team around him with a D-Rob who led the league in WS/48, and got so badly trounced and destroyed by the Lakers.

2002: A bit of a down-year for him. He still had a good regular season, 25/6/6 on a 112 ORtg, but didn't hit the heights of 2001. Worth noting he had to carry the team more with Shaq missing 15 games. The supporting cast was pretty poor by that point. Fisher played the whole season for a change, but Grant was gone, Horry was aging, and the Lakers were dependent on guys like Samaki Walker and Devean George for reliable contributions. It was impressive the way Shaq and Kobe got the team to a title that year. Kobe was the best player in a beatdown of the Spurs and MVP Duncan, and against the Kings he put up 31/11/6 in games 6 and 7, him and Shaq dragging the Lakers back from the abyss. He also had his best Finals of the Shaq era, 27/6/6 on 62% TS against the best defensive team in the league.

I'd rank Shaq/Duncan over him (hard choice between those two that year), and I can see some kind of argument for Garnett but don't buy it. This was the best supporting cast KG ever had before 2004, and they still finished with a below average defense and got roasted by the Mavs. I'm not seeing the impact that year. In 2003 I'll rank KG ahead because of his improved offensive game and he really did do less with more. This year I think Kobe's value as an offensive constant able to put consistent pressure on the defense. beats out whatever KG was doing.... especially since I really don't like his defense that year. I have no clue what 2002 KG was doing against the Mavs, it looked like he was playing some kind of crazy one man zone. Furthers my point I made earlier that Minny KG is overrated on defense. So, Kobe is third.

2003: One of the best years of his career. Perfect storm, his all-around game really came together. His 3-point shot was like a pull-up 5 footer at that point, had it almost on automatic. He averaged 28-8-7 for the first 40 games, almost LeBron-like. He really had to carry a pretty awful team for some time with Shaq out. Still, the team was dysfunctional and plodding by the half-way point, 19-23 through 42 games. Phil asked Kobe to take a bigger role in the offense, and he did. 41-5-3 on 59% TS over the next 14 games, leading the Lakers to a 12-2 record over that stretch, putting them over .500 for good and into the thick of the Playoff seedings. He closed the year out with several more monster games, including the 55 point one against Jordan with 9 threes, 42 in the first half.

At the close of the regular season, I'd say Kobe was right there with Duncan and KG for the best player in the league. He was very effective against the Wolves, but I will admit that the injury + shot selection a little out of control in the Spurs series harmed the Lakers. Still, if Horry's shot had gone in in game 5, Kobe would have successfully made up for it all by leading the Lakers back from 25 down, and was anyone stopping a 4th straight title then?

I have him 3rd this year, behind Duncan and KG. Shaq and McGrady battling it out for 4th/5th. I can't see Shaq over him this year, not when the Lakers season turned around after it was KOBE who took a bigger role and put the team on his back.

So far, we're looking at a very good sidekick year where he was in the 6-7 range in the league, and 3 top 3 years, one of which he was the second best player in the league.

The in-between years: 2004-2005

Going onto the rest of his career:

2004/2005: The two worst years of his prime, I'm clubbing them together. 2004 in particular really smarts. He's coming off an epic season that propelled him into the MJ discussion, and now his raw numbers and efficiency drop across the board, plus he misses 17 games. The raw numbers are explainable, he was now splitting possessions with three other HOFs, and it's possible that all of them were affected by a system that just did not fit the roster very well. Still, it was a notch below '01 and '03, and even '02. He still kept it up defensively though. He had a terrible Rockets series efficiency-wise, but then killed the Spurs (30/6/6 over the four comeback games). Average against the Wolves and had the worst series of his career in the Finals. He played well defensively though, locking down Rip, converse to Shaq who killed it offensively and was a sieve on defense. I place equal responsibility on those two for the Finals loss. In any normal year, it'd be enough for me to rank both out of the top 5, but this was such a weak year that after KG/Duncan I have to rank Shaq and Kobe at nos. 3 and 4. I'll say this, Kobe is probably the weakest number 4 as far as I can remember, in 2004.

2005 is an underestimated year. 28-6-6 on 56% TS, 109 On-Court ORtg with a truly terrible supporting casts. I've seen several nonsensical posts about how good guys like Brian Grant and Chucky Atkins were and it makes me shake my head. If Kobe and Odom had been healthy they'd have still made the Playoffs (32-29 through 61 games), but Rudy's retirement and the injuries just really took their toll. Kobe still performed well individually, started the season averaging 29-7-7 with a bunch of triple doubles in the first 30 games, with the Lakers at 16-12. I still have no problem ranking him possibly near the end of the top 10, this was a very strong year for the league. Nash, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Wade, Shaq, McGrady, and Stoudemire would all be over him.

Now we enter Kobe's true prime. Right now we have a top 2 year, two top 3 years, a top 4 year (admittedly very weak), and two years where he's close to the bottom of the top 10. Not bad for a pre-prime guy.[/spoiler]

The volume years: 2006/2007

2006: What a season. What a player. I'm going to leave this to one of the best posters to have ever been active on this on the board, ShaqAttack, because he had a GOAT level post on '06 Kobe.

ShaqAttack3234 wrote:In hindsight, I think Nash was a good choice for 2005, though I was in the "Shaq was robbed" crowd at the time. However, I don't think Nash was the right choice in 2006. I'd go with Kobe in 2006.

First I will say that since the MVP is the closest things the NBA has to a best player award, I try to keep best player in mind to some degree, though of course, I don't always think it should go to the best player since games played and record are factors. But to me, 2006 was the most obvious year he was the best player in the league. I think he was the best in '07 as well, but you could at least make the case for Duncan in '07 and Paul in '08.

Anyway, not only were Kobe's individual feats exceptional in 2006, but they led to the Lakers overachieving and exceeding most expectations following a 34-48 season. Phil asked Kobe to carry the offense because many of the players didn't know the triangle and probably due to their lack of talent as well, and he did so in a remarkable way.

Warning, this will be a LONG post since I will look over their entire supporting casts.

Kobe only had one other player on the roster you could call a legit NBA starter, and that was Lamar Odom who was inconsistent throughout the first half. Odom averaged just 14/9/5 on 45% shooting and just 53 TS% in the first half, though Kobe still carried the Lakers to a .500 record at 26-26 while averaging 35/5/4 on 44/34/84 shooting and 55 TS%. Odom was obviously a good player, but he shouldn't be your second best player by a huge margin as he was on the 2006 Lakers when he was relied on to play 40.3 mpg. We saw how valuable Odom could be when he became the 3rd guy after Gasol was acquired and he was noticeably more comfortable playing his game. His versatile skill set can obviously be an asset with his strong rebounding, ball-handling skills at 6'10" and the ability to get the rebound and create or finish the fast break by himself. This was also the last year Lamar played a lot of the 3 which had been his position as a young player with the Clippers and when Phil tried Odom in the Scottie Pippen point forward role with mixed results, though passing has always been one of Lamar's strengths and he did lead the Lakers with 5.5 apg while averaging just 2.7 turnovers. Lamar did have talent as a scorer as evidenced by his transition game, he could be a threat to create off the dribble, had the length to finish, and while I wouldn't say he was ever a good shooter, he did shoot 37.2% on 3s in 2006 while making one per game. However, Odom couldn't go right which made him predictable, as mentioned, he wasn't a great shooter, and perhaps most importantly, he lacked the consistent focus and aggressiveness to be a really good scorer so scoring really wasn't his forte as evidenced by the fact that his season high was 27 points in 2006. However, Odom became more consistent late in the year and played like a borderline all-star averaging 16/9/6 on 53% shooting in the second half as well as 43% on 3s and 60 TS%. Kobe also raised his game during this time averaging 36/5/5 on 46/36/87 shooting and 57 TS% as the Lakers went 19-11, a 52 win pace. Pretty impressive to win at that pace with just one legitimately good, but not great teammate.

As for the rest of the team, they had Smush Parker starting at PG and playing 33.8 mpg. Smush was a bit of a surprise for LA this year, but to put things in perspective, despite being just 24 at the time, Smush didn't even last 2 more years in the NBA. Then there was Kwame Brown whose only legitimate asset was his post defense, and he can only be described as a liability at the offensive end. Of course there's the infamous small hands which prevented him from being a reliable catch and finish player around the rim, one of the more basic skills asked of a big man offensively, his footwork and shooting touch were horrible leaving him without a single decent post move, he was a terrible free throw shooter at 54.5% and he could get rattled very easily. Chris Mihm was another starter for most of the year, and while he had a decent offensive skill set, he wasn't much of a defender or rebounder, and the Lakers played their best ball by far after Mihm's injury so he wasn't an impact player. Devean George was one of the few holdovers from the champion Lakers, and while he was a decent defender, he was a poor offensive player who didn't shoot particularly well at just 40 FG% and 31.2 3P% and couldn't create. Then there was Luke Walton whose only real skill was passing. Brian Cook's only value could be as a stretch 4, but he wasn't a good defender, rebounder or post player. Finally, Sasha Vujacic was in the rotation getting 19 mpg despite the fact that he shot a horrendous 34.6% from the floor for the season and even his 3 point shooting was underwhelming at 34.3%.

That's the team Kobe made 7th in scoring and 8th in offensive rating, and I'd bet they were near the top in the second half when Odom finally played more consistently.

Nash's Suns were obviously a more potent offense, and they were 1st in scoring and 2nd in offensive rating, but they had a lot more talent to work with, and had a team who not only fit well in D'Antoni's system, but played off of Nash well as almost all of them were dangerous 3 point shooters, slashers or good open court players. Shawn Marion had a much better year than Odom and made the all-nba 3rd team. Marion averaged 22/11 on 53% shooting with 2 spg, 1.7 bpg and just 1.5 turnovers per game. Obviously, Marion benefited from playing with Nash since his strengths offensively were his finishing in the open court, his slashing and he liked the corner 3, but Marion was already a 20 ppg scorer before he played with Nash so Nash just made him more efficient. Of course, Marion's versatility, particularly defensively was very valuable as well. Boris Diaw was also voted the Most Improved Player as he averaged 13/7/6 on 53% shooting. Diaw has always been a great passer, he had a nice post game, made his mid-range shots, and despite playing a different style, he gave the Suns something similar to what Odom gave the Lakers with his versatility. Diaw was a forward who had entered the league as a guard with the Hawks and was often the Suns' biggest player on the court as the de facto center while being an excellent secondary facilitator. Diaw also didn't start the year as a starter, but played his way into that role and like Odom, got better as the year went on averaging 16/7/7 on 57% shooting in the second half. Nash also got a great year out of Raja Bell who in addition to his defense, shot lights out from 3. No question he capitalized on Nash's passing, but you still have to make the shots, and Bell did just that averaging 14.7 ppg while making 2.5 threes per game while shooting 44.2%, which was 5th best in the NBA, and he was 3rd in made 3s with 197, just behind Gilbert Arenas who only made 2 more, but took one more game to do it. Bell was also 3rd in eFG% at 56.3%. Leandro Barbosa was one of the fastest players in the league and averaged 13 ppg while coming off the bench most of the year. He complemented his speed with a very dangerous 3 point shot as evidenced by his 44.4 3P%, which was 3rd best in the league and his 55.8 eFG%. They also had Tim Thomas late in the year, and he was always a talented offensive player at 6'10" who averaged 11 ppg in just 24 mpg for them while shooting 43% on 3s and had even more shooters in Eddie House and James Jones who averaged between 9-10 ppg, shot about 39% on 3s, made 1.5 of them per game and did it in just 17.5 and 23.6 mpg, respectively. To round out the cast was Kurt Thomas who was one of their few big men, but a good defender and rebounder with a consistent mid-range shot who was definitely better than any of the Lakers' big men excluding Odom. Not surprisingly, Phoenix finished first at 39.9% and led the league with 837 made 3s, 212 more than the Warriors who were 2nd.

Given the enormous disparity in the talent, I'd argue the Lakers having the 8th best offense was more impressive than Phoenix having the 2nd best offense. Kobe's cast was really bad lacking a legit 2nd option, being surrounded by fringe players other than Odom, lacking shooters as evidenced by the fact that they were in the bottom half in 3P% and a pretty mediocre defense(which was actually virtually identical to the Suns' defense statistically.) The only thing you can really say is that the Lakers were a solid rebounding team outrebounding opponents by 2 rpg. Nash's cast certainly lacked size, but there's no question they had loads of offensive talent with more shooters than anyone could hope for, versatile forwards like Marion and Diaw and if you look at their sixth man Leandro Barbosa, he was definitely a more dangerous scorer than any of Kobe's teammates.

There's so many things to look at, but aside from how impressive it is to lead your team to a very productive offensive season while being asked to play 41 mpg and take over 27 shots per game, just look at how each of these team's offenses fared with and without the stars. The Suns offensive rating was a phenomenal 114.8 with Nash on the court, but still respectable without him at 106.4, which was just above league average. Meanwhile, the Lakers had an excellent 112.6 offensive rating with Kobe on the court, but it was horrendous with him off the court at 93.7. Finally, it's worth noting that Nash played 35.4 mpg, while Kobe played 41 mpg as mentioned before. What it comes down to is there's no question in my mind that Kobe was a better player and had a better season, and there's also no question in my mind that the disparity in team success was not nearly as great as the disparity in talent, and Kobe's success was more impressive considering their situations.

The more I think about this season, the more I'm leaning towards it as Kobe's peak over 2008.


Historical stuff from Bryant. This is a year, offensively, I'd rank only slightly below peak Magic/Bird/Jordan/LeBron. He was at his peak athleticism wise, jumper was there, he could basically do whatever he wanted to any defense he wanted.

Undoubtedly the best in the league. To me, when I was watching back then, it wasn't even close. Only Dirk really had an argument. Once Odom started playing at a decent level for the last 30 games, Kobe had the Lakers at a 111.5 ORtg, 0.1 behind the Mavs for the league lead. Kobe was anchoring a league-best offense with ONE other serviceable offensive player. This says it all I think.

2007: The most efficient season of Kobe's career. It also gave a good glance of the game-management and facilitation skills that Kobe would show in 2008-10.

Through 39 games, he had the Lakers at 26-13. In fact, they were 14-6 through the first 20 games before Odom got hurt. Odom was playing like a near AS, averaging 18-9-5 on good efficiency. This should really dispell notions that Kobe at that era couldn't play with good teammates. Walton was benefiting too, averaging 12-5-4 on 50-43-75 through that good start. Kobe was playing steady basketball as the captain of a ship that was cruising along at a 112.2 ORtg, with 28-6-6 on 59% TS.

Then the injuries really took their toll. As soon as Odom returned, Walton got injured. And Odom was playing far worse than he was pre-injury. Kobe continued to play his part-facilitator role, but the team was just too bad for it to be effective. With Kobe, a broken Odom, and a D-League roster, the Lakers stumbled to a 7-18 record over the next 25 games. They were going to be out of the Playoffs, until Phil told Kobe to completely take over the offense. He did, to the tune of 40-6-5 on 58% TS. The Lakers managed to crack .500 for that stretch at 9-8, showing the difference between Kobe taking a step back (like his detractors love him to) and actually taking control of the offense on a terrible team.

His Playoffs were good by his own standards, but not spectacular. His team was so outmatched there really wasn't much he could do. It is memorable for that 45-6-6 game 3 when he threw the kitchen sink at the Suns and somehow came away with a win despite the Lakers getting 86% of their points from him, Odom and Kwame.

He probably was better than in '06 when he really got going, but for the whole season, probably just slightly worse. I'd say he was the best in the league again, Nash and Duncan were a bit better than in '06, but his main contenders in '06 were Dirk and Wade and both of them had much weaker years.

The MVP and repeat years: 2008-10

2008: The promised land. People love to claim that it was just Pau that turned the franchise around but Kobe had the Lakers at 25-11 through 36 games with his second option, Bynum, averaging 13-10. That's one of the worse second options in the league, and Kobe still had them comfortably in the middle of the WCF standings, flitting between the 2-4 seeds.

The Bynum injury, by all rights, should have killed the Lakers season. Possibly scared of the prospect of being the second option again, Odom went into a funk and averaged 12-10 on 42% shooting over the next 11 games. Kobe refused to let the team slip, going into supernova, averaging 34-8-6 on 61% TS in the same stretch, somehow keeping Fisher, Sasha, Turiaf, Farmar and Walton at a 6-5 record until the front office found a way to replace Bynum's production.

The Gasol trade was the best thing to happen to Kobe's career. It showed just how effective he could make a team with one other truly reliable offensive player. Kobe increased his efficiency, rebounding, facilitation and played better defense, with his volume remaining pretty much the same. Gasol's efficiency jumped up from 50.1% FG to 58.9% FG playing with Kobe, and the Lakers went 22-5 in the games that both played.

Overall, Kobe averaged 28-6-5 with elite defense, on 57% TS. The Lakers finished with a 7.3 SRS, and this was on a team with another truly reliable player for less than a third of the season. This was an underestimated carry job by Kobe. The Lakers could have slipped into oblivion at any time but he didn't let them.

The Playoffs were the cherry on the cake. ShaqAttack again:

ShaqAttack3234 wrote:
The Lakers were virtually unbeatable with Gasol at 22-4 excluding the 2-3 minute game and then dominated the West including the defending champion Spurs in 5 during the WCF. The Spurs were no joke either since they had Duncan who was only slightly past his prime and 2 other all-star caliber players in Parker and Ginobili who was at his peak and probably the 2nd best shooting guard behind only Kobe that year. What was so impressive about Kobe's playoff run is that he almost seemed to be toying with his West opponents as he averaged 31.9 ppg, 6.1 rpg and 5.8 apg on 50.9 FG% in 15 games during the 3 West rounds playing that team-oriented style. Despite the finals loss, I still consider this Kobe's best playoff run. He had that game vs Denver when he shot 18/27 overall, 5/9 on 3s and 8/9 from the line for 49 points, and while I haven't seen the game since, I remember him being so hot that it looked like he could have had 60+ early had he pushed the issue, but LA won easily by 15 points.



32-6-6 on 61% TS against 3 top 6 defenses and 50 win teams. The Finals against the Cs was underwhelming, but as good as the Lakers were the Celtics were just so loaded they were clearly outmatched. I'm not one of those Laker fans that think Bynum would've made a difference. The big 3 were playing at a historic level at that point. Hold it against him if you wish, but remember, make sure to hold KG's failures against him too when his team is lacking in comparative talent.

I have Kobe no. 1 again, the last year he will be at this spot. I do think he was the best overall player for '06-'08, and in terms of three-year peaks it's not quite in the '91-'93 MJ, '63-'65 Russell or '66-'68 Wilt level but I think it matches up fairly well with guys like Bird and Hakeem.

2009: I summed this up with a post in a thread I made some time ago:

ardee wrote:I was watching parts of the Lakers '09 Playoffs and it just occurred to me that 2009 doesn't get brought up enough when talking about Kobe's best seasons, and indeed some of the best seasons by a wing, ever.

The Lakers had a 10 game lead on one of the toughest conferences in history. Not to say Kobe didn't have a great cast, but this was a 7.8 SRS team and he was +11.1 on/off for the +/- guys. For an elite team, it doesn't get too much higher, because they aren't going to be putrid when the star is off, they wouldn't be elite then. His +116.1 On-Court ORtg is among the highest we've seen from a player not on the Suns dynasty.

He was also still quite elite on defense, probably the last year he was consistently up there.

The Lakers cruised to a 37-9 record, and then Bynum got injured. Many people feared a slowdown, but Kobe took on the extra load and averaged a 32-5-5 over the next 12 games, leading the Lakers to a 11-1 record. That stretch shows he was still absolutely capable of scoring how many ever points he needed to, just like '06 and '07, he just took it easy to get the team-mates into the game as well.

That stretch put the Lakers in the driving seat for the conference and they cruised from then on. They beat every other contender, home or away. Snapped the Celtics' 19 and 12 game winning streaks, and the Cavs' 23 game home winning streak. Kobe kept them focused as hell, this was probably when his team-mates' fear of him transformed into a determination to please. His leadership had real, tangible impact on the Lakers that season.

Then in the Playoffs, the Lakers stomped. The Houston series was a minor blip where they were losing focus from time to time, but every time they lost they responded with a blowout. After that 118-78 result, did they ever look like losing that series? Kobe was still consistent enough in that series, it was the supporting cast who couldn't keep it together mentally. He did, however, along with Phil, keep getting them back on track and winning all the statement games. He did so while dealing with Battier and Artest tag-teaming him on defense.

The Denver series was his magnum opus. Has anyone forgotten that 'bad mofo' face? Has anyone forgotten all the insane shots he hit with a hand in his face, Dahntay and the other Nuggets playing picture perfect defense? Has anyone forgotten the way he pulled a team that was struggling to close game 1 to a victory by scoring or assisting 13 of the last 15 points? Has anyone forgotten that game 6 when he basically looked untouchable, going for a 35/10 and ripping the Nuggets to shreds while the Lakers won by 30? Has anyone forgotten the ridiculous 35/6/6 overall performance he put together?

I'm not saying he was better than LeBron that year, but this should be considered one of the best seasons by a wing ever. His numbers weren't as good as they used to be, but what was he supposed to do, put up nicer stats when he had Odom/Gasol and lose instead? He did everything his team needed him to, and when his guys were sagging, he picked up all the slack and dominated, as we saw in multiple stretches throughout the season.

Really, I think the only Playoff run by a wing definitely better than this (after Jordan) is '12 LeBron. What do you guys think?


LeBron was definitely better this year. No question in my mind. But Kobe was a deserved no. 2. I can get ranking Wade over him, but I think Kobe played just as well in the later Playoff rounds as Wade did in the regular season, and Wade really didn't have a good Playoffs at all.

2010: A very underrated year for Kobe.

This was the year he completed the development of his post-game, and it was more effective than Jordan's ever was. Here's Bill Simmons on Kobe during the first half of the season, a stretch when Bryant had the Lakers at 25-6 through 31 games (more than half of which Pau missed by the way), averaging 30-6-5 on 57% TS.

Bill Simmons wrote:
I can't remember anyone reinventing himself historically as well as Kobe did these past 16 months. The Olympics, then the 2009 Finals, then the media victory lap that everyone ate up … and then, when it seemed as if we were headed for a decline, he reinvented himself as the second coming of post-baseball Jordan and developed an even nastier, more physical post-up game than MJ had. I can't believe what I am watching. It's staggering. He's like a 6-foot-6 Hakeem Olajuwon. I went into this season thinking Kobe would be able to last just one or two more seasons at a high level; now I'm wondering whether he could play like this well into his late 30s. Why not? I mean, Karl Malone did it. Like Malone, Kobe is a workout freak who takes care of his body and seems predisposed to staying healthy, anyway. Malone averaged a 26-10 and made second-team All-NBA in the 1999-2000 season when he was 36 years old … and then he played four years after that. Kobe is only 31. Could he replicate Malone's longevity and consistency?



He did get injured later on, yes, no one is disputing that. But before that, he was playing as well as he ever had, and picked up at that level in the Playoffs. I don't know why people were shocked in the Playoffs, he played just as well in the first half... For 9 games before his injury, he averaged 37-7-5 on 58% TS!

I'm not going to lie and say the second half of the regular season was pretty. Coming out of the regular season one could argue he was behind LeBron, Durant and Howard all.

But then he went and had one of his best Playoffs ever. He still struggled with his knee for a bit at the beginning of the OKC series, but after game 5 had his knee drained and then ripped off an all-time hot streak. He averaged 31-7-6 on 59% TS over the last 18 games of the regular season. He was easily the best player in the Playoffs that year, and I think it should boost him over Durant and Howard. I'd still give LeBron the edge that year, with Kobe 2nd. Wade, Nash, Durant and Howard fight it out for spots 3-5.

He had that historic Phoenix series, averaging 34-7-8 on a 135 ORtg, 64% TS!!! People don't appreciate how dominant he was in that series.

His Finals got marred by game 7, but before that he was doing 30/7/4 on 56% TS. Against the kind of defense he was facing, that's remarkable to say the least.

It's hard to argue against what Kobe did in the Playoffs that year.

Overall, I think Kobe from 2008-10 was more impressive than second threepeat Jordan in the Playoffs... But that's just me.

________________________________________________________________________

I know that was a ridiculously long post, lemme give it to you in cliffs:

-2000 was a great second option year, comparable to prime Pippen. Got the Lakers out of several tight situations (game 7 Portland, game 4 Indy), and doubled up as the best perimeter defender in the league. Perfect second option to Shaq.

-2001: Underrated regular season, historical Playoffs. Carried the Lakers while Shaq was less than his usual self at the start, combined with him for the best run by a duo in NBA history in the Playoffs, was Jordan-esque in the WC Playoffs (32-7-6 on 60% TS).

-2002: Slightly underwhelming regular season but still solid. Killed the Spurs in the Playoffs, came up big in games 6 and 7 against the Kings with Shaq, and had the best finals of the threepeat part of his career.

-2003: Became a complete player. Arguably his best defensive year, added the 3 point shot. Had an all-time 35/40 point game streak to drag the Lakers back into Playoff contention

-2006/2007: All-time offensive years. Dragged garbage to top 7-8 offenses, and when Odom actually played well and gave him a good second option he took the team to the best offense in the league for that same stretch, in both seasons.

-2008: Peak year. Got his defense back. Showed that he could make a bad team decent as well as make a decent team elite, as soon as Pau arrived. What's impressive is the Lakers had a 7.3 SRS with Pau only playing 27 games for them that year. Historically dominant in the Playoffs.

-2009: lead one of the best Laker teams ever despite Bynum getting injured AGAIN, with Pau again his only real reliable teammate. Dominated in the Playoffs, had possibly his best series ever against Denver, and was decisive in the Finals against Orlando.

-2010: Killed it for the first two months in the regular season, clearly the second best player behind LeBron for that stretch. Developed the post-game. Slipped into injuries, but shook them off in the Playoffs to dominate again. Killed the Jazz and Suns, had a good series against Boston considering the level of defense he was facing.

-From 2000 to 2010, here's how I'd rank Kobe in the league year by year: 8, 2, 3, 3, 4, 9, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2. Other than the blip of 2005, that is stunning consistency over a long stretch. Comparable to prime Bird easily.

-In terms of peak play, Bird was better at his absolute zenith, but Kobe gives you 7 years at that level: 2001, 2003, 2006-10, while Bird has 1984-88. The two extra years make a real difference, at that level.

I don't think I can do more talking about the meat of Kobe's career. I'll answer any questions anyone has, and expand more on 2011-13 later.

Vote: Kobe Bryant

2nd: Larry Bird
User avatar
Jaivl
Head Coach
Posts: 7,125
And1: 6,777
Joined: Jan 28, 2014
Location: A Coruña, Spain
Contact:
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#48 » by Jaivl » Sat Jul 8, 2017 6:42 pm

rebirthoftheM wrote:I won't comment on KG, but 08 Kobe was defs not his peak version. He was better in 2001 and 2003 (hugely underrated because of the unfortunate misleading conclusions off the back of RAPM), and no doubt 06 which I see as his peak season. 08 Kobe might have been better than 07 Kobe because of his lateral quickness issue and all around defensive problems.

But Kobe's line drives/flat jump shot issues that year, which was causing Kobe to miss many make-able jumpers, and which was exposed in the finals, cancels out any suggestion that it was his peak. 06 Kobe on the 08 Lakers wins the Celtics series because 06 Kobe doesn't miss the jumpers that 08 Kobe did, and could playmake/play defense at the same level. 08 Kobe wasn't also 'wiser' or anything. Just different team roles

I don't think Kobe had specific issues with his shot in 2008. He shot OK the rest of the year. I think it's more that Boston's defense (cue Allen) did a good job forcing him out of the right elbow, his favourite spot from midrange. Overall I think 01 & 03 are behind the 06-09 years. His midrange wasn't quite at his peak level, neither the playmaking (of course having Shaq makes things quite easier). I think he suffers from the same problems on defense: excessive ball-watching, really weak guarding cutters.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,684
And1: 8,322
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#49 » by trex_8063 » Sat Jul 8, 2017 7:21 pm

Thru post #48 (about 24 hours left for this thread):

Larry Bird - 5 (Joao Saraiva, trex_8063, Outside, scabbarista, wojoaderge)
Kobe Bryant - 4 (Tesla, oldschooled, JordansBulls, ardee)
Kevin Garnett - 2 (micahclay, Doctor MJ)
George Mikan - 1 (penbeast0)
Julius Erving - 1 (BasketballFan7)



Again, about 24 hours left. Stipulate a secondary pick, penbeast0, as it's definitely going to come down to secondaries.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Purch
Veteran
Posts: 2,820
And1: 2,145
Joined: May 25, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#50 » by Purch » Sat Jul 8, 2017 7:36 pm

Also on a side note, I always find the most interesting part of this project to be where George Mikan is ranked. I always find it intriguing how people balence portability, era relative dominance, the weak league ext.. it really tells a lot about the voter
Image
janmagn
Starter
Posts: 2,139
And1: 341
Joined: Aug 26, 2015
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#51 » by janmagn » Sat Jul 8, 2017 7:56 pm

Vote: Larry Bird
2nd vote: Kevin Garnett

Bird was a different type of dominant player compared to others from his era. He wasn't overly athletic, but was a great shooter, along with his legendary IQ. This allowed him to do things normally guys with his athleticism do. He was a good defender and was averaging 7 apg. And while he played in a great team, he was the clear main dog and had incredible impact. Bird as a rookie helped the Celtics improve from a 29 win team with guys like Cedrick Maxwell, Dave Cowens, Bob McAdoo and Tiny Archibald to a 61 win team, even though they lost McAdoo. In 9 years before his back problems, the Celtics made every time the conference semis, 8 times the conference finals and the finals 5 times, winning 3 of those. After Bird got those back problems, the Celtics made out of the first round only twice. After his retirement, the Celtics got into the playoffs only twice in 9 years.

Don't know what you think about me including this as a very slight positive for Bird, but his coaching/excecutive career is nothing to hide. He made the 39 win Pacers to a team that won over 55 games in two full seasons and 33 in a 50 game season. Not many players this high have a COY for their name. Also won Excecutive of the Year once. Found a All-Star in mid-late 1st (2005, 17th pick, Danny Granger).

If you don't think that Bird's coaching career should have a effect here, then just ignore it. Even without it, he's my top candidate for this spot

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,560
And1: 16,113
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#52 » by therealbig3 » Sat Jul 8, 2017 8:40 pm

Purch wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:
mischievous wrote:One thing for Garnett with me, when we compare him to a Kobe, I don't think he had as many seasons close to his peak level as Kobe did. Kg has 03 and 04 i guess 05 if generous. Kobe has 01, 03, and 06-09 maybe 10 if generous.


So you just don't like counter arguments?

I don't think anyone has an emotional investment in getting KG into the top 10, but there do seem to be quite a few of you who have an emotional investment in keeping him out.

I just don't understand how discussion and people that support KG actually posting in-depth arguments makes it intolerable to discuss KG. How about actually responding to the arguments put forth instead of just saying they're being unreasonable (when they're not being unreasonable whatsoever).


It's probably the same occurace as the past project.. which was that 85% of the discussion in threads from voting #4-11 were dominated by people pushing the same KG narrative.

Any failures = Teamates faults
Any time his shooting efficiency dropped in the playoffs= It doesnt matter because he still impacted the game in other ways
Any success by the t-wolves = All about Garnett impact.

It basically puts KG in a situation that no other player can compete with. Because nothing negative is ever a result of KG, and any successes on Boston and Minny were completly a result of his impact. No other player gets to live in this kind of bubble.

So I can see where the frustration comes from.


1. KG was on a bad team in Minnesota. It was poorly managed, poorly coached, and didn't have a lot of talent. It was worse than what any other star at the time had to deal with. So yeah, when the team failed, it makes a lot of sense to point to the poor supporting cast than it does the star that's filling up the stat sheet and posting a monster +/-. Especially when those team failures are brought up against the star in relation to other players that had much better teams around them.

2. It's not that his shooting efficiency didn't matter, it's that it doesn't matter to anywhere close to as much as people think. Poor shooting efficiency doesn't prohibit KG from dominating a game. And yes, he's an extremely unique player, so the assertion that maybe he's having more non-scoring impact than anyone ever isn't an unfounded one. And his scoring efficiency really isn't out of line compared to other stars when they were in similar situations, so again, it's really not nearly as big of a deal as people think.

3. Nobody is saying that all of the success in Minnesota and Boston was because of KG. That's a ridiculous straw man. But you're kidding yourself if you're not going to acknowledge that he was by far the MVP of those teams, and the metrics do show that those teams lived and died with him, maybe moreso than any player in history. Those are just the facts.
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#53 » by ardee » Sat Jul 8, 2017 8:48 pm

KG isn't even better than Dirk.

Between the two, prime for prime you're giving up approximately 17-20 ORtg points between KG and Dirk.

Dirk in 2006 had a 124 ORtg in the Playoffs.

KG's peak was 2004 and his was 100.

The offensive gap is probably bigger than the defensive gap. Dirk wasn't an elite defensive player but he was solid, the gap on that end is not equal to 24 points on ORtg.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,477
And1: 9,987
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#54 » by penbeast0 » Sat Jul 8, 2017 9:03 pm

drza wrote:Garnett's postseason results Part 1 . . . I've demonstrated above some examples to illustrate what the skill-set argument suggests, that KG's offensive impact isn't much affected by small changes in scoring efficiency....


KG's efficiency drops .025 for his career which is reasonably significant as efficiency changes go. In 2000, it dropped .110! That's a MAJOR drop, arguably a disastrous one for what you call an MVP caliber player who is the primary scoring option on his team.

You argue that his gravity more than made up for this, and maybe it partially did. But his team's offensive efficiency went from an average .525 to .506 in that 2000 series, mainly due to poor shooting by Garnett (the rest of his team stayed pretty flat). That would make the team bottom 5 in the NBA that season with only the 3 worst teams and the Iverson Sixers being that miserable on shooting efficiency. Skill set is fine but only if it produces results. I'm not convinced that his offensive woes didn't hurt his team.

I do believe great defense is more consistent, or at least harder to prove. You can still make a Russell type argument that his defense was so great that his offense doesn't matter but I don't get the impression that anyone is arguing that Garnett was THAT much better than someone like David Robinson; I get the impression that his offensive prowess (and longevity) were the key advantages, particularly in the playoffs which is where Robinson's rep takes a bigger hit than Garnett's.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
andrewww
General Manager
Posts: 7,989
And1: 2,687
Joined: Jul 26, 2006

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#55 » by andrewww » Sat Jul 8, 2017 9:05 pm

Vote: Kobe Bryant
Alternate: Larry Bird


Kobe's defensive peak even while short lived was superior to that of Bird's. 06 Kobe's peak matches up well with Bird's imo, and Larry Legend had not only the shorter career, but his sustained excellence on a stacked Celtics squad didn't match Kobe's which was more top heavy and ultimately more successful. Bird's main advantage was his perimeter shooting and being a bit better at playmaking. Not enough to surpass Kobe's overall body of work and peak.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,477
And1: 9,987
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#56 » by penbeast0 » Sat Jul 8, 2017 9:06 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Thru post #48 (about 24 hours left for this thread):

Larry Bird - 5 (Joao Saraiva, trex_8063, Outside, scabbarista, wojoaderge)
Kobe Bryant - 4 (Tesla, oldschooled, JordansBulls, ardee)
Kevin Garnett - 2 (micahclay, Doctor MJ)
George Mikan - 1 (penbeast0)
Julius Erving - 1 (BasketballFan7)



Again, about 24 hours left. Stipulate a secondary pick, penbeast0, as it's definitely going to come down to secondaries.

OK, my secondary pick is Jerry West :ouch:, sorry, don't think it's going to help. There are 4 players in the 1960s who were a clear level above the league, the way LeBron and Curry (and maybe Durant if healthy) have been the last 3 years. They are (in my order) Russell, Wilt, West, and Ocar . . . then there's a big dropoff to Bob Pettit (5th best) and Elgin Baylor (6th best) . . . then another droppoff to anyone else. Pettit (and to a lesser extent Baylor) was more dominant in the 50s so he gets a big boost there v. the Walt Bellamy, Sam Jones, Hal Green types. I consider the 60s to be a strong era in NBA history due to the talent being packed together on a relatively few teams, as high or higher than the 80s and 90s, so there isn't the era penalty that makes Mikan so difficult to judge.

For what it's worth, I am probably going to have Curry higher than most as I consider today's NBA stronger and deeper than any preceding it.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Hornet Mania
General Manager
Posts: 9,046
And1: 8,536
Joined: Jul 05, 2014
Location: Dornbirn, Austria
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#57 » by Hornet Mania » Sat Jul 8, 2017 9:08 pm

10. Kobe Bryant
2nd vote: Larry Bird


Thoughts on Kobe:

-It's easy to forget Kobe was able to take on a pivotal role as the lead guard for a title contender, and eventually threepeat champ, at a very young age. At age 22 (2001) he had one the better conference playoff runs of all time, in an absolutely devastating combination with peak Shaq that laid waste to a very tough western conference. Because of his early start he has great longevity as a high-level player, proven in pivotal roles on championship teams.

-At his apex (in my eyes 06-07) he was an offensive dynamo that posted individual game, monthly and seasonal averages that had not been seen by anyone but Jordan or Wilt, he lifted Lamar Odom and a bag of crap to 45 wins in a brutal West. Once he had an effective big man again in 08 (Andrew Bynum) the Lakers became the top seed in the West basically overnight. When Bynum went down and was replaced by Gasol Kobe had instant synergy and had a really historic offensive run until it ran into the brick wall of Boston defense. Kobe's entire 08-10 run was fantastic, his team again threepeated in a brutal West except this time he was their best and most important player. Bird is next man up for me after Kobe, and it's hard for me to clearly favor his 84-86 run over Kobe's 08-10 (or 06-08) it's an interesting comparison

-For all the flack Kobe gets (some deserved) for not wanting to feed Shaq enough, one of his all-time great skills is providing high-percentage opportunities for his bigs. Gasol (and Bynum) feasted off the attention Kobe drew, and Shaq really benefited from Kobe as well.

Thoughts on Bird:

-Bird was a fantastic player in his own right. The main thing holding him back, in my mind, from a higher ranking is lack of longevity. If he hadn't torn up his back doing unnecessary crap like repaving his mom's driveway in the offseason himself (a real thing that happened) he might have had a longer career, maybe it was just bad luck, but in any case I felt like of all the top 10 greats health hurts Bird the most.

-Bird was a player whose impact really did go well beyond the box score. His scoring, and particularly shooting, ability are well known but his real gift was passing. He made passing fun, not just the obvious but also the spectacular, feeding teammates in satisfying spots that led to easy buckets was his specialty and it was contagious. What made the 86 Celtics special was all that offensive talent making the extra pass, and that started with Bird. To be honest I have Kobe and Bird basically equal, Kobe gets the advantage only because of superior longevity and I'm not convinced his peak was much worse (if at all).
User avatar
2klegend
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,333
And1: 409
Joined: Mar 31, 2016
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#58 » by 2klegend » Sat Jul 8, 2017 9:27 pm

At this piont, I'm just going to vote to prevent this project from becoming a joke with KG in the top 10.

Warned.
1st Vote: Bird
2nd Vote: Kobe
My Top 100+ GOAT (Peak, Prime, Longevity, Award):
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1464952
User avatar
THKNKG
Pro Prospect
Posts: 994
And1: 368
Joined: Sep 11, 2016
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#59 » by THKNKG » Sat Jul 8, 2017 9:36 pm

2klegend wrote:At this piont, I'm just going to vote to prevent this project from becoming a joke with KG in the top 10.

1st Vote: Bird
2nd Vote: Kobe


I don't know how long I can continue in this project if there's just going to be a bunch of strategic voting. It's not about KG. He could be #35 as far as I'm concerned. I just don't have the energy or the desire to deal with this kind of stuff.
All-Time Fantasy Draft Team (90 FGA)

PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis
SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan
SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen
PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams
C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10 

Post#60 » by ardee » Sat Jul 8, 2017 9:41 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
drza wrote:Garnett's postseason results Part 1 . . . I've demonstrated above some examples to illustrate what the skill-set argument suggests, that KG's offensive impact isn't much affected by small changes in scoring efficiency....


KG's efficiency drops .025 for his career which is reasonably significant as efficiency changes go. In 2000, it dropped .110! That's a MAJOR drop, arguably a disastrous one for what you call an MVP caliber player who is the primary scoring option on his team.

You argue that his gravity more than made up for this, and maybe it partially did. But his team's offensive efficiency went from an average .525 to .506 in that 2000 series, mainly due to poor shooting by Garnett (the rest of his team stayed pretty flat). That would make the team bottom 5 in the NBA that season with only the 3 worst teams and the Iverson Sixers being that miserable on shooting efficiency. Skill set is fine but only if it produces results. I'm not convinced that his offensive woes didn't hurt his team.

I do believe great defense is more consistent, or at least harder to prove. You can still make a Russell type argument that his defense was so great that his offense doesn't matter but I don't get the impression that anyone is arguing that Garnett was THAT much better than someone like David Robinson; I get the impression that his offensive prowess (and longevity) were the key advantages, particularly in the playoffs which is where Robinson's rep takes a bigger hit than Garnett's.


You really can't. Russell anchored the best defense in history along with several years that came close, as well as the best defense in the league I believe all but one of the years he was in the league. You don't need to look deep to see his defensive impact, it's plain and simple right there. He didn't need teammate excuses, he didn't need oodles of paragraph of context. If Garnett was close to that, it would be right there too. Not saying he isn't a great defensive player but he was tiers below Russell.

I go:

Tier 1: Russell
Tier 2: Robinson, Olajuwon
Tier 2.5: Duncan, Mutombo
Tier 3: Garnett, Wilt

I think rim protection and shot-blocking (or as Russell said, the threat of shot-blocking) is more important than movement across the floor, or "horizontal" defense. The reason Russell is so far away the GOAT on D is because he is the GOAT at vertical AND horizontal defense.

Return to Player Comparisons