Odinn21 wrote:drza wrote:Spoiler:
English is not my native language, I guess sometimes my wording can be off. Highlighting would be a better choice for my intention over cherry picking in hindsight.I then posted some similar numbers for the next two post-seasons, illustrating again that the monster defensive series only happened when Garnett was present
3 of those non-historic, only good/OK series happened when Garnett was present in the relevant season, too.
Let's reverse this scenario in an exact way. The topic at hand is 2010 Garnett and the results of the Celtics in 2010 playoffs. I come in and say but we should look at 2008 & 2009 results to take away from 2010 results because 2009 results do not mean much with they are 2 in 10 and there are 4 rather weak performances and 4 monster performances outside of 2009, the distribution looks uninterrupted, and only 1 of 4 series in 2008 is in line with 3 series in 2010, and 3 good/OK series in 2008 is a reason to consider less of 2010 results.
If your instinct is to disagree with this reverse scenario, then it's a non-objective, biased interpolation stuff.
As I keep saying, Garnett was clearly the most impactful defender on the Celtics roster in 2008. No contest. But to have 2008 Garnett over 1986 Bird, one should simply overrate Garnett's defensive performance too much. I'm arguing against the extent of 2008 Garnett's defensive impact surpassing 1986 Bird's offensive impact considering Garnett's offense vs. Bird's defense is not helping Garnett's case much.
By the way, I'm very glad that you participate in the discussion and am waiting to see your votes and thoughtful explanations for them. Cheers.
Re: the scenario you laid out, a few thoughts:
1) First, I'd absolutely WELCOME that approach. To go further, I think it's necessary. Because again, this analysis focuses on the team's performance, on one side of the ball, in short playoffs rounds but attempts to extrapolate some meaning in evaluating the entire package of an individual player. This type of team-based approach almost REQUIRES looking beyond just the season in question, to the surrounding ones, to see if the performance in question is part of a trend or some sort of outlier.
In your hypothetical, you're trying to estimate whether Garnett's presence in 2010 was potentially explanatory for the Celtics' series of laughably dominant team defensive performances during the 2010 playoffs. To answer that, a) I'd absolutely look at the Celtics' team defensive performances in 2008 & 2009, as well as probably 2011 and 2012; b) I'd also, absolutely, look at metrics of Garnett's individual defensive impact over the largest samples (e.g. whole seasons, perhaps multi-season as well) during that era; and c) I'd look at the available postseason individual impact metrics as well. We might be discussing 2010 in particular, but I think we'd need to go both broader (temporally) and deeper (more look at individual metrics, not just team) in order to tell the whole story.
2) If you take that kind of complete dive into the analysis, then the underlined in your hypothetical is invalidated. At least, the way I read it. To whit:
a) In every postseason KG played as a Celtic (2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013...14 series altogether), the Celtics had at least one of those monster-knockout defensive series of -7 or better relative DRTG):
'08 FInals, -9.1 against Lakers
'10 1st round: -8.8 against Heat
'10 2nd round: -8.2 against Cavs
'10 ECF: -8.9 against Magic
'11 1st round: -10.4 against Knicks
'12 1st round: -12.2 against Hawks
'12 2nd round: -7.0 against 76ers
'13 1st round: -11.3 against Knicks
That's 8 blockbuster defensive performances in 14 postseason series KG played in. In 5 of the other series, the defense performed merely "good" relative to opponents, posting relative DRTGs between -2 and -4.3 (the one poor defensive series, using this metric, was 2012 ECF vs the Heatles). So, that means, that in 13 of the playoffs series KG played as a Celtic, the team defense was better than either of the two rounds he missed in 2009, ranging from good (about a third of the time) to historic (about 60% of the time). To me, that's a pretty impressive run of team defense. But what about KG as an individual defender?
b) Go deeper in individual, large-sample defensive impact stats. KG's defensive RAPM finishes (ranking in NBA)
2007 (w/ Wolves): 1st
2008: 1st
2009: 1st --> major injury ends season
2010: 3rd (clearly and visibly hampered by injury entire season, including in postseason)
2011: 1st
2012: 5th
2013: 2nd (according to data I got from ColtsFan18's site years ago)
So, not only was the Celtics' postseason defense downright NASTY during KG's time, as long as KG was actually on the court, but he measured out as clearly by-far the highest impact defender in the NBA during that multi-year span as an individual and maintained a spot at/near the very top even when injured and/or age started taking more toll.
c) KG individual impact metrics, in the postseason specifically: On/off +/- in '08, then '10-12
2008 on/off +/- per 100 possessions, main Celtics (26 games):
Garnett: +19.8
Pierce: +8.6
Ray: +8.0
Rondo: -6.0
2010-2012 on/off +/- per 100 possessions, main Celtics (53 total games)
Garnett: +17.3
Pierce: -5.0
Ray: +4.6
Rondo: +9.3
I've pointed out in several posts on postseason +/- through the years, that one approach where signal clearly stands out above the potential noise is for players a) playing at least 15-20ish games (e.g. at least Conference Finals in single season, or multiple seasons) b) that lead their teams in on/off +/-, c) with an on/off +/- > 16 and d) with a gap in on/off between team leader and 2nd among the big minute rotation players of at least 8 PPG. I call it the 16/8 rule, and anyone interested in how I came up with it let me know and I'll look for the post where I break that down.
But anyway, in postseason on/off +/- (which is total impact on both sides of the ball, not just defense, for the individual), KG clearly stands out as the dominant performer, the player pulling the overall impact train, in a historically significant/relevant sense, in the championship season of 2008 and also in the multi-year run from 2010-12 that included two more trips to the Conference Finals and one more trip to the NBA Finals.
Conclusion: So...yeah. Longer answer than maybe you were looking for, but in trying to answer completely, I'd absolutely welcome the type of multi-season analysis you mention in your hypothetical. Looking at 2010 alone, on a predominantly team-based stat, may not tell the complete story. Even adding in the on/off playoffs numbers from 2010 alone wouldn't necessarily tell the whole story, as none of the Celtics' starters really distinguished themselves in postseason +/- that season...the units/rotations seemed to produce a fairly even distribution among the main guys. But when looking at a complete story, tracking the team postseason defensive results across the era, looking at KG's individual defensive impact across the era, and looking at KG's individual postseason impact across the era (both magnitude and relative to teammates) seems to tell a pretty complete, consistent, and IMO compelling story. Which would be, to me, the ultimate goal of the analysis. To produce a result strong in each of those three c's, and not just trying to (again using this word) cherry-pick to try to win "gotcha" points. We have plenty enough data and game tape to come to more rigorous conclusions, particularly for players in this era.
Was a good discussion. Looking forward to the next one, and maybe being able to spend a bit more time and go a bit deeper across the board next time
