RealGM Top 100 List #4

[colts18]

Here is Wilt's rank among players with 1500+ MP in FGA/36 minutes once he started focusing less on volume.

67: 59th out of 65
68: 63rd out 83
69: 81 out of 91 (Russell was ranked last)
70: injured
71: 81 out of 108 (Kareem 3rd)
72: 102 out of 104 (Kareem 4th)
73: 101 out of 101 (last place)

Is it shocking that he had sky high efficiency when his usage rate compared favorably to Tyson Chandler or Ben Wallace?

[drza]

And that's only speaking about the games I've uploaded. I've literally sat through hours upon hours of Garnett post seasons performances, which is the reason why I'm comfortable saying that he hasn't impressed me enough to say that he has a top 10 impact on the game.

Even the 4 of his best scoring games I uploaded (I might actually add some more later this summer from my collection) left me disappointed in his ability to change the flow of the game. I remember he'd be in the 4th quater of the game, whiles a team is going on a big run, and rather than take the ball to the hole, he'd keep on forcing mid range shots even when it wasn't falling even when he was being played 1 on 1. Or he'd get pushed out of position when his team needed to stop a run, and settle for a bad fade away. What I remember being impressed by most by him, whiles breaking down his footage, was always his ability to defend players off the dribble and on the perimeter. But specifically in both the Laker series from 03 and from 04 I found myself underwhelmed by his Rim protection .

I think what makes Kobe unique is that different parts of his game peaked at different times. Early in his career his defense was elite but the effort on that end of the floor fell off toward the end of the three peat. Then his athletic/scoring peak was from 05-07 in my eyes. Whiles his passing, post game and three point peak came from 08-10 if I'm remembering correctly. Sometimes it almost seems like different players.

I'm hoping that this becomes the start of a good conversation, because there's a lot here to work with that I applaud and other that I'd like to rebut. A couple of notes before I get started:

1) In the process of this response I may speak of general trends of thought on Kobe and Garnett that perhaps you don't ascribe to. If I do, then consider that part of my post as not specifically for you.

2) Warning! This post will use RAPM as evidence

Let's start with that latter. As I've pointed out, RAPM isn't a standalone measure of "goodness". On the other hand, it is the best measure we currently have to tie a team's performance to a certain player that doesn't involve using the box score. The box score has its uses as well, but I'm one that likes to keep them as separate measures. But I digress. This is also the best measure that we have for gauging a player's defensive impact, since so much of defense isn't covered in the box scores.

Thus, if someone says Kobe Bryant was an "elite" defender early in his career, I would expect there to be some sign of it in the RAPM studies. I'm not saying that he needed to measure out as well as the ATG bigs in order to impress me, but there have been LOTS of good defensive wings whose impact shows up clearly in the RAPM data. Shane Battier, Ron Artest, Luol Deng, Eddie Jones, Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Andre Iguodala and Manu Ginobili are all wings that show up among the top-52 players in Doc MJ's normalized data set. Each of them had very clear defensive impact from the wing, on the order of + 3.2 - +4.3 on that scale in their 5-year defensive peaks.

Kobe measured out at 292nd on the defensive list, with a 5-year peak defensive impact of less than 1 point.

Why would Kobe's defensive RAPM scores be so much smaller than expected, even in his early years? Is it a case of the RAPM approach missing it? That's possible, but it seems unlikely that the stat would unfairly single out Kobe and not the other good wing defenders that I mentioned. So, what might be another cause?

Well, speaking from my own observations, Kobe has definite strengths and weaknesses as a defender. One of his major strengths is his ability to play on-ball, 1-on-1 defense when he is motivated to. His size/athletic ability/competitiveness streak allows him to really bulldog any perimeter player that has the ball and challenges him. On the other hand, throughout his career (not just later) he has the tendency to conserve energy on defense so that he could use that energy for offense. He is not noted for consistently fighting through screens, nor is he known for making excellent defensive and help rotations. If anything, Kobe's off-ball defense has been noted as an area where he ball-watches more than putting in maximum team effort.

So, how do I interpret the defensive RAPM results in the face of my Kobe scouting report? I interpret it that Kobe's defensive approach is not one that produces measurable impact in his team's defensive efforts. But what the approach DOES do is really pop on screen. People won't remember the missed rotation or the screen that he don't fight through, but they WILL remember his mano-a-mano duel with MVP Iverson. They WILL remember when he blocked LeBron's shot in an All Star game.

To me, Kobe's defense is a good example for why sometimes stats like RAPM can do a better job of evaluating impact than our eye-test. For one thing, we don't always give proper weight to the individual acts on the court that are the most important. And for another, we all just miss a lot of the action.

The irony here, and what sparked this (increasingly wordy) response to your two posts, is that Garnett tends to be the exact opposite of Kobe in this respect. Many observers watch Garnett play, and come away unimpressed. It's funny that you referenced KG's 33-point game game 5 against the Pistons in the 2008 playoffs, because I had what (to me) was a crazy exchange with a Celtics fan on a different message board about that game in real time. True story, this was the gist of the exchange:

Celtics fan: Man, KG had pretty numbers but he really didn't give us much on offense.

Me: Wait, he led all scorers with 33 points.

Celtics fan: Yeah, but they were low impact points. He wasn't there down the stretch.

Me: Hold on, he led all scorers with 10 points in the 4th quarter!

Celtics fan: Yeah, but those came early. He didn't really do anything in crunch time.

Me: He hit the game-sealing free throws with 2 seconds left! Are you sure we watched the same game?

Focus: Like Kobe's defense, Garnett also has strengths and weaknesses on offense. You point out that he isn't always aggressive as you would like. That you would like to see him drive or post more instead of settling for jumpers. And those are fair (and oft levied) criticisms. On the flip side, Garnett has offensive strengths as well. He is one of the better mid-range shooters the position has ever seen. He is both an excellent and a willing passer. He is very good at drawing defensive attention and making the pass (or the pass-that-leads-to-the-pass) that gets a teammate an open shot. He's an enthusiastic (and sometimes illegal) pick setter. He knows where his teammates should be, and if they aren't there he communicates it to them.

And if we complete the mirror analysis to what we did with Kobe's defense, Garnett's offense DOES measure out as elite using offensive RAPM studies. He is 12th overall on DocMJ's normalized offensive RAPM rankings in terms of 5-year peak, and in the top-5 among big men with a 5-year peak of +5.4 on offense. Shaq (+7.6) and Dirk (+7.0) are the only two bigs with a convincingly higher mark than KG's on offense.

Just like Kobe's defense, one possible reason for the RAPM mark to be counter-intuitive is that for some reason the stat just likes Garnett in particular. Again, this is exceedingly unlikely. Perhaps it is too reliant on the regular season, as Ardee and Ryoga allege...but as I pointed out before, I'm almost positive that the postseason is weighted heavier in RAPM studies than the regular season, and also KG's on/off +/- scores appear to be BETTER in the postseason than they are in the regular season. So I don't see any indication that KG's postseasons would hurt his RAPM marks. So, then, I interpret the combination of evidence to suggest that KG tends to have a much larger positive impact than most observers seem to realize because again, his strengths aren't as easily observed as his perceived weaknesses and the ratio of his strengths vs his weaknesses isn't properly weighted.

Summary: In the examples of Kobe's defense and KG's offense, it appears to me that Kobe's defense has a tendency to LOOK like it should be more impactful than it is. On the other hand, it seems to me that KG's offense has a tendency to not appear to be as strong as it is. Not coincidentally, Kobe's defensive strength is his 1-on-1 on-ball defensive approach, and KG's perceived weakness on offense is his 1-on-1 scoring. It reminds me of a quote from Bill Russell that I've seen posted here before:

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?

I think the common tendency in the eye test is to focus more on the 3 minutes than the other 45, especially the 1-on-1 parts. And don't get me wrong, what happens in that 3 minutes is extremely important, and having the ability to go mano a mano on either offense or defense is a wonderful talent that certainly helps. But the game is so, so much more than just 1-on-1 skills, and I don't think our mindsets have caught up with that/made the appropriate weighting when evaluating 1-on-1 skills compared to the total package.

[MacGill]

Plain and simple, if you're going to vote in Wilt, then I don't see anything which was presented to separate him from Shaq. I see a documented Shaq career where some consider him a dumba$$, a Kobe feud where he acted childish at times, and staying past his time, which he had every right to do. But his prime and first 14 years are on par with the best ever, regardless of vacancy and weight. If it slowed Shaq down, it slowed Wilt down. Only difference was Shaq was never put into a Wilt type role or did he ever get the touches or pace that Wilt played at.

Good post.

I think for me it comes down Wilt being a better rebounder and passer than Shaq.-Especially rebounding. Offensively they are fairly even.
Defensively the Wilt I saw play in the 70s was better than Shaq, but Wilt didn't always play at that level. So, I'm willing to call defense pretty close.

The biggest difference between them is really rebounding, and Wilt has a definite advantage. We can argue scoring, defense, passing, teamwork, etc. all day and not come up with an answer we both agree with.

Thank you.

I have no problem acknowledging Wilt being the better rebounder as I am on record of that on this site. But it's how much better in comparison. Reg, also posted articles of Wilt's teammates ensuring that he had the touches for his 50ppg season, his 100 point game etc. Obviously, all things aren't equal here. First, when you're getting your touches you always work both ends. Not saying it is a fair point but a true one. Secondly, even Wilt himself stated that the 80's players (in comparison) were much more athletic than in his day and the game was so much more positional then. Bigs played the middle, rebounds were left for Wilt. But the pace was so high that even guards had inflated high rebounds numbers. I think offensively though Shaq is a fair bit above Wilt and that should be where you spend time analyzing. Early Wilt could run the break like Shaq did but later Wilt had poor fundamentals by eye test on his video footage. A terrible arch and release on his fade away and the form on his fingeroll was less then desirable. I don't care that he could fade and Shaq couldn't because Shaq didn't need to.

How can you possibly say that you would take Wilt over Shaq to anchor a team today? (not literally you btw) And if you need to answer with well modern this and that…then you need to rethink his offense. Jerry West had a sick stroke in his day (still does) and great form at the line. Wilt….as great as the numbers were, didn't have the same fundamentals and while others will say the coulda woulda shoulda's with him, it is all speculation to what the limited footage all shows us if we're being honest in compared to Shaq.

[E-Balla]

Spoiler:

Finally finished working my way through this thread, and perhaps the party's already over, but figured I'd throw in my two cents too.

I'm surprised to see that LeBron keeps being mentioned as being a tier below the main vote-getters this round. We've all been watching his career unfold over the past decade, so I don't need to go year-by-year and tell a huge story to show how good he's been. Everyone knows already. What strikes me, though, is that he seems to be the one guy without any real weaknesses. With Wilt and Shaq, you've got dominant box-score numbers, but character issues, off-court distractions, frequent defensive indifference, and as a sense (especially for Wilt) that the numbers and personal glory were more important than the team. With Hakeem, you've got underwhelming (for a top 10 guy) regular-season numbers and solid but unspectacular shooting efficiency, which meant he didn't really distinguish himself from his peers until his title runs. With Duncan, you've got continued greatness but never overwhelming dominance. With Magic, you've got incredible offensive impact, but mediocre defense, and an inability to shoot from deep. Obviously, none of these are fatal flaws, and all of those players were incredibly successful in their careers, but when you're talking about the #4 greatest player of all time, you can afford to be a little bit picky. LeBron has none of these issues. In fact, almost all of these facets of the game are areas in which LeBron does incredibly well.

The most impressive thing to me about LeBron is his peak-level performance. LeBron's an incredibly tough guy to pin down in terms of a one-year peak; partly because his game has evolved as he's had different situations around him, and partly because he's got more truly historically great seasons than anyone else still on the board. This recent thread asked people to rank LeBron's 5 best seasons (09, 10, 12-14), and there wasn't a huge consensus. Most had 09, 12, and 13 as the top 3 in some order and 10 and 14 below, but all five are all-timers in their own right. Just looking at the worst of those, in 2010 he averaged 29.7-7.3-8.6 on .604 TS%, good for a 31.1 PER and .299 WS/48 (both PER and WS/48 rank in the top 10 single-season marks all-time), and in 2014 his numbers slipped a bit, but he led the league in RAPM, then had one of the greatest playoff runs ever (.668 TS%, 31.1 PER). Looking at the other names left, they've all got very impressive peaks (for ex, Duncan 02-03, Hakeem 94-95, Shaq 00-02), but they only lasted 2-3 years each. I see all five LeBron years as being on that level.

The main knock against LeBron at this point, I assume, is his longevity. I understand why that would be the case: I like to look at players in terms of the cumulative total of their impact over their careers, and even a couple extra "good but not great" seasons at the end of a player's career add a decent amount of value in that regard. In this case, though, I think the concern is overstated. I've noticed that there's often a tendency to look at a player who is still in his prime, who is headed for bigger and brighter things, and not to worry about exactly where he ranks as of this moment. You end up saying "I'm not sure whether LeBron has passed Magic by this point. If I give it another couple years and he racks up even more accomplishments, it'll be a stone-cold lock, so why invest mental energy in a debate that'll be outdated within a year? If I just think about players whose careers are over, the same arguments will always hold." I think LeBron has done enough to get in this conversation already, and were something tragic to happen and he never to play again, we'd look on his career as more than adequate to hold up to scrutiny as-is, just as Magic's turned out to be despite his sudden departure near the peak of his powers.

Looking at raw totals, LeBron's longevity is on the lower end, but certainly not devastatingly so. He's now up to 33276 career regular-season minutes. Magic had 33245. Bird had 34443. Jordan played 35887 in Chicago. In terms of per-minute impact, I'd put LeBron closer to the Jordan end of that scale than the Magic/Bird end, too. As a result, LeBron already looks great by cumulative statistics. He's 15th overall in career win shares, well above Magic and Bird, who played roughly the same amount of minutes but at a lower level. He's also ahead of Hakeem, even though Hakeem played much longer than LeBron. Looking at things that reward a concentrated distribution of value a bit more (as championship odds do), he's 3rd overall in MVP shares, behind only Jordan and Kareem (some bias towards recent players there with deeper ballots, but as the majority of Bron's shares come from 4 near-unanimous MVPs and an unquestioned 2nd, he didn't gain from them as much as, say, Kevin Durant did). He's also 6th in RPOY shares (behind Russell, Kareem, Jordan, Wilt, and Magic).

In the playoffs, LeBron is a bit behind the most decorated greats with super teams in terms of longevity, but five finals runs will take you pretty far. LeBron has played 6717 playoff minutes. Magic, Wilt, Russell, and Jordan all played around 7500 each (disclaimers about number of rounds obviously apply for the old-timers). Bird is at 6886. Olajuwon, whose playoff performance is perhaps his strongest argument, only played 5749, and Dirk, who similarly is boosted for great playoff performances, only has 5544. In terms of total value accrued in the playoffs, then, LeBron holds up just fine. He's fourth in career playoff win shares, behind only Jordan, Duncan, and Kareem (all the disclaimers about shorter playoffs for old-timers count double here, as the first round is when you get the easiest wins, but still very impressive to be ahead of Shaq and Hakeem here).

I stuck to cumulative metrics above not because they're the best way to evaluate players (they're not), but rather to illustrate that even if we choose the method that is most harmed by a lack of longevity, LeBron can still hold his own. If we look at per-minute and per-possession numbers to look directly at the level of play LeBron is giving you while he's on the court, nobody else can really compete. No matter what aspect you look at, LeBron is as good as anyone.

Box score statistics: averages of 28-7-7 per game on .580 TS% in a very slow era over his last 10 years (excluding only rookie year), with very steady production year-to-year other than steadily increasing shooting efficiency. Four of the top 11 years in WS/48, and Jordan and Kareem have six of the other seven. Four of the top 11 seasons in PER, and only Wilt compares among candidates here. Wilt's got all sorts of questions about whether box score stats truly represent his impact, though, which applies doubly with PER's overrating of high usage. Shaq is the only other player who can compare in that area. If you prefer career averages, LeBron is 5th overall in WS/48 (behind only Wilt among candidates here), and 2nd in PER (behind Jordan, and only by .1 points). Those numbers are boosted by not yet including a decline phase, but LeBron has such a huge lead it's hard to imagine him falling far at all, especially when we see that his peak and prime is so much higher than almost everyone else.

Plus-Minus data: RAPM and similar metrics have all consistently had LeBron as on par with KG and Shaq as the very best players of the era. His peak is as high as anyone, and sustained over many years. Even some multi-year samples that include a lot of pre-prime LeBron and exclude some of his best years (i.e. the 02-11 RAPM on Colts' site) has LeBron as the #1 player of the era, with a 1-point lead over his only challenger in KG and a 3-point lead over Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, Wade, and Nash, even with a sample just about perfect for grabbing their primes and little else. Data from his (rare) missed games in Cleveland and consistently great raw on-off numbers only back this conclusion up. The eye test, while not computationally as powerful as RAPM, can also tell that LeBron's impact would hold up beyond basic stats. He's an excellent passer, and spaces the floor very well (especially when at the four), two of the most important things for +/- data that may slip through the box score. In contrast to Wilt, who was known for chasing stats above all else, LeBron's defining trait might be "making the right play", rejecting the hero-ball narrative and getting his teammates involved, even with the game on the line.

Defense: This is harder to measure than some of the other stuff, and LeBron is obviously not Hakeem/Duncan level here, but he's still one of the great perimeter defenders of all time. By every measure I've seen, whether in the box score, plus-minus data, or popular acclaim, LeBron rates out very well. His size and athleticism make him very versatile, and without that versatility from him (and, to a lesser degree, Wade), I doubt the Heat's trapping style would work at all. I rate LeBron's defense as similar to Jordan or Kareem, Shaq, and the second or third tier of defensive bigs, and it's in that half of the game that he really separates himself from Magic and Bird, average at best players on that end.

Playoff performance: This is one area detractors harp on with narrative-based attacks, but even with a couple hiccups (like everyone has once you've ranked Jordan and Russell), LeBron's performance is as good as anyone's. He won two finals MVPs in very convincing fashion, and was the best individual player in this year's finals, too (admittedly, this was in much less convincing fashion). He's third in career playoff WS/48 and PER, behind only Jordan and Mikan in both cases. I don't have his numbers in elimination games at my fingertips, but I've seen them posted many times, and they are incredible. He might be the all-time leader in PPG in elimination games, or behind only Jordan, if I recall correctly.

Off-court issues: LeBron has been basically a model citizen in this regard. Some fans perceive him as having a large ego and judge him harshly for it, but in terms of building a camaraderie among teammates and a happy environment, LeBron is excellent here. The chemistry in Cleveland and Miami were both clear even to outside observers, and the teams just loved playing together. This isn't a super important category (unless you really screw it up), but there are no concerns here for LeBron. If you're going to hold leaving as a free agent and going to Miami against him, then you better knock Oscar Robertson a long way down your rankings , as he's responsible for enabling decades of such behavior with his lawsuit.

Clutch Performance: Part of this is covered in his playoff performances, and another part is about how he performs in late-game situations. Some fans knocked him for this due to his famously passing up some shots to get teammates wide-open threes on the final possessions of the game. The evidence just doesn't back them up, though. What's crazy is, I want to say they're wrong because "hero ball doesn't work; you should just make the right basketball play and find the open man", but that's not entirely accurate. It's more like "Hero ball doesn't work, unless you have LeBron". League efficiency tends to go down in those scenarios, but LeBron's shown a propensity for incredible clutch performances over the years. 82games has been tracking clutch stats for the past six years, with clutch defined as "4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points". By their numbers, in 08-09 LeBron averaged 55.9 points, 14.3 rebounds, and 12.6 assists per 48 minutes of clutch time, on .556/.421/.85 shooting splits (.693 TS%). Cleveland outscored their opponents by 103 points in 111 minutes of clutch time that year, or +45 per 48 minutes. In 09-10, he averaged 66.1-15.9-8.3-3.2-3.2 per 48, on .488/.340/.80 shooting (.630 TS%). Cleveland outscored their opponents by 116 points over 151 minutes in those situations, or +37 over 48 minutes. After relative down years (by his standards), LeBron picked back up at a pretty great pace in 12-13, when he averaged 38.7-15.2-14.9 per 48, on .442/.280/.76 shooting (.555 TS%). While the individual numbers aren't as crazy, Miami outscored opponents by 125 points over 161 minutes of clutch time with LeBron, or +37 per 48 minutes, and this was a big factor in their 26-game winning streak. They could basically take it easy for much of the game, then turn it on in the second half if they needed to and overcome any deficit they might've accrued. I generally don't believe there's much merit to clutch performances, but this is stuff that just should not be possible. 66 points per 48 on .630 TS% for a slow team in the modern NBA, in the most important time of the game? Outscoring opponents by about three or four times as much per minute as the best season-long marks in NBA history, entirely in game-deciding moments? If anyone tries to tell you LeBron wasn't clutch before coming to Miami, or before the 2012 championship run, they could not be more wrong.

Team Success: While *only* having two titles might put him behind some of these guys, LeBron has led some very successful teams using very different styles. He led a 66-win, 8.68 SRS Cavs team in 2009 that almost always had two bigs on the floor and used their size to their advantage, with basketball-reference saying LeBron was at SF 74% of the time. The team had a +10.0 efficiency differential, which actually increased to +15.0 with LeBron on the floor (compared to -6.2 while he sat, a net difference of 21.2 points). He went to Miami, and peaked there with a 66-win, 7.03 SRS team in 2013. That team was all about surrounding LeBron with shooters and spacing the floor, and used LeBron at PF in 82% of his minutes (and at C in another 9%). Their +8.6 efficiency differential increased to +13.2 with LeBron on the floor, compared to -2.1 when he sat (a net difference of 15.3 points). That's very impressive versatility, leading two entirely different 66-win teams, both as the unquestioned #1 man (and near-unanimous league MVP), and doing it in not only two different roles but at two different positions entirely.

One other thing I want to point out: it's obvious to the point of triviality to note that as we move forward in time, we have more information about every year. We go from just points-rebounds-assists box scores, to more complete versions with defensive stats and turnovers and split rebounding, then gain more and more play-by-play data, then Synergy stats and most recently SportVU data. We go from scrounging for any game footage we can find for an entire year to having literally every play directly and instantly available on video from the NBA.com play-by-play files. This information gain has a practical effect, and what it does is it removes uncertainty and gives us more confidence in our observations. When we're dealing with such ridiculous outliers as the players at the top of this list are, the size of the error bars in our estimates matters a lot. Due to the bell curve of talent, when we see a guy with limited information who seems to be, say, +8, it's far more likely that he's a true +6 who gains from our lack of information than a true +10 who is hurt by it. There are simply far more +6-level humans out there who can get lucky and be perceived as better than there are +10 guys who could get unlucky. In practical terms, what this means is, the more information I have about a player, the more I'll trust that he really was every bit as good as he seems to be. There's nobody we have more information on than modern-day players, and no matter how much new information is added to the table, LeBron's impact still holds up. That means a lot to me.

This is getting really long, far more than I intended to write, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like LeBron has the most complete case of any candidate left. For those who don't have him this high, I'll just ask: what more do you want? Greater longevity beyond the Bird/Magic/Jordan level? Is his level of play while active not high enough? Does he have some flaw that I'm not covering that knocks him down? I really don't see why he hasn't gotten more consideration to this point.

My vote for #4 is LeBron James.

Well said. No one has responded to my question of 'why Magic/Bird over LeBron?'. I hope there is an answer in the next thread and LeBron gets stronger consideration. But, assuming Wilt gets voted in here, Shaq's momentum seems pretty strong so hopefully the sixth slot for number 6.

For me it comes down to one thing: How many rings could you get with Lebron leading your team. Now his prime is great but prior to 08 you definitely aren't winning a ring with Lebron. In 08 he wouldn't win going off his playoff performance. In 09 that's year one he could win. 2010 he seemingly gave up on his team Can't give you that year as great as the regular season was. 2011... we already know the answer. And then there's the last 3 years. Basically Lebron as great as his numbers were is very Wilt-like. In 2011 he proved everyone saying he couldn't win right. It's hard for me to look at his Cleveland career and say he could get those teams to a win if they were adequate because he got on a great team and made them lose. If they had Battier instead of Lebron in that series Wade would've got the W.

Basically I highly value postseason performance and Lebron is lacking compared to the others on my radar.

[PaulieWal]

For me it comes down to one thing: How many rings could you get with Lebron leading your team. Now his prime is great but prior to 08 you definitely aren't winning a ring with Lebron. In 08 he wouldn't win going off his playoff performance. In 09 that's year one he could win. 2010 he seemingly gave up on his team Can't give you that year as great as the regular season was. 2011... we already know the answer. And then there's the last 3 years. Basically Lebron as great as his numbers were is very Wilt-like. In 2011 he proved everyone saying he couldn't win right. It's hard for me to look at his Cleveland career and say he could get those teams to a win if they were adequate because he got on a great team and made them lose. If they had Battier instead of Lebron in that series Wade would've got the W.

Basically I highly value postseason performance and Lebron is lacking compared to the others on my radar.

I can't tell if this was a serious response. I will address few of the points:

The 'He quit' narrative for the 2010 series is so overblown and has taken a life of its own, thanks to the media. He had a bad game 5 and had problems with turnovers but other than that had a fine series overall. What that series did more than anything else is exposed Cleveland's lack of a reliable second scoring option when Doc/Celts focused their entire defense towards LeBron.

He couldn't win the right way in 2011? What? They did just fine in the playoffs and then struggled against the Mavs. That's a 6 game sample size. LeBron does deserve blame and criticism for that series but the Mavs also played him perfectly. Let's give them credit. LeBron also willingly deferred to a fault to Wade and his own weaknesses got exposed which prompted him to work more on his game.

As for Miami winning with Battier, I am not even going to bother addressing that.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Let's start with that latter. As I've pointed out, RAPM isn't a standalone measure of "goodness". On the other hand, it is the best measure we currently have to tie a team's performance to a certain player that doesn't involve using the box score. The box score has its uses as well, but I'm one that likes to keep them as separate measures. But I digress. This is also the best measure that we have for gauging a player's defensive impact, since so much of defense isn't covered in the box scores.

Thus, if someone says Kobe Bryant was an "elite" defender early in his career, I would expect there to be some sign of it in the RAPM studies. I'm not saying that he needed to measure out as well as the ATG bigs in order to impress me, but there have been LOTS of good defensive wings whose impact shows up clearly in the RAPM data. Shane Battier, Ron Artest, Luol Deng, Eddie Jones, Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Andre Iguodala and Manu Ginobili are all wings that show up among the top-52 players in Doc MJ's normalized data set. Each of them had very clear defensive impact from the wing, on the order of + 3.2 - +4.3 on that scale in their 5-year defensive peaks.

No offence, but RAPM is based on rotation trends, and doesn't show impact. The defensive wings you named are all specialist who don't play heavy minutes and are part of defensive-mind lineups. I don't get the reasoning of taking 7-8 mins that a star is on the bench, and comparing it to the 36-37 he's on court as if the situations are equal. Guys like Kobe/Wade are listed as equal to Derek Fisher for godsake.

Ask yourself, was Rashard a more impactful defender than Dwight in 2009? Because Lewis was 2.6, and Dwight (DPOY, weak defensive cast, #1 DRtg for Orl) was only 2. Someone is gonna have to explain why RAPM is legit, because time and time again we see bizarre yearly results. BTW, Odom was 3.9 on defense.....so um, how would Orlando have done with him anchoring the defense?

[E-Balla]

For me it comes down to one thing: How many rings could you get with Lebron leading your team. Now his prime is great but prior to 08 you definitely aren't winning a ring with Lebron. In 08 he wouldn't win going off his playoff performance. In 09 that's year one he could win. 2010 he seemingly gave up on his team Can't give you that year as great as the regular season was. 2011... we already know the answer. And then there's the last 3 years. Basically Lebron as great as his numbers were is very Wilt-like. In 2011 he proved everyone saying he couldn't win right. It's hard for me to look at his Cleveland career and say he could get those teams to a win if they were adequate because he got on a great team and made them lose. If they had Battier instead of Lebron in that series Wade would've got the W.

Basically I highly value postseason performance and Lebron is lacking compared to the others on my radar.

I can't tell if this was a serious response. I will address few of the points:

The 'He quit' narrative for the 2010 series is so overblown and has taken a life of its own, thanks to the media. He had a bad game 5 and had problems with turnovers but other than that had a fine series overall. What that series did more than anything else is exposed Cleveland's lack of a reliable second scoring option when Doc/Celts focused their entire defense towards LeBron.

DO you remember the series? He didn't just play bad he stopped shooting the ball. In games 1, 2, and 3 Lebron attacked. In games 1 and 3 he was effective, in game 2 not so much but I would never say anything bad about how he played if he played like game 2 in games 4, 5, and 6. Game 5 wasn't a blowout until the third quarter and Lebron was nowhere to be found. In game 6 he made 1 easy dunk after the 3 threes he hit in the start of the fourth and I'm pretty sure it's the only shot he attempted in the last 9 minutes of the 4th quarter of a close elimination game. At the time I chalked it up to that injury they said he had (on his off hand elbow) but it was fishy to say the least. And you can say he lacked a reliable second scoring option but I'm sure Shaq was saying the same thing in game 5 and Mo WIlliams and his 20 at half in game 6 say otherwise. Lebron's support was not that bad that series especially considering the defense they played on Boston. I don't really see a major difference between that team and Duncan's support in 02-03. Either way overall Lebron didn't play good. He had 2 great games (wins) and 4 horrid games (all losses).

He couldn't win the right way in 2011? What? They did just fine in the playoffs and then struggled against the Mavs. That's a 6 game sample size. LeBron does deserve blame and criticism for that series but the Mavs also played him perfectly. Let's give them credit. LeBron also willingly deferred to a fault to Wade and his own weaknesses got exposed which prompted him to work more on his game.

As for Miami winning with Battier, I am not even going to bother addressing that.

The Mavs played him perfectly? You mean stopping the drive? You mean having Jason Kidd check him? Come on man. Dallas didn't play Lebron any different from how they played Wade (he spent more time with Marion but that's it) and Wade still showed up while Lebron didn't. Anyone who doesn't see Lebron as a massive net negative in that series needs to rewatch those games and watch Lebron (if you could find him). At least Battier would make the open shot and play defense.

[colts18]

Here are the numbers when Shaq and KG went head to head in 2003 and 2004. KG had HCA in both series but was outplayed by Shaq. This is peak KG in his 2 best seasons vs out of peak Shaq.

(Numbers per 40 minutes):
KG: 25-14-5, 3 TOV, 1 blk, .529 TS%, 23.6 PER, 103 O rating, 0.130 WS/48
Shaq: 24-15-3, 2 TOV, 3 blk, .551 TS%, 27.0 PER, 114 O rating, 0.227 WS/48

[ceiling raiser]

Let's start with that latter. As I've pointed out, RAPM isn't a standalone measure of "goodness". On the other hand, it is the best measure we currently have to tie a team's performance to a certain player that doesn't involve using the box score. The box score has its uses as well, but I'm one that likes to keep them as separate measures. But I digress. This is also the best measure that we have for gauging a player's defensive impact, since so much of defense isn't covered in the box scores.

Thus, if someone says Kobe Bryant was an "elite" defender early in his career, I would expect there to be some sign of it in the RAPM studies. I'm not saying that he needed to measure out as well as the ATG bigs in order to impress me, but there have been LOTS of good defensive wings whose impact shows up clearly in the RAPM data. Shane Battier, Ron Artest, Luol Deng, Eddie Jones, Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Andre Iguodala and Manu Ginobili are all wings that show up among the top-52 players in Doc MJ's normalized data set. Each of them had very clear defensive impact from the wing, on the order of + 3.2 - +4.3 on that scale in their 5-year defensive peaks.

No offence, but RAPM is based on rotation trends, and doesn't show impact. The defensive wings you named are all specialist who don't play heavy minutes and are part of defensive-mind lineups. I don't get the reasoning of taking 7-8 mins that a star is on the bench, and comparing it to the 36-37 he's on court as if the situations are equal. Guys like Kobe/Wade are listed as equal to Derek Fisher for godsake.

Ask yourself, was Rashard a more impactful defender than Dwight in 2009? Because Lewis was 2.6, and Dwight (DPOY, weak defensive cast, #1 DRtg for Orl) was only 2. Someone is gonna have to explain why RAPM is legit, because time and time again we see bizarre yearly results. BTW, Odom was 3.9 on defense.....so um, how would Orlando have done with him anchoring the defense?

1) It doesn't treat them as equal. RAPM finds coefficients for everybody simultaneously to minimize L2 norm, so your lineup and your opponents' lineup are both taken into account.

2) Why are you comparing Kobe/Wade to Fisher? RAPM tells you how well guys played in their respective roles. No reason to. Compare a role player to a star guard.

[PaulieWal]

The Mavs played him perfectly? You mean stopping the drive? You mean having Jason Kidd check him? Come on man. Dallas didn't play Lebron any different from how they played Wade (he spent more time with Marion but that's it) and Wade still showed up while Lebron didn't. Anyone who doesn't see Lebron as a massive net negative in that series needs to rewatch those games and watch Lebron (if you could find him). At least Battier would make the open shot and play defense.

Yes, they played him perfectly. They made him a passer. His jumper which was on against Chicago and Boston (specifically his 3 point shot) deserted him against Dallas. Dallas had several zone match-ups to contain LeBron (listen to Cuban talk about this himself). LeBron's lack of a post game gets overstated but he was not comfortable there at all and could not take advantage when the Mavs put Kidd or Barea on him (for a couple of possessions) . Plus, Spo played right into Carlisle's hands by putting LeBron on Terry and tiring him out. Engage in hyperbole all you want but LeBron still averaged 18/7/7 in that series and Battier isn't going to make Miami win no matter how well he played.

[DQuinn1575]

Wilt….as great as the numbers were, didn't have the same fundamentals and while others will say the coulda woulda shoulda's with him, it is all speculation to what the limited footage all shows us if we're being honest in compared to Shaq.

If I judged by fundamentals then these 2 lousy free throw shooters would not be in my Top 100.

I'm not judging by style points, or how they would fit in today's game. Nor am I trying to judge how LeBron would have done in the 60s.



There are a lot og guys in my Top 100 who wouldn't pass the fundamentals test- besides Wilt and Shaq I would add
Walt Frazier and Artis Gilmore right off the top of my head.

Shaq was pretty raw when he started, but improved his footwork and fundamentals while in the league.

Wilt's fundamentals were never great, but he was a decent ball-handler and passer.

[Doctor MJ]

My pre list had him at #5.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Did you put your list up on the thread?

No but since you ask and it seems relevant to the current discussion here was my too 10:

1 Russell
2 Jordan
3 Kareem
4 Garnett
5 Shaq
6 Duncan
7 Hakeem
8 LeBron
9 Magic
10 Bird


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

In relation to some of the other candidates and my KG vote:

Shaq - completely get people voting for him. My pre list had him at #5. Peak wise input him ahead of KG but I marvel at how close RAPM data has them and Shaq had loads of intangible negatives while KG is if anything the opposite.

And yeah I'm mentioning RAPM again but understand I wouldn't be where I am with KG if I saw things as so clear cut otherwise. Shaq is clearly better on offense while KG has it in defense and is also a superstar on offense. I question the ability of humans in general to tally up a holistic assessment with confidence when it means evaluating such different roles.

Do you think that KG has any playoff runs stronger than Shaq's 95, 98, 00, 01, and 02 playoff runs? If you go by PER, Shaq has 9 playoff runs higher than KG's best playoff run.

How many playoff runs do you think Shaq has better than KG's best run (2004)? How many of Shaq's playoff runs do you think is better than KG's 2nd best playoff run (2008)?

What you're basically saying is that you see a sustained prime from Shaq at a level above KG and that should be enough to give him the nod. Makes total sense I don't object at all.

There is however the factor of Shaq's toxic way of being to consider and that had real consequences to him actually helping his teams in his career. I don't consider that factor to be minor.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[ThaRegul8r]

Since the majority of your criteria seems to revolve around winning, how do you judge players who simply weren't fortunate enough to play with as much talent as others? Do you look at it from a relative standpoint of, "ok this player did (or didn't do) all they could to help their team succeed given the cards they were dealt"? Winning ultimately matters, but I think context can by applied in many cases where players fall short.

The criteria revolves around helping your team win. The object of the game is to help your team win. When a player is drafted, he's drafted so that he can help that team win. When a player is signed, he's signed so that he can help that team win. When a player is scouted, he's scouted because the scouts hope to find in him a player who can help their team win. That's the bottom line. Player's aren't being paid millions of dollars a year for nothing.

It's funny that you say this though, because after some thought, I actually refined and added to my criteria last night. This may not be final, as there may be something else I might have overlooked, but, for now, here are my revisions:

Spoiler:

* * * UPDATED CRITERIA AS OF 7/6/14 * * *

1. The ability to integrate oneself and whatever respective abilities one brings to the table with the rest of the players on one’s team in order to enhance the whole for the facilitation of the ultimate object of winning, and the dedication to employ these abilities for the effectuation of said purpose.

The means by which a player helps his team are inconsequential. What is important is the end. The player in question should use whatever skills he brings to the table to help his team win. As different players have different abilities, the means employed will vary. The only thing that matters are results. No one way of helping one’s team is inherently valued more than another.

2. The ability to both identify what the team needs at any given moment in order to realize the ultimate object of winning and provide it.

3. The possession of the rational self-interest to put ego aside in order to do #1 and #2, disregarding the opinions of irrelevant others who are not on the team and so have no effect on the team’s success.

4. The ability to block out distractions and anything irrelevant to the maximization of the team’s chances of victory.

A player focusing on anything other than helping his team will receive a lower evaluation. Basketball is a job like any other, and a player’s job is to help bring his team wins just as a salesman’s job is to make sales for his company. Nothing else matters or is relevant. Basketball players are grown men who make choices. They have the right to make whatever choice they want, but with action comes consequence. That choice they make will be honored and they will be evaluated on the basis of that choice, whether it’s beneficial or detrimental to the team’s chances of winning.

5. The ability to raise one’s game during big games and crucial moments in order to bring about the ultimate objective of winning, and the mental fortitude to do so.

6. Statistics are team-dependent. Doing what is needed in order for the team to win may require sacrificing individual statistics. There will be no penality levied for doing so, nor will a player’s evaluation be lowered for putting the needs of the team above his own individual statistics. It shows he has the right priority.

7. Rings are only relevant so far as the player’s contribution to his team winning the title that year. Mitch Richmond won an NBA championship as a member of the Los Angeles Lakers in 2002, but played all of four minutes that postseason. Thus, the ring that he won is as irrelevant as he was to the Lakers that year. He gets no boost against a ringless player. Neither does a player who bandwagons his way to a ring. Also known as the Anti-Horry Clause.

8. The only thing of relevance is how a player helps his team win, which means the player in question’s performance will be evaluated. If that player has a poor performance and another player picks up the slack to help his team win, then that player receives no bonus for his teammate bailing him out. Conversely, just as a doctor can try to the best of his ability to help keep a patient alive but fail, so can a player try to the best of his ability to help his team win but ultimately fail. His individual performance will be evaluated, and if he didn’t help his team lose, he will incur no penalty. However, if he was instrumental in his own team’s defeat, he will be penalized accordingly.

9. Awards do not factor into the selection process as they’re meaningless as far as a player helping his team win is concerned. Awards are not needed in order to know how much a player helped his team win. For instance, looking at the 1970 NBA Finals, awards are not necessary to know that Walt Frazier made the biggest contribution to help his team win, and thus he is evaluated accordingly. That he didn’t actually win an award is meaningless.

Another example is All-Star selections. There are only 12 spots available, so not everyone who plays All-Star caliber ball will make it on the team. And the starting lineup is literally a popularity contest. Therefore, what would be important is whether a player played All-Star caliber ball in a given season, not whether he was selected to a team with limited spots from which deserving players will always be excluded. An All-Star selection is not needed in order to determine if a player played at an All-Star level. The latter is more important than the former. Performance > awards.

10. The object of the game is to help your team win. In lieu of actually achieving the objective, helping your team get as close to it as possible. Helping your team get to the semifinals > losing in the opening round; helping your team get to the conference finals > losing in the semifinals; helping your team get to the Finals > losing in the conference finals. Getting closer to the objective goal of winning is always a positive. Finishing farther away from it is always a negative. Helping your team get to the Finals but losing is always better than losing in an earlier round.

11. A player does not cease to help his team win after passing his peak/prime. He may not be able to make as large a contribution as he formerly did due to age, but continuing to contribute to team wins to the extent one is able is still valuable to the team he plays for and helps the team obtain the ultimate objective. A player’s career consists of more than just his peak, as he won’t be at his peak for his entire career. Only seasons in which a player helped his team win will be considered in the overall evaluation.

My criteria is subject to change as I think more or if I see something that I hadn't taken into account, but that's as it stands now.

[Doctor MJ]

On the LeBron talk:

I can get it if he starts getting votes after this thread. I personally see him as being a step below Jordan, Russell, Wilt and Kareem, but with everyone else he's right there. What he lacks in career longevity he makes up for in peak longevity: an odd term, but the meaning is that he has so many seasons that are all insanely dominant and are arguably just as good as each other to be considered for his peak.

09, 10, 12, 13, 14: how many players left on the board have five seasons at that level? Wilt, yes. Bird, maybe? Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Kobe, Magic: none of them have this kind of extended peak.

I'd say 87-91 Magic, 06-10 Kobe, 84-88 Bird, 95/00-03 Shaq all can claim that. But still, its very impressive.

Hakeem - is the guy I always wonder if I should rank higher. Completely get why he's so compelling. But if not for the play during his title runs is anyone even talking about him now? I worry with him that perception of him before that turning point might have been right.

People have already made great points in Hakeem but I look forward to more. In particular if someone could up my confidence in his regular offensive game. As some know I'm not actually a big fan of having your big volume score unless he's Shaq. Maybe people can make good points about Hakeem's day in day out offensive impact and why it's more than the numbers suggest.

In regards to Hakeem vs KG, wouldn't you say Hakeem's offensive impact was on par with KG(way better in the playoffs), and his defensive impact was greater? For example, Hakeem anchored 8 teams that had a Top 5 DRtg. KG didn't anchor a single Top 5 defense until he went to Boston in 2008.

Impactwise, how did Prime KG miss the playoffs 3 years in a row. The 2005 Wolves were #15 in DRtg, the 2006 Wolves were #10, and the 2007 Wolves were a dismal #21. Offensively, the 2005 Wolves were #6 ORtg(very good)...but then Spreewell left to feed his family, along with Cassell, and the Wolves were #28 in ORtg. In 2007, the Wolves were #25 in ORtg.

KG is another guy who's box scores don't translate very well to team impact for me. Outside of RAPM, can practical results from KG's impact been shown to be better than Hakeem impact?

I think Hakeem's peak offense surpasses KGs but it's not clear to me that such was the
Case consistently in his prime.

I consider KGs most noteworthy defensive attribute to be a GOAT level defensive floor general and I've yet to see anything to indicate I should see Hakeem on that level. I might yet but I would never assume such a thing.

to the statements about Garnett not always being able I lead teams to contention, well, I suppose that I consider it a
Central thesis that that is a limitation of players in general.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[E-Balla]

The Mavs played him perfectly? You mean stopping the drive? You mean having Jason Kidd check him? Come on man. Dallas didn't play Lebron any different from how they played Wade (he spent more time with Marion but that's it) and Wade still showed up while Lebron didn't. Anyone who doesn't see Lebron as a massive net negative in that series needs to rewatch those games and watch Lebron (if you could find him). At least Battier would make the open shot and play defense.

Yes, they played him perfectly. They made him a passer. His jumper which was on against Chicago and Boston (specifically his 3 point shot) deserted him against Dallas. Dallas had several zone match-ups to contain LeBron (listen to Cuban talk about this himself). LeBron's lack of a post game gets overstated but he was not comfortable there at all and could not take advantage when the Mavs put Kidd or Barea on him (for a couple of possessions) . Plus, Spo played right into Carlisle's hands by putting LeBron on Terry and tiring him out. Engage in hyperbole all you want but LeBron still averaged 18/7/7 in that series and Battier isn't going to make Miami win no matter how well he played.

Per 36 Lebron averaged 14.7/5.9/5.6/. He had a 23 USG rate. He wasn't forced to be a passer he just didn't touch the ball.
Lebron shot 9/28 from deep against Dallas (32%). He was a 33% shooter in the regular season (basically his shot wasn't off it was regular). In +/- Wade was -6 and Bosh was -7. Lebron was -36 (next closest was Joel Anthony at -20). His median was -5.5 while Bosh was +0.5 and Wade was +1.0. By all metrics Lebron was a below average player that series (my bad not all. He had a 16 PER).

Lebron was a -36 overall in a series lost by 16 points meaning they were +20 when he wasn't on the floor (in 4.4 mpg).

Statistically if we can agree that 2011 Battier was above average (I think he was) the argument can be made that Dallas would've lost in 5 or 6 the way Wade was playing (and I believe Wade would've done it).

Now Dallas played great defense but they hardly did anything new. We all knew and know (because it still worked for San Antonio 2 years later until Lebron remembered who he was) you just need to pack the paint against Lebron. Dallas took it a step further and guarded him like others used to do Dirk (instead of wasting a great defender on him use a small guard because he can't post them up). If anything this is confirming there were fatal flaws in his game that could completely render him useless. Not really helping Lebron to be on that Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem/Magic level is it?

[An Unbiased Fan]

1) It doesn't treat them as equal. RAPM finds coefficients for everybody simultaneously to minimize L2 norm, so your lineup and your opponents' lineup are both taken into account.

2) Why are you comparing Kobe/Wade to Fisher? RAPM tells you how well guys played in their respective roles. No reason to. Compare a role player to a star guard.

1) But the context is different from the mins a guy like Kobe spends on court vs off court. We're talking about maybe a 5-6 min 2nd & 4th quarter strecth where its bench vs bench, in comparison to 36 mins of Kobe on court vs starters. Nevermind the lineup fluctuations whcih only deepens the endless noise. RAPM's problem has always been its very premise.

2) OK, What about Vlade Divac being rated a better defender than Dwight? Was 09 Odom a better defender than 09 Lebron like RAPM suggests? Was 2009 Billups a big negative on defense, and 09 Fisher a big plus?

When RAPM first came about, its backers openly said it shouldn't be used in comparisons. But over the years thats exactly what's happened. Even more, the use of RAPM seems inconsistent & haphazard, which only makes it more questionable. Duncan for instance has better RAPM numbers than KG, yet....I see RAPM as a the major reasoning for KG at #4. For me there's a disconnect, especially when most of the list don't have RAPM numbers to compare. What if we had RAPM stats on MJ and his trend was the same as Kobe/Wade? Would that make him less of a player?

Every other stat has direct correlations we can quantify. RAPM has never show correlation to actual impact.

[Purch]

And that's only speaking about the games I've uploaded. I've literally sat through hours upon hours of Garnett post seasons performances, which is the reason why I'm comfortable saying that he hasn't impressed me enough to say that he has a top 10 impact on the game.

Even the 4 of his best scoring games I uploaded (I might actually add some more later this summer from my collection) left me disappointed in his ability to change the flow of the game. I remember he'd be in the 4th quater of the game, whiles a team is going on a big run, and rather than take the ball to the hole, he'd keep on forcing mid range shots even when it wasn't falling even when he was being played 1 on 1. Or he'd get pushed out of position when his team needed to stop a run, and settle for a bad fade away. What I remember being impressed by most by him, whiles breaking down his footage, was always his ability to defend players off the dribble and on the perimeter. But specifically in both the Laker series from 03 and from 04 I found myself underwhelmed by his Rim protection .

I think what makes Kobe unique is that different parts of his game peaked at different times. Early in his career his defense was elite but the effort on that end of the floor fell off toward the end of the three peat. Then his athletic/scoring peak was from 05-07 in my eyes. Whiles his passing, post game and three point peak came from 08-10 if I'm remembering correctly. Sometimes it almost seems like different players.

I'm hoping that this becomes the start of a good conversation, because there's a lot here to work with that I applaud and other that I'd like to rebut. A couple of notes before I get started:

1) In the process of this response I may speak of general trends of thought on Kobe and Garnett that perhaps you don't ascribe to. If I do, then consider that part of my post as not specifically for you.

2) Warning! This post will use RAPM as evidence

Let's start with that latter. As I've pointed out, RAPM isn't a standalone measure of "goodness". On the other hand, it is the best measure we currently have to tie a team's performance to a certain player that doesn't involve using the box score. The box score has its uses as well, but I'm one that likes to keep them as separate measures. But I digress. This is also the best measure that we have for gauging a player's defensive impact, since so much of defense isn't covered in the box scores.

Thus, if someone says Kobe Bryant was an "elite" defender early in his career, I would expect there to be some sign of it in the RAPM studies. I'm not saying that he needed to measure out as well as the ATG bigs in order to impress me, but there have been LOTS of good defensive wings whose impact shows up clearly in the RAPM data. Shane Battier, Ron Artest, Luol Deng, Eddie Jones, Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Andre Iguodala and Manu Ginobili are all wings that show up among the top-52 players in Doc MJ's normalized data set. Each of them had very clear defensive impact from the wing, on the order of + 3.2 - +4.3 on that scale in their 5-year defensive peaks.

Kobe measured out at 292nd on the defensive list, with a 5-year peak defensive impact of less than 1 point.

Why would Kobe's defensive RAPM scores be so much smaller than expected, even in his early years? Is it a case of the RAPM approach missing it? That's possible, but it seems unlikely that the stat would unfairly single out Kobe and not the other good wing defenders that I mentioned. So, what might be another cause?

Well, speaking from my own observations, Kobe has definite strengths and weaknesses as a defender. One of his major strengths is his ability to play on-ball, 1-on-1 defense when he is motivated to. His size/athletic ability/competitiveness streak allows him to really bulldog any perimeter player that has the ball and challenges him. On the other hand, throughout his career (not just later) he has the tendency to conserve energy on defense so that he could use that energy for offense. He is not noted for consistently fighting through screens, nor is he known for making excellent defensive and help rotations. If anything, Kobe's off-ball defense has been noted as an area where he ball-watches more than putting in maximum team effort.

So, how do I interpret the defensive RAPM results in the face of my Kobe scouting report? I interpret it that Kobe's defensive approach is not one that produces measurable impact in his team's defensive efforts. But what the approach DOES do is really pop on screen. People won't remember the missed rotation or the screen that he don't fight through, but they WILL remember his mano-a-mano duel with MVP Iverson. They WILL remember when he blocked LeBron's shot in an All Star game.

To me, Kobe's defense is a good example for why sometimes stats like RAPM can do a better job of evaluating impact than our eye-test. For one thing, we don't always give proper weight to the individual acts on the court that are the most important. And for another, we all just miss a lot of the action.

The irony here, and what sparked this (increasingly wordy) response to your two posts, is that Garnett tends to be the exact opposite of Kobe in this respect. Many observers watch Garnett play, and come away unimpressed. It's funny that you referenced KG's 33-point game game 5 against the Pistons in the 2008 playoffs, because I had what (to me) was a crazy exchange with a Celtics fan on a different message board about that game in real time. True story, this was the gist of the exchange:

Celtics fan: Man, KG had pretty numbers but he really didn't give us much on offense.

Me: Wait, he led all scorers with 33 points.

Celtics fan: Yeah, but they were low impact points. He wasn't there down the stretch.

Me: Hold on, he led all scorers with 10 points in the 4th quarter!

Celtics fan: Yeah, but those came early. He didn't really do anything in crunch time.

Me: He hit the game-sealing free throws with 2 seconds left! Are you sure we watched the same game?

Focus: Like Kobe's defense, Garnett also has strengths and weaknesses on offense. You point out that he isn't always aggressive as you would like. That you would like to see him drive or post more instead of settling for jumpers. And those are fair (and oft levied) criticisms. On the flip side, Garnett has offensive strengths as well. He is one of the better mid-range shooters the position has ever seen. He is both an excellent and a willing passer. He is very good at drawing defensive attention and making the pass (or the pass-that-leads-to-the-pass) that gets a teammate an open shot. He's an enthusiastic (and sometimes illegal) pick setter. He knows where his teammates should be, and if they aren't there he communicates it to them.

And if we complete the mirror analysis to what we did with Kobe's defense, Garnett's offense DOES measure out as elite using offensive RAPM studies. He is 12th overall on DocMJ's normalized offensive RAPM rankings in terms of 5-year peak, and in the top-5 among big men with a 5-year peak of +5.4 on offense. Shaq (+7.6) and Dirk (+7.0) are the only two bigs with a convincingly higher mark than KG's on offense.

Just like Kobe's defense, one possible reason for the RAPM mark to be counter-intuitive is that for some reason the stat just likes Garnett in particular. Again, this is exceedingly unlikely. Perhaps it is too reliant on the regular season, as Ardee and Ryoga allege...but as I pointed out before, I'm almost positive that the postseason is weighted heavier in RAPM studies than the regular season, and also KG's on/off +/- scores appear to be BETTER in the postseason than they are in the regular season. So I don't see any indication that KG's postseasons would hurt his RAPM marks. So, then, I interpret the combination of evidence to suggest that KG tends to have a much larger positive impact than most observers seem to realize because again, his strengths aren't as easily observed as his perceived weaknesses and the ratio of his strengths vs his weaknesses isn't properly weighted.

Summary: In the examples of Kobe's defense and KG's offense, it appears to me that Kobe's defense has a tendency to LOOK like it should be more impactful than it is. On the other hand, it seems to me that KG's offense has a tendency to not appear to be as strong as it is. Not coincidentally, Kobe's defensive strength is his 1-on-1 on-ball defensive approach, and KG's perceived weakness on offense is his 1-on-1 scoring. It reminds me of a quote from Bill Russell that I've seen posted here before:

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?

I think the common tendency in the eye test is to focus more on the 3 minutes than the other 45, especially the 1-on-1 parts. And don't get me wrong, what happens in that 3 minutes is extremely important, and having the ability to go mano a mano on either offense or defense is a wonderful talent that certainly helps. But the game is so, so much more than just 1-on-1 skills, and I don't think our mindsets have caught up with that/made the appropriate weighting when evaluating 1-on-1 skills compared to the total package.

Personally, I've never used Per or +\- stats because I feel it's impossible to isolate a players impact in the course of 48 minutes in a 5 on 5 game. The only advanced stat I've found useful for individual evaluation is True shooting %. I have yet to find stats that effectivly account for: "

Strength of screens a big will set (Becomes important when evaluating the impact a player has on their team, because bigs who set stronger screens allow their playmakers to create space to operate)

Their passing ability out of double teams

Abilty to make the right play even with the shot clock running down

Their ability to alter the defensive gameplay of a team

Their Abilty to move to the right spot on the court both offensively and defensively

Their Abilty to fight for position and not be pushed around Inside

Their Abilty to make quick and smart plays with the ball

Their ability to create space

And there's so many more things that I feel gets left out when you try to package a players overall impact on the game into something like a +\- stat


Now in reference to the eye test, I think you're putting all watching of game footage on equal footing. Personally I have two youtube channels with a lot of nba games, and I own a large amount of game footage. What separates simply watching a game, from going through footage for the evaluation of one player is the process. When I went through the KG footage I used for the videos, it wasn't simply about the end result on a possesion, or even the Imidiate cause of a good or bad possesion. When I examine game footage It's about what a player has done on a possesion that positively, neutrally or negatively impacted a particular possesion.

Back in the day I would literally take a piece of paper, focus in on a particular player and write how they effected each possesion .

So it would look like this

Offense Possesion #1- Garnett deflects tip ball to teammate , jogs up the court, catches the ball in the high post, passesthe ball to Cassell -whiles coming up to set the screen- rolls to the basket hard, draws in the defense enough
to give Cassell the room for an open jumpshot

Defensive possesion #1- Garnett stays attached to Webbers body in the post, Garnett drawn into pick and roll defensive situation at the top of the key , whiles guarding Chris Webber. Garnett goes over the screen and makes the correct switch on to Bibby. Bibby calls for an isolation-As a result Kg takes a defensive stance and uses his long arms to try and prevent penetration, Bibby tries to attack the rim but Garnett cuts him off,Bibby then takes a step back three that Garnett comes back out to contest.


When you break down their activity on a possesion by possesion basis you start to really understand the little things that make up a players DNA.

When you tell me that +\- indicates that Garnett is an elite offensive player (in regards to the players he's being compared to) It gives me even less incentive to take the stat as seriously as a lot of the other posters. Here's how I think of Kg's offense

-Elite passer/playmaker of any area on the floor
-Great/smart screen setter
-Excellent mid range shooter (catch and shoot, contested, off the dribble)
-Doesn't play in the low post enough to maximize post abilities
-pushed out of the post to easily
-Is perfectly willing to settle for contested long mid range shots
-Not impressed by his offensive rounding ability
-Extremly impressed by his point guard abilities
-Impressed by his Abilty to create space using off the ball movement
-Not impressed by how easily it seems for playoff defenses to disrupt his scoring rhythm
- Hes not the kind of player to provide a scoring boost consistently when his team is down in the playoffs

There's Probally more.. But when I've observed these things it makes me think that KG was elite offensively when compared to the league as a whole.. But when it comes to the players he's compared to in the top 15 he comes up short with his impact on that end of the floor.


The reason I value Kobe's 1 on 1 defense so highly, is because I consider the early 2000's the peak of isolation basketball. During the early 2000's due to the combination of zone rules and Handchecking, you had this defensive environment that made it so difficult to score, that you had all these 1 on 1 scorers making a name for themselves. So it's not that I consider 1 on 1 defense more valuable than help defense... I simply feel that 1 on 1 defense was more valuable In the early part of the decade before these complex team defenses were developed, and it was in this era that Kobe peaked defensively. But make no mistake about it, Kobe's quick hands, great foot speed, great anticipation and his intensity made him a great defender before that era ended with the rule changes.

[colts18]

1) But the context is different from the mins a guy like Kobe spends on court vs off court. We're talking about maybe a 5-6 min 2nd & 4th quarter strecth where its bench vs bench, in comparison to 36 mins of Kobe on court vs starters. Nevermind the lineup fluctuations whcih only deepens the endless noise. RAPM's problem has always been its very premise.

What good offensive players was prime Kobe shutting/slowing down in the playoffs?

[PaulieWal]

snip....

I already said he had a horrible Finals, no one is arguing that. I was specifically talking about his 3 point shot deserting him against Dallas when he was shooting 44% against Boston and 39% against the Bulls from 3. Against the Dallas as they zoned him up he did not have outside shooting to bail him out. Wade already had a great Finals and he shared the floor with Dallas paying a lot of attention to LeBron. If there is no LeBron, Wade gets a lot more defensive attention and that may or may not translate into Wade playing even better. Replacing LeBron with Battier doesn't bring Miami close to a title. That's quite laughable.

The most important thing for me is that he improved his game (post game and specifically shooting) and used those to win rings in 12/13. His 3 point shooting has improved gradually and has been consistently 36%+ over the last 3 years.