RealGM Top 100 List #11

[Texas Chuck]

Lot of players to consider for this spot. Been the toughest vote for me in terms of number of worthy candidates.

Karl Malone -- extraordinary longevity and ironman. KG has been getting much deserved love for longevity and Mailman played 5K more minutes in the RS and nearly 3k more in the PS. And he was at minimum a solid contributor in every season he played. A good defender and a great scorer, rebounder, and passer. Made the playoffs every single year of his career. Was willing to stay and play in SLC essentially his entire career. Gets hurt some by the narrative of his playoff play but 25/11/3 on 46%FG and 74%FT shooting while being a good defender as career numbers(not just prime) is absurdly good. Maybe the player who gets the biggest bum rap by the combination of lack of data, narratives that are inaccurate, and just in general being a more unlikable player. Not a lot of kids outside Utah grew up wearing Malone jerseys.

David Robinson-- I believe the Admiral is the best player left on the board in terms of extended peak play. IMO he really is what KG is painted to be. An offensive and defensive anchor at the same time only I feel like he's a better defensive anchor(the team defenses certainly strongly suggest this) and a better offensive anchor(team offenses are close and the individual numbers all go to Robinson. Also hurt by the playoff narrative in a way that seems mostly unfair and unfairly weighted by one series in which peak Dream outplays him(not too much shame in that really).

Oscar Robertson -- The triple double thing while arbitrary in numbers showcases a brilliant all-around player. Its like the absurd Stock assists/steals numbers where there seems to be this pre-emptive backlash against him when no one is suggesting he is great based solely on this. While he's from an era many guys in this project dismiss with contempt, his body and style of play suggest little problems translating to the modern era and he was one of the two best guards in the world when he played and until Magic/Mike came around possibly the best ever(along with West)

Jerry West -- much the same as Oscar, his game suggests a strong ability to translate, great at all aspects of basketball, Mr Clutch, the logo. His basketball acumen further proved by his work as an executive(I know we can't count this here). Hurt by team results like many of the guys already listed.

Dirk-- I could write forever about this guy obviously, but we are talking about one of the greatest offensive big men ever and certainly the best in terms of being able to create his own shots and being a guy you could go to when you needed a bucket to win or tie a game. You can't foul him and he has a bunch of ways to score on you. Creates so much space and good lucks for teammates that gets lost when people dwell on assists. KG clearly a better playmaker, but playing with Dirk is better than playing with KG if you want to have an easier time offensively. Great team success despite constantly changing roster. Only played with one other star in his prime and many here don't even believe that one(Nash) was yet in his prime. The one-legged fade. As good a defensive rebounder in the PS as KG or Duncan and better than Dream just to give you an idea of how good his rebounding was.

But my vote goes to:
Kevin Garnett

Spoiler:

Moved your vote out of the spoiler so it wouldn't be missed when I count -- penbeast

I know this is going to come as a bit of a surprise considering my history and even my comments in this thread and the previous ones. Im skeptical still about some of the claims being made about him. But I can't ignore all the positives any more. I take RAPM with a grain of salt, but as was pointed out--whatever form of it you use, whatever year you pick, it shows KG to be a pretty significant positive for his teams. His defense goes without saying. But he guarded multiple positions, zones were built around his unique skills, he communicated as well as any star big man ever has, he owned the defensive glass, and he intimidated. I haven't hear the KG guys talk too much about that, but I absolutely think the "crazy act" he put on intimidated some guys--especially younger guys. He started that whole silly block shots after the whistle thing(Dirk looks so stupid when he does it btw) which seems meaningless but it sends a tone to teammates and opponents alike--I'm here all day. Offensively he's vastly underated as well. Yes we all wish he was more aggressive in the post, but what he did do was great. He scored at volume, but was never selfish. He had good range and shot FTs well(wish he drew more). Was a tremendous leader(problems with some teammates notwithstanding) and was willing to do whatever it took to win games. Played his tail off essentially every minute he was ever on an NBA court and he was on the court for a whole bunch of minutes.

Didn't expect to vote for him and if this goes to a run-off or he falls to #12 its possible my mind gets changed again, but I just can't ignore the evidence nor the insight shared by drza and therealbig3.

[Reservoirdawgs]

Out of curiosity, are there RAPM numbers for just the playoffs?

It's my understanding that there are not because the sample size is so small that it would be worthless data with a crapton of noise. I know that ESPN's APM includes both the regular season and the playoffs.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[acrossthecourt]

Out of curiosity, are there RAPM numbers for just the playoffs?

It's my understanding that there are not because the sample size is so small that it would be worthless data with a crapton of noise. I know that ESPN's APM includes both the regular season and the playoffs.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

I suppose you could use the regular season as a prior and calculate it from there, but then low minutes/first round guys have ratings that are basically their RS ratings.

Based on how people are discussing things here, it would probably be suitable to do like a four year RAPM where key players, like KG and Kobe, have different variables for the post-season (i.e. there'd Kevin Garnett and Kevin GarnettPS in the model separately.)

And yes, most RAPM stats use the playoffs lumped in with the RS.

[trex_8063]

Just to clarify, anyone who voted for either Kobe or KG don't need to "re-vote" in the run-off, right (unless they have a change of heart, obv)? Their original vote will simply be counted, yes?

[Doctor MJ]

When we look at guys like Oscar & West we're looking for anything we can find to help guide us because it was so long ago, and hence it's good to see quotes. This doesn't mean those quote clinch anything. One quote said Oscar was better at everything in basketball than Michael Jordan, that's obviously absurd and shows why we always remain skeptical with anything like this.

Koppett's quote is clearly fanboyistic hyperbole, worthless as far as obtaining an accurate picture of anything. That's why each quote must be evaluated on its own merit; one can't just say,"Well, since Koppett's a respected writer, this quote should be okay."

As I've said before, if a player is truly great, there should be no need for embellishment. The unvarnished truth should be more than sufficient. That applies no less to Leonard Koppett than it does an anonymous poster on an online forum.

Yup, and I'll note, I'm always thrilled when I see ThaRegul8r in historical threads because of the references he never fails to bring from back in the day which are not easy to come by.

It's like a pre-req oftentimes. With current players everyone here already knows the lay of the land. The further in the past you go, we lose that and we're left with broad strokes that can actually get in the way of understanding.

[90sAllDecade]

I'm gonna go ahead and vote for Kevin Garnett.

His flaw is that he isn't the best offensive anchor of this group and his game gets worse in the playoffs. Dirk and Kobe were my top players in comparison here over others like the Malones, Barkley, West, Oscar and Dr. J.

Kobe is better offensively than Garnett and maintains that in the playoffs, both had great mental toughness and after watching film, reputation accolades aside, Kobe was good defensively when he first established that reputation imo. I often see him guarding the best perimeter player early on and Garnett for all his defensive dominance did get torched by Dirk in the 2002 playoffs (and wasn't guarding him many possessions in the limited game film I could find, not sure if they decided to hide him) although that is just one instance and the defensive comparison is heavily in favor of KG imo.

But Garnett's defense is comparable to Kobe's and Dirk's offense imo and his offense is better than those twos defense. He got worse in the playoffs, but bigs are more impactful than comparable wings imo because they need less help. When Kobe had less talent and coaching his team success declined and even missed the playoffs, the same experience KG had in Minnesota, as he had to do without most of his career. Dirk had better talent than Garnett as far as depth and both had better coaching. I only factor this in when comparing team success, not individually.

Garnett was also an excellent passer over Dirk, which is special as a big man and his horizontal defensive impact was better than even Kobe's (his steals are even comparable). His vertical defense was better than both as well. All three were highly skilled, but the final two were Dirk and Garnett for me, as I consider Dirk a better two way player than Kobe right now.

And even though Dirk was better offensively postseason and won a championship with less talent than Kevin, Dirk won during his peak with a likely HOF coach, better team depth and even though Garnett had all star Cassell at his peak Sam got injured, while having less depth and coaching (Dirk also had a sub-par finals imo).

If KG had similar talent in during his Minnesota years with an HOF caliber coach and consistent star backcourt support; I think he could have potentially reached a finals, with a threat to win one as well with the right circumstances playing out as far as competition. KG as well has the higher peak and comparable longevity to both.

KG was also dominant defensively over Dirk at the PF position that has greater defensive impact. So I decided on KG but this was incredibly close for me, I had difficulty deciding even while I was typing.

[therealbig3]

Just to clarify, anyone who voted for either Kobe or KG don't need to "re-vote" in the run-off, right (unless they have a change of heart, obv)? Their original vote will simply be counted, yes?

Yeah, the original vote will simply be counted in the runoff as well.

[ronnymac2]

I want to talk about the Mailman because he hasn't quite gotten the amount of representation that other players on this level have received. I voted for KG in this thread, so this isn't exactly my argument for Malone, but it's information and a perspective. I invite you to receive it and then do what you feel.

Early Years

Malone emerged as a 20-10 threat in his 2nd year in the league, but it was his 3rd year in 1988 where you can see the quantum leap to being a legit star player. Utah was the best defense in the NBA (their strength being eFG% Against) thanks to Mark Eaton's dominant defense.

Malone certainly helped though. He led the team in defensive rebound rate (10th in the NBA that year) and was named All-Defense Second Team. He also averaged 27 points on 52 percent shooting and got to the free throw line almost 10 times per game (56.8 percent True Shooting..Got his FT shooting up to 70 percent this year).

Then in the playoffs, Utah faces the defending champion LA Lakers (#3 in SRS at 4.81) and loses in 7 games, with Malone dropping 28.7 points and 11.7 rebounds on 53.5% TS. Malone seemed able to handle LA's defense better as the series wore on, putting up 27/11 (10/20 FG, 7/7 FT) in a Game 6 Elimination Game victory, and 31/15 (14/21 FG, 3/9 FT) in a Game 7 Loss.

Early-years Malone...from say 1987-1991...looks like prime Amar'e Stoudemire with slightly less offense but MUCH better defense and rebounding. Amar'e was built like a SF; Malone was built like a mack truck and actually pursued defensive rebounds. Early Malone turned the ball over more than prime Amar'e and didn't score quite as efficiently, but Amar'e got to play C and had a ton of shooters next to him while Malone had a giant negative at C (Eaton was a horrendous offensive player and clogged the paint) and did not have as much shooting around him. The only constant is Nash and Stockton were great at feeding the bigs.

Around '91-'93, Malone's passing from the mid-post, off the pick-n-roll, and with his back-to-the-basket improved to the point that it made his offensive utility greatly outstrip anything Amar'e has ever been capable of providing on that end. Mind you, Malone remained a strong defensive rebounder and defensive player.

RAPM

I've seen questions regarding Malone's longevity based on his RAPM scores post-1998. I get the impression that the skepticism is not extreme by any means, but more along the lines of "Malone does indeed have excellent longevity, but the boxscore stats saying he's a 20+ PPG player post-98 hide the fact that he most certainly is not a strong fulcrum for a successful team in a 20+ PPG role, and that he cannot provide significant lift in this role, which seems to be the only way Malone can be utilized."

Compared to somebody like KG, Malone does indeed look like he ages far less gracefully based on RAPM.

The way I see it, however, is that as Malone's body and raw talent declined, his role did not change. His coach did not change. His minutes and games played did not change. His USG remained high when on the court.

Here is KG's and KM's scoring average, MPG, and USG relative to other's on their respective teams from 1996-2003 and 2006-2013. I chose these years because we get to see when each was a prime-time MPG/USG/Scorer and see how they get to decline from that level.

Kevin Garnett

2006: 21.8 points (1st), 38.9 minutes (2nd) 25.5 USG% (1st)
2007: 22.4 points (1st), 39.4 minutes (1st), 27.4 USG% (1st)
2008: 18.8 points (2nd), 32.8 minutes (3rd), 25.5 USG% (1st)
2009: 15.8 points (3rd), 31.1 minutes (4th), 23.4 USG% (2nd)
2010: 14.3 points (3rd), 29.9 minutes (4th), 22.1 USG% (2nd)
2011: 14.9 points (3rd), 31.3 minutes (4th), 22.3 USG% (2nd)
2012: 15.8 points (2nd), 31.1 minutes (5th), 24.9 USG% (2nd)
2013: 14.8 points (2nd), 29.7 minutes (3rd), 24.5 USG% (2nd)

**Garnett missed 92 games over this timespan.

Karl Malone

1996: 25.7 points (1st), 38 minutes (1st), 29.8 USG% (1st)
1997: 27.4 points(1st), 36.6 minutes (1st), 32.7 USG% (1st)
1998: 27 points(1st), 37.4 minutes (1st), 31.8 USG% (1st)
1999: 23.8 points (1st), 37.4 minutes (1st), 30.5 USG% (1st)
2000: 25.5 points (1st), 35.9 minutes (1st), 31.9 USG% (1st)
2001: 23.2 points (1st), 35.7 minutes (1st), 30 USG% (1st)
2002: 22.4 points (1st), 38 minutes (1st), 28.8 USG% (1st)
2003: 20.6 points (1st), 36.2 minutes (1st), 27.8 USG% (1st)

**Malone missed 6 games over this timespan.

Malone is giving superstar PPG, USG, and MPG, but not superstar impact for the Utah Jazz. It's fair to question why Malone's role/minutes did not change if he wasn't capable of providing significant lift after 1998. My response to this would be:

1. Malone was healthy. No reason to manage minutes any differently based on injury concerns.
2. The team clearly did not have a Plan B. Malone certainly wasn't holding a burgeoning star back. This clearly wasn't a team in any of these years where Sloan could pull a Pop and platoon guys and find equal or superior success. Whatever lift Malone was capable of providing for 35+ minutes was necessary to make the playoffs, in reality and in the eyes of Coach Sloan.
3. Stockton/Malone worked in Sloan's system in the REG SEA for over a decade. Changing things up would have been a huge adjustment for all parties involved and quite risky (likely not successful either in my opinion).

This should not be read as an indictment on Kevin Garnett. KG's focus was (correctly) pushed to the defensive side in his later years, and he excelled in a way that Malone wouldn't have defensively even if Malone were put in an optimal setting. This is actually part of the reason why I vote KG in this thread.

This should be read as an explanation for why Malone's decline might look more precipitous as measured by RAPM than it actually was. Malone didn't get to specialize or decrease his role/minutes the way KG and David Robinson and his teammate John Stockton did in their decline years.

Of course the counter to this is that Malone's skillset doesn't allow him to specialize in anything but volume scoring. To that, I must emphatically disagree. Cut his skillset down to the bone and he's very much a Horace Grant type...a mini-Kevin Garnett actually. KG/Horace/older Malone connect the goodness/impact of the players around them because of their spacing effect, passing, screens, off-ball movement, ability to run the floor, and IQ.

Despite being 40, and despite being oft-injured, I'd argue that Karl Malone, like Horace Grant in 1995, was the most valuable player on the 2004 Los Angeles Lakers. HoGrant and Malone were the third-best players, but the most valuable based on the team construction (Though Penny could be argued for Orlando because the Magic had no PG). Malone gave Kobe his first great pick-n-roll partner and gave Shaq the best or second-best entry-passing big man he ever played next to. And Malone's man defense in the 2004 playoffs was amazing, as he stifled Yao Ming, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, and Rasheed Wallace by shoving them 20 feet away from the basket, beating up on them, and stripping them cleanly of the ball or making them take tough shots. Even at age 40 and injured for half the season, 2004 Malone proved to me that 1999-2003 Malone could have shifted his role from volume scorer to role playing big man and been extremely impactful and great on a contending team.

[Purch]

"he's better offensively than Dirk. Dirk's merely a better scorer"

Is that your characterization of what I said? To be clear, that's not what I said.

I said that KG was better at offensive outside of scoring than KG. But offense overall includes scoring and certainly I rank Dirk's overall offense ahead of KG's.

Yeah I voted for KG and don't think anything like that either. He might be more "spread out" offensively since he's a slightly better facilitator and screener, but Dirk's scoring abilities definitely lift his offensive games above Garnett's. My vote is merely that the defensive difference between the two is bigger than the offensive difference. I think so, at least, but it sure is close.

Curios about something. Your points are

1. Dirk's offense is better than Garnett's.
2. Garnett's defense is better than Dirk
3. The gap is really close but you lean towards Garnett's defense


So I'm gonna ask you this

1. Do you agree that Barkley is
- A better offensive player than Dirk
- A Better scorer than Dirk
- A better passer than Dirk
-A better offensive rebounder than Dirk

If you agree to all of those, then doesnt that mean that an even more substantial gap exist between Barkley's and Garnett's offense, that is even larger than the Gap you described between between Dirk's offense and Garnett's offense? If you already described the gap between their defenses and offenses respectively "as sure Is close", then wouldn't the larger gap that exist between Barkley and Garnett's offense be enough to put him over the top? Or do you think that Dirk has been a much better defender than Barkley?

Note: If you can't follow this logic I don't blame you, I confused myself typing it

[Notanoob]

Neither Kobe nor KG are my first choice here. I'm quite reluctant to cast a vote here. I was hoping that Oscar would win to put that decision off.

But to be consistent, I'm going by peak and I believe that KG had the higher peak. As a matter of fact, I don't think that I've seen anyone suggest that Kobe had a better peak.

I'm voting for Kevin Garnette, the Big Ticket.

[Texas Chuck]

Great post Ronny and very interesting take on older Karl Malone. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[trex_8063]

Lot of players to consider for this spot. Been the toughest vote for me in terms of number of worthy candidates.

Karl Malone -- extraordinary longevity and ironman. KG has been getting much deserved love for longevity and Mailman played 5K more minutes in the RS and nearly 3k more in the PS. And he was at minimum a solid contributor in every season he played. A good defender and a great scorer, rebounder, and passer. Made the playoffs every single year of his career. Was willing to stay and play in SLC essentially his entire career. Gets hurt some by the narrative of his playoff play but 25/11/3 on 46%FG and 74%FT shooting while being a good defender as career numbers(not just prime) is absurdly good. Maybe the player who gets the biggest bum rap by the combination of lack of data, narratives that are inaccurate, and just in general being a more unlikable player. Not a lot of kids outside Utah grew up wearing Malone jerseys.

David Robinson-- I believe the Admiral is the best player left on the board in terms of extended peak play. IMO he really is what KG is painted to be. An offensive and defensive anchor at the same time only I feel like he's a better defensive anchor(the team defenses certainly strongly suggest this) and a better offensive anchor(team offenses are close and the individual numbers all go to Robinson. Also hurt by the playoff narrative in a way that seems mostly unfair and unfairly weighted by one series in which peak Dream outplays him(not too much shame in that really).

Oscar Robertson -- The triple double thing while arbitrary in numbers showcases a brilliant all-around player. Its like the absurd Stock assists/steals numbers where there seems to be this pre-emptive backlash against him when no one is suggesting he is great based solely on this. While he's from an era many guys in this project dismiss with contempt, his body and style of play suggest little problems translating to the modern era and he was one of the two best guards in the world when he played and until Magic/Mike came around possibly the best ever(along with West)

Jerry West -- much the same as Oscar, his game suggests a strong ability to translate, great at all aspects of basketball, Mr Clutch, the logo. His basketball acumen further proved by his work as an executive(I know we can't count this here). Hurt by team results like many of the guys already listed.

Dirk-- I could write forever about this guy obviously, but we are talking about one of the greatest offensive big men ever and certainly the best in terms of being able to create his own shots and being a guy you could go to when you needed a bucket to win or tie a game. You can't foul him and he has a bunch of ways to score on you. Creates so much space and good lucks for teammates that gets lost when people dwell on assists. KG clearly a better playmaker, but playing with Dirk is better than playing with KG if you want to have an easier time offensively. Great team success despite constantly changing roster. Only played with one other star in his prime and many here don't even believe that one(Nash) was yet in his prime. The one-legged fade. As good a defensive rebounder in the PS as KG or Duncan and better than Dream just to give you an idea of how good his rebounding was.

But my vote goes to:

Spoiler:

Kevin Garnett

I know this is going to come as a bit of a surprise considering my history and even my comments in this thread and the previous ones. Im skeptical still about some of the claims being made about him. But I can't ignore all the positives any more. I take RAPM with a grain of salt, but as was pointed out--whatever form of it you use, whatever year you pick, it shows KG to be a pretty significant positive for his teams. His defense goes without saying. But he guarded multiple positions, zones were built around his unique skills, he communicated as well as any star big man ever has, he owned the defensive glass, and he intimidated. I haven't hear the KG guys talk too much about that, but I absolutely think the "crazy act" he put on intimidated some guys--especially younger guys. He started that whole silly block shots after the whistle thing(Dirk looks so stupid when he does it btw) which seems meaningless but it sends a tone to teammates and opponents alike--I'm here all day. Offensively he's vastly underated as well. Yes we all wish he was more aggressive in the post, but what he did do was great. He scored at volume, but was never selfish. He had good range and shot FTs well(wish he drew more). Was a tremendous leader(problems with some teammates notwithstanding) and was willing to do whatever it took to win games. Played his tail off essentially every minute he was ever on an NBA court and he was on the court for a whole bunch of minutes.

Didn't expect to vote for him and if this goes to a run-off or he falls to #12 its possible my mind gets changed again, but I just can't ignore the evidence nor the insight shared by drza and therealbig3.

Great post, Chuck. Some very nice summaries; your blurb about Mailman almost exactly sums up how I feel about him (including the "not likable" part; I actually kinda hated him back in his playing days, have grudginigly come around to appreciating just how great a player he was, though, and agree he generally gets inadequate credit for that).

Your blurb about Robinson appears to be implying you consider him to essentially be a "rich man's Garnett". Curious that you still voted for Garnett (longevity?).

fwiw, I think Barkley rivals Dirk as a big who can create his own shot. Although I guess if I needed that game winner, I'd go with Dirk (like the idea that you have to be more cautious about fouling him). Nice outline on how he opens up the offense, too (under-appreciated aspect of Dirk, imo).

[therealbig3]

Spoiler:

I want to talk about the Mailman because he hasn't quite gotten the amount of representation that other players on this level have received. I voted for KG in this thread, so this isn't exactly my argument for Malone, but it's information and a perspective. I invite you to receive it and then do what you feel.

Early Years

Malone emerged as a 20-10 threat in his 2nd year in the league, but it was his 3rd year in 1988 where you can see the quantum leap to being a legit star player. Utah was the best defense in the NBA (their strength being eFG% Against) thanks to Mark Eaton's dominant defense.

Malone certainly helped though. He led the team in defensive rebound rate (10th in the NBA that year) and was named All-Defense Second Team. He also averaged 27 points on 52 percent shooting and got to the free throw line almost 10 times per game (56.8 percent True Shooting..Got his FT shooting up to 70 percent this year).

Then in the playoffs, Utah faces the defending champion LA Lakers (#3 in SRS at 4.81) and loses in 7 games, with Malone dropping 28.7 points and 11.7 rebounds on 53.5% TS. Malone seemed able to handle LA's defense better as the series wore on, putting up 27/11 (10/20 FG, 7/7 FT) in a Game 6 Elimination Game victory, and 31/15 (14/21 FG, 3/9 FT) in a Game 7 Loss.

Early-years Malone...from say 1987-1991...looks like prime Amar'e Stoudemire with slightly less offense but MUCH better defense and rebounding. Amar'e was built like a SF; Malone was built like a mack truck and actually pursued defensive rebounds. Early Malone turned the ball over more than prime Amar'e and didn't score quite as efficiently, but Amar'e got to play C and had a ton of shooters next to him while Malone had a giant negative at C (Eaton was a horrendous offensive player and clogged the paint) and did not have as much shooting around him. The only constant is Nash and Stockton were great at feeding the bigs.

Around '91-'93, Malone's passing from the mid-post, off the pick-n-roll, and with his back-to-the-basket improved to the point that it made his offensive utility greatly outstrip anything Amar'e has ever been capable of providing on that end. Mind you, Malone remained a strong defensive rebounder and defensive player.

RAPM

I've seen questions regarding Malone's longevity based on his RAPM scores post-1998. I get the impression that the skepticism is not extreme by any means, but more along the lines of "Malone does indeed have excellent longevity, but the boxscore stats saying he's a 20+ PPG player post-98 hide the fact that he most certainly is not a strong fulcrum for a successful team in a 20+ PPG role, and that he cannot provide significant lift in this role, which seems to be the only way Malone can be utilized."

Compared to somebody like KG, Malone does indeed look like he ages far less gracefully based on RAPM.

The way I see it, however, is that as Malone's body and raw talent declined, his role did not change. His coach did not change. His minutes and games played did not change. His USG remained high when on the court.

Here is KG's and KM's scoring average, MPG, and USG relative to other's on their respective teams from 1996-2003 and 2006-2013. I chose these years because we get to see when each was a prime-time MPG/USG/Scorer and see how they get to decline from that level.

Kevin Garnett

2006: 21.8 points (1st), 38.9 minutes (2nd) 25.5 USG% (1st)
2007: 22.4 points (1st), 39.4 minutes (1st), 27.4 USG% (1st)
2008: 18.8 points (2nd), 32.8 minutes (3rd), 25.5 USG% (1st)
2009: 15.8 points (3rd), 31.1 minutes (4th), 23.4 USG% (2nd)
2010: 14.3 points (3rd), 29.9 minutes (4th), 22.1 USG% (2nd)
2011: 14.9 points (3rd), 31.3 minutes (4th), 22.3 USG% (2nd)
2012: 15.8 points (2nd), 31.1 minutes (5th), 24.9 USG% (2nd)
2013: 14.8 points (2nd), 29.7 minutes (3rd), 24.5 USG% (2nd)

**Garnett missed 92 games over this timespan.

Karl Malone

1996: 25.7 points (1st), 38 minutes (1st), 29.8 USG% (1st)
1997: 27.4 points(1st), 36.6 minutes (1st), 32.7 USG% (1st)
1998: 27 points(1st), 37.4 minutes (1st), 31.8 USG% (1st)
1999: 23.8 points (1st), 37.4 minutes (1st), 30.5 USG% (1st)
2000: 25.5 points (1st), 35.9 minutes (1st), 31.9 USG% (1st)
2001: 23.2 points (1st), 35.7 minutes (1st), 30 USG% (1st)
2002: 22.4 points (1st), 38 minutes (1st), 28.8 USG% (1st)
2003: 20.6 points (1st), 36.2 minutes (1st), 27.8 USG% (1st)

**Malone missed 6 games over this timespan.

Malone is giving superstar PPG, USG, and MPG, but not superstar impact for the Utah Jazz. It's fair to question why Malone's role/minutes did not change if he wasn't capable of providing significant lift after 1998. My response to this would be:

1. Malone was healthy. No reason to manage minutes any differently based on injury concerns.
2. The team clearly did not have a Plan B. Malone certainly wasn't holding a burgeoning star back. This clearly wasn't a team in any of these years where Sloan could pull a Pop and platoon guys and find equal or superior success. Whatever lift Malone was capable of providing for 35+ minutes was necessary to make the playoffs, in reality and in the eyes of Coach Sloan.
3. Stockton/Malone worked in Sloan's system in the REG SEA for over a decade. Changing things up would have been a huge adjustment for all parties involved and quite risky (likely not successful either in my opinion).

This should not be read as an indictment on Kevin Garnett. KG's focus was (correctly) pushed to the defensive side in his later years, and he excelled in a way that Malone wouldn't have defensively even if Malone were put in an optimal setting. This is actually part of the reason why I vote KG in this thread.

This should be read as an explanation for why Malone's decline might look more precipitous as measured by RAPM than it actually was. Malone didn't get to specialize or decrease his role/minutes the way KG and David Robinson and his teammate John Stockton did in their decline years.

Of course the counter to this is that Malone's skillset doesn't allow him to specialize in anything but volume scoring. To that, I must emphatically disagree. Cut his skillset down to the bone and he's very much a Horace Grant type...a mini-Kevin Garnett actually. KG/Horace/older Malone connect the goodness/impact of the players around them because of their spacing effect, passing, screens, off-ball movement, ability to run the floor, and IQ.

Despite being 40, and despite being oft-injured, I'd argue that Karl Malone, like Horace Grant in 1995, was the most valuable player on the 2004 Los Angeles Lakers. HoGrant and Malone were the third-best players, but the most valuable based on the team construction (Though Penny could be argued for Orlando because the Magic had no PG). Malone gave Kobe his first great pick-n-roll partner and gave Shaq the best or second-best entry-passing big man he ever played next to. And Malone's man defense in the 2004 playoffs was amazing, as he stifled Yao Ming, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, and Rasheed Wallace by shoving them 20 feet away from the basket, beating up on them, and stripping them cleanly of the ball or making them take tough shots. Even at age 40 and injured for half the season, 2004 Malone proved to me that 1999-2003 Malone could have shifted his role from volume scorer to role playing big man and been extremely impactful and great on a contending team.

The Mailman is next on my list. GOAT longevity for a star imo...even better than Kareem's.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Thinking about voting for KG here.

Still giving strong consideration to Kobe, West, Oscar, Malone (Karl) and Dirk/Barkley.

One question I would like to see answered is this.
Why did Boston struggle throughout the East in 2008?
Took them 7 games to knock of Atlanta, Cleveland and 6 games I believe to knock off Detroit.

I was kind of comparing his 08 run to Bryant's runs from 08-10.
To be fair KG was probably further from his true Peak years then Bryant was at the time and he was playing on a bran new team with multiple new pieces but still.
In the end KG's team beat Bryant's team so perhaps it isn't that relevant but it is something I was thinking about.

[Jaivl]

So, Oscar is out. We're down to Garnett and Kobe.

I've seen a few posters wondering about what would Oscar voters do, I guess because 1) Kobe and Oscar are similar players (in their offense/defense split) and 2) Oscar people were giving mostly +/- arguments (that favor KG).

I don't think I'm contradicting myself if I vote for Kevin Garnett now. Yes, Kobe is the (clearly) better offensive player, one of the best since MJ. Yes, Kobe could probably be a better defensive player than Oscar (don't know for sure).

But Garnett is certainly the most versatile defender I've ever seen, and a great offensive player in his own right. Really, it isn't his fault (at all) that Minnesota was a disfunctional franchise during nearly a decade. I would not call any star ever + Wally and a bunch of chuckers and role players a surefire playoff team, even less a contender. All the arguments for KG were already posted since thread #4, and way better explained and more detailed than I ever could.

And don't like the charade of abandoning the project if certain players are voted below their media/consensus ranking. Remember, these are all all-time great players: it's supossed to be close between them. And remember, different peoples have different opinions. As long as you make valid points, your vote should be welcome.

Waiting for some good discussion between Kobe, Oscar and West. And Dirk, Karl and Julius somewhere in the way. You guys convinced me to swap Kobe, KG and Oscar (had Kobe #11, now #13), so who knows what can happen.

[MisterHibachi]

I also have an issue with using impact to rank players. Impact depends a lot on circumstances and teammates. Michael Jordan will have better on/off numbers (which is what impact really is) if his back up is Nick Young rather than Manu Ginobili. It doesn't change anything about the player in question himself. Jordan is still Jordan with the same abilities regardless of how good his back up is or how good his team is. I think its a lot better to rank players based on their skill set and not impact.

I think voters should've posted their criteria at the beginning of the project just so we had an idea of what everyone was looking for and also to make sure people stay consistent and don't change criteria based on the player.

I think RAPM attempts to be On/Off with the entire sample of NBA players instead of just his team. Michael Jordan over an average NBA player rather than his literal replacement, for instance.

But impact also depends on your role. There are plenty of coaches who don't know how to best use their players. Michael Jordan is best suited for a role as a first option. A coach might not recognize that and use him maybe as a power forward or centre. Hyperbolic I know, but it illustrates my point that coaches don't always utilize their players in the ideal way which can stunt their 'impact'. Michael Jordan as a power forward would not be very ideal and his impact might even be negative because he simply can't guard big players. Or if a coach used Shaq as a high post passing centre instead of the low post beast he was.

My overall point is that impact depends on a lot of things and they aren't always apparent. Unless we are ranking players based solely on the situation they found themselves in IRL, I don't think we should place a lot of importance on impact, more so on skill sets.

[Texas Chuck]

Your blurb about Robinson appears to be implying you consider him to essentially be a "rich man's Garnett". Curious that you still voted for Garnett (longevity?).

.

Yeah I think if we look at their 5 best years Admiral peaks higher, For as much as KG was asked to do in Minnesota, Admiral was asked to do that and more and did it rather well prior to his injury. He was the first, and sometime really only offensive option and he was anchoring one of the elite defenses in the league. And this is all pre-Pop. But Admiral was 24 when he entered the NBA and was injured by 31. He was still a very useful player post injury, but he just can't match the overall career value Garnett gives imo.

[Baller2014]

Technically we're only just coming up to the 2 day deadline, so the run-off came a little premature IMO. Someone else was about to vote for Oscar, which given Tsherkin didn't provide any reasoning with his vote (and given Pen hadn't voted yet) would have given Oscar and Kobe a tie on 8. I guess it's too late now, and KG is likely to win anyway, but I think the full 2 days should be used when it is that close.

I have KG on 14 votes now including Jaivl's switch, with Kobe on 9 if we count Tsherkin's vote.

I'm glad to see Karl Malone getting some consideration here, and D.Rob too. I am looking forward to getting time to compare Dr J and Karl Malone in the next thread, as both are high on my list. I'm interested in hearing the West/D.Rob/Dirk/Moses argument more too.

[PCProductions]

I also have an issue with using impact to rank players. Impact depends a lot on circumstances and teammates. Michael Jordan will have better on/off numbers (which is what impact really is) if his back up is Nick Young rather than Manu Ginobili. It doesn't change anything about the player in question himself. Jordan is still Jordan with the same abilities regardless of how good his back up is or how good his team is. I think its a lot better to rank players based on their skill set and not impact.

I think voters should've posted their criteria at the beginning of the project just so we had an idea of what everyone was looking for and also to make sure people stay consistent and don't change criteria based on the player.

I think RAPM attempts to be On/Off with the entire sample of NBA players instead of just his team. Michael Jordan over an average NBA player rather than his literal replacement, for instance.

But impact also depends on your role. There are plenty of coaches who don't know how to best use their players. Michael Jordan is best suited for a role as a first option. A coach might not recognize that and use him maybe as a power forward or centre. Hyperbolic I know, but it illustrates my point that coaches don't always utilize their players in the ideal way which can stunt their 'impact'. Michael Jordan as a power forward would not be very ideal and his impact might even be negative because he simply can't guard big players. Or if a coach used Shaq as a high post passing centre instead of the low post beast he was.

My overall point is that impact depends on a lot of things and they aren't always apparent. Unless we are ranking players based solely on the situation they found themselves in IRL, I don't think we should place a lot of importance on impact, more so on skill sets.

Yeah, that's exactly right. But I think what we're going for here is how well they played, at least I am. Garnett was misused a few years as was Hakeem, and it probably stunted their true ceiling. However, all we can go by is how well they played and that's all that really matters anyway, if you ask me. If a player misuses his own skills (see: Josh Smith), I'm pretty sure we don't forgive that, so I think in order to be fair, it simply must be by how well they played. Period.

[PCProductions]

Curios about something. Your points are

1. Dirk's offense is better than Garnett's.
2. Garnett's defense is better than Dirk
3. The gap is really close but you lean towards Garnett's defense


So I'm gonna ask you this

1. Do you agree that Barkley is
- A better offensive player than Dirk
- A Better scorer than Dirk
- A better passer than Dirk
-A better offensive rebounder than Dirk

If you agree to all of those, then doesnt that mean that an even more substantial gap exist between Barkley's and Garnett's offense, that is even larger than the Gap you described between between Dirk's offense and Garnett's offense? If you already described the gap between their defenses and offenses respectively "as sure Is close", then wouldn't the larger gap that exist between Barkley and Garnett's offense be enough to put him over the top? Or do you think that Dirk has been a much better defender than Barkley?

Note: If you can't follow this logic I don't blame you, I confused myself typing it

Oh I follow you. I think Chuck's defense is to blame here. I love his offensive game as it's in the top 5 of all time for me. Dirk is also an underrated defender here as well, and I think it puts him ever so slightly above Chuck, let alone Dirk's outstanding longevity.