Purch wrote:If I was someone arguing for Kobe, my biggest issue wouldn't even be about Garnett, it would be about the willingness for everyone to completly disregard anything in Kobe's favor from: Quotes said by players and coaches, all nba teams, all defensive teams, true shooting percent, leading top 10 offenses with sub par supporting cast, playoff performances ext. It seems like everything great about Kobe has gotten marginalized in this disscusion
Kobe is going to be voted in the Top 12 of the greatest players of all time. That's incredible. But unfortunately, a prevalent attitude in any thread involving Kobe is the victim complexes I sense from some of his supporters.
I mean, seriously, get over it. It's not RAPM or whatever that hurts the discussion, it's the idea that everyone who doesn't agree with your player of choice "clearly has no integrity."
Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom. ~George Smith Patton
Purch wrote:If I was someone arguing for Kobe, my biggest issue wouldn't even be about Garnett, it would be about the willingness for everyone to completly disregard anything in Kobe's favor from: Quotes said by players and coaches, all nba teams, all defensive teams, true shooting percent, leading top 10 offenses with sub par supporting cast, playoff performances ext. It seems like everything great about Kobe has gotten marginalized in this disscusion
Yep, I've raised the same issue. I'm not one to whine about this dynamic though, since I knew coming in that elements of this were bound to surface. It is what it is. In the RPOY project you had people leave Kobe off the ballot completely in 2006, for example. I don't quite get what they hope to gain from it, since this is just a message board thread, and none of this really matters outside all of us satisfying our curiosities about how Player A stacks up to Player B, and so on.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
ElGee wrote: Yeah but timeout -- are you saying that a 19-10-3 +0% TS player can't be better than a 34-6-5 +3% TS player?
On its face, that would be extraordinarily unusual. But i did look further, specifically to things like peer review that regarded 06/07 Kobe as a Top 5 MVP/All-NBA 1st player. KG wasn't regarded as elite in 98 or 99.
If someone wants to explain how 98/99 KG was superstar level or better than 06/07 Kobe, I'm all ears.
Let's take a crack at it.
First, I'd start with re-iterating that RAPM doesn't say that KG was better in 98-99 than Kobe was in 06-07. What it says is that Garnett's presence on the court correlated with a larger increase in the scoring margins for the Wolves than Kobe's presence did for the Lakers in those years. So next up, let's interpret.
So clearly, Kobe is operating at a much higher volume and efficiency on offense. On first blush, you might think that Kobe was having a huge offensive impact while Garnett's should be lesser. If we check out the offensive RAPM numbers for those years, we see this (per Doc MJ's normalized spreadsheet):
Offensive RAPM Kobe '06: +7.9 Kobe '07: +7.8 KG '98: +3.9 KG '99: +3.1
OK, but what does that scale mean? Well, if we look at the best 5-year peaks of all players between 1998 - 2012, only Steve Nash (+9.1) and LeBron (+8.1) had higher peaks than +7.9. Wade, Shaq and Kobe are the next 3 highest 5-year peaks on the list, and Wade and Shaq only had a higher ORAPM than +7.9 in one season each. In other words, Kobe's +7.9 and +7.8 are really friggin high ORAPM marks, pointing out that he was having a mega offensive impact those years (as we'd expect).
Garnett's combined ~ +3.5 in those two years is in-line with a much more modest, but still positive, group. Looking at the 5-year peaks, +3.5 would be right in the middle of Andrei Kirilenko (5-year peak +3.6) and Josh Howard (5-year peak +3.4). KG's own offensive 5-year peak (as measured by ORAPM) was +5.4. On the surface, then, a +3.5 value seems like a reasonable neighborhood for a 20 ppg/4.3 apg big forward. But we should look closer, to see if we believe that KG's correlation to +3.5 of offensive scoring margin increase is causative or not.
The 1998 Wolves built their offense around KG, Gugliotta and Marbury and finished the year with the #7 O-rating in the NBA. But, Googs missed half the year and never played another game in Minnesota afterwards. Thus, for the majority of the year it was Garnett and Marbury driving the ship. KG was the leading scorer of the duo (barely), while Marbury led the team in assists. This arrangement was replicated the following year, but with KG taking on a larger scoring role and Marbury getting traded halfway through the season for Terrell Brandon (The Wolves finished '99 with the 17th O-rating in the NBA). In both instances, KG played a lot of 2-man games with the PGs as he thrived in the pick-and-roll/pop game. KG was already playing an attenuated version of the frontcourt offensive hub role, with a solid amount of distribution responsibilities.
In short, I'd think that a +3.5 ORAPM value would make sense for a player contributing his stats with his integral role in two offenses, one strong (top-7) and the other about average (#17).
Mini conclusion: the offensive RAPM scores for both Kobe and KG make sense given their production levels and levels of responsibility within their offenses. I believe that in both instances, the correlations were indeed causative. That Kobe really was having some of the best offensive seasons of the past 15 years, while KG was making a positive but much more modest offensive contribution. So, let's look at the other side of the ball.
I appreciate the effort dzra, but there seem to be some glaring issues here.
1) RAPM was being used to state "superstar" level play. More specifically the +6 cutoff. I know you don't argue this personally, but others do, and use it to pump up KG's longevity, while diminishing Kobe's using that +6 cutoff line.
2) You're also using RAPM numbers...to confirm RAPM numbers here. Just the impact of producing 34 ppg on 57% TS is FAR more than 19 ppg on 51% TS.
NBA League Average TS% 98/99 51.9% TS 06/07 53.9% TS ^ So KG is giving Minny marginal good scoring volume BELOW the league average. That's striking. He has Iverson like efficiency here.
Kobe on the flipside, is giving LA historically great scoring volume on +2.9% TS. Scoring impact is a landslide in favor of Kobe.
So let's look at playmaking.
1998 Starbury: 8.6 apg on 36.1 AST% KG: 4.2 apg on 18.2 AST% Googs: 4.1 apg on 17.9 AST% (only played 41 games)
1999 Starbury: 9.3 apg on 43.8 AST% Brandon: 9.8 apg on 49.1 AST% KG: 4.3 apg on 21.3 AST% ^ Clearly, the Wolves was a good passer team. But does KG's good, not great playmaking makeup for his subpar shooting efficiency? Is his +3.5 ORAPM a function of HIS impact, or more a result of the rotations he was in, since the Wolves had multiple skilled offensive guys?
2006 Odom: 5.5 apg on 22.4 AST% Kobe: 4.5 apg on 24.1 AST% Smush: 3.7 apg on 17.3 AST%
2007 Kobe: 5.4 apg on 25.5 AST% Odom: 4.8 apg on 19.5 AST% (56 games) Luke: 4.3 apg on 20.2 AST% (60 games) ^ Kobe's a more prominent facilitator for LA. His AST% is higher than KG's, despite his historically high scoring volume.
So a 19 ppg on -0.6% TS, 18.2 AST%..rates out to +3.9? Again, I don't see how more ORAPM....can be used to confirm earlier RAPM results. So what do other metrics say...
98/99 KG = 21.1 PER(doesn't seem to register great production here) 06/07 Kobe = 27.0 PER
98/99 KG = 3.9 OWS per season(not impressive) 06/07 Kobe = 11.2 OWS per season
There is nothing to indicate +3.9 offensive impact here(unless you want to translate 11.3 OWS to +11 impact, lol). We have KG shooting above average volume, BELOW the league average, and decent playmaking from him on teams that already had great playmakers producing for Minny. Kobe meanwhile is putting up offensive numbers that hadn't' been seen since prime MJ. Clearly, KG had more offensive talent around him, so I think Kobe at an average around 7.8 is massively undersold here. ORAPM isn't accurately capturing his offensive impact at all.
Defensive RAPM KG '98: +5.6 KG '99: +4.9 Kobe '07: -0.65 Kobe '06: -1.61
Alright, same drill. What do these numbers suggest about defensive impact, and do we buy them.
Kobe's defensive RAPM for those two seasons are negative. Does that make sense? These are the famous Kobe 1-man offense teams, where he clearly was focused on offense. Anecdotally, these are the seasons where many observed him coasting on defense to have more energy on offense. The Lakers were 15th and 24th in defense those two years, but I don't get the impression that defense was his concern in those two years. As a matter of scale, a composite defensive RAPM of about -1.1 in those two years would a small net negative but not a huge difference maker. I buy it.
KG's normalized defensive RAPM for those two seasons would be about +5.3. This is in the neighborhood of the 5 year peaks of Ben Wallace (+5.5), Bo Outlaw (+5.3) and Andrew Bogut (+4.9). Shane Battier is the highest rated defensive small forward from '98 - '12 with a 5-year peak of +4.3 and a single-season best of +5.6.
So, do we buy that late 90s KG could be having a defensive impact on the area of the best of Battier, on the continuum between the 5-year peaks of Battier and Big Ben (not including 2001 and some info from 2002). Is that a reasonable defensive neightborhood for that version of KG? Well, here is what I said about KG's 1-on-1 defense of wings and bigs in that time window, as well as what I said about his team defense at that portion of his career:
Ok, first I have to asked why you reference LA's #15 & #24 DRtgs.......when 98/98 Minny had #11 & #23 DRtgs. Kobe's support cast was not comprised of players made to play defense to say the least. We're talkign about the likes of Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Brian Cook, Vlad Rad. Odom was marginal back then, so it was basically Kobe & Kwame holding down the front on the perimeter & paint.
The truth is that Kobe DID play good defense in 06/07, even though it wasn't Frobe level, which was ridiculous great in the pre-prime years. he was literally the ONLY perimeter defender LA had. [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk9SRxMQs1k[/youtube]
Early 1-on-1 wing defense:
Spoiler:
Early Garnett was the most explosive and athletic, but also the lankiest. Late 90s thru early 2000s KG played a lot of small forward. He was the full-time cover for several elite wings, usually to good result (though I recall Jordan torching him in his Wizards year...of course, even Wizards Jordan was quick for a SF and by then KG really should have been at full-time PF). He was maybe a step slower in terms of lateral movement than the best of the small forwards, but he was still ridiculously quick for a true 7-footer and he used his mantis arms and angles to excellent results. He could play a bit further off to discourage the drive, while still getting a threatening hand in the face of s ahooter. He could funnell drivers to where he wanted them to go, leading them into traps or difficult shots on the move. The most famous example of KG's defensive efforts on a wing were on Tracy McGrady in the 2003/2004 time period.
Over those two years, if you recall, McGrady was peaking...he led the NBA in scoring both seasons (35.4 ppg on 56.4% TS in 2003, 28 ppg on 52.6% TS in 2004). The Timberwolves played the Magic four times in that two-year window. In 2003 Garnett was the primary defender on McGrady, whereas in 2004 he was more of the main help defender. In all four years the Timberwolves devoted their main team defensive efforts to stopping McGrady (as pretty much all teams did at the time), so I don't want to give the impression that KG was just out there on an island with McGrady. Nevertheless, KG played the lead role in dramatically reducing TMac's output in those games. Of the four games, McGrady had two good games and two terrible games on his way to averages of 21.5 points on 49.6% TS . From the write-up to one of the terrible games:
Kevin Garnett recorded his seventh career triple-double and shut down Tracy McGrady. (snip)
Guarded mostly by Garnett, McGrady struggled with his shooting touch all night. McGrady, who scored 31 and 24 points in Orlando's first two games -- victories over Philadelphia and Miami -- went six for 15 for 18 points, 14 in the second half.
"That's the best I've ever been defended," McGrady said. "Ever.""
By the time the 90s were coming to an end, KG was in his early 20s and starting to fill out. His listed weight went from the 220 pounds of his rookie year up to about 253 pounds by 2004. The 2003 season was the last year that KG spent a significant amount of time playing small forward, and by the fall of 2003 he was settling in as a full-time 4. In one-on-one circumstances, this version of KG was excellent on every big man south of Shaq. KG could really lock into post-scoring threats like Tim Duncan, versatile talents like Chris Webber, or even more perimeter based bigs like Rasheed Wallace. This versatility would serve him extremely well in this era, as the 2000s have been characterized by much more diversity at the 4 slot...from pure stretch 4s all the way down to more old-school post-up types. KG had the length and quickness to play great post-denial defense, making entry passes very difficult. He had to do his work early to prevent post position because he still wasn't the heaviest player, but even when post-players got position it was still very difficult to finish over those extendo-arms. And on the flip side, Garnett also had the quickness to hound his man all the way out to the 3-point line and beyond. He may have no longer been quick enough to guard small forwards full time, but he was still very possibly the quickest big man in the NBA. Good examples of KG's defense on the two extremes came in the 1999 (Tim Duncan) and 2000 (Rasheed Wallace) playoffs.
1999 Playoffs: Duncan averaged 15.9 pts/36 on 51.6% TS against KG, then 20.5 pts/36 on 58.8% TS against everyone else on way to title
2000 Playoffs: Wallace averaged 11.5 pts/36 on 57.1% TS against KG, then 19.2 pts/36 on 55.1% TS against everyone else
In Sheed's case the scoring efficiency was similar, but his volume was down by almost 40%. In Duncan's case, KG limited both his efficiency (7.2% TS difference) and volume (~23% down).
Young KG (Up through 2001) played during the time before the illegal defense rule change.
Spoiler:
He was playing a lot of both forward positions, so sometimes his man was on the perimeter and sometimes he was guarding more post-oriented players. But even when he was playing the best-of-the-best, his head was always on the swivel for help opportunities. The Wolves played a pretty vanilla defensive style, but KG gave them a disruptive wild card. This is when he was most athletic, and he used his long arms aggressively in the passing lanes and to block shots. Unlike Duncan, who seemed to get a lot of his blocks in 1-on-1 defense opportunities, Garnett's blocked shots seemed to come most often as weakside or topside rotations. It made for interesting angles on the Wolves defense, having their best shot-blocker often swooping down to the rim from the perimeter. This was when Garnett was setting his career highs in steals and combined steals and blocks.
I buy that a defender of this type could be having an impact similar to the best of Battier or high level Ben Wallace. But as UnbiasedFan pointed out, '98 and '99 wasn't getting those kinds of defensive accolades. While this is true, it should be noted that KG would be NBA All Defense 1st team in the next 6 consecutive seasons starting in 2000, AND that he'd finish second in the DPoY vote in both 2000 and 2001. He'd also finish as the MVP runner-up to Shaq in 2000, just a year away. So for those looking for the accolades to go with these big defensive marks, I think the argument that the voters just hadn't realized what KG was doing on defense (or overall) yet is reasonable.
Mini Conclusion: The only way that KG would be able to close the large difference in offensive impact is if he was having a huge defensive impact. His defensive skill set in those years was strong but unique. He was having the best combined block/steals numbers of what would eventually be a historic defensive career, he was exhibiting excellent 1-on-1 and team defense, and he was only a year away from being recognized as a top-2 defender in the NBA for those that appreciate accolades. I buy that his correlation with strong defensive results in '98 and '99 is causal, and therefore that RAPM did a good job of identifying defensive value that no other method of analysis would have been able to identify/quantify in the way that RAPM can.
So, does this mean that '98 and '99 KG was really BETTER than '06 and '07 Kobe?
I say no, it doesn't mean that.
"Goodness" and "better" are somewhat nebulous concepts. But while I believe that they should include "impact on team results" within the definition, that isn't the whole of the definition. And how big of a part it should play is an individual decision among analysts.
"Impact" as measured by something like RAPM or WOWY is going to be somewhat situation-dependent. We know from future years that KG's strong impact continued for the next decade-plus after 1999 in a large array of roles, but in '98 and '99 he wasn't yet what he would become. His jumper was solid, but it was a bit flatter and not nearly as consistent as it was by '03. His post moves and finishes were more raw. He wasn't the offensive hub/distributor yet that he would someday become. And IMO he hadn't developed that "I belong here" feeling that the truly great possess. In '97 the Wolves were overjoyed just to make the playoffs, and in '98 they had a sense of "nothing to lose/too young to be scared" when they pushed the 60-win Sonics to the brink in the first round of the playoffs. It really wasn't until KG faced off with Duncan in the '99 playoffs that I really got the sense that he was starting to come into his own on that level. And I think that's important.
Kobe, on the other hand, by 2006 knew that he was a superstar. He could score in every way known to man, and he expected to. He already had three rings on his hand, and it was his mission in life to prove that he could carry a team without Shaq which piqued his already obsessive competitiveness. The only reason that his RAPM values weren't higher in '06 and '07 was because of his defense, and 1) teams can and often do build strong defenses independently of their SG and 2) Kobe showed in the 3 years following (2008 - 10) that even if he wasn't a huge defensive positive, he could at least be a net neutral/small positive on defense while maintaining that mega offensive impact.
So in this case, it makes little sense to me to let the impact on team results make the whole decision. Yes, KG's impact on the scoring margins of the late 90s Wolves was seemingly on a similar order to the effect Kobe was having on the scoring margins of those mid'00s Lakers. However, that doesn't necessarily mean he was a better player. On the other hand, the fact that late 90s KG correlated to (slightly) more team success in his situation than mid-00s Kobe did to his also isn't an indictment on RAPM itself. When put into full context, the numbers fit reasonably into what played out on the court
You go into many different years for KG here. You reference 98/99 a bit, but also go into 01-forward, which doesn't address the 98/99 vs 06/07 issue.
1) There is no evidence that 98/99 KG was having anywhere close to the kind of Russell like defensive impact to make up for the landslide edge Kobe had offensively. Minny's DRtgs sucked too, and in things like DWS KG was only at 3.6 per season vs Kobe at 2.9 per season.
2) You bring up KG's battles against guys like Wiz MJ, and Tmac in later years....but wait a sec, Kobe did that too, and better.
3) 06/07 Kobe was LA's main scorer/facilitator AND defender. Again, there was no one else on that roster outside Kwame who even played defense. Odom was decent 1 game and then crap the next 4 back then. in terms of horizontal defense, Kobe was great too. His man defense was great, as was his transtion defense.
If KG was a "middle linebacker" then I'm calling Kobe Phil's "free safety" on defense.
that term has certainly been used before, and considering that everyone else on the perimeter were negatives on D, Kobe was essentially constantly cheating off his man, and basically covering two guys at once.
4)Again, I appreciate the effort, but what i see is KG's marginal offensive impact circa 98/99, and overstated defense in 98/99 that didn't yield much. Definitely not being anywhere close to 34 ppg on very good efficiency, and good defense.
The mental gymnastics needed to make these RAPM results work are the kind only Mary Lou could perform. Things like this is seriously where RAPM backers need to take a step back and really ask what RAPM results really represent, and if they are speaking for the numbers, instead of letting the numbers speak for themself.
I understand "you" are not saying RAPM says 98/99 KG is better, but others essentially are. Nothing else backs up 98/99 KG's RAPm numbers, while pretty much all criteria confirms 06/07 Kobe's dominance. It's jsut an awkward comparison because its so lopsided.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
Ive read all the arguments for KG and Kobe. I see why they are getting votes. But there just hasn't been enough to move them ahead of Oscar for me.
His first 6 seasons in the NBA are just astounding to me. The immediate impact is unreal. I know those stats are inflated due to pace- his first season the league average for field goals attempted was the highest ever.
But its not necessarily the numbers themselves but the diversity of his game. He wasn't focused on one thing (scoring) and taking what came with it in terms of assists and rebounds. The guy did it all. Ignore the title of this video- it should be called "Hubie Brown talks about Oscar". Not everything applies, but guys like Hubie who have been around the league for so long, their opinions have to matter (I know I am touching on a sensitive subject saying that).
I wish there was more statistical information on him so there could be an in depth look at Oscar vs Kobe vs KG, but there is not. One thing I think happens when we get into these discussions is it usually comes down to player A vs player B and we zone in so much on those two that we lose sight of where we are- Right now it feels like we are talking about KG and Kobe as if we are deciding #1 and #2 when in reality this is the 11th spot. But because Oscar played before we have PbP data he gets left out when comparing different statistics between Kobe and KG and therefore he gets left behind.
Someone posted the KAJ quote about Oscar and his impact on that championship team. That is what sealed up this vote for me. He had the impressive stats and what not as a Royal but he hadn't proved his impact translated to success. But his move to Milwaukee, his role in winning the championship and seeing KAJ's view of him was what Oscar needed (in my eyes) to solidify what his game showed in Cincinnati.
Okay Brand, Michael Jackson didn't come over to my house to use the bathroom. But his sister did.
I think those are some interesting points, but we are currently in a run-off between KG and Kobe. I would recommend you copy/paste your points for the next round when we get to it.
So when is this plane going down? I'll ride it til' it hits the ground!
It's currently a runoff between garnett and kobe, so your vote for oscar doesn't count here. You can vote for garnett or kobe if you'd like, and then submit this in the next thread.
Love the hubie video, by the way. I've learned so much for him over the years.
An Unbiased Fan wrote:1) RAPM was being used to state "superstar" level play. More specifically the +6 cutoff. I know you don't argue this personally, but others do, and use it to pump up KG's longevity, while diminishing Kobe's using that +6 cutoff line.
2) You're also using RAPM numbers...to confirm RAPM numbers here. Just the impact of producing 34 ppg on 57% TS is FAR more than 19 ppg on 51% TS.
At this point I'm just skimming through things. Don't feel like any long posts, but these 2 quick things stand out to me:
1) You're alleging I used +6 as a way to make KG look better. I forget who I was talking to at the time - whether it was you or not - but someone immediately brought this up, and I immediately showed this wasn't the case. I'll do it again now I guess:
If we use +7 as the cutoff, KG had a 10 to 4 lead. If we use +6 as the cutoff, KG had a 12 to 5 lead. If we use +5 as the cutoff, KG had a 14 to 6 lead.
And if we go into really elite levels:
If we use +9 as the cutoff, KG had a 7 to 0 lead.
The notion that +6 somehow was cherry picking is absurd. It's not based on any kind of evidence, merely the assumption that if I get specific with my arguments I MUST be cherry picking. That honestly seems too stupid to be an honest criticism, but giving the benefit of the doubt, it should be answer for once and for all now.
2) He's not using RAPM to confirm RAPM, he's breaking down RAPM into granular details so he can discuss what actually happened. Your complaints using points, rebounds, and assists were extremely superficial, so he went in more depth for you.
Now realistically given your stance on RAPM there was nothing he was going to say to reach you, and that's really okay on both fronts. There's an audience here. You're making your point partially for the audience's benefit, and the rebuttals will do the same. But c'mon, at a certain point you have to acknowledge that particular steps make sense even if you don't grant the entire premise. Characterizing what he's doing here as entirely circular logic is just obviously false.
I'm voting for Kobe in the runoff then. Kobe won two titles as the top dog. Carried some really bad teams and while i don't think he's the great defender his All-Defensive team awards show, he is a really good defender. I have said it before that KG cannot be the number one guy and have success. Kobe, on the other hand, showed he can be the number one guy and succeed.
do we need to go in depth with our choice for run off votes? If I need to I can, but it feels like beating a dead horse.
Okay Brand, Michael Jackson didn't come over to my house to use the bathroom. But his sister did.
An Unbiased Fan wrote:So let's look at playmaking.
1998 Starbury: 8.6 apg on 36.1 AST% KG: 4.2 apg on 18.2 AST% Googs: 4.1 apg on 17.9 AST% (only played 41 games)
1999 Starbury: 9.3 apg on 43.8 AST% Brandon: 9.8 apg on 49.1 AST% KG: 4.3 apg on 21.3 AST% ^ Clearly, the Wolves was a good passer team. But does KG's good, not great playmaking makeup for his subpar shooting efficiency? Is his +3.5 ORAPM a function of HIS impact, or more a result of the rotations he was in, since the Wolves had multiple skilled offensive guys?
Come on UBF, we all know that Starbury was garbage and a negative as a player. Since PG defense has a really small impact on the game, it's because his offense was significantly worse than the numbers indicate.
Not that this really changes your point, but the 98 squad was terrible. Starbury was their second best player for the full season and teams always got better when they got rid of him.
As for Kobe's defense, Kobe slacked off a decent amount in 2006, as you'd expect being the only consistently good scorer all season having to take 27 shots, play 41 mpg, see most of the defensive attention and just carry the offense, but Kobe's defense wasn't bad considering that. He'd step up and take the challenge defending some of the top wings, and overall, his defense was better than it was in '05 or '07. However, I can't call '07 Kobe a good defender.
As for KG, I don't think it's fair to use Sheed's volume in the 2000 1st round as evidence of anything, or his stats vs "everyone else" in the playoffs. For one, the 2000 Blazers were truly stacked and didn't need to emphasize the same 2 or 3 players every time depending on the match up and who was hot. They were sort of like the Bad Boy Pistons in this regard. In the Minnesota series, Pippen was the guy playing great for Portland and leading them first and foremost. Then Smith was always reliable and efficient getting his shots, they were going to Sabonis more than in later rounds, and Stoudamire at times in the match up with Terrell Brandon.
As for how Sheed played in that series, he didn't seem to be having too much trouble scoring, but Minnesota was doubling him, and Sheed was doing a very good job passing out of those doubles. For example, Minnesota actually doubled Sheed more consistently than LA did despite Sheed having a bigger match up advantage vs LA. With the double teams and his defensive assignment on KG, Sheed's job in the series wasn't to score as much as usual, and they didn't go to him quite as much as they often would, but when they did go to him, he was doing his job making the passes and scoring inside when he had the opportunity.
The "everyone else" thing is also a bit deceptive because 7 of the 12 playoff games came against LA who Sheed dominated due to his advantage over Horry and especially, AC Green. If you look at Sheed's stats vs Utah in the 2nd round, they were actually worse than they were vs Minnesota.
1st round vs Wolves- 13.5 ppg, 6 rpg, 3 apg, 0.8 TO, 1.5 bpg, 1 spg, 52.4 FG%, 57.1 TS%, 4 games WCSF vs Jazz- 13.8 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 0.8 apg, 1.6 TO, 2 bpg, 1.4 spg, 45.3 FG%, 48.9 TS%, 5 games
Now, the LA series
WCF vs Lakers- 23.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 1.7 apg, 1.7 TO, 0.6 bpg, 0.6 spg, 49.6 FG%, 58.2 TS%, 7 games
And those numbers vs LA would be even better had Sheed not been ejected after getting his technical foul in game 1, which limited him to 16 minutes. Here are his numbers for the final 6 games.
So that had more to do with Minnesota doubling and Sheed having plenty of offensive help and then the Lakers not having the personnel to guard him while being more hesitant to double. His Utah series was easily his worst offensively.
But it is correct that KG used to be asked to defend wings quite a bit in the early 00's. Aside from that, once zone became legal, Flip would have Minnesota in some kind of half-assed zone at times asking KG to do too much without any help, and it was completely ineffective. Due to poor defensive support, poor coaching and KG being asked to come out on the perimeter AND be the interior defense, I believe his defensive impact looks worse during those years.
FWIW, I'd pick Kobe between him and KG, but I just wanted to give my 2 cents on these particular things being said. It's relatively close, and KG was unfortunate to get stuck in a situation that was consistently not much better than Kobe's from '05-'07 for the better part of his prime, which of course alters perception. It's very difficult to compare their games with Kobe being a perimeter player known first and foremost for his offense and KG being a defensive-minded big man who did everything very well, but was never the dominant scorer, but I typically thought of Kobe as the better player between the two when both were at their primes.
First, KG's prime, and who I'd take year by year.
2000- KG 2001- Kobe 2002- Basically a coin flip, use to say Kobe, but I'd probably lean towards KG 2003- KG, but not by much 2004- KG, who was at his peak while Kobe was limited 2005- KG, again, but Kobe was limited 2006- Kobe 2007- Kobe 2008- Kobe
I have them virtually even just for KG's prime, and that includes two years where Kobe was limited due to injuries. Now for Kobe's prime
2003- KG 2004- KG 2005- KG 2006- Kobe 2007- Kobe 2008- Kobe 2009- Kobe, and while KG was injured, Kobe was clearly better even before that.
Except for when Kobe was limited, I wouldn't ever easily pick KG from 2001 on, and once Kobe got to enjoy the rest of his prime without injuries and pick up where he left off in 2003, there wasn't too much doubt who the better player was, imo.
Again, it's really difficult to compare their games, though, so I understand a lot of it is personal preference and perception due to circumstances, though Kobe himself dragged some horrible teams, and then really led LA impressively as soon as he got some help with Gasol.
Heh, it seems volume scorers, no matter how well they play can't catch a break sometimes…
(And I know you didn't specifically say they had bad seasons, although i did catch the "yikes that's too high" comment before you edited it out)
No, not saying they're bad. Rather I'm providing a list of guys to compare because the point is to find one example where a 34 PPG guy is rated below a 19/10 guy (like Walton over Gervin.) And yeah, Carmelo was too high. I forgot he was third and someone voted for him instead of LeBron.
I'm not looking to get into a long debate here, but he had a career year (of which was an excellent season on its own), led the league in scoring, and the knicks finished with the 7th best record in the league (2nd in the east). GIven the loose criteria with which the MVP is voted on (best player on a top 5 team + narrative), he was deserving of that 3rd spot. Had he actually won MVP, then no, of course he wouldn't have been deserving.
An Unbiased Fan wrote:1) RAPM was being used to state "superstar" level play. More specifically the +6 cutoff. I know you don't argue this personally, but others do, and use it to pump up KG's longevity, while diminishing Kobe's using that +6 cutoff line.
2) You're also using RAPM numbers...to confirm RAPM numbers here. Just the impact of producing 34 ppg on 57% TS is FAR more than 19 ppg on 51% TS.
At this point I'm just skimming through things. Don't feel like any long posts, but these 2 quick things stand out to me:
1) You're alleging I used +6 as a way to make KG look better. I forget who I was talking to at the time - whether it was you or not - but someone immediately brought this up, and I immediately showed this wasn't the case. I'll do it again now I guess:
If we use +7 as the cutoff, KG had a 10 to 4 lead. If we use +6 as the cutoff, KG had a 12 to 5 lead. If we use +5 as the cutoff, KG had a 14 to 6 lead.
And if we go into really elite levels:
If we use +9 as the cutoff, KG had a 7 to 0 lead.
The notion that +6 somehow was cherry picking is absurd. It's not based on any kind of evidence, merely the assumption that if I get specific with my arguments I MUST be cherry picking. That honestly seems too stupid to be an honest criticism, but giving the benefit of the doubt, it should be answer for once and for all now.
You're the one who referenced 'superstar" level, and then used that cutoff in comparison between Kobe vs KG. I don't really care to debate whether its cherry picking or not, the point is that its silly to equate seasons like 98/99 to "super star" level, and then extrapolate that into KG's longevity argument.
I was very specific with you on this, and referenced KG's production for those seasons. I gave you an out to perhaps pull back and say you're over stating RAPM a bit, but then you stuck with the notion that 98/99 KG is on par with 06/07 Kobe.
Ask yourself a simply question, whether you believe KG to be better or not....Does the notion that KG had 7 seasons more impactful than Kobe's best....really make sense to you?
2) He's not using RAPM to confirm RAPM, he's breaking down RAPM into granular details so he can discuss what actually happened. Your complaints using points, rebounds, and assists were extremely superficial, so he went in more depth for you.
Now realistically given your stance on RAPM there was nothing he was going to say to reach you, and that's really okay on both fronts. There's an audience here. You're making your point partially for the audience's benefit, and the rebuttals will do the same. But c'mon, at a certain point you have to acknowledge that particular steps make sense even if you don't grant the entire premise. Characterizing what he's doing here as entirely circular logic is just obviously false.
1) He referenced RAPM numbers in the argument. I was looking for non-RAPM points. Breaking them down wasn't needed.
2) My "complaints" detailing the vast gulf of a difference between 98/99 KG to 06/07 Kobe....was in no way superficial. Pointing out that KG shot BELOW the league average on TS, and that he had playmakers twice as productive as he on both squads...seems prudent to the comparison, doesn't it? I looked at the Minny defense which didn't show Russell like impact. I'm looking for correlation between the RAPM numbers, which simply can't be found. I looked at every criteria we have used in this project, PER, WS, peer review, support, and on and on. This goes back to what Purch said about how everything gets thrown out for RAPM. This is why I say it's like arguing religion on a Christian forum. "Goodness" is like "faith". Things are this way " just because". Other methods of evaluation are dismissed as inferior or biased. How else can the notion that 2011 KG was more impactful than any version of Kobe exist otherwise.
3) I don't need to be "reached". I have an open mind, but......I need actual evidence. And I'm not sure why you're inferring that I'm suggesting that dzra is using circular logic. I like his posts, and that's why I engage him often. My first sentence was telling him that I appreciate his reply.
Don't confuse my criticism of evidence for RAPM's validity, as criticism at dzra. Me and him are having a debate on its merits.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
An Unbiased Fan wrote:So let's look at playmaking.
1998 Starbury: 8.6 apg on 36.1 AST% KG: 4.2 apg on 18.2 AST% Googs: 4.1 apg on 17.9 AST% (only played 41 games)
1999 Starbury: 9.3 apg on 43.8 AST% Brandon: 9.8 apg on 49.1 AST% KG: 4.3 apg on 21.3 AST% ^ Clearly, the Wolves was a good passer team. But does KG's good, not great playmaking makeup for his subpar shooting efficiency? Is his +3.5 ORAPM a function of HIS impact, or more a result of the rotations he was in, since the Wolves had multiple skilled offensive guys?
Come on UBF, we all know that Starbury was garbage and a negative as a player. Since PG defense has a really small impact on the game, it's because his offense was significantly worse than the numbers indicate.
Not that this really changes your point, but the 98 squad was terrible. Starbury was their second best player for the full season and teams always got better when they got rid of him.
Marbury was definitely not garbage. He was an inefficient scorer, but a good playmaker. Then he's replaced with Terrell Brandon who was also good in 99'.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
Clyde Frazier wrote:Have to get a little stream of consciousness off my chest before i submit my vote…
The on / off, in / out and RAPM figures obviously make a great case for garnett here. I know looking at him and just saying "he isn't a great primary scoring option, so we can't rank him this high" isn't a strong statement.
And yes, if he came up through a different organization, maybe he would've had a teammate to shoulder the scoring load. However, there's no guarantee that player comes along, and that's where I wonder about garnett's real value. He was relied on to be the 1st option, and I never felt he was comfortable in that role, although he performed to the best of his ability.
I'd consider the majority of the top 20 to be the faces of their franchise as winners, and garnett eventually had his greatest impact as the defensive anchor of a team with a solid 1st option in pierce. (And yes, i'm aware the #s show garnett had a larger impact than pierce in 08.)
I suppose what i'm trying to say is that in the right situation, garnett's impact can be felt much larger than in others. With the way player movement is today, maybe if he entered the league later he would've ended up in a better situation earlier.
I'm just not ready to concede that garnett is essentially the modern day russell, and got a tough break along the way.
When I look at him in contrast to Kobe, who has the gaudy #s, accolades and championships to boot, it has me thinking hard about who i really value as the better player. Having watched both of their careers from the start, i've developed strong feelings about these guys over the years. I'm sure many of you can relate to that. At this point, i just need to further evaluate them as i'm basically split between the two.
IIRC, you're a Dirk Nowitzki fan. How do you feel about Dirk vs KG, and Dirk vs Kobe?
Yup. Always a knicks fan first and foremost, but I was a big fan of finley from the start of his career, and followed him closely on the mavs when they were absolutely terrible. After nash and dirk came along, i couldn't get enough of those guys, and the mavs basically became my "western conference team".
I spent most of my life from 06 to 2011 defending dirk on message boards because of the irrational hate for him and exaggerated "soft choker" label he got because of 06 and 07. It's funny now how (especially on here) he's basically idolized because of 2011, but you take everything you can get as a dirk fan. I just think of it as making up for all the years he was unfairly judged.
Anyway, I always felt garnett and dirk were right in that top 5 PF of all time discussion for much of their careers, with dirk slightly behind garnett. I always contended that it was close, though when i'd see either A) garnett supporters saying he's a 2 way player and dirk doesn't play a lick of D or B) garnett can't do anything as a #1 -- look at all those 1st round exits and playoff misses!
I do find it interesting that they've both seemingly leap frogged malone and barkley in the rankings. This is going back a few years now, but I used to have a very concrete top 5 in my head of Duncan Malone Barkley Garnett Dirk with a "hey, where do we put pettit?" question.
With malone you had the absurd longevity and production and 2 finals appearances which i sorta gave him the benefit of the doubt for considering he faced the bulls. Totally get the overall decrease in production in the playoffs, though. And barkley, what can I say? The guy was an absolute monster offensively, and one of my top 3 favorite players in the early to mid 90s. Looks like garnett's going to get voted in anyway, but like i said, this was a few years ago, and a lot has changed. Dirk has a solid case over both of them (malone / barkley).
Kobe? i don't have much to say about kobe. I respect his game and what he's accomplished in his career, but he has such a crazy fan base that it's hard to have discussions with them (note: i'm not really referring to posters on this board). Kinda turns you off to thinking about him for long periods of time. If i'm starting a franchise, i take dirk every time. There's a clear case for kobe over him, though.
DQuinn1575 wrote: It's like comparing wade to pippen. Pippen might have better all around skills but wade is the gamer who is there to win.
I don't mind your description of Wade, but the implication that Pippen isn't there to win is completely baseless.
Its like when we used to get the argument that KG was better than Duncan because of his will to win. No what you were seeing was KG showed a lot of emotion on the court and Timmy didnt. Tells us nothing about their will to win.
Same with Pippen. For the most part he was reserved on the court, and of course there was a pretty big shadow over the bulk of his career--but acting like he didn't care to win is completely without any merit.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
FJS wrote:Maybe I'm living in another reality or something like that... but I can't believe how KG it's getting so much love.
Everybody is talking how great was in deffense... but his impact it's not translated to great defensive teams, except Boston 08, who had Tony Allen, PJ Brown, a better version of Perkins or James Posey. And Still they went to 7 vs Hawks and Cavs.
Wolves were mediocre defensive team. He is the weakest franchise guy mentioned. Not able to step up in scoring. Being his deffense fantastic... who cares if it doesn't translate into to improve your team.
Do you think that KG in Jazz team in 97 and 98, or in 93 Suns would have done better than Karl or Chuck? In 2011 Mavericks better than Dirk?
Do you really think Spurs in 99, 03, 05 would have done better with him?
Jazz or Spurs were really good in defense for those years.. no doubt. And Suns weren't, but still I don't watch him being a difference.
KG is overrated, pretty overrated. He is a better version of Pippen, a much better version of AK. But Still he is not a top 11 player ever in the NBA. His impact in the game, and in the history of the game it's not greater than Kobe, Dr J, Malone, Dirk or Barkley.
How didn't his defense improve his team, that pretty much implies that if Garnett wasn't there the Timberwolves would be just as good without him, which I think is a pretty absurd statement.
Also, for the bold players. Tony Allen didn't play, Kendrick Perkins sucks and is a dime a dozen player, PJ Brown was ancient at the time. Why blow off the Celtic feat as if they were stacked with amazing defenders? Compare that team to the recent Memphis Grizzlies team, a team where 4/5 of the starters are all nba defensive caliber players, and they're nowhere near the defense the Celtics were.
