Real GM Top 100 List #11

[colts18]

Here is my Malone vs. KG case.

Here are there numbers through age 34:
Malone: 26.2 PPG, 10.7 Reb, .583 TS%, 3.3 Ast, 24.1 PER, .207 WS/48
Garnett: 19.5 PPG, 10.7 Reb, .549 TS%, 4.1 Ast, 23.5 PER, .191 WS/48

Playoffs:
Malone: 26.9 PPG, 11.4 Reb, 2.9 Ast, .532 TS%, 22.3 PER, .154 WS/48
Garnett: 19.6 PPG, 11.1 Reb, 3.8 Ast, .519 TS%, 21.7 PER, .151 WS/48

Malone had a few solid years after this including an MVP season. KG is already declining rapidly.

All-NBA:
Malone: 14 All-NBA (11 first team)
Garnett: 9 All-NBA (4 first team)

MVP:
Malone: 2 MVP, 14 top 10, 9 Top 5, 5 Top 3
Garnett: 1 MVP, 7 Top 10, 5 Top 5, 4 Top 3

Head to Head:
Malone: 24.5 PPG, 8.8 Reb, 4.1 AST, 51.7 FG%
Garnett: 19.3 PPG, 10.0 Reb, 3.6 AST, 46.8 FG%

NBA Finals:
Malone- 24.4 PPG, 10.4 Reb, 3.7 AST, 47.3 FG%, .517 TS%
Garnett- 16.6 PPG, 9.0 Reb, 3.0 AST, 46.6 FG%, .509 TS%

You can't use the age excuse because Malone went to the Finals in his age 33 and 34 season while KG went in his 31 and 33. Malone did this while being guarded by one of the best defenders in history. Pau Gasol is no Dennis Rodman. Malone drew 2.2x more FT than KG in 1 less game.

One of the reasons I have Malone ahead is because of the significant offensive advantage. Big part is FT. Malone drew about 2x more FT than KG does. Not only does he rack up FT, but he forces his opponent into the penalty early helping his teammates out. All the KG supporter fail to mention his embarrassing track record at drawing FT.

1) Dennis Rodman during the Bulls years was also no "shut-down/all-time" defender that was capable of holding his own, he was more of just a rebounding force that hustled on defense.

But we never saw his true defensive power that he showcased with the Pistons at peak form, and you can even look at accolades, his All-NBA Defense stops after '96, and if you want to correlate that with DPOY, he only had a total of eight 1st place votes during his tenure. So not really "all-time great" defense at the time.

2) Pau Gasol's impact was felt immediately to the Lakers front-court. Without Bynum here's how he limited some of the best PFs in the league during the Lakers 2008 run.

Martin: 42%
Boozer: 38%
Duncan: 42%
Garnett: 44%

So it was very consistent, he didn't just limit Garnett, but Duncan & Boozer played a horrendous series against the Lakers, and this is without Bynum ever being there.

3) Why no mention of passing? Garnett's one of the best passers in league history, especially out of both the high & low post, and considering he's had seasons where he's had 5 or 6 assists, do you know how incredibly hard it is to rack up that number for a big-man?

He consistently created plays and facilitated the offense from the post (incredibly hard, Malone had Stockton), and if you're going to compare peak forms of both players (2004), Garnett's very well just as good, if not better. Also why no consideration of defense? Garnett's one of the top 3 best defenders of our era, and with a legitimate cast anchored a historic defense.

1) In what Bizarro world is Gasol a better defender than Rodman? Rodman might have stopped being all-D teams, but he was a better defender in 97-98 than Gasol is considering Rodman's sole job was to play defense and rebound. And last time I checked, Gasol never made it to a All-D team let alone did it in 08-10.

3) I did mention passing. For all of KG's passing, he still only averaged 3.8 AST in the playoffs. To put that into comparison, Tim Duncan is at 3.4 and Webber is at 3.6. Why isn't anyone talking about KG's decline in the playoffs when it comes to Assists? The KG fanboys bring up Malone and Robinson's declines, but not KG's.

4) As far as defense, Karl Malone's team averaged 7.2 D Rtg ranking from his rookie year to 1999. We all know the story of KG's D ratings in Minnesota.

[JordansBulls]

Prelimanary vote:

Vote: Moses Malone
Nominate: Clyde Drexler

Moses Malone with 3 league mvp's, 1 finals mvp and on one of the greatest teams ever in the 1983 Sixers.

[Dr Positivity]

Just continuing up on the previous thought. For me it's not what someone did, but how.

So when I look at Pettit dropping 27 and 16s and getting best player in the league rep and accolades, it's pretty damn impressive. But when I ask how he did it, really erasing everything else, I'm not incredibly impressed. I see a skill level and body that would normally lend itself to 2nd option scoring PF status in the West Boozer zone. Face-up scoring and not afraid, but how much of the difference between Pettit and West, Boozer, pre post up game LMA comes down to Pettit getting the green light more in a less efficient, poorly defended era. I'm a fan of defending Russell by pointing out 68 and 69 was probably the hardest years until 1980 and if you can beat the 69 Knicks, you can play with almost anyone argument, but I think it's clear that by 64, Pettit's last big year, there was still a lot of easy prey defensively and guys like Wilt, Oscar, Bellamy were putting up unfair stats. Dolph Schayes lasted till 61 and was effective, when Pettit won his title Yardley put up 28ppg, Schayes 25ppg, Lovellete 23ppg. So you have a lot of white bigs people don't take seriously putting up elevated stats. Not saying Pettit wasn't better or doesn't deserve credit for lasting longer, but how big was the difference between 64 and 58. I think it was smaller than between 64 and 69, personally.

I definitely feel people go too far with the "how would he translate today" stance, but even if Pettit could get off his game the same way he did back then, I don't know if he'd be more than a 2nd option on most teams just going by his game.

I'm fine with Pettit going top 30 or even landing at 21, but he wouldn't get my vote just because I feel like there's a large number of players on the board who just had a better game

[colts18]

Here are postseason stats from ElGee during these elite players prime:

Good game to Bad game ratio:
Shaq 95-03 16.00
Jordan 91-98 4.43
Hakeem 91-97 3.20
James 06-11 2.14
Barkley 91-96 1.46
Dirk 01-11 1.20
Duncan 99-07 1.20
Wade 05-11 1.17
Kobe 01-10 0.88
Robinson 91-98 0.88
Malone 91-01 0.76
Garnet 00-08 0.48

Good game is >25 Game score and bad game is <15 Game score. KG was so bad in this that he had the lowest percentage of good games among the group and the highest percentage of bad games and this is in KG's prime.

Good shooting games to bad shooting games ratio:
Hakeem 91-97 2.19
James 06-11 1.86
Shaq 95-03 1.76
Dirk 01-11 1.67
Duncan 99-07 1.49
Wade 05-11 1.40
Jordan 91-98 1.32
Barkley 91-96 1.29
Robinson 91-98 0.76
Garnett 00-08 0.62
Malone 91-01 0.61
Kobe 01-10 0.60

Good shooting game is >60 TS% and bad shooting game is <50 TS%. KG is the 3rd worst in this category. KG had the lowest percentage of good shooting games amongst the group.

[Baller 24]

1) In what Bizarro world is Gasol a better defender than Rodman? Rodman might have stopped being all-D teams, but he was a better defender in 97-98 than Gasol is considering Rodman's sole job was to play defense and rebound. And last time I checked, Gasol never made it to a All-D team let alone did it in 08-10.

1) Wasn't suggesting he was. I'm stating that Rodman clearly wasn't playing all-time great defense, and while Garnett didn't play that well facing against Gasol, his track record suggests that he wasn't the only elite PF to do so during the '08 playoff run, so I don't know why this is a clear argument in Malone's favor, when Gasol was limiting his counterparts the entire playoff run, team-by-team.

3) I did mention passing. For all of KG's passing, he still only averaged 3.8 AST in the playoffs. To put that into comparison, Tim Duncan is at 3.4 and Webber is at 3.6. Why isn't anyone talking about KG's decline in the playoffs when it comes to Assists? The KG fanboys bring up Malone and Robinson's declines, but not KG's.

?

T-Wolves, Playoff Assist Numbers (compared to reg season assist numbers):
'97: 3.7 (+.6)
'98: 4.0 (-.2)
'99: 3.8 (-.5)
'00: 8.8 (+3.8)
'01: 4.3 (-.7)
'02: 5.0 (-.2)
'03: 5.2 (-.8)
'04: 5.1 (+.1)

Boston:
3.3 (-.1)
2.5 (+.2)
2.6 (+.2)

Speak again?


Once he was on the Celtics, he was for one of the first times in his career part of an actual defensive and offensive system. Where his job wasn't to clearly facilitate an entire offense like shouldered until '07. Where exactly is the playoff drop you're speaking of?

And I still hear no mention of defense. And Garnett with a legitimate supporting cast in an established defensive system has anchored the greatest defense statistically of his era. Malone's always been part of a good defensive system, with the T-wolves, there wasn't a clear scheme to run through defensively or offensively.

[ElGee]

disingenuous factoids that i can't get my feeble mind over when considering KG:
- for his first 7 playoff series, he won a cumulative 7 games.
- only four 50+-win seasons with minny, 7 overall. dirk has 11. chuck has 8. Malone has 11.
- in his 3 deep playoff runs, he went from 24/15/4 (very impressive) to 20.5/10.5.3 (mildly impressive) to 15/7/2.5 (fairly unimpressive). that's it! 3 series where he hit double-digit games as a sample size...
- in comparison, DRob who entered the league 6 years older than KG to a crappier squad had 4 "deep" playoff pushes before Duncan arrived (7 overall) and had better numbers in those series - even if he did take a hit in production from the regular season.
- DRTGs (RS/PS):: KG (pre-Celtics): 100/100.6 KG(career): 99/99.5. Drob (pre-duncan): 97/101. Drob(career): 96/96

1 - i really dislike the "his production took a hit" argument, especially when the net results are ignored. Kidd's apg and fg% all took a hit in the postseason whereas billups' points, assists, and rebounds all rose yet nobody's making a case that kidd is better than billups... are they? if someone "shut down" DRob to 20/10 whereas KG "stepped his game up" to 20/10... does it really matter

Disingenuous? These "factoids" have all been addressed -- what about the explanations did you not find adequate?

maybe in the clutter that were previous threads which i may or may not have TL/DR-ed but i have yet to see adequate addressing in this thread. refresh me in short, dumbed down words?

-You really can't see how it's possible for one team to have more wins than another without having a better player?

breaking 60? yes. i can see that happening. i won't fault him for not topping 60. however, when it comes to the 11th best player of all time not being able to be 8+ games above .500 consistently, something is amiss. i mean, don't you expect guys like Iverson, Lebron, Wade, and to an extent even 'Melo to be able to get his team to 50 wins more often than not regardless of teammates?

-How on earth did David Robinson have a crappier team than Kevin Garnett? For someone who harps on teams so much, you have an *extremely* bizarre view of them.

going to a crappier team from the get go. KG went to a team with googs/rider/porter. DRob had terry cummings and a sophomore Rod Strickland.

-How are the "net results" ignored for Garnett? (I think they are ignored because his team's lost, which creates Losing Bias and a warped memory of all his great performances.) The difference, which has been explained in detail, is that it's hard to see David Robinson's impact outside the box score. His role is different. His teams were different. People played him different. Did you watch both of these guys closely throughout their career or are you just looking at a box?

different for sure. DRob would grab the board, get it to his guard. run the floor and either get transition baskets or post up. KG would grab the board, bring it up himself, nestle in at the elbow and initiate the offense. more or less...

my point is that people poo poo DRob by saying "oh he wilted in the playoffs" even though his post-shrink numbers in his deep playoff pushes are still around the 25/12/3 range. then someone, somewhere, says that KG "stepped up" in '08 and stepped his game up from 19/9 to 20/10 in the playoffs. it just seems like cherrypicking stats to back preconceived notions.

Well, read them all, darnit The cliff notes are:
*Minnesota's teams had 3 major injuries and lost 4 1st-round picks in a short period, crippling the team.
*Minnesota played the top teams in the league
*Minnesota suffered further injuries in the playoffs
*Garnett's lack of TOP team DRtg's don't disprove his value -- instead we can see his teams defend terribly without him and fairly well with him...over and over and over.
*Coaching/scheme will also shift the DRtg a few points -- this has been observed...over and over and over.
*D-Rob struggles against good teams in the RS AND PS. KG doesn't show this pattern. Garnett is anchoring the team on offense and defense frequently. Comparing their stats is a lot of apples and oranges.

I don't know if you watched these guys closely, so maybe that's why you're misinterpreting the numerical analysis here. The causality flows like this: Watch play --> interpret stats. It's not cherry picking or retroactively trying to make an argument, it's using the basic measurements of the game in a frame of reference with how these players were playing. So stuff like KG shouldering a larger offensive load (bc of team, pace, opponent, etc) is relevant, even though the *raw* numbers end up looking comparable. For eg

DRob pts as a % of team offense in PS:
90 20.8%
91 23.9%
93 22.9%
94 22.7%
95 25.7%
96 25.1%

KG
99 27.1%
00 22.0%
01 25.6%
02 23.5%
03 26.9%
04 26.4%

AND, that's with Garnett having greater assist numbers -- a reflection of his increased distributing/creation role by pressuring D relative to D-Rob. And personally, I think KG's work in all other areas in the game is awesome and D-Rob's somewhat lacking, and that's a point of separation for me.

As for your classification of KG "going to a team with googs/rider/porter," do you mean Terry Porter? This is such a bizarre statement, I don't know where to begin -- maybe you are unaware of how old he was? KG was 18 at the time. Rider is a player who basically couldn't find a job in the league within a few years despite being a 20-point scorer...he's from the Ricky Davis school of basketball at times. Googs was one of the key injuries...On the flip, go watch early 90s Spurs games -- do you notice who is doing most of the lifting? Guys like Strickland, Cummings...

And if you believe star players simply automate to 50-wins, I'd like to do some SERIOUS sports wagering with you on every future NBA season please.

[NO-KG-AI]

People don't talk about KG's drop in assists because it's not nearly as big as Robinson/Malone's offensive drops, and his scoring and rebounding go up.

Colts, Why are you showing Malone's team defense in comparison to KG's unless you are insinuating they are even close defensively?

[colts18]

If KG had a bigger impact in his peak than say LeBron, why was LeBron able to get out of the 1st round every single year he made the playoffs while KG wasn't able to? Both of their supporting casts were similar.

I can't really rank KG ahead of LeBron especially If I go by the standards of this site. LeBron was better than KG in his peak, prime, better in the playoffs peak and prime, and more success, has RAPM success. The only thing he doesn't have is longevity. That is basically KG's argument against Malone, but LeBron has the same argument.

Look at the 06 Cavs. LeBron won in the first round and took a 64 win team to game 7. Somehow we are using the argument that KG faced great teams in the playoffs (though it's his fault for that), but the 06 Pistons had more wins than any of the teams KG faced.

Snow
Hughes/Flip Murray/Pavlovic
LeBron
Gooden
Z

He had old man Eric Snow, Flip Murray, and Drew Gooden starting for him in game 7. You can't tell me that somehow his cast was better than KG's in Minnesota.

2007:
Snow/Gibson
Hughes
LeBron
Gooden
Z

In the finals he had Sasha Pavlovic, Daniel Gibson, Drew Gooden, Big Z starting. I'd argue that other than Big Z, his cast was comparable to KG's much maligned 2007 T-Wolves Roster.

LeBron won more playoff series in this non-prime year than KG won in his 12 year T-Wolves tenure combined.

2008:
West
Szcerbiak
LeBron
Wallace
Z

LeBron had it so bad in 2008 that Wally who only started 1 game in the regular season for the Cavs, started game 7 of the biggest game. The KG fanboys make the argument that KG faced great teams and they also don't forget to mention that KG led this team to the best season post-MJ. Well LeBron took his crap team closer to winning against this great team than KG ever did in Minnesota. In game 7, LeBron had 45-6-5. The rest of his team shot 42% and combined for 47 points (LeBron almost outscored his team). The KG fanboys take a dump on Wally, yet LeBron took Wally who was 6 years older than in 2002 when KG fans said he wasn't a legit impact player to the finals. LeBron missed 7 games this season and his team went 0-7.

2009:
Mo
West
LeBron
Wallace
Z

This might be a top 3 season in NBA history. LeBron took a team that should have been a lottery team to 66 wins. While Peak KG didn't step up in the playoffs (only a .513 TS% in 2004), LeBron stepped it up in what might have been the best playoff in NBA history. He averaged 35-9-7 in the playoffs on .591 TS% and he averaged 38-9-8 against the Magic who were the #1 Defense in the league. KG fanboys aren't going to look at this team and say it's a bad team but in the playoffs no one in LeBron's cast had a better than 14.5 PER. That's right, no one in his cast was better than average. The 2nd best supporting member in PER was ancient Joe Smith who coincidentally was derided by KG fanboys when he was 7 years younger.

2010:
Mo
Parker
LeBron
Varejao/Jamison
Shaq

Another mediocre team that LeBron took to 61 wins. I don't see how this cast is better than KG's 2004 team considering KG had a 2nd team All-NBA player. The Cavs go 1-5 without LeBron in the 6 games he misses. LeBron averages 30-9-7 this year on .604 TS%. LeBron was trashed in the playoffs yet he still averaged 29-9-8 on 50.2 FG%, 40 3P% and .607 TS%. He had a 31 PER in the regular season and a 29 PER in the postseason. LeBron's #2 in PER this postseason was Jamario Moon who only averaged 10 MPG then Shaq was #3 but he was a huge defensive liability. The rest of LeBron's cast finished under 15 PER.

2011 Cavs:
The 2011 Cavs finish 42 games without LeBron. They lost out on Shaq, West, and Big Z also but those guys barely played for their 2011 teams. LeBron was the huge constant. I'd argue that Lebron's defensive impact is just as big if not bigger than KG's. The Cavs go from 104 D rating to 112 D rating and 7th in the league to 29th in the league without LeBron. According to B-R, As of Jan. 25, The Cavs had the worst offensive and defensive decline in NBA history http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8665 and the offensive decline was 1 SD higher than #2 which the people here who understand math know is staggering. There is no one who is going to argue that Big Z, Shaq, and West were the reason for the defensive decline even though they have bad defensive reputations.


Conclusion:
-LeBron's 08-10 teams went 1-13 without him. I'd argue they were similar to KG's cast.
-The arguments the KG supporters use can be used by LeBron ahead of KG.
-LeBron was better prime, peak, RS, and PS than KG.

Preliminary vote: LeBron
Nominate: Pettit

[pancakes3]

And if you believe star players simply automate to 50-wins, I'd like to do some SERIOUS sports wagering with you on every future NBA season please.

you don't think the thunder, mavs, bulls, and the magic - all "one-star" squads are all good for 50-win seasons next season? and those are just "normal" NBA stars - much less the "11th best player of all time". You take Barkley and you put him on the Rockets next year, i'd happily put money down that they win 50+.

as for the googs/rider/porter statement, i was saying that those guys are talented, at least more talented than the squad DRob saw. later on after KG got his legs under him, he had googs/starbury (another talented but boneheaded squad). i then jumped to the point - why couldn't he win with half-way decent talent in the late 90's?

it seems like pro-KGers are wanting it both ways by a large margin in saying "KG had such a heavy hand in the Wolve's offense and defense - much more than XXXXXXX- look past the box scores!!" then backpedal and say - "oh well it' snot his fault his team wasn't very good, he didn't have the horses be it injuries, draft picks, poor management, etc."

that argument works for me if a guy just couldn't get over the final hump and win championships: Iverson, Karl, Barkley, Ewing, etc. But to use that twofold argument to explain away the fact that KG couldn't win 50+ or make it out of the 1st round? it's stretching the "he did all he could and was cosmically cursed" excuse a little thin.

speaking of draft picks, i don't buy it. it wasn't like the TWolves were losing out on lotto talent time after time. as 40-something win teams, the wolves were losing out on 17, 18, 19th overall picks. those aren't make-or-break talent infusions by any means and definitely shouldn't be the difference maker between mediocrity and not.

as for facing the most talented teams in the playoffs? that's because they were consistently the 7/8 seeds. win a few more games and they would get the "luxury" of playing 4/5 seeds and maybe even bump it into a 2nd round once in a while. it gets no sympathy points explained away when he's had to face the spurs and lakers consistently.

[An Unbiased Fan]

2) Pau Gasol's impact was felt immediately to the Lakers front-court. Without Bynum here's how he limited some of the best PFs in the league during the Lakers 2008 run.

Martin: 42%
Boozer: 38%
Duncan: 42%
Garnett: 44%

So it was very consistent, he didn't just limit Garnett, but Duncan & Boozer played a horrendous series against the Lakers, and this is without Bynum ever being there.

This isn't quite accurate. Lamar Odom was playing PF for LA in the 08' run(Bynum was hurt). Outisde of KG, Odom's the guy who matched up against the people you listed for the most part, not Gasol. Not that LO didn't guard KG a bit too.

[TrueLAfan]

As someone who isn’t in this project, I’m (really) curious as to the arguments for KG or Malone over Julius Erving. I don’t know how Erving’s peak isn’t the highest—did KG or Malone ever have a year like Erving’s 1976, where he averaged 29-11-5 and was first team All-D in the regular season, and kicked it up a notch in the playoffs to lead a pretty mediocre team to a championship while putting up 35-13-5 in the playoffs? KG’s 2004 is pretty close, I guess … and if you use some forms of advanced analysis, you’d say it was better. Except Doc has KG (and, really, 99.99% of all other players) beat in intangibles and leadership (see below). And Doc had a markedly longer peak than KG. Giving KG credit for being at/near his peak in 1998, he’s got something like an 11 year run around his top level—and he was top 10 in MVP voting 8 times, and top 5 five times. That’s truly impressive…but not as good as Julius Erving. From 1972 to 1984, Doc was at/near his peak; that’s 13 years. He’s got an NBA MVP and 5 top 5 MVP finishes, just like KG … except Doctor J was better in the ABA; good enough to win 3 more MVPs.

Karl Malone? Really? He’s got the longetivity thing down…although, really, the difference between Karl Malone’s peak (1987-2002; 1234 games) and Julius Erving’s (1031 games) is about the same as the difference between Doc and KG (841 games). Malone was a great player at his peak. But I’ll just say that, at best, his best year wasn’t as good as Julius Erving’s. Malone’s nine years in the top 5 of MVP are more less equal to what Erving would have had if we’d counted his ABA years. But I don’t think Karl had a year close to Erving’s 1976.

Part of that is defense. I know … KG is a great defender. Malone is a good defender; very good in his best years. Erving splits the difference; I have to put him over Malone pretty easily. Julius Erving was probably the most underrated defender of any of the players that will go in the top 15. And he was a borderline elite defender in 1976.

Then you get to the postseason. Julius Erving is the best postseason performer of these three. Period. He had the best single year (1976, although he was close to as good as that in several other years.) He had the most great years and the longest run of great years. His teams did the best. I don’t think Malone should be in the discussion after this point, but that’s my .02.

KG and Doc is closer … but I don’t think it’s possible for people who weren’t there to understand the extra impact Julius Erving had on teams/teammates simply be being Julius Erving. We are talking about one the top 5 players of all time in the NBA in terms of respect, admiration, and genuine liking. This is very different from being a great player or being a nice guy. When Moses Malone—not exactly a friendly or emotional guy—says “This was for the Doc. I wanted to be able to say that I played on a world championship team with Dr. J." it tells you something. This is not a case where players thought “Gee, it would be nice if Julius Erving won an NBA title.” Julius Erving got players to play better by dint of personality and respect. I am not saying that Kevin Garnett (or Karl Malone) did not have those qualities. I am saying that didn’t have them to (nearly the) same degree.

There are times and players where individual qualities transcend statistics, and this necessarily weakens numerical analysis. That transcendency is something that is recognized, if not quantified. And if everything else was even—which, IMO, it isn’t; I still have Julius Erving with the best peak, best postseason play, longest run of post season success, and a super long peak period—I think that alone would put Julius Erving ahead.

[penbeast0]

I am headed north for a wedding and won't be back for a couple of days. Here are the votes/nominations as I have them to this point -- someone else please be ready to put up the thread at the end of voting tomorrow night.

Thanks

VOTES
West -- penbeast0, cpower
Garnett -- Dr Mufasa, Doctor MJ. Fencer reregistered
Karl Malone -- Gongxi, ElGee, mysticbb, FJS, Bucksfans1and2
Erving -- shawngoat23
Moses Malone – JordansBulls
LeBron James – colts18

NOMINATIONS
Wade -- Dr Mufasa, cpower, Baller24
Pettit -- penbeast0, Doctor MJ, ElGee, mysticbb, FJS, Bucksfans1and2, colts18
Havlicek -- shawngoat23
Drexler -- JordansBulls

[Doctor MJ]

you don't think the thunder, mavs, bulls, and the magic - all "one-star" squads are all good for 50-win seasons next season? and those are just "normal" NBA stars - much less the "11th best player of all time". You take Barkley and you put him on the Rockets next year, i'd happily put money down that they win 50+.

I'm confused. The Rockets just won 43 games last year, and you're using the idea that adding Barkley could get them to 50 as proof that one-star teams should win 50 games?

Also, are you familiar with Barkley's career? Dude's team had 35 win season when he was at his gaudiest.

[mysticbb]

On the flip, go watch early 90s Spurs games -- do you notice who is doing most of the lifting? Guys like Strickland, Cummings.

That is one really important thing here. We hear about how the Spurs improved once Robinson played for them, but they added TWO important players that season too. Terry Cummings and Sean Elliot. Well, in 1992 we have two nice sets of games with either Cummings or Robinson out. In the 12 games without Cummings the Spurs were -1.8, with him +4.2. In the 14 games without Robinson the Spurs were -2.5, with him +4.6. We have a +7 Net and +6 Net for Robinson respective Cummings that season, while both played when the other was out. The other name I mentioned is Sean Elliot, 3rd pick overall in the 1989 draft. He started for the Spurs in 69 games, played 27 minutes and the Spurs were +4.1 in those games. When they started with Franck Brickowski instead, they were at 0. Giving Brickowski the starter job and 10 minutes more while reducing Elliot's minutes too, made the Spurs clearly worse. The coaches of the Spurs must have realised that, because they reduced Brickowski's minutes after the brief stint as starter again, and gave some additional minutes to David Wingate instead, they went "small" and done better.

If we also assume that the 1989 Spurs tanked in order to gain an advantage in the lottery, we have a good explanation for the -7.45 SRS of the Spurs. They had weak players and replaced them with better players like Cummings, Elliot, Wingate while adding a great center in Robinson. The Spurs woudl likely had a better season already without Robinson. If we look at the playing time in 1992 for Robinson and Cummings and adjust the Net results for that, we basically have two players added to the Spurs which have an equal impact. It is not unreasonable to think this, because the development of the Bucks after losing Cummings indicates a bigger impact by him.

Including now the differences in performances level of Robinson against weaker and better teams, we can very well assume that Robinson beat up on the weak teams, while couldn't perform against better teams. Not his playoff numbers are deflated, but his regular season numbers are inflated. It is not that he didn't have a big impact, but just not as big as his boxscore numbers suggest (if we include the usual assumption about defensive impact by a big here).

[Doctor MJ]

As someone who isn’t in this project, I’m (really) curious as to the arguments for KG or Malone over Julius Erving. I don’t know how Erving’s peak isn’t the highest—did KG or Malone ever have a year like Erving’s 1976, where he averaged 29-11-5 and was first team All-D in the regular season, and kicked it up a notch in the playoffs to lead a pretty mediocre team to a championship while putting up 35-13-5 in the playoffs? KG’s 2004 is pretty close, I guess … and if you use some forms of advanced analysis, you’d say it was better. Except Doc has KG (and, really, 99.99% of all other players) beat in intangibles and leadership (see below). And Doc had a markedly longer peak than KG. Giving KG credit for being at/near his peak in 1998, he’s got something like an 11 year run around his top level—and he was top 10 in MVP voting 8 times, and top 5 five times. That’s truly impressive…but not as good as Julius Erving. From 1972 to 1984, Doc was at/near his peak; that’s 13 years. He’s got an NBA MVP and 5 top 5 MVP finishes, just like KG … except Doctor J was better in the ABA; good enough to win 3 more MVPs.

Karl Malone? Really? He’s got the longetivity thing down…although, really, the difference between Karl Malone’s peak (1987-2002; 1234 games) and Julius Erving’s (1031 games) is about the same as the difference between Doc and KG (841 games). Malone was a great player at his peak. But I’ll just say that, at best, his best year wasn’t as good as Julius Erving’s. Malone’s nine years in the top 5 of MVP are more less equal to what Erving would have had if we’d counted his ABA years. But I don’t think Karl had a year close to Erving’s 1976.

Part of that is defense. I know … KG is a great defender. Malone is a good defender; very good in his best years. Erving splits the difference; I have to put him over Malone pretty easily. Julius Erving was probably the most underrated defender of any of the players that will go in the top 15. And he was a borderline elite defender in 1976.

Then you get to the postseason. Julius Erving is the best postseason performer of these three. Period. He had the best single year (1976, although he was close to as good as that in several other years.) He had the most great years and the longest run of great years. His teams did the best. I don’t think Malone should be in the discussion after this point, but that’s my .02.

KG and Doc is closer … but I don’t think it’s possible for people who weren’t there to understand the extra impact Julius Erving had on teams/teammates simply be being Julius Erving. We are talking about one the top 5 players of all time in the NBA in terms of respect, admiration, and genuine liking. This is very different from being a great player or being a nice guy. When Moses Malone—not exactly a friendly or emotional guy—says “This was for the Doc. I wanted to be able to say that I played on a world championship team with Dr. J." it tells you something. This is not a case where players thought “Gee, it would be nice if Julius Erving won an NBA title.” Julius Erving got players to play better by dint of personality and respect. I am not saying that Kevin Garnett (or Karl Malone) did not have those qualities. I am saying that didn’t have them to (nearly the) same degree.

There are times and players where individual qualities transcend statistics, and this necessarily weakens numerical analysis. That transcendency is something that is recognized, if not quantified. And if everything else was even—which, IMO, it isn’t; I still have Julius Erving with the best peak, best postseason play, longest run of post season success, and a super long peak period—I think that alone would put Julius Erving ahead.

TLAF!

Good to hear your voice, and cool to see you making a case.

As a Dr. J fan, me now picking Garnett over him is something I do reluctantly, and maybe it won't last. In the '06 Top 100, I picked Erving at #7, now he's slipped out of my top 10.

I agree with you that I pick Erving on peak. '75-76 was amazing.

The thing that really has stood out to me though since the RPOY project is that he never really dominated in the playoffs in the NBA like some others I've compared him to. Absolutely, those early years in Philly were heavily influenced by circumstance. However, even as the team became better built, and more consistently successful with Erving putting up some bigger numbers, those numbers still look relatively modest compared to some other all-time greats. Comparing his scoring to say Tim Duncan's, and Erving doesn't actually have the clear edge there. That seems kind of amazing to me.

[An Unbiased Fan]

DRob pts as a % of team offense in PS:
90 20.8%
91 23.9%
93 22.9%
94 22.7%
95 25.7%
96 25.1%

KG
99 27.1%
00 22.0%
01 25.6%
02 23.5%
03 26.9%
04 26.4%

AND, that's with Garnett having greater assist numbers -- a reflection of his increased distributing/creation role by pressuring D relative to D-Rob. And personally, I think KG's work in all other areas in the game is awesome and D-Rob's somewhat lacking, and that's a point of separation for me.

As for your classification of KG "going to a team with googs/rider/porter," do you mean Terry Porter? This is such a bizarre statement, I don't know where to begin -- maybe you are unaware of how old he was? KG was 18 at the time. Rider is a player who basically couldn't find a job in the league within a few years despite being a 20-point scorer...he's from the Ricky Davis school of basketball at times. Googs was one of the key injuries...On the flip, go watch early 90s Spurs games -- do you notice who is doing most of the lifting? Guys like Strickland, Cummings...

And if you believe star players simply automate to 50-wins, I'd like to do some SERIOUS sports wagering with you on every future NBA season please.

Elgee, I posted this in the other thread, but perhaps it was missed.

For clarification, PTS% is a stat I came up with based on AST%, TRB%, and the like. Here's the formula:

PTS% = 100 * (Pts * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * Tm Pts)

DRob:
1990 - 28.1% PTS, 58.1% TS
1991 - 27.6% PTS, 76.0% TS
1993 - 26.4% PTS, 52.9% TS
1994 - 29.9% PTS, 47.1% TS
1995 - 30.1% PTS, 53.6% TS
1996 - 34.1% PTS, 56.9% TS


KG:
1999 - 30.5% PTS, 48.8% TS
2000 - 24.7% PTS, 44.1% TS
2001 - 29.8% PTS, 56.9% TS
2002 - 26.1% PTS, 51.4% TS
2003 - 29.7% PTS, 53.9% TS
2004 - 29.4% PTS, 51.3% TS


The problem with KG is that as a 1st option, his scoring efficiency is all-time bad in the playoffs. I think only Iverson is worse.

I can't quite give KG a pass for being unable to carry his team offensively. It's not like he's an elite playmaker of Nash or Magic or Bird's caliber. He's a good passing bigman on par with a Webber. He simply couldn't carry a team scoring-wise. And individual offense>individual defense.

I mean really, KG lost his first SEVEN playoff series. In 03' & 04' his team lost to a lower seed. From 05'-07' his team didn't even make the playoffs during his prime. In 08' Pierce saved that whole run with his G7 performance against the Cavs, and he was also the Finals MVP. In 09' Boston was a game away from the ECF without KG for the entire run. At some point you have to ask...where's the impact? There's an obvious dropoff from KG in the post-season. His TS is in the mid 51% range, that's really awful for a 1st option/superstar.

If I want defense & rebounding, then I'm looking for Rodman/Big Ben, both of whom were better at those things than KG, and who had big impacts in the playoffs too. But I wouldn't put either of those 2 guys at the #11 spot all-time.

[colts18]

The problem with KG is that as a 1st option, his scoring efficiency is all-time bad in the playoffs. I think only Iverson is worse.

I can't quite give KG a pass for being unable to carry his team offensively. It's not like he's an elite playmaker of Nash or Magic or Bird's caliber. He's a good passing bigman on par with a Webber. He simply couldn't carry a team scoring-wise. And individual offense>individual defense.

I mean really, KG lost his first SEVEN playoff series. In 03' & 04' his team lost to a lower seed. From 05'-07' his team didn't even make the playoffs during his prime. In 08' Pierce saved that whole run with his G7 performance against the Cavs, and he was also the Finals MVP. In 09' Boston was a game away from the ECF without KG for the entire run. At some point you have to ask...where's the impact? There's an obvious dropoff from KG in the post-season. His TS is in the mid 51% range, that's really awful for a 1st option/superstar.

If I want defense & rebounding, then I'm looking for Rodman/Big Ben, both of whom were better at those things than KG, and who had big impacts in the playoffs too. But I wouldn't put either of those 2 guys at the #11 spot all-time.

The more I look at KG the more i think he is basically Chris Webber (Size, ballhandling, passing, scoring, low efficiency, and rebounding similar) with good defense. If Chris Webber averaged 0.9 more rebounds and had real good defense, no one here would rank him #11.

[FJS]

People don't talk about KG's drop in assists because it's not nearly as big as Robinson/Malone's offensive drops, and his scoring and rebounding go up.

Colts, Why are you showing Malone's team defense in comparison to KG's unless you are insinuating they are even close defensively?

Malone RS 25 PPG
Malone playoffs 24.7 PPG

It's that a great offensive drop?
Robinson dropped 3.0 ppg

Garnett is good for 19.6 in playoffs and 19.5 in RS.

In my book, 24.7 ppg and dropping 0.3 ppg is still more valuable than 19.6 ppg
In rebounds Garnett wins 11.1 to 10.7. Still, not as great difference as in ppg.
In assists Garnett is 0.6 above.
Still those numbers are only to drop as Garnett continues playing, as Malones numbers drop in his last years.

[An Unbiased Fan]

The problem with KG is that as a 1st option, his scoring efficiency is all-time bad in the playoffs. I think only Iverson is worse.

I can't quite give KG a pass for being unable to carry his team offensively. It's not like he's an elite playmaker of Nash or Magic or Bird's caliber. He's a good passing bigman on par with a Webber. He simply couldn't carry a team scoring-wise. And individual offense>individual defense.

I mean really, KG lost his first SEVEN playoff series. In 03' & 04' his team lost to a lower seed. From 05'-07' his team didn't even make the playoffs during his prime. In 08' Pierce saved that whole run with his G7 performance against the Cavs, and he was also the Finals MVP. In 09' Boston was a game away from the ECF without KG for the entire run. At some point you have to ask...where's the impact? There's an obvious dropoff from KG in the post-season. His TS is in the mid 51% range, that's really awful for a 1st option/superstar.

If I want defense & rebounding, then I'm looking for Rodman/Big Ben, both of whom were better at those things than KG, and who had big impacts in the playoffs too. But I wouldn't put either of those 2 guys at the #11 spot all-time.

The more I look at KG the more i think he is basically Chris Webber (Size, ballhandling, passing, scoring, low efficiency, and rebounding similar) with good defense. If Chris Webber averaged 0.9 more rebounds and had real good defense, no one here would rank him #11.

Very true. KG's defense is much much better, but for the most part, he is kind of a Webber 2.0 type player.

[colts18]

People don't talk about KG's drop in assists because it's not nearly as big as Robinson/Malone's offensive drops, and his scoring and rebounding go up.

Colts, Why are you showing Malone's team defense in comparison to KG's unless you are insinuating they are even close defensively?

Malone RS 25 PPG
Malone playoffs 24.7 PPG

It's that a great offensive drop?
Robinson dropped 3.0 ppg

Garnett is good for 19.6 in playoffs and 19.5 in RS.

In my book, 24.7 ppg and dropping 0.3 ppg is still more valuable than 19.6 ppg
In rebounds Garnett wins 11.1 to 10.7. Still, not as great difference as in ppg.
In assists Garnett is 0.6 above.
Still those numbers are only to drop as Garnett continues playing, as Malones numbers drop in his last years.

Lots of that drop is because of Malone playing late into his career. If you look at Malone through age 34 (1998), his PPG and Rebounds not only improved, but they were better than KG's. KG supporters talk about KG's rebounding advantage, but that was really imaginary. In the RS, they were equal in rebounds and in the postseason Malone had the edge and in the Finals Malone had a big edge.

Here are there numbers through age 34:
Malone: 26.2 PPG, 10.7 Reb, .583 TS%, 3.3 Ast, 24.1 PER, .207 WS/48
Garnett: 19.5 PPG, 10.7 Reb, .549 TS%, 4.1 Ast, 23.5 PER, .191 WS/48

Playoffs:
Malone: 26.9 PPG, 11.4 Reb, 2.9 Ast, .532 TS%, 22.3 PER, .154 WS/48
Garnett: 19.6 PPG, 11.1 Reb, 3.8 Ast, .519 TS%, 21.7 PER, .151 WS/48

Malone's PPG improves by 0.7 PPG and his rebounds by 0.7.