RealGM Top 100 List #10

[Clyde Frazier]

I don't think the NBA was irrelevant prior to 1980. If it was I'd hardly have championed Kareem for #2. But the NBA was pretty weaksauce in Pettit's time, and we need to be very cautious about how we reward Pettit for playing well in a weak league. Russell and Wilt were at least transcendent in Pettit's time, but Pettit sure wasn't. He won the title once in a year Russell got hurt, basically a fluke, and was not in the same category of player at all. You want to talk about Oscar around now? Great. I think Dr J has a great case at #11. But Pettit (and even moreso Mikan) are different, they are a long way from being real candidates.

We shouldn't punish players for being born too late either. Pettit wouldn't make the West all-star team last season. I'm worried that you think that's irrelevant.

All i'm saying is that when evaluating these players and their place in history, we can't just look at how they'd translate to today's game. It isn't fair to them, as without them the game wouldn't have evolved into what it is today. At the very least, the impact these players had on the development of the NBA game shouldn't just be brushed aside as insignificant.

Judging players across eras is by no means easy, but a player like pettit who dominated during his era is a clear cut top 50 player of all time in my mind, and I'm not alone in this thinking by any means. I don't know specifically yet where i'll rank him, but he's very clearly to me a top 8 PF of all time.

[Basketballefan]

4 time MVP
3 time Champ
3 time scoring champ
1 time DPOY
9 time 1st team
16 time all star

all time ranking 6th in pts/ 32nd in rebs/ 55th in asts/22nd in blocks/ 7th in steals

Per 100 36ppg 12rpg 5asts 2bls 2st for his career.

Historical impact on the history of the game.

Historical impact on American Society. (1st African American Athlete with endorsements)

He has not been voted in.
He has not received 1 single vote.
He is not in the top 15-20 of the majority of voters here.


Vote Larry Bird

Its a travesty that he isnt higher but it has been 30 yrs since he won his last MVP and most voters werent alive then. He is maybe the GOAT eye ball test player. You cant just look at his stats you have to watch him play. If you can get beyond his skin color, tight shorts and horrible hair and just watch him play you can appreciate his greatness. He is basicly LBJ talent with Kobes heart. The John Elway of basketball players. No lead safe no game out of reach.

Dr J never won DPOY nor is he 6th on the scoring list...i don't know why you are making things up. But he is underrated i get your point..people will argue Dirk over him and i will be prepared to laugh.

[Baller2014]

All i'm saying is that when evaluating these players and their place in history, we can't just look at how they'd translate to today's game. It isn't fair to them, as without them the game wouldn't have evolved into what it is today. At the very least, the impact these players had on the development of the NBA game shouldn't just be brushed aside as insignificant.

Judging players across eras is by no means easy, but a player like pettit who dominated during his era is a clear cut top 50 player of all time in my mind, and I'm not alone in this thinking by any means. I don't know specifically yet where i'll rank him, but he's very clearly to me a top 8 PF of all time.

I couldn't disagree more. It's like me saying "well, look, my cousin's great, great, great uncle was the first guy to come up with the concept of throwing a javelin. Sure, he could only throw it 20 yards, but he was an innovator who was the best in his whole village!" Sorry, but that is not a good argument. The first caveman to make fire with flint was "the first", but that doesn't mean his intellect was on par with Einstein or Newton.

What's unfair is taking points away from players for being born too late.

[magicmerl]

Dr J never won DPOY nor is he 6th on the scoring list...i don't know why you are making things up. But he is underrated i get your point..people will argue Dirk over him and i will be prepared to laugh.

He's 6th on the combined NBA/ABA chart.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html

[Basketballefan]

Dr J never won DPOY nor is he 6th on the scoring list...i don't know why you are making things up. But he is underrated i get your point..people will argue Dirk over him and i will be prepared to laugh.

He's 6th on the combined NBA/ABA chart.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html

That's my mistake, i normally use bball reference for my stats, for some reason i didn't this time.

[HeartBreakKid]

Pettit was a pretty nice player. Good size, fundamentally sound, good IQ allegedly, very good mindset. I don't see why he wouldn't be good today. I wouldn't think he's a top 3 player, but he's pretty legit. I mean obviously he looks skinny because he played in the 50s, but if he had more updated training he wouldn't look any worse than alot of other players.

[Clyde Frazier]

All i'm saying is that when evaluating these players and their place in history, we can't just look at how they'd translate to today's game. It isn't fair to them, as without them the game wouldn't have evolved into what it is today. At the very least, the impact these players had on the development of the NBA game shouldn't just be brushed aside as insignificant.

Judging players across eras is by no means easy, but a player like pettit who dominated during his era is a clear cut top 50 player of all time in my mind, and I'm not alone in this thinking by any means. I don't know specifically yet where i'll rank him, but he's very clearly to me a top 8 PF of all time.

I couldn't disagree more. It's like me saying "well, look, my cousin's great, great, great uncle was the first guy to come up with the concept of throwing a javelin. Sure, he could only throw it 20 yards, but he was an innovator who was the best in his whole village!" Sorry, but that is not a good argument. The first caveman to make fire with flint was "the first", but that doesn't mean his intellect was on par with Einstein or Newton.

What's unfair is taking points away from players for being born too late.

Note that I didn't say we just throw away eras and say "hey look what this guy did in the 50s and 60s! It's completely equal to the accomplishments of NBA players today." I'm not taking anything away from players being "born too late". Those players you're referring to wouldn't be playing anything without guys like pettit who in their day were far and away better than the rest of the league. Pettit specifically was the blueprint for the modern day PF. You're throwing context out the window completely with this thinking.

[Warspite]

4 time MVP
3 time Champ
3 time scoring champ
1 time DPOY
9 time 1st team
16 time all star

all time ranking 6th in pts/ 32nd in rebs/ 55th in asts/22nd in blocks/ 7th in steals

Per 100 36ppg 12rpg 5asts 2bls 2st for his career.

Historical impact on the history of the game.

Historical impact on American Society. (1st African American Athlete with endorsements)

He has not been voted in.
He has not received 1 single vote.
He is not in the top 15-20 of the majority of voters here.


Vote Larry Bird

Its a travesty that he isnt higher but it has been 30 yrs since he won his last MVP and most voters werent alive then. He is maybe the GOAT eye ball test player. You cant just look at his stats you have to watch him play. If you can get beyond his skin color, tight shorts and horrible hair and just watch him play you can appreciate his greatness. He is basicly LBJ talent with Kobes heart. The John Elway of basketball players. No lead safe no game out of reach.

Dr J never won DPOY nor is he 6th on the scoring list...i don't know why you are making things up. But he is underrated i get your point..people will argue Dirk over him and i will be prepared to laugh.

He would have had the award been given in 1976. Yes he actually is 6th in scoring with 30026 pts. He sits just behind Wilt and in front of Moses.

[DQuinn1575]

4 time MVP
3 time Champ
3 time scoring champ
1 time DPOY
9 time 1st team
16 time all star

all time ranking 6th in pts/ 32nd in rebs/ 55th in asts/22nd in blocks/ 7th in steals

Per 100 36ppg 12rpg 5asts 2bls 2st for his career.

Historical impact on the history of the game.

Historical impact on American Society. (1st African American Athlete with endorsements)

He has not been voted in.
He has not received 1 single vote.
He is not in the top 15-20 of the majority of voters here.


Vote Larry Bird

Its a travesty that he isnt higher but it has been 30 yrs since he won his last MVP and most voters werent alive then. He is maybe the GOAT eye ball test player. You cant just look at his stats you have to watch him play. If you can get beyond his skin color, tight shorts and horrible hair and just watch him play you can appreciate his greatness. He is basicly LBJ talent with Kobes heart. The John Elway of basketball players. No lead safe no game out of reach.

Dr J never won DPOY nor is he 6th on the scoring list...i don't know why you are making things up. But he is underrated i get your point..people will argue Dirk over him and i will be prepared to laugh.

He would have had the award been given in 1976. Yes he actually is 6th in scoring with 30026 pts. He sits just behind Wilt and in front of Moses.

If there was an aba dpoy in 76 bobby jones or artis gilmore would have won


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Warspite]

I don't think the NBA was irrelevant prior to 1980. If it was I'd hardly have championed Kareem for #2. But the NBA was pretty weaksauce in Pettit's time, and we need to be very cautious about how we reward Pettit for playing well in a weak league. Russell and Wilt were at least transcendent in Pettit's time, but Pettit sure wasn't. He won the title once in a year Russell got hurt, basically a fluke, and was not in the same category of player at all. You want to talk about Oscar around now? Great. I think Dr J has a great case at #11. But Pettit (and even moreso Mikan) are different, they are a long way from being real candidates.

We shouldn't punish players for being born too late either. Pettit wouldn't make the West all-star team last season. I'm worried that you think that's irrelevant.

Most of todays players couldnt play in the 60s. They lack the stamina to play at that pace and they cant dribble the basketball per 60s rules. All players from today would automaticly be terrible 3pt shooters as well.

Era bias is a 2 way street. There is no proof that today is the pinnacle of basketball and that there will never be an improvement on the sport. In reality the differences are cosmetic and its the rule changes that make the game different as opposed to evolutionary changes based out of a marvel comic book. I dont believe that LBJ is a former student of Charles Xavier.

How players play translate from one era to another is worthless. You can only compare what they did vs their own peers. Im not sure Pettit is a top 20 player but I believe Mikan is.

This is where the longevity arguments make my eyes roll. Im sure if Mikan, Jim Brown, Jerry West, Wilt and Mickey Mantle all had 2014 medical treatment and were being paid 378x the median income of their day they would played longer.

[Baller2014]

You do understand pace and speed aren't the same thing, right?

[therealbig3]

However, even though I'm not supporting Robinson quite at this time...it's true that his team's perceived underperformance in the playoffs is pretty exaggerated. They were blown out in the 1st round twice (91 and 94) by two teams that they were expected to beat (Warriors and Jazz), and then they got crushed in the 2nd round by the Jazz (96) in a series that was supposed to be a lot more competitive, so maybe that's why his Spurs got the reputation of underachieving, but they were often exceeding expectations as well. And you see his massive value when he misses the 92 playoffs. The Spurs collapsed without him.

Robinson's 90-96 Spurs in terms of ORating-DRating EV:

90 (10 games) - EV: 106.4 ORating, 107.0 DRating (-0.6)...actual: +4.9 (+5.5 EV)
91 (4 games) - EV: 109.1 ORating, 107.6 DRating (+1.5)...actual: -4.9 (-6.4 EV)
93 (10 games) - EV: 107.9 ORating, 109.1 DRating (-1.2)...actual: +0.1 (+1.3 EV)
94 (4 games) - EV: 107.3 ORating, 106.6 DRating (+0.7)...actual: -9.5 (-10.2 EV)
95 (15 games) - EV: 110.1 ORating, 107.4 DRating (+2.7)...actual: +5.2 (+2.5 EV)
96 (10 games ) - EV: 109.0 ORating, 107.8 DRating (+1.2)...actual: -3.0 (-4.2 EV)

Total: 53 games, -0.1 EV...they pretty much met their expectations under Robinson.

[ElGee]

Apologies I can't quote everyone from the last 2 threads -- easier and faster to inject a few responses here.

Robinson vs. Garnett --- I've been too hard in the past on Robinson for supposed playoff failures. I also don't understand acrossthecourt's numbers. I've double-checked my calculations and I presume we're using the same box scores from BBR. I have Robinson with the following splits from 90-98:

+3 defenses: 22.6 pts/36 and 56.5 TS%
-3 defenses: 21.8 pts/36 and 55.9% TS%
Playoffs: 21.4 pts/36 and 54.9% TS%

That to me is basically no drop off, while Garnett has clear drop off in these same splits.

With that said, while I do value Garnett peak to peak, the longevity edge is astronomical. It's a testament to Robinson that he's regarded by so many as a top-20 player despite his lack of longevity. He missed the 92 and 97 playoffs with injury. The man played 6 healthy seasons before Tim Duncan arrived. 6. He then plays a really solid Twin Tower role with Duncan for 3-4 years...but in 2002, you could argue that he started to fall off...but more importantly, he was practically useless in the PS with (IIRC) back issues. I have the difference between KG and Robinson as 4-5 MVP-level seasons. The longevity is everything in the comparison.

I have KG over Robinson peak to peak too. I made a post in one of the recent threads breaking down the skills of KG, Duncan and Robinson on offense. Robinson loses out there to me. He's not the same level passer or shooter. (Note: 1990, his rookie year, is the only year where his team performs well in the PS on offense before Duncan arrives, and in 95 the team's offense was average without Dennis Rodman in the lineup.) Let me take a step back though and put some numbers around some of these bigs and their offensive impact based on my valuations:

(Olajuwon pre 93: +3.0)
Olajuwon peak: +4.5
Duncan peak: +3.5
KG peak: +3.5
Robinson peak +2.5

Jordan's +7. This is the degree of difference we are talking about in offensive impact. Thus, I expect if you are a ball-watcher and think ppg /TS% are a proxy to goodness that you not only love Kobe Bryant over ALL of these players (easily) but someone like Adrian Dantley too. They just aren't on the short list of all-time great offensive players. And yet, on the bottom end (Robinson) we are still talking about all-star level contributions on offense. Why the differences?

Olajuwon is a slightly different animal, because he has a midrange game, a deep post game, and from 93-95 made incredibly quick reads and decisions. I don't find him to be the most scalable -- which tilts the scales back slightly to a higher portable player -- but I think you can do some very good things around him very easily.

Garnett scales better than Duncan to me. I've mentioned Bill Walton as an exemplar before: High post hub who can pass, only in modern times you get the spacing/pick n pop benefit. The more good offensive players on the court, the less Garnett loses his value offensively (it's probably amplified, if anything) based on his skills. You might be thinking, "but Garnett's offenses weren't really good." Are you sure?

Robinson lags behind because his Mid-range jumper isn't as good. Passing wasn't as good. Doesn't have Duncan's low block game. He was a great athlete/slasher/finisher. Not a bad shooter by any means. But I don't think -- nor do I see evidence -- that putting a player like Robinson at the helm of a lot of teams moves their offensive needle too much...keeping in mind that +2.5 is still all-star quality.

I think people just default back to individual scoring. I know it's hard not to see scoring as some default proxy for goodness, but it's not. Chuck mentioned trying to gain accuracy from things like WOWY runs -- make no mistake, we have no stat in basketball that is a 1:1 mapping of "goodness" WOWY runs are incredibly valuable because they first tell you what happened -- consider that most people on Earth don't know what happened when certain lineups took the floor historically but they've been writing books about them for years. Then add that it is the most "powerful" measurement of situational value -- no collinearity with lineup patterns -- and...that's about all it is. Compare that to the scoring stats which are often bandied about as near perfect proxies to the scoreboard -- "how do you make up for X extra points and TS%?" Someone averaging 28 ppg on 60% TS is not X amount of points better than a 20 ppg 55% TS player on offense because he's not individually scoring 28 points of value for the team -- it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Sometimes the base scoring stats capture a player's offensive value well, sometimes they don't. With Robinson, they don't, or we'd all pretty much have him as a GOAT-peak player when you consider his all-time level defense. (And I think his vertical defense is astoundingly good.)

[shutupandjam]

A couple of things I've observed:

1. I think Garnett's low post game is underrated. In his prime at least, he was elite from the low post, with an excellent repertoire of moves, and he was very good at passing out of the post as well.

2. That said, one of the primary reasons I think Robinson is the better offensive player is because he got to the line far more. Getting to the line is very valuable on the surface, but when you consider the other factors - e.g., foul trouble and future bonus situations, it's even more valuable than it seems. Every study I have done with regressing stats onto rapm, apm, etc. support this as well. Robinson only had two seasons (his final two) where he got to the line at a rate lower than Garnett's best season. Garnett is actually fairly poor in this respect compared to other greats; he has only had 5.0 attempts per pace adjusted 36 min over his career. Compare that to Robinson's 9.3, which is 5th all time.

[ronnymac2]

1. I think Garnett's low post game is underrated. In his prime at least, he was elite from the low post, with an excellent repertoire of moves, and he was very good at passing out of the post as well.

I don't remember it that way. He had his turnaround J and a one-handed push shot that looked awesome because of his verticality on the shot combined with his length. Other than that, he didn't get good position in the post consistently and didn't get to the free throw line. He was good in the low post, but I wouldn't say elite.

[rico381]

Getting to the line is very valuable on the surface, but when you consider the other factors - e.g., foul trouble and future bonus situations, it's even more valuable than it seems. Every study I have done with regressing stats onto rapm, apm, etc. support this as well.

What seems odd about this to me is that these benefits are some of the most notable examples of things that the APM family of stats can't measure:
-Getting your team closer to the bonus or penalty has ramifications later on in the quarter, and might boost or hurt the point differential of the guys who come in later on. They'll end up being credited with that point differential, not the guys who got the team into the bonus in the first place. Sometimes this won't be a problem, if a player stays in for the remainder of the quarter, but it's definitely an area that RAPM doesn't capture completely. For what it's worth, I've seen J.E. discuss this issue on the APBR board and say he found that team fouls at times of substitutions didn't have a significant effect, which would undermine the theory that it's valuable, but I'm not sure I trust that 100% without seeing more data.
-Getting opposing players out of the game due to foul trouble won't give your RAPM a boost, because the strength of opposing players is accounted for. All that matters is how well you do relative to your opponent's strength; you don't get bonus points even if you're the reason your opponent puts a less strong lineup out there. (On the other hand, if your opponent keeps their best player in there but he plays worse defense because of foul trouble, then you will get credit for that in RAPM.)

[shutupandjam]

1. I think Garnett's low post game is underrated. In his prime at least, he was elite from the low post, with an excellent repertoire of moves, and he was very good at passing out of the post as well.

I don't remember it that way. He had his turnaround J and a one-handed push shot that looked awesome because of his verticality on the shot combined with his length. Other than that, he didn't get good position in the post consistently and didn't get to the free throw line. He was good in the low post, but I wouldn't say elite.

Consider this: according to synergy, Garnett was top 2 in points per possession from post-ups (among guys who had 250 post up possessions) every year from 2005 (the first year with synergy data) to 2008. Cut the minimum possessions to 100 and he's still top 5 from 2005-2007 and #7 in 2008.

[drza]

OK, a challenge. Give me a reason not to vote for Larry Bird (and for Garnett fans, to support Kevin Garnett over David Robinson other than longevity) . . .

OK, now I'll take a stab at the first part and compare Garnett with Bird. I'll start with a box score stats summary from their primes (note: I had decided to do this before I noticed that AUF had done the same thing with Kobe. I guess it's a logical starting point, and AUF I guess we finally found an approach we could agree on )

KG vs Bird, per 100 stats over prime seasons

Regular season
80 - 88 Bird: 30.9 pts (57% TS), 12.7 reb, 7.6 asts (3.9 TOs), 24.2 PER
99 - 08 Garnett: 30.2 pts (55% TS), 16.8 reb, 6.6 asts (3.7 TO), 25.5 PER

Playoffs
80 - 88 Bird: 28.4 pts (55.5% TS), 12.4 reb, 7.4 asts (3.7 TOs), 21.9 PER
99 - 08 Garnett: 29.5 pts (52.3% TS), 16.8 reb, 5.9 asts (3.9 TOs), 23.9 PER

OK, I'll admit to being surprised that their scoring per 100 possessions is so close. I knew that the 80s was a higher pace, and I also know that pace adjusting isn't perfect, but still.

Box scores aside, at this point we know how these players played. Bird is on the short list of greatest offensive players ever, an off-ball savant as coined by Doc MJ, who could weave seamlessly between volume scoring and running the offense without being the primary ball-handler. Bird also has three all-defensive team nods, highlighting a part of his game that isn't often mentioned. All Defensive teams can be deceptive, but in Bird's case he actually was a good positional defender that recognized defensive angles with the same facility that he recognized offensive angles. He was used to playing off the ball, and his ability to recognize what the offense needed to do (no matter who had the ball) allowed him to defend better than his athletic ability should have allowed. Plus he was a great rebounder. With his style and substance, if there were RAPM data for the 80s I would expect Bird's offensive RAPM to be in the same range as LeBron's or Dirk's (the 2 highest scoring forwards in offensive RAPM in Doc MJ's 1998 - 2012 spreadsheet), perhaps a bit higher. On the flip side, though he was solid on defense, I don't think his defensive RAPM would be better than LeBron's.

In some ways, Garnett is his mirror: on the short list of greatest defensive players ever, while also a better-than-you-think on offense. Only, in Garnett's case, that "better than you think on offense" was pretty strong. He led four straight top-6 offenses in Minnesota from 2002 - 2005, with four different starting point guards and three different 2nd leading scorers (he led all four teams in scoring, and two of them in assists). Last thread I saw Olajuwon described as one of the few Bigs that could be dominant on both sides of the ball. For those that give any credence to RAPM, Garnett is the only player since 1998 to have measured out as the #1 offensive player in a given year (2004) as well as the #1 defensive player in a given year (multiple times). Those peaks came in different years, however, in 2004 in the PI RAPM study he measured out as the #1 offensive player and the #3 defensive player in the same season. In 2003 he measured out #2 on offense and #7 on defense. In 2008 in Boston he measured out #1 on defense and number 18 on offense. No one else in the 15 years we have RAPM for has approached that kind of balance, neither over a career nor especially in any given season.

Longevity
Above I listed 9 years for Bird's prime and 10 years for Garnett's. After sitting out almost all of 1989, Bird had another good year in 1990. So call it 10 prime years each at this point.

Outside of that window, Bird had 1991 in which he missed 22 regular season games but was able to play solid when on the court:

1991 Bird reg season: 19.4 ppg (53% TS), 8.5 reb, 7.2 asts (3.1 TO) in 38 mpg
1991 Bird playoffs: 17.1 ppg (49% TS), 7.2 reb, 6.5 asts (1.9 TO) in 39.6 mpg

Clearly it's not what he once was, but this was a definite positive contributing season.

Then, Bird's final year was 1992. He was only able to play in 45 regular season games (though his production was better than 1991), but his body broke down and he was only able to play in 4 of Boston's 10 playoff games (and only able to start 2 of those games). While he was great when on the court, the fact that he could only play in half of the games and couldn't face the postseason makes it hard to count this season as value added for Bird.

Garnett, on the other hand, is about to play in his 20th season. Let's throw out season 19, because I don't know what the heck happened in Brooklyn (either KG got old really fast or Kidd had no idea how to use him). Let's also throw out his rookie season since he didn't move into the starting line-up until the 2nd half of the season. Even if we do this, we're looking at a huge longevity advantage. Garnett was an All Star in 1997 and 1998, 2009 (knee injury ended season early), 2010, 2011 and 2013 among the years not listed as his prime. He wasn't All NBA in any of those seasons, but he was all defense in three of them (two 1st teams and a 2nd team). Stepping away from accolades, the more statistical approach...

In the first year that we have PI RAPM (1998), Garnett measured out as the #5 player in the league. He was extremely raw, but already making strong contributions as a 3rd year player at 21 years old.

In 2010 Garnett was obviously slowed as he recovered from 2009 knee surgery, but his impact (especially on defense) was clearly the difference between a 2nd round Celtics squad (2009) and a team that was championship caliber.

In the last year in DocMJ's spreadsheet, 2012, Garnett measured out as the #5 player in the league. He capped that season by averaging 19.2 ppg (54% TS), 10.3 reb, and breaking the +/- scale with his defense while leading the Celtics to Game 7 of the ECF against the eventual champion Heat. This was Garnett's 17th season.

In year 18 he measured out well on ShutUpandJam's PI RAPM list, though he was only playing 29.7 min/game. He then averaged 12.7 points, 13.7 rebounds and 3.5 assists in 35.3 mpg in the playoffs.

Bottom line: I take longevity with a grain of salt outside of extreme cases because I value primes. I voted for Russell over Kareem, and I'd have voted LeBron over Karl Malone. That said, it's food for thought and I know longevity is of more import for many. Garnett clearly has a longevity edge, and with his overall game I value his prime with Bird's as well. All told, I think that Garnett was the better player for longer.

[ceiling raiser]

1. I think Garnett's low post game is underrated. In his prime at least, he was elite from the low post, with an excellent repertoire of moves, and he was very good at passing out of the post as well.

I don't remember it that way. He had his turnaround J and a one-handed push shot that looked awesome because of his verticality on the shot combined with his length. Other than that, he didn't get good position in the post consistently and didn't get to the free throw line. He was good in the low post, but I wouldn't say elite.

Consider this: according to synergy, Garnett was top 2 in points per possession from post-ups (among guys who had 250 post up possessions) every year from 2005 (the first year with synergy data) to 2008. Cut the minimum possessions to 100 and he's still top 5 from 2005-2007 and #7 in 2008.

Oh wow, that's tremendous info. Haven't seen Synergy numbers pre-2010 (first year on mysynergysports.com). Thanks for sharing!

Do you happen to have his, Dirk's and Duncan's PPP and #possessions on post-ups each year from 05-09 (just for a comparison)? Would love to see how they compare.

[therealbig3]

I think it's clear that there are certain players out there that are better equipped to carrying lesser teams than Kevin Garnett (Robinson and Duncan, for example)...but I don't think they're as good as Kevin Garnett at elevating already good teams. For me, what Kevin Garnett does is more valuable. In terms of giving a team the best chance at winning a title, you're going to need a good supporting cast anyway. In that situation, Kevin Garnett gives them the best chance of winning imo, moreso than Duncan and especially Robinson.

For example, if we do the same EV comparison for 99-04 Garnett that we did for Robinson, Minnesota looks worse (Wolves have a -4.1 EV over that time).

However, look at how valuable a post-prime Garnett was for the Celtics in 09.

In the 25 games Garnett missed in the RS, the Celtics had a +3.80 MOV and a 3.50 SRS. That means with Garnett in the lineup, the Celtics had a +9.12 MOV and a 9.17 SRS. Keep in mind, a 3.50 SRS is still an excellent ball club (would have ranked #7 in the NBA that year)...Houston had a 3.73 SRS and won 53 games, SA had a 3.36 SRS and won 54 games...that law of diminishing returns absolutely applies here...it's hard to give almost 6 points of lift to that caliber of team...but that's exactly what KG did (+5.67 to be exact).

That's incredible.