RealGM Top 100 List 2017: #11

[ardee]

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Dirk Nowitzki

Why KG over Kobe? KG peaked higher, and his prime was better. He gave superstar impact years 3-17. He was probably the most portable and versatile star probably ever, and he maximized impact wherever he was (including the 05-07 wolves). Top 5ish defensive player ever, and a very solid offensive player (on the Hakeem/Duncan level, not the Dirk/Shaq/Kareem level). Kobe seemed to maximize his impact the majority of the time too, but his max impact was spread more thinly year wise, he wasn't the greatest teammate (the whole Kobe vs Shaq debacle, etc.).

Why Dirk > Kobe? Similar longevity and offensive impact, but I value Dirk's floor spacin, gravity, etc. more than Kobe's. I made a post about it last thread. Higher peak, great teammate, similar primes. He led his team's offenses to greater heights than Kobe did, and his gravity is the greatest of any player to date.

You have very poor standards for superstar impact if you think 2010 and 2011 Garnett was a superstar.

[rebirthoftheM]

An MVP level player should have taken the '06 Lakers to the playoffs. I am beyond tired of the story that KG and Kobe's mid '00's casts were on the same level.

Well I disagree that any MVP level player could have taken those 06 Lakers to the playoffs. You really needed an elite offensive player, with huge gravity and scoring prowess, to carry that pathetic offense, particularly in the post rule change era where the game opened up for offensive players. I don't see KG doing this at all.

I also doubt you watched many games of the 06 Lakers, and as a result perhaps are caught up in names instead of actual fits (which is something I realized- a lot of people comment about things they never actually watched). LO was historically never good a solid #2 offensive option. He really peaked as a #3. He was painfully limited on offense that season, and to be honest, his best value was mitigating the defensive woes of the other Laker front-court players. The other dudes were generally garbage men who relied heavily on Kobe to create within the triangle to get shots. Kobe was perpetually being doubled on and off the ball, as teams realized this was the best way to deal with him. This is no exaggeration. I picked 10 games or so to watch at random, and in each game, from tip-off, Kobe was being swarmed. There is enough full game material on youtube to realize what was ongoing on the 06 Lakers. And Kobe dragged that team to a #3 offense (+18.9...this must be some sort of record/close to record) when he was on the court. Insane.

And then of course there was Phil Jackson... who broke his cardinal rue in 06 by letting one player dominate an offense because he knew this was the only way the team would survive on offense. PJ was riding Kobe's coattails that season as was everyone else.

FYI Kobe's 06 Squad collapsed in ways without him that KG in 05 and 06 could not touch. 07 is perhaps comparable, but again KG's whole separation comes in the form of his defense, which again spiked in 07 for reasons no one knows.

I figure you will respond in a sarcastic tone, but really on this point, you should perhaps do better research before making such claims. Kobe's 06 squad was arguably worse than at least 2 of KG's squads in 05/06.

[Doctor MJ]

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Dirk Nowitzki

Why KG over Kobe? KG peaked higher, and his prime was better. He gave superstar impact years 3-17. He was probably the most portable and versatile star probably ever, and he maximized impact wherever he was (including the 05-07 wolves). Top 5ish defensive player ever, and a very solid offensive player (on the Hakeem/Duncan level, not the Dirk/Shaq/Kareem level). Kobe seemed to maximize his impact the majority of the time too, but his max impact was spread more thinly year wise, he wasn't the greatest teammate (the whole Kobe vs Shaq debacle, etc.).

Why Dirk > Kobe? Similar longevity and offensive impact, but I value Dirk's floor spacin, gravity, etc. more than Kobe's. I made a post about it last thread. Higher peak, great teammate, similar primes. He led his team's offenses to greater heights than Kobe did, and his gravity is the greatest of any player to date.

You have very poor standards for superstar impact if you think 2010 and 2011 Garnett was a superstar.

Per minute played, it was superstar level based on the data I see. In particular on defense, he made a night/day difference.

[Doctor MJ]

On the offense vs. defense stuff, I think there is real merit to these arguments. You have multiple examples of defensive intensity in superstars waxing and waning. It is even noticeable in GOAT level guys like Wilt, Kareem and Shaq. I have been saying for a while that if you prize +/- stats, the reduced numbers for Garnett in 2005 cannot be ignored, but it gets handwaved by the Garnett fans.

+/- data on the whole has a lot of variance. What's clear in general is that Garnett's numbers were spectacular. In '05 they don't look spectacular, so what does that mean?

It feels like you're pointing to that year to imply that every other year needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I'd be much more inclined to be asking: What was different about '05 from normal?

And there, the obvious answer, though I won't claim certainty is the right one, is that the chemistry fell apart on the team. And Sprewell is the main face of that. Those who don't remember how badly Sprewell played his hand at that point should google it.

In the 2010s, it's something of a given that sidekicks who miraculously end up on a great team will realize that they are lucky and have a good attitude, but that's not how it used to be. In fact Minnesota is something of an archaeological exhibit of issues like this, to go along with issues from management, of all the ways promising player combinations can get messed up.

[rebirthoftheM]

On the offense vs. defense stuff, I think there is real merit to these arguments. You have multiple examples of defensive intensity in superstars waxing and waning. It is even noticeable in GOAT level guys like Wilt, Kareem and Shaq. I have been saying for a while that if you prize +/- stats, the reduced numbers for Garnett in 2005 cannot be ignored, but it gets handwaved by the Garnett fans.

+/- data on the whole has a lot of variance. What's clear in general is that Garnett's numbers were spectacular. In '05 they don't look spectacular, so what does that mean?

It feels like you're pointing to that year to imply that every other year needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I'd be much more inclined to be asking: What was different about '05 from normal?

And there, the obvious answer, though I won't claim certainty is the right one, is that the chemistry fell apart on the team. And Sprewell is the main face of that. Those who don't remember how badly Sprewell played his hand at that point should google it.

In the 2010s, it's something of a given that sidekicks who miraculously end up on a great team will realize that they are lucky and have a good attitude, but that's not how it used to be. In fact Minnesota is something of an archaeological exhibit of issues like this, to go along with issues from management, of all the ways promising player combinations can get messed up.

It's just not 05. Even in 06, his defensive indicators look depressed. Barely any movement with him on/off. Would be cool if somebody took notes down about them so we could know for sure.

If what you say is right about chemistry... that KG's defensive indicators could be majorly impacted by team chemistry issues (as opposed to health issues/individual down years which every player has) then one might conclude that we shouldn't be attributing too much credit to X player during the 'up years'. Chemistry issues didn't stop elite #1 offensive players when healthy having major offensive impact.

The 07 spike is also concerning. To be honest, the 05-07 Wolves era just reads as total randomness.

Honestly, through this project, I have gained major major appreciation for KG's offense, especially off the back of the brilliant posts by Drza. Although he was not in the same exact class with other ATG offensive players, I think he clearly better than TD at this stage, and IMO if folks were being consistent, KG should be rated much closer to TD (actually at this stage I am convinced KG>Duncan, and the gap between KG and Kobe/Dirk has closed for me). But the defense part.. I'm still not convinced that we should attribute team shifts so much to one player.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Kevin Garnett

Alt: Oscar Robertson

KG again. Don't think there are many things I've haven't talked about with regards to him yet.

For Alt, after voting for Dirk my Alt last time, and being somewhat applauded for it, I'm changing here. The change is not set in stone, but Oscar's been the main guy I've been debating against Dirk.

The thing I've just been thinking is this: Oscar was the best offensive player in the world possibly years before he got out of college.

He led an offensive dynasty in Cincy, and then went to Milwaukee, played a different role, and had a seamless impact once again.

He wasn't a stellar defender, and that hurts. It's why he's not a GOAT candidate. But for a guard, that's the expectation, and since Dirk isn't a star defender despite being a big, it's weird to argue that Dirk's defense should give him the edge.

Oscar would absolutely be superior on an offensive GOAT list, he's got very solid longevity for his era, I'm going to go with him as my Alt here.

[mischievous]

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Dirk Nowitzki

Why KG over Kobe? KG peaked higher, and his prime was better. He gave superstar impact years 3-17. He was probably the most portable and versatile star probably ever, and he maximized impact wherever he was (including the 05-07 wolves). Top 5ish defensive player ever, and a very solid offensive player (on the Hakeem/Duncan level, not the Dirk/Shaq/Kareem level). Kobe seemed to maximize his impact the majority of the time too, but his max impact was spread more thinly year wise, he wasn't the greatest teammate (the whole Kobe vs Shaq debacle, etc.).

Why Dirk > Kobe? Similar longevity and offensive impact, but I value Dirk's floor spacin, gravity, etc. more than Kobe's. I made a post about it last thread. Higher peak, great teammate, similar primes. He led his team's offenses to greater heights than Kobe did, and his gravity is the greatest of any player to date.

You have very poor standards for superstar impact if you think 2010 and 2011 Garnett was a superstar.

Nobody outside of realgm even had Garnett as the Celtic's best player in 2010.

[Doctor MJ]

On the offense vs. defense stuff, I think there is real merit to these arguments. You have multiple examples of defensive intensity in superstars waxing and waning. It is even noticeable in GOAT level guys like Wilt, Kareem and Shaq. I have been saying for a while that if you prize +/- stats, the reduced numbers for Garnett in 2005 cannot be ignored, but it gets handwaved by the Garnett fans.

+/- data on the whole has a lot of variance. What's clear in general is that Garnett's numbers were spectacular. In '05 they don't look spectacular, so what does that mean?

It feels like you're pointing to that year to imply that every other year needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I'd be much more inclined to be asking: What was different about '05 from normal?

And there, the obvious answer, though I won't claim certainty is the right one, is that the chemistry fell apart on the team. And Sprewell is the main face of that. Those who don't remember how badly Sprewell played his hand at that point should google it.

In the 2010s, it's something of a given that sidekicks who miraculously end up on a great team will realize that they are lucky and have a good attitude, but that's not how it used to be. In fact Minnesota is something of an archaeological exhibit of issues like this, to go along with issues from management, of all the ways promising player combinations can get messed up.

It's just not 05. Even in 06, his defensive indicators look depressed. Barely any movement with him on/off. Would be cool if somebody took notes down about them so we could know for sure.

If what you say is right about chemistry... that KG's defensive indicators could be majorly impacted by team chemistry issues (as opposed to health issues/individual down years which every player has) then one might conclude that we shouldn't be attributing too much credit to X player during the 'up years'. Chemistry issues didn't stop elite #1 offensive players when healthy having major offensive impact.

The 07 spike is also concerning. To be honest, the 05-07 Wolves era just reads as total randomness.

Concerning? Okay, yeah I think people are just down the rabbit hole here.

Other than maybe LeBron, any reasonable +/- analysis places Garnett basically at the top of any comparison with contemporaries (but especially Kobe, who he's truly in comparison with here). It's fine for you personally not to be that impressed by that, but the implication that his +/- is suspect because of a couple years of team chaos is pretty absurd to me.

Garnett's numbers in general here are way, way better than Kobe's. Take that for what you will, but they cannot be reasonably be used to imply Garnett's impact is less legit than Kobe's.

[Doctor MJ]

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Dirk Nowitzki

Why KG over Kobe? KG peaked higher, and his prime was better. He gave superstar impact years 3-17. He was probably the most portable and versatile star probably ever, and he maximized impact wherever he was (including the 05-07 wolves). Top 5ish defensive player ever, and a very solid offensive player (on the Hakeem/Duncan level, not the Dirk/Shaq/Kareem level). Kobe seemed to maximize his impact the majority of the time too, but his max impact was spread more thinly year wise, he wasn't the greatest teammate (the whole Kobe vs Shaq debacle, etc.).

Why Dirk > Kobe? Similar longevity and offensive impact, but I value Dirk's floor spacin, gravity, etc. more than Kobe's. I made a post about it last thread. Higher peak, great teammate, similar primes. He led his team's offenses to greater heights than Kobe did, and his gravity is the greatest of any player to date.

You have very poor standards for superstar impact if you think 2010 and 2011 Garnett was a superstar.

Nobody outside of realgm even had Garnett as the Celtic's best player in 2010.

I'm really not sure what you're point is, and that's not meant as a knock. I'm not sure where you're going with it.

It's true most thought Rondo was better back then. And most of us here thought that was pretty comical and are a lot less surprised by what what happened to Rondo in the years to come than the mainstream was.

[rebirthoftheM]

+/- data on the whole has a lot of variance. What's clear in general is that Garnett's numbers were spectacular. In '05 they don't look spectacular, so what does that mean?

It feels like you're pointing to that year to imply that every other year needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I'd be much more inclined to be asking: What was different about '05 from normal?

And there, the obvious answer, though I won't claim certainty is the right one, is that the chemistry fell apart on the team. And Sprewell is the main face of that. Those who don't remember how badly Sprewell played his hand at that point should google it.

In the 2010s, it's something of a given that sidekicks who miraculously end up on a great team will realize that they are lucky and have a good attitude, but that's not how it used to be. In fact Minnesota is something of an archaeological exhibit of issues like this, to go along with issues from management, of all the ways promising player combinations can get messed up.

It's just not 05. Even in 06, his defensive indicators look depressed. Barely any movement with him on/off. Would be cool if somebody took notes down about them so we could know for sure.

If what you say is right about chemistry... that KG's defensive indicators could be majorly impacted by team chemistry issues (as opposed to health issues/individual down years which every player has) then one might conclude that we shouldn't be attributing too much credit to X player during the 'up years'. Chemistry issues didn't stop elite #1 offensive players when healthy having major offensive impact.

The 07 spike is also concerning. To be honest, the 05-07 Wolves era just reads as total randomness.

Concerning? Okay, yeah I think people are just down the rabbit hole here.

Other than maybe LeBron, any reasonable +/- analysis places Garnett basically at the top of any comparison with contemporaries (but especially Kobe, who he's truly in comparison with here). It's fine for you personally not to be that impressed by that, but the implication that his +/- is suspect because of a couple years of team chaos is pretty absurd to me.

Garnett's numbers in general here are way, way better than Kobe's. Take that for what you will, but they cannot be reasonably be used to imply Garnett's impact is less legit than Kobe's.

His +/- explodes above most because of his defensive stuff. I just don't have much faith in these figures when talking about defense, and the 'chaos' you describe in the mid 00s Wolves only strengthens my belief. I highly highly doubt that KG's D fell off in the mid 00s, yet his footprint fluctuates not because he was not healthy-ish, but because his team apparently sucked. I just don't see this occurring with an elite offensive player in his prime.

Some examples of elite offensive anchors in their primes+ healthy+ on awful offensive teams.

Wade 09... On-court, ranked 6th on O. Off-court, ranked 30. +8.9
Wade 10....On-court ranked 2nd on O. Off-court ranked 30. +11.7

Lebron 06.. On-court, ranked 13th on O. Off-court, ranked 30. +9.4
Lebron 07.. On-court, ranked 8th on O. Off-court, ranked 30. +6.6- this was a down O year for LBJ.
Lebron 08.. On-court, ranked 13th on O. Off-court, ranked 30. +10.8

Even in 07, where the Lakers were ravaged with injury problems, the Lakers were 5th on O with Kobe on the floor and 24th when he was off.

[mikejames23]

He wasn't a stellar defender, and that hurts. It's why he's not a GOAT candidate. But for a guard, that's the expectation, and since Dirk isn't a star defender despite being a big, it's weird to argue that Dirk's defense should give him the edge.

This paints the wrong picture on Dirk I think. While Dirk has no defensive value in comparison to anchors, he pretty consistently measures to be a significant plus on that end.

- Strong Defensive Rebounding
- Cuban would constantly talk about how Mavs played zones well and Dirk's agility to cover the spots is a very large reason. He had some advantage as they play zone more in International settings.
- Even on the Mavs teams where Dirk had a good defender like Marion, Dirk consistently came across the best post defender.
- Overall playing around Dirk with his great offensive efficiency, low turnover rate and getting back for defensive rebounds allows for teams that are good on both ends of the floor.

With someone who takes as much as offensive responsibility as Oscar does, i think he'd be facing an uphill battle vs Dirk on that end and overall team strategy.

[Doctor MJ]

It's just not 05. Even in 06, his defensive indicators look depressed. Barely any movement with him on/off. Would be cool if somebody took notes down about them so we could know for sure.

If what you say is right about chemistry... that KG's defensive indicators could be majorly impacted by team chemistry issues (as opposed to health issues/individual down years which every player has) then one might conclude that we shouldn't be attributing too much credit to X player during the 'up years'. Chemistry issues didn't stop elite #1 offensive players when healthy having major offensive impact.

The 07 spike is also concerning. To be honest, the 05-07 Wolves era just reads as total randomness.

Concerning? Okay, yeah I think people are just down the rabbit hole here.

Other than maybe LeBron, any reasonable +/- analysis places Garnett basically at the top of any comparison with contemporaries (but especially Kobe, who he's truly in comparison with here). It's fine for you personally not to be that impressed by that, but the implication that his +/- is suspect because of a couple years of team chaos is pretty absurd to me.

Garnett's numbers in general here are way, way better than Kobe's. Take that for what you will, but they cannot be reasonably be used to imply Garnett's impact is less legit than Kobe's.

His +/- explodes above most because of his defensive stuff. I just don't have much faith in these figures when talking about defense, and the 'chaos' you describe in the mid 00s Wolves only strengthens my belief. I highly highly doubt that KG's D fell off in the mid 00s, yet his footprint fluctuates not because he was not healthy-ish, but because his team apparently sucked. I just don't see this occurring with an elite offensive player in his prime.

Garnett is, I believe, still the only player we have who has had both the top offensive RAPM in a season and the top defensive RAPM. In Boston, it was the defense that exploded. In Minny it was more even, he had his peak RAPM impact and it was the offense in general where he got the better numbers.

When you talk as you do here, it gives me the impression you don't actually know any of this and are just jumping into the data looking for something to take issue with.

[mischievous]

You have very poor standards for superstar impact if you think 2010 and 2011 Garnett was a superstar.

Nobody outside of realgm even had Garnett as the Celtic's best player in 2010.

I'm really not sure what you're point is, and that's not meant as a knock. I'm not sure where you're going with it.

It's true most thought Rondo was better back then. And most of us here thought that was pretty comical and are a lot less surprised by what what happened to Rondo in the years to come than the mainstream was.

Point is, if Kg was a legitimate superstar that year there wouldn't be anyone questioning if he was even their best player. I thought Kg was hobbled throughout the year, and while a still impactful defensive player, he was still playing limited minutes around 28-29 if I recall correctly and his offense was a shell of what it once was that's not really a debatable point.

[rebirthoftheM]

Concerning? Okay, yeah I think people are just down the rabbit hole here.

Other than maybe LeBron, any reasonable +/- analysis places Garnett basically at the top of any comparison with contemporaries (but especially Kobe, who he's truly in comparison with here). It's fine for you personally not to be that impressed by that, but the implication that his +/- is suspect because of a couple years of team chaos is pretty absurd to me.

Garnett's numbers in general here are way, way better than Kobe's. Take that for what you will, but they cannot be reasonably be used to imply Garnett's impact is less legit than Kobe's.

His +/- explodes above most because of his defensive stuff. I just don't have much faith in these figures when talking about defense, and the 'chaos' you describe in the mid 00s Wolves only strengthens my belief. I highly highly doubt that KG's D fell off in the mid 00s, yet his footprint fluctuates not because he was not healthy-ish, but because his team apparently sucked. I just don't see this occurring with an elite offensive player in his prime.

Garnett is, I believe, still the only player we have who has had both the top offensive RAPM in a season and the top defensive RAPM. In Boston, it was the defense that exploded. In Minny it was more even, he had his peak RAPM impact and it was the offense in general where he got the better numbers.

When you talk as you do here, it gives me the impression you don't actually know any of this and are just jumping into the data looking for something to take issue with.

I am aware of all of this. I don't think you read/understood my point. If we take a look at KG's ORAPM over the years, even during his best years in Minny (so 01-07), he is noticeably lower than other dudes. His RAPM get a boost over others because of his DRAPM. That's what pushes him over, as I'm sure you know very well.

That's why I am looking at the defensive stuff. Because if one has little confidence in these defensive indicators in actually indicating a players concrete footprint on defense, then the whole impact advantage with KG gets murky.

[Jaivl]

Point is, if Kg was a legitimate superstar that year there wouldn't be anyone questioning if he was even their best player.

11 LeBron wasn't a superstar?

[ardee]

Point is, if Kg was a legitimate superstar that year there wouldn't be anyone questioning if he was even their best player.

11 LeBron wasn't a superstar?

Little different scenario when he was coming off back to back MVPs.

[ardee]

It's just not 05. Even in 06, his defensive indicators look depressed. Barely any movement with him on/off. Would be cool if somebody took notes down about them so we could know for sure.

If what you say is right about chemistry... that KG's defensive indicators could be majorly impacted by team chemistry issues (as opposed to health issues/individual down years which every player has) then one might conclude that we shouldn't be attributing too much credit to X player during the 'up years'. Chemistry issues didn't stop elite #1 offensive players when healthy having major offensive impact.

The 07 spike is also concerning. To be honest, the 05-07 Wolves era just reads as total randomness.

Concerning? Okay, yeah I think people are just down the rabbit hole here.

Other than maybe LeBron, any reasonable +/- analysis places Garnett basically at the top of any comparison with contemporaries (but especially Kobe, who he's truly in comparison with here). It's fine for you personally not to be that impressed by that, but the implication that his +/- is suspect because of a couple years of team chaos is pretty absurd to me.

Garnett's numbers in general here are way, way better than Kobe's. Take that for what you will, but they cannot be reasonably be used to imply Garnett's impact is less legit than Kobe's.

His +/- explodes above most because of his defensive stuff. I just don't have much faith in these figures when talking about defense, and the 'chaos' you describe in the mid 00s Wolves only strengthens my belief. I highly highly doubt that KG's D fell off in the mid 00s, yet his footprint fluctuates not because he was not healthy-ish, but because his team apparently sucked. I just don't see this occurring with an elite offensive player in his prime.

Some examples of elite offensive anchors in their primes+ healthy+ on awful offensive teams.

Wade 09... On-court, ranked 6th on O. Off-court, ranked 30. +8.9
Wade 10....On-court ranked 2nd on O. Off-court ranked 30. +11.7

Lebron 06.. On-court, ranked 13th on O. Off-court, ranked 30. +9.4
Lebron 07.. On-court, ranked 8th on O. Off-court, ranked 30. +6.6- this was a down O year for LBJ.
Lebron 08.. On-court, ranked 13th on O. Off-court, ranked 30. +10.8

Even in 07, where the Lakers were ravaged with injury problems, the Lakers were 5th on O with Kobe on the floor and 24th when he was off.

Ditto. I don't see how that is an excuse. Isn't the whole point of +/- stats to separate player from team?

Otherwise I am going to say that Kobe was a DPOY defender in 2006 and his team sucked so his DRAPM numbers were low

[mischievous]

Point is, if Kg was a legitimate superstar that year there wouldn't be anyone questioning if he was even their best player.

11 LeBron wasn't a superstar?

Not sure if this is a troll response or not, but Kg was playing with past prime Pierce, Ray Allen and of course Rondo who many guys like yourself think sucked or something.

[Doctor MJ]

Nobody outside of realgm even had Garnett as the Celtic's best player in 2010.

I'm really not sure what you're point is, and that's not meant as a knock. I'm not sure where you're going with it.

It's true most thought Rondo was better back then. And most of us here thought that was pretty comical and are a lot less surprised by what what happened to Rondo in the years to come than the mainstream was.

Point is, if Kg was a legitimate superstar that year there wouldn't be anyone questioning if he was even their best player. I thought Kg was hobbled throughout the year, and while a still impactful defensive player, he was still playing limited minutes around 28-29 if I recall correctly and his offense was a shell of what it once was that's not really a debatable point.

Okay, so you're mixing statements I don't mind with statements I do mind.

Garnett was not at his peak by any means. We can all agree with that.

But this whole "there wouldn't be anyone questioning if he was even their best player" thing is just silly. Garnett was the most impactful player on the team by a good margin. The fact that most didn't realize this is not a knock on Garnett, it's a knock on that "most".

And "anyone", know there will always be people who fail at this. The average basketball fan counts points scored. The end. Any time that's not sufficient to understand what went on, those people will make ridiculous statements. Those statements have no credibility and shouldn't be used as if they do.

[Senior]

this Dirk vs on-ball playmakers (Oscar, Kobe) discussion is interesting to me because it appears that Dirk's offensive impact is right up there with the very best because of his warping/shooting/etc despite not providing your typical advantages an on-ball playmaker does, such as ability to get to the rim, decision making, etc.

I'm not really sure which is better - I don't see an advantage for Dirk in ORAPM and he didn't develop his high-post isolation game until 08 and after. That's why those undersized forwards like Ryan Bowen/Tmac/Haslem/Jax gave him trouble because he didn't quite have the ballhandling to get around them so they were able to push him farther from the hoop and they didn't give up too many FTs. not getting to the rim can sink your offense if your jumper's off, and it happens to the best shooters.

much has been made about Dirk's efficiency but the cost of that is volume - and just scaling up your volume at non-terrible levels of efficiency is a skill. both Dirk and Kobe can shoot anywhere within the half court but Kobe can put himself in more positions to shoot/score due to his superior ballhandling. whatever efficiency advantages Dirk has are evened out by Kobe's volume. could argue Kobe has an advantage in TOs too considering the major ballhandling/on-ball playmaking tasks he was asked to do.

furthermore, because Kobe is asked to be a primary initiator, ball-denial is less of an issue for him than it is for Dirk. since Dirk's not handling the ball, he has to make himself available to receive the ball to do his thing - and there's a lot of chances for that to go wrong. maybe the defender is playing him well, maybe the guard decides he can't pass to Dirk or feels that he can score or throws a bad pass. if Dirk does get the ball, he can make something happen but that interaction can get blown up. ideally I want the ball in the hands of my best players and Kobe can carry that out a little better than Dirk.

With Dirk's gravity, I'm not necessarily sure his gravity outstrips Kobe's - it's definitely more obvious and unusual, but is it significantly better than the attention your typical elite on-ball playmakers have? rebirthoftheM posted some screencaps of Kobe's own considerable gravity, and guys like Nash/Wade/Lebron had significant gravity as on-ball playmakers heading towards the rim...so is gravity really a huge advantage for Dirk? not really sure if there's a way to quantify that kind of thing.