There's only one player left who was THE best player in the game for any extended time (Pettit a couple of years, Curry a couple of years) . . .
1. George Mikan -- yes, he was that dominant from what I can tell; yes his league was that weak, it's a balancing act 2. Larry Bird -- Again, a whole lot of greats very close here, could be Garnett, West, Oscar, Kobe, DRob, Moses, Erving, it's almost pick em to me but more convinced of Bird's case. 3. Jerry West -- The Garnett arguments almost convince me each time but then I look at David Robinson. Robinson did much more with weak teams pre-Duncan and even post injury, he was the defensive force on the Spurs 99 championship even more than Duncan while Duncan had passed him on offense. Garnett has him on length of prime and durability though. Curry would be my choice if he had even one more year as a top 5 in the league player, but the critiques of his durability are right, and durability matters (as it does for David Robinson). Then we have West and Oscar; Oscar produced better offenses but the other end never held up like it did for the Lakers despite their hole in the middle and West was an excellent defender so I give him some of the credit for that. That and, like Hakeem, he was a guy who produced deep into the playoffs, something Oscar never really got the chance to do in his Cincinnati days.
Really, I don't feel strongly that one guy stands out at this point so talk to me, you guys backed me off Curry, sell me on your guy.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Kobe was a very good volume scorer for a big portion of his career. And really consistent from season to season, from playoffs to playoffs. He wasn't among the most efficient scorers ts% wise, but his very low TOV% makes him more efficient than his ts% makes him look like.
He was a good all arround player, even tough not excelent. Rebounding wise was good and had some big games (even in his bad G7 in the finals of 2010, it's a good example on him workin on the boards). He could definitely provide the assist and was talented with it - just not very willing to make the pass.
On defense he showed elite man to man defense at times. Help D was not of great caliber, but it's not like he was a big liability. He eventually became a guy who put effort from time to time, but he still did very well until late in his career even if not on a consistent basis.
We saw him play under ideal circumstances, with crap rosters during his prime too. I think he did fine in all situations. With a crap roster his individual impact was very good, and he played really well in 06, taking those Lakers into the playoffs and Phoenix to 7 was still as well as I think he could do.
The edges he has over Larry are longevity, scoring and consistency in the playoffs. The last one I take it as the decisive factor here.
Accodales wise he won them all, and even tough he was a one time MVP he definitely was among the best players in the league for a lot of years. His selections for 1st team are among elite.
To sum it up: - very consistent player in the playoffs; (put him above Malone and Bird for me) - one of the greatest volume scorers in the league for years; - did well with different types of casts, and even tough he spent most of the time on very good teams he made it work with 5 rings and him being an important piece in all of them; - has a ton of accodales; - very good longevity; - more efficient than given credit given his very low TOV%.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
Alright, glad we got the proper top nine. I will echo Penbeast’s concerns about the Robinson/Garnett comparisons — with the acknowledgment that yes Garnett had much better longevity and was less routinely disappointing peak playoff performer. And I guess elements of that will probably show up when the Garnett supporters start trying to vote Robinson in at 14 or something, and then we get to do that classic debate.
But now that my top tier is in... I do not know, Kobe has his issues (and I am skeptical he actually qualified as a more impactful playoff performer than Garnett, although of course that is what his supporters argue). I think the Bird arguments thus far have been profoundly weak and if anything have collectively lowered my opinion of Bird. Some of the Dirk arguments have been interesting (but then should we extend similar reasoning to elevate Reggie to top twenty-five?), even though I buy into Oscar more (West’s injury issues keep him lower for me, and I am not convinced his playoff peak was better than Oscar’s beyond the benefits of generally having a stronger team than Oscar did). And then broadly I am also concerned with how the Garnett backers have him so disproportionately high that in three years we will do the same thing, except this time maybe they do manage to get him in over Hakeem or Shaq or Magic. So for now I will hold off on an official vote. I will probably go Garnett/Oscar/Kobe but guess we will see.
My math has Bird being a plus 3 defender in 1980, when +1 is considered good. It says Bird had a big impact defensively on the 80 Celtics, which is a big part of their improvement.
What am I thinking?? The Celtics went from -2.6 vs league average DefEff to +3.4, the range of teams is usually +5/-5, so a good player would be +1, a poor one -1, and replacement level -1. So I tried to construct the 79 Celtics, and (luckily maybe) my first attempt came real close. I called Maxwell and Ford average defenders, that seems fair, they both played in the league, dont remember any real plus or minus said about them. I gave Chaney a zero, as he was in his last years and on bench, going back in time he would get a plus. I gave Cowens a plus 1, as a good defensive guy. Tiny had a bad defensive reputation, and his best year KC was last in defense. Plus he was hurt, so I made him a -2 this year. Everybody else I gave replacement level too, I didn't see anyone else (other than Chaney who I did already) that stuck out to change. So I take their minutes times their rating, add them up, get a rate per minute, multiply by 5 players, and come up within .15 of the team rating. Probably some beginner's luck, but it gives me a reasonable rating of the 1979 defense. Cowens good, Chaney/Maxwell/Ford okay, Tiny bad, no one else very good.
Rate mp Wt Pts
Tiny -2 1662 -3324 poor rep, hurt Chaney 0 1074 0 last year, former plus Maxwell 0 2969 0 average Ford 0 2629 0 average Cowens 1 2517 2517 good rep, all-def Bench -1 8829 -8829 Default rating for benches
Total 19680 -9636 Per minute (0.49) 5 Players (2.45)
so the year changes, they bring in Bird and M.L. Carr. To reduce arguments, let's say Maxwell is a year better and improves to a -1. Cowens,despite missing 20 games makes 2nd team all-defense, so let's give him +2. Let's give Carr a +2. Tiny is no longer hurt, I would give him a -1 based on his past, but let's say he becomes a league average defender, after being a poor one, and after being hurt. So I have Tiny, Maxwell, Cowens improving, Ford who is past his peak staying the same, and kept Chaney the same. So I have Carr and Chaney above replacement on the bench, but no one else. Looks something like this. Note Ford and Carr were playing for bad defensive teams in Detroit before joining Celtics, so I have a hard time making Ford a plus defender.
Rate mp Wt Pts
Tiny 0 1662 0 best case Chaney 0 0 0 Maxwell 1 2744 2744 best case Ford 0 2115 0 Cowens 2 2159 4318 Carr 2 1994 3988 Chaney 0 523 0
And keeping Bench a replacement level, I solve for Bird:
Rate mp Wt Pts
Tiny 0 1662 0 best case Chaney 0 0 0 Maxwell 1 2744 2744 best case Ford 0 2115 0 Cowens 2 2159 4318 Carr 2 1994 3988 Chaney 0 523 0 Bird 3 2955 8865 Solved for x Bench -1 5528 -5528
Total 19680 14387 Per minute 0.73 5 Players 3.66
Of course it is math, but the defense improved by 6.0 - so I attributed it to who was there and what seems (to me at least to make sense). I improved most of the key players, some of that you can attribute to Fitch if you want. I rated Carr a +2, even though the following year he becomes a bench warmer. I rated Tiny higher than his reputation, but the math supports that.
penbeast0 wrote:There's only one player left who was THE best player in the game for any extended time (Pettit a couple of years, Curry a couple of years) . . .
1. George Mikan -- yes, he was that dominant from what I can tell; yes his league was that weak, it's a balancing act 2. Larry Bird -- Again, a whole lot of greats very close here, could be Garnett, West, Oscar, Kobe, DRob, Moses, Erving, it's almost pick em to me but more convinced of Bird's case. 3. Jerry West -- The Garnett arguments almost convince me each time but then I look at David Robinson. Robinson did much more with weak teams pre-Duncan and even post injury, he was the defensive force on the Spurs 99 championship even more than Duncan while Duncan had passed him on offense. Garnett has him on length of prime and durability though. Curry would be my choice if he had even one more year as a top 5 in the league player, but the critiques of his durability are right, and durability matters (as it does for David Robinson). Then we have West and Oscar; Oscar produced better offenses but the other end never held up like it did for the Lakers despite their hole in the middle and West was an excellent defender so I give him some of the credit for that. That and, like Hakeem, he was a guy who produced deep into the playoffs, something Oscar never really got the chance to do in his Cincinnati days.
Really, I don't feel strongly that one guy stands out at this point so talk to me, you guys backed me off Curry, sell me on your guy.
It's noisy WoWYR leans Robertson for net impact career and prime. Not sure why Robertson not advancing deeper would matter if what's stopping him the Celtics or '67 76ers (who I'd guess make up the majority of his Royals playoff minutes - my guess is he's playing higher average caliber opposition, it seems liking dinging him for being in the wrong conference and maybe also for worse teammates). Does the Lakers going through a below average Hawks ('66) or Bullets ('65), or Pistons ('61), or Bulls ('68) or Warriors ('68) really matter (I stopped at '68)?
Robinson's durability ... as always it's intertwined with other factors and a weakness versus some of the board, but in terms of longevity of quality he had more Win Shares and VORP than Olajuwon (Olajuwon better on EWA - from PER - but move the baseline from replacement level to EWA above average and Robinson is out on top again). And with a strong evidence of impact through the "less productive" (which isn't to say not productive) with-Duncan years. So it hasn't necessarily been a bar. Versus the Garnetts, the Stocktons (also very good late career impact, and great WoWYR but doesn't have the evidence of exceptional impact peak Robinson has 94-96, or the peak box productivity) etc. longevity (at least raw years of quality) is a disadvantage.
Joao Saraiva wrote: he played really well in 06, taking those Lakers into the playoffs and Phoenix to 7 was still as well as I think he could do.
I think there are those who argue that he didn't do "as well ... as he could do" in those playoffs. Not the numbers (box composites quite ugly for the present standard of player but small sample on very plannable, uni-polar team) but I think effort/not shooting in the second half of G7. Personally I don't tend to buy that sort of stuff, but given your phrasing I thought it worth at least acknowledging.
Joao Saraiva wrote: he played really well in 06, taking those Lakers into the playoffs and Phoenix to 7 was still as well as I think he could do.
I think there are those who argue that he didn't do "as well ... as he could do" in those playoffs. Not the numbers (box composites quite ugly for the present standard of player but small sample on very plannable, uni-polar team) but I think effort/not shooting in the second half of G7. Personally I don't tend to buy that sort of stuff, but given your phrasing I thought it worth at least acknowledging.
Well, even if he had a subpar game 7, in such a series the Lakers had no business even being at a game 7. Taking the series overall, I think Kobe played very well.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
Joao Saraiva wrote:Well, even if he had a subpar game 7, in such a series the Lakers had no business even being at a game 7. Taking the series overall, I think Kobe played very well.
Clippers with Elton Brand played 7 games against this Suns team as well, so was it that big overachievement? And secondly, Bryant played subpar G1-G4 (23.0 PTS, 6.3 TRB, 6.3 AST, 4.5 TOV, 51.5 TS%), yet Lakers got 3-1 lead, and then had this amazing game 6 (50 pts or so in OT loss), but Lakers lost in 7, and his overall boxscore production wasn't even that great. I'm not saying he was one to blame or that he didn't play well, but I wonder why do you think this series is worthy of mentioning in context of this thread?
Joao Saraiva wrote:Well, even if he had a subpar game 7, in such a series the Lakers had no business even being at a game 7. Taking the series overall, I think Kobe played very well.
Clippers with Elton Brand played 7 games against this Suns team as well, so was it that big overachievement? And secondly, Bryant played subpar G1-G4 (23.0 PTS, 6.3 TRB, 6.3 AST, 4.5 TOV, 51.5 TS%), yet Lakers got 3-1 lead, and then had this amazing game 6 (50 pts or so in OT loss), but Lakers lost in 7, and his overall boxscore production wasn't even that great. I'm not saying he was one to blame or that he didn't play well, but I wonder why do you think this series is worthy of mentioning in context of this thread?
I think it was worth mentioning. The value of noting that example is that it shows Kobe + Mediocre Cast can still get to the playoffs and be respectably frisky. It's not a big part of his career resume but it does illustrate his floor-raising ability, particularly as an offensive anchor. IIRC LA was 6th in offense that season which goes to show how far Kobe shouldering the load could get you on that end of the floor.
Hornet Mania wrote:I think it was worth mentioning. The value of noting that example is that it shows Kobe + Mediocre Cast can still get to the playoffs and be respectably frisky. It's not a big part of his career resume but it does illustrate his floor-raising ability, particularly as an offensive anchor. IIRC LA was 6th in offense that season which goes to show how far Kobe shouldering the load could get you on that end of the floor.
Sure, his performance in regular season was definitely one of the better carry-jobs of very mediocre support to pretty solid results (+2.53 SRS), I'm not discussing that. I just don't think his postseason had that much of a value though, but maybe it's not that important.
Will be going with KG until he gets voted in. Assuming the KG crowd comes through here to round out the top 10, it will get really interesting with several worthy candidates next in line.
I had West as the #3 pick after KG and Hakeem last round so he goes #2 here. 2nd greatest guard ever, excellent scorer with good playmaking, elite defender, would arguably be the best guard in any era, played bigger than his size, and peak/prime combo is right in line for a fringe top 10 player ever. Longevity isn't poor but not great either.
I think West clearly peaked higher than the other guards on this level (Kobe, Oscar, Paul, etc) except Curry who doesn't have the longevity yet. His peak and prime is strong enough to outweigh any advantage the other players have in longevity. Kobe vs. Oscar should be an exciting debate.
Joao Saraiva wrote: he played really well in 06, taking those Lakers into the playoffs and Phoenix to 7 was still as well as I think he could do.
I think there are those who argue that he didn't do "as well ... as he could do" in those playoffs. Not the numbers (box composites quite ugly for the present standard of player but small sample on very plannable, uni-polar team) but I think effort/not shooting in the second half of G7. Personally I don't tend to buy that sort of stuff, but given your phrasing I thought it worth at least acknowledging.
Well, even if he had a subpar game 7, in such a series the Lakers had no business even being at a game 7. Taking the series overall, I think Kobe played very well.
As I say, the game 7 thing was an "is he trying [his best] to win" thing and I tend to think the answer to these is "yes" and it's blown up from the outside.
But as alluded to (and as before I repeat the mitigation, unipolar offense is predictable, makes Kobe here, prime Robinson, early Wilt teams easy to plan for and the players easy to look below their par) Kobe's numbers are bad for the series. The box-composites are very poor by the standard of player that we are assessing now (not in absolute terms) probably due primarily to very poor turnover numbers, and on-off - caveat on-off in tiny samples is super noisy - isn't any better. LA -48 with him on. -47 overall. So 1 point up Phoenix when he's off the court (32 minutes). Given th Lakers substantially outscored overall and there's no great evidence of any lift (rather than contrary - though noisy) it's hard to say just because the team managed to push it to 7 that he did well.
Not my official vote but I have Bird and Garnett along with West, Oscar and Kobe. Nothing is set in stone at all.
I'm definitely open to cases comparing them, articles, games, metrics etc.
Playoff performance, team support, compeition and rules of era are things I look at as well.
Peak, prime and longevity as well as combined two way impact. So if a guy gets better defensively or offensively in the postseason (with context of course) I can appreciate that as well.
penbeast0 wrote:3. Jerry West -- The Garnett arguments almost convince me each time but then I look at David Robinson. Robinson did much more with weak teams pre-Duncan and even post injury, he was the defensive force on the Spurs 99 championship even more than Duncan while Duncan had passed him on offense. Garnett has him on length of prime and durability though. Curry would be my choice if he had even one more year as a top 5 in the league player, but the critiques of his durability are right, and durability matters (as it does for David Robinson). Then we have West and Oscar; Oscar produced better offenses but the other end never held up like it did for the Lakers despite their hole in the middle and West was an excellent defender so I give him some of the credit for that. That and, like Hakeem, he was a guy who produced deep into the playoffs, something Oscar never really got the chance to do in his Cincinnati days.
Really, I don't feel strongly that one guy stands out at this point so talk to me, you guys backed me off Curry, sell me on your guy.
It's noisy WoWYR leans Robertson for net impact career and prime. Not sure why Robertson not advancing deeper would matter if what's stopping him the Celtics or '67 76ers (who I'd guess make up the majority of his Royals playoff minutes - my guess is he's playing higher average caliber opposition, it seems liking dinging him for being in the wrong conference and maybe also for worse teammates). Does the Lakers going through a below average Hawks ('66) or Bullets ('65), or Pistons ('61), or Bulls ('68) or Warriors ('68) really matter (I stopped at '68)?
Robinson's durability ... as always it's intertwined with other factors and a weakness versus some of the board, but in terms of longevity of quality he had more Win Shares and VORP than Olajuwon (Olajuwon better on EWA - from PER - but move the baseline from replacement level to EWA above average and Robinson is out on top again). And with a strong evidence of impact through the "less productive" (which isn't to say not productive) with-Duncan years. So it hasn't necessarily been a bar. Versus the Garnetts, the Stocktons (also very good late career impact, and great WoWYR but doesn't have the evidence of exceptional impact peak Robinson has 94-96, or the peak box productivity) etc. longevity (at least raw years of quality) is a disadvantage.
Just wanted to chime in on West & Oscar here.
First thing: My opinion on both has gone up a good deal compared to where I saw them before serious analysis. I think they were quite clearly the two best perimeters players of the pre-Bird/Magic era.
I also think that all 4 of those guys are fascinating because they all seam to have "Max BBIQ", but they aren't the same as each other.
I see Magic as more like Oscar and Bird as more like West.
To me in general Magic & Oscar had the higher top gear of impact on offense, but Bird & West were more portable.
I see Bird & West as having valuable mental weapons on defense that Magic & Oscar I don't think have to the same extent. That portability comes from an awareness of surroundings viewed from the perspective of not being in control of the ball most of the time, whereas the high ceiling of impact Magic & Oscar had came from how well they could run things when they were in control.
But what about within the analogous pairs?
Well, how about this. I see Chris Paul as more like Oscar and Steve Nash as more like Magic. Paul & Oscar are super-methodical and detail-oriented, whereas Nash & Magic are more generators and exploiters of chaos.
I tend to give Magic the nod over Oscar because I think Magic's way has more power if you can really do it well, and I don't really feel comfortable trying to side with Oscar over Magic based on longevity. It's an edge but it's not a massive one. What about Bird & West? I think you could say Bird's got some of that same type of edge over West that Magic has over Oscar.
But I also think that Jerry West may have been genuinely devastating defensively. It seems quite likely that he is the true all-time steals leader and quite possible that he'd rank way ahead of any other guards on blocks. It's not clear to me that this was having a massive defensive impact, and there may have been aspects to his risk-taking that hurt his team's defense. But I absolutely question whether I think this makes West have a higher peak than Bird, Oscar, or maybe even Magic. The gap of uncertainty is infuriatingly large when we look at certain vintage comparisons.
Coming back to actual ranking choices. I'm inclined to side with West over Oscar, and I'm tempted to take both above Bird who I've been voting next.
But by that same token, that puts me in conversations about Kobe, Dirk, Malone, Robinson. It's tough separating all these guys. I'll acknowledge that to some degree I'm putting them all in a tier and picking the most amazing of the lot first.
1) I'm not comfortable with Kobe here. His longevity is impressive, but he was probably never the best player in the league at any point. I like him, but I like him a lot less than these other guys.
2) Garnett's defense is on another level compared to everyone else; he may be one of the three most valuable defensive players ever. Combine "top 3 defender ever" with "long career" and "was a solid scaling player on offense" and it's a heck of a resume that I don't know that anyone else is going to tangle with.
3) Oscar and West deserve serious consideration; being the two best perimeter players for a 25-year span (even in an 8-team league for some of it) is seriously notable. Oscar was probably the more valuable offensive piece; West looks like the better scorer by a bit but Oscar was a considerably better facilitator. West was almost certainly the more valuable defender, but it's really hard to know by how much (since steals weren't actually recorded). So I cautiously prefer Oscar, simply because his superiority is more provable.
4) Bird was the primary hub on a series of extremely good teams. He had the fortune to have good rosters around him, but Bird made it all work. And the fact that he worked well off the ball made him scalable in a way that many studs aren't. His rebounding was really good and his passing was excellent. I feel like Bird *probably* had the best or second best peak of players remaining (depending on how much you like Garnett) but his longevity is limited, and his missing playoffs with injuries (or injuring himself during) isn't a great look.
I cautiously feel Garnett #1, Bird #2 and Oscar #3, but I'm really open to having my mind changed. You guys are generally more knowledgable about player analysis than I am.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
A few important thoughts before starting the analysis
Alright. Way back in the 5th thread I made a big comparison of Garnett and Duncan. But, at the time I was having trouble with getting images into my post, so my post was incomplete. Shoutout to Doc MJ and TRex for helping me with the images, and I've spent a chunk of time finishing the post properly (at least on defense. Still haven't had time to add offensive screenshots. Would like to down the line). I'm posting the updated version here, and here's why you should check this out:
Spoiler:
1) I make the case that Garnett was better than Duncan, who was voted in at #5. However, since this is thread #10, the bar here is no longer "better than Duncan". Thus, you can check this out and give an honest thought to what my arguments might mean for Garnett without worrying about whether it affects Duncan.
2) With the images added, I think it really adds to the case. Which is important, because it's a multi-level case. Many that speak against KG argue that his "only" argument is that he's got the best RAPM scores of his generation. But here, I make a case that utilizes box score stats, scouting/eye test, scouting analytics AND the context of the impact stats in addition to just the RAPM scores. In fact, my point here was to help illustrate WHY Garnett has better +/- scores than everyone with the possible exception of LeBron.
Stay there for a second...there are REASONS that Garnett measures out with stratospheric impact across a myriad of different situations over almost two full decades. Before just writing that off, take a minute and really ask yourself WHY do Garnett's teams ALWAYS play so much better with him than without him, at a scale that no one else in the last 25 years (except MAYBE LeBron) can claim. That's where this post lives, illustrating some of those reasons.
3) This is a long post with a lot of info, but I broke it into spoilerized sections so you don't have to get overwhelmed. You can take your time, click on different sections and see if anything is interesting in there.
4) Several people in this thread have asked specific questions/made specific statements that I address here. For example:
penbeast0 wrote:Garnett gets overrated by his fans from what I've seen of him. They call him the greatest passing big man ever, he wasn't even close. Good passer but I just don't see him create the way Bird did, or Walton, or Jokic for that matter.
Penbeast says KG's supporters over-rate him and that he wasn't as good of a passer as these others. My reply would be, in this post, I utilize scouting analytics that point out that Garnett's "good passes" in a large sample and his "shots created" measure out with some of the best guards around. Also, that he measured out as the best passing big man since like 1979, in a study done a couple years back, with the expressly stipulated point that this is only true if Bird doesn't count as a big man. If I got that right off memory (see below for the actual numbers), then Penbeast we could both be right. KG could very well be the most impactful passing big man of his era, quantitatively, even if the 3 guys you mention may be better!
(Same energy with DQuinn, Joao and Mailmp. A lot of things you've said in recent threads about KG, I address below. You've just got to have the energy to go through all this )
So, the great debate continues. I've been having versions of this debate for 20ish years, but it's never less fun to do. And each time I do, I tend to learn something.
I'm already seeing some of the usual counter-arguments come up, but with some twists. I'm also seeing some paths that lead in unproductive directions IMO (e.g. going in depth into a referendum on Sam Cassell), some points that I think are strawmen (e.g. that +/- stats are either not relevant or some sort of isolated data point to be ignored), and some that I just don't think are true (e.g. that Duncan had better longevity). So, here I'm going to address this comparison on several levels, hopefully addressing some of these points of contention but, more importantly, hopefully presenting some information that advances the conversation such that, no matter where you might stand or how entrenched your opinion is/was, hopefully we can engage and at least make each other think a bit.
10-year prime stats (box scores and raw +/-)
Spoiler:
I start here for a few reasons. The box score data across their primes helps demonstrate how similarly KG and Duncan performed in their careers. This is important, because there's a tendency in these debates for people to discuss relatively small changes like their chasmic. "Duncan is the better scorer because he played in the post!" "Well, Garnett is the better passer because he's almost a point guard!" There can be truth in statements like these, but they're matters of degree. Garnett, too, was excellent at post offense while Duncan, too, was a strong passer. By looking at the numbers, from rip, we can see that similarity and hopefully ground our debate.
Also, Duncan and Garnett had careers that overlapped temporally to a degree rarely seen outside of Magic vs Larry. While they weren't drafted the same season, Duncan and KG are the exact same age (Duncan born a month earlier) and their primes coincided very well with one another such that we can compare apples-to-apples over the same set of years. Here, I go from the 1998-99 season through the 2007-08 season. This captures all of their MVP years (including all 9 times one or the other finished top-3 in the vote), their DPoY season, the four Spurs championships of Duncan's prime & KG's chip with the Celtics, etc.).
Note: I don't believe that the box scores capture the entire game. But, again, this gives us a good baseline of production and also helps to indicate the small differences in the ways that each contributed their impacts.
A few thoughts. First, 'true shots' as used here are field goal attempts + 0.44* free throw attempts. One of the first things I'm always struck by is just how eerily similar KG's and Duncan's box score stats are over a full decade. There are small differences in either direction on different categories, but across the board they are in pretty close lockstep according to the boxscores.
Some areas where they differ slightly speak to their skillsets. Duncan is better at getting to the line (not shown here, but he averaged 7.5 FTA to KG's 5.7 FTA), which makes sense because he did operate more on the interior and drew more fouls. KG was a bit more active and efficient as a distributor on his teams, with a small edge in assists on equivalent turnovers. Duncan was the bigger shotblocker, Garnett more likely to generate steals. But all in all, very similar. And, as I mentioned, I don't think the boxscores are what tell the most important stories of quality, anyway, as I try to estimate how much one player was impacting the game vs another. But it is useful to see.
On the very raw +/- front, we can see some quantitative support for what we know to be true. Duncan's teams were better overall +10.4 on-court +/- vs +5.0). Garnett's teams struggled more without him (-7.4 off-court +/- vs +0.3). Garnett had a slightly higher on/off +/- as well, but there's enough room for interpretation that, like the box scores, the raw +/- numbers aren't the best storytellers for impact that we have access to for their careers. Where available, the regressed +/- stats tell more granular stories. But the raw +/- is useful, especially in cases where we don't have as much access to regressed data.
Skillset, quantified scouting and impact This is an important place to go next, because it addresses the notions of a) the benefits/downsides of both players' skillsets in a quantitative way. With the eye test, there's a fine line between "scouting" and "seeing what we want to see", so quantified scouting helps really pin down the degree of similarities/differences in a more meaningful way. This is also a place where we can start to try to quantify their non-boxscore impacts a bit. We want to move beyond "Duncan's a better post player" and "Garnett's a better passer", or "Player X is the better defender", but with data that is independent of the +/- approach that some don't like. So, for those that say "KG's only argument is RAPM", this section is for you.
Defense The databall era began almost 25 years ago, now, and of players that played essentially their entire careers in it, Duncan and Garnett are the two best defensive players bar none. But, they did things a bit differently. As the box scores support, Duncan was a bit better shot-blocker while KG was more likely to get a steal. However, real defense is much more complex than that.
Duncan
Spoiler:
Duncan was a more traditional rim protector, strong at ISO post defense with a strong base that allowed him to push most non-Shaq players off their spots when they tried to establish position.
Here, Brian Grant tries to post him up. Note Duncan's body position, and how he's pushing Grant away from his spot so hard that Grant almost falls.
In my memory, Duncan also wasn't one to give in to shot fakes and get out of position...this was always a reason I thought Duncan would have done better than David Robinson in that 1995 playoff matchup with Hakeem, because I don't think Hakeem could have deeked Duncan the way he did Robinson. Continuing that Grant possession, we see Grant get to his spot and jump-stop, then up-fake a couple of times. Note that Duncan's feet stay flat on the floor with his hand raised, just daring Grant to shoot...
...and Grant obliges, falling victim to Duncan's proclivity for on-ball blocked shots in those ISOs.
Duncan was also an excellent help defender. With much more range than some attribute to him. Duncan wasn't a rim-anchored rim protector, but instead could move his feet and cover some ground. This play is an excellent example of this.
Note how far away from the action is Duncan is at the start, almost out to the free throw line on the opposite side of the paint from where the ISO-post is happening on the block.
When DUncan saw his teammate get beat baseline, he dives down toward the rim to help out...
Duncan gets there in time to block the shot. And...
...he also comes down with the rebound! Duncan was very good at blocking the shot and keeping the ball in-play and/or recovering it after the block. This was something that Bill Russell was known for.
Here's another example of Duncan helping down, this time strong-side from the free throw line...
...and again he gets the block from behind, going on to get the rebound (unpictured).
Duncan's biggest sphere of influence was in the paint/around the rim, which showed up in his blocked shots, but also in the Spurs' ability to close down the paint on defense. Early in Duncan's career, he was sharing that duty with Robinson and potentially Robinson may have deserved more credit early on. But Duncan grew into the role, and by the early-mid 2000s when Robinson was on his way out the door, Duncan continued to anchor those mega-elite defenses from the inside-out. He was running a strong Pop defensive scheme, and he had strong defensive lieutenants on the perimeter in guys like Bruce Bowen and Manu GInobili (among others), but Duncan was the rock of the Spurs' defensive dynasty that spanned from the late 90s to the mid 2010s.
Garnett defensive similarities to Duncan
Spoiler:
Garnett's defensive approach was different than Duncan's in many ways, but they also had a lot in common. In fact, Garnett was excellent at many of the same elements of defense we just mentioned for Duncan. His base wasn't as strong, but he was absurdly long and lanky and used that to similar advantage in post defense. Here's an example, like Duncan's above, showing KG putting in post work before the entry pass against Rasheed Wallace.
Sheed trying to carve out space, but KG's all over him with the deny. Chauncey having trouble entering it.
Chauncey tries to enter anyway, and KG's there to get his hand on the pass. He doesn't get the steal, but Sheed falls off balance trying to keep the ball and ends up desperately kicking it back out to the perimeter.
Post defense example
Again, like Duncan, KG was elite at defending the post even if the opponent managed to enter it. Here's an example of KG showing that against Duncan himself. Duncan gets the entry pass on KG, faces up then drives to rim.
KG beats him to the rim for the on-ball block.
Help defense block example
Another area KG excelled in, similar to what we showed for Duncan, was helping teammates to protect the rim. Here's an example of a how this looked when KG operated in the paint, against Webber. Webber upfakes Erv Johnson and sets up dribble drive to the rim, but KG lurking in the lane off his man.
By the time Webber gets to the rim, Garnett is already there to engulf the shot.
Cross-court help defense plus rebound example Last one. This is another help block, analogous to the Duncan across-the-court help example. But take note of just how far away Garnett is from Bibby at the start of the play, with Bibby ISO'd on Cassell at elbow trey and KG in the lane near the FT line on the opposite side of the court. Also, take note of how the possession ends.
Bibby beats Cassell to the paint, but by the time he arrives KG already waiting at the rim.
Garnett gets there so quickly that when he jumps, Bibby can't even see the rim. KG doesn't get the block, but forces Bibby to throw up a wild shot that completely misses the rim...
...and, like Duncan, KG is excellent at challenging (or blocking) the shot then getting the rebound. As he does here
Garnett defense separates from Duncan's
Spoiler:
Here is where their defense tended to diverge a bit. While Duncan's primary sphere of influence was around the paint, Garnett disrupted all over the court. While Duncan had the strength advantage that helped in the post, KG had incredible speed for a 7-footer and was able to use it to help/switch/blow-up-opposing-possessions in unprecedented ways. And one of the interesting/ironic issues is that often Garnett was stopping opponent offensive sets directly but there's no boxscore stat for "stopped a play" or "forced a reset that ate shotclock and led to a lower percentage shot". I remember in '08 when KG won Defensive Player of the Year, I heard an analyst break down his "lack" of volume blocks and steals by pointing out that Garnett was actually rotating so quickly that he was beating opposing offenses to the spot and causing them to change their minds about shooting before they could ever get the shot up.
First, let's look at KG's ability to defend perimeter players. Often, especially in a comparison with Duncan, it gets reduced to "Duncan's better in paint, Garnett's better on the perimeter, but rim protection is more valuable." That's an over-generalization here, though, because KG's ability to guard perimeter players as primary defender has added value to his help and P&R defenses. But we'll get to that, later. First, examples of KG ISO'd on perimeter players, starting with Rockets version of Clyde Drexler.
Drexler attacked off the dribble from outside of elbow trey:
Drexler got to his spot and pulled up for the jumper, but KG was right there and extending to challenge...
...which caused Drexler to change his mind and bailout pass to a teammate with no advantage. Leading to a reset with less time on the shot clock and a decreased chance Rockets scored that possession.
Here's another example of a KG ISO against an aging perimeter legend. This one against Wizards Jordan. Also started with Jordan preparing to attack from elbow trey
When Jordan tried to dribble drive, KG got his hand on the ball and made Jordan fumble...
...eventually losing it out of bounds
Quick reset: in both examples, KG won the defensive matchup against the perimeter attacker and either rebuffed or completely stopped the offensive possession. But in neither did KG get a steal, block or rebound, so according to the boxscores KG didn't contribute defensively there. And that's a monstrous point, because KG was consistently one of the best in the league at "stopping a player from scoring" without getting box score credit for it. It's why we really need scouting and/or impact analytics to really get an idea of his impact.
Let's look at a couple of examples, now, or Garnett defending against multiple perimeter attacks and repeatedly stifling the offense to end possessions. This one begins with Garnett ISO'd on Cleveland LeBron (1st iteration) out top:
LeBron attacks off the dribble, but KG beats him to the spot, in perfect position to challenge a shot...
...forcing LeBron to pass to Wally and set a screen...
KG switches onto Wally...
...and immediately takes the ball to ignite his 1-man fast break.
Here's a second, similar example. This one, KG starts on Webber with Peja out top...
Peja wins his matchup, KG switches onto him and challenges his shot, which causes Peja to change his mind after already starting his shooting motion...
...Peja bailed on the shot and passed to Webber who returned it to Peja, this time ISO'd on KG...
KG again stops Peja's attack, forcing him to kick it to Christie. Christie takes and misses the shot (look where KG is when Christie shoots)...
...yet, KG dives from the top of the key to under the backboard to still beat everyone else to the rebound.
This all leads to one of the elements of defense that Garnett is perhaps most known for: being the best big-man defender of the pick-and-roll, probably ever. The pick-and-roll/pop was ubiquitious during the 2000s era, and is still one of the most common sets in the game today. So, Garnett's ability to blow up that play led to a lot of busted plays, run-down shot clocks, low percentage shots and turnovers. And again, because there's no stat to count for that, it's an element of defense that you have to scout to see.
First, as promised above, KG's ability to dominate matchups on the perimeter plays a huge part in his success on the P&R. In this example, Garnett switches after the Tyson Chandler switch onto point guard Ray Felton
Felton dribbles straight to the rim but KG beats him there, causing Felton to reset
Felton resets back out to the 3-point line, still ISO'd on Garnett...
...Felton attacks again, but KG gets there and this time blocks Felton's shot.
Finally, here's the other element of defending the P&R that KG specialized in: the hedge Because KG was so good at defending the perimeter player, he was able to hedge enough to stop many guys from attacking off the dribble while allowing his teammate to recover. In this example, Joakim Noah set a pick on Paul Pierce, who was guarding Luol Deng...
KG hedge out to stop Deng from turning the corner, which gave Pierce time to recover
...Deng picked up his dribble. KG then dives back to recover onto Noah. Deng has his eye on getting it to Noah...
Duncan's fundamental defensive positioning and decision-making came across in the defensive scouting stats ElGee included in his rankings project. He claims to have scouted 800 of Duncan's possessions between 1998 and 2008. He noted Duncan as one of the "low-error defenders" in the league, always among the top quartile in the league in defensive error rates. He also wrote that Duncan rotated notably "well" in 4 plays per 100, with about 1 "elite" rotation play per game and that this was about 2.5 times better than (for example) Shaq's rate of quality rotations. However, while Duncan covered a lot of ground for a typical big man, the outlier athletes covered more. David Robinson, for example, was credited with quality rotations about 20% more often than Duncan.
Meanwhile, in ElGee's study, Garnett measured out as making even fewer mistakes while producing more positive defensive results. KG measured out with a defensive error rate of only 0.7 errors per 100 possessions, which ranked in the 96th percentile from 03-09, and he maintained a similar rate in a study including 2,500 more scouted KG possessions from 2010 and 2011. On the other side of the coin, Garnett's hyper mobility, instincts and team/help defense translated to a frequency of "good" helping plays second only to young Hakeem Olajuwon in the study. KG's multi-year average of"over 7 good helps per 100 possessions" was better than Duncan's peak of more than 6 good helps per 100 possessions.
A couple of other notes of interest reported for Garnett included that KG's 4-year peak of a 15.8% defensive rebound rate ranked 8th in NBA history since the stat started being kept in 1974. Also, KG was able to challenge so aggressively on defense while generating one of the lowest fouling rates among big men since 1997.
Defensive impact stats
Spoiler:
I mentioned before that KG and Duncan were the two best defensive players of at least the last two decades, and the impact stats bear that out. Any number of them tell the same story, but one quick resource with cool graphs explores Jerry Englemann's 14-year RAPM study from 2001-2014: https://public.tableau.com/views/14YearRAPM/14YearRAPM?:embed=y&:showVizHome=no Garnett (+7.7) and Duncan (+6.6) rank out as the two best defensive players over that span, both with well over 100,000 defensive possessions considered in the study.
Offense As with defense, Garnett and Duncan had a lot of overlapping skills but approached this end of the court differently. As the box scores support, Duncan was a bit more efficient as a scorer and better able to draw fouls inside, while KG was the more productive passer with more range on his jumper. But again, real offense is much more in depth than what's in the box scores.
Post game
Spoiler:
When it comes to operating and scoring from the block, it's universally accepted that Duncan was a bit better than Garnett. He's a bit thicker, with a stronger base, and he spent more of his time posting up than Garnett did. However, Duncan wasn't exactly anchored to the paint like Shaq or Dwight Howard and could step out and hit a 15-footer as well.
Here they are, operating in the post against one another.
Duncan example: check his base positioning, ability to root down low and finish strong through contact.
Garnett example: KG is longer, lankier and quicker. It shows through in this example, though he's also able to finish through contact here.
Interestingly, data from the Scouting Analytics service Synergy pegged Garnett and Duncan as very similar in point production from post-ups during the years they were in business, 2005 - 2012. Interestingly, though Duncan posted slightly more often during this stretch (~45% of the time through 2010) than Garnett (~35% of the time), Garnett generated a higher points per possession than Duncan from post ups in six of the eight seasons (2005-2008, 2011-2012).
Shooting
Spoiler:
Both Duncan and Garnett were comfortable knocking down jumpers. Here's vid caps of them setting up and knocking down 15-footers against each other.
(example)
(example)
Both had range to occasionally step out and knock down the trey, especially in big moments where the shot was required. But Garnett was the better shooter and operated at higher volumes. According to basketball-reference.com:
Duncan/Garnett shooting 1999-2008 10-16 feet --> Duncan took 21.2% of his shots, made 40.4% Garnett took 23.3% of his shots, made 46.6%
16 feet-3P--> Duncan took 11.6% of his shots, made 38.9% Garnett took 29.2% of his shots, made 44.5%
3-pointers--> Duncan took 1% of his shots, made 22.4% Garnett took 3.9% of his shots, made 27%
(Ugh. Computer ate my verbiage here. Let me try to recreate).
This scoring discussion comes down to "reliability" on one side and "spacing" on the other, as well as the question of "what's the right way for a big man to play offense"? Interestingly, there were seasons when KG shot better from the field than Duncan from everywhere on the court...posting higher percentages in the post, in the short mid-range, in the long mid-range, and from 3-point range...but Duncan still ended up with higher field goal and true shooting percentages overall because he shot more often from close to the rim, and he also drew more fouls.
While they were playing, especially in the first half of their careers, this was a big source of public criticism of Garnett (particularly when compared to Duncan). Many would say, 'a 7-footer should play in the paint, not settle for jumpers'. This is still a big point of criticism when it comes to playoff scoring efficiency, where Duncan proponents claim that Duncan's post game is more reliable in the postseason while KG's jumpers can dry up. I personally contend that a) this isn't the main reason for their small differences in scoring efficiency in the postseason and b) those differences in scoring efficiency have very little effect on their postseason offensive impacts. But I digress, as this isn't the point I'm trying to make nor is it the place to make the case. Focus.
However, we now have decades of databall information in all types of studies that go back to the 90s that have taught us just how valuable big man spacing is to team offenses. If a big man is a) a volume scorer and b) is being defended by (typically) the best big man defender on the opposing team, then that big man's ability to volume score with jumpers has a huge positive effect on the team's offense. He warps the opposing defense away from the rim, which destabilizes most defensive attacks and leaves the paint open for the rest of the offense to generate high-efficiency looks. In fact, whether the shooter is making his jumpers that day or not, the threat of his presence as a shooter drives that spacing, positive team impact.
So. While we spent much of their actual playing careers criticizing Garnett's scoring proclivities (with respect to Duncan's), by now we should really know better. We should really expect, even without having to look at their direct impact stats, that there was a good chance that Garnett's spacing was probably as valuable/more to his team than Duncan's post game. Or, at the very least, we should really be considering whether that might be the case even as we move onto another aspect of offense...
Passing
Spoiler:
Duncan was a solid passer even as a young player, but over the course of his career he developed into a genuinely good passer for a pivot. Here's a link to a Youtube compilation of Duncan making good passes: [url]
In the compilation, there are a lot of instances of Duncan getting the ball as part of a play, then making a quick pass to a cutter or a teammate popping out for a 3-pointer. There are also quite a few examples of him getting a rebound and firing an outlet past half-court that ignited a fast break and easy layup. Duncan was usually able to pass out of double-teams effectively, and he typically put good pace and touch on his passes.
With that said, this is an area of the game where Garnett has a solid advantage. Garnett was a legitimately excellent passer and offensive decision maker period, but was especially an outlier for a big man at creating opportunities for teammates. The difference between the two was clear when watching them live action, and it's just as evident when perusing Youtube blips as well.
The analogy I'd use is that of a football quarterback. Duncan was like a 1-read QB. You know, usually with young quarterbacks, their teams might simplify the playbook such that pre-snap the quarterback can look at the situation surrounding his main target, then once the play begins he has to make only one decision as to whether to make the pass or not. At that point, it becomes about whether the quarterback is physically able to get the ball where it needs to be, but he doesn't have to put a lot of thought into it. To me, many of Duncan's good passes were like that...they came in the flow of the offense, or broke up doubles, or got the fast break going but didn't require him to read the defense.
Garnett, on the other hand, was more like a veteran signal caller that could read the entire defense, make decisions on who might be open based upon some combination of the defensive set, the play being run and/or how he could force the defense to warp; and often he'd "pass a player open".
This is a very important distinction, again well beyond the number of assists, because it meant that Garnett's teams could use him regularly as an offensive hub to initiate and run the offense and create looks for his teammates. Another outcome from analyzing decades of impact stats is that big men that can initiate/run the offense/create team offense universally measure out as some of the highest impact offensive players in the game. Like spacing, big man offense initiation is something that doesn't necessarily show up in the box scores but that has a huge impact on the game. This effect is why Nikola Jokic has been measuring out as one of the best offensive players in the NBA for several years, even before his reputation caught up. It's part and parcel of why Draymond Green, especially in the pre-Durant days, consistently registered strong offensive impact stats (particularly as the center in the "Death lineup") even though he's a poor, inconsistent shooter and doesn't score at much volume.
Beyond being the visibly better passer qualitatively, Garnett's advantages over Duncan can be demonstrated quantitatively as well through scouting stats. Again, Ben scouted thousands of plays from years and years of games, and in his top-40 project he reported some passing results for both Duncan and KG.
For Duncan, Ben reported that he had "good" passing plays about two times per 100 possessions, a higher rate than his "problematic passes" to effectively post the scouting stats analog of a positive assist-to-turnover ratio but with.
Garnett, on the other hand, had a "rate of quality passing near John Stockton's". Using only peak years (between 2003 and 2008), Garnett's rate of "good" passes was over 4 per 100 possessions, a comparable score to that posted by Jason Kidd.
So, yes, Garnett was the better passer than Duncan. But the implications of that statement are much larger than just, "well, he had an extra assist per game". Garnett's ability to initiate and create team offense, then set up his teammates in good position to attack the opposing defense is an extremely scaleable skill that good coaches could build entire offenses around.
Overall offensive impact
Spoiler:
Let's start with a non +/- statistic, one that instead was another result of the scouting analytics: shots created. According to ElGee's top-40 project, Duncan produced around 7 shots created per 100 possessions during his peak years, then was closer to 4-5 shots created per 100 possessions during the surrounding seasons. In his study, that was an excellent performance, especially for a big man.
Garnett, though, was "the most prolific creator of any big man in history (if we don't count Larry Bird)". KG's creation rates were similar to his estimated non-3 Box creation marks, in the 7 created shots per 100 range on average (from 1997-2009, not just at his peak).
Now, let's shift to the +/- story. According to Jerry Englemann's yearly PI-RAPM studies, both Duncan and Garnett peaked with at least one season among the top-5 in the NBA in ORAPM (Duncan peaked at fifth one season, while Garnett peaked at 1st in ORAPM in 2004 and 2nd in 2003).
If we got a bit broader, using DocMJ's approach of normalizing RAPM to try to compare individual seasons on a more even basis, with an updated version of his spreadsheet that compiled the single-year RAPM studies available at the time, we can sort the highest offensive impacts (best 5-year averages) for all big men between 1998 and 2012. Of course, Shaq finished #1 (+8.1 5-year average) and Dirk finished #2 (+7.4 average). Garnett finished fourth (+6.2) while Duncan finished sixth (+5.6) among big men.
So, in terms of offensive impact as estimated by both scouting analytics and RAPM, the story was consistent that both were strong but Garnett was slightly better. And, after the scouting breakdown, hopefully it's clearer to all why this was the case. Duncan was likely the better low-post scorer with better efficiency, but Garnett's unique brand of point-guard-level passing/shot creation, strong spacing and a still excellent post game was just more impactful overall.
Bottom line, top-down view of Garnett vs Duncan I've really tried to give a holistic, in-depth analysis of what Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan brought to the court on both offense and defense. We started with the box scores and basic +/- data, but if you actually read all of this I hope you can see just how little the box scores are equipped to really measure a) the different elements that Duncan and Garnett brought to bear and b) how those different strengths translated to their impacts.
On both offense and defense, Duncan dominated the area right around the rim and also had good ability (for a big man) to influence the game outside of that primary sphere of influence. And on both offense and defense, Garnett was able to dominate the area around the rim but spent less time there, as his sphere of dominance expanded out to the 3-point line (and sometimes beyond) on both ends of the court. And several of KG's best strengths...his historic help defense, his GOAT pick-and-roll defense, his defensive versatility, his ability to space the court on offense and his guard-level offense initiation/passing weren't things that the box scores could catch...but they were part and parcel of why Garnett was the most impactful player of his generation.
And yes, as most of you knew coming in and the various +/- studies I've reported above indicated, the impact studies support that claim. In Englemann's 14-year study from 2001-14, Garnett edges out even LeBron for #1 on the list. I ran into Jerry recently, and he told me that even now, including data up through present (pre-bubble), KG and LeBron were still clearly 1-2 in long-term RPM (with his decisions about how to implement his aging curve determining which ended up on top).
Not only was he the biggest impact player of his generation, Garnett also had very arguably the most portable skillset. It's why he was able to positively impact his teams under such a wide array of circumstances.
Garnett also had likely the most scaleable skillset of his generation. Dominant big man defense is almost purely additive, as is passing, as is shooting/spacing. He could lead any defensive unit, and be a beneficial contributor to any offensive unit.
Finally, Garnett is perhaps the most uniquely scarce player of all-time. Understand what I mean by that. NBA history is full of Unicorns, Freaks, Legends and Kings. Players with athletic profiles and sizes that were incredibly unique. So, that's not what I'm getting at, here. But, in NBA history it is rare to find a big man with a defensive impact even comparable to the best offensive impacts around. Even if the offensive impact might be a bit greater at the top, there were/are also more offensive players capable of generating those levels of impact. There are hardly any defenders that can do that, though. Both Garnett and Duncan were on the extremely short list worthy of mention.
However, on the other side of the ball, it is just as rare to have a big man that can initiate the offense as a hub that creates on the order of point guards. It isn't as rare to have big man shooters that can space the floor, but volume scorers that can do so are still relatively sparse.
But when you look at the Venn diagram of the most dominant defenders...that are also outstanding team offense initiators...that are ALSO excellent floor spacers that can dominate in the post as well...you're looking at an n of 1. Kevin Garnett.
Vote 1. Garnett (Haven't done a lot on the others. Right now, I'll go Bird and Big O as a default. I'm sure Kobe, Dirk and Robinson come into play in a big way as well)
trex_8063 wrote:otoh, he's the ONLY one of the three who does NOT have any seasons that are more or less meaningless in terms of value added ... Bird, otoh, was ALWAYS adding value when on the court.
Hmm. WoWY for that last year painted him as a neutral. And the Barry Scouting Report graded him a D on defense after that year. Then he missed most of the playoff games, played limited minutes in the ones he was in. Depends on your bar and he's still productive but it's iffy. Mind you Hakeem's last 3 seasons look low impact, low productivity to me so maybe a different bar.
Do you have some net rating or SRS WOWY data from that year you're referring to that lists him as "neutral"? Because I otherwise note the '92 Celtics were 31-14 (on pace for 56.5 wins) in the 45 games Bird played, and 20-17 (on pace for 44.3 wins) in the games he missed [12+ wins added to an already decent squad is no small thing]. And according to bbref splits they were a +4.8 rORTG in the 45 games he played [would have been good for #4 offense], while being just a +0.9 rORTG when he was gone (they averaged out to a +2.6 rORTG for the year [good for 8th/27]).
So it gives the appearance of him being the primary offensive anchor when he played.....which is pretty darn consistent with the box-based metrics too---->Despite being 35 years old and pretty much unable to bend over, he was still somewhat of a giant in the boxscore: basically averaging 20/10/7 on fairly good *efficiency (*both the shooting kind and the turnover-economy kind).
He had the team's best PER at 21.0, the team's best BPM [by far] at +5.5, and their 2nd-best WS/48 at .159, while basically tying Reggie Lewis for team-high mpg (36.9, just 0.5 behind Reggie).
So yeah, he still seems to be adding value, even with the immobile and poor defense. Insane as it seems given how immobile he was, I think he was still a top-10 (and maybe closer to top-5) offensive player in the league [that's an off-the-cuff statement, btw, without looking far into it].
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
Joao Saraiva wrote:Well, even if he had a subpar game 7, in such a series the Lakers had no business even being at a game 7. Taking the series overall, I think Kobe played very well.
Clippers with Elton Brand played 7 games against this Suns team as well, so was it that big overachievement? And secondly, Bryant played subpar G1-G4 (23.0 PTS, 6.3 TRB, 6.3 AST, 4.5 TOV, 51.5 TS%), yet Lakers got 3-1 lead, and then had this amazing game 6 (50 pts or so in OT loss), but Lakers lost in 7, and his overall boxscore production wasn't even that great. I'm not saying he was one to blame or that he didn't play well, but I wonder why do you think this series is worthy of mentioning in context of this thread?
I think it was worth mentioning. The value of noting that example is that it shows Kobe + Mediocre Cast can still get to the playoffs and be respectably frisky. It's not a big part of his career resume but it does illustrate his floor-raising ability, particularly as an offensive anchor. IIRC LA was 6th in offense that season which goes to show how far Kobe shouldering the load could get you on that end of the floor.
The Lakers were 8th in Offensive Rating in 2006.
I'm not sure what value that season actually holds when compared to other players here.
)
