RealGM

Peak Only - Jermaine O'Neal vs. Shawn Kemp? These two missed playing together by a year. Who was better at their respective peaks?

Kemp was a lot better.

Peak JO, so specifically 03, wasn't a bad scorer when his turnaround was falling, but he wasn't really a noteworthy offensive player, and he fell off sharply thereafter anyway.

Kemp was much more compelling, even if he wasn't the same caliber of defender.

Kemp's career is slightly underwhelming because he refused to take care of himself after leaving Seattle. However at his absolute peak, he was definitely a beast. He was the best player on a team that made a Finals run, so that's a point in his favor.

Kemp is underrated as an impact player and a defender. He was the catalyst in Seattle and should have finished with at least one All-Defensive Team. I'd take him over JO quickly and decisively.

Kemp was much more compelling, even if he wasn't the same caliber of defender.

Whoa. What?

You watch the Sonics a lot back then did you?

Kemp is underrated as an impact player and a defender. He was the catalyst in Seattle and should have finished with at least one All-Defensive Team. I'd take him over JO quickly and decisively.

Boy is this ever true.

Kemp's peak - his heyday with the Sonics - was 1990-91 to 1996-97. During that time Seattle was the league's 4th best team defensively at 103.4 pts/100poss allowed. Only New York, Chicago, and Portland were better defensively.

Payton played the most minutes on that team (19612) followed by Kemp (17489). No other Sonic played even 11100 minutes.

And Kemp played only 32 min/g because of a high foul rate. Had he been able to play as much as big men like Robinson and Olajuwon (38 min/g) Seattle would have been best in the league defensively.

Three of those seven seasons Seattle was the 2nd best team in the league defensively - 1992-93 (103.3 pts/100poss allowed), 1993-94 (100.1 pts/100poss allowed), and 1995-96 (100.9 pts/100poss allowed).

And over the 4 years of 1992-93 to 1995-96 they were the 2nd best team in the league defensively (102.2 pts/100poss allowed). Only New York was better defensively. Those 4 years Kemp played the 2nd most minutes on the Sonics (only Payton played more). Both played 10,000+ minutes. No other Sonic played even 8000 minutes.

That Sonics team in the early to mid 90s was a devastating defensive team. And the key reasons were Payton and Kemp.

Regular season peak is pretty comparable. But Kemp has the distinction of being the only player to outplay Jordan in the Finals, so I'm going to give it to him.

Yeah, Kemp wins this, and it’s barely even a fight.

Peak Kemp was the best player the Sonics has ever seen, and from 1990 to 1997, almost the entirety of his career in the Sonics, he was an unignorable name in the NBA and, in the Sonics, the second most active player, their best attacker. Jo was good, sure, especially on defense, but it was Kemp’s offense that brought the Sonics to the ‘96 finals. Yes, they lost, but it was a great series to watch… Kemp vs Joe, however, would not be.

Jo was good, sure, especially on defense, but it was Kemp’s offense

Kemp was the better defender. I mentioned above how good Seattle was defensively with him.

Also note that in 1997 Kemp was traded to Cleveland and the Cavaliers improved to be the best defensive team in the league in 1997-98 (97.9 pts/100poss allowed) with a starting five of C Zydrunas Ilgauskas, PF Kemp, SF Cedric Henderson, SG Wesley Person, and PG Brevin Knight.

kcktiny wrote:Also note that in 1997 Kemp was traded to Cleveland and the Cavaliers improved to be the best defensive team in the league in 1997-98 (97.9 pts/100poss allowed) with a starting five of C Zydrunas Ilgauskas, PF Kemp, SF Cedric Henderson, SG Wesley Person, and PG Brevin Knight.

Don't forget to mention that they had already been the 5th-best defense in the league the previous season (96-97). Or how they leaned hard on turnover generation with Brevin Knight, as well as some strong defensive rebounding between Kemp and a healthy Ilgauskas, who was a pretty good rim protector in-era.

Don't forget to mention that they had already been the 5th-best defense in the league the previous season (96-97).

Wow - how relevant.

The previous season the Cavaliers starting five was completely different - Tyrone Hill, Danny Ferry, Chris Mills, Bobby Phills, and Terrell Brandon - and combined they played 7/10 of the Cavaliers total minutes played that season.

What could they possibly have to do with what the Cavaliers did in 1997-98?? Hill, Mills, Phills, and Brandon were gone, and Ferry played all of 1000 minutes.

How about you explain that?

Or how they leaned hard on turnover generation

They were third best in the league in turnovers forced at 17.6 opponent TO/g. But that was just 2.1 opponent TO/g more than average that season. At 1.036 pts/poss that season, that's some 2.2 pts/100poss better than average.

Yet they allowed the fourth lowest opponent 2pt FG% at 45.0%, allowed 28.6 2pt FGM/g. League average was 31.5 2pt FGM/g. That's 5.8 pts/g better than average - more than twice the points saved per game versus their turnovers forced.

They were also fourth best in the league with a 71.1% defensive rebounding percentage. Kemp lead them in defensive rebounds and was second in blocks to Ilgauskas.

Not a single Cavaliers player was named to either the all-defensive first or second team that season - yet they were the best defensive team in 1997-98.

How about you tell us who was their best defensive player that season? Who was the best defensive player on the best defensive team that season?

I don't think there is any question it was Kemp.

Oh, and prior to coming to Cleveland the two previous seasons - 1995-96 and 1996-97 - Seattle was the second best defensive team in the league (101.2 pts/100poss allowed). Only Chicago was better.

In 1997-98 without Kemp Seattle was 11th in the league in defense.

kcktiny wrote:How about you explain that?

They had the same coach, a guy noted for his defensive coaching in Fratello. That's a good starting point.

Or how they leaned hard on turnover generation

They were third best in the league in turnovers forced at 17.6 opponent TO/g. But that was just 2.1 opponent TO/g more than average that season. At 1.036 pts/poss that season, that's some 2.2 pts/100poss better than average.[/quote]

Yeah, but if you're going to quote defensive rating ranking, then you're going to hear about the methods they used to generate that result. And turnover generation was a big part of that for them. They were second in the league in opponent TOV% in 1998.

They were also fourth best in the league with a 71.1% defensive rebounding percentage. Kemp lead them in defensive rebounds and was second in blocks to Ilgauskas.

In raw DRB/g, yes. Ilgauskas was 0.4% beneath him in DRB%, though. He was playing 30 mpg or so versus 34 ish from Kemp, so the difference wasn't really humongous. They had significant defensive rebounding. And of course WRT possession control on the other end, Big Z was crushing it on the offensive boards, which helped limit transition opportunities and gave the D time to get ahead of the opposition's O. Now, on a team level, they were not good at offensive rebounding, so that does matter only so much, to be fair.

Not a single Cavaliers player was named to either the all-defensive first or second team that season - yet they were the best defensive team in 1997-98.

Sure. They had the tools. They were an 89.9 poss/g team with good defensive rebounding, turnover generation, with a good defensive coach. And to borrow from your minimization tactic, they were 0.3 better than the 2nd-ranked team, and 0.8 better than the 3rd-ranked team. So if you're going to complain about their ranking in terms of turnover generation, you'll get it back in terms of how much you're emphasizing that they were the best defense over and over again, because it was by a sliver. They were 1.2 better than the 4th-ranked defense.

Oh, and prior to coming to Cleveland the two previous seasons - 1995-96 and 1996-97 - Seattle was the second best defensive team in the league (101.2 pts/100poss allowed). Only Chicago was better.

Seattle had a lot of very good defensive players. And Kemp was also quite good.

In 1997-98 without Kemp Seattle was 11th in the league in defense.

Yes. They replaced Shawn Kemp with Vin Baker, and their defensive rebounding fell of considerably. They were still 4th in the league in turnover generation, and 15th in defensive eFG% (they were 13th in 97).

But what you're not discussing is that in 97, they were a 102.7 DRTG and in 98 they were a 103.6 DRTG. So you're describing this massive drop-off based on rank, but forgetting league environment. The actual raw change in their defense wasn't that significant. But they took away the shortened 3, so average 3P% went from 36% to 34.6%, and average ORTG went from 106.7 to 105. So looking at those changes without context isn't really a great way to evaluate defense.

To whit, the 97 Sonics werea -4.0 defense at 102.7 but only a -1.4 defense at 103.6.

Food for thought.

kcktiny wrote:

Kemp was much more compelling, even if he wasn't the same caliber of defender.

Whoa. What?

You watch the Sonics a lot back then did you?

Kemp is underrated as an impact player and a defender. He was the catalyst in Seattle and should have finished with at least one All-Defensive Team. I'd take him over JO quickly and decisively.

Boy is this ever true.

Kemp's peak - his heyday with the Sonics - was 1990-91 to 1996-97. During that time Seattle was the league's 4th best team defensively at 103.4 pts/100poss allowed. Only New York, Chicago, and Portland were better defensively.

Payton played the most minutes on that team (19612) followed by Kemp (17489). No other Sonic played even 11100 minutes.

And Kemp played only 32 min/g because of a high foul rate. Had he been able to play as much as big men like Robinson and Olajuwon (38 min/g) Seattle would have been best in the league defensively.

You say this as though the blame for a high foul rate falls elsewhere than upon Kemp's shoulders......like someone or something outside his control caused it.
Should also be noted that high foul-rate is generally bad for your team's defense.

kcktiny wrote:Three of those seven seasons Seattle was the 2nd best team in the league defensively - 1992-93 (103.3 pts/100poss allowed), 1993-94 (100.1 pts/100poss allowed), and 1995-96 (100.9 pts/100poss allowed).

And over the 4 years of 1992-93 to 1995-96 they were the 2nd best team in the league defensively (102.2 pts/100poss allowed). Only New York was better defensively. Those 4 years Kemp played the 2nd most minutes on the Sonics (only Payton played more). Both played 10,000+ minutes. No other Sonic played even 8000 minutes.

That Sonics team in the early to mid 90s was a devastating defensive team. And the key reasons were Payton and Kemp.

The manner of reasoning or argumentation here is a bit dubious, particularly the bolded reference.

While it's true that no ONE player even come within well over 2k minutes of Kemp, those teams often had a whole platoon of defensive role players or good defenders at other positions.....

Nate McMillan [one of the best defensive guards of his generation]
Derrick McKey [principally a defensive role player]
Michael Cage [defensive role player]
Hersey Hawkins [good two-way player]
Ervin Johnson [defensive role player]

^^^These guys combined for 17,840 total minutes for the Sonics over that same 4-year span (>6k more than either one of Payton/Kemp), with nearly 7.2k of those coming from Nate McMillan [defensive beast in the backcourt]).
I suspect they had a lot to do with Seattle's defensive success, too.

I'm not trying to poo poo on Kemp's defense. He WAS a good defensive player. But I'm comfortable saying he wasn't quite as good on as Jermaine O'Neal.
Better overall, but not his equal on defense, imo.

Kemp. If he hadn't gotten fat and out of shape, he's a top 10 all-time PF.

They had the same coach, a guy noted for his defensive coaching in Fratello. That's a good starting point.

Nice segue - now that you realized the starting five on the same team in consecutive years was completely different.

Last I checked coaches do not play. How about you explaining how a coach made Ilgaukas/Kemp/Henderson/W.Person/Knight the best defensive team in the league, as opposed to Kemp being the best defender on the team.

Yeah, but if you're going to quote defensive rating ranking, then you're going to hear about the methods they used to generate that result. And turnover generation was a big part of that for them.

Try re-reading the thread. Per game 2pt shot defense saved far more points than forcing turnovers.

so the difference wasn't really humongous

Kemp grabbed the most defensive rebounds on the best defensive team in the league. Twist that all you want.

Big Z was crushing it on the offensive boards, which helped limit transition opportunities and gave the D time to get ahead of the opposition's O

Oh I get it. Ilgauskas was a good defender because he was their best offensive rebounder. Nice logic. Twist it some more.

So using your convoluted thought process I guess he was really good on offense too because he grabbed the second most defensive rebounds?

they were 0.3 better than the 2nd-ranked team

Cleveland was at 97.9 pts/100poss allowed. Next best was Chicago at 98.4 pts/100poss allowed. 0.5 pts/100poss better.

you'll get it back in terms of how much you're emphasizing that they were the best defense over and over again, because it was by a sliver

Ooo just a sliver?

In 1997-98 the cavaliers allowed 97.9 pts/100poss. The next best team defensively allowed 98.4 pts/100poss. That difference between the 1st and 2nd best defensive team of 0.5 pts/100poss was larger than the difference between the 1st and 2nd best defensive teams the previous two seasons.

Not only that, that difference in 1997-98 of 0.5 pts/100poss between the 1st and 2nd best defensive teams was similar to or larger than the difference in 27 seasons from 1979-80 to 2023-24 (40+ seasons) between the 1st and 2nd best defensive teams.

You do have a distinct definition of "sliver".

And again - the best defense is the best defense.

Seattle had a lot of very good defensive players. And Kemp was also quite good.

Kemp was a very good defender for a long stretch, some 8-9 seasons.

But what you're not discussing is that in 97, they were a 102.7 DRTG and in 98 they were a 103.6 DRTG. So you're describing this massive drop-off based on rank, but forgetting league environment. The actual raw change in their defense wasn't that significant.

Oooo you can just feel the twisting.

Seattle ranked 2nd in defensive efficiency in 1995-96, 6th in 1996-97, just 11th in 1997-98. What idiot compares a team's defensive efficiency to another season as if you are comparing apples to apples where the league average defensive efficiency was considerably different?

League average defensive efficiency in 1995-96 was 106.3 pts/100poss allowed, in 1996-97 it was 105.3 pts/100poss allowed, in 1997-98 just 103.6 pts/100poss allowed.

So now who is forgetting league environment?

Food for thought.

Perhaps you should change your diet.

You say this as though the blame for a high foul rate falls elsewhere than upon Kemp's shoulders......like someone or something outside his control caused it.

Stop putting words into the mouths of others to try to validate your point. I never wrote any such thing.

I simply stated that had he been able to play longer the team would have been even better defensively than they already were.

Should also be noted that high foul-rate is generally bad for your team's defense.

You said it yourself - generally.

But from 1990-91 to 1996-97 Seattle was 4th best in the league in defensive efficiency, Kemp played the 2nd most total minutes on the Sonics (17489), 32 min/g committing 6.0 PF/48min, and from 1992-93 to 1995-96 they were 2nd best in defensive efficiency, Kemp again played the 2nd most total minutes (10489), played 33 min/g and committing 5.8 PF/48min.

Awfully good success defensively over a long stretch.

While it's true that no ONE player even come within well over 2k minutes of Kemp, those teams often had a whole platoon of defensive role players or good defenders at other positions.....

I'm a big fan of Nate McMillan. Yes he was a great defender, and McKey and Cage were very good defenders. Hawkins was never a very good defender but both Vincent Askew and Sam Perkins were. Ervin Johnson did not play much over that 7 year stretch.

But over that 7 year stretch Kemp grabbed 3633 defensive rebounds (no other Sonic grabbed more than 1514) and blocked 889 shots (no other Sonic blocked more than 218). Those are huge differences, not to mention his more minutes played.

From 1992-93 to 1995-96 the same thing - Kemp with 2288 defensive rebounds (no other Sonic more than 938) and Kemp with 561 blocks (no other Sonic with more than 218). Again - huge differences.

I suspect they had a lot to do with Seattle's defensive success, too.

That's why they were a really good to great defensive team.

I'm not trying to poo poo on Kemp's defense. He WAS a good defensive player. But I'm comfortable saying he wasn't quite as good on as Jermaine O'Neal.

I would take Kemp defensively over O'Neal hands down.

Kemp. If he hadn't gotten fat and out of shape, he's a top 10 all-time PF.

I won't argue that.

He was a huge impact player. His 8 seasons with Seattle he played just the 37th most minutes in the league but lead the league in offensive rebounds (2145), was 7th in defensive rebounds (3833), 7th in blocks (959).

From 1990-91 to 1996-97 Seattle averaged a 55-27 W-L record. Only Chicago and Utah were better.

Those Sonics ranked 4th in the league in both offensive and defensive efficiency over those 7 seasons (out of 29 teams), due first and foremost to Payton and Kemp.

kcktiny wrote:Ooo just a sliver?

In 1997-98 the cavaliers allowed 97.9 pts/100poss. The next best team defensively allowed 98.4 pts/100poss. That difference between the 1st and 2nd best defensive team of 0.5 pts/100poss was larger than the difference between the 1st and 2nd best defensive teams the previous two seasons.

Not only that, that difference in 1997-98 of 0.5 pts/100poss between the 1st and 2nd best defensive teams was similar to or larger than the difference in 27 seasons from 1979-80 to 2023-24 (40+ seasons) between the 1st and 2nd best defensive teams.

Though never much larger (because is a statistical impossibility). The reality is most seasons are only going to see a very small difference [perhaps even "sliver"-ish] between #1 to #2 (in a league containing 23-30 teams). Not sure I want to pretend a difference of 0.5 is so humungously different than 0.2 is all I'm sayin'.

kcktiny wrote:

You say this as though the blame for a high foul rate falls elsewhere than upon Kemp's shoulders......like someone or something outside his control caused it.

Stop putting words into the mouths of others to try to validate your point. I never wrote any such thing.

I simply stated that had he been able to play longer the team would have been even better defensively than they already were.

Well this is pretty chippy. Let me asure you I'm not "putting words" into your mouth to validate my point. I'm pointing out a flaw in your argument. Allow me to expand....

Firstly, your statement is highly speculative, because it depends on WHOSE minutes he's replacing, no? Let's say Kemp plays 3 extra mpg, but those extra minutes are always coming at the expense of one of Cage/Perkins/Ervin's minutes.......is that really likely to nudge the DRtg to any relevant degree?
No, not really.
Adding a mere 3 mpg---even if replacing the minutes of BAD defenders---isn't likely to move the needle all that much, realistically. If it's coming at the expense of the playing time for other players who are [by your own admission] good (or "very good") defensive players, then it's really not likely to move the needle much [or at all].

But more to the point of what I was saying is that your statement was a little meaningless within the realities of who Kemp was as a player.

It would be a bit like saying "Ervin Johnson could have scored more points if he could have scored more points."

On the surface, I surely I cannot argue with that statement; yet I'm sure you can nonetheless see how it is meaningless.
That's just not who Ervin Johnson was as a player. He wasn't scoring more points because he wasn't capable of scoring better......just like Shawn Kemp couldn't consistently play huge star-level minutes because he wasn't consistently capable of keeping himself out of foul trouble. It's the player he was.

Since you're fond of citing where Kemp ranked for the franchise over a stretch of years in things like DREBs or blocks, I'll do the same here (though I'm not going as big as a 7-year stretch, given the thread title clearly states "Peak Only" [even 4-years is greatly pushing it]).....

From '93 to '96:
Kemp fouled out 39 times.
He had another 47 games where he had precisely 5 fouls while playing 32 or fewer minutes (flagging a potential that it was foul-trouble holding his playing time below his rs avg).

Nate McMillan was next highest in both categories with 17 and 28, respectively. No one else was even close to McMillan.

fwiw, Kemp had 5 fouls in A LOT of other games, but again, I was only citing those with 5 fouls AND </= 32 minutes.
Overall, he had 5+ fouls in well over 40% of of the games played from '93 to '96.

kcktiny wrote:

Should also be noted that high foul-rate is generally bad for your team's defense.

You said it yourself - generally.

Dagger.
Let me rephrase: a consistently high foul-rate is virtually always bad for your team's defense.
Don't turn that statement to say something I'm NOT saying (i.e. any player with a high foul-rate cannot be a good defender). Just saying: fouls are damaging, as it will put the other team to the line [the highest % scoring opportunity] a lot.

And fwiw, over those same years ['93-'96], here was the Sonics league rank in opp FTAr (and that stat's position among their defensive four factors):

'93 - 17th/27 (tied for last among the Sonic's FF's)
'94 - 25th/27 (last among their FF's)
'95 - 21st/27 (last among their FF's)
'96 - 20th/27 (last among their FF's)

Consistently their foul-rate was a little weak relative to the league; consistently it was the ONE aspect of their defense that they were NOT good at.

I would posit that Kemp commiting 1-1.5 fewer fpg would have been significantly more valuable to the team's DRtg than him playing ~3 more mpg (of course: if he were capable of the former, the latter would likely have been a reality, too).

kcktiny wrote:

While it's true that no ONE player even come within well over 2k minutes of Kemp, those teams often had a whole platoon of defensive role players or good defenders at other positions.....

I'm a big fan of Nate McMillan. Yes he was a great defender, and McKey and Cage were very good defenders. Hawkins was never a very good defender but both Vincent Askew and Sam Perkins were. Ervin Johnson did not play much over that 7 year stretch.

I thought of mentioning them, too, but I worried you might criticize me of being too bullish on their defense (I thought Hawkins was Askew's equal, but I don't remember well enough to die on that hill).
Though this just furthers the point that the Sonics had a DEEP defensive roster in those years (and so we should be cautious regarding just how much of the credit we're going to award Kemp).

kcktiny wrote:From 1992-93 to 1995-96 the same thing - Kemp with 2288 defensive rebounds (no other Sonic more than 938) and Kemp with 561 blocks (no other Sonic with more than 218). Again - huge differences.

Again, true statements, but not necessarily proving what you imply.
As much as anything, this is demonstrating how Kemp was a consistent member of the team in those years (whereas many other players were not).
In the decade of the 90s, Scottie Pippen had 3501 defensive rebounds for the Bulls; Dennis Rodman had only 1939. Does this show Pippen was equal or better as a rebounder?

fwiw, if we compare Kemp's figures to whomever started the most games at C in a given year, the gaps narrow somewhat.

I also just noted I made a mistake in how many minutes McMillan, Cage, Johnson, Hawkins, and McKey combined for in those four years; it was 19,027 (nearly 7.5k more than either Kemp or Payton).

kcktiny wrote:I would take Kemp defensively over O'Neal hands down.

That's fine. I disagree, though not with enough confidence that it's a hill I'll die on at this time. I think O'Neal was better defensively [bit a very small amount]; I think Kemp was better offensively by a larger amount.

The reality is most seasons are only going to see a very small difference

Look - you can define sliver and small any way you want, with any connotation you want.

This was the direct quote:

So if you're going to complain about their ranking in terms of turnover generation, you'll get it back in terms of how much you're emphasizing that they were the best defense over and over again, because it was by a sliver.

With an inference that the difference was small. Clearly this statement author did not know the league history nor took the time to look at the differences between the 1st and 2nd best defensive teams on an annual basis.

The fact is that compared to the seasons of the past 4+ decades that 0.5 pts/100poss was equal to or larger than well over half of those seasons.

Not sure I want to pretend a difference of 0.5 is so humungously different than 0.2 is all I'm sayin'.

So then don't pretend - look at the actual numbers.

Since 1979-80 the annual difference between the 1st and 2nd best teams defensively was 0.5 pts/100poss or less in 27 of those seasons.

Just 8 seasons were a difference of 0.2 pts/100poss or less.

27 versus 8 - that's well over 3 times as many.

Stubbornness versus humility. Always a tough call. All I'm saying.

Firstly, your statement is highly speculative

Is that a fact.

Let's say Kemp plays 3 extra mpg, but those extra minutes are always coming at the expense of one of Cage/Perkins/Ervin's minutes.......is that really likely to nudge the DRtg to any relevant degree? No, not really. Adding a mere 3 mpg---even if replacing the minutes of BAD defenders---isn't likely to move the needle all that much, realistically... then it's really not likely to move the needle much [or at all]

Say's who, you?

During their tenure with the Sonics Kemp was a better defensive rebounder than Cage and a much better defensive rebounder than Perkins (and as I said EJ played little, just 900 min/season over 3 seasons). Kemp was also more than twice the shot blocker either Cage or Perkins were.

From 1990-91 to 1996-87 Kemp played 17489 minutes, Cage and Perkins combined played more, 17899 minutes.

Yet Kemp grabbed almost 1000 more defensive rebounds that did Cage/Perkins combined (3633 vs. 2647) and blocked over twice as many shots (889 vs. 401).

Kemp played 544 games - 3 more min/g is 1632 minutes over those 7 seasons. 1632 more minutes of a much better defensive rebounder and a much better shot blocker than a Cage/Perkins combo. Not to mention Kemp's shot defense outside of shot blocking, which was very good.

Heck, from 1990-91 to 1996-97 a total of 45 players played for the Sonics. 29 of those 45 players played less than 1632 minutes over those 7 seasons.

If you don't think Kemp playing another 1632 minutes over those 7 seasons - instead of 1632 minutes from any of those other 29 players, or another 1632 minutes of Cage/Perkins - would help them win even more games, then you clearly don't know what players contribute to winning basketball.

That Seattle team won an average of 55 games a season over 7 seasons due first and foremost to their two best players - Kemp and Payton. Either plays more, then they win more games.

your statement was a little meaningless within the realities of who Kemp was as a player... yet I'm sure you can nonetheless see how it is meaningless... just like Shawn Kemp couldn't consistently play huge star-level minutes because he wasn't consistently capable of keeping himself out of foul trouble

Just - dumb.

Over the 7 seasons of 1990-91 to 1996-97, Kemp's peak years with Seattle, he played 17489 total minutes - the 9th most among all 366 PFs and Cs that played in the league those 7 years.

Read that again - just 8 PFs and Cs played more minutes than Kemp did over those 7 seasons. And if you look at just PFs, only 5 played more minutes than he did - Karl Malone, Otis Thorpe, Horace Grant, A.C. Green, and Kevin Willis.

Just 5.

Even though Kemp committed the most fouls (2175) among all players in the league (6.0 PF/48min) - 281 more fouls than any other player in the league committed those 7 years.

So much for not playing big minutes.

Of those 5 PFs that played more minutes than Kemp did, even though he played less minutes than all 5, Kemp grabbed more defensive rebounds than 3 of them did, blocked more shots than all of them did, and scored more points than did 4 of them.

Now who's statements are meaningless?

fouled out 39 times... another 47 games where he had precisely 5 fouls... had 5 fouls in A LOT of other games...

Once again, over the 7 seasons of 1990-91 to 1996-97, Kemp's peak years with Seattle, only 8 PFs and Cs played more minute than he did.

More meaningless statements.

And your most meaningless statement is this one, as you actually preface it with the exact reason why it's dumb:

a consistently high foul-rate is virtually always bad for your team's defense. Don't turn that statement to say something I'm NOT saying (i.e. any player with a high foul-rate cannot be a good defender).

This is just as dumb as saying committing a lot of turnovers is virtually always bad for your team's offense, because turnovers are damaging. But just don't turn that statement to say something I'm NOT saying (i.e. any player with a high turnover rate cannot be good on offense).

Over a 12 year stretch (1979-80 to 1990-91) you know who committed the most turnovers - Magic Johnson (3403). He also committed the most turnovers per game over all that time (3.9 TO/g).

So what's your point?

Just saying: fouls are damaging

Such a revelation.

Here's another one - Cs an PFs commits the most fouls per minute compared to the other positions.

But they also grab the most defensive rebounds and block the most shots compared to the other positions. Think there may be a correlation here?

Saying fouls are damaging says nothing. How about how damaging?

There have been many players with high fouls rates that contribute in ways that more than offset their "damage" caused by their fouls.

Ever hear of Tree Rollins (career 6.7 PF/48min)? George Johnson (7.2 PF/48min)? Wayne Cooper (7.4 PF/48min)? Shawn Bradley 6.3 PF/48min)? How damaging were their fouls?

Each played 18000-24000 career minutes despite doing little on offense. How can that be? Because their contributions on defense outweighed their fouls. Coaches coveted their defense.

Heck - George Johnson was named to the all-defensive team in 1980-81 even though he committed 6.8 PF/48min that season (273 fouls, 278 blocks).

Wayne Cooper started 324 games over 5 seasons for the Nuggets (1984-85 to 1988-89) despite committing 7.5 PF/48min, played the 3rd most minutes on the team during that time.

Just as what Shawn Kemp did - excellent offensive rebounder, good scorer, very good defender - outweighed any fouls he committed.

the Sonics had a DEEP defensive roster in those years

Yes they did.

and so we should be cautious regarding just how much of the credit we're going to award Kemp

You be cautious all you want. The numbers clearly point to him being a very good to excellent defender, and having watched him play during his career there is no question in my mind as to his very good to excellent defense.

Again, true statements, but not necessarily proving what you imply.

Proves exactly what it says. Over those 7 seasons Kemp was - by far - their best defensive rebounder and shot blocker. It's not even close.

In the decade of the 90s, Scottie Pippen had 3501 defensive rebounds for the Bulls; Dennis Rodman had only 1939. Does this show Pippen was equal or better as a rebounder?

For the Bulls - yes. That's exactly what it says. Rodman played just 3 seasons for the Bulls in the 90s. Pippen played 9 seasons for them in the 90s. He contributed far more defensive rebounds than did Rodman did for the Bulls in the 90s.

What are you missing here?

From 1990-91 to 1996-97 Kemp blocked 889 shots for the Sonics. Jim McIlvaine blocked just 164. McIlvaine's per minute shot blocking rate was much better than Kemp's. So what?

Kemp played 10 times as many minutes for the Sonics than McIlvaine did. That's what's important.