RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #9 (Kevin Garnett)

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,932
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #9 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/28/23) 

Post#241 » by OhayoKD » Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:41 pm

[*]you know what, let me start by acknowledging i was a little over-aggressive in my first reply. that out of the way
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
oldschoolnobulls wrote:Different posters have different approaches and therefore opinions. Well spotted.


I was just expressing my (pleasant) surprise at his nomination.

Gotcha.
Longetvity has always mattered to an extent. Walton was never considered a goat-candidate. And if criteria shifting is modernist, than we can apply to this to every standard established at any point in history. Was "leading the league in scoring while winning titles" considered the standard for GOAT in the 60's and 70"s[*]? No.

Perspectives changing does not make the new perspectives lesser than older perspectives. Indeed, if a long-held opinion sees pushback from a bunch of sources, there might be a good reasons for it.


Longevity may have always mattered, but the definition of good longevity has evolved. When Jerry West retired after 14 seasons, I doubt anyone thought he had a longevity problem, but now so many players with a similar number of seasons get dinged for it in comparison to players who have 19 or 20+ seasons.

Sure. I'm not sure why it being different is problematic though. Why should standards be decided based on what they used to be?

I didn't says you "said" anything(and it would be the 2nd time), I commented on how you "didn't" talk about playmaking after you said "jordan's scoring impact probably makes up for the defensive gap"(also baseless but whatever) while ignoring Jordan's at a big disadvantage as a creator relative to all these other all-time offensive players who you were comparing to him merely via scoring(and consequently does not seem to generate the same level of offensive influence as a fair few of them).


I think I still think Jordan’s scoring impact was that big, but that’s probably an “agree to disagree” thing because we’re miles apart on him.

But I was never intentionally trying to ignore playmaking.

Passer rating is from Ben Taylor, right? It’s worth remembering that a lot of his stuff is behind a paywall(I don’t know if that specific stat is).

I mean, there are different ways to get to that conclusion, but yeah that's probably the best granular "box" version of it. I don't have access to his updated whatever, but someone shared his adjusted player scores as of 2018:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NcqcHXyV28OPJpXHz2eSiHZ98x-_WUrtBlb_Z2dcF2A/edit
You can think of adjusted box oc as "volume" and passer-rating as "efficiency".

Just keep in mind that despite the name, it's tracking creation quality, not how skilled a player is at passing(so the types of shots created, era-relative 3-point proficiency, load ect. play a factor)

If you're curious, here's how Jordan stacks up:
Spoiler:
We'll get to "discernible left" after but let's start with some granular analysis. First up, Jordan:

Image
Much like we look at scoring volume(creation) and efficiency(passer-rating), I would like you to look at both when interpreting these screencaps. His passer-rating peaks at 8.0 in 88 and 95 but his creation is substantially lower. His volume peaks at 16 in 1989 but his passer-rating falls. And then in the subsequent years(largely considered his "best"), his volume and efficiency falls.

We see a bit of an upgrade with Steph:
[spoiler]Image
From 14-16 he puts up volume on par with Jordan's best marks alongside efficiency on par with Jordan's best marks peaking a teensy bit higher in both and putting the two together at the same time. Curiously those numbers decline when KD comes(that may be regular-season specific though).

And then we get to Lebron, one of the best creators ever:
[spoiler]Image
Notably his raw voume is not stand-out. Peaking at 16.2 it's barely ahead of Jordan's 89 and a bit behind two Steph marks. But efficiency is a different matter. Jordan is simply not competitive here. Steph competes from 14 to 16 but he's at a significant disadvantage generally and has no answer for Lebron's 2010.

Enter Johnson:
[spoiler]Image
Jordan may not be competitive with Lebron, but Lebron is even less competitive with Magic. Magic completely breaks the chart in terms of volume and efficiency, again and again. He has three seasons where he creates more than any of the years we've looked at and all three are more efficient than any of the seasons we've looked at.

But does any of this matter? Well...

Proof of Concept:
Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

Lebron
2013 +6.4 (RS) +7.2 (PS)
2014 +4.2 (RS) +10.6 (PS)
2015 +5.5(RS) +5.5 (PS)
2016 +4.5(RS) +12.5 (PS)
2017 +4.8 (RS) +13.7 (PS)
Average +5.1(RS) +9.9 (PS)
combined average: +7.5


jordan* (i had to use his first 5 championship seasons)
1991 +6.7(RS) +11.7 (PS)
1992 +7.3(RS) +6.5 (PS)
1993 +4.9 (RS) +9.8 (PS)
1996 +7.6 (RS) +8.6 (PS)
1997 +7.7(RS) +6.5(PS)
average +6.85 (RS) +8.6(PS)
combined average:+7.7


nash
2005 suns. +8.4(RS) +17 (PS)
2006 suns +5.3(RS) +9.5 (PS)
2007 suns +7.4(RS)+7.6 (PS)
2008 suns. +5.8(RS) + 3.1 (PS)
2010 suns +7.7(RS) +13.4 (PS)
Average +6.9(RS) + 10.1 (PS)
combined average: +8.5


shaq
1998 +6.9(RS), +10.1(PS)
1999 +5.4(RS), +4.7(PS)
2000 +3.2(RS), +9.3(PS)
2001 +5.4 (RS) +13.6(PS)
2002 +4.9(RS), +6.4 (PS)
Average +5.2(RS) +8.8(PS)
combined average: +7


bird
1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7


magic
1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4


Magic leads better offenses than Steph. Players similar to Magic tend to lead better offenses than players similar steph. Magic has proven himself without his best co-star, and players like Magic have shown proof of concept outside of optimal-situations while Steph and players like Steph seem to struggle generating great results until they find the right situation.


Fwiw, there's also film-tracking on this if you're interested. I can't compile it all now though.
Perhaps. But at least "crazytown" is generally not cherrypicking when things matter and when they don't. (cough Shaq's RAPM cough)


I believe I was using his RAPM to make a specific point about him relating to Kobe. I didn’t cherry-pick anything and I don’t deny KG’s RAPM looks better; I just don’t think it tells the whole story w/regard to KG and Shaq. We can see value in a metric without agreeing with every single thing it says.

KG, Steph, Duncan, and Lebron(even nash and wade depending onw hat you're looking at). And it is somewhat jarring when you have a sustained bout of frustration with Hakeem based on RAPM and then don't comment or acknowledge what it says suggests about Shaq.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,227
And1: 22,236
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #9 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/27/23) 

Post#242 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Jul 29, 2023 7:28 pm

OhayoKD wrote:
In 1972, the Bucks repeated their league-wide dominance when healthy, but Oscar missed 18 games. Without him, they played at a staggering 62-win pace (7.8 SRS)

At full-strength, Milwaukee played at a 70-win clip (again) with an even better point differential (12.4 SRS) than in ’71. They collided with power Los Angeles — a 69-win team themselves — dropping the Western Conference Finals in six games in a battle of titans.


Now let's add some context:
Spoiler:
Image
Image

(71 Oscar)

Image
Image

(72 Oscar, Regular Season)

Image
Image

(72 Oscar, Playoffs with a torn groin)

Now tbf, everyone's offense is suffering in what was a bit of a grindfest in the 72 series but this is where I think it's important to look at how the Bucks became so good in the first place:

Image

(Left side is relative offense, right side is relative defense)

The story goes Oscar came and turned the Bucks into goat-tier team by unlocking their offense. But there's a few wrenches here:

-> The Bucks defense improves as much as their offense does and is actually the thing they're better at for most of their "best 1-title team ever" run from 71-74. Don't know about you Doc, but I do not think Oscar's the guy driving that
-> Kareem by box or most film-analysis is himself improving as an offensive-player from 70 to 72 and then polishes his scoring-game after a 2011 lebron equivalent in 1973
-> Oscar is steadily declining by box and most film analysis(at least from what I've seen) over this time period

and also

-> 1974

Image
Image
(RS Oscar)

Now you might be saying "wait, the Bucks were not posting amazing srs in 74!". Here's where we need to apply some context:
[img]https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/807803459331555363/1134278422571532288/image.png?width=1273&height=400
[/img]

mote than 3 srs-points ahead of the next best team is pretty rarified air. Let's compare it to another team that was awsome in the RS and then lost to a significant srs underdog:

Image

Similarities:
-> Both teams are probably way better in the rs than they have any right to be
-> Both teams look all-time dominant through the early rounds
-> Both lose a very competitive game to a sneaky good team
-
Differences:
-> The Celtics are >> the Magic(90 pistions+ by sans standard deviation, won 68 previous season before losing in 7 to one of the better near-dynasties in the Knicks who they beat in 5 to get to Kareem)
-> Bucks are the bigger RS outlier(relative to the league)

Here was what Oscar did those playoffs:
Image
Image

Some other things to consider

-> Oscar did actually have a wierdly good(at least by box) playoff in 1973 with his scoring volume(21 ppg) and effeciency spiking(57%!). Yet it was by far the Bucks worst postseason performance of that stretch with Kareem choking(and while we do not have pace-adjustment, the sub-100 scoring would suggest the Bucks were competitive on defense, not offense
-> Oscar was completely out of the picture in 1977 when Kareem leads a cast I've got at sub-30 to a level of performance I think can legitmately be argued vs those aforementioned Cavaliers.


First and foremost I'm intrigued by how you're posting. I'm still getting used to it, but I think there's a lot of potential with it.

Reading it, the thing that's sticking in my craw is the decay of the Bucks as Oscar continued to age out.

To me, that core is Kareem, Oscar & Bobby, and both Kareem and Bobby are growing as players in the same years this decay is happening. I understand that Kareem's was going through things along the way, but it's really a staggering drop off from arguably the most dominant peak in NBA history to a merely average ballclub from 1971 to 1974.

Additionally, while we can identify statistical measures speaking to how well he played, to some degree Oscar is what he is in terms of how he plays. I mean, that's why Bob Cousy wanted to get rid of him in Cincinnati. Cousy wanted to play a certain way, and Oscar wouldn't - mind you I don't believe I've read that piece before, and it doesn't exactly endear me to championing his candidacy over West.

But yeah, given the control Oscar tended to assert on the offense, given that that dropped off, I can't really a fathom a complete explanation that doesn't see the sunset of Oscar as an important factor. Certainly seems logical box score wise that it wouldn't matter that much, but I think his floor generalship mattered more for that team that we might have guessed.

OhayoKD wrote:As for I keep bringing up Lebron's cavs...
In the regular season, the Lakers won 4 out of 5 meetings.
In the playoffs, the Lakers won the series in 6 games.
That means that over the course of the year, the Lakers won 8 while the Bucks won 3.
Seems pretty decisive.


...yeah doc, honestly, this seems like a stretch and a half.


Please make sure you read through when you feel a need to post so that you also post for others when a poster starts with something superficial and then acknowledges the superficiality of it as he continues.

As is, I feel like I'm being strawmanned.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,932
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #9 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/27/23) 

Post#243 » by OhayoKD » Mon Jul 31, 2023 2:49 am

Doctor MJ wrote:First and foremost I'm intrigued by how you're posting. I'm still getting used to it, but I think there's a lot of potential with it.

Just set up and pay-off doc. Just like one may use a motif to build-up to a character's arrival, I use the spoiler tag to build-up to my evidence 8-)

Reading it, the thing that's sticking in my craw is the decay of the Bucks as Oscar continued to age out.

To me, that core is Kareem, Oscar & Bobby, and both Kareem and Bobby are growing as players in the same years this decay is happening. I understand that Kareem's was going through things along the way, but it's really a staggering drop off from arguably the most dominant peak in NBA history to a merely average ballclub from 1971 to 1974.

Well no. Bobby is declined by 1974 too(at least by box-score and what people generally say). Bucks still were a massive rs outlier and then nearly won a title against an atg opponent after lighting up everyone else...

Your interpretation is very confusing actually. The Bucks are not merely average at any point between 1970 to 1980 excepting when Kareem is injured and misses time in 1975(49-win when healthy). Otherwise they are a league-best (okay near league-best in 73) juggernaut in the regular-season and an excellent playoff team besides 1973 which...is statistically Oscar's best playoff performance. 1976 the Lakers are league average and then we're back to league-best level rs team when healthy that's good in the playoffs in 1977.

I am unsure what the context surroundings things are but the Royals don't seem affected by Oscar's departure.
Additionally, while we can identify statistical measures speaking to how well he played, to some degree Oscar is what he is in terms of how he plays. I mean, that's why Bob Cousy wanted to get rid of him in Cincinnati. Cousy wanted to play a certain way, and Oscar wouldn't - mind you I don't believe I've read that piece before, and it doesn't exactly endear me to championing his candidacy over West.

But yeah, given the control Oscar tended to assert on the offense, given that that dropped off, I can't really a fathom a complete explanation that doesn't see the sunset of Oscar as an important factor. Certainly seems logical box score wise that it wouldn't matter that much, but I think his floor generalship mattered more for that team that we might have guessed.

I...do not understand how you got that from "bucks are really good with and without oscar and really good when oscar falls off"
OhayoKD wrote:As for I keep bringing up Lebron's cavs...
In the regular season, the Lakers won 4 out of 5 meetings.
In the playoffs, the Lakers won the series in 6 games.
That means that over the course of the year, the Lakers won 8 while the Bucks won 3.
Seems pretty decisive.


...yeah doc, honestly, this seems like a stretch and a half.


Please make sure you read through when you feel a need to post so that you also post for others when a poster starts with something superficial and then acknowledges the superficiality of it as he continues.

As is, I feel like I'm being strawmanned.

Fair enough.

Return to Player Comparisons