Garnett comparison to Robinson and KMalone - How is he ranked higher

[Colbinii]

Garnett, besides Lebron, is the most talked about player on this forum, you had many threads to pick from. Chase another tail.

What I find interesting is that you have posted thousands and thousands of times and read hundreds and hundreds of threads But you have basically the same opinions that you always had, i.e., ‘90s, Jordan this, ‘90s, etc. I find it astonishing that you haven’t really changed your mind about anything. Most people who have been here this long changed their mind about something.

What's not interesting but pretty pathetic is you, and some others, thinking anyone that thinks differently is wrong. On a subject that is not moral or ethical it is a mental insecurity.

That isn't what homecourtloss said, at all.

[Ol Roy]

Because the reason Robinson didn't play longer in the NBA has nothing to do with his basketball playing ability.

The amazing thing is that he didn't start playing basketball until his senior year in high school. By his senior year in college, he was the best amateur in the country. Speaks to his BBIQ as much as his athletic abilities.

Anyways, the premise of the thread is an interesting one. What is somewhat understated is how Malone would be without Stockton. I would have loved to see either Robinson or KG play with an all nba level player in the guard position. Sorry Elliot and Wally aren’t those guys you can depend on. One of the great what ifs in the NBA would have been if the Marbury / Allen trade doesn’t get made. I firmly believe both KG and Allen would have elevated themselves to significant success.

I think KG is the overall better player, but it would be remiss to dismiss that Robinson often elevated his teams more with less talent to high seeds. It was just when he got to the playoffs that the inherent weakness of the Spurs and him got exposed.

I think this is the key what-if here.

And I know Shaq is pretty much universally ranked higher than everyone else mentioned here, but he pretty much had it made. Penny then Kobe then Wade. Even Nash, LeBron, and Rondo at the end.

Robinson and Garnett with the proper wingmen would be looked at radically differently.

[migya]

Because the reason Robinson didn't play longer in the NBA has nothing to do with his basketball playing ability.

The amazing thing is that he didn't start playing basketball until his senior year in high school. By his senior year in college, he was the best amateur in the country. Speaks to his BBIQ as much as his athletic abilities.

Anyways, the premise of the thread is an interesting one. What is somewhat understated is how Malone would be without Stockton. I would have loved to see either Robinson or KG play with an all nba level player in the guard position. Sorry Elliot and Wally aren’t those guys you can depend on. One of the great what ifs in the NBA would have been if the Marbury / Allen trade doesn’t get made. I firmly believe both KG and Allen would have elevated themselves to significant success.

I think KG is the overall better player, but it would be remiss to dismiss that Robinson often elevated his teams more with less talent to high seeds. It was just when he got to the playoffs that the inherent weakness of the Spurs and him got exposed.

I think this is the key what-if here.

And I know Shaq is pretty much universally ranked higher than everyone else mentioned here, but he pretty much had it made. Penny then Kobe then Wade. Even Nash, LeBron, and Rondo at the end.

Robinson and Garnett with the proper wingmen would be looked at radically differently.

It isn't an automatic that their teams and them perform much better but they would improve a bit at least. I do see Terrell Brandon as a very good PG for the few years he was with Garnett. Robinson never had such a guard.

As far as Shaq, he is a great player but truth is he did have good teams around him and at least one star guard. I always thought that Robinson and Olajuwon, even Malone, even Ewing, would have won one or two more with either of those three star guards. Garnett likely as well, it's just his lesser scoring that might not be quite enough. The West was tougher than East in the 2000s.

[Special_Puppy]

Evaluating how effective Garnett is in the post-season is tricky since so much of his playoff track record is from when he is already 30+ years old. We don’t really have many series from “prime” Garnett

[migya]

Evaluating how effective Garnett is in the post-season is tricky since so much of his playoff track record is from when he is already 30+ years old. We don’t really have many series from “prime” Garnett

He had some bad ones and some good ones. His playoffs are worse than RS, which is what has been used against Robinson and Malone.

[Blame Rasho]

Just imagine Mitch Richmond with David Robinson as well. He is one of those guys who will likely be if not already forgotten in nba history.

[migya]

Just imagine Mitch Richmond with David Robinson as well. He is one of those guys who will likely be if not already forgotten in nba history.

Though a very good player and underrated, Richmond is not on the level the star guards Shaq had. Still, replacing Del Negro those spurs teams win titles.

[lessthanjake]

I think some of what’s going on here is just that we have impact data for all of Garnett’s career and not for most of Robinson’s and Malone’s. Garnett’s impact data looks extremely good, and we can’t really just assume Robinson’s and Malone’s full career impact data would look as good (though we do have some pre-play-by-play on-off data that suggests Robinson might). It’s not exactly a completely fair reason to put one player ahead of the other—after all, it basically amounts to saying Garnett wins a competition that the other two can’t really fully compete in. But I do think it makes some sense, since our baseline assumption probably shouldn’t be that the other two had impact numbers as good as Garnett’s. At the very least, impact data gives us more reason to be confident of a high ranking for Garnett, and that’s basically potentially enough to end up ranking him higher.

The other thing is that Garnett is the only one with a title as his team’s best player. It’s a little harsh to Robinson, since he wasn’t really much behind Duncan in 1999, but it’s nevertheless true in most peoples’ eyes, and I think that matters to people.

And then we get to longevity. There, Garnett beats out Robinson by a good deal, but does not beat out Malone. But then the problem here is that Robinson is the one that’s closer on the two things I mentioned above. It’s Robinson who looks like he probably was actually super great in impact too (with extremely high on-off data in 1994-1996, incredible WOWYR, really good RAPM even in his late or post-prime years, etc.). And it’s Robinson who at least arguably won a title as his team’s best player. We don’t really have as much indication that Karl Malone’s impact was quite as high, nor did Malone win a title. So Robinson is otherwise closer but loses ground with longevity, while Karl Malone may actually gain ground but had more ground to make up.

Overall, I’m not convinced that Garnett actually was better, but I think that would be the general line of thinking as to why others might rank him above those guys.

[70sFan]

What I find interesting is that you have posted thousands and thousands of times and read hundreds and hundreds of threads But you have basically the same opinions that you always had, i.e., ‘90s, Jordan this, ‘90s, etc. I find it astonishing that you haven’t really changed your mind about anything. Most people who have been here this long changed their mind about something.

Why do you want or care what other people think?

I have been here a long time and if I realized this, there are so many times you read the same thing over and over again and you just get numb to it.

DoctorMJ tskerkin, 70sfans, Dzra, nate33, I know what they think… you think all of a sudden you or anyone will change their mind?

I don't think my example applies here, because I have changed my mind on certain topics many times during my long existence on this board.

[tsherkin]

What I find interesting is that you have posted thousands and thousands of times and read hundreds and hundreds of threads But you have basically the same opinions that you always had, i.e., ‘90s, Jordan this, ‘90s, etc. I find it astonishing that you haven’t really changed your mind about anything. Most people who have been here this long changed their mind about something.

Why do you want or care what other people think?

I have been here a long time and if I realized this, there are so many times you read the same thing over and over again and you just get numb to it.

DoctorMJ tskerkin, 70sfans, Dzra, nate33, I know what they think… you think all of a sudden you or anyone will change their mind?

I dunno, man, I've changed a couple of my opinions. I feel too that sometimes a person's opinion can come across one way based on the frequency with which they land on a given side of a certain debate and it also might not showcase the full depth of their opinion on a given player, too, so much as what they think of a given player in a certain comparison.

[Blame Rasho]

I am talking about generalities, like I how what Doctor MJ thinks of Duncan, and whatever I say will never change his mind.

[tsherkin]

I am talking about generalities, like I how what Doctor MJ thinks of Duncan, and whatever I say will never change his mind.

I guess, but that presupposes that you don't have a particularly compelling argument which addresses the reasons why he supports Duncan, right? If, for example, you were able to bring compelling evidence which shook up some underlying assumptions, I imagine he'd at least consider an alteration of his opinion.

[SHAQ32]

Probably been addressed. But what do the pro-KG people say to the 'David Robinson had more team success with similar-level supporting casts, in a tougher western conference?'