Retro POY '02-03 (ends Tue morning PST)

[ronnymac2]

^^^First point- It's mainly a preference. What do you think KG brings that is more important?

Second- I don't think Flip Saunders is a very good coach, but he knows how to make a team offense work well. I think that has something to do with it. KG of course does as well. Doesn't mean KG is better than Kobe on offense. (and frankly, if Kobe performed better than KG ito team offensive rating, I wouldn't care too much either).

Third- Yes, I've recognized that Garnett had strong performances in that series. Kobe could take over games on the offensive end the way KG couldn't. This has more to do with the first point.

[bastillon]

^^^First point- It's mainly a preference. What do you think KG brings that is more important?

Second- I don't think Flip Saunders is a very good coach, but he knows how to make a team offense work well. I think that has something to do with it. KG of course does as well. Doesn't mean KG is better than Kobe on offense. (and frankly, if Kobe performed better than KG ito team offensive rating, I wouldn't care too much either).

Third- Yes, I've recognized that Garnett had strong performances in that series. Kobe could take over games on the offensive end the way KG couldn't. This has more to do with the first point.

1.two way impact as evidenced by various metrics with +/- being the biggest argument here since it does take into account both ends of the floor. why do you think KG slaughered Kobe in that regard ? Kobe had +10.3 playing alongside another player that had higher rating (+11.7) and Garnett had +22.8 playing alongside no other player that came remotely close to his rating with Wally at +2.6 being the highest but in limited mins. the rest of Wolves notable players: Rasho +0.7, Hudson +0.2, Peeler -2.9, Gill -6.1, Trent -7.7. so Garnett's two-way impact was truly ridiculous. those were garbage players and he managed to lift that team to 51 wins.

2.I don't know whether coaching argument makes any sense here as Kobe has had vastly superior coaching in terms of offensive schemes his entire career. I mean you wouldn't trade Phil for freaking Flip Saunders, would you ?

3.I don't agree with this taking over games. if you mean by that Kobe could explode offensively and was more likely to do so then yeah... but KG took over plenty of games. in fact, he had to take over every game of the season in order to win so many games and stay competitive in the Wolves series.

btw. shouldn't Kobe's shoulder injury in the postseason hurt his value overall ? Garnett didn't have that issue and you could see Kobe being bothered by this in Spurs series as he had played much better against them in previous years. it wasn't as visible against the Wolves, but that's what it was - Wally, Peeler and Gill defending him. some realGMers would probably do a better job so there's that.

[Silver Bullet]

Why does everybody keep saying Shaq had a real off year, when his numbers dwarf those of Duncan and KG - and the seperation becomes even greater in the playoffs.

Shaq put up 27-15-4 with 3bpg on a TS% of 57% in the playoffs - KG put up 27-16-5 with 1.6 bpg on a TS% of 54% - while playing 4 more minutes per game.
Duncan meanwhile putup 25-15-5 with 3.3bpg on a TS% of 57% while playing 2.5 mpg more than Shaq.

He had a PER of 29.6 in the regular season, which makes it the 20th greatest regular season in history - higher than Garnett's career best and significantly higher than Duncan's career best.
His postseason PER of 30.6 makes it the 14th greatest post season in history - surpassed only by Duncan's 01-02 season and significantly better than Kevin Garnett's greatest post season which would rank somewhere in the 300's (I didn't look this up, but his career high PER in the postseason is 25.5 - that too in a 3 game sweep).

[Silver Bullet]

Man, did Nash get a raw deal in this project - feels a lot worse after watching him sweep the Spurs with one eye, how can you guys hate on that -

[ronnymac2]

^^^First, the shoulder injury. Yeah, I thought about that. That's certainly valid. Kobe definitely wasn't himself in the SA series, although he fought valiantly. He and Shaq were basically a two-man wrecking crew in that series with Horry randomly playing badly and the sf position being completely depleted by injury. Phil was having the heart issues and I believe actually missed a game in this series. No depth behind Kobe and Shaq, either. I don't think Kobe's injury was the primary reason they lost. Kobe was still able to go off for 30+ in gm's 3, 4, and 5, and that was almost enough to get LA the lead. I don't think a healthy Kobe matters too much though. We were too banged up, and SA needs to get credit, too.

Still, because Kobe's injury was a contributing factor in his less than normal play, if you want to ding him for that, that's fair.


Again, I'm not a Saunders fan, and I believe it is his fault (and Mchale's) that they never gave KG proper defensive support ito players or scheme. BUT.....The Detroit Pistons were a middle of the pack team ito offensive rating in 03, 04, and 05. Then, they become top 10 (top 5-ish, really) offensive team ito offensive rating with Saunders, despite having the same core. Minny had top 5 offenses for much of the early 2000's, including in 05. Then in 06, Saunders leaves and they drop to 28th. 07 is nearly as bad. I mean, if KG could drag scrubs in the early 2000's to being a top 5 offense, why couldn't he drag scrubs in 06 and 07 to at least the average? Were the 06 scrubs that much, um, scrubbier?

I mean, there is compelling evidence suggesting Flip knows what he is doing ito of making a team offense work. Even I don't like to admit that, but it's true.


Yes, KG will win those plus/minus battles. Plus/minus has been talked about a lot in these discussions. I think it could say something....not sure if it means anything ito quality of the player though. There are so many variables. Coaching, injuries, chemistry, who the teammates are, how the team is actually constructed....

What KG's plus/minus numbers indicate to me is that KG's team was more reliant on Garnett than any other team was on their star player. This is backed up by your claims (well...it's more a generally accepted fact, actually) that KG played with crap during this time (or any time outside of 04 and Boston). I'm not sure you saw it, but I posted something about Steve Nash in the 2005 POY thread. I wasn't specifically talking about plus/minus, but it relates here I think. My argument would be the same here- just because one team is more reliant on the star guy doesn't mean the star guy is better than the star guy on another team who's respective team doesn't rely on him as much.

Obviously KG is a great player. I'm not saying his greatness is totally based on some absurd idea that he was lucky to play with horrible teammates so his effect on the game looks better. That would be knocking Garnett without looking at his individual abilities and impact. I just try to look at the player for what he is. Plus/minus isn't telling me enough about the player himself.


Still....the 2-way impact is the thing that makes it close. Which gets to your number 3.....

I'm not giving Kobe the nod because of offensive explosiveness and putting up bunches of points. If I did that, Kobe would probably be the GOAT, ahead of even MJ. That's obviously not true though.

I always say that the real greats in the playoffs need to be either an offensive constant, a true defensive anchor, or an amazing big-game performer/clutch player (along with multi-faceted star impact).

An offensive constant is the most valuable imo because it is harder to find and offense is more important than defense from the star player. What I mean by offensive constant is the ability to always have numerous effects on the game, even if one part of your game is faultering. You need to constantly be opening things up for teammates no matter what the defense/matchup is. The ability to iso score in dominant fashion is important (don't think of Iverson and say iso scoring is overrated.....I'm talking about MJ/Shaq/Hakeem/Jabbar etc.). You need to be able to put so much pressure on a defense that they need to cover you with more than one guy.

Obviously, this, as well as defensive anchoring, is reliant on teammates doing their job (which is why role players imo are so important and underrated and why star players get way too much credit/blame for winning and losing).

Bryant fulfills the offensive constant to a greater degree than Garnett. Garnett obviously is better on defense, but, again, I value the offense more. The big-game play/clutchness....the best KG can hope for here is that it is called even. So Bryant wins out.

And....that is why I rank prime Kobe over prime KG...and part of the reason why I rate 03 Bryant over 03 Garnett.

[semi-sentient]

bastillon - Do you have any issues with Dirk or McGrady being picked over Garnett, or just Kobe? Just curious.

[NO-KG-AI]

Ronnymac, the 06 scrubs were that much scrubbier

[Gongxi]

Anyway, all those more in-depth stats are reflected in the advanced ones: McGrady's PER was 30.3; Bryant's 26.2. Win Shares? McGrady, 16.1; Bryant, 14.9. W/48: McGrady .262; Bryant, .210. So, in the end, McGrady scored more while shooting better in less time, grabbed more available rebounds, contributed more of the available assists, while turning the ball over less. He was statistically much better.

If you're voting for Kobe, you either prize team success very highly (especially considering the Lakers only advanced one extra round), or you think very highly of individual defense, which is innately less important than individual offense.

Although I know I'm not convincing you, Unbiased Fan. Nothing can sway your opinion on Kobe.

Tmac has a higher PER, but that's the only stat where he was "statistically much better". You downplay Kobe's reb & assists advantage using mpg, yet forget that Tmac had a higher usage rate, 35.2 vs 32.9, which helped him in other areas.

So yeah, TMac was a little bit better in basically every advanced metric. That adds up to being much better.

Tmac was great this year, but not nearly as good as KOBE on BOTH sides of the court. Their numbers are virtually even across the board, but Kobe gets the knod due to his elite defense.

I think individual offense AND individual defense is very important.

If offense and defense were equally important, you might have a point. But they're not.

[mysticbb]

Kobe has been known for playing below his reputation, so I don't know if 1st team all-D is really something to bring up here, especially that there was no competition for that spot to begin with. Doug Christie was 1st team all-D and Snow managed to make 2nd team. how does that prove Kobe was ELITE ?

Bryant played up to his reputation on the defensive end as long as he played next to Shaquille O'Neal and didn't focus on scoring. In 2003 he was definitively an All-D 1st or 2nd teamer, depends how you set the priorities (playing time or really constant play with rather low playing time).
The problem with that is that wing defenders usually don't have that big of an impact on defense anyway. There are only a few like Bowen, Christie or Raja Bell who came close to the impact of bigger players. Thus the edge on the defensive end for Bryant doesn't win it for him over McGrady.

2003 was the only year in which I considered T-Mac being just better than Bryant. Especially the games in which Bryant played not with Shaquille O'Neal showed that season that Bryant wasn't capable of high volume scoring and maintaining his efficiency. T-Mac was the far superior scorer that season. Scoring more with a higher efficiency while not playing next to an offensive player like O'Neal is saying a lot. Bringing up the teammates in this comparison is obsolet, because McGrady hadn't elite teammates neither.


@Silver Bullet

Shaquille O'Neal would have challenged Duncan for the top spot, if it weren't for his 15 missed games in the regular season. Duncan played in 81 games and won the championship while setting a new playoff record in Win Shares. Only Olajuwon in 1994 would be an option for picking the player with the worst supporting cast to win a championship over Duncan in 2003. Duncan did what he did. And while we can assume via our knowledge from previous years that O'Neal would most likely be capable of doing the same, if he would have been in best shape for that season, it is a fact that O'Neal did not play like that.



For me it is again fascinating why Nowitzki isn't on many ballots, not even receiving any honorable mentions while players like Kidd for example getting some. As I pointed out Nowitzki was the best player on the best team that season and he had a great season. That shows not only up in his boxscore stats, but also in the +/- stats. Only Garnett had better +/- stats in 2003. What is the argument here against Nowitzki?

[ElGee]

^^^First, the shoulder injury. Yeah, I thought about that. That's certainly valid. Kobe definitely wasn't himself in the SA series, although he fought valiantly. He and Shaq were basically a two-man wrecking crew in that series with Horry randomly playing badly and the sf position being completely depleted by injury. Phil was having the heart issues and I believe actually missed a game in this series. No depth behind Kobe and Shaq, either. I don't think Kobe's injury was the primary reason they lost. Kobe was still able to go off for 30+ in gm's 3, 4, and 5, and that was almost enough to get LA the lead. I don't think a healthy Kobe matters too much though. We were too banged up, and SA needs to get credit, too.

Still, because Kobe's injury was a contributing factor in his less than normal play, if you want to ding him for that, that's fair.


Again, I'm not a Saunders fan, and I believe it is his fault (and Mchale's) that they never gave KG proper defensive support ito players or scheme. BUT.....The Detroit Pistons were a middle of the pack team ito offensive rating in 03, 04, and 05. Then, they become top 10 (top 5-ish, really) offensive team ito offensive rating with Saunders, despite having the same core. Minny had top 5 offenses for much of the early 2000's, including in 05. Then in 06, Saunders leaves and they drop to 28th. 07 is nearly as bad. I mean, if KG could drag scrubs in the early 2000's to being a top 5 offense, why couldn't he drag scrubs in 06 and 07 to at least the average? Were the 06 scrubs that much, um, scrubbier?

I mean, there is compelling evidence suggesting Flip knows what he is doing ito of making a team offense work. Even I don't like to admit that, but it's true.


Yes, KG will win those plus/minus battles. Plus/minus has been talked about a lot in these discussions. I think it could say something....not sure if it means anything ito quality of the player though. There are so many variables. Coaching, injuries, chemistry, who the teammates are, how the team is actually constructed....

What KG's plus/minus numbers indicate to me is that KG's team was more reliant on Garnett than any other team was on their star player. This is backed up by your claims (well...it's more a generally accepted fact, actually) that KG played with crap during this time (or any time outside of 04 and Boston). I'm not sure you saw it, but I posted something about Steve Nash in the 2005 POY thread. I wasn't specifically talking about plus/minus, but it relates here I think. My argument would be the same here- just because one team is more reliant on the star guy doesn't mean the star guy is better than the star guy on another team who's respective team doesn't rely on him as much.

Obviously KG is a great player. I'm not saying his greatness is totally based on some absurd idea that he was lucky to play with horrible teammates so his effect on the game looks better. That would be knocking Garnett without looking at his individual abilities and impact. I just try to look at the player for what he is. Plus/minus isn't telling me enough about the player himself.


Still....the 2-way impact is the thing that makes it close. Which gets to your number 3.....

I'm not giving Kobe the nod because of offensive explosiveness and putting up bunches of points. If I did that, Kobe would probably be the GOAT, ahead of even MJ. That's obviously not true though.

I always say that the real greats in the playoffs need to be either an offensive constant, a true defensive anchor, or an amazing big-game performer/clutch player (along with multi-faceted star impact).

An offensive constant is the most valuable imo because it is harder to find and offense is more important than defense from the star player. What I mean by offensive constant is the ability to always have numerous effects on the game, even if one part of your game is faultering. You need to constantly be opening things up for teammates no matter what the defense/matchup is. The ability to iso score in dominant fashion is important (don't think of Iverson and say iso scoring is overrated.....I'm talking about MJ/Shaq/Hakeem/Jabbar etc.). You need to be able to put so much pressure on a defense that they need to cover you with more than one guy.

Obviously, this, as well as defensive anchoring, is reliant on teammates doing their job (which is why role players imo are so important and underrated and why star players get way too much credit/blame for winning and losing).

Bryant fulfills the offensive constant to a greater degree than Garnett. Garnett obviously is better on defense, but, again, I value the offense more. The big-game play/clutchness....the best KG can hope for here is that it is called even. So Bryant wins out.

And....that is why I rank prime Kobe over prime KG...and part of the reason why I rate 03 Bryant over 03 Garnett.

Ronny, why exactly do you rank Kobe's offense so far ahead of KG's offense?

-The assist rates are comparable (admittedly, not my favorite stat).
-KG's pulling significantly more offensive rebounds.
-TS% is comparable
-turnover rates are comparable
-Garnett's ORtg is actually higher

Now, it's fair to say in Bryant's dropping 30 and KG's at 23, using about 6 extra possessions per 36 minutes. So, I understand respecting the higher volume at comparable efficiency...but he was playing with Shaquille O'Neal. His TS% plummeted without O'Neal- 51.6% in the 15 games without Shaq. Turnovers increased without Shaq too.

And that Lakers offense had a team rating of 101.3 with Bryant on the court (+9.7). Minnesota's 100.7 with Garnett (+13.0). And again, Kobe's playing with Shaquille O'Neal. Garnett with Wally and Troy Hudson.

FInally, I'd rather not reduce this to a blitz of advanced metrics. Just from a basketball standpoint, KG was a primary facilitator in some pretty good offenses, isn't going to shoot you out of many games, and can go for, say 35 points and 7 assists on 15-21 shooting with just 2 TO's. That happens to be his exact line from game 2 vs. the Lakers that year.

Bryant goes bigger, but with more variance. You'll get plenty of 9-28 nights. That was Kobe's game 2 line. According to 82 games, KG was way better in the clutch that year as well.

So, I have no issues saying Kobe was a better offensive player. But isn't it actually fairly close??

[ElGee]

mystic - I think Dirk would by No. 6, FWIW.

[drza]

So it appears, for the extremely narrow purposes of this little project, that KG's crappy teammates actually helped him quite a bit.

Wow. I'd argue they hurt him a lot, given that a lot of people (myself included) think he was at the top of the league for these years...and we've seen what having good teammates can do to inflate people's opinions in these projects. Garnett with Duncan's supporting cast would, well, probably have the POY record of Duncan.

The only way that KG's crappy teammates helped him is if you truly believe that he just wasn't as good as the other elite players of his time, so even if he had better teammates he wouldn't have achieved any better results than he did. For example, in this thread I've argued that him carrying a team to 51 wins while leading them in absolutely every way with the largest quantitative impact of (at least) the last 8 years is one of the more impressive accomplishments that I've seen. My argument would be that, given his level of play and impact that season, were his teammates just slightly more talented/better suited to playoff matchups he would have carried that team to a title.

But if you truly believe that all of his accomplishments that season were illusory, and that no matter what he wouldn't have led his team to a title, then I can see how poor teammates might be considered a "good" thing because they lower expectations when compared to players from teams in contention for a title.

On the whole, though, I agree with ElGee. In basketball as in everything else, to the winner goes the spoils. When we look at everything that we know, it seems obvious to me to the point of self-evident that an early-mid 2000s Garnett with reasonable help wins titles. But thinking that he would win a title, even supporting that notion with a bevy of logical reasoning, still very rarely trumps if a player really DID lead a team to a title. I don't think it's coincidence that in every season but '09 and '04 the best player on the championship team has ended up #1 in the vote. '09 and '04 were two absurdly historic seasons for two all-time players that didn't have much support behind them. Those types of seasons don't happen often historically, which is why when all is said and done the ratio of "best-player-on-best-team" POY winners will likely be much, much higher than "best player in league but couldn't get his team to a title for whatever reason" POY winners.

So bringing it back to KG, the fact that he had such poor support so consistently means that the only way he can win in this type of project is if he performs at a level so far above his competition that there's no legitimate way not to vote for him. And let's face it, there were some really great players all playing at their peaks in this time period, so KG just wasn't going to separate himself from them to that extent very often. He showed he could play at their level and beyond, depending on what you buy or don't buy about the stats out there, but he wouldn't get the chance to prove-positive he could win a title until years later, at the tail-end of his prime. Which in basketball years is a lifetime later.

So no, having poor teammates definitely didn't help KG in this project. It may have lowered expectations, but it also lowered his ceiling. I don't know that it's completely fair, but it is what it is. On the whole, I'm glad that we've got these threads now with all types of different information/arguments contained within, and that (whether you agree with a take or not) we all should be better for having seen so many different interpretations on these different years.

[mysticbb]

So no, having poor teammates definitely didn't help KG in this project. It may have lowered expectations, but it also lowered his ceiling. I don't know that it's completely fair, but it is what it is.

Actually I see it completely different. Garnett gets more often the benifit of the doubt. Other players who actually were more successful while playing a similar vitale part to their teams are getting overlooked.
There are three things which are contributing to this:

1. Garnett scores high +/- on weaker teams.
2. Garnett's best season came in 2004 when a lot of teams had to deal with injuries.
3. Garnett later won the title with Pierce and Allen.

The first point is important, because having a higher Net+/- on a weaker team is easier to achieve. Making a team of not so good teammates much better than without him, if the team is constructed around that said player is something everyone should expect. Look what kind of numbers James is producing in that area. The Cavs are completely build around James and his abilities to make plays and score. Without James they are going down to a below average team, because they lack the constant high scoring and the playmaking. Garnett had a similar situation in Minnesota, the team was build around him and his abilities. Thus the team looked for complementary player rather than for players who could replace Garnett. That is the reason why I value Nowitzki's +18.0 on the Mavericks in 2003 at least as high as Garnett's +22.8 on the Timberwolves.

The 2nd point is rather obvious, Garnett had the most success and the best individual numbers as all better teams in the West had to deal with injuries to their more important players. The Timberwolves had no injuries to their 3 best players, but the Spurs missed Duncan, the Lakers missed O'Neal and Bryant, the Kings were without Webber, the Mavericks were without Center and played Walker for 82 games. We were able to see what health can do for a team this season. OKC won 50 games while the 4 players on their team with the most minutes per game were able to play in all 82 games. An injury to one of them and the player being out for 15 or 20 games and OKC would not have won 50 games.
For Garnett everyone is just saying now that with better teammates he could have always been on a 50+ wins team without looking into the context of that 2004 season.

And last but not least Garnett won the championship with two elite teammates. Just try to find that championship team on which the 2nd and 3rd best player combined for 22.1 Win Shares like Pierce and Allen. Pierce had just a seaosn with 25 ppg, Allen one with 26 ppg, everything else but winning that championship would have been a big surprise.

Overall everything what you or bastillon argue about is basically based on those 3 things. Garnett could have, if he would have ...

How about judging players on what they really did in that specific season? Duncan won the championship in 2003 and didn't have elite teammates. He had huge +/- numbers and the great boxscore numbers. I don't see any point to take anything away from that championship just to boost another player. Duncan was the best player in 2003, there is really nothing which would justify to put a "could have probably done" Garnett above him. And you can see Garnett ahead of a player like Nowitzki who had a similar strong year in terms of +/- while playing on an elite team. Nowitzki's boxscore numbers are right up there with Garnett (lower PER, but higher Win Shares). And yet, Nowitzki is left off the ballots while Garnett gets a lot of 2nd place votes. And you really want to say that the circumstances don't favor Garnett in our voting process?

[TrueLAfan]

1. Tim Duncan--People don't realize how much the Spurs changed between their first and last title run. In 2003, DRob was a 25 mpg player that got 8.5 and 8 and missed nearly 20 games. Manu was a rookie that played less than 1500 minutes. Parker had a good year overall, but was erratic and had a horrible playoffs and finals (in his defense, he was only 20). Stephen Johnson was effective--sometimes--but had some issues on and off the court. So what happened? The Spurs won 60 games, and were amazingly consistent in each of their playoff series...outscoring the Suns by 5.1 points a game, and the Lakers by 5.1 points a game. Then they only outscored the Mavs by 5 points a game before, again, outscoring the Nets by 5.1 points per game. Every series was done in 6. It was a tough, workmanlike effort from a fragmented team. I think TD's year in 2003 often gets overlooked. I think it was one of his best.

2. KG--I don't think his teammates were that crappy, in the "one of the worst in the league!" sense of crappy. Kendall Gill was coming to the end of the line as a significant contributor...but he still had some gas in the tank. Anthony Peeler (who split time with Gill) had a good year. This was one of the years when Rasho did enough to make him a fairly well paid player for another half decade. Troy Hudson couldn't play a lick of D...but he was very good on the offensive end this season. Good bench. There's an all-time player we'll get too in a few weeks that teams with similar makeups and (IMO) lesser players that got similar team success as KG in 2002 and 2003. But...they were certainly not a great or even .500 level team without KG. KG had to be worth 15-20 wins. That makes him a solid second in my book.

3. TMac--Until we started this project, I actually never thought of TMac as a top player very often. But, looking at this year, I see one great player on a team that is both injury decimated (other than TMac, no starter played over 54 games, and 10 players started at least 18 games) and had no interior play worth mentioning...Kemp was a net minus by this time, DeClercq was a foul waiting to happen, and Pat Garrity (who had the dual abilities of Not Defending and Running Away From Rebounds) was a second on the team in total MP. This is one of those years where getting to 40 wins says a lot of good things about the team leader--and that's TMac.

4. Shaq--Missed games, which drops him a spot. Was below the tremendous level he had set in 2000 and 2001. But I'm with other posters here that, evidently, saw the same thing I did. It was more Shaq's team than Kobe's. When Shaq couldn't play, the team suffered. When Kobe shot more, the Lakers were a .500 team...12-11 in games where Kobe took more than 28 shots. In contrast, when Shaq took 21 or more shots, the Lakers were 15-5. The most advanced stat here is "wins," and Shaq was a bigger factor in those with the Lakers than Kobe.

5. Dirk--His team played the Spurs as well as the Lakers, maybe better. Was up and down in the playoffs, but might have pushed the team to the Finals if the knee injury hadn't taken him out in game 3 against the Spurs. I remember thinking that his game had improved incrementally this season...he was a better passer, and played more a floater on D and was pretty effective at it. I'll put him at #5.

HM--Nash. AI, Kobe

[drza]

So no, having poor teammates definitely didn't help KG in this project. It may have lowered expectations, but it also lowered his ceiling. I don't know that it's completely fair, but it is what it is.

Actually I see it completely different. Garnett gets more often the benifit of the doubt. Other players who actually were more successful while playing a similar vitale part to their teams are getting overlooked.
There are three things which are contributing to this:

1. Garnett scores high +/- on weaker teams.
2. Garnett's best season came in 2004 when a lot of teams had to deal with injuries.
3. Garnett later won the title with Pierce and Allen.

The first point is important, because having a higher Net+/- on a weaker team is easier to achieve. Making a team of not so good teammates much better than without him, if the team is constructed around that said player is something everyone should expect. Look what kind of numbers James is producing in that area. The Cavs are completely build around James and his abilities to make plays and score. Without James they are going down to a below average team, because they lack the constant high scoring and the playmaking. Garnett had a similar situation in Minnesota, the team was build around him and his abilities. Thus the team looked for complementary player rather than for players who could replace Garnett. That is the reason why I value Nowitzki's +18.0 on the Mavericks in 2003 at least as high as Garnett's +22.8 on the Timberwolves.

The 2nd point is rather obvious, Garnett had the most success and the best individual numbers as all better teams in the West had to deal with injuries to their more important players. The Timberwolves had no injuries to their 3 best players, but the Spurs missed Duncan, the Lakers missed O'Neal and Bryant, the Kings were without Webber, the Mavericks were without Center and played Walker for 82 games. We were able to see what health can do for a team this season. OKC won 50 games while the 4 players on their team with the most minutes per game were able to play in all 82 games. An injury to one of them and the player being out for 15 or 20 games and OKC would not have won 50 games.
For Garnett everyone is just saying now that with better teammates he could have always been on a 50+ wins team without looking into the context of that 2004 season.

And last but not least Garnett won the championship with two elite teammates. Just try to find that championship team on which the 2nd and 3rd best player combined for 22.1 Win Shares like Pierce and Allen. Pierce had just a seaosn with 25 ppg, Allen one with 26 ppg, everything else but winning that championship would have been a big surprise.

Overall everything what you or bastillon argue about is basically based on those 3 things. Garnett could have, if he would have ...

How about judging players on what they really did in that specific season? Duncan won the championship in 2003 and didn't have elite teammates. He had huge +/- numbers and the great boxscore numbers. I don't see any point to take anything away from that championship just to boost another player. Duncan was the best player in 2003, there is really nothing which would justify to put a "could have probably done" Garnett above him. And you can see Garnett ahead of a player like Nowitzki who had a similar strong year in terms of +/- while playing on an elite team. Nowitzki's boxscore numbers are right up there with Garnett (lower PER, but higher Win Shares). And yet, Nowitzki is left off the ballots while Garnett gets a lot of 2nd place votes. And you really want to say that the circumstances don't favor Garnett in our voting process?

I've got rebuttals to your points, but before I even get to that I wanted to say that I thought of Dirk when making my previous post, because in a way he's stuck in limbo. He's never been able to lead his team to a title, he's never been able to separate himself statistically from his elite peers, and he's also played with a reasonable level of talent in his career. As such, he rarely has much of an argument to be "the best" player. He was consistently elite, consistently great, but never much case for the best. Similar, I suspect, to what we'll see with Karl Malone/Barkley in the previous generation. So you're right in the sense that there is no real way to give Dirk the benefit of the doubt in most cases, because he really doesn't have any very compelling reasons not to have the success of the very best if he really were the very best.

As to your 3 main points, these would be my rebuttals:

1) Your +/- argument doesn't hold up. I don't think APM or net +/- stats are perfect by any means, but the whole point of them is to try to separate a player's impact from his teammates as much as possible. The obvious counter is to point out that in '08 on the 66-win Celtics KG had +/- scores (Ilardi APM +14.47, Net +12.1) very similar to what he had in '07 on the 32-win Wolves (Ilardi APM +12.35, Net +15.0), which is diametrically opposed to what should have happened if your logic was right.

2) Your contention that injuries were the reason for KG to be the best in '04 doesn't hold up. In '04 Garnett put up advanced stat numbers across the board (PER, WS, WP, +/-) that none of the other elite players (except Shaq) ever hit at any point in their careers, and by '04 Shaq was regularly missing time with injuries so this wasn't a one-time shot. So I don't see why injuries on those other teams would have been relevant to Garnett's regular season ranking/MVP.

And if you want to be technical, entering the '04 season Wally was to be the Wolves' starting SF, Kandi the starting center, and Hudson the 6th man but they combined to miss like 150 games between them. Again, not sure that really matters, but it's not like the Wolves were injury free in the RS. And in the postseason the Wolves were hit harder by injury than any of the other contenders, with Cassell joining Hudson on the bench and Wally also missing some time with a fractured back. Bottom line, I'm not really seeing your point with this one.

3) You contend that Pierce and Allen were so elite with respect to other champ supporting casts that Garnett doesn't deserve much credit for leading that team, and for evidence you used Pierce and Allen's regular season win shares. I agree that in the regular season they were great support, and played a big part in why the Celtics put up a RS record/point differential combo unmatched since the days of Jordan's Bulls.

When most people talk about leading a team to the title, though, what the players do in the postseason is just as vital. And using your win shares argument, in the postseason Pierce and Allen weren't anything special when compared to other supporting casts. In 26 games (more than any other title team of the decade), Pierce and Allen combined for 6.1 win shares, averaging about .15 WS/48 minutes. The '09 Lakers, '07 Spurs, '05 Spurs, '04 Pistons, '02 Lakers and '01 Lakers all had 2nd/3rd options putting up comparable or better postseason WS numbers as '08 Pierce and Allen.

:Shrugs: At the end of the day, I think the "my guy is better than your guy" side discussions are turning people off. Several posters said things to that effect in either the '04 or '05 thread, and I respect it. I don't think it's a bad thing at all for posters in this project to have players that they advocate because that makes them more apt to work harder, to put more info out there that maybe someone else that doesn't follow a player as closely might not know. My understanding of this project was that we would all put as much info out there as we had, then we could all compare the reasoning in the threads with our own thoughts and analysis and come up with a final decision on voting. So to that end, I think the advocates are really helping things. But if it's annoying everyone else, as it seems to be, I'm going to at least try to minimize my side-discussions.

I'm saying all of that to say, Mystic, that I'm going to try not to pursue this particular side-discussion with you anymore as I think that all that a KG vs Dirk argument of this particular type would do is sour the other voters on both our posts and the players that we've been supporting. And that's not what I want, because I think I bring some good stuff to the table and I know that I appreciate you doing the same with Dirk (who honestly, pre-2009 I had running neck-and-neck with Kobe for my decade rankings). Had you been around pushing a bit harder for Dirk in '05 on the day that I voted I may have left him over Nash, as I'm still not sure how I feel about that vote but the pro-Nash arguments swayed me. But anyway, my point is that I'm sure you'll have rebuttals to some of my logic here in a general sense, and by all means post whatever you feel. But if you can tell that what you really want to say to me will just be more side discussion about who has it worse here between KG and Dirk, maybe we can continue that discussion over PM?

[mysticbb]

Well, drza, my post was meant as an explanation why Garnett is on most of the ballots why others not, even if they have similar numbers and MORE success.

I could go on and explain that Posey on PF as the replacement for Garnett had a lot to do with the higher +/- numbers on those 2008 Celtics (look up how he performed as PF), but imho that would overall lead not to a useful discussion. Don't get me wrong, but I doubt that you will change your opinion about Garnett even when the facts suggest you should.

Anyway, I had Garnett as #1 in 2008, because I give players credit for what they done in that specific season, not just for what they could have done. Maybe just a different way to vote in my case.

[Sedale Threatt]

So no, having poor teammates definitely didn't help KG in this project.

Well, look at the approach you've taken. The first two achievements you trumpeted stem from him having led a bad team to 50 wins, and the third for leading his team in every major statistical category, which never would have happened had he had better teammates.

I get that KG had a great, great year, and was very close to Duncan in terms of actual performance.

It just seems like you and bastillon are absolutely bending over backwards to trump up KG's case, by harping on how bad his teammates were -- which is legit; no question that was a terrible team -- and tossing out hypothetical "I think" and "if" statements about what he might have done with the Spurs.

Doesn't matter. It's all speculation.

Taking team success into account here isn't a punishment for KG. It's a reward for Duncan. We don't need to wonder how he would have performed in that situation. He did it. We saw it. The numbers speak for themselves. He had one of the great postseasons in recent history to the immense benefit of his team.

He should be recognized for that, rather than being done a gross disservice by slotting KG into his place and giving him credit for imaginary achievements with a team he never played for.

[drza]

So no, having poor teammates definitely didn't help KG in this project.

Well, look at the approach you've taken. The first two achievements you trumpeted stem from him having led a bad team to 50 wins, and the third for leading his team in every major statistical category, which never would have happened had he had better teammates.

I get that KG had a great, great year, and was very close to Duncan in terms of actual performance.

It just seems like you and bastillon are absolutely bending over backwards to trump up KG's case, by harping on how bad his teammates were -- which is legit; no question that was a terrible team -- and tossing out hypothetical "I think" and "if" statements about what he might have done with the Spurs.

Doesn't matter. It's all speculation.

Taking team success into account here isn't a punishment for KG. It's a reward for Duncan. We don't need to wonder how he would have performed in that situation. He did it. We saw it. The numbers speak for themselves. He had one of the great postseasons in recent history.

He should be recognized for that, rather than being done a gross disservice by slotting KG into his place and giving him credit for imaginary achievements with a team he never played for.

I respect that, but I disagree. My reasoning isn't that "because I believe KG could have led a reasonable team to a title, if he'd have done so that'd be a bigger accomplishment than what Duncan did so therefore KG is higher". No, to me, what KG accomplished in itself was more impressive than what Duncan accomplished all-told.

In other words, the "what if" component for me is, if anything, more of a rebuttal than a core piece to my argument. I think/thought that Garnett was a better individual player than Duncan in '03, and I believe that the extent of the available data supports that. Winning a title is an accomplishment, but it's not the only one that I use in my evaluations or else I'd have voted Kobe over LeBron in '09. But I thought that LeBron was the better player over the course of the season, the available data (i.e. stats, etc.) provided enough support that it cemented my belief, and in the end I saw no reason to vote for a player that I didn't think was the best player simply because their team got further.

This is the same. I thought Garnett in '03 was better and I'm comfortable that I can support that with the available data. I don't see why I should be compelled to vote otherwise unless my stance just isn't supportable, which I don't believe to be the case.

FWIW, 2003 was the first year that I was confident that Garnett had moved beyond Duncan as a player. There were times in the previous years when I would argue that Garnett and Duncan were on the same level or that KG might be better, but '03 was the first time that I really felt secure that KG had moved beyond him.

I also think Duncan is one of the best players in history, and that in this stretch he was a beast. I would have voted 2003 Duncan #1 in '05, '06, '07, and '08 in this particular project. I'm also pretty sure I'll be voting Duncan #1 in 2002, in a close vote with Shaq. You'll note that any post that I actually made in this thread is pro-Garnett, not anti-Duncan. I stand by the things I said that Bastillion quoted, but that was from a different thread at a different time that was a direct KG-Duncan debate. In that context yes, I shined more critical light on the circumstances of Duncan's accomplishments because I felt that it was case where team accomplishment was being juxtaposed with individual ability without circumstance being taken into account. But make no mistake, in this project my vote for KG in '03 is a vote for what KG DID accomplish, not for what I think he could have done or against what Duncan did.

[Sedale Threatt]

Unless I'm missing something, the available data basically boils down to a single advanced measure that you yourself have acknowledged is flawed.

Otherwise, I haven't seen anything posted in this thread that significantly separates KG from Duncan. He beats him in some areas, Duncan beats him in others.

The Kobe/LeBron comparison, on the other hand, isn't nearly that close. THAT was most definitely a case where one player clearly earned separation from the other.

I simply don't see it in this instance, especially not after what Duncan did in the postseason. Indeed, that year had the exact opposite impact on me -- it merely reinforced my opinion that Duncan was the better player.

I guess it boils down to this -- I'm not understanding how a player who did not significantly outperform another can be ranked ahead, or considered to have permanently surpassed him, especially when his rival ramped up his play, literally in every single category, during the playoffs.

I bought your case for 08, which I'm now kind of second-guessing after seeing your voting record. But in this instance, I haven't seen anything that would justify putting Garnett ahead of Duncan.

You'll note that any post that I actually made in this thread is pro-Garnett, not anti-Duncan.

Absolutely. I feel like I'm approaching this the same way. I'm not trying to punish Garnett rather than reward Duncan for a spectacular -- and better, in my opinion -- season.

[semi-sentient]

Good to see Kobe getting some HM's.