Retro POY '01-02 (ends Thu morning PST)

[Doctor MJ]

I'm surprised too. 21/12/5, 2nd in DPOY/1st all-D and led his team to 50 wins without spectacular help...

And then came the playoffs and Garnett got his ass kicked in the 1st round by Nowitzki.

Lost to a team that was clearly superior in the regular season while going for 24/18/5. Is that such a sin? To be clear, when you get swept in the first round, I don't care how good your stats are, you're not going to improve your standing in my eyes - but does he really go down in people's estimation because of the playoffs?

[Gongxi]

The problem with me with Garnett vs. Kidd is that their defenses basically cancel out. Yes, a great big man defender is more valuable than a great small defender, but at the same time, Garnett's VORP (to steal a sabermetrics term) as a big defender isn't any better than Kidd's as a small. There were (and are) more great big man defenders than smalls so...

After that, you're looking at their offensive production: 17/10/6 is nothing to scoff at as compared to 21/12/5, especially as compared to their roles on the team. It's close, but if Kidd isn't scoring, he's still giving you league-leading assist production and his rebounding for a PG is approaching GOAT levels. Garnett is rebounding and that's great, but his assists are also coming as a product of his scoring: when one suffers the other will as well.

[NO-KG-AI]

I'm surprised too. 21/12/5, 2nd in DPOY/1st all-D and led his team to 50 wins without spectacular help...

And then came the playoffs and Garnett got his ass kicked in the 1st round by Nowitzki.

Lost to a team that was clearly superior in the regular season while going for 24/18/5. Is that such a sin? To be clear, when you get swept in the first round, I don't care how good your stats are, you're not going to improve your standing in my eyes - but does he really go down in people's estimation because of the playoffs?

Given his support, you HAVE to blame Garnett.

Right!?

[mysticbb]

Lost to a team that was clearly superior in the regular season while going for 24/18/5. Is that such a sin? To be clear, when you get swept in the first round, I don't care how good your stats are, you're not going to improve your standing in my eyes - but does he really go down in people's estimation because of the playoffs?

Well, clearly superior team? Why? Because Garnett had only Billups with 22/5/6 and Szczerbiak with 20/7/2? Garnett was the guy who missed his shots in the first game as the Timberwolves had a chance to win. Garnett was the player who missed 5 of his 9 FTA and turned the ball over 6 times in game 3 at home. And Garnett was the guy who couldn't defend Nowitzki, the reason why Saunders changed the defensive scheme in the first place. Bastillon and drza will tell everyone that the lack of perimeter defense was the reason, but if Garnett would have been able to defend Nowitzki, Saunders wouldn't have changed the system at all. Nowitzki drove by Garnett, took the jumper right in his face, Garnett couldn't follow him which led to open 3's. Really, they was no indication of good defense by Garnett and just bad teammates. Nowitzki scored 33.3 ppg on 69 ts%!

[Tesla]

bastillon
^ I guess its what you value you more, in hindsight we know that Kobe with a crappy supporting cast can carry the load, make it to the playoffs, make some noise, but get eliminated early... just like Tmac. What is the unknown or perhaps rather somewhat known, is that Tmac has never proved he could do what Kobe did and that's be second fiddle deep into the playoffs and win championships. People for whatever reason use the reverse logic on this one, where as I see it as this is the only way it kind of makes sense.

Besides your really embellishing how "bad" Kobe played.... The Lakers had really no problem getting by anybody but one team that year, and they could just run the offense accordingly and be OK (except against Sacramento), and sometimes when you are a scorer like Kobe or Tmac or whoever (and IMO there is more evidence to support this than the other way around) it is harder to be efficient because of rhythm. The whole "open looks" crap is bs most the time unless your talking about complete role players that are spot up shooters and such, or big men that are able to just catch and finish at a good rate. Kobe came up huge in those last two wins against Sacramento. And 26/6/5 on 43%fg, 38%3PT isn't completley inefficient, he just sucked at the FT line for whatever reason lol... but whatever the case, that stat line is nothing to be embarrassed about especially when you win the chip on route... look at Pierce's statline in 07-08 throughout the playoffs and people are goo-goo gaga all over his playoff run that year.

[Gongxi]

If you're trying to argue that maybe McGrady couldn't have scored less on worse efficiency in order to rank Kobe ahead of him, you're starting down the path to Unbiased Fan and Silver Bullet. Just sayin'.

[NO-KG-AI]

i don't get how you can adjust Jason Kidd's D relative to position, and not do the same for KG's passing.

If you are doing it by position, Garnett's passing is more rare than Kidd's was, and even though he wasn't Shaq or Wilt, he was still a far more efficient scorer than Kidd.

[Gongxi]

Defense is the same across the board. Everyone has to play defense for roughly half the time they're on the court, and roughly as much as everyone else that plays as many minutes as they do. Not everyone has to pass roughly half the time they're in the court, and two players who play identical minutes don't have to be making an equal amount of passes/be passing for an equal amount of time.

What I'm saying is that if Kidd and Garnett are both on the floor for 40 minutes, they're both playing defense for 20 minutes. Replace Kidd with the average point guard and replace Garnett with the average big: chances are very likely your perimeter defense got "more worse" than your interior D did. With the passing thing, if Kidd and Garnett are both on the floor for 40 minutes, they're both not nearly doing the same amount of playmaking and/or passing, so right off the bat changing them out with 'average' players means less.

[drza]

Lost to a team that was clearly superior in the regular season while going for 24/18/5. Is that such a sin? To be clear, when you get swept in the first round, I don't care how good your stats are, you're not going to improve your standing in my eyes - but does he really go down in people's estimation because of the playoffs?

Well, clearly superior team? Why? Because Garnett had only Billups with 22/5/6 and Szczerbiak with 20/7/2? Garnett was the guy who missed his shots in the first game as the Timberwolves had a chance to win. Garnett was the player who missed 5 of his 9 FTA and turned the ball over 6 times in game 3 at home. And Garnett was the guy who couldn't defend Nowitzki, the reason why Saunders changed the defensive scheme in the first place. Bastillon and drza will tell everyone that the lack of perimeter defense was the reason, but if Garnett would have been able to defend Nowitzki, Saunders wouldn't have changed the system at all. Nowitzki drove by Garnett, took the jumper right in his face, Garnett couldn't follow him which led to open 3's. Really, they was no indication of good defense by Garnett and just bad teammates. Nowitzki scored 33.3 ppg on 69 ts%!

Eh, I'm called, so I'll answer. I'm almost sure we've hashed this out before, but I'm not up to searching for the posts. My memory of that series was of the Mavs running a spread offense, often with Nash, Van Exel, Finley, Dirk and LaFrentz all capable of knocking down the longball. Nash, Van Exel and Finley were breaking their man down off the dribble (easily) and getting into the lane, forcing Garnett (always the defacto help defender) to sag off of Nowitzki and try to protect the paint, which set up many open shots or run-out/blow-by opportunities for Dirk.

Dirk was obviously scorching, so I'm sure he did take Garnett straight-up sometimes as well. But the majority of his shots were assisted, off of a teammate's set-up. It also shows up in Dirk's assists (or lack there-of), as he only had two assists in 3 games (none in 2 of the games). Now, let me be clear: this was a great thing for Dirk and the Mavs. Why should someone pass who is scorching like that? But my point was just that Dirk was the finisher in that series, playing off of his other teammates breaking down the defense, and not the initiator. And the fact that 19 of his shots were assisted while he only had 2 assists of his own somewhat helps to illustrate that.

:Shrugs: KG didn't cover himself with glory in that series, but he and his team were outgunned. And averaging 24, 19, 5, 2 and 2 while trying to do it all against a superior team isn't worthy of shame either.

[mysticbb]

Eh, I'm called, so I'll answer. I'm almost sure we've hashed this out before, but I'm not up to searching for the posts.

Yes, we talked about that before. And the results were essays (btw, always great reads nonetheless, I have great respect for you and bastillon, even if I like to call either of you out) in which Garnett never had anything to do with the failure of the Timberwolves.
Most of what you are writing is correct, Nowitzki either got an isolation or was just wide open for a shot. And he delivered against any defender.

:Shrugs: KG didn't cover himself with glory in that series, but he and his team were outgunned. And averaging 24, 19, 5, 2 and 2 while trying to do it all against a superior team isn't worthy of shame either.

Garnett had a really good game 2 and the Timberwolves were indeed outgunned by the Mavericks in that game. But he had help in game 1 from Billups, Nesterovic and Szczerbiak and by Szczerbiak and Peeler in game 3, but he wasn't able to knock down his shots or missed his free throws. Garnett had the opportunities, but he didn't use them. He scored 20.5 ppg on 47 TS% in those two games, and had 9 turnovers together in game 1 and 3. The Timberwolves had a chance to win at least one game, but they didn't, because of Garnett's inability to score efficient enough. And his effect on defense wasn't there, especially if the PF on the other team is getting hot like Nowitzki done it.
Do you not think Garnett was in part responsible for the sweep?

[ElGee]

And there is a clear correlation between DRB% and DRtg, the highest correlation btw. of all stats in the boxscore. The 2nd highest is the own turnovers. Why? Because after a turnover the other team scores on a higher efficiency. And yes, Nowitzki's low amount of turnover contributing to that more than blocked shots or steals. I can understand that most people don't want to accept that, but the data for the last 30+ years in the NBA are clearly show those relationships.

Good points about DRB% and TO rates. This makes sense if we think about why, but I just want to point out that there are essentially no defensive statistics available with which to draw further correlations.

So, from what we have, these two numbers might have the highest correlation, but actually slowing down opposing players, disrupting shots, deflections, charges, and forced turnovers would collectively all trump anything that is currently in the box score.

[mysticbb]

So, from what we have, these two numbers might have the highest correlation, but actually slowing down opposing players, disrupting shots, deflections, charges, and forced turnovers would collectively all trump anything that is currently in the box score.

Actually we have "forced turnovers" and surprisingely the correlation coefficient is less for those than for the own turnovers on offense. But overall I agree, the boxscore is biased towards offense. Some of those things are really valuable in the context of defense. BUT you can make an argument that deflections and disrupting shots are somewhat covered by steals and blocked shots.
Anyway, I would really like to have a boxscore with those kind of things you mentioned for each individual player. Also on offense something like "hockey assists" or screens. More information gives us the opportunity to rely more on facts. Well, as long as that means we still want to watch the games. In the last two weeks I re-watched a couple of games and a lot of youtube videos. I definitely spent too much time on this. :)

[ElGee]

^^^All right. Seems like a really odd weight to put on regular season games played, but if that is your criteria, then okay.

Ronny, how do you balance it?

HCA carries a certain amount of value, so your player would have to do enough to 1) make the playoffs and then 2) overcome HCA, no? (Or at least overcome HCA, all things being equal, against the specific player your comparing him to...)

Well, Shaq's team had HCA, and beat Duncan's team.

Before I go on....I'm not penalizing Duncan for the Spurs not winning the second round series. I'm not giving Shaq the edge because of the head-to-head win of Shaq's team. The Lakers were the better team.

I just think the best player in the league should be rewarded for being the best player in the league. 15 games missed against the grizzlies and the hornets and the knicks isn't something I give a **** about (I wasn't using actual teams....just making a point).

Ronny, I think you're missing my point. Shaq still had HCA because he played on a good team -- better than Duncan's. He could have played 30 games and still in theory had HCA...so I'll elaborate:

Player A and Player B are very close in performance and impact. Player A might be slightly better, but maybe not good enough to beat Player B if they had similar teams without HCA. So, after how many missed games does he realistically surrender having HCA if it's that close?

The better Player A is compared to player B, the more regular season games he can miss, and the less of an impact HCA might have in the playoffs...so then I think you just need to figure out how many games Player A would need to play to make the playoffs. In this case, Duncan and Shaq seem pretty close, and I think it's a relevant factor.

[sp6r=underrated]

It should really be interesting when we get to the mid 70s. If people are upset about the lack plus/minus data how will they feel about no turnovers.

[drza]

Garnett had a really good game 2 and the Timberwolves were indeed outgunned by the Mavericks in that game. But he had help in game 1 from Billups, Nesterovic and Szczerbiak and by Szczerbiak and Peeler in game 3, but he wasn't able to knock down his shots or missed his free throws. Garnett had the opportunities, but he didn't use them. He scored 20.5 ppg on 47 TS% in those two games, and had 9 turnovers together in game 1 and 3. The Timberwolves had a chance to win at least one game, but they didn't, because of Garnett's inability to score efficient enough. And his effect on defense wasn't there, especially if the PF on the other team is getting hot like Nowitzki done it.
Do you not think Garnett was in part responsible for the sweep?

Of course I would love to have seen the Wolves win at least a game since like Doc MJ said you earn no glory in a sweep, but I have trouble blaming KG for them coming up short. For example, you talk about Garnett's shooting troubles in game 1, and I'll grant you that making 19 points on 18 shots is never great. But he was still dominant on offense that game in spite of that. He grabbed 7 offensive boards, he dished 6 assists, he was drawing defensive attention. He's the reason that guys like Wally and Rasho had decent scoring games. And he grabbed the rest of his 21 boards at the defensive end, limiting the Mavs' starters to just 1 offensive rebound total and helping the Wolves outrebound them as a team 58 - 39. When I look at the entirety of that performance by KG, I have trouble singling him out as the reason they came up short.

Similar in game 3, where 3 of his turnovers and 4 of his missed FTs came in the 1st quarter, but the team still managed 28 points. The Wolves were generating offense at their usual rate, the team just purely couldn't stop the Mavs which we've already talked about. Again, Garnett was still big on offense with five offensive boards and five assists to go with his 21 points, again he was doing a lot of the offensive facillitating, and again he hit the defensive boards hard and helped the Wolves win the battle on the glass.

So I mean yeah, everyone takes some blame for a sweep. Garnett certainly didn't play perfectly. But he was having huge games in a lot of ways, and when I look at all he was able to do versus what his team was able to deliver against a superior opponent...it's just hard for me to put much of the blame on the guy that was doing all of the heavy lifting and doing it well.

[ronnymac2]

Ronny, I think you're missing my point. Shaq still had HCA because he played on a good team -- better than Duncan's. He could have played 30 games and still in theory had HCA...so I'll elaborate:

Player A and Player B are very close in performance and impact. Player A might be slightly better, but maybe not good enough to beat Player B if they had similar teams without HCA. So, after how many missed games does he realistically surrender having HCA if it's that close?

The better Player A is compared to player B, the more regular season games he can miss, and the less of an impact HCA might have in the playoffs...so then I think you just need to figure out how many games Player A would need to play to make the playoffs. In this case, Duncan and Shaq seem pretty close, and I think it's a relevant factor.

Oh okay. I get what you mean now.

Yeah, I guess. Do you think if LA only won 57 games and SA had HCA, that SA would have won the series?

My response: I don't think it is fully the star player's responsibility to win without HCA. What if he plays the exact same way, but his teammates fail, you know? Again, I don't hold it against Tim that he lost, or that he lost without HCA. If you are the better team, you'll find a way to win with or without HCA a vast majority of the time.


Regular season games played is something I think about, but it's not a major breaking point of my critiria. Unless you miss playoff games or like, half the season, I'm probably not going to penalize you. Especially if I feel the guy was the best player in the league, was the most dominant statistically, and won a title.

[ElGee]

The problem with me with Garnett vs. Kidd is that their defenses basically cancel out. Yes, a great big man defender is more valuable than a great small defender, but at the same time, Garnett's VORP (to steal a sabermetrics term) as a big defender isn't any better than Kidd's as a small. There were (and are) more great big man defenders than smalls so...

After that, you're looking at their offensive production: 17/10/6 is nothing to scoff at as compared to 21/12/5, especially as compared to their roles on the team. It's close, but if Kidd isn't scoring, he's still giving you league-leading assist production and his rebounding for a PG is approaching GOAT levels. Garnett is rebounding and that's great, but his assists are also coming as a product of his scoring: when one suffers the other will as well.

It's not KG's fault he was playing a lot of SF and guarding perimeter players and in a strange defensive scheme most of the time. But then again, he still had a smaller impact because of all this. He still probably had a larger defensive impact than the majority of 3s -- he was flying all over the court guarding people and snaring defensive rebounds -- but I don't really think this is Kevin Garnett, Defensive Anchor.

There have been people suggesting KG's defense is overrated. I don't see that. Moving forward from 2002, I see a 16th DRtg (+0.2 to league average), but that's without being paired with a decent defensive big, and essentially porous perimeter defenders.

In 2004, they upgrade defensively at the pivot with Ervin Johnson, and finally with a quality perimeter defender in Hassell (Wally Szczerbiak was about as slow-footed as a perimeter defender could possibly be). The results were the 6th best defense, DRtg 99.7 (-3.2 to league average).

In 2005, the defensive landscape changes again -- Johnson plays 410 minutes, Hudson plays huge minutes, Sprewell is older (at the end), Wally is back playing 2600 minutes...and the team is back at 15th with a 106.6 DRtg (+0.5 to league average).

KG"s on/off DRtg in those years:
03 94.9 (-9.6 with him on)
04 100.3 (-6.5)
05 107.8 (+1.5)

I don't see his defense as being underrated at all. The only argument for that I could see is that he had a smaller defensive impact in 2005...certainly not during his peak though.

[Sedale Threatt]

It should really be interesting when we get to the mid 70s. If people are upset about the lack plus/minus data how will they feel about no turnovers.

It'll be like going back to old rotary phones, or Commodore 64s, or black-and-white TVs, or top-loading VCRs.

[Sedale Threatt]

I'm just not feeling Kidd all that much here.

I'm sure somebody else has already touched on this -- I haven't read the past few pages -- but the only real thing that stands out is the "achievement" of leading a mediocre team through an all-time bad conference.

He brings a lot of nice qualities to the table, but his absolutely piss-poor shooting pretty much spoils the package for me. Like Nash, I just can't seriously consider him on the same level as the Shaqs, Duncans, Garnetts and Kobes of the world.

[ElGee]

So, from what we have, these two numbers might have the highest correlation, but actually slowing down opposing players, disrupting shots, deflections, charges, and forced turnovers would collectively all trump anything that is currently in the box score.

Actually we have "forced turnovers" and surprisingely the correlation coefficient is less for those than for the own turnovers on offense. But overall I agree, the boxscore is biased towards offense. Some of those things are really valuable in the context of defense. BUT you can make an argument that deflections and disrupting shots are somewhat covered by steals and blocked shots.
Anyway, I would really like to have a boxscore with those kind of things you mentioned for each individual player. Also on offense something like "hockey assists" or screens. More information gives us the opportunity to rely more on facts. Well, as long as that means we still want to watch the games. In the last two weeks I re-watched a couple of games and a lot of youtube videos. I definitely spent too much time on this.

Just a quick aside on screens since you have used the argument a lot. 95% of NBA players set screens the same way. In general, the bigger and stronger, the better. Those who set slightly "harder" or more effective screens don't deviate that much from the average screens. The range of this skill does not vary too much.

Similarly, most players are subject to screens in the same manner. Again, I'd say a few defenders are better at hedging or sliding under/over more quickly and harder, but the range of this skill also doesn't vary too much -- I've yet to see an NBA player who can move through screens.

Both these distributions would be extremely narrow if we graphed them, and as such, I tend to rarely ever discuss screening in basketball analysis. It's part of the game, and the difference in almost all screens in college and the NBA is negligible.