Does Dirk with title surpass KG

[Sedale Threatt]

You don't think the ensuing decade of MVP-caliber ball had anything to do with it?

[Sedale Threatt]

That's the difference to me, regardless of a ring. There's an entire half of the game where Dirk can't hold Garnett's jock. Doesn't mean he's not fantastic, but he's not close to the all-around player Garnett is.

In general I hate this argument, because people assume a false equivalence to the impact of star's on both sides of the court. For example, until the emergence of the recent string of point guards, the gap between the best and worst defensive point guards in the league was small compared to the gap between Nash and the 2nd best point guard in the league on offense.

With that said, I've come to believe Garnett really has had a defensive impact that rivals the offensive impact of all but a few superstars in the league. When you add in that he truly was a Top 10 level offensive player at his peak, that two way combination really is very hard to top.

I agree; it's not a very elegant argument. I'd be hard-pressed to identify a more valuable commodity than an elite, go-to scorer, and Dirk certainly is that.

My thing with Garnett is the all-around value he brings. Yeah, he might not have been the scorer Dirk is, but he's still giving you 20-22 with elite playmaking for his position.

Then when you add the rebounding and the historically great defense...you put it perfectly -- that two-way combination really is very hard to top.

Even when compared to someone as great as Karl Malone, who was a way better scorer, and a pretty damn good passer and defender and rebounder in his own right. I'd still probably take Garnett, just because I appreciate the all-around package that much.

Minus the douche bag persona, of course.

[G35]

You don't think the ensuing decade of MVP-caliber ball had anything to do with it?

No that's a huge part but those "freak" games is what people say a player is capable of doing even if they never do it again. Like Kobe's 81, Wilts 100, Jordans 63, Duncans quadruple. Those freak games are given as points of proof as why someone is so good....

[G35]

I keep hearing about this defense and I recognize how good KG's defense is. But lets look at this, when did KG's defense make a difference on the Wolves team? Dirk isn't as good defensively but his presence on offense has made the Mavericks a contender. Has KG's defense made his teams a contender.

It takes a HoF type C to make a defense great all by yourself. David Robinson is twice the defensive anchor KG is and he didn't make the Spurs a great defense by himself. But a great offensive player can make a team have a great offense. Charles Barkley, Nash, Nowizki. All elite offensive players that are said to have weak to avg defensive ability but are still able to make their teams better. I just saw too much futility to say KG's defense made that much of a difference.....

[richboy]

I keep hearing about this defense and I recognize how good KG's defense is. But lets look at this, when did KG's defense make a difference on the Wolves team? Dirk isn't as good defensively but his presence on offense has made the Mavericks a contender. Has KG's defense made his teams a contender.

It takes a HoF type C to make a defense great all by yourself. David Robinson is twice the defensive anchor KG is and he didn't make the Spurs a great defense by himself. But a great offensive player can make a team have a great offense. Charles Barkley, Nash, Nowizki. All elite offensive players that are said to have weak to avg defensive ability but are still able to make their teams better. I just saw too much futility to say KG's defense made that much of a difference.....

Exactly. We keep talking about KG being an all-time great defensive player. Yet Minnesota was a bad defense almost every year he was there. I go back to the argument that Duncan fans use to say against KG. He lacked defensive impact because unlike Duncan KG didn't protect the rim. He wasn't a big body. He wasn't that great against strong physical post players.

KG defense didn't show any impact until he went to a team coached by the best defensive mind in the league. He had Perkins, Pierce, and Rondo on the team. All NBA level defenders. Dwight Howard has Orlando playing top 5 defense in the league without any other great defenders. KG in Minnesota had the Wolves playing mediocre defense. Worse than the Mavericks most years.

[Sedale Threatt]

I keep hearing about this defense and I recognize how good KG's defense is. But lets look at this, when did KG's defense make a difference on the Wolves team? Dirk isn't as good defensively but his presence on offense has made the Mavericks a contender. Has KG's defense made his teams a contender.

It takes a HoF type C to make a defense great all by yourself. David Robinson is twice the defensive anchor KG is and he didn't make the Spurs a great defense by himself. But a great offensive player can make a team have a great offense. Charles Barkley, Nash, Nowizki. All elite offensive players that are said to have weak to avg defensive ability but are still able to make their teams better. I just saw too much futility to say KG's defense made that much of a difference.....

You have a point but so much of that is related to supporting cast. Look at Barkley -- an absolutely elite offensive player, by any measure.

He was phenomenal during his peak in Philly, and ultimately it made very little difference in terms of results, other than a couple of good offensive ratings.

Why? Because his teams sucked.

[G35]

I keep hearing about this defense and I recognize how good KG's defense is. But lets look at this, when did KG's defense make a difference on the Wolves team? Dirk isn't as good defensively but his presence on offense has made the Mavericks a contender. Has KG's defense made his teams a contender.

It takes a HoF type C to make a defense great all by yourself. David Robinson is twice the defensive anchor KG is and he didn't make the Spurs a great defense by himself. But a great offensive player can make a team have a great offense. Charles Barkley, Nash, Nowizki. All elite offensive players that are said to have weak to avg defensive ability but are still able to make their teams better. I just saw too much futility to say KG's defense made that much of a difference.....

You have a point but so much of that is related to supporting cast. Look at Barkley -- an absolutely elite offensive player, by any measure.

He was phenomenal during his peak in Philly, and ultimately it made very little difference in terms of results, other than a couple of good offensive ratings.

Why? Because his teams sucked.

Well I think Barkley had more success than KG did even though each had the same quality of teammates.

KG in 12 years got out of the first round ONCE and 4 times missed the playoffs altogether.

After the 86-87 season and Dr J was retired and Moses traded Barkley was the man. In the 5 seasons prior to being traded to the Suns Barkley got the Sixers to the playoffs 3 times and the semi-finals twice while missing the playoffs twice. So Barkley for all his defensive shortcomings was able to get a sorry team out of the first round.

I think a dominant offensive player needs less talent around him than someone who relies more on defense. Defense requires all 5 players to play well. One player can carry an offense. KG just doesn't have that ability......

[richboy]

While Dirk will put 50 on you no problem no hesitation if you don't defend him correct.

Which is why he's done it three times in more than 1,100 career games.

+1

I always marvel at people bringing up outlier games when talking about who they'd pick generally. What matter is what you can count on, not what happens in their freak games. Freak games don't reliably win you playoff series.

. The point is you have to give Dirk a lot of attention when playing him or he would score those numbers. It doesn't matter if he didn't do it one time. The entire last decade of playing the Mavericks the conversation started on how to defend Dirk. The Lakers spent the entire series how are we going to defend Dirk. He didn't score 50 in one game. All OKC talked about all week is how do we defend Dirk. The Spurs when they played the Mavericks in the playoffs they played Dirk with Bruce Bowen. They had to play small just to find a decent matchup to guard Dirk.

That is the difference between KG in his prime and Dirk. You play KG you play your regular PF and let him throw fade aways all day. At the end of the night that type of game is going to get you 20-25 points most nights. Good player but your not thinking we have to find someone just to match up with him. You play against Dirk you think some players can't even play. I heard Laker fans on the Radio saying that Gasol needed to come off the bench because he can't do anything with Dirk. That is there second best player.

It is very difficult to play and beat Dallas in the playoffs if you don't find someone that can defend Dirk. KG even got lit up by Dirk in the playoffs. His numbers are great but when you look at how much he dominates the conversation and the game plan on the other team its laughable. As I write this Dirk has 14 points. I'm sure KG could have 14 at half. OKC is doing everything they can just to keep the ball out of Dirk's hand. Things I haven't seen them do all year. Thats the difference between KG and Dirk. If Dallas wins this series. The next series the first question is going to be who guards Dirk. Your telling me there is only a small difference between them offensively.

[Sedale Threatt]

Well I think Barkley had more success than KG did even though each had the same quality of teammates.

KG in 12 years got out of the first round ONCE and 4 times missed the playoffs altogether.

After the 86-87 season and Dr J was retired and Moses traded Barkley was the man. In the 5 seasons prior to being traded to the Suns Barkley got the Sixers to the playoffs 3 times and the semi-finals twice while missing the playoffs twice. So Barkley for all his defensive shortcomings was able to get a sorry team out of the first round.

I think a dominant offensive player needs less talent around him than someone who relies more on defense. Defense requires all 5 players to play well. One player can carry an offense. KG just doesn't have that ability......

Yeah, but didn't the T-Wolves have some pretty highly ranked offenses despite pretty poor supporting casts?

When he finally had a couple of good teammates, Minnesota won almost 60 games and made it to the WCF. And that team wasn't even all that great -- 34-year-old Sam Cassell and 33-year-old Latrell Spewell were his two best running mates.

Then he gets to Boston, past his prime, with a couple of great teammates who are no longer in their prime either, and the Celtics straight wreck. That's not a coincidence to me.

I mean, we've had the same arguments before. I don't buy them, but I can see a cases for Barkley and/or Malone over Garnett. Duncan, for sure.

But Dirk Nowitzki? Absolutely no way.

[richboy]

While this is technically true, isn't it a bit disingenuous considering the array of contributions they're getting? I mean, even Barea is playing like an All-Star these last few games. Dirk has never lacked for talent on his teams, and this year is no different. Certainly not in the playoffs.

No. They are playing well but Dirk is the nightmare. Your point would suggest that any great PF would take this team to a title then. I don't buy that. The Lakers would have beaten a team with a more conventional PF. Those guys are getting wide open looks because of the attention Dirk gets. A team of Kidd, Stevenson, Marion, and Chandler with Terry coming off the bench isn't usually considered elite.

[richboy]

Well I think Barkley had more success than KG did even though each had the same quality of teammates.

KG in 12 years got out of the first round ONCE and 4 times missed the playoffs altogether.

After the 86-87 season and Dr J was retired and Moses traded Barkley was the man. In the 5 seasons prior to being traded to the Suns Barkley got the Sixers to the playoffs 3 times and the semi-finals twice while missing the playoffs twice. So Barkley for all his defensive shortcomings was able to get a sorry team out of the first round.

I think a dominant offensive player needs less talent around him than someone who relies more on defense. Defense requires all 5 players to play well. One player can carry an offense. KG just doesn't have that ability......

Yeah, but didn't the T-Wolves have some pretty highly ranked offenses despite pretty poor supporting casts?

When he finally had a couple of good teammates, Minnesota won almost 60 games and made it to the WCF. And that team wasn't even all that great -- 34-year-old Sam Cassell and 33-year-old Latrell Spewell were his two best running mates.

Then he gets to Boston, past his prime, with a couple of great teammates who are no longer in their prime either, and the Celtics straight wreck. That's not a coincidence to me.

I mean, we've had the same arguments before. I don't buy them, but I can see a cases for Barkley and/or Malone over Garnett. Duncan, for sure.

But Dirk Nowitzki? Absolutely no way.

To me doesn't getting Cassell and Sprewell show that despite great offensive rating the Wolves really were not good enough offensively to do much in the playoffs. 2 years ago Offensive rating said Portland was the number 1 offense in basketball. Were they the best offensive team in basketball. They got in the playoffs and struggled to score. If Minnesota really had really good offenses they wouldn't have been getting spanked out the first round.

[Doctor MJ]

I keep hearing about this defense and I recognize how good KG's defense is. But lets look at this, when did KG's defense make a difference on the Wolves team? Dirk isn't as good defensively but his presence on offense has made the Mavericks a contender. Has KG's defense made his teams a contender.

It takes a HoF type C to make a defense great all by yourself. David Robinson is twice the defensive anchor KG is and he didn't make the Spurs a great defense by himself. But a great offensive player can make a team have a great offense. Charles Barkley, Nash, Nowizki. All elite offensive players that are said to have weak to avg defensive ability but are still able to make their teams better. I just saw too much futility to say KG's defense made that much of a difference.....

You may already know what I'm going to say but...

Garnet's defensive adjusted +/- was consistently unreal - heck still is. The stats we have to answer the question "Was Garnett doing great things and just overwhelmed by the rest of his terrible team?" say a resounding yes.

Re: "It takes a HOF type C to make a defense great all by yourself.", I'll go you one better, no one can do it by himself. Garnett's team D was mediocre despite his massive +/-. Chicago has elite team D without any all-world defender. Olajuwon back in the day typically didn't play on great defenses. No matter how good you are in the modern NBA, you need to have teammates who know what they are doing in order to create a defense that doesn't yield.

Does that prove your point in choosing the offensive guy? Yes and no. I would choose Dirk's offense over Garnett's defense like you would, but Garnett's offense really was stellar, and Dirk's defensive impact is mediocre.

[Doctor MJ]

To me doesn't getting Cassell and Sprewell show that despite great offensive rating the Wolves really were not good enough offensively to do much in the playoffs. 2 years ago Offensive rating said Portland was the number 1 offense in basketball. Were they the best offensive team in basketball. They got in the playoffs and struggled to score. If Minnesota really had really good offenses they wouldn't have been getting spanked out the first round.

It's late I might be missing some context, but I've never understood knocking a guy for losing in the playoffs to teams everyone predicted you'd lose to. Minny lost twice to a weaker seed, both times it was the Lakers dynasty coming off years where Shaq didn't take the regular season seriously. Not a big deal.

[richboy]

I keep hearing about this defense and I recognize how good KG's defense is. But lets look at this, when did KG's defense make a difference on the Wolves team? Dirk isn't as good defensively but his presence on offense has made the Mavericks a contender. Has KG's defense made his teams a contender.

It takes a HoF type C to make a defense great all by yourself. David Robinson is twice the defensive anchor KG is and he didn't make the Spurs a great defense by himself. But a great offensive player can make a team have a great offense. Charles Barkley, Nash, Nowizki. All elite offensive players that are said to have weak to avg defensive ability but are still able to make their teams better. I just saw too much futility to say KG's defense made that much of a difference.....

You may already know what I'm going to say but...

Garnet's defensive adjusted +/- was consistently unreal - heck still is. The stats we have to answer the question "Was Garnett doing great things and just overwhelmed by the rest of his terrible team?" say a resounding yes.

Re: "It takes a HOF type C to make a defense great all by yourself.", I'll go you one better, no one can do it by himself. Garnett's team D was mediocre despite his massive +/-. Chicago has elite team D without any all-world defender. Olajuwon back in the day typically didn't play on great defenses. No matter how good you are in the modern NBA, you need to have teammates who know what they are doing in order to create a defense that doesn't yield.

Does that prove your point in choosing the offensive guy? Yes and no. I would choose Dirk's offense over Garnett's defense like you would, but Garnett's offense really was stellar, and Dirk's defensive impact is mediocre.

Plus minus doesn't reflect defensive impact. It just suggest that Minnesota was much worse defensively without KG in the game. Just as much a reflection to where he compared to his back up than to his actual impact on defense overall.

I don't know if I can just throw it out there that Minnesota had horrible defenders. That case makes sense on offense. On defense as well? You must be suggesting that KG is taking a bunch of HS kids to the playoffs since apparently they aren't good on offense or defense.

In 01 they had Chauncey Billups and Brandon in the backcourt. They had Sam Mitchell, Rasho Nesterovich, Laphonso Ellis. All these guys were considered average to above average defenders. Yet they ranked 16th on defense.

Let me just throw a possibility out there. Something that Minnesota fans use to say to me when KG played with them. KG was a great defender but because of his slight build he really didn't protect the basket. Not that great of a shot blocker. Really lack the size that intimidated people from going to the hole. They use to say if they could only get a big physical center next to KG they could have a elite defense.

Fast forward years later he gets traded to the Celtics. Kendrick Perkins is the exact kind of big center that Minnesota had tried to get for him for years. Add in one of the best defenders at the point and on the perimeter and you have an all-time great defense.

Fast forward again and Perkins gets traded. Now I'm watching the Celtics vs the Heat and Boston's defense looks mediocre to me. KG is doing an absolutely amazing job on Bosh. Wade and Lebron have no problem attacking the rim now. Not to mention they are now dominating the glass.

Its my thought that KG is a great defender but because he doesn't protect the rim his defensive impact at times is lacking.

It's late I might be missing some context, but I've never understood knocking a guy for losing in the playoffs to teams everyone predicted you'd lose to. Minny lost twice to a weaker seed, both times it was the Lakers dynasty coming off years where Shaq didn't take the regular season seriously. Not a big deal.

Its not a knock but just a reality. When were talking about the great players in history you have to nitpick every aspect of a career. The reality is he is the best player on those teams that were going out first round. If I took those exact same teams and put Shaq on them I would feel they would get out the first round. In some level by saying they were not expected to get out of the first round its because people didn't think kG was good enough to get them out of the first round.

If you listen to some. KG is nearly as good as Dirk on offense. He is a top 10 player all-time on defense. If these things are true then KG shouldn't be going out of the first round. If these things are true then KG has a case to be close to Bird. If these things are true then how is KG not even making the playoffs some years.

On the flip side Dirk has played with talent. It has not been over whelming talent though. He usually is going to the all-star game a lone. His teams are consistently better than KGs team. His teams most years are better defensively than KG teams. Even though Dallas is playing with much more suspect defenders. Apparently KG warps Dirk on defensive impact. Something isn't adding up to me.

[mysticbb]

I mean, we've had the same arguments before. I don't buy them, but I can see a cases for Barkley and/or Malone over Garnett. Duncan, for sure.

Wow, but that is quite typical. People are quick with putting Barkley's early crazy efficient scoring games together with his late crazy rebounding numbers. In such a picture Barkley becomes the great scorer on high efficiency while being a great rebounder. Well, he only done that combined in one season in his whole career in 1987 in 68 games. If we combine the 5 best seasons by Barkley in terms of TS%, we are getting a DRB% of 21.1, while the 5 highest for Nowitzki will give us 22.9 DRB%. Yes, Barkley grabbed a couple of more offensive rebounds, but that is more due to playing style than due to actual better rebounding abilities. Barkley scored on 65.5 TS% while Nowitzki had 60.0 TS% in those respective seasons.
And in 1987 the 76ers went 37-31 with Barkley, while being 8-6 without him. So much about Barkley's high impact.

If we now compare the 5 highest DRB% seasons with each other, we get for Nowitzki 25.2 ppg on 59 TS% while having a 24.1 DRB%. For Barkley we get 21.1 ppg on 57.7 TS% with 27.0 DRB%.

What we can see is that Barkley produced larger outlier seasons in terms of DRB% and TS%. His 5 highest TS% seasons have a combined 4.3 percentage points higher TS% than his career average, his 5 highest DRB% season have a combined 3.3 higher value than his career average. For Nowitzki we are getting 1.7 and 2.1 respectively. Thus Nowitzki played more constant in both aspect of the game than Barkley over the course of his career. And I think that consistency is showing up in the playoffs, when Nowitzki has 25.1 PER, 58.5 TS%, 25.0 DRB%, 0.213 WS/48 in comparison to Barkley's 24.2 PER, 58.4 TS%, 25.3 DRB% and 0.193 WS/48.

I highly doubt that Barkley at his peak was better than Garnett or Duncan at their respective peaks. I also don't see that Barkley overall can keep up with the impact of Duncan or Garnett. For Nowitzki we can't make a case in terms of peak impact, but at least we can take a look at the numbers in average and make a case that Nowitzki might be on par with Garnett in a stretch from 2000 to 2011.

I think what most people push it in favor of Garnett is the high peak level play during the 2003 to 2005 seasons. But as I pointed out even during those seasons Garnett is nearly a step below Nowitzki's peak level in the playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

@richboy

First, adjusted +/- at least in the broadest sense adjusts for teammates. While it is true that the balance of a team alters a player's irreplaceability, people drastically overestimate how much of that is literally due to a player's backup. LeBron's irreplaceability in Miami is much less than in Cleveland, but it's sure as hell not because of James Jones, it's because of Dwyane Wade.

In basketball, if a guy is clearly one of your top 5 players, having him play bench minutes rarely makes sense. You find a way to adjust your team play to get him in more, or you trade him. The rare exception would be someone like an old man Mutombo who can't play big minutes any more but is still quite good for the few minutes he can give you.

Anyway, more central here is that Garnett's defensive adjusted +/- has been drastically superior to the rest of the league over large sample size for the 8 years we have data for. He went from Minny to Boston, and that trend continued. You seriously going to tell me that this is caused by Garnett having a far worse back up at all time than every other defensive star in the league?

Also, I wouldn't read too much into Boston losing to Miami in terms of what it says about prime Garnett. Boston's offense got totally shut down in their 4 losses in the series (ORtg 97.3 - well worse than the worst regular season offense in the league), when that happens you lose. Boston just wasn't the same team it used to be because it's getting old.

Re: "If these things are true then KG shouldn't be going out of the first round."

Kareem missed the playoffs twice, and got knocked out in the first round another year smack dab in the middle of his prime. Does this mean he was worse than Dirk Nowitzki in those years?

Guessing you'll say no, but that Garnett should have gotten out of the first round "in some of those years". And I'd say that's a silly philosophy. There is no inevitability to this stuff. Kevin Garnett's Wolves won 50+ games 4 times and never once lost to a team that anyone thought was worse than them. Meanwhile, in between having Oscar & Magic as teammates, Kareem's teams broke 50 wins only 1 time, and they got swept in an upset in that 1 solid year once they reached the playoffs.

[Sedale Threatt]

First of all, this comment by me:

But Dirk Nowitzki? Absolutely no way.

was a gross overstatement. I'd still take all of those players ahead of Dirk, but he is obviously a fantastic player, and certainly in the mix. I wouldn't agree, but I suppose probably wouldn't scream too loudly at anybody who took him over Barkley, either.

That said...

Wow, but that is quite typical. People are quick with putting Barkley's early crazy efficient scoring games together with his late crazy rebounding numbers. In such a picture Barkley becomes the great scorer on high efficiency while being a great rebounder. Well, he only done that combined in one season in his whole career in 1987 in 68 games. If we combine the 5 best seasons by Barkley in terms of TS%, we are getting a DRB% of 21.1, while the 5 highest for Nowitzki will give us 22.9 DRB%. Yes, Barkley grabbed a couple of more offensive rebounds, but that is more due to playing style than due to actual better rebounding abilities.

How on earth can you blow off Barkley's superior offensive rebounding -- one of his most valuable attributes -- as "different playing style" rather than the tangible proof it is that he was superior on the boards than Nowitzki?

While we're at it, let's just take KG's play-making out of the mix. Different playing style and all, so it shouldn't factor in, right?

I mean, I know why you did it -- to artificially level the playing field -- but at least let's identify it for what it is. Besides, I'd say that pulling down 11.9, 12.5 and 11.5 boards, while ranking among the league leaders in TRB%, constitutes great rebounding, and he did that during his crazy efficient scoring seasons.

Barkley scored on 65.5 TS% while Nowitzki had 60.0 TS% in those respective seasons.

I am not nearly as adept with the advanced stats as you and others, so correct me if I'm wrong. But nearly six percentage points is a rather massive advantage, isn't it?

I mean, the other day Hollinger was raving about Dallas' massive improvement in the playoffs, and I think their total TS% was up by only three percentage points.

At any rate, the simple numbers bear out that Barkley was a more efficient scorer, got to the line more often, was a way better playmaker, and was virtually identical as a scorer even after a handful of post-prime seasons brought down his average.

Other than Dirk's superior range, I'm not seeing any advantage here on the offensive end.

And in 1987 the 76ers went 37-31 with Barkley, while being 8-6 without him. So much about Barkley's high impact.

I generally find this a pretty simplistic tool. But I acknowledge that it has some value, so let's throw Philly's 5-10 without Barkley in 90-91 into the mix.

I highly doubt that Barkley at his peak was better than Garnett or Duncan at their respective peaks. I also don't see that Barkley overall can keep up with the impact of Duncan or Garnett.

I agree.

I think what most people push it in favor of Garnett is the high peak level play during the 2003 to 2005 seasons. But as I pointed out even during those seasons Garnett is nearly a step below Nowitzki's peak level in the playoffs.

I already acknowledged that this is a huge feather in Dirk's cap. It speaks very highly of him that he already produced at an elite level, yet routinely manages to improve during money time. That's a wonderful quality.

[mysticbb]

How on earth can you blow off Barkley's superior offensive rebounding -- one of his most valuable attributes -- as "different playing style" rather than the tangible proof it is that he was superior on the boards than Nowitzki?

Because it is due to different playing style? Nowitzki once in his career had a playoffs series in which he played 4 out 6 games mostly underneath the basket on offense and came out with a 11.5 ORB%! The offensive rebounding numbers are completely misleading in terms of different abilities on the boards. If Barkley would be superior in terms of rebounding, he would have a clearly higher DRB% than Nowitzki, but he doesn't have that.

Did Kevin Garnett became a weaker rebounder just because his ORB% are way lower than his career average in the last two seasons? But somehow he was able to have a similar DRB% to his career average. How is that possible, if the ORB% shows anything on how "superior" someone is on the board?
Garnett gets less offensive rebounds, because the Celtics want him to go back on defense. That improves the overall defense and helps more than crashing the boards. Nowitzki is doing a similar thing.

While we're at it, let's just take KG's play-making out of the mix. Different playing style and all, so it shouldn't factor in, right?

Uh? What? I doubt that you understood my point.

I mean, I know why you did it -- to artificially level the playing field -- but at least let's identify it for what it is. Besides, I'd say that pulling down 11.9, 12.5 and 11.5 boards, while ranking among the league leaders in TRB%, constitutes great rebounding, and he did that during his crazy efficient scoring seasons.

Pace, use ORB%, DRb% and TRB% to get an impression about the players, not total rebounding numbers. It should be clear that someone who has more opportunities for a rebound will get more.

I am not nearly as adept with the advanced stats as you and others, so correct me if I'm wrong. But nearly six percentage points is a rather massive advantage, isn't it?

Oh, it is a massive difference. Even if we account for the differences in TS% for those specific years we are getting a difference of around 4 percentage points between those two. But well, Barkley also had the higher turnover rate in those seasons while Nowitzki posted really low ones. If we combine those two things we are getting a pretty similar offensive effiency. That's the reason why Barkley ends up with 119 respective 118 ORtg for his regular season and playoff career average while Nowitzki has 117 and 120. As I said basically the same efficiency.

I think you completely missed the point I wanted to make. For Barkley the people somehow throw together his high scoring efficient early years with his high rebounding years later in his career. As I pointed out only in one season Barkley had a TS% among his Top5 and DRB% among his Top5 in the same season. To show that more: The correlation coefficient between his TS% and his DRB% is -0.64. That means there is a negative correlation. "Barkley the high efficient scorer" and "Barkley the great rebounder" are two seperate stages in his career. It is like Wilt Chamberlain's high scoring seasons and his high assists seasons.

And if we combine Barkley's Top10 seasons in PER, we are getting: 26.1 PER and 0.233 WS/48 in the regular season, while 25.0 PER and 0.199 WS/48 for the playoffs.
The same excercise for Nowitzki: 24.8 PER and 0.230 WS/48, 25.8 PER and 0.228 WS/48.

If we select the Top10 seasons for each player, Nowitzki comes out ahead due to his advantage in the playoffs.

I already acknowledged that this is a huge feather in Dirk's cap. It speaks very highly of him that he already produced at an elite level, yet routinely manages to improve during money time. That's a wonderful quality.

Yes, it is. And I think that also shows Nowitzki's abilities in comparison to other better. Nowitzki is coasting a bit during the regular season the last 4 years. He always elevated his game in the playoffs. If we compare the numbers for the regular season and playoffs

Code: Select all

        RS  Playoffs
PER:    23.5    28.3
TS%:    58.3    63.3
WS/48: 0.199   0.257

That is a massive difference between regular season and playoffs.

I hope I made my point a bit more clear overall.

[Jeff23]

I would take Kevin Garnett over Dirk Nowitzki 20 out of 20 times.

[Sedale Threatt]

Because it is due to different playing style? Nowitzki once in his career had a playoffs series in which he played 4 out 6 games mostly underneath the basket on offense and came out with a 11.5 ORB%! The offensive rebounding numbers are completely misleading in terms of different abilities on the boards. If Barkley would be superior in terms of rebounding, he would have a clearly higher DRB% than Nowitzki, but he doesn't have that.

Even with that microscopic sample, Barkley still outperformed that mark 11 times, and during the entirety of his 1,000-plus game career.

I know, I know -- pace, playing style, coaching...whatever. Why should Nowitzki get a free pass because he chose to base his offensive game around the jump shot, which took him out of position to hit the glass, while Barkley took a more aggressive tact?

That's just an excuse that I'm not willing to buy.

Did Kevin Garnett became a weaker rebounder just because his ORB% are way lower than his career average in the last two seasons? But somehow he was able to have a similar DRB% to his career average. How is that possible, if the ORB% shows anything on how "superior" someone is on the board? Garnett gets less offensive rebounds, because the Celtics want him to go back on defense. That improves the overall defense and helps more than crashing the boards. Nowitzki is doing a similar thing.

Come on. I can understand tactics accounting for a couple of percentage points, as is the case with Garnett. But Barkley's ORB% is more than three times that of Nowitzki, and he owns a substantial edge in TRB% as well.

Uh? What? I doubt that you understood my point.

Yeah, I understand very clearly. You're trying to use some pretty flimsy excuses to bridge the gap between one of the very best rebounders in the history of the game and a guy who is merely very good.

You know, it's a lot more enjoyable to debate with somebody that doesn't have to win every single angle of a particular comparison, and won't rationalize to do so. It shouldn't have to be that hard to acknowledge that Barkley was just a better rebounder and move on to other points.

Pace, use ORB%, DRb% and TRB% to get an impression about the players, not total rebounding numbers. It should be clear that someone who has more opportunities for a rebound will get more.

I did. Barkley still ranked among the yearly leaders in TRB% during his monster offensive years in Philly.

Oh, it is a massive difference. Even if we account for the differences in TS% for those specific years we are getting a difference of around 4 percentage points between those two. But well, Barkley also had the higher turnover rate in those seasons while Nowitzki posted really low ones. If we combine those two things we are getting a pretty similar offensive effiency. That's the reason why Barkley ends up with 119 respective 118 ORtg for his regular season and playoff career average while Nowitzki has 117 and 120. As I said basically the same efficiency.

A good point. I didn't take turnovers into account. I'm still probably going to prefer Barkley's ability to draw fouls and create offense for others. But no doubt that's another one of Nowitzki's great, and unheralded, qualities. You can also make a great case for his ability to force huge mismatch issues as a 7-foot shooter. Believe it or not, I actually have a pretty high degree of respect for his game. These two would be my starting forwards on an All-Unique team.

I think you completely missed the point I wanted to make. For Barkley the people somehow throw together his high scoring efficient early years with his high rebounding years later in his career. As I pointed out only in one season Barkley had a TS% among his Top5 and DRB% among his Top5 in the same season. To show that more: The correlation coefficient between his TS% and his DRB% is -0.64. That means there is a negative correlation. "Barkley the high efficient scorer" and "Barkley the great rebounder" are two seperate stages in his career. It is like Wilt Chamberlain's high scoring seasons and his high assists seasons.

Again, I think I understood you just fine. I just don't agree. Just because some of his better rebounding years came later doesn't mean he still wasn't elite early on, when he was putting up his ridiculous TS%s. I mean, you tell me -- isn't it reasonable to label a guy who was still finishing in the top 10 in TRB% as an elite rebounder? I certainly think so.

Yes, it is. And I think that also shows Nowitzki's abilities in comparison to other better. Nowitzki is coasting a bit during the regular season the last 4 years. He always elevated his game in the playoffs.

Don't know what else to say about this. It's an awesome trait that I admire hugely.

You can have the last word as all of this is all pretty much off topic.

In the meantime, here is a bit of info I'm sure you'll enjoy.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=9486