Does Dirk with title surpass KG

[NO-KG-AI]

Also, if Dirk wins a title this year, he'll do it as a clear-cut first option with no second all star and the second best player of the team (Butler) out for the playoffs. Against a team with two top 5 players and a top 15-20 player.
Nothing KG has done would even come close.

Has anyone done that? I mean, he could fly past a lot of people if this 7 game series is that important.

[ManOfSteel]

Dirk will get overrated so badly if he wins a ring. Dirk is a great player and i like him a lot, but he has nowhere the impact of a guy like Kevin Garnett. Kevin Garnett is the best defensive player ever imo, and he's also a great shooter, post-player, shot-blocker etc.

All-time greatest PF's:

Tier 1:
Duncan
KG

Tier 2:
Barkley
Malone
Dirk
McHale

KG is a great defender and obviously superior to DIRK defensively, but Bill Russell is the greatest defensive player ever.

For me it seems people vastly underrate Barkley and Malone here just because they have no rings.IMO they were just as good as KG and Tim, so i would put both of them in tier 1 and Dirk has a chance to be there as well in a few years(not yet)

And yeah almost forgot, answer to your question: NO

[Jacks25]

Playoff stats say Dirk all the way. Clearly higher Peak an more peak years.

kg's big advantage on defense isn't reflected with PER though.

[colts18]

Playoff stats say Dirk all the way. Clearly higher Peak an more peak years.

kg's big advantage on defense isn't reflected with PER though.

well he didn't show that in the playoffs for it to be reflected (ex: 2002).

[colts18]

How does that unit do offensively without KG? The fact that the Celtics go from a 59 win to a 55 win team without KG shows that he isn't that good anymore. 40-20 and 1 game away from the ECF says that KG didn't have a huge impact. The stats and the actual on court results differ significantly. KG is a stat warrior yet it hasn't helped his teams win games.

Sounds like I'm jumping in midway through a conversation. If it hasn't been made clear before exactly where the 59/55 figure came from, please expound.

As far as KG not having regular huge offensive impact any more, no doubt about that. First off, he sacrificed his offensive primacy when he came to Boston (which was essential for keeping the lesser two of the big 3 happy and chemistry high). But by this point it's clear he lacks the stamina to do what he used to do.

The notion though that he's somehow a "stat warrior" whose impact is less than his numbers is strange because you're literally arguing with people whose point all along has been "there's more to the game than box score stats and that's why Garnett is underrated" and ever since Garnett's been in Boston, there hasn't been a soul falling in love with Garnett because he of his box score stats.

The 59 win figure is the Celtics win pace with KG and 55 is their win pace when KG is out. I do agree with you on the stat warrior part. His box score stats suck in Boston and you would think Al Jefferson is a better player based on them. But my point is that KG's stats in Minnesota were ridiculously inflated and/or less impactful than Duncan or Dirk's stats.

[ElGee]

How does that unit do offensively without KG? The fact that the Celtics go from a 59 win to a 55 win team without KG shows that he isn't that good anymore. 40-20 and 1 game away from the ECF says that KG didn't have a huge impact. The stats and the actual on court results differ significantly. KG is a stat warrior yet it hasn't helped his teams win games.

Sounds like I'm jumping in midway through a conversation. If it hasn't been made clear before exactly where the 59/55 figure came from, please expound.

As far as KG not having regular huge offensive impact any more, no doubt about that. First off, he sacrificed his offensive primacy when he came to Boston (which was essential for keeping the lesser two of the big 3 happy and chemistry high). But by this point it's clear he lacks the stamina to do what he used to do.

The notion though that he's somehow a "stat warrior" whose impact is less than his numbers is strange because you're literally arguing with people whose point all along has been "there's more to the game than box score stats and that's why Garnett is underrated" and ever since Garnett's been in Boston, there hasn't been a soul falling in love with Garnett because he of his box score stats.

The 59 win figure is the Celtics win pace with KG and 55 is their win pace when KG is out. I do agree with you on the stat warrior part. His box score stats suck in Boston and you would think Al Jefferson is a better player based on them. But my point is that KG's stats in Minnesota were ridiculously inflated and/or less impactful than Duncan or Dirk's stats.

You do realize that you can say the same thing about Michael Jordan? Bulls won 57 games in 1993. 55 in 1994. They won the title in 93 and barely lost in the ECSF in 94. Does that make Jordan a "stat warrior?"

[ElGee]

My point is there are multiple factors that you have to take things into account. You can't just say well plus minus says this because it doesn't say anything. It just showcasing things that are happening on the floor. You have to use your brain to figure out why those things happen. You just decided that well KG must be that good and the rest of the Celtics must be that bad.

Think about what you're saying. On one hand, we have to look beyond what happened when players were/weren't in the game. We can't just look at the results of a 5-man unit at face value. (Your words)

On the other hand, the Celtics were at a 55-win pace without KG and "almost" went to the ECF, so he can't be that good. (Also your words)

Do you not see the problem there?

[colts18]

Sounds like I'm jumping in midway through a conversation. If it hasn't been made clear before exactly where the 59/55 figure came from, please expound.

As far as KG not having regular huge offensive impact any more, no doubt about that. First off, he sacrificed his offensive primacy when he came to Boston (which was essential for keeping the lesser two of the big 3 happy and chemistry high). But by this point it's clear he lacks the stamina to do what he used to do.

The notion though that he's somehow a "stat warrior" whose impact is less than his numbers is strange because you're literally arguing with people whose point all along has been "there's more to the game than box score stats and that's why Garnett is underrated" and ever since Garnett's been in Boston, there hasn't been a soul falling in love with Garnett because he of his box score stats.

The 59 win figure is the Celtics win pace with KG and 55 is their win pace when KG is out. I do agree with you on the stat warrior part. His box score stats suck in Boston and you would think Al Jefferson is a better player based on them. But my point is that KG's stats in Minnesota were ridiculously inflated and/or less impactful than Duncan or Dirk's stats.

You do realize that you can say the same thing about Michael Jordan? Bulls won 57 games in 1993. 55 in 1994. They won the title in 93 and barely lost in the ECSF in 94. Does that make Jordan a "stat warrior?"

btw, I made that MJ argument plenty of times in the LeBron vs. MJ threads. The difference between MJ and KG is that MJ's ridiculous stats were converted into actual on-court results. KG's ridiculous stats led to 1st round exits and 3 straight playoff misses (something prime MJ, Dirk, and LeBron would never do).

[richboy]

My point is there are multiple factors that you have to take things into account. You can't just say well plus minus says this because it doesn't say anything. It just showcasing things that are happening on the floor. You have to use your brain to figure out why those things happen. You just decided that well KG must be that good and the rest of the Celtics must be that bad.

Think about what you're saying. On one hand, we have to look beyond what happened when players were/weren't in the game. We can't just look at the results of a 5-man unit at face value. (Your words)

On the other hand, the Celtics were at a 55-win pace without KG and "almost" went to the ECF, so he can't be that good. (Also your words)

Do you not see the problem there?

No because on one side we are talking about something mythical and something real. At the end of the day you play to win the game. The Celtics without KG have won at a high rate. Yet here we have some talking about how bad they would be without KG.

[richboy]

Playoff stats say Dirk all the way. Clearly higher Peak an more peak years.

kg's big advantage on defense isn't reflected with PER though.

I don't mind the defensive argument. To me its kind of an inconsistent argument though. Most of this board puts Hakeem behind Shaq. Hakeem was a much better defender and played with a much worse supporting cast.

At some point offense becomes a bigger factor than defense. Especially the ability to score even against elite defense. With the reality that most games are won the last 4 minutes and the ability to score one on one against tough defense to finish games is a premium skill.

[richboy]

Also, if Dirk wins a title this year, he'll do it as a clear-cut first option with no second all star and the second best player of the team (Butler) out for the playoffs. Against a team with two top 5 players and a top 15-20 player.
Nothing KG has done would even come close.

Has anyone done that? I mean, he could fly past a lot of people if this 7 game series is that important.

Again you ignore the point. KG spent most of his career not getting out of the first round. The excuse machine is well he didn't have the players. Well if Dirk wins without having the players then whats the argument for KG. KG can't get out the first round with Wally Z but Dirk can win a championship against Lebron and Wade with Jason Terry.

[NO-KG-AI]

BEcause of the Dallas D playing so well, which, with Dirk protecting the rim, would be 100% to his credit.

Agreed.

[richboy]

BEcause of the Dallas D playing so well, which, with Dirk protecting the rim, would be 100% to his credit.

Agreed.

Dallas has the 8th rank defense in the league this year. Lets not act like they are the steal curtain. There are much better defensive teams sitting at home. Dallas wins because Dirk in the 4th quarter. That is how they beat the Lakers. That is how they beat the Thunder. That is how they beat the Heat in Game 2 and were close in game 3.

[D Nice]

To Dirk's credit, I never thought I'd see the day where this was even a discussion. The fact that there is at least a theoretical argument for being Garnett's peer or superior means that he has come a long way.

But to even think about putting Dirk above Garnett he'd have to win more than one ring and significantly outlast Garnett for me to actually consider ranking him above KG, who clearly outstripped Dirk as a player when both were in or close to their primes.

Toppling this stacked Miami team en route to a title with a marginal cast would certainly be more impressive than any singular feat Garnett achieved throughout his career, however, and since the thread is premised on that occurring it definitely bears mention.

[Doctor MJ]

Think about what you're saying. On one hand, we have to look beyond what happened when players were/weren't in the game. We can't just look at the results of a 5-man unit at face value. (Your words)

On the other hand, the Celtics were at a 55-win pace without KG and "almost" went to the ECF, so he can't be that good. (Also your words)

Do you not see the problem there?

No because on one side we are talking about something mythical and something real. At the end of the day you play to win the game. The Celtics without KG have won at a high rate. Yet here we have some talking about how bad they would be without KG.

No, you need to take a step back and think through this stuff methodically. What you're talking about is an incredibly crude stat that if you're at all honest you know is ridiculously flawed.

Start with the crude stat you've said you find meaningful, and make note of the flaws in it. (And don't try to argue there are no flaws. Every single stat has flaws - and anyway I'm sure you wouldn't limit your opinion to what your stat tells you)

Think of ways to fix the flaws you find. Then compare what you've thought of to what +/- people are doing. You should find great similarity, because after all, what I'm telling you to do is simply the process people actually went through to get where the stats are today.

Stats with crazy names like "regularized adjusted plus/minus" sound abstract as hell. I understand your skepticism. You need to understand though that they come about because some really smart people start with the same kind of common sense thoughts you have, and then spend a lot of time working out kinks.

This isn't to say they've made a perfect stat. Far from it. However the notion that they've all made ridiculously misguided decisions that turn "real" into "myth" is childish. They had very good reasons for doing what they did, and if you think you know so much more than them that you dismiss them at the crudest level, you are mistaken. It's perfectly fine to say "I don't understand what you're saying, and I'm not convinced", but to reject an entire line of tools used by a large number of NBA teams with the confidence you have despite not having the foggiest idea how a lot of them work is the height of hubris.

[Doctor MJ]

btw, just wanted to say, Dirk's my favorite player of these playoffs easily. Fantastic performance. We can only hope that it is this year that define's Dirk's legacy, and not the disappointments of the past.

[richboy]

Think about what you're saying. On one hand, we have to look beyond what happened when players were/weren't in the game. We can't just look at the results of a 5-man unit at face value. (Your words)

On the other hand, the Celtics were at a 55-win pace without KG and "almost" went to the ECF, so he can't be that good. (Also your words)

Do you not see the problem there?

No because on one side we are talking about something mythical and something real. At the end of the day you play to win the game. The Celtics without KG have won at a high rate. Yet here we have some talking about how bad they would be without KG.

No, you need to take a step back and think through this stuff methodically. What you're talking about is an incredibly crude stat that if you're at all honest you know is ridiculously flawed.

Start with the crude stat you've said you find meaningful, and make note of the flaws in it. (And don't try to argue there are no flaws. Every single stat has flaws - and anyway I'm sure you wouldn't limit your opinion to what your stat tells you)

Think of ways to fix the flaws you find. Then compare what you've thought of to what +/- people are doing. You should find great similarity, because after all, what I'm telling you to do is simply the process people actually went through to get where the stats are today.

Stats with crazy names like "regularized adjusted plus/minus" sound abstract as hell. I understand your skepticism. You need to understand though that they come about because some really smart people start with the same kind of common sense thoughts you have, and then spend a lot of time working out kinks.

This isn't to say they've made a perfect stat. Far from it. However the notion that they've all made ridiculously misguided decisions that turn "real" into "myth" is childish. They had very good reasons for doing what they did, and if you think you know so much more than them that you dismiss them at the crudest level, you are mistaken. It's perfectly fine to say "I don't understand what you're saying, and I'm not convinced", but to reject an entire line of tools used by a large number of NBA teams with the confidence you have despite not having the foggiest idea how a lot of them work is the height of hubris.

The thing is I don't dismiss the stat. I dismiss the notion that any stat creates a cut and dry result. I ask the questions why do these things happen. Why is it that a team full of good and some great defenders in Boston drop off so much without KG. It doesn't make sense to me that Thibs couldn't make the Celtics good defensively without KG when he has made the Bulls great defensively without KG.

I don't discount the plus minus numbers. My issue with +- is it doesn't predict future results. At times its all over the place. I don't think you can justify a stat's worth without it having some level of ability to say what will happen in the future.

Also when someone says Lebron's adjusted numbers went down because he now playing with Wade. How exactly does that reflect on Lebron as an individual player?

This is like the same discussion I had with John Hollinger. I'm on him about how the PER of players on slow pace teams gets inflated. All at the same time slow pace teams utilize there superstars at higher usage because half court basketball usually benefits the stars. On the flip side players on a fast pace team get there PER deflated because it assumes they are using more possessions. Even though just because a game is more up tempo doesn't mean your going to get more opportunities.

He agrees with this and After a while he comes back that PER really isn't good to compare players on different teams. Yet the entire world uses PER to compare players on different teams including him.

Now I go to adjusted plus minus. I see the importance of what adjusted plus minus does. If the conclusion was only KG was very important to Boston and Minnesota I be fine with that. When we get to the point that other players aren't as good because they don't have as good a +- then IMO things are out of hand.

The biggest thing about any stat is there are reasons why things occur. Rotation patterns, backups, coaches philosophy. Not to mention some superstars may just have a bigger involvement in a teams game plan than others. There are more elements to why things happen on the court than his teammates suck more than another players teammates.

[drza]

The thing is I don't dismiss the stat. I dismiss the notion that any stat creates a cut and dry result. I ask the questions why do these things happen. Why is it that a team full of good and some great defenders in Boston drop off so much without KG. It doesn't make sense to me that Thibs couldn't make the Celtics good defensively without KG when he has made the Bulls great defensively without KG.

I don't discount the plus minus numbers. My issue with +- is it doesn't predict future results. At times its all over the place. I don't think you can justify a stat's worth without it having some level of ability to say what will happen in the future.

Also when someone says Lebron's adjusted numbers went down because he now playing with Wade. How exactly does that reflect on Lebron as an individual player?

This is like the same discussion I had with John Hollinger. I'm on him about how the PER of players on slow pace teams gets inflated. All at the same time slow pace teams utilize there superstars at higher usage because half court basketball usually benefits the stars. On the flip side players on a fast pace team get there PER deflated because it assumes they are using more possessions. Even though just because a game is more up tempo doesn't mean your going to get more opportunities.

He agrees with this and After a while he comes back that PER really isn't good to compare players on different teams. Yet the entire world uses PER to compare players on different teams including him.

Now I go to adjusted plus minus. I see the importance of what adjusted plus minus does. If the conclusion was only KG was very important to Boston and Minnesota I be fine with that. When we get to the point that other players aren't as good because they don't have as good a +- then IMO things are out of hand.

The biggest thing about any stat is there are reasons why things occur. Rotation patterns, backups, coaches philosophy. Not to mention some superstars may just have a bigger involvement in a teams game plan than others. There are more elements to why things happen on the court than his teammates suck more than another players teammates.

There is a lot in this post that sounds reasonable. But again, at least IMO, the arguments that you make could very easily and reasonably be reversed and used against the position that you are defending. Consider, throughout this thread you have consistently said that the biggest issue with using APM (specifically defensive APM) to say that KG is the best defender of his generation is that, to you, it is a single data point and that it doesn't support the rest of the facts as you see it. And that you don't think it's right to depend on a single stat to make a case when it runs counter to everything else. Reasonable. The only problem is, that seems to be exactly what you are doing...just using a different stat.

On these boards, there are essentially 4 types of evidence that can be used to make a case: team results, accolades, statistics, and opinion (i.e. "I watched the games"). While watching the games in some ways gives the best understanding, it is also the most subjective and least conducive to a debate. Essentially, opinion can help shape your case but it can't make your case. So, for the moment, let's look at the other 3 methods. And also, since we're talking about KG, let's break it down into Minnesota vs Boston years as we discuss his defense.

Minnesota: when KG was in Minnesota, as you've pointed out often, their team defenses were generally in the average category. So, in the "team results" section of the Minnesota years, KG's Wolves don't compare with some of the team results of other defense legends. Fair enough. Now let's look at accolades, the "second" type of evidentiary support...in Minnesota KG was named first team All NBA Defense 6 times, with 3 top-3 finishes in the Defensive Player of the Year vote. If his career would have ended right there, that would have made him one of the most decorated defensive players in NBA history. So, he did well in defensive accolades in Minnesota. Then, with defensive stats, you have KG measuring among the leaders in the B-R stats (DRtg and Defensive win shares, both heavily influenced by team results) and KG lapping the field in defensive adjusted +/-.

So, leaving opinion out of it, you had KG's Wolves measuring average on defense as a team but KG as an individual with both the accolades and defensive stats to suggest that he was right there with Duncan and Wallace as the best defensive players of his generation.

Boston: since KG has been in Boston, the Celtics have consistently had one of the best defenses in th eleague. So in the "team results" section of the Boston years, KG's Celtics compare with any of the greats. Then we look at the accolades, and in Boston KG has been named first team All NBA Defense 3 times in 4 years and has 2 more top-3 finishes in the Defensive Player of the Year vote. Then, in the defensive stats, you again have KG measuring out among the leaders in the B-R defensive stats and lapping the field in defensive adjusted +/-.

So again, with no opinion and no real interpretation, KG's Celtics measure elite on defense, and KG as an individual has both the accolades and the defensive stats to suggest that he has been right there (this time with Dwight Howard) at the top of the "best defensive player" debate of the last four years.

Conclusion: See, your stance has been that APM is the outlier that can't be trusted because it suggests that Garnett is clearly the best defensive player of the past 8 years. But you've been basing the majority of your argument on the fact that the Minnesota team defense was average. And if you look at the 6 non-"our-opinion" based facets of the Minnesota and Boston years I just wrote down, you'd see that 5 of those 6 areas suggest strongly that KG is on the extremely short list for best defender of this generation. If we completely throw out the 2 stats under contention (Wolves' team DRatings and KG's Defensive APM), the remainder of the evidence we have would put KG in a conversation with only Duncan, Wallace, Howard (half generation after) and Mutombo (half generation before) for best defensive player of this generation. So even without defensive APM, KG would still be on the EXTREMELY short list for best defensive player of his era.

So to me, it's not the defensive APM mark that is inconsistent. That a player that in every other way is considered one of the top-5 defensive players of his era measures out as actually the best is actually down-right intuitive. The stat that is much less intuitive, based on the other results in play, is that of the Wolves' team defensive ratings. By far, that is the result that to me stands out as the "odd ball" and the one that should be held to a higher standard of proof. By all means, I would (and have) participate in a vetting of both the Wolves' team defensive results AND the individual defensive APM measure. Interpretation and analysis are vital to any argument or stat usage, and I wouldn't suggest we use any of them in a vacuum.

But again, your aggressive stance that defensive APM suggesting that KG is the best defender is in some way out of touch with the rest of the story is...frankly not correct. It's entirely in-keeping with the rest of the results. The part that is disconnected from the rest of the data is the Wolves' team results, which to me are very explainable when you start looking at the rest of the cast. And when the entirety of the rebuttal thus far has been essentially "the cast couldn't have been that bad"...I'll just say that I don't think that's the strongest case that could be made, and to thus hang so much of your stance on the Wolves' team results isn't necessarily the most reasonable argument to be made in this thread.

[GilmoreFan]

You're still pushing what is basically a made up stat over results and observation, and what you said to Richboy, that "the arguments that you make could very easily and reasonably be reversed and used against the position that you are defending" is far more true of the positions I have seen you take. You're obviously a huge KG fan, and every single position I've seen you take is in furtherance of propping him up in some way. Every possible argument or position which could break both ways, and even some that don't, you push in a way that favours KG. I saw you call T.Brandon a "solid PG" among other factually dubious claims, just to play down his cast, ignoring the same advanced stats that suggested Brandon outplayed KG one playoffs, when he shot 385. from the field.. You have an excuse for why KG failed every single year from 97-2003 and 2005-7. I'm willing to concede that KG's teams sucked in 2003 and 2007, and I even think that the correct choice between KG and Dirk has to be KG, but you do not give the impression of objectivity. There is no new evidence or stat that could be presented to you that would make you change your mind, in fact you thought the same thing before APM or other advanced stats were really used, so in effect you're going off the "eye test" too.

[mopper8]

I'm wading in late here and wanted to pose a question:

Say for the sake of argument Miami just crushes Dallas in game 4 in spite of Dirk going off. Now they're up 3-1 and look to be a lock for the title. Then say for the sake of argument Wade (or Lebron or Bosh) blows out his knee in practice and the Mavs win 3 in a row against the depleted Heat, with their bench finally hitting shots at a high rate. Dirk plays well but nothing out-of-this world.

Why should we consider that a bigger boost to his legacy than if he goes down to a healthy Heat team while putting up great numbers but getting no help?