RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - #2

[SDChargers#1]

As for the nomination. I can change my vote to make more of an impact, but I am not going to do that.

Oscar Robertson is the greatest statistical player in the history of the game. The man averaged a triple double over his first 5 seasons, and no one else has ever come all that close. He won his one and only title playing sidekick to Kareem, and that holds him from being higher on the list.

But considering other guys being nominated are Karl Malone (never won a title), Kevin Garnett (won with 2 other hall of famers), and West (didn't win until he had an all time great team), I don't think it should hurt him that much.

Oscar was a fantastic scorer, though he played in an inflated league, he has a career average of nearly 26 ppg on 56% TS (fantastic for the time period). In addition he led the league in assists SEVEN times in his career. I think it is safe to say that aside from Wilt, Oscar was the great offensive player of his generation. Oscar was All NBA first team for the first 9 years of his career and was considered to be the best guard of the time.

Though Oscar's biggest negative is that he missed the playoffs a few times in his prime (so did Garnett), when he was in the playoffs especially during his Cinncinati days, he was still absolutely brilliant.

As for the other guys being nominated. I totally respect the Moses and West nominations. They both deserve to be nominated soon, they are my next two choice.

Karl Malone, is probably right after them as well. If he had won titles against Jordan he would probably be a top 10 player of all time.

The nomination I don't get is Kevin Garnett. He does not belong in this discussion at this point and has become massively overrated.

Here are my main points for why I feel that way.

-Garnett only made FOUR All NBA 1st teams. For comparison Oscar made 9, West made 10, Moses made 4 (one of my big negatives for him as well), Karl made 11. Those are some pretty substantial differences relative to their peers.

-Garnett is easily the worst offensive player of the bunch. He has the lowest TS% of all of them, which is even more telling considering he is a big man. I won't even compare him to Oscar, Karl, and West in that regard because they simply blow him out of the water. The reason you can make an argument for him being greater than Moses overall offensively isn't scoring (which obviously Moses is MUCH better than Garnett at), but passing. Moses was a horrendous passer, while Garnett was very good. It helps close the gap.

-So although it seems that Garnett is closest to Moses, here is where there biggest differences lie. Moses has 3 MVP awards (Garnett 1). Moses peak was better than Garnett's and his longevity was better as well. Moses was also better than Garnett at one of his best attributes which is rebouding.

So Garnett's main argument is essentially defense. And as you all know I am much more of an offense guy than defense. Aside from Boston (where he was surrounded by other very good defensive players (Rondo, Perkins) and one of the best defensive minds in basketball. Garnett's defense never led to results on the court. Considering all these guys easily trump Garnett in offense (Garnett is the only one who is not a true number 1 option on offense), Garnett's overrated defensive prowess doesn't do it for me.

Official Nomination: Oscar Robertson

[GilmoreFan]

The majority view is KG is a more impactful and valuable player than Kobe Bryant. I realise you don't agree with that, you had Kobe ranked 6th after all (the highest anyone in the nomination process was willing to put to paper by a long way), I can only say you're going to be disappointed when KG in all likelihood beats out Kobe. There's more to measuring an NBA player than counting his accolades.

[Doctor MJ]

I am one of the believers that offense is always more important than defense, even if Russell was the greatest defensive player ever. The point of the game is to score more than the opposing team (defense certainly helps in that regard), but the actual skill of scoring is what allows that to happen. You can hold the opposing team to 60 points, but if your team only scores 59 you still lose.

That's very problematic thinking.

Consider this thought experiment: Take a normal basketball game, but instead of giving points to the offense following a possession, give it to the defense. If the offense didn't make a basket, give the defense 2 points. If they made 1 free throw, give the defense 1 point. If they made a normal FG, defense gets 0. If they made a FG from beyond the arch, deduct one point from the defense.

What changes about who wins the game? Virtually nothing. If 2 teams get the same number of possessions, the same team wins as if we gave points to the offense.

Offense & defense are just two sides of the same coin. There is nothing inherently more important about either side. Now, what makes one side *effectively* more valuable is if you see a bigger gap on one side of the ball than the other.

Do we see a huge gap like that toward offense? No.

More interestingly: What's the most impressive lopsidedness we've ever seen along these lines?

That would be '63-64. In that year the Celtics were 14.1% better on defense than the median team (based on ElGee's efficiency estimates). The best offense was the Royals who were 4.2% better on offense than the median team.

I didn't forget a "1" there. Literally, at their peak, the Celtics defense was so good, it gave an advantage that rendered the gap between good & bad offense essentially trivial.

Also worth noting: What is the best separation from the median in defensive efficiency between '55-56 and now (the data I have) that did not come from Russell's Celtics?

That would be Duncan's Spurs in '03-04 with an 8.9% separation. Get that? Take Russell's Celtics out, and we don't see a massive change in defensive separation from then to now.

[SDChargers#1]

The majority view is KG is a more impactful and valuable player than Kobe Bryant. I realise you don't agree with that, you had Kobe ranked 6th after all (the highest anyone in the nomination process was willing to put to paper by a long way), I can only say you're going to be disappointed when KG in all likelihood beats out Kobe. There's more to measuring an NBA player than counting his accolades.

I disagree, from what I have seen the majority think the opposite, which should be pretty obvious since Kobe is already on the nomination list and Garnett has yet to make it.

As for my ranking Kobe 6th, it is partially from my bias (which I always readily admit, though I like to think I come to my justifications in a legit way). I have Kobe essentially in a dead heat with Duncan and Shaq, so it won't really bother me when they beat him (which I am preparing myself for since people on this site think prime Shaq was god and couldn't be touched even though he would have never won a title that year if it wasn't for Kobe having the best game in the biggest game of the season (game 7 vs Portland)).

But that is all I am going to go into that at this point, as I will wait until a more appropriate time to go into detail.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Frankly, I have Duncan, Malone, Barkley, and Dirk ahead of KG.

Someone is going to have to explain to me how he missed the playoffs 3 straight years in his prime, had numerous 1st round knockouts(since it was brought up in regards to Karl earlier), and 1 title on a historically stacked team, where Pierce was Finals MVP. KG's efficiency nose-dived in the playoffs, and he was extremely un-clutch.

I mean really, KG biggest plus is his defense, and he never even led a Top 5 defense in his prime. It's not like Howard is surrounded by All-D guys down there in Orlando, and he has 3 straight DPOYs.

[SDChargers#1]

I am one of the believers that offense is always more important than defense, even if Russell was the greatest defensive player ever. The point of the game is to score more than the opposing team (defense certainly helps in that regard), but the actual skill of scoring is what allows that to happen. You can hold the opposing team to 60 points, but if your team only scores 59 you still lose.

That's very problematic thinking.

Consider this thought experiment: Take a normal basketball game, but instead of giving points to the offense following a possession, give it to the defense. If the offense didn't make a basket, give the defense 2 points. If they made 1 free throw, give the defense 1 point. If they made a normal FG, defense gets 0. If they made a FG from beyond the arch, deduct one point from the defense.

What changes about who wins the game? Virtually nothing. If 2 teams get the same number of possessions, the same team wins as if we gave points to the offense.

Offense & defense are just two sides of the same coin. There is nothing inherently more important about either side. Now, what makes one side *effectively* more valuable is if you see a bigger gap on one side of the ball than the other.

Do we see a huge gap like that toward offense? No.

More interestingly: What's the most impressive lopsidedness we've ever seen along these lines?

That would be '63-64. In that year the Celtics were 14.1% better on defense than the median team (based on ElGee's efficiency estimates). The best offense was the Royals who were 4.2% better on offense than the median team.

I didn't forget a "1" there. Literally, at their peak, the Celtics defense was so good, it gave an advantage that rendered the gap between good & bad offense essentially trivial.

Also worth noting: What is the best separation from the median in defensive efficiency between '55-56 and now (the data I have) that did not come from Russell's Celtics?

That would be Duncan's Spurs in '03-04 with an 8.9% separation. Get that? Take Russell's Celtics out, and we don't see a massive change in defensive separation from then to now.

Your backward example is flawed. How do you deal with missed 3 pointers? Or and-1s? And why are you giving the defense credit for missed free throws, which literally has nothing to do with defense. And why do people always assume teams will get the same number of possessions, that is rarely how it works.

Also on offense players contribute directly to that outcome by scoring points. On defense you don't get that direct contribution. There are 4 other players on the court affecting defensive schemes. Russell doesn't have the impact if he doesn't have the other guys funneling players towards him.

Now I am not saying that Russell didn't have a huge impact defensively. Obviously he did and is the GOAT defender. My problem with him is his complete lack on the offensive end. He won a title as the 7th scorer...SEVENTH. It is much easier to focus on defense when you don't have to focus at all on offense.

[Baller 24]

Here are my main points for why I feel that way.

-Garnett only made FOUR All NBA 1st teams. For comparison Oscar made 9, West made 10, Moses made 4 (one of my big negatives for him as well), Karl made 11. Those are some pretty substantial differences relative to their peers.

Personally I don't think All-NBA First Teams truly tell the entire story, it's very dependent on team success (where Garnett in Minny had lots of trouble with poor management). Second, also look at the competition relative to their leagues. West and Robertson had absolutely zero competition going against All-NBA First teams.

Havlicek was a forward, Sam Jones wasn't good enough, Hal Greer wasn't good enough. There was a time Earl Monroe and Dave Bing had scoring outbursts where they'd beat out one Oscar, and of course when the flashy Walt Fraizer had his way working with those early 70s Knicks, but overall the decade and time-period was predominately and consistently dominated by West and Oscar. Garnett from the very beginning had competition with Duncan & Webber (both superior rosters, management, and teams, again an award very dominate on impact and team success), then you've got years where McGrady was considered a F, Nowitzki starts his dominant tenure, LeBron James arrives, and Jermaine O'neal had a few strong campaigns with the Pacers.

-Garnett is easily the worst offensive player of the bunch. He has the lowest TS% of all of them, which is even more telling considering he is a big man. I won't even compare him to Oscar, Karl, and West in that regard because they simply blow him out of the water. The reason you can make an argument for him being greater than Moses overall offensively isn't scoring (which obviously Moses is MUCH better than Garnett at), but passing. Moses was a horrendous passer, while Garnett was very good. It helps close the gap.

I'm pretty sure TS% isn't the only valid statistic to measure offense. However, what about his versatility? Remember that Garnett's spent a lot of time at SF, he's not a volume scorer, and he's got a wide array of moves he can work with, being it in the post, mid-range, or playing a point-forward role as a facilitator. Garnett's passing skills go well unknown, he's very possibly right behind Bird when it comes to forwards all-time.

-So although it seems that Garnett is closest to Moses, here is where there biggest differences lie. Moses has 3 MVP awards (Garnett 1). Moses peak was better than Garnett's and his longevity was better as well. Moses was also better than Garnett at one of his best attributes which is rebouding.

Garnett's utter most peak (2003-2005) is statistically more dominant than Moses, and I wouldn't even consider it close. How was Moses longevity better considering Garnett still continues to anchor some of the finest defenses, while being one of the most impactful defendes in the league? Garnett at the age of 34 is similarly continuing to play either at the same level, if not better than Moses (considering Garnett's defensive value is clearly more significant than Moses overall skill, including offense considering he failed miserably with the Hawks).

So Garnett's main argument is essentially defense. And as you all know I am much more of an offense guy than defense. Aside from Boston (where he was surrounded by other very good defensive players (Rondo, Perkins) and one of the best defensive minds in basketball. Garnett's defense never led to results on the court. Considering all these guys easily trump Garnett in offense (Garnett is the only one who is not a true number 1 option on offense), Garnett's overrated defensive prowess doesn't do it for me.

This makes no sense, how did his defense not lead to results? His defensive abilities when on and off the court have shown some statistical values as being off the charts. His defensive statistical value impacted the Celtics enough in '08 to anchor maybe the greatest defensive team ever assembled and win them the championship (easily the best defensive team we've seen in the modern era, possibly the best of the '00s decade). Check Doc MJ's blog about the value of Garnett defensively, he's clearly got the lead in consideration as the best defensive player of the past decade. So I can't understand how he's overrated defensively speaking, when all objetive evidence states the complete opposite. Where was he not the number one option again, he clearly was in Minny? Maybe as of late, but he was clearly the best player on the Celtics in '08 and it isn't even remotely close.

[SDChargers#1]

Frankly, I have Duncan, Malone, Barkley, and Dirk ahead of KG.

Someone is going to have to explain to me how he missed the playoffs 3 straight years in his prime, had numerous 1st round knockouts(since it was brought up in regards to Karl earlier), and 1 title on a historically stacked team, where Pierce was Finals MVP. KG's efficiency nose-dived in the playoffs, and he was extremely un-clutch.

I mean really, KG biggest plus is his defense, and he never even led a Top 5 defense in his prime. It's not like Howard is surrounded by All-D guys down there in Orlando, and he has 3 straight DPOYs.

+1

I still have Garnett slightly above Dirk, but that is the level I have him on. Garnett is simply not at the level of guys like Oscar, West, and the Malones

[Doctor MJ]

Frankly, I have Duncan, Malone, Barkley, and Dirk ahead of KG.

Someone is going to have to explain to me how he missed the playoffs 3 straight years in his prime, had numerous 1st round knockouts(since it was brought up in regards to Karl earlier), and 1 title on a historically stacked team, where Pierce was Finals MVP. KG's efficiency nose-dived in the playoffs, and he was extremely un-clutch.

I mean really, KG biggest plus is his defense, and he never even led a Top 5 defense in his prime. It's not like Howard is surrounded by All-D guys down there in Orlando, and he has 3 straight DPOYs.

We've had some long threads on this recently. Would be good if someone could link them. But to answer your questions:

-How does a superstar have weak team results? Bad teammates, poor team design.

-How does a defensive superstar have weak team defense results? Bad teammates, poor team design.

-Celtics were "historically stacked"? People didn't see them as anything like that before they started playing together. In fact that season really should get answer the first question:

In '06-07, if you had said, "Okay, you're skeptical that Garnett's teammates are THAT bad. If we were to put Garnett to <30 win team, and gave him a great off-ball shooter, and the result was the best team since Jordan, would you then be convinced that Garnett has easily superstar level impact?".

Everyone would have said "Yes of course, but don't be silly. There's no way that could happen." Yet then it actually happened and people let it completely skew their notion of what the Celtic teammates were.

[Fencer reregistered]

That crummy Celtics team Garnett joined didn't just add Garnett and Allen. It also added better health from Pierce, more age from Rondo/Perkins/Tony Allen, Tom Thibodeau, and a bench.

In fairness, it subtracted a few useful players as well. Still, besides swapping Garnett/Jefferson and Allen/WallyWorld, the Celtics upgraded at PG (age), SF (health), C (age), and 6th man (Posey).

House/Tony Allen for West/Tony Allen and Powe/Baby/PJ Brown for Gomes/Kandi weren't downgrades either.

[ElGee]

I did break down Malone's entire playoff career in the first thread. From 88-01, "he" (as in his team) was eliminated 5 times in the first round. The notion that they had a stacked team seems completely fallacious to me -- so much so that I'm actually curious as to how you arrive at that notion -- and their second best player, Stockton, could never provide any lift in the playoffs.

But why does the narrative begin at 88?

Because that's when his top-10 MVP run started. And, IMO, that's when his real worth as a player, in the historical sense, needs to start being talked about. When it ends, I don't care if he goes 0-100000. It doesn't change how he played during his good years.

I pointed out in a recent thread how in the 89 playoffs the Jazz had clearly the advantage from 1-6, with 26 year old Malone having 27 year old Stockton, DPOY Eaton, and was being guarded by a (6-5) SF playing out of position. Part of the failures were due to Stockton being horribly overrated by his modern day fans, and that's something that I'll be talking about later (it was laughable he ranked 25 last time), but Malone has to take some blame too.

It's not a matter of "blame." I wish we could get rid of this way of thinking about the game. Malone himself is not without blemishes in the playoffs. But it's not his fault his team wasn't good enough for them to win without him playing well. Actually, it shouldn't matter at all whether they won or lost. It's about how he played.

And, I have a post tomorrow demonstrating Malone's big statistical drop in the playoffs...but stats don't exist in a vacuum. Derrick Rose was an excellent offensive player this year, despite low TS% numbers. Malone has an Iverson-effect to me -- watch the games -- the dude is carrying a huge offensive load in the playoffs bc who the hell is capable of helping him? He's doing it against good defenses too, totally keying on him.

In some years... in other years he lost to the 87 Warriors, or the 89 Warriors, or the 90 Suns, or the 93 Sonics, etc. Malone wasn't always against great teams when he lost, sometimes he just lost. I think there's a pretty awesome case that if Malone was really as good as some of the guys he's being put ahead of here, he had no business losing to the Blazers or 1 man Hakeem Rockets.

Wait, which Blazers team? The 92 runner-up? Have you watched any of that series recently? If you mean 91 Portland, I suggest re-watching that series. (And what indications are there that 91 Utah should beat beating 91 Portland?) Or the 94 world champion Rockets? Even there, with Malone struggling against Hakeem at teams, they lost the pivot-game 4 80-78 when Malone had the flu and the rest of the Jazz shot 19-51 (37%).

(starts on pg 4 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Yo ... %2C3961158)

Hakeem Olajuwon...made stupid mistakes in the final 30 seconds, each almost costing the Houston Rockets a playoff game...Olajuwon missed a layup he shouldn't have attempted.

[on the final play] Tom Chambers got it in the lane. He lost control, missed a short turnaround, and Houston rebounded, running out the clock. "I had a nice little shot and they fouled me, to put it bluntly," Chambers said.

Are you ever going to explain why you think these Jazz teams were good and Malone was to "blame?"

Moses on the other hand... the guy was a proverbial giant slayer. He had little help in Houston, and in 81 he took what was a pretty weak team to the NBA finals, pushing the Bird Celtics to 6 games, and on the way knocking out the Magic/Kareem Lakers, the Gervin Spurs, etc.

Again, I fundamentally reject this notion that individuals win, so I don't know what you really mean by "Moses was a giant slayer?" He outplayed Kareem in 82? Agree. Guess who outplayed David Robinson and Shaq more than once? Karl Malone.

And, using your logic, Malone beat *insert star of Western Conf team* over the years, and took the Jordan dynastic Bulls to 6, not once, but twice, in two really close series.

What was the year Moses lost to inferior teams like Karl did?

Well when you aren't a top-5 player and driving force behind a 50-60 win team for 14 years, you won't have as many chances to be upset, will you? Tom Brady was Mr. flawless in the playoffs to start, and now, well, he's got blemishes. And as a favorite. And with HFA! *gasp*

I just see a lot of double-standards in how the two Malones are viewed, and I could muster up a guess as to why.

[Baller 24]

Frankly, I have Duncan, Malone, Barkley, and Dirk ahead of KG.

Someone is going to have to explain to me how he missed the playoffs 3 straight years in his prime, had numerous 1st round knockouts(since it was brought up in regards to Karl earlier)

So wait, you penalize Garnett, but you don't penalize Barkley for his first-round knockouts and his horrendous meltdown in '88? what about his horrible meltdown in '95 where the Suns had a 3-1 lead over the Rockets with HCA, and didn't finish it off? Okay, so you knock KG's defense first, then in another argument absolutely rip D. Wade's performance stating in your words that it isn't considered an all-time great finals because of the defense of the Mavericks and how it wasn't elite and handled by Dirk? But then on the other side hit Garnett with it stating that it's essentially not impressive, I'm lost dude.

and 1 title on a historically stacked team, where Pierce was Finals MVP. KG's efficiency nose-dived in the playoffs, and he was extremely un-clutch.

TS% nose-dived by 4% in '08? And all objective evidence points to him being the #1 and best player on the '08 championship team, and I'll say it again, it wasn't remotely close. Gasol in the '08 finals (who is a very underrated player defensively) did a fantastic job limiting his efficiency, just like how he did to all of his opposing PFs in '08: Martin (44%), Boozer (38%), and Duncan (42%)--mind that Bynum had no part of this play-off run. Evidence of the "extremely un-clutch?" please.

I mean really, KG biggest plus is his defense, and he never even led a Top 5 defense in his prime. It's not like Howard is surrounded by All-D guys down there in Orlando, and he has 3 straight DPOYs.

Howard's competition in terms of defense isn't there. Garnett's defensive value has been consistent when you look at the +/- reported in Doc MJ's blog. He's arguably in consideration as the best defensive player throughout the past decade. Again, statistical evidence backs it up.

[GilmoreFan]

Garnett's utter most peak (2003-2005) is statistically more dominant than Moses, and I wouldn't even consider it close. How was Moses longevity better considering Garnett still continues to anchor some of the finest defenses, while being one of the most impactful defendes in the league? Garnett at the age of 34 is similarly continuing to play either at the same level, if not better than Moses (considering Garnett's defensive value is clearly more significant than Moses overall skill, including offense considering he failed miserably with the Hawks).

Moses "failed" with the Hawks? You mean Moses when he was 34 years old with the Hawks? Gee, I wonder why he played worse than when he was young. If you want to look at Moses as a teams main cog on O, the better example is his time with Houston, where he had pitiful help, and took the Rockets to the NBA finals, beating Magic and Kareem, Gervin, and pushing Bird to 6 games. The man averaged 31ppg! To hear his offense toned down in this way is pushing it quite alot...

btw, Elgee, what team to you support?

[Baller 24]

Moses "failed" with the Hawks? You mean Moses when he was 34 years old with the Hawks? Gee, I wonder why he played worse than when he was young.

He was 33, and was still very easily a top 5 center his first season there. There was HIGH hope for that '89 Hawks team, which was pretty loaded with some fantastic players.

[SDChargers#1]

Personally I don't think All-NBA First Teams truly tell the entire story, it's very dependent on team success (where Garnett in Minny had lots of trouble with poor management). Second, also look at the competition relative to their leagues. West and Robertson had absolutely zero competition going against All-NBA First teams.

Havlicek was a forward, Sam Jones wasn't good enough, Hal Greer wasn't good enough. There was a time Earl Monroe and Dave Bing had scoring outbursts where they'd beat out one Oscar, and of course when the flashy Walt Fraizer had his way working with those early 70s Knicks, but overall the decade and time-period was predominately and consistently dominated by West and Oscar. Garnett from the very beginning had competition with Duncan & Webber (both superior rosters, management, and teams, again an award very dominate on impact and team success), then you've got years where McGrady was considered a F, Nowitzki starts his dominant tenure, LeBron James arrives, and Jermaine O'neal had a few strong campaigns with the Pacers.

The point is that Oscar and West were clearly above their peers, it was clear who the best was.

The fact you are even comparing Garnett's contemporaries proves this point. Webber, O'Neal, McGrady. Guy who aren't even top 50 players ever. The fact is that Garnett was simply not far above his peers.

I'm pretty sure TS% isn't the only valid statistic to measure offense. However, what about his versatility? Remember that Garnett's spent a lot of time at SF, he's not a volume scorer, and he's got a wide array of moves he can work with, being it in the post, mid-range, or playing a point-forward role as a facilitator. Garnett's passing skills go well unknown, he's very possibly right behind Bird when it comes to forwards all-time.

No it is just the most valid statistic for measure efficiency, which Garnett was not great at, and the fact that he is a big man hurts that case even more. People throw out the word "volume" scorer like it is a bad word around here. Putting up more points is better than putting up less points, period. If you are putting up more points on better efficiency, it crushes the argument.

Versatility matters when you are comparable scoring wise. However, when the gap is as big as it is in this comparison it doesn't matter much (Shaq is as non versatile as they come, yet no one argues about Garnett being a better scorer than him).

Garnett is a great passer, and I credited that to him in my original post. The problem is you are comparing him to Oscar and West (obviously greater passers, position or not) and Karl Malone (who absolutely throttles KG in comparison to scoring, and isn't a bad passer himself). So his argument when it comes to offense is against Moses because Moses was a bad passer. So the question becomes does an extra 4 assists make up for 8 points per game and 3% TS.

Garnett's utter most peak (2003-2005) is statistically more dominant than Moses, and I wouldn't even consider it close. How was Moses longevity better considering Garnett still continues to anchor some of the finest defenses, while being one of the most impactful defendes in the league? Garnett at the age of 34 is similarly continuing to play either at the same level, if not better than Moses (considering Garnett's defensive value is clearly more significant than Moses overall skill, including offense considering he failed miserably with the Hawks).

I disagree.

Moses Peak: 31 ppg / 15 rpg / 2 apg with 58% TS
Garnett Peak: 24 ppg / 14 rpg / 5 apg with 55% TS

So the 3 apg makes it not even close? Besides I think 3 MVP vs 1 MVP should put to rest the whole not even close during peak argument.

As for longevity.

Moses contributed as franchise type player for 13 seasons (not including ABA years)

Garnett for 11 seasons.

And yes Garnett is still having an impact, but it is once again being overrated. Averaging 15 / 8 over the past 3 season and averaging 65 games played is not franchise level impact.

Who knows maybe Garnett passes Moses eventually for longevity, but I doubt it.

This makes no sense, how did his defense not lead to results? His defensive abilities when on and off the court have shown some statistical values as being off the charts. His defensive statistical value impacted the Celtics enough in '08 to anchor maybe the greatest defensive team ever assembled and win them the championship (easily the best defensive team we've seen in the modern era, possibly the best of the '00s decade). Check Doc MJ's blog about the value of Garnett defensively, he's clearly got the lead in consideration as the best defensive player of the past decade. So I can't understand how he's overrated defensively speaking, when all objetive evidence states the complete opposite. Where was he not the number one option again, he clearly was in Minny? Maybe as of late, but he was clearly the best player on the Celtics in '08 and it isn't even remotely close.

Results are what happened on the floor. The Wolves were simply never a great defensive team. +/- stats are horribly flawed and I take them with a grain of salt. Results, aka, what the team produced matter much more to me. Garnett has gotten results with the Celtics, but it has come at a price. His offense. It is always much easier to make an impact on defense when you don't have to focus on offense (hell just look at Kobe in Beijing in '08, he was the best defensive player on that team and a big reason why was because he didn't have to focus on offense at all (not a perfect example, but you see what I am saying))

I consider Duncan to be a better defensive player than Garnett mainly for this reason. Year end and year out the Spurs were a fantastic defensive team.

As for who was the best on the '08 team. Yes Garnett was the best player, but it is much closer than you are giving credit for. Pierce was scoring more points on higher efficiency and was getting more assists. Garnett was clearly the defensive anchor. Then in the playoffs Garnett was the best player through the first 3 series and then Pierce was the best in the Finals. It was close, much more so than most would like to admit.

Regular season:

Garnett: 19/9/3 59% TS
Pierce: 20/5/5 60% TS

Post season:

Garnett: 20/11/3 54% TS
Pierce: 20/5/5 57%

Compare that to Moses title run.

Regular season:

Moses: 25/15/1 (he really was a bad passer) 58% TS
Erving: 21/7/4 57%

Post season:

Moses: 26/16/1.5 59% TS
Erving: 18/8/3.4 55% TS

Moses was absolutely dominate in his title run (his team also had a record of 12-1). Garnett not so much, and yes I agree he was the best player on his team. But it was certainly close, MUCH closer than you are giving credit for.

[Doctor MJ]

Your backward example is flawed. How do you deal with missed 3 pointers? Or and-1s? And why are you giving the defense credit for missed free throws, which literally has nothing to do with defense. And why do people always assume teams will get the same number of possessions, that is rarely how it works.

SDC, don't overthink this. In simplest terms all I'm saying is that the X points an offense normally gets, and instead give (2-X) points to the defense at the end of the possession. I've done nothing to the game itself, I've just changed who scores the points which makes the defense now the offense. Obviously this doesn't do anything major to change the value of players.

Re: same number of possessions. Think this through. In the vast majority of games, teams will be off by no more than 1 possession. I can't imagine that your rationale behind thinking offense is always more important than defense was somehow dependent on that 1 possession.

Also on offense players contribute directly to that outcome by scoring points. On defense you don't get that direct contribution. There are 4 other players on the court affecting defensive schemes. Russell doesn't have the impact if he doesn't have the other guys funneling players towards him.

Okay we're drilling down more now.

Let me first say that what you are saying doesn't hold true for all sports which was why I responded as I did before. It is a reasonable thing to bring up in basketball though, and I'm inclined to agree that offensive stars typically do have more impact than defensive stars at least in the modern game.

I would point out though that we have some actual measurements of this stuff for about the past decade, and while offensive APMs of stars are typically bigger than defensive APMs, that's not the case for Garnett. In both a study from '03 to '09 and '07 to '11, Garnett's defensive APM surpasses all offensive APMs except Nash and LeBrons (in both studies they are the only two).

Now imagine a more gifted defender in Russell playing in an era that suits his strengths better, and it's easy to see his defensive impact surpassing offensive guys.

Now I am not saying that Russell didn't have a huge impact defensively. Obviously he did and is the GOAT defender. My problem with him is his complete lack on the offensive end. He won a title as the 7th scorer...SEVENTH. It is much easier to focus on defense when you don't have to focus at all on offense.

The thing I want to point out here is the very small difference between great and terrible offenses (and thus defenses). The difference between a great and terrible offense in the NBA has always been about 1 point per 20 possessions. It's hard to stop offenses from getting decent shots off, and it's hard to consistently make shots, and so while people like to fantasize about the Heatles being unstoppable on offense, the reality is they aren't going to deviate strongly from the range everyone else is in.

By that same token, if you're on a team with a really bad offense, it doesn't make sense to think in terms of "Gosh, but imagine how much worse thay'd be without X". People do this all the time when they see Hondo scored a lot of points in a key game, but the offense was inept and Hondo was jacking up shots like crazy. Bottom line: If Hondo hadn't been there, the vast majority of those point still get scored.

And this was the key realization of Russell and the Celtics. They were basically content to let the offense get as bad as it was going to get, realizing it would bottom out but Russell allowed a ceiling on the defense that was comparatively much greater.

So all you say is true, just don't fall into the trap of thinking "Gosh, Russell was lucky to have those offensive scorers who could pick up the slack as he focused ever more on defense." The strategy wasn't based on Auerbach acquiring tremendous scoring talent, it was based on recognizing with the quality of players the NBA has, there's a limit to how bad you can be at scoring.

[An Unbiased Fan]

We've had some long threads on this recently. Would be good if someone could link them. But to answer your questions:

-How does a superstar have weak team results? Bad teammates, poor team design.

But haven't you been arguing team impact in regards to Russell? I'll give KG a pass for 2005, because the Wolves were in the hunt for a spot & played in the West. BUT, there is really no excuse for 2006 & 2007. The Wolves were in the low 30's with wins, and KG was healthy.

Think about this, the 07' Wolves had nearly the same SRS as the 07' Celtics(with an injured Pierce). (-3.16)

Without scorers around him, KG's impact is minimized.

-How does a defensive superstar have weak team defense results? Bad teammates, poor team design.

So how has Dwight led Orlando to top defenses then??? I mean his teammates have never been good defensively, yet the Magic always have a great DRtg.

And again, haven't you been praising Russell for turning around the Celtic's defense almsot singlehandly? Surely KG could have at least made Minny respectable.

-Celtics were "historically stacked"? People didn't see them as anything like that before they started playing together.

The hype surrounding the Big 3 in Boston was HUGE, and they were certainly stacked on a historical scale as we look at who Rondo became. Relative to their era, the Celtics were seriosly stacked. They were 1 game away from the ECF without KG for the entire 2009 playoffs.

In fact that season really should get answer the first question:

In '06-07, if you had said, "Okay, you're skeptical that Garnett's teammates are THAT bad. If we were to put Garnett to <30 win team, and gave him a great off-ball shooter, and the result was the best team since Jordan, would you then be convinced that Garnett has easily superstar level impact?".

Everyone would have said "Yes of course, but don't be silly. There's no way that could happen." Yet then it actually happened and people let it completely skew their notion of what the Celtic teammates were.

The problem with this, is that the Celtics basically added 3 stars in 2008. Pierce played only 47 games in 2007, and they added both KG & Ray to the mix. Along with the emergence of Thibs system, Boston had tremendous year(which everyone expected at the time).

[Dr Positivity]

Official Nomination: Oscar Robertson

I do think Oscar is getting underrated here. I think ORTG/DRTG stats showing he was #1 all the time offensively and last all the time defensively, takes away a lot of the sting of his weak W totals. The guy basically maxed out the PG spot. This guy had GOAT talk up until the 80s which is saying something considering his lack of titles. I slightly prefer Erving and West, but it's pretty surprising to me that it seems like both Karl and Moses Malone and some KG have passed both Oscar and West for a lot of people

[GilmoreFan]

Because that's when his top-10 MVP run started. And, IMO, that's when his real worth as a player, in the historical sense, needs to start being talked about. When it ends, I don't care if he goes 0-100000. It doesn't change how he played during his good years.

Ok, so Karl Malone didn't really break out as a player until he was 25 years old, and we stop the clock at age 37. This is something worth bearing in mind when people talk about his incredible longevity, since it suggests a prime that is not especially long relative to some of the guys he's being compared to.

It's not a matter of "blame." I wish we could get rid of this way of thinking about the game. Malone himself is not without blemishes in the playoffs. But it's not his fault his team wasn't good enough for them to win without him playing well. Actually, it shouldn't matter at all whether they won or lost. It's about how he played.

Look, I sympathise with your point... people need to stop using team performance as a substitute for real analysis, it's one of the most annoying aspects of Kobe homers. However that said, there's a reason people don't think World B.Free was an all-time great, or think Elvin Hayes was overrated. People want to see how that ability translates into wins, how their talent impacts on results. If Malone is really all that, we should see it in his wins more often than not, but it's the other way around. I also think it's pushing to blame his team and not Malone, his team was better, and he had a huge mismatch advantage over the 6 man Warriors, whose C was 6-7, and every other player was smaller still (except the barely played Manute Bol). Heck, Mullin wasn't even an especially good shooter in 89, he shot 230. from the 3pt line in 89, and 125. in the playoffs. Mitch Richmond (rookie) shot a pitiful 188. from the 3pt line that playoffs. No, for me this is just one of a number of factors that confirm what I saw more generally, that Karl Malone isn't quite as good as he's being made out to be, that his peak impact wasn't as big as has been suggested.

Wait, which Blazers team? The 92 runner-up? Have you watched any of that series recently? If you mean 91 Portland, I suggest re-watching that series. (And what indications are there that 91 Utah should beat beating 91 Portland?) Or the 94 world champion Rockets? Even there, with Malone struggling against Hakeem at teams, they lost the pivot-game 4 80-78 when Malone had the flu and the rest of the Jazz shot 19-51 (37%).

The Blazers were a very good team, but it's not like they were stacked with stars here. I think if peak Karl is who some people make him out to be, there's a strong argument they should have won those series. You say "the runner up!!!" like that indicates something especially notable, but they were runner up in 92 because Magic retired, and they were beating teams like the Jazz. Why were they beating the Jazz is the better question here. I mean, the Magic were runners up in 09, the 76ers were runners up in 01... it doesn't tell us alot about their teams, does it. It's like the Rockets, yes, they were the champs in 94... the main reason for that was Hakeem was awesome. He had good role players, but nobody as good as Stockton, and the Jazz still had 20ppg J.Malone, a still solid Bailey, and 25mpg of a solid Eaton in the middle. I mean, look at the 91 and 92 Blazers... the Jazz have the best player between both teams, the 2nd best player, etc. They were less deep, but if Karl Malone is as good as he's supposed to be, I feel he should have done better against these sorts of teams.

Again, I fundamentally reject this notion that individuals win, so I don't know what you really mean by "Moses was a giant slayer?" He outplayed Kareem in 82? Agree. Guess who outplayed David Robinson and Shaq more than once? Karl Malone.

The holistic performance is still more important, that's why Moses is behind Kareem, and Malone behind Shaq (and D.Rob for peak, but not career), but it's worth noting. Karl never carried a team beyond where they were supposed to go like Moses did (or Duncan in 03, of Hakeem in 94, or Rick Barry, or Dr J), he generally underachieved in fact (based on how good he's supposed to be), or met expectations. That's a telling indicator.

[GilmoreFan]

Moses "failed" with the Hawks? You mean Moses when he was 34 years old with the Hawks? Gee, I wonder why he played worse than when he was young.

He was 33, and was still very easily a top 5 center his first season there. There was HIGH hope for that '89 Hawks team, which was pretty loaded with some fantastic players.

The man had 14 years on his resume by that point... it's understandable he'd drop off a bit. I'm much more interested in what he did in Houston to be honest.