RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - #2

[SDChargers#1]

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.

Could I get a link to the stats that state the greatness of this Celtics defense. Because the stats that I have available (points allowed per game and opponents FG%) show that Celtics team be winning championships with the best offense in the league some years and the best defense in others.

[An Unbiased Fan]

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.

I penalize Barkley for a lot of things, he just hasn't been a topic of discussion so far in the project. And 1st round knockouts alone are not the issue, it's the fact that KG also missed the playoffs 3 straight years in his prime. The combination of the two speaks very loudly about his team impact.

As for defense. My point was that Prime KG never led Minny to a Top 5 defense. I have also posted in other threads how Minny's interior D was weak even with KG anchoring it. I don't feel KG is on TD, Dwight, Russ, Hakeem, etc., level as a defensive anchor. He was more a lockdown defender ala MJ or Kobe, though he has more versatility.

I'm not sure how my point about the 06 Mavs being a weak defensive team is confusing. I never would claim that Dirk is a great defender, his strength is on the offensive end. KG's strength is on D, so that's why I'm dissecting it.

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.

Are we forgetting the 08' playoffs, and how Boston was going to 7 games in the earlier rounds. Pierce is the guy who saved their title. KG has historically big dropoffs offensively in the post-season. More so, than the vast majority of stars.

Also, are you realy suggesting that 08' Gasol's defense is what caused KG to stutter, because that would be somewhat worse for KG. I mean, 08 Gasol was soft, and not very good on D. He even admits this himself, and that's why he improved over the summer.

And yes, KG is a great man defender, but I thought we were discussing the playoffs? Why post regular season numbers?

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.

I don't value +/- stats at all in player comaprisons. That's a team rotation stat.

And Howard's impact is clear as day, just like TD's was, and Big Ben's was, and Zo's was. KG however, not so much. Why is Dwight able to make Orlando a top defensive team, but not Prime KG in Minny?

[Doormatt]

If you make an exception for the ballboy who suddenly wants to join at voting time to prop Shaq, how are you going to refuse the ballboy/s who want to suddenly join to prop Kobe and Lebron? The guy had plenty of time to join, I think you want the late joiners to be people who are know alot and have a high rep on the boards as being objective and reasonable, not people who have obviously joined to prop their guy.

Anyway, not my problem. Doormatt, what team do you support? I've been asking so I can add the details to the list...

Well I was just saying people can participate, but their votes dont have to count. If people want to write up why they think a certain player was (blank) all time, then they should be able to. Its up to whoever is running this thing to count their vote/nomination. Regardless of post count, if somebody gives a good argument as to why a certain player should be ranked somewhere, then that should be honored in the thread as positive discussion. just my 2 cents.

And I'm a lakers fan.

[Dr Positivity]

If you look at those stats, you'll see the Wolves also punch out way better offensively than they should've - top 6-8 all the time with KG + turds. I personally think the system and teammates around KG was offense over defense - and he carried them from 30 to 15 defensively in the same way Iverson carried the Sixers from 30 to 15 offensively (the +/- stats back this up big time btw)

Stan Van Gundy OTOH is clearly a defensive disciplinary coach.

I think the important part is Garnett winning 50 games consistently with utter garbage which shows impact

[Warspite]

Wilt Chamberlain Wilt was asked why KAJ wasnt the GOAT "Because he wasnt better than me."
Moses Malone


Moses Malone was considered the best player in the NBA when KAJ, Bird and Magic were entering and leaving there prime. Hes the undisputed best player during his peak. His impact from being GOAT offensive rebounder simply cant be truely appreciated.

He has more accolades than anyone still on the board.

[Baller 24]

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.

How was he not? None of those players are nowhere close in MVP win-shares, where Garnett ranks 14th for his entire career (including Oscar and Jerry). A process that's regarded higher than All-NBA Teams.

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.

You're not getting my point, Garnett's style and game isn't built around scoring a large volume of points, that's my point exactly. And if you're going to discredit Garnett so harshly on efficiency, than why not do the same for Tim Duncan? You can make arguments that he's even less efficient compared to Garnett. Why not just throw him too behind Moses the great. I know TS% is the most valid statistic to measure efficiency, however you're stating as it's the ONLY statistic that matters offensively. When in reality, it really isn't the case, considering facilitating an offense is just as dominant of a force, check '04.

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).

I'm stating that Garnett's game was versatile to where he had many minutes where he played SF. My point being, he wasn't classified as being a true post big-man his entire career. But that point is moot, considering Duncan, the greatest PF of all-time is going to be voted before Moses Malone, and his efficiency is worse than Garnett.

Oh and just for comparison, why are we arguing about efficiency with Moses v Garnett, considering the separation isn't that significant, except for Moses' first two as a basketball player.

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.

But then on the other hand you don't discredit the defense of Moses and Karl, but you absolutely discredit Garnett on defense, stating it isn't a valid force in comparison? What I'm trying to state is that if you're going to knock Garnett's offensive abilities in comparison to Karl and Moses, the same can be said defensive abilities, where Garnett blossoms.

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.

Oh, it's not just 3 APG, it's value is MUCH more than that.

AST% KG: 24.4
AST% Moses: 6.9

KG: PER: 29.4
Moses PER: 26.8

And then you add in the case defensively, and thats' where it's a blow out IMO.

As for longevity.

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

Where did you count that? Because if you've read over his history, the Philly meltdown in '84 looked very good at all, and after that it was more the downfall of the 76ers, trying to focus more around Barkley, than Malone, who got traded. He wasn't a franchise player with the Bullets, and not anywhere close with the Hawks, considering 'Nique in the midst of his prime was playing there.

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.

Umm, averaging 15/8 has really nothing to do with it. Statistically speaking, defensively the Celtics have a critical drop when Garnett isn't on the floor. And in terms of +/- he blows everyone out of the water on defense, still at the age of 34, his abilities as a defender have been strictly very impactful.

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))

Not in '08, he had it rolling from all angles. He's still a solid passer, and I think it's more of a matter of just watching him on the floor, the defensive is clearly more stagnant, look at the differences in the playoff runs between '09 and '10. With him on the floor they clearly looked a more scarier, and took down some pretty good teams in the eastern conference, led by three of the top five players in the league.

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%

Yeah, but then let's look more in depth, since you love to use accolades:
MVP RANK
Pierce: 14th
Garnett: 3rd

All-NBA Teams
Garnett: All-NBA First/Defense
Pierce: All-NBA Third

PER KG: 25.3
PER Pierce: 19.6

While also consider that in the finals, the Lakers had literally no depth guarding Pierce, using Walton to Vlad, which worked out horribly. Garnett was faced by Gasol who limited Martin to 44%, Boozer for 38%, and Duncan to 42% throughout his fantastic playoff stretch, without Bynum.

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.

How so? You do know that Moses Malone was coming onto a team where Erving was a top 5-6 player in the league correct? Removed two seasons prior to his MVP season, while also again lets go to the accolades too.

MVP RANK
Moses: 1st
Erving: 5th

All-NBA Teams:
Moses: All-NBA First
Erving: All-NBA First

It's actually the other way around, considering Pierce never in his career has had the same kind of impact, level of play, or superstardom of Erving.

[GilmoreFan]

KG's support casts are often understated. I have him at 14 overall bear in mind, but aside from 2003 and 2007, his support casts varied from "passable" to "excellent", and his results with those casts are woefully inferior to what Lebron and Duncan have been able to produce with far less help.

We're now up to 8 Laker fans so far (the next highest fanbase is 3 voters). I can't wait to hear what the excuse is going to be afterwards.

[Baller 24]

I penalize Barkley for a lot of things, he just hasn't been a topic of discussion so far in the project. And 1st round knockouts alone are not the issue, it's the fact that KG also missed the playoffs 3 straight years in his prime. The combination of the two speaks very loudly about his team impact.

Wait, I thought an active roster consisted of 11 other players too? '04-'05 critical players from the successful season before were injured, in '06 and '07 it was all just very poor management. They traded and added pure trash to the roster which at one point consisted of Ricky Davis, Marco Jaric, Mark Blount, Mike James, and Rashad McCants, all of whom were out of the league 2 seasons after or beginning.

As for defense. My point was that Prime KG never led Minny to a Top 5 defense. I have also posted in other threads how Minny's interior D was weak even with KG anchoring it. I don't feel KG is on TD, Dwight, Russ, Hakeem, etc., level as a defensive anchor. He was more a lockdown defender ala MJ or Kobe, though he has more versatility.

Ehh, DR is very strictly relient on team defense, even if Patrick O'Bryant isn't a part of the team defense in any scheme, the statistic itself can make him look like a better defender than Dwight Howard if he's playing on a better defensive team. Yet we have conflicting issues here right? +/- has Garnett's value triumphing everyone this past decade, while Bryant's in the near bottom?

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.

Are we forgetting the 08' playoffs, and how Boston was going to 7 games in the earlier rounds. Pierce is the guy who saved their title. KG has historically big dropoffs offensively in the post-season. More so, than the vast majority of stars.

Also, are you realy suggesting that 08' Gasol's defense is what caused KG to stutter, because that would be somewhat worse for KG. I mean, 08 Gasol was soft, and not very good on D. He even admits this himself, and that's why he improved over the summer.

Uhh..I mean he limited the greatest power forward of all-time in Tim Duncan in 2 back to back games where he shot under 38% where it was a series clinching effort. He did the same thing to Boozer where he limited him to 38% overall for an entire series, I don't know where to stop, Garnett was at 44%, but Gasol played very good defense, and this at the time without Bynum. Unless you're suggesting Kobe Bryant anchored the defense in the post limiting all of their numbers.

And Howard's impact is clear as day, just like TD's was, and Big Ben's was, and Zo's was. KG however, not so much. Why is Dwight able to make Orlando a top defensive team, but not Prime KG in Minny?

Defensive schemes have to do with it very well too, the Van Gundy family does it very well, Pop, Larry Brown, Rick Carslie (Pacers & Pistons), Pat Riley (90s Knicks) and KG with Tibs anchored statistically arguably the greatest defensive team in the history of the league.

[GilmoreFan]

If anyone is wondering, Kareem currently leads 11-8, with Wilt well behind on 1.

Nomination is tied between Moses and Karl, 5 each, followed by J.West on 4, KG and Oscar on 2 and Lebron on 1. We're almost at the stage in the voting where things will get really interesting.

[ElGee]

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.

That's categorically false, and I've explained it in detail.

If Malone is really all that, we should see it in his wins more often than not, but it's the other way around.

???? How would we see it in wins, more than, you know, the consistent wins of his teams? Try and view the Jazz as something less than a 70-win team and Malone as less than peak Michael Jordan.

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.

How is it a telling indicator?

Look, if you think peak Malone was never really a top-5 basketball guy, I don't know what to say. The reasons you're presenting are correlative and specious, at best. And frankly, I think you're viewing the guy with totally different expectations if you honestly think the length of his quality years is comparable to the guys he's being compared to.

[GilmoreFan]

You seem to have ignored quite alot of my analysis there. Like I said, the differences between us here are marginal. I think Karl Malone is the 13th best player of all-time, so clearly I think he was a top 5 player, I just think his peak is being oversold here. Quite a few guys he's passing due to longevity (like D.Rob). Our views of Malone are very similar.

While we're at it, could you tell me which team you support, so I can add it to the main page?

[Optimism Prime]

Christ almighty, GilmoreFan. I think he's seen the question all 18 times you've asked. Give it a rest.

[GilmoreFan]

I have no way of knowing if he's seen it the (two or three) times I've asked. That's why I'm asking (politely I might add).

[drza]

A few thoughts on Kareem vs Russell:

1) How to value defense? It's interesting to see the way that different folks value and handle defense. Some believe outright that it just isn't as important as offense. Some break the game into component parts and want to give letter grades to describe different components. Some look at team results and not much else. Some look at the box scores. Some try to focus on individual components of defense (i.e. shot-blocking, range, etc.) and use that to describe how important a defender might be.

While there is value in many of these approaches, in a macro comparison like this I think most of them miss the point. To me, the point of this is to try to determine just how much impact an individual had on the court overall. Saying that Russell was an A+ on defense while Kareem was a B doesn't, in my view, convey even remotely the depths of their impact. The entire way that those Championship Celtics operated was built upon their defense. This is as a team. None of their offensive exploits mattered a whit, without having that Russell-led defense as a backbone. You can argue that without Russell they may have still been a reasonable team, and you may be right, but there was zero probability that they contend for a championship without that defense.

In other words, we're not talking gradations here. Like, for example, if you took Kareem's defense away from his teams, the team would maybe downgrade defensively by some percentage but if everyone else lifted their play they could still hope to compete (in this hypothetical they're keeping Kareem's offense, by the way). But, on the other hand, if you took Russell's defense away from his team, there was NO HOPE that they could win a title. It simply was never going to happen. His individual defense made a sea-change difference to the way that his team was able to play. And in trying to frame the story around how defense compares to offense or saying that Russell's defense was a letter grade higher than Kareem's, I think you vastly miss that point.

2) Defense is additive. I've seen many posters, even posters I respect, saying that offense is more practically important than defense because the offense is the initiator and the defense the reactor. And that because the offense can plan what it wants to do, it can find ways to attack the defense at it's weakest points while avoiding strengths, which thus gives offense an inherent advantage in their battle. I disagree with a lot of this sentiment, but at this moment that's not the point I care to argue, so suppose I stipulate that this position has merit.

The opposite side of the coin is that a large part of what we consider dominant offense derives from what a player can do with the ball. It thus requires that said person HAVE the ball, or that the offense be configured in such ways that they can GET the ball in preferred locations and situations. But the problem with that is, offensive talent isn't necessarily additive. A truly dominant offensive force can come in and change a team by shaping the offense in his image and causing the others to follow his lead, and sometimes this is for the best, but what happens if there are other strong offensive pieces already in place that aren't optimized or necessarily optimizable to fit around the new engine? We saw some of that in Miami this year, or perhaps with Dirk and Nash in Dallas. Multiple huge offensive talents can lead to a great offense just on pure talent, but their unit doesn't always add up to the sum of their individual offensive talents.

Defense is another animal, though. Because almost regardless of the team in place, a dominant defender can come in and make his fullest impact without in any way hindering his teammates from making their own max impact. If the team has 4 garbage defenders, the dominant guy comes in and as an individual makes a huge difference. If a team has 4 outstanding defenders, the dominant guy comes in and can still make a huge difference. In the first example maybe the defense goes from last to middle of the pack, and in the second maybe from 10th to 1st, but either way the individual impact is the same. Because defense is an off-the-ball phenomena, it can be additive.

To me, this is an overlooked part of things to consider when looking at individual greatness. Doc MJ and I mentioned it briefly a few months ago in a LeBron thread: part of a player's greatness, IMO, is the ability to have that greatness transfer to every situation. Some look at the ability to fit in and automatically make any team better as something more worthy of a side-kick than a main option, but I disagree vehemently. I WANT my best player to be able to make his fullest impact no matter what the circumstances. And I think this is another area in which I value Russell more than Kareem. I've seen folks posit that Russell couldn't do more on offense if the situation warranted it, but we don't know that. All we know is that Russell was able to have maximum impact on every team that he played on, that he defined the way that they played, and that he played his role to such a high level that there was never any need for him to try to be something else. Kareem, on the other hand, wasn't always playing quite as irreplaceable a part on his teams as Russell was on his. Remember, we're talking degrees of separation between some of the best ever, so I'm not playing down what Kareem was. But he just didn't have as consistent, as huge amount of an impact on the court as Russell did. And whether that impact was offense, defense, or intangible doesn't really matter so much to me...just that the impact was there.

[GilmoreFan]

You're oversimplifying and generalising on this defence v.s offence analysis. If a player has good D, but sucks on O, he will hurt the team because they're playing 4 on 5 on offense. To say good D is additive ignores that. Michael Curry is a good example, or Bruce Bowen in almost any system that doesn't have Tim Duncan (and even then, he still hurts you alot). Many other examples stick out. Shane Battier is good on D, and above average on O, yet he is clearly an inferior player to Carmelo Anthony or Amare by a long margin, both of whom are very ordinary defenders (arguably terrible). Nash is another good example, reasonably bad on D, but what does it mean to his holistic value to a team? Very little.

Defense is important, but it doesn't get a special value that makes it more valuable than offense per se. It depends on the player. There is nothing more annoying than seeing middling role players get pumped up beyond their value with "but he was good on D", like that makes him a better player than he was.

[drza]

Actually, the crux of my point is that "longevity" isn't just a span of goodness. (eg Jack Nicklaus winning majors 24 years apart.) What actually happens IN that span is the essence of it, if one cares about how much a player gives you over his career. (That's the focus of my criteria, is it not yours or everyone else's?)

All MVP's aren't the same. Nor are all-nba teams. Therefore, KG giving me 2, 3, 4, 6 extra years as an all-star piece is BARELY shrinking the longevity gap between him and Malone, because Malone's extra seasons were so close to his best seasons...over and over...

I've already outlined comparative players, and have yet to hear it refuted. I really don't understand what's happening here; maybe people just think Malone wasn't top-5 in each of these individual seasons. That's cool. But I'm guessing there's a disconnect between how people value him and what he provided over his career. He's actually very similar to KAJ in many ways ITO of evaluating career impact.

I understood your point before, but I'm not sure that you're quite getting what I was saying. Or maybe you do, but just don't agree. Either way, especially while I'm already on my defensive soap box, let me try again to clarify.

My point w.r.t. Malone and KG is that you're no longer talking about longevity alone, you're having to make a value judgment as well. To my way of thinking, KG's 13 years from 1999 - 2011 match up well, longevity-wise, with Malone's 14 years from 1988 - 2001. Where you are rebutting me is on the question of VALUE (or QUALITY, as it were). Your stance seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Malone in his 14 years was better than the 2000 KG that went 2nd in the MVP vote or the Celtics version of KG that still measures out at the very top of the league in the APM measures. That there was a period in that 13 years where KG was comparable to Malone, but that at the edges of the period Kg has been "just" an All Star piece and not as good as Malone.

But if I'm correct in your stance, in order for me to rebut it I have to frame an argument about how good KG is vs how good Malone is in a given year, NOT an argument about how long they did it. You feel where I'm coming from? It's a different type of discussion. In fact, let's get into it a bit. And let's start at the end.

Garnett, for the last three years, has been a 15 and 8 player. Meanwhile, in Malone's years 11 - 13 of that stretch, he was closer to 25 and 10. I absolutely get that, and for many the comp ends there. But to me, along the same lines as what we've been talking about with Russell, you shouldn't even start with offense when describing Celtic KG. Instead, for Celtics KG, defense is exactly where it begins. What made late-Malone great is that he was still one of the best offensive players in the league, capable of anchoring and leading his team on that front. But what makes late-KG great is that he is still one of the best defensive players in the league, capable of anchoring and leading his team on that front. In his time in Boston KG has been the best defensive player in the league, even factoring in for his post-injury difficulties in 2010.

Here's a blog post written in May of 2010, comparing the 2010 Celtics through 14 postseason games with the 2009 Celtics (who played a total of 14 games before elimination). http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/Diffe ... BD2074.htm . The post points out that, individually, in 2010 the 4-some of Rondo, Pierce, Allen and KG had almost the exact same box-score numbers of the 2009 Rondo/Pierce/Allen/Baby Davis combo. But that the biggest difference between why the '09 Celtics were out after 14 games while the '10 Celtics were then 11 - 3 in the postseason, was the defense, which looked like this:

'08 Celtics Defense: 89 ppg allowed, 43% FG, 19 apg, 14 TOs

'09 Celtics Defense: 102 ppg allowed, 45% FG, 20 apg, 14 TOs

'10 Celtics Defense: 90 ppg allowed, 43% FG, 17 apg, 17 TOs

I would argue that in his time in Boston, KG's defensive impact has been as impressive as Malone's offensive impact over the last 4 years of his "All NBA" stretch. And I wouldn't just argue it anecdotally, I would say that this is the biggest reason that KG DOES measure out in a tie for 2nd most impactful NBA player of the last 4 years according to APM along with several other names (Nash, Dirk, Howard, Paul and Wade) that by accolade and acclaim have been considered among the very best in the game. Thus, I don't see these last few years as "just All Star" years for KG. No, he's still right there at the top of the league in impact, just doing it in a way that doesn't capture the eye. Again, I grant you that his minutes are down and that he missed the end of 2009 injured, which counts against a machine like Malone. So, say, give KG credit for 12 stud years to Malone's 14. Still a slight longevity advantage for Malone. But again, the advantage is getting slight. In my view, longevity-wise, if there's no lockout and KG does play a couple more years at the level of last year the Malone longevity argument won't really hold much weight for me anymore.

[drza]

You're oversimplifying and generalising on this defence v.s offence analysis. If a player has good D, but sucks on O, he will hurt the team because they're playing 4 on 5 on offense. To say good D is additive ignores that. Michael Curry is a good example, or Bruce Bowen in almost any system that doesn't have Tim Duncan (and even then, he still hurts you alot). Many other examples stick out. Shane Battier is good on D, and above average on O, yet he is clearly an inferior player to Carmelo Anthony or Amare by a long margin, both of whom are very ordinary defenders (arguably terrible). Nash is another good example, reasonably bad on D, but what does it mean to his holistic value to a team? Very little.

Defense is important, but it doesn't get a special value that makes it more valuable than offense per se. It depends on the player. There is nothing more annoying than seeing middling role players get pumped up beyond their value with "but he was good on D", like that makes him a better player than he was.

Context is everything. Note that you have to be comparing players of similar value for it to make sense. No one that ever lived would say that Michael Curry is as good at defense as Carmelo Anthony at offense. Or that Bruce Bowen has the same defensive impact as Steve Nash has on an offense.

Also, I never said that defense is inherently more important than offense (at least, I don't think I did). What I was trying to say is the exact opposite...that offense is also not inherently more important than defense. That essentially, what I'm looking to evaluate here is overall impact. I could care less whether that impact is on offense, defense, intangibles, or some combo of all of the above. And that those that would say that defense is less important and shouldn't be valued as highly as offense, or that those who want to compartmentalize the game and grade individual components without looking at the whole are missing the point.

[SDChargers#1]

So I was doing a little research and found some numbers that I found interesting.

Russell faced Wilt 142 times in his career. In those games Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg / 28.7 rpg while Russell averaged 14.5 ppg / 23.7 rpg.

If these numbers are true (the site I got it from didn't have any sources, but I saw a couple other sites that backed it up as well), then how can people possibly say that Russell didn't have better teammates than Wilt?

Sure Russell slowed Wilt down and that is very impressive, but Wilt clearly outplayed him, but Russell's teams would outplay Wilt's.

[lorak]

Robinson's prime doesn't last too long, and has been outplayed by Malone head to head in a playoff series.

I don't agree with that.
They played three series against each other and only in one (1994) Malone outplayed Robinson, but in that series (1994) he was guarded by Rodman. In other two (1996 and 1998) when Robinson (in 1998 with Perdue) was guarding him Malone didn't outplayed him.

Code: Select all


1994   KM   DR
PPG   29.3   20.0
TS%   56.1   47.1
RPG   12.3   10.0

1996   KM   DR
PPG   25.0   19.3
TS%   49.3   52.6
RPG   9.3   9.0

1998   KM   DR
PPG   24.6   18.8
TS%   46.3   47.7
RPG   10.0   12.6


Sure, Karl still scored more points, but his efficiency was really bad when Robinson guarded him and DRob was overall better on defensive end, so yeah, in 1994 Malone outplayed Robinson (but we have to remember that Rodman guarded Karl), but in 1996 and 1998 their overall production was similar.


My vote: Russell
KAJ is overrated defensively, he missed playoffs two times during his prime (!), was destroyed by Nate Thurmond (few series with FG% around 43 in his PRIME! That's awful for a player who is supposed to be unstoppable offensive weapon) have some disappointing losses in playoffs, while Russell lost only two times when in both cases he was injured. I think that KAJ wasn't as good as his box score stats indicate, while Russell is the opposite - his team results, defense wise and overall, confirms that.

Nomination:
Karl Malone - he played too long on very high level and that's worth more than Moses great peak.

[lorak]

I mean, if GOAT-level offensive impact is the standard, how does third-best offense in history sound? That's where the 71 Bucks ranked, according to that link you just posted, and I'm sure you can agree that there was a lot more going on there than just still-great-but-obviously-past-his-prime Oscar Robertson.

He was past his prime as a scorer, but as playmaker he still was great. I don't know if people realize that Roberston as a playmaker was as good as Magic. Different styles, of course, but very similar impact.