RealGM Top 100 List #10

[An Unbiased Fan]

A comparison of the stats for the first 15 seasons of Bryant, Karl and Moses Malone, Garnett and Erving. The playoff minutes are weighted twice as much as the regular season minutes.

Code: Select all

Name            PER   WS/48   VOR
Karl Malone    23.9   0.198  1.80
Julius Erving  23.5   0.192  1.75
Kevin Garnett  23.4   0.185  1.71
Kobe Bryant    23.2   0.179  1.67
Moses Malone   22.5   0.181  1.66

Numbers are based upon this: http://bkref.com/tiny/n5f9U VOR is value over average replacement (simple (PER/15+WS48/0.099)/2). A higher value represents a higher boxscore metric here. As we can see Karl Malone takes that, then we get Erving, Garnett and Moses Malone as the last. Throughout 15 seasons we get the highest value for Karl Malone!
We know that Garnett had a higher impact on defense, which is not good represented in boxscore metrics. He still beats out Bryant in an offensive based metric, a metric which gives huge weight to shot creation, the biggest strength of Bryant. Overall we can easily add the bigger defensive impact for Garnett and to a smaller degree for Karl Malone here.

In the thread about Erving vs. Bryant I showed that the stats for Erving in the ABA are legit. Not counting those is making a mistake unless you didn't count Kareem Abdul-Jabbars stats during the ABA years either. Erving wasn't a defensive great, but he was also not a liability. In fact due to his higher defensive rebounding we can assume that he had at least average impact on defense. We know for Bryant that his defensive impact was never as big as his fans want to believe. Bryant might be one of the best 1on1 defender in the game on the SG position, but that doesn't make him per se a big contributer to a better team defense. Especially for his best statistical years on offense we saw him not improving the defense over an average replacement. Someone made the point that Moses Malone didn't have the impact his boxscore metrics suggest. No idea, but so far I had always the impression he pretty much had such an impact. Would be nice to learn more about it, but I don't consider Moses Malone right now for the #10.

Additional to all that we know that all of those players except of Kobe Bryant are giving me more than 15 seasons. Thus they all have a longevity edge over Bryant. Especially Karl and Moses Malone. Malone has the best numbers, and the playoff elimination games (see Elgee!) are showing that his shortcomings are overblown. Thus I will go with Karl Malone here.

Vote: Karl Malone

Nomination: David Robinson

One has to wonder why you didn't pick Dirk over Bird using this criteria. After all.....

Regular Season:
Dirk = 23.7 PER, 0.214 WS/48
Bird = 23.5 PER, 0.203 WS/48

Playoffs:
Dirk = 24.7 PER, 0.207 WS/48
Bird = 21.4 PER, 0.173 WS/48


Also, the ABA was a different league. Dr. J was playing around 105-110 Pace, while Kobe was at 90-95. The NBA of the 00's is WAY ahead talent-wise compared to a diluted ABA.

[drza]

Take Home: Let's step away from the stats for a moment and consider what that means. We know that rings and accolades are hugely impacted by the quality of a player's team (including coach, teammates, front office, etc). But in every way that has been attempted to quantify how well an individual player performs, Garnett universally measures better than Kobe. In the box scores, which are the more traditional ways that people try to characterize individual dominance, KG measured as slightly better than Kobe over the decade surrounding their primes. And in the +/- stats, which are the developing ways that we have to estimate how much an individual CONTRIBUTES to winning (letting us look at team impact, which is vital, without being completely hamstrung by teammate quality), Garnett measured as comfortably better than Bryant, by a larger margin than even the box scores would have indicated.

I'm not sure how KG had the advantage in box score stats, when Kobe had a higher RS and playoff PER. WS/48 is virtually even too. Kobe's scoring efficiency as a guard is better than KG's in the regualr season, and MUCH better in the playoffs. So it would seem that Bryant actually has the edge here, when you consider playoff performance.

Also, +/- stats are heavily dependent on team system, roster, depth, and an assortment of other factors. This stat is more about who's msot indispensible to a roster, rather than who's better. Nevermind the fact that +/- numbers are volatile, and very incomplete outside of a narrow span of years.

For example, who's to say DRob's +/- stats don't beat out KG's? DRob has a simliar cast,yet anchored better defenses, and had more RS success.

Re: PER and WS. As I said before, I was going off the decade reviews. Hollinger (PER creator) ranked KG just behind Duncan for the decade, and in win shares for the decade KG was I believe second to Dirk. As I pointed out in the original post you snipped, in PER and WS KG and Kobe are close either way. In the other 2 box score stats KG was leading by a larger margin. And in the non-boxscore +/- stats, KG is further ahead still.

Re: +/-: I've seen you make that team dependence claim for +/- stats before, but never seen you really back it. Yes, raw +/- is heavily dependent on the factors you name. But the whole point of multi-year APM calculations is to address those very points, even beyond the "adjusted" part of APM which also mathematically adjust for many of the issues you name. Over 5 or 6 years, we get to see players in a variety of situations with a plethora of teammates, which allows us to really hone in on how much of the effect is the individual player. Thus, your protests have been addressed, and Garnett still shows a much larger impact than Kobe.

Re: DRob vs KG. That's a different debate. I'm glad to have it when the time comes, but either way it's irrelevant to KG vs Kobe, which can be more directly compared since they were in the same generation with the same stats available.

[fatal9]

Certainly 1992, in which he again bordered on spectacular in finally losing to Portland in the WCF. The key in the series was an OT loss in G5, but Malone made a bunch of key plays down the stretch of regulation to keep Utah in it.

I've seen this game/series. Malone was amazing in the second half, very unlike him to score that much while creating everything himself. Porter was shooting lights out, Stockton could have played him tighter but he was being run through a million screens and Porter wouldn't miss at all (dropped 41 pts on 102 TS%, then a game later 34 pts on 80 TS%).

I don't quite view longevity with the same weight as others. Peak and playoff performances matter a bit more. I have trouble putting him over Barkley for that reason. I'll also take at least four of Kobe's best playoff runs over any of Malone's best. Malone is just a really overrated scorer to me. Best example of how you can have a higher scoring average on comparable efficiency, but not actually BE a better scorer (say comparatively vs. Dirk). That's a reason why we see so many failures from him down the stretch of games. When it came to "winning time", when buckets aren't available within the flow of the game/defense is tighter and you need to ask your star to get you baskets and win the game (unless you want his feeble fadeaway from the post), to me he wasn't as good as his scoring average would suggest (same with a guy like D-Rob).

[FJS]

I included longevity in that decision

The gap isn't huge. Both guys had two years before they make an All-NBA team, then Karl's 88 to 98 is 11 years. KG's 99 to 08 is 10 years. I think most of us care about the prime period here. But for the rest, the two years before that and two years after (10 and 11 for KG, not 09 and 10) are roughly similar. Karl's difference essentially comes down to 01-03, where I don't think he had the gas to made a title run anyways, and an extra prime season. So yes I'd rather have KG's entire body of work

Not Really,
Karl have some years not included as "prime" wich would be prime for 90% of NBA players.
By 86-87 he was a 21.4 ppg, 10.4 rpg
Then you say that Malone's prime finished in 98... but I think that 00 still was a great year to be considered as prime. He posted 25.5 ppg and 9.5 rpg.
Then he had 3 years with 23.2, 22.4 and 20.6 ppg with 8 rpg.

Garnett has scored more than 23.2 ppg one time in his carreer. So, saying KG prime and Malone prime lasted same years, or at least saying the longetivity is not a difference... I don't think so.
Malone was a top 5 player in the league for years. Garnett was not.

[mysticbb]

One has to wonder why you didn't pick Dirk over Bird using this criteria. After all.

Not really, I value Bird's impact in a way I see it for Steve Nash for example. The value of an assist is not really good included, especially for players going with risky passes and using them to have their teammates making shots in their comfort zone. Players like Bird or Nash are getting underrated by boxscore metrics like that. Thus I suspect Bird's prime being higher in terms of impact while his efficiency numbers are basically equal.

Fun fact: Nowitzki might have a case being in the Top 15 right after Garnett and Bryant are in.

Also, the ABA was a different league. Dr. J was playing around 105-110 Pace, while Kobe was at 90-95. The NBA of the 00's is WAY ahead talent-wise compared to a diluted ABA.

I used pace adjusted numbers to demonstrate that. And spare me the stuff about "diluted", each player has to compete against his peers, he can't pick different opponents. And I wrote that before in a thread about this project that we can go through the years and see players perform in supposed to be "tougher" years as good as in previous years. We can go from Mikan to James today and will always find players playing against stars from the previous era and performing just as well. Nowitzki, Bryant, Garnett and Duncan are a good example for this. All played rather similar in the years before 2004/05 and after that. And we can see how O'Neal performed in the early 00's and that he performed just as well in the mid 90's. We know that Jordan performed well in the mid to late 90's while he was also great in the late 80's, Magic was great in 1996 too, and also in the early 80's like Bird, Erving or Moses Malone. Kareem performed well in the early 80's and in the 70's as well and so on ... The differences in eras are overblown despite different rules and whatever. Good players can adjust and they adjusted, we saw it. Thus we should stop thinking about how to prop up the favorite player by introducing a weird subjective era adjustment.

[drza]

I want to hear some KG vs Karl arguments too. Most likely it will come next thread. Battle for the 2nd best PF of all time.

If you ask me, I can't really make the edge definitive other than asking who would I rather have, and that's Garnett

Ummm, I don't get it. At their peak, who would I rather have? KG. I'd also rather have Bill Walton, but he ain't going here. Kicks at the can are what this is all about, no? Malone's combined body of work crushes the other guys, that's why, even with KG having a better peak (and Dr. J), Malone is well ahead.

Or are you saying for career you think KG gives you a better chance to win titles?

The KG and Walton argument point is over-exaggerated to the extreme. We've touched on this before, but I don't agree with your evaluation. As I pointed out before, I'd pit Garnett's '99 - '11 stretch up against Malone's '88 - '01 any day in terms of quality and quantity. Give Malone a small edge in longevity if you want, but at this point we're speaking of a marginal difference in longevity at best in Malone's favor. KG had an injury at the end of 2009 that lingered into 2010 and diminished him, which plays into Karl's continued small advantage there, but even with that KG's measured out as one of the better players in the NBA over the last 4 years (top-5 in APM studies) and he's coming off of a season where he was CLEARLY better than 2010 which indicates that it was the injury and not age that slowed him before.

So yeah, I'd take Walton's peak over Malone's. I'd also take Malone's career over Walton's. But I'd take KG's career over both of their's.

[penbeast0]

Pretty much Kobe, because I voted for him at nine, and I'm as big a title slappy as there is around here. I respect the abilities of the guys nominated, but Kobe is the only one who really translated his talent into titles. None of these guys has enough of a stat or impact advantage to offset that.

For the same reason, it's time to start talking about Zeke. I'd be tempted to rate him above some of the guys nominated, either in GOAT or start-a-franchise debates.

There are very few guys that stepped into losing situations and made a team a multiple title winner. Part of greatness is having a huge impact on a franchise, and I'd argue Isiah's impact on the Pistons was greater than the impact any of these guys had on any team they played for.

Vote: Kobe Bryant
Nomination: Isiah Thomas

Frazier came to the Knicks who had never won and led them to two titles and was better offensively and defensively than Isiah plus was less of a jerk.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Re: +/-: I've seen you make that team dependence claim for +/- stats before, but never seen you really back it. Yes, raw +/- is heavily dependent on the factors you name. But the whole point of multi-year APM calculations is to address those very points, even beyond the "adjusted" part of APM which also mathematically adjust for many of the issues you name. Over 5 or 6 years, we get to see players in a variety of situations with a plethora of teammates, which allows us to really hone in on how much of the effect is the individual player. Thus, your protests have been addressed, and Garnett still shows a much larger impact than Kobe.

+/- stats are a reflection of lineups, not player impact. There's a myriad of factors that influence it, such as who a player's backup is, how many minutes does he play with certain players, what role does he have on the team, what are the coach's rotation habits, etc.

And sorry, but no, multi-year APM doesn't address those issues. The flaw in the stat doesn't change, you're simply finding trends in the roster lineup data. I can look at OWS & DWS and say the results are fairly passable, but that doesn't mean they're truly an accurate refelction of who the better player is.

KG played on a team where he was asked to do alot. Kobe on the flipside played in a real system most years with different rotation PHILosophies. You simply can't compare the two through +/- stats.

[An Unbiased Fan]

One has to wonder why you didn't pick Dirk over Bird using this criteria. After all.

Not really, I value Bird's impact in a way I see it for Steve Nash for example. The value of an assist is not really good included, especially for players going with risky passes and using them to have their teammates making shots in their comfort zone. Players like Bird or Nash are getting underrated by boxscore metrics like that. Thus I suspect Bird's prime being higher in terms of impact while his efficiency numbers are basically equal.

Fun fact: Nowitzki might have a case being in the Top 15 right after Garnett and Bryant are in.

Also, the ABA was a different league. Dr. J was playing around 105-110 Pace, while Kobe was at 90-95. The NBA of the 00's is WAY ahead talent-wise compared to a diluted ABA.

I used pace adjusted numbers to demonstrate that. And spare me the stuff about "diluted", each player has to compete against his peers, he can't pick different opponents. And I wrote that before in a thread about this project that we can go through the years and see players perform in supposed to be "tougher" years as good as in previous years. We can go from Mikan to James today and will always find players playing against stars from the previous era and performing just as well. Nowitzki, Bryant, Garnett and Duncan are a good example for this. All played rather similar in the years before 2004/05 and after that. And we can see how O'Neal performed in the early 00's and that he performed just as well in the mid 90's. We know that Jordan performed well in the mid to late 90's while he was also great in the late 80's, Magic was great in 1996 too, and also in the early 80's like Bird, Erving or Moses Malone. Kareem performed well in the early 80's and in the 70's as well and so on ... The differences in eras are overblown despite different rules and whatever. Good players can adjust and they adjusted, we saw it. Thus we should stop thinking about how to prop up the favorite player by introducing a weird subjective era adjustment.

1) Kobe had to score and facilitate just like Bird. Why do you give Bird a pass for having a lower PER & WS/48 than Dirk, after using it agaisnt Bryant?

Seems very inconsistent...


2) HALF(if not more) of the the pro-level basketball players of the early 70's were in the NBA. Of course the ABA was diluted, how could it not be. The level of play in 00's NBA was superior. The talent pool is deeper, because it's a whole league, not half a league.

So no, I don't take Dr. J's ABA stats at face value, especially when he was playing at a much higher pace, and against weaker oppostion.

[Baller 24]

Why is it that I keep reading that you can't compare Kobe's advanced stats to player x because blah blah blah. I never heard any other excuses for any of the other players voted in, including Jordan who's played as the focal point of Phil Jackson's system and won a whopping 6 championships.

[drza]

Re: +/-: I've seen you make that team dependence claim for +/- stats before, but never seen you really back it. Yes, raw +/- is heavily dependent on the factors you name. But the whole point of multi-year APM calculations is to address those very points, even beyond the "adjusted" part of APM which also mathematically adjust for many of the issues you name. Over 5 or 6 years, we get to see players in a variety of situations with a plethora of teammates, which allows us to really hone in on how much of the effect is the individual player. Thus, your protests have been addressed, and Garnett still shows a much larger impact than Kobe.

+/- stats are a reflection of lineups, not player impact. There's a myriad of factors that influence it, such as who a player's backup is, how many minutes does he play with certain players, what role does he have on the team, what are the coach's rotation habits, etc.

And sorry, but no, multi-year APM doesn't address those issues. The flaw in the stat doesn't change, you're simply finding trends in the roster lineup data. I can look at OWS & DWS and say the results are fairly passable, but that doesn't mean they're truly an accurate refelction of who the better player is.

KG played on a team where he was asked to do alot. Kobe on the flipside played in a real system most years with different rotation PHILosophies. You simply can't compare the two through +/- stats.

False. Again, support your statement. Read what you wrote: "you're simply finding trends in the roster lineup data". Looking at the 6 years of Ilardi's study, Garnett played for 5 coaches, 5 different 2nd leading scorers, at least 5 different starting point guards, on teams that ranged from 32 wins to 66 wins. Yet, across all of these different epochs, Garnett consistently measured out among the best in the APM calculations and over the entire period dwarfs Kobe. The "trend" that you describe, the only commonality, is exactly what is being measured. KG is the common thread, the one that was consistently positive, while every other part of his situation changed.

Meanwhile, Kobe was also very strong in that measure. He just wasn't as good as KG. And ask yourself this...I consistently see Kobe supporters (including you) point out that the Lakers have "poor" backcourts. When some say that the dominant frontline led by Gasol and Odom has at least as much to do with the Lakers' recent titles as Kobe, the common rebuttal is that the frontcourt players are redundant while without Kobe the Lakers would have "the worst backcourt in the NBA". That the current iteration of Derek Fisher stinks, and before that Smush Parker is treated with such consistent vitriole that one could only conclude he was the worst player in the league. Now. If your logic is correct, and all +/- stats measure is "role on team", alternatives to contribute what that player gives, and indispensibility to team...why doesn't Kobe dominate? I mean, if the other Laker perimeter options stink and Kobe is the one irreplaceable part, and your logic is that +/- measures indispensibility to the team, then Kobe should be king of the +/-. But he isn't.

Instead of attacking the stat, maybe take a minute to think about whether what it's telling you is indicating holes in your logic.

[fatal9]

Vote: Kobe
Nomination: Wade

[mysticbb]

1) Kobe had to score and facilitate just like Bird. Why do you give Bird a pass for having a lower PER & WS/48 than Dirk, after using it agaisnt Bryant?

Uh? What? Kobe Bryant being equal to Bird in terms of playmaking and using risky passes in order to hit his teammates in their comfort zone? Are we now living in a complete different universe? Well, you also said that Bryant had bigger defensive impact than Karl Malone ...

PER actually values scoring volume a lot and Bryant isn't doing great in that metric. Additional to that did Bryant NEVER had an impact like Bird or Nash due to his passing. NEVER. You can believe what you want, but ....

So no, I don't take Dr. J's ABA stats at face value, especially when he was playing at a much higher pace, and against weaker oppostion.

Again, I used PACE-ADJUSTED NUMBERS! Erving just played better basketball as his peers and I'm fairly certain he was at least as good as Bryant.

[Fencer reregistered]

I believe most posters do evaluate players based on resume as well as ability (with the noticeable exception of Gongxi, most of whose posts are rants about the topic ), and it would be inconsistent to drop Kobe below those two in that case. Unless you believe they were leaps and bounds better as players.

I seriously thought the point of this project was to ignore resumes

I don't agree, entirely. I think whether or not a guy actually won stuff is germane to judging his career.

[Baller 24]

1) Kobe had to score and
2) HALF(if not more) of the the pro-level basketball players of the early 70's were in the NBA. Of course the ABA was diluted, how could it not be. The level of play in 00's NBA was superior. The talent pool is deeper, because it's a whole league, not half a league.

So no, I don't take Dr. J's ABA stats at face value, especially when he was playing at a much higher pace, and against weaker oppostion.

We're still comparing them relative to their eras, so yes ABA/NBA in terms of production was pretty much pin-point on with each-other, you can make arguments stating it might even be better in the first half.

Despite that, statistics and every evidence indicates it's still on par. And remember that the number of teams involved in the ABA wasn't as significant, so the talent level can even be considered maybe even greater.

BTW, if you want to compare defense between Erving and Kobe, I don't think it's relatively close between the two if we're including the impact Erving had, especially if we're including rebounding. I did some digging and will credit TLAfan to for the find.

In the ABA he was obviously a fantastic rebounder with a rebound rate of 14.2, compare that to Shawn Marion who's at 14.6, and we in the modern era consider him a very great rebounder.

Once he moved to the NBA, his rebound rate slipped a bit, but although not as elite, he still had an average rebound rate of 11.1. Compare that to '11 LeBron James (11.4), Carmelo Anthony (11.8), & Kevin Durant (11.0), very much in the elite when comparing SFs.

Then go into more detail about impacting a defense:
1974 (ABA) – 1st (out of 10)
1975 (ABA) – 2nd (out of 10)
1976 (ABA) – 1st (out of 9)
1977– 4th (out of 22)
1978– 8th (out of 22)
1979– 2nd (out of 10)
1980– 1st (out of 22)
1981– 2nd (out of 23)
1982– 7th (out of 23)
1983– 5th (out of 23)
1984– 4th (out of 23)

Lineups, teams, rosters changed, but still remained the fact that despite all of that, the foundation of that franchise was built upon the talent of Erving. You can even go before his addition, the Sixers were a fairly good defensive team, with his addition the season after they become elite, and look to remain elite.

The lowest ranking remains to be the season Erving played the lowest amount of minutes. You can go even during his ABA years, the Nets without him merged in the NBA with a very small roster tweak went from being the most elite defensive team to the middle of the pack at half.

[An Unbiased Fan]

False. Again, support your statement. Read what you wrote: "you're simply finding trends in the roster lineup data". Looking at the 6 years of Ilardi's study, Garnett played for 5 coaches, 5 different 2nd leading scorers, at least 5 different starting point guards, on teams that ranged from 32 wins to 66 wins. Yet, across all of these different epochs, Garnett consistently measured out among the best in the APM calculations and over the entire period dwarfs Kobe. The "trend" that you describe, the only commonality, is exactly what is being measured. KG is the common thread, the one that was consistently positive, while every other part of his situation changed.

Meanwhile, Kobe was also very strong in that measure. He just wasn't as good as KG. And ask yourself this...I consistently see Kobe supporters (including you) point out that the Lakers have "poor" backcourts. When some say that the dominant frontline led by Gasol and Odom has at least as much to do with the Lakers' recent titles as Kobe, the common rebuttal is that the frontcourt players are redundant while without Kobe the Lakers would have "the worst backcourt in the NBA". That the current iteration of Derek Fisher stinks, and before that Smush Parker is treated with such consistent vitriole that one could only conclude he was the worst player in the league. Now. If your logic is correct, and all +/- stats measure is "role on team", alternatives to contribute what that player gives, and indispensibility to team...why doesn't Kobe dominate? I mean, if the other Laker perimeter options stink and Kobe is the one irreplaceable part, and your logic is that +/- measures indispensibility to the team, then Kobe should be king of the +/-. But he isn't.

Instead of attacking the stat, maybe take a minute to think about whether what it's telling you is indicating holes in your logic.

drza, this is really a debate for the Stats baord. I'm going to write a response to APM stats fairly soon(just haven't had time yet). I don't think much of the stat, but I try not to step on the toes of those who do(like you and Doc). I really, don't want to get into another long drawn debate on it's merits(and I'm guessing other voters would be bored with it). Some people like PER & WS, others like APm, others like EFF, etc..

At the end of the day, I just don't think any stat accurately reflects a player's overall impact. it's much better to take all things into account.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Kevin Garnett

Probably makes most sense to talk about this in terms of why I choose KG over Kobe.

Obviously, I prefer KG's peak to Kobe's. Y'all probably have strong feelings about that, so I doubt I can sway you. Additionally, I give a bit of a bonus to players based on how well they can fit in with other talents, and I think Garnett's particularly strong on that front. He went from being the absolute focal point on offense to more of a defensive specialist without missing a beat.

Beyond that there's the matter of not getting too caught up with things influenced by luck. While I don't ignore longevity, having some bumps along the way because of team context seems to me to be something that's very much luck-related. I've gone over this in some detail before. I think people are unduly swayed by Garnett's last years in Minnesota. I put up Garnett's '05-06 supporting cast compared to Kobe's '04-05 cast, and I don't see how Kobe had it any rougher, yet team success was the same. The reality is that nobody can win games by themselves.

The one thing that makes hesitate in picking Garnett is that Garnett hasn't aged as well as Kobe due to injuries. However, that's literally going by stuff 14 years into his career - let's not get carried away.

Nomination: David Robinson

Seems like people are going overboard here in the Robinson criticism. Yes, he underperformed in the playoffs, but his standards were ridiculously high. #2 WS/48 of all-time, and the player more associated with ridiculous improvements in team record than anyone else in history.

I knocked his longevity, but people are comparing him to Wade here, but he's got 9 Top 10 MVP finishes to 5 for Wade. Love Wade, but can't pick him over Robinson.

vs Pettit is interesting. Much more about Pettit than anything else. How do you rate him? Right now my line in the sand with Pettit is Charles Barkley. I think Pettit was amazing, and think he'd be an offensive force with solid efficiency today, but he's just not on Barkley's level. Robinson by contrast is. I'll be thinking more and more about Pettit soon, but I'm not ready to pick him yet.

[pancakes3]

Vote Kobe

Nominate: Havlicek - a man who was consistently on all-nba teams for ~10 seasons, as long-lived as you can expect from a 22 yr old rookie, and arguably a top 3 perimeter defender of all time. imo he's more impressive than pippen.

[Baller 24]

The league numbers between the ABA and NBA from '72 to '78:

Code: Select all

ABA—110.6 ppg, 49.6 rpg, 23.3 apg
NBA—106.1 ppg, 48.8 rpg, 24.1 apg


Virtually dead even, and this is the league as a whole. I don't understand where many others including AUF are getting their information, why not also hit McAdoo, Abdul-Jabbar, Havlicek, and Cowens with the same "inflation" shot.

[ElGee]

The one thing that makes hesitate in picking Garnett is that Garnett hasn't aged as well as Kobe due to injuries. However, that's literally going by stuff 14 years into his career - let's not get carried away.

And in his 14th year, Karl Malone won MVP of the league. *sigh*