RealGM Top 100 List #10

[Fencer reregistered]

KG vs. Mailman: I defer to the stats-heavy arguments for Garnett over Malone. And while KG comes up annoyingly small in some big games, at least at the offensive end, the same is true of Malone, and perhaps for similar reasons -- transition aside, they're mainly standstill shooters, relying on size and strength to make it difficult to guard them much more than on the ability to either move around people or to shoot around thm.

What's more, Garnett did actually win a championship.

Further, I see Garnett as the much more skilled of the two, because of defense and passing.

KG vs. Kobe: I don't give Kobe or Shaq much extra credit for their three rings together; more precisely, I offset the rings against the guys then melting the team down together out of selfishness.

In Kobe's second batch of championship runs, however, he's had Jordan-lite intangibles -- driven, great hard-work example to his teammates, doesn't go too far across the line in being obnoxious, etc. Basically, his high opinion of himself is aligned with everybody else's; it works. But KG had great intangibles too, centering a total franchise transition in a way people didn't view as plausible until it happened.

Again, I won't try to duplicate other folks' quantitative analysis, except to say that I'm persuaded away from my original tentative selection(s) here to vote for Garnett.

I previously nominated DRob.

[therealbig3]

[.but it's certainly not what I expect from frikin David Robinson here

And what exactly you expected from him? How many players did what you expected from Robinson? Show me some examples.

And why you ignoring how good job he did on Malone both in 1996 and 1998 (both series Malone's TS% was below 50!)?

I didn't ignore his 96 playoffs. Malone still outplayed him and the Jazz as a team had a dominant offense. So his man defense was very good, but again, his own offense was lacking and he got outplayed, and he wasn't doing his job as a defensive anchor.

And I was mainly focusing on 94-96, which is Robinson at his best. And every year, he was outplayed badly head to head by another great big man, and the other team's offense went bonkers on them. In 98, Duncan was on the team, and Robinson had a lot of help. It's not nearly as impressive to hold Malone under his percentages when you have Duncan backing you up. And even then, in 1 point loss in game 1, Robinson shoots 29%, and scores 16 points, while Malone scores 25 points. That's on Robinson.

In game 4, with the Spurs down 2-1, Robinson shoots 39% and scores 15 points, while Malone shoots 61% and scores 34 points, and the Spurs lose by 9 points. That's on Robinson too.

Robinson did have a few very good games in that series, but these games pretty much decided the series, and Robinson didn't show up.

[An Unbiased Fan]

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.

Baller, if there were 2 different leagues in the 00's, and half the talent played in each of them, wouldn't that be a dillution of talent? The ABA was a split league, there's no way around this.

Even if you want to argue that the ABA was on par with the NBA back then, it still wouldn't be on par with the 00's NBA, which is a full league. I can't put a real value on stats from a split talent pool, so I don't take Dr. Js ABA numbers at face value. He was still a great player, but we have to have some context on those years.


As for the defensive numbers, are you saying that Dr. J anchored all those defenses? Because that wouldn't be the case.

[shawngoat23]

The point of this project is to ignore thins like resume and focus on play. The "big stage" is a function of team, and I just listed a boatload of Malone's best performances over an 11-year period. See if you can trump that if that's going to be your criteria. (Why would that be your criteria again?)

I seriously thought the point of this project was to ignore resumes (although, admittedly, I think we should ignore resumes altogether when rating...well, anything, but I guess we as a community are focused on basketball, right?). If I'm very vocal about it- and I try to be- it's because most people really can't back up why they revert to using resumes when they're questioned about it. They just 'do', mostly because everyone else just 'does'. And there's no reason for it.

Kobe has a legit argument against everyone at 10 as a basketball player anyway, there's no reason to cheapen the process by counting rings at this point.

I don't believe you can ever completely dissociate what a player has accomplished from "how good he was". Basketball has to be evaluated in the context of the overall game, and not merely in terms of skills, athleticism, size, stats, etc. Otherwise, guys like Connie Hawkins and Arvydas Sabonis would be ranked significantly higher than they do already. If we're evaluating them based only on what they did in their NBA career, which was abbreviated for various reasons, then we're already acknowledging that context does play a role to some extent. How much you value that is a personal decision. Someone like Gongxi has said he pretty much disregards it, and I'm fine with his judgment, because he seems to apply it consistently across the board. I do consider context much more heavily, but not as much as others on the other extreme (i.e. "how many rings does Kobe need to pass Mike?").

[Doctor MJ]

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*

And KG won the RPOY in his 13th year, and is still having the best defensive per minute impact in his 16th year in the league. I'm not making a hard and fast rule about not counting the 14th year, but I do weight peak & prime a bit heavier.

And of course, while Malone won MVP that year, not all MVPs are created equally, and that MVP is among the least impressive to me.

But you have made good points for the Mailman. Can totally see someone siding with him.

[Baller 24]

Baller, if there were 2 different leagues in the 00's, and half the talent played in each of them, wouldn't that be a dillution of talent? The ABA was a split league, there's no way around this.

We're still arguing dominance relative to their era, so I still don't see how bringing the 00s and splitting them would make any sense in arguing, because it didn't happen. Point, blank.

I can't put a real value on stats from a split talent pool, so I don't take Dr. Js ABA numbers at face value. He was still a great player, but we have to have some context on those years.

So you're not discrediting Abdul-Jabbar for doing so, but you will Julius Erving? Makes absolutely no sense, and I still don't buy your argument of just simply "discounting & discrediting" Erving's dominance of the ABA, pre-knee surgery where his peak seasons are amongst the greatest of all-time, even greater than Bryant himself. Aside from that, I'll again post the average T league numbers between the ABA and NBA from '72 to '78:

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

As for the defensive numbers, are you saying that Dr. J anchored all those defenses? Because that wouldn't be the case.

Nope, but I'm saying he had at least some kind of defensive impact, and if we're including rebound numbers, his impact is very significant. I'll EASILY state that at peak form in the ABA years he's anchoring it from the perimeter, considering that '76 Nets championship roster was significantly less than what Bryant's ever had during his championship years.

[penbeast0]

Have you voted Fencer? I have your nomination.

[Doctor MJ]

Baller, if there were 2 different leagues in the 00's, and half the talent played in each of them, wouldn't that be a dillution of talent? The ABA was a split league, there's no way around this.

Even if you want to argue that the ABA was on par with the NBA back then, it still wouldn't be on par with the 00's NBA, which is a full league. I can't put a real value on stats from a split talent pool, so I don't take Dr. Js ABA numbers at face value. He was still a great player, but we have to have some context on those years.


As for the defensive numbers, are you saying that Dr. J anchored all those defenses? Because that wouldn't be the case.

It seems to me you aren't asking the key questions. We have these two split leagues, and then we have the two leagues combined. We've got the data for both. If the stats were inflated in the split leagues, then we should obviously see them disinflated when the leagues are combined.

So do we see that? Not really. I mean there's examples that seem to say one thing, but there are just as many counter-examples.

Is it crazy to think that the levels of the split & combined leagues weren't too far off? Not at all, this wasn't a case to 2 leagues of X size being combined into 1 league of X size and the weaker half of players being discarded.

[Gongxi]

He voted for KG. I think ElGee, David, and mysticbb have helped sway me; I'll be going with Karl.

[ElGee]

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

Well, assuming you really love you some 99 KG (?), OK...Are you really equating Malone in 99 and 2000 to KG in 10 and 11?? And then on top of that, just throwing away 01-03 for Malone, as if 3 extra all-nba/all-star seasons aren't relevant?

Curious, (To everyone): How much more likely do you think you are to win a title with 04 KG than peak Malone?

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).

How much do you (or anyone) use this as a detractor? He has numerous examples throughout his career of taking over games in the 4th quarter. I agree with you that his scoring ability, in some sense, is short of someone like Hakeem's or even Kobe's. But that's exactly why Malone's peak is similar to Bryant's and not similar to Garnett's. It seems like everyone who can't wrap their head around Malone being this high puts so much extra emphasis on his shortcomings, in the same way that people tend to try and *significantly* downgrade players for bad performances in the final 2 minutes, as if the first 46 minutes make up 56% of a game instead of 96% of it.

A balanced look at his career reveals a well above average defender, a fantastic post passer and yes, an extremely high level scorer. Furthermore, re-watching all these games splattered across a decade you see someone carrying a large burden for teams that frankly aren't really great, and having impact beyond the box.

Now, we all agree that peak is short of the top-9 players. But how is it short of Kobe's? Does the scoring in the playoffs by Kobe make that impact better than Malone's? I don't see the 4 seasons that that occurs...but I'm open to you explaining how Kobe helps you wins titles better in 4 seasons than Malone in 97 and 98.

[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*

And KG won the RPOY in his 13th year, and is still having the best defensive per minute impact in his 16th year in the league. I'm not making a hard and fast rule about not counting the 14th year, but I do weight peak & prime a bit heavier.

And of course, while Malone won MVP that year, not all MVPs are created equally, and that MVP is among the least impressive to me.

But you have made good points for the Mailman. Can totally see someone siding with him.

Well, I think Malone was better from 96-98. But to act like this wasn't an MVP-level season in just about ANY season is disingenuous. I kind of loathe the 1999 NBA season, but I'm not going to suggest that Tim Duncan and Karl Malone weren't good that year.

Again, this speaks to mental biases when people unnaturally weigh something to such an extreme level. I also don't value the early 70s very much, but it's a small adjustment for those players. I don't just throw it out completely. (Not saying you are, but that seems to be the trend here -- extremes.)

[JordansBulls]

How are people seriously taking Garnett over Kobe here?

[penbeast0]

Hey, people seriously took Magic over Wilt and many had Kareem over Jordan and Russell . . . different standards for different folks.

[ElGee]

How are people seriously taking Garnett over Kobe here?

Win Shares.

[Doctor MJ]

How are people seriously taking Garnett over Kobe here?

Win Shares.

:rimshot:

[Gongxi]

The only thing I can think of is that Garnett took the Wolves the farthest they've ever been in the playoffs and is by far the best player that franchise has ever had. That's gotta count for something, right JB? Whereas Kobe...well, other Laker players have won 5 rings, so that's just par for the course. Ho hum.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Baller, if there were 2 different leagues in the 00's, and half the talent played in each of them, wouldn't that be a dillution of talent? The ABA was a split league, there's no way around this.

We're still arguing dominance relative to their era, so I still don't see how bringing the 00s and splitting them would make any sense in arguing, because it didn't happen. Point, blank.

Half of Dr. J's era was playing in the NBA. The best player during that time was playing for the Bucks. Playing in a split league definitely plays a role in how I view those ABA years.

So you're not discrediting Abdul-Jabbar for doing so, but you will Julius Erving? Makes absolutely no sense, and I still don't buy your argument of just simply "discounting & discrediting" Erving's dominance of the ABA, pre-knee surgery where his peak seasons are amongst the greatest of all-time, even greater than Bryant himself. Aside from that, I'll again post the average T league numbers between the ABA and NBA from '72 to '78:

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

KAJ's early 70's years have already been put into context, it has already been said that that was a weak NBA era. Just like Russ/Wilt's 8 team leagues were knocked too. Dr. J is not a unique case. And I'm not saying we can't look at his years in the ABA. I'm just saying we can't directly translate them the same way we can with post-merger years. It was a split talent pool.

[JordansBulls]

How are people seriously taking Garnett over Kobe here?

Win Shares.

What about record with HCA?

The only thing I can think of is that Garnett took the Wolves the farthest they've ever been in the playoffs and is by far the best player that franchise has ever had. That's gotta count for something, right JB? Whereas Kobe...well, other Laker players have won 5 rings, so that's just par for the course. Ho hum.

Yeah, he took them to the Conference Finals and was the only time he made it out of round 1 with that franchise despite being there 10+ years. So yeah, not going to work here. Say he won 2 titles with them, than that becomes a different story, but when KG won he did so with a winning organization as well.

[Gongxi]

[andrewww]

The only thing I can think of is that Garnett took the Wolves the farthest they've ever been in the playoffs and is by far the best player that franchise has ever had. That's gotta count for something, right JB? Whereas Kobe...well, other Laker players have won 5 rings, so that's just par for the course. Ho hum.

post of the year.