RealGM Top 100 List #12

[Doctor MJ]

Vote Garnett
Nomination Hondo

[drza]

Longevity vs Peak Some believe that Malone was both a better player than KG and had better longevity as well. This section isn't for you. But there are many that feel that Garnett had the better peak, but that Malone had more longevity. So, how do you weigh one vs the other? ElGee has broken it into a type of equation in which Malone's extra top-flight years (however many you believe they are) should be worth more in championship-building opportunities than whatever gap you might believe there was between KG's and Malone's peaks. But I don't agree with his equations, for a couple of reasons.

1) All championship-opportunities are not created equal.
2) Winning a championship is hard, and requires top talent in addition to other uncontrollable factors

Suppose you believe Malone has 14 top-level seasons vs KG's 11. On the other hand, suppose you believe Garnett's peak was better. To my way of thinking, I'd rather have a multi-year peak with the best possible chance to win a title as part of a decade-plus window of elite play instead of a few extra years in length without ever reaching the same heights. Winning championships is just too difficult, and I want the player that will give me the best shot at it. Now yes, I'd take Malone's 14 years over Bill Walton's 2 or 3, despite Walton having a better peak, because then the longevity difference is ridiculous. But if a player is giving me a better peak and excellent longevity, as Garnett does, I prefer that.

I wanted to ask you about this. Championship opportunities are independent of player quality -- I presented a scenario to explain a point. You can run the gauntlet of scenarios and on average Malone is more valuable, that's why I choose. him. So I wasn't sure why exactly those enumerated points cause you to "disagree."

I agree with you that championship opportunities are independent of player quality, but (going from memory) I thought you had posted at some point that you were basing your rankings off who gave you the best chance to win the most championships and that, because of Malone's longevity, he gave you some bonus years of higher quality play and thus more chances at the ring. I was disagreeing with that sentiment, as I think that KG has excellent longevity as well and that his higher peak gave the hypothetical team with him as their best player a better chance to win championships than Malone's peak on the same hypothetical team. Perhaps Malone's extra longevity might give said team a few more shots at it, but they'd have their best chances to win with peak KG.

Re: Colts and FJS. I recognize the points that you make about Malone, and for the most part I don't dispute them. He's a historically great player. But when I read your posts, I don't see where you are comparing KG and Malone directly in a comprehensive way. You give me Malone's accolades resume, his team results, and his point totals...things that most of us reading this thread should already know, and if not a quick bounce over to basketball-reference would give the same info. You criticize Garnett's team results and give a partial list of his teammates, cherry-picking names without giving a realistic sense of those teams. But the thing is, to me, those lines of argument are weak. You haven't once, in any of these threads, seen me reference that KG is an MVP and a champion in the kind of accolade-listing that you guys keep doing. You haven't once, in any of these threads, seen me reference that Malone played the lionshare of his career with another player sure to be in our top-40 and try to use his quality teammate to blame him for a lack of team success. As I said, those are weak angles to me...not only are they easily rebuttable, but more than that, an accolade list or a teammate discussion doesn't tell us anything about how they actually played and impacted things.

Colts went a bit more in depth by listing more of their box score stats, but again, that's B-R stuff with no nuance in there. How do you account for defense? What about their team roles? In what ways did their games influence the outcome? THAT is the kind of stuff that, to me, we should be detailing and using to make our decisions.

Take, for instance, my post on KG's postseasons between 1999 and 2008 from last thread ( viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1126186&start=15 ). Whether you agree with my analysis or not, I made the effort to go through each individual postseason and describe exactly how Garnett was affecting the outcome well beyond what you might find in the boxscores. Neither of you responded to that level of analysis in any form whatsoever, you just ignored it and continued to post box scores or suggest that Garnett's play didn't matter the times his teams failed. Frankly, that's lazy. For you two in particular, I don't expect to convince you of anything. You are both very set on how you evaluate these players, and that's fine. But if you're going to directly rebut me, at least let's try to advance the debate beyond the superficial and into something that the folks reading these threads might one day find valuable as a resource for really understanding these players more fully. With the level you're coming, they may as well DR;TL and head over to basketball-reference.

To put my money where my mouth is, I've spent the last several hours comparing KG and Malone in a way that I never have before. I went year-by-year, and looked at their box score stats in the regular season and playoffs in a direct comparison. I've made the argument that I think Garnett had the better prime, and given some reasons for why (in my first post in this thread), but here I got more specific. I compared on a 10 year delay...Malone's '89 - '99 with KG's '99 - '09. Unfortunately, Malone's era ended just before +/- stats came available so I was forced to focus primarily on the box scores and on offense (since there are no defensive box score-based stats worth a darn). Nevertheless, I personally learned some things and feel that this comparison helps to make my case more clear (if, of course, you bother to read through what will be a very lengthy post). I'll post the comparison in a separate post.

[drza]

Karl Malone ('89 - '99) vs Kevin Garnett ('99 - '09), year-to-year

My thoughts before doing this analysis, from my previous post: "Malone clearly scored more at a better efficiency than Garnett. I don't think anyone is disputing that Malone was a better scorer in his career. There are some, including me, that would question the degree to which Malone was better and suggest that there were some factors that mitigate the differences that the numbers suggest. Nevertheless, I don't have any problem saying Malone was the better scorer.

I do believe that Garnett was better on the whole, though, than Malone. I believe that his defensive impact is dramatically greater than Malone's. That Malone was a very good defensive player, but that Garnett is an All-Time defensive player and that there is a clear and large difference between the two at that end of the court.

I also believe that Garnett was used more as an offensive initiator than Malone was, while Malone was used more as a finisher. Neither one is necessarily inherently greater, but it uses a different skill set. And when I factor in that Garnett was often asked to (and able to) initiate the offense, facillitate for his teammates, and also finish effectively I think that his offensive impact on the whole is often very underrated. Perhaps Malone's offense on the whole is still better, because he finished at a volume/efficiency combo rarely matched in history while also passing decently himself. But I don't think the offensive gap is as wide as the defensive gap."

Method: I compared Malone and KG based on their offensive box score stats. Totals aren't as interesting across different time periods and paces, but pace adjusting can be problematic. Instead, I looked at each player's offensive volume as a ratio of what their teams produced, with the equation: Volume = (points + 2* assists)/(total team points). I also list the team's offensive rating for that season, each player's PER, true shooting percentage as a shooting efficiency stat, assist%/TO% as a ball-handling efficiency stat, and rebound percentage. I do this for both the regular and postseason of each year.

Malone '89: Volume = 32% of team offense (Team ORTG 17th/25), PER = 24.4, TS% = 59%, Ast%/TO% = 1.01, Reb% = 15.1%
Garnett '99: Volume = 30% of team offense (Team ORTG 17th/29), PER = 22.4, TS% = 49%, Ast%/TO% = 1.78, REb% = 15.4
Malone '89 PO: Vol = 32%, PER = 22.1, TS% = 57%, A/TO = .38, Reb% = 18.5
Garnett '99 PO: Vol = 36%, PER = 24.1, TS% = 49%, A/TO = 1.5, Reb% = 16.1

So, right off the bat, I see some of the things I suggested in my background post playing out statistically. We know that Malone was scoring many more points, but at this stage of their careers Malone was being used almost exclusively as a finisher while Garnett was already starting to take on a role as a primary distributor. Thus, the percentage of their team's point totals for which they were responsible (through points or assists) was roughly equal. Malone was much more efficient as a scorer as well, while Garnett was much more efficient as a passer. Their rebounding was similar as well. On the whole their team offenses ranked out at similar caliber, with each player responsible for a similar percentage of that offense. In the postseason Garnett took on a slightly larger offensive burden, while Malone hit the glass harder.

Malone '90: Vol = 34% (Team 10th/27), PER = 27.2, TS% = 63%, A/TO = 1.02, Reb% = 17.1
Garnett '00: Vol = 33% (Team 9th/29), PER = 23.6, TS% = 55%, A/TO = 1.58, Reb% = 17.1
Malone '90 PO: Vol = 29%, PER = 19.7, TS% = 51%, A/TO = 1, Reb% = 14.4
Garnett '00 PO: Vol = 43%, PER = 20.5, TS% = 44%, A/TO = 3.3, Reb% = 17.2

Once again, very similar in the regular season in terms of percentage of offense and team rank, with Malone the more efficient and higher volume finisher and Garnett distributing more and more efficiently. In the playoffs both of them saw huge drops in scoring efficiency to keep the gap in TS% roughly constant, but Garnett was responsible for a much larger portion of his team's offense and also hit the boards harder.

Malone '91: Vol = 34% (Team 11th/27), PER = 24.8, TS% = 60%, A/TO = 1.35, Reb% = 17.2
Garnett '01: Vol = 32% (Team 11th/29), PER = 23.9, TS% = 53%, A/TO = 1.85, Reb% = 16.4
Malone '91 PO: Vol = 34%, PER = 21.4, TS% = 54%, A/TO = 1.44, Reb% = 18.0
Garnett '01 PO: Vol = 36%, PER = 24.9, TS% = 57%, A/TO = 2.88, Reb% = 16.3

The pattern is well established by now. Similar percentages of the team's offense, one as a finisher and one as a distributor, and the offenses of similar rank. And this was another postseason where KG stepped up with a larger portion of his team's offense while Malone hit the boards harder, but this time in the postseason KG also overtook him in scoring efficiency while widening the gap in passing efficiency as well.

Malone '92: Vol = 31% (Team 4th/27), PER = 25.4, TS% = 60%, A/TO = 1.16, Reb% = 16.8
Garnett '02: Vol = 31% (Team 4th/29), PER = 23.8, TS% = 54%, A/TO = 1.79, Reb% = 17.8
Malone '92 PO: Vol = 33%, PER = 25, TS% = 62%, A/TO = 1.02, Reb% = 16.5
Garnett '02 PO: Vol = 33%, PER = 25.5, TS% = 51%, A/TO = 1.4, Reb% = 22.8

Carbon copy last regular season description. Their postseasons were also largely the same, though the gap in A/TO shrunk while KG's rebounding went up.

Malone '93: Vol = 33% (Team 7th/27), PER = 26.2, TS% = 61%, A/TO = 1.44, Reb% = 16.9
Garnett '03: Vol = 36% (Team 5th/29), PER = 26.4, TS% = 55%, A/TO = 2.17, Reb% = 18.8
Malone '93 PO: Vol = 36%, PER = 16.6, TS% = 53%, A/TO = .61, Reb% = 13.9
Garnett '03 PO: Vol = 38%, PER = 25.0, TS% = 54%, A/TO = 2.19, Reb% = 20.1

Similar regular season story, though Garnett took on a larger portion of the offense this season. In the postseason KG stepped up even more, while Malone had an awful postseason this year. The numbers are pretty self-explanatory.

Malone '94: Vol = 33% (Team 7th/27), PER = 22.9, TS% = 55%, A/TO = 1.54, Reb% = 16.3
Garnett '04: Vol = 36% (Team 5th/29), PER = 29.4, TS% = 55%, A/TO = 2.32, Reb% = 20.1
Malone '94 PO: Vol = 36%, PER = 24.6, TS% = 53%, A/TO = 2.04, Reb% = 16.2
Garnett '04 PO: Vol = 38%, PER = 25.0, TS% = 51%, A/TO = 1.62, Reb% = 19.3

This was Garnett's MVP season and it wasn't one of Malone's best, so Garnett beats him pretty thoroughly across the board in the regular season. It is worth noting that by this time Malone is starting to do more distributing himself, and ironically Garnett has also caught him in shooting efficiency. Their volumes are still similar, but like the previous season Garnett's is a bit higher on a slightly more successful offense.

Malone '95: Vol = 32% (Team 4th/27), PER = 25.1, TS% = 59%, A/TO = 1.36, Reb% = 17.4
Garnett '05: Vol = 35% (Team 6th/30), PER = 28.2, TS% = 57%, A/TO = 2.22, Reb% = 20.3
Malone '95 PO: Vol = 36%, PER = 24.6, TS% = 55%, A/TO = 1.76, Reb% = 20.9
Garnett '05 PO: N/A

Garnett had a slightly better individual regular season, but the Wolves didn't make the playoffs. Malone stepped up in his postseason, increasing his offensive volume, distributing and rebounding in the postseason to counter his slight drop in TS%.

Malone '96: Vol = 33% (Team 2nd/29), PER = 26.0, TS% = 58%, A/TO = 2.1, Reb% = 15.8
Garnett '06: Vol = 30% (Team 28th/30), PER = 26.8, TS% = 59%, A/TO = 1.79, Reb% = 19.6
Malone '96 PO: Vol = 37%, PER = 23.6, TS% = 50%, A/TO = 2.7, Reb% = 16.3
Garnett '06 PO: N/A

This was a sea-change year for Garnett and the Wolves. After averaging over 35% of the team's offense for the previous three years, he drops down to 30% this year. The real world reason for this drop was rookie coach Dwayne Casey, who moved Garnett off the ball more as a finisher. This resulted in a career-high in TS%, but with the decisions being made by Marko Jaric and Ricky Davis the team's offense plummeted to 28th. Meanwhile, Malone has steadily been taking on a larger passing role for the Jazz and turns in one of his finer offensive performances, despite the fact that his raw scoring volume is no longer as high as it was. He is now a more complete offensive player, being used as both a distributor and a finisher.

Malone '97: Vol = 35% (Team 2nd/29), PER = 28.9, TS% = 60%, A/TO = 2.21, Reb% = 16.8
Garnett '07: Vol = 30% (Team 25th/30), PER = 24.1, TS% = 55%, A/TO = 1.68, Reb% = 19.5
Malone '97 PO: Vol = 33%, PER = 22.2, TS% = 50%, A/TO = 1.59, Reb% = 16.9
Garnett '07 PO: N/A

Garnett's numbers and ratio of team offense stay roughly constant, while Malone's swell during his first MVP year. Malone is now contributing a larger volume of offense with better efficiency as both a passer and a shooter.

Malone '98: Vol = 34% (Team 1st/29), PER = 27.9, TS% = 60%, A/TO = 1.76, Reb% = 17.1
Garnett '08: Vol = 22% (Team 10th/30), PER = 25.3, TS% = 59%, A/TO = 1.84, Reb% = 16.8
Malone '98 PO: Vol = 37%, PER = 24.2, TS% = 53%, A/TO = 1.79, Reb% = 16.5
Garnett '08 PO: Vol = 29%, PER = 23, TS% = 54%, A/TO = 1.82, Reb% = 17.5

KG's first season in Boston. Garnett's regular season volume was artificially depressed due to injury time, but this is an example of Malone's robustness advantage. In both the regular and postseason their scoring and passing efficiencies are similar, along with their rebounds, but it's clear that Malone is contributing more volume on offense.

Malone '99: Vol = 34% (Team 1st/29), PER = 25.6, TS% = 58%, A/TO = 1.67, Reb% = 15.4
Garnett '09: Vol = 14% (Team 10th/30), PER = 21.2, TS% = 56%, A/TO = 1.46, Reb% = 16.6
Malone '99 PO: Vol = 35%, PER = 21.2, TS% = 49%, A/TO = 1.74, Reb% = 16.2
Garnett '00 PO: N/A

This is an injury blowout, as KG went down for the year in February (ironically against Utah). This was also Malone's 2nd MVP year. Either way, it was already clear that Malone was playing a much larger part in his team's offense than Garnett is at this point.

Averages:
Malone '89 - 99: Vol = 33%, PER = 25.9, TS% = 59%, A/TO = 1.51, Reb% = 16.5
Garnett '99 - 09: Vol = 30%, PER = 25.0, TS% = 55%, A/TO = 1.86, Reb% = 18.0
Malone '89 - 99 PO: Vol = 34%, PER = 22.3, TS% = 53%, A/TO = 1.46, Reb% = 16.8
Garnett '99 - 09 PO: Vol = 36%, PER = 24.0, TS% = 52%, A/TO = 2.1, Reb% = 18.5

Bottom Line: I looked at offense and rebounding only for an 11 year stretch that encompassed the lion share of both primes, including all MVP seasons for both parties. We all knew that Malone was the more accomplished scorer, but for the majority of their primes when they were the offensive focal point for their teams they were responsible for very similar portions of their team's offense due to Garnett's distributing duties. Later in their careers, Malone took on a more balanced finishing/distributing role for the Jazz and became a more efficient passer while Garnett took on a smaller role in the Celtics' offense with a concurrent increase in defensive responsibility (not measured here).

Over the full 11 years, Malone was responsible for a slightly larger portion of his team's offense in the regular season, with small advantages to be had each way in the various categories listed. In the postseason Garnett took on a larger role in the offense, and had slightly better numbers across the board except for in TS%, which was roughly equal.

Important note: I was looking almost solely at offense. And the comparison was very, very close. And I'm very comfortable stating that Garnett was the much better defensive player. Which would support my initial belief, that though Malone was the better scorer, Garnett's diverse offensive impact in conjunction with his greater defense on the whole made him a more impactful player than Malone over their extended primes by a reasonable margin. Garnett also peaked higher, with offensive years that matched Malone's best, again not accounting for defense. And his postseason individual numbers looked better as well.

Bottom line: if I can get a player to give me a comparable (though different) offensive impact and better defensive impact, with better postseason performances, for a full 11 years of their career...and that same player has 4 other All Star appearances in his other 5 seasons, I'm willing to give up a bit in longevity to Ironman Malone for the better prime years from Garnett.

[lorak]

vote: Karl Malone

nomination: Ewing

Some facts about Ewing:

- defensively he was at the same level as Duncan, KG or Robinson. For example his impact on D when he missed games was:
-12.2 (!) in 1996
-7.3 in 1998
-6.6 in 1987
-5.3 in 1986 (as a rookie!)

- since data is available (so since 1974) only 4 teams had drtg relatively to league average -8 or lower. Two of them (1993 and 1994 NYK) were anchored by Ewing (other two are Spurs 2004 and Celtics 2008)

- He was much better under pressure than his reputation suggest. Here are some examples of his performances in elimination games:

In 1990, he led his team from down 0-2 to the more experienced, more talented Celtics with 3 straight victories. That included 33 points and 19 rebounds in game 3, 44 points, 13 rebounds, 7 steals and 5 assists in game 4 and 31 points, 8 rebounds and 10 assists in game 5 to close out the series in Boston. Down 0-2 vs the defending champion Pistons in round 2, he had 45 points and 13 rebounds.

In 1992, he had a great series vs Detroit which included 31/19/3/3 in a deciding game 5. He had 34/16/5/6 vs the Bulls in game 1 as well. And facing elimination vs the much more talented, defending champion Bulls, Ewing with a bad ankle sprain scored 27 points to extend the series to a 7th game.

In 1993 he was very good throughout the playoffs averaging 25.5 ppg and 11 rpg on 51% shooting, but he fell to a more talented Bulls team in 6 games in the ECF. In 1994, he had 36/14/3/5 to closeout the Hornets, had a 24/22/7/5 game to closeout the series in game 7 and he had a monster 25/12/8 game to give the Knicks a 3-2 lead in the finals.

In the deciding game 5, a badly injured 36 year old Ewing also outplayed a prime Alono Mourning who had won DPOY and finished 2nd in MVP voting. He outscored and outrebounded Mourning while shooting a higher %, leading the Knicks in points and rbeounds and helping them become the second 8 seed to defeat a 1 seed in NBA history.

Here's the recap of Ewing’s game 5 performance against Celtics in 1990: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hylBSIMbeZg

Ewing, 1989 playoffs vs Bulls:
Ewing, limited to 10 points Sunday in Game 4, had 16 by halftime Tuesday night.

He sat out much of the third quarter because of foul trouble, but down the stretch Ewing provided exactly the type leadership the Knicks had lacked and desperately needed.

Consider the final minute:

A Jordan 3-pointer had moved the Bulls within 112-109, the closest they had been since halftime. But Ewing responded with a turnaround jump shot under intense pressure at the 44-second mark, and it was 114-109.

Then, the play of the night. And, in a rarity, this time Jordan was the victim.

Jordan again fired from long range. But Ewing rushed from under the basket, blocked the shot, then continued down court to accept a teammate's pass. He scored with 33 seconds remaining, and New York was seven points ahead.

As insurance, Ewing later produced three free throws.

Despite being shut down offensively, Ewing atleast played Olajuwon tough defensively and held him to 26.9 ppg(on 21.4 shots), 9.1 rpg, 3.6 apg(but 3.6 turnovers) and an even 50% shooting. Ewing did atleast outrebound Olajuwon by 3 per game and block more shots than Hakeem. It was also a close 7 game series despite Houston having homecourt.

Game 5 of the Knicks/Heat series in 1999- This now became a 1 game series in Miami, winner take all game. The Knicks were the 8th seed and trying to become just the second 8th seeded team to knock off a number 1 seed. Ewing was 36 and so clearly injured and limping so noticeably that I thought he was going to be out for the game at any minute pretty early. Instead he came through with 22 points and 11 rebounds vs a prime Alonzo Mourning who had just 21 and 5 on 6/14 shooting. Mourning, by the way was the defensive player of the year that season and 2nd in MVP voting. Zo was also 29 and in the prime of his career. No other Knick had more than 14 points, but Ewing led the way. His 22 points are even more impressive when you remember how so the pace was and how tough Miami's defense was. Ewing didn't take the easy way out by shooting 20 footers all day either. He played in the post and shot jump hooks, turnaround jumpers and running shots across the lane. In reality Patrick shouldn't have even been playing with that injury.

Game 7 of the 1994 Eastern Conference Finals- After winning an elimination game on the road in game 6, the Knicks went back to New York for a deciding game 7. Ewing came up huge with 24 points, 22 rebounds, 7 assists and 5 blocks including the gamewinning tip dunk. That sent New York to the NBA finals for the first time since

Game 6 of the 1992 Eastern Conference Semi-Finals- Playing on a badly sprained ankle and facing elimination vs Jordan's Bulls, Ewing had 27 points, 8 rebounds and 3 blocks on 13/22 shooting to force the series to 7 games. The Bulls were the defending champs and had won 67 games that year(16 more than the Knicks).

Game 5 of 1992 Eastern Conference 1st round- Ewing led the Knicks to a victory in the deciding game 5 vs the bad boy Pistons with 31 points, 19 rebounds, 3 assists and 3 blocks.

Game 4 of the 1990 Eastern Conference 1st round- The Knicks had trailed Bird's Celtics 0-2, but Ewing and the Knicks battled back. In game 3 Patrick had 33, followed with 44 in game 4 and 31 in the clinching game 5 at the Boston Garden! Ewing's entire game 4 statline was 44 points, 13 rebounds, 7 steals, 3 assists and 2 blocks.

[FJS]

Drza, the problem with your playoffs reference is:

It is easier to put awesome numbers and % in 4 games than in to say 16.

Then, you left out 1988, when Jazz almost beat Showtime lakers.
1988: Malone was a 29.7 ppg, 11.8 rpg and 1.5 assist per game in 11 games
1989: Malone was a 30.7 ppg, 16.3 rpg and 1.3 apg in 3 games.
Then, he got better numbers and % in 1989, but it's a more impressive run in 1988, because he played at a high level for more games.
1990: 25.5 ppg, 10.2 rpg & 2.2 apg in 5 Games
1991: 29.7 ppg, 13.3 rpg, 3.2 apg in 9 Games
1992: 29.1 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 2.6 apg in 16 games
1993: 24.0 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 2.0 apg in 5 games
1994: 27.1 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.4 apg in 16 games
1995: 30.2 ppg, 13.2 rpg, 3.8 apg in 5 games
1996: 26.5 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 4.4 apg in 18 games
1997: 26.0 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 2.9 apg in 20 games
1998: 26.3 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 3.4 apg in 20 games
1999: 21.8 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 4.7 apg in 11 games
2000: 27.2 ppg, 8.9 rpg, 3.1 apg in 10 games
2001: 27.6 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 3.4 apg in 5 games

You can tell 1989 or 1995 are impressive. But I think that 88, 92, 94, 96,97,98 or 00 runs were pretty impressive, because he put big numbers in 10 games or more.

Garnett:
Let's gonna begin in 99, because his play in 97 and 98 playoff was still not at star level.
1999: 21.8 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 3.8 apg in 4 games. (in elimination game, he was 30%FG)

2000: 18.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 8.8 apg in 4 games. Impressive apg, but in elimination game, he was 25% FG

2001: 21.0 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 4.3 apg in 4 games. In elimination game he shot 46% but he took less shots than Brandon and only one more than Peeler and Szcerbiak. Superstar have to score when needed.

2002: 24.2 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 5.0 apg in 3 games. Another time impressive, but it's like Malone in 89. It's easier to have 3 good games than maintain that level from 15. Garnett in last game was pretty decent. 22 pg in 46%, 17 rpg and 5 apg. He had 6 TO. To all to say he had terrible teammates... Billups had 16 and Sczerbiak and Peeler 20 each other.

2003: 27.0 ppg, 15.7 rpg, 5.2 apg in 6 games of first round. First time they have HCA. In elimination game Garnett has 18 points on 43%FG.

2004: 24.3 ppg, 14.6 rpg, 5.1 apg in 18 games. This is hands down his better playoff perfomance. Big numbers in a considerable number of games. In elimination game, he maintained his level, and only his 8 TO are a great fault.

2005-6-7: Missing. And this it's a fault. He can show his level in playoff because he is not able to put his team in the playoffs. I don't know any superstar who has missed 3 years in a row playoffs.

2008: 20.4 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 3.3 apg in 26 games. Another great performance. Better than 99,00,01,02 and 03 whe he played a total of 21 games.

[ElGee]

@drza - What exactly about the math do you dispute? I thought I was pretty conservative in giving KG *a bunch* of seasons in which he is 2 points better than Malone...and the extra seasons still produced a comparable result. If you run a simulation of a +2 player on a good team and put him on a bunch of random teams, (with the respective net impacts -- even make them larger on a weaker team), you will see the value of high-level longevity.

Also, I kind of loathe the pts +ast*2 concept for tracking "volume" or who is "responsible" or whatever. I understand what you're trying to do with this estimate, but it's a bit crude - for instance, when you get to like 1992 and simply note another similarity in the chose stats, you are framing this as though they are equal offensive players. They clearly weren't.

Assists ballpark creation (sometimes they are way off) and results fluctuate based on teammate quality, and in a single series, opponent. Whereas creation opportunities are more accurate of representing load/volume. Scoring has the flip side in which you don't know how many of the points were directly off of OTHER people's creation, in the flow of an offense, or in iso. So it's an understandable place to estimate, but I think we can (and are) going deeper.

Furthermore, as others have mentioned, you've got *2* blowout seasons for Karl (88 AND 99 for him) PLUS the next two years for Malone still having an edge over KG. I'm not sure why you are ignoring this since it's literally the crux of the issue.

[DocHoops]

I'd vote Kobe over Doc for the #10 spot to break the tie. Their are no ties in basketball, nor should their be in this project.

Pretty solid job on the top 10, got the top two right which is the most important thing IMO.

[TMACFORMVP]

Vote: Karl Malone
Nominate: Dwyane Wade

I think every argument has been made, now it's just a matter of personal preference.

[pancakes3]

vote karl, nominate nash

[ElGee]

Question to everybody: why Karl or KG before Moses?

And what about 1981 series between Rockets and Lakers - - it seems that Moses stopped KAJ at the end of his prime (in 1981 he still was 3rd in MVP, 1st team All NBA and 1st All D), because Jabbar had only 51.7 TS% against Rockets (61.6 in regular season). Sure, he still scored a lot, but he was very ineffective against Moses.

BTW, at the end of G1, when Lakers were down 2 pts, Bill Willoughby (6-8 center) blocked KAJ's sky hook!

I've made this point in detail before. There is a post in one of the earlier threads about it in detail, but Moses longevity really diminishes his value to me. As a really crude overview:

*He doesn't become a high impact player until 1979.

*That basically ends in 1983 - and I find his 83 season overrated (think he was better in 82)

*His 1984 season is a huge disappointment and frankly not in the conversation of the some of the seasons we've discussing with these other guys.

*1985- aren't really high impact years either, are they? They look more like "there's an all-star level big."

This lack of a number of high quality seasons from Moses really brings him well down below this cluster for me. I consider him a click below West, Oscar and other guys in the group left.

[drza]

@drza - What exactly about the math do you dispute? I thought I was pretty conservative in giving KG *a bunch* of seasons in which he is 2 points better than Malone...and the extra seasons still produced a comparable result. If you run a simulation of a +2 player on a good team and put him on a bunch of random teams, (with the respective net impacts -- even make them larger on a weaker team), you will see the value of high-level longevity.

Also, I kind of loathe the pts +ast*2 concept for tracking "volume" or who is "responsible" or whatever. I understand what you're trying to do with this estimate, but it's a bit crude - for instance, when you get to like 1992 and simply note another similarity in the chose stats, you are framing this as though they are equal offensive players. They clearly weren't.

Assists ballpark creation (sometimes they are way off) and results fluctuate based on teammate quality, and in a single series, opponent. Whereas creation opportunities are more accurate of representing load/volume. Scoring has the flip side in which you don't know how many of the points were directly off of OTHER people's creation, in the flow of an offense, or in iso. So it's an understandable place to estimate, but I think we can (and are) going deeper.

Furthermore, as others have mentioned, you've got *2* blowout seasons for Karl (88 AND 99 for him) PLUS the next two years for Malone still having an edge over KG. I'm not sure why you are ignoring this since it's literally the crux of the issue.

I'm not a big fan of the pts + 2* ast concept either, but going across generations that's kind of what I'm forced to work with. As to the bolded, I think this is a crux point. I don't agree that Malone was clearly a better offensive player. He's clearly a better SCORER, but I've always maintained that there's no good way to quantify the difference in impact between a finisher and more of an offense initiator. That was one of the things I was doing last night, and it was enlightening to me.

Because as you point out, it is hard to apportion credit for points. But whether he's been mentioned or not (and I've been staying away from that), John Stockton DID play a huge part in the Jazz offense. How do we apportion how much credit Stockton should get for putting Malone into high-quality finishing positions for the majority of the years examined? We can't, any more than we can apportion how much creation credit that Garnett should get for his assists. So what we're left with is a slush stat that gives a rough estimate that includes both scoring AND passing, which is missing from many KG/Malone discussions. And that slush stat suggests that they actually WERE responsible for very similar portions of their teams offense.

So then, we sanity check it. Even if Garnett was responsible for a similar percentage of his team's offense, if those offenses were way worse than Malone's offenses than maybe it doesn't matter. But that isn't what we saw. For the large part of their prime years, their team offenses were very similar AND they were responsible for similar portions of it.

Then, a second sanity check. Malone is one of the most elite scorers in history, so it's easy to be convinced that he is a great offensive player. But KG's contributions are different...scorers are generally more highly regarded, and that's not his forte. So the results of this points/assists slush stat need to be validated some way. But this estimate comes entirely from the box scores, completely. So when the multi-year APM studies from KG's prime also paint him as one of the best offensive players in the game over the bulk of the 2000s (Ilardi 6-year study)...and the single-year RAPM studies show him consistently among the best offensive players in the league on a yearly basis (and the outright best or 2nd best in multiple years)...to me, that's some solid corroboration.

In other words, if an entirely box-score oriented stat that encorporates passing with scoring suggests that Garnett was having a similar offensive impact to Malone...and a completely separate, completely non-box-score oriented stat that captures overall offensive impact also confirms that Garnett was on the very short list of best offensive players of his generation...at some point, I'm no longer just willing to accept that Malone was a "clearly" better offensive player just because the way he did it is more traditionally accepted.

And I'll give you your '99 blowout when KG got injured. It happens. But even including that year, which I did, over the 11 years that I examined KG still was comparing very favorably offensively to Malone. You know how averages work, if someone has a "blowout" year and the other player is still right with him, that means that the other player must have been more impressive in other years.

And I'm not ignoring your crux point about longevity...I've in fact mentioned it several times very directly as to how I view it. As I said in a previous post, "Suppose you believe Malone has 14 top-level seasons vs KG's 11. On the other hand, suppose you believe Garnett's peak was better. To my way of thinking, I'd rather have a multi-year peak with the best possible chance to win a title as part of a decade-plus window of elite play instead of a few extra years in length without ever reaching the same heights. Winning championships is just too difficult, and I want the player that will give me the best shot at it. Now yes, I'd take Malone's 14 years over Bill Walton's 2 or 3, despite Walton having a better peak, because then the longevity difference is ridiculous. But if a player is giving me a better peak and excellent longevity, as Garnett does, I prefer that."

I don't know how to address that point any more directly than that.

[drza]

Vote: Kevin Garnett
Nominate: Wade (Still haven't put enough thought into this)

[ElGee]

I was concerned you would misinterpret that sentence (bolded one) -- my mistake. I meant they were clearly *different* offensive players, not to suggest that at their peak Malone had some huge advantage.

I understand you are *saying* you'd take 11 years over 14 as "your way of thinking." What I'm asking, and maybe not very clearly, is simply for you to reconcile that belief with the math I presented earlier. It actually seems to be the crux of the entire Karl Malone issue, and one of the reasons why he clutters my top-10 (and note we wouldn't even be having this conversation if he had a single ring...sigh). The intuition is "peak form, so and so was better, so I'll take him bc I THINK he gives me a better chance to win."

I thought that way in the past. And I'm a big peak guy. But what I'm suggesting is if you actually think about it and plot it out - and that's what I was trying to present with the generous 2 points better per game on elite team (!) - is that those 2, 3 extra years or whatever of having a slightly worse alpha dog are actually better over the entire time span, counter-intuitive as that may be.

[Laimbeer]

Does anyone have a count? Does voting end tonight?

[drza]

I was concerned you would misinterpret that sentence (bolded one) -- my mistake. I meant they were clearly *different* offensive players, not to suggest that at their peak Malone had some huge advantage.

I understand you are *saying* you'd take 11 years over 14 as "your way of thinking." What I'm asking, and maybe not very clearly, is simply for you to reconcile that belief with the math I presented earlier. It actually seems to be the crux of the entire Karl Malone issue, and one of the reasons why he clutters my top-10 (and note we wouldn't even be having this conversation if he had a single ring...sigh). The intuition is "peak form, so and so was better, so I'll take him bc I THINK he gives me a better chance to win."

I thought that way in the past. And I'm a big peak guy. But what I'm suggesting is if you actually think about it and plot it out - and that's what I was trying to present with the generous 2 points better per game on elite team (!) - is that those 2, 3 extra years or whatever of having a slightly worse alpha dog are actually better over the entire time span, counter-intuitive as that may be.

Re bolded part. Are you SURE? Remember who you're currently debating with, and who I have thought was the best player of his generation since well before the 2008 championship. If there's ANYONE for whom "the ring is not the thing", it's me. So you can stop with the "losing bias" assumptions whenever we discuss this. Karl Malone is from the first generation for whom that I can remember watching their careers from start to finish. Real time I always thought he was more "very good" than "great", and I actually value his play a LOT more now in hindsight than I did at the time. Now I really believe he's one of the best players in history...I just don't think he's better than Garnett.

Re: your counter-intuitive conclusion. The assumption that you're inherently making with this longevity argument is that your hypothetical team featuring Malone is strong enough that his "peak - 2" extended prime is good enough for that team to win titles. If that's the case, then maybe Malone's longevity would give them more chances at the ring.

But the thing is, suppose your hypothetical team ISN'T quite that strong. Suppose that they're good enough to win a ring or two, but only if they are getting that extra "+2" of value. I'd rather have those years of "+2", especially considering there's about another 8 years of both players playing at about "peak - 2" level, giving my team both the best chance to win at peak as well as a long run of very quality play. And knowing that in most cases it really is REALLY hard for a team to win titles, and that having the best player increases those odds, I'd prefer the elevated peak in exchange for a few years at the extremes. Again, I'll take Malone's ridiculous consistency over Walton's high but extremely short peak. But I'll take Garnett's peak and excellent longevity over Malone's greater longevity but lesser peak.

[shawngoat23]

Here's my official vote: Jerry West

I'll nominate John Havlicek again. I don't think he's the next best player strictly in terms of ability, but in terms of team success and versatility (with respect to being able to take on so many roles), he has pretty much all other candidates lapped. Plus it's not like he wasn't a great player in his own right with incredible intangibles.

[Snakebites]

Vote: Moses Malone
Nominate: John Havlicek

[Laimbeer]

West is really my choice here and I'll vote for him, hoping he can catch Karl. Karl appears to be a few votes ahead and isn't an unreasonable choice. He'd go a few spots farther down if it were me, but he has had a remarkable career and I think his playoff rep has been shown to be unfairly held against him. His statistical footprint is huge. He does still have no titles, though. Definitely too early for KG.

For the nomination, Wade is a big mistake this early, but appears to have it. Hondo is deserving and appears to be the silver medalist. I'd like to see him gain some traction for the next round.

Vote: West
Nomination: Hondo

[Dr Positivity]

Here's my count

Votes

Karl Malone (9) - ronnymac2, mysticbb, FJS, ElGee, Gongxi, Baller24, David Stern, TMACFORMVP, pancakes3
West (6) – penbeast0, Jay From LA, cpower, An Unbiased Fan, shawngoat23, Laimbeer
KG (5) – Dr Mufasa, therealbig3, Fencer reregistered, Doctor MJ, drza
Moses (2) – JordansBulls, Snakebites

Poor Moses, he had the 12th nomination ahead of Karl/KG/West just a few weeks ago!

Nominees:

Wade (8) – ronnymac2, Baller24, Jay From LA, cpower, ElGee, Gongxi, TMACFORMVP, drza
Ewing (2)– Dr Mufasa, David Stern
Drexler (1)– JordansBulls
Frazier (1) – penbeast0
Baylor (1) – mysticbb
Stockton (1) – An Unbiased Fan
Havlicek (4) – Doctor MJ, shawngoat23, Snakebites, Laimbeer
Nash – (1) pancakes3

(to Ruport Murdoch: your vote wasn't counted because you're not on the list)

[TMACFORMVP]

Baller IM'd me saying he's busy and can't make thread #13. He asked if I could do it, so going by the votes Dr. Mufasa posted, KARL Malone and Wade win.