RealGM Top 100 List #13

[drza]

Re: Garnett vs West

Different positions. Vastly different eras. While the KG vs Kobe (different positions but same era) and the KG vs Malones (different eras but more similar positions) comps in the last threads have been challenging, this one is the doozy. It is difficult to establish common frames of reference, when everything from the number of teams to the playoff setup to the very stats tracked are markedly changed over the past 40 - 50 years. But, this is one of the purposes of the project, to try to rank players across time, so let's get to it.

West is one of the better offensive guards of all-time, one of the stylistic predecessors to players like Kobe Bryant, though he had more of a point guard emphasis in his game. He was a very high efficiency scorer for a perimeter player, especially considering the lack of a 3-point line. He was also consistently among the league leaders in assists, demonstrating the large part that he played in his team's offenses. He has also become known as "Mr. Clutch" due to his big time scoring efforts, often in the postseason. And West even has a solid reputation as a defender, earning All Defense consideration and acknowledgment from his peers as a good defensive guard. Again, in many ways the Kobe of his time.

In the RPoY project last year, though, those that scrounged through the available data from the 60s were able to give broad strokes quantitative estimates of West's impact. The Lakers were generally good offenses, but compared to West's biggest competitor's (Oscar Robertson) squads the Lakers were clearly well behind as an offensive team. Similarly, while West had solid on/off-court impacts on the Lakers through the years, the effect wasn't as large as what we've seen for players like Garnett. Much of this may be tied to the defensive end of the court where, despite West's defensive reputation, his absences never really made that much of a difference (or in many cases his team's defense was arguably even better without him). Garnett, on the other hand, is the +/- king for his generation precisely because his impact on both ends of the court exceeded even what his great box score stats indicated. Thus, when comparing impact-to-impact as best as the available info allows, it seems to me that Garnett was the higher impact player.

The other big area to point out actually spins out of the RPoY analysis in a different way. The reason that West's on/off court impact could be so consistently estimated was because he was missing so much action. West only played more than 75 games in a season three times in his whole career, the same number of times that he played 55 or fewer games. For his career he averaged fewer than 67 games played per year, and as ElGee pointed out earlier he missed the postseason outright in two of his prime years due to injury. Thus, I would say that durability is another area where Garnett had a major advantage over West.

All told, it appears to me that Garnett was the higher impact player with more durability and better longevity when compared to West.

[Dr Positivity]

The way I'm approaching Walton is asking at what point do I prefer having him for 2.5 years than X player for their entire career

We're a long way from that point for me. I know he has the mystique of being so good in 77 to get that title, but most of the time, you need the long years to get a title. Look at MJ, Shaq, Lebron's waits, and I consider all those guys better than Walton in their regular seasons.

How do you judge a current player? For example, do you weigh LeBron's career-to-date against the full career of Jerry West? Or do you extrapolate what you expect LeBron to do over his career?

Player value = how close they get you to a title (which includes ability and kicks at the can)

Don't like comparing players across eras but in this case the answer is easy in favor of Jerry West for me, because Lebron was just an epic fail mentally the last two playoffs, 2 of the 3 years he legitimately had the ability to win the title.

[Laimbeer]

At this level, you probably should have been pretty dominant at your position over quite a bit of your career. All-NBA first teams are an indication of this. West has 10, Garnett 4. Garnett has a number of finishes behind Grant Hill, Chris Webber, etc. They're really good, but seems to me KG should have been beating them out if he was viewed as good as West during their respective careers.

[Laimbeer]

Does anyone have a vote count handy?

[penbeast0]

You don't get 2.5 superstar years out of Walton, you get ONE. He only made it to the playoffs healthy twice in his entire career and one of those was nowhere near a top 100 player. He was an outstanding RESERVE. On the other side of the coin, Walton was a player who demanded big money -- guaranteed -- and who you built your team around. Then, every year, he would be injured by the playoffs and your team would fall apart. So, you are saying one good year is worth a top 100 spot -- well, maybe but I'd put an awful lot of players in before Bill Walton. I think he's below Bob McAdoo and Mel Daniels, probably even Ben Wallace, maybe around the level of a Yao Ming, just ahead of Brad Daugherty.

[lorak]

Does anyone have a vote count handy?

KG 8
West 4
Moses 3


Hondo 3
Ewing 2
Stockton 2
Baylor 2
and 6 different players with 1 nomination each

[Dr Positivity]

I usually count 76, would he have missed the playoffs if they made it? Though really, playing 51 Gs, he's fully responsible for them missing the playoffs

A vote count was asked for, here's what I have

Votes
Garnett – 8 (Dr Mufasa, therealbig3, ElGee, DavidStern, mysticbb, Fencer reregistered, Gongxi, drza)
West – 4 (cpower, Jay From LA, penbeast0, An Unbiased Fan)
Moses – 3 (JordansBulls, FJS, SDChargers#1)

Nominations
Havlicek – 3 (Fencer reregistered, cpower, Jay From LA)
Ewing – 2 (Dr Mufasa, DavidStern)
Stockton – 2 (FJS, An Unbiased Fan)
Baylor – 2 (Gongxi, mysticbb)
Barry – 1 (therealbig3)
Howard – 1 (Bucksfan1and2)
Nash – 1 (ElGee)
Drexler – 1 (JordansBulls)
Pippen – 1 (SDChargers#1)
Frazier – 1 (penbeast0)

The nomination spread is starting to get pretty silly. I would seriously consider cutting it down to 6 nominations again (we'd have to only vote and not nominate for a few threads) to avoid plurality like that. 10 nominations was a nice ceremonial thing to start it off, but as it goes on I think the nomination system has a lot more practical value by concentrating votes, but at more of a number like 6 than 10. I don't think anybody wants to see "Havlicek 4, Ewing 3, Votes for other players: 15" decide the #23 spot

[lorak]

^
dan_atko97 isn't on the panel list and mysticbb voted KG and Baylor. And I count drza's vote for KG, however he didn't officially vote yet.

[Dr Positivity]

Thanks and edited

[penbeast0]

Thanks to you both!

[penbeast0]

[
This sort of goes to the conflicting criteria being used. Center, by it's nature, is usually considered a more important position. So does a center who's similar in caliber of play to a guard get the edge because he'd be more more valuable from a start-a-franchise viewpoint?

Yes, I do give centers more value than other positions during the era where centers were more important. I just think Frazier was incredibly impressive during his day and I don't rate longevity outside a peak 8 years or so is that important except in that it gives that much more opportunity to do the kind of incredible things that all the candidates currently being considered were doing.

[ronnymac2]

Damn, the nomination is crazy.

I honestly don't see the argument for Stockton and Pippen. I really like Scottie as a player, but he doesn't belong here. He wasn't an offensive Constant. He was a very good offensive player, but Nash and Barry and Frazier are clearly superior. And Stockton isn't close to the level of these other players.

I respect the Howard nomination. Ballsy. I think it's a little early, but it''s OK.

Drexler isn't a bad choice here either.

It comes down to Ewing, Frazier, Nash, Barry and Baylor for me.

I'm somebody who doesn't think Steve Nash is a top 5 offensive player ever so I give him less credit than others. Baylor is underrated because of the percentages and overrated because of the rebounding numbers. His style was an outlier during that time and his volume was insane. He played PF for the Lakers even though he was a SF. You combine the flawed doughnut team with the high pace and Baylor's run/jump athletic advantage (he was a phenomenal, transcendent athlete) and you've got crazy rebounding numbers. If he played today, imo he'd be a higher-scoring, slightly better rebounding version of Carmelo Anthony.

I already explained Barry. He's simply a superior player to Hondo. Havlicek is great, but I don't think he's better in any facet of offense. The great D doesn't make up for it, especially since Barry wasn't a bad defender.

Frazier is a solid choice considering he was a borderline offensive Constant who came up big when it mattered in the playoffs and was a GOAT defensive PG. Ewing's a top 10 defender ever with second-tier C offensive talent and a willingness to fail.

I'll take Ewing over Baylor and Nash. Probably over Frazier as well, though that's difficult. Barry vs. Ewing...I ever so slightly-prefer Barry right now.

Vote: Jerry West

Nominate: Rick Barry

[colts18]

You're trying too hard, and in doing so obviously snipping data to fit the story that you wish you could tell. For example, in the very article where you quoted this information, the author makes a direct comparison between Duncan and Garnett in crunchtime that you ignore, apparently because including it would show that KG's crunch performance is just fine compared to other all-timers that actually, you know, play something like he does. Here is what the author wrote:

"Garnett and Duncan

A criticism often volleyed toward Kevin Garnett is his reluctance to take over games down the stretch. Of course, most bigs are hampered by this. And, with regards to his chief rival, Tim Duncan, KG’s clutch performance is quite similar. He’s nearly identical with TD over the last 8+ seasons, and outperformed him in his 3-year peak. Garnett actually shot it 21% more in his three-year peak (18.0 FGA’s per 36, 618 minute sample) than Duncan did in his (14.9 FGA’s per 36, 473 minute sample)."

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/10/the ... ince-2003/

KG, like Duncan, plays his role very well in crunch time. Dirk is more like the perimeter players that you named, more heavily focused on scoring late. That isn't KG's role, but when called upon he is very good late.

We shouldn't punish Dirk for playing the same position as Garnett, but actually being a clutch player. That is an advantage to his perimeter play. He can play the grind it out post game and he can play the perimeter in the final 5 minutes of the game. In the last 3 years, The Mavs are 85-41 (.675) in Clutch games with Dirk and averaged a +25.3 points/48 minutes in those 3 years in clutch situations. In that same span, KG's teams are 52-42 (.553) and +10.7 points/48 minutes. LeBron's teams are 79-42 (.705) with a +32.5 in that span. In his 2 cleveland years, LeBron was 56-16 (.778) with a +40.8 per 48 minutes. I don't understand why posters here take bigs over small because of anchoring ability, but ignore the fact that Bigs like Garnett are essentially useless in clutch situations especially compared to smalls like LeBron or a big like Dirk.

Again, trying too hard. I've been pointing out for years that Garnett led those '08 Celtics not only in scoring, but also in 4th quarter scoring in the playoffs. But recently I had a conversation and realized that in crunch time, it was even more pronounced. In the playoffs, in the last 5 minutes of games within 5 points, this is what the main 3 Celtics did:

KG made 9 of 21 shots and drew 3 shooting fouls. He also had 0 assists and 1 turnover total in those minutes.

Ray made 5 of 15 shots and drew 2 shooting fouls. He also had 3 assists and 1 TO.

Pierce made 1 of 14 shots and drew 3 shooting fouls. He also had 4 assists and 6 TOs.

It's no contest. In the '08 playoffs, when the Celtics needed a bucket late they went to KG to score and he hit more shots than Pierce and Ray combined. You can make the case that Pierce was more of the offense initiator than KG in crunch time, and I can buy that, but when the Celtics actually went to Pierce to shoot at crunch time, he made only 1 out of his 14 shots. If the '08 Celtics had a closer, it was KG or it was nobody. And this was on a championship team.

Context is everything. KG has been very good in crunch time in his career, and when called upon has stepped up. His role is different from perimeter players, but he's always played his role very well.

Just because Pierce is an overrated clutch doesn't change the fact that Garnett didn't step up much in the clutch which is why the Celtics were only 9-7 in <10 point games and 3-4 <5 point games in that postseason. If the Celtics jumped out to a big lead, they could dominate on the backs of their defense, but when the game got close they struggled hence why they went 7 to a 37 win team and 7 to Cleveland.

What about 2004 which is KG's best year. His clutch numbers that year were mediocre in the postseason. The fact of the matter is that in KG's 2 most important years (2004-2008) he was mediocre to horrible in clutch situations. It's tough to win close games when your star isn't great at creating his own shot and can't draw fouls.

Look at Dirk in the clutch. We should be rewarding for playing well in the non-clutch and even better in the clutch.

Code: Select all

Crunch Time, NBA Finals
   Nowitzki    Heat
Points    26    24
FG    8-13    7-25
FG pct    61.5    28.0
Rebounds    7    9
+/-    +18    -16


That's right, Dirk outscored the whole Heat team in the clutch.

btw, ElGee do you have Shaq's clutch numbers from 2003-2006? Also, do you have Barkley's +/- on/off numbers considering he missed a lot of games in the 90's.

[lorak]

I'm changing my nomination from Ewing to Barry.

[drza]

Official vote:

Vote: Kevin Garnett
Nominate: Scottie Pippen

[penbeast0]

Damn, the nomination is crazy....
Baylor is underrated because of the percentages and overrated because of the rebounding numbers. His style was an outlier during that time and his volume was insane. He played PF for the Lakers even though he was a SF. You combine the flawed doughnut team with the high pace and Baylor's run/jump athletic advantage (he was a phenomenal, transcendent athlete) and you've got crazy rebounding numbers. If he played today, imo he'd be a higher-scoring, slightly better rebounding version of Carmelo Anthony.

I already explained Barry. He's simply a superior player to Hondo. Havlicek is great, but I don't think he's better in any facet of offense. The great D doesn't make up for it, especially since Barry wasn't a bad defender.

Actually Baylor was more a quicker, less mistake prone, much less efficient Charles Barkley than a Carmelo kind of guy . . . can't see where Barry has any real advantage over Baylor except the one championship and more shooting range. Baylor, though, has far more playoff success and much better rebounding over Barry. Also, not sure where you get that "Barry wasn't a bad defender." When he was playing his rep was similar defensively to Steve Nash today (poor man defender, good in passing lanes with good anticipation) only with more justification since Barry did rest on defense more than Nash does.

[Laimbeer]

Thanks David Stern and DocM for the counts.

This is too early for KG, IMO. Karl and KG ahead of West, Oscar, and Moses is a real eyebrow raiser. Can't see KG's path to the spot being blocked, but I'll still go West. I think he's the best choice on the board, Oscar and Moses definitely in the hunt.

For the nomination, I think we're firmly in Isiah territory but there's no other support for him right now, so I'm going Hondo. He's got a good shot. He'd be the 23rd player off the board if he wins this round, and that's not a reach by any means. He deserves to be this high.

Vote: West
Nomination: Hondo

[Laimbeer]

The nomination spread is starting to get pretty silly. I would seriously consider cutting it down to 6 nominations again (we'd have to only vote and not nominate for a few threads) to avoid plurality like that. 10 nominations was a nice ceremonial thing to start it off, but as it goes on I think the nomination system has a lot more practical value by concentrating votes, but at more of a number like 6 than 10. I don't think anybody wants to see "Havlicek 4, Ewing 3, Votes for other players: 15" decide the #23 spot

Maybe I'm missing something, but reducing the number of existing nominees from ten to six won't keep the vote for the next nominee from fragmenting, will it? You'll have the same number of voters after one spot.

[Dezmondballins3]

If I were voting I would go for west sadly im not LOL oh well.
I think it's West vs David Robinson vs Moses

[NO-KG-AI]

At this level, you probably should have been pretty dominant at your position over quite a bit of your career. All-NBA first teams are an indication of this. West has 10, Garnett 4. Garnett has a number of finishes behind Grant Hill, Chris Webber, etc. They're really good, but seems to me KG should have been beating them out if he was viewed as good as West during their respective careers.

I would vote for KG, but honestly, all of these guys have good, strong arguments, and I'd actually put Karl behind West and Moses almost assuredly...

But, things like this is sort of empty, these type of projects are meant to be deeper levels of discussion than that.

KG has 4 first teams, and one of them is in Boston, don't you see a problem here? He has one year where he didn't make it in Minnesota, and another where he is third.

Team success should matter, but KG in 05-06, and 06-07 has a 3rd team, and a no team all NBA, but he's a substantially better player than in 07-08.

Would you make an argument that 07-08 KG is better, just because he played with better talent? Because any objective measure shows him as a much better player from 05-07, capable of more games, and more minutes.

If a guy makes no NBA team, and he's a substantially better player than a first teamer, does it even matter?