FAQ: Nowitzki vs Malone, Garnett & Barkley

[bigrussia]

finals mvp lol, lets act as though kg wasn't the best player on the celtics....

anyway, a young josh howard was the only good josh howard. good offensive player 15.6 ppg on 47% w/ 6.3 boards and good defense is pretty good. along w/ terry, harris on the bench, two decent defensive big men, and yes and old stackhouse. not a bad title team. as for the warriors loss, the warrior constantly beat the mavs in the rs and had nellie, they were their kryptonite. mavs were still the best team in the league in 2006 and 2007.

as for the twolves, maybe they won 50+ games CAUSE THEY HAD KG!!!

btw,anyone saying the casts were the same therefore dirk is better is completely delusional

[oaktownwarriors87]

...
(Dallas Maverick period) Antoine Walker, ... Keith Van Horn, ... Drew Gooden, ... etc. are pretty good as well....

You sure you want to go there?

Yeah, I do want to go there. They were bench players. The majority of the starters in Minny weren't of the quality of Drew Gooden, Keith Van Horn, and Antoine Walker.

Walker averaged 20.4/9.4/3.7 after he left Dallas and was an All-Star in Boston the year before.

[HeatRing2012]

...
(Dallas Maverick period) Antoine Walker, ... Keith Van Horn, ... Drew Gooden, ... etc. are pretty good as well....

You sure you want to go there?

Yeah, I do want to go there. They were bench players. The majority of the starters in Minny weren't of the quality of Drew Gooden, Keith Van Horn, and Antoine Walker.

Walker averaged 20.4/9.4/3.7 after he left Dallas and was an All-Star in Boston the year before.

so, we are ignoring how the player actually played while he was with team X ?

it doesn't matter that Walker averaged 20ppg two years after he left Dallas. he still sucked while he was there.
you are naming players who, at some point, put up great numbers, but while they played for the Mavs they where either in a low point or too young. the latter is especially true for Harris too. it seems you think he was an all star with Dallas he later went to be. sorry to tell you: he was not. I mean, can you imagine how bad of a Point Guard you must be when the Mavs start Terry at PG ?

stop making a fool out of yourself when you are stating the likes of Gooden etc were "pretty good".

anyway
Garnetts supporting cast was weaker than Dirks overall. however you make it sound that all those 38 year old past their prime players are anything special on the Dallas roster.
about the 2004:2006 teams: do you fail to remember the NBA from 7 years ago or you are a blind homer? the 2004 KG squad was better than the Dallas 2006 finals team. not close

all things considered, It's safe to say that KGs teams were a bit weaker than Dirks. but when KG had a good/better team than Dirk, he failed to achieve the same feats Nowitzki got.... and I'm not even talking about the 2011 season.

so the ones who take Dirk over KG prior to the 2011 season have a case.

however Dirk just pulled out a legendary post season for the ages...

[turk3d]

Here's the head-to-head between Dirk and KG over the years. Looks like some epic matchups between the two.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =garneke01

After scanning these numbers, from what I can tell, it looks like it was almost all KG in the early years and more Dirk in the more recent ones (after KG suffered his injuries and became a bit older). Based on that, I'm going to have to give it to KG at this point (and I do agree that he had much less to work with than Dirk has for most of his career.

You see what KG and his team have done since moving to Boston with a much better supporting cast (which he helped to make a winner considering they were a last place team before he got there). Although Dirk could score off KG and had the long range shot, it appears that KG had a big edge in rebounding over the years.

[eloper]

Some classic WillC right here

[eloper]

You're right, Garnett is easily the best defender out of this group of players. He's also proved over the years that you wouldn't want the ball in his hands at clutch time and that he can't lead his own team past the first round of the playoffs. Every player has a weakness. Garnett was - and still is - a phenomenal talent. But could he take over a game like Nowitzki? I haven't seen it.

Here's the thing: You could flip this statement about Garnett around on Dirk and say something along the lines of "Dirk proved time and time again that you couldn't win with him as your best defensive big, he needed a guy like Tyson Chandler next to him."

There are plenty of guys in this league who are more than happy to take the last shot, and more than capable, just like there are plenty of guys who can be defensive role players. Just because Garnett didn't put his team on his back offensively doesn't mean his overall impact should somehow be diminished. Dirk couldn't anchor a defense, what's the difference?


EDIT: Want to make it clear that this isn't a KG endorsement by any means, I'm not really sure which guy I'd rather have nor do I care to dissect it that deeply because quite frankly it depends on their surrounding cast. This is simply a statement about how the whole "ball in his hands during crunch time" thing is overrated in my opinion, while anchoring an entire defense doesn't tend to get the credit it deserves.

[oaktownwarriors87]

so, we are ignoring how the player actually played while he was with team X ?

it doesn't matter that Walker averaged 20ppg two years after he left Dallas. he still sucked while he was there.
you are naming players who, at some point, put up great numbers, but while they played for the Mavs they where either in a low point or too young. the latter is especially true for Harris too. it seems you think he was an all star with Dallas he later went to be. sorry to tell you: he was not. I mean, can you imagine how bad of a Point Guard you must be when the Mavs start Terry at PG ?

stop making a fool out of yourself when you are stating the likes of Gooden etc were "pretty good".

Garnetts supporting cast was weaker than Dirks overall. however you make it sound that all those 38 year old past their prime players are anything special on the Dallas roster.
about the 2004:2006 teams: do you fail to remember the NBA from 7 years ago or you are a blind homer? the 2004 KG squad was better than the Dallas 2006 finals team. not close

LOL

Garnetts team was outscored by 11 points per 40 when he was on the bench in 03-04. Dirks team was outscored by 2.5 points in 05-06. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Garnett had an extremely weak supporting cast the year he made the WCF.

Jason Terry, Devin Harris, Jerry Stackhouse, Josh Howard, Marquis Daniels, Keith Van Horn, Eric Dampier, and DeSagana Diop is a much better support cast. Numbers support that all the way and it isn't close.

BTW, Walker has a career per of 16.0 and a per of 15.8 in Dallas. He didn't play bad by his standards. 14.6/8.7/4.7 per 36. He was a bench player in Dallas... Some years Dirks bench's have been better than KGs starting lineups.

[HeatRing2012]

about the 2004:2006 teams: do you fail to remember the NBA from 7 years ago or you are a blind homer? the 2004 KG squad was better than the Dallas 2006 finals team. not close

LOL

Garnetts team was outscored by 11 points per 40 when he was on the bench in 03-04. Dirks team was outscored by 2.5 points in 05-06. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Garnett had an extremely weak supporting cast the year he made the WCF.

Jason Terry, Devin Harris, Jerry Stackhouse, Josh Howard, Marquis Daniels, Keith Van Horn, Eric Dampier, and DeSagana Diop is a much better support cast. Numbers support that all the way and it isn't close.

wow - just wow... don't even know where to start here.

first of all: several people in this thread already pointed out that the Timberwolves '04 roster was better than the Dallas '06 one. yet, you still come up with some stats that shows the impact(!) of a player, on/off-court, and you infer that the individual impact has anything to do with the supporting cast in general. I'll counter with the fact that the unadjusted and unregularized on/off court will mainly show you the difference between the certain player and his backup.

but anyway, since you don't trust the eye test and you seems to be a die hard stats nerd, I'll go this route too and see what the numbers really express.

you seem to emphasize on on/off court and Garnetts +22 in 2004 way too much. like I said earlier, you need to adjust and regularize those numbers to include the strength of the opponent(hence the backup argument).
do you know who Garnetts backup was?
I know, because I went to several Wolves games (I have relatives in Minnesota) and screamed at Gary Trend. every time he went on the court he made stupid errors over stupid errors. while KG was off the court the Wolves went on to -11 and while Trent was off the Wolves went +9. coincident?
what about the other backups (here on court numbers) Ebi with -13.7 and Lewis with -29.4.
http://82games.com/0304MIN.HTM
it's save to say that Garnetts backups were total scrubs.
if the team is build around the superstar it will crumble as soon as he leaves the court - thats only natural.
It's true that Garnett put on a league leading +22 in Net on-off stats. but you failed to mention that Dirk Nowitzki was a close 2nd in the league with +18. all while he had 'so called' elite players like Finley and Nash and 'pretty good' players like Antawn, Josh, Daniels and Bradley around him in 2004 - at least thats how you labeled them. if both players are close in +/- production and the one is having a stacked team of 'elite' and 'pretty good 15th mans' on his team(Dirk, Dallas) - how can you justify to label the team of the other guy (Garnett, Wolves) "extremely weak" then?
http://82games.com/teams.htm
either way the numbers are wrong, Dallas cast (Nash, Finley) are srubs ('like' Sprewell and Cassell are) or you are biased.


anyway - you said: "Numbers support that all the way and it isn't close.
lets compare the 2004 MIN roster with the 2006 DAL roster since you menioned that the numbers back that up.
I'll exclude the franchise player and will only focus on the top 5-6 players.
you can keep mentioning every name from the Dallas roster and make it sound as if Keith Van Horn, who was the 10th man on the roster, had any signifcant impact at all.
teams go 6 deep in the playoffs because they want to play their best players so stop overstating the impact of the likes of Harris who played 10 minutes per game.

where to start? how about scoring first
scoring ppg, regular season:
1. Cassell MIN 19.8
2. Terry DAL 17.1
3. Sprewell MIN 16.8
4. Howard DAL 15.6
- fairly even. KG still had the better 2nd AND better 3rd option than Dirk
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2004.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2006.html
-> advantage Garnett

scoring ppg, post season:
1. Sprewell MIN 19.8
2. Terry DAL 18.9
3./4. Howard/Cassell DAL/MIN 16.6
- again, Garnett had the better 2nd option, both 3rd options had the same ppg
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2004.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2006.html
-> advantage Garnett

PER, regular season
1. Cassell MIN 22.8
2. Howard DAL 19.3
3. Terry DAL 18.4
4. Harris DAL 17.4
- after that the order Wally and Sprewell appear, Harris missed half the season. however that doesn't matter, albeit Garnett seem to have a real 2nd superstar (PER-wise) at that point.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2004.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2006.html
-> advantage Dirk


PER, post season - where it really matters:
1. Cassell MIN 19.6
2. Sprewell MIN 17.7
3. Howard DAL 16.3
4. Terry DAL 16.1
5. Wally MIN 15.5
6./7. Hoiberg/Dampier MIN/DAL 13.9
- huge advantage Garnett when it really matters. not only the top supporting cast but also the 3-6th options were fundamentally better than anything Dirk had
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2004.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2006.html
-> advantage Garnett


win shares/WS per 48, regular season:
1. Cassell MIN 12.1 (WS/48: 0.205)
2. Terry DAL 9.6 (WS/48: 0.165)
- both in normal WS and WS/48 Cassell breached the superstar level, Terry not so much. 3rd and 4th options are even - I'm to lazy to type everything now.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2004.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2006.html
-> advantage Garnett


since you put so much energy into the on/off court thing, lets compare the:
supporting cast NET +/-, regular season:
1. Cassell MIN +12.8
2. Terry DAL +7.2
3. Olowokandi MIN +4.0
4. Sprewell MIN +3.8
5. Howard DAL +3.6
6. Diop DAL +2.7
7. Szczerbiak MIN +2.2
8. Hassell MIN +1.8
9. Griffin DAL +1.6
10. Madsen MIN +1.0
- so, according to your logic the supporting cast of Garnett is several notches above Dirks
-> advantage Garnett
http://82games.com/0304MIN.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0506/0506DAL.HTM


supporting cast NET +/-, post season
1. Howard DAL +11.8
2. Sprewell MIN +10.0
3. Johnson MIN +8.3
4. Szczerbiak MIN +5.9
5. Cassell MIN +4.8
6. Terry DAL +4.6
7. Dampier DAL +4.0
8. Hoiberg MIN +3.1
- similar case like the regular season PER just vice versa. Dallas has the top +/- performer, but Minnesota is having the better overall cast
http://www.82games.com/034PMIN.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0506/playoffs/0506DAL.HTM
-> advantage Garnett

-------------------------------------------------

conclusion: the eye test already told us that the KGs 2004 cast was better than the 2006 Dirk cast which featured starters like Griffin and Diop in the NBA finals (!!!).
now to your argument:
"NOT EVEN CLOSE. Garnett had an extremely weak supporting cast the year he made the WCF."
and
"Numbers support that all the way and it isn't close. "

the numbers actually show that Garnetts supporting cast was pretty strong hence the 6:1 lead in columns compared to Dirks Dallas team. he had a legit 2nd option who performed on a superstar level and the better 3rd option. the overall cast on its own (+/-) was better than Dirks Mavericks team. PER is also backing this up.
if you look at the lineup Dirk took to the finals you could think that HIS cast was the "extremly weak" one, not Garnetts.
however, even if one think it was extremly weak (Garnetts) and others counter that by saying that Dirks was "extreme weak" we can still meet at the average and say both were even.
under the assumption that both were even, Dirk took his team way further than Garnett could do it.
therefore he made more with the given players and some could say this elevates him past Garnett all time... all while excluding the legendary 2011 playoff run by Dirk(this was a run for ages and should not influence our view)

PS: I also excluded the direct analysis of Garnett vs Dirk 2004 vs 2006 post season runs. it was way too one sided for Dirk because he dominated nearly every categorie.
this wasn't about them anyways, but about their supporting casts

[oaktownwarriors87]

I love that you used Ndudi Ebi and Quincy Lewis to show how weak the bench was to justify the +/- of KG. They played 31 and 63 minutes in the entire season.... and most of their minutes were with Garnett. Even Garry Trent, who you claim is absolutely terrible, played the majority of his minutes with KG (+6.6 per48 with KG).

And do you seriously think that Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell scoring more points actually shows he had a stronger supporting cast? The only reason they had the opportunity to score was due to the lack of talent. Dallas was extremely deep... that's a good thing.

Another awesome thing I notice in your post was the +/-. Do you actually think showing that Sam Cassell had a good +/- proves anything? He played almost every single minute with KG, of course he's going to have a good +/-! You have to look at the minute he played with KG and without.

per 48 minuts this is how many points they outscored the opponents by without KG and Nowitzki:

Code: Select all

Minnesota                 Dallas
Latrell Sprewell -8.1    Jason Terry +3.6
Sam Cassell -3.7         Josh Howard +6.5   
Trenton Hassell -15.2    Jerry Stackhouse +5.5   
Fred Hoiberg -11.1       Devin Harris +0.8   
Ervin Johnson -21.4      Erick Dampier +2.1
Wally Szczerbiak -3.7    DeSagana Diop -0.8
Michael Olowokandi -1.0  Adrian Griffin +0.8
Gary Trent -18.1         Marquis Daniels -3.5   


http://www.82games.com/0304MINP.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0506/0506DALP.HTM

Gees, that's weird. Minnys star players sucked without KG and Dallas' did pretty well without Dirk. Wonder who had the better supporting cast?


BUT WAIT! CASSELL AND SPREE HAD PPG!

[Jonny Blaze]

The 2004 Timberwolves may have had a better roster on paper.....but they would not have beaten the 2006 Mavs in a 7 game series.

No way.

That mavs team won a game 7 in San Antonio against the Defending champs....after the Spurs posted their most dominant regular season ever with 63 wins.

Garnett fans always act like that 2004 Twolves team is something special because they made it to the Western Conference Finals.....one time.

Since 2000 here are the teams that have made it to the WCF.

Los Angeles Lakers 7 times: 7-0 (2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010)

San Antonio Spurs 5 times: 3-2 (2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008)

Dallas Mavericks 3 times: 2-1 (2003, 2006, 2011)

Phoenix Suns- 3 times: 0-3 (2005, 2006, 2010)

OKC Thunder- 1 time: 0-1 (2011)

Denver Nuggets- 1 time: 0-1 (2009)

Portland TrailBlazers- 1 time: 0-1 (2000)

Minnesota Timberwolves- 1 time: 0-1 (2004)

Utah Jazz - I time: 0-1 (2007)

Sacramento Kings- 1 time: 0-1 (2002)


My point being....that making it to the WCF one time....and then never coming close to making it back is not really that big a deal.

Did the 2004 Timbwerwolves beat the Spurs or Lakers in a 7 game series? No....because both of those teams were on the other side of the bracket.

They beat a 43-29 Denver team and the a Kings team without Chris Webbber. Im not saying the T-Wolves werent good.....but one of the all time greats to not win it all.......no they are not.

[HeatRing2012]

I love that you used Ndudi Ebi and Quincy Lewis to show how weak the bench was to justify the +/- of KG. They played 31 and 63 minutes in the entire season.... and most of their minutes were with Garnett. Even Garry Trent, who you claim is absolutely terrible, played the majority of his minutes with KG (+6.6 per48 with KG).

wrong, he played the majority of his minutes with Sprewell, Hoiberg and Cassell because, like I said earlier and you don't seem to know that Trent was Garnetts main backup (did you followed the NBA back then?).
KG and Trent played around ~500 minutes together while Trent logged more than 1000 minutes himself. thats rawly around ~8-9 minutes he played without KG - and guess what, KG logged 39-40 minutes himself. hence the backup 8-9 backup minutes

I love how you point out those +6.6 and stating that Trent wasn't bad (go watch the games finally) - did you even noticed that this +6.6 was one of the worst KGs numbers of player pairs?

And do you seriously think that Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell scoring more points actually shows he had a stronger supporting cast? The only reason they had the opportunity to score was due to the lack of talent. Dallas was extremely deep... that's a good thing.

sheez you ignored my arguments again. I've shown the post season numbers because thats when you use your best lineups and only go 6-7 deep. and KG had the better top 6 cast - deal with it.
it's true however that a deep team is a good thing to give your stars some rest in the regular season. it's a matter of fact that KGs supporting cast was better than Dirks in the playoffs and thats why you need better 2nd and 3rd options to rely on - and KG had those.
nevertheless, if we compare the teams without their star players (Dirk+KG had very similar stats) both teams made the same SRS (5.8) . in the playoffs however Dirk killed KG in that matter

Another awesome thing I notice in your post was the +/-. Do you actually think showing that Sam Cassell had a good +/- proves anything? He played almost every single minute with KG, of course he's going to have a good +/-! You have to look at the minute he played with KG and without.

it was you comming up with unadjusted not regularized +/- stats that are absolutely meaningless because you need a) a bigger sample size [at least 2 yeas aka 160 games], b) adjust them for the opponent and c) regularize them.
I mean, did you even read what the page you quoted wrote about them prior to _every_ damn column?
"Please note that these numbers are in raw form and have not been adjusted for the other players in the five-man unit, nor for the opposing 5-man unit on the floor at the same time. We do have adjusted ratings available, as well as full details on the 2-man pairs (team eFG%, rebounding, turnover data, shot selection, etc) "

so yes - I try beating you with the same stupid argument you used.
and it works.

about Cassell and KGs minutes - you are wrong again(!). because your premise is wrong, or can't you say that Cassells amazing +/- aren't coming from his pairing with Sprewell ? or Szczerbiak, Madsen and Olowokandi ... with whom he performed better +/- numbers than with KG? thats a correlation issue

per 48 minuts this is how many points they outscored the opponents by without KG and Nowitzki:

Code: Select all

Minnesota                 Dallas
Latrell Sprewell -8.1    Jason Terry +3.6
Sam Cassell -3.7         Josh Howard +6.5   
Trenton Hassell -15.2    Jerry Stackhouse +5.5   
Fred Hoiberg -11.1       Devin Harris +0.8   
Ervin Johnson -21.4      Erick Dampier +2.1
Wally Szczerbiak -3.7    DeSagana Diop -0.8
Michael Olowokandi -1.0  Adrian Griffin +0.8
Gary Trent -18.1         Marquis Daniels -3.5   


http://www.82games.com/0304MINP.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0506/0506DALP.HTM

Gees, that's weird. Minnys star players sucked without KG and Dallas' did pretty well without Dirk. Wonder who had the better supporting cast?


BUT WAIT! CASSELL AND SPREE HAD PPG!

well, I can't access those links (white screen, no content) but I heavily doubt that those numbers are correct. make a screenshot of the page you found those numbers, especially in Dirks case - plus: was it the meaningless regular season +/- or the post season ?

[bigrussia]

a few things. wally played 28 games in the regular season, so stop acting as if his impact was so big while i realize howard and harris played around 55 games. anyway, out of all the 'good' players on both teams, sprewell (3rd best twolve) and stackhouse (5th best mav) were both actually garbage....

anyway, if cassell doesn't miss those 2 games against the lakers the twolves get a ring in 04, just like the mavs should've got a ring in 06. so what are you saying?

[HeatRing2012]

@bigrussia I'm saying the things I already mentioned in the concluding paragraph

the 2006 Mavs team and the KG 2004 teams are equally strong/average or however you want to call it. some may say the Dallas cast is a tad below.
the oaktownwarriors87 dude on the other hand is stating that the 2004 KG cast was "extremly weak" compared to the 2006 Mavs cast. and that the comparison is "NOT EVEN CLOSE"

[bigrussia]

@bigrussia I'm saying the things I already mentioned in the concluding paragraph

the 2006 Mavs team and the KG 2004 teams are equally strong/average or however you want to call it. some may say the Dallas cast is a tad below.
the oaktownwarriors87 dude on the other hand is stating that the 2004 KG cast was "extremly weak" compared to the 2006 Mavs cast. and that the comparison is "NOT EVEN CLOSE"

okay sure i wouldn't call it a blowout at all. i agree that i think dallas is 'stronger' due to depth (which doesn't matter in this case for the postseason unless you really spread out your minutes as you've said). cassell going down just killed the wolves, as expected. i would just prefer kg cause of his all around play, more than very elite scoring of dirk

[oaktownwarriors87]

I love that you used Ndudi Ebi and Quincy Lewis to show how weak the bench was to justify the +/- of KG. They played 31 and 63 minutes in the entire season.... and most of their minutes were with Garnett. Even Garry Trent, who you claim is absolutely terrible, played the majority of his minutes with KG (+6.6 per48 with KG).

wrong, he played the majority of his minutes with Sprewell, Hoiberg and Cassell because, like I said earlier and you don't seem to know that Trent was Garnetts main backup (did you followed the NBA back then?).
KG and Trent played around ~500 minutes together while Trent logged more than 1000 minutes himself. thats rawly around ~8-9 minutes he played without KG - and guess what, KG logged 39-40 minutes himself. hence the backup 8-9 backup minutes

Reading comprehension. I didn't say KG played the majority of his minute with Trent.

per 48 minuts this is how many points they outscored the opponents by without KG and Nowitzki:

Code: Select all

Minnesota                 Dallas
Latrell Sprewell -8.1    Jason Terry +3.6
Sam Cassell -3.7         Josh Howard +6.5   
Trenton Hassell -15.2    Jerry Stackhouse +5.5   
Fred Hoiberg -11.1       Devin Harris +0.8   
Ervin Johnson -21.4      Erick Dampier +2.1
Wally Szczerbiak -3.7    DeSagana Diop -0.8
Michael Olowokandi -1.0  Adrian Griffin +0.8
Gary Trent -18.1         Marquis Daniels -3.5   


http://www.82games.com/0304MINP.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0506/0506DALP.HTM

Gees, that's weird. Minnys star players sucked without KG and Dallas' did pretty well without Dirk. Wonder who had the better supporting cast?


BUT WAIT! CASSELL AND SPREE HAD PPG!

well, I can't access those links (white screen, no content) but I heavily doubt that those numbers are correct. make a screenshot of the page you found those numbers, especially in Dirks case - plus: was it the meaningless regular season +/- or the post season ?

Use fire fox. 100% CORRECT!

Dirks main supporting cast destroyed opponents when he was off the floor and Minnys got destroyed. it's the score of the freaking' game, no better way to measure the quality of them as a group of players.

The numbers totally support me, it's not even close.

[HeatRing2012]

Even Garry Trent played the majority of his minutes with KG (+6.6 per48 with KG).

wrong, he played the majority of his minutes with Sprewell, Hoiberg and Cassell

Reading comprehension. I didn't say KG played the majority of his minute with Trent.

lol? do you follow the advices you give to others?

minute distribution(pairs) of Trent in order:
1. Hoiberg
2. Sprewell
3. Cassell
4. KG

so you were WRONG. Trent played the majority of his minutes with Hoibger, followed by Sprewell and followed by Cassell. KG is nowhere close.

It's hilarious how you ignore all those unpleasant topics which prove your arguments wrong and only focus on those who you think you are right with.

per 48 minuts this is how many points they outscored the opponents by without KG and Nowitzki:

Code: Select all

Minnesota                 Dallas
Latrell Sprewell -8.1    Jason Terry +3.6
Sam Cassell -3.7         Josh Howard +6.5   
Trenton Hassell -15.2    Jerry Stackhouse +5.5   
Fred Hoiberg -11.1       Devin Harris +0.8   
Ervin Johnson -21.4      Erick Dampier +2.1
Wally Szczerbiak -3.7    DeSagana Diop -0.8
Michael Olowokandi -1.0  Adrian Griffin +0.8
Gary Trent -18.1         Marquis Daniels -3.5   


http://www.82games.com/0304MINP.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0506/0506DALP.HTM

Gees, that's weird. Minnys star players sucked without KG and Dallas' did pretty well without Dirk. Wonder who had the better supporting cast?


BUT WAIT! CASSELL AND SPREE HAD PPG!

well, I can't access those links (white screen, no content) but I heavily doubt that those numbers are correct. make a screenshot of the page you found those numbers, especially in Dirks case - plus: was it the meaningless regular season +/- or the post season ?

Use fire fox. 100% CORRECT!

Dirks main supporting cast destroyed opponents when he was off the floor and Minnys got destroyed. it's the score of the freaking' game, no better way to measure the quality of them as a group of players.

The numbers totally support me, it's not even close.

so I opened the link (worked with IE) and still can't find the numbers you posted.

please make a screenshot, mark the areas where those numbers/columns are listed and upload it to imageshack. either I'm blind or my browser is playing tricks on me (no content listed in FF5)

PS: you still didn't answer my questions: post season +/- or regular season +/-?
I've resigned to the fact that you ignore all the critisism of unadjusted +/- and you see it as the holy grail even thought every known stathead will tell you that unadjusted +/- of just 1 season are totally meaningless.
but I still want to know where you got those numbers from.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Calculate it.

Szczerbiak was overall +96 and +114 with KG. He played 621 minutes that and 386 were with KG. So he was -18 in minutes 235 without KG. Divide 235 by 48 and than divide 18 by that number.

18/4.8958333 = (-)3.7

The fact that Minnys players were so drastically negative without KG and that Dallas' players were still good without Dirk makes it pretty clear one had a good supporting cast and the other didn't. And if you don't think 1 season is good enough I can show you more. Similar results every other year.


2004-2005 without KG per 48(His only other season with his "good" supporting cast):
Cassell -5.7
Sprewell -14.1
Hassell -8.0
Hudson -2.1
Hoidberg +4.0
Szczerbiak +0.4
Griffin -3.8
Olowakandi -2.3

2006-2007 without Dirk per 48(his 67 win season):
Harris +4.0
Terry +3.9
Stackhouse +2.2
Howard -0.3
Dampier +5.7
Buckner -9.5
George -4.6
Diop -4.0

That season was the best the Timberwolves did without KG.

[WillC]

Some classic WillC right here

Haha, nice to see you around, Repole! How's things?

Got an opinion on the Nowitzki vs Malone, Garnett and Barkley debate?

[HeatRing2012]

Calculate it.

Szczerbiak was overall +96 and +114 with KG. He played 621 minutes that and 386 were with KG. So he was -18 in minutes 235 without KG. Divide 235 by 48 and than divide 18 by that number.

18/4.8958333 = (-)3.7

The fact that Minnys players were so drastically negative without KG and that Dallas' players were still good without Dirk makes it pretty clear one had a good supporting cast and the other didn't. And if you don't think 1 season is good enough I can show you more. Similar results every other year.


2004-2005 without KG per 48(His only other season with his "good" supporting cast):
Cassell -5.7
Sprewell -14.1
Hassell -8.0
Hudson -2.1
Hoidberg +4.0
Szczerbiak +0.4
Griffin -3.8
Olowakandi -2.3

2006-2007 without Dirk per 48(his 67 win season):
Harris +4.0
Terry +3.9
Stackhouse +2.2
Howard -0.3
Dampier +5.7
Buckner -9.5
George -4.6
Diop -4.0

That season was the best the Timberwolves did without KG.

not sure if serious

do I get this, you used off court stats of pairs(!) to judge on the topic if the whole team is better or worse (basing on the player pair performances) ?
not only that, but you also used the case for bench players and extrapolated their backup bench production for 48 minutes ?

nice ...
I won't comment that, it's beyond ridiculous to extrapolate 235 minute of production into a 4000 minute frame.

I have to ask you again: do you even read the disclaimer on the site you are using?
your very own site put on this disclaimer ahead of every stats table:
"Please note that these numbers are in raw form and have not been adjusted for the other players in the five-man unit, nor for the opposing 5-man unit on the floor at the same time. "

Like I said earlier, and everyone with at least a bit knowledge about those metrics will tell you: it is absolutely misleading to use raw +/- numbers to judge a team or a player.
you need at least 2 years of adjusted (!) PM data and to make any significant prediction you also have to regularize them.
what are you doing instead?
you not only took the 28 games of Wally in the regular season (not even a full season!) and you hackled them even further into bits. yes my friend - this was beyond stupid.

it's a very good litmus test many uninformed people trap in.
e.g. would you rank Shawn Marion as the worst player in the league ? or would Marion not be able to contribute in any way to let the Mavs win games?
because according to your logic, Marion is the worst player in the NBA right now (unadjusted, >2000 min):
http://basketballvalue.com/topplayers.p ... torder=ASC
now if we adjust for 1 year the whole thing looks a tad better. however after adjusting for 2 years Marion is jumping from worst in the league to middle of the pack.

it's hilarious how you ignore all my hints about the lack of logical cohesion of the unadjusted +/- grail.
I'm still waiting for your post season +/-, though. even so they are meaningless, It's still the point when it matters not the regular season. many people in this thread already explained to you that a deep bench will help you in the regular season nevertheless its the playoffs you go 6 deep in the roster and were you can say if one supporting cast is truly better(quality) than another one.

I'll give you a slight insight into RAPM (1 year numbers) which in my opinion is still not enough - but have more cohesion with team success/impact then you unadjusted one
(excluding first options)
2004 MIN:
Cassell: +3.0
Wally: +2.3
Hoiberg: +0.7
Sprewell: +0.1
- 4 players with positive impact adjusted for team strength (opponent)

2006 DAL:
Howard: 3.3
Terry: +0.9
Stackhouse: -0.6
Daniels: -1.3
Harris: -2.7
- only 2 players with positive impact after adjusting the +/- numbers
like I said several times, the data frame is still too small, we are talking about a meaningless (IMHO) regular season and this doesn't reflect the team strength without a certain superstar at all - but those were your errors you made and I wanted to show you how the numbers look like after doing the necessary adjustments in which the Mavs cast looks weaker than the Timberwolves one.



I wonder if you'll ignore this as well, as you already did with the other 6 metrics I gave you. yet, you only focused on the weakest one (unadjusted +/-) available to support your argument.
it's still a matter of fact that both teams had comparable SRS and KG had the better 2nd and 3rd option in scoring.
you can laugh about the scoring matters all you want, it's still a fact that Minnesota was 5th in offense that year, which is elite. and those elite offense came from Cassell and Sprewell... especially in clutch

you can't deny that Cassell and Sprewell were better options than everything Dirk had (2nd + 3rd)... scoring numbers, +/- and PER confirms this - especially in the post season.

but nah, I'm not holding my breath here
you'll just skip through again like you did yesterday after accusing me of dyslexia while you were in fact the the one without understanding your own words.
not a single time you apologized for accusing me wrongfully - thats indecorously in a discussion.

it's OK though, it's your agenda... ignoring the 4-5 unpleasant topics that make you look bad and focus on the one that you think is important
thats the way to be a politician

[ROR]

Here's the thing: You could flip this statement about Garnett around on Dirk and say something along the lines of "Dirk proved time and time again that you couldn't win with him as your best defensive big, he needed a guy like Tyson Chandler next to him."

Garnett had to have pre injury Perkins playing next to him at center on defense.