Was Kareem a Defensive Anchor?

[fatal9]

Bucks opponents shot 46.9% in games he missed and only 43.7% when he played. How big is this difference? The mark of 43.7% shooting by opponents would be the best in the league (just below Celtics who were at 43.8% opp FG%). While the 46.9% would be fifth worst in the league in terms of opp FG%. It should also be noted that Bucks attempted to focus on defense because of the problems they were having offensively without KAJ: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=g- ... 47,4503292. So it seems the team had made a move to increase their effort defensively in that time, maybe slow down the game. They were ranked 2nd in the league defensively the year before when KAJ played 81 games and usually led the league in terms of opp FG% when KAJ would play even in seasons before that. So seems like when KAJ returned to the lineup in '75, that trend only continued.

you're bringing up two excellent points:
a) PPG allowed does not mean DRtg
b) Bucks improved their defense OUTSIDE of Kareem, as they were giving a better effort knowing they won't have their star to produce offense for them

my answer is that:
a) while PPG allowed has some faults, opp FG% is even worse...and if you actually look at team DRtg/team DWS, you'll find out Bucks were below average defensive team FOR THE SEASON. now if we looked simply at FG% Bucks would've been at least top5 defensive team. I mean they were playing 60 games with Kareem after all, so that'd mean they were playing top1 defense for 3/4 of the season...and yet end up below average ? that 1/4th wouldn't make them that much worse. although we have to take your numbers into account, we can't take them as a basis of theory because they just don't add up.

do you have the full numbers ? at least total FGA would be excellent because that way we could estimate the difference in pace.

b) if Kareem was a true defensive anchor, do you really think his teammates trying harder would make up for his absence ? I'm sure you know the story of Olajuwon as you're his big fan. Rockets didn't come ANYWHERE CLOSE to their level of defense when Dream was out. simply enough, I don't think you can make up for the loss of a defensive anchor so easily.

it speaks volumes to Kareem's leadership too. a question that immediately comes up is why couldn't Kareem get his teammates to play harder when he was on the court ? if other guys are playing BETTER defense when some guy isn't playing, then that's like he would've been having a negative impact on his teammates.

you're right about a) and we should be definitely looking into that stuff, but b) is not an excuse AT ALL.

Here are the full numbers for factors affecting defense...

Opponent FG% without KAJ - 46.5% (would be ranked 14th out of 18)
Opponent FG% with KAJ - 43.8% (tied with best in the league with the Bullets who were the #1 rated defense that year)

(note slightly different from previous numbers, I had double counted one game by mistake)

Opponent FT attempts without KAJ - 23.35 FTA
Opponent FT attempts with KAJ - 23.27 FTA

I did not have FTA numbers for one game, but had them for the rest of the 16 games (though I did have FTM for that game which was 11 so assumed 15 FTs were shot in that game). But almost no change in FTA numbers.

However this is affected by pace so...

FT/FGA ratio without KAJ - .216 (would be ranked 12th out 18)
FT/FGA ratio with KAJ - .192 (would be ranked 3rd out 18)

So huge difference in their ability to play defense without fouling as well.

Overall scoring efficiency of teams against them?

Opponent TS% without KAJ - 51.2% (would be ranked 15th out of 18)
Opponent TS% with KAJ - 48.2% (would be ranked 1st in the league)

Massive difference in TS% of opponents.

Turnovers forced without KAJ - 18/game (ranked last)
Turnovers forced with KAJ - 16.8/game (ranked last)

I did not have TO numbers for two games (weren't legible on the boxscore), so did not include those two (so this is the without average from 15 games, not 17). But the TO numbers did not seem to change much without him (also keep in mind almost all of the games were at the start of the season, and I'm assuming everyone was told to play more aggressively on defense). But overall, Bucks were the worst team in the league at forcing turnovers, and that primarily falls on the guards and forwards.

An now. The reason there is no change in ppg allowed with and without KAJ? Because Bucks played a lot slower with him out, which I'm guessing was the strategy because the coach pointed out how they were struggling offensively without him. Bucks opponents took 86.9 FGA/23.4 FTA when he was out and 94.1 FGA/23.3 FTA when he was in (turnovers/game basically the same).

All in all you are looking at a top 5 defensive team (or better) with KAJ (which would require the Bucks to go from 97.8 to 97.3) and a bottom 5 one without him. If someone wants to do the d-rating/pace calculations for me so we can get a specific number, feel free and I'll send you the numbers. But clearly there is a big difference in the defense with/without KAJ.

I think a lot of people jumped the gun with the whole ppg in/out when that literally tells us nothing. I've see you particularly draw way too many assumptions without getting an idea of the full picture. You are making a similar assumption with the games he missed in '78 though I don't have full boxscores for any of them, where again the team fell off drastically without him and the only time they were winning games was against bottom-feeders. I don't know how people turned something that should be seen as a positive for KAJ (ie. his undeniable impact on his teams when he was out) into a negative...weird.

[bastillon]

those numbers with possessions adjustments

without Kareem
pts scored 100.0
pts allowed 104.9

with Kareem
pts scored 102.6
pts allowed 101.2

that's actually a pretty big improvement...although I'm seeing on basketball reference that '75 Bucks gave up 100.5 pts per game so there must've been a mistake somewhere.

[Dipper 13]

This gets into what analysis says more and more about Wilt: He simply had more capability to affect the game on defense than on offense

Reading Eagle - Nov 9, 1966






Spokane Daily Chronicle - Dec 10, 1966

[Doctor MJ]

I love how "blocked 17 shots" is just thrown in there like it's just another stat.

[Dipper 13]

I love how "blocked 17 shots" is just thrown in there like it's just another stat.

He was also devastating on the offensive boards (as was big Luke Jackson).



New York Times - Jan 4, 1967

76ers Beat Knicks; 148-142, in Overtime

-Chamberlain had 35 points and 33 rebounds, but most important, he just took the game into his two big hands when it counted.

-Chamberlain, who had 35 points and 33 rebounds, got the incredible number of 13 offensive rebounds in the fourth quarter.

[PostKeynesian]

I love how "blocked 17 shots" is just thrown in there like it's just another stat.

Also amazing how someone like you and others then want to knock him for his defense despite his ability as a shot blocker from when he was a rookie onwards. It was none other than Harvey Pollack who swears that Wilt averaged double digit blocks for a few seasons in the early 60s.

Anyway, Wilt should be knocked for refusing to switch on pick and rolls many times during his career. This was probably the main difference between him and Russell, even if Wilt was the better shot blocker.

[ThaRegul8r]

Ah, Mayap/DaRkJaWs. It's been a while.

[Doctor MJ]

I love how "blocked 17 shots" is just thrown in there like it's just another stat.

Also amazing how someone like you and others then want to knock him for his defense despite his ability as a shot blocker from when he was a rookie onwards. It was none other than Harvey Pollack who swears that Wilt averaged double digit blocks for a few seasons in the early 60s.

Anyway, Wilt should be knocked for refusing to switch on pick and rolls many times during his career. This was probably the main difference between him and Russell, even if Wilt was the better shot blocker.

I don't understand the pathology of people starting confrontation in response to me pointing out something that essentially everyone agrees on.

For crying out loud, you think I'm responding the 17 blocks stat as a way to hate on the dude?

[ThaRegul8r]

I love how "blocked 17 shots" is just thrown in there like it's just another stat.

Also amazing how someone like you and others then want to knock him for his defense despite his ability as a shot blocker from when he was a rookie onwards. It was none other than Harvey Pollack who swears that Wilt averaged double digit blocks for a few seasons in the early 60s.

Anyway, Wilt should be knocked for refusing to switch on pick and rolls many times during his career. This was probably the main difference between him and Russell, even if Wilt was the better shot blocker.

I don't understand the pathology of people starting confrontation in response to me pointing out something that essentially everyone agrees on.

For crying out loud, you think I'm responding the 17 blocks stat as a way to hate on the dude?

That's just how he is when it comes to Wilt.

[therealbig3]

I love how "blocked 17 shots" is just thrown in there like it's just another stat.

Also amazing how someone like you and others then want to knock him for his defense despite his ability as a shot blocker from when he was a rookie onwards. It was none other than Harvey Pollack who swears that Wilt averaged double digit blocks for a few seasons in the early 60s.

Anyway, Wilt should be knocked for refusing to switch on pick and rolls many times during his career. This was probably the main difference between him and Russell, even if Wilt was the better shot blocker.

I don't understand the pathology of people starting confrontation in response to me pointing out something that essentially everyone agrees on.

For crying out loud, you think I'm responding the 17 blocks stat as a way to hate on the dude?

I think he may be referring to your overall opinion of Wilt and how you might criticize his defense for parts of his career, since he's probably familiar with how you rank Wilt, and the problems you have with him as a player.

[Doctor MJ]

I think he may be referring to your overall opinion of Wilt and how you might criticize his defense for parts of his career, since he's probably familiar with how you rank Wilt, and the problems you have with him as a player.

I'm sure he is. Fine to remember my opinions and keep them in the back of your mind, but what's the point of trying to force a debate out of the blue when it didn't get resolved the last time we had the debate? Can't we just wait for the next time we disagree?

[lorak]

Here are the full numbers for factors affecting defense...

Opponent FG% without KAJ - 46.5% (would be ranked 14th out of 18)
Opponent FG% with KAJ - 43.8% (tied with best in the league with the Bullets who were the #1 rated defense that year)

(note slightly different from previous numbers, I had double counted one game by mistake)

Opponent FT attempts without KAJ - 23.35 FTA
Opponent FT attempts with KAJ - 23.27 FTA

I did not have FTA numbers for one game, but had them for the rest of the 16 games (though I did have FTM for that game which was 11 so assumed 15 FTs were shot in that game). But almost no change in FTA numbers.

However this is affected by pace so...

FT/FGA ratio without KAJ - .216 (would be ranked 12th out 18)
FT/FGA ratio with KAJ - .192 (would be ranked 3rd out 18)

So huge difference in their ability to play defense without fouling as well.

Overall scoring efficiency of teams against them?

Opponent TS% without KAJ - 51.2% (would be ranked 15th out of 18)
Opponent TS% with KAJ - 48.2% (would be ranked 1st in the league)

Massive difference in TS% of opponents.

Turnovers forced without KAJ - 18/game (ranked last)
Turnovers forced with KAJ - 16.8/game (ranked last)

fatl, could you post total Bucks and their opponents statistics (minutes, FTA, FGM, FGA, ORB, TRB, PTS and TOV) from these 17 games without KAJ?
That would allow us to calculate exact drtg with and without KAJ.

BTW, KAJ missed first 16 games of that season and one game later - which one it was?

[WestSideChamp]

Of course, but that is Kareem wanted too. If Kareem didn't have to dominate on offense, and just focus on defense, he could of been one of the great defensive post men ever. Yes he did dominate at times

[fatal9]

Here are the full numbers for factors affecting defense...

Opponent FG% without KAJ - 46.5% (would be ranked 14th out of 18)
Opponent FG% with KAJ - 43.8% (tied with best in the league with the Bullets who were the #1 rated defense that year)

(note slightly different from previous numbers, I had double counted one game by mistake)

Opponent FT attempts without KAJ - 23.35 FTA
Opponent FT attempts with KAJ - 23.27 FTA

I did not have FTA numbers for one game, but had them for the rest of the 16 games (though I did have FTM for that game which was 11 so assumed 15 FTs were shot in that game). But almost no change in FTA numbers.

However this is affected by pace so...

FT/FGA ratio without KAJ - .216 (would be ranked 12th out 18)
FT/FGA ratio with KAJ - .192 (would be ranked 3rd out 18)

So huge difference in their ability to play defense without fouling as well.

Overall scoring efficiency of teams against them?

Opponent TS% without KAJ - 51.2% (would be ranked 15th out of 18)
Opponent TS% with KAJ - 48.2% (would be ranked 1st in the league)

Massive difference in TS% of opponents.

Turnovers forced without KAJ - 18/game (ranked last)
Turnovers forced with KAJ - 16.8/game (ranked last)

fatl, could you post total Bucks and their opponents statistics (minutes, FTA, FGM, FGA, ORB, TRB, PTS and TOV) from these 17 games without KAJ?
That would allow us to calculate exact drtg with and without KAJ.

BTW, KAJ missed first 16 games of that season and one game later - which one it was?

Mar 19 vs. Sonics is the other game. And I'll post them later on (busy atm) though there are two or three games with missing info (re: turnovers, ORB and one game with missing FTA).

[bastillon]

yeah, we should re-calculate that year over again because numbers don't add up at all. I'm busy too atm, but I'll get to that in couple of days. I have a little project in mind before that, though.

[TrueLAfan]

I’m curious—as I always am when there’s a “statistic” or a “metric” that shows something that runs counter to lots and lots of other evidence. First, let’s look some of the commonly used statistical metrics.

Defensive Win Shares. From 1975 to 1979, Kareem was second in the league in defensive win shares. The only person who had more was Elvin Hayes. The reason Hayes had more was because Hayes played more minutes. Kareem’s individual league ranking in those 5 years were 8th, 1st, 1st, 7th, 2nd. The two years where Kareem wasn’t first or second, he missed substantial minutes.

Defensive Win Shares per 1000 minutes. This equalizes defensive win shares if a player has played more minutes. Kareem passes Hayes here, but is still second overall from 1975-79. His 1.916 DWS/1000 is behind Bill Walton’s 2.119 DWS/1000. Keep in mind that at somewhere around 1.9 defensive win shares per 1000 minutes, you are an terrific defender. That’s about where Mutombo and Zo were at their period peaks.

Defensive Rating. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar led the league in defensive rating from 1975-79. He was never the highest rated player in an individual season, though, ranking 7th, 2nd, 4th, 4th, and 6th in those seasons. Still never being out of the top 7, and being top 4 three times indicates a high level of defensive play.

I also had some of the information Fatal9 posted—which indicates that Kareem’s teams took a substantial defensive hit without him in 1975 and 1979. This makes sense, given that in those two seasons, Kareem’s teams were 73-54 (.575) with him, and 10-27 without him (.270). That’s the difference between a 47 win team and a 22 win team. I am sure a lot of this hit was on offense. I am equally sure some of it was on defense.

Contemporary observations? Kareem, was first team All-D twice and Second Team All-D three times form 1975-79. The players that beat him out for first team honors were Dave Cowens and Bill Walton, who are considered to be pretty elite defenders.

Kareem’s teams from 1975 to 1979 were only slightly above average defensively. But there was only one year—1976—where they were below average. Let’s look at that team. You had Kareem. You had Connie Warner as a backup PF and C—he and the brostache added up to a pretty good defender. I guess you could call Corky Calhoun average. Kermit Washington was very good, but he played only 492 minutes. Those players, combined with Kareem, played about 8200 minutes. The other 11000 minutes were supplied by below average to miserable defenders. Special acknowledgments have to go to Cazzie Russell, who could never defend, Don Ford, who was the worst starting PF I’ve ever seen, and Lucius Allen, who was coming off an injury and lost a big part of his quickness (not a good thing for a combo guard). Nobody was going to make that a good defensive team. In a similar vein, no individual going to make the 2000-2005 T-Wolves a good defensive team…it’s no slight on KG that he didn’t do it. Nobody was going to make the 1995 or 1996 Hawks good—not even Deke. Zo’s first teams were usually lousy on D.

But the Zo reference is intentional. When Alonzo Mourning went to the Heat, the Heat became a very good defensive team. He was the “anchor,” I guess. Zo's defensive stats improved. Was he a different player? Or was he playing in a system and with players that accentuated his strengths? How much does/did the coach have to do with it? Statistics and analysis produced in a vacuum provide little information. More and more—and this is after a summer that combined interviews with former NBA players and a trip to the SABR convention—I’m not sold on individual basketball statistics derived from metrics. There are too many independent variables combined in both random and non-random ways. It’s murky for team numbers. For individuals, you get more than noise…you get cacophony.

Say you’re a great defensive C. The starting SG goes to the bench, and the backup comes in. He has length, but bad positioning. This affects your play. You’re asked to run more at mid-season; how does transition D affect individual impact? A new coach comes in and brings in a new defensive scheme. Now what? You’ll get different results with the same player. Do you criticize the player?

Maybe you should look solely at observations—but that’s not useful either. I mentioned Mutumbo earlier—he’s often cited as a great defensive player. And he was great as a younger player. But, let’s face it—he’s a man defender. He doesn’t move well without the ball, and was pretty robotic in terms of running and quickness after the mid-90s. What he does well is be tall and block a lot of shots. Those are valuable skills for a low post defender. But so are off ball play and switching quickness. Those last two usually don’t look as good, but they’re important. Sometimes players “look” more skilled than they are.

Getting back to Kareem as a defensive anchor … the idea that Kareem wasn’t a great defensive player (or an anchor, or a fishbowl, or whatever you want to call it) is kind of silly. This is a case where observation and the bulk of defensive metrics actually line up. If you’ve got some sort of analysis that says Kareem wasn’t a great defensive player (or player in general) from 1975-9, the question isn’t “What does this say about Kareem?” The question is ”What’s wrong with my tool I’m using?”

[ElGee]

"last post...TrueLAFan" Best part of Thanksgiving so far.

More and more—and this is after a summer that combined interviews with former NBA players and a trip to the SABR convention—I’m not sold on individual basketball statistics derived from metrics. There are too many independent variables combined in both random and non-random ways. It’s murky for team numbers. For individuals, you get more than noise…you get cacophony.

I'm not quite as pessimistic as you on this issue, but in general I think this is a good thing for people to constantly keep in mind when talking about basketball. It is a noisy, complicated game, and statistics without context can have immense variability. Immense.

[bastillon]

TrueLAFan, it's been a while
first I am going to sum up your arguments so it'll be more clear what I am responding to and how I interpret your post.

1) you're bringing up individual DWS, DWS/1000, DRtg. advanced boxscore stats in general
2) you're talking about Kareem's overall impact
3) all-defensive teams
4) Kareem's teammates
5) Zo's example
6) critique of with/without impact based on bench play affecting the results
7) critique of observations based on Mutombo's example
8) your conclusion: if my tool doesn't show Kareem as a great defender, the tool is wrong

lots of important stuff. first of all, let me start by saying that you haven't really presented a full theory with clear criteria and your criticism is inconsistent: once you're going after stats and their results, the other time stats are cool and you're good with the result...so which one is it ?

it needs to be said that there's a highly positive correlation between your approval for certain player and stats you're using. in other words, you're using only those stats that support your theory, while showing scepticism whenever numbers aren't favoring your player. if I'm using team defense as an argument and it makes Kareem look bad then it means there's something wrong with me. but if you're using a vastly less effective statistical tool in DWS or DRtg, there's nothing wrong with yours. you're not arguing on the basis of individual DWS/DRTG being a better statistical tool, you're using them because they show Kareem in good light.

the reason why I am using team numbers is pretty easy. DWS and DRtg are boxscore derived data that consists of blocks, steals, rebounds and team defense. defense is hardly measured in boxscore. if you're arguing with those stats and you actually understand what you're saying, then you know that if someone has high DWS/DRTG it means he's a good ball thief/shotblocker/rebounder. there are tons of guys who measure out pretty well in these categories and yet have negative defensive impact.

team numbers on the other hand are not as flawed. there's always a concern about small sample and stuff, but you can't really measure out great in this category and have negative impact, because team numbers and its changes are showing impact. so I'm strongly opposing to your statistical data as being a better measure - it's not even close. boxscore data is significantly more flawed than change in team numbers. basically, boxscore numbers have very little to do with team defense. your pseudo-scientific approach (if data shows Kareem's not great, data is wrong) doesn't really help you here at all. of course no method is perfect, that's why you have to find some kind of an equillibrium, know what I'm saying ? but we have to take all arguments into account, and then on the basis of their importance, you'll try to weight in each one of them. I don't even know why I'm saying this, it seems pretty obvious.

then you're bring up the teammates argument...which I've already contested right away in those old topics and you know it too damn well because it's not the first time I'm bringing this up. bottomline - regardless of Kareem's teammates, his impact on their team defense should've been visible very easily. it wasn't. if he has poor defenders on his teams, it means the easier it will be for him to make an impact. Garnett example is way off here, as Timberwolves regressed DRASTICALLY when KG was off the floor. basically without Garnett they were consistently about 10 DRtg worse. that's DPOY-level impact.

I have no idea why you're bringing up Zo or Mutombo either, since the context of their situation is unimportant here, because the arguments I was making against Kareem (poor impact when changing teams/not playing and team results) are in Zo/Mutombo's favor. both Zo and Mutombo have made signficant defensive impact when changing teams/missing games and both have proved to be succesful defensive anchor in all-time sense. you haven't really refered to the results presented by DavidStern on page 1 of this thread.

as for all-defensive teams, it's certainly a valid argument but it's also the reason why we're having this conversation in the first place. if Kareem hadn't been making all-defensive teams in the 70s, I wouldn't have contested his all-time defense because he wouldn't be regarded as player of that magnitude...but still your picture of those "contemporary views" is overblown. there were multiple complaints about Kareem's defense, from players to normal observers. certainly Kareem's reputation wasn't all that good. it may have been obviously overblown due to his MVP production. I mean Bryant has been making undeserved all-defensive teams for years now, I don't think I have to spell it out to anybody here.

so in general you're presenting a classic line of defense of Kareem: teammates, boxscore stats, all-defensive teams. we (me, DavidStern, Regular) are trying to paint a different picture because of the new evidence we've found out and published here. for example teammates excuse can only be used when you're making a significant impact defensively, which is questionable now. boxscore stats are obviously of very little value when it comes to defense. multiple accounts Regular presented have contested the notion Kareem was perceived as great defender (adjective appearing particularly often is "inconsistent"). and on top of that, we're not even arguing Kareem's defense was bad. we're merely contesting his status as an all-timer. evidence I've just named demands "considerable consideration" as tsherkin told me once. even moreso when you're analysing data DavidStern gathered.

and it the end, if you want to make an argument for Kareem, you can't shy away from serious statistical debate and no, "tool's wrong then" argument does not have a big value in this discussion. so essentially somehow this data needs to be refered to:

1) Kareem's teams defensively in all time manner i.e. why didn't he anchor any great defenses or rather why does he compare so poorly with the other all-time centers ?
2) why didn't Kareem's team suffer more when he was absent/traded ?
3) where are those contemporary opinions about his inconsistent defense coming from ?

and seriously, if "what's wrong with your tool ?" is all you've got, I'm feeling a little disappointed here.

[PostKeynesian]

TrueLAFan, it's been a while
first I am going to sum up your arguments so it'll be more clear what I am responding to and how I interpret your post.

1) you're bringing up individual DWS, DWS/1000, DRtg. advanced boxscore stats in general
2) you're talking about Kareem's overall impact
3) all-defensive teams
4) Kareem's teammates
5) Zo's example
6) critique of with/without impact based on bench play affecting the results
7) critique of observations based on Mutombo's example
8) your conclusion: if my tool doesn't show Kareem as a great defender, the tool is wrong

lots of important stuff. first of all, let me start by saying that you haven't really presented a full theory with clear criteria and your criticism is inconsistent: once you're going after stats and their results, the other time stats are cool and you're good with the result...so which one is it ?

His point is that statistics need to back up what was perceived by others, through interviews or historical analysis of sorts. If they contradict interviews then the question is one of what is wrong with the statistical metric you are using and not what the statistics say about a player or person. This is why he brought up Zo, because nobody could say Zo wasn't an "anchor" because the statistics don't prove it if others at the time said he was a great defender.

it needs to be said that there's a highly positive correlation between your approval for certain player and stats you're using. in other words, you're using only those stats that support your theory, while showing scepticism whenever numbers aren't favoring your player.

Methodology is important here. The point of reference that the analysis starts from in addition to institutional analysis of the teams themselves(whom the player in question plays on) also matters. This means that generally accepted truths amongst players at the time that Kareem played on matters A LOT. This is what methodology is all about. Do you start your analysis by raising a theory that perhaps has a false premise, and run tests based on that theory, or do you start with the facts first and then provide theory grounded in the facts? What are facts? With basketball its more debatable, but I would still argue that interviews and general perceptions amongst those that played in and watched the games closely matters more than the numbers. You use statistics if you don't have other evidence to rely upon. Hence It's OK to use statistical evidence to back up interviews.

Now some of us don't like interview evidence. This is because we are personally biased and we don't like the truth. hence we use statistics to try and completely ignore the interviews. This is what you do, bastillon. What you call "analysis" is simply fraudulent analysis to argue whatever it is you want.

but we have to take all arguments into account, and then on the basis of their importance, you'll try to weight in each one of them. I don't even know why I'm saying this, it seems pretty obvious

practice what you preach.

then you're bring up the teammates argument...which I've already contested right away in those old topics and you know it too damn well because it's not the first time I'm bringing this up. bottomline - regardless of Kareem's teammates, his impact on their team defense should've been visible very easily. it wasn't. if he has poor defenders on his teams, it means the easier it will be for him to make an impact. Garnett example is way off here, as Timberwolves regressed DRASTICALLY when KG was off the floor. basically without Garnett they were consistently about 10 DRtg worse. that's DPOY-level impact.

This is what institutional analysis is all about. You can't put things in a vacuum to make these comparisons...this is unfortunately what statistical analysis does. yes I know you and others say "yes I know this" but then you conveniently dismiss it by saying that there are too many things to measure or that its effect is probably small. You can make your theories more empirically grounded if you relied upon better evidence-based analysis. Of course this is too hard for people who are lazy to go look for interview evidence or go out and conduct interviews themselves. I think what TrueLAFan is doing, if he truly conducted interviews as he claims, is revolutionary for analysis in sports.

but still your picture of those "contemporary views" is overblown. there were multiple complaints about Kareem's defense, from players to normal observers. certainly Kareem's reputation wasn't all that good. it may have been obviously overblown due to his MVP production. I mean Bryant has been making undeserved all-defensive teams for years now, I don't think I have to spell it out to anybody here.

Good...go find those views and post them here. Of course unfortunately we are relying on such a small sample of players here, so go back and look at newspapers and see what they have to say.

[TrueLAfan]

Well, ElGee and PostKeynsian said everything quite well and eloquently. Statistics in a vacuum are pretty much meaningless, especially advanced metrics. There are too many variables that can and do affect things. As I said in another thread, as much as we think we know about players and their interaction, there are all sorts of examples of trades and signings that don’t have the expected impact. The numbers have not added up. The way in which the individual has impacted the group dynamic has been unexpected. This leaves out the defects of coaching and rotations, and injuries … I mean, if you’re looking for a one metric tell all for individual basketball players (much less one for invidiaul player D), you are not going to find it.

ElGee … I wouldn’t necessarily say I’m pessimistic. I fall in the area of other posters (including, I believe, you) that say that we can get an idea of things from advanced use of stats … but, IMO, the picture is often murky and not clearly defined. It might be characterized as a starting point. I’m always pleased to see when people come up with ways of thinking outside the box statistically—and this includes much of your analysis, which I think is terrific. I don’t think of it as definitive in any way, but it provides valuable thoughts that, again, are jumping off points. But, essentially, that’s what I think of good metrics as … jumping off points.

(And I’ve got to add this—most serious baseball stat gurus think basketball statistics are insane. My favorite moment at the SABR convention this year was when discussing the value of SRS. A guy looked at me and said, “You’re comparing SRS use in, like, football, where a team plays once a week, and teams set up for individual plays, and work out specific defensive and offensive schemes for opponents, with basketball, where team play is interactive and constant, and you play 15-20 games a month, right?” He looked at me sideways, out of the corner of his eyes. “How’s that working for you?” I felt like Edward Norton when Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden was talking to him.)

I’m not sure where to go with Kareem as a defender from a numbers perspective. And he’s hardly alone in that boat. Nate Thurmond’s teams weren’t very good from a statistical analysis perspective. A lot of Zo and Mutombo’s teams weren’t. Mark Eaton’s teams were almost always very, very good. Elvin Hayes had elite level defensive numbers in many ways … but how much of this is due to teammate Wes Unseld? How much of that is methodology, how much of it is coaching, how much of it is team makeup? And are the outside factors causal? I don’t know. The fact is nobody knows.

Sometimes things are neat and line up correctly. Bill Russell’s defensive win shares. The defensive rating of Tim Duncan. Those are nice. But a lot of times it’s messy. The most obvious recent example is Kevin Garnett’s time with the T-Wolves. They were usually pretty mediocre on D—between 11th and 16th every year but one between 1999 and 2005. I’m of the opinion that if Kevin Garnett wasn’t the best defensive player in the league between 1999 and 2005, he sure was awful close. There are some statistics that deny this, some/most related to team play. I can tell you this. I think Kevin Garnett’s T-Wolves teams grossly misrepresent his defensive impact. I go with Kevin Garnett being an elite defender. Most analysis leans that way too. I think any analysis that says otherwise is dead wrong.

If you asked me, “Who is a better defensive anchor, Mark Eaton or Kevin Garnett?” I’d have to think about it. For about a millisecond. Eaton did obvious things very well. He was huge and blocked enormous numbers of shots. His teammates helped him defensively—he had great backup and help D from Thurl Bailey, who ran the court, switched off well, and was terrific on the weak side. T could play with either Eaton or Malone. Those skills aren’t as obvious as Eaton begin really tall and swatting shots—but I think Thurl Bailey had a lot more to do with Utah’s interior D than numbers give him credit for. Analysis tells me to take Eaton. Analysis is wrong. I take KG in a heartbeat. If he’d been given a guy like Matt Geiger or Greg Ostertag or Brain Grant—guys that are hardly superstars--Minnesota’s D would have been hugely improved. Didn’t happen. I don’t blame that on KG.

Same with Kareem. I think the majority of metrics are right. I think contemporary observers are right. If you want to argue about whether he was as good as Hakeem or Duncan, or “just” at the level of a Mutombo or Zo or Ewing or Cowens—hey that’s a fine conversation. But I think all of those players are defensive anchors.