Garnett VS Nowitzki-Year By Year Since 2001

[ahonui06]

of course he can.

Do you honestly think KG + role players works better than Dirk + role players? Because thats basically the gist of this whole debate for me. Both guys imo are elite elite all-time great players. Both have dominant but different games. When you and others make arguments that KG is a better player than Dirk you have legitimite arguments but I would take Dirk because he wins regardless of his teammates (and he has had 6 completely different cores in his Mavs career and has won with every single one) and KG didnt.

Again, why are you implying that if two players have cores that are built on role players then their teammates impact is the same? I don't get it. Just because they both were surrounded with role players doesn't mean that the role players were as good.

As for you question, on who would work better; KG + role players or Dirk + role players, I feel that the only answer is that it would depend on what role players they were working with.

The answer is simple. DIRK has played with a variety of core groups throughout his tenure with Dallas and they have made the playoffs every season in his prime. He's had offensive role players, defensive role players, and just complete scrubs like Evan Eschmeyer and Alan Henderson, but he still found a way to take Dallas to the postseason.

The same can't be said about KG. The fact of the matter is during a 3-year stretch in his prime, Minnesota failed to make the postseason.

[MisterWestside]

While I agree, that "role players" != "role players", keep in mind that the 2005 Timberwolves actually outscored their counterparts when Garnett was off the court.

We're just going with the +/- numbers now? KG played in a bunch of different lineups (and under two different coaches), but often with the likes of HoFamers Sprewell, Hudson, and Olowokandi together at the same time (or in different laughable combos). Hoiberg had a career year in 05, and was often paired with newcomer Eddie Griffin. That pair played well together and often didn't play with the dreg combos of the team in when KG was off the floor.

The players that KG played with were, overall, a joke.

[ahonui06]

While I agree, that "role players" != "role players", keep in mind that the 2005 Timberwolves actually outscored their counterparts when Garnett was off the court.

We're just going with the +/- numbers now? KG played in a bunch of different lineups (and under two different coaches), but often with the likes of HoFamers Sprewell, Hudson, and Olowokandi together at the same time (or in different laughable combos). Hoiberg had a career year in 05, and was often paired with newcomer Eddie Griffin. That pair played well together and often didn't play with the dreg combos of the team in when KG was off the floor.

The players that KG played with were, overall, a joke.

Same can be said about DIRK's teammates, but DIRK won more games with his jokes.

[mysticbb]

We're just going with the +/- numbers now?

Well, we can go by average RAPM as well.

Timberwolves anno 2005 in average without Garnett (minute weighted): -0.2
Mavericks anno 2011 in average without Nowitzki (minute weighted): 0.0

The one is called "plenty of help", the other is called:

The players that KG played with were, overall, a joke.

Yeah, if it doesn't fit, we just ignore how the teammates played, we are just going by names. Thanks for proving my point.

[mysticbb]

Do you honestly think KG + role players works better than Dirk + role players?

If both sets of "role players" are similar well fitting and have the same playing level, I don't see how in average it should work worse with Garnett. At peak level it would work even better with Garnett than with Nowitzki. I also don't see that it is easier to obtain the necessary "role players" for Nowitzki than for Garnett. The Timberwolves management was just less competent than the Mavericks FO in order to get the job done.

That the 2008 Celtics had a better team around Garnett than Nowitzki ever had, is also true, but that team also played on a level that season with Garnett the Mavericks with Nowitzki never had. And Garnett was clearly the best player on the Celtics in 2008, there can't be any reasonable dispute about that.

[MisterWestside]

Yes mystic, worship the RAPM numbers as if it's an infallible metric. Nothing like picking your one favorite all-in-one number to make your point. Nothing else counts.

[Dr Pepper]

I like mysticbb's list

As for KG vs Dirk. Give me Dirk since he's arguably the most unique match up nightmare in the history of the game and one of the best playoffs performers ever. Whereas KG is arguably worse than David Robinson as a no.1 option. And if you compare how to build roleplayers around them, Dirk needs a Chandler while KG needs elite playmaking from a Pierce level talent...and I think its easier to get the Chandler types, making Dirk's unique, even dominant scoring advantages that much stronger in the comparison imo

Both are more of the 'finesse' forward/centers than power, and both are pretty damn unique too, but Dirk as a no.1 option especially in the playoffs gives him the advantage imo

EDIT:

Also Dirk's playoffs series versus some of the era's best PF's like Duncan, KG, and Gasol showed that he could rival them and even outplay them too, arguably

[ahonui06]

Yes mystic, worship the RAPM numbers as if it's an infallible metric. Nothing like picking your one favorite all-in-one number to make your point. Nothing else counts.

Well you also don't value winning like TexasChuck and myself. So what do you value in this comparison?

[mysticbb]

Yes mystic, worship the RAPM numbers as if it's an infallible metric. Nothing like picking your one favorite all-in-one number to make your point. Nothing else counts.

Yeah, sorry, next time I try to be more arbitrary and declare supporting casts as a "joke" or "plenty of help" based on my gut feelings ...

[Texas Chuck]

that team [2008 Celtics] also played on a level that season with Garnett the Mavericks with Nowitzki never had.

Im purposely ignoring the first half of your post because I feel like enough holes have already been poked through that argument.

But as much as I wanted to stop posting here I cant let such a false statement as quoted above stand. Dirk's Mavericks had multiple better regular seasons than the 2008 Celtics and the 2011 Mavericks playoff run is absolutely more impressive than the 2008 Celtics.

[MisterWestside]

Well you also don't value winning like TexasChuck and myself. So what do you value in this comparison?

I can tell you it's not the "looking at one metric and accepting whatever it says as the ultimate truth" method like other posters here tend to do...

Yeah, sorry, next time I try to be more arbitrary and declare supporting casts as a "joke" or "plenty of help" based on my gut feelings ...

Actually, it's not.

Hey, while we're at it, oRAPM has Jason Terry right there with the +/- legend Dirk for 10 years. He *must* be as good as Dirk on offense! RAPM *says* so!

[mysticbb]

But as much as I wanted to stop posting here I cant let such a false statement as quoted above stand. Dirk's Mavericks had multiple better regular seasons than the 2008 Celtics and the 2011 Mavericks playoff run is absolutely more impressive than the 2008 Celtics.

It doesn't matter what you find "more impressive", the matter of fact is that the 2008 Celtics with Garnett on the court played +14.6 per 100 possessions, a value the Mavericks with Nowitzki did not have one single time. The 2011 Mavericks had +10.5 with Nowitzki, the 2007 had +10.2 and 2003 had +10.1. Not even once played the Mavericks for a season at the level the Celtics had in 2008 with Garnett on the court. So, you can now go on and ignore the facts, just like MisterWestside is doing it.

[mysticbb]

Hey, while we're at it, oRAPM has Jason Terry right there with the +/- legend Dirk for 10 years. He *must* be as good as Dirk on offense! RAPM *says* so!

Oh, you just found out that if the sample size for such regression exceeds a certain amount of time, the numbers will give false impressions. Look through the years and you will realise that Terry was not even once as close to Nowitzki as in the results from the 10yr dataset. That is an issue which can only be solved with correct development curves. If that does not exist, the algorithm assumes that each player was the same in each of the included game samples. As you might know it, that is obviously a wrong assumption. But explained that more in detail in a different thread already.

And you might start to stop acting like a child and stay with the facts here. You are about to look like ahonui06 with your attitude.

[Texas Chuck]

But as much as I wanted to stop posting here I cant let such a false statement as quoted above stand. Dirk's Mavericks had multiple better regular seasons than the 2008 Celtics and the 2011 Mavericks playoff run is absolutely more impressive than the 2008 Celtics.

It doesn't matter what you find "more impressive", the matter of fact is that the 2008 Celtics with Garnett on the court played +14.6 per 100 possessions, a value the Mavericks with Nowitzki did not have one single time. The 2011 Mavericks had +10.5 with Nowitzki, the 2007 had +10.2 and 2003 had +10.1. Not even once played the Mavericks for a season at the level the Celtics had in 2008 with Garnett on the court. So, you can now go on and ignore the facts, just like MisterWestside is doing it.

Are those numbers really more impressive than winning more games in a far tougher conference? You know a conference that doesnt have multiple teams with losing records make the playoffs. A conference where the 6th seed would have homecourt in the eastern conference. Are those precious +4 per 100 stats really better when they represent less wins against worse opposition?

Thats the thing--you accuse us of ignoring facts but both of us can pick the facts that support our guy. Why is your statistical superiority better than our superiority at the reason they play. Its not fantasy basketball because if it is I concede.

[MisterWestside]

Hey, while we're at it, oRAPM has Jason Terry right there with the +/- legend Dirk for 10 years. He *must* be as good as Dirk on offense! RAPM *says* so!

Oh, you just found out that if the sample size for such regression...

Stopped reading there. Guess what, mystic? You started it off with the raw +/- numbers, which obviously has flaws that you never addressed in your post (Sample size, anyone? Lineup adjustments?) Then you realized "Well, he got me there, so I'll use 1-yr RAPM instead". Better, but 1) that's not perfect either, 2) you seem to conveniently leave out the flaws with just looking at 1-yr RAPM, and 3) it's simply the +/- data. No use of any other evidence. Now that I bring up the 10-yr RAPM against your favorite player is when you decide to go over the "flaws" with the dataset

No, mystic. Don't come here with your explanation now.

[Texas Chuck]

You want to talk facts? Well this post will be only facts (plus one opinion that we share)

67 wins is more than 66
The Western Conference in 2006-07 was tougher than the East in 2007-08
KG had better teammates in 07-08 than Dirk did his MVP year

More Wins. Tougher Conference. Worse Teammates. Tell me again how you reached the conclusion that KG's performance was better than Dirk in basketball as opposed to fantasy basketball.

[mysticbb]

Are those numbers really more impressive than winning more games in a far tougher conference?

They are. If we adjust for the strength of schedule, we come still up way ahead of the best season the Mavericks had. Winning games in the end is also influenced by variance and luck, that's why record is worse predictor than SRS for example. Or RAPM being a better predictor than either.

Why is your statistical superiority better than our superiority at the reason they play.

What are you mean with "your" and "our"? I'm a bit lost right now.

Matter of fact is that scoring margin adjusted for the strength of schedule is a better predictor for the outcome of future games than the record. That's just how it is. The real strength of a team is better seen when we look at the SRS. And the Celtics in the games with Garnett in 2008 had a higher SRS than anything the Mavericks had with Nowitzki.

[Texas Chuck]

you kill me dude. So once the seasons have played out and there are no more games for those specific teams to play you are going to stick with some stats that say we are more likely to win future games over I dont know actually winning the games?

deleted a portion that felt a little cheap (tho correct) TC

[mysticbb]

you kill me dude. So once the seasons have played out and there are no more games for those specific teams to play you are going to stick with some stats that say we are more likely to win future games over I dont know actually winning the games?

No, you can pick a point within a season. And then go on predicting the outcome of the remaining games based on that. This is called out-of-sample test. And SRS or RAPM or my SPM are superior to record. That's just a simple fact.

Also pretty sweet to have the out that Dirk wins 50 every year and KG misses the playoffs 3 years in a row in his prime because of luck and variance--hope you dont play poker bro.

Which had nothing to do with Nowitzki having the better teammates for the most part, obviously. And you bringing up Poker makes me laugh really hard. How do you play that? Going by your feelings?

[ahonui06]

And you might start to stop acting like a child and stay with the facts here. You are about to look like ahonui06 with your attitude.

My attitude is great. I just value winning over statistics. Statistics are useful, but I value a superstar's ability to impact their team and lead them to a title.