#11 Highest Peak of All Time (Garnett '04 wins)

[Doctor MJ]

Okay, looks like we have our first TKO. Garnett '04 takes it.

[colts18]

KG never played in the finals because he didn't step it up enough to make the finals.

OK, Prove that to me.

For one, KG didn't step it up in half the games in the Lakers series. I'm not saying its his fault they lost to the Lakers (it's not), but he didn't step it up to another level like Dirk and Wade did and both Wade and Dirk did it against superior opponents with weak supporting casts.

A team upsetting a better team makes one individual more impressive? Why doesn't it make Chandler, Stevenson, Kidd, Marion and Barea more impressive? Or LeBron less impressive? I'm sure you are aware that the odds of a 6 SRS team beating a 9 SRS team without HCA are about 1 in 4...25% of the time the better team will lose simply due to variance. You don't have to be a 10 SRS team to be a 9 SRS team.

25% plus you have to factor the odds of them sweeping a 7+ SRS team without HCA like the Lakers, then beating a 7+ SRS team in the post trade Thunder in 5, then a 4-5 SRS Blazers team. Thats why Dirk's impressive. It's not because he won one series, though beating that Heat team is very impressive.

For one, Stevenson, Kidd, and Barea shouldn't be in this discussion. They are horrible players who rode the coattails of Dirk. Yes Chandler should get some credit. He did a good job guarding Bosh (.496 TS%) and so does Marion for guarding LeBron a bit. The only other guy who gets credit is Terry who killed it from 3. The other guys on the team were nothing special.

I'm not sure how to fall behind 2.75-0...but yes, what I was asking you to think about is why wasn't this used an argument from you earlier?

I'm not sure what you are referring to? I think Wade coming back from that kind of deficit is special. KG didn't step it up to that level ever in his playoff career save 1 game vs. Sacramento. Walton did the same thing when down 2-0 vs. the Sixers and Dr. J, he played well.

There's nothing explicitly "wrong" with being results-oriented, if that's what you want to do (and you aren't really considering overall performance indicators, variance and luck if you are, by definition)...but the biggest problem i see with your stance is that you aren't separating context from "performance." It's been explained many times that someone's raw offensive stats dropping don't mean they are a poorer player than when they had better stats...because stats are context-dependent. As in, (1) the opponent and (2) one's own teammates.

Yes I do take variance into account some. I don't think 92 MJ is his best form despite hitting all 3 point shots vs. Portland since that was more luck than skill. Just like I'm not punishing Duncan in 06 for Manu's foul or Nash for getting pushed by Horry leading to his team losing.

Context is very important which is why I look at results adjusted for teammates, context, and luck (donaghy, Horry going 2-38 from 3, Nick Anderson missing FT's, etc.). Beating the 2011 Heat without HCA who with a short bench was close to a true 9-10 SRS team is very impressive especially when you consider that Dirk had to come back in the 4th quarter a few times because his teammates completely collapsed in the few minutes he was out.

I know you don't take into account leverage, but its important. 4th quarter is more impressive since most games are close in the 4th. I was reading somewhere (I can't remember where) that the WP from the 1st quarter to the 4th doesn't really change much since most teams are pretty close at the start of the 4th. And by extension the CF and finals are more important. A 38 point Wade game in Game 4 of the finals is more impressive than 43 pointer in the 1st round. The CF and Finals is where titles are won.

[MisterWestside]

My post wasn't to you. I was asking therealbig3 for his take.

[drza]

Are you noticing the trend here? Garnett ALWAYS has ridiculous postseason +/- numbers. We're now talking samples with 4000 minutes on court and more than 1000 minutes off court, all told. So it's not sample size. We're now talking one title team, one Finals team, 2 other conference finalists, a 2nd round team and two first round teams...so it's not "ceiling effect" or "easier to lift poor teams". We're talking superstar-with-poor-help, best-star-on-team-with-two-other-stars, and ensemble cast after a major KG injury...so it's not some type of role artifact.

Garnett always shows up as a HUGE positive in the postseason.

Do you know how many times in the last decade Dirk has posted an on/off +/- of +16 or better in even a single postseason? Twice (2009 and 2011)

How about Wade? Once (2006)

Steve Nash? Once (2006)

Kobe? Never, but came closest in 2009 (+13.4)

Duncan did it four times (2003, 2006, 2010, 2012; don't have 2002 score for Duncan, could be a fifth)

drza, if you've got a current source, or a spreadsheet that'd be awesome. 82games' old data pages aren't showing up.

I've got an EXCEL sheet that I've cobbled on through the years with the postseason +/- numbers for a bunch of guys. It's not exactly company ready (I do a lot of "doodling" and it's not super neat), but if there's an easy way to transfer it to you I don't mind. But these days, you can recreate all of the on/off +/- stats back to 2001-02 using the B-R software. Just get a player's on-court +/- by total, then subtract their on-court +/- from the team's total margin and their minutes from the team's total minutes, and you've got what you need for the calculation.

[ElGee]

KG never played in the finals because he didn't step it up enough to make the finals.

OK, Prove that to me.

For one, KG didn't step it up in half the games in the Lakers series. I'm not saying its his fault they lost to the Lakers (it's not), but he didn't step it up to another level like Dirk and Wade did and both Wade and Dirk did it against superior opponents with weak supporting casts.

This is your attempt to prove something to me? That's it? I tell you to prove to me that KG "didn't step it up enough" and your answer is "For one, KG didn't step it up." That's it? Do you think this is convincing or logical?

[therealbig3]

My post wasn't to you. I was asking therealbig3 for his take.

I tend to agree with mysticbb. It seems that when a team plays well, yes, people do seem to go overboard and give the star all the credit, but some people (not saying anyone here does that, just an example) go to the other extreme in trying to be careful not to go overboard, and give the role players all the credit.

And I do agree that assuming that the players around him don't hit shots is an unfair way to view what Dirk does, because it is an argument you can use against anyone. Why are Shaq and Jordan and Magic and LeBron and Bird considered such great offensive players? Mainly because of the attention that they draw, and by being smart enough to hit the open man, they're creating consistent offense. But what if those players they pass it to for open looks consistently miss their shots? Again, doesn't make those players any worse, but now the offenses they're leading aren't so good, because the role players aren't doing what they're supposed to do. Nobody takes this "What if" stance with them though, because that's silly to assume. We should assume they have NBA talent around them, meaning they have guys that can hit open shots, meaning that the attention they draw will greatly benefit the team.

It's the same case with Dirk, so I don't understand why his impact should be critiqued like that, when you really could say it about anyone ever. The fact is, he WAS the main reason why his role players got great looks, and he WAS the main reason why the offense was still so good with certain lineups, and he WAS the main reason why Dallas was able to play a unit of strong defensive players around him, while maintaining the offense. He shouldn't get ALL the credit (nobody ever should), but he deserves quite a bit of the credit, the same credit that other superstar offensive players get when they "make players around them better".

[MisterWestside]

Good post therealbig3 and I agree with you in general.

Nobody takes this "What if" stance with them though, because that's silly to assume. We should assume they have NBA talent around them, meaning they have guys that can hit open shots, meaning that the attention they draw will greatly benefit the team.

I think that special cases happen, however. It would be false to conclude that LeBron forgot how to play basketball since he moved to Miami just because his "impact" numbers dropped (and the factors of team fit and RealGM's favorite topic of "redundancy" have been discussed at length countless times). But I wouldn't hesitate to put 2012 LeBron among his best seasons even if the "lift" isn't Cleveland level -- the box metrics and watching his 2012 camapign (and comparing it to his other "hit" seasons that I still have footage for) win out for me.

[colts18]

This is your attempt to prove something to me? That's it? I tell you to prove to me that KG "didn't step it up enough" and your answer is "For one, KG didn't step it up." That's it? Do you think this is convincing or logical?

Game 1: 16-10-2, .504 TS%, 11 Game score
KG goes 0-3 in the last 1:30 even though his team was within 4 points. Bad game. This is a game he should have won considering his teammates had a .602 TS% and provided 72 points. Should have been a win at home.

Game 3: 22-11-7, .483 TS%, 4 TOV, fouls out, 13.5 game score
His teammates were .564 TS% and scored 67 points. Could have won this one.

Game 6: 22-17-2, .486 TS%, 8 TOV, fouls out again, 11 game score
Teammates this time give him 68 points and .541 TS%, 15 assists. He rebounded well but didn't do much other. He had 8 turnovers and was inefficient which is killer.


Compare that to Dirk who really didn't have a horrible game in the 2nd round or WCF which allowed his team to win vs. superior opponents.

[ElGee]

This is your attempt to prove something to me? That's it? I tell you to prove to me that KG "didn't step it up enough" and your answer is "For one, KG didn't step it up." That's it? Do you think this is convincing or logical?

Game 1: 16-10-2, .504 TS%, 11 Game score
KG goes 0-3 in the last 1:30 even though his team was within 4 points. Bad game. This is a game he should have won considering his teammates had a .602 TS% and provided 72 points. Should have been a win at home.

Game 3: 22-11-7, .483 TS%, 4 TOV, fouls out, 13.5 game score
His teammates were .564 TS% and scored 67 points. Could have won this one.

Game 6: 22-17-2, .486 TS%, 8 TOV, fouls out again, 11 game score
Teammates this time give him 68 points and .541 TS%, 15 assists. He rebounded well but didn't do much other. He had 8 turnovers and was inefficient which is killer.


Compare that to Dirk who really didn't have a horrible game in the 2nd round or WCF which allowed his team to win vs. superior opponents.

And how do you know that Garnett wasn't creating all those easy shots for his teammates?
That his turnovers weren't the results of other's errors?
That his TS% wasn't cause by a bail-out shot or two, a tip-in miss or two, or a heave?
How do you know that his assists weren't the result of blown layups or missed wide-open shots?
How do you know his rebounds didn't help his TEAMMATES get rebounds and that his were ones a normal player otherwise wouldn't have grabbed?
How do you know what defensive impact he had the game?

[thizznation]

It sounds like you are getting close to the point of "If Garnett's teammates falter, it's because they are bad; If Garnett's teammate plays well, it's a direct correlation to Garnett's positive influence". Self fulfilling argument.

[mysticbb]

It sounds like you are getting close to the point of "If Garnett's teammates falter, it's because they are bad; If Garnett's teammate plays well, it's a direct correlation to Garnett's positive influence". Self fulfilling argument.

That wouldn't be so bad, if that would be applied to everyone in the same fashion, but some of the players seem to be more equal than others ...

He shouldn't get ALL the credit (nobody ever should)

Indeed, no player ever won anything alone, it is a 5on5 game, in which teams are beating teams. But that should be applied to ALL players in the same fashion, not arbitrarily choose to make a big point for one player that his teammates played good when he was on the court, while it doesn't matter how they played without him.

[drza]

This is your attempt to prove something to me? That's it? I tell you to prove to me that KG "didn't step it up enough" and your answer is "For one, KG didn't step it up." That's it? Do you think this is convincing or logical?

Game 1: 16-10-2, .504 TS%, 11 Game score
KG goes 0-3 in the last 1:30 even though his team was within 4 points. Bad game. This is a game he should have won considering his teammates had a .602 TS% and provided 72 points. Should have been a win at home.

Game 3: 22-11-7, .483 TS%, 4 TOV, fouls out, 13.5 game score
His teammates were .564 TS% and scored 67 points. Could have won this one.

Game 6: 22-17-2, .486 TS%, 8 TOV, fouls out again, 11 game score
Teammates this time give him 68 points and .541 TS%, 15 assists. He rebounded well but didn't do much other. He had 8 turnovers and was inefficient which is killer.


Compare that to Dirk who really didn't have a horrible game in the 2nd round or WCF which allowed his team to win vs. superior opponents.

That's a garbage standard and you know it, based on you carefully choosing "2nd round or WCF" as your qualifiers. What about Dirk in the Finals, in his 3 worst games?

Game 2: 24 - 11 - 3, 51.5% TS, 5 TOV, 14 game score
Game 4: 21 - 11 - 1, 44.9% TS, 3 TOV, 9.9 game score
Game 6: 21 - 11 - 1, 37.7% TS, 2 TOV, 8.1 game score

Those 3 games are clearly worse than the 3 Garnett games you posted, according to the box scores. The difference? The Mavs went 3 - 0 in those games, because the teammate/competition ratio was better for Dirk in '11.

And what about even the first round of 2011? What did Dirk's worst 3 games look like? Well, he had another three games with game scores between 9.2 and 14.7, right on the order of the three KG games you posted above. Only again, the Mavs were able to win a game with him "struggling" and win every game when he played well to take the series. If the Mavs were under the same type of "perfection or bust" standard that the Wolves were under with KG, they'd have never made it out of the first round in 2011!

And anyway, this is an unsatisfying exercise because Dirk, like Garnett, influences the game in ways that don't show up in the box scores. You're not going to get the sum impact of either one by just looking at game scores. But you're in such a hurry to try to discredit KG that you set up these arbitrary standards (stepping up!) or ignore other information (now 4000 minutes on-court and 1000 minutes of off-court time isn't adequate to make value estimates???) just to fit your case. Only when you do that, you repeatedly trip over the fact that the very standards you're moving around to fit KG would ALSO fit the very players you're trying to prop up, and the very stats you'd like to use to prop up others have to be minimized because otherwise they might accidentally support KG. You keep moving the goal posts back and forth to try to make the data fit your narrative, and all you end up doing is tying your own arguments up in knots.