Build around KG or DIRK?

[mysticbb]

drza, short reply, sorry.

I'm not suggesting that 70TS% against the Mavericks is the upper end and 42 TS% is the lower end Duncan's scoring efficiency overall, but that 42 TS% is closer to the lower end against Garnett while 70 TS% closer to the upper end against the Mavericks. In average he had about 52 TS% vs Garnett and 60 TS% vs. the Mavericks/Nowitzki. If you use that instead of the extreme numbers, you come up with 2 points difference instead of 10. Much more realistic than anything you implied.

Minutes distribution with a different skilled Garnett would change, that should be clear. Also, with weaker defense the Timberwolves would likely choose to avoid foul trouble for Garnett, which would force a different player on Duncan anyway. There really would be a different game dynamics, which would need to be evaluated. And that is my main concern here, your posts implies something about Nowitzki's value, even if you make a disclaimer like you did, but you are essentially using the preconceptions about Nowitzki here in order to imply a HUGE difference in terms of impact (10 points worse!), which was not seen in reality.

And then again, I agree with your point that better scoring gets in most cases the praise while the other stuff gets ignored. That this is wrong, is actually something we both agree on. But you really shouldn't use such extreme examples here even though you might not had the intention to give the implication regarding I mentioned.

[Swimmer]

Nice post, Texas Chuck. I agree with most of what you have to say here.

-- I think KG could be/has been more than a disruptive defensive force, a rebounder, and a #2 offensive threat. In spurts, he can be the first two and a #1 threat -- in his prime. I believe that drza has shown before that, even in Boston, he was at very worst, a 1B offensive threat. At this stage of his career, I think that this is more than reasonable.

-- Minnesota certainly used him improperly. They asked him to be the defense, the rebounding, and the #1 offensive threat, particularly in the playoffs. IMO, no player can be all three *on that level of minutes*. You have to cut down somewhere. The Mavs and Spurs (and now the Celtics) have done a great job preserving their game-changers, as you mentioned, by sparing them court-time or major defensive matchups.

[drza]

drza, short reply, sorry.

I'm not suggesting that 70TS% against the Mavericks is the upper end and 42 TS% is the lower end Duncan's scoring efficiency overall, but that 42 TS% is closer to the lower end against Garnett while 70 TS% closer to the upper end against the Mavericks. In average he had about 52 TS% vs Garnett and 60 TS% vs. the Mavericks/Nowitzki. If you use that instead of the extreme numbers, you come up with 2 points difference instead of 10. Much more realistic than anything you implied.

Minutes distribution with a different skilled Garnett would change, that should be clear. Also, with weaker defense the Timberwolves would likely choose to avoid foul trouble for Garnett, which would force a different player on Duncan anyway. There really would be a different game dynamics, which would need to be evaluated. And that is my main concern here, your posts implies something about Nowitzki's value, even if you make a disclaimer like you did, but you are essentially using the preconceptions about Nowitzki here in order to imply a HUGE difference in terms of impact (10 points worse!), which was not seen in reality.

And then again, I agree with your point that better scoring gets in most cases the praise while the other stuff gets ignored. That this is wrong, is actually something we both agree on. But you really shouldn't use such extreme examples here even though you might not had the intention to give the implication regarding I mentioned.

First, I really need you to get where I am that the point that I'm working towards with this particular thought exercise is Garnett-as-was vs high-scoring-Garnett-no-D-no-passing. NOT Garnett vs Dirk. That I realized 3 (long) posts ago that by invoking Dirk's name from one example game, I may have been insinuating more about Dirk than I could hope to support from a single game, so I AGREED TO NOT INCLUDE DIRK IN THE EXAMPLE. I'll even post the exact exchange that I am trying to make points/get clarity on, so you can see that this isn't just lip service, I really am aiming at a point about Garnett and how we evaluate good play in the playoffs. The exchange I'm amplifying was between me and tsherkin:

OK. Here's the first elimination game that you characterize as a failure. If all I had to go by was your description, I'd think that KG just stunk in this game. I mean wow, he shot terrible and left points on the board in a winnable game. Yeah, that stings...oh, but hold on for a second. Let's take a step back and look at the game as a whole:

Garnett - 20 points, 40% TS (26 total shot possessions, w/ FTs), 16 reb, 6 ast, 2 stls, 1 TO
Duncan - 16 points, 42% TS, 8 rebounds, 0 asts, 0 stls, 3 blks, 1 TO

Garnett KILLED Duncan in their head-to-head this game. Yeah, Garnett's shooting was off and it'd be great if he could have hit more. But he was facing the consensus best PF of all-time who was also backed up by a still almost prime David Robinson, if KG happened to get by Duncan. KG's running mate at center on that team, the man to help him face off against Duncan and Robinson, was DEAN GARRETT!!!! The only reason that this game was remotely winnable for the Wolves was that KG erased Duncan, dominated the glass, set the table for his teammates with a (team-high) 6 assists-to-1-TO ratio, and clamped the paint (Duncan and Robinson shot a combined 10-for-28 from the field).

Mmm, comparing him to Duncan seems moot here, though, since his defense didn't lead to the Wolves taking advantage of what he was able to accomplish against TD in that game. That would seem to support the notion that the defense matters only so much in the absence of offense.

I have no idea how you can reasonably conclude the underlined (note: I read that last sentence as an argument that the Wolves may have been better served in that game with added/more efficient scoring at the expense of the other parts of KG's game). The Wolves DID take advantage of what KG was able to accomplish against TD in that game, as well as his setting the table for teammates...that's WHY they were in it. I contend that a huge, efficient scoring explosion from KG but WITHOUT the defense and passing would have led to a worse team results than them losing by 7 points.

THIS is what I'm arguing right now, and have been for the last several posts. You're absolutely correct when you way that the game dynamic would change with the changed KG...THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANT US TO SPEND SOME TIME EVALUATING! My whole last long post where I pointed out the Wolves personnel, then detailed how '99 Duncan performed against all other defenses that postseason was meant to dig into this. If the other available options in the Wolves frontcourt were Joe Smith, DEAN GARRETT!!!, 35-year old Sam Mitchell, and rookie Rasho (with exactly 2 regular season games on his NBA resume to that point), can you conceive of any combination of those players that you could put out there next to no-D Garnett that would yield a defensive front line that was more likely to slow Duncan down than the other playoff defenses that he actually faced in 1999? Because I can't. If you can, by all means let's discuss it. I personally think that would be one of the worst defensive frontlines in the '99 playoffs and that the Wolves' defense as a whole would scrape the bottom of the barrel, but I welcome a dissenting opinion.

Second, while we're there, there's no way that 2 points is a realistic estimate for Duncan's expected scoring value difference against those Wolves with and without Garnett. You have to account for both volume AND efficiency. Historically, KG doesn't just cause much lower shooting efficiencies, he also causes reduction in volumes of shots taken. Which makes sense, if an opponent is getting swarmed defensively. So let's take another glance at Duncan's actual averages from the '99 playoffs (including highlighting his series against the worst defensive team he actually faced), then take moment to think about the ramifications of what the Wolves' defense with no-D-KG would mean for both Duncan and the rest of the Spurs.

'99 Duncan vs KG: 51.7% TS, 18.8 ppg, 18.5 possessions used shooting
'99 Duncan vs non-KG: 57.9% TS, 24.6 ppg, 20.9 poss/game used shooting
'99 Duncan vs Lakers: 60% TS, 29 ppg, 24.2 poss/game used shooting

I contend that a Flip Saunders defense featuring the '99 personnel with no-D KG would be the worst defensive frontline (and defense as a whole) that the Spurs would have faced that post-season, so the above non-KG numbers (in which 9 of the 13 games were against teams with the #4 and #6 defense in NBA) strongly underestimate what Duncan'd produce. Duncan's averages against the Lakers that postseason (ranked 23rd out of 29 in DRtg that year) are probably closer to what to expect against the no-D-KG Wolves. Also, because a) KG is no longer there to provide any help defense and b) the Wolves would have to double Duncan more and harder than they had to with KG around, I contend that David Robinson's scoring efficiency also increases. In fact, with the Wolves' defense now having to collapse onto Duncan and Robinson to keep their overmatched defenders from just getting overwhelmed, the other Spurs players are also getting better looks. The Wolves' TOs generated are down for obvious reasons, meaning that the Spurs have more opportunities to finish possessions with shots. Duncan is using a few more possessions per game shooting, but he's doing so at extremely high efficiency...Duncan and Robinson are also both willing and good passers for big men, meaning that the other Spurs are not only getting better looks in general but also getting them regularly.

My conclusion estimate: Duncan's individual scoring volume and efficiency are way up...I think the 29 ppg on 60% TS that Duncan averaged against the '99 Lakers are absolutely in play, perhaps too conservative. Likewise, the team's non-Duncan scoring efficiency also goes way up, and the passing efficiency of the team (as measured by assists vs TOs) should also be up. I see no way that the Spurs' overall ORTG doesn't increase dramatically in this scenario.

Do you disagree? Am I being too hyperbolic? If so, where do you disagree with my projection of how it'd play out?

[Texas Chuck]

-- I think KG could be/has been more than a disruptive defensive force, a rebounder, and a #2 offensive threat. In spurts, he can be the first two and a #1 threat -- in his prime.

Thanks for the kind words. I wanted to make a quick response to what Im quoting. I think KG proved in Minny in his prime that he was in fact capable of just what you are claiming. His numbers and our eyeballs tell us he was. I wonder tho if part of his relative offensive inefficiency in the PS was a result of

1. the incredible taxing load of playing 40 hard minutes for 82 games carrying the team on his shoulders on both ends
2. Only to have those minutes and responsibilities increased even more against tougher competition.

This is why I asked the question would Minny have been better off using KG differently. How much worse would they really have been asking the Joe Smiths and Dean Garretts from guarding Duncan primarily in the PS and saving KG for the 4th quarter much the way Dallas used Rafe/Bradley or Damp/Diop or even guys like KVH? drza and mysticbb are attempting to answer some of that for us. I wont pretend to be as qualified as them to crunch the data so I'll wait until they come back with more results. My guess is that they wouldn't be hurt nearly as much as they would be helped by having a fresher KG on the offensive end. Again I say this because outside of some isolated years from their pg crew--Brandon,Cassell,Billups, Hudson and the consistent punch from Wally those teams were pretty weak offensively.

Even as massive as his impact is defensively, I think on those specific teams the team would have been better off with him saving more energy for the offensive end by taking on some easier assignments on the defensive end earlier in the game. Again this is pure conjecture on my part but I think the gap between KG and Garrett/Smith/Rasho etc may be even larger on the offensive end than it is on the defensive end. And in the other thread we had going this is much of why I think Dirk had a better chance of taking the 05-07 teams to the playoffs. No coach would attempt to utilize Dirk in the manner they did KG

[drza]

-- I think KG could be/has been more than a disruptive defensive force, a rebounder, and a #2 offensive threat. In spurts, he can be the first two and a #1 threat -- in his prime.

Thanks for the kind words. I wanted to make a quick response to what Im quoting. I think KG proved in Minny in his prime that he was in fact capable of just what you are claiming. His numbers and our eyeballs tell us he was. I wonder tho if part of his relative offensive inefficiency in the PS was a result of

1. the incredible taxing load of playing 40 hard minutes for 82 games carrying the team on his shoulders on both ends
2. Only to have those minutes and responsibilities increased even more against tougher competition.

I plan to also go back and comment on your big post when I get the chance...the only reason that I haven't so far is I've been working on the other discussion with Mystic. But I do want to reply here, because a) it's a quicker response and b) I agree with Swimmer that you've really been making some good points in this discussion. I love it.

First, I absolutely agree with the first underlined here. I've tried to make this point myself, most recently in the Top Peaks project. Colts18 and I, in particular, got into it because I was claiming exactly what you suggest...that the stupid amount of responsibility that KG was having to carry, particularly when you factor in the level of competition vs the level of his teammates, absolutely played a major role in his scoring efficiency. Colts18 didn't like my characterization, though, because he couldn't agree with that mechanism...he preferred to focus on the defensive rating of the opponent. While that is also valuable to know, I contend that having to carry an outgunned team in every conceivable way against a juggernaut is going to affect your shooting percentage, even if the juggernaut opponent isn't known for strong D.

This is why I asked the question would Minny have been better off using KG differently. How much worse would they really have been asking the Joe Smiths and Dean Garretts from guarding Duncan primarily in the PS and saving KG for the 4th quarter much the way Dallas used Rafe/Bradley or Damp/Diop or even guys like KVH? drza and mysticbb are attempting to answer some of that for us. I wont pretend to be as qualified as them to crunch the data so I'll wait until they come back with more results. My guess is that they wouldn't be hurt nearly as much as they would be helped by having a fresher KG on the offensive end. Again I say this because outside of some isolated years from their pg crew--Brandon,Cassell,Billups, Hudson and the consistent punch from Wally those teams were pretty weak offensively.

Even as massive as his impact is defensively, I think on those specific teams the team would have been better off with him saving more energy for the offensive end by taking on some easier assignments on the defensive end earlier in the game. Again this is pure conjecture on my part but I think the gap between KG and Garrett/Smith/Rasho etc may be even larger on the offensive end than it is on the defensive end. And in the other thread we had going this is much of why I think Dirk had a better chance of taking the 05-07 teams to the playoffs. No coach would attempt to utilize Dirk in the manner they did KG

I won't go into a lot of detail here, but I will say this: what you describe here as the alternate approach, is exactly what I believe the Wolves tried to do against the Mavs in 2002. KG didn't spend much time on Dirk in that series. But instead of allowing KG to focus more on offense, it instead made his defensive effort become even MORE frantic. Literally all 4 other positions could not stop their man from driving with impunity (Chauncey on Nash, Peeler on Van Exel, Wally on Finley, nor whoever-on-Dirk), so KG spent the whole series hustling trying to help out on his teammates' defensive sieve. Oh yeah, and one of the other Wolves could rebound, either, so KG had to do all of that as well. I recall the Mavs using a set when the previous four were in the game with Raef LaFrentz, where all five Mavs would come out of the paint and near/beyond the 3-point line. Then, whoever had the ball would take their defender off the dribble and have a clear path to the basket. Inevitably someone (usually KG) had to dive down into the paint to help out, leaving a wide-open 3-point shooter behind the arc alone. This would either lead to open high-percentage 3s, or else scrambling defenders that eventually led to an easy Mavs shot inside the arc. It happened repeatedly.

I guess my point is, I don't know that we can conclude that the Wolves were necessarily using KG the wrong way by relying on him to do EVERYTHING for the team. In most cases, their personnel dictated that either KG do it, or else it was going to be a train wreck. Defense...offense...rebound...special teams...cheerlead...concession stand...if KG didn't do it, the alternative wasn't a league average substitute. If KG didn't do it, the team just couldn't do it at all. That's why people like me spend so much time trying to emphasize the relative weakness of the cast, and why the Cassell season was such a revelation. That was the only season in which Garnett played with a player that realistically helped make the game easier for him at one end of the court, and the end result was not only KG's best defensive year to date...but ALSO his best offensive season as well.

Thus, the in-correctness of how KG was used falls much more at the feet of Kevin Mchale and Glen Taylor than Flip Saunders. The issue wasn't that there were better options on the roster that weren't being used right...it was that there WERE no better options on the roster, so KG just HAD to do it all. That's the fault of the front office, and something that I just don't see how Dirk's more specialized ability would have made better. The team still wouldn't have been able to do the other things that they HAD to have KG do, which means that those aspects of the game would have been an even uglier train wreck even when arranged around the beauty of Dirk's scoring.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

That's why people like me spend so much time trying to emphasize the relative weakness of the cast, and why the Cassell season was such a revelation. That was the only season in which Garnett played with a player that realistically helped make the game easier for him at one end of the court, and the end result was not only KG's best defensive year to date...but ALSO his best offensive season as well.

The best + - per 48 for the 2004 Twolves playoffs was 36 year old Ervin Johnson.
KG basically played the whole game and to have the best + - per 48 you need to be a lot better than your replacement but your replacement must get playing time.
Ervin Johnson's replacement Olowokandi had the worst + - per 48 of players that got playing time.
Olowokandi and Oliver Miller combined played about 15 minutes a game. Looks like KG played 13 minutes a game at Center.
Ervins Johnson's 2nd replacement was KG at Center with a very small team.
http://www.82games.com/034PMIN1.HTM
Cassell and Sprewell's contributions to the Twolves 1 year brief rise to being a top 4 team are well recognized. Ervin Johnson never gets noticed.

Ervin Johnson played 20 minutes a game for the best Twolves playoff team.
Ervin Johnson played 32 minutes a game for the best Bucks playoff team in the last 25 years.
Ervin Johnson played 14 minutes a game for the best Sonics/Thunder playoff team in the last 25 years.
Just a coincidence?
Maybe Ervin Johnson was a character guy and good influence as well as being a good defensive role player.

[Texas Chuck]

drza,

I totally get what you are saying about KG having to do it all because there was no one else to do it. I guess what Im trying to get at is figuring out whats the most valuable way to utilize him. If we agree that KG's overall performance suffers from his unreasonable load then we should agree that figuring out a way to lighten it helps him and I would argue helps his team.

Thats why I want to know if the difference between KG and the other bigs on his team defensively might not actually be smaller than the difference between KG and those bigs offensively. If that is indeed the case then its clear KG was used at a way that did not maximize his value for his team.

Your point about putting him off of a primary scorer not lessening his defensive responsibilities or energy output is certainly a valid one. Against a team like the 02 Mavs you referenced its hard to rest KG defensively because of their ability and willingness to put 5 legit offensive options on the floor together and because of the style of play. But against the Spurs I should think there would have been more opportunity to rest him some defensively because of the slower pace and the fact that the Spurs would often have 2 relatively poor offensive players on the floor and because their style of offense.


Again this is pure conjecture on my part and obviously Flip and hte other coaches know far more about coaching basketball than me. Im just trying to figure out a way to make KG more efficient on the offensive end in the PS because I think that would have benefited the Wolves a tremendous amount.

[Swimmer]

TC -- I think you point out one way of resolving KG's burden, which is reducing rebounding/defensive/offensive strain by allocating some of that to someone else. The other way is just to push down his minutes, and probably, lose some games. Statistically, and for his legacy, this would almost assuredly be worse, but when you're asking someone to do everything, you need to keep down the wear on the tires (unlike drza, I blame this on Flip).

Obviously, doing this in the playoffs was not possible (I blame this on the management/personnel).

[LeBosh Wade]

i have KG ranked higher, and its pretty clear he's the superior player, but Dirk's shooting ability is too good to pass up
it's one of those situations where a person's ability to do something at a super-elite level overcomes all the great things another player brings

[Texas Chuck]

i have KG ranked higher, and its pretty clear he's the superior player,

it's one of those situations where a person's ability to do something at a super-elite level overcomes all the great things another player brings

your statements contradict each other.

[Texas Chuck]

TC -- I think you point out one way of resolving KG's burden, which is reducing rebounding/defensive/offensive strain by allocating some of that to someone else. The other way is just to push down his minutes, and probably, lose some games. Statistically, and for his legacy, this would almost assuredly be worse, but when you're asking someone to do everything, you need to keep down the wear on the tires (unlike drza, I blame this on Flip).

Obviously, doing this in the playoffs was not possible (I blame this on the management/personnel).

Yeah I thought about minutes reductions but I concluded that its no answer in the PS and that most of his Minny teams make it a pretty poor option even in the RS. Just like with the Mavericks teams, KG and Dirk have to be on the floor.