RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[Texas Chuck]

(it's not just about his scoring, but he was also the main playmaker of his team, even as a bigman - he was basically a one man wrecking crew, one man team. When you see how much he had to do offensively, his defense was still awesome in Minny, even if he wasn't really an "anchor", he still usually played All-Defensive first team level D.

I agree with all of that. KG doesnt get nearly enough credit for his offense in Minny. They had some decent team offenses and he was the guy making a lot of that happen. I just think his defensive "impact" (not ability) gets over-stated in Minnesota. Flip really did some strange things with KG.

KG is absolutely underrated as an offensive player.

[therealbig3]

But then how can we conclude so definitively that Russell was a better defender than Minnesota KG? Because Russell's defensive impact would be dependent on the coach and the system in place as well. If Russell was put in KG's position, he might not have had as great of a defensive impact either.

[Texas Chuck]

My personal opinion is that Russell is that much better of a player. So ideal situation, terrible situation. doesnt matter I believe Russell would have greater defensive impact. No knock on KG, just how great I believe Russell would be even in today's era.

Plus essentially any coach would know what to do with Russell. He simply doesnt have KG's offensive ability so you wouldn't try and run your entire offense through him. Every coach would play him at center and let him anchor the defense and be a supporting offensive player. KG's offensive talent would be irresistable to most coaches and certainly on teams without another really good option.

[HeartBreakKid]

sigh

I suck at being clear I guess. Im not suggesting KG was a better player in Boston than in Minnesota. Im suggesting that he had more defensive impact in Boston(and far less offensive impact) because Doc Rivers knew exactly how to use him to maximize his skills.

Yes KG could bring the ball up the court(but that's a terrible idea and a waste of KG's energy). Yes KG could guard wings, but again that's taking one of the best 7 foot mobile defenders we've ever seen and turning him into Eddie Jones.

I just prefer how Rivers used him. And I will believe forever that KG had more defensive impact in Boston because of that. Not because his team was better and had better defenders around him. I can filter out that noise. Im old. I watched a lot of KG in Minny. I worked in Minneapolis for 2 years during KG's prime so I got to watch a ton of Wolves games. I know relying on my own memory and the dreaded "eye test" is flawed, but when the eye test and the statistical evidence agree its hard for me to overlook.

Okay, I agree that he was definitely used better in Boston, but I think it mostly comes down to just one thing - he had way better offensive talent around him, in Pierce and Allen, than he ever had in Minny. 2004 Sam Cassell was an excellent player, really good scorer, but other than him, they were pretty meh. Wally was decent, but he was more of a shooter, and obviously not someone who could be the #1 option over prime KG.

Garnett was obviously a very good scorer in his prime, still really good in Boston in 2008, but he was definitely never an elite go-to-guy at any point in his career, it's just not his main strength as a player. He'd be basically a perfect number two scorer, but it's just so damn difficult to be able to acquire someone better than prime KG as a scorer, with the salary cap, and still be able to surround them with good enough role players to be a really serious contender.

As far as his defense, his role on offense was way smaller in Boston, so he could make anchoring their defense his primary focus. I doubt he'd ever be able to duplicate that impact if he had to carry the same load offensively as he did in Minny (it's not just about his scoring, but he was also the main playmaker of his team, even as a bigman - he was basically a one man wrecking crew, one man team. When you see how much he had to do offensively, his defense was still awesome in Minny, even if he wasn't really an "anchor", he still usually played All-Defensive first team level D.

I guess I might be too nitpicky though, and it might be more of a problem that you not being clear enough with what you've written.

The thing is when you have an elite defender and someone who is still a top ten offensive player in the league at any given time like KG is (though obviously not quite cream of the crop), you don't particularly need a better option than KG.

What you do need is a good enough second option. The defensive gains you get from KG don't overwrite having guys like Wally Z as one of your best options, in conjunction with KG that's not going to cut it. But he's shown that if he is supplied with 18 PPG scorers he can do major damage. Hell, that's what he did when he had Sprewell. I mean KG gets so much flack, but look at Kevin Durant - he has/d bloody Westbrook and Harden, both those guys blow Sam Cassell out the water and Cassell was one of the best players KG played with, and he carried that team to the WCF.

If a team has championship aspirations, it isn't much to ask for a better 3rd option than Sprewell, it really isn't. You give Kg that, he's going to go to the finals or win the championship. I think people really underestimate what KG has done, while you could say he underachieved by not making the playoffs, but on the other hand when ever KG has seen success it is usually due to overachieving.

[Texas Chuck]

Teh counter argument to that of course is that Dirk in the same conference at the same time didnt have any better options than KG yet was winning 50+, even 60+ games every year and advancing in the playoffs. Yes he had slightly better teams, but he didnt have better 2nd or 3rd options. I think you have to be careful going that route in defense of KG.

[HeartBreakKid]

Teh counter argument to that of course is that Dirk in the same conference at the same time didnt have any better options than KG yet was winning 50+, even 60+ games every year and advancing in the playoffs. Yes he had slightly better teams, but he didnt have better 2nd or 3rd options. I think you have to be careful going that route in defense of KG.

Dirk had slightly better teams than KG? Dirk didn't have star second options, but he did have a lot of competent players and deep benches, I think you're being unreasonable if you're saying the mid 2000 timberwolves were only a little worse than the mid 2000s Mavs.

Dirk is also a very special player, players who are ranked in the top ten haven't done with Dirk has in terms of carrying.

[Texas Chuck]

I think that if you really look at the teams between Nash and Kidd its hard to make a good argument that Dirk had noticably better talent. They look better because of what Dirk allows you to get away with in playing defensive players who have serious offensive limitations while still having a very effective offense. For Dallas to still be rolling top 3 offenses with Damp/JHo/Griffin/JET at pg with Devin/Stack/KVH(or Crosure) off the bench is absurd.

Yes I stick with slightly better.

[lorak]

My personal opinion is that Russell is that much better of a player.

Why?

[Texas Chuck]

Why not?

[lorak]

Why not?

I don't know. I'm not claiming anything here. You are the one with thesis, so I'm curious what is justification of your opinion. So again - why do you think Russell was so much better player than KG?

[Texas Chuck]

my evaluation of each player?

Im confused. I thought it was near consensus that Russell was the better player?

Im guessing you are a guy then who thinks Russell doesnt translate as well to the modern game? I disagree and think he translates just fine.

I could do a break down, but essentially I view Russell as having the greatest positive impact in helping his teams win in NBA history. I guess he loses some effectiveness potentially playing in a different era, tho thats obvious conjecture either way, but I don't think he would lose enough to close the sizable gap between he and KG.

[lorak]

my evaluation of each player?

Im confused. I thought it was near consensus that Russell was the better player?

Better relatively to his own era. Your claim here is much stronger, though. That Russell was MUCH better and even if he would end up today on a weak team, under weak coach he still would have better team results (or at least on defensive end) than KG in Minny. If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that even under bad coach Russell's defensive impact would be huge today. And what I'm asking is why you think so. In what aspects of the game Russell was so much better and how you know that?

[penbeast0]

You don't "know" it lorak. However, you can extrapolate based on the best data available which shows that Russell's defensive impact was a great deal better than any peer -- including Chamberlain and Thurmond who showed outstanding defensive results relative to Kareem and the teams of the 70s. Garnett's defensive impact has been primarily extrapolated from RAPM and shows him to be the most impactful defensive player of his generation according to those numbers. However, from what we can tell, Russell's impact was greater. It's not a sure thing; but it's the best we can do given the information at our disposal. Other analysts disagree -- that's why we all wander in here and argue about these things.

[lorak]

However, from what we can tell, Russell's impact was greater.

But in his own era! (and BTW, even relatively to era it's not so obvious, but it's topic for different discussion) Texas Chuck is saying that TODAY Russell also would be MUCH better defensive player than KG no matter if he would play on bad team or under bad coach (and we know that in modern basketball coaching is essential for good defenses). And saying something like that based only on Russell's dominance during his own era is completely ignoring context, how much game has changed. We need deeper analysis here, we have to realize why Russell was so impactfull in the 60s and that now it would be much more difficult, because game is so different. For example three point line alone (so game from inside, postup oriented, to perimeter, drive and dish oriented) would lower Russell's (or any other big from 60s) defensive value.

[Texas Chuck]

Lorak,

I didnt respond again for a reason. And that reason is that any talk of Russell's impact in the modern era is mere conjecture. You obviously disagree with what I think will happen and that's fine. But where you confuse me is this talk of needing "Deeper analysis". We simply can't do that. You can make your guesses and I can make mine,but that's all they are. Each of us could attempt to justify our guess by lots of talk about styles and 3-pt lines, but ultimately we arent analyzing anything. We are guessing.

So each of us to our own opinion.

[lorak]

Lorak,

I didnt respond again for a reason. And that reason is that any talk of Russell's impact in the modern era is mere conjecture. You obviously disagree with what I think will happen and that's fine. But where you confuse me is this talk of needing "Deeper analysis". We simply can't do that. You can make your guesses and I can make mine,but that's all they are. Each of us could attempt to justify our guess by lots of talk about styles and 3-pt lines, but ultimately we arent analyzing anything. We are guessing.

So all talk on this forum is "guessing".

However, no matter if it is guessing or really looking into the game, you have some reasons why you think about Russell the way you think (with emphasis on "much better today even under bad coach/with bad organization"). It would be really nice if you would tell what they are.

[Texas Chuck]

No, not all we do on here is guessing. When we compare what actual players did on actual teams then we can analyze that. When we project guys into fictional circumstances, it can be a fun mental exercise and we all have on our ideas, but we should all realize at the end of the day, its pure conjecture and suggesting differently is misguided.


Of course I have some reasons. They are based on what Russell did when he played and comparing it to what KG did while he played.

I happen to think that Russell's skills and game would have absolutely no problem translating. Rebounding translates. If you rebound in high school, you rebound in college, you rebound in the NBA. So he would be an elite rebounder. He had an elite understanding of team defense, imo greater than any player before or since. Sure there are some things that are done differently now, with the rule changes and the emphasis both on shooting the 3 as well as defending it. But I make the assumption that the smartest defender ever would easily adjust to that, not be unfrozen caveman lawyer. I think he would likely add some muscle to his frame if he played today, but he would still have excellent mobility. With modern training and not having his time and energy consumed with racial politics, he would only benefit. Without the need to guard his man nearly as close since there are so few quality big man scorers, it would free him up to be even more of a factor as a help defender. Again this is the best help defender ever imo.

I think any coach in the NBA would be able to see Russell and play him at center and have him anchor the defense as his primary responsibility. No one would ask him to play PG or be an offensive hub. I fail to see how he could remotely be used incorrectly. And while I rag on Flip for some of the gimmicks he used involving KG, I understand why he did that. He was doing everything he could to help his team win. It hurt the impact KG was able to have defensively, but because KG was so good offensively, the net result for the Wolves was absolutely positive. So while thats not the ideal way to KG in a better situation, it almost certainly was the right way to use him in that one.

But those are simply my opinion and my projections. I don't believe that modern players are inherently superior. If Russell was in today's era he would bring his body and his mind and would also get all of the advantages KG had in training, pay, coaching etc. Its clear from your inquisition of me and your tone that you feel differently. So please understand I provide this info not in an attempt to change your mind, but simply because you asked me to.

[lorak]

No, not all we do on here is guessing. When we compare what actual players did on actual teams then we can analyze that. When we project guys into fictional circumstances, it can be a fun mental exercise and we all have on our ideas, but we should all realize at the end of the day, its pure conjecture and suggesting differently is misguided.

A little bit different example, but I think it will illustrate the point. 55W team from 2014 EC is better according to you than 50W team from 2014 WC? We shouldn't do any adjustments toward opponents strength and so on if we want to accurately evaluate which team is really better?

I think any coach in the NBA would be able to see Russell and play him at center and have him anchor the defense as his primary responsibility.

Why you think so? Not every coach realized since day 1 that for example Big Ben could be defensive anchor. And more important question - even if any coach would be able to see that potential in Russell what gives you certainty that he would be good enough to built great defense around him? (I mean, not all coaches are equally good on defensive end, for example Monty Williams has excellent defensive potential in AD, some decent defensive role players, but is unable to construct good D.)

[Texas Chuck]

No, not all we do on here is guessing. When we compare what actual players did on actual teams then we can analyze that. When we project guys into fictional circumstances, it can be a fun mental exercise and we all have on our ideas, but we should all realize at the end of the day, its pure conjecture and suggesting differently is misguided.

A little bit different example, but I think it will illustrate the point. 55W team from 2014 EC is better according to you than 50W team from 2014 WC? We shouldn't do any adjustments toward opponents strength and so on if we want to accurately evaluate which team is really better?

Im confused I guess why you think what you quoted means I think the above?

I think we can analyze the EC team and the WC team and decide which one is better. Those are historical teams who played real schedules. I think its quite possible that the 50 wins in the West is a more impressive feat. I'd want to look at the actual teams and how they went about winning tho before automatically declaring them the better team.

But I dont see how that relates very closely to whether or not Russ would be more impactful defensively that KG playing in the same era. Again that requires conjecture and its obvious that we all make different assumptions in forming our opinion. I can't say my assumptions are any better or worse than anyone else's. I can only go by what makes sense to me personally. But real teams in real conferences, there would be a lot of hard data that everyone could agree on, then we would add in some subjective opinion, but we'd have a much easier time reaching a meaningful conclusion imo.


edit: I agree AD has all the tools to be the next great defender, but its clear he's not there just yet. I'm not quite ready to lay all the Pelican's defensive struggles at the feet of just Monty especially since that's a flawed roster that dealt with a number of significant injuries.

And I'd assume that coaches would have seen Russell dominate in college for a year or two to a degree that Ben Wallace didnt. I think the gap between Russ and Big Ben is pretty sizable tho I have a great deal of respect for the career Wallace had.

[lorak]

No, not all we do on here is guessing. When we compare what actual players did on actual teams then we can analyze that. When we project guys into fictional circumstances, it can be a fun mental exercise and we all have on our ideas, but we should all realize at the end of the day, its pure conjecture and suggesting differently is misguided.

A little bit different example, but I think it will illustrate the point. 55W team from 2014 EC is better according to you than 50W team from 2014 WC? We shouldn't do any adjustments toward opponents strength and so on if we want to accurately evaluate which team is really better?

Im confused I guess why you think what you quoted means I think the above?

I think we can analyze the EC team and the WC team and decide which one is better. Those are historical teams who played real schedules. I think its quite possible that the 50 wins in the West is a more impressive feat. I'd want to look at the actual teams and how they went about winning tho before automatically declaring them the better team.

But I dont see how that relates very closely to whether or not Russ would be more impactful defensively that KG playing in the same era.

It relates closely, because in essence both comparisons are similar. Sure, one analysis needs deeper dinging, but this doesn't change the fact, that it's not "guessing". It is just more difficult.