RealGM Top 100 List #6

[colts18]

Here is how KG has done in common series with Shaq (4 series)

Shaq: 27-12-3, 55 FG%, 114 average O rating, 3-1 record
KG: 16-9-4, 44 FG%, 103 average O rating, 0-4 record

[Warspite]

Larry Bird

GOAT peak

ROY and then top2 in MVP for the rest of his healthy career. GOAT winning % of any player ever. The heart and will to win. Huge performances in game 7s. Great leadership (1984) Just a completely dominate player of his era.

"I fear no man but Larry Bird" Magic Johnson


I just dont see the KG vs Duncan Its more like KG vs McHale to me. KG has always looks a level or 2 below the ALL NBA players. He was that borderline all star.

I saw KG at Farragut play in the State tourney and he was the 4th or 5th best player in the tourney and in the semi finals his team was down and he couldnt take over the game or even change the momentum. He was outplayed by Melvin Ely in the paint and the team had to rely on Ronnie Fields who had a sub par shooting night and the team went down.

To me that is the story of KG. Great talent who simply lacked the ability or mentality to impact a game. I just cant put a beta player in the top 20. I have much more respect for a guy who tries and fails than a guy who just goes through the motions. Thats true in basketball and life.

[shutupandjam]

There is no post-2006 NPI RAPM data except for the for the ones from 2012-2014.

Ok, here is NPI RAPM data from 2007-2011:

http://shutupandjam.net/nba-ncaa-stats/npi-rapm/

[pancakes3]

Statistically, for instance, LeBron is Bird’s equal or superior as a passer. As a watcher of games, I disagree with that.

Is this clear cut to you (and others)? To me, LeBron is an absolutely brilliant passer who, every time I watch him, amazes me with his ability to find open teammates no matter where he is or they are on the court. Bird is an incredible passer too, but I wouldn't call him clearly superior to LeBron in this respect.

To me, Bird is better is because he can get the ball to guys who aren't even open - at least not obviously open. And he does it in a split second. Often with his back to the basket. Often on touch passes. Just unbelievably difficult once-in-a-career highlight reel caliber passes that most guys don't even attempt and Bird has hundreds of them without ever being the primary ball handler.

[Notanoob]

I considered starting a separate thread for this, but isn't it concievable that David Robinson is ahead of KG? I did a pretty basic, numbers free comparison between the two and Russel in a previous thread. They are pretty similar.

Both are athletic freaks who were absurdly mobile for their size.

Both were miscaste as first options for their team.

Both had to carry garbage squads until late into their careers.

Both fell off in terms of scoring in the playoffs.

The differences are that DRob was a much better paint protector, and a better volume scorer who relied on his face-up game, KG was a better passer who spaced the floor with an excellent jump shot.

Without looking at impact data like RAPM, I think that Robinson was a better player.

Also, isn't Dirk dead even with KG in terms of RAPM, which is the most comming piece of evidence posted by KG supporters? Why isn't he getting discussed if KG is?

[shutupandjam]

I considered starting a separate thread for this, but isn't it concievable that David Robinson is ahead of KG? I did a pretty basic, numbers free comparison between the two and Russel in a previous thread. They are pretty similar.

Both are athletic freaks who were absurdly mobile for their size.

Both were miscaste as first options for their team.

Both had to carry garbage squads until late into their careers.

Both fell off in terms of scoring in the playoffs.

The differences are that DRob was a much better paint protector, and a better volume scorer who relied on his face-up game, KG was a better passer who spaced the floor with an excellent jump shot.

Without looking at impact data like RAPM, I think that Robinson was a better player.

Also, isn't Dirk dead even with KG in terms of RAPM, which is the most comming piece of evidence posted by KG supporters? Why isn't he getting discussed if KG is?

Completely agree that Robinson is superior to Garnett (I think he's the most underrated player on these boards), I was planning on expanding on this idea in the next thread. Robinson is a top 5 RS box score player and the rapm data we have for him at the end of his career is terrific.

Robinson NPI RAPM ages 32-37:

1998: +3.6
1999: +6.6
2000: +3.4
2001: +4.1
2002: +3.2
2003: +3.2


Estimated Impact (my box score spm) has him as the #3 per 100 poss career player after LeBron and Jordan, here are his year by year numbers:

1990: +5.6
1991: +6.3
1992: +7.1
1993: +5.5
1994: +9.1 (2nd best reg season off all time after 09 LeBron)
1995: +7.2
1996: +7.2
1997: +0.3 (injured)
1998: +5.9
1999: +5.1
2000: +4.5
2001: +4.3
2002: +2.8
2003: +1.4


People get really down on him because of playoff 'failures' and perhaps lack of longevity (and this), but I'll put his peak up against nearly anyone.

[Baller2014]

Longevity holds D.Rob back, but yeh he should be discussed in the top 15 area.

[Purch]

Vote: Garnett

First off, just wow drza! What I would give to see breakdowns of everyone else in such detail.

With Duncan inducted now I don't know how Garnett discussion will go but my worry is this: that Garnett has a link to Duncan in how people see his strengths and people will tend to put that out of mind when comparing him to other players with less in common, and that this will let people rationalize a major gap between the two players despite the fact that they can't directly justify anything so drastic.

So just try not to let yourself do that. Think on Duncan when you now consider Garnett, and think of what drza and others have said. If you have any tendency at all to dismiss Garnett's defense, I would urge you to actually try typing up your reasoning and see if you really think it stands up to the depth people have gone into showing the staggering depth and breadth of KGs work over the course of his career.

To those fixated on Garnett not being "the man" in terms of scoring, you need to shift your perspective to be more holistic. To win a team needs scoring sure, but it needs lots of other things too. Entering into player comparisons looking first at scoring is an unjustifiable bias.

And finally just circling back to Duncan, remember that his teams' best offensive results were not based on his peak as a volume scorer. Don't let the fact that Duncan happened to play in a more traditional offensive model earlier in his career fool you into putting these guys into entirely different categories.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Thats an Intresting idea. I haven't heard it since Jazz fans felt that Malone and Stockton should be linked in these kind of rankings, due to the role they both played in each others success.

Personally I think If a person truly is deserving of a spot, it happen on it's own merits, without the need to be linked to another player.

[90sAllDecade]

People have spoken on the flaws of non prior informed RAPM used in later years.

Can you expand on this?

I noticed on colts's site he only has npi rapm up to 2006. Is there a place where people are getting post-06 npi rapm? If not, I can put it up somewhere.

Edit: typo

I meant certain years and Hakeem's later years, it was a typo on my part as well.

I can't claim to be a RAPM expert, but from what I have read, non prior informed RAPM isn't a strong a stat as Prior Informed RAPM, I could be wrong though. Both seem to have inaccuracies and some have said that since they involve lineup data, while the error can be diminished it's still there to some degree.

Perhaps folks can speak on why prior informed is preferred over non prior informed and wasn't data missing prior to 1998 for certain RAPM? Is pre 1997 informed RAPM as accurate as present? What are some of the errors and noise involved?

I've been reading about it on various sites here are some excerpts:

Jeremias Engelmann’s site stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com contains several versions of RAPM for different purposes. He’s got 1 year RAPM for the last 5 or 6 years, a 3.x year rating that has best out-of-sample accuracy for this year, some longer term ratings, ratings for the Euroleague, and ratings for several stats (such as rebounding). The framework is all RAPM. There are a few issues, as mentioned above: the regression of rarely-used players to league mean is a big one, the lack of aging adjustment for multi-year ratings another, and not weighting multi-year ratings towards recency for best predictive power a third.

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/n ... ilization/

One way to do this is to compute “Fake RAPM”, as Jerry Engelmann has done for the 90s at his site

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unf ... preadsheet

Again, I'm still learning about this and I'm not discrediting RAPM or not acknowledging its excellent value, I just seek to understand it's limitations and put it in context.

[TrueLAfan]

Magic--Most versatile; definitely the most valuable rebounder by position. Great peak. After early hiccups involving run-ins with management, was a model player—maybe the highest intangibles. Moderate length peak; Career shortened by factors outside of his control.

Why outside of his control? Somebody forced him to all these intercourses?

Was someone else forced to retire that I’m not aware of? The players that were vocally against having Magic come back were against having basketball players people tested for any infectious diseases. In other words, they didn’t want Magic to play—but didn’t want to know if any else on the court might have the HIV virus or Hepatitis or something else.

For instance, I like Clyde Drexler, but …

“But you have to have to understand what was going on then. Everybody kept waiting for Magic to die. Every time he’d run up the court everybody would feel sorry for the guy, and he’d get all that benefit of the doubt. Magic came across like, ‘All this is my stuff.’ Really? Get outta here, dude. He was on the declining end of his career.”

“If we all knew Magic was going to live this long, I would’ve gotten the MVP of that game, and Magic probably wouldn’t have made the Olympic team.”

Really? Clyde Drexler is less than three years older than Magic Johnson. Magic Johnson was 32 years old when he retired from the NBA, 32 when he played in the Olympics. Hardly out of his prime. Magic was ninth on the team in scoring and eighth in FGA/G…but second on the team in assists. Drexler shot 25% more per game than Magic. Hardly "coming across like all this is my stuff." And Magic had been second in MVP voting in 1991—less than 18 months before he said he’d return to the league “on a limited basis.” Doesn’t seem like Magic was exactly holding Clyde—or anyone—back in the Olympics or any other time. We don’t know if Magic was on the decline or not. Players such as Karl Malone and Clyde Drexler kept us from ever finding out.

Those are unfortunate statements from a great player and are pretty much recognized as such now. At the time, the NBA instituted new policies—which are still in place now—to protect players. At least Malone had the decency to apologize after the fact and show his growth as a human being, much less professional athlete. I am really consciously avoiding non-basketball impact of NBA players in society on this thread (and any other during this project)--but I’m not sure this is an argument you want to go for, even given the knowledge/relative ignorance of 1992 and 1993.

Statistically, for instance, LeBron is Bird’s equal or superior as a passer. As a watcher of games, I disagree with that.

Is this clear cut to you (and others)? To me, LeBron is an absolutely brilliant passer who, every time I watch him, amazes me with his ability to find open teammates no matter where he is or they are on the court. Bird is an incredible passer too, but I wouldn't call him clearly superior to LeBron in this respect.

To me, Bird is better is because he can get the ball to guys who aren't even open - at least not obviously open. And he does it in a split second. Often with his back to the basket. Often on touch passes. Just unbelievably difficult once-in-a-career highlight reel caliber passes that most guys don't even attempt and Bird has hundreds of them without ever being the primary ball handler.

I pretty much agree with this. Bird was able to make unexpected passes on a (far) more regular basis than LeBron. This is not taking anything away from LeBron; John Stockton and, for the most part, Steve Nash have assist numbers at or better than Magic’s level. I don’t either is the equal of Magic as a passer. I think the distinction is worth something.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Garnett

First off, just wow drza! What I would give to see breakdowns of everyone else in such detail.

With Duncan inducted now I don't know how Garnett discussion will go but my worry is this: that Garnett has a link to Duncan in how people see his strengths and people will tend to put that out of mind when comparing him to other players with less in common, and that this will let people rationalize a major gap between the two players despite the fact that they can't directly justify anything so drastic.

So just try not to let yourself do that. Think on Duncan when you now consider Garnett, and think of what drza and others have said. If you have any tendency at all to dismiss Garnett's defense, I would urge you to actually try typing up your reasoning and see if you really think it stands up to the depth people have gone into showing the staggering depth and breadth of KGs work over the course of his career.

To those fixated on Garnett not being "the man" in terms of scoring, you need to shift your perspective to be more holistic. To win a team needs scoring sure, but it needs lots of other things too. Entering into player comparisons looking first at scoring is an unjustifiable bias.

And finally just circling back to Duncan, remember that his teams' best offensive results were not based on his peak as a volume scorer. Don't let the fact that Duncan happened to play in a more traditional offensive model earlier in his career fool you into putting these guys into entirely different categories.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Thats an Intresting idea. I haven't heard it since Jazz fans felt that Malone and Stockton should be linked in these kind of rankings, due to the role they both played in each others success.

Personally I think If a person truly is deserving of a spot, it happen on it's own merits, without the need to be linked to another player.

All I'm suggesting is that people actively look to combat passive acceptance of the status quo and therefore ensure an objective assessment of merit.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Baller2014]

Two quick comments:
1) Like I said, I think you should avoid non-basketball stuff unless it impacted your team on the basketball court. To use a few examples. Rodman's hugely negative intangibles undoubtedly hurt some of his teams. Kobe, to (maybe) a lesser extent is the same. On the other end of the spectrum, I've got no issue with Magic's one "blemish" of getting his coach fired, because it looks like that helped rather than hindered the team. The coach was running the wrong system, and Magic was in the right of it. It's not like Magic's coach ever had a pulse again after that, basically he appears to have been the beneficiary of the Lakers, not the other way around. Similarly, I really dislike the anti-Dantley myth. Dantley doesn't seem to have done anything wrong I can see, certainly not in a provable way. Yes, he was a black hole on offense, but that was his job and he was very good at it. He scored super efficiently, so that just seems like Dantley doing what he was told to. When he was told to have a lesser role, he did that too.
2) I hate the argument that "we better vote in player X, because player Y is already in!" It's not an argument. I assure you I will not be voting Stockton in my top 40, regardless of how long Malone has been in. Players need to get in on their own merits, and not with a reference to another player who the media dubbed "their rival" or "their co-partner".

[shutupandjam]

from what I have read, non prior informed RAPM isn't a strong a stat as Prior Informed RAPM, I could be wrong though. Both seem to have inaccuracies and some have said that since they involve lineup data, while the error can be diminished it's still there to some degree.

Perhaps folks can speak on why prior informed is preferred over non prior informed and wasn't data missing prior to 1998 for certain RAPM? Is pre 1997 informed RAPM as accurate as present? What are some of the errors and noise involved?

Here's the thing about prior informed rapm: it's better in the sense that it carries more information and is therefore more stable. But each year builds on the previous year (at least the way TP and JE calculate it), which built on the previous year and so on. For example, 2014 PI RAPM still carries some info from 2006.

Because of this, I'm not sure how helpful it is to compare across seasons. Comparing, say 2008 Garnett with 2008 Duncan is fine. But when you're looking at 2012 LeBron vs. 2002 Shaq or something, it's not really apples to apples because the former is carrying more years of information than the latter. It's still a very useful stat but it needs to be used with care. And I'm not saying never compare players across seasons (especially if one player has a far higher value than another one), but we should take this into consideration if we do.

[acrossthecourt]

from what I have read, non prior informed RAPM isn't a strong a stat as Prior Informed RAPM, I could be wrong though. Both seem to have inaccuracies and some have said that since they involve lineup data, while the error can be diminished it's still there to some degree.

Perhaps folks can speak on why prior informed is preferred over non prior informed and wasn't data missing prior to 1998 for certain RAPM? Is pre 1997 informed RAPM as accurate as present? What are some of the errors and noise involved?

Here's the thing about prior informed rapm: it's better in the sense that it carries more information and is therefore more stable. But each year builds on the previous year (at least the way TP and JE calculate it), which built on the previous year and so on. For example, 2014 PI RAPM still carries some info from 2006.

Because of this, I'm not sure how helpful it is to compare across seasons. Comparing, say 2008 Garnett with 2008 Duncan is fine. But when you're looking at 2012 LeBron vs. 2002 Shaq or something, it's not really apples to apples because the former is carrying more years of information than the latter. It's still a very useful stat but it needs to be used with care. And I'm not saying never compare players across seasons (especially if one player has a far higher value than another one), but we should take this into consideration if we do.

RAPM informed by an SPM (estimating RAPM from stats, mainly box score) is probably best for isolating single seasons in this manner.

edit: One important note that using information for a prior seasons helps estimate player value of everyone else. So if you're trying to figure out Garnett's value, is it useful to have a better estimate for every other variable. But there are obviously some cases where RAPM-prior informed has problems, like Granger this season or other players coming off an injury.

[90sAllDecade]

from what I have read, non prior informed RAPM isn't a strong a stat as Prior Informed RAPM, I could be wrong though. Both seem to have inaccuracies and some have said that since they involve lineup data, while the error can be diminished it's still there to some degree.

Perhaps folks can speak on why prior informed is preferred over non prior informed and wasn't data missing prior to 1998 for certain RAPM? Is pre 1997 informed RAPM as accurate as present? What are some of the errors and noise involved?

Here's the thing about prior informed rapm: it's better in the sense that it carries more information and is therefore more stable. But each year builds on the previous year (at least the way TP and JE calculate it), which built on the previous year and so on. For example, 2014 PI RAPM still carries some info from 2006.

Because of this, I'm not sure how helpful it is to compare across seasons. Comparing, say 2008 Garnett with 2008 Duncan is fine. But when you're looking at 2012 LeBron vs. 2002 Shaq or something, it's not really apples to apples because the former is carrying more years of information than the latter. It's still a very useful stat but it needs to be used with care. And I'm not saying never compare players across seasons (especially if one player has a far higher value than another one), but we should take this into consideration if we do.

Thank you for the response. I appreciate you answering these questions, I'll post some more to anyone who would like to respond as well, so as not to take up too much of any one person's time.

So prior informed would be more useful within a season, rather than across seasons. Because some players may have more years of information in comparison to others affecting their calculated perceived value.

What would you say are the benefits and drawbacks of non prior informed RAPM? Which has better predictive value?

Could players playing with certain lineups or quality of lineups (for example one player plays with strong offensive lineups/teammates or coaching throughout his career, another plays with strong defensive lineups/teammates etc.) consistently for the season or seasons potentially distort a players value for the base plus and minus used in calculations? It's base data before adjustments is still team based +/- lineup data correct?

Sorry about all my questions, last one. Is their playoff RAPM available and which would be the best due to sample size?

[magicmerl]

Can I be added to the voting?

From what I have seen, feel free to participate and make a contribution. When you would 'vote', say something like 'If I had a vote, I would vote for XXX'. If you do that, Penbeast will likely add you to the voting for the next thread.

[SactoKingsFan]

I just dont see the KG vs Duncan Its more like KG vs McHale to me. KG has always looks a level or 2 below the ALL NBA players. He was that borderline all star.

I saw KG at Farragut play in the State tourney and he was the 4th or 5th best player in the tourney and in the semi finals his team was down and he couldnt take over the game or even change the momentum. He was outplayed by Melvin Ely in the paint and the team had to rely on Ronnie Fields who had a sub par shooting night and the team went down.

To me that is the story of KG. Great talent who simply lacked the ability or mentality to impact a game. I just cant put a beta player in the top 20. I have much more respect for a guy who tries and fails than a guy who just goes through the motions. Thats true in basketball and life.

You're seriously underrating KG's overall game and impact if you think he was a borderline all-star or that KG v McHale is a legitimate debate.

And I'm not sure what you mean by KG being a beta and going through the motions. I thought the Celtics run in 08 disproved the beta narrative, and he has a reputation as one of the most intense players of all-time.


Sent from my G2 via Tapatalk

[magicmerl]

Ok, this pick comes down to Magic vs LeBron vs Shaq for me.

All three had peak periods were they were the best player in the league. LeBron and Shaw both scored at a slimilar clip per100poss, while Magic scored less individually but got a bunch of buckets as assists, while having an even higher TS% than the other two. It's really hard to say which of them was better offensively. In term of Offensive Win Shares, LeBron breaches 10 eight times, while both Shaq and Magic accomplish that 4 times. For all that people talk about how incredibly dominant Shaq was on offense, the stats point to LeBron being just as if not more dominant.

Defensively, I think that the threads thus far have shown that Shaq isn't a liability on defense, he's just not in the rareified air of an all-time elite defender. I don't hold it against a player if he's not as good as a player who has already been voted in. Magic doesn't have much of a reputation for defense, and the stats don't show much other than a tendency to get steals. Shaq did lead the league in DRtg (and ORtg) in 2000, which is a remarkable feat. It's just a shame that he didn't think it was his job to be dialed in on defense his whole career. LeBron is an incredible perimeter defender. Having said that, big man defense is more valuable than perimeter defense.

Looking at win share totals, Shaq is currently ahead, while LeBron is basically a lock to pass him this year, while Magic is a distant third.

I have changed my vote from Shaq to LeBron

[shutupandjam]

What would you say are the benefits and drawbacks of non prior informed RAPM? Which has better predictive value?

Benefits:

It's the best "pure" single season player rating (i.e., players can't really 'pad' their plus minus like they can their boxscore stats and it's clearly superior to apm or raw plus minus).

It isn't influenced by previous seasons or other factors like other rapm forms, which makes it a nice alternative to those metrics, which require more understanding and context.

Drawbacks:

The sample size just isn't spectacular so there are still issues with stability, year to year correlation, and predictive value. It's less predictive than other forms of rapm or good box score stats.

Could players playing with certain lineups or quality of lineups (for example one player plays with strong offensive lineups/teammates or coaching throughout his career, another plays with strong defensive lineups/teammates etc.) consistently for the season or seasons potentially distort a players value for the base plus and minus used in calculations?

Yes, to some degree but it's designed to try and isolate those factors. It can be difficult to do that in some circumstances though like if one player plays a huge portion of his minutes with another player. And just because a player has a good rapm doesn't mean he necessarily would in a different situation. For instance, Matt Bonner might have a good rapm in his role as a stretch 5 off the bench who takes open shots created by his teammates, but if the Spurs asked him to be the primary offensive threat, you'd expect his rapm to drop.

It's base data before adjustments is still team based +/- lineup data correct?

Yes, per 100 possessions.

[ElGee]

I'm compiling some WOWY data for the WOWY thread and something struck me: In Boston, from 2008-2011 Kevin Garnett played 142 games (controlling for all starters also in the lineup) and missed 55. In those 4 years, Boston was a 9 SRS team with him and a 2.8 SRS team without him. This is all-time level stuff, both in terms of the impact and height of the team...

For the KG guys, how do you account for the fact that KG's offense fell of quite a bit when facing good defenses?

Spoiler:

This is him compared to David Robinson (another guy criticized for stat padding against bad teams):

DRob 90-98 vs. KG 97-08 vs. top 10 defenses:

DRob: 22.1 PPG, .536 TS%, 11.9 Reb, 3.1 AST/2.5 TOV, 1.2 Stl, 3.3 blk
KG: 20.1 PPG, .510 TS%, 11.4 Reb, 4.3 AST/2.9 TOV, 1.2 stl, 1.3 blk

vs. not top 10 defenses:
DRob: 24.9 PPG, .564 TS%, 12.4 Reb, 2.7 AST/3.4 TOV, 1.3 stl, 3.0 blk
KG: 23.3 PPG, .531 TS%, 13.4 Reb, 4.6 AST/3.0 TOV, 1.5 stl, 1.9 blk

KG's playoff numbers against teams with 15 or worse defensive ranking:
23.8 PPG, .527 TS%, 13.9 Reb, 4.5 AST, 1.8 STL, 2.1 blk

And I think this is a great question. But did it really fall off "quite a bit?" Especially relative to Duncan?

(1) Using the arbitrary benchmark "top-10" obfuscates the fact that Kevin Garnett played in a significantly lower scorer era than David Robinson. Avg. PS defense from 99-08 for KG was 103.5, versus 106.5 for Robinson from 90-98.

(2) Is Duncan really a better offensive player than Garnett?

Tim Duncan is categorically not on that Mount Rushmore of offensive players, so why are people OK with anointing him but not KG? Really, so what if Tim Duncan is slightly better at isolation Hero-Ball? The better the situation, the less this is needed.

Did you know that the 2002 Wolves were +4.5 on offense? +5 after Terrell Brandon went down? Wally, young Billups, Rasho, Peeler, Joe Smith...+5 offense. Remember, Magic Johnson's 1984 Lakers were +2.9. The 2000 Wolves with Brandon and KG were +5 as well. The 03 Wolves with Wally +5.4. The 04 Wolves +3. The 05 Wolves +3.5 with Cassell. The 08 Celtics +2.8 w KG. 09 +2.0 (and the Celtics were heavily slanted toward defensive strategy, abandoning the offensive boards).

San Antonio had one Tim Duncan-centered offense above +3.

(3) Hero Ball on Bad Teams

Guys, you won't understand why we value KG so highly unless you can buy-in that evaluating players on bad teams is not an accurate reflection of their value to all teams. Or that basketball is not a one-on-one game.

That's really a key to the counter-argument here -- "when you need a bucket, who can get you one?" The more your team has to implement that strategy, the worse off they are. We're interested in the overall performance of the race car and you want to talk about how well it handles in the rain...only it doesn't rain that much. You might think "wait, it rains a lot in the NBA! Teams really need buckets at key times."

But the evidence says that isolation Hero-Ball is generally a bad idea.

(4) And really, how much better is Duncan at Hero Ball?

The counter-argument is that KG's offensive game is less effective against top defenses relative to Duncan. There's truth in that, but to what degree? There are 2 key factors here:


(1) This difference is probably very small (data forthcoming)
(2) The better the teammates, the less this difference is really relevant


Garnett's relative TS% in 99-08 PS games was +0.1%. Tim Duncan was +2.9%. (Kobe +2.9%. Jordan +4.1%.) He scores at 29.7 pts/100 in that span. Duncan scores at 32.1...8% more per 100. Do you know how easy it is to redistribute those possessions to better opportunities? Or make up for them in other ways? Or to not run them at all in place of much better scoring paths on higher quality teams?

If you give Duncan Garnett's teams and KG Pop, Manu, Parker, etc. you think that their stats will remain the same?

(5) Their situations aren't the same

Posted this earlier -- perhaps no one saw it:

"Shoulder all load" 03 Duncan v LA: 29.0 ppg 51.7% TS 25.1% ast 14.1% TOV 103 ortg
"Shoulder most load" 03 KG v LA: 27.0 ppg 53.9% TS 23.4% ast 10.7% TOV 105 ortg
"Shoulder most load" 04 KG v LA: 23.7 ppg 51.8% TS 22.1% ast 13.8% TOV 100 ortg

Spoiler:

Out of curiosity, I looked at Duncan's 16 wins in 2003:

Duncan 2003 PS wins: 23.9 ppg 58% TS 16.6 rpg 6.0 apg 3.4 TOV 4.0 blck 24.4 GmSc
[KG 2003-04 PS wins: 28.3 ppg 54% TS 15.5 rpg 4.8 rpg 3.4 TOV 2.9 blck 24.3 GmSc]

And their 8-best games of the 24 we're discussing:

Duncan 03: 32.6 ppg 65.0%$ TS 17.0 rpg 5.9 apg 3.4 TOV 3.9 Blck 32.0 GmSc (vs. 101.5 DRtg)
KG 03-04: 30.5 ppg 58.6% TS 15.0 rpg 5.1 apg 3.0 TOV 3.1 Blck 27.6 GmSc (vs 103.8 DRtg)

Of course, Duncan's on a better team (as you'll notice by his weaker numbers in wins, for example), which you can argue helps his scoring stats AND helps his rebounding (because KG has a 31 to 27% DRB% edge). You can argue that KG would have done work against Kenyon Martin despite New Jersey's 98.1 DRtg or that his numbers would look nicer if he played Dallas and Phoenix. You can argue that Duncan had to spend less energy on defense. Etc. But note Duncan's statistics.

You brought up pace too. Just so people can understand what we're looking at here:
Wilt 1962 28.7 pts/75 (estimated)
KG (03-04 PS) 27.4 pts/75
Duncan 03 PS 26.6 pts/75

Adding context -- LA's defense in 2003 was +2 with Shaq. In 2004 with the Big 4 in, it was -3.3. I have a hard time seeing a clear difference here in Garnett and Duncan's scoring statistics, so I'll post a bunch more in a second...

(6) Clutch (Hero Ball) statistics

I think that's what you're referring to when you ask someone to substantiate Garnett's scoring game. (e.g. all the "1st option" criticisms.) Who can "score when the team needs it?"

Again, if the team needs it a lot, they ain't a good team. But what do the numbers actually say? How much better productions did Duncan get out of his stronger base, bank shot and rolling hook compared to KG's pull-ups, fadeaways and spins?

Spoiler:

From 2001-2011, Garnett shot at -0.8% below league average for eFG% in 5+5 situations (59% assisted)
From 2001-2011, Duncan shot at at +0.8% above league average for eFG% in 5+5 situations (41% assisted)

From 2002-2005, here's how they fared in the RS 5+5:

Duncan: 524 mp | 25.7 pts/36 | 43.3% eFG% | 13.6 FTA/36 | 53.6% TS% |
Garnett: 627 mp | 23.6 pts/36 | 46.8% eFG% | 8.6 FTA/36 | 54.15 TS

|

From 2002-2005, down 5 or tied:

Duncan: 271 mp | 29.2 pts/36 | 45.4% eFG% | 12.8 FTA/36
Garnett: 268 mp | 30.8 pts/36 | 46.3% eFG% | 10.7 FTA/36

Playoffs 98-08

Duncan: 386 mp | 21.8 pts/36 | 48.8% eFG% | 11.4 FTA/36 | 53.0% TS%
Garnett: 259 mp | 17.7 pts/36 | 45.7% eFG% | 6.0 FTA/36 | 51.7% TS%

(7) "First Option" Importance v Team

Trying to get at the heart of the matter for people because I've gone through the machinations myself. Here are the best healthy teams by SRS since Jordan:


14 Spurs (11.8 SRS)
04 Pistons (10.2 SRS)
00 Lakers (9.7 SRS)
08 Celtics (9.7 SRS)
12 Spurs (9.6 SRS)
09 Celtics (9.3 SRS)
05 Spurs (9.1 SRS)

Who were the "1st options" on those teams? (Hint: It's a trick question)

If you don't look at the results and see a clear trend that screams "you don't need a great iso scorer to build a great team around, you'll never understand why KG is so valued. It's also why I value Duncan so highly -- I don't think of him as an all-time great offensive player. I just think the hang-up is that Duncan has better low-post isolation scoring (and by what, 3%? 5%?) and people default to that difference over everything else. But as we just saw, that difference is almost negligible. Give Duncan in the nod for isolation buckets, but Garnett will still be there to score key buckets (without a "falling of a quite a bit") as well as his spacing and passing that scales up to better teams.

Finally, I really sympathize with people on Garnett. We ask everyone to update their mental file of basketball in ways that seem counter-intuitive and challenge status quo. The mainstream feeds you a steady diet of scoring, scoring, and some flash thrown in. Accepting defensive impact is one thing. But here it's practically geometry analytics. It's a clear shift. And people accept many of these things about Garnett, and slowly come along with their evaluation, and then all of a sudden -- BOOM -- another jump is asked of them. Based largely on new considerations of longevity, and careers, and in conjunction with the most data-rich era in NBA history that also can be overwhelming. And you end up thinking "I'm being fair to KG, how can someone vote him 4th?!"

To that I say this: Don't identify with your rankings. The more I research, the more two my favorite basketball savants slide (Magic and Bird). So what? Doesn't change how great they were. Doesn't change how entertaining or unique they were. It just means that I have a clearer picture of them as well as other players and the sport. And sometimes, more guys just come along. I have Jerry West closer to 20 than to 5. Do I think Jerry West is absolutely awesome? Yup. But he was injured all the time. Do I think KG can hang with any of the GOAT offensive players, let alone scorers? Nope. But when you're all-time good defensively and have a really good offensive package and your longevity is sick...you're going ahead of West, and Magic, and Bird...NB: That's why I have Tim Duncan ahead of them as well.

PS If I thought David Robinson could pass or possessed the outside shot KG had, AND he had Garnett's longevity, I'd have him in my top-10 too.