Doctor MJ wrote:I saw an argument for Dirk over KG that to me looked like this:
1.Dirk is objectively the better offensive player and here's proof: PPG, TS%, etc. 2. Sure Garnett's better on defense, but by how much really?
Now, my first quibble here is that the 'proof' about Dirk's superior focused entirely on scoring, which is only one part of offense. I certainly don't deny that in this case that one facet of offense is enough to give Dirk the overall nod on offense, but it's the imbalance of the argument in striking because Garnett's not only better on defense than Dirk, he's also better at all the other facets of offense, yet the weight of the argument seemed to lump the 90% of the game that's not individual scoring into something that can be waved away.
This is unfair. By RAPM, Dirk has almost an identical overall impact on the game, and I recall RAPM being cited in Dirks favor before.
I'd also like to ask, what separates him from David Robinson?
At a somewhat superficial level, they're pretty similar.
Both were defensive savants who were forced to become their team's primary offensive anchor due to a total lack of talent.
Both saw their offense (scoring) fall off in the post-season and lack post games.
Both finally got support at the tail-end of their primes and were part of dominant defenses.
I'm not entirely clear on it, but the RAPM data for pre-2000 guys is estimated due to a lack of play-by-play data, correct? http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ has some RAPM data for Robinson has him as a +9.3 guy and KG as a +10.3 guy.
I bring it up because I'm not sure if I'm supposed to trust the data for the 90's stuff. I believe that Robinson could have a better impact on defense because he's about as mobile as KG and even longer, but stronger and better able to fight with centers down low. Then on offense, while neither were ideal #1 options, Robinson had more success as a volume scorer, winning a scoring title even, doing a lot better than KG ever did. Is KG's edge as a passer large enough to give him a better overall impact?
Rupert Murdoch wrote:Just a minute. Magic made it down all the way to #8? You've got to be kidding me. Who the hell's been voting on this list?
*looks at the list of guys who made it already
Not exactly like Smush Parker was voted over him. God forbid anyone thinks Lebron James and Wilt Chamberlain are better players than Magic Johnson
Yeah I've been voting Magic since 4 and I can at least admit those guys all have their arguments. Now if he falls past 10 kick a fit if you want but I think this is his vote to win followed by Hakeem.
Doctor MJ wrote:I saw an argument for Dirk over KG that to me looked like this:
1.Dirk is objectively the better offensive player and here's proof: PPG, TS%, etc. 2. Sure Garnett's better on defense, but by how much really?
Now, my first quibble here is that the 'proof' about Dirk's superior focused entirely on scoring, which is only one part of offense. I certainly don't deny that in this case that one facet of offense is enough to give Dirk the overall nod on offense, but it's the imbalance of the argument in striking because Garnett's not only better on defense than Dirk, he's also better at all the other facets of offense, yet the weight of the argument seemed to lump the 90% of the game that's not individual scoring into something that can be waved away.
This is unfair. By RAPM, Dirk has almost an identical overall impact on the game, and I recall RAPM being cited in Dirks favor before.
I'd also like to ask, what separates him from David Robinson?
At a somewhat superficial level, they're pretty similar.
Both were defensive savants who were forced to become their team's primary offensive anchor due to a total lack of talent.
Both saw their offense (scoring) fall off in the post-season and lack post games.
Both finally got support at the tail-end of their primes and were part of dominant defenses.
I'm not entirely clear on it, but the RAPM data for pre-2000 guys is estimated due to a lack of play-by-play data, correct? http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ has some RAPM data for Robinson has him as a +9.3 guy and KG as a +10.3 guy.
I bring it up because I'm not sure if I'm supposed to trust the data for the 90's stuff. I believe that Robinson could have a better impact on defense because he's about as mobile as KG and even longer, but stronger and better able to fight with centers down low. Then on offense, while neither were ideal #1 options, Robinson had more success as a volume scorer, winning a scoring title even, doing a lot better than KG ever did. Is KG's edge as a passer large enough to give him a better overall impact?
So this confusion just keeps coming up.
I'll state this acknowledging that there is difference in opinion about the stat itself, but speaking as someone who feels comfortable calling himself an expert in the use of +/- stats:
By both pure APM and by prior-informed RAPM, Garnett is very clearly ahead of Nowitzki throughout the bulk of his career, and therefore any reference saying that "RAPM" says otherwise is wrong.
The non-prior-informed RAPM rounds down Garnett considerably which is why in it Duncan appears better, and Dirk appears his equal, but there's a very clear flaw to using that stat and that flaw would seem to directly explain the disagreement. Simply put, non-prior-informed RAPM will directly chip away at the weight of outlier data under the assumption that it comes due to luck. You can tell it's happening if the prior-informed RAPM keeps seeming to undo this assumption year after year. To put it in the form of a story:
Pure APM: Wow, Garnett's amazing. NPI RAPM: Too good to be true, bet you he can't do it again. PI RAPM: He did it last year too.
Alright, so what to say this time? I typed a bunch of stuff, and now I look at it and find it meandering. Might get in the way here, but I think I'm going to cut my losses. There's good stuff in here I think if you go through it, but it could really use another edit that I don't have time for unfortunately.
The complaints about the pro-Garnett crowd failing to go beyond advanced stats, as I've said before, to me they are confused. There's been plenty of detail given pro-Garnett. Nevertheless, clearly it's not enough to really connect with most, and it's worth trying to figure out why.
I saw an argument for Dirk over KG that to me looked like this:
1.Dirk is objectively the better offensive player and here's proof: PPG, TS%, etc. 2. Sure Garnett's better on defense, but by how much really?
1. Garnett had his big impact in an unscalable situation. He was asked to do it all in Minnesota, and clearly he lifted the team, but neither the offensive or defensive scheme seemed like something you'd really want to build around if you were serious about making a contender. By contrast with Duncan, the defense was clear cut contender-worthy, and the model with Duncan as the fulcrum is at least based on a tried & true method.
Obviously this argument seems to have a particular point in time as reference. This goes back to win Duncan vs Garnett was THE argument going on about 10 years ago. And 10 years ago, it worked for me, but since then we've seen that Garnett actually seems unusually well suited to contort the focus of his game in different directions based on the needs of his teammates, that he's absolutely capable of being the head of a top of the line defense, and that really there's something outright problematic with seeing the Duncan-led offenses of the time period as anything like a proven successful model in contrast to what Garnett was giving. (Garnett's offense is not above attack in comparisons with the best offensive players to ever grace the hardwood, but Duncan is not of their ilk nor even a cousin to them.)
2. Garnett's inability to do more with what he had in Minnesota is a sign that he's less than what we expect from a superstar. When Minny really went down the tubes, I bought this, but I never really felt that comfortable justifying the belief.
We always knew that there had to be some kind of ceiling of what we can expect from one player in terms of impact in the NBA. Before rigorous +/- data, I didn't have a clear cut number in my head, but certainly I figured that no one was good enough to take what would be the worst of the normal "bad teams" (not extreme tank teams even), and make a champion out of them reliably. Had someone at the time that a top tier superstar can take you about half the way there, that wouldn't have seemed crazy. I mean, the other 4 guys on the floor, logically, there's going to be away to exploit them if they are weak enough. Taking team from bad to okay, seems like a reasonable compromise.
So how did I know this wasn't basically what Garnett was doing? Sure the last couple years were worse than "okay", but there were also issues that were worse than any normal "bad" thing. The most I could say was that it seemed most likely that this happening to Garnett wasn't a simply luck.
That brought us to the acid test though: If we could see Garnett succeed overwhelmingly with talent around him that didn't justify such lofty expectation, then it wouldn't make sense any more to assume that the Minny supporting cast was just another normal supporting cast.
And of course that's what happened in Boston. As I've said before, it might have been called The Big 3 as a marketing term, but it really wasn't, not by Heatle standards at least. People's assessment of what that supporting cast was before the '07-08 season started wasn't nearly enough to make it a contender, and the assumption was it was going to be an offense-oriented team. Turned out the defense was amazing, and that's what made the team amazing.
Now let's really think about Garnett in his Big 3 vs LeBron in his Big 3.
Here's how Garnett's Celtics did with him on the court in those first 4 years:
And LeBron in his 4 Heatle years: '10-11: +9.7 '11-12: +9.8 '12-13: +12.0 -13-14: +6.8
There's little quibbles you can point out, and sure they'd be enough to disrupt an argument that Garnett should be ranked ahead on this alone, but just take a moment and stare at that:
Garnett in his time in Boston typically was more successful on the court than LeBron in Miami.
If you hand't realized this before, it should make your jaw drop. Again, it wasn't supposed to be this way. No one thought it would be this way. It happened because Garnett was able to slide over and let his inferior teammates do their thing, and create a juggarnaut whenever he was healthy.
For the life of me, I just can't fathom how one can acknowledge this, and think there was some issue with Garnett in his ability to lead a champion. Between that and the epic overall lift he provided Minny, what's there left to address?
I realize that doesn't mean he should win any and all comparisons, but for anyone who looks at Garnett and sees a guy who was just missing X, check yourself. How much of this stems from the way you watched basketball when you were a kid and didn't watch anything but the guy bouncing the ball? Because once you look at the whole court and see that scoring is just one aspect of the game and one that is actually relatively easy to fill up adequately, Garnett comes off as as close to a complete package as you can ever really expect to see.
1. The Boston bench was significantly better than the heat bench, so even though the big three didnt compare by heatlers standard, their depth was significantly better.
2. The Celtics had a significantly better coaching staff between Rivers, and the greatest defensive Arcitect of the past 7 years, Thibs.
3. In 2008 their defense took the league by storm, teams like the Spurs still hadn't developed the kind of offense to counteract the trapping and zone principles in that style of defense.
4. Most Importantly the 08 celtics were NOT nearly as dominant as people make them out to be. Just by comparing them to the spurs recently. I made this post like a week ago
Compared to something like the 2014 Spurs I feel the 08 celtics run looks underwelming.
Even when people talk about their great regular season run, I actually think when you look at the two teams it's obvious that the spurs were better.
The celtics finished 66-16, whiles the spurs finished 62-20
What makes the spurs regular season even more impressive, is the fact that none of their players played an average of 30 minutes or more (first time in nba history) Not only that, but Parker sat out for a full two weeks just because Pop wanted him to rest. This is in the midst of one of the best western conferences of all time, yet the spurs were resting their players and still finished with the best record by 3 games, and had the best road record by 5 games (30 road wins). Not only that but the spurs played a total of 28'different lineups ( the second most behind the knicks). Not only that but at the same time they amounted a 19 game win game win streak(most in franchise history).
When I look at those factors it's hard for me to put Boston's regular season over them.
Then you talk about the Post season... Boston went 16-10 and had two series go to game 7 whiles they had home court. And their finals run as impressive as it was doesn't compare to what the spurs did at all.
The Spurs went 16-7 in the post season. 12 out of 16 of the Spurs wins came by 15 or more. In the finals they won in 5 games against the 2 time defending champs, and set the record for highest point differential even in a finals series.
Then when you consider the 2014 western conference> 2008 eastern conference (not by nearly as much as today)
People talk about the 08 celtics dominance, but it really doesn't compare to the 2014 Spurs team, where Duncan had a very similar role to Garnett on the defensive end, and had the exact same Usage %.
I'm willing to listen, but I don't see how the 08 celtics dominance compares to the 14 spurs when you factor in the minutes played across the spurs roster, and the games their stars would literally sit out.
No, The 28 different starting lineups they played due to injury and rest, the win streak, and one of the best road records in nba history makes it more impressive to me. It wasn't simply due to rest, nearly all their players missed significant time at some point during the season, and yet they were still destroying the league with ease. It didnt matter when Manu was out, Kawhi, splitter, Duncan.. And they did it the whole season ( Especilly on the road). Its hard for me to put Boston over them simply because of 4 more wins.
The Spurs were still a top 6 defensive team in the league ( Even better in the post season) but Offensivly they were galaxies ahead of the celtics. I think that's why you saw them blowing out many games then the celtics did
Not to mention, you guys talk about Boston stumbling out the gate against Atlanta.... But the celtics let the Cavs take them to 7, whiles the spurs dismantled a better Heat team with a better version of Lebron in 5 games, in the most dominant finals performance in nba history
5. The reason that's important is because Duncan played a nearly identical role (as a defensive anchor, with the same usage%) on a 2014 that was significantly more dominant against tougher competion.
6. Just in general when people use the 08 run as proof of KG's Abilty to be the best player on a dominant championship team, it bothers me because even with home court, the celtics barley squeezed by inferior teams. And were pretty awful on the road in the playoffs.
Well, assuming that Garnett and Robinson are more or less on the same level defensively (I don't think a lot of people will disagree with that), we should focus on offense.
Obviously, Robinson is the better ISO scorer than Garnett...but that's been a huge point of debate in this project: unless you're Shaq or Kareem or peak Hakeem or Dirk or Barkley...how important is volume scoring from your big man, really? Once you get to more talented teams, that have the perimeter players that are better to run the offense through, the ISO scoring of your big man becomes a lot less valuable. This is where other areas where the big man can contribute becomes more valuable: passing and outside shooting, mainly. Garnett clearly trumps Robinson in both of these categories. I've described it before, but these are the 4 things you'd want out of your ideal big man offensively, in no particular order of importance:
1. ISO scoring 2. passing 3. outside shooting 4. catching and finishing
And like I said, ISO scoring isn't very important once you start getting to the better teams. So who can better contribute for better teams (IOW, scalability...ElGee has posted extensively on how improving already good teams is more important than carrying bad ones)?
And even with regards to his ISO scoring, Robinson wasn't that special. He ran into clear problems once he faced tougher defenses in the playoffs. He was only truly elite at his ability to catch and finish (as was Garnett)...he wasn't an elite outside shooter (Garnett was) nor was he an elite passer (Garnett was). Garnett lacks elite ISO scoring...Robinson lacks that too, but to a lesser extent, and he lacks in 2 other major skills (in comparison to Garnett) that are very important when you're not asking your big man to carry your offense (passing and shooting).
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, because I imagine that some people will value Robinson's iso scoring more than I do, and I respect that. But for me, that's why I see a gap between the two...I think Garnett peaked higher (he's better at what I consider to be the most important skills), and obviously played a lot longer.
Same reasoning as last time...I have no reason to knock his longevity, because I actually hold his 85-92 stretch in high regard, and I view it as an example of a player in a bad team situation...nobody ever seems to have a problem with his 93 and onwards stretch (and rightfully so), as he is basically the perfect player at his position during that time...his peak level of play can be argued against anyone. When I compare him to Magic, I see two players that are comparable prime vs prime...but prime Hakeem lasts a lot longer than prime Magic.
Doctor MJ wrote:I saw an argument for Dirk over KG that to me looked like this:
Now, my first quibble here is that the 'proof' about Dirk's superior focused entirely on scoring, which is only one part of offense. I certainly don't deny that in this case that one facet of offense is enough to give Dirk the overall nod on offense, but it's the imbalance of the argument in striking because Garnett's not only better on defense than Dirk, he's also better at all the other facets of offense, yet the weight of the argument seemed to lump the 90% of the game that's not individual scoring into something that can be waved away.
This is unfair. By RAPM, Dirk has almost an identical overall impact on the game, and I recall RAPM being cited in Dirks favor before.
I'd also like to ask, what separates him from David Robinson?
At a somewhat superficial level, they're pretty similar.
Both were defensive savants who were forced to become their team's primary offensive anchor due to a total lack of talent.
Both saw their offense (scoring) fall off in the post-season and lack post games.
Both finally got support at the tail-end of their primes and were part of dominant defenses.
I'm not entirely clear on it, but the RAPM data for pre-2000 guys is estimated due to a lack of play-by-play data, correct? http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ has some RAPM data for Robinson has him as a +9.3 guy and KG as a +10.3 guy.
I bring it up because I'm not sure if I'm supposed to trust the data for the 90's stuff. I believe that Robinson could have a better impact on defense because he's about as mobile as KG and even longer, but stronger and better able to fight with centers down low. Then on offense, while neither were ideal #1 options, Robinson had more success as a volume scorer, winning a scoring title even, doing a lot better than KG ever did. Is KG's edge as a passer large enough to give him a better overall impact?
So this confusion just keeps coming up.
I'll state this acknowledging that there is difference in opinion about the stat itself, but speaking as someone who feels comfortable calling himself an expert in the use of +/- stats:
By both pure APM and by prior-informed RAPM, Garnett is very clearly ahead of Nowitzki throughout the bulk of his career, and therefore any reference saying that "RAPM" says otherwise is wrong.
The non-prior-informed RAPM rounds down Garnett considerably which is why in it Duncan appears better, and Dirk appears his equal, but there's a very clear flaw to using that stat and that flaw would seem to directly explain the disagreement. Simply put, non-prior-informed RAPM will directly chip away at the weight of outlier data under the assumption that it comes due to luck. You can tell it's happening if the prior-informed RAPM keeps seeming to undo this assumption year after year. To put it in the form of a story:
Pure APM: Wow, Garnett's amazing. NPI RAPM: Too good to be true, bet you he can't do it again. PI RAPM: He did it last year too.
Repeat year and after year.
Okay, but could you address the parts about Robinson and the 90's RAPM data? I want to know not only for this debate, but for general use, like comparing Marbury to Kyrie Irving (pretty similar RAPM numbers from that site through their first three seasons).
Doctor MJ wrote: I saw an argument for Dirk over KG that to me looked like this:
1.Dirk is objectively the better offensive player and here's proof: PPG, TS%, etc. 2. Sure Garnett's better on defense, but by how much really?
Now, my first quibble here is that the 'proof' about Dirk's superior focused entirely on scoring, which is only one part of offense. I certainly don't deny that in this case that one facet of offense is enough to give Dirk the overall nod on offense, but it's the imbalance of the argument in striking because Garnett's not only better on defense than Dirk, he's also better at all the other facets of offense, yet the weight of the argument seemed to lump the 90% of the game that's not individual scoring into something that can be waved away.
.
Can you really defend the idea that KG is better than Dirk at every other aspect of offense besides scoring? I'm not at all sure I buy that idea. He's a much better offensive rebounder. He's a better passer. I know people rave about his screen setting so I'll give him that. But does he really create more good shots for teammates than Dirk does? I just don't see that at all. Does he distort defenses the way Dirk does? I struggle to see that as well. Dirk rarely turns the ball over. Dirk is better at transitioning from offense to defense(tho admittedly part of this is due to system, but Dirk is tremendous at getting back on D)
I think we have to be careful to look at their assist totals and think that KG is a better offensive creator than Dirk. Dirk loses a lot of raw assists for a number of reasons--he's always been the best finisher on his teams is a simple one, but also the Mavs system has always been about ball movement. All this stuff guys are losing their minds over with SAS offensively, well the Mavs do it too, just not typically as well as the Spurs just did it. Tho we saw them peak in the 2011 playoffs in this regard. And if you look at the 5 man units of the Mavs in the Dirk era you can really see that guys like JET and JJ Barea to name a couple of title year Mavs are light years better in units with Dirk than when they played without him. And these were supposed to be the other Mavs on that title team not dependent on Dirk.
I get KG is a more versatile player than Dirk, but let's not be so quick to try and put Dirk in the "he's just a great scorer" box. Yes, he's a great scorer, and yes most of his value is derived both from that, and the distortion and opportunity his scoring creates, but Dirk brings more to the table than that.
Note: I appreciate the Admiral response and I will comment some on that probably later tonight or tomorrow as time avails.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Doctor MJ wrote:Now, my first quibble here is that the 'proof' about Dirk's superior focused entirely on scoring, which is only one part of offense. I certainly don't deny that in this case that one facet of offense is enough to give Dirk the overall nod on offense, but it's the imbalance of the argument in striking because Garnett's not only better on defense than Dirk, he's also better at all the other facets of offense, yet the weight of the argument seemed to lump the 90% of the game that's not individual scoring into something that can be waved away.
I don't agree that Garnett is better at 'all the other things' that go to make up offense other than shooting. Dirk turns the ball over less. When Dirk sets a screen the defense basically can't guard that because of the threat that Dirk is going to pop out to the three-point line, regardless of whether that actually happens on that play or not. The THREAT of that happening completely distorts how defenses have to play Dirk on the pick and roll. Not so with Garnett, who is a fine midrange shooter, but didn't have Dirk's range. Garnett does pass the ball more than Dirk, but I think that's partly a function of Garnet''s unselfish temperament, and partly a function of Dirk being such a good shooter that it's the correct play for him to take the shot more of the time.
Doctor MJ wrote:My assessment of the +/- data we have going back into the late '90s is that there are 3 guys clearly above the rest: LeBron, Shaq, and Garnett. If Garnett doesn't actually belong in such rare air, the question then becomes to explain what the bias is. Simply calling it "luck" is not sufficient, when we talk about this much information.
So does this mean that we all made a terrible mistake voting Duncan in as high as we did?
Doctor MJ wrote:That brought us to the acid test though: If we could see Garnett succeed overwhelmingly with talent around him that didn't justify such lofty expectation, then it wouldn't make sense any more to assume that the Minny supporting cast was just another normal supporting cast.
And of course that's what happened in Boston.
You're implying that Boston wasn't the favourite to win that year, that people were in some way surprised. That's not the case. I thought they would win it all before the season started, and I *think* the Vegas oddsmakers did too.
Doctor MJ wrote:As I've said before, it might have been called The Big 3 as a marketing term, but it really wasn't, not by Heatle standards at least. People's assessment of what that supporting cast was before the '07-08 season started wasn't nearly enough to make it a contender, and the assumption was it was going to be an offense-oriented team. Turned out the defense was amazing, and that's what made the team amazing.
If you go and look at the Boston roster the the previous season, and ordered the players by DRtg, the Celtics literally kept every good defender, and traded every bad defender away. Again, this is analysis that you can do before their championship season even starts.
So I don't agree with what you are saying. YOU might have assumed that the Celtics were going to win with offense, but I certainly didn't.
Doctor MJ wrote:Now let's really think about Garnett in his Big 3 vs LeBron in his Big 3.
If your arguement is that the 'big 3' moniker is inaccurate because Garnett was head and shoulders above every other player on the celtics roster, then hey, no arguement here. I agree with you completely.
Doctor MJ wrote:If you hand't realized this before, it should make your jaw drop. Again, it wasn't supposed to be this way. No one thought it would be this way. It happened because Garnett was able to slide over and let his inferior teammates do their thing, and create a juggarnaut whenever he was healthy.
I think are applying an over-correction with regards to Garnett. When you say 'nobody' you're clearly wrong, because, well, I'm a counterfactual.
It seems to me that you underrated Garnett prior to him joining the Celtics, realised that he was better than you thought he was, and have now applied an overcorrection to him.
Doctor MJ wrote:For the life of me, I just can't fathom how one can acknowledge this, and think there was some issue with Garnett in his ability to lead a champion. Between that and the epic overall lift he provided Minny, what's there left to address?
Look, Garnett was awesome, incredible, all of those things. But the thing is, so was Karl Malone. So was Charles Barkley. So was David Robinson. So was Hakeem Olajuwon. Some of those guys lucked into good situations like Garnett did, and won a ring. Others ran into MJ.
The thing is, how do we work out which of these worthies are worth voting in at #8?
A post lauding Garnett doesn't help me choose between these guys because ALL of them have gaudy resumes that when looked at make them look amazing.
Well, assuming that Garnett and Robinson are more or less on the same level defensively (I don't think a lot of people will disagree with that), we should focus on offense.
Obviously, Robinson is the better ISO scorer than Garnett...but that's been a huge point of debate in this project: unless you're Shaq or Kareem or peak Hakeem or Dirk or Barkley...how important is volume scoring from your big man, really? Once you get to more talented teams, that have the perimeter players that are better to run the offense through, the ISO scoring of your big man becomes a lot less valuable. This is where other areas where the big man can contribute becomes more valuable: passing and outside shooting, mainly. Garnett clearly trumps Robinson in both of these categories. I've described it before, but these are the 4 things you'd want out of your ideal big man offensively, in no particular order of importance:
1. ISO scoring 2. passing 3. outside shooting 4. catching and finishing
And like I said, ISO scoring isn't very important once you start getting to the better teams. So who can better contribute for better teams (IOW, scalability...ElGee has posted extensively on how improving already good teams is more important than carrying bad ones)?
And even with regards to his ISO scoring, Robinson wasn't that special. He ran into clear problems once he faced tougher defenses in the playoffs. He was only truly elite at his ability to catch and finish (as was Garnett)...he wasn't an elite outside shooter (Garnett was) nor was he an elite passer (Garnett was). Garnett lacks elite ISO scoring...Robinson lacks that too, but to a lesser extent, and he lacks in 2 other major skills (in comparison to Garnett) that are very important when you're not asking your big man to carry your offense (passing and shooting).
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, because I imagine that some people will value Robinson's iso scoring more than I do, and I respect that. But for me, that's why I see a gap between the two...I think Garnett peaked higher (he's better at what I consider to be the most important skills), and obviously played a lot longer.
Really appreciate this post in response to my question. I wanted to acknowledge it briefly here and will respond to you as well when I have a bit more time to devote. Some really good stuff here.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Garnett's postseason scoring (referenced to Duncan's)
Garnett's postseason scoring is a hot-button topic in this project. Colts18 and Ardee have asked me about it directly, and several others (including most recently magicmerl in this thread) have referenced KG's boxscore playoff numbers as a reason he doesn't gain traction with them. Fair enough. My preference would be to focus more on the entirety of Garnett's postseason impact (not just scoring), and I plan to do that eventually, but I don't think most are in the mindset to receive that until I address KG's postseason scoring. So, I'll go ahead and shine a light on that aspect of the game first. And I'll start off with a post from andrewww that articulated a few threads back what many believe, regarding the relative differences between Duncan's postseason scoring and Garnett's.
(This should be fun. On the one hand, as some of you have been asking for, I'm about to deliver a long post that doesn't reference RAPM a single time. On the other hand, I don't get the sense that my methods/conclusions will be well received by some of those that most loudly decry RAPM.)
andrewww wrote:For those in the KG boat and you've certainly made great points to expand on what I already knew of KG as a player...statistcs and especially advanced statistics really favour KG because of his all-around game on both ends of the ball including all-time great defense. No noticable weakness on offense minus volume scoring and it's a great recipe to build a team around, which was validated with the Celtics.
Fundamentally speaking, it is easier to build around a big man (PF/C) with great defensive skills blended in over a high scoring guard with a significantly lesser impact on defense (eg. Kobe). I get that.
But KG was always exposed when called up to be the focal point of the offense as a bonafide number 1 option. In other words, I think of him as a 6-11 version of Scottie Pippen who was one of the 2 best wing defenders ever imho (along with Bobby Jones). A great player especially on defense, but someone who was best served as a number 2 or 3 option on offense. Duncan was always someone while watching that I felt was more reliable when called upon to get some sure fire buckets.
This is why I ask myself, what if I threw KG into Duncan's shoes? I'm confident the Spurs wouldn't have as many as the 5 championships theyve currently won. There were times in those runs against the Suns, Lakers, Pistons and Heat where he delivered in the clutch, much moreso than when KG finally had a title-level team around him in Boston.
Duncan was on a higher level offensively and thus his standing as an overall player as well imho.
Default case of Duncan's postseason scoring over KG's, and initial rebuttal stance
Spoiler:
This post was actually from a couple threads back, but I brought it into this thread so I could reply. Being in Vegas was like being in a time warp, so I feel like I've been missing some good conversations. But I wanted to address this, because I believe it's a common viewpoint in here. That Duncan and Garnett may be similar scorers in the regular season, but in the postseason that Duncan ramps his scoring up more than Garnett and thus that Duncan is on "a higher level" offensively. The oft-given basketball reasoning given to explain this difference is a mixture of:
Duncan maintains his efficiency because he's a more traditional low-post scorer. He puts pressure on defenses that KG never could with his more high-post game. KG is content to sit back and shoot fadeaways! He doesn't even draw fouls like Duncan.
With the conclusion that clearly Duncan's scoring style is just more valuable in the postseason, as evidenced by his efficiency, and that's why Duncan is the true alpha and KG is the glorified Pippen.
Obviously, I've never agreed with this line of reasoning. For more than a decade now I've been pointing out just how much KG had to do to both get his team to the postseason and then to give them any chance to compete once they get there. In an old post (I think from the Peaks project) I made the case that Duncan's slightly higher scoring efficiency a) was in the noise as far as determining their relative impacts and b) was NOT based on him playing more in the paint than KG. Instead, I argue that the difference between Duncan's postseason scoring efficiency and Garnett's comes primarily from having less overall help when playing against higher levels of competition.
Both Duncan and Garnett are the type of do-everything player that are ultra portable because they can fit their games into any team need. If a team needs more scoring, they can be primary scorers. If the team needs more rebounding, they can ramp that up. Need defense? They can be the best in the league. Etc.
But at some point, even for them, it becomes a zero-sum game. One player can't consistently have to maximize in every possible way without there being some degree of slippage somewhere. For both Duncan and Garnett, when their teams were grossly outmanned their slippage tended to show up in the scoring efficiency categories. Ironically, ElGee pointed out that small differences in individual scoring efficiency doesn't have a big affect on postseason odds even though it is at the foundation of every major box score stat that we have (e.g. PER, win shares, offensive rating, true shooting %).
Duncan and Garnett prime postseason scoring and "advanced" box score stats, no context
Spoiler:
So let's relate the above to Duncan and Garnett. If you look over their primes (1999 - 2008) in the postseason, you see these "advanced" box score stats:
"It's not a large margin, but it's a significant margin" is the common thought process, "and this difference in postseason effectiveness is the margin that Duncan has over Garnett"
Hmmm. Just to be sure of that, let's take a look at the source box score numbers that generated those "advanced" stats:
Duncan: 23.6 ppg (on 17.5 FGA + 8.8 FT = 21.4 shot possessions used), 13 reb, 3.6 ast (3.1 TO) Garnett: 22.3 ppg (on 18.8 FGA + 5.8 FT = 21.3 shot possessions used), 12.7 reb, 4.5 ast (2.9 TO)
So that formerly significant seeming difference in the advanced box score stats comes from Duncan scoring 1.3 more ppg on almost exactly the same number of shot attempts (including possessions that end in FTs). That's it. That's the difference. And while of course, if given the choice anyone would take that extra point, that difference is minor at best. And you could argue that volume-wise, that 1.3 points is countered by KG averaging an extra .9 assists at the same turnover rate. But I'm hoping that looking at this, the point is clear: there WAS hardly any playoff scoring efficiency difference across their primes when taken as an average across years.
I find this convincing. But if you don't, I still say that these numbers don't reflect Duncan being more effective than Garnett as a playoff scorer. Instead, I believe that this sample is skewed by Garnett's Minnesota teams consistently facing only stacked teams. And that Duncan's efficiency in similar situations mirrored Garnett's.
Before we dig deeper in the postseason situations, let's first look at Duncan and Garnett in the regular season so that you can get a feel for just how similar they were as scorers in their primes. In the regular season, from 1999 - 2008:
Prime Garnett and Duncan had almost exactly the same regular season scoring efficiency
Celtics Garnett (2008 - 2013) had almost the exact same scoring efficiency in the POSTSEASON as 2008 - 2013 Tim Duncan .
Next, let's look at their postseason numbers from 2008 - 2013 (Garnett in Boston vs Duncan in similar team caliber situation) in their late-prime/post-prime time periods:
So, KG and Duncan have almost the exact same scoring efficiency in the regular season in their primes and also a very similar scoring efficiency in the playoffs in their late prime/post-prime. So if there really is a difference in their postseason scoring in Duncan's favor, it would have to show up in their actual primes. So, let's look more closely at that time period.
In-context comparison method for postseason scoring for KG and Duncan
Spoiler:
(Note: Normally I would move forward with the understanding that Duncan's casts tended to be more talented/stronger than Garnett's. I think that's not just a supportable point, but a very clear one. However, there's been pushback in this project that Duncan's 01 - 03 casts were worse than Garnett's 2002 cast in particular, and that notion has gained enough traction (plus I know from experience debating with Baller 24) that if I argue that point here it will deflect away from the point I'm trying to make.)
So as we review their postseason performances for each year of their early prime thru peak (1999 - 2004), I'm going to not factor Duncan's or Garnett's team strength in. I'll instead compare them using a descending hierarchy of methods to get their performances on as similar of a plane as possible:
1) Performance against common opponent in the same postseason 2) Performance against the most similar caliber positional defense in the same postseason 3) Performance against highest quality opponent in the same postseason
1999 - 2001: Postseason performances in Early Prime against all-history defensive power forwards
Spoiler:
In 1999 and 2001, all eight of KG's playoff games had him facing one of the 2 best defensive power forwards in NBA history: Tim Duncan. Duncan also had those eight games against the other best defensive power forward in NBA history in Kevin Garnett...but in addition he had 22 other games in those two postseasons that were not against that level of positional defense. Let's compare:
Garnett against Duncan: 21.4 points (52.5% TS), 12 rpg, 4.1 apg (2.4 TO) Duncan against Garnett: 20.7 points (51.4% TS), 11.9 rpg, 3.4 apg (2.2 TO) Duncan against everyone else: 24.8 points (56.6% TS), 13.1 rpg, 3.2 apg (3.8 TO)
In 2000, Duncan missed the playoffs with an injury while Garnett faced off against the Portland Trailblazers, whose starting front line was Rasheed Wallace, Scottie Pippen and Arvydas Sabonis. If KG and Duncan are 1-2 on the defensive power forward list of this era, Rasheed Wallace is a comfortable third. And of course, he had Sabonis clogging the paint defensively with Pippen able to provide help as well.
In that series, Garnett averaged 18.8 points (44.1% TS), 10.8 rpg, 8.8 apg (3.3 TO)
Everything looks reasonable except for the awful scoring efficiency. KG was clearly (CLEARLY) the focal point of the Wallace-led Blazers defense that series, which really hurt his scoring efficiency overall. He did do a good job of taking advantage of the extra attention he was receiving to find teammates, as reflected by his excellent assist numbers, and Terrell Brandon was able to do well in the expanded space he had to work with. But the focus in this debate is KG's scoring efficiency vs. Duncan's. So let's go there.
Duncan didn't face the Blazers (or anyone else) that postseason, but he did face them three times in the regular season. Let's look at the four Garnett postseason games, and the three Duncan regular season games:
Of course one was in the playoffs and one was in the regular season so it's not a full apples-to-apples comparison, but I see a similar trend. Both postseason KG and Duncan had two very underwhelming scoring performances against the 2000 Trail Blazers. Duncan had one berzerk game as well, while postseason KG had 1.5 reasonably good scoring efforts. But looking at this, I see no reason to believe that in the postseason Duncan would suddenly have been putting up his normal scoring output against the Blazers. Especially if he was called on to also have much more complete floor games in the postseason than he did in the regular season.
Conclusion: If you look at the overall scoring eficiency/"advanced" box score stats of playoffs KG to playoffs Duncan for 1999 - 2001, it appears that Duncan gives you a solid advantage. However, if you actually go into the match-ups and compare Duncan's performance (or expected performance) against the same level of power forward-specific defense that KG faced in those postseasons, I see no evidence that Duncan scored any better or more efficiently than KG did when in KG's circumstances.
My conclusion - early prime KG was just as good of a postseason scorer as early prime Duncan by both volume and efficiency. It wasn't Duncan's interior offensive style that led to the better numbers, it was instead the relative level of competition difference.
2002: Postseason performance at (Duncan) & near (KG) peak against elite team
Spoiler:
In 2002 Garnett's Timberwolves faced the 57-win Mavs in the postseason. In 2002 David Robinson was injured in the playoffs, so when Duncan's Spurs faced the 58-win Lakers Duncan's squad was overmatched. So, let's look at the scoring efficiencies and overall output in these two series as well as Duncan's opening round series against the 45-win Supersonics.
KG vs Dal: 24 ppg (51.3% TS), 18.7 reb, 5 asts (4 TO) TD vs LA: 29 ppg (51.7% TS), 17.2 reb, 4.6 ast (4.6 TO) TD vs Sea: 25.8 ppg (60.5% TS), 11 rpg, 5.5 apg (3.5 TO)
My conclusion: against the stronger teams where they were called upon to do everything, again, Garnett's and Duncan's lines look very similar. Both put up video game counting stats but at poor efficiency. Against Seattle Duncan didn't have to do as much and both his scoring and passing efficiencies were much better.
2003 - 2004: Postseason performance at peak against the same team both years
Spoiler:
In both 2003 and 2004, Duncan's Spurs and Garnett's Wolves matched up with the same Lakers' squads as their toughest tests. Here's how their numbers compared:
KG vs LA: 25.4 ppg (52.9% TS), 14.6 rpg, 4.9 apg (3.4 TO) TD vs LA: 24.4 ppg (55.6% TS), 12 rpg, 4.1 apg (3.5 TO)
This is the first of these comparisons where Duncan has slightly higher scoring efficiency, but it is very close. On the flip side, Garnett had better passing efficiency (as measured by assists vs turnovers). On the whole, these are exceedingly similar performance levels on offense.
My conclusion: again, against (in this case the exact same) competition, Garnett and Duncan look remarkably the same in the postseason.
Overall conclusion: Duncan has already been voted in several threads ago, so this post isn't intended to make you place KG over Duncan on your lists. That ship has sailed. Instead, I just want you to consider what it was about Duncan that made you trust him as a playoffs focal point more than Garnett. My belief is that as scoring options (in the regular or postseason), Duncan and Garnett are so similar it's ridiculous. Stylistically there are differences (Duncan's approach is more low-post while Garnett's is more high-post), but there's no inherent advantage of one method over another...it's all about results. A quick glance at the basketball-reference stats pages would seem to indicate that Duncan was a better scorer than Garnett in the postseason to a small (but noticeable) degree. However, as I illustrated above, if you really look at the context of their postseason scoring, when KG and Duncan were in similar situations they scored in an almost eerily similar levels.
So. Duncan's and KG's offensive styles stay pretty consistent from the regular season to the postseason. It seems to me that the primary "advantages" that Duncan had as a postseason scorer were because traditionally low-post offense was thought to be more efficient and effective at warping defenses... and then that the Basketball-reference stats indicated that Duncan DID have a postseason advantage. However, historical trends indicate that, overall, the spacing effect of a big man with shooting range and a big man able to run the offense through the high-post are very conducive to good team units. And Garnett's scoring efficiency was almost exactly the same as Duncan's in the regular season over their primes, in the postseason in their late/post primes, AND (when put into context) in the postseasons of their actual primes and peaks.
Thus, if your reasoning for feeling that Garnett shouldn't be ranked in the top-10 is in any way due to your belief that his postseason scoring isn't strong enough to warrant that, I ask that you just examine again what I laid out above. And then really consider whether you were giving Garnett a fair review in light of the way that you view Duncan.
Doctor MJ wrote:Looking simply to address how I see the players regardless of rank:
As I've said with Garnett, of the databall era, he's the #3 peak behind LeBron & Shaq, and then there's a significant gap before you get to Duncan at the 4th spot.
Were I to say I ranked peaked Duncan ahead of Robinson, I don't think anyone would bat an eye, just transitivity there, based on Garnett vs Duncan, it should make sense to put Garnett ahead of Robinson.
Funny story time: My six year old daughter wanted to learn how to play chess, so I taught her, and was very careful to lose to her as well (it was hard. SO HARD). When my father came to visit us, she knew I was better than him, so she played him at a game, and she trash talked him through the whole game. He wasn't as strong as me and so he inadvertently won as her trash talking fired up his competitive spirit. At the point when she realised she was going to lose, she said to him "my dad is better than you at chess, and I beat him, so....."
I think you've just done the equivalent thing here. Duncan > Robinson, and Garnett > Duncan, so therefore Garnett > Robinson.
I completely disagree with the notion that Garnett is better than Duncan. So naturally I don't agree with your reasoning for Garnett being better than Robinson.
Doctor MJ wrote:The combination of agility, intelligence, and chatter in someone as long as Garnett is not anything like a normal combination, and it's that combination which let him become the poster child for directing the state of the art in NBA defense.
Yes, I completely agree here. Although, it's very hard to say who is a better defender between the two because Robinson is clearly the better vertical defender, while garnett is the better horizontal defender.
The Magic v. Hakeem debate seems clear . . . . some believe Hakeem at peak was appreciably more likely to bring a title to your team and that the rest of his prime wasn't that far off Magic; Magic fans see him as bringing appreciably more synergy to the offense, enough to counter the defense, and point to Hakeem's lack of dominance outside his peak 2-3 year stretch.
The Bird v. Magic argument seems to be . . . Bird was better early on, appreciably better. Both are incredible offensive players, neither's defense is as bad as people think, especially if Bird is at PF where he belongs. The Magic camp points to Bird's lower numbers in the playoffs and decline v. Magic's continued improvement throughout his career.
Doc, for you Garnett fans, how does he stack up against Hakeem? I get the idea that he was great, but am not seeing that much in terms of direct head to head analysis against the main guys here. I love the Garnett v. DRob debate but DRob isn't going to pass Hakeem even if you consider them reasonably close. Maybe it's been done before but maybe I'm more open to getting it past my internal censors now.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
therealbig3 wrote:I think Barkley is an offensive force, like a super version of Melo...the small ball 4 that dominates with his combination of quickness, explosion, and power.
However, I have to admit I'm not too high on Barkley, simply because he's a PF with bad defense. That's a pretty big deal for me, especially when we see the kind of defensive impact a PF CAN have (Duncan and KG). That's why I tend to lean towards classical two-way PFs (Duncan and KG), a PF who's primarily an offensive player but also plays great if not historically elite defense (Malone), and a PF that you could probably argue is on Barkley's level offensively but isn't the same defensive liability (Dirk).
A superpowered Melo is kind of an understatement. He was litteraly more efficent than Shaq inside.
I think this Larry Bird quote summarizes it perfectly
Larry Bird was asked "If you have a Last Second Shot who would get the Ball on the Dream Team?" "I would give to Charles. If you have a 2-Pointer instead of a 3. At that Point he was the Most Unguardable Player in the World "
I don't think I have to remind you just how many efficent scorers were on that dream team
Sure and Larry Bird made that awful Scola trade and the Pacers haven't had good decision making in a while.
Please let's not rate players based on what other players say about them. Players are famous for playing not evaluating others.
…Do you not realize how much of a reach that was for a counterpoint? Bird is 2 years removed from winning executive of the year, and is very clearly one of the best basketball minds of all time. Your example really isn't even analogous to bird commenting on barkley anyway.
I think better said, quotes by players about other players should be taken with a grain of salt. We have to rely on them more for the early eras of the NBA, but at the end of the day, it's still an opinion.
I think it doesn't really help your argument, to spend a whole post comparing Duncan and Garnett, when Garnett's main competion for this spot is Hakeem,Bird and Magic. If Garnett's going to get voted in anywhere near this high, it'll have to be on his own merit, and not through being linked to a player who has proven has already proven his case.
The question now is, what makes KG better than Dirk, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Bird, Hakeem, Magic, Kobe ext
A post comparing Garnett and Duncan doesn't expand on that in any way
Vote: Magic...i haven't seen enough to convince me that Bird or Hakeem should be voted over him so it leaves me me voting Magic still yet. Bird wasn't the consistent playoff performer that Magic was,while Hakeem wasn't a legitimate MVP candidate as many seasons as Magic, and had less consistency with regular season and playoffs considered. I thought Magic should've been voted in at least 2-3 spots ago so I'm not going to wave on him.
Basketballefan wrote: Arguably the greatest offensive player of all time, great leader, great winner, made his teammates better than anyone ever imo.
5 time champion, 3 of which he was the undisputed best player, 3 time MVP, 12 time all star, 4 time assist leader, 9 All nba first team selection etc
Great playoff performer beat some all time great teams such as Bird's Celtics and the Bad boy pistons, Avged 20 8 12 over his 13 year playoff career. Wins his first championship and FMVP as a rookie putting up 18 11 9 in the playoffs, with an incredible 42 15 7 game 6 clinching performance as Kareem goes down with injury and he jumps center.
Had Magic not got HIV he would've had a longer career and could've been in discussion for top 2 or even GOAT.
Knocks on magic usually consist of his longevity and his defense. Magic wasn't a great defender but i don't think he was a negative on that end and for his longevity its not great but not horrible, 13 years and he accomplished so much in that span and changed the game.
Boston wasn't favored to win the NBA championship in 2008, I don't even think they were favored to win their conference.
People have to realize that 2008 was the first time these guys were ever going to play with each other, and a lot of people were not sure how quickly they'd mesh. Generally speaking when a bunch of stars get together, it's not really a given that they're going to win the championship that very year.
That also kinda explains some of the playoff struggles they had, they were a team playing with each other for the first time. Compare them to what the Heat did, which are three players in their prime playing together, and Boston looks pretty good I'd say, I mean the Heat didn't even win the first time they played together, and they sure as heck didn't blow by the eastern conference either.
Doctor MJ wrote:Looking simply to address how I see the players regardless of rank:
As I've said with Garnett, of the databall era, he's the #3 peak behind LeBron & Shaq, and then there's a significant gap before you get to Duncan at the 4th spot.
Were I to say I ranked peaked Duncan ahead of Robinson, I don't think anyone would bat an eye, just transitivity there, based on Garnett vs Duncan, it should make sense to put Garnett ahead of Robinson.
Funny story time: My six year old daughter wanted to learn how to play chess, so I taught her, and was very careful to lose to her as well (it was hard. SO HARD). When my father came to visit us, she knew I was better than him, so she played him at a game, and she trash talked him through the whole game. He wasn't as strong as me and so he inadvertently won as her trash talking fired up his competitive spirit. At the point when she realised she was going to lose, she said to him "my dad is better than you at chess, and I beat him, so....."
I think you've just done the equivalent thing here. Duncan > Robinson, and Garnett > Duncan, so therefore Garnett > Robinson.
I completely disagree with the notion that Garnett is better than Duncan. So naturally I don't agree with your reasoning for Garnett being better than Robinson.
Doctor MJ wrote:The combination of agility, intelligence, and chatter in someone as long as Garnett is not anything like a normal combination, and it's that combination which let him become the poster child for directing the state of the art in NBA defense.
Yes, I completely agree here. Although, it's very hard to say who is a better defender between the two because Robinson is clearly the better vertical defender, while garnett is the better horizontal defender.
But your analogy doesn't quite work, because if he does think KG is better than Duncan, and he thinks Duncan is better than Robinson - then it does make perfect sense to say that KG is better than Robinson. A>B>C logic is applicable in that scenario.
In your scenario you admit that you threw your match, so naturally your daughters statement doesn't account to much.
HeartBreakKid wrote:Boston wasn't favored to win the NBA championship in 2008, I don't even think they were favored to win their conference.
People have to realize that 2008 was the first time these guys were ever going to play with each other, and a lot of people were not sure how quickly they'd mesh. Generally speaking when a bunch of stars get together, it's not really a given that they're going to win the championship that very year.
That also kinda explains some of the playoff struggles they had, they were a team playing with each other for the first time. Compare them to what the Heat did, which are three players in their prime playing together, and Boston looks pretty good I'd say, I mean the Heat didn't even win the first time they played together, and they sure as heck didn't blow by the eastern conference either.
It's fine to say that they had a great run, because of how quick they came together, however saying they had a dominant run in terms of nba history, is being dishonest
HeartBreakKid wrote:Boston wasn't favored to win the NBA championship in 2008, I don't even think they were favored to win their conference.
People have to realize that 2008 was the first time these guys were ever going to play with each other, and a lot of people were not sure how quickly they'd mesh. Generally speaking when a bunch of stars get together, it's not really a given that they're going to win the championship that very year.
That also kinda explains some of the playoff struggles they had, they were a team playing with each other for the first time. Compare them to what the Heat did, which are three players in their prime playing together, and Boston looks pretty good I'd say, I mean the Heat didn't even win the first time they played together, and they sure as heck didn't blow by the eastern conference either.
It's fine to say that they had a great run, because of how quick they came together, however saying they had a dominant run in terms of nba history, is being dishonest
They didn't have a dominate run, I don't hear too many people saying they did. More often then not I hear people saying they had a dominant defense, in which case I would think that is hard to argue, regardless if they struggled to beat teams in the playoffs or not.
