RealGM Top 100 List #8

[Purch]

1) Kg isn't on the level of Russell defensively because, as his teams defensive anchor for 10 out of 11 years they were a sub par team defensively,

2) After ancoring one above averge defensive team in his entire career, and after in 2007 anchoring the 21'st worst defense in the league, he teamed up with the best defensive coach since Pat Riley. A coach who was still able to create elite defenses regardless of his personel

[Purch]

It's not that it's about the team or not about the team.

When you are an elite Point guard or an elite big man, your teams success offensively or defensively is very much linked to how well you run that offense or anchor that defense.

This isn't about team record, we've seen tons of great defensive teams that fail to win games. This is about KG on both winning and losing teams failing to lead his teams to even the league average defensively

[ronnymac2]

1988 Hakeem Olajuwon

First off, I want to say this is a testament to Hakeem that he was able to drag this team to being a sightly above average squad in 1988. (46-36, 0.82 SRS)

The team's second best player, Ralph Sampson, played 19 games. Sleepy Floyd post-trade played 59 games and had a major downturn in terms of production after having an All-Star season in 1987 (13.1 points, 6.2 assists, TS% below 51 percent). Robert Reid only played 15 minutes per game this year. Only Rodney McCray is who I'd consider to be a good player on this team.

The Rockets are once again 4th in defensive rating (—2.3 defense), mainly on the back of being the 2nd-best eFG% team in the NBA. They ranked 11th at Turnover% (slightly below average), 16th in defensive rebound% (slightly below average), and 10th in ft/FGA (slightly above average).

Olajuwon averaged 8.3 defensive rebounds, 2.7 blocks, and 2.1 steals in 35.8 minutes per game (79 games). He was fourth in the league in total defensive rebounds and total blocks. He was 7th in defensive rebound rate. He led the league in defensive win shares (6.3) and individual defensive rating (98). He was All-NBA first team and All-Defense first team.

22.8 points, 2.1 assists, 3.1 turnovers, and 3.8 OBoards per game, 55.5 percent True Shooting. Quite frankly, the players around him were not quality offensive players, and he had below league average 3-point shooting around him this season. Again, I have no doubt that you give him a perimeter offensive player on par with him, he could average 20-22 points, 2-3 assists, 4 Oboards, 2.5 turnovers, and raise his TS% to 56-57 percent on an above average offense (Houston was slightly below average as is, which is impressive to be considering their lack of talent and fit.)

In the playoffs, Hakeem averaged 37.5 points, 16.8 rebounds, 2.8 blocks, 2.3 steals, 1.8 assists, and 2.25 turnovers per game. Got to the free throw line over 10 times per game. True Shooting = 64.1%. Dallas, clearly an above average team and possessing some of the deepest talent in the league, outscored Houston by just 10 points over the 4-game series. Olajuwon's teammates shot under 42% on the series. Ralph Sampson did not play. Dallas played roughly at the same level as their REG SEA 3rd ranked offense did. Again though, this team was very talented. They did take eventual NBA champion Los Angeles to 7 games in the WCF.

This season more than most is a season where Olajuwon did not have talent or help in the REG SEA or playoffs, and he still carried the team pretty much as far as one could reasonably hope.


1990 —

Spoiler:

1990 Hakeem Olajuwon is quite possibly the greatest defensive season in NBA history by a player other than Bill Russell. Dream played 82 games for 38.1 minutes per game. He averaged 10.4 defensive rebounds, 2.1 steals, and a league-leading 4.6 blocks per game. He led the league in total defensive rebounds and total blocks.

He led the league in defensive rebound rate (28.3%) and block percentage (7%). For those who like these stats, he led the league in defensive wins shares (8.7) and individual defensive rating (93).

Houston was a —4.7 defense. This ranked as the best in the NBA in 1990. For Defense Four Factors, Houston was 3rd in eFG%, 9th in Turnover%, 6th in defensive rebound%, and 7th in FG/FTA. All marks were above the league average.

Olajuwon was All-Defense first team, but somehow, he finished second in DPOY voting to Dennis Rodman. This is perhaps the most egregious award error in NBA history. Olajuwon played 3,124 minutes that season (again, 82 games for 38.1 minutes per game). Dennis Rodman played 2,377 minutes (82 games for 29 minutes per game). Rodman's Pistons were an inferior defense. None of his defensive stats are really all that close to Olajuwon's. He averaged 3.4 fouls per game. Olajuwon averaged 3.8 fouls in significantly more minutes (Olajuwon was actually 9th in minutes per game that season in the NBA).

Olajuwon's Rockets faced the best offensive team in the NBA that season, Magic Johnson's LA Lakers in the first round, and lost 3-1, with Magic's Lakers performing well offensively. Olajuwon averaged 5.8 blocks, 2.5 steals, and maintained roughly the same defensive rebound rate as during the season. LA was a legitimate title contender that year.

Olajuwon in 1990 also gave you 24 points on 50 percent shooting and over 70 percent free throw shooting as a big man. He averaged 2.9 assists and 3.9 turnovers.

My Opinion: If you meld him onto a team with more offensive talent, I do not doubt he could average 21-22 points, 3 assists, 3 turnovers and replicate his defensive dominance.

1989 —

Spoiler:

Defensively, Olajuwon not winning DPOY isn't as egregious as it was in 1990. Mark Eaton was playing about 35 minutes per game and anchoring the best defense in the league, so it's at least an understandable selection. But Olajuwon was most certainly playing at a somewhat similar level that he did in 1990.

Hakeem played 82 games and played 36.9 minutes per game. He averaged 9.4 defensive rebounds, 3.4 blocks, and 2.6 steals for Houston's 4th-ranked defense (Houston was a —3 defense). He led the league in total defensive rebounds and was 3rd in both total blocks and total steals. He led the league in defensive rebound rate (27.2), defensive win shares (7.8), and individual defensive rating (94.9).

Defensive Four Factors: Houston ranked 8th in eFG%, 10th in turnover%, 5th in defensive rebound percentage, and 12th in ft/FGA. All of these marks were above league average that year, which makes sense since Olajuwon is affecting offenses in every way imaginable (he ends possessions with defensive rebounds, causes a crazy amount of turnovers, and lowers team's efficiencies by blowing up plays on the perimeter and contesting shots in the paint).

Offensively, Olajuwon is scoring 24.8 points with 1.8 assists, 4.1 offensive rebounds, and 3.4 turnovers per game. He shot 50.8 percent and 69.6 percent on FTs. 55.2 True Shooting percentage.

(Just a slight tangent...I hate when non-volume scoring, non-creative players average a ton of turnovers, which is exactly what Otis Thorpe does. The same thing pisses me off about early Charles Oakley. Thorpe is giving you 17 and 2.5 with 2.7 turnovers per game...smh).

Playoffs: Rockets face a decent Seattle team. Seattle clearly isn't a contender, but they do have a 5th-ranked offense, which slightly underperforms against Houston compared to the REG SEA (111.5 in REG SEA, 108.9 in 4-game sample against HOU). Olajuwon does 25/13 with 3 assists and 2.5 turnovers per game. 2.8 blocks, 2.5 steals. True Shooting percentage of 54.9 percent. If anything, he did a little better with his assist/turnovers ratio here.

Houston actually outscored Seattle over the course of the series. Seattle won Game One by 4, Game Two by 12, and Game Four by 2. Houston won Game Three by 19. After Olajuwon, Thorpe, and Sleepy Floyd, the rest of the Rocket offense just wasn't very good.


To me, this season provides more GOAT-level defense (not including Russell) with very strong offense that I think would look even better in terms of impact (but slightly worse in terms of counting stats) if paired with better teammates.

For those who worry about Hakeem not drawing fouls because he's all stepbacks and fadeaways, Dream got to the line a career-high 8 times per game this year. Went over 6 times per game in the 4-game sample we have in the playoffs. We aren't talking about an Al Jefferson case where he gets off clean shots at the expense of not getting to the free throw line for even more efficient, clean shots.

[E-Balla]

Because defense is all about the TEAM.

We can show this in many ways. The best defenders are, like, +5 to maybe =8. So if you have poor defensive starters, you can easily be dragged down to an average level, and with a bad bench you'll look a lot worse.

So ....
1) KG isn't elite defensively because his teams were mediocre on defense
2) KG was a part of the greatest defense since Russell but it doesn't count because I said so

I'm sorry but can you stop saying KG was part of the best defense since Russell? They aren't as good as the 04 Spurs and Pistons. They aren't better than the 93-94 Knicks either. The 84 Bucks are better too. Basically they're a revolutionary top 10 defense but the thing about that is there's 10 other players including Duncan who's anchored something like that before.

He is elite defensively though and anyone that doubted it should've realized how good he was on that end in 08.

[penbeast0]

80% of the posts here (don't hold me to the number) are about Garnett who has a couple of supporters but little hope of winning this slot from what I've heard.

Can we discuss Magic v. Bird or Hakeem v. Magic for a bit? Particularly Hakeem v. one of the other two since I'm not decided either way.

Hakeem outside of 94/95 aren't up to prime Magic or Bird (still great, just not quite as great) but those 2 years are better than any either Magic or Bird ever produced (when you include playoffs). Magic's early years aren't up to Bird's peak/prime. Bird's later years were problematic and he had more playoff issues individually than the other two. Is that a fair assessment?

[Texas Chuck]

Because defense is all about the TEAM.

We can show this in many ways. The best defenders are, like, +5 to maybe =8. So if you have poor defensive starters, you can easily be dragged down to an average level, and with a bad bench you'll look a lot worse.

So ....
1) KG isn't elite defensively because his teams were mediocre on defense
2) KG was a part of the greatest defense since Russell but it doesn't count because I said so

1. To be fair he's raising a good point. At some point if KG is an elite defensive anchor like the other guys why did it take so long to show up? The reason I keep bringing up David Robinson is because he also had enormous offensive responsibilities yet even prior to the arrival of Tim Duncan and Pop, do you know what the Spurs always had? Great team defenses. And if you want to blame poor teammates, well Admiral had worse teammates than KG had.

And when KG was a huge part of the great team defenses in Boston--and imo he should get plenty of credit for that--he was no longer the offensive hub. Still a really good offensive player, but comparing his offense in Boston with his great team defenses to Admiral's offense in SA with his great defenses simply doesnt compare.

And to your #2--frankly no one is saying anything like that. That's an unnecessary reduction that attempts to minimize the other side for no real reason. I'd hope both sides would avoid these types of comments.

[Purch]

And I am very fond of Thibs as a coach. I don't think there's been a brighter coach them him defensively since Riley. So for me it's very hard to say that KG was the main factor behind that great Boston defense, when the 11 years prior to that give no indication that he could anchor a great defense consistently.

In fact looking at the Bulls the past 4 years with Boozer in the middle, whiles still being elite defensively, makes me belive even more that Thibs was the main factor behind Boston's defense

Here's the Bulls defensively the past 4 years(Boozer and Noah instead of Kg and Perkings)

2011-1st in the league in defensive rating (100.3)
2012- 2nd in the league in defensive rating (98.3)
2013- 6th in the league in defensive rating (103.2)
2014- 2nd in the league in defensive rating (102.5)

[colts18]

I'm not a huge KG fan but here is a chart of his 2008 season.


Here is how you read the chart. This is what those players did when with the same 4 man unit as KG. For example, lets say KG played with Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Davis. This stat would compare how KG did with those 4 guys compared to how Perkins did with those 4 guys. KG's number here on defense is +23. That means when KG played with the same 4 man unit that Perkins did, that 4 man unit performed better by 23 points per 100 possessions with KG than they did with Perkins.

As you can see with this list, 4 man units were playing awesome defense with KG, but not as awesome when they had Perkins, Davis, etc on the court.

Code: Select all

         Offense   Defense   NET   Poss
Kendrick Perkins   6   23   29   839.0
Glen Davis   6   12   18   1119.0
Tony Allen   7   17   24   462.0
Scot Pollard   6   13   19   453.0
Brian Scalabrine   4   11   15   845.0
Leon Powe   -1   8   7   1297.0
Paul Pierce   -7   28   21   475.0
James Posey   11   11   22   916.0
Ray Allen   0   14   14   493.0

[Doctor MJ]

What needs to be accounted for in the statistical argument is the fact that the NBA is a long season with virtually half of the teams making the playoffs. Accordingly, top players realize that they can slack off in the regular season (e.g. Shaq in the 3 peat times), save energy, and exert more effort in the playoffs. Now, if the goal of the NBA was to win as many regular season games as possible with the largest scoring margins, then I would have to think that guys like Shaq and Lebron during the Heat era would have played a lot differently.

That is, they would have played like how KG plays.

KG is getting overrated in the statistical arguments because he always plays really hard. But that is not necessarily prudent. And I don't necessarily think that this is a positive attribute in the context of winning a championship. But it sure did wonders for his +/- stats.

Two issues with this:

1) If this were true and agreed to be true then Garnett would have all sorts of regular season accolades based on this success, and he doesn't. If you'd like to stand up and say that most people are clueless as to how good Garnett is in the regular season before coming back to the playoffs and saying "but it turns out they are right in the end" I suppose you can, but it's quite the coincidence you end up agreeing with the status quo despite this zig zag and that you don't seem to think that others who miss the zig zag are doing anything wrong.

I don't understand this argument. If it is indeed true that Garnett worked harder than other superstars in meaningless situations, he should have had more accolades. Why?

'meaningless situations'? That's not what I got from your prior post where you contrasted the regular season with the playoffs. So now you're basically reducing KG"s good work ethic to being a tendency to look busy specifically when it does no good, which really makes you look like you're just trying to find a way to rationalize you're existing beliefs.

There are different levels of slacking off. There are superstars who were notorious for not taking the regular season seriously (Shaq) and there are superstars who made it a point to swat every jump shot with vigor even after the play was dead (Garnett). And then you have rest of the superstars in the middle of this spectrum.

Also, +/- stat (if I am understanding it correctly) really rewards a player who plays high intensity basketball when the game is out of hand (either due to the winning or losing) because this is when everyone starts to lose their edge a bit. So you're the one guy playing hard when everyone else (including your teammates) are gearing towards their next game - of course your +/- is going to be off the chart.

Now, I am not attacking +/- per se. It is probably really valuable. But I am trying to figuring out reasons on why KG fairs so well upon looking at this metric. Why? Mostly because my eye test tells me that although KG is a great player, he is not a top 5-10 all time player. And there must be a reasonable explanation on why he is beating someone like Lebron (who is clearly better than KG) using that metric. And I suspect that 95+% of the NBA fans agree with me.

And what evidence do you have of this spectrum? So far as I can tell you're justifying it based on the fact that when you watch Garnett you're not that impressed, and therefore you rationalize this by thinking he must be having impact where it doesn't matter. I think a much more realistic answer is that your eyes aren't that good.

That's not meant as a knock on your eyes specifically to be clear, eyes are limited in general, and there are people on here with significantly better eyes than me so I'm certainly not saying I just see the game better than you. What my eyes do see though is that there's a hell of a lot of different things going on on the basketball court at once, and that it is very, very difficult to even see them all, let alone see them all and weight their impact accordingly while tallying it all up into one holistic assessment...and I would I suspect 95+% of NBA fans aren't even thinking in these terms.

To the point of +/- rewarding a player for doing well during blowouts, that's a understandable theory but it doesn't hold up. Consider how Garnett's minutes were limited in Boston. You really think Doc Rivers was letting him run rampant in already decided games? Back in the '60s coaches let there players play the whole game as a matter of course, but conserving a star's efforts has been the norm for a very long time.

[therealbig3]

You expect to see a drop off defensively without your best defensive player, but there's absolutly no way I can buy that the little time the league leader in minutes is off the court, that small amount of time amounts for such sub par defenses for 10 years straight. That's ridiculous.

01 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 102.9 (14th)

02 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 104.2 (14th)

03 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 102.4 (10th)

04 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 98.5 (5th)

05 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 106.6 (13th)

06 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 104.7 (10th)

07 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 106.2 (13th)


They were an above average defense every year from 01-07 with Garnett on the court...it was usually when he was off the court that things went bad. In 05 and 06, those are really the years that seem like Garnett's defense drops, but in 07, he's the only reason they even finished 21st instead of dead last.

Meanwhile, compare this to the Spurs with Duncan OFF the floor.

01 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 104.9 (21st)

02 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 103.6 (10th)

03 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 103.2 (15th)

04 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 97.5 (3rd)

05 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 103.4 (7th)

06 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 100.3 (1st)

07 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 104.6 (7th)

In this 7 year stretch, the Spurs with Duncan on the bench are BETTER defensively than the Wolves with Garnett on the floor 5 times. All 5 of those times, the defense without Duncan is good enough to rank top 10 in the league. Even in 01 and 03, they're not that far off from the Wolves with Garnett on the floor.

So we can give Garnett crap for not anchoring great defenses while in Minnesota, but it's clear to me that he was good enough to keep that team above average basically by himself...meanwhile, Duncan's teams without him were already much better than average for the most part. Of course they're going to become insanely good with him, and of course they'll destroy Garnett's teams defensively, because clearly, the supporting cast (or coaching...probably both) is far superior defensively.

Those Minnesota teams didn't have a lot of plus defenders outside of Garnett. The Spurs were full of them.

[therealbig3]

And I am very fond of Thibs as a coach. I don't think there's been a brighter coach them him defensively since Riley. So for me it's very hard to say that KG was the main factor behind that great Boston defense, when the 11 years prior to that give no indication that he could anchor a great defense consistently.

In fact looking at the Bulls the past 4 years with Boozer in the middle, whiles still being elite defensively, makes me belive even more that Thibs was the main factor behind Boston's defense

Yeah, it was just Boozer...not Noah, Gibson, Asik, Deng, Butler, etc. He had fantastic defensive personnel in Chicago too, and fans have noted how he sacrifices offense by playing his defensive role players more. Nobody's denying that he's a great coach, but he's definitely had the personnel in both Boston and Chicago.

And we've seen Boston's defense remain elite with Garnett after Thibs left.

[ronnymac2]

I'm not getting into any of these KG arguments, but I have to add...you start Keith Bogans and Ronnie Brewer for defense, not offense.

[Purch]

And I am very fond of Thibs as a coach. I don't think there's been a brighter coach them him defensively since Riley. So for me it's very hard to say that KG was the main factor behind that great Boston defense, when the 11 years prior to that give no indication that he could anchor a great defense consistently.

In fact looking at the Bulls the past 4 years with Boozer in the middle, whiles still being elite defensively, makes me belive even more that Thibs was the main factor behind Boston's defense

Yeah, it was just Boozer...not Noah, Gibson, Asik, Deng, Butler, etc. He had fantastic defensive personnel in Chicago too, and fans have noted how he sacrifices offense by playing his defensive role players more. Nobody's denying that he's a great coach, but he's definitely had the personnel in both Boston and Chicago.

And we've seen Boston's defense remain elite with Garnett after Thibs left.

Sacrificing offense is the thing you do, when your best offensive played is injured 3/4 of those seasons. And when they were at their best defensively was also when they were at their best offensively in 2011.

Your argument about the Celtics being great defensively would be great if, they weren't running the exact same defensive schemes that they inherited from Thibs(you can check the tapes) I know it's a radical idea that you don't stop running whats working. It's like arguing that Kawhi was still effective after Pop left, when his assistant are still running the same system


Like I said, bigs are your most Important position defensively, and when you are playing a big who is a defensive liability 30+ minutes it is Extremly hard to be a great defensive team

I know, I've seen it with both Boozer and Jefferson on the Jazz

[acrossthecourt]

You expect to see a drop off defensively without your best defensive player, but there's absolutly no way I can buy that the little time the league leader in minutes is off the court, that small amount of time amounts for such sub par defenses for 10 years straight. That's ridiculous.

Spoiler:

01 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 102.9 (14th)

02 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 104.2 (14th)

03 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 102.4 (10th)

04 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 98.5 (5th)

05 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 106.6 (13th)

06 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 104.7 (10th)

07 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 106.2 (13th)


They were an above average defense every year from 01-07 with Garnett on the court...it was usually when he was off the court that things went bad. In 05 and 06, those are really the years that seem like Garnett's defense drops, but in 07, he's the only reason they even finished 21st instead of dead last.

Meanwhile, compare this to the Spurs with Duncan OFF the floor.

01 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 104.9 (21st)

02 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 103.6 (10th)

03 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 103.2 (15th)

04 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 97.5 (3rd)

05 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 103.4 (7th)

06 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 100.3 (1st)

07 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 104.6 (7th)

In this 7 year stretch, the Spurs with Duncan on the bench are BETTER defensively than the Wolves with Garnett on the floor 5 times. All 5 of those times, the defense without Duncan is good enough to rank top 10 in the league. Even in 01 and 03, they're not that far off from the Wolves with Garnett on the floor.

So we can give Garnett crap for not anchoring great defenses while in Minnesota, but it's clear to me that he was good enough keep that team above average basically by himself...meanwhile, Duncan's teams without him were already much better than average for the most part. Of course they're going to become insanely good with him, and of course they'll destroy Garnett's teams defensively, because clearly, the supporting cast (or coaching...probably both) is far superior defensively.

Those Minnesota teams didn't have a lot of plus defenders outside of Garnett. The Spurs were full of them.

Thank you. I was about to do the same thing.

By the way, Garnett would typically play against better lineups than the bench, so those defensive ratings are better than they seem.

[JordansBulls]

Here are the players that have a shot at this spot and there records while having the HCA.

Code: Select all

 vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams 
Magic:    9-2 (82%)/   20-1 (95%)
Bird:     10-6 (63%)/  14-1 (93%)
Olajuwon: 4-0 (100%)/  5-2 (71%)
Kobe       18-2 (90%) / 7-0  (100%)


Magic 29-3 with HCA
Bird 24-7 with HCA
Hakeem 9-2 with HCA (amazing he only had so few series with HCA)
Kobe 25-2 with HCA

Code: Select all

Playoff Series Record with HCA against teams with a +2 SRS:
Magic 80-91'14-2 87.5%
Bird 80-91' 13-5 72.2%



Playoff Series Record with HCA against teams with a +4 SRS:
Magic 80-91'4-1 80.0%
Bird 80-91' 6-5 54.5%


Here are those guys without HCA

Code: Select all

 
              Road(50+)/non-50
Magic:        3-4 / 0-0 
Olajuwon:     7-8 / 1-1
Bird:         0-4 / 0-0
Kobe:         5-5 / 0-0


Finished top 3 in MVP for 9x times which is the 2nd most in NBA History. Has 3 league mvp's, 3 finals mvp's, only other players with that was MJ and Russell would have that if finals mvp's existed at the time.

Vote: Magic Johnson

[Texas Chuck]

I'd like to just say that therealbig3 is killing this thread. Now I don't share all his opinions, but I love the information he is providing in support of his viewpoints.

[therealbig3]

And I am very fond of Thibs as a coach. I don't think there's been a brighter coach them him defensively since Riley. So for me it's very hard to say that KG was the main factor behind that great Boston defense, when the 11 years prior to that give no indication that he could anchor a great defense consistently.

In fact looking at the Bulls the past 4 years with Boozer in the middle, whiles still being elite defensively, makes me belive even more that Thibs was the main factor behind Boston's defense

Yeah, it was just Boozer...not Noah, Gibson, Asik, Deng, Butler, etc. He had fantastic defensive personnel in Chicago too, and fans have noted how he sacrifices offense by playing his defensive role players more. Nobody's denying that he's a great coach, but he's definitely had the personnel in both Boston and Chicago.

And we've seen Boston's defense remain elite with Garnett after Thibs left.

Sacrificing offense is the thing you do, when your best offensive played is injured 3/4 of those seasons. And when they were at their best defensively was also when they were at their best offensively in 2011.

Your argument about the Celtics being great defensively would be great if, they weren't running the exact same defensive schemes that they inherited from Thibs(you can check the tapes) I know it's a radical idea that you don't stop running whats working. It's like arguing that Kawhi was still effective after Pop left, when his assistant are still running the same system


Like I said, bigs are your most Important position defensively, and when you are playing a big who is a defensive liability 30+ minutes it is Extremly hard to be a great defensive team

I know, I've seen it with both Boozer and Jefferson on the Jazz

Well yeah, it worked, but the guy that masterminded it isn't around anymore to make adjustments to it, or to advise his players on how to run it. This is what I mean when the guy left...he's not there to oversee it anymore. Things aren't static, coaches make adjustments. But Boston's defense didn't have Thibs making adjustments anymore, and they were still elite defensively. Meaning there was more going on than Thibs.

And if we're going to give Thibs this much credit...then what about Popovich? Extremely hard to be a good defensive team when the big is a liability, kind of like your Bonner+Duncan example. I guess the coach deserves a lot of credit for that.

BTW, you CAN cover up a liability, if you're strong at every other position, and yes, you have a strong defensive system that allows a player to fit a certain role. Bogans/Brewer/Butler, Deng, Noah, and Gibson/Asik off the bench is an excellent defensive cast that can cover up a lot of flaws and keep a team elite defensively.

[An Unbiased Fan]

80% of the posts here (don't hold me to the number) are about Garnett who has a couple of supporters but little hope of winning this slot from what I've heard.

Can we discuss Magic v. Bird or Hakeem v. Magic for a bit? Particularly Hakeem v. one of the other two since I'm not decided either way.

Hakeem outside of 94/95 aren't up to prime Magic or Bird (still great, just not quite as great) but those 2 years are better than any either Magic or Bird ever produced (when you include playoffs). Magic's early years aren't up to Bird's peak/prime. Bird's later years were problematic and he had more playoff issues individually than the other two. Is that a fair assessment?

I generally think 84-88 Bird was great, but that 87-91 Magic was better. Bird was a 23 year old rookie, so he was much more mature when both players came into the NBA. Magic's collective seasons seem to be greater once you compare 80-83 Bird to 80-86 Magic. Sadly Bird didn't really play in 89, and only adds 90 after that.

I'm interested in arguments for Bird/Hakeem over Kobe, because he's has a 30/6/5/57% TS prime, and 11 elite seasons under his belt. In relation to Bird, Kobe is on par offensively, and better defensively. With respect to Hakeem, I don't think 2 great playoff runs negates all of Kobe's, especially when he has runs like 01 & 09 under his belt. Kobe's impact was more consistent through his years.

[Purch]

You expect to see a drop off defensively without your best defensive player, but there's absolutly no way I can buy that the little time the league leader in minutes is off the court, that small amount of time amounts for such sub par defenses for 10 years straight. That's ridiculous.

01 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 102.9 (14th)

02 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 104.2 (14th)

03 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 102.4 (10th)

04 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 98.5 (5th)

05 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 106.6 (13th)

06 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 104.7 (10th)

07 Wolves DRating with Garnett on the floor: 106.2 (13th)


They were an above average defense every year from 01-07 with Garnett on the court...it was usually when he was off the court that things went bad. In 05 and 06, those are really the years that seem like Garnett's defense drops, but in 07, he's the only reason they even finished 21st instead of dead last.

Meanwhile, compare this to the Spurs with Duncan OFF the floor.

01 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 104.9 (21st)

02 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 103.6 (10th)

03 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 103.2 (15th)

04 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 97.5 (3rd)

05 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 103.4 (7th)

06 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 100.3 (1st)

07 Spurs DRating with Duncan off the floor: 104.6 (7th)

In this 7 year stretch, the Spurs with Duncan on the bench are BETTER defensively than the Wolves with Garnett on the floor 5 times. All 5 of those times, the defense without Duncan is good enough to rank top 10 in the league. Even in 01 and 03, they're not that far off from the Wolves with Garnett on the floor.

So we can give Garnett crap for not anchoring great defenses while in Minnesota, but it's clear to me that he was good enough keep that team above average basically by himself...meanwhile, Duncan's teams without him were already much better than average for the most part. Of course they're going to become insanely good with him, and of course they'll destroy Garnett's teams defensively, because clearly, the supporting cast (or coaching...probably both) is far superior defensively.

Those Minnesota teams didn't have a lot of plus defenders outside of Garnett. The Spurs were full of them.

The numbers cited sited have absolutly nothing to do with my point. Because the early 2000 Spurs were an elite defensive team that was anchored by great defensive bigs. I wasn't comparing the Wolves to the 2000 spurs, because most years they weren't even an above averge defense. It's like me comparing the Wolves to the 2004 pistons, there's no point.

And again just like when across stated the rating when KG was on the floor, that is still not elite, that's slightly above averge at best most of the years you cited. For a player who is supposed to have Russell impact on that end of the floor I'm not seeing it

[Doctor MJ]

5. "Duncan had a near identical role in '14." Hmm, I'll go with you there. Duncan played the Celtic Garnett role on a team that didn't win because of anything like the reasons why the Celtics won. That's the difference.

If you look at any of the +/- data from the year, you'll see a stark contrast. Here's the pure raw stuff:

Duncan +452
Garnett +921

1. In no year of the Heat's run, did they every have a collection of bench players as talented as House, Pj Brown, Tony Allen, James Posey and Powe.

2. Why is there no reason to think Thibs could work that same Magic elsewhere? If anything there's more reason to think Thibs could replicate it than KG, looking at those T wolves defenses. Thibs has been able to create elite defenses the past 4 years, with clearly inferior defensive personel. Thibs has been able to create top defenses in the league, whiles playing Carlos Boozer significant minutes.

3. Teams have adjusted to the overloading, the trapping, and the "matchup zone" principles that have evolved out of that era. Dont get me wrong obviously it would be difficult for the Spurs, but the offense they've evolved over the past four years is the perfect counter to that. The triangle offense, was not.

4. There's a difference between costing, and playing 28 different starting lineups throughout the season. The thing is.. The spurs did both, and were only 4 games behind the celtics. A 16-10 playoff record, and 2 consective 7 game series against inferior teams whiles having home court doesn't impressive me.

5. Timmy played less than 30 minutes per game, and was 6 years older than him during their respective runs.

Cutting most of my post to spare real estate but leaving the last part in for emphasis.

1. I'm not as impressed as you are by those guys, but I won't belabor the point. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that you think the Celtic bench is significant here.

2. I'll put it slightly differently:

The Miami defense in '10-11 was excellent. I have no doubt that Thibs could have made it excellent too, but there's no reason to think he could have made it an order of magnitude better, and there's no track record at all to think of him as more impressive on offense than we saw from Spo the following year. I'm sure Thibs could do a good job in Miami, and I think he did a better job in Boston than I'd expect Spo to be able to do, but that does not mean we take the presumptive edge in Boston and simply apply to Miami as some kind of "better coach advantage".

3. But the Boston defense only worked with Garnett out there, and much of that was based on his unique agility and decision making. You don't stop the pick & roll the same way with him not out there, and no matter what the offense is it's a pretty huge value to the defense if they have a guy watching it all with keen insight and commanding his teammates to do the right thing.

I realize there was innovation to what Boston did, and you have a point there, but when you present the strategy as a kind of gimmick to be solved I think you did it a disservice. Most of what we're talking about here is just defense getting smarter. And offenses have gotten smarter too which will help against the smarter defense, but it doesn't make dumber defense look better.

4. Now you're just looking for reasons to dismiss them. Forget about the comparison for a second. When those Celtics were on, they were jaw dropping. Do you not remember this?

5. Okay no, and this is why I'm leaving my part of the quote in there. You trying to pivot into an excuse is absurd here. Look at the difference between those numbers. It's off the charts insane. You bring up Timmy's minutes - did you even bother to think in terms of whether adjusting for that would make a dent in the numbers? (Hint: It's negligible compared to how huge that gap is.)

Timmy's age? Look I"m not the one who brought him up. I'm not saying Garnett's better than Duncan because he was vastly more dominant in '08 than Duncan was in '14. You brought up '14 because YOU thought it provided a fitting analogy. To go back now and essentially say, "Well sure he wasn't anywhere as good then but he was old", makes the entire analogy just bizarre.

If the argument is that there's something wrong with Garnett compared to Duncan because Duncan's best team was better than Garnett's, and the fact that Duncan was a shell of himself and nowhere near as important to that team as Garnett, then why stop at Duncan? Why not use the '14 Spurs to argue Matt Bonner > Kevin Garnett?

The '14 Spurs are better than the prime Duncan Spurs precisely because there's a whole hell of a lot of stuff going on now with the team that have nothing to do with Duncan's basketball play, and any argument that incorporates any of that into an argument over Garnett is wrong from the get go.