Purch wrote:It's the same issue I brought up earlier about Barkley's interior scoring efficency vs Amare. When one guy sees double teams as soon as he dribbles the ball in the post, that has to be factored in. For Prime Duncan defenses played his post game like it was his biggest threat, I don't think any teams schemed against Garnett like he was primarily a post player, Especilly considering how willing he was to settle for long mid range jumpers.
It is factored in for sure, I definitely agree with your premise. Drawing multiple coverage creates opportunities for your teammates.
I just don't feel comfortable using low post scoring as a separating factor when comparing the two anymore in light of the data. Duncan, from watching, definitely received more doubles over the years. But I think Garnett's edge as a passer/playmaker closes the gap at least a bit, and what I perceive as a defensive edge does so as well.
Again, I have no problem with people slotting Duncan ahead (and might very well do the same myself), but I don't think a five slot gap is reasonable. This isn't part of my argument for voting KG here mind you, just an observation.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
The Infamous1 wrote:Bird got into a bar fight in the middle of the 85 playoffs which hurt his hand and causes him to shoot poorly from then on out which resulted in the celtics losing in the finals with HCA for the first time in their history. Could you imagine if that was Kobe(or any modern superstar to be honest)?
Lol there would be all the media talk about how he's not a leader and a poor teammate etc.
this simply isnt true. Mike would be out all night gambling and what not and never got criticized because people are smart enough to look at your body of work as a whole. Bird getting in a fight isnt enough to block out the rest of his career. A guy like Kobe tho who has shown time and again that he has personal agendas that at times took precedence over the team would and should be looked at differently for things like the situation in Colorado.
Its not becasue people like Bird and don't like Kobe. Track Record matters.
I think the knock on Kobe as a bit immature in handling malcontent is deserved in many respects, but let's look at the results of these blemishes shall we?
The loss to San Antonio in 2003 wasn't Shaq or Kobe underperforming like LeBron in 2011. The team's depth for the role players was gradually headed towards a downwards trajectory, hence why they almost (and really should have) lost to Sacramento in 2002. I thought the Kings were the slightly better team (ala the Spurs 2013) but in both series a miracle sequence of events led to series changing shots (Ray Allen in game 6, and Robert Horry in game 4 where that sequence of events was started off with a phantom foul call on Vlade Divac).
In 2004, Kobe had perhaps his worse Finals in his career, simply because the Pistons had the personnel to matchup with LA (the Wallaces on Shaq, and Tayshaun and co on Kobe). In other words, there are very few series where you can say "Hey, Kobe underperforming was the biggest reason we underachieved" and that to me is what other posters like JordansBulls always promotes with his HCA stats.
Bird wasn't the overall enigma that Kobe was, but that bar right had a direct impact on the Celtics losing in the '85 Finals. There's no other way around that unless I have my facts wrong.
Larry Legend doesn't have the advantage on prime or defense over Kobe, but does his defined peak put him over the top if we throw out the 'golden age' narrative that the 80s were? Many posters voted LeBron over Magic using similar reasoning. Sure, Kobe received many unwarranted all-defensive team nominations (LeBron is slowly getting a similar reputation as him having to carry the load on offense in 2014 led to a pedestrian season defensively but the narrative that he can guard all 5 positions is used to prop him up whereas we have people questioning if Kobe was even better than Bird defensively), but this argument seems to only be used against him which I do not support.
If we follow the consistency of this project, it's that peak play alone isn't enough to trump 2-way players with extended primes and also the championship results, hence why Duncan got voted in over Shaq and Bird as an example.
Can I retroactively vote for MJ as GOAT now? 36 points after a night out gambling...hilarious.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
- I'm an european fan since 87 (I was 7 then), and my first NBA memories was 87 finals. Then, I really liked Celtics more than Lakers... and in my country there's a lot of Celtics and Lakers fans since those days. Then in 88 I watched the Lakers-Jazz series which went to 7 games and I fell in love with Stockton and Malone. So, altough I'm want to be fair, I'm going to take Malone in the list probably sooner than other poster, because I think he is underrated and really punished for not win one or two rings, who would make him for sure a top 10 (If he beat and finish with MJ streak, only in 98, probably he would be hands down.)
Said that, my vote goes to Larry Bird.
He did not had a great longetivity, but he was able to do in 7 seasons what others have not done in his whole career. 3 MVP in a row, 5 trips to the finals. He was playing in a loaded team. This is sure, but he was the best of the bunch, without any doubt. Parrish, McHale, Ainge, DJ were really good players, but the difference was Bird. Magic and him made this game global. Before them, NBA was not very known in Europe, and probably rest of the world. Sure Jabbar and Dr J. was in the downhill of their carreers, but he beat for 3 years players like them (being still good players, as Jabbar won MVP finals in 85) Magic, Isiah, King, Wilkins, Moses... and being 2nd 4 years more.
He was allstar every single year he was in the league (except the year he was injuried) and NBA first since his rookie year until 88 (9 years in a row) and included in some defensive years.
He was really complete, and able to do everything in the court.
I'm going to put my top 10, by the way.
1) Michael Jordan 2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar 3) Bill Russell 4) Magic Johnson 5) Lebron James 6) Larry Bird 7) Wilt Chamberlain 8) Shaquille O'Neal 9) Tim Duncan 10) Between Kobe Bryant, Hakeem Olajuwon, Dr J. or Karl Malone... not sure still.
FJS wrote:First of all, I want to present myself here:
- I'm an european fan since 87 (I was 7 then), and my first NBA memories was 87 finals. Then, I really liked Celtics more than Lakers... and in my country there's a lot of Celtics and Lakers fans since those days. Then in 88 I watched the Lakers-Jazz series which went to 7 games and I fell in love with Stockton and Malone. So, altough I'm want to be fair, I'm going to take Malone in the list probably sooner than other poster, because I think he is underrated and really punished for not win one or two rings, who would make him for sure a top 10 (If he beat and finish with MJ streak, only in 98, probably he would be hands down.)
Said that, my vote goes to Larry Bird.
He did not had a great longetivity, but he was able to do in 7 seasons what others have not done in his whole career. 3 MVP in a row, 5 trips to the finals. He was playing in a loaded team. This is sure, but he was the best of the bunch, without any doubt. Parrish, McHale, Ainge, DJ were really good players, but the difference was Bird. Magic and him made this game global. Before them, NBA was not very known in Europe, and probably rest of the world. Sure Jabbar and Dr J. was in the downhill of their carreers, but he beat for 3 years players like them (being still good players, as Jabbar won MVP finals in 85) Magic, Isiah, King, Wilkins, Moses... and being 2nd 4 years more.
He was allstar every single year he was in the league (except the year he was injuried) and NBA first since his rookie year until 88 (9 years in a row) and included in some defensive years.
He was really complete, and able to do everything in the court.
I'm going to put my top 10, by the way.
1) Michael Jordan 2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar 3) Bill Russell 4) Magic Johnson 5) Lebron James 6) Larry Bird 7) Wilt Chamberlain 8) Shaquille O'Neal 9) Tim Duncan 10) Between Kobe Bryant, Hakeem Olajuwon, Dr J. or Karl Malone... not sure still.
Fair points, I do however see you on the 'looking to join' thread, hence technically speaking the mods overseeing this project will have to make that determination or exception of whether or not to count your vote if we're being consistent across the board. Cheers.
Can I retroactively vote for MJ as GOAT now? 36 points after a night out gambling...hilarious.
Game is at 7pm the next day. He can show up to shoot around drunk/ not awake finish at noon and go take a nap for 4-5 hours and be refreshed for the game. Not that impressive in isolation.
Though that Dream Team documentary made it seem like Michael's love of gambling and limitless energy were a regular thing where he would smoke everybody in practice next day after losing a bunch of money at the casino up to 3-4am every day and playing rounds of golf in the afternoon.
Modern Era Fantasy Game Champ! PG: Ricky Rubio 16 SG: Brandon Roy 09 SF: Danny Green 14 PF: Rasheed Wallace 06 C: Shaquille O'Neal 01
G: George Hill 14 F: Anthony Parker 10 C: Amir Johnson 12
andrewww wrote: Fair points, I do however see you on the 'looking to join' thread, hence technically speaking the mods overseeing this project will have to make that determination or exception of whether or not to count your vote if we're being consistent across the board. Cheers.
Yeah, I know maybe my vote won't count. Still I wanted to do my contribution.
andrewww wrote: I think the knock on Kobe as a bit immature in handling malcontent is deserved in many respects, but let's look at the results of these blemishes shall we?
Spoiler:
The loss to San Antonio in 2003 wasn't Shaq or Kobe underperforming like LeBron in 2011. The team's depth for the role players was gradually headed towards a downwards trajectory, hence why they almost (and really should have) lost to Sacramento in 2002. I thought the Kings were the slightly better team (ala the Spurs 2013) but in both series a miracle sequence of events led to series changing shots (Ray Allen in game 6, and Robert Horry in game 4 where that sequence of events was started off with a phantom foul call on Vlade Divac).
In 2004, Kobe had perhaps his worse Finals in his career, simply because the Pistons had the personnel to matchup with LA (the Wallaces on Shaq, and Tayshaun and co on Kobe). In other words, there are very few series where you can say "Hey, Kobe underperforming was the biggest reason we underachieved" and that to me is what other posters like JordansBulls always promotes with his HCA stats.
Bird wasn't the overall enigma that Kobe was, but that bar right had a direct impact on the Celtics losing in the '85 Finals. There's no other way around that unless I have my facts wrong.
Larry Legend doesn't have the advantage on prime or defense over Kobe, but does his defined peak put him over the top if we throw out the 'golden age' narrative that the 80s were? Many posters voted LeBron over Magic using similar reasoning. Sure, Kobe received many unwarranted all-defensive team nominations (LeBron is slowly getting a similar reputation as him having to carry the load on offense in 2014 led to a pedestrian season defensively but the narrative that he can guard all 5 positions is used to prop him up whereas we have people questioning if Kobe was even better than Bird defensively), but this argument seems to only be used against him which I do not support.
If we follow the consistency of this project, it's that peak play alone isn't enough to trump 2-way players with extended primes and also the championship results, hence why Duncan got voted in over Shaq and Bird as an example.
I just want to be clear that I wasnt necessarily saying we should hold any of Kobe's issues against him. As you point out, for the most part, his results speak for themselves. I was simply trying to say that certain guys are going to get the benefit of the doubt on non-basketball issues based on their track record and others won't. Does that mean some guys get treated unfairly at times, including Kobe? Sure, but that's the kind of stuff hopefully we all learned from a parent or coach as kids---people are always watching and its hard to erase your mistakes.
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.
Yeah, in that 93 series against the Knicks, everyone only talks about the 54 point game, but he overall didn't have one of his best series, and his team was put down in a 2-0 hole to start, because he was out gambling and partying every night in NYC and Atlantic City. In the first 2 games, he had a 46.8% TS and a 100 ORating. In the 5 games outside of game 4 (54 point game), he had a 46.7% TS, and his volume wasn't his typical Jordan-esque volume either: 27.8 ppg.
People overlook how much he struggled (mainly because he was tired and hungover) because he had one great game, and because his team won the series. But I think that just goes to show how good of a team he had in place. They were able to beat a REALLY good Knicks team despite Jordan struggling the way he was.
Can I retroactively vote for MJ as GOAT now? 36 points after a night out gambling...hilarious.
And in the first game he shot 10/27 and shot 40% overall for the series.
edit: On topic
Kobe's defense is very overrated. In 2005, LA had the league's worse defense, and they somehow got WORSE when he left the court.
Usually when people make arguments for Kobe as a top ten guy, defense is the clinching matter for them. But Kobe selectively playing defense doesn't make him a better player overall. He's a lazy, downright awful help defender at times, and there's no evidence he derives any significant value from it.
Chuck Texas wrote:I just want to be clear that I wasnt necessarily saying we should hold any of Kobe's issues against him. As you point out, for the most part, his results speak for themselves. I was simply trying to say that certain guys are going to get the benefit of the doubt on non-basketball issues based on their track record and others won't. Does that mean some guys get treated unfairly at times, including Kobe? Sure, but that's the kind of stuff hopefully we all learned from a parent or coach as kids---people are always watching and its hard to erase your mistakes.
You're right, and the discussion in this project serves to enlighten everyone on the various pros and cons with every player.
It's a generally accepted principle that building around wing players is more difficult than your traditional big man (preferably a center), but I just wanted to bring my previous points up to hopefully help people see that a lot of his negatives as a teammate or person when he was younger didn't directly impact the results as much as it is portrayed.
I simply don't see Bird/Garnett or any other candidate at this slot as being a tier up from Bean as player if we're being objective. Bird lacks the longevity and defense, and Garnett is a classic case of a player whose impact on the stat sheet may exceed his actual influence, especially if we are judging by actual results and not 'what could have happened' if he was on a better team for most of his career outside of Boston.
Does Bird's peak and short career trump the 15 prime seasons that Kobe gives you with 7 Finals appearances and 5 championships with 2 completely different supporting casts besides Fisher? To me, that breaks the perception that Kobe is not an easy player to build around. KG while being a great defensive player strikes me as someone who needs at least 1 if not 2 other all-star level players on offense when constructing a championship level team. See Pierce/Allen in Boston or Cassell/Sprewell in Minnesota.
Purch wrote:It's the same issue I brought up earlier about Barkley's interior scoring efficency vs Amare. When one guy sees double teams as soon as he dribbles the ball in the post, that has to be factored in. For Prime Duncan defenses played his post game like it was his biggest threat, I don't think any teams schemed against Garnett like he was primarily a post player, Especilly considering how willing he was to settle for long mid range jumpers.
It is factored in for sure, I definitely agree with your premise. Drawing multiple coverage creates opportunities for your teammates.
I just don't feel comfortable using low post scoring as a separating factor when comparing the two anymore in light of the data. Duncan, from watching, definitely received more doubles over the years. But I think Garnett's edge as a passer/playmaker closes the gap at least a bit, and what I perceive as a defensive edge does so as well.
Again, I have no problem with people slotting Duncan ahead (and might very well do the same myself), but I don't think a five slot gap is reasonable. This isn't part of my argument for voting KG here mind you, just an observation.
I think a big gap between the two is more than resonable considering that I put a Tim into an elite group of playoff performers who consistently upped their games in the post season. For Garnett it's the opposite, his efficency goes down nearly every year consistently in the post seaason.
1997 regular season -.537% TS Post season-.497% TS 1998 regular season- .527% TS Post season-.500% TS 1999 regular season- .493% TS Post season- .488% TS 2000 regular season -.545% TS Post season- .441% TS 2001 regular season - .531% TS Post season- .569% TS 2002 regular season -.536% TS Post season- .514% TS 2003 regular season- .553% TS Post season-.539% TS 2004 regular season- .547% TS Post season-.542% TS 2008 regular season- .588% TS Post season-.542% TS 2010 regular season- .569% TS Post season-.530% TS 2011 regular season- .575% TS Post season-.479% TS 2012 regular season- .550% TS Post season-.541% TS 2013 regular season-.535% TS Post season-.563% TS 2014 regular season- .467% TS Post season-.568% TS
So out of the 13 post season runs in his career, Garnett's efficency has gone down in 10 of them
Duncan especilly over his prime years didn't just raise his effiency for a lot his post seasons, but a lot of time his effiency was significantly better than during the regular season.
Duncan's regular season Ts% is 551% His post season TS in 16 playoff runs is .548. The only reason his Post season TS% has dropped down is due to the past 4 years. But in his prime he consistently increased his effiency when it mattered
Garnett's regular season TS is .547% His post season TS goes all the way down to .525% , and the numbers support it. Regardless of whether he was on a good team, a bad team, or an averge team, his effiency saw signficant drops nearly every post season. Even in what people label his best seasons in 04 and 08 you still see a drop in effiency. With Garnett the funny thing is the only reason his post season TS% isn't even lower is because of the past 2 years hes had past his prime ( The opposite of Duncan). But as you can see in his prime, he always became more ineffienct in the post season
That's why I have a 10+ spot gap between Duncan and Garnett, because Duncan is one the best post season performers I've seen
andrewww wrote:I simply don't see Bird/Garnett or any other candidate at this slot as being a tier up from Bean as player if we're being objective.
I'd agree with this. I'd include more names along with those 3, but I think Kobe absolutely belongs in the discussion at this point. For me the biggest issue in voting Kobe #10 is that Im not convinced he's better than Oscar/West among the guards much less when we bring the bigs into the discussion.
The more I read in this project/research on my own the more Im starting to think I have underrated Karl Malone. I had him below KG/Dirk going into this project, but Im becoming less sure about that. It will really help me when we start getting into all three of them(we've gotten some great KG stuff already but more in comparison with guys ranked ahead of KG. It will be interesting to hear some thoughts/see some data on how he really compares with Malone/Dirk)
But I personally see no issue with putting Kobe in ahead of the field even if I likely won't.
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.
shutupandjam wrote: No problem, here are those numbers for Garnett Dirk and Duncan 2005-2009 (this is their offense from post-ups only - i.e., it doesn't include pass outs):
Really interesting to me that, as they got older, Garnett started abandoning the post game and Dirk embraced it. I wonder to what extent that affected Dirk's ability to remain extremely effective on offense and Garnett's sharp offensive decline.
Thanks a ton! From Synergy, I get the following for later seasons:
Unless the results pre-Synergy are wildly different (and with a 10-year sample, covering prime and post-prime years for all three guys, this is unlikely, though still a possibility), I think I've badly gauged Garnett's scoring. Wow. The primary separating factor in my mind when comparing the three guys has been low post scoring (at Dirk's best, it's worth noting that he seems to be on another level, going completely God Mode in the title year), but I don't think I can reasonably say that anymore.
As you said, Synergy doesn't including pass outs, so it's possible that KG doesn't draw the same attention and as such his passing isn't as effective as that of the others. But it's really hard for me to look past this data.
Now, obviously we don't have the same data for Bird, but given the monster defensive edge (much appreciation to drza and others for the qualitative breakdowns to pair with some of the RAPM analysis we have) and the huge difference in longevity (thanks to ElGee's championship odds for opening my eyes to its' significance viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1197767), I absolutely have to vote for Kevin Garnett here. I don't think I should take early results into account, but having a five spot separation between Duncan and Garnett seems hard to swallow (this isn't to say Duncan isn't a viable top 5 candidate, he unquestionably is...I just think it's problematic that KG hadn't substantial gotten traction until this thread. I don't personally keep a GOAT list, but I'm really going to have to think long and hard about both guys, as well as Dirk and Robinson).
Anyhow, I'm really interested in hearing what others have to say about the data above. Thanks again shutupandjam, you've really opened my eyes up here.
EDIT: Damn, tried typing on my phone, ton of errors. Think I caught them all.
Does that also account for the difference in double teams that Duncan saw in the low post compared to the other two (Not saying the other two didn't get double teamed, but their double teams tended to come from different spots on the court). Prime Duncan tended to see doubles whenever he would start to make his initial move in the post ( Especially early in his career when he was much more aggressive looking to score,, and wasn't as effective as a passer). Or when he'd pass out of the post due to a double team.
Yes, it accounts for this. Synergy actually breaks it all down though so I'll take a look year by year:
2005: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense (includes pass outs): 1.022 PPP on 740 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.043 PPP on 555 poss Pass outs: 1.084 PPP on 155 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.300 PPP on 30 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.981 PPP on 627 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.938 PPP on 470 poss Pass outs: 1.288 PPP on 125 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.406 PPP on 32 poss
2006: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 1.034 PPP on 730 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.049 PPP on 574 poss Pass outs: 1.08 PPP on 138 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.222 PPP on 18 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.952 PPP on 834 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.903 PPP on 636 poss Pass outs: 1.269 PPP on 171 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.111 PPP on 27 poss
2007: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 1.080 PPP on 511 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.068 PPP on 470 poss Pass outs: 1.351 PPP on 37 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 4 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.992 PPP on 864 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.036 PPP on 669 poss Pass outs: 0.988 PPP on 164 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.065 PPP on 31 poss
2008: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 1.060 PPP on 580 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.038 PPP on 472 poss Pass outs: 1.263 PPP on 99 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 9 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.957 PPP on 678 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.948 PPP on 600 poss Pass outs: 1.159 PPP on 63 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.467 PPP on 15 poss
2009: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 0.993 PPP on 290 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.953 PPP on 254 poss Pass outs: 1.484 PPP on 31 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 5 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 1.010 PPP on 675 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.982 PPP on 563 poss Pass outs: 1.250 PPP on 96 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.563 PPP on 16 poss
Note: the doubled, no pass out isn't actually recorded, I just did the math there. The number of "doubled, no pass out" situations seems awfully low to me (I'm not 100% sure where they draw the line for "double team")...
Chuck Texas wrote:Does Bird's peak and short career trump the 15 prime seasons that Kobe gives you with 7 Finals appearances and 5 championships with 2 completely different supporting casts besides Fisher? To me, that breaks the perception that Kobe is not an easy player to build around. KG while being a great defensive player strikes me as someone who needs at least 1 if not 2 other all-star level players on offense when constructing a championship level team. See Pierce/Allen in Boston or Cassell/Sprewell in Minnesota.
My vote is for Kobe Bryant
Yes all-star Sprewell ... four years removed from an all-star game, only played two years in Minnesota before retirement, empty scorer, was sub-50 TS%, and averaged around 15.5 per 36 minutes with them. Oh and one year he was getting so old he could only play 30 minutes a game.
I know some people are really high on Oscar, and I can't really put my finger on why I don't see him at this level...I know Owly made a post about Oscar before, which was a great read, but how do people directly compare Oscar to someone like Bird, or KG, or Robinson, or Kobe, or Doctor J?
I always felt that Oscar, although a fantastic offensive player, was basically a smaller Magic Johnson, but because of Magic's size, he was better on the defensive glass, was more disruptive defensively, and was a bigger matchup problem on offense. I've also never heard Oscar described as the passing savant that Magic was. I've actually read that Oscar was a very good passer, but he made the non-flashy, safer passes that got the job done. Magic did that, AND he made passes that nobody saw coming.
That's why I referred to Oscar as a poor man's Magic a little while ago, and is probably why I don't see him quite at this level yet. But if someone could break it down further and show me if I'm wrong, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Chuck Texas wrote:I'd agree with this. I'd include more names along with those 3, but I think Kobe absolutely belongs in the discussion at this point. For me the biggest issue in voting Kobe #10 is that Im not convinced he's better than Oscar/West among the guards much less when we bring the bigs into the discussion.
The more I read in this project/research on my own the more Im starting to think I have underrated Karl Malone. I had him below KG/Dirk going into this project, but Im becoming less sure about that. It will really help me when we start getting into all three of them(we've gotten some great KG stuff already but more in comparison with guys ranked ahead of KG. It will be interesting to hear some thoughts/see some data on how he really compares with Malone/Dirk)
But I personally see no issue with putting Kobe in ahead of the field even if I likely won't.
KMalone suffers from a lot of the same arguments against Kobe. Both have extended prime play and were offensive anchors that were competent defenders as a whole. A reasonable argument can be made for any of these 6 bigs (KMalone/KG/Barkley/Dirk/Admiral/Moses).
Oscar is very much a 6-5 version of Magic Johnson playing in the 60s, but since his teams never had quite the success as showtime did, he gets knocked down a peg.
Jerry West is someone I've always thought would be even more effective in the modern era than Oscar because of his shooting ability. He is probably the closest comparison remaining to a 2-way wing player even though he was more of a combo guard that could score with the best of them.
Julius Erving is an interesting case, I have of him as a lesser player than Kobe on offense, especially with the shooting and playmaking, but a slightly more more versatile defender. Still, his overall body of work in the NBA isn't enough to vault him into anywhere near the driver's seat for those competing at this slot.
Unless the results pre-Synergy are wildly different (and with a 10-year sample, covering prime and post-prime years for all three guys, this is unlikely, though still a possibility), I think I've badly gauged Garnett's scoring. Wow. The primary separating factor in my mind when comparing the three guys has been low post scoring (at Dirk's best, it's worth noting that he seems to be on another level, going completely God Mode in the title year), but I don't think I can reasonably say that anymore.
As you said, Synergy doesn't including pass outs, so it's possible that KG doesn't draw the same attention and as such his passing isn't as effective as that of the others. But it's really hard for me to look past this data.
Now, obviously we don't have the same data for Bird, but given the monster defensive edge (much appreciation to drza and others for the qualitative breakdowns to pair with some of the RAPM analysis we have) and the huge difference in longevity (thanks to ElGee's championship odds for opening my eyes to its' significance viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1197767), I absolutely have to vote for Kevin Garnett here. I don't think I should take early results into account, but having a five spot separation between Duncan and Garnett seems hard to swallow (this isn't to say Duncan isn't a viable top 5 candidate, he unquestionably is...I just think it's problematic that KG hadn't substantial gotten traction until this thread. I don't personally keep a GOAT list, but I'm really going to have to think long and hard about both guys, as well as Dirk and Robinson).
Anyhow, I'm really interested in hearing what others have to say about the data above. Thanks again shutupandjam, you've really opened my eyes up here.
EDIT: Damn, tried typing on my phone, ton of errors. Think I caught them all.
Does that also account for the difference in double teams that Duncan saw in the low post compared to the other two (Not saying the other two didn't get double teamed, but their double teams tended to come from different spots on the court). Prime Duncan tended to see doubles whenever he would start to make his initial move in the post ( Especially early in his career when he was much more aggressive looking to score,, and wasn't as effective as a passer). Or when he'd pass out of the post due to a double team.
Yes, it accounts for this. Synergy actually breaks it all down though so I'll take a look year by year:
2005: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense (includes pass outs): 1.022 PPP on 740 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.043 PPP on 555 poss Pass outs: 1.084 PPP on 155 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.300 PPP on 30 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.981 PPP on 627 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.938 PPP on 470 poss Pass outs: 1.288 PPP on 125 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.406 PPP on 32 poss
2006: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 1.034 PPP on 730 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.049 PPP on 574 poss Pass outs: 1.08 PPP on 138 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.222 PPP on 18 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.952 PPP on 834 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.903 PPP on 636 poss Pass outs: 1.269 PPP on 171 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.111 PPP on 27 poss
2007: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 1.080 PPP on 511 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.068 PPP on 470 poss Pass outs: 1.351 PPP on 37 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 4 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.992 PPP on 864 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.036 PPP on 669 poss Pass outs: 0.988 PPP on 164 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.065 PPP on 31 poss
2008: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 1.060 PPP on 580 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.038 PPP on 472 poss Pass outs: 1.263 PPP on 99 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 9 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.957 PPP on 678 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.948 PPP on 600 poss Pass outs: 1.159 PPP on 63 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.467 PPP on 15 poss
2009: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 0.993 PPP on 290 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.953 PPP on 254 poss Pass outs: 1.484 PPP on 31 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 5 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 1.010 PPP on 675 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.982 PPP on 563 poss Pass outs: 1.250 PPP on 96 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.563 PPP on 16 poss
Note: the doubled, no pass out isn't actually recorded, I just did the math there. The number of "doubled, no pass out" situations seems awfully low to me (I'm not 100% sure where they draw the line for "double team")...
Damn, that's pretty awesome stuff. Looks like KG's offensive ability in the post has been pretty vastly underrated.
shutupandjam wrote:Yes, it accounts for this. Synergy actually breaks it all down though so I'll take a look year by year:
2005: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense (includes pass outs): 1.022 PPP on 740 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.043 PPP on 555 poss Pass outs: 1.084 PPP on 155 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.300 PPP on 30 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.981 PPP on 627 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.938 PPP on 470 poss Pass outs: 1.288 PPP on 125 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.406 PPP on 32 poss
2006: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 1.034 PPP on 730 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.049 PPP on 574 poss Pass outs: 1.08 PPP on 138 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.222 PPP on 18 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.952 PPP on 834 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.903 PPP on 636 poss Pass outs: 1.269 PPP on 171 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.111 PPP on 27 poss
2007: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 1.080 PPP on 511 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.068 PPP on 470 poss Pass outs: 1.351 PPP on 37 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 4 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.992 PPP on 864 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.036 PPP on 669 poss Pass outs: 0.988 PPP on 164 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.065 PPP on 31 poss
2008: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 1.060 PPP on 580 poss Single covered post-ups: 1.038 PPP on 472 poss Pass outs: 1.263 PPP on 99 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 9 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 0.957 PPP on 678 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.948 PPP on 600 poss Pass outs: 1.159 PPP on 63 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.467 PPP on 15 poss
2009: Garnett: Post-up Derived offense: 0.993 PPP on 290 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.953 PPP on 254 poss Pass outs: 1.484 PPP on 31 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0 PPP on 5 poss
Duncan: Post-up Derived offense: 1.010 PPP on 675 poss Single covered post-ups: 0.982 PPP on 563 poss Pass outs: 1.250 PPP on 96 poss Doubled, no pass out: 0.563 PPP on 16 poss
Note: the doubled, no pass out isn't actually recorded, I just did the math there. The number of "doubled, no pass out" situations seems awfully low to me (I'm not 100% sure where they draw the line for "double team")...
Another incredible contribution, this data is really eye-opening, thanks again.
I'm wondering if it would be possible to provide the same breakdown for Dirk over that sample, as well as for all three from 10-14 (I don't think it's possible to pull those up on mysynergysports.com, so )? If it's too much trouble don't worry about it, but this is the first time we're seeing this sort of detailed breakdown of all three guys in the post.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
fpliii wrote:1997 regular season -.537% TS Post season-.497% TS 1998 regular season- .527% TS Post season-.500% TS 1999 regular season- .493% TS Post season- .488% TS 2000 regular season -.545% TS Post season- .441% TS 2001 regular season - .531% TS Post season- .569% TS 2002 regular season -.536% TS Post season- .514% TS 2003 regular season- .553% TS Post season-.539% TS 2004 regular season- .547% TS Post season-.542% TS 2008 regular season- .588% TS Post season-.542% TS 2010 regular season- .569% TS Post season-.530% TS 2011 regular season- .575% TS Post season-.479% TS 2012 regular season- .550% TS Post season-.541% TS 2013 regular season-.535% TS Post season-.563% TS 2014 regular season- .467% TS Post season-.568% TS
So out of the 13 post season runs in his career, Garnett's efficency has gone down in 10 of them
His average drop is only 1.7 TS% and this doesn't take into account strength of schedule. Since he was a low seed versus some great western conference teams for a while, that matters.
edit: by the way, Garnett used his own dreamshake (got away with traveling) and was very good at avoiding turnovers, which usually kills post efficiency.
Can I retroactively vote for MJ as GOAT now? 36 points after a night out gambling...hilarious.
