RealGM Top 100 List #10

Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier

Baller2014
Banned User
Posts: 2,049
And1: 519
Joined: May 22, 2014
Location: No further than the thickness of a shadow
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#241 » by Baller2014 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:25 pm

Reservoirdawgs wrote:
colts18 wrote:Why do you keep spreading lies? Shaq wasn't traded because of Kobe. He was traded because the Lakers didn't want to pay him a max deal. Shaq even said that himself. Shaq wanted to get paid and the Lakers didn't want to pay that much for a 30+ player. Turns out the Lakers were right in not giving him that max deal.


I believe I read it in "The Last Season" (which should also be taken with a grain of salt since it's written by known spinster Phil Jackson) that Kobe did give an ultimatum of "it's either Shaqor me" to Jerry Buss (examples given in the book as to something that was weighing on Buss's mind was that Kobe got 4X as many fan letters as Shaq did). Ultimately, though, the Lakers chose to stick with Kobe because he was younger, more profitable for the team, did not have the nagging injuries that Shaq had, and that Shaq was asking more than they believed he was worth. A max deal definitely would not have been worth it, although Shaq still played at a very high level for the subsequent two years before falling off a cliff. I don't think anyone can blame the Lakers for choosing the younger player over the player who's best years were behind him.


Just to correct one thing from this, Shaq wanted a 2 year $60 mill extension, so he would have actually been worth it (given his form only collapsed after 2 more years).
colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 7,434
And1: 3,255
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#242 » by colts18 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:26 pm

Baller2014 wrote:
Like Rdogs said, Phil Jackson is the source, though it's 11 Rings in my case (not The Last Season). When you look at what other people said, and what actually happened, it's pretty freaking obvious too (i.e. West saying Kobe "refused to defer to Shaq", Kobe saying he was "sick of being a damn robin", Kobe trying to talk about his future with the Clippers, Shaq being traded so hastily and then Kobe re-signing the day after they dumped Shaq, etc). Sure, there were other factors, but Kobe wanting him gone was the decisive one (for Phil too).

Shaq said that he wanted a Max deal which is why he was traded. He said it wasn't Kobe thing at all. It was about the money
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,597
And1: 16,132
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#243 » by therealbig3 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:26 pm

Purch wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:
Purch wrote:See, but the thing is it doesn't matter what defense KG played against, cause this was a career long dip, even when he was on the #1 seed celtics. I'm not understanding what you actually think would change. The dip is there no matter what teams he faced, and no matter what seed he did it as


And this is where I once again point out that Garnett on the Celtics, outside of 08, became a role player on offense, who basically just shot jumpers the whole time. His efficiency is obviously going to fluctuate.

In 08, yes, his efficiency drops, but pretty much only in the Finals against a pretty stacked front line. He was destroying teams offensively throughout the EC playoffs. In the Finals, he averages 18.0 ppg on 47.0% TS and a 99 ORating...and he was STILL probably the most valuable Celtic in that series, because his defense was amazing. Just goes to show how overstated his supposed inability to score really is.

And you can compare that to Duncan in that very playoff run against the Lakers: 22.4 ppg on 46.5% TS and a 98 ORating.

The unfortunate thing about Garnett, and why everyone says his prime was wasted, is that we only got to see him on ONE good team during his prime, and then he got injured and was never the same after that.


Dominating teams in 08? More like inefficient the whole post season in 08?

The only series he didnt drop from his season efficency was vs the Cavs, every other series you see a drop, and a significant one


Dropping off from his elite efficiency in the 08 RS (58.8% TS, 118 ORating...more efficient than anything Duncan did in the RS) does not mean he's "inefficient".

vs Hawks: 21.0 ppg, 53.7% TS, 115 ORating
vs Cavs: 19.6 ppg, 57.7% TS, 119 ORating
vs Pistons: 22.8 ppg, 58.4% TS, 115 ORating

That's elite efficiency in every series. Combined: 21.1 ppg, 56.4% TS, 116 ORating through 20 games.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,790
And1: 99,350
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#244 » by Texas Chuck » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:26 pm

Also, anyone who really thinks the Shaq trade had nothing to do with Kobe is kidding themselves. There may well have been other significant factors, contract included, but obviously Kobe was a factor.

Again I'm not sure how much weight we should really be putting on that in terms of ranking Kobe, but let's not pretend like he wasn't in the middle of that either.
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.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,704
And1: 8,339
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#245 » by trex_8063 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:30 pm

My Vote: Larry Bird

Augmented version of my #9 thread post (augmentation highlighted).
Doctor MJ made a great observational post about his offense in the last thread:

Spoiler:
Doctor MJ wrote:The more I think about it, the more I think Bird is the more unusual player, from this key perspective:

He's an off-ball savant.

General rule is that the true offensive savants prove their status when they get more control. They are on ball, and they are using their brain & body to force the field of play to be more what they want.

That's not Bird's main thing to me. To me with Bird it's more a guy who seems to accept what's given, see a way to exploit it, and then hustle to make it happen. There are other guys you can talk about doing this to some degree, but typically when we talk about them we're really talking defense as at least half their impact (Walton for example).

Bird has some of that on defense, but obviously it's his offense that's his #1 thing. And when I say "off-ball" that's an oversimplification. If someone called Reggie Miller an off-ball savant I wouldn't say they are wrong, but Bird clearly takes it quite a bit further. It's a distinction along the lines that after everything else, what Reggie's looking to do when he gets the ball is shoot, whereas Bird has a battery of choices at his disposal and the only given seems to be that he already knows what he's going to do before you even know he's going to be there getting the ball.

Of course that doesn't even go into the pre-ball differences. Bird seems to get rebounds like Reggie gets passes, and Bird with his bigger body is able to get where he needs to go with plenty of space without relying on a complicated array of obstacles.

Just looking at the offense, and considering the impact of it when Bird play, the interesting thing to me is this:

I don't think it's as effective as being an on-ball savant at peak, but it's considerably more portable.

People sometimes take issue with Steve Nash because he requires control to do his thing, and I always brush this aside with the statement that a team's a fool to choose to not give him control when he's so good with it, but the thing is, when we look at Bird's rookie year, I think the natural portability of his game has everything to do with him being possibly the most impactful rookie in NBA history. He just makes stuff happen in the moment even if you don't design everything around him.

In the end if you know full well who your savant is, to me it's best to give that guy as much direct control as possible, and that means being more on-ball, and I don't see Bird taking to that as well as Magic, so to me it all aligns pretty well: Offense-only Magic's got the better peak, but Bird had more years with extreme impact, and the reason has less to do with Bird being more mature early on, or even being given more primacy, and more to do with the fact that his game is not as primacy-dependent.

Saying all this: I'll explicitly say I'm not talking about defense here, and I'm not talking about how this would translate across eras. You may already have a sense of how I'm thinking here, but this isn't a vote, and really what I wanted to just spend time pondering was the nature of each guy's tendencies within their characteristic offensive genius.

Do you agree with how I put it? Do you see issues with it?


Great post.

From there I’m going to take a different tack and advocate for Bird’s oft-underrated (sometimes criminally so, imo) defense.

Where Doc described Bird as an “off-ball savant” on offense, I kinda think he was a defensive savant, too. What he lacked in the lateral quickness or natural leaping ability that are near-hallmark features of so many great defenders in NBA history, he made up a lot of with a near-GOAT level of defensive IQ, hustle, and a few other tools I’ll elaborate on.

For one, he was a fundamentally sound low-post defender. He was physical, REALLY used his lower body to great effect, getting (often bigger) offensive players off the block, making entry passes difficult, making shots difficult, etc. YouTube search “larry bird defense” and you’ll find any number of clips that would serve as fine examples of how to play sound and hard-nosed low-post defense (side note: seems like it’s always Jack Sikma in a lot of the ones I’ve seen; poor Sikma just getting owned by the 2” shorter Bird down low).

He had anticipation/intuition that at times appeared to border on precognition, making him one of the all-time great help defenders. Did he gamble a lot? Absolutely, but I’m not sure there’s ever been a player who got a higher rate of return on his gambles. Whether it was coming from the weakside to pick off an entry pass, or sneaking along the baseline from the weakside just as a post-player is about to make his move (wherein Larry would zip by and strip him), or simply playing a passing lane…..obviously not the quickest of fellows in the NBA, but he got a lot of thefts in this manner, and it seemed to me that he did so at a lower rate of failure than most players who gamble on defense.

He lacked great lateral quickness, which was a bit of a liability when having to guard perimeter players. But how many clips are there of Bird picking off a simple post entry-pass (where he’s guarding the passer)? He just seemed to know the exact space to occupy that would bait the guy he was guarding to attempt the entry pass…...and he would pick it off. Again, his anticipation bordered on clairvoyant; he sometimes seemed to know what his opponent would do before the opponent did himself.

And where he could be beat off the dribble by many perimeter players, he seemed to be one of the best in recovering for a block from behind. In fact, in some of the highlight clips you can find, I daresay he LETS them get by so he can do just that. Which brings me to another feature of Larry Bird on defense that was perhaps GOAT-like: his almost inhumanly precise hand/eye coordination. This relates to all those balls he would block from behind when “beat”, those balls he strips on the help-D (usually coming from the weakside), as well as on-ball steals (which he was also good at).
On all of those kinds of plays, the action is moving so fast; everything happens within a second or two, and obviously the ball is not a remotely stationary object. So when he makes these swipes at a fast-moving object, often if his swiping hand is off by even 2 inches in ANY direction, he’ll either miss the ball or commit a foul. But he simply didn’t miss with the customary frequency that would be expected from nearly anyone else. If the rest of us tried for these plays with any regularity, we’d likely foul out early. Larry Bird was nothing short of remarkable in this regard.

Versatility: note that Bird guarded---at one point or another---basically every position in his career. From 6’11”+ centers like Jack Sikma to 6’5” guards like Michael Cooper.

A few numbers regarding Larry Bird’s defense…….

*Per 100 possessions
Larry Bird for his Career: 2.2 STL, 1.0 BLK
Prime (‘81-’88) Bird: 2.2 STL, 1.1 BLK
For comparison, Lebron James to this point in his career per 100: 2.3 STL, 1.1 BLK.

**Career DRtg: 101 (despite DRtg’s generally running a little higher in the mid-late 80’s).

***FOUR times led the league in DWS. And despite his relatively poor longevity, he’s 27th all-time in career DWS.

****Team DRtg of the Boston Celtics over the years (with comments on relevant roster changes).
‘79 (Dave Cowens at the helm): 106.4 (19th of 22)
‘80 (rookie Larry Bird arrives, along with one good perimeter defender in M.L. Carr, and new coach Bill Fitch; Dave Cowens, while maybe free to focus more on D, plays 358 fewer minutes than the year before): 101.9 (4th of 23)
‘81 (rookie McHale and Parish arrive, but Dave Cowens leaves): 102.6 (4th of 23)
‘82: 103.5 (6th of 23)
‘83 (Quinn Buckner added): 101.8 (7th of 23)
‘84 (DJ arrives, K.C. Jones new coach): 104.4 (3rd of 23)
‘85: 106.3 (5th of 23)
‘86 (Buckner, Cedric Maxwell, and aging Carr leave; gain old Bill Walton-->playing just 19.3 mpg; probably Bird’s best season): 102.6 (1st of 23)
‘87 (Bill Walton misses nearly entire year): 106.8 (9th of 23)
‘88 (McHale misses 18 games; big four of Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ miss 37 games combined): 109.4 (17th of 23)
‘89 (Bird misses 76 games, and new coach; obtain down-low tough guy off bench in Joe Kleine at mid-season; other relevant mid-season acquisition is Ed Pinckney; new coach as well): 109.6 (20th of 25)
‘90 (Bird is back, though everyone getting old by this point): 107.9 (12th of 27)
‘91 (Bird misses 22 games; Bird is really sharing a lot of offensive responsibility with Reggie Lewis by this point, perhaps focusing more energy on D--->though past prime, his per 100: 2.3 STL, 1.2 BLK): 106.7 (10th of 27)
‘92 (Bird’s final season, he misses 37 games): 107.0 (9th of 27)
‘93 (Bird has left): 107.8 (14th of 27)

Now obviously there are multiple factors involved in some of these trends, and I tried to hint at what some of them might have been. While Bird wasn’t the isolated factor, what I find to be some interesting observations:
1) the Celtic defense was among the worst in the league the year before he arrived, and 4th best during his rookie season.
2) They only had two below average defensive years during his career, the WORST of which occurred (non-coincidentally??) in the year Bird missed 76 games.
3) Despite NEVER in Bird’s career having what most of would call an “elite defensive anchor”, they nonetheless managed an at least top 7 defense SEVEN years of his career; FOUR times in the top 4, and once the #1 rated D.
4) The immediate drop from 9th of 27 to 14th of 27 in DRtg right after he leaves.

*****Also, was three times All-Defensive 2nd Team. And I don't think any of those could be "name recognition" nods; his name certainly doesn't garner appreciation of defense these days; and though I was pretty young at the time, I don't remember popular perception being that his name was automatically associated with excellent D (regardless of merit). Additionally, this doesn't appear to be an era prone to handing out All-Def noms to anyone who averaged a lot of steals. Case in point: the year Bird got his first All-Defensive Team honor, Magic Johnson had LED THE LEAGUE in steals.......yet Magic never received any defensive honors. Also in the 80's there were guys like DJ and Cooper getting All-Def 1st teams without big steal numbers, etc.
In short, I'm left to assume that Bird's defensive merit earned him those All-Defensive Team honors.


So in summary, Bird easily one of the all-time greatest two-way players, truly a player without much in the way of significant weaknesses; one of the greatest winners of all-time, one of the hardest workers of all-time. Would be great in the modern context, too (he's essentially the ideal stretch 4).

Would have been a worthy recipient of the #9 slot (even #8, imo). Is more than worthy of taking #10.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,790
And1: 99,350
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#246 » by Texas Chuck » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:30 pm

therealbig3 wrote:Dropping off from his elite efficiency in the 08 RS (58.8% TS, 118 ORating...more efficient than anything Duncan did in the RS) does not mean he's "inefficient".

vs Hawks: 21.0 ppg, 53.7% TS, 115 ORating
vs Cavs: 19.6 ppg, 57.7% TS, 119 ORating
vs Pistons: 22.8 ppg, 58.4% TS, 115 ORating

That's elite efficiency in every series. Combined: 21.1 ppg, 56.4% TS, 116 ORating through 20 games.



yeah, no idea where Purch is coming from in regards to 08 KG--he was brilliant all year including the playoffs. I thought he was great in the Finals despite his efficiency taking a hit. I didn't have a problem with Truth getting the FMVP like most people(he was the lifelong Celtic and the guarding Kobe narrative etc...), but I certainly wouldn't have blinked an eye if they gave it to KG.

He was a boss that year. No doubt about it.
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.
User avatar
ronnymac2
RealGM
Posts: 11,010
And1: 5,082
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#247 » by ronnymac2 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:31 pm

I don't know. I'm finding it very easy to throw my vote to KG here. I've always thought Kobe was better based on a personal preference for the offensive guy over the defensive guy, but now I'm starting to think Garnett may have been a slightly more useful 5 vs. 5 basketball player. Bird's peak is the best left, but his longevity leaves an opening for others. And then there's Karl Malone.

Karl Malone played on those super awesome defenses Utah had when Mark Eaton played, and he was doing 20/10 as a finisher back then. I think around 1992 or 1993, he really found himself as more of a guy who could create opportunities for others rather than being an ALL-History opportunist. He was a great, great man defender. From 1994-1998 (that encompasses his peak of 1995-1997 to me), his teams only lost to NBA champions or NBA Finalists.

He whips Kemp's ass. He whip's Robinson's ass. He whips latter-prime Barkley's ass. He goes toe-to-toe with Olajuwon, O'Neal, and Duncan/Robinson and quite frankly does one hell of a job performing against those guys, too.

He tacks on 2 more prime years where he's top-5 before heading into decline. Even in decline, he play an an All-Star level. No doubt that if you lower his role at this point, he can be a huge piece of a title team.

He's been a part of historic defenses and anchored dominant offenses. He's anchored dominant teams if you go by both SRS as well as team results in the playoffs (many conference finals and a few NBA Finals).

As far as career value, he's got a great case.
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
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,746
And1: 5,724
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#248 » by An Unbiased Fan » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:31 pm

magicmerl wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:Outside of a longer prime, I don't see how he has the edge in production. Again it's close, but i think bird has a clear edge.

Regular Season per 100:
80-88 Bird: 31/8/13 on 57% TS 24.2 PER
01-10 Kobe: 38/7/7 on 56% TS 24.6 PER

Playoffs:
80-88 Bird: 28/7/14 on 56% TS 21.9 PER
01-10 Kobe: 36/7/7 on 55% TS 23.5 PER

Which is more valuable, six rebounds and an assist, or seven points? I'd be more inclined to take the rebound stat. Ditto in the playoffs. Kobe scores more (on marginally lower efficiency), but I would argue that Bird actually produces more.

Seriously? You would take rebounding which is far easier to replace than scoring? At the SG spot Kobe was a great rebounder anyway. Why would LA want him hanging by the rim to get boards when its more efficient to have bigs do it?

Well, I think that Phil and Shaq had more to do with Kobe's championships than Kobe did. One thing that has been discussed is 'winners bias', where you want to reward players on teams that won. It gets even more silly if that player wasn't the best player on their team, ala the Horry effect. At what point do we stop crediting team success to a player who isn't actually the best on their team?

Neat. So Bird has a team of HOFers, but let's act like Kobe was carried even though LA's early titles came on 2-man teams with Fisher as the 3rd best. Why did this criticism not get thrown at Magic or Kareem?
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#249 » by ceiling raiser » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:32 pm

Slightly disappointed there hasn't been more discussion of Dirk here. I guess there's perceived similarity with Bird, but I do think he should be part of the conversation.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
Baller2014
Banned User
Posts: 2,049
And1: 519
Joined: May 22, 2014
Location: No further than the thickness of a shadow
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#250 » by Baller2014 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:36 pm

Prolly won't make it back until after the vote deadline, but the count is here for anyone curious:

Bird (9), Kobe (5), KG (2).
Purch
Veteran
Posts: 2,820
And1: 2,145
Joined: May 25, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#251 » by Purch » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:37 pm

Drza you couldn't have seriously compared Duncan's regular season performance against Portland to KG's post season performance right? I can handpick games throughout Duncan's career in which he underperformed in the regular season against top defenses, and it says absolutly nothing about how he would perform in the post season against those defenses, because he consistently raised his game when it mattered in the post season, and adjusted his game to attack defenses the best way possible


The numbers you posted compete support my main argument that Garnett became a less reliable scorer in the post season, when compared to his regular season production. It's not about whether or not he was able to pass the ball, all the great 2 way bigs could. the main issue here is that it's significantly harder to win in the post season, when your most reliable scorer becomes a less efficent and reliable option. Especilly in the 4th quarter of post season games when role players tend to shut down, and you need to get consistent baskets from your main scoring option.
Image
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,597
And1: 16,132
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#252 » by therealbig3 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:38 pm

Chuck Texas wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:The unfortunate thing about Garnett, and why everyone says his prime was wasted, is that we only got to see him on ONE good team during his prime, and then he got injured and was never the same after that.



One? Really? If you are stating the injury in 09 is what ends his prime then stating one good team is flat incorrect. If like some other KG supporters, you suggest his prime ends as early as 05(crazy imo) then I'd still say that's flat wrong. Prior to 04 KG played on 3 other 50 win teams and several other decent teams. Those are good teams with some pretty good teammates including guys who made the all-star team next to KG along with a whole slew of very useful role players.

I get KG didnt have the level of support some other players did, but please don't exaggerate to make that point. If you want to say only in 04 and 08 did he have a championship-level team then that's fine, but don't scream ONE either way please.


Well, when I say a good team, I mean a team that doesn't ask KG to carry them on either side of the ball, and instead asks him to be a PART of what they do on offense and defense. He can be the most important piece, sure, but there are still valuable contributions from other players. I still see KG carrying a load on both ends of the court (especially after the Cassell injury in the playoffs) that superstars on true championship-caliber teams don't have to. Even during the RS, with Cassell...ok, there's Garnett, Cassell, and Hoiberg being a sniper from 3. I personally don't understand the praise for Sprewell...inefficient chucker imo...good defender, who certainly helped Garnett defensively, but offensively, I saw a 2-man team with a couple of shooters, one of whom thought he was better than he was.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,790
And1: 99,350
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#253 » by Texas Chuck » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:39 pm

fpliii wrote:Slightly disappointed there hasn't been more discussion of Dirk here. I guess there's perceived similarity with Bird, but I do think he should be part of the conversation.



I have tons of stuff ready to post in regards Dirk, but have held off because he's not a serious candidate yet. I still don't have any idea how KG can even be discussed without discussing Dirk, but I got to hand it to the KG guys by focusing their comparisons on Duncan it has the effect of elevating him above the pack. Not sure that was intentional, but it definitely had that effect.

But Dirk and KG's careers nearly overlap--KG starts a little earlier and they played a lot of prime in the same conference at the same time. Seems only natural to discuss both if we discuss one, but I also know I have a Dirk-bias and maybe only a small minority see Dirk as being on the same tier as KG and thus they don't see the need.

Maybe by the next thread tho I will start interjecting some Dirk stuff.
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.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,704
And1: 8,339
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#254 » by trex_8063 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:40 pm

fpliii wrote:Slightly disappointed there hasn't been more discussion of Dirk here. I guess there's perceived similarity with Bird, but I do think he should be part of the conversation.


Dirk is without a doubt the better isolation scorer, although Bird perhaps has a case the GOAT off-ball scorer, and didn't get a chance to shine in an era of the stretch 4 and the increased usage of the 3-pointer (a situation I think most of us agree he would have been great in). So overall, Dirk's advantage as a scorer (if we indeed conclude he has one) isn't that big, imo.
Then Bird is the better rebounder, the better play-maker (probably by far, no?), and the better defender. Not sure Dirk's longevity alone makes up for all of that.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Purch
Veteran
Posts: 2,820
And1: 2,145
Joined: May 25, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#255 » by Purch » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:42 pm

Chuck Texas wrote:
fpliii wrote:Slightly disappointed there hasn't been more discussion of Dirk here. I guess there's perceived similarity with Bird, but I do think he should be part of the conversation.



I have tons of stuff ready to post in regards Dirk, but have held off because he's not a serious candidate yet. I still don't have any idea how KG can even be discussed without discussing Dirk, but I got to hand it to the KG guys by focusing their comparisons on Duncan it has the effect of elevating him above the pack. Not sure that was intentional, but it definitely had that effect.

But Dirk and KG's careers nearly overlap--KG starts a little earlier and they played a lot of prime in the same conference at the same time. Seems only natural to discuss both if we discuss one, but I also know I have a Dirk-bias and maybe only a small minority see Dirk as being on the same tier as KG and thus they don't see the need.

Maybe by the next thread tho I will start interjecting some Dirk stuff.


It's funny, when it comes to Dirk,Malone, Garnett and Barkley my opinion changes on them a lot

I can never make up my mind with Dirk vs Barkley, and Garnett vs Malone
Image
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,746
And1: 5,724
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#256 » by An Unbiased Fan » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:42 pm

ronnymac2 wrote:I don't know. I'm finding it very easy to throw my vote to KG here. I've always thought Kobe was better based on a personal preference for the offensive guy over the defensive guy, but now I'm starting to think Garnett may have been a slightly more useful 5 vs. 5 basketball player. Bird's peak is the best left, but his longevity leaves an opening for others. And then there's Karl Malone.

Comparing KG to Kobe pre-05 is tough, but from there you have both on crappy teams circa 05-07. KG misses the playoffs all 3 years, while Kobe makes it in 06 & 07. If KG's impact is greater, why would the Wolves do worse. Then you have both on reloaded squads in 08', and Kobe has 2 titles/3 Finals to KG's 1 title/2 Finals.

I just don't see KG's case above Kobe. I think he may have longevity on DRob, and Dirk is a great debate.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,790
And1: 99,350
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#257 » by Texas Chuck » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:43 pm

therealbig3 wrote:
Spoiler:
Chuck Texas wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:The unfortunate thing about Garnett, and why everyone says his prime was wasted, is that we only got to see him on ONE good team during his prime, and then he got injured and was never the same after that.



One? Really? If you are stating the injury in 09 is what ends his prime then stating one good team is flat incorrect. If like some other KG supporters, you suggest his prime ends as early as 05(crazy imo) then I'd still say that's flat wrong. Prior to 04 KG played on 3 other 50 win teams and several other decent teams. Those are good teams with some pretty good teammates including guys who made the all-star team next to KG along with a whole slew of very useful role players.

I get KG didnt have the level of support some other players did, but please don't exaggerate to make that point. If you want to say only in 04 and 08 did he have a championship-level team then that's fine, but don't scream ONE either way please.


Well, when I say a good team, I mean a team that doesn't ask KG to carry them on either side of the ball, and instead asks him to be a PART of what they do on offense and defense. He can be the most important piece, sure, but there are still valuable contributions from other players. I still see KG carrying a load on both ends of the court (especially after the Cassell injury in the playoffs) that superstars on true championship-caliber teams don't have to. Even during the RS, with Cassell...ok, there's Garnett, Cassell, and Hoiberg being a sniper from 3. I personally don't understand the praise for Sprewell...inefficient chucker imo...good defender, who certainly helped Garnett defensively, but offensively, I saw a 2-man team with a couple of shooters, one of whom thought he was better than he was.


Appreciate the clarification of what you were talking about and I agree that KG in Minny had an enormous load to carry, but he's not alone in that regard when you look at guys like Duncan and Dream. But the bottom line for me is that he had good teams. I think people look at the 06 and 07 rosters and sort of assume that's always what he was dealing with in Minny, but he really wasn'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.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,597
And1: 16,132
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#258 » by therealbig3 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:46 pm

Dirk comes up for me after KG, Malone, and Bird.

I actually feel like he has an argument against any of those guys, but not all of them at once.

For example, if you really value his longevity...you can argue him over Bird. Bird imo was clearly the better player in his prime, and not by an insignificant amount, but Dirk is STILL a fantastic player, and has been one for a LONG time, much longer than Bird. But his longevity is clearly not on Malone's level.

If you really value his peak...you can argue him over Malone, because I think Dirk peaks higher.

KG is the really interesting one. I can see how people could see Dirk having better longevity AND a better peak. Obviously, I disagree, but it's a great debate.

I actually feel like Dirk vs Duncan is a debate that's too often brushed aside as well. I mean, I would pick Duncan certainly, but there are quite a few years where Dirk was better (Dirk was better every year after 07 with the exception of 13, and I honestly feel like 04-06 is up for debate, because Duncan had his fair share of injuries in those years).
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,861
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#259 » by drza » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:50 pm

ardee wrote:A monster post from tsherkin illustrating KG's Playoff issues on offense as well.

Spoiler:
tsherkin wrote:
drza wrote:We know that Garnett's TS% drops a bit in the postseason and that he isn't the volume scorer that some of these all-time players are.


OK, right off of the bat I want to address this.

Garnett's TS% drops from a career 54.9% in the RS to 52.3% in the PS. That's not "a bit," that's 2.6%. That's a pretty significant drop. Now, some of that includes his very early twenties, but given that he was typically playing 4 games and then being done, it doesn't harm his overall average that much and he's still only had two postseason runs with the Celtics where he was very close to league average TS%. In the title run, he was 0.2% above league average and this past season, he was actually +1.4% over league average. Garnett has been a very, very weak scorer in the playoffs through the majority of his career at all stages thereof... and he's posted an ORTG of 110+ only three times in the PS (97, 01, 08).

Next, I want to point out that on 4-game samples during which he's playing 41-44 mpg, the data is going to be incredibly noisy, so those APM studies are going to have some significant issues. You note this somewhere around the 02-04 range, though, so that's good.

You start to argue quality of teams faced, and that's fine: I think most sensible posters realize that with crap teams, KG was dragging them into the playoffs only to get spanked... usually by the Spurs. He had little hope to beat a lot of the teams he faced and no one should really penalize him for that too harshly. But when you're trying to fashion an argument about who is the best postseason performer of the generation and you take an already second-tier scoring threat and have him decline as much as he did, well, that's less effective. His 01 run was pretty amazing, I mean he rocked a 7.5% TOV (!!!) while doing the 21/12/4 thing on ~ 57% TS. You can make a single-series claim about his efficacy there against the Spurs (who were the best defense in the league that year), but I'm not really seeing how him doing that is a ton better than what Dirk did against them in 2006.

We are, however, getting back to the root of the debate I was trying to generate before, about KG's defensive efficacy versus Dirk's scoring.

The APM data is very interesting, and squares well with his impact (primarily as a defender)... but at the same time, there is a data point that you're excluding, right? From 99-03, KG won 5 games in the postseason, then won 10 in the deep run in 04 and didn't return to the playoffs with the Wolves. Now context. Injuries, abysmal management (Cassell for Marko Jaric? REALLY? JOE SMITH!! YOU BASTARDS! and so forth), but if you're looking at his contributions and you see how one-sided KG's were angling towards the defensive element, then it starts to become an issue. You can't just defend your opponent; in a game of basketball, you can't shut an opponent down, you need to score as well. From everything I've seen, there IS a slight, small bias towards offensive value (at least where star players are concerned) that's not generated via narrative alone. Especially at the paces at which the Wolves and the Spurs/Blazers/etc were playing in the early 00s, the notion that "each possession counts" isn't just a truism, it's a major point of contention.

So I offer a counter-point. Since the number of games isn't that bad, let's look at KG's Minny postseason career and see how it played out from 99-04.

99 versus the eventual-champion Spurs.

Hard to REALLY ream him for this one because they had Duncan and Robinson, but that kind of casually back-slides KG's rep away from where you're going. In any case, he opened up with 21 points on 54.3% TS (9/18 FG, 3/3 FT), 8 boards, 1 assist, 5 blocks, 4 fouls and 5 turnovers. They lost, of course, and for the moment, we'll pretend as if KG's performance comes in isolation so that I don't have to spend 8 years discussing what his teammates did or didn't do in this post. We'll acknowledge their role tacitly. Here we're seeing, though, that Garnett was coughing it up something fierce. 20.6% TOV against 31% USG, not his best game. Game 2, they win. 23 points on 22 shots (11/22 FG, 1/2 FT). 50.3% TS, but there, I think that's a bit misleading to call that a "bad" performance. Certainly not dominant, and this time he brought the rebounding, then added 6 assists to 4 turnovers. Again, not really pushing hard on offense, and given that he didn't have any other scorers, the Wolves would have likely been better off if he'd been a little less effective on D and a little more effective on offense, since everyone and their mom knew that he was basically the only major scorer on that squad, the only real threat. Games 3 and 4, they lost of course. 9/19, 5/6 for 23 points, 12 boards, 2 AST / 3 TOV. Then here's the killer. Game 4 was a 7-point loss and he shot 6/20 FG and 8/12 at the line. Realistically, he left 7-9 points on the board from what he'd have posted just making 45% FG and around 80% FT, very normal numbers for him. This is a single-game, single-series performance at the beginning of his All-NBA era (and he's far from alone in having poor performances), but as we start to watch him coming up short in key moments and close games like that, it begins to detract from the overall picture you're painting of the "most dominant postseason performer from 99-08" kind of thing, right? That right there is a game that kind of mirrors Dirk against the Warriors.

2000, against Portland:

Opens up with a 6/20 performance, no FTAs. 12/10/11 triple-double, but the triple-double belies his overall performance. With 26.2% usage and him shooting 30% FG without any FTAs, that's a rough, rough performance. And it was a 3-point loss. The not-Garnett Wolves shot 53% FG. Meantime, Sheed played well: didn't shoot much, but was 6/10 for 15 points (3/3 FT).

Game 2. 25/10/5, 4 TOV, 4 PF. 50% FG, 7/10 FT, 56.4% TS against 31.4% USG. Really, a good game. 4-point loss. Were he a more dominant scorer, that might have mattered, but Sealy, Wally Z and Sam Mitchell were rough enough that I'll actually post that they shot a combined 7/17. Sheed was crap. So, this one stands as a contrast to the first.

Game 3. A win. Middling TS (52.3%), but actually his best offensive game of the series. 11/22 FG and 1/1 from downtown (heh), he brought the rebounding and passing from the first game (13 boards, 10 assists, 2 turnovers). He played his mind out and his teammates actually supported him a lot (Brandon was 10/16 for 28 points that night).

Game 4. Elimination game #2 in this series and KG goes for a 5/20. 1/2 3P, 6/6 FT. 17 points on 37.5% TS. 10 boards, 9 assists, 3 turnovers. But WOW was he ever bad shooting that night, and that's his second major stinker in the series and his third over two consecutive postseason matchups (e.g. his 3rd in 8 games).

2001 vs SAS:

25/13/6Game 1. , 55.8% TS, really a good game overall. Only 1 turnover, 50% FG, 70% FT (10 FTA), just looking really good. It was a loss, but it can hardly be blamed on KG.

Game 2. Welcome to Crapsville, population, YOU. 5/13 FG, but 8/8 FT gives him a 54.5% TS. 12 boards, 2 assists, 2 turnovers, 112 ORTG. Another rough shooting night for him, though, and he played only 32 minutes because of some foul trouble, but mainly because it was garbage time after 3. The Wolves shot something stupid like a tenth of a percent off of their franchise-worst in the playoffs and they committed 20 turnovers. It was embarrassing. KG was part of a team-wide failure that game. This is, I believe, the year after Sealy was killed and right around Joe Smith time.

Game 3, token win time. 22/8/4, 1 TOV. 8/10 FT. 59.8% TS. KG did a great job of getting to the line in this series, it was very atypical for him. This was a great game from Garnett though, and they won.

Game 4, elimination game. 6/13 shooting, 19/15/5, 2 turnovers, 5 fouls, 7/8 FT for 57.5% TS but they were crushed, a 13-point loss. Duncan shot terribly (8/23) and D-Rob had 4 fouls by the 3rd. Wolves were down 8 after 3, but down only 1 at halftime.

2002, 3-game sweep by Dallas.

Game 1. 6/18 FG, 6/6 FT, 46% TS. 21 rebounds, 6 assists, 3 turnovers. Dirk put 30/15 on the Wolves, shooting 10/19 from the field and 9/10 at the line.

Game 2. PHENOMENAL game from Garnett. 9/19 FG, 13/17 at the line (12-point loss), 18 boards and 4 assists. 58.5% TS. Absolutely fantastic. Wasn't enough, but it's hard to blame him. 25 a piece from Billups and Wally Z (both shooting over 52%, nearly 53% FG). 31/15 from Dirk (42.9% FG, 9/10 FT, 4 steals).

Game 3, elimination time. 9/19 FG, 4/9 FT in a 13-point loss. 47.4% TS. 17 boards, 5 assists, 6 turnovers, 5 fouls. Another weak game at the point of elimination. Minny won the 2nd and 4th quarters, but they permitted Dallas to score 40 first-quarter points and started the game in a 12-point hole from which they never recovered. Down by 10 at the half, they lost the 3rd by 8 points and then won the 4th by 5. Dirk dropped 39/17 on 11/17 FG, 14/16 FT, crushing the Wolves like a bug.

For the record, KG was 3/10 from the field in the second half, hitting his first 2 shots and then going 1/8 after that. He had 4 offensive boards, split a pair of FTs, assisted Wally Z on a 3 and a 21-footer and had a turnover. That was his contribution during the second half of the elimination game. He had a bunch of defensive boards as well, but I wasn't logging those, I was looking at offensive performance, since we've already established that he's been a very high-impact defender. But in an elimination game, to disappear that way in the second half (which raises those old ghosts that people spoke of at the time of KG being a choker in the playoffs) is... not good. And what we're seeing here is the reason that narrative came about, because this isn't the first or second bad game we've seen from him in this stretch as far as poor performance in an elimination game, and over a comparatively small sample of games, we've seen him stinking it up on offense quite a lot... more than once in a game winnable had he performed at a less-than-terrible level. It does tell us that his defense and rebounding were THAT AWESOME, though, to continually show the kind of impact they did... and it also explains that his teammates were really not helping him out a ton on the defensive end at all, as it happens. At times, Brandon (prior to his injury) and Billups (prior to him being moved) were contributors, but it's still clear that they were outmatched. Dirk's Mavs were coming at the Wolves with him, Finley, Nash and Van Exel, right? Nash was 3/9 under the arc in Game 3... but 3/7 from downtown, 10/10 at the line and had 11 assists. Billups was 5/16 and 4/7 at the line. Brandon was gone. Wally Z was 5/12 (though 9/10 at the line). Anthony Peeler was 4/7 from 3 off of the bench (but 2/6 under the arc). Garnett's terrible TS% mostly extends from 4/9 FT shooting and the 3 or 4 points he left on the board are significant but yeah, the biggest issue is how poorly he played in the second half. In his defense, the common motif of saying he's nothing but a jump shooter is at least a little harsh on his rep, because of the 10 shots he took, only one was from farther than 8 feet. Some of those were his favored turn-over-right-shoulder fades from the left block, but he got a four-footer and two shots off of offensive rebounds, one of which drew those 2 FTAs. He just hit nothing when it mattered.

OK, ramble over.

2003 vs Lakers. This is a 6-game series, the longest KG has played in the PS to this point in his career. Two wins!

Game 1. 11/21 FG, 1/4 FT. 14 boards, 7 assists, 2 turnovers, great D. 46 minutes played, loss. 19-point blowout, as it happens. There really wasn't a lot of hope for them to win this series; while the Lakers didn't repeat as champions, it was still the Shaq/Kobe Lakers coming off of their third straight title. Shaq had 32/10 and Kobe carved them up for 39. The Wolves flatly didn't have anyone who could defend either of those guys and Flip Saunders has never been a particularly good defensive coach, so there was no strong scheme in place, either. It was "here's hoping KG is magic!" I mean, they were putting Szczerbiak on Kobe, that's just asking for trouble. They were buried after the first, down 16 points. They never finished a quarter closer than 12 points.

Game 2. Explosion. 15/21 shooting, 4/6 at the line, 20 boards, 7 assists, 2 turnovers, 35 points. I don't even need to post the TS, you know it's insane. Remarkable game, and a win. Just about what was needed from him in order to beat this team. 37 points and 10 assists from Troy Hudson (!!!!!!) certainly helped, though. They were up by 13 at the half and then by 22 after an opening tear in the 3rd.

Game 3. 33/14/4, 2 steals, 4 blocks, 4 turnovers and 6 fouls. 15/31 shooting, one of the most aggressive performances of Garnett's entire career in a 4-point OT win. 27 points from Hudson. One of those "questionable officiating" nights, heh. 3 fouls in 3 minutes in the 4th for Garnett, then fouled out in the opening part of OT. Kobe got a four-point play when Wally Z apparently fouled him without touching him. Then there was that thing with Rick Fox where Wally "stepped out of bounds" as Rick grabbed his jersey, which was unique. They won, though, so it was OK.

4th quarter KG? 4 boards (2 offensive), an assist at the rim and a turnover on an offensive foul. He was 3/8 FG and 2/2 FT for 8 points. He took one shot inside of 10 feet and 4 shots from 14+ feet. Lots and lots of jumpers. Got blocked by Shaq the one time he shot around the rim.

Game 4. 10/21 FG, 1/3 3PA, 7/9 FTA. 18 boards, 5 assists, 4 turnovers. 56.1% TS in a 5-point loss. Solid performance. 34/23 from Shaq didn't help. Kobe shot like crap (7/25) but got to the line at will (16/17 FT). With about 2 minutes left in the third, the Wolves were up by 11 but then the Lakers went on an 8-0 run to close the quarter and Kobe hit a 3 early in the 4th to tie it. About halfway through the fourth, the Wolves were up by 5, but L.A. reeled off another 8-0 run. Stayed close down the wire; Shaq got an OREB off of a Kobe miss to give L.A. a 3-point lead with 19 seconds remaining... and KG missed both free throws when he was fouled. Kobe hit 2 FTs, Garnett stuck a jumper. Shaq had more offensive boards than the Timberwolves. The Lakers had 18 offensive boards and scored 29 points off of them.

Second half play from Garnett.

He had 3 assists and a turnover (Kobe stripped him) in the 3rd. He TECHNICALLY shot 1/7, but that includes a 43-foot heave at the buzzer. He was really 1/6, which is still terrible, missing his last 5 (or 6, counting the 3) shots after hitting a shot around the rim. 2 of his shots were inside of 15 feet.

In the fourth, he was 4/6, including a three, but he was 2/4 at the line, missing two big ones with about 16 seconds left, as I mentioned. He also had an assist. When he stuck the three with about a half-minute left, they were down 1.

Little rough. If he hadn't sucked in the 3rd, they might have built a better cushion and taken that game. Instead, L.A. evened the series.

Game 5. 11/23, 1/2 3P, 2/4 FT, 50.5% TS. 25/16/3, 3 TOV. 30-point blowout. KG played 43 minutes, conjuring that old thought about he gets a bunch of numbers in garbage time. Minny was down 7 at the half, down 21 after 3 and down 30 at the end of the game. We'll look at KG's second half performance, offense-only in the third and then what he did once the game was long-decided in the fourth.

In the third, he got a pass picked off by Kobe, he had an assist and he shot 4/8 for 9 points (1/2 from 3). Pretty solid performance all told, with two shots at the rim and two others within 7 feet. OK, so now we're going to look at the 4th Q, which starts with the Wolves down 21 points, and we're going to see what KG racked up in garbage time.

He played about 9.5 minutes in the fourth, leaving down 28 with about 2:38 to go. 1 offensive rebound (his own miss after getting blocked by Brian Shaw at the rim) and 4 defensive rebounds. It was the only offensive rebound he had all game and 4 of his 15 defensive boards. He split a pair of FTs and shot 1/3 from the field.

Doesn't much look like he racked up too many box score data points. He wasn't dominating and bringing them closer, they were getting pounded and Flip took him out eventually. Again though, it was the reigning champs, so the outcome wasn't really a huge surprise to anyone, especially as the team thinned from a few years prior, as scary as that is to say. They had to play some out-of-their-minds offense in order to get those two wins.

Game 6, elimination time, KG's favorite!

9/21 FG, 0/1 3P, 0/2 FT. 41.1% TS, 83 ORTG. He was terrible on O. 12 boards, 5 assists, 3 steals, 3 turnovers, 18 points. Not a good game. Good box score line, but not a good game. Played 44 minutes in a 16-point loss. Wolves were up by 5 after 1, down 4 after 2, down 6 after 3 and lost the 4th quarter by 10. Shaq had 8 offensive boards to Minny's 11. The 2nd and 4th quarters were the bad ones for Minny. The 4th was bad defensively, but the 2nd was bad offensively, with them scoring only 13 points.

Rough game. Minny went on a 9-0 run to close the third... and then Kobe opened up the fourth with 10 of the 14 points he'd score in the quarter, with L.A. opening the quarter on an 18-2 run. Shaq had 9 assists, Kobe 8 (total, not in the quarter). L.A.'s passing was just ridiculous that game. It took 6.5 minutes for the Wolves to score their first basket in the 4th.

In the 2nd, KG played the last 9 minutes. He had a pair of assists, a picked off pass and shot 2/5, scoring 4 of their 13 points... but involved in 8. Were he a more dominant scorer, that could have helped, but it's hard to nit-pick that performance in this series over much.

4th Q. An assist, two turnovers, 2/5 shooting (including Devean George blocking him), leaves with 1:56 remaining, down by 18.





Well, if you're going to quote tsherkin in a monster rebuttal against me, the LEAST you can do is allow me to retort. Below please find my response to tsherkin from that same thread. And I hope that everyone who read about KG's shooting "troubles" takes the time to read through a description of what those games actually looked like. I'd say that in those "terrible" games of Garnett's, he was actually the dominant player on the floor. But that's my take. After reading, you tell me:

drza wrote:
tsherkin wrote: A lot of very detailed, interesting info


Alright, I'm ready to respond to your monster post. Let me start by saying that there was a lot of killer info in there, and I appreciated the detailed step through. Let me also say that I've enjoyed your overall tone as an informed skeptic in this thread, using strong support to back up your position on both sides. In your posts in general you've been quick to point out Garnett's defense, his playmaking ability, the weakness of his teammates and the strength of his competition.

But. (You knew there was a "but" coming)

In this, a response to me claiming that Garnett has an argument for best postseason performer of his generation due to his overall effect on games, your reply was to stipulate the other factors above (defense, playmaking, weak team/strong opponent) as givens so that you could really key in on how KG performed as a scorer. This would be a reasonable thing to do if you were then going to re-introduce the other factors before making your overall conclusions, but you never really did. I mean, at some points you verbally acknowledge that his defense and rebounding must have been "THAT AWESOME" to compensate for what you see as offensive weakness, but the overall tone and outcome measures of your post are in general negative to the concept of KG being possibly the best. You even use the example games to attempt to build the case that KG was coming up short in these elimination games, primarily due to scoring. That's a fair thing to do...again, if you go back and add the context and other elements of the game before making your conclusions. I don't think you do, though. I think you make your conclusions based on the scoring, then add a disclaimer about the other circumstances afterwards that softens the criticisms but doesn't truly evaluate the game as a whole.

On the whole, in zooming in so far on KG's scoring output/efficiency I think you sometimes find yourself missing the forest for the trees. So let me add some perspective to a few of the games that you classified as stinkers for KG, many of the most egregious ones in fact, and see if it's really reasonable to characterize those games as evidence of Garnett-failure.

99 versus the eventual-champion Spurs...

Then here's the killer. Game 4 was a 7-point loss and he shot 6/20 FG and 8/12 at the line. Realistically, he left 7-9 points on the board from what he'd have posted just making 45% FG and around 80% FT, very normal numbers for him. This is a single-game, single-series performance at the beginning of his All-NBA era (and he's far from alone in having poor performances), but as we start to watch him coming up short in key moments and close games like that, it begins to detract from the overall picture you're painting of the "most dominant postseason performer from 99-08" kind of thing, right? That right there is a game that kind of mirrors Dirk against the Warriors.


OK. Here's the first elimination game that you characterize as a failure. If all I had to go by was your description, I'd think that KG just stunk in this game. I mean wow, he shot terrible and left points on the board in a winnable game. Yeah, that stings...oh, but hold on for a second. Let's take a step back and look at the game as a whole:

Garnett - 20 points, 40% TS, 16 rebounds, 6 asts, 2 stls, 1 TO
Duncan - 16 points, 42% TS, 8 rebounds, 0 asts, 0 stls, 3 blks, 1 TO

Garnett KILLED Duncan in their head-to-head this game. Yeah, Garnett's shooting was off and it'd be great if he could have hit more. But he was facing the consensus best PF of all-time who was also backed up by a still almost prime David Robinson, if KG happened to get by Duncan. KG's running mate at center on that team, the man to help him face off against Duncan and Robinson, was DEAN GARRETT!!!! :D The only reason that this game was remotely winnable for the Wolves was that KG erased Duncan, dominated the glass, set the table for his teammates with a (team-high) 6 assists-to-1-TO ratio, and clamped the paint (Duncan and Robinson shot a combined 10-for-28 from the field).

You'd be hard pressed to convince me (or, I'd think anyone really) that Garnett had a poor game in that closeout. He flat out out-played the consensus GOAT at his position head-to-head, and gave his team a serious shot to win against a much better opponent. I mean yeah, it'd be nice if KG could have thrown a dominant scoring game on top of that. But at that point such a hypothetical performance is no longer vying for "best of his generation"...it's inching more towards "best in history".

2000, against Portland:

Opens up with a 6/20 performance, no FTAs. 12/10/11 triple-double, but the triple-double belies his overall performance. With 26.2% usage and him shooting 30% FG without any FTAs, that's a rough, rough performance. And it was a 3-point loss. The not-Garnett Wolves shot 53% FG. Meantime, Sheed played well: didn't shoot much, but was 6/10 for 15 points (3/3 FT).


I reply to this one purely because you later mention this game (as well as the above Spurs G4) as one of three "major stinkers" in the 8 games of this and the Spurs series. So again, let's look at it. The Blazers frontline featured Rasheed Wallace, Scottie Pippen, and Sabonis as starters with Brian Grant as the main big off the bench. Much like the Duncan/Robinson frontline, we're again speaking of one of the best defensive frontcourts of the era...and they were focused entirely on KG. Now, it's more than fair to mention that KG was terrible shooting in this game. However, you mention KG's 11 assists and the non-Garnett Wolves shooting 53% FG as though those are two isolated events, when in reality the other Wolves starters shot so well specifically BECAUSE Garnett was drawing the Blazers defense and getting the rest of his team easy looks. Also, the Blazers as a team were under their averages in both points scored and FG%, suggesting that somebody on the Wolves must have really been putting in work on defense.

The Wolves lost a tight 3-point game on the road against a much better team, where the opponent was so keyed on KG that he was able to get the rest of his team playing to max efficiency on offense while simultaneously playing lock defense at the other end to keep them in it. Now obviously you can (and did) read this as KG coming up short because of the scoring...to me, this reads that Garnett was the dominant player in this game and did everything he could to give his team a shot to win and they just didn't have enough.

Said a different way...if KG played this EXACT same game and the Blazers played this EXACT same game, but KG was out there with 2002 Steve Nash, Michael Finley and Nick Van Exel instead of Brandon, Wally Z and Anthony Peeler, I think they win this game easily. On the flip side, if the rest of the Wolves were exactly as good but you replaced KG in that game with Tim Duncan, the Wolves still very likely lose (Duncan's 3 games against the Blazers in 2000 were 2 scoring stinkers and 1 scoring explosion, with almost no presence on the boards). So I'm saying that Garnett in this game, even with his shot completely off, was still having at least as much positive impact on the game as we'd have expected from his contemporary superstars. That's a success, not a stinker.

2000, against Portland:

Game 4. Elimination game #2 in this series and KG goes for a 5/20. 1/2 3P, 6/6 FT. 17 points on 37.5% TS. 10 boards, 9 assists, 3 turnovers. But WOW was he ever bad shooting that night, and that's his second major stinker in the series and his third over two consecutive postseason matchups (e.g. his 3rd in 8 games).


Copy and paste the analysis from game 1. Again, KG's shot was in the toilet. Again, he was setting up his teammates right and left, playing dominant defense (Blazers scored 85 points with an ORtg of 101.2...WELL below their season averages of 97.5 points on 107.9 ORtg), and giving his team a legitimate chance against a much stronger opponent. And mind you, I've now re-examined each of the three games that you characterize as "major stinkers" and...well, I've said my piece. If you would still call those games stinkers OVERALL (with scoring and everything else also included) then we'd have to agree to disagree.

2001 vs SAS:

Game 2. Welcome to Crapsville, population, YOU. 5/13 FG, but 8/8 FT gives him a 54.5% TS. 12 boards, 2 assists, 2 turnovers, 112 ORTG. Another rough shooting night for him, though, and he played only 32 minutes because of some foul trouble, but mainly because it was garbage time after 3. The Wolves shot something stupid like a tenth of a percent off of their franchise-worst in the playoffs and they committed 20 turnovers. It was embarrassing. KG was part of a team-wide failure that game. This is, I believe, the year after Sealy was killed and right around Joe Smith time.


OK, really, I'm not going to spend a lot of words here. Let me just post 4 stat lines from this game:

Garnett - 18 points, 54.5% TS, 12 reb, 2 ast, 1 blk, 2 TO
Duncan - 18 points, 45.5% TS, 11 rebs, 4 ast, 2 stl, 1 blk, 1 TO
Rest-of-Wolves-Starters-Combined: 15 pts, 25.7% TS, 11 rebounds, 4 ast, 2 stl, 1 blk, 8 TOs
David Robinson by himself: 16 points, 69% TS, 11 rebounds, 3 asts, 3 stls, 2 blks, 2 TOs

Was Garnett in the population of Crapsville? Was he part of a team-wide failure? Or did Garnett again play Duncan to at-worst a standstill, and his team COMPLETELY let him down? I leave it to the reader to decide.

2001 vs SAS:

Game 4, elimination game. 6/13 shooting, 19/15/5, 2 turnovers, 5 fouls, 7/8 FT for 57.5% TS but they were crushed, a 13-point loss. Duncan shot terribly (8/23) and D-Rob had 4 fouls by the 3rd. Wolves were down 8 after 3, but down only 1 at halftime.


Another elimination game, part of the theme you were trying to develop of Garnett failing personally in big games. You mention Duncan's shooting and D-Rob's foul trouble, but don't really elaborate. So, slightly wider angle lens:

Garnett - 19 points, 57.5% TS, 15 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 2 TOs
Duncan - 24 points, 42.4% TS, 16 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 2 blk, 2 TOs

At worst Garnett plays Duncan to a standstill, and if scoring efficiency is as important as is generally held around here you'd say that Garnett pretty dramatically outplayed Duncan in this elimination game. His team just wasn't good enough to take advantage. Which I'd contend was a known coming in, but that when isolating the scoring from everything else it's easy to lose sight of that.

Conclusion: I have to stop here. I've spend my entire morning work session on this, and have to leave now as I'm late for a meeting. But I think my point should be pretty clear by now. I went through the first three series that you did, focusing on the exact games that you say were the worst that KG had to offer. Those were some of the worst shooting games of KG's postseason career...and in those games KG consistently outplayed Duncan head-to-head, displayed outstanding playmaking ability that clearly lifted his team's offense, defensively dominated against two of the best frontlines of the era, and in all five cases kept his much less talented team competitive against much stronger competition. I repeat my contention from above, but expanded now for all five games: if you replace KG with either 99 - 01 Duncan or 02 - 04 Dirk, the Wolves still go 0 - 5 in those games (at BEST they squeak out 1 or 2 if Dirk/Duncan go nuts). But if you give KG (playing at the EXACT same level as he did in those 5 games) either the 99 - 01 Spurs cast or the 02 - 04 Mavs cast, they at the worst go 3 - 2 and have a legit shot at 5 - 0. The focus on the scoring efficiency obscured that the other things he was doing was at a brilliant level, which is ultimately reflected in the postseason +/- stats for the entire next decade.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Purch
Veteran
Posts: 2,820
And1: 2,145
Joined: May 25, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #10 

Post#260 » by Purch » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:50 pm

Out of the 4 I tend to think that Barkley had the most dominant Peak. Longevity tend to go to Malone.


Now not to Bash Malone, cause Thats one of my favorite players to ever play the game... But in terms of stepping up in the playoffs, and being a reliable option, I think that's why I tend to rank Barkley and Dirk above both of them. I just see to much drop off in the post season from Malone and Garnett, when you need your stars to be most reliable
Image

Return to Player Comparisons