RealGM Top 100 List #10

[andrewww]

Karl Malone isn't a just a scoring big, he was top 10 in defensive wins shares for 13 seasons. He's number 6 all time in defensive win shares.

Hes a 2 way big, much better than Dirk and Barkley on that end. He was above averge on that end of the floor. Obviously he wasnt anchoring entire defenses at that hight, but he played both ends effectively

I'm aware of that and to clarify, my categorzations were more related to what kind of impact said player is known for.

As an example, when people think of KMalone they think of his scoring first and foremost. Perhaps lumping him into that group was an injustice for him but let's be honest, KMalone is in no way shape or form a defensive anchor like KG or Admiral.

[Purch]

I also question how neutral RAPM really is at

I don't know what specifically Youre talking about. But I can almost guarantee you with the away the spurs have evolved over the years, and flipped role players their were other significant factors impacting that change. Just like when Parker and Manu stepped up.

That was in 2011 long after Parker and Manu arrived.

Also if I remember correctly in Dirk's prime his TS did go up in the postseason, unlike Garnett

O that's even simpler to explain. That was the first year they started to implement their new motion based-ball movement offense, and Pop made Parker the focal point of their offense. The reason they made that change was because Duncan's body wasnt allowing him to carry the offense nearly as effectively as during his earlier years.

So yes a system change, Parker playing at Peak level, and 2010 being the worst year of the Duncan era can clearly explain that change. They barley won 50 games in 2010 and they got swept by the suns, it was clear Duncan was past the point of being an effective focal point every night

[andrewww]

O that's even simpler to explain. That was the first year they started to implement their new motion based-ball movement offense, and Pop made Parker the focal point of their offense. The reason they made that change was because Duncan's body wasnt allowing him to carry the offense nearly as effectively as during his earlier years.

So yes a system change, Parker playing at Peak level, and 2010 being the worst year of the Duncan era can clearly explain that change. They barley won 50 games in 2010 and they got swept by the suns, it was clear Duncan was past the point of being an effective focal point every night

It's true that the Spurs made a philosophical change as a team to become a ball-movement based team to accomodate Parker.

What's also worth noting is that the Spurs reinvented themselves accordingly to the rule changes. In many ways, the Spurs gave the Heat a taste of their own medicine as it was small ball that beat them.

[ElGee]

But if you look at when their primes overlap...05-07...Garnett is significantly outproducing Duncan in terms of post-up offense. Turns out, the evidence DOESN'T support Duncan trumping Garnett as a post up player. If anything, it's the opposite. Which makes Garnett's value in other areas of the game a much bigger deal.

But is that really what that data is showing? It shows KG is producing more in the post per possession but Duncan is using significantly more post possessions. Duncan is still very much out-producing KG in the post.

Again I hate to keep harping on the obvious, but your skills only matter insofar as you actually use them.

Spoiler:

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")...

If we do the math here:

2005 KG: 756.28 points from post possessions(assuming some rounding was done in his figures)
2005 Duncan 615.087 points

2006 KG 754.82
2006 Duncan 793.968

2007 KG 551.88
2007 Duncan 857.088

2008 KG 614.80
2008 Duncan 648.846

2009 KG 287.97
Duncan 742.50

No what this data really shows us is that KG was perhaps more effective in the post than we thought, but the edge remains clearly in favor of Duncan having more impact in the post. I know this board tends to want to minimize volume, but skill in the post is not easily replaced and is quite valuable.

Pts/36 per post up by those years

Garnett:
8.7
9.2
6.6 (see strange coaching adjustments)
9.5
5.9

Duncan
10.1
10.3
11.3
8.8
9.7

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Garnett's 05-07 teammates were on the extreme other end of the spectrum relative to Duncan's during that time period.

[Purch]

Karl Malone isn't a just a scoring big, he was top 10 in defensive wins shares for 13 seasons. He's number 6 all time in defensive win shares.

Hes a 2 way big, much better than Dirk and Barkley on that end. He was above averge on that end of the floor. Obviously he wasnt anchoring entire defenses at that hight, but he played both ends effectively

I'm aware of that and to clarify, my categorzations were more related to what kind of impact said player is known for.

As an example, when people think of KMalone they think of his scoring first and foremost. Perhaps lumping him into that group was an injustice for him but let's be honest, KMalone is in no way shape or form a defensive anchor like KG or Admiral.

When I think of two way bigs I think of bigs who were effective on both ends of the Court. KG may be a better defensive player than Malone, but he's a worse offensive player, so why wouldn't he be considered a two way big?

As long as you're above Averge on both sides I tend to consider you two way

[acrossthecourt]

Post offense is being overrated here. Know what happens when Duncan's usage rate drops by 3 points and his minutes decrease by 300? The team goes from 9th in offensive efficiency to 2nd.

Plus Duncan was voted in a while ago. If Garnett doesn't match up with Duncan, that's okay, because we're talking about 10th or 11th here....

Dirk's TS%, by the way, drops in the playoffs too. Kobe's does too.

Please don't attempt to mislead like this:

Dirk RS TS% .582
Dirk PS TS% .579

And if you compare it to league average his relative TS% goes up in the post-season.

Nope, that's more misleading.

His minutes distribution in the playoffs isn't the same as the regular season. It's like if a guy only made the playoffs when he was old his playoff stats would look awful.

Weighing by minutes in the playoffs, his TS% drops by 1.1 points. Looks like it's about the same with usage too.

I also question how neutral RAPM really is at

That was in 2011 long after Parker and Manu arrived.

Also if I remember correctly in Dirk's prime his TS did go up in the postseason, unlike Garnett

O that's even simpler to explain. That was the first year they started to implement their new motion based-ball movement offense, and Pop made Parker the focal point of their offense. The reason they made that change was because Duncan's body wasnt allowing him to carry the offense nearly as effectively as during his earlier years.

So yes a system change, Parker playing at Peak level, and 2010 being the worst year of the Duncan era can clearly explain that change. They barley won 50 games in 2010 and they got swept by the suns, it was clear Duncan was past the point of being an effective focal point every night

Like when he won his MVP and his TS% dropped by 9.6 points? Or in 2005 when his TS% dropped by 7.3 points?

[Texas Chuck]

Post offense is being overrated here. Know what happens when Duncan's usage rate drops by 3 points and his minutes decrease by 300? The team goes from 9th in offensive efficiency to 2nd.

Plus Duncan was voted in a while ago. If Garnett doesn't match up with Duncan, that's okay, because we're talking about 10th or 11th here....

Dirk's TS%, by the way, drops in the playoffs too. Kobe's does too.

Please don't attempt to mislead like this:

Dirk RS TS% .582
Dirk PS TS% .579

And if you compare it to league average his relative TS% goes up in the post-season.

Nope, that's more misleading.

His minutes distribution in the playoffs isn't the same as the regular season. It's like if a guy only made the playoffs when he was old his playoff stats would look awful.

Weighing by minutes in the playoffs, his TS% drops by 1.1 points.

?

Why don't we just cut to the chase here. Do you honestly think that KG compares favorably with Dirk in regards to efficiency in the RS or PS?

And if not, attempting to point to what you incorrectly perceive to be a drop-off in Dirk's efficiency in an effort to minimize a weakness on KG's part seems odd, no?

I have no idea why you are weighing TS% by minutes. It simply makes no sense to do so.

edit: your post highlighting the 2 worst series of Dirk's career tells me all I need to know about whether or not you are trying to get at the truth as opposed to trying to make KG look good.

[PaulieWal]

In many ways, the Spurs gave the Heat a taste of their own medicine as it was small ball that beat them.

They absolutely did . They spread the floor with 4 players who could shoot 3s AND drive + Duncan/Splitter. They became one mean passing machine and as LeBron or Wade said after game 4 it felt like they were playing with 5 PGs on the floor at times.

[Purch]

It's seems like you're trying to convince us that KG's drop in efficency for 10 out of his 13 post seasons, is somehow an acceptable thing that we should simply look past. When in reality, the abilty to up your level of play in the post season is a big part of ranking players

[ElGee]

Can I agree with both of you? It obviously impacts KG's averages in the West that his team was an underdog and lost in the 1st round every year save 1. And Duncan gets the benefit of many series against low-seeded Western playoff teams. But he most years goes on to face multiple tough defenses and if the data Colt18 shows is correct it came out to be roughly the same.

So while we should absolutely look at competition, if we do look at it and see that KG didn't face tougher defensive opposition shouldn't that be a mark in Duncan's favor?

Oh certainly. I saw acrossthecourt and a couple of other guys doing similar breakdowns for the Admiral before (I think they used -3 as the cutoff?), so if we want to do the same for KG, I'd have no problem with the results, regardless of how they turn out.

I'm looking to learn more here (as is the case with most participants here, possibly all of us), I'm not particularly interested in advocating for/against any players.

From ElGee:

Duncan 99-08 is

vs. +3 defenses: 22.5 pts/36 | 58.7% TS | 3.4 ast/36
vs. -3 defenses: 20.6 pts/36 | 53.0% TS | 2.5 ast/36

Garnett 99-08 is

vs. +3 defenses: 21.0 pts/36 | 56.8% TS | 4.8 ast/36
vs. -3 defenses: 20.0 pts/36 | 52.5% TS | 4.2 ast/36

So Duncan has a 0.5 TS% advantage with 1.7 assist favor in Garnett's corner.

I'll do a more thorough breakdown of Garnett (and Duncan) later adjusting for strength of schedule and seeing if the playoffs change anything. Most of the time it's just noise, except for Olajuwon and Robinson.

Summary stats versus -3 defenses aren't perfect because not all -3 teams are the same (going up against 2011 Boston and 2011 Chicago or two teams barely over the -3 line, for instance.)

Yeah, and here is how it looks if we use actual defensive environment (e.g. 103 v 107) from 99-08

Regular Season

Duncan

vs. > 107: (211g) 22.2 pts/36 | 57.6% TS | 3.4 ast/36
vs. < 103: (203g) 20.6 pts/36 | 53.4% TS | 2.9 ast/36

Garnett

vs. > 107: (217g) 20.8 pts/36 | 56.9% TS | 4.5 ast/36
vs. < 103: (231g) 20.5 pts/36 | 53.4% TS | 4.5 ast/36

Post Season

Duncan

vs. > 107: (16g) 24.0 pts/36 | 55.1% TS | 2.6 ast/36
vs. < 103: (203g) 19.7 pts/36 | 54.4% TS | 3.3 ast/36

Garnett

vs. > 107: (10g) 20.3 pts/36 | 52.9% TS | 3.9 ast/36
vs. < 103: (29g) 19.5 pts/36 | 52.0% TS | 4.4 ast/36

Mystery Player

vs. < 103: 22.1 pts/36 | 52.3% TS | 4.6 ast/36

I'd say you have a small sample size with Garnett. With that said, there's nothing here that stands out to me as negative, and certainly nothing to fits some of the narrative floating around. If you think that a 2% difference in TS% is a major differentiator between players, you are going to be in for a surprise when you learn more.

[acrossthecourt]

Please don't attempt to mislead like this:

Dirk RS TS% .582
Dirk PS TS% .579

And if you compare it to league average his relative TS% goes up in the post-season.

Nope, that's more misleading.

His minutes distribution in the playoffs isn't the same as the regular season. It's like if a guy only made the playoffs when he was old his playoff stats would look awful.

Weighing by minutes in the playoffs, his TS% drops by 1.1 points.

?

Why don't we just cut to the chase here. Do you honestly think that KG compares favorably with Dirk in regards to efficiency in the RS or PS?

And if not, attempting to point to what you incorrectly perceive to be a drop-off in Dirk's efficiency in an effort to minimize a weakness on KG's part seems odd, no?

I have no idea why you are weighing TS% by minutes. It simply makes no sense to do so.

And how does Dirk compare to Garnett's defense? We're not ranking players based on TS% changes. Let's stop obsessing with shooting percentages. Dirk has playoff embarrassments too.

I am *not* incorrectly perceiving a drop-off. It actually happened.

You don't understand what I'm doing. It does make sense.

Here's a fictional player's TS% in the RS:
60
61
59
62
55
52

He only makes the playoffs in the last two seasons, and this was after a major injury. His playoff TS%'s are as follows:
54
53

His RS career TS% is 58 and his playoff TS% 53.5. So does he flop in the playoffs and is this method systematically flawed?

Let's look at his yearly change in TS% in the playoffs:
-1
+1

For an average of 0. (If he played twice as much in the last season and I used the weighed minutes method, then his playoff change is +0.33.)

See how much better that method is? The previous one is flawed. The point I was making is that it's normal for a star to have his TS% drop in the playoffs. It's what usually happens because they face better defenses.

edit: your post highlighting the 2 worst series of Dirk's career tells me all I need to know about whether or not you are trying to get at the truth as opposed to trying to make KG look good.

I am getting at the truth here. People really nitpick Garnett's playoffs when if you study every player, you'll notice almost everyone has embarrassments. We're at 10 now. There are no perfect players left. I pointed out Dirk's struggles to show everyone has flaws and bad playoffs sometimes.

[Jim Naismith]

Also, whiles we're talking about candidates can someone explain to me why Robinson is considered a better player than Moses? I mean he Litteraly has outperformed nearly all the top centers of his time in his 82 season

I think Moses has an argument against all the remaining big men by accolades alone:

Moses.......3 MVP, 1 FMVP
Karl..........2 MVP, 0 FMVP
Dirk..........1 MVP, 1 FMVP
Garnett......1 MVP, 0 FMVP
Robinson....1 MVP, 0 FMVP
Barkley......1 MVP, 0 FMVP


From 1979 to 1987, here are the 1st team and 2nd team centers:

1979: Moses, Kareem
1980: Kareem, Moses
1981: Kareem, Moses
1982: Moses, Parish
1983: Moses, Kareem
1984: Kareem, Moses
1985: Moses, Kareem
1986: Kareem, Hakeem
1987: Hakeem, Moses

Moses also made All-Defensive 2nd team in 1979 and All-Defensive 1st team in 1983

[Purch]

Nope, that's more misleading.

His minutes distribution in the playoffs isn't the same as the regular season. It's like if a guy only made the playoffs when he was old his playoff stats would look awful.

Weighing by minutes in the playoffs, his TS% drops by 1.1 points.

?

Why don't we just cut to the chase here. Do you honestly think that KG compares favorably with Dirk in regards to efficiency in the RS or PS?

And if not, attempting to point to what you incorrectly perceive to be a drop-off in Dirk's efficiency in an effort to minimize a weakness on KG's part seems odd, no?

I have no idea why you are weighing TS% by minutes. It simply makes no sense to do so.

And how does Dirk compare to Garnett's defense? We're not ranking players based on TS% changes. Let's stop obsessing with shooting percentages. Dirk has playoff embarrassments too.

I am *not* incorrectly perceiving a drop-off. It actually happened.

You don't understand what I'm doing. It does make sense.

Here's a fictional player's TS% in the RS:
60
61
59
62
55
52

He only makes the playoffs in the last two seasons, and this was after a major injury. His playoff TS%'s are as follows:
54
53

His RS career TS% is 58 and his playoff TS% 53.5. So does he flop in the playoffs and is this method systematically flawed?

Let's look at his yearly change in TS% in the playoffs:
-1
+1

For an average of 0. (If he played twice as much in the last season and I used the weighed minutes method, then his playoff change is +0.33.)

See how much better that method is? The previous one is flawed. The point I was making is that it's normal for a star to have his TS% drop in the playoffs. It's what usually happens because they face better defenses.

edit: your post highlighting the 2 worst series of Dirk's career tells me all I need to know about whether or not you are trying to get at the truth as opposed to trying to make KG look good.

I am getting at the truth here. People really nitpick Garnett's playoffs when if you study every player, you'll notice almost everyone has embarrassments. We're at 10 now. There are no perfect players left. I pointed out Dirk's struggles to show everyone has flaws and bad playoffs sometimes.

If you can find us one player being considered for this position that had their post season efficency decrease in 77% of their post seasons then you have a point

[ronnymac2]

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.

Here's my problem with that line of thinking though. That assumes they each had the same supporting cast. In my opinion, they don't. Kobe had a very good prime Lamar Odom in 2006 and 2007. KG's most talented teammate was Ricky Davis, an utterly useless player when it comes to 5 vs. 5 basketball. Kobe also had Phil coaching the team.

This isn't to denigrate Kobe. I think Kobe maximized the mediocre talent he had around him, and I highly doubt anybody gets to the second round in 2006 and 2007 with those Lakers. Kobe was wonderful. But to put the blame on KG when he had a truly horrific supporting cast doesn't make sense to me.

Mind you, I think the only years where KG had horrific supporting casts were '05-'07. Before that, I think MIN did a decent job putting players around him with Flip.

I actually would add Wally to the Minny mix. His PER production was just as good as Odom's. Lamar had the big name, but put up an average of 16.8 PER from 05-07.

I guess I'm trying to see how KG's skillset/strengths outweighs Kobe's. With Kobe he can make crappy teams into good offensive squads, but KG's defense doesn't' seem to equalize that effect.

06 Lakers = #8 Offense(playoffs)
07 Lakers = #7 Offense(playoffs)

06 Minny = #10 Defense
07 Minny = #21 Defense

This also goes to playoff performances where Kobe's offense was critical to long successful runs, while KG's defense didn't seem to overtake teams at the same rate.

Good point about Wally. However, he only played 40 games in '06 before the trade went down.

If you've got concerns about KG's skillset relative to Kobe's, that's fair. I understand that a player with Garnett's skillset and style doesn't normally have the same goodness as a player with a style/skillset similar to Magic/MJ/Kobe/Duncan/Shaq/LBJ. The guy most similar to Kobe in terms of style and skillset is Michael Jordan...for MJ, it's Dr. J and Elgin Baylor. These are superstars.

The guy most similar to KG is like...Bobby Jones or Dave Debusschere. Maybe Elvin Hayes. Combine the best attributes of those guys and you probably get KG. Those guys weren't superstars though. Not top-20 guys.

So I can at least understand why one would be skeptical that KG's goodness is on the level of a Kobe/Bird/Duncan/Erving. I won't try to talk you down, but my invitation to you is to consider:

1. KG is the best of his style/skillset

2. Detachment from the idea that a player needs a certain skillset/style to get to a certain level of goodness. Theoretically, a Kyle Korver-type could have the highest level of goodness in NBA history if he shot 80% on 20 3-point attempts per game. The closest in style he would be to is Kyle Korver, who isn't even an All-Star. I'm using an extreme to form an example, but for the KG style/skillset type, perhaps that 80% 3-point shooter is actually real in the form of...Kevin Garnett.

[DannyNoonan1221]

Mikan IMHO has a greater historical impact.

Yes, dribbling rules have evolved. But learning how to dribble in the 60s is a hell of a lot easier than learning how to dribble in today's game. Just like regular season vs playoffs today, run and gun teams that succeed in the RS don't usually translate in the playoffs. The game slows down. The same could be said about a present team playing in the 60s. They would work the shot clock, slow the game down to basically a slow walk and I am not so sure the 60s players would be able to adapt. Obviously we don't agree on this point but I don't understand how you can simply say "most players today" wouldn't make it in the 60s. There is a whole hell of a lot more strategy and basketball IQ involved in today's game at a player and coaching level then there was back then.

Also, if we are forcing today's players to play by 60s dribbling rules, then we will most certainly take out the shot clock. Good lucy running up and down against a team from today. Final scores would end up being under 30 points and the 60s teams would be taken completely out of their style of play.

And someone else already touched on this "historical impact" argument. If this was a "who had the most impact on the game" vote, Mikan would be top 2. However, this isn't. Just because he was the first to do these things does not mean he is the best at them. It just means he was the first to do them. Congrats. You get your legacy and historical impact on the game. You won't be forgotten. But that does not mean you are a top 10, top 20 player of all time.

[ceiling raiser]

Mikan IMHO has a greater historical impact.

Yes, dribbling rules have evolved. But learning how to dribble in the 60s is a hell of a lot easier than learning how to dribble in today's game. Just like regular season vs playoffs today, run and gun teams that succeed in the RS don't usually translate in the playoffs. The game slows down. The same could be said about a present team playing in the 60s. They would work the shot clock, slow the game down to basically a slow walk and I am not so sure the 60s players would be able to adapt. Obviously we don't agree on this point but I don't understand how you can simply say "most players today" wouldn't make it in the 60s. There is a whole hell of a lot more strategy and basketball IQ involved in today's game at a player and coaching level then there was back then.

Also, if we are forcing today's players to play by 60s dribbling rules, then we will most certainly take out the shot clock. Good lucy running up and down against a team from today. Final scores would end up being under 30 points and the 60s teams would be taken completely out of their style of play.

And someone else already touched on this "historical impact" argument. If this was a "who had the most impact on the game" vote, Mikan would be top 2. However, this isn't. Just because he was the first to do these things does not mean he is the best at them. It just means he was the first to do them. Congrats. You get your legacy and historical impact on the game. You won't be forgotten. But that does not mean you are a top 10, top 20 player of all time.

Why, if the shot clock was implemented in 1954?

[ElGee]

Truthfully, I don't think there's much separating a lot of these elite bigs (Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Dirk, KG, Robinson). Just my opinion though. Any new analysis comparing these guys in any way is always welcome IMO.

The difference for me is one of them isn't very good at defense, and he occupies a spot on the floor that is capable of exerting large defensive impact. Otherwise, no, not huge differences peak to peak or prime to prime...

[acrossthecourt]

Also, whiles we're talking about candidates can someone explain to me why Robinson is considered a better player than Moses? I mean he Litteraly has outperformed nearly all the top centers of his time in his 82 season

I think Moses has an argument against all the remaining big men by accolades alone:

Moses.......3 MVP, 1 FMVP
Karl..........2 MVP, 0 FMVP
Dirk..........1 MVP, 1 FMVP
Garnett......1 MVP, 0 FMVP
Robinson....1 MVP, 0 FMVP
Barkley......1 MVP, 0 FMVP


From 1979 to 1987, here are the 1st team and 2nd team centers:

1979: Moses, Kareem
1980: Kareem, Moses
1981: Kareem, Moses
1982: Moses, Parish
1983: Moses, Kareem
1984: Kareem, Moses
1985: Moses, Kareem
1986: Kareem, Hakeem
1987: Hakeem, Moses

Moses also made All-Defensive 2nd team in 1979 and All-Defensive 1st team in 1983

After Walton got injured, there weren't a lot of great centers left.

It was Kareem and Moses and then a gap. Gilmore was good out of the ABA, but he was getting old. Then there was guys like Parish, Sikma, and Issel. No offense to Parish, but he doesn't provide the greatest competition.

Moses had a good run with the 1983 76ers, but they were great before him too. They improved by like 1 SRS when he joined him, and he was displacing Caldwell Jones and a subpar Dawkins.

If you can find us one player being considered for this position that had their post season efficency decrease in 77% of their post seasons then you have a point

Karl Malone: 84% of his playoff seasons had a drop in TS%. His weighted drop is 5.3, twice as high as Garnett's.

What's my prize?

edit: I have more.

Larry Bird: 67%, drops by 2.0 points.

David Robinson: 83%, drops by 2.3 points. Moses drops by 2 points too, but his is 54% including the ABA season, where his playoff TS% increased.

[Purch]

Also, whiles we're talking about candidates can someone explain to me why Robinson is considered a better player than Moses? I mean he Litteraly has outperformed nearly all the top centers of his time in his 82 season

I think Moses has an argument against all the remaining big men by accolades alone:

Moses.......3 MVP, 1 FMVP
Karl..........2 MVP, 0 FMVP
Dirk..........1 MVP, 1 FMVP
Garnett......1 MVP, 0 FMVP
Robinson....1 MVP, 0 FMVP
Barkley......1 MVP, 0 FMVP


From 1979 to 1987, here are the 1st team and 2nd team centers:

1979: Moses, Kareem
1980: Kareem, Moses
1981: Kareem, Moses
1982: Moses, Parish
1983: Moses, Kareem
1984: Kareem, Moses
1985: Moses, Kareem
1986: Kareem, Hakeem
1987: Hakeem, Moses

Moses also made All-Defensive 2nd team in 1979 and All-Defensive 1st team in 1983

After Walton got injured, there weren't a lot of great centers left.

It was Kareem and Moses and then a gap. Gilmore was good out of the ABA, but he was getting old. Then there was guys like Parish, Sikma, and Issel. No offense to Parish, but he doesn't provide the greatest competition.

Moses had a good run with the 1983 76ers, but they were great before him too. They improved by like 1 SRS when he joined him, and he was displacing Caldwell Jones and a subpar Dawkins.

If you can find us one player being considered for this position that had their post season efficency decrease in 77% of their post seasons then you have a point

Karl Malone: 84% of his playoff seasons had a drop in TS%. His weighted drop is 5.3, twice as high as Garnett's.

What's my prize?

I knew you were gonna bring up Malone. Because he's also an awful playoff performer. So now you have Malone and Garnett in an elite group of sucky playoff performers, what does that tell you? Jazz fans are able to admit that about Malone, but for some reason KG fans struggle with it

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

Nope, that's more misleading.

His minutes distribution in the playoffs isn't the same as the regular season. It's like if a guy only made the playoffs when he was old his playoff stats would look awful.

Weighing by minutes in the playoffs, his TS% drops by 1.1 points.

?

Why don't we just cut to the chase here. Do you honestly think that KG compares favorably with Dirk in regards to efficiency in the RS or PS?

And if not, attempting to point to what you incorrectly perceive to be a drop-off in Dirk's efficiency in an effort to minimize a weakness on KG's part seems odd, no?

I have no idea why you are weighing TS% by minutes. It simply makes no sense to do so.

And how does Dirk compare to Garnett's defense? We're not ranking players based on TS% changes. Let's stop obsessing with shooting percentages. Dirk has playoff embarrassments too.

I am *not* incorrectly perceiving a drop-off. It actually happened.

You don't understand what I'm doing. It does make sense.

Here's a fictional player's TS% in the RS:
60
61
59
62
55
52

He only makes the playoffs in the last two seasons, and this was after a major injury. His playoff TS%'s are as follows:
54
53

His RS career TS% is 58 and his playoff TS% 53.5. So does he flop in the playoffs and is this method systematically flawed?

Let's look at his yearly change in TS% in the playoffs:
-1
+1

For an average of 0. (If he played twice as much in the last season and I used the weighed minutes method, then his playoff change is +0.33.)

See how much better that method is? The previous one is flawed. The point I was making is that it's normal for a star to have his TS% drop in the playoffs. It's what usually happens because they face better defenses.

edit: your post highlighting the 2 worst series of Dirk's career tells me all I need to know about whether or not you are trying to get at the truth as opposed to trying to make KG look good.

I am getting at the truth here. People really nitpick Garnett's playoffs when if you study every player, you'll notice almost everyone has embarrassments. We're at 10 now. There are no perfect players left. I pointed out Dirk's struggles to show everyone has flaws and bad playoffs sometimes.

Just stop. You made the point about TS% in regards to Dirk and KG. I didnt' cherry-pick a topic. I simply corrected you trying to equate Dirk and KG in this regard. Period.

I have made multiple posts in the various threads regarding KG and Dirk and defense in detail. Go look for them. I didnt bring not them up to try and slant things to Dirk but because of the specific topic. Really simple.

Yes Dirk has had bad playoff series, but why when discussing TS% did you only pick those? Why not some of the many series in the 60's or even 70s? Do you not see how it looks like an agenda when you pick Dirk's worst and then say see he's just like KG?

Im done discussing KG with you after this tho. It's clear you aren't interested in an actual discussion, but just want to pimp KG. I'll be thrilled when he's finally in so that it stops.

And Dirk made the playoffs every year of his prime, no? And his RS numbers for the years he didn't make the playoffs actually drag his career RS numbers down. So if we take it year by year and only account for the years Dirk made the playoffs his TS% will be higher in the playoffs.