RealGM Top 100 List #11

[acrossthecourt]

Which KG supporter has an agenda?

Spoiler:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that unless the other guy is Bill Russell on defense, no, he can't.

Though if you can come up with an argument to the contrary, I'm all ears.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Bernard King:
33 points, 6 rebs, 4 assists, +4 TS%

Carmelo (2013):
29 points, 7 rebs, 3 assists, +3 TS%

Gervin (1980):
33 points, 5 rebs, 3 assists, +6 TS%

versus

Bill Walton (1978):
19 points, 13 rebs, 5 assists, +4 TS%

Duncan (2005):
20 points, 11 rebs, 3 assists, -1 TS%

Garnett (2008):
19 points, 9 rebs, 3 assists, +4 TS%

Cowens (1973):
20 points, 16 rebs, 4 assists, -2 TS%

Heh, it seems volume scorers, no matter how well they play can't catch a break sometimes…

(And I know you didn't specifically say they had bad seasons, although i did catch the "yikes that's too high" comment before you edited it out)

No, not saying they're bad. Rather I'm providing a list of guys to compare because the point is to find one example where a 34 PPG guy is rated below a 19/10 guy (like Walton over Gervin.) And yeah, Carmelo was too high. I forgot he was third and someone voted for him instead of LeBron.

And no, it's not a moot point. The question was phrased as, can there *ever* be a 19/10 player over a 34 PPG player?

Myth 7: Garnett's teammates in 2006 or 2005 were comparable to Duncan in the early 00's

See myth 6 or ...

Tony Parker Not until '02, and not even remotely like the Parker we know today until '05
Bruce Bowen
Stephen Jackson 2 years, both pre-prime or at least early prime, and one of which he mostly missed or was benched.
Malik Rose
David Robinson Post-prime and/or twilight years.
Manu Ginobili Not until '03, and not the star-level Ginobili until '05.
Steve Smith Post-prime (age 32-33).
Steve Kerr Not that he was EVER a stud, but post-prime (age 33+).

versus...

Trenton Hassell
Marko Jaric
Wally Szczerbiak
Ricky Davis
Rashad McCants
Eddie Griffin
Marcus Banks
Mark Blount

So anyway, not saying KG had an equal supporting cast in Minny during the years specified; but it's not the large gap that it appears you're trying to imply with name recognition (look: Parker and Ginobili!). Both Parker and Ginobili weren't there until at least 2-3 years into the "early 00's", and weren't particularly noteworthy players until AFTER the "early 00's". And everyone else listed except for Bowen and Rose was either pre-prime or post-prime/twilight.

Post-prime, pre-peak, post-modern, proto-punk, etc. Robinson/Parker/Manu are still much better than the level of support Garnett had, and I don't think it's close. The support level only gets close when Cassell and Wally Z are healthy, but rarely happened at the same time. Bowen's a better version of Hassell, Szczerbiak is pretty limited but honestly young Ginoibli was at least as good (Szczerbiak had issues staying on the court, so it's not a simple minutes argument.) Then things get really dire. Relying on Ricky Davis on offense. Guys like Mark Blunt and Mark Madsen are significant rotation pieces. And when Cassell was healthy, they did go to the WCF.

[penbeast0]

...

KG- 8 (Dr MJ, Baller2014, Fplii, Realbig3, Ronny, Quo, RSDC, Drza)

Oscar- 7 (Javil, Owly, Hbreakhigh, Shaqattack, Lorak, Sacto, Quinn)

Kobe- 6 (GC Pan, UBF, bbfan?, Jbulls, Ardee, Dhogkins)

West- 1 (Moonbeam)

Assuming everyone is on board with Baller's numbers from page 20, we have had 5 votes since then . . .

MaGill, PCProductions, rich316 for Garnett (11)
trex8063, batmana for Kobe (8)
Oscar 7
West 1

I am not completely sold on Kobe Bryant but although I may be accused of winner's bias and think we tend to underestimate the influence of Phil Jackson, still, Kobe winning titles with Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom compared to Oscar's consistent mediocrity with Jerry Lucas (a player I actually think is underrated here) makes me give him the edge. Kobe v. KG I am still open to argument.

RUNOFF STARTS NOW

[Doctor MJ]

If you want more detail on this, this is a post by ElGee from earlier in the project (WARNING: he calls Garnett a middle linebacker! ):

It's weird to me that people are objecting to using the term "middle linebacker" to refer to Garnett. The sense I get is that people see it as some kind of hippy hyperbolic thing that they've heard too much, but no one bats an eye when calling a point guard a quarterback.

Also, I still sometimes use the less accurate term "defensive quarterback" instead because I fear people won't understand what "middle linebacker" means, so it's a surprise to me if people see it as so common as to be a cliche. The combination of my uncertainty about whether people get it and their seeming annoyance with how often its used actually makes me wonder if they're frustrated that people haven't explained it but don't want to ask, so here it goes:

While not all "middle linebackers" do this well, the placement of that position is such that he can really see what's going on. He can see his linemen and defensive backs lined up against what the offense throws at him, and if he's got the field vision to read that quickly enough, he can direct his teammates based on the advantages and disadvantages he sees. This is why the "middle linebacker" is sometimes called the "defensive quarterback", but note that the intelligences involves aren't necessarily that similar. The quarterback's intelligence is first and foremost about rapid decision making, while the middle linebacker intelligence has everything to do with communication. While a Peyton Manning has both in spades, many quarterbacks don't.

Skipping over to basketball, the distinction between an offensive floor general and a defensive one is similar because the offensive player can command his player simply based on what he does with the ball, whereas the defensive player is behind his teammates and only has direct influence on his teammates on the fly if he tells them what he's doing.

And then of course there's the jack-of-all-trades connection. Middle linebackers are called this because if they're smart, they adjust to what's going on and change their role based on the needs of the play. Hence if a guy is an ideal classic middle linebacker, he's both making his teammates adjust based on his commands and adjusting himself even more than they do.

With all of this in mind, the analogy just comes to mind when we see Garnett's play in Boston. It popped to mind to me without anyone else telling me, and when I looked to see if others had said it first, they had indeed.

[Purch]

Which way are the Oscar voters gonna lean? Should be Intresting. Does their votes for West and Oscar show a preference towards offensive players?

[lorak]

"he's better offensively than Dirk. Dirk's merely a better scorer"

Who said that?

[Clyde Frazier]

...

KG- 8 (Dr MJ, Baller2014, Fplii, Realbig3, Ronny, Quo, RSDC, Drza)

Oscar- 7 (Javil, Owly, Hbreakhigh, Shaqattack, Lorak, Sacto, Quinn)

Kobe- 6 (GC Pan, UBF, bbfan?, Jbulls, Ardee, Dhogkins)

West- 1 (Moonbeam)

Assuming everyone is on board with Baller's numbers from page 20, we have had 5 votes since then . . .

MaGill, PCProductions, rich316 for Garnett (11)
trex8063, batmana for Kobe (8)
Oscar 7
West 1

I am not completely sold on Kobe Bryant but although I may be accused of winner's bias and think we tend to underestimate the influence of Phil Jackson, still, Kobe winning titles with Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom compared to Oscar's consistent mediocrity with Jerry Lucas (a player I actually think is underrated here) makes me give him the edge. Kobe v. KG I am still open to argument.

RUNOFF STARTS NOW

I was literally typing out my vote for oscar as you posted this. Up to you if you want to wait another say 15 min for me to post it...

[penbeast0]

That and middle linebackers have traditionally been cheap shotting, bad tempered, trash talking Dick Butkus types (I'd probably have that mentality growing up with the name Dick Butkus too).

[penbeast0]

If you voted Oscar, I'd probably throw in for Kobe just to get the ball rolling so . . . probably not relevant here.

[tsherkin]

I vote for Kobe, incidentally. more for the record than anything else.

[Doctor MJ]

There are plenty of modern players that will be discussed in this project that played during the RAPM era. I know it'll be a part of my analysis when it comes to guys like Dirk, Manu, and Nash.

Yup, it's not going anywhere. People tend to think that Garnett supporters latched on to it as a secret weapon to champion their guy, but it's the other way around if anything.

[Reservoirdawgs]

In the end, new stats are causing some people to really change the way they look at things, and so that's going to cause others to be frustrated or threatened by the change. It's natural, I just hope we can get to a certain point where this talk of methods settles down and people can just say they aren't convinced by something rather than escalating.

This RAPM and advanced stats discussion is actually sort of amusing for me since I can remember the boards back when TS% was introduced and there was quite a large backlash from some people because TS% didn't paint their player of choice in the best of light so they kept rejecting the metric while trumpeting "PPG is the most unbiased stat", or that the people who used if should "go back to the baseball forums with all of the other saber metrics". Now, TS% is universally used and seen as one of the best metrics to determine scoring. As we continue to further develop RAPM, work out the kinks and better understand how to apply it with the necessary context, I have no doubt that the next Project three years from now will have even more people using analysis through RAPM (as well as a new metric that will continue to increase our understanding and appreciation for the game).

At the very least, I have a better understanding if what RAPM is, and I have a better idea how I should use it in the future. I haven't had to use ridge regression since undergrad seven years ago in a public opinion data analysis class, so I've been a little rusty. Fortunately, a lot of people have graciously explained the process and answered my questions so I don't have to look like an idiot the nest time I use the stat inappropriqtely.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[Purch]

This project has been a great learning experience so far. I've always had a few questions about my top 10 that have been really addressed in this project so far.

Those questions were mainly about

1. Kareem vs Wilt vs Russel
2. Magic vs Bird vs Lebron
3. Oscar vs West vs Dr J

The main question I still want to get more info on Is about Moses vs D-Rob

[Doctor MJ]

That and middle linebackers have traditionally been cheap shotting, bad tempered, trash talking Dick Butkus types (I'd probably have that mentality growing up with the name Dick Butkus too).

Yeah there are two stereotypes: The brainy MLB and the brutal MLB.

[Reservoirdawgs]

MaGill, PCProductions, rich316 for Garnett (11)
trex8063, batmana for Kobe (8)
Oscar 7
West 1

Tsherkin voted for Kobe, so that's 11 for Garnett and 9 for Kobe. I'm interested to see how the Oscar people vote.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

In the end, new stats are causing some people to really change the way they look at things, and so that's going to cause others to be frustrated or threatened by the change. It's natural, I just hope we can get to a certain point where this talk of methods settles down and people can just say they aren't convinced by something rather than escalating.

This RAPM and advanced stats discussion is actually sort of amusing for me since I can remember the boards back when TS% was introduced and there was quite a large backlash from some people because TS% didn't paint their player of choice in the best of light so they kept rejecting the metric while trumpeting "PPG is the most unbiased stat", or that the people who used if should "go back to the baseball forums with all of the other saber metrics". As we continue to further develop RAPM, work out the kinks and better understand how to apply it with the necessary context, I have no doubt that the next Project three years from now will have even more people using analysis through RAPM (as well as a new metric that will continue to increase our understanding and appreciation for the game).

At the very least, I have a better understanding if what RAPM is, and I have a better idea how I should use it in the future. I haven't had to use ridge regression since undergrad seven years ago in a public opinion data analysis class, so I've been a little rusty. Fortunately, a lot of people have graciously explained the process and answered my questions so I don't have to look like an idiot the nest time I use the stat inappropriqtely.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

What's funny is that that these reluctances aren't even just a normal basketball fan thing. I remember going on APBRmetrics back in the day and getting mostly shouted down when I talked about using +/- stats. It's forever funny to me that afterward the surest way to get an NBA gig as a statistician became to go on that board and publicize your +/- work.

[Doctor MJ]

"he's better offensively than Dirk. Dirk's merely a better scorer"

Is that your characterization of what I said? To be clear, that's not what I said.

I said that KG was better at offensive outside of scoring than KG. But offense overall includes scoring and certainly I rank Dirk's overall offense ahead of KG's.

[semi-sentient]

Out of curiosity, are there RAPM numbers for just the playoffs?

[PCProductions]

"he's better offensively than Dirk. Dirk's merely a better scorer"

Is that your characterization of what I said? To be clear, that's not what I said.

I said that KG was better at offensive outside of scoring than KG. But offense overall includes scoring and certainly I rank Dirk's overall offense ahead of KG's.

Yeah I voted for KG and don't think anything like that either. He might be more "spread out" offensively since he's a slightly better facilitator and screener, but Dirk's scoring abilities definitely lift his offensive games above Garnett's. My vote is merely that the defensive difference between the two is bigger than the offensive difference. I think so, at least, but it sure is close.

[ThaRegul8r]

When we look at guys like Oscar & West we're looking for anything we can find to help guide us because it was so long ago, and hence it's good to see quotes. This doesn't mean those quote clinch anything. One quote said Oscar was better at everything in basketball than Michael Jordan, that's obviously absurd and shows why we always remain skeptical with anything like this.

Koppett's quote is clearly fanboyistic hyperbole, worthless as far as obtaining an accurate picture of anything. That's why each quote must be evaluated on its own merit; one can't just say,"Well, since Koppett's a respected writer, this quote should be okay."

As I've said before, if a player is truly great, there should be no need for embellishment. The unvarnished truth should be more than sufficient. That applies no less to Leonard Koppett than it does an anonymous poster on an online forum.

[Texas Chuck]

"he's better offensively than Dirk. Dirk's merely a better scorer"

Is that your characterization of what I said? To be clear, that's not what I said.

I said that KG was better at offensive outside of scoring than KG. But offense overall includes scoring and certainly I rank Dirk's overall offense ahead of KG's.

Considering our further discussion immediately in the shadows of that post where I tried explaining other areas Dirk might be seen to excel and you claimed those were all merely scoring-related and accused me essentially of creating categories to make Dirk look better you can see some of my confusion.

My apologies tho for getting that incorrect.