[POLL] Kevin Garnett: Where do you rank him?

[Ballerhogger]

I have him at number 15

[Rapcity_11]

Really? This thread is full of insecure KG fans complaining about what's being said EVEN though their guy was already voted in.

I'm just amused at how inane some of the arguments were and putting them out there to show how out there they are.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

If it was such inane and obviously crazy logic...then why did so many people get convinced by it?

Because most of the voters on the project would give their left nut to make sure Kobe was voted in as low as possible.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Maybe you should just quit Real GM? That's what all your posts imply these days.

(Not suggesting I want you to)

[picc]

I have a question.

First, I would rank Bryant over Garnett, which is probably not a surprise. Saw both of them enter and leave their primes, and at no point did I feel KG was a more dangerous player to an opposing team. I may be a homer, but I don't think i'm particularly biased - my logic is always reasonably consistent regardless of if its agreed with or not. I always felt Tim Duncan was a better player than Bryant was, for instance. All the way through 2007. Garnett's admittedly astounding box score/metric impact is somewhat of a shock to me since it never felt that way watching teams play him (with sporadic exceptions, of course).

Still, the above paragraph is littered with 'feelings' and 'eye-test' heavy rhetoric. Probably not as relevant here. Which brings me to my question.

I was under the impression that RAPM was created less for the purpose of inter-squad player comparisons meant to measure total basketball playing ability, and more for the purpose of measuring a players offensive and defensive contributions to their team in relation to their own teammates.

Meaning, for instance, that a great defensive player on a team devoid of other good/great defensive players will have a rating indicative of the load he carries relative to his teammates. And that the rating of another great defensive player (not talking about Kobe, or Kevin, here, to be clear - just a hypothetical), on a different team that had other exceptional defensive players, would 'suffer' as a result, while not necessarily being evidence of that latter player being significantly worse than the former at that particular end of the court.

ie. that if the first guy is an 7 Def per 100 rating, and the second guy is a 3.5, the stat is meant to illustrate that the first player is responsible for much more of his team's defensive success relative to the second....but not that he is statistically twice (or another scaling method that's probably more accurate) as effective a defender as the second. And that while its possible that the second situation is the reason for the statistical disparity, the RAPM rating is not so much hard evidence as it is a loose correlation that should be part of extensive further analysis.

Of course, its entirely possible I have no idea what i'm talking about. Don't hurt me too bad if that turns out to be the case.

[drza]

I have a question.

First, I would rank Bryant over Garnett, which is probably not a surprise. Saw both of them enter and leave their primes, and at no point did I feel KG was a more dangerous player to an opposing team. I may be a homer, but I don't think i'm particularly biased - my logic is always reasonably consistent regardless of its agreed with or not. I always felt Tim Duncan was a better player than Bryant was, for instance. All the way through 2007. Garnett's admittedly astounding box score/metric impact is somewhat of a shock to me since it never felt that way watching teams play him (with sporadic exceptions, of course).

Still, the above paragraph is littered with 'feelings' and 'eye-test' heavy rhetoric. Probably not as relevant here. Which brings me to my question.

I was under the impression that RAPM was created less for the purpose of inter-squad player comparisons meant to measure total basketball playing ability, and more for the purpose of measuring a players offensive and defensive contributions to their team in relation to their own teammates.

Meaning, for instance, that a great defensive player on a team devoid of other good/great defensive players will have a rating indicative of the load he carries relative to his teammates. And that the rating of another great defensive player (not talking about Kobe, or Kevin, here, to be clear - just a hypothetical), on a different team that had other exceptional defensive players, would 'suffer' as a result, while not necessarily being evidence of that latter player being significantly worse than the former at that particular end of the court.

ie. that if the first guy is an 7 Def per 100 rating, and the second guy is a 3.5, the stat is meant to illustrate that the first player is responsible for much more of his team's defensive success relative to the second....but not that he is statistically twice (or another scaling method that's probably more accurate) as effective a defender as the second. And that while its possible that the second situation is the reason for the statistical disparity, the RAPM rating is not so much hard evidence as it is a loose correlation that should be part of extensive further analysis.

Of course, its entirely possible I have no idea what i'm talking about. Don't hurt me too bad if that turns out to be the case.

You're a bit off, but I'm glad to see you ask the question. APM is a regression to estimate how much of a team's scoring margin can be correlated to the on court presence of a single player. So if the APM estimate were perfect, then each player's value would represent how many points their team out scored another per 100 possessions due to the presence of that player (and a player with no impact would be a zero)

But since it's an ill posed problem (think of it like high school algebra, having more equations than unknowns) then APM can't be calculated perfectly...instead it only gives a range of values where the actual value is likely to be found. The amount that the estimate differs from correct is the noise. Single season APM is very noisy...lots of potential issues. It doesn't do well, for example, with players that play together a lot that don't have many minutes on court without each other (colinearity). And players that play just a few minutes don't have enough observations for accuracy, and their values can fluctuate wildly and throw off the estimates for other players.

So, a technique called Ridge Regression is used to help with those issues. Ridge regression regularized the data and puts the 'R' in RAPM, and using it helps lower noise compared to APM. But, Regularizing changes the estimate enought that the perfect RAPM is no longer a direct correlation of how much the score changes due to a players presence. The scale is changed slightly.

Thus, the normalization that Doctor MJ did in his spreadsheet that is meant to convert single year RAPM estimates back to numbers that can be directly compared from year to year.

Tl;dr and I didn't even get into priors. Punch line - RAPM (if it is believed to be causative) is an estimate of how much one player is lifting his team. It's more broadly applicable than the kind of in squad comparison tool you described...it can be compared across teams. Of course, though, ther is some role and team dependence on the stat. That's why many of us like looking at a history of multiple single year studies in different situations to see how portable and/or robust a player's max impact is

ETA and of course you're right that the RAPM should never be a standalone measure. It's not 100% accurate and it has to be put into context and evaluated

[therealbig3]

Ok guys, I think we can all agree, the consensus ranking for Garnett is somewhere in that 4-30 range.

[disenfranchised]

I can't rank a player anywhere near my top 10 list if he can't carry a team to great success. KG, as has been proven, cannot carry a team offensively. You can't rely on him in pressure situations to make plays.

I put him at 15-20 at the highest.

[picc]

You're a bit off, but I'm glad to see you ask the question. APM is a regression to estimate how much of a team's scoring margin can be correlated to the on court presence of a single player. So if the APM estimate were perfect, then each player's value would represent how many points their team out scored another per 100 possessions due to the presence of that player (and a player with no impact would be a zero)

But since it's an ill posed problem (think of it like high school algebra, having more equations than unknowns) then APM can't be calculated perfectly...instead it only gives a range of values where the actual value is likely to be found. The amount that the estimate differs from correct is the noise. Single season APM is very noisy...lots of potential issues. It doesn't do well, for example, with players that play together a lot that don't have many minutes on court without each other (colinearity). And players that play just a few minutes don't have enough observations for accuracy, and their values can fluctuate wildly and throw off the estimates for other players.

So, a technique called Ridge Regression is used to help with those issues. Ridge regression regularized the data and puts the 'R' in RAPM, and using it helps lower noise compared to APM. But, Regularizing changes the estimate enough that the perfect RAPM is no longer a direct correlation of how much the score changes due to a players presence. The scale is changed slightly.

Thus, the normalization that Doctor MJ did in his spreadsheet that is meant to convert single year RAPM estimates back to numbers that can be directly compared from year to year.

Tl;dr and I didn't even get into priors. Punch line - RAPM (if it is believed to be causative) is an estimate of how much one player is lifting his team. It's more broadly applicable than the kind of in squad comparison tool you described...it can be compared across teams. Of course, though, ther is some role and team dependence on the stat. That's why many of us like looking at a history of multiple single year studies in different situations to see how portable and/or robust a player's max impact is

ETA and of course you're right that the RAPM should never be a standalone measure. It's not 100% accurate and it has to be put into context and evaluated

Interesting.

My first comment would be another question. How, precisely, does ridge regression compensate for the issues present in mundane APM? I think you began to explain in your post but possibly cut short for the sake of concision or time. But I’m interested – even if I can’t guarantee I’ll understand completely.

My instinct is that there are ultimately too many variables to accurately sum up players’ offensive or defensive value in one number considering wildly fluctuating things like teammates, coaching, playing style, and the opposition’s strategy, and it seems that’s what you’re intimating – that none of this is perfect and is meant to demonstrate relationships. Which I can see the merit in.

But with limited comprehension of this, courtesy of what you wrote along with some moderate skimming of the ratings lists for each year, I would make it a priority for myself to first analyze why individual players have such variance in their own scores from year to year. Particularly when lower scores are frequently given to the same player when he is commonly thought to have been in his offensive or defensive prime. Or vice versa with higher scores. Even with one team defensive personnel not significantly different from the next.

Only after this would I make an effort to apply the numbers to inter-player/team comparison. Which is its own can of worms, and would begin with questioning the weighting scale of each point awarded to the overall score for both offense and defense. Is a 2 point differential on offense equivalent to a 2 point differential on defense? Or does one add more value than the other depending on both the player’s position, and how much overall value you see one end of the court having compared to another?

[Striders]

If it was such inane and obviously crazy logic...then why did so many people get convinced by it?

Because most of the voters on the project would give their left nut to make sure Kobe was voted in as low as possible.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Maybe you should just quit Real GM? That's what all your posts imply these days.

(Not suggesting I want you to)

The way I see it, if you really think that the other posters were disingenuous in the discussion, then what's the freaking point in participating? This victim complex is so tiresome.

[Clyde Frazier]

Gasol was the best player in both Laker's championships and was robbed of 2 Finals MVP's.

Pau wasn't even remotely close to Bryant.

Dude wasn't even a top 10 player while Bryant was easily top 2-3 both seasons.

Kobe's box-scorer numbers **** on Pau's. His +/- numbers are far superior. He's commanding far more defensive attention. He's scoring 10+ more PPG and also do far more creating while only getting assisted on about 15% of his shots while Pau is at 50%+. Please. Please explain how Pau was even close to being the best player on those teams.

Seriously, this is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen.

Yes, the post you were responding to was a definite overstatement. Gasol did have a case for the 2010 finals MVP, though:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#LAL-BOS

Better net OFF/DEF rating, scored more efficiently, and had a better game 7 than kobe which basically was the deciding factor in them winning the championship.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 70LAL.html

[Melodabeast]

Of course he scored more efficiently. He was scoring 19 PPG against single-coverage with a usage% of 19%. Not to mention he was assisted on more than 50%+ of his shots. Kobe, meanwhile, was at 29 PPG while consistently facing double-teams and getting assisted on less than 20% of his shots. He doesn't have any argument given the fact that Bryant was far and way the best player on either team through 6 games, and Pau's game 7 was nothing special. In fact, he was quite mediocre. Dude went 6-16 with a TS% of 44%. Yeah, Kobe struggled too, but it's hilarious how people act like Pau had some great game. Overall, Kobe put better numbers while commanding far more defensive attention, and was the best player by thousands of miles through 6 games. A game 7 where both struggled doesn't change that.

[dautjazz]

I voted 13-14. Mostly on his Minnesota resume, his DPOY and championship for the Celtics were great, but he had one awesome year for Boston, then the injuries, and his best days were certainly a member of the Wolves. My top 14 are (order is approximate)..


1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Wilt
4. Russell
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Duncan
8. Shaq
9. Lebron
10. Olajuwon
11. Robertson
12a. Moses
12b. K. Malone
14. Garnett

BTW for those of you wondering, yes Kobe is 15 or beyond.

[Clyde Frazier]

Of course he scored more efficiently. He was scoring 19 PPG against single-coverage with a usage% of 19%. Not to mention he was assisted on more than 50%+ of his shots. Kobe, meanwhile, was at 29 PPG while consistently facing double-teams and getting assisted on less than 20% of his shots. He doesn't have any argument given the fact that Bryant was far and way the best player on either team through 6 games, and Pau's game 7 was nothing special. In fact, he was quite mediocre. Dude went 6-16 with a TS% of 44%. Yeah, Kobe struggled too, but it's hilarious how people act like Pau had some great game. Overall, Kobe put better numbers while commanding far more defensive attention, and was the best player by thousands of miles through 6 games. A game 7 where both struggled doesn't change that.

You don't have to make such grand exaggerations to make a point. Pau didn't shoot well in game 7. Kobe shot horribly. Pau overall clearly had a better game, kept them in it and he was the difference. Kobe's finals overall as a volume scorer on average at best efficiency doesn't scream finals MVP to me. All I said was Pau had a case. Didn't say he should've ran away with it and kobe was an insignificant factor or something...

[An Unbiased Fan]

Of course he scored more efficiently. He was scoring 19 PPG against single-coverage with a usage% of 19%. Not to mention he was assisted on more than 50%+ of his shots. Kobe, meanwhile, was at 29 PPG while consistently facing double-teams and getting assisted on less than 20% of his shots. He doesn't have any argument given the fact that Bryant was far and way the best player on either team through 6 games, and Pau's game 7 was nothing special. In fact, he was quite mediocre. Dude went 6-16 with a TS% of 44%. Yeah, Kobe struggled too, but it's hilarious how people act like Pau had some great game. Overall, Kobe put better numbers while commanding far more defensive attention, and was the best player by thousands of miles through 6 games. A game 7 where both struggled doesn't change that.

You don't have to make such grand exaggerations to make a point. Pau didn't shoot well in game 7. Kobe shot horribly. Pau overall clearly had a better game, kept them in it and he was the difference. Kobe's finals overall as a volume scorer on average at best efficiency doesn't scream finals MVP to me. All I said was Pau had a case. Didn't say he should've ran away with it and kobe was an insignificant factor or something...

I'm confused, how did Pau keep the Lakers in it? He only had 6 points at halftime. The Laker defense is what kept them in it. They were down by 4 going into the 4th, and then Kobe's offense started to hit.

The whole "Pau could have been 2010 Finals MVP" meme is just nonsense.

[andrewww]

Gasol was the best player in both Laker's championships and was robbed of 2 Finals MVP's.

Pau wasn't even remotely close to Bryant.

Dude wasn't even a top 10 player while Bryant was easily top 2-3 both seasons.

Kobe's box-scorer numbers **** on Pau's. His +/- numbers are far superior. He's commanding far more defensive attention. He's scoring 10+ more PPG and also do far more creating while only getting assisted on about 15% of his shots while Pau is at 50%+. Please. Please explain how Pau was even close to being the best player on those teams.

Seriously, this is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen.

Yes, the post you were responding to was a definite overstatement. Gasol did have a case for the 2010 finals MVP, though:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#LAL-BOS

Better net OFF/DEF rating, scored more efficiently, and had a better game 7 than kobe which basically was the deciding factor in them winning the championship.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 70LAL.html

There was discussion going into game 7 that win or lose, that Bryant could be the FMVP regardless of the end result. I love Pau, but c'mon.

It's like those who saw LeBron's great game 7, but didn't realize he was relatively sub par through games 1-6, which is almost the exact narrative for Kobe in the 2010 Finals.

[andrewww]

Of course he scored more efficiently. He was scoring 19 PPG against single-coverage with a usage% of 19%. Not to mention he was assisted on more than 50%+ of his shots. Kobe, meanwhile, was at 29 PPG while consistently facing double-teams and getting assisted on less than 20% of his shots. He doesn't have any argument given the fact that Bryant was far and way the best player on either team through 6 games, and Pau's game 7 was nothing special. In fact, he was quite mediocre. Dude went 6-16 with a TS% of 44%. Yeah, Kobe struggled too, but it's hilarious how people act like Pau had some great game. Overall, Kobe put better numbers while commanding far more defensive attention, and was the best player by thousands of miles through 6 games. A game 7 where both struggled doesn't change that.

You don't have to make such grand exaggerations to make a point. Pau didn't shoot well in game 7. Kobe shot horribly. Pau overall clearly had a better game, kept them in it and he was the difference. Kobe's finals overall as a volume scorer on average at best efficiency doesn't scream finals MVP to me. All I said was Pau had a case. Didn't say he should've ran away with it and kobe was an insignificant factor or something...

Go watch the series as a whole again without the haterade.

The fact that you're another Kobe hater on the realgm top 100 project is a joke.

I challenge any legit poster to make a claim that Pau should've been 2010 FMVP.

[Clyde Frazier]

Of course he scored more efficiently. He was scoring 19 PPG against single-coverage with a usage% of 19%. Not to mention he was assisted on more than 50%+ of his shots. Kobe, meanwhile, was at 29 PPG while consistently facing double-teams and getting assisted on less than 20% of his shots. He doesn't have any argument given the fact that Bryant was far and way the best player on either team through 6 games, and Pau's game 7 was nothing special. In fact, he was quite mediocre. Dude went 6-16 with a TS% of 44%. Yeah, Kobe struggled too, but it's hilarious how people act like Pau had some great game. Overall, Kobe put better numbers while commanding far more defensive attention, and was the best player by thousands of miles through 6 games. A game 7 where both struggled doesn't change that.

You don't have to make such grand exaggerations to make a point. Pau didn't shoot well in game 7. Kobe shot horribly. Pau overall clearly had a better game, kept them in it and he was the difference. Kobe's finals overall as a volume scorer on average at best efficiency doesn't scream finals MVP to me. All I said was Pau had a case. Didn't say he should've ran away with it and kobe was an insignificant factor or something...

I'm confused, how did Pau keep the Lakers in it? He only had 6 points at halftime. The Laker defense is what kept them in it. They were down by 4 going into the 4th, and then Kobe's offense started to hit.

The whole "Pau could have been 2010 Finals MVP" meme is just nonsense.

Kobe was a -4 on/off court for game 7. Gasol was a +10. They played 44 min and 42 min respectively. Is it the only thing to look it? Of course not, but it's yet another metric that helps Gasol's case.

"Los Angeles reclaimed the lead midway through and hung on with a few more big shots from Gasol, who had nine points in the period, and a remarkable clutch performance by Artest, a first-time champion as the only newcomer to last season’s roster." -- Associated Press

...A meme? Jeez.

[I see the game's on youtube. If I have a chance i'll re-watch it. 2010 wasn't that long ago, though. I remember the series well enough as far as i'm concerned.]

[Clyde Frazier]

Of course he scored more efficiently. He was scoring 19 PPG against single-coverage with a usage% of 19%. Not to mention he was assisted on more than 50%+ of his shots. Kobe, meanwhile, was at 29 PPG while consistently facing double-teams and getting assisted on less than 20% of his shots. He doesn't have any argument given the fact that Bryant was far and way the best player on either team through 6 games, and Pau's game 7 was nothing special. In fact, he was quite mediocre. Dude went 6-16 with a TS% of 44%. Yeah, Kobe struggled too, but it's hilarious how people act like Pau had some great game. Overall, Kobe put better numbers while commanding far more defensive attention, and was the best player by thousands of miles through 6 games. A game 7 where both struggled doesn't change that.

You don't have to make such grand exaggerations to make a point. Pau didn't shoot well in game 7. Kobe shot horribly. Pau overall clearly had a better game, kept them in it and he was the difference. Kobe's finals overall as a volume scorer on average at best efficiency doesn't scream finals MVP to me. All I said was Pau had a case. Didn't say he should've ran away with it and kobe was an insignificant factor or something...

Go watch the series as a whole again without the haterade.

The fact that you're another Kobe hater on the realgm top 100 project is a joke.

I challenge any legit poster to make a claim that Pau should've been 2010 FMVP.

You need to stop over-reacting and accusing anyone who hasn't voted for kobe yet as a "kobe hater". Not to mention insinuating that i'm not a "legit poster" for not having voted for him yet. I was actually just arguing for him in the thread for #13.

Also, there was essentially no chance kobe would've won finals MVP if the lakers lost the series. It only happened once, and it was the first time the award was given out.

Gasol had a case, period. It's not that outlandish of a claim.

[disenfranchised]

You don't have to make such grand exaggerations to make a point. Pau didn't shoot well in game 7. Kobe shot horribly. Pau overall clearly had a better game, kept them in it and he was the difference. Kobe's finals overall as a volume scorer on average at best efficiency doesn't scream finals MVP to me. All I said was Pau had a case. Didn't say he should've ran away with it and kobe was an insignificant factor or something...

I'm confused, how did Pau keep the Lakers in it? He only had 6 points at halftime. The Laker defense is what kept them in it. They were down by 4 going into the 4th, and then Kobe's offense started to hit.

The whole "Pau could have been 2010 Finals MVP" meme is just nonsense.

Kobe was a -4 on/off court for game 7. Gasol was a +10. They played 44 min and 42 min respectively. Is it the only thing to look it? Of course not, but it's yet another metric that helps Gasol's case.

"Los Angeles reclaimed the lead midway through and hung on with a few more big shots from Gasol, who had nine points in the period, and a remarkable clutch performance by Artest, a first-time champion as the only newcomer to last season’s roster." -- Associated Press

...A meme? Jeez.

[I see the game's on youtube. If I have a chance i'll re-watch it. 2010 wasn't that long ago, though. I remember the series well enough as far as i'm concerned.]

None of those numbers are correct.

[Clyde Frazier]

I'm confused, how did Pau keep the Lakers in it? He only had 6 points at halftime. The Laker defense is what kept them in it. They were down by 4 going into the 4th, and then Kobe's offense started to hit.

The whole "Pau could have been 2010 Finals MVP" meme is just nonsense.

Kobe was a -4 on/off court for game 7. Gasol was a +10. They played 44 min and 42 min respectively. Is it the only thing to look it? Of course not, but it's yet another metric that helps Gasol's case.

"Los Angeles reclaimed the lead midway through and hung on with a few more big shots from Gasol, who had nine points in the period, and a remarkable clutch performance by Artest, a first-time champion as the only newcomer to last season’s roster." -- Associated Press

...A meme? Jeez.

[I see the game's on youtube. If I have a chance i'll re-watch it. 2010 wasn't that long ago, though. I remember the series well enough as far as i'm concerned.]

None of those numbers are correct.

Yes, they're correct:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 70LAL.html

Maybe you're thinking of raw +/-, where kobe was at 0 and gasol was at +7 for the game.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Kobe was a -4 on/off court for game 7. Gasol was a +10. They played 44 min and 42 min respectively. Is it the only thing to look it? Of course not, but it's yet another metric that helps Gasol's case.

"Los Angeles reclaimed the lead midway through and hung on with a few more big shots from Gasol, who had nine points in the period, and a remarkable clutch performance by Artest, a first-time champion as the only newcomer to last season’s roster." -- Associated Press

...A meme? Jeez.

[I see the game's on youtube. If I have a chance i'll re-watch it. 2010 wasn't that long ago, though. I remember the series well enough as far as i'm concerned.]

Kobe had 10 points and 4 rebs in that same 4th quarter. I won't even touch the +/- because we know how wild those numbers are game to game.