RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #6

[wojoaderge]

Not really, but what does this prove? What makes him so great that he's deserving of a All-Time Top 10 placement despite a lack of wins? That he had a higher fg % and more apg than Elvin Hayes? That he had a longer prime than Bob McAdoo?

These are strawmans that have nothing to do with our conversation and you know it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app

Forget about the last two sentences then. What's so great about him?

[Colbinii]

Not really, but what does this prove? What makes him so great that he's deserving of a All-Time Top 10 placement despite a lack of wins? That he had a higher fg % and more apg than Elvin Hayes? That he had a longer prime than Bob McAdoo?

These are strawmans that have nothing to do with our conversation and you know it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app

Forget about the last two sentences then. What's so great about him?

Woj, I have not been active for this project yet, but I finally have time to put in time. I'll give you a well thouhht out reply in an hour or so, good lad.

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app

[Narigo]

What is the case for Garnett over Karl Malone?

Malone has much better super star longevity, better durabilty, and easier to build around.

[Jaivl]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but reading it now, it sums up the backwards logic that has turned me away from this project.

A lot of arguments have rested heavily on impact analysis, and yet, the most important question to answer has been entirely ignored. That is, how accurate are our estimates of player impact? I've been the only person to tackle this.

I posted the results of several simulations I ran regarding on/off numbers and still people try to draw meaning from incredibly small samples. It's absurd how even when presented with reason to cautiously use statistics no restraint is had. My guess is people think if they ignore the "bad" results in on/off or RAPM, then otherwise, these metrics are close to perfect. After all, so few arguments have gone beyond stats and actually discussed what the player did, that the prevailing thought must be these stats can accurately capture most everything about a player. If not, then I would expect less focus on statistics.

I wouldn't mind if you thought Dirk or KG was the GOAT. But when you say the arguments for Dirk or KG haven't been refuted, these arguments having been so focused on impact stats, it frustrates me because the burden is not to refute the stats but to prove they are significant. There's been a complete disregard for conducting proper analysis and it shows here.

That's not to say there hasn't been good posts and discussion, but too often, these threads read like excerpts on pseudoscience.

You are more than correct on some of your points. And obviously the "blah blah blah couldn't refute them" was an hyperbole. But

1) KG's arguments don't rest solely on WOWY.
2) Assuming that WOWY correlates well with impact, results are statistically significant with samples of above 30 games.

About your simulation, well, we the other posters, don't know anything about the simulation itself.

[An Unbiased Fan]

My argument for KG is the same as Duncan and Hakeem, he is an all time defender + great offense, not Magic level, but great enough. Unless someone makes a convincing argument that Garnett is noticeably worse as a defender or offensive player than them, I don't see a reason to create this big gap between them.

What is KG T-Wolves defense ranks in the league? I don't think KG is a good anchor. He is a great complentary defensive player, in the tune of a Pip or Lebron rather than a Hakeem/D-Rob.

Look at 08. He had quality teammates instead of garbage, and had a historic defense.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Problem with this is that Hakeem had weak support too, but was able to anchor great defenses despite that. For the talk of KG defensive impact, why was Minny so bad? One wouldn't expect them to be the best, but they weren't anywhere comparable to Hakeem's.

DRTG
96 Min - #20
97 Min - #15
98 Min - #23
99 Min - #11
00 Min - #12
01 Min - #16
02 Min - #15
03 Min - #16
04 Min - #6
05 Min - #15
06 Min - #10
07 Min - #21

Boston had a historically great defense in 2008, yes. But one great year does not equal TD and Hakeem or other great defensive anchors. KG was often injured after 08, and even when he was hurt they were good defensively.

Further, when we look at all-time great defensive or offensive anchors, there a clear impact shown on their teams. You pretty much never see an elite d-anchor or o-anchor have their team dip below #15 in DRtg/ORtg. #10 is very rare, and they usually are in the Top 5. KG doesn't stack up to Russell, TD, DRob, or Hakeem in this regard. Maybe around the level of Alonzo.

[wojoaderge]

Woj, I have not been active for this project yet, but I finally have time to put in time. I'll give you a well thouhht out reply in an hour or so, good lad.

I appreciate your response ahead of time. I'm certainly going to read it. I don't know, though. Like I said, I can reasonably see him as Top 20 great, but being Top 10 great is way too much of a stretch for me. Look at Moses Malone, for example. Nobody has even mentioned him yet, but Moses<KG and/or Dirk just doesn't compute to me.

[Jaivl]

Malone has much better super star longevity

Not the same "superstar" quality.

and easier to build around.

Why? Because Minnesota's front office was incompetent? Garnett actually led a team to the championship.

[eminence]

What is the case for Garnett over Karl Malone?

Malone has much better super star longevity, better durabilty, and easier to build around.

My reasons:

I think the peak/prime gap between them is pretty dang large. Malone to me is a Harden level player at his best, KG is on the Curry/LeBron level (just using current guys as an example, and obviously many people disagree with those tiers, but I hope the point shines through).

I don't feel the star longevity gap is much if anything, '97 to '12 vs '87 to '03.

I agree on durability.

Most strongly though I absolutely disagree with easier to build around. Malone needs a very specific set of players around him to be elite on offense and was a good but not great defender who didn't move the needle much for help defense. KG I feel can fit with almost anyone, and defense of his level will always be nice, whether you're trotting him out at the 3/4/5.

[mtron929]

But that's literally the worst way to go into an open minded discussion.

I want to be as open minded to the inevitable Kobe in top 10 discussion as I can be. I am human, and can be wrong, and am often. I hope that those who do things like that will also be open minded for my KG at 6 thinking, or my Dirk in top 10 discussion.

What you just said is problematic, but at least you vocalized it. You, in effect, said "my presuppositions cannot be wrong, so any discussion contrary to my presuppositions is useless."

I'm not saying you're wrong and i'm right. I'm just saying that in my view, no player(talking about KG) that couldn't lead a team to a championship as it's unequivocal best player deserves a Top 10 ranking. There are just too many players clearly ahead of them. I can reasonably put Dirk in the mid-teens and KG in the late teens. I mean, we're talking Top 10 in all of pro basketball history, not just the 21st century.

What many people believe is that every single player in NBA history has had different circumstances. This, is not arguable or reputable.

What KG supports claim is his circumstances in Minnesota were simply impossible for ANY player in history to win. Can you make a case that a player could have won in any of those years?

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app

I acknowledge that it was impossible for any player in history to win a championship with those teams but that is ignoring a lot of the nuances of the context. The more interesting question is roughly how many players would have had better success compared to Garnett under these circumstances? I think certainly guys like Shaq, Lebron, Olajuwon would have had better success compared to KG. I also think someone like Dirk would have led the team to more wins than KG. That is the nuance of the argument.

[THKNKG]

What is KG T-Wolves defense ranks in the league? I don't think KG is a good anchor. He is a great complentary defensive player, in the tune of a Pip or Lebron rather than a Hakeem/D-Rob.

Look at 08. He had quality teammates instead of garbage, and had a historic defense.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Problem with this is that Hakeem had weak support too, but was able to anchor great defenses despite that. For the talk of KG defensive impact, why was Minny so bad? One wouldn't expect them to be the best, but they weren't anywhere comparable to Hakeem's.

DRTG
96 Min - #20
97 Min - #15
98 Min - #23
99 Min - #11
00 Min - #12
01 Min - #16
02 Min - #15
03 Min - #16
04 Min - #6
05 Min - #15
06 Min - #10
07 Min - #21

Boston had a historically great defense in 2008, yes. But one great year does not equal TD and Hakeem or other great defensive anchors. KG was often injured after 08, and even when he was hurt they were good defensively.

Further, when we look at all-time great defensive or offensive anchors, there a clear impact shown on their teams. You pretty much never see an elite d-anchor or o-anchor have their team dip below #15 in DRtg/ORtg. #10 is very rare, and they usually are in the Top 5. KG doesn't stack up to Russell, TD, DRob, or Hakeem in this regard. Maybe around the level of Alonzo.

2 questions:

Did Hakeem ever anchor ATG defenses?

How many years were the teammate mediocrity of the two comparable?

[ThaRegul8r]

I somewhat expect Wilt to run away with this one, but who knows? Maybe Magic, Shaq, or Hakeem will suddenly emerge as serious competition.

It would be odd for the Wilt people to suddenly give up just because their guy narrowly missed the last spot.

It's not that I expect his support to disappear, but he'll need some new support to emerge or a ton of support NOT suddenly emerging for ONE other player. It's like what happened with Lebron/Russell in the #2/3 threads. The initial count on the #2 thread was:

Kareem - 14
Russell - 8
Lebron - 3
Duncan - 2

Seems like Russell's comfortably ahead of Lebron. But then the #3 thread count was:

Lebron - 15
Russell - 10
Duncan - 6
Hakeem - 1

Well, one possible explanation for that is that Russell supporters typically start voting for Russell at #1 onwards, and since Jordan at #1 is a given, they'd vote for him at #2, and continue to do so until he got in. Whereas people thought #2 was too high for LeBron at this current moment in time (I suspect it'll be different next time in 2020), but after Kareem got in felt #3 was appropriate. ESPN voted LeBron at #3 also last year during their All-Time #NBArank.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Look at 08. He had quality teammates instead of garbage, and had a historic defense.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Problem with this is that Hakeem had weak support too, but was able to anchor great defenses despite that. For the talk of KG defensive impact, why was Minny so bad? One wouldn't expect them to be the best, but they weren't anywhere comparable to Hakeem's.

DRTG
96 Min - #20
97 Min - #15
98 Min - #23
99 Min - #11
00 Min - #12
01 Min - #16
02 Min - #15
03 Min - #16
04 Min - #6
05 Min - #15
06 Min - #10
07 Min - #21

Boston had a historically great defense in 2008, yes. But one great year does not equal TD and Hakeem or other great defensive anchors. KG was often injured after 08, and even when he was hurt they were good defensively.

Further, when we look at all-time great defensive or offensive anchors, there a clear impact shown on their teams. You pretty much never see an elite d-anchor or o-anchor have their team dip below #15 in DRtg/ORtg. #10 is very rare, and they usually are in the Top 5. KG doesn't stack up to Russell, TD, DRob, or Hakeem in this regard. Maybe around the level of Alonzo.

2 questions:

Did Hakeem ever anchor ATG defenses?

How many years were the teammate mediocrity of the two comparable?

1) Did Hakeem ever anchor an ATG defense....no. But he never had a team in his prime like KG did in Boston. He anchored squads comparable to KG's Minny squads, but led them to far better defenses. Houston had a couple #1 defense, and was nearly always good. Put Hakeem on Boston and they are at least as great, but likely better.

2) Hakeem's whole career up until maybe 95' was mediocre support.

[THKNKG]

Problem with this is that Hakeem had weak support too, but was able to anchor great defenses despite that. For the talk of KG defensive impact, why was Minny so bad? One wouldn't expect them to be the best, but they weren't anywhere comparable to Hakeem's.

DRTG
96 Min - #20
97 Min - #15
98 Min - #23
99 Min - #11
00 Min - #12
01 Min - #16
02 Min - #15
03 Min - #16
04 Min - #6
05 Min - #15
06 Min - #10
07 Min - #21

Boston had a historically great defense in 2008, yes. But one great year does not equal TD and Hakeem or other great defensive anchors. KG was often injured after 08, and even when he was hurt they were good defensively.

Further, when we look at all-time great defensive or offensive anchors, there a clear impact shown on their teams. You pretty much never see an elite d-anchor or o-anchor have their team dip below #15 in DRtg/ORtg. #10 is very rare, and they usually are in the Top 5. KG doesn't stack up to Russell, TD, DRob, or Hakeem in this regard. Maybe around the level of Alonzo.

2 questions:

Did Hakeem ever anchor ATG defenses?

How many years were the teammate mediocrity of the two comparable?

1) Did Hakeem ever anchor an ATG defense....no. But he never had a team in his prime like KG did in Boston. He anchored squads comparable to KG's Minny squads, but led them to far better defenses. Houston had a couple #1 defense, and was nearly always good. Put Hakeem on Boston and they are at least as great, but likely better.

2) Hakeem's whole career up until maybe 95' was mediocre support.

the level of "mediocre" Hakeem played with doesn't approach the level of "mediocre" KG played with. The one year in Minny he had a good playoff caliber team, he led a really solid defense.

[rebirthoftheM]

2 questions:

Did Hakeem ever anchor ATG defenses?

How many years were the teammate mediocrity of the two comparable?

1) Did Hakeem ever anchor an ATG defense....no. But he never had a team in his prime like KG did in Boston. He anchored squads comparable to KG's Minny squads, but led them to far better defenses. Houston had a couple #1 defense, and was nearly always good. Put Hakeem on Boston and they are at least as great, but likely better.

2) Hakeem's whole career up until maybe 95' was mediocre support.

the level of "mediocre" Hakeem played with doesn't approach the level of "mediocre" KG played with. The one year in Minny he had a good playoff caliber team, he led a really solid defense.

Which is why we should be very careful in attributing team defensive successes to a player like we do with offensive successes. Many have made the claim that KG was lifting his teams more on offense than he did on defense, and this was not an effort issue on his behalf. It simply is more difficult for one player to impact defenses like they impact offenses because of the very nature of offense/defense in the NBA. Defense is far more team based. On the offensive end meanwhile, we've seen ATG offensive players lift terribly spaced, offensively challenged squads to far higher heights than ATG defensive players with bad defensive squads. I hope this point is explored further re KG etc.

[mischievous]

I hope it's okay if I can jump in at this point. Garnett is getting traction and he deserves it. If people are having him more than a couple of spots behind Duncan, I think there's a problem. Dirk is also a guy I'll make a case for, I have him over Bird and probably Magic. I don't see Wilt being a candidate for me for several more spots. He's way too problematic and the best we saw from him certainly isn't better than what we saw from Shaq, who doesn't exactly have a clean record himself.

You think Dirk is a top 6 candidate? I get you are high on him, but my god are you overrating him. I've yet to see a convincing argument for Dirk to rank ahead of Kobe career wise. Kobe has the stroger resume to start with, and it's not like Dirk has some noticeable edge in box scores or the oh so loved RAPM. Dirk's a longevity guy and he barely has that over Kobe if at all.

[An Unbiased Fan]

the level of "mediocre" Hakeem played with doesn't approach the level of "mediocre" KG played with. The one year in Minny he had a good playoff caliber team, he led a really solid defense.

This simply isn't true. Hakeem's support was just as weak, if not worse overall.

But let's expand on this a bit. To be clear, Prime KG missed the playoffs 3 straight seasons. Had he not joined the Boston super team, we wouldn't even be talking about him for a while. We've seen other stars with weak casts, and if they're a great defensive anchor like Hakeem they still are solid on D and competitive. If they're a great offensive anchor then they're still solid on offense and competitive. Amongst his peers of TD, Hakeem, Kobe, Dirk, Shaq, we find KG behind by a good margin when it comes to leading a team to great offense or defense. Like I said earlier, where's the tangible team impact? If KG is the #6 player ever, why did his teams flounder in Minny? In aspects he's heralded in no less.

When we go further in time, we get to a Magic who is arguably the GOAT offensive player, and Bird who's impact seems to dwarf that of KG. Again, I'm open to arguments for KG, but the "his support" argument doesn't quite cut it. In Boston he won a title, but that team never did again. As a super team they were underwhelming.

[JordansBulls]

I hope it's okay if I can jump in at this point. Garnett is getting traction and he deserves it. If people are having him more than a couple of spots behind Duncan, I think there's a problem. Dirk is also a guy I'll make a case for, I have him over Bird and probably Magic. I don't see Wilt being a candidate for me for several more spots. He's way too problematic and the best we saw from him certainly isn't better than what we saw from Shaq, who doesn't exactly have a clean record himself.

You think Dirk is a top 6 candidate? I get you are high on him, but my god are you overrating him. I've yet to see a convincing argument for Dirk to rank ahead of Kobe career wise. Kobe has the stroger resume to start with, and it's not like Dirk has some noticeable edge in box scores or the oh so loved RAPM. Dirk's a longevity guy and he barely has that over Kobe if at all.

Also don't get the longevity argument either unless the player is getting titles as the best player on the squad, league mvp's or finals mvp's in the process.

[Blackmill]

About your simulation, well, we the other posters, don't know anything about the simulation itself.

I did explain it. A turnover, two-point attempt, three-point attempt, or free throw attempts occur with league average probability. The selection is made by uniform random variable. Shot attempts make or miss according to a Binomial random variable with success probability equal to the league average. In the case of a miss, an offensive rebound occurs similarly, according to a Binomial random variable with league average success probability. Thus, players in the simulation are "true" zeros, who don't influence their team's oRTG or dRTG. The simulation does not allow for and-1's or offensive rebounds from missed free throws.

But if your response is "we don't know enough about your simulation" then you completely missed the point. My issue is I was the only person to attempt such a simulation. At minimum, people should have read about my simulation and thought, "hey, we need to take a closer look at the integrity of the conclusions we're making", and perhaps made simulations of their own.

You are more than correct on some of your points. And obviously the "blah blah blah couldn't refute them" was an hyperbole. But

1) KG's arguments don't rest solely on WOWY.
2) Assuming that WOWY correlates well with impact, results are statistically significant with samples of above 30 games.

I know KG's arguments extend beyond WOWY. But, so far, impact data has been his primary support in the arguments I've read.

I don't think your second point can be accurate. Statistical significance typically refers to the probability of a result at least as extreme as the observed result assuming the null hypothesis. Thus, it depends on the observed results, and not just the number of games played. For instance, a difference of 5 between two realizations of random variables will (usually) be statistically significant in a smaller sample than a difference of 10, under the null hypothesis that the two random variables are the same.

[Outside]

Well, all I can do is apply my votes where I think they're deserved. So once again:

Vote: Wilt
Alternate: Magic

Rather than repeat what I and others have said for several threads in favor of Wilt, I'll summarize my reasoning for why I have him over some of the other candidates.

vs Shaq -- Wilt was the far more consistent and productive performer. Shaq played more seasons but missed many games, and Wilt has significantly more minutes played. Shaq was at his dominating best in 2001, but he took a while to get to that point and faded significantly after leaving the Lakers in 2004. Those who prefer Shaq over Wilt seem to apply his peak 2001 level across his career, which wasn't the case, and discount Wilt's sustained productivity from start to finish.

vs Magic -- Wilt was so dominating offensively, but it's essentially a tossup at that end because Magic was also so impactful offensively. Defense is a clear win for Wilt. I give Magic an edge in leadership/winning/intangibles, though I don't view that all as Magic=good, Wilt=bad as some people appear to. Overall, they're close but I give the edge to Wilt, which is why my vote is what it is.

vs. Bird -- I give Magic the edge over Bird due to overall titles and H2H titles and considering that both were on all-time great teams. Therefore, using transitive reasoning to simplify my ranking process, since Wilt > Magic and Magic > Bird, Wilt > Bird.

vs Hakeem -- Both had the misfortune of playing at the same time as all-time dynasties (a combo of Lakers/Celts, Pistons, and Bulls for Hakeem), so they're kindred spirits in that regard. Stylistically, I like Hakeem's game better, but Wilt was more dominating offensively while both were elite defensively. Hakeem's career had far less drama, so an edge for him there. I want to like Hakeem more, but every time I look at the numbers, Wilt wins out -- not just raw stats, but win shares, times leading the league in various categories, number of MVPs, and so on.

vs David Robinson -- Robinson is another great player, but to me, he's not in the same tier. From what I can tell, he's a darling of advanced analytics, but that overlooks that a) the level of stats recorded in Wilt's day was basic; and b) the basic stats are all in Wilt's favor, and I'm talking more about relative to the competition of the day than in Wilt stats vs Robinson stats. Four MVPs vs one MVP should count for something.

vs KG -- Some things are simpler than others for me. I love KG, and he's my favorite defensive player of this millennium. Fantastic defensive intelligence, intensity, and attitude, maybe second to only Russell. The thing is, Wilt was a great defender too, and he's significantly superior to KG in almost everything else (KG was a better perimeter shooter and FT shooter). I don't understand the argument in favor of KG over Wilt.

vs Dirk -- again, I don't understand this argument. Dirk is a better shooter, is a no-drama guy like Hakeem, and... that's it. He has a perceived advantage in longevity, but that's illusory because their total minutes are almost the same, and Dirk's pile of points accumulated over the years is tremendous, but he's still behind Wilt. Dirk is an excellent shooter and scorer who has hardly ever led the league in anything. He came close to averaging double-digit rebounds a few times but never did. Not exactly the swiftest of foot or most motivated on defense. I like Dirk, he's a lock for the Hall of Fame, but he doesn't come close to stacking up against Wilt. Why am I having to beat up poor Dirk?

The biggest issue is that I see arguments against Wilt that aren't applied equally. MJ scored at a higher rate adjusted for pace, but he's the GOAT while Wilt's scoring is somehow an argument against him, that he was selfish and a stat padder. Wilt wasn't a winner because he always lost to Russell's Celtics, but LeBron losing five of eight finals is brushed aside and even an argument in his favor, leading overmatched teammates valiantly against vastly superior opponents. Wilt's era was garbage so nothing that happened then counts, but Kareem is ranked number 2 despite playing in the watered down expansion 70s and Russell is ranked number 4 despite playing in largely the same era as Wilt.

Here's the Leaderboard section of Wilt's basketball-reference.com page:

Spoiler:

All those items in bold represent times he led the league in that category for that season. Not just raw numbers inflated for pace, but in comparison to his contemporaries.

Compare that to, say, Shaq:

Spoiler:

Very nice, though it doesn't stack up to Wilt. Then look a little closer and realize that Shaq's page includes 19 categories that aren't available for Wilt -- weekly awards, monthly awards, offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, blocks, turnovers, personal fouls, blocks per game, offensive rebound percentage, defensive rebound percentage, block percentage, turnover percentage, usage rate, offensive rating, defensive rating, BPM, OBPM, DBPM, and VORP. I'd say Wilt would show up on many of those lists.

In summary, it's Wilt.

[mtron929]

People are so ready to get angry about KG (myself included) that KG discussion is taking over already.