Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ
penbeast0 wrote:colts18 wrote:(Shaq but no alternative, need that for vote to count)
drza wrote:RAPM gets a mixed response aropund here, so take this for what it's worth. But, Defensive RAPM is one approach that was not at all surprised that KG was the best defensive player of 2008...because according to DRAPM, he was the top impact defender of 2007 as well.
2007 DRAPM
1. Kevin Garnett
2) Erick Dampier
3) Dikembe Mutombo
4) Jarron Collins
5) Shane Battier
2008 DRAPM
1) Kevin Garnett
2) Chuck Hayes
3) Jermaine O'Neal
4) Dikembe Mutombo
5) Jarron Collins
( 6) Tim Duncan )
*It has been pointed out in this thread, that in 2006 and 2007, the Wolves without KG played at a -12 level
*It has been pointed out, in this thread, that essentially every rotation player on the 2007 Wolves (except then-rookie Randy Foye) was out of the league shortly after that season, not for age reasons
*I've pointed out that, by every publicly available quantitative approach I can think of (e.g. 3 different boxscore methods & +/-), 2007 Garnett had very arguably the worst supporting cast of any star player in history
--> DRAPM, which regresses an individual's presence on the court with changes in the team's scoring margin, indicated that Garnett was pulling HUGE defensive weight to get that team defense to average. As in, he was pulling more defensive weight than any other player in the NBA in 2007, just to get that mess of a cast to defensively average. There was (and is) a tendency to scoff at that notion, but then in 2008 his cast went from historically terrible to defensively solid, and he takes that level of cast to a historic defense. Again, with his presence correlating to the biggest positive defensive impact in the league.
Looking only (or even primarily) at global team results isn't necessarily the best way to evaluate an individual in cases when we have a lot more context and specific data to utilize to come to our conclusions. My quick 2 cents, anyway.
70sFan wrote:So, by DRAPM Duncan wasn't top 5 defender in 2007? It doesn't look very well to me...
Xherdan 23 wrote:drza wrote:RAPM gets a mixed response aropund here, so take this for what it's worth. But, Defensive RAPM is one approach that was not at all surprised that KG was the best defensive player of 2008...because according to DRAPM, he was the top impact defender of 2007 as well.
2007 DRAPM
1. Kevin Garnett
2) Erick Dampier
3) Dikembe Mutombo
4) Jarron Collins
5) Shane Battier
2008 DRAPM
1) Kevin Garnett
2) Chuck Hayes
3) Jermaine O'Neal
4) Dikembe Mutombo
5) Jarron Collins
( 6) Tim Duncan )
*It has been pointed out in this thread, that in 2006 and 2007, the Wolves without KG played at a -12 level
*It has been pointed out, in this thread, that essentially every rotation player on the 2007 Wolves (except then-rookie Randy Foye) was out of the league shortly after that season, not for age reasons
*I've pointed out that, by every publicly available quantitative approach I can think of (e.g. 3 different boxscore methods & +/-), 2007 Garnett had very arguably the worst supporting cast of any star player in history
--> DRAPM, which regresses an individual's presence on the court with changes in the team's scoring margin, indicated that Garnett was pulling HUGE defensive weight to get that team defense to average. As in, he was pulling more defensive weight than any other player in the NBA in 2007, just to get that mess of a cast to defensively average. There was (and is) a tendency to scoff at that notion, but then in 2008 his cast went from historically terrible to defensively solid, and he takes that level of cast to a historic defense. Again, with his presence correlating to the biggest positive defensive impact in the league.
Looking only (or even primarily) at global team results isn't necessarily the best way to evaluate an individual in cases when we have a lot more context and specific data to utilize to come to our conclusions. My quick 2 cents, anyway.
Would you mind explaining to me how DRAPM is calculated? Meaning, would a better cast from the bench affect KG's numbers even if he's playing exactly the same?
If it does affect his numbers, would he look better or worse with a better defensive cast?
I've said it before, I'm not much of a stats guy, mostly because I don't understand them and never bothered to dig deep into how they're being calculated.
My perception of KG as a weaker defender in Minnesota (note: weaker in comparison to the defensive monster that was Boston KG, not a weak defender in general) comes from watching him these years and getting the same vibe I got from this year's Kawhi and LeBron - it's not that they're not capable defenders, it's that their offensive responsibilities are taking a toll on them and it shows on defense.
I'm not trying to argue that KG wasn't a great defender in Minny, only that he wasn't GOAT level like he was on Boston.
Dr Positivity wrote:68 was an abnormally strong year for the Lakers. If you compare 69 Lakers to the other West and Baylor teams, Wilt's impact looks a little better, still not through the roof though. It's possible the pre 68 Lakers teams are a better comparison for a team that lost a lot of depth to get Wilt. Wilt's 2nd season with the Lakers where he plays 12 Gs is also a not bad measure for his value to them, they ended up having a noticeably worse season despite having a 21ppg Happy Hairston. On the whole I would say Wilt likely has value to the Lakers his first few seasons. But if it's just making them 55 W team instead of 45 W team, that's probably still below what other contenders do here. I side with Wilt's impact to Warriors and Sixers looking positive as well (Improves team in rookie season, is catalyst to PHI quickly rising to the top ), although the question again is whether it's enough to be put over some sick players impact wise
Doctor MJ wrote:Dr Positivity wrote:68 was an abnormally strong year for the Lakers. If you compare 69 Lakers to the other West and Baylor teams, Wilt's impact looks a little better, still not through the roof though. It's possible the pre 68 Lakers teams are a better comparison for a team that lost a lot of depth to get Wilt. Wilt's 2nd season with the Lakers where he plays 12 Gs is also a not bad measure for his value to them, they ended up having a noticeably worse season despite having a 21ppg Happy Hairston. On the whole I would say Wilt likely has value to the Lakers his first few seasons. But if it's just making them 55 W team instead of 45 W team, that's probably still below what other contenders do here. I side with Wilt's impact to Warriors and Sixers looking positive as well (Improves team in rookie season, is catalyst to PHI quickly rising to the top ), although the question again is whether it's enough to be put over some sick players impact wise
Well they implemented the Princeton in '68 so it's not random that the Lakers were stronger. They had finally figured something out with the the help of a new coach who would shortly have his career ruined by Wilt.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Xherdan 23 wrote:mischievous wrote:Dr Spaceman wrote:
Hakeem didn't peak on both ends at the same time. 90 is one of the best defensive seasons of all time. People rave about it. Why don't they rave about 91? 92? 88? 93-95 is one of the better offensive big man peaks in history. But it's widely acknowledged his defense slipped those years, especially in the RS.
I don't want Hakeem's 93-95 stretch to be projected over his whole career. He wasn't always that guy. His effort waned, he was a hothead (to the degree he had a religious conversion and added the 'H') he feuded with management, and he's admitted he was not a great guy to be around in his 20s. He could absolutely explode, like he did in the 86 playoffs, but he could also be over aggressive, biting on fouls and having extreme tunnel vision. He didn't really "get" how an offense should flow early in his career, and would demand the ball and shoot over double teams with alarming frequency.
I don't think it's incorrect to say Dirk had a better career based on his off-peak seasons even if Hakeem peaked higher.
But has any of that stuff ever prevented him from playing at a high level or succeeding? And does he have any seasons in there where his team got upset from his own poor play like Dirk in 07 or 06?
I can say that Dirk wasn't always the same guy that we saw in 06 and 2011. Still great, but he had his issues like weaker defense earlier in his career, and even when his defense improved I don't think he was much over neutral if at all.
'07 is a 6 game sample against a bad matchup.
True, Dirk played bad in the series but every player had at least one series like that (I don't hold Hakeem's 4 straight first round exits followed by a missed playoff against him, do you?).
I don't think it would be remembered that much if the Mavs hadn't overachieved in the regular season and Dirk wouldn't get the MVP in a suit.
As for '06, how did his team got upset from his poor play?
They came into the season, playoff and finals as the underdog with a team that had no business sniffing the playoffs without Dirk, let alone the finals.
How was Dirk supposed to stop D-Wade in that series? Especially from the free throw line.
Yes, he had trouble with shorter, stronger, aggressive defenders like Haslem and Captain Jack, but he did a fine job against Miami and wasn't his team's problem in any way.
The season after the "we believe" series he came back with a complete post game to punish these smaller defenders which is something I don't think gets enough credit for (same with MJ and LeBron improving their post game or Duncan improving free throws as opposed to Shaq not working on FT and KD still not having a post game).
Xherdan 23 wrote:drza wrote:Spoiler:
Would you mind explaining to me how DRAPM is calculated? Meaning, would a better cast from the bench affect KG's numbers even if he's playing exactly the same?
If it does affect his numbers, would he look better or worse with a better defensive cast?
I've said it before, I'm not much of a stats guy, mostly because I don't understand them and never bothered to dig deep into how they're being calculated.
My perception of KG as a weaker defender in Minnesota (note: weaker in comparison to the defensive monster that was Boston KG, not a weak defender in general) comes from watching him these years and getting the same vibe I got from this year's Kawhi and LeBron - it's not that they're not capable defenders, it's that their offensive responsibilities are taking a toll on them and it shows on defense.
I'm not trying to argue that KG wasn't a great defender in Minny, only that he wasn't GOAT level like he was on Boston.
mischievous wrote:Ultimately it's not about holding a series or 2 against a player, it's just Spaceman is trying to hold Hakeem's attitude, etc against him earlier in his career. He still performed well and had an excellent career, so I don't see how that's a legit reason to take Dirk over him. Hakeem wasn't perfect pre-peak but it's not like Dirk was god.
drza wrote:Spoiler:
Doctor MJ wrote:Dr Positivity wrote:68 was an abnormally strong year for the Lakers. If you compare 69 Lakers to the other West and Baylor teams, Wilt's impact looks a little better, still not through the roof though. It's possible the pre 68 Lakers teams are a better comparison for a team that lost a lot of depth to get Wilt. Wilt's 2nd season with the Lakers where he plays 12 Gs is also a not bad measure for his value to them, they ended up having a noticeably worse season despite having a 21ppg Happy Hairston. On the whole I would say Wilt likely has value to the Lakers his first few seasons. But if it's just making them 55 W team instead of 45 W team, that's probably still below what other contenders do here. I side with Wilt's impact to Warriors and Sixers looking positive as well (Improves team in rookie season, is catalyst to PHI quickly rising to the top ), although the question again is whether it's enough to be put over some sick players impact wise
Well they implemented the Princeton in '68 so it's not random that the Lakers were stronger. They had finally figured something out with the the help of a new coach who would shortly have his career ruined by Wilt.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
eminence wrote:
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).
eminence wrote:
I don't feel the star longevity gap is much if anything, '97 to '12 vs '87 to '03.
Dr Spaceman wrote:An Unbiased Fan wrote:Dr Spaceman wrote: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.
I would be intersted in hearing arguments/evidence for Dirk over Magic/Bird, because I don't quite see any.
Well, it's going to depend on your criteria of course, which I'm not sure of at this time. If you've posted them anywhere on here, that would be helpful.
But, generally speaking, Dirk has a prime that should be up there with anyone. 11 straight All Star selections, 11 straight All-NBA selections in the single most talented position in the league (competing with Duncan and Garnett), league MVP, Finals MVP, and 11 straight 50 win seasons. Dirk gave his team 11 straight seasons of deep playoff contention, pretty much exactly what Bird and Magic gave you, and he did it without a best in league supporting cast (Bird) and an owner willing to spend unprecedented money and being paired with the second best player of all time according to this board (Magic). Dirk also held on until age 35, where he was scoring 22 a game on .603 TS and a 24 PER, at which age Bird and Magic had been sitting at home for years.
Now, re: Magic specifically, I think it's important to keep in mind Magic didn't truly become MAGIC until 1987, and maybe even afterward. It's tempting to look at his career as one big block, because of the offensive dynasty and the titles and such. Magic was not a godly half court player before 85. Godly transition player, godly passer, but not in offensive GOAT territory. He wasn't a great shooter, he didn't work with his back to the basket much, and I think people would be surprised how limited his half court role was compared to Kareem. We have to be careful not to project attributes of his whole career onto individual years.
Now, Dirk. I understand I hold a little bit of a minority opinion on his offense. I think if you wanted to argue Dirk as the offensive GOAT, it would be pretty easy to do so. People generally go with the thought process, "well his individual scoring numbers are pretty comparable to your run of the mill top 10 scorer, and he's not a notable playmaker, so what's the big deal?" Well, the big deal is that despite not being a classic playmaker, his "help offense" perhaps surpasses any player we've ever seen. Consider the hyperbole with which people talk about Jordan, how he was a master at commanding the entire floor just by feigning a cut, how a screen set for Jordan meant instant defcon 0 reactions from the defense, how the defense had to bend to accommodate him more than any scorer in history. And then consider that all of those apply to Dirk.
By his late prime, Dirk was a better midrange scorer than Jordan. I firmly believe that. Off the dribble, out of the post, fading away from one leg, the degree of difficulty on his shots is second to none, and he was hitting 50+ percent off those shots some seasons. That's SO absurd. Dirk broke pick and roll defense. Walk through the scenarios. Trapping the ball ahndler is not an option for obvious reasons. Switch? Dirk posts up your guard at the nail for an easy 2 points. Go under? Dirk hits a pick and pop 3. Go over? Dirk gets to attack the rim with a head of steam. He is an unsolvable problem, and plenty of coaches have said as much. He draws so much attention around the free throw line, that defenses are willing to help away from the two highest-leverage spots on the floor (the rim and the corner) to take those looks away. Year after year after year, Dallas is near the top in corner 3s. Year after year after year, Dallas is near the top in rim efficiency. Year after year after year, Dallas is tops in offensive efficiency despite a revolving door of personnel. Even in 2017, we still talk about the "Dirk effect", how random undersized guards have career years playing next to this guy.
Now one more thing I'll say, the "playoff choker" myth and the "bad defender" myth both need to die a painful death. Both are based on the "soft euro" stereotype and both don't apply. For one, Dirk (along with Jordan) is the most consistently resilient playoff performer we've seen against top defenses. His 28/13 playoff numbers are without condition. As far as defense, he obviously had specific flaws that could be picked on, be¡tú he brought so many positives to the table as well. I know getting back in transition and boxing out aren't sexy, and to some may not even be worth discussing in this project, which is a shame, but they matter. They matter a lot. If they didn't, your coach wouldn't have been drilling it into your head since the age of 5.
Well, for most of those guys, the answer is that he has a serious argument as defensive GOAT, while also winning an MVP for offense at his peak. That type of portability and versatility is literally just a KG thing. As far as D Rob, KG was a much better offensive player and was better for longer to boot. As for Hakeem, well I see them as about even. Hakeem is amazing.
70sFan wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:Dr Positivity wrote:68 was an abnormally strong year for the Lakers. If you compare 69 Lakers to the other West and Baylor teams, Wilt's impact looks a little better, still not through the roof though. It's possible the pre 68 Lakers teams are a better comparison for a team that lost a lot of depth to get Wilt. Wilt's 2nd season with the Lakers where he plays 12 Gs is also a not bad measure for his value to them, they ended up having a noticeably worse season despite having a 21ppg Happy Hairston. On the whole I would say Wilt likely has value to the Lakers his first few seasons. But if it's just making them 55 W team instead of 45 W team, that's probably still below what other contenders do here. I side with Wilt's impact to Warriors and Sixers looking positive as well (Improves team in rookie season, is catalyst to PHI quickly rising to the top ), although the question again is whether it's enough to be put over some sick players impact wise
Well they implemented the Princeton in '68 so it's not random that the Lakers were stronger. They had finally figured something out with the the help of a new coach who would shortly have his career ruined by Wilt.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
He ruined his career by his own decision - not bringing Wilt back in last moments of game 7.
Jaivl wrote:- KG and Hakeem have more all-star impact years than Magic has total years.
- Magic's offensive career has been somewhat overblown, and by that I mean Magic wasn't really at that GOAT offensive level for his first 6 years or so, not all 12 of Magic's years are GOAT-offensive level years.
- KG and Hakeem peaked as both elite offensive and defensive players. Those peaks didn't overlap, but I'd guess that falls more into context and team-building than into skill.
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Uh...wait. LA was the #1 offense in 1980. Magic was at an elite level from 1982 and on. With KG we 're talking about maybe a 04-08 span, and even then that's dubious since his teams in Minny were bad defensively.
Winsome Gerbil wrote:Well more than Wilt just arriving went on. And even Wilt arriving...I mean he was 32 years old by that point, and ate up all of 13.6 shots a game. That's hardly a deal breaker. But the larger issue is that they lost their depth. And the depth they lost actually took more shots than Wilt did when he arrived.