RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

User avatar
Joao Saraiva
RealGM
Posts: 13,442
And1: 6,216
Joined: Feb 09, 2011
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#141 » by Joao Saraiva » Mon Jul 3, 2017 11:22 am

scrabbarista wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:
scrabbarista wrote:To be honest, the Best on Champ bonus is applied to a player's entire career score, not just his "Winning" score. The result? I have Russell second on my ATG List.

MJ, Russell, Kareem, Duncan, and Lebron is my current Top 5.

What's the formula for your stat? There are easy ways to reduce noise from it like Pippen being so high.


It's not a stat. It's part of an entire formula. Pippen isn't high. He's 34th.


I also use the same type of formula. Not definite of course, since in my formula Shaq is a bit ahead of Hakeem for example and I voted for Hakeem.

No such thing as "noise" is created from rings.

I created it for players after 1980 so it makes more sense for me within those players, but even with Russell's rings I have him inside my top 10 but not top 5.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,409
And1: 9,936
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#142 » by penbeast0 » Mon Jul 3, 2017 12:05 pm

Thread started Saturday afternoon, it will end this afternoon (Pacific Time Zone).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 17,050
And1: 11,863
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#143 » by eminence » Mon Jul 3, 2017 1:36 pm

Thanks for the Hakeem post Senior! Still going with Shaq, but I really enjoyed reading through it. I expect he'll wind up being my next guy in line, though I really want to dig a bit deeper into that second tier of guards starting next round (Oscar/West/Magic/Kobe, maybe throw Bird in too).

Vote: Kevin Garnett
-The reasons have been gone over ad nauseam, some people buy them, some people don't, it's one of the more played out debates on the board.
-Great defender/passing hub/screen-setter/floor-spacer/leader, all those things that we know go on on the basketball court, but aren't very good at measuring them in the box-score? KG was pretty dang good at those things.

Alternate: Shaquille O'Neal
-Huge strengths (post-scoring, rim protection), clear weaknesses (pick and roll defense, free throw shooting) make Shaq pretty easy to characterize as a player.
-One of the best ever at playing to his strengths, at his peak went to them relentlessly.
-Wasn't quite that unstoppable force outside of his peak years ('00 and '01), but did play many years at a relevant level even with nagging injuries and being in shape issues.
I bought a boat.
User avatar
AdagioPace
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,876
And1: 7,424
Joined: Jan 03, 2017
Location: Contado di Molise
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#144 » by AdagioPace » Mon Jul 3, 2017 1:54 pm

I hope KG doesn't get pushed,all of a sudden, outside of the top 10,after those initial attemps that show that he's got support. Hopefully he doesn't get swallowed in the next three/four rounds by the rush to include Bird and Magic in the top 10. That's the biggest risk
"La natura gode della natura; la natura trionfa sulla natura; la natura domina la natura" - Ostanes
scrabbarista
RealGM
Posts: 20,257
And1: 17,961
Joined: May 31, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#145 » by scrabbarista » Mon Jul 3, 2017 2:42 pm

Joao Saraiva wrote:
scrabbarista wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:What's the formula for your stat? There are easy ways to reduce noise from it like Pippen being so high.


It's not a stat. It's part of an entire formula. Pippen isn't high. He's 34th.


I also use the same type of formula. Not definite of course, since in my formula Shaq is a bit ahead of Hakeem for example and I voted for Hakeem.

No such thing as "noise" is created from rings.

I created it for players after 1980 so it makes more sense for me within those players, but even with Russell's rings I have him inside my top 10 but not top 5.


Hakeem is my all-time favorite player, so I love to see him on others' lists, the higher the better.

I use my formula to strictly determine my voting, though. That way, if I'm biased, at least I'm biased in a consistent way. I still have opinions about which players my formula over/underrates, but rather than trust my biases, I just keep tinkering with the formula to try to get it to match my subjective views - probably a lost cause, considering I've been tinkering for five years already.
All human life on the earth is like grass, and all human glory is like a flower in a field. The grass dries up and its flower falls off, but the Lord’s word endures forever.
scrabbarista
RealGM
Posts: 20,257
And1: 17,961
Joined: May 31, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#146 » by scrabbarista » Mon Jul 3, 2017 2:54 pm

Gus Hemmingway wrote:
ThaRegul8r wrote:
Gus Hemmingway wrote:I have Kobe at 12th all time

Seems to be the General Consensus


What does whatever the general consensus think have to do with wherever you rank a given player as an individual?

Unless it's deliberately done to bait Kobe fans to whom he's a Top 10 all-time player.

(Since this is the internet, I'm obliged to make it clear that I couldn't care less about Kobe, but baiting a fanbase is both silly and pointless.)

Why would having Kobe 12th all-time be baiting Kobe fans? :crazy:

That's a huge accomplishment and only 11 players ever in history have been better

Huge Kobe fan here btw, it is what it is

The Universal Consensus has him at 12th as do I


I was down on Kobe for nearly all of his career (partly reaction to his fans, partly just wanting him to pass the ball), but I have him 10th right now [EDIT: I have him 11th] and consider him part of the "GoAT Squad" of eleven guys who were on separate level from everyone else ever to play. It wasn't until he was about 34 years old that I looked at him and finally gained perspective on the things he accomplished in the league.

I can respect the reasoning of those who rank him outside the historical elite, but I still believe they're wrong.
All human life on the earth is like grass, and all human glory is like a flower in a field. The grass dries up and its flower falls off, but the Lord’s word endures forever.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,632
And1: 3,409
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#147 » by LA Bird » Mon Jul 3, 2017 3:21 pm

Been traveling the last few days so not sure if I can regularly vote now but I'll try my best.

1. Shaquille O'Neal
Over his career, Shaq is the best offensive center in history. The value of each of his individual seasons is hurt slightly by the missed regular season games but he has consistent offensive production even against tough defenses and has the elite team offensive results to show for it. Defense is generally disappointing though and I have him ranked closer to the perimeter guys like LeBron/Jordan than the top defensive centers.

2. Kevin Garnett
Arguably the best two way player in the league during his time in Minnesota and ramped up his defense to all time level in Boston on reduced offensive responsibilities. Much has been said about KG and the validity of the +/- numbers but it's worth mentioning that he is top 10 in other box score based advanced stats as well.

Edit: Anybody know what is happening to photobuckets? I can't even access my own library images now on their website...
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,850
And1: 16,407
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#148 » by Dr Positivity » Mon Jul 3, 2017 4:42 pm

Case for Shaq: True dominance at his peak, amazing Finals runs, best offensive big man available, generally superb +/- career. Against: Imperfect defensive career, longevity, injuries. Immature and rift causing. A lucky superstar for playing with star teammates and coaching.

Case for Hakeem: Basically stole some titles by being that much of a big game player, building team around elite defensive with all time great post skills and passing seems ideal. Against: Not as much a leader as players like Magic and Bird early, ok RAPM in late 90s.

Case for Garnett: Elite +/- stats, as with Hakeem value in building a defensive big with great offense, more modern offensive PF game which has shown to have high impact compared to post play nowadays. Strong longevity as he was an impact player late in his Boston career. Great intangibles. Against: Not the best playoff scorer especially compared to Shaq and Hakeem god mode, easier to put up +/- stats when you play with bad players

Case for Magic: Arguably offensive GOAT, great leadership that changed Lakers culture even as a rookie. Against: Neutral defense at best, career cut short

Case for Bird: Elite offensive player while maintaining portability, DWS, DBPM, and all-D all suggest he was a well above average defender, people at time were crazy high eye test wise on peak Bird with 3 straight MVPs with dominant vote shares, apparent brief GOAT convo and Gretzky comps after 86. Against: Playoff inefficiency in early years could suggest he's too jumpshot driven to be offensive GOAT, not MVP level after injury, overall ok longevity

Vote Kevin Garnett - excellent combination of longevity impact and intangibles/leadership, can’t be blamed for “only” bringing TWolves to 50 W status, simply bad luck and proved he could be champion on Celtics. High impact offensive style of play judging by current RAPM trends (bigs who space the floor and play like a guard vs post play) and ATG defender. Scoring is not as strong as Shaq and Hakeem in the playoffs but his game is not just about scoring.

2nd Larry Bird
Liberate The Zoomers
User avatar
Jaivl
Head Coach
Posts: 7,105
And1: 6,757
Joined: Jan 28, 2014
Location: A Coruña, Spain
Contact:
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#149 » by Jaivl » Mon Jul 3, 2017 4:47 pm

LA Bird wrote:Edit: Anybody know what is happening to photobuckets? I can't even access my own library images now on their website...

Just use imgur instead.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,850
And1: 16,407
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#150 » by Dr Positivity » Mon Jul 3, 2017 4:50 pm

colts18 wrote:I want to hear the arguments from the KG people on why he is ahead of Shaq. They were contemporaries and absolutely no one had KG ahead of Shaq during that timeframe.


Becuase Shaq was the best player/Finals MVP on 3 straight Finals team for the league's marquee franchise. When players are the best player on championship teams or the best player on the best team in the league their status is elevated by media, right or wrong.
Liberate The Zoomers
Hornet Mania
General Manager
Posts: 9,009
And1: 8,495
Joined: Jul 05, 2014
Location: Dornbirn, Austria
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#151 » by Hornet Mania » Mon Jul 3, 2017 5:25 pm

Jaivl wrote:
Hornet Mania wrote:This is pretty close to my general feeling on KG as well. Excellent player who can fill a lot of needs, but he doesn't impose himself on the game as effectively as guys like Shaq, or even Kobe/Dirk (which I feel is more his tier).

(translation: he doesn't score as much)

Luckily there are more ways to impact the game other than scoring. Imagine this post...

This is pretty close to my general feeling on Jordan as well. Excellent player who can fill a lot of needs, but he doesn't impose himself on defense as effectively as guys like Russell, or even KG/Duncan (which I feel is more his tier).

Sounds kind of dumb, doesn't it? I mean, why would we penalize Jordan for not being as good a defender as the all-time defenders?
...why do you penalize KG for not being as good a scorer as the all-time scorers?

Spoiler:
Yeah, offensive impact peaks higher than defensive impact. But KG had loads of offensive impact as well, so...


The snark in this post is unwarranted.

If you want to convince me then continue your argument, I'm not closed off to it I just don't consider it compelling enough to dispel what I believe at present. I didn't say KG was ass, or even really deride him in any way, I said I don't think he has as much impact as Shaq and is more in the ballpark of Kobe/Dirk which isn't really an unusual opinion.

The idea of imposing yourself on the game goes beyond offense vs defense. I didn't use Shaq/Kobe/Dirk as examples because of their offense, I used them as examples because they were same era and also not yet voted in. You can impose yourself on the game on defense too, obviously, Bill Russell made an entire GOAT resume out of it. But KG was not that kind of defender. He was incredibly versatile, and I'm not disputing that he could guard all over the court at an elite level. But he didn't simply shut down the paint, he didn't have same presence as other shot-blocking defensive greats such as Hakeem or Russell to psychologically intimidate opponents out of attacking the paint. He also didn't really eat space and dissuade opponents from entering the paint with his frame the way Duncan could. He was a great defender, an all-time great defender, but a different kind of defender. And, imo, ultimately a less valuable kind of defender.

In terms of offensive impact obviously KG didn't really have elite lift. We have seen virtuoso offensive players lift mediocre-to-bad casts to top 10ish finishes on a fairly regular basis in NBA history. KG was a good offensive player but his offensive ability could not be imposed on opponents in the same way Dirk and Kobe did. I know that isn't part of KG's argument, but it's at least worth noting that Kobe/Dirk did have that floor-raising effect on at least this end of the floor. I would say KG had that effect on neither.

In my view KG was a wonderful chameleon of a defensive big man, with a very good (but not elite) offensive repertoire. I think he was an excellent ceiling-raiser (if I were trying to pump him up in GOAT discussion that would be my pitch) because he could be great without compromising anyone else's ability to be great. But I think his "flaw" (flaws being relative in top 10 discussion) was that he couldn't just force his advantage down the other teams throat like Shaq very obviously could, and other greats did to lesser degrees.
Hornet Mania
General Manager
Posts: 9,009
And1: 8,495
Joined: Jul 05, 2014
Location: Dornbirn, Austria
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#152 » by Hornet Mania » Mon Jul 3, 2017 5:51 pm

micahclay wrote:
Jaivl wrote:
Hornet Mania wrote:This is pretty close to my general feeling on KG as well. Excellent player who can fill a lot of needs, but he doesn't impose himself on the game as effectively as guys like Shaq, or even Kobe/Dirk (which I feel is more his tier).

(translation: he doesn't score as much)

Luckily there are more ways to impact the game other than scoring. Imagine this post...

This is pretty close to my general feeling on Jordan as well. Excellent player who can fill a lot of needs, but he doesn't impose himself on defense as effectively as guys like Russell, or even KG/Duncan (which I feel is more his tier).

Sounds kind of dumb, doesn't it? I mean, why would we penalize Jordan for not being as good a defender as the all-time defenders?
...why do you penalize KG for not being as good a scorer as the all-time scorers?

Spoiler:
Yeah, offensive impact peaks higher than defensive impact. But KG had loads of offensive impact as well, so...


Not to mention

1. Championship teams more often are better defensively than offensively
2. KG was one of the best offensive players of his generation too, RAPM or not
3. Dominance > versatility, but dominant versatility = ???
4. He is a case study in winner's bias
5. He, along with Duncan, was a case study in portability. He maxed out offensively and defensively in a variety of roles and a variety of team strengths
6. Defenders at peak can affect the game as much as peak offensive players
7. Elite defenders are more scarce than elite offensive players


Why is everyone so defensive about KG? I said one thing that wasn't even a diss and it's all snarky responses and seven-point addendums.

1. Offensive players have more impact than defensive players. Easier to build a championship defense around singular offensive star than to build great offense around singular defensive star. KG never consistently anchored an elite defense til Boston, fwiw. He needed an elite system, he wasn't bringing elite defense single-handedly.

2."Best" being very relative. Top 10? Yeah. Top 5? Probably not. They may have all been top 10 offensive player but the gap between Kobe/Dirk/Tmac/Shaq and KG was immense. The difference between the top 10 is not equally distributed, the top tier is significantly more impactful. Minnesota's offense would have been better with Dirk or Kobe. Just saying KG is "one of the best" overstates how close he is to the other contemporaries on that list.

3. Dominance >>>> Versatility. At least from what I have seen in NBA history. Dominant Versatility is obviously even better, but KG was not dominant offensively and it's debatable whether he was dominant defensively in spite of being clearly an elite defender. Check my response to Jaivl for a little elaboration on the difference between KG's defensive impact and Russell/Hakeem/Duncan who I consider more dominant.

4.This is probably true. But he's also a case study in how quickly results will be dismissed in favor of complex calculations. Not saying you're wrong to dismiss results (or at least not put all weight on them) but the way you presented that statement only encompasses one half of KG's obviously controversial resume. As if you're very convinced the result-oriented crowd are simply too thick-headed to understand, as opposed to having legit questions.

5. Except Duncan never dipped below 50 wins even once, and won a title in 2003 which included dethroning the threepeat Lakers with an absolutely awful (by contender standards) supporting cast. Duncan was more dominant defensively, offensively he was a bit better but not really by a lot. Duncan's longevity was also better. I understand why KG proponents want to tie him to Timmy, but Duncan was simply a better player.

6.I simply do not believe that. Like, not even a little. Offensive stars have much more individual impact than any single defensive player. I can give the ball to Kobe with four Smush Parkers in tow and get something middling at least. KG and four 2011 Steve Nash's will be absolutely atrocious on D. Offensive players dictate, defensive players react. The offensive player is at an advantage by virtue of their dictating how their encounter with the defensive player begins.

7.Citation needed. There are plenty of elite defensive players, they just get less attention than their elite offensive counterparts.

I'd also like to go ahead, since I accidentally double-posted, to make my official vote.

7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Magic Johnson

The 2nd best peak, imo, and the offensive GOAT.

Shaq was a unique matchup problem, and had he been more focused he would all but certainly be higher on this list if not sitting on top. Even with his potential less than fully realized, 00-04 Shaq is about as good as you'll find from anyone ever.

Magic was an offensive savant. His floor vision was incredible for a man his size, and his rebounding ability provided him a unique opportunity as a PG for outlets and to start the break right away on a regular basis. He was also stellar balancing the Showtime fast break offense with traditional sets that kept Kareem well-fed, effective, and engaged. Had his prime not been cut tragically short I believe he would have been a top 5 player.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,850
And1: 16,407
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#153 » by Dr Positivity » Mon Jul 3, 2017 6:01 pm

oldschooled wrote:For KG supporters, how is he different (or better) than the Admiral? For me, they're the closest stat-wise/career wise/role in team/peak/prime. Its just if were ranking KG this high, why is it that no one still mention David along these lines. It can be argued also that David had a better defensive impact/defensive player than KG. And its not like KG was a better playoff performer than David also.


Robinson has less longevity than KG, but the main knock against him is that while his regular season peak is arguably GOAT level, he's one of the all time "playoff numbers drop" guys, he has some seriously concerning performances and it happens consistently enough that it doesn't seem like a coincidence. His playoff drops in stats like WS/48, BPM, PER are really poor. In previous projects he got destroyed by some posters who had vivid memories of his playoff letdowns.

Furthermore the problem with DRob may be partly his style of play that allowed him to dominant weaker opponents but struggle against playoff opponents. He was more reliant on physical tools and his face-up game instead of elite post play, and he hit midrange shots but seemingly not enough to run an entire offense through it like Dirk and KG.

It's kind of like how Anthony Davis last year, had a better scoring season than Hakeem, Duncan or KG ever had (28ppg .58 TS) but when it comes to building a championship level offense, the difference between how Hakeem sets up his offense and Davis is massive, for me I take the elite post scorer you can't guard me 1 on 1 guy every time over opportunist athleticism and jumpshots style of game in AD. While Robinson isn't AD (he's a better passer for one), that's a similar argument to why I don't like Robinson's offensive skillset as much as Hakeem/Duncan/KG. For KG specifically, I guess it's more debatable since he doesn't come up as big in the playoffs as a Hakeem, but I still see more value in his extra polish as a dribble, shooter, passer and in post than Robinson's strengths
Liberate The Zoomers
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#154 » by ardee » Mon Jul 3, 2017 6:04 pm

AdagioPace wrote:I hope KG doesn't get pushed,all of a sudden, outside of the top 10,after those initial attemps that show that he's got support. Hopefully he doesn't get swallowed in the next three/four rounds by the rush to include Bird and Magic in the top 10. That's the biggest risk


It will be very good for the project to have him ranked outside the top 10.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 17,050
And1: 11,863
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#155 » by eminence » Mon Jul 3, 2017 6:09 pm

ardee wrote:Nobody has replied to the big post I quoted breaking down every Garnett Minny Playoff game and showing how his poor offensive skills killed the Wolves by shooting them out of game after game.


Why would anybody? You've made it quite obvious you didn't join the project for discussion, but to try to force through your version of the top 100 players, so replying to your posts is just a waste of time for anyone who joined the project for the back and forth.
I bought a boat.
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#156 » by ardee » Mon Jul 3, 2017 6:13 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:
Robinson has less longevity than KG, but the main knock against him is that while his regular season peak is arguably GOAT level, he's one of the all time "playoff numbers drop" guys, he has some seriously concerning performances and it happens consistently enough that it doesn't seem like a coincidence. His playoff drops in stats like WS/48, BPM, PER are really poor. In previous projects he got destroyed by some posters who had vivid memories of his playoff letdowns.


I mean honestly everything you said there applies to Garnett.

You criticized Robinson's WS/48, PER and BPM in the Playoffs. Well...

Playoff PER:

Garnett: 21.1
Robinson: 23.0

WS/48:

Garnett: .149
Robinson: .199

BPM

Garnett: 4.6
Robinson: 6.3

Those are pretty significant differences. If you bring up defense, well, Robinson was a better defender than Garnett because he had the same mobility with much better rim protection. Maybe there is longevity in Garnett's favor but if you account for the performance difference here, is it enough to justify such a big difference?
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#157 » by ardee » Mon Jul 3, 2017 6:14 pm

One more time, quoting this amazing post about how Garnett's flawed skillset hurt his teams badly in the Playoffs.

Since you bring these points up, start with reading this analysis of KG's Minnesota Playoff career, which breaks down very well how his offensive flaws severely hurt his teams in those years.

The APM data is very interesting, and squares well with his impact (primarily as a defender)... but at the same time, there is a data point that you're excluding, right? From 99-03, KG won 5 games in the postseason, then won 10 in the deep run in 04 and didn't return to the playoffs with the Wolves. Now context. Injuries, abysmal management (Cassell for Marko Jaric? REALLY? JOE SMITH!! YOU BASTARDS! and so forth), but if you're looking at his contributions and you see how one-sided KG's were angling towards the defensive element, then it starts to become an issue. You can't just defend your opponent; in a game of basketball, you can't shut an opponent down, you need to score as well. From everything I've seen, there IS a slight, small bias towards offensive value (at least where star players are concerned) that's not generated via narrative alone. Especially at the paces at which the Wolves and the Spurs/Blazers/etc were playing in the early 00s, the notion that "each possession counts" isn't just a truism, it's a major point of contention.

So I offer a counter-point. Since the number of games isn't that bad, let's look at KG's Minny postseason career and see how it played out from 99-04.

99 versus the eventual-champion Spurs.

Hard to REALLY ream him for this one because they had Duncan and Robinson, but that kind of casually back-slides KG's rep away from where you're going. In any case, he opened up with 21 points on 54.3% TS (9/18 FG, 3/3 FT), 8 boards, 1 assist, 5 blocks, 4 fouls and 5 turnovers. They lost, of course, and for the moment, we'll pretend as if KG's performance comes in isolation so that I don't have to spend 8 years discussing what his teammates did or didn't do in this post. We'll acknowledge their role tacitly. Here we're seeing, though, that Garnett was coughing it up something fierce. 20.6% TOV against 31% USG, not his best game. Game 2, they win. 23 points on 22 shots (11/22 FG, 1/2 FT). 50.3% TS, but there, I think that's a bit misleading to call that a "bad" performance. Certainly not dominant, and this time he brought the rebounding, then added 6 assists to 4 turnovers. Again, not really pushing hard on offense, and given that he didn't have any other scorers, the Wolves would have likely been better off if he'd been a little less effective on D and a little more effective on offense, since everyone and their mom knew that he was basically the only major scorer on that squad, the only real threat. Games 3 and 4, they lost of course. 9/19, 5/6 for 23 points, 12 boards, 2 AST / 3 TOV. Then here's the killer. Game 4 was a 7-point loss and he shot 6/20 FG and 8/12 at the line. Realistically, he left 7-9 points on the board from what he'd have posted just making 45% FG and around 80% FT, very normal numbers for him. This is a single-game, single-series performance at the beginning of his All-NBA era (and he's far from alone in having poor performances), but as we start to watch him coming up short in key moments and close games like that, it begins to detract from the overall picture you're painting of the "most dominant postseason performer from 99-08" kind of thing, right? That right there is a game that kind of mirrors Dirk against the Warriors.

2000, against Portland:

Opens up with a 6/20 performance, no FTAs. 12/10/11 triple-double, but the triple-double belies his overall performance. With 26.2% usage and him shooting 30% FG without any FTAs, that's a rough, rough performance. And it was a 3-point loss. The not-Garnett Wolves shot 53% FG. Meantime, Sheed played well: didn't shoot much, but was 6/10 for 15 points (3/3 FT).

Game 2. 25/10/5, 4 TOV, 4 PF. 50% FG, 7/10 FT, 56.4% TS against 31.4% USG. Really, a good game. 4-point loss. Were he a more dominant scorer, that might have mattered, but Sealy, Wally Z and Sam Mitchell were rough enough that I'll actually post that they shot a combined 7/17. Sheed was crap. So, this one stands as a contrast to the first.

Game 3. A win. Middling TS (52.3%), but actually his best offensive game of the series. 11/22 FG and 1/1 from downtown (heh), he brought the rebounding and passing from the first game (13 boards, 10 assists, 2 turnovers). He played his mind out and his teammates actually supported him a lot (Brandon was 10/16 for 28 points that night).

Game 4. Elimination game #2 in this series and KG goes for a 5/20. 1/2 3P, 6/6 FT. 17 points on 37.5% TS. 10 boards, 9 assists, 3 turnovers. But WOW was he ever bad shooting that night, and that's his second major stinker in the series and his third over two consecutive postseason matchups (e.g. his 3rd in 8 games).

2001 vs SAS:

25/13/6Game 1. , 55.8% TS, really a good game overall. Only 1 turnover, 50% FG, 70% FT (10 FTA), just looking really good. It was a loss, but it can hardly be blamed on KG.

Game 2. Welcome to Crapsville, population, YOU. 5/13 FG, but 8/8 FT gives him a 54.5% TS. 12 boards, 2 assists, 2 turnovers, 112 ORTG. Another rough shooting night for him, though, and he played only 32 minutes because of some foul trouble, but mainly because it was garbage time after 3. The Wolves shot something stupid like a tenth of a percent off of their franchise-worst in the playoffs and they committed 20 turnovers. It was embarrassing. KG was part of a team-wide failure that game. This is, I believe, the year after Sealy was killed and right around Joe Smith time.

Game 3, token win time. 22/8/4, 1 TOV. 8/10 FT. 59.8% TS. KG did a great job of getting to the line in this series, it was very atypical for him. This was a great game from Garnett though, and they won.

Game 4, elimination game. 6/13 shooting, 19/15/5, 2 turnovers, 5 fouls, 7/8 FT for 57.5% TS but they were crushed, a 13-point loss. Duncan shot terribly (8/23) and D-Rob had 4 fouls by the 3rd. Wolves were down 8 after 3, but down only 1 at halftime.

2002, 3-game sweep by Dallas.

Game 1. 6/18 FG, 6/6 FT, 46% TS. 21 rebounds, 6 assists, 3 turnovers. Dirk put 30/15 on the Wolves, shooting 10/19 from the field and 9/10 at the line.

Game 2. PHENOMENAL game from Garnett. 9/19 FG, 13/17 at the line (12-point loss), 18 boards and 4 assists. 58.5% TS. Absolutely fantastic. Wasn't enough, but it's hard to blame him. 25 a piece from Billups and Wally Z (both shooting over 52%, nearly 53% FG). 31/15 from Dirk (42.9% FG, 9/10 FT, 4 steals).

Game 3, elimination time. 9/19 FG, 4/9 FT in a 13-point loss. 47.4% TS. 17 boards, 5 assists, 6 turnovers, 5 fouls. Another weak game at the point of elimination. Minny won the 2nd and 4th quarters, but they permitted Dallas to score 40 first-quarter points and started the game in a 12-point hole from which they never recovered. Down by 10 at the half, they lost the 3rd by 8 points and then won the 4th by 5. Dirk dropped 39/17 on 11/17 FG, 14/16 FT, crushing the Wolves like a bug.

For the record, KG was 3/10 from the field in the second half, hitting his first 2 shots and then going 1/8 after that. He had 4 offensive boards, split a pair of FTs, assisted Wally Z on a 3 and a 21-footer and had a turnover. That was his contribution during the second half of the elimination game. He had a bunch of defensive boards as well, but I wasn't logging those, I was looking at offensive performance, since we've already established that he's been a very high-impact defender. But in an elimination game, to disappear that way in the second half (which raises those old ghosts that people spoke of at the time of KG being a choker in the playoffs) is... not good. And what we're seeing here is the reason that narrative came about, because this isn't the first or second bad game we've seen from him in this stretch as far as poor performance in an elimination game, and over a comparatively small sample of games, we've seen him stinking it up on offense quite a lot... more than once in a game winnable had he performed at a less-than-terrible level. It does tell us that his defense and rebounding were THAT AWESOME, though, to continually show the kind of impact they did... and it also explains that his teammates were really not helping him out a ton on the defensive end at all, as it happens. At times, Brandon (prior to his injury) and Billups (prior to him being moved) were contributors, but it's still clear that they were outmatched. Dirk's Mavs were coming at the Wolves with him, Finley, Nash and Van Exel, right? Nash was 3/9 under the arc in Game 3... but 3/7 from downtown, 10/10 at the line and had 11 assists. Billups was 5/16 and 4/7 at the line. Brandon was gone. Wally Z was 5/12 (though 9/10 at the line). Anthony Peeler was 4/7 from 3 off of the bench (but 2/6 under the arc). Garnett's terrible TS% mostly extends from 4/9 FT shooting and the 3 or 4 points he left on the board are significant but yeah, the biggest issue is how poorly he played in the second half. In his defense, the common motif of saying he's nothing but a jump shooter is at least a little harsh on his rep, because of the 10 shots he took, only one was from farther than 8 feet. Some of those were his favored turn-over-right-shoulder fades from the left block, but he got a four-footer and two shots off of offensive rebounds, one of which drew those 2 FTAs. He just hit nothing when it mattered.

OK, ramble over.

2003 vs Lakers. This is a 6-game series, the longest KG has played in the PS to this point in his career. Two wins!

Game 1. 11/21 FG, 1/4 FT. 14 boards, 7 assists, 2 turnovers, great D. 46 minutes played, loss. 19-point blowout, as it happens. There really wasn't a lot of hope for them to win this series; while the Lakers didn't repeat as champions, it was still the Shaq/Kobe Lakers coming off of their third straight title. Shaq had 32/10 and Kobe carved them up for 39. The Wolves flatly didn't have anyone who could defend either of those guys and Flip Saunders has never been a particularly good defensive coach, so there was no strong scheme in place, either. It was "here's hoping KG is magic!" I mean, they were putting Szczerbiak on Kobe, that's just asking for trouble. They were buried after the first, down 16 points. They never finished a quarter closer than 12 points.

Game 2. Explosion. 15/21 shooting, 4/6 at the line, 20 boards, 7 assists, 2 turnovers, 35 points. I don't even need to post the TS, you know it's insane. Remarkable game, and a win. Just about what was needed from him in order to beat this team. 37 points and 10 assists from Troy Hudson (!!!!!!) certainly helped, though. They were up by 13 at the half and then by 22 after an opening tear in the 3rd.

Game 3. 33/14/4, 2 steals, 4 blocks, 4 turnovers and 6 fouls. 15/31 shooting, one of the most aggressive performances of Garnett's entire career in a 4-point OT win. 27 points from Hudson. One of those "questionable officiating" nights, heh. 3 fouls in 3 minutes in the 4th for Garnett, then fouled out in the opening part of OT. Kobe got a four-point play when Wally Z apparently fouled him without touching him. Then there was that thing with Rick Fox where Wally "stepped out of bounds" as Rick grabbed his jersey, which was unique. They won, though, so it was OK.

4th quarter KG? 4 boards (2 offensive), an assist at the rim and a turnover on an offensive foul. He was 3/8 FG and 2/2 FT for 8 points. He took one shot inside of 10 feet and 4 shots from 14+ feet. Lots and lots of jumpers. Got blocked by Shaq the one time he shot around the rim.

Game 4. 10/21 FG, 1/3 3PA, 7/9 FTA. 18 boards, 5 assists, 4 turnovers. 56.1% TS in a 5-point loss. Solid performance. 34/23 from Shaq didn't help. Kobe shot like crap (7/25) but got to the line at will (16/17 FT). With about 2 minutes left in the third, the Wolves were up by 11 but then the Lakers went on an 8-0 run to close the quarter and Kobe hit a 3 early in the 4th to tie it. About halfway through the fourth, the Wolves were up by 5, but L.A. reeled off another 8-0 run. Stayed close down the wire; Shaq got an OREB off of a Kobe miss to give L.A. a 3-point lead with 19 seconds remaining... and KG missed both free throws when he was fouled. Kobe hit 2 FTs, Garnett stuck a jumper. Shaq had more offensive boards than the Timberwolves. The Lakers had 18 offensive boards and scored 29 points off of them.

Second half play from Garnett.

He had 3 assists and a turnover (Kobe stripped him) in the 3rd. He TECHNICALLY shot 1/7, but that includes a 43-foot heave at the buzzer. He was really 1/6, which is still terrible, missing his last 5 (or 6, counting the 3) shots after hitting a shot around the rim. 2 of his shots were inside of 15 feet.

In the fourth, he was 4/6, including a three, but he was 2/4 at the line, missing two big ones with about 16 seconds left, as I mentioned. He also had an assist. When he stuck the three with about a half-minute left, they were down 1.

Little rough. If he hadn't sucked in the 3rd, they might have built a better cushion and taken that game. Instead, L.A. evened the series.

Game 5. 11/23, 1/2 3P, 2/4 FT, 50.5% TS. 25/16/3, 3 TOV. 30-point blowout. KG played 43 minutes, conjuring that old thought about he gets a bunch of numbers in garbage time. Minny was down 7 at the half, down 21 after 3 and down 30 at the end of the game. We'll look at KG's second half performance, offense-only in the third and then what he did once the game was long-decided in the fourth.

In the third, he got a pass picked off by Kobe, he had an assist and he shot 4/8 for 9 points (1/2 from 3). Pretty solid performance all told, with two shots at the rim and two others within 7 feet. OK, so now we're going to look at the 4th Q, which starts with the Wolves down 21 points, and we're going to see what KG racked up in garbage time.

He played about 9.5 minutes in the fourth, leaving down 28 with about 2:38 to go. 1 offensive rebound (his own miss after getting blocked by Brian Shaw at the rim) and 4 defensive rebounds. It was the only offensive rebound he had all game and 4 of his 15 defensive boards. He split a pair of FTs and shot 1/3 from the field.

Doesn't much look like he racked up too many box score data points. He wasn't dominating and bringing them closer, they were getting pounded and Flip took him out eventually. Again though, it was the reigning champs, so the outcome wasn't really a huge surprise to anyone, especially as the team thinned from a few years prior, as scary as that is to say. They had to play some out-of-their-minds offense in order to get those two wins.

Game 6, elimination time, KG's favorite!

9/21 FG, 0/1 3P, 0/2 FT. 41.1% TS, 83 ORTG. He was terrible on O. 12 boards, 5 assists, 3 steals, 3 turnovers, 18 points. Not a good game. Good box score line, but not a good game. Played 44 minutes in a 16-point loss. Wolves were up by 5 after 1, down 4 after 2, down 6 after 3 and lost the 4th quarter by 10. Shaq had 8 offensive boards to Minny's 11. The 2nd and 4th quarters were the bad ones for Minny. The 4th was bad defensively, but the 2nd was bad offensively, with them scoring only 13 points.

Rough game. Minny went on a 9-0 run to close the third... and then Kobe opened up the fourth with 10 of the 14 points he'd score in the quarter, with L.A. opening the quarter on an 18-2 run. Shaq had 9 assists, Kobe 8 (total, not in the quarter). L.A.'s passing was just ridiculous that game. It took 6.5 minutes for the Wolves to score their first basket in the 4th.

In the 2nd, KG played the last 9 minutes. He had a pair of assists, a picked off pass and shot 2/5, scoring 4 of their 13 points... but involved in 8. Were he a more dominant scorer, that could have helped, but it's hard to nit-pick that performance in this series over much.

4th Q. An assist, two turnovers, 2/5 shooting (including Devean George blocking him), leaves with 1:56 remaining, down by 18.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,409
And1: 9,936
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#158 » by penbeast0 » Mon Jul 3, 2017 6:18 pm

Has anyone ever actually looked at whether it's easier to build a great offense around a single great scorer (or playmaker) or a great defense around a single great defensive anchor?

Historically, more championships are won with great defense and the early Russell Celtics were pretty much Russell and a bunch of gunners, the early 90s Spurs that won a lot had David Robinson surrounded by a lot of mediocre defenders (Sean Elliot, Terry Cummings, Willie Anderson, Rod Strickland, Avery Johnson, Dale Ellie, JR Reid, Vinnie Del Negro -- though I've always felt Cummings was underrated). They did have Vern Mathews in Robinson's rookie year and got Dennis Rodman for a year and a half (in which he fought with the coach, ignored his defensive assignments to rebound, and ended up with a worse defensive rating than the Cummings team before him or the Reid team after him). But that was a top 5 defensive team for most of a decade . . . falling to LAST in the league when Robinson was injured and they used Will Perdue.

Then look at Kobe between Shaq and Gasol . . . not great offensive teams. When has a single great offensive player had an efficient offensive team? Oscar had Twyman, Lucas, Kareem; Magic had Kareem, Wilkes/Worthy, Scott/Nixon, Shaq had Penny, Kobe, Wade, I'm willing to be convinced but I don't see this single great offensive player having more impact than a single great defensive anchor thing as anecdotally valid over the 50 years I've watched the NBA.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#159 » by ardee » Mon Jul 3, 2017 6:27 pm

Been so focussed on the Garnett battle that I almost forgot to cast my vote :lol:

I am going with Magic here.

My argument for him parallels what I argued for Russell. Russell was so good on the defensive side of the ball that it neutered the offensive side. Magic on the other hand had the same kind of one-sided impact, just not quite as high, but still pretty darn high of course. I believe the difference is enough for a separation of a few spots (I have Russ at 1 and Magic at 6).

And truth be told, I don't think Magic's impact was exactly one-sided. He was a terrific defender early in his career when he was more mobile and didn't have the offensive responsibilities he did later. The 1982 Lakers may have been the deadliest Playoff team of all time, and a large part of this was not their offense, but their defense, which was keyed by Magic's efforts in their 1-3-1 trapping scheme.

Of course, later in his career the defense dropped off some but again, the same argument I have is with Russell. You may not be as good as you are on one side of the ball on the other, but with results like these, who cares? I think 11 titles in the 60s is not an insanely amount more impressive than 5 in 9 and 9 Finals in 12 years in the 80s, with Bird leading his own ATG team, the Erving Sixers, Moses and then Hakeem killing it in on the Rockets, and then the Bad Boy Pistons.

Of course, the defense did hurt sometimes, like in 1990 when KJ eviscerated the Lakers, but it is true that Russell's offense could've been better in 1967: and I'm not claiming Magic to be as great as Russell anyway.

I could post more about his offense but it would be what we all know about Magic ad nauseum. I will say this though: at his peak he lead a GOAT-level offense on par with the present day Warriors: at a time when the 3 was barely used. The entire team was built to run, and that stemmed from Magic. I think his peak gets underrated on this board.

This is short but I'm probably very close to the deadline, hope this is enough.

Vote: Earvin "Magic" Johnson

Alternative: Kobe Bean Bryant
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 17,050
And1: 11,863
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #7 

Post#160 » by eminence » Mon Jul 3, 2017 6:29 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Has anyone ever actually looked at whether it's easier to build a great offense around a single great scorer (or playmaker) or a great defense around a single great defensive anchor?

Historically, more championships are won with great defense and the early Russell Celtics were pretty much Russell and a bunch of gunners, the early 90s Spurs that won a lot had David Robinson surrounded by a lot of mediocre defenders (Sean Elliot, Terry Cummings, Willie Anderson, Rod Strickland, Avery Johnson, Dale Ellie, JR Reid, Vinnie Del Negro -- though I've always felt Cummings was underrated). They did have Vern Mathews in Robinson's rookie year and got Dennis Rodman for a year and a half (in which he fought with the coach, ignored his defensive assignments to rebound, and ended up with a worse defensive rating than the Cummings team before him or the Reid team after him). But that was a top 5 defensive team for most of a decade . . . falling to LAST in the league when Robinson was injured and they used Will Perdue.

Then look at Kobe between Shaq and Gasol . . . not great offensive teams. When has a single great offensive player had an efficient offensive team? Oscar had Twyman, Lucas, Kareem; Magic had Kareem, Wilkes/Worthy, Scott/Nixon, Shaq had Penny, Kobe, Wade, I'm willing to be convinced but I don't see this single great offensive player having more impact than a single great defensive anchor thing as anecdotally valid over the 50 years I've watched the NBA.


It'd be an interesting project, but I'm a bit stumped on a good way to execute it myself.
I bought a boat.

Return to Player Comparisons