Or anyone over Dirk. I think it's fair to say Dirk should enter the discussion.
---
Sooo, maybe we should talk about Dirk a tad bit more eh?
Oh absolutely he should be. Again, one of the greatest offensive players of all time and who has had pretty damn good longevity. I have Kobe over him, but it is ever so slight and again, I think strong arguments can be made for Dirk. If I was to vote, I'd put Kobe and Dirk in the same tier (so it can be argued both ways) and then Bird/KG together, only because of Bird's longevity problems.
I didn't really watch Dirk on a nightly basis, so if anyone can chime in, please do.
Someone mentioned that Dirk, after some of his difficulties against long-ish/undersized defenders in 06/07 patched up these relative "flaws". What does it mean by he patched it up? What did he do differently?
Also, can someone give a nice recap on the differences between 02-05 Dirk in general, and then 06-11 Dirk. What changed etc.
And we all know this, but I think we also need to really emphasize how revolutionary Dirk was. When Dirk came into the league, people laughed at this soft euro who took long jumpers, fade-aways and 3 pointers as a 7 footer. It was said, his play wouldn't lead to success. But my god were they wrong. Dirk's game IMO was the precursor to all the stretch bigs we see today. He changed the game, and in a cultural sense, this needs some appreciation. His 'footprint' on the NBA is a big part of his legacy.
Senior wrote:Can't see Karl Malone above Dirk. Dirk has basically two real blemishes on his postseason prime - 06 Finals and 07 (could count 05 vs Houston but whatever), his 11 run obliterates anything Malone did, and most of his other series are fantastic anyway. Malone's postseason performances can't touch Dirk's, to be honest. His skillset wasn't really built for the postseason and it wasn't surprising to see his volume/efficiency drop, especially late in games...and that's before you get to the real black marks. Even if Malone's longevity is better I'm not counting on him to show up in the playoffs. I actually think that Malone can do a lot of good on O and his only real issue is isolation scoring - problem is, Dirk can match his overall offensive impact AND he's a championship-level isolation scorer. There's no situation I would take prime Malone over prime Dirk as my offensive anchor for a playoff run.
I also don't see Malone's defense as significantly better than Dirk's. He was a more physical post defender, but he wasn't your prototypical anchor like D-Rob or Mutombo. His swipe could bug people but he's probably above average at best.
On another note, does Malone's 04 performance with the Lakers add to his legacy for you via the scalability/portability lens? IMO he was the only adult on that roster, and quite frankly was the most valuable player on the team in the PS. Here we had a dude at the age of 40 doing everything he needed to win a championship, only to to be cut down by injuries. I know we tend not to give much credence to post-post prime years, but man, Malone's 04 campaign, even though he was injured, was really impressive. His post defense in an era where post post play was still heavily emphasized was massive. Don't think the Lakers take out the Spurs/Wolves without Malone.
Not saying this moves the needle at all between Malone and Dirk, but IMO Malone should get props for clearly having the capacity to have high value impact in a diminished role.
penbeast0 wrote:VOTE: George Mikan. Yes, he played in a smaller, appreciably weaker NBA without the great black stars of his day. However, he dominated his league in a way that no one left, not even Shaq, matches. I am willing to switch my vote if (a) someone does a good analysis of his impact v. that of Shaq/Hakeem or (b) someone convinces me that Bird/Kobe/other deserves to be in ahead of Shaq/Hakeem. It's a bit of a cheat since I know he has no support, but I want him to be in the conversation. He was considered the best offensive player of the day AND the best defensive player and had a run of title teams similar to MJ without the hiatus. Of course, then you have to discount for his era . . . figure the talent of about 1 division in Jordan's day, and even less today where the league has greatly expanded it's talent base. However, even in Mikan's day, if you were close to 7 foot tall, you at least considered a basketball career so the talent differential is less than at other positions.
I know there is a limited footage on Mikan, but if you could/are aware, please provide some scouting on him. For instance, how did he impact his teams offense? What were his go to moves? How was he as a post passer? What was his 'defensive' style?
mischievous wrote:I'm not considering either at this point, but I don't get why Dirk>Karl Malone is a given in so many people's eyes. Dirk's a better offensive player at least in the postseason, but Malone was a super iron man and giving you legit 2 way production for basically 18 ish years. Dirk has 06 and 11 as his great playoff runs, but Malone also has his share of postseason success.
Seems like you see Malone as a 2-way player and Dirk as a 1-way player. I see their defense being on around the same tier with Dirk having an offensive game that scales better against tough defense, and Dirk being the better leader and cultural presence by a small margin.
I also couldn't give Malone a longevity edge here. dirks longevity is great and part of that is because he gradually transitioned his play to max out his value as his abilities faded, whereas I think Malone held on to volume scoring too long.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
How does Malone not have a longevity edge? He obviously kill Dirk in things like career minutes and points, and also has a higher career average in stats like PER, OBPM, VORP etc. He clearly has a longevity edge.
It's fine to take Dirk, i can see his case with the offensive superiority in the playoffs and all but to act like it's an open and shut case is silly and not backed up by any kind of numbers.
There is certainly a case if you value offense more than an all-around game from your best player. Kobe was an offensive anchor for 15 years and had a lot of personal and team success.
While KG is considered by some to be a GOAT level ceiling raiser, Kobe was a great floor raiser ('06-'07) AND a ceiling raiser ('00-'03, '08-'10).
KG missed the playoff 3 times in a row during his prime in the same West Kobe played in. These Minny teams were awful on offense and defense while the Lakers have been top 10 on offense almost entirely thanks to Kobe.
Before I get the "KG had the worst supporting cast ever" crew, I'd like to say it's not unreasonable to consider a Ricky Davis/Szczerbiak/Hassell/Banks/Jaric on the same tier as Odom/Smush/Kwame/Mihm/Cook/George.
I don't necessarily agree with everything I wrote, but that would be the argument in favor of Kobe.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. - Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut
For many, it is the elephant in the room question mark for Garnett. I, on the other hand, believe Garnett to be very possibly the dominant playoff performer of his generation. Clearly, there's a giant gap between those to perceptions. So...let's take a look. A REAL look. In this project, we have people looking for different things. Some want to see rings, period. Some are ok with fewer rings, as long as you have great boxscore numbers. Some want to evaluate how far a player could lead a team, given his teammates. Some want to see unit results. Some want skillset arguments. We've seen a rise in videos and screen caps in this project, which is very cool. Some like +/- numbers. So, I figured...why not look at Garnett's postseasons using all of the above? Try to come up with the best evaluation possible about his level of production and impact in the playoffs. Let's go.
Through the first 18 games, Garnett and Marbury continued to show growth in their games (even if there was clear rust in their shots), as they led the Wolves to a 12 - 6 record out of the gates. Garnett was averaging 19.9 points (45% FG, 74% FT) with 11 boards, 4.3 assists, 2.8 TOs, 1.9 blocks and 2.5 steals. But, it turns out that Googs wasn't the only Wolves star that Steph couldn't get along with anymore. Amid swirling rumors that Marbury was jealous of Garnett's status as the franchise player, Marbury would force a trade that sent him to New Jersey. The Timberwolves could have accepted a young Sam Cassell back in the trade, but instead opted for a talented but injured point guard named Terrell Brandon.
Over the next 32 games, the Wolves would struggle to re-find their balance without Marbury. Brandon only played in 21 of the games as he nursed his injuries, and KG would miss three games as well. The Wolves would close the season 13 - 19, to end the season .500 and make the playoffs for the third straight season. In the last 29 regular season games he played that year, Garnett increased his scoring but saw his blocks fall off the table to the tune of 21.3 pts (47% FG, 67% FT), 10 reb, 4.3 ast, 2.9 TO, 1.5 stl, 1.3 blks.
Garnett finished 6th in the league in PI-RAPM in 1999. Garnett finished slightly behind Duncan in offensive RAPM (34th, vs Duncan's 30th) but ahead in defensive RAPM (Garnett 8th, with Duncan 31st).
Playoffs discussion: In the playoffs, the Wolves would get the #1 seeded (and soon-to-be NBA champion) Spurs led by Tim Duncan and still-prime David Robinson. While the Wolves were clearly outclassed, this gave us our first Garnett vs Duncan head-to-head match-up in the playoffs. They wouldn't disappoint. The Spurs won the series 3 - 1, but the 8th-seeded Wolves challenged them more than any of their higher-seeded foes on the way to their championship. In the head-to-head:
The Wolves (-0.17 SRS) lost the series 3 - 1. The Spurs (7.12 SRS) would go on to sweep the 4th seeded Lakers (2.68 SRS) & the 3rd seed Trail Blazers (5.67 SRS) on their march through the Western Conference.
The Wolves held the Spurs to 1.4 points below their season O-Rtg, 0.7 pts/100 better than expected based on both teams' regular season marks. The Spurs defense stifled them to 6.7 points below their season O-Rtg, bu tthis was actually 0.5 points better than expected.
Bottom line: So, in a season of trades & turmoil, Garnett had an All NBA-level impact to carry the team to the postseason as the eighth seed, measuring out as the best offensive player on the team and one of the best defensive players in the league. In the playoffs, Garnett performed well against Duncan, and the Timberwolves performed better as a team than the Spurs' other much higher ranked Western Conference opponents. Yes, Garnett's TS% in the playoffs was only 48.8%, but I submit that he had an outstanding postseason performance in 1999. Full stop.
Garnett made the leap to MVP level this season. He had grown into his body enough that he was more power forward than wing. Brandon was as healthy as he'd ever be as a Wolf, 2nd year Wally Z was starting to look like a good starter, and KG's childhood idol Malik Sealy gave them a startable shooting guard that could play some semblance of defense.It was a cast that wasn't awful, and Garnett responded by leading them to the first 50-win season in franchise history. His averages of 22.9 points, 11.8 boards, 5 assists, 1.6 steals and 1.5 blocks made him a fantasy basketball feast, and he backed that up in the impact stats to finish second in single-season PI-RAPM, behind only absolute peak Shaq. This score broke down to 15th in the NBA in O-RAPM and 11th in D-RAPM.
Playoffs discussion: As a reward for their best season ever, Garnett and the Wolves got to face one of the two transcendant teams in the NBA in the first round. Portland had a stocked roster, including a defensive masterpiece of a frontline featuring Rasheed Wallace, Scottie Pippen, Arvydys Sabonis and Brian Grant (among others). Now, let's start with the elephant in the room...for the series, Garnett averaged 18.8 points on only 44% TS%, WAY down from the 22.9 points on 55% TS from the regular season. For many, this means that Garnett had a bad playoffs, full-stop. Let's look a bit closer, to see if that assessment holds true.
*The Trail Blazers were doing a lot of double- and triple- teaming of Garnett that series. It clearly affected his individual scoring, which led to the low scoring efficiency. However, it also led to him having an incredible amount of gravity. On offense, Garnett utilized that gravity to try to set up his teammates with excellent looks. Here's a montage of clips to help illustrate my point (I found a couple of short clips on Youtube that were posted by a Trail Blazers fan, and put this together from there):
Example 1: triple-teamed on dribble drive, shot missed
Garnett received an entry pass in the post, guarded by Wallace. As he turns to face-up, Sabonis has sagged off of Rasho with both feet in the lane, and (Pippen?) is sagged to the foul line and looking at Garnett.
Garnett makes his move on Sheed, and has the angle to get to the rim. But, Sabonis has dropped completely to the rim in Garnett’s face while Pippen is also there, having swiped at Garnett’s dribble on the way past. Interestingly, Rasho doesn’t dive to the rim despite now being guarded by Damon Stoudamire.
By the time Garnett rises to shoot, he has a hard double of two 7-footers between he and the rim, and there are two more wings sagged down towards him as well.
[Example 2: Double/triple out-top --> wide open look for Wally
Garnett is doubled out top by Wallace and Pippen.
Garnett split the double-team with a dribble. Wally Szczerbiak’s man now comes to triple Garnett, leaving Wally stank-wide open behind the 3-point arc.
Garnett sees the triple coming, passes to the wide open Szcerbiak…who proceeds to air-ball the 3-point attempt (not shown).
Example 3: triple-team in paint --> wide open look for Sam
KG dribble drive into the paint. Triple-teamed between he and the rim, with fourth player sagging towards rim and fifth player turned to look at Garnett from top of key. Sam Mitchell is stank-wide open for an elbow 3-pointer.
Garnett kicks it out to Mitchell for the naked trey, which he knocks down.
*That was obviously only a brief montage, but it illustrates a few key points.
1) As SideshowBob illustrated in a great scouting post http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=44663914#p44663914 , Garnett's offense has several key components, including (but not limited to) spacing, PnR (Roll/Pop), High-Post, Low-Post, Mid-Post, Screens. And (and this is key)...these elements, in which he makes most of his impact, are not reliant upon his scoring efficiency.
2) In this series, the Trail Blazers were clearly willing to devote their entire defense to overloading and stopping one man from scoring. Garnett could have continued to force the action, got up enough shots to at least get a big scoring volume. But instead, he adapted and started finding those teammates left open by the defense's over-attention. This translated to him averaging 8.7 assists for the series, and notching two triple-doubles in four games.
3) This ALSO resulted in the rest of the Wolves' players operating at or near their capacity as scorers. The team shot so well, in fact, that though the Wolves' O-Rtg decreased by 1.2 points/100 possessions for the series, that was actually 2.1 points BETTER than their expected value in the series based upon the season-long ORtg & DRtg of the units involved.
*Rasheed Wallace averaged 13.5 ppg,(52% FG, 75% FT on 3.0 FTA/g) in 42 min/game against Wolves in round 1, 22.3 pp42 (48% FG, 78% FT on 5.3 FTA/g) against Jazz and Lakers in next 2 rounds
The Wolves (2.7 SRS) lost the series 3 - 1 to the Trail Blazers (6.4 SRS), but they lost by a total of only 8 points. They kept the series much more competitive than Portland's next opponents, the #2 seeded Jazz (4.5 SRS), who lost 4 - 1 and were outscored by the Blazers by 55 points in five games. That Blazers squad could, and probably SHOULD have won the title, but choked away a 15-point 4th quarter lead to Shaq & Kobe in the WCF.
Bottom line: Garnett played at an MVP level in the regular season, and every bit of that level was required to get that Wolves team to 50 wins. In the playoffs, his TS% dropped by 11% as the defense sold out to stop him. Yet...he modified his game, drawing the defense and setting up his teammates for wide open shots, resulting in almost 9 assists per game and a TEAM offense that surpassed expectation. The Wolves still lost to the better team, but they made that team WORK in a way that the supposedly better regular season team, the Jazz, was unable to replicate. Did Garnett fail? Or was he the most impactful player on the court, and playing even higher than his regular season MVP level to keep his outmanned team extremely competitive against a much stronger opponent? I submit that he had another outstanding postseason, full stop.
This has already gotten much longer than anticipated, and I've got a ways to go. So, I'm going to speed up a bit and not hit every year in such detail. The Wolves played Spurs again in the playoffs. Wolves were 47 - 35 (+1.8 SRS), Spurs were 58 - 24 (+7.9 SRS, 1st in league). Garnett was again matched up on Tim Duncan, and here are their averages against each other that series followed by Duncan's averages over the rest of the playoffs (Mavs and Lakers):
Similar story. Garnett balanced with Duncan, roughly cancelling each other out. He obviously suppressed Duncan, though, as all of Duncan's numbers went way up for the rest of the season. And again, the #8 seeded Wolves (SRS +1.8) lost by a total of 26 points over four games, while the Spurs (7.9 SRS) beat the #5 seed Mavs (SRS 4.6) by a total of 58 points over 5 games. Garnett's team lost in the first round, but they were more competitive against the more powerful Spurs than the supposedly better Mavs. I'd submit again, based upon Garnett's personal impact and the team's results, that Garnett had an outstanding playoffs. Full stop.
In the series, Garnett averaged 24 points (51% TS), 18.7 reb (5.3 ORB), 5 ast, 4 TO
Two elephants in the room:
1) KG's TS% was 2.2% lower than the regular season. I have no vid caps of this one, but I've demonstrated above some examples to illustrate what the skill-set argument suggests, that KG's offensive impact isn't much affected by small changes in scoring efficiency. a) His 5 assists/game were just behind Billups' 5.7 assists for team lead. KG's gravity, spacing & passing ability, I contend, were big reasons why Billups and Wally combined for 42 points on almost 56% TS. b) His 5.3 offensive rebounds/game were unusual for him, and helped with the offense as well
2) Nowitzki averaged 33.3 points on 68.6% TS in the series. However... a) Garnett wasn't guarding Nowitzki in the series b) Nowtizki was a finisher only, averaging 0.7 assists vs 2.0 TOs, and only 1.7 O-rebs. This (OBVIOUSLY) isn't a negative in a guy who scored 33.3 points on 69% TS. BUT... c) The Wolves guarded Nowitzki like that by design. Flip Saunders was quoted during that series as saying, paraphrased, that the Wolves' defensive strategy was to let Dirk get his and try to minimize everyone else. d) To an extent, their defensive strategy wasn't completely awful. Despite Dirk's exploits, the Mavs as a team were held 0.3 points/100 possessions under the expected values, based on the regular season O & D ratings.
*In the series, Garnett sat only 16 total minutes. In those 16 minutes, the Wolves were outscored by 18 points. In the first game, this was the difference between a win and a loss (Wolves outscored Mavs by 4 with Garnett on floor).
Wolves were never going to win this series...the Mavs & Lakers that season were their worst match-ups. In the Mavs' case, they just had too much firepower. The two elephants in the room are enough not to declare this an "outstanding, full stop" series the way that the previous three were, but it was still a dang-good performance by KG in the postseason.
I've got to stop here, for now. It's absurdly deep into the AM...the sun is coming up, in fact. I've got to go to bed. I'm hoping to be able to continue this for the rest of Garnett's playoffs appearances, to really shine a light on them.
But even here...I've covered the four seasons in which Garnett shot the worst in the postseason over the stretch (50% TS through those four match-ups). And based upon his contributions, his impact on his team, and his team's performance in those postseasons, I would say that his overall postseason performance from 1999 - 2002 was outstanding. Not just good given his TS%...but outstanding full stop, with the shooting percentage not really a relevant or determining factor.
mischievous wrote:The Kg guys want for him to crack the top 10 so bad.
The KG guys are giving arguments, grrrrr!!
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.
Well I voted for Kobe as my alternate last thread. But I've given a bit more thought about it. The question is always about Bird's prime and peak advantages being enough to surpass Kobe's edge in longevity. And looking at it, I think yes.
Bird from 83 to 88 achieved a level in the regular season that I think it's better than most Kobe RS seasons (with the exception of Kobe 06).
So I'd probably say Bird has 6 of the top 7 regular seasons among them. I think in the RS the gap is pretty clearly going Bird's way prime wise, even if Kobe accumulated more RS value between them. (According to my formula, Kobe did just that, and both these statements are correct).
In the playoffs I had a feeling Kobe had been the most consistent between them. But going trough their careers again...
According to my formula, here are the top playoff runs among them:
Not that I take this into account only to make my votes (Otherwise Karl Malone would be getting my vote), but I think at this point all major Kobe runs are in here. However, among these 11 runs, Bird owns 6 of them (more than 50%) and he's usually up on Kobe (1st and 2nd spot, 4th, 6th...)
I think Kobe's 08 run might be a bit underrated by my numbers, I'd put it really close to his 09. I also think Bird's 1981 year is overrated by the numbers. But still, I think despite all that Larry Bird's advantage peak and prime wise are good enough to surpass Kobe's longevity, when looking at their gretest runs side by side.
After giving it a lot of thought I'm gonna go with:
2nd vote Kobe Bryant
I think Oscar Robertson could also be a nice choice for this spot.
“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
I think that if you have Bird, Kobe, and Hakeem in the 9-11 spots - in some order - then you're following conventional wisdom. I also think you're right. Every iteration of the formulas I've used has had the three of them in those spots. It's also a bit of a crapshoot, as each player has at one time or another held each of the three spots in question.
Right now I give the edge to Bird. He's one of only seven players (neither of Dream or Kobe are one) to have been the best player on at least three championship teams. In my weighted metric incorporating Top 5 MVP finishes, he is fifth all-time. Kobe is tied for tenth, and Hakeem is twenty-second. Were voters that biased? That ignorant? It's a pretty huge gap (b/w Bird and Dream, especially).
My formula puts Bird in the 900 range - alone with Wilt Chamberlain - while Kobe is alone in the 700's, and Hakeem shares the 600's with Karl Malone. Again, we're looking at a big gap.
Among these three, the thing that sets Bird apart is that it was easy to see him making his teammates better. Kobe and Hakeem, as elite isolation scorers, carried their teams; Bird, with his passing, vision, and ability to space the floor, lifted his. Maybe it's a question of taste, but it also highlights Bird's versatility. Only a few players, a handful at most, have been able to do such a wide variety of basketball tasks at such a high level: Lebron, maybe Magic, probably Jordan, and then things become more debatable. True, his statistical case is limited by his lack of longevity and the high caliber of his teammates - but it's still a hell of a case.
I can easily accept any of these three players here, but I'd pick Larry Legend if my job as a (Real) GM depended on it.
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.
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.
I'd have to read the thread again since I've changed a few things but nothing really big.
I also have some points for rings, MVP shares (1st 10 spots), finals MVPs but I add those after all the year production calculation. So the values for their runs are actually not effected by those things.
There are also some coefficients for games missed and rounds played. But in that regard Kobe's runs are more than OK, since going to the finals makes me divide the PS value by 1 (played most rounds possible). conference finals - divide by 1,1; 2nd round by 1,2; 1st round by 1,3.
“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
I actually liked watching Kg play. Hated the Celtics when we had to play them all the time in the playoffs, but I respect his game. But man, some of these guys just make me not want to discuss him anymore. It's not an insult to have him 13-15 range.
I'm kinda on holiday presently, and not at a computer as often, so will have to be somewhat brief. Anyway, I've found myself campaigning for Garnett recently; he's such an interesting character in this project as it's somewhat "unconventional" to get consideration here ("against the grain", as ardee was fond of saying). But convention gets it wrong sometimes, especially when "convention" wasn't privy to some of the tools and measures we have now. A lot of posters have been making some really fine arguments for him (especially drza and Elgee and therealbig3).
I am more and more impressed with Garnett the more I study him, and am toying with the idea of slipping him into my top 10. It's something I need to deliberate on a bit more, though. For the time being, I'm going to stick with my initial pick for this spot (Bird), who I think had probably 3 seasons which are roughly equal to (or at least VERY close to) Garnett's 2nd-best season (I think Garnett peaked higher with his '04 season). Garnett's got a solid longevity edge (which is important to me); but as per my criteria, there are also other legacy considerations to factor in. Like the imprint Bird left on the game, and how he (and Magic) really took the game to a new level of global popularity, for example. Obviously, this is something that is really difficult to assign a value to. I don't know where I'm ultimately going to end up on this; I may eventually decide it's not enough, and place KG ahead of him. But at the very least, KG has solidified his position as my #11.
So while this may change in the near future as I take time to deliberate and scrutinize a few things, for now I'm going with my more "traditional" pick.....
1st vote: Larry Bird 2ndary vote: Kevin Garnett
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Joao Saraiva wrote:viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here More or less this.
I'd have to read the thread again since I've changed a few things but nothing really big.
I also have some points for rings, MVP shares (1st 10 spots), finals MVPs but I add those after all the year production calculation. So the values for their runs are actually not effected by those things.
There are also some coefficients for games missed and rounds played. But in that regard Kobe's runs are more than OK, since going to the finals makes me divide the PS value by 1 (played most rounds possible). conference finals - divide by 1,1; 2nd round by 1,2; 1st round by 1,3.
If I'm not mistaken, your formula puts KG ahead of Kobe for peak, prime and longevity
mischievous wrote:But man, some of these guys just make me not want to discuss him anymore. It's not an insult to have him 13-15 range.
Why, though? Do you think the """"KG guys"""" have been intellectualy dishonest? You can have KG at #25 or wherever, to each their own (criteria). Is it wrong to have Garnett at #4? Is it bias?
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.
No time to really be on here right now. So, re-posting a Garnett/Bird post I'd written before. Seems very relevant for this thread, as it compares them directly. Before that, though, here's a link to the more scouting-based comp of Bird, KG and Hakeem from last round:
Spoiler:
Olajuwon, Garnett and Bird: continuum
My three top candidates for this spot are Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin Garnett and Larry Bird. They make an interesting compare/contrast group, because in many was they form a bit of a skillset and production continuum. The style makes the fight
I've written about each of these guys before, and I'll draw a bit from that in this section.
My first favorite NBA player was Julius Erving…Dr. J. My second favorite player early on was Earvin Johnson…Magic. As such, my most hated player was Larry Joe Bird. I hated him because he ALWAYS hit the shot…got the call…made the play that made my favorite players’ lives miserable. He was like a robot out there. If he took a key shot I just closed my eyes, because I knew it was going in. If Doc’s 76ers were up by one point with five seconds left I was petrified, because I knew the Celtics were going to go to Bird. Hatred and fear of Larry Bird made the Boston Celtics my least favorite sports franchise.
But here’s the thing…I only hated him because he was so darn GOOD!
On paper Bird was an unlikely superstar. He was a 6-9 combo forward that wasn’t especially quick, couldn’t jump especially high, and wasn’t especially strong. But my gosh, was he an offensive genius. He could make every shot in the gym, and what’s more he KNEW that he could make every shot in the gym. Bird’s confidence and swagger were out of this world, which is why he made so many huge shots. But Bird’s impact was about much more than scoring…he was also blessed with some of the greatest court vision that I’ve ever seen. Outside of Magic Johnson, I’ve never seen another player that big who could see the court and pass like that. Add in a real knowledge of angles and grittiness that also made Bird very strong on the boards and deceptively good as a team defender, and you get an extremely potent combo. Bird had a real sense of the moment, and relished the high pressure moments. He's also one of the greatest trash talkers in NBA history.
Olajuwon:http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=57114830#p57114830 Hakeem always struck me as athletic, but not in the same way that Robinson was. Robinson was longer, seemed faster, and seemed to jump higher. Olajuwon always seemed to be built like a tall short guy (if that makes sense. In other words, he was so proportioned that he didn't give the overwhelming impression of height that Robinson, Kareem or Sampson gave). I also don't have memories of overwhelming speed from Olajuwon, though he seemed quick enough to get his hand on everything in the paint (be it a block or a steal) so that impression isn't exactly air-tight. His agility and maneuverability were amazing, though, and I remember how whenever this would be noted the announcers would always point out his background as a soccer player.
Defensively, I remember Hakeem coming out on guards if necessary (most famous example being his block against the Knicks) but the vast majority of my impressions of him are at/near the rim. From that, even though he had the ability to go horizontal, I would say I'd expect his "horizontal defense" to be more similar to young Duncan's or Robinson's (and perhaps Russell's) than Garnett's. It was pretty ironic that the lasting images (for me anyway) of that 1995 match-up were Robinson being so badly fooled by Olajwon's feints and head-fakes, because I kind of feel like Olajuwon would have also fallen for those fakes. Both Olajuwon and Robinson tended to look for the block a lot, which sometimes caused them to over-commit. I feel like this is a weakness for both when compared to Tim Duncan, who almost always seemed to play steady post defense without going for the fakes. I think that Garnett also tended to be better at this area, as he relied on being so darned long that I don't remember him often joining the para-troopers club when defending on-ball.
Olajuwon incredibly artistic post moves, and he used them to maximal effect with a volume-scoring mentality. Olajuwon was both naturally agile and fluid of the group, and that played out with his post moves. Olajuwon also had an excellent handle for a center, and could attack off the face-up. Olajuwon was never really as efficient a scorer as Robinson in the regular season, and I think in large part that's because he didn't share Robinson's proclivity for getting the "easy" shots (fast breaks, alley-oops) nor did he attack and draw fouls like the Admiral. However, his post moves were the exact opposite on the skill/strength continuum. Olajuwon began his career primarily as a finisher, but he did develop into a solid passer that helped him become an outstanding offensive hub at his absolute peak. His scoring threat drew the defense to him, and his passing set his team up with easy shots. His volume/efficiency could potentially hinder his portability with respect to his peers, as we don't have a positive example of him scaling down his volume for the sake of team success if circumstances dictated the way that we do for the others in the group. But on the other hand, Olajuwon could ramp up his volume scoring to absolutely elite in the playoffs in a way that few could replicate. Garnett:http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=44647718#p44647718
In 2003, while watching a game in the first round of the playoffs, it just hit me that I was watching the best player in the world. I had been a Garnett fan for a few years at that point, had been in a BUNCH of KG vs Duncan debates...Shaq was still the baddest man in the NBA, and Kobe was in his Fro-be stage and wearing the number 8. Garnett was playing in a game against both Shaq and Kobe, who were at the time leading the three-time defending champion Lakers. He hit some ridiculous turnaround, fadeaway baseline jumper when falling out of bounds, and I just realized that I was watching a game featuring both Shaq and Kobe...but that Garnett was the best player on the court.
But why was he the best? Conventional wisdom said that he was playing the game all wrong...he was a 7-footer, but he wasn't parked in the paint. He was an excellent post player, but instead of using that post-game all the time he would spend more time posting on the elbows...shooting baseline fadeway jumpers...running the pick-and-pop and shooting 18 foot jumpers. It was enough to drive basketball purists, including many former NBA players turned analysts, crazy. If he was in the post more, he could suck the defense in. He'd be able to draw more fouls. He'd be able to score at a higher volume...or at a higher efficiency...especially in the playoffs, where everyone knew that the key to winning was scoring in the paint. The thing is...conventional thinking wasn't correct. Garnett's unusual style of play, as comfortable on the outside as on the inside, was actually making life WAY easier for his team. Once the analytics movement kicked in, we were able to see that by posting up outside of the paint, Garnett was warping the defense away from the rim and out towards him. Because he was able to hit jumpers at such a strong clip, he was spacing the defense even further. And because he was arguably the best passing big man ever, and he was able to act as the initiator of the offense like a floor general, Garnett was able to actually directly create offense for teammates in ways that very few non-point guards ever had.
Defensively, Garnett's approach and skills changed at different phases. In his younger years, he was playing combo forward, and thus found himself regularly defending both perimeter players and big men. As he got older, Garnett played pure power forward for a good chunk of time, and matched up primarily with opposing power forwards. Then, as his career wound down, he shifted a bit more to forward/center. As such, Garnett is one of the few players that can claim to have guarded Michael Jordan, Tracy McGrady, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowtizki, Shaquille O'Neal, Dwight Howard and even Yao Ming as the primary defender. His versatility, on that front, is pretty unique. As far as team defense, he is likely the best pick-and-roll defender of all-time, one of the most horizontal big man defenders which meant that his area of influence was more inside the arc as opposed to at the rim. And of course, he was both an excellent defensive mind and a very effective communicator, which helped him to earn his rep as a middle linebacker on the court. Cliff note stylistic summary: Bird was an offensive genius, an off-ball threat that was an elite scoring forward from the perimeter-in, that was also one of the greatest forward passers and offense initiators of all time. He was an average-to-solid defender, on the whole, with a penchant for getting steals and playing angles that helped make up for his relative lack of athleticism. He had a reputation for shining in big moments.
Olajuwon is one of the best defensive players and scorers of all-time, combining unique athleticism and timing to amass blocks and steals at a rate rarely achieved in the modern era (only David Robinson's really a peer). Olajuwon's scoring ramped up extremely well in the postseason, a fact that was true throughout his career. At his peak, his scoring spiked and his passing and offensive understanding had improved to the point that he could peak as one of the best offensive centers of all time.
Garnett had great post moves, though not as good as Hakeem. He was an excellent offense-initiating forward, but not to the level of Bird. He was a great scorer, but didn't do so at the volume of either Bird or Hakeem. On defense, Garnett was a great rim protector but not to Hakeem's level. However, he had more defensive coverage area and was a better perimeter defender than either Olajuwon or Bird, which gave him levels of defensive versatility that were unique. But on the whole, on both offense and defense, there is a reasonable continuum between these three players.
penbeast0 wrote:OK, a challenge. Give me a reason not to vote for Larry Bird (and for Garnett fans, to support Kevin Garnett over David Robinson other than longevity) . . .
OK, now I'll take a stab at the first part and compare Garnett with Bird. I'll start with a box score stats summary from their primes:
OK, I'll admit to being surprised that their scoring per 100 possessions is so close. I knew that the 80s was a higher pace, and I also know that pace adjusting isn't perfect, but still.
Box scores aside, at this point we know how these players played. Bird is on the short list of greatest offensive players ever, an off-ball savant as coined by Doc MJ, who could weave seamlessly between volume scoring and running the offense without being the primary ball-handler. Bird also has three all-defensive team nods, highlighting a part of his game that isn't often mentioned. All Defensive teams can be deceptive, but in Bird's case he actually was a good positional defender that recognized defensive angles with the same facility that he recognized offensive angles. He was used to playing off the ball, and his ability to recognize what the offense needed to do (no matter who had the ball) allowed him to defend better than his athletic ability should have allowed. Plus he was a great rebounder. With his style and substance, if there were RAPM data for the 80s I would expect Bird's offensive RAPM to be in the same range as LeBron's or Dirk's (the 2 highest scoring forwards in offensive RAPM in Doc MJ's 1998 - 2012 spreadsheet), perhaps a bit higher. On the flip side, though he was solid on defense, I don't think his defensive RAPM would be better than LeBron's.
In some ways, Garnett is his mirror: on the short list of greatest defensive players ever, while also a better-than-you-think on offense. Only, in Garnett's case, that "better than you think on offense" was pretty strong. He led four straight top-6 offenses in Minnesota from 2002 - 2005, with four different starting point guards and three different 2nd leading scorers (he led all four teams in scoring, and two of them in assists). Last thread I saw Olajuwon described as one of the few Bigs that could be dominant on both sides of the ball. For those that give any credence to RAPM, Garnett is the only player since 1998 to have measured out as the #1 offensive player in a given year (2004) as well as the #1 defensive player in a given year (multiple times). Those peaks came in different years, however, in 2004 in the PI RAPM study he measured out as the #1 offensive player and the #3 defensive player in the same season. In 2003 he measured out #2 on offense and #7 on defense. In 2008 in Boston he measured out #1 on defense and number 18 on offense. No one else in the 15 years we have RAPM for has approached that kind of balance, neither over a career nor especially in any given season.
Longevity Above I listed 9 years for Bird's prime and 10 years for Garnett's. After sitting out almost all of 1989, Bird had another good year in 1990. So call it 10 prime years each at this point.
Outside of that window, Bird had 1991 in which he missed 22 regular season games but was able to play solid when on the court:
Clearly it's not what he once was, but this was a definite positive contributing season.
Then, Bird's final year was 1992. He was only able to play in 45 regular season games (though his production was better than 1991), but his body broke down and he was only able to play in 4 of Boston's 10 playoff games (and only able to start 2 of those games). While he was great when on the court, the fact that he could only play in half of the games and couldn't face the postseason makes it hard to count this season as value added for Bird.
Garnett, on the other hand, is about to play in his 20th season. Let's throw out season 19, because I don't know what the heck happened in Brooklyn (either KG got old really fast or Kidd had no idea how to use him). Let's also throw out his rookie season since he didn't move into the starting line-up until the 2nd half of the season. Even if we do this, we're looking at a huge longevity advantage. Garnett was an All Star in 1997 and 1998, 2009 (knee injury ended season early), 2010, 2011 and 2013 among the years not listed as his prime. He wasn't All NBA in any of those seasons, but he was all defense in three of them (two 1st teams and a 2nd team). Stepping away from accolades, the more statistical approach...
In the first year that we have PI RAPM (1998), Garnett measured out as the #5 player in the league. He was extremely raw, but already making strong contributions as a 3rd year player at 21 years old.
In 2010 Garnett was obviously slowed as he recovered from 2009 knee surgery, but his impact (especially on defense) was clearly the difference between a 2nd round Celtics squad (2009) and a team that was championship caliber.
In the last year in DocMJ's spreadsheet, 2012, Garnett measured out as the #5 player in the league. He capped that season by averaging 19.2 ppg (54% TS), 10.3 reb, and breaking the +/- scale with his defense while leading the Celtics to Game 7 of the ECF against the eventual champion Heat. This was Garnett's 17th season.
In year 18 he measured out well on ShutUpandJam's PI RAPM list, though he was only playing 29.7 min/game. He then averaged 12.7 points, 13.7 rebounds and 3.5 assists in 35.3 mpg in the playoffs.
Bottom line: I take longevity with a grain of salt outside of extreme cases because I value primes. I voted for Russell over Kareem, and I'd have voted LeBron over Karl Malone. That said, it's food for thought and I know longevity is of more import for many. Garnett clearly has a longevity edge, and with his overall game I value his prime with Bird's as well. All told, I think that Garnett was the better player for longer.
Joao Saraiva wrote:viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here More or less this.
I'd have to read the thread again since I've changed a few things but nothing really big.
I also have some points for rings, MVP shares (1st 10 spots), finals MVPs but I add those after all the year production calculation. So the values for their runs are actually not effected by those things.
There are also some coefficients for games missed and rounds played. But in that regard Kobe's runs are more than OK, since going to the finals makes me divide the PS value by 1 (played most rounds possible). conference finals - divide by 1,1; 2nd round by 1,2; 1st round by 1,3.
If I'm not mistaken, your formula puts KG ahead of Kobe for peak, prime and longevity
mischievous wrote:But man, some of these guys just make me not want to discuss him anymore. It's not an insult to have him 13-15 range.
Why, though? Do you think the """"KG guys"""" have been intellectualy dishonest? You can have KG at #25 or wherever, to each their own (criteria). Is it wrong to have Garnett at #4? Is it bias?
One thing for Garnett with me, when we compare him to a Kobe, I don't think he had as many seasons close to his peak level as Kobe did. Kg has 03 and 04 i guess 05 if generous. Kobe has 01, 03, and 06-09 maybe 10 if generous.
Joao Saraiva wrote:viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here More or less this.
I'd have to read the thread again since I've changed a few things but nothing really big.
I also have some points for rings, MVP shares (1st 10 spots), finals MVPs but I add those after all the year production calculation. So the values for their runs are actually not effected by those things.
There are also some coefficients for games missed and rounds played. But in that regard Kobe's runs are more than OK, since going to the finals makes me divide the PS value by 1 (played most rounds possible). conference finals - divide by 1,1; 2nd round by 1,2; 1st round by 1,3.
If I'm not mistaken, your formula puts KG ahead of Kobe for peak, prime and longevity
mischievous wrote:But man, some of these guys just make me not want to discuss him anymore. It's not an insult to have him 13-15 range.
Why, though? Do you think the """"KG guys"""" have been intellectualy dishonest? You can have KG at #25 or wherever, to each their own (criteria). Is it wrong to have Garnett at #4? Is it bias?
Yes it does.
The extra points earned by Kobe put him, however, ahead of Kevin Garnett in the all time list. (accodale board, mainly effected by MVP shares, and a bit by rings).
I've done some 60s and 70s players also, so it also puts Oscar Robertson ahead of Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant. (Wilt and KAJ too). I wouldn't go to hard on the results tough, since there are bigger holes on it with players from years before 1980. (less rounds in the playoffs; SPG, BPG, TOPG and DBPM are missing, no adjustment for pace os ts%, etc.) They gain on some of the items, they lose on others. According to it KAJ and Wilt would be #1 and #2 of all time.
Dirk also tops KG in all the items.
“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
mischievous wrote:One thing for Garnett with me, when we compare him to a Kobe, I don't think he had as many seasons close to his peak level as Kobe did. Kg has 03 and 04 i guess 05 if generous. Kobe has 01, 03, and 06-09 maybe 10 if generous.
I do agree with that sentiment. 06-09 Kobe is really close in terms of level (albeit I think 08 is clearly his peak) while it seems that KG clearly peaked in 04. But:
1) Does it really matter if we think KG peaked higher than Kobe? Under that assumption I don't think it matters much. 2) How much of our perceived "peak" is dependant on team context? Meaning, I don't think 06 Garnett and 06 Kobe are that far from their 04 and 08 selves with adequate teams.
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.
