RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9

[mailmp]

No, the history of the NBA has basically been to get a star who can hard carry you in the playoffs... then just try to build a complementary roster (or hope one basically falls together if — shocker — other teams are better markets or your front office is not perfect or uniquely prescient) that allows him to do that.

And Garnett can't do that because...? Because "carrying" a team equals "iso score"?

When you need a bucket quite literally yes, and any point toward Garnett’s defence hardly qualifies as a marked (if at all) advantage over Hakeem.

(and most of the time you do not end up with a Pierce-level sidekick)

Except 2020, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2013, 2012, 2010, 2009, 2008 (duh), 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2002, 2001...

You misread this. I was not saying Pierce level in ability (although Hakeem won his two titles without someone of that level...), I was saying Pierce level specifically in ability to be a crunch-time scorer. The second options you are listing were more Garnett level in their team roles and arguably in scoring ability at that specific time; replacing Lebron and 2009/10 Kobe and 2000-02 Shaq and 2006 Wade with Garnett is an undeniably major offensive hit, and while it is certainly conceivable that titles can still be won like that (2004 Pistons the constant example), there is a much larger sample of offensively more limited teams running into trouble when they need to score, even with a strong defence. And maybe in the modern era of offensive inflation that could be different, but Hakeem voters have already acknowledged Garnett probably suits the modern league more...

Ah, wait, I forgot, now we should dismiss those Houston titles because all their opposition was imperfect and also because their roleplayers performed well. Yes, basically Rasheed Wallace, what objective analysis! (But hey, I guess by RAPM 1997-2004 Rasheed was basically the same level player as an average Duncan/Garnett season, so maybe you meant that as a compliment...) And certainly none of those teams compare to the conceptual brilliance of the 2008 Eastern Conference opposition, or to the 2004 Nuggets/Kings...

Can't really comprehend why this strawman is so upvoted, even by good posters.

Maybe you would “comprehend” it the way “good posters” did if you had more properly read the full thread for context.

[70sFan]

A big man anchoring all-time great offenses is unique. Hakeem certainly never came close to it, a player in this comparison. Who else has anchored them? Shaq, Kareem and maybe Wilt?

I should keep short...

This is the post you mention it as leading an all-time great offense. O'Neal, Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, Nowitzki, Barkley, they all did that. That's 5. I don't think you could name enough primary ball handlers to say these would be unique. In minority? Yeah, sure. Unique is a whole different level though. Robertson, Magic, Jordan, James, Nash, Curry, Paul. Let's say I'm forgetting one or two other names. That's 5 to 7-9.
Do you think how many all-time great offenses were there?

Also, why not make a cross comparison?
Olajuwon's defense vs. Nowitzki's offense
Olajuwon's offense vs. Nowitzki's defense

We can all back and forth on the 1st one. I'm sure Nowitzki's major case will come from massive ORtg numbers. Ironically doing it for defense would make Ewing a better defender than Olajuwon. While Olajuwon was a legit top 5 defender ever, Nowitzki was not the top 5 offensive players ever. Let's not get sidetracked. The main point is; the 2nd one is not even on the same level.

Dirk is pretty clearly a better offensive player to me than Barkley, though they are close. Dirk's advantage comes from his longer prime and, in my eyes, a more resilient playoff skill-set.

You might prefer Dirk over Barkley, but there is no way that Nowitzki was "clearly" better offensive player.

[Jordan Syndrome]

I should keep short...

This is the post you mention it as leading an all-time great offense. O'Neal, Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, Nowitzki, Barkley, they all did that. That's 5. I don't think you could name enough primary ball handlers to say these would be unique. In minority? Yeah, sure. Unique is a whole different level though. Robertson, Magic, Jordan, James, Nash, Curry, Paul. Let's say I'm forgetting one or two other names. That's 5 to 7-9.
Do you think how many all-time great offenses were there?

Also, why not make a cross comparison?
Olajuwon's defense vs. Nowitzki's offense
Olajuwon's offense vs. Nowitzki's defense

We can all back and forth on the 1st one. I'm sure Nowitzki's major case will come from massive ORtg numbers. Ironically doing it for defense would make Ewing a better defender than Olajuwon. While Olajuwon was a legit top 5 defender ever, Nowitzki was not the top 5 offensive players ever. Let's not get sidetracked. The main point is; the 2nd one is not even on the same level.

Dirk is pretty clearly a better offensive player to me than Barkley, though they are close. Dirk's advantage comes from his longer prime and, in my eyes, a more resilient playoff skill-set.

You might prefer Dirk over Barkley, but there is no way that Nowitzki was "clearly" better offensive player.

You may be conflating the words clearly and easily.

Easily better means a large gap.
Clearly better means a noticeable gap.

Things can be clear and also close.

[mailmp]

To the point about winning bias: I think it is more ridiculous to try to argue winning is anything approaching a near useless indicator. And I am not even talking about legacy or title equity or anything like that (which people do use, to the chagrin of Garnett fans). But treating close games or series as ties or coinflips may be nice as a concept, but in practice it is borderline absurd and maybe a step and a half above the people who give Jordan credit for never going seven games in the Finals. Like yes, if Bill Russell lost a bunch of his game sevens, we probably would see him differently. And same with Wilt if he had won a bunch of those game sevens he had lost (or if Jerry West had). But the reality is that those wins and losses happened, and they deservedly go to Russell’s credit. And the exercise of “well what if he lost though” ignores the mental aspect of the game. It ignores how some players will indeed falter under pressure, or how some players seem to care left after achieving success, or how other players never lose that drive, or how some players set out to avenge losses aggressively.

So the “winning bias” of Hakeem’s titles tells us about how he performs under maximum pressure, and about how he responds to adversity, and about how he rises against perceived slights, and about how he maintains that drive to win even after winning, and about how he keeps the same energy (and maybe even presses harder) as the playoffs drag on and everyone becomes more tired, and so on. But past that, even if we say he loses the 1994 Finals, performing exactly the same (or possibly a bit better) with only a few roleplayer shots on either side changing... then yeah even with a 1-2 Finals record (which is still more impressive than Garnett’s playoff résumé), I would still trust him as a better playoff performer than Garnett and as a player more able to bring my team a title when the playoffs begin. If you want to try a David Robinson-esque argument centred around regular season value manifesting in avoiding the types of stupid run that Hakeem had to go through in 1995, sure, you can go that route, but for me I will defer to the postseason advantage, regardless of “winning bias”.

[Dr Positivity]

A couple thoughts on KG vs Hakeem offense

- Yes Hakeem is a better scorer, but this is weighed against KG always have higher impact spacing and passing along with solid scoring.
- I'm willing to accept Hakeem peaks higher offensively but in my opinion 85-92 Hakeem is not better offensively than any of the prime KG years. He did well in the playoffs, but on the whole if Hakeem is only going to be the offensive player he was in his pre-peak years, I would rather have KG's skillset.

Hakeem has a good argument for higher peak than KG but I view KG's impact as more consistent, and he has an excellent peak himself in 04.

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Larry Bird
3. Hakeem Olajuwon

Much like KG vs Hakeem, Bird's peak is also amazing and approaching on generational player (leading to 3 straight MVPs and Gretzky of his sport talk) but I value the rest of his career a little more than Hakeem's outside of 93-95 due to playing with higher basketball IQ and intangibles, his impact on both ends was considered to go beyond his stats.

[No-more-rings]

I’d like to know what these supposed inconsistencies are in Hakeem’s career. Is it because he wasn’t always scoring like he was in 93-95, or because he was losing in first round a lot in the late 80s and early 90s? If either of those are concerns i have no idea how KG should go ahead if that’s the measure. There’s very good reason to consider Hakeem better defensively than KG or Duncan, some of the casts that he led to top 3 defenses were pretty remarkable and not sure they could’ve done it.

I see no way that Dirk’s offensive gap is bigger than Hakeem’s defensive one. Dirk is comfortably the better offensive player, but Hakeem’s offense is postseason resilient and his defense is astronomically better than Dirk’s.

Hakeem from 86-97 in the playoffs averaged nearly 28 ppg on 58 ts%, some people seem to think he was like Dwight Howard on offense or something.

[Dr Positivity]

To the point about winning bias: I think it is more ridiculous to try to argue winning is anything approaching a near useless indicator. And I am not even talking about legacy or title equity or anything like that (which people do use, to the chagrin of Garnett fans). But treating close games or series as ties or coinflips may be nice as a concept, but in practice it is borderline absurd and maybe a step and a half above the people who give Jordan credit for never going seven games in the Finals. Like yes, if Bill Russell lost a bunch of his game sevens, we probably would see him differently. And same with Wilt if he had won a bunch of those game sevens he had lost (or if Jerry West had). But the reality is that those wins and losses happened, and they deservedly go to Russell’s credit. And the exercise of “well what if he lost though” ignores the mental aspect of the game. It ignores how some players will indeed falter under pressure, or how some players seem to care left after achieving success, or how other players never lose that drive, or how some players set out to avenge losses aggressively.

So the “winning bias” of Hakeem’s titles tells us about how he performs under maximum pressure, and about how he responds to adversity, and about how he rises against perceived slights, and about how he maintains that drive to win even after winning, and about how he keeps the same energy (and maybe even presses harder) as the playoffs drag on and everyone becomes more tired, and so on. But past that, even if we say he loses the 1994 Finals, performing exactly the same (or possibly a bit better) with only a few roleplayer shots on either side changing... then yeah even with a 1-2 Finals record (which is still more impressive than Garnett’s playoff résumé), I would still trust him as a better playoff performer than Garnett and as a player more able to bring my team a title when the playoffs begin. If you want to try a David Robinson-esque argument centred around regular season value manifesting in avoiding the types of stupid run that Hakeem had to go through in 1995, sure, you can go that route, but for me I will defer to the postseason advantage, regardless of “winning bias”.

My problem with putting a lot of weight into coinflips is a lot of it comes down to role players. Hakeem's teammates being Clutch City had a lot of to do with those titles, especially 95. On the other hand teams like Jazz, Suns, Knicks were not as clutch as they could have been. Hakeem outplaying Barkley, Malone, Ewing had a lot to do with it but it wasn't the only reason why. Hakeem outplaying them is why he is always ranked above those players so it's not discounted.

In one of the most important wins of his career (Heat Spurs) Lebron bricked twice and yet the Heat winning 2 titles instead of 1 due to Bosh rebound, Allen shot, Manu missed FT, etc. dramatically changed his legacy. Kobe went 6-24 in 2010 and if his team lost with Pau grabbing less rebounds it would have been used against him in a massive way. This is the type of results over process ring counting that I find questionable.

I value Hakeem being clutch in the playoffs I just don't value him having 2 rings that much compared to players like KG, Dirk or West's 1 because there are so many contextual reasons why from being lucky to peak in the non MJ years to barely winning several series. The Rockets, the Jazz and the Blazers all made 2 finals in the 90s, do we really know the Rockets were any better than the other teams, or did they just make the finals in the years without Jordan or the Bad Boys? KG would have as many rings as Hakeem if the Celtics won game 7 in 2010, yes he was aging, but nevertheless, they were basically one good quarter away and even the worst team in the league can outplay the best team over one quarter. From 08 until his injury in 09 the Celtics were playing at a higher level than any Hakeem Rockets team, are we sure this 1.75 seasons of dominance (before even taking into account 2010) is less meaningful from a player evaluation standpoint than the Rockets barely winning 2 titles?

[O_6]

To the point about winning bias: I think it is more ridiculous to try to argue winning is anything approaching a near useless indicator. And I am not even talking about legacy or title equity or anything like that (which people do use, to the chagrin of Garnett fans). But treating close games or series as ties or coinflips may be nice as a concept, but in practice it is borderline absurd and maybe a step and a half above the people who give Jordan credit for never going seven games in the Finals. Like yes, if Bill Russell lost a bunch of his game sevens, we probably would see him differently. And same with Wilt if he had won a bunch of those game sevens he had lost (or if Jerry West had). But the reality is that those wins and losses happened, and they deservedly go to Russell’s credit. And the exercise of “well what if he lost though” ignores the mental aspect of the game. It ignores how some players will indeed falter under pressure, or how some players seem to care left after achieving success, or how other players never lose that drive, or how some players set out to avenge losses aggressively.

So the “winning bias” of Hakeem’s titles tells us about how he performs under maximum pressure, and about how he responds to adversity, and about how he rises against perceived slights, and about how he maintains that drive to win even after winning, and about how he keeps the same energy (and maybe even presses harder) as the playoffs drag on and everyone becomes more tired, and so on. But past that, even if we say he loses the 1994 Finals, performing exactly the same (or possibly a bit better) with only a few roleplayer shots on either side changing... then yeah even with a 1-2 Finals record (which is still more impressive than Garnett’s playoff résumé), I would still trust him as a better playoff performer than Garnett and as a player more able to bring my team a title when the playoffs begin. If you want to try a David Robinson-esque argument centred around regular season value manifesting in avoiding the types of stupid run that Hakeem had to go through in 1995, sure, you can go that route, but for me I will defer to the postseason advantage, regardless of “winning bias”.

My problem with putting a lot of weight into coinflips is a lot of it comes down to role players. Hakeem's teammates being Clutch City had a lot of to do with those titles, especially 95. On the other hand teams like Jazz, Suns, Knicks were not as clutch as they could have been. Hakeem outplaying Barkley, Malone, Ewing had a lot to do with it but it wasn't the only reason why. Hakeem outplaying them is why he is always ranked above those players so it's not discounted.

In one of the most important wins of his career (Heat Spurs) Lebron bricked twice and yet the Heat winning 2 titles instead of 1 due to Bosh rebound, Allen shot, Manu missed FT, etc. dramatically changed his legacy. Kobe went 6-24 in 2010 and if his team lost with Pau grabbing less rebounds it would have been used against him in a massive way. This is the type of results over process ring counting that I find questionable.

I value Hakeem being clutch in the playoffs I just don't value him having 2 rings that much compared to players like KG, Dirk or West's 1 because there are so many contextual reasons why from being lucky to peak in the non MJ years to barely winning several series. The Rockets, the Jazz and the Blazers all made 2 finals in the 90s, do we really know the Rockets were any better than the other teams, or did they just make the finals in the years without Jordan or the Bad Boys? KG would have as many rings as Hakeem if the Celtics won game 7 in 2010, yes he was aging, but nevertheless, they were basically one good quarter away and even the worst team in the league can outplay the best team over one quarter.

I think it’s fair to point out though that KGs offensive game by nature forced his role players or “others” to have a greater role in terms of offensive creation than the other players in the mix for this spot.

I agree with the “volume scoring is overrated” mindset that many have adopted. I think that’s 100% true for the general public and talking heads. However, I think some people here have leaned a little too much into that mindset and have now started underrating/underappreciating the value a reliable high volume scorer adds to the team to a degree. Players with the ability to scale up as scorers to elite levels make life far easier for the rest of their teams if they do it an efficient and team-helping context.

Hakeem’s ability to scale up as a scorer was nothing short of historic. Outside of MJ and a few others, there aren’t many who matches this ability of Hakeem in the playoffs. On the flip side, this was a big flaw in KGs skill set when it came to him being the primary offensive option on his team. He was not a great player at creating his own shots at will, and he operated in the mid range and most of his mid range offense was based on role players assisting him (unlike Dirk or Kobe) which creates less of a positive spacing impact for his team than a low post maestro like Hakeem. Hakeem being able to drop 35 when needed allowed his role players to have “good games” where they scored 13 points and hit open catch and shoot field goals. KG couldn’t do that at all, so he needed a role player to step up for 18+ while having less open looks in a comparable scenario to have a “good game”.

[mailmp]

The Big Three Celtics were a substantially better roster than those Rockets, and I already said my evaluation of both players does not depend on a six-point roleplayer swing in their respective Finals game 7s.

I do think the broad question of whether a two ring Garnett might popularly be put above a one-ring Hakeem is a valid one, but I do not find that overly pertinent to most of the posters in this specific project (also Pierce getting that undeserved Finals MVP does cut the shine off Garnett’s win among popular consensus, and presumably that would still be true).

[Doctor MJ]

To the point about winning bias: I think it is more ridiculous to try to argue winning is anything approaching a near useless indicator. And I am not even talking about legacy or title equity or anything like that (which people do use, to the chagrin of Garnett fans). But treating close games or series as ties or coinflips may be nice as a concept, but in practice it is borderline absurd and maybe a step and a half above the people who give Jordan credit for never going seven games in the Finals. Like yes, if Bill Russell lost a bunch of his game sevens, we probably would see him differently. And same with Wilt if he had won a bunch of those game sevens he had lost (or if Jerry West had). But the reality is that those wins and losses happened, and they deservedly go to Russell’s credit. And the exercise of “well what if he lost though” ignores the mental aspect of the game. It ignores how some players will indeed falter under pressure, or how some players seem to care left after achieving success, or how other players never lose that drive, or how some players set out to avenge losses aggressively.

So the “winning bias” of Hakeem’s titles tells us about how he performs under maximum pressure, and about how he responds to adversity, and about how he rises against perceived slights, and about how he maintains that drive to win even after winning, and about how he keeps the same energy (and maybe even presses harder) as the playoffs drag on and everyone becomes more tired, and so on. But past that, even if we say he loses the 1994 Finals, performing exactly the same (or possibly a bit better) with only a few roleplayer shots on either side changing... then yeah even with a 1-2 Finals record (which is still more impressive than Garnett’s playoff résumé), I would still trust him as a better playoff performer than Garnett and as a player more able to bring my team a title when the playoffs begin. If you want to try a David Robinson-esque argument centred around regular season value manifesting in avoiding the types of stupid run that Hakeem had to go through in 1995, sure, you can go that route, but for me I will defer to the postseason advantage, regardless of “winning bias”.

I'm asking people how they'd perceive Hakeem if he'd gotten unlucky in a couple places while still playing the same way.

Yes I understand that Hakeem playing well in a pivotal moment is a positive thing and I'm not saying to ignore it, but I think it's really clear that people end up doing a lot of backward classification here based on the team winning and Hakeem could have been the exact same player and the team could have still fallen a bit short in one of those 5/7 game series. People need to ask themselves how they'd see Hakeem if this was the case. If they'd see Hakeem drastically differently while he played just as well, then that speaks to vulnerability to noise in their method.

[Owly]

To the point about winning bias: I think it is more ridiculous to try to argue winning is anything approaching a near useless indicator. And I am not even talking about legacy or title equity or anything like that (which people do use, to the chagrin of Garnett fans). But treating close games or series as ties or coinflips may be nice as a concept, but in practice it is borderline absurd and maybe a step and a half above the people who give Jordan credit for never going seven games in the Finals. Like yes, if Bill Russell lost a bunch of his game sevens, we probably would see him differently. And same with Wilt if he had won a bunch of those game sevens he had lost (or if Jerry West had). But the reality is that those wins and losses happened, and they deservedly go to Russell’s credit. And the exercise of “well what if he lost though” ignores the mental aspect of the game. It ignores how some players will indeed falter under pressure, or how some players seem to care left after achieving success, or how other players never lose that drive, or how some players set out to avenge losses aggressively.

So the “winning bias” of Hakeem’s titles tells us about how he performs under maximum pressure, and about how he responds to adversity, and about how he rises against perceived slights, and about how he maintains that drive to win even after winning, and about how he keeps the same energy (and maybe even presses harder) as the playoffs drag on and everyone becomes more tired, and so on. But past that, even if we say he loses the 1994 Finals, performing exactly the same (or possibly a bit better) with only a few roleplayer shots on either side changing... then yeah even with a 1-2 Finals record (which is still more impressive than Garnett’s playoff résumé), I would still trust him as a better playoff performer than Garnett and as a player more able to bring my team a title when the playoffs begin. If you want to try a David Robinson-esque argument centred around regular season value manifesting in avoiding the types of stupid run that Hakeem had to go through in 1995, sure, you can go that route, but for me I will defer to the postseason advantage, regardless of “winning bias”.

My problem with putting a lot of weight into coinflips is a lot of it comes down to role players. Hakeem's teammates being Clutch City had a lot of to do with those titles, especially 95. On the other hand teams like Jazz, Suns, Knicks were not as clutch as they could have been. Hakeem outplaying Barkley, Malone, Ewing had a lot to do with it but it wasn't the only reason why. Hakeem outplaying them is why he is always ranked above those players so it's not discounted.

In one of the most important wins of his career (Heat Spurs) Lebron bricked twice and yet the Heat winning 2 titles instead of 1 due to Bosh rebound, Allen shot, Manu missed FT, etc. dramatically changed his legacy. Kobe went 6-24 in 2010 and if his team lost with Pau grabbing less rebounds it would have been used against him in a massive way. This is the type of results over process ring counting that I find questionable.

I value Hakeem being clutch in the playoffs I just don't value him having 2 rings that much compared to players like KG, Dirk or West's 1 because there are so many contextual reasons why from being lucky to peak in the non MJ years to barely winning several series. The Rockets, the Jazz and the Blazers all made 2 finals in the 90s, do we really know the Rockets were any better than the other teams, or did they just make the finals in the years without Jordan or the Bad Boys? KG would have as many rings as Hakeem if the Celtics won game 7 in 2010, yes he was aging, but nevertheless, they were basically one good quarter away and even the worst team in the league can outplay the best team over one quarter.

I think it’s fair to point out though that KGs offensive game by nature forced his role players or “others” to have a greater role in terms of offensive creation than the other players in the mix for this spot.

I agree with the “volume scoring is overrated” mindset that many have adopted. I think that’s 100% true for the general public and talking heads. However, I think some people here have leaned a little too much into that mindset and have now started underrating/underappreciating the value a reliable high volume scorer adds to the team to a degree. Players with the ability to scale up as scorers to elite levels make life far easier for the rest of their teams if they do it an efficient and team-helping context.

Hakeem’s ability to scale up as a scorer was nothing short of historic. Outside of MJ and a few others, there aren’t many who matches this ability of Hakeem in the playoffs. On the flip side, this was a big flaw in KGs skill set when it came to him being the primary offensive option on his team. He was not a great player at creating his own shots at will, and he operated in the mid range and most of his mid range offense was based on role players assisting him (unlike Dirk or Kobe) which creates less of a positive spacing impact for his team than a low post maestro like Hakeem. Hakeem being able to drop 35 when needed allowed his role players to have “good games” where they scored 13 points and hit open catch and shoot field goals. KG couldn’t do that at all, so he needed a role player to step up for 18+ while having less open looks in a comparable scenario to have a “good game”.

I would posit that Hakeem's teammates getting open shots doesn't start until he starts passing with regularity (obviously teammates have to do their bit, nonetheless this was a criticism of Hakeem at the time). Even if you're big into weighing playoff production, Olajuwon doesn't hit the 4 assists per 100 possessions mark until '93 (when he blows it away). There would seem to be a case that him scoring is only really a direct help, his pull on defenders doesn't create much else for others up to that point. If so, unless you believe he gives you a good chance in absolute terms to one-man wrecking crew his way to the title (and if you believe in the playoff stats as more replicable than noise, circumstance etc. then certainly he's one of the best options for trying this route), your odds get a lot better from 93-97.

[ZeppelinPage]

1. Oscar Robertson - Insane regular season and playoff numbers, rarely performed bad in playoffs and has pretty fantastic impact numbers as well.
2. Hakeem Olajuwon - Lower overall peak than the two above, took it up a notch in playoffs but wasn't quite at the level of Shaq or Oscar.
3. Kevin Garnett - Below Hakeem and Oscar in terms of overall playoff performance and impact, which I greatly value.

[penbeast0]

I'm asking people how they'd perceive Hakeem if he'd gotten unlucky in a couple places while still playing the same way.

Yes I understand that Hakeem playing well in a pivotal moment is a positive thing and I'm not saying to ignore it, but I think it's really clear that people end up doing a lot of backward classification here based on the team winning and Hakeem could have been the exact same player and the team could have still fallen a bit short in one of those 5/7 game series. People need to ask themselves how they'd see Hakeem if this was the case. If they'd see Hakeem drastically differently while he played just as well, then that speaks to vulnerability to noise in their method.

Same critique applies if Larry Bird didn't beat the Lakers (in 7) in 84 -- can't beat Magic. OR if Garnett goes to Boston, plays exactly the same, but his teammates come up short.

[MyUniBroDavis]

To the point about winning bias: I think it is more ridiculous to try to argue winning is anything approaching a near useless indicator. And I am not even talking about legacy or title equity or anything like that (which people do use, to the chagrin of Garnett fans). But treating close games or series as ties or coinflips may be nice as a concept, but in practice it is borderline absurd and maybe a step and a half above the people who give Jordan credit for never going seven games in the Finals. Like yes, if Bill Russell lost a bunch of his game sevens, we probably would see him differently. And same with Wilt if he had won a bunch of those game sevens he had lost (or if Jerry West had). But the reality is that those wins and losses happened, and they deservedly go to Russell’s credit. And the exercise of “well what if he lost though” ignores the mental aspect of the game. It ignores how some players will indeed falter under pressure, or how some players seem to care left after achieving success, or how other players never lose that drive, or how some players set out to avenge losses aggressively.

So the “winning bias” of Hakeem’s titles tells us about how he performs under maximum pressure, and about how he responds to adversity, and about how he rises against perceived slights, and about how he maintains that drive to win even after winning, and about how he keeps the same energy (and maybe even presses harder) as the playoffs drag on and everyone becomes more tired, and so on. But past that, even if we say he loses the 1994 Finals, performing exactly the same (or possibly a bit better) with only a few roleplayer shots on either side changing... then yeah even with a 1-2 Finals record (which is still more impressive than Garnett’s playoff résumé), I would still trust him as a better playoff performer than Garnett and as a player more able to bring my team a title when the playoffs begin. If you want to try a David Robinson-esque argument centred around regular season value manifesting in avoiding the types of stupid run that Hakeem had to go through in 1995, sure, you can go that route, but for me I will defer to the postseason advantage, regardless of “winning bias”.

For what its worth, here are garnetts averages in the clutch each postseason

1998 - 1.3ppg in 2.3 minutes, 0.3 rebounds, 0.3 blocks 66% shooting

99 - 3ppg in 2.6 minutes, 60% shooting

2000 1.8ppg in 4.2 minutes, 12.5% shooting, 1.3 rebounds 0.3 assists

2001 0.7ppg in 2.8 minutes, 50% shooting, 0.3 rebounds, 0.3 steals

2002 0.5ppg in 3.4 minutes, 0% shooting (0.5/1ft) 2.5 rebounds 0.5 blocks

2003 7.5 points in 5 minutes, 62.5 shooting, 2.5 boards 1 assist 0.5 blocks

2004 1.8 points in 2.8 minutes 37.5% shooting, 0.5 rebounds 0.4 turnovers, 0.3 steals 0.1 blocks

2008 celtics 1.5 points in 3.1 minutes, 42.9% shooting 0.6 rebounds

I would def say the scoring volume is quite low, which probabky indicitive of something, outside of 03 and99

[freethedevil]

It is always funny when I come across people who make Elgee look like a portability casual. Yes, Garnett is probably better if I get to lab design my team in some fantasy draft. Although not even necessarily, because there is a perpetual basketball throughline that, with a few exceptions, when the postseason runs around you need a guy who can get a basket. And maybe your ideal is Spurs motion offence, everyone is efficient, everyone gets a good look, but the reality is more often than not what ends up happening is that when the playoffs come along you look more like the 2018 Raptors or a Budenholzer team. So is Hakeem mathematically the best offensive piece? No, but systems break apart in the postseason, and what Hakeem gives is a guy you can trust to score where everyone else goes wrong. Garnett does not. I think Garnett detractors push Pierce too much, but it is a fair point how that was indeed Pierce’s specific role (and most of the time you do not end up with a Pierce-level sidekick).

You do not get to say, “Okay, I got Garnett and now I can go grab a solid centre pairing and then some offensive focal points and also some elite roleplayers...” No, the history of the NBA has basically been to get a star who can hard carry you in the playoffs... then just try to build a complementary roster (or hope one basically falls together if — shocker — other teams are better markets or your front office is not perfect or uniquely prescient) that allows him to do that. You talk about how the Rudy T Rockets are just a super obvious build in hindsight, but what exactly is the obvious Garnett build? What is the championship Garnett roster that is easier to put together than “role-players plus Hakeem go brr”? Ah, wait, I forgot, now we should dismiss those Houston titles because all their opposition was imperfect and also because their roleplayers performed well. Yes, basically Rasheed Wallace, what objective analysis! (But hey, I guess by RAPM 1997-2004 Rasheed was basically the same level player as an average Duncan/Garnett season, so maybe you meant that as a compliment...) And certainly none of those teams compare to the conceptual brilliance of the 2008 Eastern Conference opposition, or to the 2004 Nuggets/Kings...

It is thinking basketball in a simulation, a MyLeague situation where just having flexibility is the key to building outward. But even now Garnett’s closest defensive analogue, in a hyper-successful regular season build, keeps running into postseason trouble because, like most superstars, he does not get to dump offensive responsibilities onto a superior offensive teammate, and unlike Hakeem but like Garnett, his scoring is not inelastic enough to help his teammates survive when they go cold.

Uhhhh, I dont really think giannis is a good analogue for garnett offensively. Garnett's much closer to davis in terms of scoring, and that aside, giannis's primary weakness is ball handling/passing, things which KG is better than Hakeem at.


Hakeem's closer to giannis offensively than KG is. I dont see him being a "defensive analog" as a postseason problem neccesarily, Giannis+45 win teammates nearly beat an extremely good raptors team on the strength of a -8 defense.

As it giannis would benefit far more from kg-level passing/ball handling than improved scoring imo.

[freethedevil]

To the point about winning bias: I think it is more ridiculous to try to argue winning is anything approaching a near useless indicator. And I am not even talking about legacy or title equity or anything like that (which people do use, to the chagrin of Garnett fans). But treating close games or series as ties or coinflips may be nice as a concept, but in practice it is borderline absurd and maybe a step and a half above the people who give Jordan credit for never going seven games in the Finals. Like yes, if Bill Russell lost a bunch of his game sevens, we probably would see him differently. And same with Wilt if he had won a bunch of those game sevens he had lost (or if Jerry West had). But the reality is that those wins and losses happened, and they deservedly go to Russell’s credit. And the exercise of “well what if he lost though” ignores the mental aspect of the game. It ignores how some players will indeed falter under pressure, or how some players seem to care left after achieving success, or how other players never lose that drive, or how some players set out to avenge losses aggressively.

So the “winning bias” of Hakeem’s titles tells us about how he performs under maximum pressure, and about how he responds to adversity, and about how he rises against perceived slights, and about how he maintains that drive to win even after winning, and about how he keeps the same energy (and maybe even presses harder) as the playoffs drag on and everyone becomes more tired, and so on. But past that, even if we say he loses the 1994 Finals, performing exactly the same (or possibly a bit better) with only a few roleplayer shots on either side changing... then yeah even with a 1-2 Finals record (which is still more impressive than Garnett’s playoff résumé), I would still trust him as a better playoff performer than Garnett and as a player more able to bring my team a title when the playoffs begin. If you want to try a David Robinson-esque argument centred around regular season value manifesting in avoiding the types of stupid run that Hakeem had to go through in 1995, sure, you can go that route, but for me I will defer to the postseason advantage, regardless of “winning bias”.

I'm asking people how they'd perceive Hakeem if he'd gotten unlucky in a couple places while still playing the same way.

Yes I understand that Hakeem playing well in a pivotal moment is a positive thing and I'm not saying to ignore it, but I think it's really clear that people end up doing a lot of backward classification here based on the team winning and Hakeem could have been the exact same player and the team could have still fallen a bit short in one of those 5/7 game series. People need to ask themselves how they'd see Hakeem if this was the case. If they'd see Hakeem drastically differently while he played just as well, then that speaks to vulnerability to noise in their method.

I didn't follow up on this in the thread it was brought up, but he reason I brought up Ben's corp is because it very much treats these "coinflips" as "noise" and is almost entirely based on predictive large sample analysis.

The point being ben's corp assessments are relatively favorable to a KG and relatively unfavorable for someone like Hakeem. And ben's analysis puts even more weight on longevity than you do.

So if Ben, who curves "outliers" like say two incredible playoff elevations way down, and has extremely rs-biased assessemnts still has hakeem having more career value by a clear margin, then I think its worth asking where exactly the gap in assessment is coming from. Ben is more concerned with post prime value than you are I think, so I'm wondering where the gap is.

[toodles23]

double post

[DQuinn1575]

The Big Three Celtics were a substantially better roster than those Rockets, and I already said my evaluation of both players does not depend on a six-point roleplayer swing in their respective Finals game 7s.

I do think the broad question of whether a two ring Garnett might popularly be put above a one-ring Hakeem is a valid one, but I do not find that overly pertinent to most of the posters in this specific project (also Pierce getting that undeserved Finals MVP does cut the shine off Garnett’s win among popular consensus, and presumably that would still be true).

if Garnett had 2 rings and Hakeem 1 then KG would wind up ranked higher. He doesn’t, obviously, and with Pierce on the team, it is viewed that Hakeem contributed more to 2 champs then KG to 1.

[toodles23]

You misread this. I was not saying Pierce level in ability (although Hakeem won his two titles without someone of that level...), I was saying Pierce level specifically in ability to be a crunch-time scorer. The second options you are listing were more Garnett level in their team roles and arguably in scoring ability at that specific time; replacing Lebron and 2009/10 Kobe and 2000-02 Shaq and 2006 Wade with Garnett is an undeniably major offensive hit, and while it is certainly conceivable that titles can still be won like that (2004 Pistons the constant example), there is a much larger sample of offensively more limited teams running into trouble when they need to score, even with a strong defence. And maybe in the modern era of offensive inflation that could be different, but Hakeem voters have already acknowledged Garnett probably suits the modern league more...

Maybe you would “comprehend” it the way “good posters” did if you had more properly read the full thread for context.

Pierce was a dumpster fire in crunch time in the 2008 playoffs, he shot 7 percent from the field.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional/?sort=GP&dir=-1&Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs

[Owly]

I'm asking people how they'd perceive Hakeem if he'd gotten unlucky in a couple places while still playing the same way.

Yes I understand that Hakeem playing well in a pivotal moment is a positive thing and I'm not saying to ignore it, but I think it's really clear that people end up doing a lot of backward classification here based on the team winning and Hakeem could have been the exact same player and the team could have still fallen a bit short in one of those 5/7 game series. People need to ask themselves how they'd see Hakeem if this was the case. If they'd see Hakeem drastically differently while he played just as well, then that speaks to vulnerability to noise in their method.

Same critique applies if Larry Bird didn't beat the Lakers (in 7) in 84 -- can't beat Magic. OR if Garnett goes to Boston, plays exactly the same, but his teammates come up short.

Well presumably it goes to all players. I guess a Garnett advocate is probably secure in big samples suggesting big impact, plus box productivity (with good longevity on both) plus the playoff indication of impact (subject to a lot of noise but highly positive) that a team level outcome can come and go (and of course you hope they will live up to that for ringless players of a similar profile).

Such voters might feel Hakeem has less proof of impact (and somewhat weaker career productivity, due to lesser longevity of quality) and whilst this is partly not his fault it is nevertheless there (he has good bits in WoWYR (prime and career); 97-14 RAPM; '94, '95 and '96 on-off and of course solid box productivity ... but he's worse than his peer Robinson in just about every single one - only exception I can see is one of the box metrics EWA (from PER) but even here he surrenders that lead in EWA above average - and often substantially, though for RAPM that's arguably because Olajuwon is post-prime). In that light you might be able to argue that Hakeem's case resting heavily on the playoffs could be more vulnerable to winners bias, where, but for the shooting of others, the perception could be "drastically different". Of course it is possible that a heavier weighting of playoffs is robust and consistently applied methodology. But I can see why one might seek to check it in Hakeem voters.