RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #11 (Kevin Garnett)

[freethedevil]

I

Here's a direct comparison for those +/- assumptions;
1985 Malone had +21.7 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed Malone's +/- worth as 3.75.
2008 Garnett had +12.5 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed Garnett's +/- worth as 5.50.
2007 Duncan had +17.4 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed Duncan's +/- worth as 5.75.
2002 O'Neal had +11.1 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed O'Neal's +/- worth as 6.50.
Do you think Taylor got that one right?

The same thing applies for Ewing BTW. Not just saying Malone did not get the value he deserved. Those numbers before full logs have no proper validation.

You don't like me using obpm and turn to use the numbers those have no proper foundation? That seems about right...

Raw on/off measures lineups players play with. It's sily to use it as an induvdiual player stat. ben's assumptions are specifically measuring players, not lineups. Hence brining up on/off without adjusting for lineups is rather meaningless.

[freethedevil]

Why should it matter what impact a player like Moses would have today? (I'm really tempted to bold this and put it in all caps but I won't.) That's like penalizing Curry because before 1980, the 3 pointer wouldn't be counted as 3 points. I absolutely refuse to do this, in either direction. What matters is how strongly he impacted his era (and of course, how strong that era was).

I'm not sure how "era strength" matters to you, if you also take an issue with "why would it matter what his imapct would be today?" The amoutn of people who play basketball doubled in 2003 from 1991, how in the world does "strength of era" workk in moses's favor here?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Jerry West
3. Oscar Robertson

Thoughts:

While I thought it was always likely that Garnett would not see a jump in the rankings simply because more people have him higher than before, I have to confess that I was optimistic about him grabbing the 10th spot and was disappointed he missed out. Ah well. Bird was a transcendent player.

I haven't been saying much on KG in the past couple threads because I spoke so much before.

I did note a question about Garnett vs Robinson and there the big thing for me is longevity, just as it is with Duncan vs Robinson. Garnett played 50K, Robinson played 34K. For perspective, Garnett passed Robinson in minutes while he was still in Minnesota before he came in, took control of the Boston locker room and culture and revolutionized (along with Thibs) modern defense.

I have a ton of respect for Robinson, but the debate with Garnett ends pretty quickly for me.

To my other votes, I'm adding Oscar onto my ballot now that Bird has been inducted.

As I've said before, I'm not all that comfortable with having these two contemporaries - West & Oscar - right next to each other, but it is what it is. I think very highly about both. They were the two best offensive players of the pre-80s.

I will say I'm glad that people are talking about West's defense. From my perspective West was just a considerably better physical talent at basketball and while he wasn't handed an NBA franchise from Day 1 like Oscar was, he showed an ability toward great offensive impact in a variety of schemes. That's enough that I'm giving him the edge here.

[freethedevil]

1. KG, most career value by a a landlside, most valuable peak playoff or rs by a landslide, has proven his value in a wide set of cricumstances, most portable player left, ect, ect.

Kg should sweep this imo. Should have swept bird frankly, but at least there's something there with peak.

He seems the very heavy favourite, but I anticipate it'll be much closer than that (I'd not be shocked to see him NOT have an outright majority from the 1st votes, actually).

Anyway, just for the sake of etiquette [and maybe giving people something else to discuss], can you provide your theoretical alternate picks?

Done.

[Whopper_Sr]

What do you think about Paul vs West/Oscar? Especially Paul vs West defensively?

On offense, Paul and Oscar had similar approaches. Both controlled and clinical. Oscar the better scorer. Paul the better shooter and passer. Playmaking is a wash I'd say. Then on defense, Paul was clearly better with even the size disadvantage.

Paul vs. West is a more challenging comparison because West was more of a combo guard leaning more towards volume scoring (on elite efficiency) and less playmaking.

I actually might have West as the slightly superior defender to Paul because there really isn't anything that Paul brings that West doesn't. West was just as good at disrupting the passing lanes although Paul still has him beat in anticipation. West's longer wingspan inevitably gave him advantages Paul couldn't touch (some rim protection, better at defending wings even though Paul was great at that too, etc). His defense would be more valuable on more teams as well.

Oscar's game was better suited for his era than West's and I'm certain West would be more valuable in the modern era because he was more dynamic offensively. West would be elite in any era, Oscar not as much. One of the reasons why I have West above Oscar.

Overall, Paul's peak and prime are on the same level as Oscar's. Slight longevity edge (with health taken into account) to Paul due to tougher era. I have them right next to each other on my ATG list. If you prefer what West gives you on offense than what Paul/Oscar offer, then West is the clear winner due to his already superior defense.

Thanks for your response, I appreciate that. I don't agree with some things (Oscar being worse shooter for example) but you put everything well overall

Oscar was very efficient but there are concerns about how his shooting would translate in other eras (How efficient would Oscar be in today's era? Would he be a good enough 3 point shooter?). Paul is clearly the better FT shooter (great indicator of shooting prowess) as well. Of course, I can't ignore Oscar's high volume on great efficiency. He has a significant edge in FTr too.

[Doctor MJ]

Hey y'all. I'm using a font that shout "Moderator here" because I want to get folks attention in this way, but I'm not the official voice of authority here so just listen if you would:

I really love a lot of what I've seen so far from this project, but things are getting a bit rough in this thread.

Remember folks: 100 threads is a LOOOOOOONG project. To keep it going, we have to not get too angry at each other. When you start feeling yourself get overly passionate, please step a way a bit. Not because you're wrong, but because in the end it doesn't matter so much who is right but that we on this board are able to create a project with far more thoughtful discussion on this subject than (probably) anywhere else in the public domain.

Each of us has our own lists and they aren't necessarily any less valid than the RealGM Top 100, but each of us on our own cannot take part in an intellectual basketball community that has now stood for well over a decade. Keeping that in mind, try to treat the other people here not just with the courtesy another human being deserves but with an eye toward the fact that we're trying to keep a community of thinkers going for a longevity that dwarfs how the rest of the internet thinks. It's a unique challenge, and a unique thing to have some pride in.

Sincerely,
Doc

[Odinn21]

while he wasn't handed an NBA franchise from Day 1 like Oscar was, he showed an ability toward great offensive impact in a variety of schemes. That's enough that I'm giving him the edge here.

I think that's a well too deep for us with little resources available about that time.

Robertson was the franchise player from the get-go. But West played with top talents for way longer, and he got to show how versatile his offense was because he got in more different situations.
Then again, we can also discuss that Baylor being the #1 scoring option hurt West's overall case and production. Though I remember that I didn't agree with you when there was a discussion about Baylor should've taken a back seat on offense because they didn't have the tools and the understanding that we have now to evaluate. But yeah, I'd agree with West being held back by Baylor's presence regardless of the interpretations.

Like anything else, this is just about preference. It's just that, I don't feel solid enough about those aspects in the '60s compared to, say, when we discuss about Duncan vs. Garnett, or even Bird vs. Magic which played 30 years ago.

[70sFan]

On offense, Paul and Oscar had similar approaches. Both controlled and clinical. Oscar the better scorer. Paul the better shooter and passer. Playmaking is a wash I'd say. Then on defense, Paul was clearly better with even the size disadvantage.

Paul vs. West is a more challenging comparison because West was more of a combo guard leaning more towards volume scoring (on elite efficiency) and less playmaking.

I actually might have West as the slightly superior defender to Paul because there really isn't anything that Paul brings that West doesn't. West was just as good at disrupting the passing lanes although Paul still has him beat in anticipation. West's longer wingspan inevitably gave him advantages Paul couldn't touch (some rim protection, better at defending wings even though Paul was great at that too, etc). His defense would be more valuable on more teams as well.

Oscar's game was better suited for his era than West's and I'm certain West would be more valuable in the modern era because he was more dynamic offensively. West would be elite in any era, Oscar not as much. One of the reasons why I have West above Oscar.

Overall, Paul's peak and prime are on the same level as Oscar's. Slight longevity edge (with health taken into account) to Paul due to tougher era. I have them right next to each other on my ATG list. If you prefer what West gives you on offense than what Paul/Oscar offer, then West is the clear winner due to his already superior defense.

Thanks for your response, I appreciate that. I don't agree with some things (Oscar being worse shooter for example) but you put everything well overall

Oscar was very efficient but there are concerns about how his shooting would translate in other eras (How efficient would Oscar be in today's era? Would he be a good enough 3 point shooter?). Paul is clearly the better FT shooter (great indicator of shooting prowess) as well. Of course, I can't ignore Oscar's high volume on great efficiency. He has a significant edge in FTr too.

I don't think the difference between 84% FT shooter and 87% FT shooter is meaningful to be honest, although I can understand why some people think so. I think that when you keep in mind that Oscar shot almost twice as much FTs as Paul, the difference becomes insignificant (maybe even meaningless).

We don't have a lot fo footage of Oscar, but from what we have and his statistical profile we can conclude that he was marvelous midrange shooter. Would it translate to three point shooting? Hard to say, but I don't think there are any evidences to believe he wouldn't be at least good from that range and we're not comparing him to Curry - Paul is very good, but not all-time great three point shooter.

[Whopper_Sr]

I’m definitely a believer in CP3s defense. Tremendous defender for his size. But how much do you penalize the constant injuries when it matters? I’m a real fan of CP3 but I think it’s too early to bring him up because of the durability issues.

Apologies, I missed your comment (oddly, did not get a notification).

I should be penalizing him more considering the circumstances in 2015 and 2018 especially. However, he's not the only one in the top 20 (or 25/30 if you are lower on him) with durability issues. Russell, Duncan, Magic, Bird, West, Dirk, Curry, etc all have missed time in the playoffs to some degree. And in Curry's case, his team was able to win playoff series even without him.

Had he not injured himself in 2018 WCF and went on to win the title (over near offensive peak LeBron), CP3 would've been vindicated and all doubts washed away. Perception is fickle. Of course, he DID get injured so he does get docked for it. I just don't think his durability issues alone is enough to disqualify him at this stage for a player of his caliber.

[Whopper_Sr]

Thanks for your response, I appreciate that. I don't agree with some things (Oscar being worse shooter for example) but you put everything well overall

Oscar was very efficient but there are concerns about how his shooting would translate in other eras (How efficient would Oscar be in today's era? Would he be a good enough 3 point shooter?). Paul is clearly the better FT shooter (great indicator of shooting prowess) as well. Of course, I can't ignore Oscar's high volume on great efficiency. He has a significant edge in FTr too.

I don't think the difference between 84% FT shooter and 87% FT shooter is meaningful to be honest, although I can understand why some people think so. I think that when you keep in mind that Oscar shot almost twice as much FTs as Paul, the difference becomes insignificant (maybe even meaningless).

We don't have a lot fo footage of Oscar, but from what we have and his statistical profile we can conclude that he was marvelous midrange shooter. Would it translate to three point shooting? Hard to say, but I don't think there are any evidences to believe he wouldn't be at least good from that range and we're not comparing him to Curry - Paul is very good, but not all-time great three point shooter.

Oscar's best (87.3%) would be Paul's 8th best mark. But yes, the volume advantage for Oscar makes it closer. Then we'd need to get into how Oscar was able to draw that many fouls while Paul couldn't. Oscar's high FTr shouldn't be too much of a surprise though as he was big enough and strong enough to frequently attack the rim/finish through contact.

It is true that Paul isn't an all time great sharpshooter on paper. I've seen too many instances where he kills teams down the stretch or in key moments with step back 3s, crossover into an off-balance 3s, and top of the key fast break 3s. I'd certainly have more confidence in Paul either way. I would be surprised if Oscar could shoot 3s at a 40% clip.

[Odinn21]

Paul is clearly the better FT shooter (great indicator of shooting prowess) as well.

I'll get back into this one. I think free throw shooting also should be compared to league / era standards. Maybe not to the extent we use it with ts, but I think there should be some.

Here;
Robertson was a 83.8% ft shooter when the league average was 73.1%.
Paul has been a 87.0% ft shooter when the league average's been 75.9%.

Surely, I wouldn't say Robertson was the better ft shooter. Like anything else, the league standard was different. For example Bryant had almost identical ft% to Robertson with 83.7%, but in his time the league average was 75.3%. I think a worthy thing to consider. The league average for free throws became 75ish% that we're used to at the beginning of the '70s. The '60s wandered around 73%.

Also, I guess I missed on your quote about the swing on Rtg numbers of the Nets.
Surely, I am not attributing the entire swing solely to Kidd. But he was, by far, the biggest part of it.
I have Kidd and Frazier as the exceptions to as non-bigs not having big-like impact on defense. To be clear, I am not saying they were on the same level as Russell or Olajuwon or Mutombo. More like Chandler, Gobert area or bigs slightly worse but not much. Those two are the examples I could find while writing.
The following is not a reason, just a thought came across my mind; Both were great floor generals on defense as much as they were on offense. Come to think of it, Frazier was a better floor general on defense than on offense. An interesting thing to realize.

[Hal14]

Why should it matter what impact a player like Moses would have today? (I'm really tempted to bold this and put it in all caps but I won't.) That's like penalizing Curry because before 1980, the 3 pointer wouldn't be counted as 3 points. I absolutely refuse to do this, in either direction. What matters is how strongly he impacted his era (and of course, how strong that era was).

I'm not sure how "era strength" matters to you, if you also take an issue with "why would it matter what his imapct would be today?" The amoutn of people who play basketball doubled in 2003 from 1991, how in the world does "strength of era" workk in moses's favor here?

1) Got a link that proves this? I'm also curious if the data/research you've found is specific to people playing basketball or if what you. really mean is there's simply more people in the world and not necessarily more people playing basketball..

2) More people doing a particular activity does not necessarily mean that those people are now doing that activity any better than before when less people were doing the activity. Your logic = more people in the world so basketball players are better. By that logic, I suppose truck drivers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose railroad workers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose electricians are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose dog groomers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose politicians are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose NBA coaches are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose writers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose gymnasts are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose horesback riders are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose hip hop rappers are better than they were 20 years ago, I suppose guitar players are better than they were 20 years ago. No! It doesn't work like that. More people doing something does not mean those people are doing it better. Some professions - the people doing them are doing them better today than they did 20 years ago, while in others they are not. Unfortunately, we can't just rely on data to tell the whole story. We have to use the eye test and basketball IQ.

[TrueLAfan]

1. Kevin Garnett—For the reasons others have given and I referred to in past posts. Best combination of impact skills and longetivity of the remaining players.

2. Jerry West—A couple of people have mentioned Kobe. What did Kobe do better than Jerry West? Score? Okay. And for me, that’s it. West is a better, more complete player. He’s a more portable player. He’s a better playoff performer. Kobe’s does have longetivity—although I don’t really Kobe give much push for 97-99 or anything after 2013. That leaves a peak difference of around 160 games, which is not inconsiderable—but isn’t enough to overcome West’s pluses. And West gets a small added bonus for the leadership and respect he commanded on the court, even with rivals. He shared that with my next pick.

3. Julius Erving—And, again, I think of Kobe a little … I’ve participated in some debates about Kobe vs. Doc. I preferred Doc in the past; I prefer him now. A good, not great handle—a bit turnover prone. Same on D; a bit mistake prone because he gambled (a little too) often. But … great scorer with very good efficiency. A very valuable defender. If the three had been around in the NBA, his transition would have been easier and better; more open lanes and court spacing and shots for him (Doc shot over 34% from behind the line in his last three ABA years), and he could have better utilized his defensive skills as well. That withstanding, he has a pretty stunning resume. We don’t think of him as having a huge amount of team success—but we are talking about a guy who went to 6 finals and has three rings, and averaged 28-9-5 with 2 blocks and 2 steals on 54% shooting in those 29 finals games. And, yeah, the respect.

Oh--and J's 1976 season may the most dominant season by any remaining player, at least in the modern era. It's among the greatest seasons by any player IMO.

[Odinn21]

Oh--and J's 1976 season at least in the modern era.

This is an interesting to say. I mean it was way closer to Russell's last title compared to Jordan's first title which was 29 years ago.

[penbeast0]

Why should it matter what impact a player like Moses would have today? (I'm really tempted to bold this and put it in all caps but I won't.) That's like penalizing Curry because before 1980, the 3 pointer wouldn't be counted as 3 points. I absolutely refuse to do this, in either direction. What matters is how strongly he impacted his era (and of course, how strong that era was).

I'm not sure how "era strength" matters to you, if you also take an issue with "why would it matter what his imapct would be today?" The amoutn of people who play basketball doubled in 2003 from 1991, how in the world does "strength of era" workk in moses's favor here?

I didn't vote for Moses. I just object to the idea that every player should be considered in terms of how they would play in today's league; especially when it doesn't work both ways.

[TrueLAfan]

Oh--and J's 1976 season at least in the modern era.

This is an interesting to say. I mean it was way closer to Russell's last title compared to Jordan's first title which was 29 years ago.

Oh, I’m old. I think of “modern” basketball arriving, at the latest, by the early 1960s. There are significant strategic differences and rule (and rule enforcement) changes, but, yeah. That's me.

Anyway ... Watching ABA games, especially the later ones, I’m always struck by how much the spacing looks like basketball of 25-30 years later and how multipositional several (not all!) teams were set up to be. They look modern. The Nuggets—the team Nets beat—is a great example. Dan Issel and Byron Beck had legitimate perimeter game; they didn’t run an offense through the PG. They spread the court. They had Bobby Jones, who was just a Swiss Army Knife guy out there. I mean, it was a Larry Brown team. It was fun. They got crushed by Dr. J., but still. That series looks more like games from the 90s or 2000s than, say, the early 1980s NBA—at least to me.

J’s dominance that year was, well, terrifying. Sure, it was a small league, but we are talking about a guy who was the best scorer in the league and probably a top 3 defender. Averaging 29, 11 and 5 with two and a half steals and two blocks is amazing, no matter how you shake it down. Hell, Doc shot 33% from three. And then he went out and upped his game in the playoffs. Bobby Jones, like I said, was a legitimately great player and one of the great defenders in the league. And he was absolutely helpless against Julius Erving, who averaged 38-14-5 on 59% shooting. It was Doc’s absolute peak and it showed. Great season. Great player.

[70sFan]

Oscar was very efficient but there are concerns about how his shooting would translate in other eras (How efficient would Oscar be in today's era? Would he be a good enough 3 point shooter?). Paul is clearly the better FT shooter (great indicator of shooting prowess) as well. Of course, I can't ignore Oscar's high volume on great efficiency. He has a significant edge in FTr too.

I don't think the difference between 84% FT shooter and 87% FT shooter is meaningful to be honest, although I can understand why some people think so. I think that when you keep in mind that Oscar shot almost twice as much FTs as Paul, the difference becomes insignificant (maybe even meaningless).

We don't have a lot fo footage of Oscar, but from what we have and his statistical profile we can conclude that he was marvelous midrange shooter. Would it translate to three point shooting? Hard to say, but I don't think there are any evidences to believe he wouldn't be at least good from that range and we're not comparing him to Curry - Paul is very good, but not all-time great three point shooter.

Oscar's best (87.3%) would be Paul's 8th best mark. But yes, the volume advantage for Oscar makes it closer. Then we'd need to get into how Oscar was able to draw that many fouls while Paul couldn't. Oscar's high FTr shouldn't be too much of a surprise though as he was big enough and strong enough to frequently attack the rim/finish through contact.

It is true that Paul isn't an all time great sharpshooter on paper. I've seen too many instances where he kills teams down the stretch or in key moments with step back 3s, crossover into an off-balance 3s, and top of the key fast break 3s. I'd certainly have more confidence in Paul either way. I would be surprised if Oscar could shoot 3s at a 40% clip.

Why would you be surprised if Oscar could shoot threes at 40% clip?

[DQuinn1575]

Oh--and J's 1976 season at least in the modern era.

This is an interesting to say. I mean it was way closer to Russell's last title compared to Jordan's first title which was 29 years ago.

Oh, I’m old. I think of “modern” basketball arriving, at the latest, by the early 1960s. There are significant strategic differences and rule (and rule enforcement) changes, but, yeah. That's me.

Anyway ... Watching ABA games, especially the later ones, I’m always struck by how much the spacing looks like basketball of 25-30 years later and how multipositional several (not all!) teams were set up to be. They look modern. The Nuggets—the team Nets beat—is a great example. Dan Issel and Byron Beck had legitimate perimeter game; they didn’t run an offense through the PG. They spread the court. They had Bobby Jones, who was just a Swiss Army Knife guy out there. I mean, it was a Larry Brown team. It was fun. They got crushed by Dr. J., but still. That series looks more like games from the 90s or 2000s than, say, the early 1980s NBA—at least to me.

J’s dominance that year was, well, terrifying. Sure, it was a small league, but we are talking about a guy who was the best scorer in the league and probably a top 3 defender. Averaging 29, 11 and 5 with two and a half steals and two blocks is amazing, no matter how you shake it down. Hell, Doc shot 33% from three. And then he went out and upped his game in the playoffs. Bobby Jones, like I said, was a legitimately great player and one of the great defenders in the league. And he was absolutely helpless against Julius Erving, who averaged 38-14-5 on 59% shooting. It was Doc’s absolute peak and it showed. Great season. Great player.

The ABA looked more "modern" because other than Gilmore the good centers were in the NBA. The ABA was a forwards' league, the NBA a center's league.

[DQuinn1575]

Time to vote here:
1. Oscar - year after year put up incredible stats. Good enough to beat out Wilt and Russell for MVP. Considered by virtually all who saw him at the time to be by far best perimeter player of era. Good/smart enough to assume a lesser, but still starring role on all-time great team.

2. Kobe - took two teams to the title that were definitely below the norm in terms of talent. Wade, Barry, Dirk can all claim one, but Kobe was also pretty key in 3 other championships. It's a team guy, and he has more success as a leading player than anyone else left.

3. KG - higher than I have had him in the past. Combination of all-around skills better than other contenders.

[Doctor MJ]

This is an interesting to say. I mean it was way closer to Russell's last title compared to Jordan's first title which was 29 years ago.

Oh, I’m old. I think of “modern” basketball arriving, at the latest, by the early 1960s. There are significant strategic differences and rule (and rule enforcement) changes, but, yeah. That's me.

Anyway ... Watching ABA games, especially the later ones, I’m always struck by how much the spacing looks like basketball of 25-30 years later and how multipositional several (not all!) teams were set up to be. They look modern. The Nuggets—the team Nets beat—is a great example. Dan Issel and Byron Beck had legitimate perimeter game; they didn’t run an offense through the PG. They spread the court. They had Bobby Jones, who was just a Swiss Army Knife guy out there. I mean, it was a Larry Brown team. It was fun. They got crushed by Dr. J., but still. That series looks more like games from the 90s or 2000s than, say, the early 1980s NBA—at least to me.

J’s dominance that year was, well, terrifying. Sure, it was a small league, but we are talking about a guy who was the best scorer in the league and probably a top 3 defender. Averaging 29, 11 and 5 with two and a half steals and two blocks is amazing, no matter how you shake it down. Hell, Doc shot 33% from three. And then he went out and upped his game in the playoffs. Bobby Jones, like I said, was a legitimately great player and one of the great defenders in the league. And he was absolutely helpless against Julius Erving, who averaged 38-14-5 on 59% shooting. It was Doc’s absolute peak and it showed. Great season. Great player.

The ABA looked more "modern" because other than Gilmore the good centers were in the NBA. The ABA was a forwards' league, the NBA a center's league.

This is just strange to me.

1. Spacing is something offenses do to escape interior bigs. You don't avoid the rim unless there's a rim protector.

2. The ABA had the 3. Now they didn't use it a ton, but it undoubtedly spaced the floor some.

3. Isn't the visible difference in the ABA's spacing compared to the NBA just a thing everyone knows? Are you actually fighting against that? Can you make a concrete argument to explain why people who watch the two only think they see more spacing in the ABA?