RealGM Top 100 List #11

[Jaivl]

I have the weird feeling that this "RAPM drama" thing would not have happened if Kobe was voted #10.

[PaulieWal]

That's a very fair point but as it pertains to Kobe's all defensive selections after 2010, anyone who has seen him play knows they are a joke. He's been a one-way player for a while now except for very few short stretches.

That's true, but the problem is for me I'm not seeing that consistent analysis throughout these discussions for other players. What's more, there seems to be an extra bit of vitriol thrown Kobe's way for what his peers and journalists have said about him. It's interesting really.

I agree that there is no defined criteria and that does make the evaluations of players difficult at times because different posters are valuing and presenting different things (peak/prime/team impact/team success/advanced stats). I do disagree that there is vitriol being thrown Kobe's way but that's because maybe I don't have a vote and I am simply reading most threads while posting sporadically.

[ardee]

And it seems his biggest issue is with the language in talking about RAPM: "impact." It is just a word.... So a player correlates with positive scoring margins for his teams versus opponents adjusting for teammates and HCA. That's a ... great thing.

The biggest issue is how RAPM is being used. I've tried to stay away from it but when its used to say pre-prime 98/99 KG was playing at a superstar level and higher than 06/07 Kobe, it just boggles the mind.

98-99 Garnett: 19.3 ppg, 4.3 apg, 9.9 rpg on 51.3% TS
06-07 Kobe: 33.5 ppg, 4.9 apg, 5.5 rpg on 56.8% TS

If people want tor reference RAPM, fine. But to pump up KG's longevity by using RAPM from the 90's and the 11-13 time, as if he was playing at a superstar level....just leaves me a bit blank for words.

It gets to the point that we can't argue because production, peer-review is off the table. Playoff performances...nope, can't use them either. What's left

Yeah but timeout -- are you saying that a 19-10-3 +0% TS player can't be better than a 34-6-5 +3% TS player?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that unless the other guy is Bill Russell on defense, no, he can't.

Though if you can come up with an argument to the contrary, I'm all ears.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[An Unbiased Fan]

I have the weird feeling that this "RAPM drama" thing would not have happened if Kobe was voted #10.

RAPM came in at #4. Last thread it had KG vs DRob, and before that KG vs Hakeem. The common player coming up is not Kobe in regards to RAPM.

[colts18]

Or Amir Johnson being better than Shaq for the millennium.

Or KG being better than Wade in 2009.

Or Manu being comparable to Kobe.

Or Tony Parker being a better defender in 2013.

There's no way to explain these results but no one bothers to even consider that RAPM is really a pretty strange thing to go by.

Are you saying its a bad thing if a stat had Tony Parker with more impact defensively than 2013 Kobe? It was obvious to anyone who was watching the games or stats that Kobe had awful defensive impact that season. Very comparable to Harden that year. He was called out multiple times for it. He was a big reason why they were they 20th on defense. The Lakers even played much better with Nash on the court than Kobe.

[ceiling raiser]

I have the weird feeling that this "RAPM drama" thing would not have happened if Kobe was voted #10.

RAPM came in at #4. Last thread it had KG vs DRob, and before that KG vs Hakeem. The common player coming up is not Kobe in regards to RAPM.

One thing about Kobe/KG and RAPM...

As I said earlier in the thread, J.E.'s RAPM has a couple of big question marks IMO...the missing data in some of his seasons, and confusion over the prior he uses. I trust acrossthecourt (97-00) and gotbuckets/talkingpractice (08-14) entirely, but there is no prIor informed RAPM from 01-07 that I feel comfortable discussing, other than general trends. KG and Kobe, among others, might rate out differently in someone else's study.

[colts18]

On its face, that would be extraordinarily unusual. But i did look further, specifically to things like peer review that regarded 06/07 Kobe as a Top 5 MVP/All-NBA 1st player. KG wasn't regarded as elite in 98 or 99.

If someone wants to explain how 98/99 KG was superstar level or better than 06/07 Kobe, I'm all ears.

It's awesome to know that 2008 KG with his 19/9/3 wasn't much of an impact player.

Let me guess, you also think that Steve Nash at 16/12/3 was a low impact player.

[penbeast0]

...
Is Amir Johnson a better offensive player than Kobe?

117 O rating .603 TS% vs Kobe's .555 TS%, 111 O rating

Is Adrian Dantley a better offensive player than Kobe:

24.3 PPG, .617 TS% vs 25.5 PPG, .555 TS%

The numbers are just the starting point, you have to look at all the numbers rather than just efficiency and at how that style works with the teams they had rather than just individual performance.

For Amir Johnson, the answer is clearly no, the volume isn't there and without it, there isn't the defensive attention, etc.

For Dantley, the answer is maybe. There are many issues with Adrian Dantley but he was a great offensive player. If you love Charles Barkley's offense, Dantley is Charles without the massive strength (but with a better midrange). Incredibly efficient, undersized, post scoring machine who gives back a lot of that on the other end. Charles has a massive rebounding edge but then Dantley wasn't out drinking with young players the night before playoff games and making racist comments in the locker room though he had his own issues with coaches (mainly Frank Layden). Neither provide the stretch the floor effect of a great outside shooter like Kobe; nor did I see the warp the defense effect of a Shaq with either despite their ridiculous numbers. Barkley and AD didn't get triple teamed and zoned the way Shaq did (of course, neither did Kobe or most other players outside of Wilt).

[An Unbiased Fan]

On its face, that would be extraordinarily unusual. But i did look further, specifically to things like peer review that regarded 06/07 Kobe as a Top 5 MVP/All-NBA 1st player. KG wasn't regarded as elite in 98 or 99.

If someone wants to explain how 98/99 KG was superstar level or better than 06/07 Kobe, I'm all ears.

It's awesome to know that 2008 KG with his 19/9/3 wasn't much of an impact player.

Let me guess, you also think that Steve Nash at 16/12/3 was a low impact player.

08 KG was scoring on a 59% TS clip. His defensive was also far superior by then, and he was #3 MVP/All-NBA/All-D 1st in peer-review.

Are you suggesting that 98/99 KG is equal to 08 KG? Or are you just trying to snipe.

[colts18]

WS/48 says that David Robinson is tied with MJ as the GOAT player. It says that CP3 is the 4th best player in history. It has Manu Ginobili as the #13 player right behind Duncan, but it has Ginobili ahead of Shaq and Bird. It has Yao Ming ahead of Bill Russell.

Ban WS/48!!

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html

[acrossthecourt]

The biggest issue is how RAPM is being used. I've tried to stay away from it but when its used to say pre-prime 98/99 KG was playing at a superstar level and higher than 06/07 Kobe, it just boggles the mind.

98-99 Garnett: 19.3 ppg, 4.3 apg, 9.9 rpg on 51.3% TS
06-07 Kobe: 33.5 ppg, 4.9 apg, 5.5 rpg on 56.8% TS

If people want tor reference RAPM, fine. But to pump up KG's longevity by using RAPM from the 90's and the 11-13 time, as if he was playing at a superstar level....just leaves me a bit blank for words.

It gets to the point that we can't argue because production, peer-review is off the table. Playoff performances...nope, can't use them either. What's left

Yeah but timeout -- are you saying that a 19-10-3 +0% TS player can't be better than a 34-6-5 +3% TS player?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that unless the other guy is Bill Russell on defense, no, he can't.

Though if you can come up with an argument to the contrary, I'm all ears.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Bernard King:
33 points, 6 rebs, 4 assists, +4 TS%

Carmelo (2013):
29 points, 7 rebs, 3 assists, +3 TS%

Gervin (1980):
33 points, 5 rebs, 3 assists, +6 TS%

versus

Bill Walton (1978):
19 points, 13 rebs, 5 assists, +4 TS%

Duncan (2005):
20 points, 11 rebs, 3 assists, -1 TS%

Garnett (2008):
19 points, 9 rebs, 3 assists, +4 TS%

Cowens (1973):
20 points, 16 rebs, 4 assists, -2 TS%

[An Unbiased Fan]

Bernard King, 7th MVP:
33 points, 6 rebs, 4 assists, +4 TS%

Carmelo, 3rd MVP (yikes that was too high):
29 points, 7 rebs, 3 assists, +3 TS%

Gervin, 3rd MVP:
33 points, 5 rebs, 3 assists, +6 TS%

versus

Bill Walton, MVP:
19 points, 13 rebs, 5 assists, +4 TS%

Duncan (2005), 4th MVP:
20 points, 11 rebs, 3 assists, -1 TS%

Garnett (2008), 3rd MVP:
19 points, 9 rebs, 3 assists, +4 TS%

Cowens, MVP:
20 points, 16 rebs, 4 assists, -2 TS%

See, I did the same thing when 98/99 KG was compared to 06/07 Kobe, and used peer-review. To me, if someone wants to make a case for 98/99 over 06/07 Kobe, then I'm open for a conversation. The evidence doesn't jive with that though.

What's also interesting is that people dismiss MVP ranks/All-NBA teams...yet use it often for confirmation of results.

[acrossthecourt]

Bernard King, 7th MVP:
33 points, 6 rebs, 4 assists, +4 TS%

Carmelo, 3rd MVP (yikes that was too high):
29 points, 7 rebs, 3 assists, +3 TS%

Gervin, 3rd MVP:
33 points, 5 rebs, 3 assists, +6 TS%

versus

Bill Walton, MVP:
19 points, 13 rebs, 5 assists, +4 TS%

Duncan (2005), 4th MVP:
20 points, 11 rebs, 3 assists, -1 TS%

Garnett (2008), 3rd MVP:
19 points, 9 rebs, 3 assists, +4 TS%

Cowens, MVP:
20 points, 16 rebs, 4 assists, -2 TS%

See, I did the same thing when 98/99 KG was compared to 06/07 Kobe, and used peer-review. To me, if someone wants to make a case for 98/99 over 06/07 Kobe, then I'm open for a conversation. The evidence doesn't jive with that though.

What's also interesting is that people dismiss MVP ranks/All-NBA teams...yet use it often for confirmation of results.

That wasn't the point of the MVP votes. I'll just erase them then if it's too distracting. And the question was, can there ever be a player with stats like this over a player with stats like this?

[Baller2014]

There's plenty of reasons to pick KG over the remaining candidates that have nothing to do with APM, so I don't get the obsession on discussing it. Anyway, the deadline approaches so here's the current vote:

If anyone is curious, I did a quick count. I haven't included Drza, though I assume from his constant campaigning that he is all aboard the KG train.

KG- 8 (Dr MJ, Baller2014, Fplii, Realbig3, Ronny, Quo, RSDC, Drza)

Oscar- 7 (Javil, Owly, Hbreakhigh, Shaqattack, Lorak, Sacto, Quinn)

Kobe- 6 (GC Pan, UBF, bbfan?, Jbulls, Ardee, Dhogkins)

West- 1 (Moonbeam)

[An Unbiased Fan]

Bernard King, 7th MVP:
33 points, 6 rebs, 4 assists, +4 TS%

Carmelo, 3rd MVP (yikes that was too high):
29 points, 7 rebs, 3 assists, +3 TS%

Gervin, 3rd MVP:
33 points, 5 rebs, 3 assists, +6 TS%

versus

Bill Walton, MVP:
19 points, 13 rebs, 5 assists, +4 TS%

Duncan (2005), 4th MVP:
20 points, 11 rebs, 3 assists, -1 TS%

Garnett (2008), 3rd MVP:
19 points, 9 rebs, 3 assists, +4 TS%

Cowens, MVP:
20 points, 16 rebs, 4 assists, -2 TS%

See, I did the same thing when 98/99 KG was compared to 06/07 Kobe, and used peer-review. To me, if someone wants to make a case for 98/99 over 06/07 Kobe, then I'm open for a conversation. The evidence doesn't jive with that though.

What's also interesting is that people dismiss MVP ranks/All-NBA teams...yet use it often for confirmation of results.

That wasn't the point of the MVP votes. I'll just erase them then if it's too distracting. And the question was, can there ever be a player with stats like this over a player with stats like this?

No, but I was pointing out that each of those low production seasons were rated highly in peer-review. Conversely, there are high production seasons that aren't rated very highly in peer-review. It's long been a great guide to help put a season into context.

[Texas Chuck]

I find myself struggling a bit with all the most-portable ever talk regarding KG.

I agree with the idea that it seems like he would work on most any team due to both his ability and his willingness to play the role best suited for his teams. But what prevents other players from also being portable?

And I look at the actual historical record of Dirk and KG and see some really interesting parallels.

Up to and including 04--both guys have good strong, offensive slanted supporting casts. Dirk plays with Nash and Finley and for Nellie this entire time while also having teammates like Juwan Howard, NVE, Antwan Jamison. KG went through a number of good PG's in Brandon, Marbury, and Cassell. Also played with Gugliotta, Rider, Wally Z and played for Flip. And what do we see--good teams, but flawed with minimal playoff success other than 03 for Dallas and 04 for KG

Then 05-07. Dirk loses Nellie towards the end of the year and KG loses Flip and they both get inexperienced--frankly rather poor coaches. Nash leaves, Cassell isnt nearly the same guy, Spree leaves, Jamison leaves--all this in 05. Then Cassell is totally gone as is Finley and we are getting the Ricky Davis/Stackhouse Troy Hudson/JET as a PG replacements in house. But Dallas actually improves as a team (due mainly to new-found defensive emphasis and defensive personel) Minny goes through a really rough patch. Please note Im not saying the supporting casts are the same or that I expected KG to get the same thing out of his teams as Dirk. Nor am I blaming KG for all these failings. Im looking tho at the ability to succeed individually and teamwise and seeing a difference here.

08--forward KG moves to Boston, gains Rivers, Truth, Allen, soon Rondo is a factor, other veterans continually run through there. Dirk gets Rick and Kidd and Marion and JET is in the correct role and lots of smart, savvy vets run through there. Both teams win a bunch of games--Boston has more playoff success--better teams and easier conference help some but KG shows a great deal of portability as he goes from a guy being an offensive hub to a defensive hub.

Through all circumstances Dirk's production and impact remains constant and his team has great success even as they go through 3 major phases and had lots of major roster turnover even within each phase. So while I understand the idea that KG is very portable--we did see a situation--the weak roster where Dirk appeared to be clearly the better option for the team.

And I don't want to argue Dirk's teammates vs KG's during 05-07. Im conceding Dirk had a better team around him. But 25 games or so a year better seems hard to believe. Seems like maybe the more help a team needs maybe Dirk's offensive brilliance is better suited than KG's all-around game. At least seems like it should be considered, no?

We could look at other players to compare with KG as well, but I pick Dirk just because the years line up so well in looking at their "portability" as it actually played out as opposed to mere theory.


Please note my conclusion here is not that Dirk is more portable, but simply to suggest that KG's portability advantage seems to be based on our conjecture and it may be that others players that we don't think of as portable(Dirk) may well be just as portable.

[PCProductions]

Vote: Kevin Garnett

I had him as high as 8th and will continue to vote for him here at #11 despite numerous solid argument for Bryant, Oscar and West.

Why do I continue to be convinced of Garnett? I'll list the bullets:

1. 2008 Boston Celtics. Immediate impact; all time level defensive team that demonstrably relied on Garnett; portability most evident from a complete transformation of his role into what was still an MVP level year.

2. Extended greatness. Closest thing to a perfect two way player that would improve any team at any point and was durable for a ten year stretch.

3. Diverse skill set on both ends. Could tap what was needed when it was needed and didn't require the ball to do so.

Why not these guys?

Oscar: Longevity issues and just the general uncertainty of a lot of things (how assists were counted, missing stats like turnovers, etc). Will probably go in the next two spots at most.

Kobe: Defense. I'm not as convinced of his defense as some others, apparently. Mistake prone on that end and a general inconsistency on effort helps explain some of the measures that say he isn't actually all-NBA caliber on that end despite the accolades.

Robinson: Not convinced of his offense. Too reliant on finishing to be an offensive threat when Garnett can be both that and an initiator.

These spots have been great for discussion. I've also really enjoyed the Bryant discussion. He's such a polarizing player and I think achieving a balance for him is almost on Garnett levels of variance.

[PCProductions]

It doesn't do it flawlessly, but its the best we have, and I'm thrilled to see where we go with it.

Hey look man, I would honestly love to see more work into things like RAPM, ASPM, and so on. My critique is not a condemnation. I think the big problem is that RAPM backers aren't being self-critical enough, which can happen in any community.

The concepts of using PbP data is truly something I'm fully behind. It's just the interpretation of RAPM results that I have a problem with. Take RAPM for what it is, not for what it isn't. When it oversahdows other criteria beign used, it just causes many of us to disengage from discussions. Why expound on the difference between Player A vs Player B, if RAPM results will negate much of anything actually said. The KG vs DRob discussions kinda showed that.

I feel you. It's also good to have criticism of it rather than blind faith. I think it helps find a place for it rather than leaving it to be like the hieroglyphics of NBA stats.

[therealbig3]

I have a different take on KG vs Kobe than ardee:

-Kobe is a better offensive player, but it's not by as much as people think. Kobe has all the skills in the world, but his decision-making compared to other elite offensive players (Jordan, Magic, Bird, Nash, Oscar, LeBron) quite frankly sucks. He'd much rather chuck up fadeaways over double and triple teams than find the open man for a shot, because he's KOBE! KG OTOH is maybe the most unselfish superstar ever...even in his prime, he probably wouldn't have cared if he never got a touch on offense. He's not a flashy passer, but his vision and ability to find teammates is pretty awesome. His ability to handle the ball and shoot from the perimeter has a very positive effect on team offenses as well, as it provides spacing and pulls a big man away from the rim. He has a legitimate, but not elite, ability to score in the post...as mentioned, he's also a fantastic and willing passer. Short of being Shaq or Hakeem as a scorer, KG does everything you want out of your big man offensively.

-Defensively, he CRUSHES Kobe. Not close. Kobe is a good man defender for the most part, but his team defense is lacking. He'd much rather watch the ball than watch his man, and he ends up giving A LOT of open shots to shooters as a result. KG OTOH is a monster defender. His understanding of angles, his ability to stick with perimeter players, his diagnosing of offensive plays and directing his teammates on defense, his ability to help and recover, his defensive rebounding...it's all super-elite, and pretty unparalleled since Bill Russell. He's even a pretty good shot blocker.

-In the playoffs, I don't really see things much differently than how I see them in the RS. They're the same players. And the difference in production has been hugely overstated anyway. Outside of 01, which I'm not denying was a GOAT-level playoff run for a 2nd option, Kobe never really had great playoff runs until defenses had softened up. That's why it's a little weird to compare Kobe's 06-10 playoff efficiency to Garnett's Minnesota career (since Garnett only had one playoff run in his prime with Boston).

To me, Kobe is an offensive superstar, probably a tier below the very best offensive players ever, like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Nash, LeBron, maybe Oscar, maybe Shaq, maybe Barkley, maybe Kareem. KG is obviously not on that level, but he's pretty great himself. He was a long-time anchor of some really good Minnesota offenses, and his first couple of years in Boston, the Celtics were a strong offense too.

Garnett is clearly a defensive superstar, and I don't think he takes a backseat to anyone defensively in the history of the game, with the exception of Russell, who everyone takes a backseat to. I think the Celtics showed how it's possible to build an INCREDIBLE team around Garnett's defensive talent.

Since Garnett is the GOAT PnR defender and is capable of completely shutting down the most useful offensive play in basketball, his ceiling on defense absolutely approaches what the best offensive players in the game can do on offense.

If you want more detail on this, this is a post by ElGee from earlier in the project (WARNING: he calls Garnett a middle linebacker! ):

-KG is better horizontally than maybe anyone ever, including Hakeem. I'll exclude Russell for a second because my point mostly centers around the 2 and 3-man game concept that is so prevalent today. Alert: If you're criteria is for 2005-present rules, pay attention! Kevin Garnett is like Ray Lewis against the pick and roll. This basically impacts the whole court, and it's why I think his defensive RAPM scores are so good in Boston.

-guarding the screener: Garnett, because of his length and coverage, has an incredible balance of showing against the ball handler around a screen while still simultaneously sticking with his man. His communication on this front is matched by no one I've seen -- constant talking and communicating about the timing of switching on/off and showing. The inability to allow a team to gain an advantage via the PnR -- the most common shot-creation method in the current NBA rules -- blows up weak side and strong side threats because KG and his man still stick to the ball handler and screener and there is no breakdown (no help needed) on the backside of the defense.

-as the helper: Here's where KG really flexes his Middle Linebacker. He reads offenses like Manning and Brady read defenses. PnR advantages are about who is involved -- usually who is dribbling -- but it's also about angles and spacing of the screener in relation to the other guys on the court. Garnett's positioning in this regard -- what used to be illegal in the illegal D days -- is scary good. It's human chess. Go watch game tape of the 08 or 10 playoffs -- he always moves the proper distance out to the screen action while keeping track of not just his man, but the help-the-helpers (because KG, in accordance with the defensive scheme) has communicated to his guys to slide into helping position on a screen. This was the strength of the historically good Boston D, and it started with him, and it's a lot of the reason why (again, IMO) his RAPM numbers were amazing in Boston despite a diminished rim presence.

PS I'm sure there's youtube breakdowns or a Lowe analysis of this somewhere on the net with visuals/video. Don't have to time to it here myself, but if you find a game, just watch how he handles these situations...to me, that's the horizontal impact.

Add in his offensive game, while I have yet to see actual evidence that Kobe's impact was ever much more than neutral on defense, and I can absolutely conceptualize how KG is having a higher two-way impact than Kobe.

But one question about the rejection of all +/- stats: how in the hell are you planning on measuring who's better if one guy is great offensively, and the other guy is great defensively? The box score is NOTORIOUSLY biased towards an offensive player...obviously, the better offensive player is going to put up better offensive stats! How are you trying to quantify defensive impact and how that plays into the big picture? +/-, or some version of it, is really the best way we have of actually putting a number on it. What you want to do is act like it's some abstract part of the game, while OFFENSE is really where it's at, and that's ridiculous.

[acrossthecourt]

What I find peculiar is that you work in statistics yet when you critique a stat, you use single examples to discredit it, instead of providing comprehensive, multi-season tests.

There's a reason why the expression "lead a horse to water" is so popular. We can do everything possible to get you to accept the metric, but there's a stage we can't have influence on and it's your own decision making. There's nothing more we can do. It's up to you at this point, and if you hate RAPM in favor of PER or whatever it is, then that's what you've chosen.


Anyway, I'd like to hear more about West versus Oscar.