#11 Highest Peak of All Time (Garnett '04 wins)

[colts18]

I just don't understand this line of thinking. It's so flabbergasting and out of nowhere to me that I've considered whether not to respond because something in your brain has taken you here and you might not be able to hear what I'll say. Here goes:

There has been endless discussion about the small-sampled nature of the PS and whether to treat that in a results-oriented manner. There's no "wrong" answer, although the most vocal crowd has been "how can you really trust what you see in 5-10 games against 1 or 2 opponents?" and they haven't been met with a single rebuttal that I know of. So right up front, when you say "impact in the later rounds/finals" goes to Wade, well why weren't you bringing up Wade at the start of the project then?

Second, you get into an obvious problem with this line of reasoning because Kevin Garnett never played in the Finals, obviously due to his circumstance. So how can you compare his performance to Wade's?

Third, you are limiting Wade's peak (or any player's?) to his CF and Finals performance, which implies that his peak must be the year he was on the best team. Hopefully it's obvious why this line of reasoning is totally specious. It implies 77 Jabbar couldn't be better than 80 Jabbar. It really makes my head itch because I don't have 2006 as Wade's peak.

So why would you start doing this now and why wouldn't you do it earlier?

If you are into this line of reasoning, why aren't you championing 94 or 95 Robinson? He was better and more impactful than any of the guys talked about here in the regular season. He had impact in the first 2 rounds so thats a plus. If the playoffs aren't that important to you, Robinson should be considered.


KG never played in the finals because he didn't step it up enough to make the finals. If Dirk didn't make it, we would say it was circumstances, but he overcame them and beat a Heat team that is closer to a true 8-9 SRS team. What do you think the true level of the 2011 Heat was? Because I think by the end of the year they were a potential legit all-time team minus the center position but of course Dallas couldn't take advantage of that, so that makes Dirk more impressive. Wade overcame his circumstances like terrible teammates who were no fit at all and still won after being down 2.75-0. KG didn't do that despite facing a weaker opponent.

It's not winning bias, its playoff performance bias. Thats why 77 Kareem is ahead of 80 Kareem. He performed better in the playoffs than 80 Kareem (though 80 Kareem was no slouch). Thats why I champion Dirk and Wade. I'm not saying regular season is meaningless, but playoffs are where you win titles and playoff basketball is a different animal which is why KG fell offensively in the playoffs and so did Robinson. I lean more in the outcome side of things and also take into account context and luck as far as playoff importance.

[mysticbb]

I can't help think that some of this is because I had a reasonable idea of how well Dallas was built from the get-go (and considered Chandler top-20, for instance) so they didn't surprise me.

:lol:

You looked at the Mavericks in the summer 2010 and said, guess what, they are championship contenders? The best team in the West? You said in the summer 2010 that Tyson Chandler was a Top20 player? Seriously, that must be the biggest hindsight bias I've ever seen here. Elgee, he knew it all-along, no surprise at all.

[therealbig3]

If both Mac and Kobe are asked to do heavy lifting on offense, and as a result coast on different to similar impacts on the game, is that a better way to view their defense than "if these guys are on a good team where they can exert energy on D -- ala 2011 Wade -- then JUST. HOW. BIG. Can their defensive impact be? I give Kobe a clear nod there, even by 2008.

See, I don't agree here, because we've seen McGrady play really good defense, WHILE carrying the offense...see the 01 and 05 playoffs for example (guarded Glen Robinson and Dirk and shut them both down). He was more physically gifted than Kobe, with his length and athleticism and size, and he could guard 1-4, similar to LeBron. He wasn't as smart on defense as Kobe, but I think his physical gifts compensated. Overall, if his offensive burden could be reduced, I think he could play some really good defense if he needed to, and better than what Kobe's shown. We saw it in this year's playoffs against Boston, a 32-year old McGrady came in mainly because they had nobody else, and he guarded Rondo, Allen, Pierce, Bass, and KG, and he did a really good job.

[colts18]

I can't help think that some of this is because I had a reasonable idea of how well Dallas was built from the get-go (and considered Chandler top-20, for instance) so they didn't surprise me.

You looked at the Mavericks in the summer 2010 and said, guess what, they are championship contenders? The best team in the West? You said in the summer 2010 that Tyson Chandler was a Top20 player? Seriously, that must be the biggest hindsight bias I've ever seen here. Elgee, he knew it all-along, no surprise at all.

No one was saying that back then, in fact no one was saying that in 2011 either. Plenty of people mocked the Chandler max deal. I don't think he performed all that great in NY. I mean he won a DPOY despite the fact that the Knicks defense played better in the minutes he was off the court.

[mysticbb]

No one was saying that back then, in fact no one was saying that in 2011 either. Plenty of people mocked the Chandler max deal. I don't think he performed all that great in NY. I mean he won a DPOY despite the fact that the Knicks defense played better in the minutes he was off the court.

For sure nobody was saying that, Elgee is the only one who was smart enough. In the summer 2010 Elgee would have picked Tyson Chandler as one of his Top20 choices to build a team. That is amazing. A player, who was traded, because his team wanted to shift shortterm costs for longterm costs, a player the Mavericks wouldn't have traded for, if he wouldn't have been on an expiring contract, a player who just finished the season with 6.5/6.3 in 23 mpg, had injury problems which even led to the fact that the Thunder, a team which desperately needed a center, cancelled a deal, that player was a Top20 player for Elgee, and thus he knew that the Mavericks were going to win it all.

Here is the deal, the Mavericks with Nowitzki+Chandler were at +11 (per 48 min), they were at +9.5 with Nowitzki and without Chandler, and they were at -1.7 without Nowitzki and with Chandler. Your Top20 player leads the same Mavericks team to a situation in which they get outscored. For sure, the team was build around Nowitzki's strength, but Nowitzki is the guy being able to play 40 mpg in the playoffs, not Chandler. And Chandler is the guy being much easier to replace as Nowitzki, getting a Haywood/Mahinmi combo might be much easier to get than getting another Nowitzki, and yet, Elgee would pick Chandler among his Top20 choices to build a team around. I'm stunned ...

[therealbig3]

Don't really understand why Dirk being in the top 15 is such a ridiculous thought. He probably is my #14 pick, and it's not even based off 11.

I do think Dirk pre-08 was a flawed player in terms of skillset (couldn't take advantage of smaller defenders), but after that, he really did become a pretty unstoppable offensive player. I'd probably take Dirk in 08, 09, or 10 to be honest, over 11. 11 gets all the credit, because he won a title, but he was doing the same things in those years, except with better rebounding and probably better defense because he was younger. I'd probably go with 09 Dirk to be honest.

And what is Dirk at his peak? He's a ridiculous offensive player, probably top 10 offensive player of all time, or in that vicinity. And on top of that, he's an excellent defensive rebounder, and he's a solid defensive piece that rotates well, has great positioning, and has great hands.

His offense is most likely getting underrated here if his peak isn't considered close to top 15. I'd take him as an offensive player over guys like Kobe or Wade or T-Mac, for example.

Compare his ORAPM from 03-07 (before his peak imo) to other top offensive stars:

03

Dirk: +2.6

T-Mac: +1.4
Kobe: +2.5
Shaq: +4.3
KG: +3.6

04

Dirk: +3.7

T-Mac: +1.9
Kobe: +2.0
Shaq: +4.1
KG: +4.5

05

Dirk: +3.4

T-Mac: +1.9
Kobe: +1.8
Shaq: +3.2
KG: +3.1
LeBron: +2.0
Wade: +2.3
Nash: +4.0

06

Dirk: +4.5

Kobe: +5.9
KG: +2.5
LeBron: +3.9
Wade: +4.6
Nash: +4.5

07

Dirk: +6.0

Kobe: +6.0
KG: +2.7
LeBron: +7.1
Wade: +6.1
Nash: +7.9


We see a guy who is clearly on the same level offensively as some of the best offensive players in the league.

From 07/08-10/11 (which is his highest level of play imo, after he incorporated his midpost game), the offensive RAPM of the league's stars look like this (based on the 4-year RAPM study):

Dirk: +5.0

Kobe: +4.7
Paul: +5.5
LeBron: +6.6
Wade: +6.2
Nash: +7.7

He's right there on par with Kobe and Paul...LeBron and Nash are two of the 6 or 7 best offensive players ever imo, and Wade was really, really good and peaked ridiculously high as well during this time.

And overall, Nowitzki is 2nd in the 4-year study, with +7.8, tied with Nash.

So I'm seeing a ridiculously high impact player, with underrated defense and historically good offense. I have no problem voting him in right after the top 13, and I probably will.

[ardee]

One more thing going forward, if I can channel my inner TrueLA...The Dirk talk just blows me away. It's this combination of Winning Bias and "Singlehanded-ness" that seems to trick the brain into just absolutely going Gung Ho over a player. There is no way on god's green earth anyone can convince a SINGLE person (not from Germany) would be arguing Dirk Nowitzki at the 14th slot before last year's NBA Finals. Furthermore, I don't see 2011 as his best season, and I've heard nothing yet that I find remotely persuasive on the matter to even make it clear that 2011 is > 2006, let alone being in the ballpark of the Sacreds. I can't help think that some of this is because I had a reasonable idea of how well Dallas was built from the get-go (and considered Chandler top-20, for instance) so they didn't surprise me. Others are surprised and instead of analyzing what happened, are making a huge, dichotomous shift and giving the stars all teh credit.

Again, if it's "impact" stats only that people champion -- and I'm not sure why you'd want to ignore context?? -- then why doesn't your list of GOAT peaks have Russell, Walton and Nash at the top. ITO of seemingly everything we can tell, these guys were the most "valuable" to their specific teams. KG as well. Maybe Oscar too. I just don't understand what gives with Dirk suddenly being pseudo-deified because he has big raw on-off stats and didn't have an all-star on his team (as if this is a remotely good way to evaluate team strength).

I very much consider Dwayne Wade to have the strongest argument after the Sacreds, if not David Robinson. Then West, then Barkley and probably Oscar...although I find Doc MJ's rant about adjusting for era-biases fascinating as it's something I've juggled around a lot and certainly thought about when evaluating Wilt in 1967. (eg +5 offense to lead league, not +8 or +9...but then again, as I said, West hit those marks the next year so it gets murk.)

And to weigh in quickly on Kobe and McGrady -- I have Kobe much closer to the group I just mentioned above while McGrady is a click down, closer to Dirk of all people (and Moses). Frankly, I'd lean toward McGrady just on offense over Kobe, although this is me assuming that his 448 3's that year were enough to confirm that he actually was ~38% from the arc (36.4% the year before FTR), because when you factor in how ridiculously low-turnover McGrady is, his excellent creation/passing, that jumper (like Kobe, had the 3 weapon covered, off the dribble) and a post game...the guy's offense was just all-time good as a wing. And to top it off, he did it in a league where wings struggled -- Mac's posting a 116 ORtg in the biggest unipolar act we can imagine, and 2003 Kobe a 113 ORtg playing next to prime Shaq.

I give a nod to Kobe though because although his offensive/defensive peak didn't overlap, I still believe his 2008 D to be better than T-Mac's 03 D. This raises another theoretical question...what kind of situation should we expect a player's defensive effort to reasonably excel in? If both Mac and Kobe are asked to do heavy lifting on offense, and as a result coast on different to similar impacts on the game, is that a better way to view their defense than "if these guys are on a good team where they can exert energy on D -- ala 2011 Wade -- then JUST. HOW. BIG. Can their defensive impact be? I give Kobe a clear nod there, even by 2008.

THANK YOU.

Let's just be hypothetical here. Assuming LeBron plays 40% better in the Finals, that should be enough to swing games 4 and 5, right (those went right down the wire).

If Dirk doesn't win that Finals, I want to ask the posters who are propping him, would you even CONSIDER him in your top 15? If you're saying yes, well, that's your choice, but had Nowitzki not won that ring people wouldn't even be discussing him here.

People penalize Kobe's 08 season for his poor shooting against a GOAT-level defense, yet Nowitzki gets a free pass for shooting 42% against a team with no interior defender capable of handling him at ALL?

I think the whole 'he made his team-mates SO much better' thing is being overblown. It's not as if Dirk was drawing so much defensive attention that every time he got the ball down low, he had Kidd or Barea or Terry spotting up for a wide open 3. If he was so good at helping his team-mates score, he'd have averaged more than 2.5 apg. The Mavs offense in 2011 running riot was helped a lot by the fact that all their shooters seemed to catch fire at the same time.

[mysticbb]

Let's just be hypothetical here. Assuming LeBron plays 40% better in the Finals, that should be enough to swing games 4 and 5, right (those went right down the wire).

What do you mean by "40% better"? In everything? You just want to use that, if James is putting up 24/11/10 in average on 70 TS% throughout the first 5 games, the Heat would win, as an argument against Nowitzki? Oh well, that is even worse than your argument that Barea went somehow nuts during the finals.

People penalize Kobe's 08 season for his poor shooting against a GOAT-level defense, yet Nowitzki gets a free pass for shooting 42% against a team with no interior defender capable of handling him at ALL?

What kind of games did you watch? I saw Bosh, Anthony and Haslem doing a fine job against Nowitzki, but well ..
And the difference between Nowitzki in 2011 and Bryant in 2008 was simple, that Nowitzki didn't take up shotclock time in order to take a bad shot while his teammates could have had easier opportunities, but rather was forced to take those shots, because his teammates weren't able to. The only time you can make an argument for bad shots on Nowitzki's part is the first quarter of game 6, everything else were just shots he had to take. And if you were watching them play without him on the court, you would realise that.

I think the whole 'he made his team-mates SO much better' thing is being overblown. It's not as if Dirk was drawing so much defensive attention that every time he got the ball down low, he had Kidd or Barea or Terry spotting up for a wide open 3. If he was so good at helping his team-mates score, he'd have averaged more than 2.5 apg. The Mavs offense in 2011 running riot was helped a lot by the fact that all their shooters seemed to catch fire at the same time.

If that is the case, why stopped their fire when Nowitzki was off the court? Why couldn't they score at the same rate anymore? Why committed they more turnovers? Why did their shot selection change so much, having to take much more difficult shots and bad 3pointers when Nowitzki was off? Why became their defense worse? If all of their "fire" had nothing to do with Nowitzki, they should have been able to keep their level of play without him, but they didn't. And please don't try to argue that the mid of the first quarter or end of the 3rd quarter during the NBA finals is now considered "garbage time".

[therealbig3]

I think the whole 'he made his team-mates SO much better' thing is being overblown. It's not as if Dirk was drawing so much defensive attention that every time he got the ball down low, he had Kidd or Barea or Terry spotting up for a wide open 3. If he was so good at helping his team-mates score, he'd have averaged more than 2.5 apg. The Mavs offense in 2011 running riot was helped a lot by the fact that all their shooters seemed to catch fire at the same time.

This is such a flawed way of looking at things. We know for a fact that Barea was way less effective without Dirk on the court. We know for a fact that Dirk drew double teams and kicked it out for wide open looks from the shooters. We know for a fact that solely looking at apg is a horrible way of determining how much he's helping teammates. There are such things as hockey assists. There are such things as drawing attention away from teammates, without actually getting the assist when they score.

As mysticbb has posted before, Dirk's presence on the court allows the Mavs to play a bunch of defensive-minded players around him, since Dirk will keep the offense afloat, while the defense plays well. That's part of the reason why his defensive RAPM looks so good. This is a GOOD thing about Dirk, he's so good offensively, he allows elite defensive players to play more.

A very common lineup for the Mavs in the 2011 playoffs (and again, I don't think 2011 is his peak) was Kidd-Terry-Marion-Dirk-Chandler. That lineup in the playoffs had an ORating of 125.57. You basically only have one other guy on the court who could create for himself (Terry), and even he plays off Dirk a lot.

[Revv]

can't believe people think 11 dirk is better than peak kobe/wade/t-mac. this is cray.

what did he during the reg season? 22-7-3? thats top 15 all-time?

[MisterWestside]

This is such a flawed way of looking at things. We know for a fact that Barea was way less effective without Dirk on the court. We know for a fact that Dirk drew double teams and kicked it out for wide open looks from the shooters. We know for a fact that solely looking at apg is a horrible way of determining how much he's helping teammates. There are such things as hockey assists. There are such things as drawing attention away from teammates, without actually getting the assist when they score.

As mysticbb has posted before, Dirk's presence on the court allows the Mavs to play a bunch of defensive-minded players around him, since Dirk will keep the offense afloat, while the defense plays well. That's part of the reason why his defensive RAPM looks so good. This is a GOOD thing about Dirk, he's so good offensively, he allows elite defensive players to play more.

A very common lineup for the Mavs in the 2011 playoffs (and again, I don't think 2011 is his peak) was Kidd-Terry-Marion-Dirk-Chandler. That lineup in the playoffs had an ORating of 125.57. You basically only have one other guy on the court who could create for himself (Terry), and even he plays off Dirk a lot.

All correct, therealbig3.

I want to point out some key words from ElGee's (also) correct post however:

Others are surprised and instead of analyzing what happened, are making a huge, dichotomous shift and giving the stars all teh credit.

If an elite shooter who can only shoot wide-open shots is paired with Dirk, Dirk will draw attention away from him to allow him to carry out his "job". If that shooter also happens to play with another elite shooter on his squad, he can easily be swapped in/out for him and the team can chug along, with Dirk doing what he always does to draw attention away from them (and lowering the raw on-off of the shooters, which all "impact" stats are based upon including the useful but imperfect RAPM). But it doesn't make what does elite shooters are doing any less important, and his skill is still valuable even if it can't be brought out as well without Dirk on the court. What if they replaced that shooter with a RealGM poster who can't shoot worth a lick? I'm sure Dirk would draw attention away from that player all the same -- but if he can't shoot, what's the point? Dirk's raw on-off goes down (that RealGM poster would be as useless with him on the court as he would be with him off of it), but would that be Dirk's fault? Does that make him any "less" impactful now?

[drza]

KG never played in the finals because he didn't step it up enough to make the finals. If Dirk didn't make it, we would say it was circumstances, but he overcame them and beat a Heat team that is closer to a true 8-9 SRS team. What do you think the true level of the 2011 Heat was? Because I think by the end of the year they were a potential legit all-time team minus the center position but of course Dallas couldn't take advantage of that, so that makes Dirk more impressive. Wade overcame his circumstances like terrible teammates who were no fit at all and still won after being down 2.75-0. KG didn't do that despite facing a weaker opponent.

It's not winning bias, its playoff performance bias. Thats why 77 Kareem is ahead of 80 Kareem. He performed better in the playoffs than 80 Kareem (though 80 Kareem was no slouch). Thats why I champion Dirk and Wade. I'm not saying regular season is meaningless, but playoffs are where you win titles and playoff basketball is a different animal which is why KG fell offensively in the playoffs and so did Robinson. I lean more in the outcome side of things and also take into account context and luck as far as playoff importance.

In the playoffs, the Heat were 109.2 O rating offensively with Wade on the court and 86.0 without him (+23.3 O rating) in 150 minutes of action (small sample) (+25.2 overall).

Here's the thing. You want to pick and choose when to use certain stats, based on when it tells the story you want told. I mention KG's on/off in 2004 was huge (> +28 per 100 possessions) while acknowledging the small sample size, you say the point is meaningless (!) because of sample size. I point out that he held that +/- consistently over the full seasons of 2003 and 2004, and also maintained that postseason +/- from 2002 - 2004, and you write an indignant post about how ridiculous it is to even pay attention to +/- when the sample is so small, even citing David West this year to try to make your point. And yet here, when it suits you to strengthen your case for Wade, now suddenly it's ok to mention postseason +/- as long as you put "small sample" in parentheses? And I've seen you make similar postseason +/- cases for Shaq in other threads. That's hypocritical. But it does re-open the door to something you don't want to hear:

KG's postseason +/- scores dwarf those of the stars that you're trumpeting for this spot based on their postseason production.

And just so I don't have to hear about sample size again, let's look at all of the +/- data we have access to (going back a decade-plus now). Garnett's on/off +/- for the playoffs since 2002:

2002 - 2004: + 23.5 per 100 possessions; 1173 minutes on court, 125 minutes off court
2008: +20 per 100 possessions; 986 minutes on court, 261 minutes off court
2010 - 2012: +16.5 per 100 possessions; 1833 minutes on court, 736 minutes off court (and this number is lowered due to 2010, which was KG's lowest +/- score ever and happened to come in the year he was playing injured)

Are you noticing the trend here? Garnett ALWAYS has ridiculous postseason +/- numbers. We're now talking samples with 4000 minutes on court and more than 1000 minutes off court, all told. So it's not sample size. We're now talking one title team, one Finals team, 2 other conference finalists, a 2nd round team and two first round teams...so it's not "ceiling effect" or "easier to lift poor teams". We're talking superstar-with-poor-help, best-star-on-team-with-two-other-stars, and ensemble cast after a major KG injury...so it's not some type of role artifact.

Garnett always shows up as a HUGE positive in the postseason.

Do you know how many times in the last decade Dirk has posted an on/off +/- of +16 or better in even a single postseason? Twice (2009 and 2011)

How about Wade? Once (2006)

Steve Nash? Once (2006)

Kobe? Never, but came closest in 2009 (+13.4)

Duncan did it four times (2003, 2006, 2010, 2012; don't have 2002 score for Duncan, could be a fifth)

Are you noticing another trend? Besides Duncan, the other superstars of this generation just happen to only hit this kind of postseason +/- score IN THEIR CAREER YEARS. The postseason runs that made them famous. The runs that are the jewels in their postseason resumes...those are the only years that they are sniffing the kind of postseason +/- scores that Garnett has posted in his mid-30s post knee surgery!

The only superstars of this generation, besides Garnett and perhaps Duncan, to consistently produce postseason +/- scores on this level? Shaq and LeBron. You know, only the two players from this generation that have (and will) get legitimate cases made that at their best they compare with Jordan.

And like any stat, it of course has to be placed in context. And I've (repeatedly) gone into a huge amount of detail about KG's postseason impact. The only reason that this would even be questioned is because all of the boxscore advanced stats hinge on scoring efficiency above all else. Because volume-wise, KG has produced some ridiculous playoff stats. And (more importantly), KG does so many things that the boxscore doesn't capture that there's just no way to try to pigeon hole his performances based on scoring efficiency. His defensive impact doesn't just conveniently go away in the playoffs because there's no boxscore stat that captures it. His floor generalship and spacing effects on offense don't just disappear once the regular season ends. It's just that in the postseason, like in the regular season, the +/- stats are the only ones that even attempt to capture total impact.

So, now that it's clear that with Garnett we're looking at postseason samples on the order of 5000 minutes (4000 on, 1000 off) across every conceivable team role and team outcome...and he's just crushing the +/- stats that YOU are willing to admit as useful evidence when it supports cases that you want made...NOW what's your reasoning for why KG isn't legitimately an outstanding postseason performer?

[mysticbb]

If an elite shooter who can only shoot wide-open shots is paired with Dirk, Dirk will draw attention away from him to make him look better. If that shooter also happens to play with another elite shooter on his squad, he can easily be swapped in/out for him and the team can chug along, with Dirk doing what he always does to draw attention away from them (and lowering the raw on-off of the shooters). But it doesn't make what does elite shooters are doing any less important. What if they repaced that shooter with a RealGM poster who can't shoot worth a lick? I'm sure Dirk would draw attention away from that player all the same -- but if he can't shoot, what's the point? Dirk's raw on-off goes down (that RealGM poster would be as useless with him on the court as he would be with him off of it), but would that be Dirk's fault?

That is all true, but can be used as argument against ALL players. If the players suck at the job they are supposed to do, the team will look worse no matter what. How is James looking with a bunch of RealGM posters around him in an NBA environment? If nobody can use the opportunities created by James, is that James' fault? What exactly are you people even trying to accomplish here? And why wasn't the same line of thinking applied to other players?

[therealbig3]

@ElGee

Why do you go with 08 as peak Kobe, btw? Why not 01 or 03 Kobe? Kobe seems to be similar (if not better) offensively, and was for sure better defensively in 01 and 03.

[ElGee]

I can't help think that some of this is because I had a reasonable idea of how well Dallas was built from the get-go (and considered Chandler top-20, for instance) so they didn't surprise me.

You looked at the Mavericks in the summer 2010 and said, guess what, they are championship contenders? The best team in the West? You said in the summer 2010 that Tyson Chandler was a Top20 player? Seriously, that must be the biggest hindsight bias I've ever seen here. Elgee, he knew it all-along, no surprise at all.

Mystic, it is just MISERABLE interacting with you lately. You are rude, dogmatic, and lol at everything. This is just unproductive and not fun, and then sometime your points aren't even logical. I know English is your second language, but if you can't READ then don't be such an ass. That's all I'm going to say about that.

[ElGee]

I just don't understand this line of thinking. It's so flabbergasting and out of nowhere to me that I've considered whether not to respond because something in your brain has taken you here and you might not be able to hear what I'll say. Here goes:

There has been endless discussion about the small-sampled nature of the PS and whether to treat that in a results-oriented manner. There's no "wrong" answer, although the most vocal crowd has been "how can you really trust what you see in 5-10 games against 1 or 2 opponents?" and they haven't been met with a single rebuttal that I know of. So right up front, when you say "impact in the later rounds/finals" goes to Wade, well why weren't you bringing up Wade at the start of the project then?

Second, you get into an obvious problem with this line of reasoning because Kevin Garnett never played in the Finals, obviously due to his circumstance. So how can you compare his performance to Wade's?

Third, you are limiting Wade's peak (or any player's?) to his CF and Finals performance, which implies that his peak must be the year he was on the best team. Hopefully it's obvious why this line of reasoning is totally specious. It implies 77 Jabbar couldn't be better than 80 Jabbar. It really makes my head itch because I don't have 2006 as Wade's peak.

So why would you start doing this now and why wouldn't you do it earlier?

If you are into this line of reasoning, why aren't you championing 94 or 95 Robinson?

*sigh* So you didn't hear a thing I said? I'm trying to point something out in your method that is totally inconsistent, and you ask me about MY method? (I'm not even sure what you're referring to, btw.)

KG never played in the finals because he didn't step it up enough to make the finals.

OK, Prove that to me.

If Dirk didn't make it, we would say it was circumstances, but he overcame them and beat a Heat team that is closer to a true 8-9 SRS team. What do you think the true level of the 2011 Heat was? Because I think by the end of the year they were a potential legit all-time team minus the center position but of course Dallas couldn't take advantage of that, so that makes Dirk more impressive.

A team upsetting a better team makes one individual more impressive? Why doesn't it make Chandler, Stevenson, Kidd, Marion and Barea more impressive? Or LeBron less impressive? I'm sure you are aware that the odds of a 6 SRS team beating a 9 SRS team without HCA are about 1 in 4...25% of the time the better team will lose simply due to variance. You don't have to be a 10 SRS team to be a 9 SRS team.

Wade overcame his circumstances like terrible teammates who were no fit at all and still won after being down 2.75-0. KG didn't do that despite facing a weaker opponent.

I'm not sure how to fall behind 2.75-0...but yes, what I was asking you to think about is why wasn't this used an argument from you earlier?

I lean more in the outcome side of things and also take into account context and luck as far as playoff importance.

There's nothing explicitly "wrong" with being results-oriented, if that's what you want to do (and you aren't really considering overall performance indicators, variance and luck if you are, by definition)...but the biggest problem i see with your stance is that you aren't separating context from "performance." It's been explained many times that someone's raw offensive stats dropping don't mean they are a poorer player than when they had better stats...because stats are context-dependent. As in, (1) the opponent and (2) one's own teammates.

[mysticbb]

Mystic, it is just MISERABLE interacting with you lately. You are rude, dogmatic, and lol at everything. This is just unproductive and not fun, and then sometime your points aren't even logical. I know English is your second language, but if you can't READ then don't be such an ass. That's all I'm going to say about that.

What a poor excuse. You said clearly "how well Dallas was built from the get-go (and considered Chandler top-20, for instance)". What do you mean by this, if you don't want to say that you mean before the season started? When did you consider Chandler top-20? Does "from get-go" mean something else than "from the start"?
The Mavericks made the trade for Chandler in July. They were basically done with their team building at that point. Having Nowitzki, Chandler, Kidd, Terry, Marion, Haywood, Butler, Barea, Mahinmi, Beaubois, Stevenson, etc. all under contract already. Is that really unreasonable to interpret your statement as if you knew how well the team was build at that point? Or did they make some incredible great roster moves later, which let you reconsider your initial idea about the Mavericks?

[ElGee]

If both Mac and Kobe are asked to do heavy lifting on offense, and as a result coast on different to similar impacts on the game, is that a better way to view their defense than "if these guys are on a good team where they can exert energy on D -- ala 2011 Wade -- then JUST. HOW. BIG. Can their defensive impact be? I give Kobe a clear nod there, even by 2008.

See, I don't agree here, because we've seen McGrady play really good defense, WHILE carrying the offense...see the 01 and 05 playoffs for example (guarded Glen Robinson and Dirk and shut them both down). He was more physically gifted than Kobe, with his length and athleticism and size, and he could guard 1-4, similar to LeBron. He wasn't as smart on defense as Kobe, but I think his physical gifts compensated. Overall, if his offensive burden could be reduced, I think he could play some really good defense if he needed to, and better than what Kobe's shown. We saw it in this year's playoffs against Boston, a 32-year old McGrady came in mainly because they had nobody else, and he guarded Rondo, Allen, Pierce, Bass, and KG, and he did a really good job.

I think that's a fair point. But I give Kobe the benefit of the doubt more so because he demonstrated excellent perimeter D when he was younger. His actual defensive ceiling from other parts of his career was higher than Mac's IMO. But I'm also asking how to handle this theoretically -- if your peak season ITO of skill, concentration, "putting it all together" etc. only happens on a unipolar team, and what I really care about is how you do on +1, +4, +5 SRS type teams...then don't I really want to know the "goodness" of one's defense, which will certainly regress to the mean if their role on such Bobcat-like teams is to BE the offense? (Unless, maybe, they are from Akron.)

I'll get into Kobe v Kobe when the time comes, but I think 2008 was the best years you mentioned of his offense, and 2006 and 2007 would be the other options. Best balance of athleticism, skill (jumper), and creation/passing, and it showed in the results.

[colts18]

Here's the thing. You want to pick and choose when to use certain stats, based on when it tells the story you want told. I mention KG's on/off in 2004 was huge (> +28 per 100 possessions) while acknowledging the small sample size, you say the point is meaningless (!) because of sample size. I point out that he held that +/- consistently over the full seasons of 2003 and 2004, and also maintained that postseason +/- from 2002 - 2004, and you write an indignant post about how ridiculous it is to even pay attention to +/- when the sample is so small, even citing David West this year to try to make your point. And yet here, when it suits you to strengthen your case for Wade, now suddenly it's ok to mention postseason +/- as long as you put "small sample" in parentheses? And I've seen you make similar postseason +/- cases for Shaq in other threads. That's hypocritical. But it does re-open the door to something you don't want to hear:

KG's postseason +/- scores dwarf those of the stars that you're trumpeting for this spot based on their postseason production.

And just so I don't have to hear about sample size again, let's look at all of the +/- data we have access to (going back a decade-plus now). Garnett's on/off +/- for the playoffs since 2002:

2002 - 2004: + 23.5 per 100 possessions; 1173 minutes on court, 125 minutes off court
2008: +20 per 100 possessions; 986 minutes on court, 261 minutes off court
2010 - 2012: +16.5 per 100 possessions; 1833 minutes on court, 736 minutes off court (and this number is lowered due to 2010, which was KG's lowest +/- score ever and happened to come in the year he was playing injured)

Are you noticing the trend here? Garnett ALWAYS has ridiculous postseason +/- numbers. We're now talking samples with 4000 minutes on court and more than 1000 minutes off court, all told. So it's not sample size. We're now talking one title team, one Finals team, 2 other conference finalists, a 2nd round team and two first round teams...so it's not "ceiling effect" or "easier to lift poor teams". We're talking superstar-with-poor-help, best-star-on-team-with-two-other-stars, and ensemble cast after a major KG injury...so it's not some type of role artifact.

Garnett always shows up as a HUGE positive in the postseason.

Do you know how many times in the last decade Dirk has posted an on/off +/- of +16 or better in even a single postseason? Twice (2009 and 2011)

How about Wade? Once (2006)

Steve Nash? Once (2006)

Kobe? Never, but came closest in 2009 (+13.4)

Duncan did it four times (2003, 2006, 2010, 2012; don't have 2002 score for Duncan, could be a fifth)

Are you noticing another trend? Besides Duncan, the other superstars of this generation just happen to only hit this kind of postseason +/- score IN THEIR CAREER YEARS. The postseason runs that made them famous. The runs that are the jewels in their postseason resumes...those are the only years that they are sniffing the kind of postseason +/- scores that Garnett has posted in his mid-30s post knee surgery!

The only superstars of this generation, besides Garnett and perhaps Duncan, to consistently produce postseason +/- scores on this level? Shaq and LeBron. You know, only the two players from this generation that have (and will) get legitimate cases made that at their best they compare with Jordan.

And like any stat, it of course has to be placed in context. And I've (repeatedly) gone into a huge amount of detail about KG's postseason impact. The only reason that this would even be questioned is because all of the boxscore advanced stats hinge on scoring efficiency above all else. Because volume-wise, KG has produced some ridiculous playoff stats. And (more importantly), KG does so many things that the boxscore doesn't capture that there's just no way to try to pigeon hole his performances based on scoring efficiency. His defensive impact doesn't just conveniently go away in the playoffs because there's no boxscore stat that captures it. His floor generalship and spacing effects on offense don't just disappear once the regular season ends. It's just that in the postseason, like in the regular season, the +/- stats are the only ones that even attempt to capture total impact.

So, now that it's clear that with Garnett we're looking at postseason samples on the order of 5000 minutes (4000 on, 1000 off) across every conceivable team role and team outcome...and he's just crushing the +/- stats that YOU are willing to admit as useful evidence when it supports cases that you want made...NOW what's your reasoning for why KG isn't legitimately an outstanding postseason performer?

I mentioned it was small sample size. I don't think the Heat are a 86 O rating team without Wade but they are worse just like the Wolves are not a -20 team without KG but they are worse.

Based on those +/-, Do you believe that 04 KG was making a bigger impact in the playoffs than 09 LeBron/12 LeBron and 11 Dirk? If so, why didn't that actually result in improved team performance despite having a 2nd team All-NBA for 16 out of 18 games?

As far as Shaq, I was using it more in comparison to Kobe. He was making a much bigger impact than Kobe and I have acknowledged before that the +/- for Shaq was inflated by bad backups (just like KG).

[drza]

I think that's a fair point. But I give Kobe the benefit of the doubt more so because he demonstrated excellent perimeter D when he was younger. His actual defensive ceiling from other parts of his career was higher than Mac's IMO. But I'm also asking how to handle this theoretically -- if your peak season ITO of skill, concentration, "putting it all together" etc. only happens on a unipolar team, and what I really care about is how you do on +1, +4, +5 SRS type teams...then don't I really want to know the "goodness" of one's defense, which will certainly regress to the mean if their role on such Bobcat-like teams is to BE the offense? (Unless, maybe, they are from Akron.)

I'll get into Kobe v Kobe when the time comes, but I think 2008 was the best years you mentioned of his offense, and 2006 and 2007 would be the other options. Best balance of athleticism, skill (jumper), and creation/passing, and it showed in the results.

It seems to me that TMac also demonstrated excellent perimeter D when he was younger. TMac first burst onto the scene in Toronto, in fact, as a great defensive energy player. His first three seasons, he averaged 1.5 steals/36 and 1.9 blocks/36 (18.4 min/game) in year 1; 1.7 steals/36 and 2.1 blocks/36 in 22.6 minutes in year 2; and 1.3 steals with 2.2 blocks/36 in 31.2 min/game in year 3. He was downright disruptive on defense, and that was how he made his name for himself. In fact, when TMac and Grant Hill signed with the Magic in 2001, the plan was for Hill to be the "Jordan" and TMac to be the "Pippen" because the thought was that TMac could do all of the defensive things that Scottie did. It wasn't until Hill was hurt and TMac was the only option that anyone realized that he could score like that.

Of course, with the scoring and offense carrying came a loss in the defensive intensity for TMac. But in the hypothetical you're proposing about fitting in with a good team, TMac wouldn't have to carry everything completely on offense which should allow the defensive proclivities he showed in his first few years to shine through.