ESPN Top 100 list

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

^Yes, his best years in Denver & NY he was surrounded by solid leadership in Billups & Kidd. That's the key....he's more Robin than Batman.

But the same could be said about a lot of guys in the top 100 argument and people aren't trying to displace them off of the list because of it. That's more so the point I was trying to make about Melo.

[J_Posse]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

West had a more complete game than Curry. He was probably the best point guard defender in history and had legit 25 foot range on his jumper. Could run and jump at the highest level and would be a definite all star if playing today.


Erving in the ABA was an even better player than he was in the NBA. His lateral and vertical movement was unbelievable which meant his defense was outstanding. Even still, his NBA game was more complete than people think. He could drive on anyone, pass, handle, rebound, and rise to the occasion in the clutch.


Garnett isn't really worthy of being on a list like this. He functioned as a huge jump shooter mostly who couldn't challenge at the rim without getting smalls and mediums switched onto him. His team defense was outstanding but he was put at serous risk when his fronting and three quartering of the low post failed. Worst of all, he failed in the vast majority of clutch situations he was placed in.


I agree that Dirk and Pau Gasol are more evenly matched than people remember.


The crafters of this list are younger and likely never saw the greats of the 50s and 60s. This should be taken with a grain of salt.

Funny that you crap all over KG (I disagree that he shouldn't be a top 100 player, obviously) and his defense when I've heard two recent podcasters/NBA analysts place him above Tim Duncan (Thinking Basketball's Ben Taylor & John Hollinger). Of course, I think a lot of their love for Garnett is based on his loud, brash, more versatile and "exciting" game compared to Duncan. Garnett was also an advanced metrics monster in the regular season which modern critics love.

Also, this completely false narrative that Duncan was aided by teammates and coaching. Yes, through the bulk of their careers Duncan had better coaching and Parker/Ginobili developed into an all-time great backcourt. That took a lot of time, patience & playoff failures to truly manifest itself. I saw Parker, Ginobili and Popovich all "fail" him & the team by coming up short, making poor decisions or shrinking throughout their time together.

Again, that is their opinion and you or I have a differing one. Thankfully, the record books, accomplishments and accolades help skew the argument in our favor. And I finally found something to sort of argue with you on....

Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Funny that you crap all over KG (I disagree that he shouldn't be a top 100 player, obviously) and his defense when I've heard two recent podcasters/NBA analysts place him above Tim Duncan (Thinking Basketball's Ben Taylor & John Hollinger). Of course, I think a lot of their love for Garnett is based on his loud, brash, more versatile and "exciting" game compared to Duncan. Garnett was also an advanced metrics monster in the regular season which modern critics love.

Also, this completely false narrative that Duncan was aided by teammates and coaching. Yes, through the bulk of their careers Duncan had better coaching and Parker/Ginobili developed into an all-time great backcourt. That took a lot of time, patience & playoff failures to truly manifest itself. I saw Parker, Ginobili and Popovich all "fail" him & the team by coming up short, making poor decisions or shrinking throughout their time together.

Again, that is their opinion and you or I have a differing one. Thankfully, the record books, accomplishments and accolades help skew the argument in our favor. And I finally found something to sort of argue with you on....

Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app

Can’t speak for Hollinger but I think Ben’s arguments for KG are more so based on how he stacks up in box score metrics and analytical based rankings than his loud or exciting game. He may prefer that as a fan, but he typically doesn’t let that bleed into his player rankings.

If you haven’t read his backpicks breakdown on KG you should, it’s pretty excellent. They all are, but KG is one of the guys on list where he references lots of things I would have never really considered had I not read it.

His strong case for KG is very similar to his strong case for David Robinson. Both dominant analytical guys, and with Ben and Holliger making their career on things of that nature it makes sense for them to give a bit more credit to the numbers than someone like me or you might, so I understand that. At the end of the day nobodies criteria is the exact same.

I do think KG’s a guy who has become maybe a bit underrated. I never felt he was Duncan but Timmy is a top 10 guy of all time, top 5 you could easily argue IMO. And while he’s not Tim I don’t think he’s just way behind him, so far that he’s dropping out of a top 50 list. Watching most of Malone’s career it would be hard for me to say I wanted to build a team with him rather than KG for example.

As far as defense goes, versatility is a factor. I think Duncan is great if you need help anchoring the back of your defense. If you have a stronger defender at the 5, someone to protect the rim already on the team, I could understand picking KG for sure. I still give the overall edge to Duncan, but I do think it’s hard to really know how it would play out had they switched roles. Pop seems to almost always have a strong defensive unit on the floor, even when Tim isn’t, so I could easily envision KG looking a bit better in that spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

The back picks article on Garnett does contain some false claims. Garnett did not have the highest revving motor in NBA history, he just yelled and screamed louder than anyone in history. Garnett was not worthy of making an all star game until 2003, he was mostly hype before then according to my grades. Garnett's high center of gravity made it hard for him to lock down speedy wing men consistently so he was only moderately effective guarding small forwards. His spinning jumpers were effective but didn't put so much pressure on the defense that they had to collapse and/or foul him. He was a willing and accurate passer but he accumulated assists because he was getting many more touches than he deserved in the first place. Plus he had trouble passing on the move. His team and screen/roll defense was outstanding but his low post defense depended on fronting and three quartering so that was only moderately effective as well. He rarely ever performed in the clutch and had to be carried to a title by Pierce and Allen. He is one of the most overrated players of all time.

[ZB9]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Garnett was an excellent defender. However, when he met up with Dirk Nowitzki, KG was usually torched. His great defensive ability didn't really mean much against Dirk.

[Master Live 013]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Funny that you crap all over KG (I disagree that he shouldn't be a top 100 player, obviously) and his defense when I've heard two recent podcasters/NBA analysts place him above Tim Duncan (Thinking Basketball's Ben Taylor & John Hollinger). Of course, I think a lot of their love for Garnett is based on his loud, brash, more versatile and "exciting" game compared to Duncan. Garnett was also an advanced metrics monster in the regular season which modern critics love.

Also, this completely false narrative that Duncan was aided by teammates and coaching. Yes, through the bulk of their careers Duncan had better coaching and Parker/Ginobili developed into an all-time great backcourt. That took a lot of time, patience & playoff failures to truly manifest itself. I saw Parker, Ginobili and Popovich all "fail" him & the team by coming up short, making poor decisions or shrinking throughout their time together.

Again, that is their opinion and you or I have a differing one. Thankfully, the record books, accomplishments and accolades help skew the argument in our favor. And I finally found something to sort of argue with you on....

Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app

Wut.

So because Pop, Manu and Parker "failed him" (according to you) in some occasions in the span of 15 to 18 years that makes the fact that Duncan was indeed aided by his teammates and coaching (I can't believe I even have to argue this) a completely false narrative?

I guess he did it all by himself then.

What people write some time.

[J_Posse]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Wut.

So because Pop, Manu and Parker "failed him" (according to you) in some occasions in the span of 15 to 18 years that makes the fact that Duncan was indeed aided by his teammates and coaching (I can't believe I even have to argue this) a completely false narrative?

I guess he did it all by himself then.

What people write some time.

No, people attempt to downplay Duncan's greatness (especially in the mainstream) by contributing the success to everyone instead to him. He was the catalyst from his first season to last when he could barely drag his two bad knees across halfcourt (and got obliterated by Kanter/Adams).

He is a lot like what Bill Russell was to his teammates on the 50's/60's Celtics. And that is meant as no slight to Parker or Ginobili. They both worked hard and became better than anyone could have imagined in the NBA, but Duncan was a top 5 - 10 all-time great, transcendent player that could have won in any environment.

He proved that fact in 2003 when he dragged an overachieving roster (with big moments from Jackson & Kerr) to the title.

I don't believe the same can be said of Garnett, who needed to be surrounded by HOF players (Pierce & Allen) to finally win.

Last thing I'll say, I'd think Parker fading in '04 against the Lakers, Ginobili's moronic foul against Dirk in '06 and Pop pulling him in the waning minutes (when the game literally came down to a rebound) all contributed to them (not him) never winning back-to-back titles (even three - peating). So, I'd say that moments have been huge in their team and NBA history. How would people see the Spurs, Duncan and their run with another title or two in the mantle?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app

[J_Posse]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

The back picks article on Garnett does contain some false claims. Garnett did not have the highest revving motor in NBA history, he just yelled and screamed louder than anyone in history. Garnett was not worthy of making an all star game until 2003, he was mostly hype before then according to my grades. Garnett's high center of gravity made it hard for him to lock down speedy wing men consistently so he was only moderately effective guarding small forwards. His spinning jumpers were effective but didn't put so much pressure on the defense that they had to collapse and/or foul him. He was a willing and accurate passer but he accumulated assists because he was getting many more touches than he deserved in the first place. Plus he had trouble passing on the move. His team and screen/roll defense was outstanding but his low post defense depended on fronting and three quartering so that was only moderately effective as well. He rarely ever performed in the clutch and had to be carried to a title by Pierce and Allen. He is one of the most overrated players of all time.

Again, I wouldn't say of all-time but he is the prototypical (physically & by advanced metrics) athlete of the modern NBA. He is versatile, agile, can fit in a lot of schemes and styles of play.

Like Ben Taylor (and the guest who joined him) said they are near equals in the regular season, but come playoff time their resumés and level of player aren't close (IMO).



Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Again, I wouldn't say of all-time but he is the prototypical (physically & by advanced metrics) athlete of the modern NBA. He is versatile, agile, can fit in a lot of schemes and styles of play.

Like Ben Taylor (and the guest who joined him) said they are near equals in the regular season, but come playoff time their resumés and level of player aren't close.



Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app

The playoffs are the real season.

[The 24th Letter]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

On today's date in 2003 Duncan dropped

34 points
24 rebounds.
6 assists
6 blocks

on Dallas in the playoffs.

People who never really watched the Spurs don't appreciate how many times Timmy has stepped and completely taken games over.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I think it’s quite clear that KG’s playoff resumé is a bit lacking, not just compared to Duncan but many of the other guys you would put in front of him as well. His “moments” individually in the playoffs fall behind someone like Duncan as well..

However, statements like this:

I don't believe the same can be said of Garnett, who needed to be surrounded by HOF players (Pierce & Allen) to finally win.

As if situationally everything is a 1:1 between KG and Duncan, or even others, is a ridiculously unfair statement for KG.

The rosters KG was on throughout his years with Minnesota were all over the place. Rarely did he have any sort of talent around him that should have been expected to make deep playoff runs, and there were all kinds of random anomalies they kept them from building a better roster, or even just building chemistry with what they had (like the Spurs).

On top of mediocre coaching some issues his teams ran into where Googs getting injured, they were stripped of 3 first round picks, traded Marbury for Brandon who’s knees failed him and he had to retire, Wally was inured for 3-4 straight years and was never consistently on the court, Billups played well enough to price himself off the team right around the point he could have been their future starter, Malik Sealy died, etc.. when the team finally added pieces like Cassell and Sprewell they went all the way to the conference finals where Cassell went down with injury and they lost to the Lakers in 6. The same Lakers that beat the Spurs in 6, and that was the only team he played on that was even remotely close to being a contending-level team and their 2nd best player went down with injury.

And some of these teams were just awful to begin with on the defensive end, as any Flip Saunders team. Having drops from 1.2 points better defensively than league average with KG in the floor to 7.3 below without him. It makes it very hard to compare situations like that to any team Pop has been a part of. In his last couple years with Minnesota the team was out scored by 11.9 points per 48 with him off the court, over the course of a full season that would be the 4th worst in NBA history.

People argue all the time how much to credit Duncan, how much to credit Pop, how much to credit the team, etc.. but those arguments don’t even exist for KG because the type of structure, coaching, supporting cast, never even existed for him. To point to Duncan winning a ring with Pop, Manu, Tony, Robinson, Bowen, Rose, Jackson, as a means to make a case against KG not getting it done is just wild.. Duncan had already won a ring with Robinson, Kerr, Rose and Pop, and though guys like Parker and Manu hadn’t reached stardom yet a cast of those two, Bowen, Jax was arguably better than Avery, Mario, and Elliot (at that stage). And for sure substantially better than Sealy, Rasho, Wally, Peeler, Garrett, or whatever other cast we want to mention that KG just couldn’t get it done with.

Sure KG only got a ring when he teamed with other HOF players, it’s arguably the only roster he’s been a part of that could have been expected to win a ring if we are being fair. But how many championship teams can you point out that didn’t have more than one HOF player on them? Not to mention KG was their most valuable player in most measures. KG’s first year with Boston they posted the 2nd best relative defense since 1970, something that is obviously attributed more to him than Ray and PP who weren’t causing huge defensive swings on their pre-KG teams like KG was with Minnesota. KG missed 39 games in his first two season with Boston, in those games Boston played at a 51 win pace, with him on the floor a 65 win pace. (3.4 SRS vs 9.0 SRS). KG topped the team in PER, VORP, BPM, WS (regular seasons and playoffs). Also KG’s on-off splits for the playoffs in 2008 was +19.8, Pierce +8.6, Ray +8.0, higher than those two combined.

Once KG got injured that group was never quite the same. They had a chance to prove what they could do without KG and didn’t get it done, yet found themselves right back in the finals the year after that with post-injury Garnett back in the mix.

Slighting KG for winning a ring the first time he was on a team good enough to compete for one just isn’t fair to him. Saying he can’t get a team over the top while playing on first round exit level teams also isn’t fair. Who knows what someone else like Duncan would have done with those teams, perhaps he could have dragged them farther, all we know is that he never had too.. this general argument isn’t all that much different than slighting LeBron for not winning until he finally had a running mate that was better than Mo Williams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

On today's date in 2003 Duncan dropped

34 points
24 rebounds.
6 assists
6 blocks

on Dallas in the playoffs.

People who never really watched the Spurs don't appreciate how many times Timmy has stepped and completely taken games over.

This definitely not the only one. Didn’t he nearly get a quadruple-double this same series?

How would people see the Spurs, Duncan and their run with another title or two in the mantle?

I can’t answer for everyone, but to me it wouldn’t really change my views on Duncan. Too much goes in to winning a championship, I care mostly about what a player provides in the effort. Sometimes it’s good enough to win, sometimes it’s not. Either way we know what Duncan brings to the table, whether that ended up with his teams taking home 2 rings or 8 of them, that’s dependent on far too many other factors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

A truly great big man makes his teammates better by commanding double teams and forcing the defense to bend it's shape. Garnett didn't do that, he shot turnaround jumpers which don't put any foul pressure on the defense. Garnett's poor choke filled performances are the primary reason his teams were eliminated in the first round. It is best to not read into mathematical formulas as they are secondary to the actual game.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

He’s the primary reason they were losing in the first round as 6, 8 seed teams? C’mon now. Garnett shouldn’t be expected to be a power player that commanded double teams on the block, that wasn’t the type of player he was or was ever going to be. Idk why he should be judged against something he wasn’t. And I’m not saying you just try to turn basketball into a math equation, but in some instances it’s hard to just vote against consistency. We would be assuming these numbers that are consistent throughout KG’s career are just wrong every single year, or that in a select group of guys with similar results he’s the only outlier who doesn’t belong..

This is just a random highlight clip, so I know you shouldn’t draw conclusions based on one set of highlights from one game. But this is the KG I remember.

https://youtu.be/OSDlW00k4RI

Plenty of instances of help sagging to his side of the floor and him repeatedly making the right passes once the defense shifts. Is he commanding instant double teams like Shaq? No, but idk why he should ever be expected to, that’s not the type of player he was.

Also notice how active he is offensively. Off ball screens, on ball screens, grabbing post positioning, screen and pops, cuts, he did a bit of everything. Watching KG was what made it so aggregating to watch Chris Bosh on the Heatles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[J_Posse]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I think it’s quite clear that KG’s playoff resumé is a bit lacking, not just compared to Duncan but many of the other guys you would put in front of him as well. His “moments” individually in the playoffs fall behind someone like Duncan as well..

However, statements like this:

As if situationally everything is a 1:1 between KG and Duncan, or even others, is a ridiculously unfair statement for KG.

The rosters KG was on throughout his years with Minnesota were all over the place. Rarely did he have any sort of talent around him that should have been expected to make deep playoff runs, and there were all kinds of random anomalies they kept them from building a better roster, or even just building chemistry with what they had (like the Spurs).

On top of mediocre coaching some issues his teams ran into where Googs getting injured, they were stripped of 3 first round picks, traded Marbury for Brandon who’s knees failed him and he had to retire, Wally was inured for 3-4 straight years and was never consistently on the court, Billups played well enough to price himself off the team right around the point he could have been their future starter, Malik Sealy died, etc.. when the team finally added pieces like Cassell and Sprewell they went all the way to the conference finals where Cassell went down with injury and they lost to the Lakers in 6. The same Lakers that beat the Spurs in 6, and that was the only team he played on that was even remotely close to being a contending-level team and their 2nd best player went down with injury.

And some of these teams were just awful to begin with on the defensive end, as any Flip Saunders team. Having drops from 1.2 points better defensively than league average with KG in the floor to 7.3 below without him. It makes it very hard to compare situations like that to any team Pop has been a part of. In his last couple years with Minnesota the team was out scored by 11.9 points per 48 with him off the court, over the course of a full season that would be the 4th worst in NBA history.

People argue all the time how much to credit Duncan, how much to credit Pop, how much to credit the team, etc.. but those arguments don’t even exist for KG because the type of structure, coaching, supporting cast, never even existed for him. To point to Duncan winning a ring with Pop, Manu, Tony, Robinson, Bowen, Rose, Jackson, as a means to make a case against KG not getting it done is just wild.. Duncan had already won a ring with Robinson, Kerr, Rose and Pop, and though guys like Parker and Manu hadn’t reached stardom yet a cast of those two, Bowen, Jax was arguably better than Avery, Mario, and Elliot (at that stage). And for sure substantially better than Sealy, Rasho, Wally, Peeler, Garrett, or whatever other cast we want to mention that KG just couldn’t get it done with.

Sure KG only got a ring when he teamed with other HOF players, it’s arguably the only roster he’s been a part of that could have been expected to win a ring if we are being fair. But how many championship teams can you point out that didn’t have more than one HOF player on them? Not to mention KG was their most valuable player in most measures. KG’s first year with Boston they posted the 2nd best relative defense since 1970, something that is obviously attributed more to him than Ray and PP who weren’t causing huge defensive swings on their pre-KG teams like KG was with Minnesota. KG missed 39 games in his first two season with Boston, in those games Boston played at a 51 win pace, with him on the floor a 65 win pace. (3.4 SRS vs 9.0 SRS). KG topped the team in PER, VORP, BPM, WS (regular seasons and playoffs). Also KG’s on-off splits for the playoffs in 2008 was +19.8, Pierce +8.6, Ray +8.0, higher than those two combined.

Once KG got injured that group was never quite the same. They had a chance to prove what they could do without KG and didn’t get it done, yet found themselves right back in the finals the year after that with post-injury Garnett back in the mix.

Slighting KG for winning a ring the first time he was on a team good enough to compete for one just isn’t fair to him. Saying he can’t get a team over the top while playing on first round exit level teams also isn’t fair. Who knows what someone else like Duncan would have done with those teams, perhaps he could have dragged them farther, all we know is that he never had too.. this general argument isn’t all that much different than slighting LeBron for not winning until he finally had a running mate that was better than Mo Williams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look, none of those can be in looked at vacuum and clearly some subjectivity is involved. Still, Duncan won in 2003 with one of the weakest supporting casts in NBA history (Robinson had fallen off into a "managed minutes" role while Parker/Ginobili were one or two years away from being studs), won another on two severely sprained ankles in '05 (while going against and outplaying Ben & 'Sheed) while K.G. needed all-stars to win. Point. Blank.

Yes, mismanagement and roster turmoil dealt him a bad hand at times (including Marbury leaving before either hit their prime). He still missed the playoffs three times while being a top 10 player (don't people clown Karl-Anthony Towns for that) in his prime and got bounced repeatedly in the first-round.

I loved his game and thought he was incredible, but clearly he needed more than his sheer talent, will & "intensity" (whole lotta screaming) to win.

It isn't a knock on him since a lot guys (Robinson, Drexler, Durant, etc) need better talent surrounding them to win. You know, that stupid "Alpha" nonsense that Jordan and Bryant (who I would place in the camp with Garnett) co-opted.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app