PDA

View Full Version : Best 4th Overall Pick Of All-Time?



Jeffy25
08-02-2018, 03:16 PM
Our current draft

1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Kevin Garnett - Wolves - 1995
6. Larry Bird - Celtics - 1978
7. Stephen Curry - Warriors - 2009
8. Willis Reed - Knicks - 1964
9. Dirk Nowitzki - Bucks (traded to Mavs) - 1998
10. Paul Pierce - Celtics - 1998
11. Reggie Miller - Pacers - 1987
12. Julius Erving - Bucks (but played in ABA) - 1972
13. Kobe Bryant - Hornets (traded to Lakers) - 1996
14. Clyde Drexler - Blazers - 1983
15. Steve Nash - Suns - 1996
16. John Stockton - Jazz - 1984
17. Shawn Kemp - Sonics/Thunder - 1989
18. Joe Dumars - Pistons - 1985
19. Tiny Archibald - Royals/Kings - 1970
20. Larry Nance - Suns - 1981
21. Michael Finley - Suns - 1995
22. Norm Nixon - Lakers - 1977
23. Alex English - Bucks - 1976
24. Sam Cassell - Rockets - 1993
25. Mark Price - Mavs (traded to Cavs) - 1986
26. Vlade Divac - Lakers - 1989
27. Dennis Rodman - Pistons - 1986
28. Tony Parker - Spurs - 2001
29. Dennis Johnson - Sonics - 1976
30. Jimmy Butler - Bulls - 2011

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/draft_finder.cgi?request=1&year_min=&year_max=&round_min=&round_max=&pick_overall_min=4&pick_overall_max=4&franch_id=&college_id=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ws

Some notable picks

Chris Paul
Dolph Schayes
Dikembe Mutombo
Chris Bosh
Russell Westbrook
Sam Perkins
Rasheed Wallace
Glen Rice
Antawn Jamison
Dave Cowens
Stephon Marbury
Lou Hudson
Lamar Odom
Byron Scott
Alvan Adams
Dick Barnett
Mike Conley
Donyell Marshall
Kenny Sears
Greg Ballard
Jerry Sloan
Xavier McDaniel
Antonio McDaniel
Drew Gooden
Jamal Mashburn
Tristian Thompson
Dennis Scott
Tyreke Evans
Aaron Gordon
Kristaps Porzingis
Cody Zeller

Jeffy25
08-02-2018, 03:30 PM
Feel like this is obviously Chris Paul


I don't even feel like doing number 3 :laugh2:

MygirlhatesCod
08-02-2018, 03:38 PM
CP3 or Russ.......

I feel like this ties into that other thread. I'm gonna choose CP3 but I truly believe Russ has the ability to be better. its just the whole russ caring about his stats more than making his team better thing. so much potential wasted.

Hawkeye15
08-02-2018, 03:40 PM
Feel like this is obviously Chris Paul


I don't even feel like doing number 3 :laugh2:

It's CP3.

You can seriously skip #3, why bother?

Hawkeye15
08-02-2018, 03:41 PM
CP3 or Russ.......

I feel like this ties into that other thread. I'm gonna choose CP3 but I truly believe Russ has the ability to be better. its just the whole russ caring about his stats more than making his team better thing. so much potential wasted.

considering Paul is every bit as good offensively as Russ, and light years better defensively, there really isn't a debate. The only thing standing between CP3 and being ranked a top 15 player ever when done is his title run(s).

MygirlhatesCod
08-02-2018, 03:47 PM
considering Paul is every bit as good offensively as Russ, and light years better defensively, there really isn't a debate. The only thing standing between CP3 and being ranked a top 15 player ever when done is his title run(s).

I totally agree. I'm just in the belief that russ could be better if he wasn't programmed the way he is.

Rivera
08-02-2018, 04:07 PM
i was trying to convince myself for RWB for an argument, but I couldnt. Its CP3

I agree, we can skip #3. Clearly, the answer is Jayson Tatum. After 1 season, went to the ECF and so far he hasnt lost in the finals yet. GOAT

mightybosstone
08-02-2018, 04:30 PM
It's definitely CP3 here with Westbrook being the obvious No. 2, but still probably a tier or two below Paul in an all-time conversation. Westbrook, Cowens and Mutombo might be an interesting debate for No. 2, though. I'd rank those guys ahead of Bosh, Sheed and Schayes.

mightybosstone
08-02-2018, 04:33 PM
As for No. 3, it would be interesting to see who people voted on as the second best No. 3 pick of all-time. McHale seems like the obvious answer at first glance, but you could actually make a pretty strong case for Harden and Wilkins, especially James now that he's got an MVP award and two runner-ups. I wouldn't be shocked to see Pau or Billups get some votes either.

Hawkeye15
08-02-2018, 04:55 PM
As for No. 3, it would be interesting to see who people voted on as the second best No. 3 pick of all-time. McHale seems like the obvious answer at first glance, but you could actually make a pretty strong case for Harden and Wilkins, especially James now that he's got an MVP award and two runner-ups. I wouldn't be shocked to see Pau or Billups get some votes either.

it should easily be McHale. But in 5 years, it may easily be Harden.

Jeffy25
08-02-2018, 04:57 PM
It's CP3.

You can seriously skip #3, why bother?

I'll put it up, but I'll do 2 soon after.

Jeffy25
08-02-2018, 04:59 PM
What's the top 5 here?

1. CP3
2. Russ
3. Bosh
4. Mutomobo
5. Schayes


????

Hawkeye15
08-02-2018, 05:05 PM
What's the top 5 here?

1. CP3
2. Russ
3. Bosh
4. Mutomobo
5. Schayes


????

I have Deke over Bosh for sure. I personally have Shayes ahead of Bosh as well.

Jeffy25
08-02-2018, 06:51 PM
I have Deke over Bosh for sure. I personally have Shayes ahead of Bosh as well.

Probably both fair honestly. I just remember 22/10 Bosh getting to the playoffs on a pretty bad roster.

Jamiecballer
08-02-2018, 07:34 PM
CP3
Bosh
Mutombo
Westbrook
Schayes

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Cal827
08-02-2018, 08:15 PM
CP3
Bosh
Mutombo
Westbrook
Schayes

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Pretty much this but I'd switch RWB and Mutombo.

I feel that if he was able to have a longer career, Bosh would probably be #1 at this slot. People underrate how good he actually was in Toronto, then when he altered his game and much improved his defense in Miami for them to win the titles.

Cal827
08-02-2018, 08:19 PM
It's CP3.

You can seriously skip #3, why bother?

Agreed... Clearly Darius Miles is going to run away with the reward.

Better yet, you can see who votes... whoever doesn't vote for the obvious pick at 3 should be banned.

mightybosstone
08-02-2018, 08:27 PM
What's the top 5 here?

1. CP3
2. Russ
3. Bosh
4. Mutomobo
5. Schayes


????


CP3
Bosh
Mutombo
Westbrook
Schayes

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

The lack of respect for Cowens kinda blows my mind. All Dave Cowens did was:

- Average essentially 19/16/4/1/1 over 7-8 seasons
- Go to 8 All-Star games
- Win an MVP
- Named to three All-NBA teams and three All-Defensive teams
- Finish second in all-time career DRtg
- Win two championships as the best or second best player on the Celtics in the 70s

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Bosh could never have accomplished the things Cowens did in his respective era.

Edit: And before someone mentions Schayes' career, I do NOT take guys who peaked in the 50s before a 3-point line seriously. The NBA was like a different sport in the 50s, and the talent level was not remotely comparable.

Jamiecballer
08-02-2018, 08:29 PM
Good point. He can take RW's spot on my list.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

mrblisterdundee
08-02-2018, 09:24 PM
Feel like this is obviously Chris Paul
I don't even feel like doing number 3 :laugh2:

Let's just skip to debating Russell, Durant, West, Barry, Isiah, Pettit and McAdoo.

Raps18-19 Champ
08-02-2018, 09:52 PM
What a **** draft spot.

Raps18-19 Champ
08-02-2018, 09:55 PM
Good point. He can take RW's spot on my list.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

I love the logic from

CP3
Bosh
Mutombo
Westbrook
Schayes

to

CP3
Bosh
Mutombo
Cowens
Westbrook
Schayes

Raps18-19 Champ
08-02-2018, 09:56 PM
The lack of respect for Cowens kinda blows my mind. All Dave Cowens did was:

- Average essentially 19/16/4/1/1 over 7-8 seasons
- Go to 8 All-Star games
- Win an MVP
- Named to three All-NBA teams and three All-Defensive teams
- Finish second in all-time career DRtg
- Win two championships as the best or second best player on the Celtics in the 70s

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Bosh could never have accomplished the things Cowens did in his respective era.

Edit: And before someone mentions Schayes' career, I do NOT take guys who peaked in the 50s before a 3-point line seriously. The NBA was like a different sport in the 50s, and the talent level was not remotely comparable.

Schayes is garbage compared to Cowens even if you take him seriously lol.

Jeffy25
08-03-2018, 02:57 AM
What a **** draft spot.

The amount of depth and peak talent at the 5 vs the 4 is kind of remarkable.

Hawkeye15
08-03-2018, 09:04 AM
The lack of respect for Cowens kinda blows my mind. All Dave Cowens did was:

- Average essentially 19/16/4/1/1 over 7-8 seasons
- Go to 8 All-Star games
- Win an MVP
- Named to three All-NBA teams and three All-Defensive teams
- Finish second in all-time career DRtg
- Win two championships as the best or second best player on the Celtics in the 70s

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Bosh could never have accomplished the things Cowens did in his respective era.

Edit: And before someone mentions Schayes' career, I do NOT take guys who peaked in the 50s before a 3-point line seriously. The NBA was like a different sport in the 50s, and the talent level was not remotely comparable.

Cowens is over Bosh for me as well.

Hawkeye15
08-03-2018, 09:05 AM
Probably both fair honestly. I just remember 22/10 Bosh getting to the playoffs on a pretty bad roster.

and then getting crushed. Bosh was a fake superstar, I have never seen someone so relieved to shift to 3rd banana.

Jamiecballer
08-03-2018, 09:21 AM
I love the logic from

CP3
Bosh
Mutombo
Westbrook
Schayes

to

CP3
Bosh
Mutombo
Cowens
Westbrook
Schayes

i'm glad you love the logic, of how i inserted someone whom i hadn't even considered, and moved those below down a spot.

YAALREADYKNO
08-03-2018, 10:05 AM
Cp3

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 10:17 AM
For me, it's:

1. Paul
2. Westbrook
3. Cowens
4. Bosh
5. Mutombo

valade16
08-03-2018, 11:55 AM
Are we judging their careers and accomplishments or their ability? Because in the #5 debate it was all the accomplishments KG had over his long career that made him the choice, not necessarily that he was the best player. Now everyone is saying obviously CP3 and if we're going by accomplishments, like it not, Westbrook crushes CP3.

Westbrook has been to the Finals, he won an MVP, first person in forever to average a triple double, etc.

CP3's actual accomplishments are pretty weak honestly. So are we going by ability or accomplishments? Because if it's by resume, no way CP3 is the choice here.

Hawkeye15
08-03-2018, 12:03 PM
Are we judging their careers and accomplishments or their ability? Because in the #5 debate it was all the accomplishments KG had over his long career that made him the choice, not necessarily that he was the best player. Now everyone is saying obviously CP3 and if we're going by accomplishments, like it not, Westbrook crushes CP3.

Westbrook has been to the Finals, he won an MVP, first person in forever to average a triple double, etc.

CP3's actual accomplishments are pretty weak honestly. So are we going by ability or accomplishments? Because if it's by resume, no way CP3 is the choice here.

I go by a mixture. But to me, I always pick the best player, as long as they weren't a flash in the pants or had an injury that cut their dominance. Like, CP3 is the better player, period. Accomplishments are seriously the only difference between him being a top 30 player ever, and a top 12 player ever. And it matters, clearly.

I try to think, if I had a window (whatever that is to you personally), which guy am I taking to win a title with?

valade16
08-03-2018, 12:45 PM
I go by a mixture. But to me, I always pick the best player, as long as they weren't a flash in the pants or had an injury that cut their dominance. Like, CP3 is the better player, period. Accomplishments are seriously the only difference between him being a top 30 player ever, and a top 12 player ever. And it matters, clearly.

I try to think, if I had a window (whatever that is to you personally), which guy am I taking to win a title with?

As do I, which makes it very perplexing that so many actually picked KG last round lol.

WaDe03
08-03-2018, 12:53 PM
Russ because he averaged a triple double twice. Isnít that why you guys rank Oscar so high?

WaDe03
08-03-2018, 12:54 PM
I go by a mixture. But to me, I always pick the best player, as long as they weren't a flash in the pants or had an injury that cut their dominance. Like, CP3 is the better player, period. Accomplishments are seriously the only difference between him being a top 30 player ever, and a top 12 player ever. And it matters, clearly.

I try to think, if I had a window (whatever that is to you personally), which guy am I taking to win a title with?

And that logic led you to pick KG and Barkley over Wade who actually won a championship as the man and did it at a GOAT level?

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 01:06 PM
As do I, which makes it very perplexing that so many actually picked KG last round lol.

I don't understand your logic here, valade. You're acting as if it's absurd to assume KG was the best player out of he, Barkley and Wade. Why? Let's look at a few advanced statistics and take the top 5 seasons of the three players.

PER
1. Wade 03-04 (30.4)
2. KG 03-04 (29.4)
3. Barkley 90-91 (28.9)
3. Wade 06-07 (28.9)óbut in only 51 games
5. KG 04-05 (28.2)

WS
1. KG 03-04 (18.3)
2. Barkley 89-90 (17.3)
3. Barkley 87-88 (16.7)
4. Barkley 88-89 (16.1)
4. KG 04-05 (16.1)

WS/48
1. KG 03-04 (.272)
2. Barkley 89-90 (.269)
3. KG 07-08 (.265)
4. Barkley 90-91 (.258)
5. Barkley 87-88 (.253)

BPM
1. Wade 08-09 (10.7)
2. KG 03-04 (9.9)
2. Barkley 90-91 (9.9)
4. Barkley 89-90 (9.8)
4. Barkley 88-89 (9.8)

VORP
1. KG 03-04 (9.8)
2. Wade 08-09 (9.7)
3. KG 04-05 (9.3)
4. Barkley 89-90 (9.2)
4. Barkley 88-89 (9.2)

So you can make a pretty solid case that KG's 2003-04 season was the best season any of these guys ever had, especially when you factor in him winning MVP and earning All-Defensive 1st team that year. You make it sound as if it's totally absurd that someone might think KG was the best player out of the three at his peak and that a vote for KG is only a vote for longevity and accolades, but that's simply not the case.

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 01:12 PM
And for the record, if we did that same exercise with Paul and Westbrook, you'd see similar results with a mix of the two. In fact, Paul's best seasons completely destroy Westbrook's best seasons in WS and WS/48. However, they're fairly even in the other stats with the exception of Westy's 2016-17 season, where his BPM and VORP are off the charts.

ewing
08-03-2018, 01:16 PM
I don't understand your logic here, valade. You're acting as if it's absurd to assume KG was the best player out of he, Barkley and Wade. Why? Let's look at a few advanced statistics and take the top 5 seasons of the three players.

PER
1. Wade 03-04 (30.4)
2. KG 03-04 (29.4)
3. Barkley 90-91 (28.9)
3. Wade 06-07 (28.9)óbut in only 51 games
5. KG 04-05 (28.2)

WS
1. KG 03-04 (18.3)
2. Barkley 89-90 (17.3)
3. Barkley 87-88 (16.7)
4. Barkley 88-89 (16.1)
4. KG 04-05 (16.1)

WS/48
1. KG 03-04 (.272)
2. Barkley 89-90 (.269)
3. KG 07-08 (.265)
4. Barkley 90-91 (.258)
5. Barkley 87-88 (.253)

BPM
1. Wade 08-09 (10.7)
2. KG 03-04 (9.9)
2. Barkley 90-91 (9.9)
4. Barkley 89-90 (9.8)
4. Barkley 88-89 (9.8)

VORP
1. KG 03-04 (9.8)
2. Wade 08-09 (9.7)
3. KG 04-05 (9.3)
4. Barkley 89-90 (9.2)
4. Barkley 88-89 (9.2)

So you can make a pretty solid case that KG's 2003-04 season was the best season any of these guys ever had, especially when you factor in him winning MVP and earning All-Defensive 1st team that year. You make it sound as if it's totally absurd that someone might think KG was the best player out of the three at his peak and that a vote for KG is only a vote for longevity and accolades, but that's simply not the case.

I don't think your stats are as advanced as you do

valade16
08-03-2018, 01:19 PM
I don't understand your logic here, valade. You're acting as if it's absurd to assume KG was the best player out of he, Barkley and Wade. Why? Let's look at a few advanced statistics and take the top 5 seasons of the three players.

PER
1. Wade 03-04 (30.4)
2. KG 03-04 (29.4)
3. Barkley 90-91 (28.9)
3. Wade 06-07 (28.9)óbut in only 51 games
5. KG 04-05 (28.2)

WS
1. KG 03-04 (18.3)
2. Barkley 89-90 (17.3)
3. Barkley 87-88 (16.7)
4. Barkley 88-89 (16.1)
4. KG 04-05 (16.1)

WS/48
1. KG 03-04 (.272)
2. Barkley 89-90 (.269)
3. KG 07-08 (.265)
4. Barkley 90-91 (.258)
5. Barkley 87-88 (.253)

BPM
1. Wade 08-09 (10.7)
2. KG 03-04 (9.9)
2. Barkley 90-91 (9.9)
4. Barkley 89-90 (9.8)
4. Barkley 88-89 (9.8)

VORP
1. KG 03-04 (9.8)
2. Wade 08-09 (9.7)
3. KG 04-05 (9.3)
4. Barkley 89-90 (9.2)
4. Barkley 88-89 (9.2)

So you can make a pretty solid case that KG's 2003-04 season was the best season any of these guys ever had, especially when you factor in him winning MVP and earning All-Defensive 1st team that year. You make it sound as if it's totally absurd that someone might think KG was the best player out of the three at his peak and that a vote for KG is only a vote for longevity and accolades, but that's simply not the case.

Well when you go by regular season statistics KG does indeed look impressive. But if you want someone to win, they have to perform in the playoffs. And when you look at playoffs, KG is laughably below the other two.

Career:

PER
Barkley 24.2
Wade 22.4
KG 21.1

TS%
Barkley .584
Wade .549
KG .525

WS/48
Barkley .193
Wade .155
KG .149

BPM
Barkley 7.3
Wade 4.8
KG 4.6


Playoff Peak:

PER
Barkley 25.9
Wade 25.7
KG 24.2

TS%
Barkley .578
Wade .576
KG .531

WS/48
Barkley .206
Wade .201
KG .180

BPM
Barkley 7.8
Wade 7.7
KG 6.4


There is literally zero argument for KG as the best player if you take playoffs into account. He is vastly inferior come playoff time than both Barkley and Wade were. Not even his defense could make up the chasm in overall impact in the playoffs.

ewing
08-03-2018, 01:23 PM
Are we judging their careers and accomplishments or their ability? Because in the #5 debate it was all the accomplishments KG had over his long career that made him the choice, not necessarily that he was the best player. Now everyone is saying obviously CP3 and if we're going by accomplishments, like it not, Westbrook crushes CP3.

Westbrook has been to the Finals, he won an MVP, first person in forever to average a triple double, etc.

CP3's actual accomplishments are pretty weak honestly. So are we going by ability or accomplishments? Because if it's by resume, no way CP3 is the choice here.

I only go by accomplishments when I didn't see a ton of the guy. Otherwise I go by who I think the better basketball player is. KG is a distance 3rd to Wade and Chuck. He is was always a very good player but never close to where he he is rated on this site. He might be the player he is thought to be by posters here if he started his career now so its not surprising. I also read RWB is actually close to or a net negative in another thread so...

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 01:30 PM
Well when you go by regular season statistics KG does indeed look impressive. But if you want someone to win, they have to perform in the playoffs. And when you look at playoffs, KG is laughably below the other two.

Career:

PER
Barkley 24.2
Wade 22.4
KG 21.1

TS%
Barkley .584
Wade .549
KG .525

WS/48
Barkley .193
Wade .155
KG .149

BPM
Barkley 7.3
Wade 4.8
KG 4.6

Playoff Peak:

PER
Barkley 25.9
Wade 25.7
KG 24.2

TS%
Barkley .578
Wade .576
KG .531

WS/48
Barkley .206
Wade .201
KG .180

BPM
Barkley 7.8
Wade 7.7
KG 6.4


There is literally zero argument for KG as the best player if you take playoffs into account. He is vastly inferior come playoff time than both Barkley and Wade were. Not even his defense could make up the chasm in overall impact in the playoffs.

I'm sorry, but I don't look at those numbers and think "laughable" at all. He and Wade's career numbers are nearly identical with the exception of TS%. And then factor in that more than one-third of KG's career playoff games were played when he was younger than 23 or 35 and older.

Also, how are you getting your numbers for "playoff peak?" Because I'm looking at KG's best seasons, and I'm not seeing those same numbers at all. That being said, were Barkley and Wade better in the playoffs statistically? Yes. But KG has as many alpha dog titles as Wade and one more title than Barkley.

Say what you will about KG's playoff failures, but when you factor in how small that sample size is of his career, how good he was when he was surrounded by talent in 07-08 and 03-04, and the fact that he got it done as the best player on that Celtics team in 2008, I kind of think that narrative is overblown.

Jamiecballer
08-03-2018, 01:42 PM
Mid-career Kevin Garnett was the best basketball player I saw in-between Jordan's dominance and Lebron James emerging as the best player in the NBA.

When you consider how much work there still is to do in understanding how to statistically quantify defense - or value things like tenacity and communication on the court - and see that he still shows out incredibly well by most advanced metrics, it's astonishing.

valade16
08-03-2018, 01:45 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't look at those numbers and think "laughable" at all. He and Wade's career numbers are nearly identical with the exception of TS%. And then factor in that more than one-third of KG's career playoff games were played when he was younger than 23 or 35 and older.

Also, how are you getting your numbers for "playoff peak?" Because I'm looking at KG's best seasons, and I'm not seeing those same numbers at all. That being said, were Barkley and Wade better in the playoffs statistically? Yes. But KG has as many alpha dog titles as Wade and one more title than Barkley.

Say what you will about KG's playoff failures, but when you factor in how small that sample size is of his career, how good he was when he was surrounded by talent in 07-08 and 03-04, and the fact that he got it done as the best player on that Celtics team in 2008, I kind of think that narrative is overblown.

First Bolded: Similar but with Wade being slightly better in literally every stat.

Second Bolded: I used: Wade 05-11, Barkley 89-96, KG 01-08 (more impressive than it sounds, it was 5 playoffs).

Third Bolded: how good he was when surrounded by talent in 04 and 08? He still wasn't very good in the playoffs at all:

PER
Barkley 25.9
Wade 25.7
KG 23.9

TS%
Barkley .578
Wade .576
KG .528

WS/48
Barkley .206
Wade .201
KG .183

BPM
Barkley 7.8
Wade 7.7
KG 6.3

Even with all that talent he played demonstrably worse than either Barkley or Wade in their primes and shot like crap.

This isn't a narrative so much as a fact: KG was not a superstar player in the playoffs. He was factually a worse player than Barkley and Wade. He has a title as an "alpha" because he was on a super team where he was asked to be the third option offensively, and he still couldn't shoot for ****. KG was simply not as good in the playoffs as Wade or Barkley. So if I needed to win, why would I take the inferior player when it matters?

Jamiecballer
08-03-2018, 01:45 PM
Well when you go by regular season statistics KG does indeed look impressive. But if you want someone to win, they have to perform in the playoffs. And when you look at playoffs, KG is laughably below the other two.

Career:

PER
Barkley 24.2
Wade 22.4
KG 21.1

TS%
Barkley .584
Wade .549
KG .525

WS/48
Barkley .193
Wade .155
KG .149

BPM
Barkley 7.3
Wade 4.8
KG 4.6


Playoff Peak:

PER
Barkley 25.9
Wade 25.7
KG 24.2

TS%
Barkley .578
Wade .576
KG .531

WS/48
Barkley .206
Wade .201
KG .180

BPM
Barkley 7.8
Wade 7.7
KG 6.4


There is literally zero argument for KG as the best player if you take playoffs into account. He is vastly inferior come playoff time than both Barkley and Wade were. Not even his defense could make up the chasm in overall impact in the playoffs.

laughable is this "star"s WS/48, accumulated over 51 career playoff games. .039. know who it is?

valade16
08-03-2018, 01:47 PM
Mid-career Kevin Garnett was the best basketball player I saw in-between Jordan's dominance and Lebron James emerging as the best player in the NBA.

When you consider how much work there still is to do in understanding how to statistically quantify defense - or value things like tenacity and communication on the court - and see that he still shows out incredibly well by most advanced metrics, it's astonishing.

Clearly you didn't watch mid-career Kevin Garnett in the playoffs.

valade16
08-03-2018, 01:47 PM
laughable is this "star"s WS/48, accumulated over 51 career playoff games. .039. know who it is?

Haven't a clue.

WaDe03
08-03-2018, 01:52 PM
Wade has a goat level championship as the 1st option and 2 as the 2nd option, KG has 1 as the 3rd option and in no way Is his 1 ring even in the same realm as Wades in 06.

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 01:59 PM
Wade has a goat level championship as the 1st option and 2 as the 2nd option, KG has 1 as the 3rd option and in no way Is his 1 ring even in the same realm as Wades in 06.

KG was unequivocally the best player on that Celtics team. He led that team in every regular season statistic aside from scoring and in every single postseason statistic INCLUDING scoring. Calling him the "third option" on that team is just wildly ignorant with no basis to back that up whatsoever.

And Wade may have been the No. 2 option in Miami When Lebron came aboard, but he was a shell of himself by the time they won those two titles. Wade in 2012 and 2013 was simply not the same guy as 2006 Wade.

Hawkeye15
08-03-2018, 02:07 PM
And that logic led you to pick KG and Barkley over Wade who actually won a championship as the man and did it at a GOAT level?

KG and Barkley were better players than Wade though. To me at least. They also didn't crumble in their early 30s.

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 02:14 PM
This isn't a narrative so much as a fact: KG was not a superstar player in the playoffs. He was factually a worse player than Barkley and Wade. He has a title as an "alpha" because he was on a super team where he was asked to be the third option offensively, and he still couldn't shoot for ****. KG was simply not as good in the playoffs as Wade or Barkley.

Again, this statement is just simply inaccurate. He was first on the team in FGA and PPG in the playoffs that year.


So if I needed to win, why would I take the inferior player when it matters?
I just think you're drastically undervaluing the guy's impact on defense. As much as I love Barkley historically (I adored him when he played in Houston when I was a kid), KG's superiority over him on the defensive end of the floor just cannot be overstated. And perimeter defenders like Wade simply don't have the same impact as big men do, especially flexible, athletic big men like KG who could defend multiple positions and dominate the glass.

Were Wade and Barkley better, more efficient scorers? Yes. But if I was building a team to win an NBA championship, I think I'd rather have the guy who could defend the paint and do literally everything at a high level. We haven't even talked about KG's value as a passer. He's one of the best passing big men in NBA history. He averaged 6 assists a game in a season with an AST/TO ratio higher than 2/1: that's unreal.

valade16
08-03-2018, 02:33 PM
Again, this statement is just simply inaccurate. He was first on the team in FGA and PPG in the playoffs that year.

I just think you're drastically undervaluing the guy's impact on defense. As much as I love Barkley historically (I adored him when he played in Houston when I was a kid), KG's superiority over him on the defensive end of the floor just cannot be overstated. And perimeter defenders like Wade simply don't have the same impact as big men do, especially flexible, athletic big men like KG who could defend multiple positions and dominate the glass.

Were Wade and Barkley better, more efficient scorers? Yes. But if I was building a team to win an NBA championship, I think I'd rather have the guy who could defend the paint and do literally everything at a high level. We haven't even talked about KG's value as a passer. He's one of the best passing big men in NBA history. He averaged 6 assists a game in a season with an AST/TO ratio higher than 2/1: that's unreal.

Am I? The defenses in Minnesota weren't much good. KG is not a traditional rim protector. Boston was a great defensive team, and KG was a big part of that. But that team was chalked full of quality defenders. Their entire rotation even through their bench was defensive studs (PP, Rondo, Perkins, Posey, Tony Allen). In 2009 KG missed 15 games and the Celtics were still 2nd defensively.

Again, we need to stop saying he could do everything at a high level. He couldn't. He could not score at a high level in the playoffs. He was terribly inefficient.

At the end of the day, when you ask the question "who would you rather have" you're asking after the wrong attributes. It's not about who defends, who scores, who passes, etc. The real question is "do you want the guy who folds or not?".

I will never want the guy who folds over the guys who get better. But that's just me.

Jeffy25
08-03-2018, 03:56 PM
Are we judging their careers and accomplishments or their ability? Because in the #5 debate it was all the accomplishments KG had over his long career that made him the choice, not necessarily that he was the best player. Now everyone is saying obviously CP3 and if we're going by accomplishments, like it not, Westbrook crushes CP3.

Westbrook has been to the Finals, he won an MVP, first person in forever to average a triple double, etc.

CP3's actual accomplishments are pretty weak honestly. So are we going by ability or accomplishments? Because if it's by resume, no way CP3 is the choice here.

I feel like you have to go by a mixture.

It's resume, it's ability, it's total accumulated on the court value, etc.

Jeffy25
08-03-2018, 04:05 PM
Well when you go by regular season statistics KG does indeed look impressive. But if you want someone to win, they have to perform in the playoffs. And when you look at playoffs, KG is laughably below the other two.

Career:

PER
Barkley 24.2
Wade 22.4
KG 21.1

TS%
Barkley .584
Wade .549
KG .525

WS/48
Barkley .193
Wade .155
KG .149

BPM
Barkley 7.3
Wade 4.8
KG 4.6


Playoff Peak:

PER
Barkley 25.9
Wade 25.7
KG 24.2

TS%
Barkley .578
Wade .576
KG .531

WS/48
Barkley .206
Wade .201
KG .180

BPM
Barkley 7.8
Wade 7.7
KG 6.4


There is literally zero argument for KG as the best player if you take playoffs into account. He is vastly inferior come playoff time than both Barkley and Wade were. Not even his defense could make up the chasm in overall impact in the playoffs.

But those rate stats are greatly suppressed because of how much longer KG played after his prime compared to the other two (Wade not being done)

Garnett played 50K minutes, Over 12K minutes after his prime.

Prime Garnett:

PER
Barkley 24.2
Wade 22.4
KG 25.5

TS%
Barkley .584
Wade .549
KG .550

WS/48
Barkley .193
Wade .155
KG .213

BPM
Barkley 7.3
Wade 4.8
KG 7.4


Playoff Peak:

PER
Barkley 25.9
Wade 25.7
KG 23.9

TS%
Barkley .578
Wade .576
KG .523

WS/48
Barkley .206
Wade .201
KG .172

BPM
Barkley 7.8
Wade 7.7
KG 6.4


That changes things pretty dramatically.
Barkley played 11K less total minutes, and only had a couple of years of post peak play.

Rate numbers are really suppressed by guys that stick around a long time.

Garnett has the most total win shares, which comes with the most total career minutes. He has 191.4 WS, Barkely 177.2, Wade is all the way down there at 118.3 (6th among those picks).

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 04:08 PM
Am I? The defenses in Minnesota weren't much good. KG is not a traditional rim protector. Boston was a great defensive team, and KG was a big part of that. But that team was chalked full of quality defenders. Their entire rotation even through their bench was defensive studs (PP, Rondo, Perkins, Posey, Tony Allen). In 2009 KG missed 15 games and the Celtics were still 2nd defensively.
In 03-04, Minnesota was 7th in opponents' points per game and 6th in DRtg. Otherwise, they were pretty much a middle of the road team, defensively. But when you look at the guys around him on those Minnesota teams, I don't think you can blame him. If you surrounded the best defensive big men of all-time with Wally Szczerbiak, Mike James, Trenton Hassell, etc. on a nightly basis, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be anchoring elite defensive teams either.


Again, we need to stop saying he could do everything at a high level. He couldn't. He could not score at a high level in the playoffs. He was terribly inefficient.
But you're acting as if there was some massive dropoff in efficiency from the regular season to the playoffs. There's a dropoff, but it's not some gargantuan gap. His career TS% dropped from 54.6 percent to 52.5 percent. That's a 2.1 percent drop. Barkley had a 2.8 percent drop by comparison, and even Wade's dropped nearly a percentage point.

KG wasn't efficient in the playoffs, but he wasn't an especially efficient player in the regular season either, especially for his position. And if you looked at all-time greats, EVERYONE'S efficiency drops in the playoffs. Only all-time greats and a select few boast similar scoring efficiency in the regular season and the playoffs, and you can probably count those guys on two hands.


At the end of the day, when you ask the question "who would you rather have" you're asking after the wrong attributes. It's not about who defends, who scores, who passes, etc. The real question is "do you want the guy who folds or not?".
That's completely debatable. If I'm trying to build a championship team, then I want guys I can build a great team around, not necessarily just individually great players. Some guys just don't necessarily translate their elite production to great team play. Westbrook comes to mind, and I'm not saying Wade was that guy, but was Barkley? I dunno. He peaked before I was old enough to care about the NBA. But a 6'6" PF who doesn't really defend at a high level isn't exactly an easy guy to build a championship team around.


I will never want the guy who folds over the guys who get better. But that's just me.
OK, but again, in the entire history of the league, how many superstars actually have "gotten better" in the postseason? Because numbers tell us those guys are few and far between: Lebron, MJ, Hakeem.... ?

Pretty much everyone has a dropoff from the regular season to the postseason. The play is more intense, the defenses are tougher and the game slows down. Now, ideally you don't want someone whose numbers drop so dramatically as to be alarming (*cough*Karl Malone*cough*), but KG's numbers aren't such a dramatic dropoff as to be shocking.

For example, it's actually funny to me that Paul Pierce gets this reputation as a big-game guy and a big shot maker, but have you looked at the difference in his production in the regular season to postseason? The dropoff there is probably around the same as KG. And despite KG clearly being the better player in 2009, Pierce is the one who generally gets the benefit of the doubt.

WaDe03
08-03-2018, 04:14 PM
But those rate stats are greatly suppressed because of how much longer KG played after his prime compared to the other two (Wade not being done)

Garnett played 50K minutes, Over 12K minutes after his prime.

Prime Garnett:

PER
Barkley 24.2
Wade 22.4
KG 25.5

TS%
Barkley .584
Wade .549
KG .550

WS/48
Barkley .193
Wade .155
KG .213

BPM
Barkley 7.3
Wade 4.8
KG 7.4


Playoff Peak:

PER
Barkley 25.9
Wade 25.7
KG 23.9

TS%
Barkley .578
Wade .576
KG .523

WS/48
Barkley .206
Wade .201
KG .172

BPM
Barkley 7.8
Wade 7.7
KG 6.4


That changes things pretty dramatically.
Barkley played 11K less total minutes, and only had a couple of years of post peak play.

Rate numbers are really suppressed by guys that stick around a long time.

Garnett has the most total win shares, which comes with the most total career minutes. He has 191.4 WS, Barkely 177.2, Wade is all the way down there at 118.3 (6th among those picks).

I didnít check the other numbers but where did you get 22 PER for wade? His career average is 24 so those must be post prime years.

valade16
08-03-2018, 04:45 PM
But those rate stats are greatly suppressed because of how much longer KG played after his prime compared to the other two (Wade not being done)

Garnett played 50K minutes, Over 12K minutes after his prime.

Prime Garnett:

PER
Barkley 24.2
Wade 22.4
KG 25.5

TS%
Barkley .584
Wade .549
KG .550

WS/48
Barkley .193
Wade .155
KG .213

BPM
Barkley 7.3
Wade 4.8
KG 7.4


Playoff Peak:

PER
Barkley 25.9
Wade 25.7
KG 23.9

TS%
Barkley .578
Wade .576
KG .523

WS/48
Barkley .206
Wade .201
KG .172

BPM
Barkley 7.8
Wade 7.7
KG 6.4


That changes things pretty dramatically.

Barkley played 11K less total minutes, and only had a couple of years of post peak play.

Rate numbers are really suppressed by guys that stick around a long time.

Garnett has the most total win shares, which comes with the most total career minutes. He has 191.4 WS, Barkely 177.2, Wade is all the way down there at 118.3 (6th among those picks).

It doesn't really change much as we were talking about the playoffs. Garnett's shiny regular season stats don't really matter in the playoffs, where even by your numbers he was a clear cut below Barkley and Wade.

As for Win Shares, Garnett actually has the least playoff win shares out of the 3 (16.4, 19.5 for Barkley and 21.6 for Wade).

When it comes to the playoffs, there is no statistical argument for KG being on Barkley or Wade's level.

valade16
08-03-2018, 04:49 PM
In 03-04, Minnesota was 7th in opponents' points per game and 6th in DRtg. Otherwise, they were pretty much a middle of the road team, defensively. But when you look at the guys around him on those Minnesota teams, I don't think you can blame him. If you surrounded the best defensive big men of all-time with Wally Szczerbiak, Mike James, Trenton Hassell, etc. on a nightly basis, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be anchoring elite defensive teams either.

But you're acting as if there was some massive dropoff in efficiency from the regular season to the playoffs. There's a dropoff, but it's not some gargantuan gap. His career TS% dropped from 54.6 percent to 52.5 percent. That's a 2.1 percent drop. Barkley had a 2.8 percent drop by comparison, and even Wade's dropped nearly a percentage point.

KG wasn't efficient in the playoffs, but he wasn't an especially efficient player in the regular season either, especially for his position. And if you looked at all-time greats, EVERYONE'S efficiency drops in the playoffs. Only all-time greats and a select few boast similar scoring efficiency in the regular season and the playoffs, and you can probably count those guys on two hands.

That's completely debatable. If I'm trying to build a championship team, then I want guys I can build a great team around, not necessarily just individually great players. Some guys just don't necessarily translate their elite production to great team play. Westbrook comes to mind, and I'm not saying Wade was that guy, but was Barkley? I dunno. He peaked before I was old enough to care about the NBA. But a 6'6" PF who doesn't really defend at a high level isn't exactly an easy guy to build a championship team around.

OK, but again, in the entire history of the league, how many superstars actually have "gotten better" in the postseason? Because numbers tell us those guys are few and far between: Lebron, MJ, Hakeem.... ?

Pretty much everyone has a dropoff from the regular season to the postseason. The play is more intense, the defenses are tougher and the game slows down. Now, ideally you don't want someone whose numbers drop so dramatically as to be alarming (*cough*Karl Malone*cough*), but KG's numbers aren't such a dramatic dropoff as to be shocking.

For example, it's actually funny to me that Paul Pierce gets this reputation as a big-game guy and a big shot maker, but have you looked at the difference in his production in the regular season to postseason? The dropoff there is probably around the same as KG. And despite KG clearly being the better player in 2009, Pierce is the one who generally gets the benefit of the doubt.

First Bolded: The problem isn't that his efficiency dropped off, it's that it went from average to abysmal. Like I said, if you take out his age 35+ postseasons his TS% was .519. That is AI bad.

Second Bolded: But we're comparing him to two guys who barely fell off in the playoffs (if at all). I guess if I had a super team or a team of 3 stars sure I could take KG. But if I needed a clear cut #1 on a team, give me Wade or Barkley (Barkley would be my first preference).

ewing
08-03-2018, 05:34 PM
In 03-04, Minnesota was 7th in opponents' points per game and 6th in DRtg. Otherwise, they were pretty much a middle of the road team, defensively. But when you look at the guys around him on those Minnesota teams, I don't think you can blame him. If you surrounded the best defensive big men of all-time with Wally Szczerbiak, Mike James, Trenton Hassell, etc. on a nightly basis, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be anchoring elite defensive teams either.


But you're acting as if there was some massive dropoff in efficiency from the regular season to the playoffs. There's a dropoff, but it's not some gargantuan gap. His career TS% dropped from 54.6 percent to 52.5 percent. That's a 2.1 percent drop. Barkley had a 2.8 percent drop by comparison, and even Wade's dropped nearly a percentage point.

KG wasn't efficient in the playoffs, but he wasn't an especially efficient player in the regular season either, especially for his position. And if you looked at all-time greats, EVERYONE'S efficiency drops in the playoffs. Only all-time greats and a select few boast similar scoring efficiency in the regular season and the playoffs, and you can probably count those guys on two hands.


That's completely debatable. If I'm trying to build a championship team, then I want guys I can build a great team around, not necessarily just individually great players. Some guys just don't necessarily translate their elite production to great team play. Westbrook comes to mind, and I'm not saying Wade was that guy, but was Barkley? I dunno. He peaked before I was old enough to care about the NBA. But a 6'6" PF who doesn't really defend at a high level isn't exactly an easy guy to build a championship team around.


OK, but again, in the entire history of the league, how many superstars actually have "gotten better" in the postseason? Because numbers tell us those guys are few and far between: Lebron, MJ, Hakeem.... ?

Pretty much everyone has a dropoff from the regular season to the postseason. The play is more intense, the defenses are tougher and the game slows down. Now, ideally you don't want someone whose numbers drop so dramatically as to be alarming (*cough*Karl Malone*cough*), but KG's numbers aren't such a dramatic dropoff as to be shocking.

For example, it's actually funny to me that Paul Pierce gets this reputation as a big-game guy and a big shot maker, but have you looked at the difference in his production in the regular season to postseason? The dropoff there is probably around the same as KG. And despite KG clearly being the better player in 2009, Pierce is the one who generally gets the benefit of the doubt.

I think you age is showing. Trenton Hassel was a very good defender


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 05:41 PM
I think you age is showing. Trenton Hassel was a very good defender


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But how does that have anything to do with my age? I was just picking random no-name starters on those Minnesota teams. Just because I don't especially remember some random role player from an awful Minnesota team who nobody watched from 15 years ago doesn't mean I wasn't watching the NBA in the early 2000s. I was in high school then. I can assure you I watched plenty of the NBA that decade.

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 05:50 PM
First Bolded: The problem isn't that his efficiency dropped off, it's that it went from average to abysmal. Like I said, if you take out his age 35+ postseasons his TS% was .519. That is AI bad.
Except it's not. You keep bringing up AI's TS%. But AI's postseason TS% was 48.9 percent, almost 4 percent lower than KG's.


Second Bolded: But we're comparing him to two guys who barely fell off in the playoffs (if at all). I guess if I had a super team or a team of 3 stars sure I could take KG. But if I needed a clear cut #1 on a team, give me Wade or Barkley (Barkley would be my first preference).

OK. But even if we agreed that Wade and Barkley have an edge in peak playoff production, that's only one variable in a sea of variables in an all-time discussion. Postseason production cannot be the sole barometer by which you judge players in an all-time conversation. And, especially in the case with Wade, KG is just absolutely the superior player in pretty much every other aspect by which we judge players.

A vote for Wade over KG is like just completely throwing the regular season and consistency out the window as if they don't matter. Even if we did give Wade the edge over KG in terms of the playoffs (which I've already conceded), I don't know how you can overlook KG's edge in regular season production. The guy's career was simply much longer, much more consistent and much less plagued by injuries.

If peak performance is roughly even (which I'd say it pretty much is), give me the guy who was better for longer. And KG has that in spades. And whatever edge Wade has in the postseason doesn't make up that difference for me.

valade16
08-03-2018, 06:00 PM
Except it's not. You keep bringing up AI's TS%. But AI's postseason TS% was 48.9 percent, almost 4 percent lower than KG's.

OK. But even if we agreed that Wade and Barkley have an edge in peak playoff production, that's only one variable in a sea of variables in an all-time discussion. Postseason production cannot be the sole barometer by which you judge players in an all-time conversation. And, especially in the case with Wade, KG is just absolutely the superior player in pretty much every other aspect by which we judge players.

A vote for Wade over KG is like just completely throwing the regular season and consistency out the window as if they don't matter. Even if we did give Wade the edge over KG in terms of the playoffs (which I've already conceded), I don't know how you can overlook KG's edge in regular season production. The guy's career was simply much longer, much more consistent and much less plagued by injuries.

If peak performance is roughly even (which I'd say it pretty much is), give me the guy who was better for longer. And KG has that in spades. And whatever edge Wade has in the postseason doesn't make up that difference for me.

First Bolded: Except people don't give AI crap for his playoff TS%, they give him crap for his regular season TS%, which was .518. KG's playoff TS% before age 35 was .519. So if AI's regular season TS% was abysmal, why isn't KG's playoff TS%? Why do we constantly talk about how inefficient one was yet give the other a complete pass for the same ineptitude?

Second Bolded: Which is why I asked if we're going off of accolades and accomplishments or by who was the superior player. Because going back to this one, if we're using the idea that KG played longer, was more durable, accomplished more, etc. then why isn't Westbrook over CP3 here? The only reason people are putting CP3 over Westbrook is because he's a better player. If it's based on accolades and accomplishments, Westbrook wins.

Third Bolded: I don't think their peak performance is roughly even. In the playoffs at their peaks, both Barkley and Wade were clearly better players than KG.

Hawkeye framed it as "if you were starting a team, which player would you want?" and to me the answer is simple, I'd take both Barkley or Wade over KG, because they both bring it in the playoffs. I want to win championships, and to do that you need to perform in the playoffs. All the greatest regular seasons in history don't mean jack when the playoffs start.

valade16
08-03-2018, 06:03 PM
I've noticed on PSD these sort of questions don't really come down to a consistent grading criteria. It comes down to whose game do you like more in theory. If you can play D and score efficiently, people make up excuses for why that player should be ahead of clearly better players either by impact, stats or accolades.

PSD has a serious fetish for two way players, even those who are demonstrably not as impactful as other one way players. It's bizarre.

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 07:24 PM
First Bolded: Except people don't give AI crap for his playoff TS%, they give him crap for his regular season TS%, which was .518. KG's playoff TS% before age 35 was .519. So if AI's regular season TS% was abysmal, why isn't KG's playoff TS%? Why do we constantly talk about how inefficient one was yet give the other a complete pass for the same ineptitude?
You're kinda contradicting yourself here. If "people don't give AI crap for his playoff TS%," then why are you giving KG crap for his? And I don't think it's a fair argument, because it's not an apples to apples comparison. If we were to look at the average TS% of a player in the regular season versus the playoffs, I'm willing to bet that average would be 1-2 percentage points lower.

Again, though, I'm not making excuses for KG. The dude was not an efficient offensive player. but if you're going to make a comparison, use playoff production, not regular season production.


Second Bolded: Which is why I asked if we're going off of accolades and accomplishments or by who was the superior player. Because going back to this one, if we're using the idea that KG played longer, was more durable, accomplished more, etc. then why isn't Westbrook over CP3 here? The only reason people are putting CP3 over Westbrook is because he's a better player. If it's based on accolades and accomplishments, Westbrook wins.
Maybe because Westbrook hasn't played for longer and hasn't accomplished more? The only thing Westbrook has done of value that Paul hasn't is winning an MVP. But Westbrook's MVP wasn't without controversy, and Paul has more top 10 MVP finishes (seven) than Westbrook (five). Paul also has more All-Star appearances (nine to seven), All-NBA selections (eight to seven) and All-Defensive selections (nine to zero).

I saw you previously made the "Westbrook's been to the finals" argument earlier, but who cares? Color me unimpressed by one finals appearance as a No. 2 in a series in which the Thunder got smoked. I'd argue that Harden and Paul's run to the WCF and matchup with the Warriors last season was far more impressive.

And on top of all that, Paul's numbers (regular season and postseason) are just far, far more impressive than Westbrook's. And he's been in the league longer. I just don't see how KG vs. Wade is remotely close to the same thing as Paul vs. Westbrook. Pretty much none of the same arguments I used for KG could be used for Westbrook. Better defender? Paul. Longer, more storied career? Paul. More versatile overall player? Paul. Better regular season production? Paul.


Third Bolded: I don't think their peak performance is roughly even. In the playoffs at their peaks, both Barkley and Wade were clearly better players than KG.
:horse:

Dude, I'm clearly talking about regular season peak and prime production here. When someone says "Player X has a better peak," they're talking about regular season numbers, not postseason numbers. Why? Because the regular season is a far greater sample size, and everyone has the chance to play 82 games each season.


Hawkeye framed it as "if you were starting a team, which player would you want?" and to me the answer is simple, I'd take both Barkley or Wade over KG, because they both bring it in the playoffs. I want to win championships, and to do that you need to perform in the playoffs. All the greatest regular seasons in history don't mean jack when the playoffs start.
And that's your prerogative. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and these arguments are completely subjective. You say that regular seasons don't mean jack, but I'm pretty sure it mattered to the Heat when Wade was banged up in 07-08, played like crap the whole season and the team lost 67 games that year. And in 94, when Barkley had a down year and the Suns finished two games behind Houston in the standings, I'm pretty sure Phoenix would have liked to have that Game 7 at home when the Rockets finished coming from behind 3-1 to win the series and went on to win the title.

Completely throwing out the regular season like it doesn't matter is absurd. Without the regular season, we'd have no playoffs. Hell, for some guys, we'd have no way to judge them at all. If we didn't have regular season to judge, how do you evaluate guys like George Gervin, Dominique Wilkins or Tracy McGrady? Guys whose entire postseason careers boiled down to fewer games than a single regular NBA season?

mightybosstone
08-03-2018, 07:39 PM
I've noticed on PSD these sort of questions don't really come down to a consistent grading criteria. It comes down to whose game do you like more in theory. If you can play D and score efficiently, people make up excuses for why that player should be ahead of clearly better players either by impact, stats or accolades.

PSD has a serious fetish for two way players, even those who are demonstrably not as impactful as other one way players. It's bizarre.

I don't vote that way. I use every variable in front of me to make as educated and informed a decision as I possibly can. But take Barkley and KG, for example. There's not a large enough difference between their accolades, numbers or titles. I'm probably going to go with the guy with fewer holes in his game.

And you can scream "postseason production" at the top of your lungs. But ultimately that production amounted to zero titles and only one Finals appearance. Doesn't exactly scream "postseason stud" does it? Also, I have no problem with using postseason performance as a barometer. I use it all the time. But my biggest issue with using it as your sole barometer is that it's such a small sample size of a player's career.

KG played in 10 times more regular season games than postseason games. And we saw very little of him in the postseason when he was in his peak, primarily because his team was trash. The dude's first seven postseasons were all first-round exits in completely different seasons. That's 29 games spread across seven years. And that would be an absurd sample size to try to judge by itself, but that makes more more than one-fifth of all of his postseason performances.

Would you judge an NBA player by the first 5-6 games of a season? Of course not. That would be absurd. But we're willing to judge the first 5-6 games of a postseason like it's a legitimate sample size when a player does it every year for the better part of a decade. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

What if KG had a player of Shaq or Lebron's caliber early in his career when he was at his peak and actually got a good 18-20 postseason games in every few years? Maybe we would judge him differently. But instead he was getting smoked in the first round every year with guys like Stephon freaking Marbury and Terrell Brandon as his best No. 2 options, and we add up all those crappy like series and go "What a chump!" Does that seem fair to you?

Jamiecballer
08-03-2018, 07:54 PM
Clearly you didn't watch mid-career Kevin Garnett in the playoffs.

i did. i did not expect him to all of a sudden excel in areas that he was only good at.

Jamiecballer
08-03-2018, 08:42 PM
I don't vote that way. I use every variable in front of me to make as educated and informed a decision as I possibly can. But take Barkley and KG, for example. There's not a large enough difference between their accolades, numbers or titles. I'm probably going to go with the guy with fewer holes in his game.

And you can scream "postseason production" at the top of your lungs. But ultimately that production amounted to zero titles and only one Finals appearance. Doesn't exactly scream "postseason stud" does it? Also, I have no problem with using postseason performance as a barometer. I use it all the time. But my biggest issue with using it as your sole barometer is that it's such a small sample size of a player's career.

KG played in 10 times more regular season games than postseason games. And we saw very little of him in the postseason when he was in his peak, primarily because his team was trash. The dude's first seven postseasons were all first-round exits in completely different seasons. That's 29 games spread across seven years. And that would be an absurd sample size to try to judge by itself, but that makes more more than one-fifth of all of his postseason performances.

Would you judge an NBA player by the first 5-6 games of a season? Of course not. That would be absurd. But we're willing to judge the first 5-6 games of a postseason like it's a legitimate sample size when a player does it every year for the better part of a decade. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

What if KG had a player of Shaq or Lebron's caliber early in his career when he was at his peak and actually got a good 18-20 postseason games in every few years? Maybe we would judge him differently. But instead he was getting smoked in the first round every year with guys like Stephon freaking Marbury and Terrell Brandon as his best No. 2 options, and we add up all those crappy like series and go "What a chump!" Does that seem fair to you?Valade doesn't consider defense to be a big part of his evaluations. You will notice there has not been a single post in this discussion where he has compared how well any of the 3 played defensively. That end of the floor just... disappears in these discussions.

KG was like Lebron where he could score 10 points in games and still be the most impactful player on the court.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Raps18-19 Champ
08-03-2018, 09:11 PM
i'm glad you love the logic, of how i inserted someone whom i hadn't even considered, and moved those below down a spot.

Lool oops. I misread that as you knocking off Westbrook and Cowen becomes #4 (with Schayes still #5).

Raps18-19 Champ
08-03-2018, 09:13 PM
Haven't a clue.

He's talking about Demar for some reason even though he was drafted 9th.

ewing
08-04-2018, 04:14 AM
I don't vote that way. I use every variable in front of me to make as educated and informed a decision as I possibly can. But take Barkley and KG, for example. There's not a large enough difference between their accolades, numbers or titles. I'm probably going to go with the guy with fewer holes in his game.

And you can scream "postseason production" at the top of your lungs. But ultimately that production amounted to zero titles and only one Finals appearance. Doesn't exactly scream "postseason stud" does it? Also, I have no problem with using postseason performance as a barometer. I use it all the time. But my biggest issue with using it as your sole barometer is that it's such a small sample size of a player's career.

KG played in 10 times more regular season games than postseason games. And we saw very little of him in the postseason when he was in his peak, primarily because his team was trash. The dude's first seven postseasons were all first-round exits in completely different seasons. That's 29 games spread across seven years. And that would be an absurd sample size to try to judge by itself, but that makes more more than one-fifth of all of his postseason performances.

Would you judge an NBA player by the first 5-6 games of a season? Of course not. That would be absurd. But we're willing to judge the first 5-6 games of a postseason like it's a legitimate sample size when a player does it every year for the better part of a decade. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

What if KG had a player of Shaq or Lebron's caliber early in his career when he was at his peak and actually got a good 18-20 postseason games in every few years? Maybe we would judge him differently. But instead he was getting smoked in the first round every year with guys like Stephon freaking Marbury and Terrell Brandon as his best No. 2 options, and we add up all those crappy like series and go "What a chump!" Does that seem fair to you?


You already admitted and showed you donít know what you are talking about when it comes to KGís suppporting cast. You are doing it again. Brandon was regularly a borderline all star. KG did not have a championship level cast but this notion that he dragged trash so he should get a total pass for ****** the bed in the playoffs every year is bunk. If He was the player you are saying he was he had enough win a play off series.


KG was no where near the offensive player the other two were. He the gap is even bigger then stats would suggest bc he did not create pace like Wade and Barkley did by pushing the ball down your throat nor did he collaspse defensives by beating you off bounce or getting his feet in the paint in the post. He was a mid range jump shooter that passed well out of the high post.

While a very good defensive player the Bill Russell narrative you seem to be pushing is also bunk. Few guys in NBA history have had the defensive impact you are attributing to KG and I think all of them weíre elite rim protectors. Kg wasnít. The only time he led an elite defense he had guys like Tony Allen, James Posey, Rando, and Leon Powe all over the floor with him. He was an excellent link in the chain.

Flaws get exposed in the playoffs. When comes to being the best player on a team KG was very flawed. As a number 3 you are right he really didnít have holes. As a number 1 he was full of them.

In short if he needs prime Shaq or LeBron like you said to win a playoff series he isnít as good as the other guys.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mightybosstone
08-04-2018, 07:24 AM
You already admitted and showed you donít know what you are talking about when it comes to KGís suppporting cast. You are doing it again. Brandon was regularly a borderline all star. KG did not have a championship level cast but this notion that he dragged trash so he should get a total pass for ****** the bed in the playoffs every year is bunk. If He was the player you are saying he was he had enough win a play off series.
:facepalm: Dude, ewing, I love you man. But you're REALLY not getting my point here. I'm well aware of who Terrell Brandon is and the level of player he was. I'm not saying "Terrell Brandon is ****." I'm saying "Terrell Brandon can't be your second best player on a playoff team in the 2000s if you expect to do anything in the playoffs."

Wade had Shaq and Lebron. Barkley had Moses (for a little bit), KJ and Hakeem, although to be fair, much of his peak in Philly was wasted with a mediocre supporting cast as well.


KG was no where near the offensive player the other two were. He the gap is even bigger then stats would suggest bc he did not create pace like Wade and Barkley did by pushing the ball down your throat nor did he collaspse defensives by beating you off bounce or getting his feet in the paint in the post. He was a mid range jump shooter that passed well out of the high post.
I already admitted KG wasn't as good offensively as the other two, but I think the gap defensively between he and those two guys is simply greater than the gap offensively. You're seriously underrating his athleticism, for example. Dude could run the floor and play above the rim, and he had a pretty good game with his back to the basket in addition to being one of the best mid-range shooting big men in the NBA. Was he as versatile overall offensively as Wade or Barkley? No. But he made up for it with sound fundamentals, good passing and taking care of the basketball.


While a very good defensive player the Bill Russell narrative you seem to be pushing is also bunk. Few guys in NBA history have had the defensive impact you are attributing to KG and I think all of them weíre elite rim protectors. Kg wasnít. The only time he led an elite defense he had guys like Tony Allen, James Posey, Rando, and Leon Powe all over the floor with him. He was an excellent link in the chain.
Completely disagree. Google "Kevin Garnett defensive impact" and you'll find a dozen articles and examples breaking down just how valuable he was defensively, from his ability to switch on wings to barking out orders like a middle linebacker to his superb help defense. From 2001-14, KG's defensive RAPM was the highest of any player in the league during that timespan, including Duncan, Mutombo, Dwight and Big Ben.


Flaws get exposed in the playoffs. When comes to being the best player on a team KG was very flawed. As a number 3 you are right he really didnít have holes. As a number 1 he was full of them.

In short if he needs prime Shaq or LeBron like you said to win a playoff series he isnít as good as the other guys.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How many playoff series did Wade and Barkley win without a great No. 2? I'll save you the trouble of looking it up. Wade? Probably one in 2016 against the Hornets. Once Shaq started to decline in 06-07 to Lebron's arrival in 2010-11, he won zero playoff series. The only other playoff series he won in his career without those guys was his rookie season, but I definitely wouldn't argue that he was the best player on that team over Odom.

As for Barkley, I suppose it depends on your definition of KJ, but I'd argue that he won only two without an elite No. 1 or No. 2 guy next to him. From the time Moses left Philly in 86 to Barkley going to Phoenix in 92-93, Barkley won two playoff series over six seasons with Hersey Hawkins as probably his best player over that span (a solid guy, but definitely not a championship level No. 2).

It wasn't until Phoenix when he paired up with KJ and Majerle that he saw any real postseason success, and in his entire career, he only made one Finals appearance and two conference finals appearances. To be fair to Barkley, though, we certainly can't put KJ on the same level as Shaq, Moses, Lebron, Hakeem, etc. level of talent. But that 92-93 Phoenix team was pretty damn stacked with talented players. Between KJ, Majerle, Ainge, Chambers and Ceballos, that's five guys who played in All-Star games within a few seasons of that 93 season.

mightybosstone
08-04-2018, 07:26 AM
But I'm kinda done with the KG discussion. We can all just agree to disagree. Hell, we're not even on that pick anymore, and I don't know why I'm arguing so heartily for him. I've never been an especially big KG fan. I just think basing your entire argument of one player over another on postseason production while ignoring all of the other variables is a little silly.

Jamiecballer
08-04-2018, 10:23 AM
I've noticed on PSD these sort of questions don't really come down to a consistent grading criteria. It comes down to whose game do you like more in theory. If you can play D and score efficiently, people make up excuses for why that player should be ahead of clearly better players either by impact, stats or accolades.

PSD has a serious fetish for two way players, even those who are demonstrably not as impactful as other one way players. It's bizarre.

if you ever come up with evidence to support this statement i would love to hear it. i'm not being facetious, i'm all ears.

ewing
08-04-2018, 12:26 PM
But I'm kinda done with the KG discussion. We can all just agree to disagree. Hell, we're not even on that pick anymore, and I don't know why I'm arguing so heartily for him. I've never been an especially big KG fan. I just think basing your entire argument of one player over another on postseason production while ignoring all of the other variables is a little silly.

Thanks for the debate. I think we can agree to disagree and i we know the root of that- how impactful was KG's elite level defense, how much should we wait playoff performance/winning time performances. I think to to be as impactful as you claim he would have to own the paint or disrupt to the point of teams not being able to set up. He was a able to contain at all spots and that is nothing to sneeze at. Certainly a great defender that is worthy of accolades we just disagree on how impactful. Cheers

valade16
08-06-2018, 12:31 PM
Valade doesn't consider defense to be a big part of his evaluations. You will notice there has not been a single post in this discussion where he has compared how well any of the 3 played defensively. That end of the floor just... disappears in these discussions.

KG was like Lebron where he could score 10 points in games and still be the most impactful player on the court.

Valade does consider defense to be a big part of his evaluations. And I'd thank you not to say slanderous lies about me.

Bring up KG's defense, tell me how it was so amazing that it overshadows the fact that every stat clearly shows Wade and Barkley being the far more impactful players in the playoffs. I get the idea that we can't properly measure defense statistically, and maybe KG's defense was so good that it overshadows the fact that he just wasn't as impactful overall statistically, Maybe, but you have shown very little evidence of that outside "I saw him play and excused the stuff he sucked at".

valade16
08-06-2018, 12:32 PM
if you ever come up with evidence to support this statement i would love to hear it. i'm not being facetious, i'm all ears.

Play any NBA All-Time or Offseason game. I'm not pulling this out of nowhere, this site has a massive fetish for people that can play well on both sides of the ball, to the point where they value them far beyond people that are simply more impactful.

Ahriman
08-07-2018, 06:07 AM
The only time KG had a competent squad in Minny they finished #1 and lost in the WCF in 6 after losing Cassell early in the series. I can only wonder what would have happened with Cassell healthy...

KG was the #1 option and had some pretty huge series. But he needed a lieutenant like Cassell to take off some offensive load (mainly ball handling)

But I'll be biased as KG is my favorite player

PowerHouse
08-07-2018, 02:55 PM
Am I the only one surprised Russel Westbrook has zero votes?

Dont get me wrong, CP3 should win this but damn. An MVP, averaged a triple dub for a season, made it to the Finals (which everybody disses CP3 about), future HOFer and dude cant get a single vote.

basch152
08-07-2018, 02:57 PM
Am I the only one surprised Russel Westbrook has zero votes?

Dont get me wrong, CP3 should win this but damn. An MVP, averaged a triple dub for a season, made it to the Finals (which everybody disses CP3 about), future HOFer and dude cant get a single vote.

we've been over this is the westbrook thread. he's a stat whore who often does more harm than good in the way he stat whores. he legitimately does not deserve a vote

WaDe03
08-07-2018, 05:51 PM
Am I the only one surprised Russel Westbrook has zero votes?

Dont get me wrong, CP3 should win this but damn. An MVP, averaged a triple dub for a season, made it to the Finals (which everybody disses CP3 about), future HOFer and dude cant get a single vote.

People have Oscar borderline top 10 all time because he averaged a triple double against plumbers and gas station attendants so I can see your point.

mightybosstone
08-08-2018, 07:37 AM
People have Oscar borderline top 10 all time because he averaged a triple double against plumbers and gas station attendants so I can see your point.
Pretty sure there's way more justification for Oscar as a top 15 player than "he averaged a triple double." You're massively oversimplifying the guy's career achievements.

WaDe03
08-09-2018, 11:09 AM
Pretty sure there's way more justification for Oscar as a top 15 player than "he averaged a triple double." You're massively oversimplifying the guy's career achievements.

Forgot the MVP and championship as a 2nd fiddle. I guess all Westbrook needs is the championship as a 2nd fiddle and heíll pass him up all time. Averaged a triple double twice and played in a far better era.