2014 Anger General Greatest of All Time #19

[Carpediem77]

KG

[AbeVigodaLive]

KG

No way he should be 12 spots below Timmy (who I have no problem with at #7).

This sparks another debate too because we keep pushing for KG to get in, but there's been tons of comparisons with him & Dirk --yet Dirk sits with zero votes this round.

Yep. As I mentioned previously, Dirk and KG are essentially interchangeable.

So that pushes Baylor to #21? Actually, lower than that because the Bulls rubes will push Pippen up 5 or more spots higher than he should probably go.

My next 3 are Baylor. Garnett. Nowitzki.

[Bush4Ever]

A quick note:

I think we should be careful about thinking along the lines of "X and Y (who played in the same era) are virtually identical, therefore they should be next to each other on an all-time list"

Considering how close these spots are, and given that X=Y will be much more obvious with intragenerational players than intergenerational players...it merits a second look to see if there are any players from outside the era who might even MORE close to X.

[AbeVigodaLive]

A quick note:

I think we should be careful about thinking along the lines of "X and Y (who played in the same era) are virtually identical, therefore they should be next to each other on an all-time list"

Considering how close these spots are, and given that X=Y will be much more obvious with intragenerational players than intergenerational players...it merits a second look to see if there are any players from outside the era who might even MORE close to X.

I don't believe that's the case with Garnett and Nowitzki. I think their resume/legacies based on their own merit immediate proximity on any such list.

[Bush4Ever]

A quick note:

I think we should be careful about thinking along the lines of "X and Y (who played in the same era) are virtually identical, therefore they should be next to each other on an all-time list"

Considering how close these spots are, and given that X=Y will be much more obvious with intragenerational players than intergenerational players...it merits a second look to see if there are any players from outside the era who might even MORE close to X.

I don't believe that's the case with Garnett and Nowitzki. I think their resume/legacies based on their own merit immediate proximity on any such list.

That's fine, all I'm saying is there is going to be a built-in bias for that sort of equality comparison for players who played in the same era because we saw them with your own eyes being equal against each other directly.

But it could be the case that a player from another era might be even closer on merit to player X, but not nearly as obvious or salient to us because we didn't watch them match against each other directly.

It's just a bias to be aware of.

[AbeVigodaLive]

A quick note:

I think we should be careful about thinking along the lines of "X and Y (who played in the same era) are virtually identical, therefore they should be next to each other on an all-time list"

Considering how close these spots are, and given that X=Y will be much more obvious with intragenerational players than intergenerational players...it merits a second look to see if there are any players from outside the era who might even MORE close to X.

I don't believe that's the case with Garnett and Nowitzki. I think their resume/legacies based on their own merit immediate proximity on any such list.

That's fine, all I'm saying is there is going to be a built-in bias for that sort of equality comparison for players who played in the same era because we saw them with your own eyes being equal against each other directly.

But it could be the case that a player from another era might be even closer on merit to player X, but not nearly as obvious or salient to us because we didn't watch them match against each other directly.

It's just a bias to be aware of.

I think there's a lot of recent bias already influencing the list... hence, #19.

[Bush4Ever]

I think thee's a lot of recent bias already influencing the list... hence, #19.

What exactly is your point? Obviously, we all carry biases.

I'm pointing out one that might not be immediately obvious.

Instead of thanking your intellectual superior for doing so, you become an argumentative Black asshole.

Stop being a Black asshole.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I think thee's a lot of recent bias already influencing the list... hence, #19.

What exactly is your point? Obviously, we all carry biases.

I'm pointing out one that might not be immediately obvious.

Instead of thanking your intellectual superior for doing so, you become an argumentative Black asshole.

Stop being a Black asshole.

Huh? You seem to be trying hard to begin a silly argument in one of the better basketball threads/premises we've had on this board.

So, I'll try to stay away from the nonsense and carry on with the legit basketball discussion. But feel free to use your ham-handed bullying techniques elsewhere on this forum if you want to "debate" red herrings and misdirections and all that fun stuff.

[Bush4Ever]

Huh? You seem to be trying hard to begin a silly argument in one of the better basketball threads/premises we've had on this board.

So, I'll try to stay away from the nonsense and carry on with the legit basketball discussion. But feel free to use your ham-handed bullying techniques elsewhere on this forum if you want to "debate" red herrings and misdirections and all that fun stuff.

It is legit basketball discussion.

" X = Y in ranking in a 15 year span of NBA history", therefore " X = Y in ranking in a 60+ year span of NBA history" is not sound thinking in and of itself. I explain that, and explained the likely cause of the bias that drives that way of thinking.

If you can't handle that, tough. It's just logic. Go argue with the law of gravity while you are at it.

I can also beat you up, and have no problem proving this. At the Y, on the internet, or elsewhere.

[Y2K]

KG

No way he should be 12 spots below Timmy (who I have no problem with at #7).

Whole-heartily agree. The main difference between the two is team success, which basically is: KG landed in shit and Duncan landed in sugar.

[AbeVigodaLive]

KG

No way he should be 12 spots below Timmy (who I have no problem with at #7).

Whole-heartily agree. The main difference between the two is team success, which basically is: KG landed in shit and Duncan landed in sugar.

To simplify the difference down to that does a disservice to each player... and to this board.




[Note: While I agree the difference between the two in their primes was a lot less than most (elsewhere) would claim... Duncan has a decided advantage. He was an imposing inside defender. And, he has A LOT of rings that you can't just chalk up to circumstance. Otherwise, this entire exercise becomes a worthless "who had the most skill" discussion.]

[Y2K]

KG

No way he should be 12 spots below Timmy (who I have no problem with at #7).

This sparks another debate too because we keep pushing for KG to get in, but there's been tons of comparisons with him & Dirk --yet Dirk sits with zero votes this round.

I will say this: Dirk has gotten less traction than KG has. If I'm not mistaking, only KUB has gone in-depth about Dirk. Ppl have gone in-depth with KG, which probably has a bit to do with why he's being pushed harder.

[Bush4Ever]

I was going to say Duncan landed in sugar, but that sugar pot was relatively limited in time, before he had to turn over what was essentially brand new teams, using elements from late in the draft, the "side guys" from other teams, etc...

That is a pretty special thing to do a title-winning level (or close) year after year, even in a great organization like the Spurs.

Put it this way: I think it is easier to make the case that the Wolves with Duncan would have had equal success compared to KG with the Wolves, than KG on the Spurs compared to Duncan's tenure with the Spurs.

[FPL]

KG

No way he should be 12 spots below Timmy (who I have no problem with at #7).

Whole-heartily agree. The main difference between the two is team success, which basically is: KG landed in shit and Duncan landed in sugar.

To simplify the difference down to that does a disservice to each player... and to this board.




[Note: While I agree the difference between the two in their primes was a lot less than most (elsewhere) would claim... Duncan has a decided advantage. He was an imposing inside defender. And, he has A LOT of rings that you can't just chalk up to circumstance. Otherwise, this entire exercise becomes a worthless "who had the most skill" discussion.]

Definitely superior to KG in that regard, but does it make a big difference how a guy defends, so long as he's effective?

From my recollection, the Admiral played better man post D than Hakeem (who got a lot of his blocks off the weak-side coming out of nowhere) and rim protector. Both are all-time greats on that end, but wouldn't you say Olajuwon was the superior defender? Like KG, he played dominant horizontal defense. Same with Russell and Wilt to a lesser extent...Wilt was a terrific paint protector, and while Russ blocked a ton of shots, his strength was in his ability to defend all over the floor, switch onto anyone, and recover when his teammates let guys through. Duncan was very mobile in his prime, but KG was quicker on his feet (you probably know a lot more than I do, but that's why that weird hybrid zone worked in the first season after illegal defense was eliminated, and why before getting hurt in 09, he was able to hamper both the pick-and-roll handler and man in Boston under Thibs).

[AbeVigodaLive]

Whole-heartily agree. The main difference between the two is team success, which basically is: KG landed in shit and Duncan landed in sugar.

To simplify the difference down to that does a disservice to each player... and to this board.




[Note: While I agree the difference between the two in their primes was a lot less than most (elsewhere) would claim... Duncan has a decided advantage. He was an imposing inside defender. And, he has A LOT of rings that you can't just chalk up to circumstance. Otherwise, this entire exercise becomes a worthless "who had the most skill" discussion.]

Definitely superior to KG in that regard, but does it make a big difference how a guy defends, so long as he's effective?

From my recollection, the Admiral played better man post D than Hakeem (who got a lot of his blocks off the weak-side coming out of nowhere) and rim protector. Both are all-time greats on that end, but wouldn't you say Olajuwon was the superior defender? Like KG, he played dominant horizontal defense. Same with Russell and Wilt to a lesser extent...Wilt was a terrific paint protector, and while Russ blocked a ton of shots, his strength was in his ability to defend all over the floor, switch onto anyone, and recover when his teammates let guys through. Duncan was very mobile in his prime, but KG was quicker on his feet (you probably know a lot more than I do, but that's why that weird hybrid zone worked in the first season after illegal defense was eliminated, and why before getting hurt in 09, he was able to hamper both the pick-and-roll handler and man in Boston under Thibs).

It does make a difference... especially in the late 90s and into the next decade... at least until the modern wave of positionless basketball took the league by storm. Duncan could protect the rim better than Garnett. While he couldn't thwart the PnR as well as Garnett (nobody could), the difference at the rim between Duncan and Garnett was more profound than the difference between them defending the PnR.

I think Garnett wins a title in SA (maybe in a year when the Spurs didn't make it to the Finals). And I don't think Duncan wins a title in Minnesota. But I have no problem with the 12 (or even more) difference in spots on this list between them. The rings DID happen. Garnett's first round exits DID happen. He DID lose 49 games in his prime. Duncan has never won fewer than 50*. That stuff should matter... it seems to for every other comparison on this list other than Duncan and Garnett.

And that might speak to the era bias gibberish that Bush was spewing earlier.

[Y2K]

KG

No way he should be 12 spots below Timmy (who I have no problem with at #7).

Whole-heartily agree. The main difference between the two is team success, which basically is: KG landed in shit and Duncan landed in sugar.

To simplify the difference down to that does a disservice to each player... and to this board.




[Note: While I agree the difference between the two in their primes was a lot less than most (elsewhere) would claim... Duncan has a decided advantage. He was an imposing inside defender. And, he has A LOT of rings that you can't just chalk up to circumstance. Otherwise, this entire exercise becomes a worthless "who had the most skill" discussion.]

They both have their advantages over the other. I believe that Tim's game was more conducive to winning championships than KG's game as he was a finisher and not a facilitator.

But one can't ignore how fucked up Minnesota was and still is as a franchise and then compare it to a franchise that had won 62 games before falling apart due to injury. Duncan Essentially Joined a 62 win team as a rookie and not once in 18 years were they short on talent like many of those Minnesota teams were with KG.

That's no disrespect to Duncan because he earned all of his dues. I feel the same way abut Magic Johnson. Some are fortunate to be drafted in great situations. And some, like Garnett and even LeBron, weren't.

[Y2K]

Whole-heartily agree. The main difference between the two is team success, which basically is: KG landed in shit and Duncan landed in sugar.

To simplify the difference down to that does a disservice to each player... and to this board.




[Note: While I agree the difference between the two in their primes was a lot less than most (elsewhere) would claim... Duncan has a decided advantage. He was an imposing inside defender. And, he has A LOT of rings that you can't just chalk up to circumstance. Otherwise, this entire exercise becomes a worthless "who had the most skill" discussion.]

Definitely superior to KG in that regard, but does it make a big difference how a guy defends, so long as he's effective?

From my recollection, the Admiral played better man post D than Hakeem (who got a lot of his blocks off the weak-side coming out of nowhere) and rim protector. Both are all-time greats on that end, but wouldn't you say Olajuwon was the superior defender? Like KG, he played dominant horizontal defense. Same with Russell and Wilt to a lesser extent...Wilt was a terrific paint protector, and while Russ blocked a ton of shots, his strength was in his ability to defend all over the floor, switch onto anyone, and recover when his teammates let guys through. Duncan was very mobile in his prime, but KG was quicker on his feet (you probably know a lot more than I do, but that's why that weird hybrid zone worked in the first season after illegal defense was eliminated, and why before getting hurt in 09, he was able to hamper both the pick-and-roll handler and man in Boston under Thibs).

KG has the DPOY that Duncan doesn't have. But that isn't saying he wasn't worthy of winning one.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Whole-heartily agree. The main difference between the two is team success, which basically is: KG landed in shit and Duncan landed in sugar.

To simplify the difference down to that does a disservice to each player... and to this board.




[Note: While I agree the difference between the two in their primes was a lot less than most (elsewhere) would claim... Duncan has a decided advantage. He was an imposing inside defender. And, he has A LOT of rings that you can't just chalk up to circumstance. Otherwise, this entire exercise becomes a worthless "who had the most skill" discussion.]

They both have their advantages over the other. I believe that Tim's game was more conducive to winning championships than KG's game as he was a finisher and not a facilitator.

But one can't ignore how fucked up Minnesota was and still is as a franchise and then compare it to a franchise that had won 62 games before falling apart due to injury. Duncan Essentially Joined a 62 win team as a rookie and not once in 18 years were they short on talent like many of those Minnesota teams were with KG.

That's no disrespect to Duncan because he earned all of his dues. I feel the same way abut Magic Johnson. Some are fortunate to be drafted in great situations. And some, like Garnett and even LeBron, weren't.

Sure. That's the nature of sports. Magic joined one of the greatest players in NBA history because another team was led by an idiot. Then, he had the misfortune of playing in the super weak West... where the one team built specifically to beat him... fell apart with drugs and injuries. We didn't move Larry Bird up to compensate for the inherent situational differences. So why should we do it even more for Garnett?

[FPL]

Sure. That's the nature of sports. Magic joined one of the greatest players in NBA history because another team was led by an idiot. Then, he had the misfortune of playing in the super weak West... where the one team built specifically to beat him... fell apart with drugs and injuries. We didn't move Larry Bird up to compensate for the inherent situational differences. So why should we do it even more for Garnett?

Depends on what one values. Circumstances play a huge part in comparisons IMO. The issue with Bird is that he had debilitating injuries. Those are probably going to follow him on any team, in any era. He could potentially be more dominant today since he could play the 4 exclusively (and wouldn't have to defend quick forwards), and wouldn't have Coach Fitch discouraging use of the three. But he's still giving you only 9 terrific years (and in the playoffs, we know the hand was an issue in 85, and possibly the bone spurs in 88)...possibly the 9 best years ever, but I think the length of his prime hurts him a lot more than having to deal with the Bucks and Sixers year-in-year-out (if anything, going up against superior competition improves his case).

With a Garnett (or a Hakeem post-Sampson/pre-Rudy T, or LeBron in Cleveland, or Kobe post-Shaq/pre-Gasol, or Kareem post-Oscar/pre-Magic, or MJ pre-Phil, or Wilt in San Francisco), there is a lot of guesswork, and hypotheticals aren't conclusive by any means. But I don't think we can just look at guys playing with historically bad supporting casts, and just hand-wave away the differences (not that I'm suggesting you're doing this BTW, just speaking in general). These are real issues. During his prime, KG had two years with great supporting casts: in 04 he was a Cassell back injury away from making the Finals, and in 08 he won it all as the best player while anchoring an historically great defense. I don't think these issues follow him elsewhere, which is why it's a lot different than Bird.

I could be wrong, and I'm very likely not 100% correct. Just my take.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Sure. That's the nature of sports. Magic joined one of the greatest players in NBA history because another team was led by an idiot. Then, he had the misfortune of playing in the super weak West... where the one team built specifically to beat him... fell apart with drugs and injuries. We didn't move Larry Bird up to compensate for the inherent situational differences. So why should we do it even more for Garnett?

Depends on what one values. Circumstances play a huge part in comparisons IMO. The issue with Bird is that he had debilitating injuries. Those are probably going to follow him on any team, in any era. He could potentially be more dominant today since he could play the 4 exclusively (and wouldn't have to defend quick forwards), and wouldn't have Coach Fitch discouraging use of the three. But he's still giving you only 9 terrific years (and in the playoffs, we know the hand was an issue in 85, and possibly the bone spurs in 88)...possibly the 9 best years ever, but I think the length of his prime hurts him a lot more than having to deal with the Bucks and Sixers year-in-year-out (if anything, going up against superior competition improves his case).

With a Garnett (or a Hakeem post-Sampson/pre-Rudy T, or LeBron in Cleveland, or Kobe post-Shaq/pre-Gasol, or Kareem post-Oscar/pre-Magic, or MJ pre-Phil, or Wilt in San Francisco), there is a lot of guesswork, and hypotheticals aren't conclusive by any means. But I don't think we can just look at guys playing with historically bad supporting casts, and just hand-wave away the differences (not that I'm suggesting you're doing this BTW, just speaking in general). These are real issues. During his prime, KG had two years with great supporting casts: in 04 he was a Cassell back injury away from making the Finals, and in 08 he won it all as the best player while anchoring an historically great defense. I don't think these issues follow him elsewhere, which is why it's a lot different than Bird.

I could be wrong, and I'm very likely not 100% correct. Just my take.

But you can't really hold Bird's injury history against him vs. Magic either. After all... Magic had his own issues that limited him to only 9 more games.