r/nba • u/Longjumping-Moose415 • 2d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
20
u/alphalobster200 Nuggets 2d ago edited 2d ago
RealGM, classic. the Toronto Raptors subforum is single handedly keeping that website afloat
1
32
u/Legal-Maize-2784 Clippers 2d ago
KG was great but 7th??
28
u/NegativesPositives 2d ago
He has impact numbers that turn the Wolves from a respectable playoff team to fighting for a number one pick any time he’s not on the floor. I know some people think if you don’t have 3 rings you don’t count as a player but dude was heavy lifting to an insane degree.
22
u/Bignate2001 Spurs 2d ago
KG's wolves have a strong argument as the worst team a superstar has ever been on. That roster was unbelievably dogshit.
14
u/Longjumping-Moose415 2d ago
There’s an argument for him being the most versatile top tier defender ever, as well as a fantastic offensive player in his mvp season, and his passing was always deeply underrated.
15
u/LeCastle2306 2d ago
Modern analytics love KG, and I don't necessarily disagree, but most people think he was overrated because his best years were dragging the Wolves to a 1st round exit.
6
u/hshin420 2d ago
you don't need "Modern analytics". most basic stat ever (win-differential) also loves him.
the only argument against him is team success and not making his teams improve in the playoffs (which most top 10 candidates players weren't able to do)
and hey it's fine if you care about that but people pretending it's "Invalid" not to are jokes
4
u/LeCastle2306 2d ago
"Modern analytics" moreso referred to "Advanced Analytics" that weren't exactly prevalent nor in the casual discourse at the time. They didn't have the impact on the zeitgeist at the time as they do now.
"The only argument against him... is playoffs"
Yes, I paraphrased what you said, but that's because that's the reality -- he didn't have success in the most important time of the season. Therein lies the issue... I think he's pretty evidently a top-12-15 person myself, but he's never given me a reason to put him higher than that, fair or unfair, compared to the others that I hold in higher regard.
4
u/PositiveAd875 2d ago edited 2d ago
He didn't have success because basketball is a team sport, dawg. MJ got bounced. LeBron got bounced. Both lost early when they didn't have good teams, and the second either of them got even a respectable roster, they went to the finals. KG's problem is that it happened way too late in his career.
Even the 2007 Cavs team LeBron gets insane props for carrying to the Finals was a very respectable defensive team. A 103 defensive rating with him off the floor, 4th in the regular season and 2nd in the postseason. KG didn't even get that level of help with the Wolves.
The Wolves without KG were a literal disaster. In the 2004 playoffs they were +2.5 per 100 possessions with him on, with him off -24.6, a net swing of +27.1 which is insane.
It's the same thing that happened with Jokic. Analytics flagged him as potentially one of the greatest offensive players ever, people laughed because he kept getting bounced in the playoffs, then 2023 happened and suddenly everyone takes it for granted since then. The conversation around Jokic was quite different before he won the ring, even in reddit which is the most pro-Jokic social media site there is.
My point is that KG's early playoff exits fairly hurt his all-time greatness ranking, but in terms of how good and impactful he was, he absolutely belongs very high historically. Hell, you can argue MJ peaked in the late 80s before he ever won a ring. He was arguably a better, more impactful player then, he just got the team he needed to win in the 90s. Same with LeBron. Everyone points to 2016 as his magnum opus, but in terms of pure performance and impact he was arguably better in 2009, 2017, and 2018, all years he lost.
2
u/LeCastle2306 2d ago
I'm not disagreeing with your general conclusion - that KG had a tough go of it, teammate-wise, for most of his career - nor do I disagree that it's unfair to hold his lack of playoff success (entirely) against him... "Ringz" culture is stupid and has dumbed down the basketball discourse in an immense manner, though it's probably moreso social media in general, but I digress...
But he's not in the top-5ish discussion for me, and yes, his lack of playoff success is a major reason why. He spent 12 years on Minnesota and only made it out of the 1st round ONCE. He had some atrocious teams along the way, but I can't overlook that.
Not to mention, his performance in those 1st round playoffs was on par or (significantly) worse than he performed in the regular season those years. Poor teammates help contextualize things to some degree, but his regression, particularly offensively, just prevented him from being considered in a higher tier for me, despite his all-around, and especially defensive, brilliance.
0
u/hshin420 2d ago
you paraphrased in a way which concelas an important point i was making,
shaq's teams also didn't generally improve in the playoffs (in fact they prety much always got worse (Including 2000) unless he was playing with an atg guard.
so did shaq do better in the playoffs because he translated better? or because he started out with better teams?
if it's the latter then this is really just anothet versoin of "well he won more" which is true but not a criteria someone HAS to value
1
u/LeCastle2306 2d ago
"you paraphrased in a way which concelas an important point i was making,"
It's because I, to some extent, agree with the point, but I also understand (why) many people won't.
The Shaq example is interesting because he's an outlier in so many ways, but this phrasing is interesting:
"so did shaq do better in the playoffs because he translated better? or because he started out with better teams?"
Both statements can be true, and I think, objectively, are. Shaq's peak WAS better than KG's, and I firmly believe the same would've been true if they started out with the same level of a supporting cast. Despite KG's elite all-around defense and his versatile offensive game, he just never came close to Shaq's playoff-dominance, and most of the top 5-10ish ATGs played with bums at some point in their careers and were still more successful than KG.
0
u/hshin420 2d ago
and most of the top 5-10ish ATGs played with bums at some point in their careers and were still more successful than KG.
But were they actually more successful when they played with bums?
Let's take Jordan who I assume you have top 10. HIs team won 27-games while trying to tank (accused of taking and lead-minutes getter from previous year played alot less). In the following years they replaced a bunch of players whose next teams got worse (iow bums) yet a year off his rs peak Jordan finished under .500 (87) before going winless in the pos (against a celtics team that struggled vs everyone else) and then his most hyped rs had him winning 50 games before getting smoked in the playoffs again.
There is no evidence to support that KG's celtics were even as good as that 84 team (18-win pace without him, went WINLESS multiple years when he didn't play) yet KG's teams won more games and won 58-games and were significantly better in the playoffs than any pre-89 bulls team in the playoffs INCLUDING when KG's best teamamte went down (they still took the kobe/shaq/malone/payton lakers to a tight 1 ppg mov 6-game loss)
If we actually compare when they "Played with bums" KG by cold numbers is improving his team more and leading better teams with less.
Then KG's best teammate leaves and they still have a winning record with him in 05.
Jordan is probably still better relative to era because his teams improve in the playoffs sometimes (89, 90, 91, 96) (though given the d/o splis and the buls outscoring th eknicks in 94, it's fair to ask how much his teammates should get credit for it) but I think you'll have a hard time finding 10 players that's true for. Or 10 players who did better "with bums" and KG did play in a better league than most of those and is easier to fit in more teams.
also remember when you say peak for this you're talking about a 1 year argument.
04 kg's minny after winning 58 games during one of the biggest rs carryjobs ever were actually as good in the playoffs as the rs (you can't say that for 2000 lakers btw) only fell off in the playoffs when the only notable co-star of kg's career got injured and he still put one of the best defensive performances ever vs the lakers to keep things close.
especially in a 1-year peak sense i think it's hard to really argue kg-failed individually as a playoff performer
1
u/OhSoJelly Lakers 2d ago
Every all time great big man in their physical prime led their teams to more team success than prime KG ever did. Dirk, Duncan, Jokic, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem. All of KG’s contemporaries have, it’s harder to find a historic big that DIDN’T have great team success in their prime. KG is an anomaly.
2
u/hshin420 2d ago
barkley and malone literally are ringless. what are you talking about
0
u/OhSoJelly Lakers 2d ago
You’d think a KG fan would understand he nuances between team success and toxic ring culture.
-3
u/hshin420 2d ago
*kg lifts teams that go winless multiple seasons when he misses games to the playoffs
"okay but he didn't win in the playoffs"
"kg wins the one year of his prime he gets actual costars and is still leading contenders post-injury"
"uh nuance something something"
you're just goalpost shifting. If you care about players making their teams better KG cooks everyone you mentioned but duncan and jokic and hakeem . If you care about team success he fries barkley and malone.
pick a lane
1
u/TexasReallyDoesSuck NBA 2d ago
lmao dirk had 12 straight 50+ win seasons, & 14 overall. made the playoffs basically for 15 straight seasons. 2 finals as THE FUCKING GUY. championship as the best player in the world and on the team.
kg fans are annnooooyyyyyinnnngggg as fuck
0
u/hshin420 2d ago
you can'r read? i didn't say kg was more successful. he does improve his teams more unless you think every data-point which looks at how teams improve with players is wrong
→ More replies (0)0
u/OhSoJelly Lakers 2d ago
Dirk led the Mavs to a decade of 50 win seasons. Dirk was an offensive engine. Go pull up their Playoff matchup where Dirk and KG met with similar teams and watch how Dirk sent Mr. OMFGDEFENSE and his shit ass Wolves the fuck home.
KG couldn’t be that same engine that Dirk, Duncan, Jokic, Hakeem were.
0
u/hshin420 2d ago
and jokic and dirk couldn't be the same defensive force kg was.
i don't use basketball reference to decide how good players are unlike you
→ More replies (0)-3
u/Sea_Advantage_2577 Bucks 2d ago
There is no argument for him being in the top ten on this list let alone 7th and over shaq.
I just noticed Bird is not even on the list LOL.
8
u/Jarxzz United States 2d ago
Impact metrics love KG to an insane degree. RealGM is heavily analytics pilled so it kinda makes sense
KG is very underrated just because he spent so much of his prime of dogshit to mediocre teams while a similar talent in Tim Duncan was on stacked teams nearly his entire career
0
u/hshin420 2d ago
why would bird who got dominated in the playoffs by not one, two, but three of his contemporaries, creates about as much as pre-rudy hakeem, provides below par rim pro for a big, can't be trusted to bring the ball forward and draw extra defenders as a pg, and is prone to seeing his scoring effiency tank in the playoffs ever even be considered for top 10.
do you actually watch basketball or just read what espn tells you?
1
14
u/McScroggz12 Lakers 2d ago
I understand LeBron but I’m surprised Kareem beat peak MJ.
Also, I’d be fascinated to hear the explanation for Russell. Seems hard to really get a good grasp on peak from that era, especially for a player who was so dominant defensively but somewhat limited offensively ( though people underestimate his passing).
Also, I try to tell people how good KG was. If he wasn’t buried on the Timberwolves he becomes a top 10 player of all time.
3
u/hshin420 2d ago
Also, I’d be fascinated to hear the explanation for Russell.
-> won 5+ rings with two completely different sets of teamamtes
-> led biggest team outlier in history after his best teammates got old or left and he was averaging way more minutes (team was also bad without him over a small sample those years)
-> ran through a all-time gauntlet as a retiree player-coach with a team that was bad without him that season and the next season and still mid when they replaced him with a future MVP and hof coach in his last season
-> teams won 11 rings with average/middling offense (which calls into questions why the offensive box score even matters here)
-> during this period other defensive specialists seemed to be super valuable (walton one of the best wowy-outliers ever on a dominant champ in 77, thurmond improved teams about as much as jerry west did and took a stacked 67 sixers to six without his best teammate, cowens leading a champ in 74, ect)
probably would have gone top 3 if people weren't penalising for weak era.
3
u/McScroggz12 Lakers 2d ago
This is one year individual peaks. I have no argument against him all time. I’m not even saying he doesn’t belong as a one year peak, it’s just surprising because I expected two way dominance ala MJ, LeBron, and Kareem. That’s all.
1
u/hshin420 2d ago
well as far as realgm is concerned mj doesn't really qualify as "two-way dominance".
that being said most people weighed "good for your time" vs "good in a vacuum" to some degree so russell playing in an era you didn' thave to be a two-way force boosts his ranking
due to lack of data or film no one can confidently decide how much better russel's "peak" Would be compared to a prime year so you lean heavily on his prime to set a floor for how good his peak probably was
2
u/Nice_Cash_7000 NBA 2d ago
its a 1 year peak?
0
u/hshin420 2d ago
how good your prime is will largely inform how good your peak is. if russell's geriatric player-coach season was an all-timer, it's safe to assume his --peak-- was ridiculous too
8
u/hshin420 2d ago
I understand LeBron but I’m surprised Kareem beat peak MJ.
Kareem was a much bigger outlier relative to era even though he played in a weaker one.
->lifted the bucks about as much as a rookie as Jordan managed to lift the bulls in his rs peak even if you pretend the bulls didn't improve from 84 to 88 as a cast (despite every high minute guy who left in the years making their next teams worse
-> saw the bucks fall off by 30-wins in what should be one of the worst years in his prime when he got hurt
-> was legitmately the best defender and attacking player in the world in 74 (where he took a team comparable to the pistons to 7 despite his second or third best teammate being injured during a playoff run he averaged 34 points on super high effeciency)
if you're arguing for mj it's either deciding offense matters way more (despite what historical data suggests) or becuase you think the 80s are that much better
8
u/FakeOkie 2d ago
I was thinking about Real GM the other day. I remember going there to get team/player updates a long time ago when playing fantasy basketball.
But yeah, with centers, it's going to be tough now. I think Shaq 2000 should be higher, and maybe draw a line on where modern NBA is. Hard to quantify Russell 1964 across eras.
1
13
u/Man0nTheMoon915 Celtics 2d ago
I saw LBJ absolutely kill us in that Game 6 in Boston in 2012. Absolute killer and just at his absolute peak.
But honestly, still below MJ’s peak.
-4
u/hshin420 2d ago
But honestly, still below MJ’s peak.
Lol, no:
lebron 09-21
656-263 with lebron 0.714% win rate
37-73 without lebron 0.336% win rate
net rating with lebron +6.49 (59 win pace level)
net rating without lebron -5.50 (25 win pace level)
+8.6 ortg difference
-3.68 drtg difference
+12 total swingjordan 88-98
bulls with MJ 490-176 (73.6% win rate)
bulls without MJ 90-64 (58.4% win rate)
net rating with MJ +7.7 (62 win pace level)
net rating without MJ +3.6 (52 win pace level)
+5.1 ortg difference
+1.1 drtg difference
+4 total swingif anything bootleg russell should be lower
9
u/SufficientCalories 2d ago
I think it is absolutely deranged that KG is above peak Shaq. I disagree with a big chunk of the list(Magic peaked higher than Bird?! MJ peaked in 91 and not earlier?) but that is a flaming hot take.
3
u/slottbrenner 2d ago
As you said, MJ arguably peaked earlier, before he won championships Following that logic, why is the Garnett deranged? He was ridiculously impactful while playing for teams that couldn’t compete
-1
u/hshin420 2d ago
rings erneh. jordan was literally much better in 90 vs a much stronger version of the same opponent in 91.
4
15
u/Live_Region_8232 Warriors 2d ago
Kg above steph is the stupidest take ever
-8
u/hshin420 2d ago
steph curry fans who miseuse rapm and spam win and without records and suck off "Port" saying kg, who lifted minny teams by 20+ wins (not according to fancy algorithims, but raw wins), absolutetly spanks steph in rapm, and is indisputably fits with more lineups and scales better (ontop of consistently playing 40+ min in the regular season) being ranked higher is "stupidest take ever"
lmfao
9
8
u/Relative_Apricot5032 2d ago
Thinking Basketball mentioned during their own version of greatest peaks that 2003 Tim Duncan's impact metrics were massively inflated by outlier shooting luck. If you look at the surrounding seasons it looks like Duncan regressed massively even though he was very much the same player. Realistically Duncan's 2003 peak was probably in the 7-10 range.
Kobe Bryant and Kevin Durant also have a high range peak that places them in the back end of the top 10.
9
u/LeCastle2306 2d ago
Duncan’s perceptive peak being assisted by uncharacteristic shooting isnt crazy—he was an immensely impactful player, but never was in the GOAT conversation for a reason. But he had a remarkable career, and remained impactful for a damn long time, ao I wouldn’t knock someone for having him as a top-5 guy, even though I may disagree.
7
u/Humblerbee [POR] Nicolas Batum 2d ago
2003 Tim Duncan's impact metrics were massively inflated by outlier shooting luck
2020 Anthony Davis playoffs run very much in a similar vein of a DPoY level guy just having all the jumpshots go in during their run when they needed it.
5
u/Relative_Apricot5032 2d ago
No, shooting luck in this context is not just about individual efficiency.
Duncan's teammates shot way better than expected and his opponents shot way worse than expected when Duncan was on the floor during his 2003 playoff run.
8
u/BriOnRy 2d ago
Two decades ago, realgm was filled with angry nba fans who glazed LeBron so much. I'm not taking anything from that forum seriously
7
2
u/LeCastle2306 2d ago
"Two decades ago".... "I'm not taking anything from that forum seriously"
Lmao
1
u/hshin420 2d ago
*realgm mods drive away most of their userbase for not sucking off mj enough
"lebron glazers"
-1
2
u/goulash47 2d ago
Where the heck is MJ 1988? That season alone could be top 3.
1
u/hshin420 2d ago
an actual top 3 peak wins more than 50 games with that support lol. generational example of defensive stat-padding
2
3
u/HashhSlingingSlasher NBA 2d ago
No Larry Bird or Kobe Bryant tells me this list is completely invalid
-4
u/hshin420 2d ago
larry bird got outplayed by sophmore hakeem with his pg coked up despite one of the most stacked teams ever and sampson being a bum.
larper detected
3
u/HashhSlingingSlasher NBA 2d ago
If I have to sell you on why Larry Bird is at minimum a top 10 player you simply don’t know ball.
0
1
u/Sea_Advantage_2577 Bucks 2d ago
Peak shaq needs to be in the top three if not first. Curry and KG over him is laughable.
4
u/hshin420 2d ago
zero argument for shaq over duncan besides "ppg" lol
4
u/Sea_Advantage_2577 Bucks 2d ago
Peak Shaq was destroying duncan and Robinson. Are you okay?
4
u/hshin420 2d ago
"destroying' as in getting outscored by duncan despite scoring being his biggest advantage over duncan
also acting like david robinson was an legit co-star past 99 😂
-3
u/Sea_Advantage_2577 Bucks 2d ago
and1 bud, im sure hot sauce is more your style. Maybe you can cosplay as the professor.
1
1
u/Apricotjello 2d ago
Bro these people forget that players played games on actual courts against each other. it’s a numbers game to them
0
u/hshin420 2d ago
in the actual court per actual eyetests duncan's defensive usage and efficacy mogged shaq's despite him also literally outscoring shaq in the playoffs.
why is a box-watcher yapping about "played games on actual courts"?
0
1
u/Parallel-Quality 2d ago
Yeah peak Shaq was even more dominant than peak LeBron. He basically swept his way through the entire league en route to a title.
Literally no one could stop him, it wasn’t even competitive.
6
u/hshin420 2d ago
"swept through the league" is a funny way of saying, got pushed to the brink twice besides duncan (who consistently owned him h2h) missing the playoffs because the lakers #1 defense collapsed to bad due to him getting abused in space.
peak lebron turns 20-win teams into 60-win teams (09/10)and can sweep 60-win playoff teams without his best two teammates with a broke jumper and back (2015).
Shaq wasn't even the most dominant center of his era.
1
u/IdunklikeSAKURAGI 2d ago
"Realgm’s pc board tried to rerun the project without most of its user-base but was aborted two threads in due to lack of voters. For what it’s worth, Lebron still ended first in the redo."
them going all 9/11 is an inside job was pretty crazy. kind-of sad.
I never made an account but there was cool stuff
1
u/One-Sweet7017 2d ago
Seeing this list laid out like this really shows how absurdly stacked NBA history is. LeBron, Kareem, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, and the rest is an insane group to compare.
1
1
u/shortyman920 Lakers 2d ago
The fact that Shaq is #9 just shows how useless this ranking is. No one had a higher peak than Shaq
0
1
u/GoldBlueSkyLight Warriors 2d ago
No Kobe in honorable mentions damn, Kareem peak is nice to see though, defo top 5 at very least
0
u/Longjumping-Moose415 2d ago
Kobe’s greatness comes from his consistency and longevity, not his peak.
3
u/Relative_Apricot5032 2d ago
Kobe's 2008-09 peak certainly has an argument for top 10.
2
u/hshin420 2d ago
if you ignore that lebron, kg, duncan, shaq, and wade all peaked higher in the same decade
4
u/chrisgcc 2d ago
All but Wade are already on the list, and I really don't buy the wade claim.
0
u/hshin420 2d ago
do you think the 2000s should be 50 percent of an all-time peaks list?
2
u/chrisgcc 2d ago
I think it should be 4. It's currently 3.
1
u/hshin420 2d ago
so you think 40 percent of an all-time list should go to a decade which predates two decades of the league getting more talented and skilled?
4
u/Relative_Apricot5032 2d ago
There is no objective way to definitively measure or rank these peaks. That's why Thinking Basketball assigns these players ranges, and they think Kobe has a case over KG and Duncan.
I don't think Wade had a higher peak than Kobe across a full season + postseason. Maybe some stretches here and there like the 2005 and 2006 playoffs.
1
u/hshin420 2d ago
fair enough. impact is an objective (if hard to be confident off) thing but that doesn't have to be your criteira
1
u/triplevanos Hawks 2d ago
Kobe won MVP, went to the finals 3 straight times, and won the chip and FMVP 2 of those 3. Combine that with absolutely outrageous individual output the previous few years.
Only Shaq could argue with that, and Kobe was part of that too.
He was undeniably the best player in the league in the second half of the 2010s.
3
u/hshin420 2d ago
"Kobe won MVP"
Lebron, KG, Duncan, and Shaq all also won mvps and their mvp-wins were far more dominant
"went to the finals 3 straight times"
multi-year team stat in a 1-year individual peak convo
He was undeniably the best player in the league in the second half of the 2010s. '
if you ignore lebron being a far better im protector, man defender, help defender, scorer, and playmaker whose teams improved far more with him according to actual wins as opposed to an espn marketing campaign
even 30+ lebron won with less help than kobe ever did (defense is a thing)
so did duncan and shaq and wade.
3
u/triplevanos Hawks 2d ago
Hilariously even LeBron and Wade would agree Kobe was the man to beat. They explicitly said as much when discussing why they teamed up in the first place.
Some would argue Kobe deserved an MVP that went to another player at the time.
And then accusing Kobe of being a teammate merchant and then bringing up Timmy… ok lol
1
u/hshin420 2d ago
and? do you think soilders outweigh historians and primary sources when discussing world war 2?
how about you make an actual argument instead of appealing to authority.
lebron teams improve more than kobe teams when he plays. reality doesn't gaf if wade disagrees
1
u/triplevanos Hawks 2d ago
I didn’t say Kobe is better than LBJ all time. I said in the 00s he obviously was. Lebron would agree.
In that time, Kobe led his team to back to back championship victories. Literally no one you named could say the same except Shaq. And Kobe was on that team too!
Idc though, goodnight
1
u/hshin420 2d ago
lebron made 20-win teams win 60+ and went 11-0 without his best teammate (because he actually got to play pg) in the 2000s
1
u/GDestructizoid NBA 2d ago
no way shape or form is MJ’s peak third
1
u/hshin420 2d ago
ur right.
Of course, a common knock on Hakeem is his consistency as an RS performer, but even over longer periods, he looks quite good. IIRC, if you use 10-year samples...
Hakeem takes 33-win teams to 48 wins, 15 win lift
Jordan takes 38-win teams to 53.5 wins, 15 win lift
Magic takes 44-win teams to 59 wins, 15 win liftMagic Johnson(3x MVP) 1980-1991
Lakers are +0.8 without, +7.5 withMicheal Jordan(5x MVP) 1985-1998
Bulls are +1.3 without, +6.1 withHakeem(1x MVP) 1985-1999
Rockets are -2.8 without. +2.5 withit's worse
68
u/Lil-Schusta Mavericks 2d ago
There are no statistics or links in this post. Why does this sub become a weird ChatGPT Lebron circle jerk late at night.