bastillon wrote:64-65 go over 62 mainly because he added the most dominant defenses of all time those 2 years. you're probably unaware of how much Russell impacted the game on defense. he was much more dominant defender than Magic was offensively. Celtics defense gave up like 10% pts less than the rest of the league, which is pretty much unheard of. their defense was falling off a cliff without Russell too
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1200351
I'm not aware of all of the advanced stats, and was not aware of the numbers you posted, pretty much what I've seen in that regard is estimated defensive ratings from that era, which did speak volumes about his ompact, though I'm not completely sold on the accuracy of such estimates with such little stats available from that era.
Regardless, I do think I've become fairly informed on Russell's impact from reading recaps of games(in which he was almost always the standout player for the Celtics), as well as quotes from players and coaches from that era in various books. Admittedly, I was largely ignorant on Russell and didn't have the same appreciation until doing legitimate research on him the last few years. And I certainly won't dispute that there are still numerous people who know more about him than I do, since I know this to be a fact. But I wouldn't say I'm unaware of his defensive impact, I'm not sure about a comparison to Magic's offense myself, I'd imagine such a comparison would be pretty difficult and subject, though I do know that the Lakers had a winning record without Magic during his career, however, this is deceptive since Kareem was the 1st option offensively through the '86 season, so a more fair comparison would be the Lakers without Magic during the time the Lakers were "Magic's team"('87-'91.) And even so, such comparisons would still have variables. I'm not taking a side one way or the other, and do believe you can support your stance, but that's another issue to me altogether.
Kobe is no doubt a better, more versatile offensive player than Dr J. but there's a massive gap between their defense.
Kobe's defense has been criticized a lot because of the quantitative stats, his overrated rep, gambling tendencies, inconsistent effort and many things. Kobe was called out for his defense by his coach as soon as 2003, by the late 00s he wasn't nearly as impactful as he had been during the 3peat era. you'll have to make a compelling case for Kobe's defense in 06-10 to treat you seriously on that front. there's just a massive evidence to the contrary. generally superstar guards don't tend to make much impact on D. they expand too much energy on their offense.
Dr J was a borderline dominant defender. he was playing on defensive-minded teams during his ABA days and then in the NBA. he was very active, grabbed a ton of DRB, gambled but mostly succesfully and he was just a great help defender overall. because of how close he played to the basket it was almost like having another shotblocker, especially thanks to his leaping abilities which Kobe could never match.
Well, as I said for now, I'm holding off on a comparison between Dr. J and Kobe defensively.
But I will say that I'm not making an argument for '06-'10 Kobe in general, or '03 Kobe, just '08 Kobe.
I am aware of the quote you mentioned about Kobe's defense from '03. It was in Phil's book "The Last Season", which I own a copy of, and have used when arguing with people who insist Kobe's defensive peak was '03. I consider it to be 2000, that's the best defense I've seen Kobe play on a consistent basis, and I'm convinced those who call 2003 his defensive peak are only doing so because of stats. Of course, this is not to be confused with Kobe's best season because Kobe was certainly a better player in 2003 than 2000, just not a better defender.
I do believe much of the criticism directed at Kobe's defense has been warranted, and some of the all-defensive selections were a complete joke, 2007 and 2011 standout in particular. But I was impressed by his defense in 2008, as a carryover from his focus defensively for team USA during the summer of '07 when he also dropped 20 pounds to regain quickness, he seemed to carry over this approach into the season and rededicate himself defensively.
Here are a couple of quotes.
A quote from Brian Shaw made in April 2008.
“His all-around game has been tremendous. He's still getting his points, but his rebounds are up, his assists are up, and his defense is really good.”
From a February 2008 SI article.
Kobe's defense, which had slipped a bit in recent years, has returned to its old nasty form.
I would post the links, but as a new member, I can't yet.
and it was the consensus...until we came across info that Oscar performed much better vs Celtics in 63 postseason (props to Reg) and we found out that it was due to his injury sustained earlier in the postseason (props to PTB Fan). 63 was an inferior RS campaign but more dominant playoffs (as a matter of fact, so dominant it put him over the top of several players). we would probably choose Oscar 64 if not for the PS injury.
I do know the injury you're referring. I was actually looking into the '64 Celtics/Royals series maybe a month or 2 ago. I read that it was an injury to his right wrist. I suspected it must be the postseason considering what a clear advantage his '64 regular season had. There's no question that his '63 postseason was significant with Cincinnati taking Boston to 7, which I believe led to some believing Cincinnati had a chance to overtake Boston in the east only to be dispatched in 5.
Personally, I don't agree with '63 being called Oscar's peak because of this series, but I appreciate the explanation and that's all I can ask for since I won't expect everyone to have the same values and criteria that I do. To explain my stance, Oscar's overall body of work in the '64 season is still greater to me. The 55 wins vs 42 wins are a factor for me, same with the superior numbers over a full season, if not the playoffs(when I get a chance to watch a player, I don't like to really consider numbers, but in this case, without that luxury, it is a factor as well) and Oscar's own opinion influenced my decision. Also, being voted MVP by the players over Wilt and Russell in some of their better years, though I will add that I was informed by Regul8r on another forum of the circumstances surrounding the voting regarding Russell, and that certainly has to be considered when evaluating Oscar's MVP. For players I've watched, and players in the era that sportswriters voted on the award, MVP votes don't influence my rankings at all, but when I can't watch a player, I'm more inclined to consider the opinions of those who did, particularly other players, and I believe there have definitely been less questionable selections by the players than sportswriters.
that's probably because you're focusing on boxscore stats and not Dirk's impact. boxscore is severely underrating Dirk's impact on both ends of the floor. you'd have to see some data of Mavs 11 with/without Dirk, especially during that postseason run. they ran over their opposition with Dirk on the floor, but failed miserably when he wasn't there. Dirk indeed doesn't seem so impressive statistically but he's just so dominant in impact stats that year that it's hard to pass up on his choice.
No, I did not reach this decision because of stats. They weren't really a factor. It was more of my preference for a dominant two-way big man and the company Ewing was in that season. I consider Dirk to have become an average defender since around the time Avery Johnson took over as coach, not a liability, which is a reputation he got earlier in his career that some still cling to, but I don't consider his impact at that end to be remotely comparable to Ewing's. I haven't seen Dirk control a game defensively like I've seen Ewing do multiple times in 1990 games, and of course later, but I'm trying to focus on just his peak season. If I were to make a case on numbers, well Ewing's 4 blocks per game alone make a compelling case for Ewing's defense being far beyond Dirk's since blocked shots are one of the 3 defensive stats I look at along with on/off court numbers and team defensive rating. Although all have flaws, but I can't imagine a scenario in which Dirk's defense is comparable to a player blocking 4 shots per game. Shot blockers typically have the greatest defensive impact to me, though not all shot blockers are even of course. But If I was basing my opinions on stats, I wouldn't have separated Robinson and Ewing as scorers. The stats show them to be very close peak vs peak, but my opinion was that Ewing had a significant advantage as a scorer, and offensive player at his peak as you know.
I also value a great post scorer because I believe that's the most reliable and efficient type of player to build your offense around. I also considered Ewing's passing to be competent that year, and sometimes impressive. Dirk is one of the players I'd call an exception to the post player rule. I've admired his game for many years, noted his ability in the playoffs and late in games, which always stood out, and defended him as a playoff performer when he was criticized so much for the '06 finals and '07 1st round. His shooting at his size and position is an asset that goes beyond stats because of how much of a mismatch that is, and big men are not as used to defending out to the 3 point line and always being aware of that. Dirk could score in a variety of ways, he was a big threat in the high post and mid-post area, while he also improved his low post game and was always a threat as the trailer on the break because of his 3 point shooting, as well as in screen/rolls and pick and pop plays. But outside of his ability with the ball, his impact was greater because you always had to be aware of him even when he didn't have the ball. And he became a good passer himself, which I noticed even more starting around '06 or '07. On top of that, he rarely turned the ball over.
But at the same time, I mentioned Ewing's qualities offensively and he could seem downright unstoppable himself. So while I don't find it unreasonable to take Dirk offensively, I think their offense peak vs peak comes down to what an individual values more. But Ewing's defensive was just much better to me, and that two-way impact is something I prefer. This criteria won't always tell you who the better player is, but imo, it does in this comparison.
