How about '03 as Kobe's peak?

[TroubleS0me]

its debatable, 2003 was 1 of his best years
but
2001 was his best year defensively

[G35]

I think for a player to have his "peak" or best season things have to go into alignment. First you have to be the "man" or primary option which, in this case he was not, having a just after his prime Shaq, on the team.

OTOH I think for a player to display their all-around prowess offense/defense/leadership a team should have been grown or built around that player e.g. Michael, Magic, Bird, Hakeem etc had teams grown around them. Just like how Shaq took a few years with the Lakers to have his MDE years.

I also think players lose something around age 25 to 27 years old, its almost imperceptible but I think it's primarily the stamina to maintain that high level for 82 games tends to drop after those years.

So this is why I don't think Kobe ever had a chance to have a "prime" and he fluctuates for different people. Most other big stars go to bad teams and they build around them. Kobe went to a championship level team and was just another piece to help Shaq/Lakers win a title. Then of course the Shaq/Kobe fallout and imo Kobe "wasted" his prime years rebuilding and having crap players around him. KG went through that as did Charles Barkley where they could have really put up some elite numbers if things had aligned for them.

So after all that I do think Kobe was at his best in 2003; 2004 was just a bad year for Kobe on and off the court. 2005 he was injured, 2006 was his last prime year imo, and he put up some incredible numbers but he had to do too much lifting and his defense suffered. As a player I do like 2008-2010 Kobe but he was not the same athlete and had lost a step, even if he was still elite.

I just think it would be hard for any player to put up prime numbers sharing the ball with another great player, for example Durant is never going to have his prime years sharing with Westbrook. Now that's really not the most important thing for his legacy, he needs to win some titles, but in these prime/peak comparisons players suffer who play with other greats who are also in/near their prime......

[thizznation]

I think for a player to have his "peak" or best season things have to go into alignment. First you have to be the "man" or primary option which in this case he was not have a just after prime Shaq on the team.

OTOH I think for a player to display their all-around prowess offense/defense/leadership a team should have been grown or built around that player e.g. Michael, Magic, Bird, Hakeem etc had teams grown around them. Just like how Shaq took a few years with the Lakers to have his MDE years.

I also think players lose something around age 25 to 27 years old, its almost imperceptible but I think it's primarily the stamina to maintain that high level for 82 games tends to drop after those years.

So this is why I don't think Kobe ever had a chance to have a "prime" and he fluctuates for different people. Most other big stars go to bad teams and they build around them. Kobe went to a championship level team and was just another piece to help Shaq/Lakers win a title. Then of course the Shaq/Kobe fallout and imo Kobe "wasted" his prime years rebuilding and having crap players around him. KG went through that as did Charles Barkley where they could have really put up some elite numbers if things had aligned for them.

So after all that I do think Kobe was at his best in 2003; 2004 was just a bad year for Kobe on and off the court. 2005 he was injured, 2006 was his last prime year imo, and he put up some incredible numbers but he had to do too much lifting and his defense suffered. As a player I do like 2008-2010 Kobe but he was not the same athlete and had lost a step, even if he was still elite.

I just think it would be hard for any player to put up prime numbers sharing the ball with another great player, for example Durant is never going to have his prime years sharing with Westbrook. Now that's really not the most important thing for his legacy, he needs to win some titles, but in these prime/peak comparisons players suffer who play with other greats who are also in/near their prime......

Cool post. Great job articulating the context behind how Kobe's peak can seem underwhelming when compared to other players. It is also interesting to speculate Bryant's ceiling if a younger version of him was placed onto the 08, 09, and 10 teams.

[picc]

So after all that I do think Kobe was at his best in 2003; 2004 was just a bad year for Kobe on and off the court. 2005 he was injured, 2006 was his last prime year imo, and he put up some incredible numbers but he had to do too much lifting and his defense suffered. As a player I do like 2008-2010 Kobe but he was not the same athlete and had lost a step, even if he was still elite.

Lets take this. Say he decided to conserve more energy for defense in 2006 and passed the ball around a little more for the rest of the team to get involved. Are we better for it?

Probably not. At best we're about the same, but the team needed him to go nuclear much more often than they needed him to run around trying to be Scottie Pippen. He was as good as he could be for that team to function as well as it could.

To boot, when we did need him to play defense, he did. Every marquee matchup he was guarding the other teams perimeter star come 4th quarter. Not a consistent thing since not every team has a star, no, but he wasn't just devoid of any defense that year. The ceiling on that team was probably 45 wins, and a version of him from any other season that played more D or passed more wasn't going to increase that.

Otoh, 2003 Bryant was the only version that had the motor to do all of that offensively, and still put up more of a consistent defensive effort if called upon. Which is why he'd have the most to offer any team regardless of make-up.

I agree on 2008-2010. 2008 was the last year you could count on him getting to the rim if his shot wasn't falling. Downhill after that.

[Clyde Frazier]

I've been voting 09 in the peaks project, but don't have a problem with 03. I've noticed I've been leaning towards later years for peaks as I'm favoring more refined play over sheer athleticism. Don't feel strongly enough about Kobe's career in that sense to care, though. He was certainly impressive in 03.

[Blazers-1977]

2002-03 Lakers were a lot more arrogant then previous seasons. I mean they started 11-19 and after that they said the regular season doesnt matter and by playoff time no one will be able to beat us. While they did play like the 2000-2002 lakers for the rest of the season after that point(going 39-13) that mantality that they could turn it on and off at any time caused them to get bounced in the 2nd round

[Quotatious]

I've been voting 09 in the peaks project, but don't have a problem with 03. I've noticed I've been leaning towards later years for peaks as I'm favoring more refined play over sheer athleticism. Don't feel strongly enough about Kobe's career in that sense to care, though. He was certainly impressive in 03.

I also have '09 as Kobe's peak. It's an unpopular choice, vast majority of people (especially Laker fans) would take '08 over '09, if we are talking about those older versions, but I'm extremely impressed with Bryant's '09 postseason run. He really improved his game compared to the regular season - all of his advanced metrics clearly went up in the playoffs, and that's even as he played a lot more minutes (36.1 in RS, up to 40.9 in the playoffs), and faced a top 10 defensive team in every round. He didn't have even one poor series in '09. Even Artest and Battier couldn't really slow him down (he shot only 53.5% TS in that series, but that's mostly because of shot selection - his shooting splits were pretty much in line with his career numbers - 45.3% FG, 34.4% 3P, 83.3% FT). I don't think people have enough appreciation for his consistency that year. I remember his defense being pretty solid that year, especially in the playoffs (he did a great job with his help defense against Dwight in the finals). He averaged only 36.1 minutes per game in the 2008-09 regular season, which was the second lowest between 1999 and 2013 (only 2011 was lower), which was a really good idea, as it kept him fresh for the playoffs (but I don't remember Kobe coasting in the RS that year, I thought he played with good effort on both ends, and so did Pau - that's what allowed the Lakers to win 65 RS games in the Western conference, even with Bynum playing only 50 games).
His post game was already very refined ('10 looks slightly better in terms of post game, than '09, because he had very comparable efficiency with a clearly higher volume, but '09 was already great, and close to his peak in terms of post game), and his mid-range jumper (both 10-16 feet, as well as 16 feet out ot the 3-point line) was very close to its peak form, too.
Also, I think his leadership and "intangibles" was at its best. He was a man on a mission that year, wanted to prove that he could lead the Lakers to a title as "the man", and seemed to be really upset about the way he played in the 2008 finals, wanted to redeem himself. Kobe never lacked confidence, we all know that, but in '09, it was totally unabashed, no matter who he was playing against.
He wasn't as athletic as he was in '01, '03, or even '06/'07, but still an elite athlete, and he didn't decline THAT MUCH compared to those earlier years. I think there's a clear difference between '09 and '10 Kobe, in terms of athleticism, though. He started going to the post a lot more in '10, to compensate for his diminishing athleticism (590 post ups in '10, compared to only 340 in '09).

I believe that '09 Bryant still could've easily averaged 30+ ppg in the RS, if he played on a weak team (he averaged 30.2 in the playoffs, against very good defenses), but obviously he had a GOAT level second option - peak Gasol, to share the offensive load with.

[Cyrusman122000]

I've been voting 09 in the peaks project, but don't have a problem with 03. I've noticed I've been leaning towards later years for peaks as I'm favoring more refined play over sheer athleticism. Don't feel strongly enough about Kobe's career in that sense to care, though. He was certainly impressive in 03.

I also have '09 as Kobe's peak. It's an unpopular choice, vast majority of people (especially Laker fans) would take '08 over '09, if we are talking about those older versions, but I'm extremely impressed with Bryant's '09 postseason run. He really improved his game compared to the regular season - all of his advanced metrics clearly went up in the playoffs, and that's even as he played a lot more minutes (36.1 in RS, up to 40.9 in the playoffs), and faced a top 10 defensive team in every round. He didn't have even one poor series in '09. Even Artest and Battier couldn't really slow him down (he shot only 53.5% TS in that series, but that's mostly because of shot selection - his shooting splits were pretty much in line with his career numbers - 45.3% FG, 34.4% 3P, 83.3% FT). I don't think people have enough appreciation for his consistency that year. I remember his defense being pretty solid that year, especially in the playoffs (he did a great job with his help defense against Dwight in the finals). He averaged only 36.1 minutes per game in the 2008-09 regular season, which was the second lowest between 1999 and 2013 (only 2011 was lower), which was a really good idea, as it kept him fresh for the playoffs (but I don't remember Kobe coasting in the RS that year, I thought he played with good effort on both ends, and so did Pau - that's what allowed the Lakers to win 65 RS games in the Western conference, even with Bynum playing only 50 games).
His post game was already very refined ('10 looks slightly better in terms of post game, than '09, because he had very comparable efficiency with a clearly higher volume, but '09 was already great, and close to his peak in terms of post game), and his mid-range jumper (both 10-16 feet, as well as 16 feet out ot the 3-point line) was very close to its peak form, too.
Also, I think his leadership and "intangibles" was at its best. He was a man on a mission that year, wanted to prove that he could lead the Lakers to a title as "the man", and seemed to be really upset about the way he played in the 2008 finals, wanted to redeem himself. Kobe never lacked confidence, we all know that, but in '09, it was totally unabashed, no matter who he was playing against.
He wasn't as athletic as he was in '01, '03, or even '06/'07, but still an elite athlete, and he didn't decline THAT MUCH compared to those earlier years. I think there's a clear difference between '09 and '10 Kobe, in terms of athleticism, though. He started going to the post a lot more in '10, to compensate for his diminishing athleticism (590 post ups in '10, compared to only 340 in '09).

I believe that '09 Bryant still could've easily averaged 30+ ppg in the RS, if he played on a weak team (he averaged 30.2 in the playoffs, against very good defenses), but obviously he had a GOAT level second option - peak Gasol, to share the offensive load with.

If Pau is a GOAT level second option what does that make Kobe in the early 00s for Shaq? Or Dwyane Wade for Lebron or Pippen? Or even Kareem for Magic.

[G35]

So after all that I do think Kobe was at his best in 2003; 2004 was just a bad year for Kobe on and off the court. 2005 he was injured, 2006 was his last prime year imo, and he put up some incredible numbers but he had to do too much lifting and his defense suffered. As a player I do like 2008-2010 Kobe but he was not the same athlete and had lost a step, even if he was still elite.

Lets take this. Say he decided to conserve more energy for defense in 2006 and passed the ball around a little more for the rest of the team to get involved. Are we better for it?

Probably not. At best we're about the same, but the team needed him to go nuclear much more often than they needed him to run around trying to be Scottie Pippen. He was as good as he could be for that team to function as well as it could.

To boot, when we did need him to play defense, he did. Every marquee matchup he was guarding the other teams perimeter star come 4th quarter. Not a consistent thing since not every team has a star, no, but he wasn't just devoid of any defense that year. The ceiling on that team was probably 45 wins, and a version of him from any other season that played more D or passed more wasn't going to increase that.

Otoh, 2003 Bryant was the only version that had the motor to do all of that offensively, and still put up more of a consistent defensive effort if called upon. Which is why he'd have the most to offer any team regardless of make-up.

I agree on 2008-2010. 2008 was the last year you could count on him getting to the rim if his shot wasn't falling. Downhill after that.

Yeah I agree, Kobe passing the ball to Smush, Walton, or Kwame more to conserve energy for defense would not have made the Lakers better. It's like how SOME people think James Harden is the best player in the league even though he is crap on defense. MVP-level offense makes up for piss poor defense......

[D.Brasco]

I've been voting 09 in the peaks project, but don't have a problem with 03. I've noticed I've been leaning towards later years for peaks as I'm favoring more refined play over sheer athleticism. Don't feel strongly enough about Kobe's career in that sense to care, though. He was certainly impressive in 03.

You think 2009 was his peak year?

I put up a thread asking where Kobe ranked that year and a lot of the response were not just him behind LeBron and Wade but also guys like Paul and Howard even.

Where do you rank him that season?

[bastillon]

To me Kobe was at his best in 06-09. Offensively he was MUUCH better than in 03. Had more reliable ways to score, better passer (more willing) had greater offensive impact overall, was harder to gameplan for in the playoffs.

Do you have evidence to support the hyperbolic claim of Kobe being "muuch" better offensively in 06-09 than 03? Stats don't really back that up, his scoring was about as efficient league-relative wise, he had his career high in assists that year too.

I don't have time to dig in the stats but I'd say Kobe was just a lot more versatile offensively in 06-09. His post up was dramatically better, for instance. I don't really remember young Kobe playing that much post, meanwhile in 08-10 in particular Kobe was playing a lot in that area. Also I'd argue that Kobe had much better pace. Knew when to score, when to set up his teammates. Was much more experienced playing in high pressure situations and against strong playoff defenses. 03 Kobe had some experience but 08 Kobe was a VETERAN.

And most importantly, can't believe nobody pointed this out, Kobe 03 had a shoulder injury in the playoffs and that alone makes that season one of his worst during his prime. Indeed, if you look at what Kobe was doing in the playoffs, he clearly wasn't himself. In particular he was at times very ineffective shooting the ball. IIRC Kobe got that injury from a dunk early vs. Wolves and never really recovered during those playoffs. That was actually one of the reasons why Lakers lost so easily in that series vs Spurs. It didn't matter all that much vs Wolves because they were playing Peeler/Gill/Szczerbiak so it really didn't matter whether Kobe was injured, he's gonna dominate this garbage anyway. But it did matter a lot vs Spurs.

[tsherkin]

Just like how Shaq took a few years with the Lakers to have his MDE years.

Good post all around, but I'd be careful with this part.

By his second season, Shaq was a 29.3 ppg scorer (-0.4 from his career-high)... the same average he'd use to lead the entire league in scoring the following season (94-95), although he'd score more per-100-possessions later on in L.A. by design. In the 93-94 season, Shaq led the league in FG% at 59.9%. He was a 120 ORTG guy. .252 WS/48 is similar to all but his absolute apex seasons (he only exceed that 3 times: .255 in 99, .262 in 02 and .283 in 2000). 120 ORTG was, by 3 points, his career-high ORTG. Best season of his career on the offensive glass, OBPM of +5.4 fairly comparable to 01-03 (+5.7 in 01, +5.5 in 02 and 03).

He was fairly similar. The arrival of Phil Jackson and a sensible deployment of stretch roleplayers, coupled with Kobe's breakout, were highly helpful to him, but his ultimate impact was very, very similar across a broad spectrum. In L.A., he got bigger and a bit healthier, but by and large, he was fairly similar as a player from year two onwards, leastwise strictly in terms of his actual in-game effect on the team's chance to win. Save for the two best seasons of his career, he was pretty close in pretty much every measure, you know?

Anyway.

03 seems as good a choice as any. I personally think 08 or 09 are better choices, because he was playing a smarter brand of basketball instead of fighting with the idea that Shaq was the Man. He'd gotten that out of his system and established himself as top-dog. He'd had a chance to learn what it was like trying too bootstrap a crap squad without enough help, which is a formative part of a volume scorer's career. He'd diversified his skills some, was still good on D.

As a peak year, hmm. The narrative supports it. He posted a career-high scoring rate. Extra minutes made his APG look a little better, but were the same per-minute as the year before. Shot worse under the arc than he had since 98, but he had the best year of his career from 3. ORTG wasn't even close to his peak, and was worse than his two preceding years. Similar scoring efficiency and draw rate to 01 and 02 but the same .210 WS/48 he'd average in 04 (career high at that point, and 2nd best behind his 06 season). Same OBPM as 07, worse than 06. Tied with 99 as the best DBPM of his career (+0.3). One of three 30+ ppg seasons in his career.

These are just some of the numbers; there are other things that go into deciding peak, but to be honest, statistically it looks not like his peak at all. It looks like one of the best seasons he had, but it seems pretty clear that his statistical peak was 06 and it was wasted on a crap squad. Hard to tell.

You can definitely make the argument for balance between offense and defense, though, and the maturation of his all-around game.

[Swagalicious]

03 really is interesting. Picc already laid out most of my arguments, so yeah. It's the version of Kobe that would be best suited for other eras, and could offer the most to a team all-around. The leadership angle is completely overblown at this point. It's not like he was Spree or Lance Stephenson. He was very much cool and composed enough to lead a team by himself, provided it wasn't full of Smushes at every spot. put him in the 80's or today - he's punishing the rim like D-Wade. As it played out, though, that version wasn't better than 06, imo.

He basically shot us into the playoffs with that 40 pt streak. We were under .500 before he spazzed out. I also don't get how Shaq always gets a pass for 03, he was hurt and out of shape for a while, and played no defense. Kobe was our best defensive player in the RS, like he was in 01, which is something that seems to get lost in the shuffle these days.

[tsherkin]

Kobe was our best defensive player in the RS, like he was in 01, which is something that seems to get lost in the shuffle these days.

Definitely disagree with that. Even though Shaq was clearly taking plays off, he was still a fine post defender and was still exerting a more palpable force on the defensive end than Kobe... and a more regular one. There is only so much that a perimeter guy can do; they have a more limited cross section of possessions where their presence is relevant anyway, the more so in earlier eras of the league.

[Swagalicious]

Kobe was our best defensive player in the RS, like he was in 01, which is something that seems to get lost in the shuffle these days.

Definitely disagree with that. Even though Shaq was clearly taking plays off, he was still a fine post defender and was still exerting a more palpable force on the defensive end than Kobe... and a more regular one. There is only so much that a perimeter guy can do; they have a more limited cross section of possessions where their presence is relevant anyway, the more so in earlier eras of the league.

Well 03 is maybe a bit harsh, comcerning Shaq. Once he stopped talking **** and got healthy he played good defense. 01, though, i'm tellim ya, we didn't drop off like that defensively for nothing. It still baffles me how we won as many games as we did with that D. Shaquille was invisible until fish came back and LA started dominating.

[G35]

Just like how Shaq took a few years with the Lakers to have his MDE years.

Good post all around, but I'd be careful with this part.

By his second season, Shaq was a 29.3 ppg scorer (-0.4 from his career-high)... the same average he'd use to lead the entire league in scoring the following season (94-95), although he'd score more per-100-possessions later on in L.A. by design. In the 93-94 season, Shaq led the league in FG% at 59.9%. He was a 120 ORTG guy. .252 WS/48 is similar to all but his absolute apex seasons (he only exceed that 3 times: .255 in 99, .262 in 02 and .283 in 2000). 120 ORTG was, by 3 points, his career-high ORTG. Best season of his career on the offensive glass, OBPM of +5.4 fairly comparable to 01-03 (+5.7 in 01, +5.5 in 02 and 03).

He was fairly similar. The arrival of Phil Jackson and a sensible deployment of stretch roleplayers, coupled with Kobe's breakout, were highly helpful to him, but his ultimate impact was very, very similar across a broad spectrum. In L.A., he got bigger and a bit healthier, but by and large, he was fairly similar as a player from year two onwards, leastwise strictly in terms of his actual in-game effect on the team's chance to win. Save for the two best seasons of his career, he was pretty close in pretty much every measure, you know?

Oh I agree, I think Shaq was dominant from the beginning no doubt about it.

Its just conventional wisdom to say someone was at their peak during their winningest seasons. I don't necessarily agree that an individual is at their best when they win a title (example Kobe during 2008-2010 is not at his best imo) but it seems to line up with a lot of other "primes" e.g. Hakeem 1994 and 1995, KG 2004, Iverson 2001, Jordan 1991-1993, Bird 1986, Magic 1987 etc etc.

It could be argued a player becomes better all around in using his teammates better and not forcing the issue per se, which is better for the team's goals. However, I still think most players are physically at their best from ages 24-27, ergo they have the potential for putting up peak numbers.

I think players like Durant, Harden, Westbrook are really close to their peaks right now but we may not necessarily see their best because they are trying to win titles and they may have to compromise parts of their game to get everyone involved.

This is why I do not like to judge a players peak season based on pure numbers, I would rather go off of how I feel they could do potentially, which I admit leaves open to lots of interpretation. So with Shaq, yes he dominated in 2000 and 2001 but I think he was just as good in some other years. The only knock on Shaq is that he missed a lot of games.

From his last season in ORL (1996) through his tenure in LA (1997-2004) his missed games:

1996 - 28
1997 - 31
1998 - 22
1999 - 1 (strike season)
2000 - 3
2001 - 8
2002 - 15
2003 - 15
2004 - 15

It's funny how it seemed Shaq seemed to time it where he would miss 15 games a year, but it does make sense that his prime would be from 1999-2001 because those are the years he was actually on the court the most. However, I think his actual play on the court was near his peak after his rookie year until around 2003.....

[Clyde Frazier]

I've been voting 09 in the peaks project, but don't have a problem with 03. I've noticed I've been leaning towards later years for peaks as I'm favoring more refined play over sheer athleticism. Don't feel strongly enough about Kobe's career in that sense to care, though. He was certainly impressive in 03.

You think 2009 was his peak year?

I put up a thread asking where Kobe ranked that year and a lot of the response were not just him behind LeBron and Wade but also guys like Paul and Howard even.

Where do you rank him that season?

I think you'd get a similar answer on here for most of kobe's seasons. I'd have to go back and look to see where I'd rank him. Can't right now.

[tsherkin]

Oh I agree, I think Shaq was dominant from the beginning no doubt about it.

Its just conventional wisdom to say someone was at their peak during their winningest seasons.

Certainly a good point.

It could be argued a player becomes better all around in using his teammates better and not forcing the issue per se, which is better for the team's goals. However, I still think most players are physically at their best from ages 24-27, ergo they have the potential for putting up peak numbers.

Usually, yeah. I suppose it depends on if you're examining physical peak or if you are examining performance peak. It's typically true that guys peak in their late 20s, though, because qualitatively, they still have most of their physical tools at top level while combining experience and developed skill.

This is why I do not like to judge a players peak season based on pure numbers, I would rather go off of how I feel they could do potentially, which I admit leaves open to lots of interpretation. So with Shaq, yes he dominated in 2000 and 2001 but I think he was just as good in some other years. The only knock on Shaq is that he missed a lot of games.

With Shaq, he had the potential to be better in certain seasons, but he clearly peaked in L.A. by some metrics. Certainly, his per-possession scoring output and OBPM line up with conventional wisdom about his performance, and what defensive data we have (plus accolades therefore!) do so as well. But it's also true that, as you note, he missed a bunch of games early on in his L.A. career, and that Phil didn't show til the second half of his tenure there. That mattered as well.

It's funny how it seemed Shaq seemed to time it where he would miss 15 games a year, but it does make sense that his prime would be from 1999-2001 because those are the years he was actually on the court the most. However, I think his actual play on the court was near his peak after his rookie year until around 2003.....

Reasonably close, yep. 99-00 really does stand out in a variety of ways, and there are several things to suggest that the three-peat years were really strong that aren't related to team performance. Very interesting stuff. "Peak" and "prime" and such are sufficiently nebulous concepts that one can define them in several different ways.


It's good to watch winning versus individual performance, though. Jordan was clearly post-prime in the second three-peat, for example, even in 96, but many forget that and treat it as if he was the same player as from 88-93. I happen to enjoy 09 Kobe the most, but the numbers definitely back up younger Kobe as authoring a greater impact on team offense, and of course he was scoring a lot more when he had weaker teams in his younger days.

[Lost92Bricks]

I don't think people fully understand the difference between a player's peak and their best overall season. It's not always the same thing.

2003 isn't Kobe's best overall season because of circumstances (starting the season slow with injuries to him and Shaq, rest of the Lakers sucking, shoulder injury in the playoffs, etc) but it's the best version of him as a basketball player. His combination of athleticism, skill level, experience, effort on both ends was never better than it was in that season. I really don't see how he was better in '09 for example besides being more mature which I don't think outweighs the advantages he had in '03.

Same thing with CP3. His peak as a basketball player is absolutely in 2009. He was never better than he was in that season. He had better overall seasons in '08 and '15 only because he was in a better situation on a better team and didn't have to deal with any major injuries. Put any other version of him on the '09 Hornets and you get worse results.

[picc]

I don't think people fully understand the difference between a player's peak and their best overall season. It's not always the same thing.

2003 isn't Kobe's best overall season because of circumstances (starting the season slow with injuries to him and Shaq, rest of the Lakers sucking, shoulder injury in the playoffs, etc) but it's the best version of him as a basketball player. His combination of athleticism, skill level, experience, effort on both ends was never better than it was in that season. I really don't see how he was better in '09 for example besides being more mature.

Good points.

I have a hard time reconciling peak threads with what we should consider. Are we talking who had a better season, or who was the better player in a vacuum?

Players seasons are largely circumstantial, and a lot of what they do is dependent on the team context and coaching. Should we evaluate superiority based on the particular season, or what that player, at that time, was capable of providing to any given team given his abilities at that time?

If 2006 Kobe had a team good enough to make a deep playoff run, he'd be everyone's runoff vote. 08/09 Kobe is getting credit for something 06 Bryant would have looked even better doing with the proper team. Goes for 03 as well, injury aside. His playoff run seems best in 09 mostly because he capped it against a much more solvable defense in the finals than in the previous year. 06 is being penalized for being on a bad team.

Choice is 2003 or 2006, simply because either of those players transported to the late 00's Lakers, with the roles they would take on that particular team and the options their better motor and athleticism provides on offense, defense, and the boards makes the Lakers better than they were. And vice versa, both teams are worse off with later versions, regardless of how mature they were.