RealGM 50 Highest Peaks Project Thread

[MisterWestside]

I don't see a big difference between this and the top 100 project, to be honest (which is a good thing, because I enjoyed the top 100). I think people respect the hell out of certain players, while others may not respect those players quite as much (but just as passionately). So you might get some heated debate. But all in all, it's makes for some pretty fun conversation, and everyone stands to learn from it.

Bias is a powerful thing.

Even for ardent "stats" people.

[SDChargers#1]

I have to say I am pretty shocked so far. We already have multiple seasons nominated where the player didn't even win the title that year. I have to say the disregard for winning the championship which is the ultimate goal in sports kind of baffles me. Eh, to each his own I guess.

[therealbig3]

I have to say I am pretty shocked so far. We already have multiple seasons nominated where the player didn't even win the title that year. I have to say the disregard for winning the championship which is the ultimate goal in sports kind of baffles me. Eh, to each his own I guess.

You would take 96-98 MJ over 90 MJ?

A player playing their best doesn't always translate to a championship. Kobe is another example. Some people feel that 01 or 09 might be his best seasons, but I've seen way more people go with 03, 06, 07, or 08, and he didn't win a title in any of those years.

[SDChargers#1]

I would take '93 MJ over any of his 80's versions that put up better numbers.

There are some I understand, like '04 Garnett who clearly was way better than '08 Garnett. But the choices of '09 Lebron and '77 Kareem baffle me a little bit. They were great years by any stretch of the imagination, but when they have years like '71 and '12 where they still put up absurd numbers (in '71 his numbers were even better) and came out with title, it is hard for me not to side with them. Then again, I do put a lot of weight on winning.

[bastillon]

I would take '93 MJ over any of his 80's versions that put up better numbers.

There are some I understand, like '04 Garnett who clearly was way better than '08 Garnett. But the choices of '09 Lebron and '77 Kareem baffle me a little bit. They were great years by any stretch of the imagination, but when they have years like '71 and '12 where they still put up absurd numbers (in '71 his numbers were even better) and came out with title, it is hard for me not to side with them. Then again, I do put a lot of weight on winning.

Kareem 77 was definitely better than Kareem 71. first of all, his scoring skills were better as he developed legit turnaround jumpshot. second, his passing was a lot better. simple eye test tells you that. his defense seems to be a lot better as well.

the difference between 71 and 77 in terms of team performance was clearly his supporting cast. Kareem himself was a lot more polished in 77. 71 isn't even all that impressive to me because he didn't dominate any legit competition. he didn't face Wilt or Thurmond at full strength, Reed was out that year, Celtics were re-building etc. more importantly Oscar made HUGE impact that year. Bucks 70 and Bucks 71 might seem like they're reasonably close in terms of wins but that's very misleading, SRS gap was far wider than that (details here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1137796 ).

your analysis is simply lackadaisical. you're looking at basic facts (yay, he won a chip!) and raw numbers (yay, ppg/rpg/apg!) while completely ignoring context. competition, teammates, injuries - all of that matters tremendously and Kareem just had a very easy way to that title in 71... and even then his individual performance was easily better in 77 postseason.

in 71 Kareem posted 26/17/2.5 @ 51% FG while being much more of a finisher with Oscar orchestrating the offense. in 77 Kareem posted 35/18/4 @ 61% FG while being the only guy capable of creating shot for himself OR for anyone else. I don't know how one would look at these numbers at think that somehow Kareem 71 was better. you were probably fooled by meaningless RS. more importantly, young Kareem seemed to be overwhelmed by the physicality of the postseason. Kareem struggled with his efficiency vs Wilt (71-72), Thurmond (72-73) and Cowens (74 finals). he was sub-50% TS vs those 3... Kareem 77 faced the best defensive center in the league and mopped the floor with him, despite being doubled and tripled quite often (though it was soft help, not mid-90s Sonics/Bulls traps or anything).

[SDChargers#1]

I would take '93 MJ over any of his 80's versions that put up better numbers.

There are some I understand, like '04 Garnett who clearly was way better than '08 Garnett. But the choices of '09 Lebron and '77 Kareem baffle me a little bit. They were great years by any stretch of the imagination, but when they have years like '71 and '12 where they still put up absurd numbers (in '71 his numbers were even better) and came out with title, it is hard for me not to side with them. Then again, I do put a lot of weight on winning.

Kareem 77 was definitely better than Kareem 71. first of all, his scoring skills were better as he developed legit turnaround jumpshot. second, his passing was a lot better. simple eye test tells you that. his defense seems to be a lot better as well.

the difference between 71 and 77 in terms of team performance was clearly his supporting cast. Kareem himself was a lot more polished in 77. 71 isn't even all that impressive to me because he didn't dominate any legit competition. he didn't face Wilt or Thurmond at full strength, Reed was out that year, Celtics were re-building etc. more importantly Oscar made HUGE impact that year. Bucks 70 and Bucks 71 might seem like they're reasonably close in terms of wins but that's very misleading, SRS gap was far wider than that (details here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1137796 ).

your analysis is simply lackadaisical. you're looking at basic facts (yay, he won a chip!) and raw numbers (yay, ppg/rpg/apg!) while completely ignoring context. competition, teammates, injuries - all of that matters tremendously and Kareem just had a very easy way to that title in 71... and even then his individual performance was easily better in 77 postseason.

in 71 Kareem posted 26/17/2.5 @ 51% FG while being much more of a finisher with Oscar orchestrating the offense. in 77 Kareem posted 35/18/4 @ 61% FG while being the only guy capable of creating shot for himself OR for anyone else. I don't know how one would look at these numbers at think that somehow Kareem 71 was better. you were probably fooled by meaningless RS. more importantly, young Kareem seemed to be overwhelmed by the physicality of the postseason. Kareem struggled with his efficiency vs Wilt (71-72), Thurmond (72-73) and Cowens (74 finals). he was sub-50% TS vs those 3... Kareem 77 faced the best defensive center in the league and mopped the floor with him, despite being doubled and tripled quite often (though it was soft help, not mid-90s Sonics/Bulls traps or anything).

I see, well at least I heard it out of your mouth. Regular season is meaningless...gotcha. I wish people would have just said at the beginning of the project, the top 50 highest playoff peaks of all time. It would have saved a lot of time

Trust me I understand the arguments made for '77 Kareem. Your holier than thou attitude and dismissiveness is a little concerning. Above wasn't my analysis, it was a statement, so please don't treat it as such. It was a statement based mostly on my point about how winning matters to me, and how it is weird that it doesn't seem to matter at all to many on this project.

And for a specific example of some of the hypocriticalness on this board. Wilt used to completely outperform Russell regularly, but the Celtics would always win. People completely dismiss that Wilt. When Kareem does the same to Walton, and the Blazers win (in a sweep mind you), somehow that leads to credit for Kareem.

[bastillon]

I see, well at least I heard it out of your mouth. Regular season is meaningless...gotcha. I wish people would have just said at the beginning of the project, the top 50 highest playoff peaks of all time. It would have saved a lot of time

what do you think about RS ? it it MORE important than the playoffs ? what do you have to say about Kareem 77 vastly outperforming anything he had ever done before in the playoffs ? Kareem never came close to what he was doing in the spring of '77. he was legendary.

Trust me I understand the arguments made for '77 Kareem. Your holier than thou attitude and dismissiveness is a little concerning. Above wasn't my analysis, it was a statement, so please don't treat it as such. It was a statement based mostly on my point about how winning matters to me, and how it is weird that it doesn't seem to matter at all to many on this project.

if it wasn't your analysis, you're welcome to present your case for 71 Kareem. winning is what matters to all of us so simply stating that it matters to you has very little value as an argument. Kareem 77 was better at winning than his 71 version. he was more efficient and more productive while facing better competition. he was more skilled as well. Kareem 77 couldn't win because he lost his 2nd and 3rd best players to injuries, was playing without ballhandling guards OR power forward on the team. his team couldn't rebound OR bring the ball up the court without turning it over at will. meanwhile Kareem 71 got outscored by Wilt in 3 of 5 games in '71 WCFs but his team was so stacked that it didn't really matter. there is a vast difference in terms of conjuncture, health and luck. you never mentioned any of those factors so your analysis is flawed as far as I'm concerned.

And for a specific example of some of the hypocriticalness on this board. Wilt used to completely outperform Russell regularly, but the Celtics would always win. People completely dismiss that Wilt. When Kareem does the same to Walton, and the Blazers win (in a sweep mind you), somehow that leads to credit for Kareem.

Wilt only outplayed Russell in 67 (IMO Russell was injured and I remember Hondo saying the same thing but whatever). otherwise he was getting outplayed impact wise. Russell's value isn't his scoring, it's his defense. there is plenty of evidence proving how dominant Russell was as a defender. people had false impression of those Celtics as "stacked" when in fact they struggled to be .500 team in Russell's absence (actually going 10-18 between 58 and 69 when Russell wasn't playing). Russell dominated team defense and that allowed them to win.

Walton vs Kareem is different. I'd say Walton was clearly more valuable RS performer. his effort level and consistency made him MVP type player every single night. Kareem was sometimes lazy to get back on defense etc. but it was no longer the case in the postseason. for some reason Kareem was super-motivated in 77 playoffs and despite missing 2 starters for entire postseason, he pushed LA over the top in the first round (vs stacked Warriors team no less) and then singlehandedly fought against the Blazers. he would never come close to that level, as I said earlier. it was just obvious Kareem at his best could dominate anybody, because that's how talented he was. Kareem dominated Walton as well but what can you do about your guards turning the ball over or Mo Lucas beastin' because your PF had season ending injury ?

you're using wrong comparison. Walton vs Kareem was like Robinson vs Olajuwon.

[SDChargers#1]

what do you think about RS ? it it MORE important than the playoffs ? what do you have to say about Kareem 77 vastly outperforming anything he had ever done before in the playoffs ? Kareem never came close to what he was doing in the spring of '77. he was legendary.

Of course not, but they are definitely not meaningless as you asserted.

if it wasn't your analysis, you're welcome to present your case for 71 Kareem. winning is what matters to all of us so simply stating that it matters to you has very little value as an argument. Kareem 77 was better at winning than his 71 version. he was more efficient and more productive while facing better competition. he was more skilled as well. Kareem 77 couldn't win because he lost his 2nd and 3rd best players to injuries, was playing without ballhandling guards OR power forward on the team. his team couldn't rebound OR bring the ball up the court without turning it over at will. meanwhile Kareem 71 got outscored by Wilt in 3 of 5 games in '71 WCFs but his team was so stacked that it didn't really matter. there is a vast difference in terms of conjuncture, health and luck. you never mentioned any of those factors so your analysis is flawed as far as I'm concerned.

It certainly doesn't seem like winning matter to "all of you" considering we have had quite a few guys get nominated already in non title season.

What seems to matter to "all of you" is impact stats, and that alone. It is what is bugging me the most so far in this project. I don't mind impact stats being used to an extent, but right now it is being used at the be all end all of comparing player. Which it shouldn't be.

Wilt only outplayed Russell in 67 (IMO Russell was injured and I remember Hondo saying the same thing but whatever). otherwise he was getting outplayed impact wise. Russell's value isn't his scoring, it's his defense. there is plenty of evidence proving how dominant Russell was as a defender. people had false impression of those Celtics as "stacked" when in fact they struggled to be .500 team in Russell's absence (actually going 10-18 between 58 and 69 when Russell wasn't playing). Russell dominated team defense and that allowed them to win

From a one on one standpoint, Wilt always outplayed Russell. He would score more points, outrebound him, and would be more efficient.

[ElGee]

It certainly doesn't seem like winning matter to "all of you" considering we have had quite a few guys get nominated already in non title season.

No, we've talked about this before (not sure if it ever resonated with you or not). Individuals don't win titles, teams do. All "we" care about is how much a player raises the odds of his team winning a title. That doesn't mean the player who has the highest impact on winning will win a title!

This is like pairing Usain Bolt with me, Doc MJ and Dr Positivity on the 4x100 team and then saying we must not care about winning if we started a new track team by selecting him over one of the gold-medalists from the American relay.

[bastillon]

Of course not, but they are definitely not meaningless as you asserted.

you didn't answer my question. what do you say about Kareem's postseason performances ? can you argue against my case for Kareem 77 being a lot better player in the postseason (vs better competition while playing with worse teammates no less) ? I don't think RS is entirely meaningless, but it can only be a tie-breaker when players are somewhat close. they weren't. Kareem 77 was clearly better than Kareem 71. across the board.

It certainly doesn't seem like winning matter to "all of you" considering we have had quite a few guys get nominated already in non title season.

What seems to matter to "all of you" is impact stats, and that alone. It is what is bugging me the most so far in this project. I don't mind impact stats being used to an extent, but right now it is being used at the be all end all of comparing player. Which it shouldn't be.

so "winning" is only "winning a title" ? you're saying we shouldn't even consider players who didn't win a title ? do you think Kobe 2010 is better than Jordan 1990 ? because to me it looks like you're just ignoring extremely important context like teammates quality and injuries. saying Kareem 71 was his peak is absurd. pretty much shows me how little you know about him. I'd argue it wouldn't be his best Milwaukee year (that'd be 72 or 74), let alone his overall peak. to me it looks as if you don't know anything about the facts and storylines surrounding that season and going by "title + raw boxscore RS numbers" analysis. if you wanna be treated seriously, make a compelling argument for 71 over 77 (or any of 72/74/77/80).

From a one on one standpoint, Wilt always outplayed Russell. He would score more points, outrebound him, and would be more efficient.

for someone who pretends to care about winning it seems like a pretty weird approach. which is it ? are you going by stats or by winning ? I don't really see any consistency whatsoever. I've already explained to you why Russell won against Wilt. his global defensive impact was so huge that Wilt's team couldn't score. Wilt's defensive impact didn't come close to that level. even though Wilt was consistently outrebounding and outscoring Russell, his impact was a lot worse (not to mention how he was stat-padding after the game was over).

[ardee]

For what it's worth, I'd be interested if people could post their top 10 list here.

Reason being, we had at least 5-6 posters voting LeBron from threads 3-9, and didn't get to see how they consider other players in the context of this list.

Mine, after learning a hell of a lot through this project, is:

1. '67 Wilt
2. '91 Jordan
3. '00 Shaq
4. '86 Bird
5. '87 Magic
6. '65 Russell
7. '94/'95 Olajuwon
8. '09 James
9. '76/'77 Jabbar
10. '03 Duncan

I'm faced with a pretty confusing dilemna here, to be honest. It's very hard after the top 3.

My main issue is whether Magic and Bird should be in the top 5, when they clearly had the best teams out of everyone else. When Hakeem, LeBron or Kareem were not playing, their teams were putrid. Magic and Bird were not injured, but their teams were so good that they never missed a beat.

My main issue is basically how to decide on lifting awful teams to a great level vs. lifting good teams to dizzying heights.

I'd really like to see the lists of Doctor MJ, Dr Positivity, ElGee and The Regul8or in particular.

[bastillon]

@SDChargers, to comment more on Kareem 71 vs Kareem 77:

Information on the Bulls-Lakers series is hard to come by, but Jim McMillian was certainly regarded as the star of the first two games filling in for West (26 in G1, 20 in G2). The only mention of Wilt was his 18-21 in G1. In G5, Chicago turned it over 22 times and Goodrich had 33 points and 11 assists. Wilt had 8.

For the series, Wilt averaged 15.7 ppg 21.1 rpg 6.1 apg 42% FG

Ran the +/- on LA's last 11 games without West and it was a monstrous +11. (West did miss 2 other games.) The schedule was brutal down the stretch, but at least 7 were at home. I think it's pretty fair to say Jerry West was the second best player in the league in 1971. It's also fair to say that in the long run they probably weren't some dreadful -6 differential team.

From a post by julizaver over at insidehoops:

Wilt v. Kareem 1971 WCF

G1
Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar
Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA

G2
Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked many shots
Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA

G3
Chamberlain 24 pts, 24 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 19 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 8-16 FG/FGA L

G4
Chamberlain 15 pts, 16 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-14 FG/FGA
Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 14-20 FG/FGA

G5
Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar
Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA

Series avg:
Wilt 22.0 ppg 18.8 rpg 2.0 apg 49% FG
Lew 25.0 ppg 17.2 rpg 4.2 apg 48% FG

All 4 Bucks wins were senseless drubbings, so I have no idea how much King Lew rested down the stretch and if Wilt played.

Given the competition, his increase in usage and reportedly good defensive play, I think that Wilt "stepped up" in the postseason without West. That version was a top player. But to me, this is like Tim Duncan in 2006. It seemed people weren't rewarding Duncan then for a lackluster regular season + playoff explosion, and here Wilt is being rewarded with his name recognition when his playoffs weren't even as good comparatively.

During G5 of the Bulls series, Jerry West said that this was the best he'd seen Wilt rebound and play defense all year, which struck me as his way of saying "this is what you should always be doing!" (And he did in 1972.) Chicago 's TS% was .493 in that series, well off it's .512% from the regular season. LA's defense wasn't horrible in the RS...it was only right on par with the Detroit Piston's. Chamberlain's rebounding also jumps the next year along with the team's rebounding differential. In other words, what that team is getting from Chamberblain in 1971 doesn't seem close to what they're getting the following year.

vs

Kareem's game logs for the playoffs:

Pts / Reb / Ast / Blks (FGM/FGA)

vs. Warriors:

Game 1: 27/16/7/3 (10/? FG)
Game 2: 40/19/3/9 (18/32 FG)
Game 3: 28/14/7/4 (12/20)
Game 4: 41/18/3/0 (15/?)
Game 5: 45/18/3/3 (16/28)
Game 6: 43/20/3/3 (17/25) Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTMEtNM44n8
Game 7: 36/26/4/1 (14/26) Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mloG22I2YtU

Series average: 37.6 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 4.3 apg, 3.3 bpg, 60.7 FG%.

vs. Blazers:

Game 1: 30/10/5/0 (11/19 FG)
Game 2: 40/17/1/3 (17/23 FG) Full game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2oTCUmEFiM
Game 3: 21/20/8/8 (5/12 FG) - foul trouble
Game 4: 30/17/2/4 (12/20) Full game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTQzI9uf5g

Walton vs. Kareem head to head stats in the playoff series:

KAJ - 30.3 ppg, 16 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.8 bpg, 60.8 FG%
Walton - 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, 51 FG%.

Game 2 and Game 4 from the '77 series are availiable on footage. It's quite clear who the better player was. The difference in the series was the Laker backcourt getting absolutely destroyed. I'm not exaggerating when I say this, but watching them is actually comical because they could not be trusted to even bring the ball up. In game 2, at the end of the third quarter, they turned it over three consecutive possessions before even making it to the half court line (iirc, Kareem went to get rest with Lakers up 8-10 pts, came back and when he came back Lakers were actually trailing). I really wish they kept turnover stats that year. Lucius Allen was also injured during the series. Kermit Washington also didn't play for the Lakers. I voted for Walton in '78, but simply can't put him over Kareem this year. This was Kareem's absolute peak for me. His offensive/scoring skills were above those he had earlier in his Bucks days, he was stronger and had added an unstoppable turnaround jumper that year.

honestly, how can you look at those years and think Kareem was better in 71 ?

[therealbig3]

Really disagree with the idea that Kareem dominated Walton to the degree that Olajuwon dominated Robinson. I'm with ElGee on that one...they played each other pretty evenly, it's just that Kareem scored at will, but in every non-scoring aspect of the game, Walton was clearly superior, and overall, he had at least comparable impact to Kareem. Walton's game wasn't about scoring the way Kareem's was, so obviously the head to head stats, which would mainly feature their head to head scoring, would seem to favor Kareem, but the degree of their overall contributions to their teams were similar.

[colts18]

Really disagree with the idea that Kareem dominated Walton to the degree that Olajuwon dominated Robinson. I'm with ElGee on that one...they played each other pretty evenly, it's just that Kareem scored at will, but in every non-scoring aspect of the game, Walton was clearly superior, and overall, he had at least comparable impact to Kareem. Walton's game wasn't about scoring the way Kareem's was, so obviously the head to head stats, which would mainly feature their head to head scoring, would seem to favor Kareem, but the degree of their overall contributions to their teams were similar.

Kareem's help defense was just as good as Walton's. You should see some of the blocks and charges Kareem was getting in help defense. I can show the video of them if you want them.

[therealbig3]

Really disagree with the idea that Kareem dominated Walton to the degree that Olajuwon dominated Robinson. I'm with ElGee on that one...they played each other pretty evenly, it's just that Kareem scored at will, but in every non-scoring aspect of the game, Walton was clearly superior, and overall, he had at least comparable impact to Kareem. Walton's game wasn't about scoring the way Kareem's was, so obviously the head to head stats, which would mainly feature their head to head scoring, would seem to favor Kareem, but the degree of their overall contributions to their teams were similar.

Kareem's help defense was just as good as Walton's. You should see some of the blocks and charges Kareem was getting in help defense. I can show the video of them if you want them.

Sure, I'd be interested in seeing that.

[therealbig3]

A couple of playoff games from 77 are available on youtube actually.

Game 4 against the Lakers, part 1:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIDn1niGCag[/youtube]


Full game 6 against the Sixers in the Finals:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t2v8cVfk50&feature=related[/youtube]

[colts18]

Sure, I'd be interested in seeing that.

This is repost from that game 4 of the series. This is a few Walton and Kareem plays

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIDn1niGCag[/youtube]

5:50: Kareem uses his help defense to anticipate the dunk and he blocks it.

7:20: Kareem recovers well and makes a solid block on another dunk attempt

6:50: Walton helps out but he doesn't have enough height to make the block. Kareem would make that block.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usDqCrm0r_w&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

3:55: Walton helps off of Kareem and makes a good block on the layup attempt

5:05: Walton tips the entry pass away, then makes the block


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu4I7iKt8r4&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

7:50: Kareem helps off of walton and draws the charge. On this charge, Kareem gets barely moved and the ref still calls the charge. In today's NBA, thats a blocking foul easily

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag_0wcB_opU&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

3:37: Kareem steals the ball and goes the basket, but Walton takes him head on and blocks his shot attempt.


Based on what I watched, both guys were good help defenders. You can't be a bad help defender like Kareem and block 4 or 5 shots per game. Not possible. It's too bad Kareem didn't apply this defensive effort for his whole career.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0Up8OvJHxI&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

3:00: Kareem helps off of Walton and blocks yet another dunk attempt. I don't think I've ever seen a player block 3 dunks 1 game.

7:40: Kareem's shows off his great recognition skills and goes from the FT line to the basket for the block. I doubt many big men can make that play in today's game


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPOCgAnJbvo&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

5:43: Kareem blocks Walton's layup attempt. Walton has to go for the pump fake there. Kareem got that easily

7:13: Kareem makes another block, this time in transition. That is an easy block for Kareem. I'm sure most big men make that play.


By my count, that's 6 blocks plus 1 charge and 1 steal for Kareem. Great defensive game. I wish youtube had the other games so I could go over them. If I based everything on this game, Kareem might be right up there on my GOAT list. It's sad that Kareem didn't play this way for the whole 70's and his teammates were garbage. I highlighted before a 3 minute span where Kareem's guards had 4 careless turnovers that cost them.

[therealbig3]

Seems a little biased towards Kareem, but I don't have time to go through it all right now. I will definitely watch that whole game at some point though.

For example, though, that play at 7:20 where you say Kareem recovered nicely...what about the fact that Kareem gave up easy position to Walton by not boxing out? What about the fact that Kareem tries to make a really lazy one-handed outlet pass that gets deflected by Walton (and what does that say about Walton's defense and tenacity?)? The Blazers did end up scoring on that, and it was mainly because Kareem did not play well on that sequence, so I don't get the point of praising that one play by Kareem when he was the reason why Portland got the 2nd chance points anyway.

It's just one play, like I said, but I'd have to see the whole game (only about a third of the way through) to make my judgement of Kareem's D in that game. But even if Kareem played great D in that game (and it seemed like he did), that doesn't necessarily mean it was better than Walton's D.

[Devve]

Kobe should have easily been in the top 10. What a joke.

[therealbig3]

Kobe should have easily been in the top 10. What a joke.

MAYBE top 15.