#13 Highest Peak of All Time (Julius '76 wins)

[ardee]

Yes, I'm advocating for 68 West. If you haven't checked out my research on how injuries affect title odds, you should do so. In short, missing time barely matters. If you're worried about extreme outliers like "they won't make the PS on a crappy team," that's like saying "91 MJ won't win a title on the 12 Bobcats...so I don't want 91 MJ." Crappy teams aren't winning titles anyway, so with West or without him for 39 games it doesn't matter...

@Doc -- look at 1968 West more closely. Definitely the season to champion as his peak IMO. Just a ridiculous offensive season.

Here are West's In/Out runs:

1963 West In (54g) 5.5 SRS
1963 West Out (26g) -2.1 SRS

1967 West In (65g) 1.4 SRS
1967 West Out (16g) -5.4 SRS

1968 West In (51g) 8.1 SRS
1968 West Out (31g) -0.5 SRS

1969 West In (61g) 5.4 SRS
1969 West Out (21g) 0.7 SRS

1970 West In (90g) 3.8 SRS *including PS
1970 West Out (8g) -8.6 SRS

1970 West In w Baylor In (36g) 2.1 SRS *including PS
1970 West In w Baylor and Wilt In (29g) 3.9 SRS

1971 West In (69g) 5.1 SRS
1971 West Out (13g) -7.2 SRS
1971 West Out (25g) -1.9 SRS *including PS

1973 West In (69g) 9.8 SRS
1973 West Out (13g) -1.0 SRS

This is a guy knocking on the door of Nash, Walton, LeBron, Thurmond, super-value to his team. There's a lot that looks impressive there, consistently. To me, I'm left trying to untangle the following:

-how did West's teams perform at their best?
-how did West's teams perform without him (if available)
-how did West's teams look ITO of roster, health and coaching?
-how did West's individual statistics look in conjunction with that information?

As you can see, the 1968 team was RIDICULOUS with West in the lineup. This was with someone not regarded as a coaching genius, with good lineup continuity around him, and an offensive slant (eg Clark, Goodrich, Baylor) and it may have, based on plausible explanations, produced an offensive level that was rarely matched until the 3-point era. This is huge huge stuff.

Then you look at what West did individually. He set a career high in FG% that he'd never come close to (a weird drop in FT% that year). This led to a career and league-best 59% TS%, 9.2% better than league average! In the postseason, he averaged a career-best 59.6% TS% on 31-5.4-.5.5 and a career-best 52.7% FG%.

In the Finals against Boston (-4.9 est DRtg), he had 35 in G2 to steal serve from the Celtics. 33 in G3, 38 in a G4 win to even the series. The Lakers thought an 8-day layoff before game 1 cost them the game, and then lost G5 in Boston in OT 120-117...West had 35 more in the game. West sprained his ankle at the end of G4 and it caught up to him in G6, and without an effective West (8-19 FG), the Lakers were blown out in the first half.

To me, ALL the evidence is pointing to 1968 basically.

ElGee, would like to see your thoughts on my breakdown of all the players you mentioned vs. Kobe. I may yet decide to switch to Erving or Oscar if someone convinces me.

[fatal9]

Wade's post-ASG stretch in '09 was unreal. Boxscore stats looking '89 Jordan-ish, posted 33.9 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 8.3 apg, 2.3 apg, 1.2 bpg on 61.1 TS% (37 3PT%). He also had a huge drop in his turnover rate that year (lowest tov% of his career). This was Wade at his athletic peak with a great midrange game (slightly below '06 and '07 though) and also had the first consistent three point shooting stretch of his career when he began taking them in second half of season. But why were the Heat the 22nd ranked offense at the end of the season with a perimeter superstar performing at his level? I'm not expecting big things here but not bottom feeder offense either. That's one question about 2009. As has been pointed out though, we can't just use team offense to say Kobe was better offensively when he was playing in one of the most successful offensive systems ever under one of the GOAT coaches while Wade was on a new look roster with a rookie coach and a rookie PG.

Regarding the playoffs, he did have some sort of an injury, forgot what it was hip, back or something. But he limited his own effectiveness in that series by forgetting that he's maybe the best slashing scorer ever at his position, but decided to shoot threes instead. Wade was shooting way too many of them in the series. He took 50 threes in the series. 50. Almost as many FTA as 3PA. That doesn't sound like Wade's game to me, and is probably the reason he had such an erratic series when normally a healthy Wade is a very consistent playoff performer. I don't know if it was the injury, the type of defense being played on him or if he was feeling a little too confident after having the most consistent 3 pt shooting stretch of his career but he didn't play a smart series offensively. Still had couple of nice moments though (game 2, 3, 6) but he made his scoring game a little bit too contingent on three point shooting.

So certain things about 2009 make me reconsider and make me want to side with '06, but when you factor in things like improved skills, experience, physical and mental maturity I think you have to stick with 2009 (or 2010 for that matter but I don't see his midrange game as good as '09). The Heat did fall off without Shaq in '06 (just 10-13 when he didn't play, despite having one of the best backups Cs in the league in Mourning). I'm also never comfortable saying that a player peaked before 25 (Wade was 23/24 in '06), it's very unlikely to me unless a career altering injury happens. Wade did have a major injury but he came back more explosive than ever in '09.

In general, the thing I like with Wade over Kobe is that he's a more consistent and active defender (I have '09 or '10 as Wade's best defensive year, '08 as best defensive year of #24 version of Kobe). Secondly, I just feel pre-2011 Wade is the one I want more in the playoffs against good/great defensive teams. I've seen him have success against good/great defenses so much more consistently than Kobe. We have seen him torch great defensive teams (known for stopping perimeter superstars) in the playoffs like the Celtics, Pistons in a way I can't see Kobe doing. Wade is more dynamic/quick and averages more assists, but despite that I wouldn't say he was a better facilitator than 2008 Kobe (who is a little bit more patient in his approach). I would say I like Wade's approach offensively more than Kobe's as his game naturally has a better balance . But overall, these are two guys who at their peak I find really difficult to separate.

[ElGee]

I'll try when I get around to it, as we certainly have a fresh crop of guy to be analyzed. I'll say my tentative list looks like this:

13 Erving
14 Robinson (because of his defense and high portability)
15 Wade (I like the post-shoulder injury Wade bc of his defense -- a player I could see moving up OR down as his offensive portability draws questions to me)
16 West
17 Oscar (really comfortable with West above him)
18 Barkley
19 K. Malone
20 Bryant

So, I think Karl Malone's peak v Kobe's peak has always been a great debate. And we haven't even mentioned Karl yet in this project I believe so clearly there's a lot of discussion. Then you have the general Kobe-Wade-McGrady 2000's Wing War which people can add a lot more color to (it's a hard debate and as of right I don't begrudge any ordering of those players).

So it's not crazy to, for instance, vote Kobe 14th...but as you can see I have another pack of guys lumped very closely and I think the project will suffer if we miss a lot of these comparisons. (If you're wondering, I have ALL these guys in the +6 to +6.5 impact range, so I'm splitting hairs here with portability, health, defensive effort, variance, whatever...and I'd like to hear other's thoughts on those players and these issues).

[fatal9]

I think '66 could be a nice year to pick for West. Not much point in looking at his in/out stats because he played 79 games (this is a good thing). Second most efficient year scoring wise though his shot making seems better in other years. 34/6/6 on 58 TS% in the playoffs. He's around that age when most guys peak (27). The '66 team also put up the third best SRS of the 60s Lakers, which is even more impressive when you consider that Elgin Baylor had a HUGE drop off that year after his knee injury in the '65 playoffs (if you look at Baylor's production, '66 was the only year he didn't manage to have a PER over 20 from '58-'70, there is a clear decline in '66 Baylor even in comparison to the late 60s version of himself). So this makes me think while we don't have in/out impact for that year, it could have been just as impressive.

31 missed games in '68 is a lot though. On the wrong team that's going to result in missing the playoffs. Even on a good championship level team, missing 31 games isn't good for chemistry/continuity. His impact appears to be outstanding that year and his scoring efficiency for whatever reason was on another level in both the RS and playoffs. But again, this is the most games Jerry West has ever missed in his career (not counting retirement year). I guess a similar situation for people to think of it would be like Wade's '07 season but with a strong healthy playoff run to the finals.

[nikomCH]

(If you're wondering, I have ALL these guys in the +6 to +6.5 impact range,

I've seen quite a few people reference this "stat" saying peak MJ was like a +8.5 player and that if you replaced him with a +7 player then the team would lose somewhere around 1.5 SRS points so you can measure their impact that way. What exactly is that number referring to and where is it derived from?

[ElGee]

@nikom -- Not really any stat...it's a player's impact measured in points per game (normalized to a .500 team). Instead of saying "he makes them 25 wins better," we'd say "he makes them about 9 points better per game" (which translates to ~25 wins). viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1197767&p=32836033#p32836033

And for those wondering about health, please read the above link, #3 in the discussion section of the first post. I very much used to think missing 30 games was a big deal, but I was simply misjudging the effect, as It's practically negligible ITO of impacting championship odds.

In general it's good to realize:

-HCA has a small affect (Sorry Jordan Bulls.)
-Loss in seeding has a very small affect on title odds.
-a team that has a small edge over everyone (eg final SRS 3) is more likely to win a title than a team with a big edge over many teams that is also vulnerable to a few of the contenders (eg final SRS 7).
-Because of the above, if a player imparts his value on the game in the playoffs, his team's odds of winning will be almost identical whether they are seed 1st or 4th, whether they have HCA or not. Thus, missing 20 or 40 or even 60 regular season games is less of a concern than the player's PS health.

[GrangerDanger]

@nikom -- Not really any stat...it's a player's impact measured in points per game (normalized to a .500 team). Instead of saying "he makes them 25 wins better," we'd say "he makes them about 9 points better per game" (which translates to ~25 wins). viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1197767&p=32836033#p32836033

And for those wondering about health, please read the above link, #3 in the discussion section of the first post. I very much used to think missing 30 games was a big deal, but I was simply misjudging the effect, as It's practically negligible ITO of impacting championship odds.

In general it's good to realize:

-HCA has a small affect (Sorry Jordan Bulls.)
-Loss in seeding has a very small affect on title odds.
-a team that has a small edge over everyone (eg final SRS 3) is more likely to win a title than a team with a big edge over many teams that is also vulnerable to a few of the contenders (eg final SRS 7).
-Because of the above, if a player imparts his value on the game in the playoffs, his team's odds of winning will be almost identical whether they are seed 1st or 4th, whether they have HCA or not. Thus, missing 20 or 40 or even 60 regular season games is less of a concern than the player's PS health.

Then why aren't you nominating Jackie Butler's 2005 season? How many games he played doesnt matter, only his production. And his production was GOAT. Not his fault his terrible team couldn't make the playoffs right?

[ElGee]

I should also it make clear that one of the reasons why I post so much in/out and lineup data is because I assume no one has any idea how these teams performed under these circumstances. I think two of the simplest examples in this project would be

(a) What happened to the 86 Celtics when McHale left the lineup? (Slightly small sampled, ftr)
(b) What happened to the 77 Lakers when they lost Kermit Washington, since they were so thin at PF?

So, Does anyone know how good the 67 and 68 Warriors were with Nate Thurmond healthy?

Walton's the classic example but thanks to his MVP, their title, Breaks of the Game and Bill Simmon's massive Walton adoration, everyone knows the difference between Walton/no Walton (eg the 50-8 record in 78 was published in many newspaper reports). Conversely, I don't think anyone (?), even an historian like Regulat8r, knew that the 68 Lakers were an 8 SRS team with a GOAT-level estimated offense when West played...but were middling without him. (And on a team with a plethora of guards, no less.)

So if we include the 68 postseason, the Lakers were a 7.3 SRS team with Jerry West in over 66 games...but sub.500 without him in 31. That this happened without any significant rotation changes in the year that West was off the charts statistically doesn't resonate with people?

[Add on: There have been 36 seasons in NBA history (is we use pace estimations) of at least 20 pts/75 pos and +9% TS% relative to the league.

Dantley 3x
Amare 2x
Gilmore 2x
McAdoo
Daugherty
Barkley 5x
Mullin
Dawkins
Gervin
West 2x
Kareem 4x
McHale 2x
Neil Johnston
Oscar 2x
Peja
Allen
Miller 4x
S. Johnson 2x

Jerry West did it in 1965 and again in 1968. Between 1956 and 1973 it was done by only Oscar, West and Kareem.

[fatal9]

That's a really surprising point about RS health (as long as it doesn't affect playoff health) not being much of a factor in winning a championship. I get the point of not caring if it means bad teams would miss playoffs, but could how much it affects good teams not vary based the dynamics of the team that season?

If a talented roster is put together over a summer, but the best player misses 31 games, would that not have a major impact on building team chemistry and continuity with a (championship caliber) roster playing together for the first time? For example, if LeBron misses 31 games in '11 I think missing games matters a lot more for championship odds in 2011, than how much missing 31 games would affect the odds for them winning in 2013. If there are new pieces on the team, games played by best player in RS could be more important.

When Jordan or Hakeem miss games like in '95, or Shaq in '02, but teams overachieve in playoffs based on RS SRS, could it not be a symptom of the fact that they have natural chemistry with the players, the coach and the system because they've played with them before? More often than not this is usually the case as players for obvious reasons in their prime will normally be playing on teams where they have team continuity from previous seasons, but that isn't always going to be there if we are judging player's ability to lead any random (good) team to a championship. Also getting a better seed, while probably overrated, does mean something to me in years where there is strong competition in your conference and you WILL be pushed to 6 or 7 games.

But I am starting to doubt how much games played in RS matter, and am definitely viewing West's '68 season in a new light. I was wondering how it was possible for Lakers SRS to actually drop in '69 with the addition of Wilt at a position where Lakers were thin, but it seems it's because West was just on another level in '68.

[SDChargers#1]

I should also it make clear that one of the reasons why I post so much in/out and lineup data is because I assume no one has any idea how these teams performed under these circumstances. I think two of the simplest examples in this project would be

(a) What happened to the 86 Celtics when McHale left the lineup? (Slightly small sampled, ftr)
(b) What happened to the 77 Lakers when they lost Kermit Washington, since they were so thin at PF?

So, Does anyone know how good the 67 and 68 Warriors were with Nate Thurmond healthy?

Walton's the classic example but thanks to his MVP, their title, Breaks of the Game and Bill Simmon's massive Walton adoration, everyone knows the difference between Walton/no Walton (eg the 50-8 record in 78 was published in many newspaper reports). Conversely, I don't think anyone (?), even an historian like Regulat8r, knew that the 68 Lakers were an 8 SRS team with a GOAT-level estimated offense when West played...but were middling without him. (And on a team with a plethora of guards, no less.)

So if we include the 68 postseason, the Lakers were a 7.3 SRS team with Jerry West in over 66 games...but sub.500 without him in 31. That this happened without any significant rotation changes in the year that West was off the charts statistically doesn't resonate with people?

[Add on: There have been 36 seasons in NBA history (is we use pace estimations) of at least 20 pts/75 pos and +9% TS% relative to the league.

Dantley 3x
Amare 2x
Gilmore 2x
McAdoo
Daugherty
Barkley 5x
Mullin
Dawkins
Gervin
West 2x
Kareem 4x
McHale 2x
Neil Johnston
Oscar 2x
Peja
Allen
Miller 4x
S. Johnson 2x

Jerry West did it in 1965 and again in 1968. Between 1956 and 1973 it was done by only Oscar, West and Kareem.

I find it amazing that you list all those who have passed an arbitrary line of stats, and how mediocre so many of them are.

Out of all the guys you listed, only Kareem is considered a top 10 player, and only Barkely, West, and Oscar make most people top 20 list. Yay, Neil Johnson did it.

I think this whole impact numbers thing is getting a little ridiculous.

HCA advantage doesn't matter? The simple fact that the vast majority of teams with HCA advantage win their series. I know you are going to point out that SRS is a more valid way of looking at a teams strength, but just dismissing HCA is absurd. Do the Lakers win in '10 without HCA in game 7 against the Celtics? I highly doubt it. Lakers against Blazers in '00? I highly doubt it.

Elgee, I find you incredibly intelligent, but I really get the feeling that you love pimping your own stats to the point that you discount any other data that points to the contrary.

Despite this you list people who accomplish that arbitrary feet like it means something in regards to their greatness.

[Doctor MJ]

@Doc -- look at 1968 West more closely. Definitely the season to champion as his peak IMO. Just a ridiculous offensive season.

Here are West's In/Out runs:

1963 West In (54g) 5.5 SRS
1963 West Out (26g) -2.1 SRS

1967 West In (65g) 1.4 SRS
1967 West Out (16g) -5.4 SRS

1968 West In (51g) 8.1 SRS
1968 West Out (31g) -0.5 SRS

1969 West In (61g) 5.4 SRS
1969 West Out (21g) 0.7 SRS

1970 West In (90g) 3.8 SRS *including PS
1970 West Out (8g) -8.6 SRS

1970 West In w Baylor In (36g) 2.1 SRS *including PS
1970 West In w Baylor and Wilt In (29g) 3.9 SRS

1971 West In (69g) 5.1 SRS
1971 West Out (13g) -7.2 SRS
1971 West Out (25g) -1.9 SRS *including PS

1973 West In (69g) 9.8 SRS
1973 West Out (13g) -1.0 SRS

This is a guy knocking on the door of Nash, Walton, LeBron, Thurmond, super-value to his team. There's a lot that looks impressive there, consistently. To me, I'm left trying to untangle the following:

-how did West's teams perform at their best?
-how did West's teams perform without him (if available)
-how did West's teams look ITO of roster, health and coaching?
-how did West's individual statistics look in conjunction with that information?

As you can see, the 1968 team was RIDICULOUS with West in the lineup. This was with someone not regarded as a coaching genius, with good lineup continuity around him, and an offensive slant (eg Clark, Goodrich, Baylor) and it may have, based on plausible explanations, produced an offensive level that was rarely matched until the 3-point era. This is huge huge stuff.

Then you look at what West did individually. He set a career high in FG% that he'd never come close to (a weird drop in FT% that year). This led to a career and league-best 59% TS%, 9.2% better than league average! In the postseason, he averaged a career-best 59.6% TS% on 31-5.4-.5.5 and a career-best 52.7% FG%.

In the Finals against Boston (-4.9 est DRtg), he had 35 in G2 to steal serve from the Celtics. 33 in G3, 38 in a G4 win to even the series. The Lakers thought an 8-day layoff before game 1 cost them the game, and then lost G5 in Boston in OT 120-117...West had 35 more in the game. West sprained his ankle at the end of G4 and it caught up to him in G6, and without an effective West (8-19 FG), the Lakers were blown out in the first half.

To me, ALL the evidence is pointing to 1968 basically.

So first off, great stuff as per usual.

Here's what I'm seeing as I think about this more:

The '68 Lakers took a major leap forward in their offensive effectiveness. So in terms of great team offense pre-Wilt on the Lakers, that was they clear year. Even with Wilt of course, they didn't ever get much beyond that, but I'm drawing the distinction simply because one might look at West's value differently when Wilt was on the team.

Now, with what you're saying here, West's presence correlated absolutely with that great leap forward.

From this I'd conclude a couple things:

1) If I didn't have the evidence from the other years, the data from this year testifies to West's importance generally.

2) While this isn't West's biggest in/out number, it's close, and we're working with a very high baseline. With your thinking then relating to impact on making teams truly great, this seems like the most impressive on/off related thing in the arsenal.

What would really make me shout to the rafter in addition to this though was some qualitative evidence. Why did the '68 offense get so much better? If it was an improvement of West's, what was it?

[Doctor MJ]

Okay, so this is helpful I think:

http://www.nba.com/lakers/history/men_w ... 91911.html

A scout at the time, Bill Bertka recalled the philosophical hoops differences between Schaus and van Breda Kolff.

“The interesting part was that Shaus was a fast break coach, but van Breda Kolff ran the Princeton offense, which was a lot different from the run-and-gun game,” recalled Bertka.

The Princeton offense involved a great deal of player movement and ball movement in the half court, with backdoor cuts, interchangeable parts and players that could all handle the ball, pass and shoot.

The team surprised some in van Breda Kolff’s first season, utilizing the versatile trio of Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and Gail Goodrich to win 52 games to 30 losses, good enough for the Western Division championship, before yet again losing to Bill Russell and the Celtics in the NBA Finals.

So the now reviled van Breda Kolff comes into the Lakers, drastically changes the offense, and all of a sudden the Lakers offense really looks like what we'd think a West-Baylor offense should in terms of its success...but only when West is around. Very interesting.

Also sheds some light on the VBK-Wilt feud.

[colts18]

Elgee, saying that seed and HCA doesn't matter is ridiculous. Where is your evidence on that?

HCA in the NBA is about 60% and worth about 3-4 points. Thats big. In a matchup between even teams, thats about 54-46 when it comes to overall series win%.

31 games a big loss. That is definitely worth about 2-3 seeds in a tightly packed conference. Then you have to face a tougher team and do it without HCA.

Here is some proof on the worth of HCA from this season:
4.68 PPG overall
5.63 PPG in the 2nd, CF, and Finals (3.82 in 1st round)

[An Unbiased Fan]

Here are West's In/Out runs:

1963 West In (54g) 5.5 SRS
1963 West Out (26g) -2.1 SRS

1967 West In (65g) 1.4 SRS
1967 West Out (16g) -5.4 SRS

1968 West In (51g) 8.1 SRS
1968 West Out (31g) -0.5 SRS

1969 West In (61g) 5.4 SRS
1969 West Out (21g) 0.7 SRS

1970 West In (90g) 3.8 SRS *including PS
1970 West Out (8g) -8.6 SRS

1970 West In w Baylor In (36g) 2.1 SRS *including PS
1970 West In w Baylor and Wilt In (29g) 3.9 SRS

1971 West In (69g) 5.1 SRS
1971 West Out (13g) -7.2 SRS
1971 West Out (25g) -1.9 SRS *including PS

1973 West In (69g) 9.8 SRS
1973 West Out (13g) -1.0 SRS

This is a guy knocking on the door of Nash, Walton, LeBron, Thurmond, super-value to his team. There's a lot that looks impressive there, consistently. To me, I'm left trying to untangle the following:

See again, 1966 West doesn't get the benefit of this analysis due to him playing nearly every game. So his amazing play with a banged up Baylor that season, is overlooked. West was able to get to the FT line easier, and convert them at a higher rate in 1966. He shot a lower FG%, but that's because he was less protected in that lineup. And in the playoffs 66' West was better than 68', IMO.

And again, I can't quite agree that in/out numbers reflect a player's impact because pretty much every team will suffer a great amount if an impactful player is out of the lineup. However, the degree to which they will miss the player is heavily dependent on the team's off/def system, roster depth/adaptability, coaching ability, and that player's utility to the team.

[drza]

vote: Oscar 1963

[Doctor MJ]

I
13 Erving
14 Robinson (because of his defense and high portability)
15 Wade (I like the post-shoulder injury Wade bc of his defense -- a player I could see moving up OR down as his offensive portability draws questions to me)
16 West
17 Oscar (really comfortable with West above him)
18 Barkley
19 K. Malone
20 Bryant

Chiming in on this. I see the perimeter players pretty similarly. West & Wade will probably be my next to perimeter guys in some order. I like their nuclear tendencies in the playoffs, and that they tend to happen on both sides of the ball. I also think there's a straight forwardness to them that gives them an edge.

After that we tend to have Oscar & Kobe, but I'll say up front I doubt I get that far without giving serious thought to Nash.

I'm having a tougher time with the bigs but Robinson, Barkley, Malone as well as Moses and Dirk are on my mind. I could easily see myself going with Robinson next as well, but I also wouldn't be shocked if Barkley really entered my mind.

[ElGee]

Vote: 76 Erving

Pretty sure I forgot to vote earlier. Doc, apologies if this is a double -- running out to dinner no time to check. :/

[lorak]

[
What would really make me shout to the rafter in addition to this though was some qualitative evidence. Why did the '68 offense get so much better? If it was an improvement of West's, what was it?

Small sample fluke?
Why West wasn't as good year before and year after?

[therealbig3]

Deadline has passed, and here's how I count the votes:

76 Erving - 6 (ThaRegul8r, Doctor MJ, therealbig3, PTB Fan, DavidStern, ElGee)

09 Kobe - 2 (Josephpaul, SDChargers#1)

10 Wade - 1 (Dr Positivity)

06 Wade - 1 (JordansBulls)

08 Kobe - 1 (ardee)

63 Oscar - 1 (drza)


A lot of parity after Dr. J...people can't seem to pinpoint Wade's or Kobe's peak, lol. I have to admit, I think those are great debates too. ElGee made a great case for 08 Kobe, and I think I'm leaning there myself now...but how was he really better as an offensive player over his 03 version? And wasn't 03 Kobe clearly the better defender? And how is 09 Wade not his peak? Are we not giving any credit to his RS that year? And was he even "disappointing" in the playoffs? IMO, that was him with the best balance of skill (his midrange jumper returned to form and was money that year, in addition to a solid post game and better ballhandling), athleticism, and IQ. Yes, his defense probably suffered a bit compared to 10 and 11...but similar to Kobe and T-Mac, when you have to carry the offense like that, that doesn't mean your defense CAN'T be as good on a better team. Do I think 11 Wade magically became a much better defender than 09 or 10 Wade, or do I think it's because he was able to spend more energy on defense that he looked more impressive?

Sorry for the rant lol.

[nikomCH]

^Yeah it's tough. I think it's only going to get worse lol