#17 Highest Peak of All Time (Wade '09 wins)

[C-izMe]

The more I think about it, the more I realized that Tmac's peak is probably not even top 25 and I would probably take 2012 Durant over any version of Tmac.

mystic, could you pull up Durant's stats vs. BA and AA teams?

Lolololol. He doesn't deserve to be brought up until we hit around 35-45.

No because Pierce wasn't close to Barkley offensively. I just said that.

And he doesn't guard Kobe from the free throw line but if you let someone get to the line 15 times it doesn't matter if you held them to 2-7. And excluding those 4 years they spent in the same conference we have a 5 game sample size. Kobe scored 25.2 on 19.8fga and 10.2fta (51.8TS/42.4 fg%/42.4eFG% -- that's right he didn't make a single 3 point shot). Kobe against the league from 01-03 put up 27.9ppg (54.9TS/46.1 fg%/48.2eFG%). Still suggests that he played great against Kobe.

How is that great? That looks like what Kobe does to every other defense which would mean he played average defense and that's a small sample size.

You still have just about nothing to explain why McGrady is better than Barkley besides the miniscule difference between their defense when Barkley was flat out better than McGrady at everything.

You said Pierce wasn't close to Barkley offensively......neither is McGrady.

How is he not close. In 03 TMac averaged 32.1ppg on 56.4TS (+4.5/8.7%), 5.5apg, 8.4to%, 35.2usg%. Chuck in 93 averaged 25.6ppg on 59.6TS (+6.0/11.2%), 5.1apg, 12.5to%, 26.9usg%. Seems close to me. Plus McGrady had the higher PER (great way to rank boxscore numbers IMO). McGrady was better than Chuck (and WAAAAY better than KD).

[C-izMe]

No because Pierce wasn't close to Barkley offensively. I just said that.

And he doesn't guard Kobe from the free throw line but if you let someone get to the line 15 times it doesn't matter if you held them to 2-7. And excluding those 4 years they spent in the same conference we have a 5 game sample size. Kobe scored 25.2 on 19.8fga and 10.2fta (51.8TS/42.4 fg%/42.4eFG% -- that's right he didn't make a single 3 point shot). Kobe against the league from 01-03 put up 27.9ppg (54.9TS/46.1 fg%/48.2eFG%). Still suggests that he played great against Kobe.

How is that great? That looks like what Kobe does to every other defense which would mean he played average defense and that's a small sample size.

You still have just about nothing to explain why McGrady is better than Barkley besides the miniscule difference between their defense when Barkley was flat out better than McGrady at everything.

You said Pierce wasn't close to Barkley offensively......neither is McGrady.

27.9 on 48.2eFG% = 25.2 on 42.4eFG%? Your really reaching to hate on TMac right now.

[Lightning25]

Lolololol. He doesn't deserve to be brought up until we hit around 35-45.

Nope, I'll take Durant over Tmac on second thought. Durant was better than Tmac at everything except playmaking but Durant's advantages over Tmac are too huge.

How is he not close. In 03 TMac averaged 32.1ppg on 56.4TS (+4.5/8.7%), 5.5apg, 8.4to%, 35.2usg%. Chuck in 93 averaged 25.6ppg on 59.6TS (+6.0/11.2%), 5.1apg, 12.5to%, 26.9usg%. Seems close to me.

Chuck in 93? How about Chuck in 88 or 90?

Of course, you would rather use Barkley's 3rd or 4th best statistical season while you use Tmac's best.

Again, Barkley was a better scorer especially efficiency wise, Barkley was just as good of a passer, if not better, since Barkley is arguably the best passing PF of all-time, Barkley is far far far far away better rebounder than Mcgrady ever was and it's not close.

McGrady's little miniscule advantage on defense is supposedly enough though, so if that's the case lets put Pierce above Barkley as well since Pierce was better defensively.

Plus McGrady had the higher PER (great way to rank boxscore numbers IMO). McGrady was better than Chuck (and WAAAAY better than KD).

Nope, Barkley was better than McGrady and so was Durant. Barkley for sure, but Durant is debatable.

[Lightning25]

27.9 on 48.2eFG% = 25.2 on 42.4eFG%? Your really reaching to hate on TMac right now.

25.2 ppg on 51.8TS/42.4 fg%/42.4eFG% is similar to 27.9ppg 54.9TS/46.1 fg%/48.2eFG%.

Yes, I like how you ignored the 2004 season though when Kobe had his best game against Tmac.

I love how you cherry pick your stats, you must be really known to be objective around here.

[C-izMe]

27.9 on 48.2eFG% = 25.2 on 42.4eFG%? Your really reaching to hate on TMac right now.

25.2 ppg on 51.8TS/42.4 fg%/42.4eFG% is similar to 27.9ppg 54.9TS/46.1 fg%/48.2eFG%.

Yes, I like how you ignored the 2004 season though when Kobe had his best game against Tmac.

I love how you cherry pick your stats, you must be really known to be objective around here.

Okay so I pick 01-08 as my sample size. You say "cut out the last 4 years and I accidentally miss ONE GAME and now I'm cherry picking. Do you even remember how this came up?

I suggest you look back at what Kobe use to do with Tmac.

You expected that Kobe murdered TMac but you were wrong. Now your retreating on your stance. And that one game still has TMac above average (plus I don't trust a 6 game regular season sample size).

Lolololol. He doesn't deserve to be brought up until we hit around 35-45.

Nope, I'll take Durant over Tmac on second thought. Durant was better than Tmac at everything except playmaking but Durant's advantages over Tmac are too huge.

Really? TMac is a equal scorer (not much less efficent when adjusting for rule changes and had more volume), WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better passer (can't stress this enough), better offensive rebounder, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better ball handler (can't stress this enough), and turned over the ball way less (nearly halved his to%), and about even defenders. Durant has no chance.

How is he not close. In 03 TMac averaged 32.1ppg on 56.4TS (+4.5/8.7%), 5.5apg, 8.4to%, 35.2usg%. Chuck in 93 averaged 25.6ppg on 59.6TS (+6.0/11.2%), 5.1apg, 12.5to%, 26.9usg%. Seems close to me.

Chuck in 93? How about Chuck in 88 or 90?

Of course, you would rather use Barkley's 3rd or 4th best statistical season while you use Tmac's best.

Because its Barkley's best year. If you want to go to his Sixers years his defense was terrible back then.

Again, Barkley was a better scorer especially efficiency wise, Barkley was just as good of a passer, if not better, since Barkley is arguably the best passing PF of all-time, Barkley is far far far far away better rebounder than Mcgrady ever was and it's not close.

He's more efficent than ANY SCORER EVER. Is he the GOAT scorer along with Adrian Dantley?
He has never had as good of a season playmaking as TMac so how is he a better passer? Because you say so?
And he's a better rebounder. So?

McGrady's little miniscule advantage on defense is supposedly enough though, so if that's the case lets put Pierce above Barkley as well since Pierce was better defensively.

Plus McGrady had the higher PER (great way to rank boxscore numbers IMO). McGrady was better than Chuck (and WAAAAY better than KD).

Nope, Barkley was better than McGrady and so was Durant. Barkley for sure, but Durant is debatable.

This is funny. Your dismissing all numbers and just saying things. Use the information we have and come to a conclusion on that instead of saying things and waiting for me to prove you wrong.

[Lightning25]

Okay so I pick 01-08 as my sample size. You say "cut out the last 4 years and I accidentally miss ONE GAME and now I'm cherry picking. Do you even remember how this came up?

You expected that Kobe murdered TMac but you were wrong. Now your retreating on your stance. And that one game still has TMac above average (plus I don't trust a 6 game regular season sample size).

Congrats, Kobe played like he did against every other player he did against Tmac. I'm convinced Tmac is a great defender now especially when Kobe completely lit him up in 2004.

Really? TMac is a equal scorer (not much less efficent when adjusting for rule changes and had more volume), WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better passer (can't stress this enough), better offensive rebounder, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better ball handler (can't stress this enough), and turned over the ball way less (nearly halved his to%), and about even defenders. Durant has no chance.

lol, even when adjusting the efficiency, FG%, TS%, relative to league average, Durant wins and by a lot.

Durant was like +8 relative to league average in TS% in 2012. Tmac was like +4, so Durant was 2x more efficient than Tmac was.

Tmac was a better passer and ball-handler, that was it. Big whoop, I'll go with Durant, better scorer, better shooter, better rebounder, and better defender, thanks especially when they are both wing players. I'll pick Tmac if I'm looking for a PG, but I'm looking for a better player/better wing player and that was Durant.

Because its Barkley's best year. If you want to go to his Sixers years his defense was terrible back then.

Apparently, it was always terrible so what difference does it make?

He's more efficent than ANY SCORER EVER. Is he the GOAT scorer along with Adrian Dantley?
He has never had as good of a season playmaking as TMac so how is he a better passer? Because you say so?
And he's a better rebounder. So?

So he is better...

This is funny. Your dismissing all numbers and just saying things. Use the information we have and come to a conclusion on that instead of saying things and waiting for me to prove you wrong.

Nope, you are the one using Barkley's 4th-5th best statistical season instead of his best. You are the one saying Barkley was the one putting up empty numbers.

I don't think I'll continue with you though, you can continue to think whatever you like, I'll talk to someone more reasonable and more objective.

[LikeABosh]

I think for Wade it comes down to the personal beliefs of the voters much more than to actual differences in terms of playing level.

Are you talking about flavor? Makes sense to me. Both years are close enough where I don't think you can just corner the majority into voting for one particular year. Personal preference is gonna play a huge role in deciding between the two.....do you want the jordanesque hot streak or the big time playoff performance?

[therealbig3]

So an hour and a half left in the voting:

09 Wade - 3 (C-izMe, therealbig3, Lightning25)

10 Wade - 2 (Dr Positivity, DavidStern)

66 West - 2 (Josephpaul, ardee)

11 Dirk - 1 (bastillon)

06 Wade - 1 (JordansBulls)

[C-izMe]

Okay so I pick 01-08 as my sample size. You say "cut out the last 4 years and I accidentally miss ONE GAME and now I'm cherry picking. Do you even remember how this came up?

You expected that Kobe murdered TMac but you were wrong. Now your retreating on your stance. And that one game still has TMac above average (plus I don't trust a 6 game regular season sample size).

Congrats, Kobe played like he did against every other player he did against Tmac. I'm convinced Tmac is a great defender now especially when Kobe completely lit him up in 2004.

This is funny. So I ask if 25 on 52 is equal to 28 on 56 TWICE and your answer both times is yes? Just so you know thats the difference between prime Monta and Kobe's average.

Really? TMac is a equal scorer (not much less efficent when adjusting for rule changes and had more volume), WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better passer (can't stress this enough), better offensive rebounder, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better ball handler (can't stress this enough), and turned over the ball way less (nearly halved his to%), and about even defenders. Durant has no chance.

lol, even when adjusting the efficiency, FG%, TS%, relative to league average, Durant wins and by a lot.

Durant was like +8 relative to league average in TS% in 2012. Tmac was like +4, so Durant was 2x more efficient than Tmac was.

That's only because of the lockout. It drove the bad to terrible while the top of the league remained great (Wade, Lebron, KD, Paul, etc. weren't effected by this but weaker players were). If you want to go post rule change average is usually around 53.5-54.5. From the 00 season to the rule change average was around 51.5-52.5. Don't use the terribleness of some teams post lockout to elevate KD (do you think he can keep the same efficency above average if the league recovers back to 54. I doubt it). Really if we're looking at it KD is a 60-61TS guy and TMac was a 57.5-59TS guy. With the increased volume that's not bad. And if you think me blaming it on the lockout is weaseling out check TS post and pre all star. When the teams got in shape league average was its usual 53-54.

Tmac was a better passer and ball-handler, that was it. Big whoop, I'll go with Durant, better scorer, better shooter, better rebounder, and better defender, thanks especially when they are both wing players. I'll pick Tmac if I'm looking for a PG, but I'm looking for a better player/better wing player and that was Durant.

Put Durant on a one man team. Now he doesn't look so well right? People talk about portability to good teams but KD is a very non portable to bad teams superstar. If instead of Westbrook and Harden he had Jrue and Lou the Thunder wouldn't have been on pace for 45 wins. On/off studies agree even I I do think they underrate him a little.

Because its Barkley's best year. If you want to go to his Sixers years his defense was terrible back then.

Apparently, it was always terrible so what difference does it make?

No. With Phoenix he was just bad. On the Sixers he was terrible.

He's more efficent than ANY SCORER EVER. Is he the GOAT scorer along with Adrian Dantley?
He has never had as good of a season playmaking as TMac so how is he a better passer? Because you say so?
And he's a better rebounder. So?

So he is better...

Can't be serious right now...

This is funny. Your dismissing all numbers and just saying things. Use the information we have and come to a conclusion on that instead of saying things and waiting for me to prove you wrong.

Nope, you are the one using Barkley's 4th-5th best statistical season instead of his best. You are the one saying Barkley was the one putting up empty numbers.

I don't think I'll continue with you though, you can continue to think whatever you like, I'll talk to someone more reasonable and more objective.

So your saying I should compare TMac's best year (which happens to be his best statistical year) to Chucks not best years (but best statistical year). So if we're talking just numbers here we go:
Chuck peak PER: 29.0
McGrady peak PER: 30.5

Winner TMac


See that was easy.

[Lightning25]

That's only because of the lockout. It drove the bad to terrible while the top of the league remained great (Wade, Lebron, KD, Paul, etc. weren't effected by this but weaker players were). If you want to go post rule change average is usually around 53.5-54.5. From the 00 season to the rule change average was around 51.5-52.5. Don't use the terribleness of some teams post lockout to elevate KD (do you think he can keep the same efficency above average if the league recovers back to 54. I doubt it). Really if we're looking at it KD is a 60-61TS guy and TMac was a 57.5-59TS guy. With the increased volume that's not bad. And if you think me blaming it on the lockout is weaseling out check TS post and pre all star. When the teams got in shape league average was its usual 53-54.

Cool, Durant's TS% was still +8, and Tmac's was still only +4. It's relative to league average so yeah even with the hand-checks or without it, Durant wins.

Durant was more efficient relative to league average. Even in 2010 and 2011 when Durant wasn't even in his peak, Durant was more efficient relative to league average.

It doesn't matter, Durant wins either way when it comes to efficiency, try to spin it as much as you want, because Durant still wins.

Put Durant on a one man team. Now he doesn't look so well right? People talk about portability to good teams but KD is a very non portable to bad teams superstar. If instead of Westbrook and Harden he had Jrue and Lou the Thunder wouldn't have been on pace for 45 wins. On/off studies agree even I I do think they underrate him a little.

Argument invalid considering how Durant dominated as much as he did in 2010 when Harden and Westbrook weren't that good yet.

So your saying I should compare TMac's best year (which happens to be his best statistical year) to Chucks not best years (but best statistical year). So if we're talking just numbers here we go:
Chuck peak PER: 27.5
McGrady peak PER: 30.5

Winner TMac


See that was easy.

IF you say so. I don't see a point in continuing with you. Your picks are based on who you like better, not based on who you actually think is better hence why you keep cherry picking and using selective stats.

Like I said, I'll continue with someone more objective and reasonable. Thanks.

[thizznation]

Put Durant on a one man team. Now he doesn't look so well right? People talk about portability to good teams but KD is a very non portable to bad teams superstar.

In all the portability discussions I've seen, the discussion is how the player would elevate a good team to a great one, not elevating a bad team to first round exits.

[C-izMe]

How am I cherry picking and using selective stats? YOU tried to say Chuck was the GOAT passing/rebounding/scoring PF. Are you going to put some evidence behind those bold claims? I disprove them and now I'm using selective stats? All stats I've brought up have been in response to one of your claims.

And I never said TMac was as efficent as (or more efficent than KD). I said the gap wasn't that large and with TMac's advantage in volume they're about even. And about 2010 KD had a great supporting cast. Westbrook was still pretty good (outplayed KD by a distance against LA), Harden was decent, Thabo was havig his best defensive year, the Green/Collison/Kristic/Thabo big combo led them to a great defense. KD did bring that offense from below average to respectable (they were 12th) so he deserves a ton of credit for that but he wasn't good defensively yet and it was a team led by its defense (they were 9th). Just like Lebron in 07 I think he gets too muh credit for that year.

And I'll like to end on this: Taking the moral high road and calling yourself objective (while using only opinion as an argument in the least objective way possible) is not only wrong but insulting. I'm trying to reason with you and I'm halfway using your argument to add more TMac numbers to the project, so please quit insulting me by dismissing me as a crazed Barkley hater when I'm actually using numbers to support my opinion. And if you won't do that just don't act like your being objective. You haven't brought up any evidence to the discussion or backed up your wild claims and until you do your not going to really add anything to the project on the subject of Barkley's peak play.

Put Durant on a one man team. Now he doesn't look so well right? People talk about portability to good teams but KD is a very non portable to bad teams superstar.

In all the portability discussions I've seen, the discussion is how the player would elevate a good team to a great one, not elevating a bad team to first round exits.

That's the reason I brought it up. I'm basically ranking "who would I want if I'm building a random team around them - good or bad." All of these guys mentioned are good enough to win it all but only some can carry a franchise.

[ElGee]

I think the tone in this thread stinks. (Multiple people.) It doesn't make the project fun or valuable to read pissing wars for pages on end or revert to ad homs toward other posters.

C-Ize, you aren't understanding the crux of portability. Making a bad team OK is basically useless. Something like 1% of championships from the SUPER ELITE players will come from a bad team. Worrying about it on players who cannot possibly carry a bad team past +2 or +3 SRS doesn't play a role in contributing to titles. not to mention that I think it's reasonable to not pick a truly "random" team and assume you have some time to build around a guy's peak.

[LikeABosh]

Vote: 09 Wade

[lorak]

I''m changing my vote to Wade '09

[C-izMe]

I think the tone in this thread stinks. (Multiple people.) It doesn't make the project fun or valuable to read pissing wars for pages on end or revert to ad homs toward other posters.

C-Ize, you aren't understanding the crux of portability. Making a bad team OK is basically useless. Something like 1% of championships from the SUPER ELITE players will come from a bad team. Worrying about it on players who cannot possibly carry a bad team past +2 or +3 SRS doesn't play a role in contributing to titles. not to mention that I think it's reasonable to not pick a truly "random" team and assume you have some time to build around a guy's peak.

For that matter I wouldn't trust KD with a 2011Mavs level team around him. He's a super powered Gervin/Reggie IMO. Other than an elite team (I believe OKC could've won 50 without him) he doesn't measure up.

[Lightning25]

I think the tone in this thread stinks. (Multiple people.) It doesn't make the project fun or valuable to read pissing wars for pages on end or revert to ad homs toward other posters.

Yeah, I'm done discussing with him or anyone that is unreasonable and unobjective for that matter.

C-Ize, you aren't understanding the crux of portability. Making a bad team OK is basically useless. Something like 1% of championships from the SUPER ELITE players will come from a bad team. Worrying about it on players who cannot possibly carry a bad team past +2 or +3 SRS doesn't play a role in contributing to titles. not to mention that I think it's reasonable to not pick a truly "random" team and assume you have some time to build around a guy's peak.

He isn't the biggest Durant fan, so there is your answer. If you don't know, people usually do whatever it takes to support their agenda whether it's a hateful agenda or a loving one.


My next 5 is probably this (in no order), not including my current pick for this thread which was 09 Wade.

Jerry West
Moses Malone
Charles Barkley
Dirk Nowitzki
Chris Paul

I think Chris Paul needs to start getting love soon. To me, 08/09 CP3 was the best PG since Magic Johnson, in terms of peak of course.

[ElGee]

vote: 2009 Wade

I've been swayed by others on this. If health weren't a concern, I think it's clear 09 Wade was a shade better than anything before or after. Post-surgery Wade is physically stronger and as a result I see him as a defensive menace (even if he didn't show it off as much in 09). His energy/health is the best it would be of the 3 years and even if his offensive game is 3% more polished in 2010, I see 09 as the best and most complete. I think it makes sense to rack up the back spasms to over exertion (since it is an injury essentially caused by over-exertion) and also to consider that not only on a better team would Wade rest more and maybe be healthy, but his teammates would have helped him move on to the second round the majority of the time anyway, where health/rest may re-boost his play.

Btw, fun Wade fact from 2009: For 11 games from February 22 to March 14 he averaged

38 ppg 10 apg 6 rpg 3 spg 1 bpg 65% TS 12% TOV

That's obscene. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like that over a 10-15 game stretch. His team's ORtg in that stretch was 115 (+8.3) with the role players shooting just 34% from 3. This was done w a 7-man rotation of JO-Haslem-Moon/Diawara-Wade-Chalmers +Beasley+Cook. When Doc MJ says he "burns nuclear," he's not exaggerating.

Btw Doc, pretty sure that makes it a runaway for 09 Wade.

[drza]

Haven't been able to participate much in this thread, but I've read it all. In the TMac/Barkley side debate, outside of the snarkiness, it smacked of a personal vendetta against TMac by one poster because the arguments weren't really making sense.

In the Barkley "impact" side debate, I think there was some good info at some point but that it kind of descended into snark at some point. The key thing to note is that "impact" <> in/out alone..."impact" also <> on/off alone. Thus, the counter-argument of "Birk" backing up "Dirk" doesn't seem that strong to me. Because if Dallas had both a "Birk" and a "Dirk" the on/off might not look as good for that season...but we'd expect that the overall team rating would be AMAZING. And then, over time Birk would start to get more opportunity to play (either in Dallas or elsewhere) and he'd prove himself to be just as good as Dirk. That's not what happened with Barkley. He didn't have some amazing back-ups...he had solid NBA back-ups, but they weren't that out of the ordinary for back-ups. Similarly (at least in Phoenix), Barkley also had at least one other amazing teammate impact-wise that played a complementary position to him. So if you mix that together, it DOES hurt Barkley's "impact" scores, and not in a way that can be easily explained away by attacking in/out numbers.

I really liked the Wade vs Wade conversation. For the first time, I really see the argument for 2010 Wade over 2009. I'm still not sure that 2006 should be completely discounted, but if the thought process is that the later versions are the peak I could actually see 2010 over 2009 for those that really argue that an injury in the postseason should disqualify a player. But here's the thing...that makes sense in an RPoY sense because in that project we're looking only at what actually happened in that one given year in those given circumstances. However, in this project we've repeatedly been looking at who would give a generic championship contender the best chance. Which means we're looking at hypotheticals, and we can't just assume that the exact same injury would occur under all circumstances. By all indications it was a wear and tear injury that came from Wade having to go nova to get his team to the playoffs...solid probability that this isn't a concern on a generic contender.

And maybe it'd be different if we were comparing him to another iron-man player, as it's fair to say that Wade isn't the most durable player in the world. But I think it's unfair, in the context of how we're judging, to say that 2010 Wade was any more durable than 2009 Wade. Any difference there is circumstantial.

Which brings it to which player played better, 2009 or 2010 Wade. 2010 Wade was great against Boston, and I don't hold him playing in just one round against him. However, 2010 Wade against Boston wasn't an outlier vs. what 2009 Wade could do given the same circumstances...in fact, 2009 Wade used his "burn" as Doc MJ called it for a much larger period before he started wearing down. But since wearing down isn't an issue for me upon further reflection, that means that I see in 2009 Wade a player that showed he could do it for longer than 2010 Wade did.

I'm not positive that I have peak Wade over everyone that isn't in yet...but I'm not sure that I don't, and I AM sure that I have peak Wade over peak Kobe (brought up to say that this must be the right region for Wade to go), and I'm also sure that with 20 minutes left in the vote it doesn't make sense to tilt at windmills by trying to champion someone else. So...

Vote: 2009 Dwyane Wade

[LikeABosh]

West
Malone
Malone
Barkley
Dirk

I'm looking forward to the next series of threads where we compare the 2nd tier of PF's. The wade/kobe/west/t-mac comparisons is kind of losing some interest. Not a lot of room left in those debates because all the major points have been made