Peaks Project #23

[E-Balla]

PGs:
1. 08 Chris Paul
2/3. 05 Nash/96 Penny
4/5. 99 Kidd/85 IT

Wings:
1. 06 Kobe Bryant
2. 61 Elgin Baylor
3. 97 Grant Hill
4/5. 01 VC/15 Harden

Bigs:
1. 83 Moses Malone
2. 90 Charles Barkley
3/4/5. 11 Dwight/98 Karl/00 Zo

My nominations will be:
1. 83 Moses
2. 06 Kobe
3. 08 Chris Paul

[70sFan]

PGs:
1. 08 Chris Paul
2/3. 05 Nash/96 Penny
4/5. 99 Kidd/85 IT

Wings:
1. 06 Kobe Bryant
2. 61 Elgin Baylor
3. 97 Grant Hill
4/5. 01 VC/15 Harden

Bigs:
1. 83 Moses Malone
2. 90 Charles Barkley
3/4/5. 11 Dwight/98 Karl/00 Zo

My nominations will be:
1. 83 Moses
2. 06 Kobe
3. 08 Chris Paul

Why do you have these PGs over Frazier? He has better peak than Kidd or Thomas (even Penny is arguable). Also, Payton is good mention too. I don't think he is as good as Frazier, but he Kidd? That's also good debate.
Why don't you have Rick Barry? He is not that far of Baylor. Also, some other good wings: Arizin, Havlicek, Cunningham, Bernard King, Scottie Pippen.
Another question, why do you have Zo and Howard, but not Reed? They are very comparable, I think he deserves mention. And not Bob Petit? McAdoo? Gilmore?

[bastillon]

[...]

I'd put them in this order:
1. Kobe
2. Nash
3. Mailman
4. Moses
5. Barkley
6. McHale
7. Paul
8. Pippen
9. Harden
10. Dwight

If RS Stats are "meaningless" then what the hell is the Mailman of all people, as well as guys like Pippen doing so high up?[/quote]

Have you seen Karl Malone 94? He was playing vs D-Rob, Mutombo and Hakeem and delivered on both ends of the court. In general Malone 92-96 was really an excellent playoff performer considering team structure and opposition. But in 94 particularly he was really good. You should take into account that he dumpstered D-Rob in the postseason that year and D-Rob was voted in long ago based on the same postseason.

Pippen also had excellent playoff performances at his peak. His scoring efficiency was mediocre but other than that Pippen really delivered. I'd put 94 as his peak and Bulls almost went to the finals despite being far overmatched vs. Knicks. Besides, Pippen was at no 7 ahead of Harden and Dwight. Can't say that the latter two are shining in the postseason either.

[bastillon]

I see that a lot of posters think that Karl Malone's peak was either 97 or 98. That is a massive error to me. Basically you are saying that Karl Malone was better because his team got into the finals. That is illogical. It makes no sense. It would mean that if your teammates get better then you get better at the same time.

Karl Malone's peak was somewhere around the age of 30. To me his peak was 94 because of excellent playoff run against 3 of the top-5 defenders ever:

Spoiler:

Strongly disagree with 97-99 as peak for Karl Malone. That to me was clearly in the mid 90s (either 94 or 95). You should look at his skillset, not the numbers without context. His stats were heavily dependent on competition, as Karl Malone had tendency to underperform vs. quality opponents.

Nevertheless, in the mid 90s Karl Malone was at the peak of his powers:
-30 years old so basically around the age most players are at their best
-much more athletic than in the late 90s, simply ran the floor a lot better, was a quicker defender, played more mins (44 mpg in the postseason, that could never happen in the late 90s)
-much more polished than in the early 90s, jumpshot was a lot better, added fadeaway to his repertoire which he didn't really use around '90
-was much more utilized as a passer as opposed to early 90s

Personally I'd take 94. This is the year where Karl Malone faced in one playoff run David Robinson, Dikembe Mutombo and Hakeem. Basically played gainst three of top 5 defensive players of all-time. This should be taken into consideration looking at his playoff stats. He posted 27/12.4/3.4/1.4/0.8 which is a very good statline, at 53% TS and 113 ORtg (low TOV ratio in the playoffs). Plus, Malone put up incredible defensive performances in those playoffs. All of the guys he guarded performed significantly worse than they did in the RS.

This is when he dominated peak D-Rob in the playoff series. Malone put up 29/12/2 at 56% TS/118 ORtg v. 20/10/3.5 at 47% TS/104 ORtg. People often talk about how Hakeem dismantled D-Rob year later, but in 94 D-Rob was completely dominated by Karl Malone. Not only did Malone hold him in check on defense (D-Rob's averages relative to RS were dramatically lower), but he also dominated offensively.

After that, he put up 27/12/3/2/1 at 53% TS and 110 ORtg vs. Mutombo. In that series Malone played 46 mpg. We're talking about a 7-game series. It shows just how much more stamina he had in that period than during late 90s. I don't really see late 90s Karl Malone putting up that kind of performances game after game vs. Mutombo-anchored defense, playing those kind of minutes, exerting energy on both ends of the court and winning the series on the back of his 31/14/6/2 game 7 performance.

After that he faced Hakeem in the WCF and lost but played pretty well and against respectable competition - Thorpe was definitely a good man defender (Malone did a lot worse vs. Hakeem for the stretches Hakeem was guarding him, but it is to be expected since Hakeem is the best man defender of all-time).

So considering Malone's skillset (more polished than early 90s, with much more stamina and athleticism than in late 90s), his performances in the playoffs, and insane competition that he faced in the playoffs, this is to me clearly the best version of Karl Malone. You could argue that his b2b playoff series vs. D-Rob and Mutombo were his best playoff series ever. The work he was doing on both ends was pretty incredible, considering who he was going up against.

General note: I think voters in this project have been focusing way too little on the context behind the numbers. I rarely see any analysis concerning competition certain players were going up against. In vacuum Tim Duncan's 2003 playoff run really stands out like almost no other. But when you consider the garbage players Duncan was playing against, it really does not. To me it is much more impressive to dominate peak David Robinson than to feast on Amare and Najera all series long. Similarly this is why Ewing and Dirk didn't get enough recognition because people don't appreciate who they were going up against.

[theonlyclutch]

Have you seen Karl Malone 94? He was playing vs D-Rob, Mutombo and Hakeem and delivered on both ends of the court. In general Malone 92-96 was really an excellent playoff performer considering team structure and opposition. But in 94 particularly he was really good. You should take into account that he dumpstered D-Rob in the postseason that year and D-Rob was voted in long ago based on the same postseason.

Then where's Elton Brand in 2006?

Karl Malone 94 - 24.6 PER, 113 ORTG, 53.1% TS
Elton Brand '06 - 26.4 PER, 122 ORTG, 59.0% TS

Don't argue he didn't go far enough, Ewing got voted in despite leading a worse team less in the postseason...


Pippen also had excellent playoff performances at his peak. His scoring efficiency was mediocre but other than that Pippen really delivered. I'd put 94 as his peak and Bulls almost went to the finals despite being far overmatched vs. Knicks. Besides, Pippen was at no 7 ahead of Harden and Dwight. Can't say that the latter two are shining in the postseason either.

Wait what?

Did Dwight Howard's performance in 2009 suddenly dissapear? Or Harden's performance just last postseason?

[bastillon]

Have you seen Karl Malone 94? He was playing vs D-Rob, Mutombo and Hakeem and delivered on both ends of the court. In general Malone 92-96 was really an excellent playoff performer considering team structure and opposition. But in 94 particularly he was really good. You should take into account that he dumpstered D-Rob in the postseason that year and D-Rob was voted in long ago based on the same postseason.

Then where's Elton Brand in 2006?

Karl Malone 94 - 24.6 PER, 113 ORTG, 53.1% TS
Elton Brand '06 - 26.4 PER, 122 ORTG, 59.0% TS

Don't argue he didn't go far enough, Ewing got voted in despite leading a worse team less in the postseason...


Pippen also had excellent playoff performances at his peak. His scoring efficiency was mediocre but other than that Pippen really delivered. I'd put 94 as his peak and Bulls almost went to the finals despite being far overmatched vs. Knicks. Besides, Pippen was at no 7 ahead of Harden and Dwight. Can't say that the latter two are shining in the postseason either.

Wait what?

Did Dwight Howard's performance in 2009 suddenly dissapear? Or Harden's performance just last postseason?

Well once again I will quote myself from the very post you were responding to:

"General note: I think voters in this project have been focusing way too little on the context behind the numbers. I rarely see any analysis concerning competition certain players were going up against. In vacuum Tim Duncan's 2003 playoff run really stands out like almost no other. But when you consider the garbage players Duncan was playing against, it really does not. To me it is much more impressive to dominate peak David Robinson than to feast on Amare and Najera all series long. Similarly this is why Ewing and Dirk didn't get enough recognition because people don't appreciate who they were going up against."

Just so you know, I was a huge Suns fan during Nash era. I know those teams in and out. Suns were absolutely horrendous in terms of post defense and defensive rebounding and every competent big could abuse that. Kwame Brown was even playing the post vs Suns. Yeah, it was bad.

You are comparing Brand's performance vs Suns frontline (Diaw/Marion) with Karl Malone's performance vs Robinson, Mutombo and Hakeem at their defensive peak. Those are not comparable situations. I mentioned that Malone's performance was so impressive specifically because he put up those numbers playing against such an incredible competition. Brand has NEVER faced one defender of that caliber (primarily because during Brand's prime such defenders did not even exist). Malone faced three of them, one by one, in consecutive playoff series. I will argue that this was the hardest ever competition 3 series in a row. 94 Robinson, 94 Mutombo, 94 Hakeem. What's funny is that even if he beat Hakeem, Malone would be waiting for NYK's frontline with 94 Ewing and Oakley/Mason...

As far as Dwight and Harden, I wouldn't say that their performances in 09 and 15 were more impactful than Pippen's in 94.

-Harden is an accident waiting to happen. Once he plays vs good defense, he's easily contained and struggles. His performance in some games vs GSW was really poor. His playoff competition beforehand was also quite poor. He would be dumpstered if he was playing Spurs or Grizzlies. We have seen Harden struggle in the playoffs vs good defenses repeatedly at this point. I feel like Harden's weaknesses in his midrange game and high reliance on hitting FTs/3s really limits his impact vs defenses that don't let him do that. He becomes turnover prone and entire offense crumbles around him. Obviously he doesn't bring any value defensively. RS Harden was definitely a lot better than Pippen, MVP caliber player. But Harden's fundamental weaknesses get exploited in the postseason and that is why I am not as high on him.

-As for Dwight, he was playing really well in the playoffs in 09 but then the finals happened when he did not score a single field goal vs Pau Gasol in isolations (and overall was very poor in isolations). We have seen Dwight, similarly, struggle mightily against top defenses in the playoffs. He was always guarded single coverage by Perkins, Sheed etc. I think Dwight would legitimately get dumpstered in the 90s with his limited post moves. I don't really consider Dwight an offensive threat against top defensive teams. Dwight's defenses is a huge asset though and that is the reason you could argue he's better than Pippen. But Pippen's defense is amazing in the playoffs and particularly in 94 postseason Pippen was quite nuts. I'd prefer Pippen's playmaking vs Dwight's scoring because it's much more impactful historically speaking. Dwight offensively is not a high impact player in general because he's a poor passer with limited post moves. Can absolutely feast on mediocre/average defenses, but struggles mightily against top defenses.

-to be fair Pippen also has huge offensive shortcomings when it comes to scoring, but his scoring is not really his big asset. Pippen is so versatile that even if he doesn't bring much scoring, he will still get rebounds, facilitate the offense, space the floor, play incredible team defense and ignite the fast breaks forcing turnovers. I think all 3 (Harden, Dwight, Pippen) are going to be limited scoring-wise vs top defensive teams, but Pippen will be the one with highest game impact overall because of his versatility.

[bastillon]

If people didn't focus so much on RS stats (almost meaningless games most of the time), then Kobe would be voted in already. He had a better playoff run in 08 than TMac 03, Wade 09, Curry 15 and Durant 14. Really hard to justify those guys over Kobe based on the postseason.

I agree that Kobe's best playoff run (which was IMO '01 or '09, and '08 would be the third best, with '10 being very close, too) was better than '14 Durant and '15 Curry, but '03 T-Mac and '09 Wade didn't really have playoff "runs" at all. You can't really say that 7 games in one round is a "run". That's just one series, same as Kobe had in '06. All three players took clearly superior teams to 7 games (I mean '03 McGrady, '06 Bryant, '09 Wade), so you can say the Magic, Lakers and Heat already overachieved. On paper, it seemed like they should've lost in 5 or 6 (McGrady and Bryant even led their teams to a 3-1 lead in those series). '08 Kobe vs '03 T-Mac and '09 Wade is basically apples to oranges comparison, if you put so much emphasis on playoffs.

There is some profound irony that Kobe will be voted in at least 8 spots after Wade when in fact he was universally recognized as being better than Wade throughout every year of their careers. I know that Kobe was once overrated due to his high volume scoring, but the same goes for Wade and other high volume scorers.

Well, you can always pick '06 as Wade's peak, and his playoff run that year was at least as good as any of Kobe's (not even just his finals against Dallas were phenomenal, but also his series against Detroit in ECF - if you really value postseason performance in conference finals/NBA finals, against strong defenses, more than anything else, then you should be pretty high on '06 Wade - and please don't even start talking about the supposed help that Wade got from the refs - in that Detroit series, he averaged 2 FTA/G less than he did in the regular season).

Penny 97

I'd easily take '96 over '97 for Penny. 82 RS games compared to 59 is a big difference, not to mention that '96 was clearly better on a game-by-game basis, and '96 was pretty good in the playoffs. I'd even take '95 over '97 (but anyway, '96 was clearly Penny's peak, to me).

Drexler 90/92

Drexler was much better in '92 than he was in '90, IMO.

If RS Stats are "meaningless" then what the hell is the Mailman of all people, as well as guys like Pippen doing so high up?

Yeah, I don't get it, either. Besides, I can't see Pippen over Howard for peak. Dwight was considerably more impactful defensively (I really don't believe any non-bigman ever approached peak Howard in terms of defensive impact), Howard was better in the playoffs, and a far better scorer, someone who warped opposing defenses much more than Pippen, even if Howard's playmaking is basically nonexistent compared to Pippen's.

IMO '15 Harden is clearly better than peak Pippen, too.

I'd strongly consider taking peak KJ over Pippen, as well. Peak KJ was an offensive monster. 2000 Alonzo Mourning was probably better than Pippen ever was, too.

I covered most of the this post already. Just a couple points:
1. You can't really say Wade took clearly superior team to 7 games. He was playing vs Atlanta freakin Hawks. I'd actually expect from a superstar of his caliber to win that series quite easily. Hawks weren't even very good that year. It didn't help that Wade got outplayed by his counterpart in Joe Johnson at the end of the series. Really if you wanna use playoffs, 09 Wade is very unimpressive to me (btw his statline is also a bit inflated due to the long garbage time during blowouts over the course of the series). Wade was playing well overall but it really was far from top-20 all-time.

2. Yes, Wade's 06 playoff performance was quite amazing. As for Detroit being a great defense I would argue that they were not. This is Flip Saunders Pistons we're talking about. And in case you didn't notice Flip Saunders Pistons had insane issues vs star wings in the playoffs. 06 Wade, 07 LeBron, 08 Pierce. Overall, I'd still prefer Kobe 08 over Wade 06. More versatile offensively, gives you a lot more flexibility. Wade was better defensively, I admin, but I don't value defense of superstar wings very highly because they tend to rest on defense anyway and then they are almost useless.

[theonlyclutch]

Have you seen Karl Malone 94? He was playing vs D-Rob, Mutombo and Hakeem and delivered on both ends of the court. In general Malone 92-96 was really an excellent playoff performer considering team structure and opposition. But in 94 particularly he was really good. You should take into account that he dumpstered D-Rob in the postseason that year and D-Rob was voted in long ago based on the same postseason.

Then where's Elton Brand in 2006?

Karl Malone 94 - 24.6 PER, 113 ORTG, 53.1% TS
Elton Brand '06 - 26.4 PER, 122 ORTG, 59.0% TS

Don't argue he didn't go far enough, Ewing got voted in despite leading a worse team less in the postseason...


Pippen also had excellent playoff performances at his peak. His scoring efficiency was mediocre but other than that Pippen really delivered. I'd put 94 as his peak and Bulls almost went to the finals despite being far overmatched vs. Knicks. Besides, Pippen was at no 7 ahead of Harden and Dwight. Can't say that the latter two are shining in the postseason either.

Wait what?

Did Dwight Howard's performance in 2009 suddenly dissapear? Or Harden's performance just last postseason?

Well once again I will quote myself from the very post you were responding to:

"General note: I think voters in this project have been focusing way too little on the context behind the numbers. I rarely see any analysis concerning competition certain players were going up against. In vacuum Tim Duncan's 2003 playoff run really stands out like almost no other. But when you consider the garbage players Duncan was playing against, it really does not. To me it is much more impressive to dominate peak David Robinson than to feast on Amare and Najera all series long. Similarly this is why Ewing and Dirk didn't get enough recognition because people don't appreciate who they were going up against."

Just so you know, I was a huge Suns fan during Nash era. I know those teams in and out. Suns were absolutely horrendous in terms of post defense and defensive rebounding and every competent big could abuse that. Kwame Brown was even playing the post vs Suns. Yeah, it was bad.

You are comparing Brand's performance vs Suns frontline (Diaw/Marion) with Karl Malone's performance vs Robinson, Mutombo and Hakeem at their defensive peak. Those are not comparable situations. I mentioned that Malone's performance was so impressive specifically because he put up those numbers playing against such an incredible competition. Brand has NEVER faced one defender of that caliber (primarily because during Brand's prime such defenders did not even exist). Malone faced three of them, one by one, in consecutive playoff series. I will argue that this was the hardest ever competition 3 series in a row. 94 Robinson, 94 Mutombo, 94 Hakeem. What's funny is that even if he beat Hakeem, Malone would be waiting for NYK's frontline with 94 Ewing and Oakley/Mason...

As far as Dwight and Harden, I wouldn't say that their performances in 09 and 15 were more impactful than Pippen's in 94.

-Harden is an accident waiting to happen. Once he plays vs good defense, he's easily contained and struggles. His performance in some games vs GSW was really poor. His playoff competition beforehand was also quite poor. He would be dumpstered if he was playing Spurs or Grizzlies. We have seen Harden struggle in the playoffs vs good defenses repeatedly at this point. I feel like Harden's weaknesses in his midrange game and high reliance on hitting FTs/3s really limits his impact vs defenses that don't let him do that. He becomes turnover prone and entire offense crumbles around him. Obviously he doesn't bring any value defensively. RS Harden was definitely a lot better than Pippen, MVP caliber player. But Harden's fundamental weaknesses get exploited in the postseason and that is why I am not as high on him.

Eh?

28.4/7.8/6.4, 62.7% TS, 115 ORTG is "struggling"?

He got to the FT line just fine against GSW that series, and I don't see the point of broadcasting Harden's struggles in previous years, when he's being compared to the flipping Mailman, who has a massive track record of struggling in the playoffs, against defenses either bad or good...

-As for Dwight, he was playing really well in the playoffs in 09 but then the finals happened when he did not score a single field goal vs Pau Gasol in isolations (and overall was very poor in isolations). We have seen Dwight, similarly, struggle mightily against top defenses in the playoffs. He was always guarded single coverage by Perkins, Sheed etc. I think Dwight would legitimately get dumpstered in the 90s with his limited post moves. I don't really consider Dwight an offensive threat against top defensive teams. Dwight's defenses is a huge asset though and that is the reason you could argue he's better than Pippen. But Pippen's defense is amazing in the playoffs and particularly in 94 postseason Pippen was quite nuts. I'd prefer Pippen's playmaking vs Dwight's scoring because it's much more impactful historically speaking. Dwight offensively is not a high impact player in general because he's a poor passer with limited post moves. Can absolutely feast on mediocre/average defenses, but struggles mightily against top defenses.

-to be fair Pippen also has huge offensive shortcomings when it comes to scoring, but his scoring is not really his big asset. Pippen is so versatile that even if he doesn't bring much scoring, he will still get rebounds, facilitate the offense, space the floor, play incredible team defense and ignite the fast breaks forcing turnovers. I think all 3 (Harden, Dwight, Pippen) are going to be limited scoring-wise vs top defensive teams, but Pippen will be the one with highest game impact overall because of his versatility.

The exact same properties also apply to the letter with Dwight Howard, who has more defensive impact by virtue of being a center and yet...

20.3/15.3/1.9 on 63.4% TS, 119 ORTG is somehow worse than:

22.8/8.3/4.6 on 52.1% TS, 104 ORTG, and it's certainly not like Pippen was actually any good against the good defense of the Knicks anyway...

[Quotatious]

I covered most of the this post already. Just a couple points:
1. You can't really say Wade took clearly superior team to 7 games. He was playing vs Atlanta freakin Hawks.

Those Atlanta freakin Hawks were clearly better than the Miami freakin Heat that Wade played with. 47 wins compared to 43, 1.70 SRS compared to 0.49 in favor of the Hawks. Also, they had three borderline All-Stars - Johnson, Smith and Horford (well, Horford played poorly in that ATL/MIA series, but he was certainly an above average bigman for most of that season), and Bibby was still pretty decent.

Wade's best teammate was Udonis Haslem. You can't expect a team to be successful in the playoffs if UD is their second best player, no matter who is your leader. Even peak Jordan would've made the second round with that Heat team, at most.

I would agree that the difference between Wade's team and his opponent was smaller than it was the case with '03 T-Mac or '06 Kobe, but all of them faced superior teams in the playoffs, and performed as expected (or even better), in terms of team results (if I had to predict outcomes of those series before it happened, I'd say in '03, Detroit beats Orlando in 5, in '06, Suns beat the Lakers in 5 or 6, and in '09, Hawks beat Heat in 6 or 7).

It didn't help that Wade got outplayed by his counterpart in Joe Johnson at the end of the series.

That's not true. No idea where you're getting that from. JJ didn't even have a good series. He just got hot from long range (6/8 for 3-pt) in game 7. All I want to say is this - you know a player is really amazing if someone criticizes him for having a 29/5/5 on 56.5% TS series, as the only star on his team, against a superior team.

09 Wade is very unimpressive to me (btw his statline is also a bit inflated due to the long garbage time during blowouts over the course of the series).

Wade averaged 40.7 mpg in that series, which isn't that big of an increase compared to what he averaged in the RS (38.6) - superstars basically always play more minutes in the playoffs, especially in a situation like Wade's in '09, where a guy is the only star on his team. So, I don't really buy the argument about garbage time.

Wade had only one really bad game in that series - game 1, when he was really bad (19/5/5/3 stl. , 8 turnovers, 42% TS in 40 minutes) - really awful game, especially considering that Miami lost by 26, but that's just one bad game.

Wade was playing well overall but it really was far from top-20 all-time.

I'll agree with that, but not having a top 20 all-time level series doesn't mean it was automatically a bad series, especially if you take these things into account:

a) He was dealing with back spasms.

b) He had to expend a ridiculous amount of energy on both ends of the court (played very consistent defense in the RS considering how heavy of an offensive burden he was carrying - that's what separates '09 Wade from '06 or '07 Kobe, to me, as well as from '03 T-Mac), and he didn't have a real second option - second highest scorer on the Heat that year - Michael freakin' Beasley, averaged 13.9 on mediocre efficiency.

So, taking all of that into account, I'm inclined to be forgiving for the fact that he averaged "only" 29/5/5 on 56.5% TS and lost that series in 7 games.

As for Detroit being a great defense I would argue that they were not. This is Flip Saunders Pistons we're talking about.

So what? They still had their core group (starting 5) together, still had Big Ben, and the oldest starters on that team were 31/32 years old (Ben and Sheed), so they weren't really old or anything. They weren't as good defensively as they were in '04 or even in '05, but still good enough for the 5th best defense in the league, at -3.1 compared to league average DRtg (which is still elite, even if not all-time great).

Also, I disagree that Flip was a bad coach. He VASTLY improved their offense. They were below average offensively under Larry Brown, and all of a sudden became a top 5 offensive team under Flip in '06, and won 64 games, which was their best, most balanced RS team of that era.
Those Larry Brown Piston teams were like a defensive version of Nash's Suns - Suns were winning games mostly because of their offense, and their defense was average to slightly below average (I'm talking about the '05-'07 teams), Brown's Pistons were winning games mostly because of their defense, and they were average or slightly below average offensively. Both teams had great teamwork on the side of the court where they dominated (offense for Suns, defense for Pistons). Both were clearly flawed teams (Pistons won more because they benefitted from playing in the weaker conference).

And in case you didn't notice Flip Saunders Pistons had insane issues vs star wings in the playoffs. 06 Wade, 07 LeBron, 08 Pierce.

Well, those are all great players, even the worst one of them - Pierce, is still a top 40-50 player of all-time, all of them were in their primes (Wade and Pierce were even arguably at their peaks in '06 and '08, respectively). Great offensive players are gonna have great series no matter who they are playing against, at least once in a while. Besides, they didn't have Big Ben in '07 and '08, anymore, and they didn't find a quality replacement, in terms of defense.

Overall, I'd still prefer Kobe 08 over Wade 06. More versatile offensively, gives you a lot more flexibility. Wade was better defensively, I admin, but I don't value defense of superstar wings very highly because they tend to rest on defense anyway and then they are almost useless.

Fair enough, I won't argue with that. Not saying I agree, but I can see why you said that, it makes sense, I guess.

[Quotatious]

70sFan mentioned McAdoo, so how about other players from that era - '68 Connie Hawkins, '70 Spencer Haywood and peak ABA Gilmore (I guess '75)?

I know many people say that the early ABA was really weak, but Hawkins and Haywood put up some amazing numbers with a lot of team success, and they were great in both RS and playoffs.

'73 Tiny Archibald could be an interesting candidate, too (but that's RS-only season, similar to '14 Kevin Love).

Not saying they should already start getting votes, just throwing some names out there (personally, I would have Moses, Kobe, CP3, Karl, Barkley, Nash, ahead of those guys, if I voted, and I think most of you guys agree with that).

[RSCD3_]

Reserving Ballot will vote on by tonight maybe.

1. 2009 Kobe
2. 2008 Paul
3. 1990 Barkley

09 kobe

Kobe RS: 37.8 PP100 on 56.1 TS% ( + 1.7 RelTS% ) , 7.4 RP100, 6.9 AP100 on 2.45 AST/TOV% Ratio
115/106 PER100 Splits, 4.5 BPM (4.8/-0.2) 0.206 WS/48

Kobe PS: 39.0 PPg on 56.4 TS% ( +2.0 RelTS% ) 6.9 RP100, 7.1 AP100 on 2.99 AST/TOV% Ratio
117/104 PER100 splits, 7.4 BPM (6.8/0.6) 0.238 WS/48

Conclusion:

2009 kobe Bryant

He had amazing offensive impact this year due to his playmaking being at it's peak while he still limited turnovers at a marvelous rate due to excellent ball security. His defense was about average but he picked it up to a very solid defender in the playoffs for a wing. Even when he didnt convert he still had the very real kobe assist where his drawn attention lead to offensive rebounds being available to his teammates for easy shots.

On why 2008 Vs 2009

In your opinion how much of his 09 playoff success was due to maybe easier opponents? (in comparison to 08 ie)

By comparison

1ST Round

2008 Denver 3.71 SRS, 51 Wins, -1.2 RelDrtg
2009 Utah: 2.37 SRS, 48 Wins, -1.0 RelDRTG

WCSF

2008 Utah: 6.86 SRS, 54 Wins, -1.0 RelDrtg
2009 Rockets: 3.73 SRS, 53 Wins, -4.3 RelDRTG

WCF

2008 Spurs 4.73 SRS, 55 Wins, -5.7 RelDRTG
2009 Nuggets: 3.13 SRS, 54 Wins, -1.5 RelDRTG

Finals

2008 Celtics: 9.30 SRS, 66 Wins, -8.6 DRTG
2009 Magic: 6.48 SRS, 59 Wins, -6.9 RelDRTG

Averages

2008 6.12 SRS, 57.1 Wins -4.32 RelDRTG
2009 3.87 SRS, 53.5 Wins, -3.42 RelDRTG

Conclusion while the teams kobe may have faced were slightly better in 08, the defenses he faced where about the same. Not to mention his 2008 Finals was pretty poor. Since the teams he faced in 08 were stronger than 09 but relatively close defensively, the offensive edge was where a lot of the margin comes from since i havent been that high on kobe's defense i dont attribute much of his success towards better teams on the defensive end and thus i look more towards defensive ratings in the playoffs.

Also here's the RelDRTG's before the finals

2008: -2.64
2009:-2.60

And then in the finals he faces two dominant defensive teams

Here's what he puts up

2008 25.7 PPG on 50.5 TS%, 5.0 APG on 1.73 AST%-TOV% Ratio, 98 ORTG
2009 32.4 PPG on 52.5 TS%, 7.4 APG on 3.69 AST%-TOV% Ratio, 111 ORTG

The main crux of the argument is that 2008 and 2009 are relatively close and then in the playoffs stay the same. In the finals, Kobe plays poorly in one and admirably in the other. The scoring is still a little inefficent, his volume has increased though and his playmaking was fabulous, the assist numbers resemble a prime lebron series and it seemed he really boosted the team in this one. Do you see kobe's 2008 as clearly ahead of 2009 in the RS or PS, because the clear edge in the finals betwen two such close years before that seals the deals for me.

2. Chris Paul

I'm choosing 2008 because while his defense was worse, a neutral player in most respects, and his skills werent refined his superior Athleticism couple with his still elite playmaking led to him being able to introduce more chaos into different team's defenses. He was harder to gameplan against because he was a real threat to drive and finish and this lead to players giving him space to see the floor which he could kill by making excellent passes. Because he wasnt quite Wade in his driving ability and most of his value came from running the point, I still dont feel as comfortable with him compared to other drive heavy taller traditional wing stars but he was right behind kobe for me. In fact I'd say he might have been better on offense but kobe's defensive advantage while small compared to both of their offensive values is enough of an edge for me.

Kobe 5.50/0.5
Paul 5.75/0.0

3. Charles Barkley 91

I cannot decide on what year but I feel like I may be leaning towards 1990. In 1990 His efficiency was through the roof but his passing game wasnt quite that good yet, while in 93 it became a major weapon but his efficiency dropped to HOLY **** to merely very good in the RS and in the PS was only good. Now I know I did say that in most cases I'd rather have a distributor than a finisher if their impact levels were equal but it looks like 90 Chuck had more impact

RS CHUCK

90: 32.1 PP100 on 66.1 TS%, 4.9 AP100 on 1.12 AST/TOV% Ratio, 128 ORTG
93: 32.7 PP100 on 59.6 TS%, 6.5 AP100 on 1.70 AST/TOV% Ratio, 120 ORTG,

Actually 91 might have the best balance of both

91: 37.1 PP100 on 63.5 TS%, 5.7 AP100 on 1.63 AST/TOV% Ratio, 123 ORTG

His numbers in the playoffs were also clearly higher than the other two years

90: 30.4 PP100 on 58.9 TS%, 5.3 AP100 on 1.41 AST/TOV% Ratio, 120 ORTG
93: 32.2 PP100 on 55.2 TS%, 5.7 AP100 on 2.19 AST/TOV% Ratio, 119 ORTG

91: 32.6 PP100 on 63.0 TS%, 7.9 AP100 on 2.07 AST/TOV% Ratio, 123 ORTG

Yeah now that I think about it why cant 91 be chuck's peak, heck it actually looks like chuck underperformed in the 93 PS a bit. I guess it's only natural when you think about how much more he used the midrange jumper but still that's almost a 5.0 TS% Drop, almost Malonian in that nature. In 90 he is more efficient to end up with but his TS% still drops a staggering 7% and his volume drops by almost 2 PP100. By comparison he looks the Great in the 1991 PS

KB 5.50/0.50
CP 5.75/0.0
CB 6.25/-0.50

[trex_8063]

Thru post #31:

Kobe Bryant - 11
Chris Paul - 10
Charles Barkley - 9
Moses Malone - 8
Karl Malone - 4

My intention is to leave the polls open for only about 3 or so more hours, btw.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[JordansBulls]

Been out of town so haven't been around.

1. Moses Malone 1983 (Dominant on the season and playoffs, led team to one of the greatest seasons of all time and the greatest playoff run considered by many)
2. Kobe 2008 (led team to the finals and best record in conference. Dethroned defending champions)
3. Barkley 1993 Dominant in the season and playoffs in a great 3 way race for MVP. Pretty much just had two other guys just as dominant if not more so than he was.

[theonlyclutch]

My Final Ballot:

1st Ballot: 2015 Chris Paul

2nd Ballot: 1990 Charles Barkley

3rd Ballot: 2008 Kobe Bryant

[drza]

Kobe 08
Barkley 93
Moses 83


The Malones and Barkley are pretty much interchangeable on my list. I like Barkley the best of the list, personally, but when I started this sentence I had Karl in that third spot instead of Barkley. On paper I like his size and ability to play more rugged defense, but I do like Barkley's offense (both ISO and team offense) better than Malone's by a fair bit. And really, I like the versatility of both over Moses so I'm still surprised that I'm voting for him first. I admit to being swayed by his better than expected +/- scores, because prior to that I felt like his style just couldn't produce impact on such a high level. I've seen good counter-arguments to that, though, specifically the mention of Mo Cheeks and how his scores tended to be even higher, and I'd love to be able to break down (or have someone else do it and post it) how the +/- scores correlated (e.g. were Cheeks and Mo putting up huge numbers simultaneously, indicating that it might be measuring synergy more than individual dominance, or were they taking turns having big years and thus more likely to be pulling more of individual loads but taking turns).

Anyway, I may have talked myself into Barkley over Moses. If so, then you'll see it reflected in my vote (if not in the previous paragraph).

[RSCD3_]

Kobe 08
Barkley 93
Moses 83


The Malones and Barkley are pretty much interchangeable on my list. I like Barkley the best of the list, personally, but when I started this sentence I had Karl in that third spot instead of Barkley. On paper I like his size and ability to play more rugged defense, but I do like Barkley's offense (both ISO and team offense) better than Malone's by a fair bit. And really, I like the versatility of both over Moses so I'm still surprised that I'm voting for him first. I admit to being swayed by his better than expected +/- scores, because prior to that I felt like his style just couldn't produce impact on such a high level. I've seen good counter-arguments to that, though, specifically the mention of Mo Cheeks and how his scores tended to be even higher, and I'd love to be able to break down (or have someone else do it and post it) how the +/- scores correlated (e.g. were Cheeks and Mo putting up huge numbers simultaneously, indicating that it might be measuring synergy more than individual dominance, or were they taking turns having big years and thus more likely to be pulling more of individual loads but taking turns).

Anyway, I may have talked myself into Barkley over Moses. If so, then you'll see it reflected in my vote (if not in the previous paragraph).

Why not Charles over kobe? Do you have peak kobe higher offensively than peak chuck or does it come down to defense?

[trex_8063]

Thru post #35:

Kobe Bryant - 17
Charles Barkley - 14
Chris Paul - 13
Moses Malone - 12
Karl Malone - 4


Calling it for Kobe. Will have #24 up shortly; looks to be a tight race between Sir Charles, CP3, and Moses.

[drza]

Kobe 08
Barkley 93
Moses 83


The Malones and Barkley are pretty much interchangeable on my list. I like Barkley the best of the list, personally, but when I started this sentence I had Karl in that third spot instead of Barkley. On paper I like his size and ability to play more rugged defense, but I do like Barkley's offense (both ISO and team offense) better than Malone's by a fair bit. And really, I like the versatility of both over Moses so I'm still surprised that I'm voting for him first. I admit to being swayed by his better than expected +/- scores, because prior to that I felt like his style just couldn't produce impact on such a high level. I've seen good counter-arguments to that, though, specifically the mention of Mo Cheeks and how his scores tended to be even higher, and I'd love to be able to break down (or have someone else do it and post it) how the +/- scores correlated (e.g. were Cheeks and Mo putting up huge numbers simultaneously, indicating that it might be measuring synergy more than individual dominance, or were they taking turns having big years and thus more likely to be pulling more of individual loads but taking turns).

Anyway, I may have talked myself into Barkley over Moses. If so, then you'll see it reflected in my vote (if not in the previous paragraph).

Why not Charles over kobe? Do you have peak kobe higher offensively than peak chuck or does it come down to defense?

I think that Kobe peaked offensively on a similar level to Barkley, but that it would have been easier to build a successful/championship team around Kobe's skill set than around Barkley's. Said another way, I think that even if their impacts were similar, Kobe took fewer options off the table than Barkley did when team building.

[bastillon]

I covered most of the this post already. Just a couple points:
1. You can't really say Wade took clearly superior team to 7 games. He was playing vs Atlanta freakin Hawks.

Those Atlanta freakin Hawks were clearly better than the Miami freakin Heat that Wade played with. 47 wins compared to 43, 1.70 SRS compared to 0.49 in favor of the Hawks. Also, they had three borderline All-Stars - Johnson, Smith and Horford (well, Horford played poorly in that ATL/MIA series, but he was certainly an above average bigman for most of that season), and Bibby was still pretty decent.

Wade's best teammate was Udonis Haslem. You can't expect a team to be successful in the playoffs if UD is their second best player, no matter who is your leader. Even peak Jordan would've made the second round with that Heat team, at most.

I would agree that the difference between Wade's team and his opponent was smaller than it was the case with '03 T-Mac or '06 Kobe, but all of them faced superior teams in the playoffs, and performed as expected (or even better), in terms of team results (if I had to predict outcomes of those series before it happened, I'd say in '03, Detroit beats Orlando in 5, in '06, Suns beat the Lakers in 5 or 6, and in '09, Hawks beat Heat in 6 or 7).

It didn't help that Wade got outplayed by his counterpart in Joe Johnson at the end of the series.

That's not true. No idea where you're getting that from. JJ didn't even have a good series. He just got hot from long range (6/8 for 3-pt) in game 7. All I want to say is this - you know a player is really amazing if someone criticizes him for having a 29/5/5 on 56.5% TS series, as the only star on his team, against a superior team.

09 Wade is very unimpressive to me (btw his statline is also a bit inflated due to the long garbage time during blowouts over the course of the series).

Wade averaged 40.7 mpg in that series, which isn't that big of an increase compared to what he averaged in the RS (38.6) - superstars basically always play more minutes in the playoffs, especially in a situation like Wade's in '09, where a guy is the only star on his team. So, I don't really buy the argument about garbage time.

Wade had only one really bad game in that series - game 1, when he was really bad (19/5/5/3 stl. , 8 turnovers, 42% TS in 40 minutes) - really awful game, especially considering that Miami lost by 26, but that's just one bad game.

Wade was playing well overall but it really was far from top-20 all-time.

I'll agree with that, but not having a top 20 all-time level series doesn't mean it was automatically a bad series, especially if you take these things into account:

a) He was dealing with back spasms.

b) He had to expend a ridiculous amount of energy on both ends of the court (played very consistent defense in the RS considering how heavy of an offensive burden he was carrying - that's what separates '09 Wade from '06 or '07 Kobe, to me, as well as from '03 T-Mac), and he didn't have a real second option - second highest scorer on the Heat that year - Michael freakin' Beasley, averaged 13.9 on mediocre efficiency.

So, taking all of that into account, I'm inclined to be forgiving for the fact that he averaged "only" 29/5/5 on 56.5% TS and lost that series in 7 games.

As for Detroit being a great defense I would argue that they were not. This is Flip Saunders Pistons we're talking about.

So what? They still had their core group (starting 5) together, still had Big Ben, and the oldest starters on that team were 31/32 years old (Ben and Sheed), so they weren't really old or anything. They weren't as good defensively as they were in '04 or even in '05, but still good enough for the 5th best defense in the league, at -3.1 compared to league average DRtg (which is still elite, even if not all-time great).

Also, I disagree that Flip was a bad coach. He VASTLY improved their offense. They were below average offensively under Larry Brown, and all of a sudden became a top 5 offensive team under Flip in '06, and won 64 games, which was their best, most balanced RS team of that era.
Those Larry Brown Piston teams were like a defensive version of Nash's Suns - Suns were winning games mostly because of their offense, and their defense was average to slightly below average (I'm talking about the '05-'07 teams), Brown's Pistons were winning games mostly because of their defense, and they were average or slightly below average offensively. Both teams had great teamwork on the side of the court where they dominated (offense for Suns, defense for Pistons). Both were clearly flawed teams (Pistons won more because they benefitted from playing in the weaker conference).

And in case you didn't notice Flip Saunders Pistons had insane issues vs star wings in the playoffs. 06 Wade, 07 LeBron, 08 Pierce.

Well, those are all great players, even the worst one of them - Pierce, is still a top 40-50 player of all-time, all of them were in their primes (Wade and Pierce were even arguably at their peaks in '06 and '08, respectively). Great offensive players are gonna have great series no matter who they are playing against, at least once in a while. Besides, they didn't have Big Ben in '07 and '08, anymore, and they didn't find a quality replacement, in terms of defense.

Overall, I'd still prefer Kobe 08 over Wade 06. More versatile offensively, gives you a lot more flexibility. Wade was better defensively, I admin, but I don't value defense of superstar wings very highly because they tend to rest on defense anyway and then they are almost useless.

Fair enough, I won't argue with that. Not saying I agree, but I can see why you said that, it makes sense, I guess.

For the sake of the discussion don't chop my post into single sentences because I am trying to build a coherent reasoning, not a laundry list of singular sentences.

The argument of Wade's supporting cast is unconvincing. Hawks were not a good team by any margin. They wouldn't have made the playoffs (not by a long shot) in the western conference. This is not a situation of Wade facing a far superior team. Hawks were a mediocre team with some above average players. Wade did not have a good supporting cast but you shouldn't need that against this caliber of team. Not to mention that Miami were favored to win that series.

As for backspasms, I didn't even remember that. But that makes it even more funny. You would rather have Wade with backspasms than healthy Kobe? That's pretty insane.

As for Flip Saunders, all I said was that Pistons had huge issues with star wings during his tenure and legitimately played very poor defense against them. For example famous G5 vs LeBron - horrendous defense against a limited offensive player (dude had no jumpshot and they didn't come up with 'let him shoot' strategy). So that needs to be taken into account when you say that Wade abused Pistons in 06. Yes he did. No, it is not unexpected from star wing to do so.