Retro POY '05-06 (Voting Complete)

[sp6r=underrated]

I know you will use Kobe's PER to downgrade what he did in the playoffs. I remember seeing Kobe make smart post-entry passes, making smart decisions in the full court and on the pick-n-roll, playing good defense, and taking over in the clutch with aggressive play in the mid-range area to bring a superior team to the brink of elimination. He dropped 50 in game 6, but it wasn't enough. That explains his supporting cast that year.

^^^ That's the difference between those who are watching what happens on the court and those who rely almost exclusively on statistics.

A recent example of the way he played throughout the first 6 games of the Phoenix series was game 5 against OKC. His stats were pedestrian (for an all time great) but his impact was much larger.

[semi-sentient]

That's a great example. He ran the offense about as well as you can, while doing a great job disrupting things defensively (Westbrook -- who came back and adjusted the next game to his credit). For him, a low scoring game where I'm sure his PER was below average, but huge impact on both ends. And a blowout victory.

[mysticbb]

For him, a low scoring game where I'm sure his PER was below average, but huge impact on both ends. And a blowout victory.

Actually this game improved his PER. ;)

But your point is a good one, you can't just rely on boxscore metrics to judge a player. BUT, Bryant didn't have the impact on the game in the series against the Suns he had in the regular season. As I pointed out before the team defense wasn't anything good with Bryant on the floor, his ability to create an efficient offense in those games were limited. He most certainly done a good job, but overall the result wasn't there. You can claim that this looked great or whatever, but Bryant had not a bigger impact on the game as Duncan in the 2006 playoffs. And that statement is NOT based on boxscore metrics, but by watching the games and evaluation the results.

[ElGee]

Like any hypothetical, what you think would have happened is going to be colored by the thought processes and predispositions of each person. But even being completely conservative and removing my own thoughts on the matter, it's certainly not ridiculous to think that KG could have taken that team further than Dirk.

Actually I looked at it from both sides, Garnett would improve the defense and rebounding, but in the playoffs the difference between the 2006 Nowitzki in DRB% isn't huge anymore. Nowitzki had a 28 DRB%, Garnett next to a defensive rebounding center isn't getting much more. Keep in mind that Garnett never had a rebounding center like Dampier next to him. BUT, all of the players you mentioned are better offensively. Dampier and Diop are known for their really bad hands.
Anyway, Nowitzki carried that team offensively with a much higher efficiency than a usual Garnett was able to do it. It is also a fact that Nowitzki is better in clutch situation, especially in converting his free throw attempt which is huge in the playoffs. Garnett would have not led that Dallas team past the Spurs, I have no doubt about that. The team wasn't good enough offensively to cover up Garnett's weaknesses on offense. You don't go deep in the playoffs, if your main scorer is not really efficient like Garnett. Take a look at the 2004 Timberwolves, 7 players on that team with significant minutes had a higher scoring efficieny than Garnett, on the 2006 Mavericks only Diop had a higher scoring effiency (while making 3ppg) than Nowitzki. We are not talking about a small difference here, even absolute prime Garnett scored 24 ppg on 51.3 ts%, compare that to 27 ppg on 59.6 ts%. And Garnett actually used more scoring possessions than Nowitzki per game in 2004. If Garnett would have scored as efficient as Nowitzki, he would have score 4 ppg more. As I said, Garnett for Nowitzki swap in 2006, a year in which Garnett was weaker than 2004, would have cost the Mavericks more on offense than they would have gained on defense. It would be a different story, if we would talk about pre 2006, but not since 2006.

I'm not going to put a huge amount into this debate here, because it's a side-thought in this thread and there's no clear-cut right answer that makes it worth the diversion here. I've already agreed that Dirk was the better, more efficient scorer and pointed out that I think the areas where Garnett is better would have transformed the way that the team played. With a dominant team defense and a more unified team offensive approach, I don't believe the Mavs would have needed Garnett to replicate Dirk's scoring efficiency to remain as successful. They would have had other strengths to balance out those weaknesses.

The talent and styles on those '06 Mavs would have fit very well on the continuum between the '04 Wolves and the '08 Celtics, and I personally have no doubt that he'd have led the team to a level of success that was also on that continuum.

I would have LOVED, I mean in a I'd have paid EXTREMELY good money way, to see Garnett lead a team as talented as the Mavs up against Duncan's Spurs in the postseason during their primes. I've always felt like that was one of the biggest cheats in NBA history, that we never got to see KG and Duncan face off with anywhere near equal casts. I think it'd have been historical, and a great series that KG's Mavs definitely could have won. It sucks (to me, anyway) that we never got to find out.

We'd have to do a lot more than just swap Dirk with KG to do any justice to this, but consider that Jerry Stackhouse would probably be Minnesota's second best overall player that year and that Diop/Dampier would be a defensive upgrade alongside KG without even mentioning the viable 2-3. Add in Howard and Terry as a viable 2-3 -- both of whom do look like they'd fit better in my mind next to Garnett -- and it's completely fair to say the results would be comparable, or favor Garnett.

Mystic, you can't just point to a small postseason sample and conclude that's how KG would perform, especially when he was playing completely different players with completely different teammates.

I think KG would have been fine against Duncan - they had great wars H2H. Look at 03-04.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =garneke01

Duncan: 24.1 ppg 11.4 rpg 3.5 apg 1.9 bpg 48.2 TS%
Garnett: 24.3 ppg 12.1 rpg 5.4 apg 2.8 bpg 53.9 TS%

Teams split 8 games...and who do we think had a better team around him in both of those seasons?

[mysticbb]

As I hinted at before, at this point (for here, anyway) we may as well agree to disagree.

We most likely have to, because you are seriously overrating Jason Terry here. Terry with more defensive pressure on him in Atlanta was a 53 ts% scorer, he became a 58 ts% in Dallas with Nowitzki. Garnett NEVER had a guard improving by that amount, neither Chauncey Billups, neither Sam Cassell or Latrell Spreewell improved their scoring efficiency with Garnett in comparison to other points of their career. There is not the slightlest hint that Garnett can do that with Terry. Why? Because Terry needs the floor spacing to get his open shots, something Garnett can't provide.
And Terry is not the only example. Look how Jason Kidd improved his 3p% from being a 33% career 3pt shooter to a 42% on the Mavericks with Nowitzki. Kidd improved his scoring efficiency from 50 ts% to 56 ts% just by not having the defensive attention on the perimeter anymore.
There is not a single guard who took as much shots as Terry or Kidd who showed a similar improvement while playing with Garnett.

I see Garnett's playmaking ability allowing the Mavs to start Terry at PG and a more defensive-minded wing like Griffin while maintaining a smooth offense.

Dallas done exactly that, starting Terry as PG and playing Griffin as their SF next to Howard. Believe me, Garnett wouldn't bring them to any kind of great offense you are proposing here.

At the other end of the court, I see the Garnett, Dampier/Diop, Griffin, Howard, Terry unit as clearly the best defense in the NBA that year. A championship caliber defense.

Lol, you have Terry as your point guard, NO defense with Terry as a starter will be the best defense in the league. You talked about Troy Hudson, that is what Terry is on defense. He is one of the worst perimeter defender in the league. Out of 537 players, Jason Terry finishes 444 in defensive APM over the last 4 years, but well, the Mavericks can give you even one who is worse than that: Jose Barea. Garnett would kill Howard, just because Howard is not coming back on defense, and Howard would cry with his weak mentality instead of taking that as a motivation. Really, you are looking at the wrong things to improve the Mavericks, when you think Garnett replacing Nowitzki would make the Mavericks better.

Overall, this is a team that wins with defense but also has three good scoring options in the starting line-up and has a good bench with Devin Harris, Stack and Diop as the primary contributors.

Seriously, you best scorer is Terry, who would most likely score on 55 ts%, Garnett would be below that and Howard is a career 53 ts% scorer. That is your whole offense here. Neither Stackhouse nor Harris will help you much from the bench to improve the scoring efficiency, not the slightest. All you can get is a slightly better than average offense. With that kind of support you will also not have a great elite defense like the Celtics had in 2008. You can put Harris on the S5 to improve defensively, but you will lose your best perimeter scorer. Thus you will either get a mediocre offensive team or a at best slightly better than average defensive team.

I could definitely see them beating Duncan's Spurs (the Mavs would have the better defense of the two, I believe)

I know you believe that, but there is no evidence. The Timberwolves weren't a crazy defensive team with Garnett on the court in 2006. 105.8, one tiny point better than without Garnett, that was the Timberwolves defense with Garnett. What do you expect? That Garnett will transform Terry into a great perimeter defender like Rondo? That Howard is becoming a great defender in transition like Pierce? That Dampier and Diop are all of the sudden are quicker on their feet as Perkins? You only see that Garnett improved the Celtics a lot defensively, without taking into account that the Celtics have a different type of player for each of those position. You are also ignoring the fact that the Celtics have the defensive master mind as the assistant coach in Tom Thibodeau. And don't try to tell me that Garnett is the reason Thibodeau is looking that good. Garnett wasn't part of the Knicks or Rockets.
And what you are also ignore is the fact that Pierce and Allen are way better in creating their own offense than Howard or Terry. Rondo is a better playmaker than Harris.

But this is off-topic in this thread (we both already voted, with Dirk over KG for the year)

Yes, I saw that, I we both will most likely have Garnett over Nowitzki in 2005 and the years before.

[mysticbb]

I think KG would have been fine against Duncan - they had great wars H2H. Look at 03-04.

If we are talking about Garnett 2003/04, we are talking about a player who had a season which can easily challenge Shaquille O'Neal in 2000 or LeBron James right now. I would answer the question completely different. But we are talking about 2006. ;) Garnett was never as good as he was in 2004 again.

[semi-sentient]

But your point is a good one, you can't just rely on boxscore metrics to judge a player. BUT, Bryant didn't have the impact on the game in the series against the Suns he had in the regular season.

I would argue that he had a bigger impact. He was responsible for controlling the pace of the game, and in that respect, he did well enough to get the Lakers a 3-1 series lead. The Suns adjusted though and were just too much in the remaining 3 games, which is where I think Nash deserves a ton of credit. If you look at the regular season, the Lakers lost 3 out of 4 games by double digits with Kobe averaging 42.5 points a game. They WANTED him to score because it meant we weren't going inside to slow things down. By taking a backseat (sorta, he still averaged 28) and getting Odom and Kwame going, the Lakers made it a hell of a series.

It's not that the Lakers played great defense, but how they ran their offense limited the amount of easy transition opportunities for the Suns, which is where they thrived. I personally don't think he could have played much better in the first 5 games. Had he reverted to regular season Kobe (which is what happened in Game 6 and the first half of Game 7), and that worked against more teams than not, there's no question in my mind that he could have averaged 40+ in a Suns sweep. Maybe they win a game, but it would not have been much of a series.

[mysticbb]

We'd have to do a lot more than just swap Dirk with KG to do any justice to this, but consider that Jerry Stackhouse would probably be Minnesota's second best overall player that year

And lol, seriously, Stackhouse was a 51 ts% scorer with a -4.8 APM. There are only two player with significant minutes (at least 25%) with a worse rating than Stackhouse. He would be in now way the 2nd best player on those Timberwolves teams.

That is an amazing example how overrating of a successful team works. People are believing that a certain player (in that case Nowitzki) is good, but due to the fact that he doesn't play like they expect he should play (7ft, he should play like a center), his impact can't be that great. Therefore it must be the teammates who are that good. Now all of the sudden a guy like Terry is becoming a potential part of a great defensive team, Stackhouse anno 2006 is becoming the 2nd best player of other teams and so on. Really, the support of the Mavericks wasn't elite, they were average overall, they had a negative net value when Nowitzki wasn't on the court. Nowitzki had a higher APM in that season than Garnett, he had a higher APM than Garnett in 2005 too. Nowitzki wasn't just a very good player at this time, he was the core of an elite team, the guy who made them contenders due to his high efficient offensive game, a game which opened up space for his teammates and gave them great opportunities to score.
I know most people will ignore that, but there is also proof for that in the international play. Look up what kind of teammates Nowitzki had on those german squads and he pushed them to a bronze medal in the World Championships, he pushed them to the silver medal in the European Championsship (while beating a stacked team like Spain). Nowitzki's overall impact seems to be underrated, and I really think it is due to the expectation people have how a 7ft player should play on the court.

[mysticbb]

I would argue that he had a bigger impact

How so? Duncan done both, impacting the offense of the Spurs in the playoffs AND the defense. I really don't see an argument here, and I watched the games between the Suns and the Lakers, watched the Mavericks against the Spurs, I admit only two games between the Kings and the Spurs, but anyway, the Spurs ran their offense way more through Duncan in that year. And I can for sure back that up with stats, if necessary, but I know you usually don't give much about that in the first place, thus I will not collect data.

[ElGee]

I think KG would have been fine against Duncan - they had great wars H2H. Look at 03-04.

If we are talking about Garnett 2003/04, we are talking about a player who had a season which can easily challenge Shaquille O'Neal in 2000 or LeBron James right now. I would answer the question completely different. But we are talking about 2006. Garnett was never as good as he was in 2004 again.

Oh I agree. But what do you think happened to him from 2004 to 2006? Did he become Tim Thomas?

[semi-sentient]

I meant that Kobe had a bigger impact against the Suns in the post-season than he did in the regular season, even though he didn't put up nearly the same stats (42.5 PTS on .589 TS%. compared to 27.9 PTS on .587 TS%).

[mysticbb]

Oh I agree. But what do you think happened to him from 2004 to 2006? Did he become Tim Thomas? :-?

Well, for sure, that is the reason I said the Mavericks wouldn't even be close to make the playoffs. ;)

Seriously, I said that Garnett instead of Nowitzki would mean that the Spurs, a team with HCA and the higher SRS than the Mavericks, would win the series. They would for sure beat still the Grizzlies in the first round. I just pointing out that Nowitzki's impact on the Mavericks was huge.

@semi-sentient

Ah, got. Yes, I would agree with that for most of the games (not so much about game 7, but whatever). We probably just talked about different things here.

[ElGee]

We'd have to do a lot more than just swap Dirk with KG to do any justice to this, but consider that Jerry Stackhouse would probably be Minnesota's second best overall player that year

And lol, seriously, Stackhouse was a 51 ts% scorer with a -4.8 APM. There are only two player with significant minutes (at least 25%) with a worse rating than Stackhouse. He would be in now way the 2nd best player on those Timberwolves teams.

That is an amazing example how overrating of a successful team works. People are believing that a certain player (in that case Nowitzki) is good, but due to the fact that he doesn't play like they expect he should play (7ft, he should play like a center), his impact can't be that great. Therefore it must be the teammates who are that good. Now all of the sudden a guy like Terry is becoming a potential part of a great defensive team, Stackhouse anno 2006 is becoming the 2nd best player of other teams and so on. Really, the support of the Mavericks wasn't elite, they were average overall, they had a negative net value when Nowitzki wasn't on the court. Nowitzki had a higher APM in that season than Garnett, he had a higher APM than Garnett in 2005 too. Nowitzki wasn't just a very good player at this time, he was the core of an elite team, the guy who made them contenders due to his high efficient offensive game, a game which opened up space for his teammates and gave them great opportunities to score.
I know most people will ignore that, but there is also proof for that in the international play. Look up what kind of teammates Nowitzki had on those german squads and he pushed them to a bronze medal in the World Championships, he pushed them to the silver medal in the European Championsship (while beating a stacked team like Spain). Nowitzki's overall impact seems to be underrated, and I really think it is due to the expectation people have how a 7ft player should play on the court.

Wouldn't a more effective and polite response other then "lol, seriously" be to look at the Timberwolves roster and simply state who would clearly be better?

And no, it's not an amazing example of what you're talking about. Most players offensive efficiency goes up when they're surrounded with better offensive players to relieve defensive pressure.

Stackhouse has never been an efficient scorer (Dirk couldn't help him there - what happened? ). But he can force defensive pressure and create his own offense.

Terry was already good when he came to Dallas. His skillset fits well offensively with someone like Dirk. And yes, weak defensive point guards can play on great defensive teams.

[ElGee]

I meant that Kobe had a bigger impact against the Suns in the post-season than he did in the regular season, even though he didn't put up nearly the same stats (42.5 PTS on .589 TS%. compared to 27.9 PTS on .587 TS%).

Do you think team basketball (playoffs) was more effective than Kobe-ball (regular season) in general, or just in this case?

[semi-sentient]

I meant that Kobe had a bigger impact against the Suns in the post-season than he did in the regular season, even though he didn't put up nearly the same stats (42.5 PTS on .589 TS%. compared to 27.9 PTS on .587 TS%).

Do you think team basketball (playoffs) was more effective than Kobe-ball (regular season) in general, or just in this case?

Probably just in this case, or more appropriately with certain match-ups. Against most teams, dumping it into Kwame and Odom isn't going to yield great results because they're just too inconsistent, and in Odom's case, he's far too willing to defer to someone else. Against a Suns team that lacked much of a front-line, that was definitely the best strategy, and Kobe, along with Odom and Kwame, had to buy into it. The Suns wanted to run everyone out of the building because they knew that was their only chance to be effective, so the Lakers had to devise a strategy to slow them down. Keeping them under 100 was the plan in that series, and it worked in the first few games.

[mysticbb]

Wouldn't a more effective and polite response other then "lol, seriously" be to look at the Timberwolves roster and simply state who would clearly be better?

Why? How did you come up with that in the first place? Stackhouse came of the bench on the Mavericks and played mostly against the opponents 2nd unit. Knowing that and the way Stackhouse played should be enough to know that Stackhouse wouldn't be the 2nd best player (at least not in terms of impact) on the Timberwolves.

And no, it's not an amazing example of what you're talking about. Most players offensive efficiency goes up when they're surrounded with better offensive players to relieve defensive pressure.

Stackhouse has never been an efficient scorer (Dirk couldn't help him there - what happened? :wink: :wink: ). But he can force defensive pressure and create his own offense.

Stackhouse in the first two season on the Mavericks saw more playing time without Nowitzki on the court. Stackhouse needed the ball in his hand to be effective and wasn't that good off-the ball, that is the way the Mavericks used him, mostly against the 2nd unit of the opponent. Later, in his 3rd and 4th season on the Mavericks he played more with Nowitzki and more off the ball and his scoring efficiency was higher (especially eFG%).

Stackhouse can put pressure on the defense, but he isn't the guy who can make a living by playing off the ball and take the shots created by another player. That was the reason Stackhouse and Iverson on the 76ers and later with Grant Hill on the Pistons didn't work together. I don't see that will be any different with Garnett.

Terry was already good when he came to Dallas. His skillset fits well offensively with someone like Dirk. And yes, weak defensive point guards can play on great defensive teams.

Terry before he came to Dallas was a 16 ppg on 53 ts% scorer, that is average, but not good. And which weak defensive point guards with the size disadvantage of Terry and the inability to use his feet to stay in front of a opponent is a part of a great defensive team? Most times the guards are rather strong, or have a size advantage, or they have at least quick feet. Terry looks quick, but when you take a closer look at his footwork it isn't really that quick.

His skillset complements Nowitzki, yes, because he can run the high pick&roll (or better he was able to) very efficient, he has the ball handling and the shooting. But Terry was also able to use the space to get to an open spot for the catch&shoot. But when you take Nowitzki off that team, it wouldn't have the same spacing anymore. Nowitzki was the best shooter on that team from every point of the court. You can run the pick&pop with Garnett, but that would result in long 2pt shots mostly, that would decrease his scoring efficiency. And I said no guard with a similar scoring output like Terry who played together with Garnett (Sprewell, Billups, Cassell) showed a significant improvement in his scoring efficiency. I don't see the point why that should happen with Terry.

[ElGee]

Wouldn't a more effective and polite response other then "lol, seriously" be to look at the Timberwolves roster and simply state who would clearly be better?

Why? How did you come up with that in the first place? Stackhouse came of the bench on the Mavericks and played mostly against the opponents 2nd unit. Knowing that and the way Stackhouse played should be enough to know that Stackhouse wouldn't be the 2nd best player (at least not in terms of impact) on the Timberwolves.

?? I think Minnesota's team has something to do with it...

And no, it's not an amazing example of what you're talking about. Most players offensive efficiency goes up when they're surrounded with better offensive players to relieve defensive pressure.

Stackhouse has never been an efficient scorer (Dirk couldn't help him there - what happened? ). But he can force defensive pressure and create his own offense.

Stackhouse in the first two season on the Mavericks saw more playing time without Nowitzki on the court. Stackhouse needed the ball in his hand to be effective and wasn't that good off-the ball, that is the way the Mavericks used him, mostly against the 2nd unit of the opponent. Later, in his 3rd and 4th season on the Mavericks he played more with Nowitzki and more off the ball and his scoring efficiency was higher (especially eFG%).

He played 28 mpg and Dirk 38 mpg - I think they were on the floor together plenty.

The point is KG and Dirk played in extremely different situations and you keep trying to equate them based on stats taken out of the different situations, which started around here:

You are overrating the talent level of the 2006 Mavericks support, if you think they could be a good fit for Garnett. And Garnett never looked really good against Duncan, neither offensively nor defensively. I don't know where the improvement should come from. He most certainly would have never be able to match Nowitzki's 27 ppg on 64.5 ts%. Additional to that Nowitzki gave the Mavericks already 13.3 rebounds per game and in critical possessions at the end of the game Nowitzki played good, physical defense against Duncan (Nowitzki blocked Duncan's layup attempt at the end of regulation in game 7 to secure the tie, for example)

He blocked him from behind after an offensive rebound. Dirk Nowitzki's a great player, but if you think he defends Tim Duncan better than Kevin Garnett, I really think you need to go back and watch those games again. Duncan had 41 in game 7 - the Mavs doubled him frantically because they had no defensive answer for him. I've already shown how he does versus Garnett...

Terry was already good when he came to Dallas. His skillset fits well offensively with someone like Dirk. And yes, weak defensive point guards can play on great defensive teams.

Terry before he came to Dallas was a 16 ppg on 53 ts% scorer, that is average, but not good. And which weak defensive point guards with the size disadvantage of Terry and the inability to use his feet to stay in front of a opponent is a part of a great defensive team? Most times the guards are rather strong, or have a size advantage, or they have at least quick feet. Terry looks quick, but when you take a closer look at his footwork it isn't really that quick.

His skillset complements Nowitzki, yes, because he can run the high pick&roll (or better he was able to) very efficient, he has the ball handling and the shooting. But Terry was also able to use the space to get to an open spot for the catch&shoot. But when you take Nowitzki off that team, it wouldn't have the same spacing anymore. Nowitzki was the best shooter on that team from every point of the court. You can run the pick&pop with Garnett, but that would result in long 2pt shots mostly, that would decrease his scoring efficiency. And I said no guard with a similar scoring output like Terry who played together with Garnett (Sprewell, Billups, Cassell) showed a significant improvement in his scoring efficiency. I don't see the point why that should happen with Terry.

Sorry, maybe I'm not being clear. Terry brought the same skillset from Atlanta. He didn't grow as a player. He was a fantastic shooter. If you're arguing that pairing with him Dirk is more beneficial than pairing him with KG, that's a fair point. If you're saying that Terry is only good with Dirk and would have the same effectiveness he had in Atlanta with Shareef if paired with KG, I don't see any evidence to support that.

Sprewell and Billups have similar skillsets to Terry???? You've lost me there - the closest player on that list I see in terms of outside shooting ability is Cassell. Sure enough, at 34, Cassell shot a career best in FG% (by 1.8%) and 3pt shooting (by 3.6%) playing alongside Garnett.

re: weak defensive point guards on good defensive teams, the first one who comes to mind also plays in Texas, Tony Parker.

[Optimism Prime]

I'll go with:

1. Dwyane Wade
2. Dirk Nowitzki
3. Kobe Bryant
4. LeBron James
5. Steve Nash

These are my rankings as well.

Wade had an absolutely phenomenal season, and while I'd love to hate on him for his finals run--and while I've made jokes about it as much as anyone--he got results. Trying to be as objective as possible here, Wade simply did what it took. Remarkable performance in the finals, and 27/7/5/2/1 isn't bad for a season either. Yes, he had Shaq--but Diesel put up the worst numbers of his career there. On the Lakers, he was 1a and Kobe was 1b; here, Wade was 1 and Shaq was clearly 2. There's a difference, and while I'm not going to say that the results would've been the same with any other post presence, the truth is, Wade mattered more to that team than did Shaq. Keep in mind: Shaq's mere presence on the court forces adjustments, no matter what kind of year he's having. Hell, even now, the Cavs brought in an ancient version to try to help stop one of the most athletic players in the game--he's a shadow of his former self, but his mere presence on the court changes how the game is played. Think of him as a nuke--doesn't matter if it has the desired results or not, the mere threat is enough to serve as a game-changer.

Dirk was great throughout, no doubt. Not much more can be said here.

Kobe put up ridiculous numbers, but... the last game of his season just bugs me. Refusing to shoot in order to make a point? Playing completely passively? That bugs me. And when one of my major criteria is "Can I trust you to win games for me?".... the answer here is no. I have no problem with passing at the end of a game if a teammate has a better look, but... doing it for an entire half? No thanks.

Lebron put up stellar all-around numbers; 31-7-7 at age 21? That's damn nice. This is probably the last year I'll list him (well, 09-10 excepted), but it was also the first year he really met all the hype surrounding him.

Nash, I want to place higher. I love the guy as a player, and taking a team like the 05-06 Suns as far as he did is a major accomplishment, probably his finest. I... just can't.

Duncan and KG are HMs for me, and it hurts to leave them off. But as has been said--seven-player race for five spots.

[tha_rock220]

1. Wade
2. Nash
3. Duncan
4. Kobe
5. Dirk

[Silver Bullet]

I'll go with:

1. Dwyane Wade
2. Dirk Nowitzki
3. Kobe Bryant
4. LeBron James
5. Steve Nash

Nash, I want to place higher. I love the guy as a player, and taking a team like the 05-06 Suns as far as he did is a major accomplishment, probably his finest. I... just can't.

Why ?