Retro POY '04-05 (Voting Complete)

[mysticbb]

drza - this is one of the rare instances where I think you're off. I too think Manu has been tremendously underrated, but I see his peak as never really breaching the top 5. I think you are slightly overlooking Manu playing on such a stacked team. Now, if you think he was a 25-5-5 player on high efficiency in any situation, then I understand your vote. I just don't quite see the evidence for that in 2005.

I don't know how drza is seeing that, but I watched Ginobili play on several stages and the guy was always a winner. Whether he dominated in international play (MVP of the Olympics, Euroleague Final 4 MVP) or in 2005 in the playoffs. When Ginobili is at 100% he is a 25-5-5 player and can play 36/37 minutes per game. He done that in his career. His impact is undoubtedly there. It is a beauty to watch him play.
Well, I didn't rank him 3rd, but having him in the list a little bit higher will not hurt, I guess, because he gets usually overlooked.

[ElGee]

drza - this is one of the rare instances where I think you're off. I too think Manu has been tremendously underrated, but I see his peak as never really breaching the top 5. I think you are slightly overlooking Manu playing on such a stacked team. Now, if you think he was a 25-5-5 player on high efficiency in any situation, then I understand your vote. I just don't quite see the evidence for that in 2005.

I don't know how drza is seeing that, but I watched Ginobili play on several stages and the guy was always a winner. Whether he dominated in international play (MVP of the Olympics, Euroleague Final 4 MVP) or in 2005 in the playoffs. When Ginobili is at 100% he is a 25-5-5 player and can play 36/37 minutes per game. He done that in his career. His impact is undoubtedly there. It is a beauty to watch him play.
Well, I didn't rank him 3rd, but having him in the list a little bit higher will not hurt, I guess, because he gets usually overlooked.

I agree - I'm just not sure how that gets him to No. 3 that year, or if that was even the best Manu has played (wasn't in my opinion). I'd have to go back and watch the games, but outside of the Phoenix series, I feel like they fed Duncan in the post more then, and lately they've run more pick and rolls starting with Manu.

[Sedale Threatt]

When Ginobili is at 100% he is a 25-5-5 player and can play 36/37 minutes per game.

He didn't even do that during the 05 playoffs, probably the peak of his career.

I generally appreciate Manu. Like the rest of you, I think he's a special player whose contributions aren't adequately measured by numbers. He was born to play this game.

He's also been playing this game for a long time, and if he was truly capable of putting up a season like that, he'd have done it a long time ago.

[Silver Bullet]

Big Men are supposed to have big numbers because all stats are skewed to favor them, point guards are not supposed to have big numbers, because most point guards with big numbers don't win a lot.

Stats aren't skewed to favor big men, basketball is.

Height is an inherent advantage in the sport.

(SB, not necessarily directed at you, just noting this in general as I've seen it mentioned a few times.)

Okay, I don't necessarily disagree with that -

But I think it makes sense to compare swingmen to swingmen, PG's to PG's and big men to big men when you're looking at stats like PER and WS.

[mysticbb]

He didn't even do that during the 05 playoffs, probably the peak of his career.

He done that for a stretch when either Duncan or Parker were out for some games at the beginning of the year 2008. He had 24.3/5.7/6.5 in 36.6 mpg for the February. Seriously, Ginobili doesn't play more minutes due to the minutes management of Popovich, and he doesn't get more touches overall, because of Duncan and Parker on his team. Give him his own team from 2004 to 2010 (without the injuries, obviously) and he can very well be the best player on a playoff team putting up 25/5/5 for a season.

Probably I expect too much, because I'm was always impressed by his play, whether it was for Argentina or in Europe for Bologna or in the NBA for the Spurs. He is a warrior with great basketball skills.

[Sedale Threatt]

So we're giving him credit for one month?

I live in San Antonio, and the very widely accepted theory down here -- never disputed by Pop, by the way -- is that Manu has a reduced role because he couldn't handle a bigger one.

Not because he's not good enough -- I think we all agree he's an extremely special player -- but because of his reckless, aggressive style of play.

I'm not saying that's correct, but the fact that he's been banged up pretty badly in recent years despite playing a reduced role is pretty telling, in my opinion.

At any rate, endurance is all part of the equation to me, and I'm not going to give him credit for something he hasn't done, not while guys like Kobe and Wade are actually doing it.

Again, that's not to denigrate his skills, in any way, shape or form. He is one of the most natural, instinctive players I've ever seen. A natural winner.

I just think top five is too high.

[mysticbb]

So we're giving him credit for one month?

Well, let me put it this way: I give him the benefit of the doubt in that case.

Not because he's not good enough -- I think we all agree he's an extremely special player -- but because of his reckless, aggressive style of play.

It is a good point, and I don't see much of an argument against that, even though I pointed out that specific stretch.

I'm not saying that's correct, but the fact that he's been banged up pretty badly in recent years despite playing a reduced role is pretty telling, in my opinion.

I guess that has a lot to do with him playing for Argentina in the same style. He got injuried a couple of times in international play (and yes, I think it is a bit more physical in FIBA than in the NBA), which can explain this.

Anyway, I respect your opinion about that and I know I'm a bit biased towards Ginobili, but I will keep him at #5 in my list for 2005. I have to give him credit in one year for his incredible game.

[ElGee]

So we're giving him credit for one month?

I live in San Antonio, and the very widely accepted theory down here -- never disputed by Pop, by the way -- is that Manu has a reduced role because he couldn't handle a bigger one.

Not because he's not good enough -- I think we all agree he's an extremely special player -- but because of his reckless, aggressive style of play.

I'm not saying that's correct, but the fact that he's been banged up pretty badly in recent years despite playing a reduced role is pretty telling, in my opinion.

At any rate, endurance is all part of the equation to me, and I'm not going to give him credit for something he hasn't done, not while guys like Kobe and Wade are actually doing it.

Again, that's not to denigrate his skills, in any way, shape or form. He is one of the most natural, instinctive players I've ever seen. A natural winner.

I just think top five is too high.

This. I'm not 100% confident that this month wasn't his best basketball, but my recollection is that Manu played at a higher level in the ensuing years (when healthy).

If it were a situation where every year he just kept it in third gear until the playoffs and then he floored it and unleashed a mini-Wade fury on the league, I'd think of him in a different category. As it is, I don't see 2005 breaking form too much (great postseason, obviously) and have a hard time seeing him as the third best player. Or maybe even the fifth.

(FWIW, I've had Manu in the top-12 or top top-10 for a number of years).

[ElGee]

I'd like to make a (final?) point regarding Nash, as the voting closes today and he has been the topic of much debate.

Let's say you buy the idea that Nash's defense isn't really a negative (it isn't really a positive either, so he's giving up some value to big men). Let's say you buy the idea that he helps his teammates -- given the abundance of statistical evidence -- and that he is largely responsible for running an offensive dynasty (team's offensive rating was an unheard of 121.7 with Nash on the court).

But you're tripped up by two things:

(1) Where was this guy last year?
(2) Can he lead any team?

The first question has been adequately addressed in this debate. Personally, I see improvement as a basketball player from 04 to 05 -- physical conditioning and some added quickness, for starters -- but making all-nba teams is not an easy task. He was very good. People are hung up on age when they should be looking at minutes played, which is a better predictor of decline. And Nash was a late bloomer, who like so many players of that period had an entire season hiccup their progress (started full time in 1999 with mixed results). Nash became the permanent starter in 2001, probably was snubbed form an all-star game, and then made two all-nba teams. Is it a unique arc? Asbolutely. But it's not inexplicable or something totally out of left field, especially when you consider his situation in Dallas. And considering that he became an all-star caliber player after ~5000 MP and all-nba after ~8000 MP, it doesn't seem that late-blooming.

The second question, I imagine, is more pressing for some people. It was for me. One of the knocks on Nash for a while was "look at his teammates," as media members often pointed to Marion or Stoudemire as the true stars on the team.

But what NBA superstar can win 60+ games without good players around him??

I'd argue that Nash is actually quite easy to build around. A lot of NBA (or even pseudo-NBA players, as Nash has shown us) can sprint up the court and make open jump shots. Even a wing like James or a big like Duncan needs complementary parts. The ideal No. 2 for Nash seems to be a big who can play the two man pick and roll game well. At first, one might think "ther aren't many guys like Amare out there." But how many Boris Diaw's are there? It's not asking too much to give the guy a decent second option in that department.

As for the peripheral pieces, if he gets a few players (especially at center) who can defend, it's a championship-level team. The rest simply need to be decent shooters or decent offensive players.

I used to think Nash couldn't be a top-5 player because he was one-dimensional and needed help, even if he made that help better. But I don't see it that way anymore...

[tkb]

1. Tim Duncan
2. Steve Nash
3. Dirk Nowitzki
4. Dwyane Wade
5. Kevin Garnett

[Gongxi]

Are you saying he's not a good PG?

I would use the term great ...

Me too. What would you use to describe Chris Duhon? You know, the guy that D'Antoni tried to use to run his system in New York? The one I was talking about when I said you need a good PG to run it succesfully?

Well, I hope he's in your top 5 for a few previous years as well, to be intellectually honest about it.

What? What kind of argument is that? If I have him as a Top10 player in 2002 or 2003, I can't have him as a Top5 player? Especially when I pointed out that Nash IMPROVED in clutch situations, worked on his conditioning and played better in nearly every aspect of the game, even if the improvement in most parts isn't really big in comparison to his last 3 years? When I think that other candidates from the 2002 or 2003 season like Shaquille O'Neal, Jason Kidd or Tracy McGrady slipped out of the Top5 ranks for me?
Really, you're argumentation is seriously flawed. You don't look into context, all you are doing is something you can spin to make the argument of the other look weird. But in fact it is your lack of logic in that case.

That's not my argumentation. It's the argumentation saying that Nash already was an MVP-type player before coming to Phoenix and was solely responsible for the turnaround. If you concede that no, he wasn't an MVP-type player, than you're admitting that something inherent in the change of scenery made him play better.

The fact of the matter is Nash's entire argument is based around the turnaround of the Suns. Without that turnaround, he's not there (like he wasn't there in Dallas before). So isn't it prudent to actually look into that turnaround and see if it's all him or not? Close inspection reveals it wasn't.

But, I guess if you say that, you're a 'hater'. Never even knew I had anything against the guy until I wandered into this thread a couple days ago. Now I know: DIE STEVE NASH DIE, I SECRETLY HATE YOU!

[Jimmy76]

Nash got "better" for the same reason Devin Harris got "better" when he went from the mavs to the nets

[Silver Bullet]

1. Nash
2. Duncan
3. Wade
4. KG
5. Nowitkzi

HM: Shaq, Iverson, Tmac

I'd like to lend my support to ItsMillerTime's candidacy for this project, he's been contributing regularly for every thread so far - despite not being an official member.

[Doctor MJ]

1. Nash
2. Duncan
3. Wade
4. KG
5. Nowitkzi

HM: Shaq, Iverson, Tmac

I'd like to lend my support to ItsMillerTime's candidacy for this project, he's been contributing regularly for every thread so far - despite not being an official member.

He missed the last couple actually. More contribution and I'll let him in shortly.

[drza]

Great - The guy who wins 44 games and misses the playoffs, is the consensus POY on this page and the guy who single handedly orchestrated one of the greatest turnarounds in history has 1 charity point.

And then we have someone voting for Manu Ginobili at 3 - He's one of my favourite players in the league - but do you think if you replaced him with Nowitzki, Kobe, Shaq, Wade, Lebron or a whole bunch of other guys, you wouldn't win at least 72 games ?

It's an interesting question, and one that I had to spend some thought on. As I said, I feel like Ginobili (especially in '05) was the best true second option we've seen since Pippen in the Bulls championship runs. It'll be interesting to see, but I think that Pippen will have at least a few top-5 finishes over players that I believe to be better than he.

Also, if you look at my voting history, I voted KG 3rd in '06 and 5th in '07 despite the fact that I believe him to actually have been the best player in the NBA in those seasons. But there wasn't enough to support that opinion, as even in the advanced stats he was close enough to some players I considered him better than that I had to give them the vote. Well in this instance, regardless of what I might think, Ginobili measured out better in the advanced stats than all of those players that you mentioned while also playing a huge role in leading his team to a title. So there's just not enough there to support putting Wade, for instance, ahead of him.

Plus, Kobe, Shaq and Wade all got injured at bad times. Considering that injury kept me from even discussing KG in '09, I think that is another consistency in the way I've been evaluating. And at that stage of their careers no, I'm not convinced that LeBron would have made the Spurs that much better.

Manu was a BEAST that year. I think that is worth recognizing.

So did Many my friend - so are you taking him off your list then ?
Wade played more games than Ginobili and Shaq played 1 less game -

The Bulls were an undefeatable beast - the Spurs are the team that never came close to beating the best team of it's era -
All 2nd options are not created equal -

I think Kobe's the best player in the league - so should I just keep voting for him every year as long as he's not injured ?

I think your final conclusion is actually the opposite of the point I was making. What I was saying is that even if I thought that some of the players that you named might have been better than Manu in '05, that I didn't have anything to support that.

*In the '04 Olympics (which don't officially count, I know, but they go towards my impressions of the players) Manu was by-far the best player on the court against a US team that included Wade, LeBron and Duncan. And it wasn't all because of the international rules...Manu was just taking it to them.

*Every time I watched the Spurs in '05 Manu impressed me. Before that year, when Barkley would yell "GINOBILI!!!" I didn't know what he was talking about, but that year as I watched I found myself agreeing that Manu was the truth. And in 2005 I knew little, if anything, about advanced stats, so those weren't swaying my thought process. This was just from watching, my impression was that this guy was really good.

*In the playoffs, especially in the Finals, I felt from observation that Manu was often the best player on the court.

*Years later, once I got more into advanced stats, I see that they fully support my observations...Manu was playing at an extremely high level that year.

Maybe some of the bigger names may have been better players, but I don't have any evidence from what I saw that season or from what the advanced stats tell me to prove it to myself. Not enough for me to jump them over him, anyway. This is the only year where that's the case, as by the next year LeBron and Wade had taken giant leaps and Ginobili never maintained both this level of play and health again. But for just this year, I do think Manu deserves a spot in the top-5.

[Doctor MJ]

*Every time I watched the Spurs in '05 Manu impressed me. Before that year, when Barkley would yell "GINOBILI!!!" I didn't know what he was talking about, but that year as I watched I found myself agreeing that Manu was the truth.

Know exactly how you feel. Ginobili's one of those guys who made me a fan very quickly because of how he played. He's a guy who really is better than his basic stats say, and his basic stats per minute are really good.

I'd like to have had him in my top 5 this year, but couldn't quite justify it. That he's going to get some votes certainly doesn't seem less credible than other votes we've had - let alone votes the NBA MVP has had.

[Silver Bullet]

It's an interesting question, and one that I had to spend some thought on. As I said, I feel like Ginobili (especially in '05) was the best true second option we've seen since Pippen in the Bulls championship runs. It'll be interesting to see, but I think that Pippen will have at least a few top-5 finishes over players that I believe to be better than he.

Also, if you look at my voting history, I voted KG 3rd in '06 and 5th in '07 despite the fact that I believe him to actually have been the best player in the NBA in those seasons. But there wasn't enough to support that opinion, as even in the advanced stats he was close enough to some players I considered him better than that I had to give them the vote. Well in this instance, regardless of what I might think, Ginobili measured out better in the advanced stats than all of those players that you mentioned while also playing a huge role in leading his team to a title. So there's just not enough there to support putting Wade, for instance, ahead of him.

Plus, Kobe, Shaq and Wade all got injured at bad times. Considering that injury kept me from even discussing KG in '09, I think that is another consistency in the way I've been evaluating. And at that stage of their careers no, I'm not convinced that LeBron would have made the Spurs that much better.

Manu was a BEAST that year. I think that is worth recognizing.

So did Many my friend - so are you taking him off your list then ?
Wade played more games than Ginobili and Shaq played 1 less game -

The Bulls were an undefeatable beast - the Spurs are the team that never came close to beating the best team of it's era -
All 2nd options are not created equal -

I think Kobe's the best player in the league - so should I just keep voting for him every year as long as he's not injured ?

I think your final conclusion is actually the opposite of the point I was making. What I was saying is that even if I thought that some of the players that you named might have been better than Manu in '05, that I didn't have anything to support that.

*In the '04 Olympics (which don't officially count, I know, but they go towards my impressions of the players) Manu was by-far the best player on the court against a US team that included Wade, LeBron and Duncan. And it wasn't all because of the international rules...Manu was just taking it to them.

*Every time I watched the Spurs in '05 Manu impressed me. Before that year, when Barkley would yell "GINOBILI!!!" I didn't know what he was talking about, but that year as I watched I found myself agreeing that Manu was the truth. And in 2005 I knew little, if anything, about advanced stats, so those weren't swaying my thought process. This was just from watching, my impression was that this guy was really good.

*In the playoffs, especially in the Finals, I felt from observation that Manu was often the best player on the court.

*Years later, once I got more into advanced stats, I see that they fully support my observations...Manu was playing at an extremely high level that year.

Maybe some of the bigger names may have been better players, but I don't have any evidence from what I saw that season or from what the advanced stats tell me to prove it to myself. Not enough for me to jump them over him, anyway. This is the only year where that's the case, as by the next year LeBron and Wade had taken giant leaps and Ginobili never maintained both this level of play and health again. But for just this year, I do think Manu deserves a spot in the top-5.

I honestly wouldn't have had a problem with you voting for Manu, if the guys above and below him were reasonable - but your whole list is suspect.

I don't quite see how you have 1 guy that took the team from 23 wins from 66 wins (disclaimer: Elgee, I didn't check the numbers on basketball reference, it's possible, they are off) - I mean, okay, what is your explanation for the Suns insane improvement ?

You voted for Garnett because he took the Celtics from 23 wins to 66 or somewhere thereabouts - even though the Celtics overhauled their roster, added another guy who had led his teams to 50+ wins before, got another (arguably) top 10 player in the league healthy, added a defensive maestro of an assistant head coach (who's not even an assistant on the Celtics anymore, he's the associate head coach - as far as I know that is unprecedented in the NBA) and made a host of other changes -

But when it comes to Nash - you don't use the same criteria and then your accusing me of being a hypocrite ? I mean, aren't you totally totally relying on advanced stats alone - because there is ... okay we'll get back to this once you answer this:

1. What is your explanation for the Suns turnaround other than Nash
2. Why are you penalizing Shaq and Wade for missing games and not penalizing Ginobili who missed just as many games

[Silver Bullet]

btw, you guys should watch him in the 02 World Championships then - he was the best player in that tournament including everybody on the US squad.

He flat out slaughtered Paul Pierce in the US-Arg game.

[drza]

I think your final conclusion is actually the opposite of the point I was making. What I was saying is that even if I thought that some of the players that you named might have been better than Manu in '05, that I didn't have anything to support that.

*In the '04 Olympics (which don't officially count, I know, but they go towards my impressions of the players) Manu was by-far the best player on the court against a US team that included Wade, LeBron and Duncan. And it wasn't all because of the international rules...Manu was just taking it to them.

*Every time I watched the Spurs in '05 Manu impressed me. Before that year, when Barkley would yell "GINOBILI!!!" I didn't know what he was talking about, but that year as I watched I found myself agreeing that Manu was the truth. And in 2005 I knew little, if anything, about advanced stats, so those weren't swaying my thought process. This was just from watching, my impression was that this guy was really good.

*In the playoffs, especially in the Finals, I felt from observation that Manu was often the best player on the court.

*Years later, once I got more into advanced stats, I see that they fully support my observations...Manu was playing at an extremely high level that year.

Maybe some of the bigger names may have been better players, but I don't have any evidence from what I saw that season or from what the advanced stats tell me to prove it to myself. Not enough for me to jump them over him, anyway. This is the only year where that's the case, as by the next year LeBron and Wade had taken giant leaps and Ginobili never maintained both this level of play and health again. But for just this year, I do think Manu deserves a spot in the top-5.

I honestly wouldn't have had a problem with you voting for Manu, if the guys above and below him were reasonable - but your whole list is suspect.

I don't quite see how you have 1 guy that took the team from 23 wins from 66 wins (disclaimer: Elgee, I didn't check the numbers on basketball reference, it's possible, they are off) - I mean, okay, what is your explanation for the Suns insane improvement ?

You voted for Garnett because he took the Celtics from 23 wins to 66 or somewhere thereabouts - even though the Celtics overhauled their roster, added another guy who had led his teams to 50+ wins before, got another (arguably) top 10 player in the league healthy, added a defensive maestro of an assistant head coach (who's not even an assistant on the Celtics anymore, he's the associate head coach - as far as I know that is unprecedented in the NBA) and made a host of other changes -

But when it comes to Nash - you don't use the same criteria and then your accusing me of being a hypocrite ? I mean, aren't you totally totally relying on advanced stats alone - because there is ... okay we'll get back to this once you answer this:

1. What is your explanation for the Suns turnaround other than Nash
2. Why are you penalizing Shaq and Wade for missing games and not penalizing Ginobili who missed just as many games

1. I think Nash played a big part in the Suns turnaround. As I mentioned in my post, that (through the arguments in this thread) in addition to his stronger postseason is what got him on my list at all. I don't think Nash was as good of a player as Dirk definitely and Shaq probably in '05, but the fact that much of the turnaround credit goes to him moved him ahead of those players.

2. Because Shaq and Wade missed their games at the wrong time. Wade had his injury issues in the ECF, which IMO directly contributed to his team not getting as far as they could have. Shaq missed his time in the 2nd round, which isn't as bad, but presumably his health issues contributed to him posting lesser numbers in the postseason than he did in the regular season. Ginobili missed his games in the regular season when it didn't matter, and by the playoffs was picking up his game and helping ensure that his team won a title.

3) (not directly asked, but I can get the gist of where you were going). As I hashed out with Doctor MJ, I thought there were many similarities between '08 KG and '05 Nash (again, this is what got Nash onto my list when he wasn't there originally). That said, in every way that I look at it KG was just a bit better.

*Both KG and Nash were the catalysts in huge turnarounds, but neither were the only big change. I don't know why that is recognized for KG and not for Nash. No matter how you look at it, the Suns changed drastically from '04 to '05. Marbury was nominally their best player to enter '04...he played thirty-something games for that team and was gone by mid-season. So those in the "Marbury was a top-5 PG" camp must admit, then, that the '04 Suns were without their top-5 point guard for more than half of the season. And those in the "Marbury sucks and the team would have sucked with him anyway" camp have to face that almost universally, when a great point guard replaces Marbury the team immediately gets much better. And no matter which view you take, the '04 Suns were without any point guard at all for more than half of the '04 season. And Stoudemire, their young ROY talent, was hurt for half of the season as well. And whether people like to admit it or not, yes, the D'Antoni offense that the Suns runs does benefit the point guard. No, you can't put a scrub like Duhon into it and make him a stud, but if you put an already very good point guard into it then yes, it can help him move up a notch.

Meanwhile, yes, in Boston Pierce got healthy and they swapped Jefferson (and all of their role players) essentially for Ray Allen in addition to Garnett. And yes, Thibideau is a talented assistant. So no, Garnett shouldn't get credit for all 42 games of the Celtics improvement. Just like Nash shouldn't get credit for all 33 games of Suns improvement. At the end of the day, both (to me) get credit for being the most important pieces in a huge turnaround. And the Celtics' turnaround was bigger.

*I believe Garnett in '08 to just be a better basketball player than Nash in '05. And the advanced stats back me up, as Garnett measured better in both the regular and postseason across the body of available advanced stats

*Garnett was a better 2-way player than Nash. Nash was among the best offensive players in the league, but Garnett was the best defender. And while some may be willing to overlook that Nash doesn't give you much on defense, Garnett on the other hand was the leading scorer and a key offensive cog for his team as well. In this kind of comp, that hurts Nash.

*Garnett was able to carry his team when his other options were giving him nothing, and eventually he led them to a title. Nash was excellent in the playoffs, especially against the Mavs, but he couldn't get them past the Spurs even with Amare losing his mind.

So on the whole, while Nash and KG shared the "catalyst in a huge team turnaround" aspect, in my view Garnett in '08 was just better across any direction I would look at it. His on-court impact was larger. He was a better player. If I did the hypothetical "swap" question, he would have won that as well. He led his team to a title. Those are some of the main reasons that Garnett was #1 on my list while Nash only made the top-5.

[ronnymac2]

I miss 10 pages in one day.....haha

DrMJ...not to sidetrack what is going on, but I just wanted to give a small response to the finals mvp/playoffs in 05 discussion......

Those finals were ugly. I mean, for us bball purists, it was fine. But it was ugly, slow, defensive minded basketball that made people think of the 94 finals when the two best defensive teams in the league squared off. Both teams shoot, like 43% for the series. Tim is defended by Ben and Sheed (and dice and campbell). Tim doesn't shoot well, but he matches the production of the Wallaces throughout the series (Sheed shot horribly) while anchoring the defense that shuts DET's offense down. He's the key lead guy in their game 7 win. When things looked bleak in the 3rd quarter, Tim had them back into it.

I understand Manu played really well in that series, but Tim is the reason SA won that series.

Also....think about the Phoenix series. Why did SA beat the Suns? Because when it came down to it, SA's d, anchored by Duncan, could control Phoenix's scoring. They controlled the game by controlling the middle. That is all you needed to do to beat Phoenix. Control the middle. Sure, Amare scored a lot of points. But Duncan basically matched that with his own production while giving the Spurs an inside scoring and passing threat (thus, an anchor) that allowed them to control the middle. Basically, because of Tim, SA controlled the middle on both sides of the floor and was able to win. That's the value of having Tim Duncan on your team.




My Final Vote:

Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Shaquille O'neal
Dwyane Wade
Tracy McGrady

I like T-Mac at this point over Dirk.

Lebron still has a little while to go. While his production was insane, his defense was average and his offense wasn't really near where he is today in 05. Still raw (relative to himself, of course), didn't know what the playoffs were yet, wasn't a very good shooter. He was stoppable. But still great.

Based strictly on ability, Kobe would obviously be here. But he was injured and the Lakers finished the season off weakly. Kobe is a bit weaker this year in the accolades department. I don't know why, but for some reason, when I think back to his play from that season, he didn't seem to have that energy that he usually has. Maybe the effects of 04 were still there. Maybe my perception is affected by the team's record and I'm wrong.

I have to give an honorable mention to Ray Allen. He was fantastic this year.