Retro POY '07-08 (Voting Complete)

[wigglestrue]

That's where you are wrong. In year 1 he got his teammates going in the playoffs and defended the better player in the series, while in Year 2 with a much better team he did not get his teammates going and took the worse defensive assignment when he is young himself.

Okay, but none of that relates to HCA. At all.

[Doctor MJ]

Diving now into this year, the top 4 to me is clear, and I don't think I need to say who those 4 are, just a question there about where Garnett goes. I rated him 4th at the time, but people make some compelling arguments for him at #1.

I'll say I had him as my clear #1 until the injuries happened. I don't think I can swallow Garnett as #1 just based on what he did ON the court - he just missed too much time. People have brought up OFF court impact, and I think it's a great point. The best thing a leader can do is rally his team to the point where they're playing with new intensity even when he's on the bench. I don't think there's any doubt Garnett deserves some credit for this with the Celtics, but how much?

The 5 spot is wide open. Guys who I'm thinking about: Pierce, Nash, Dwight, Duncan, Billups.

[Doctor MJ]

That's where you are wrong. In year 1 he got his teammates going in the playoffs and defended the better player in the series, while in Year 2 with a much better team he did not get his teammates going and took the worse defensive assignment when he is young himself.

I don't think you'll find anyone thought who actually thinks LeBron regressed in the post-season the next year.

[Sedale Threatt]

That's where you are wrong. In year 1 he got his teammates going in the playoffs and defended the better player in the series, while in Year 2 with a much better team he did not get his teammates going and took the worse defensive assignment when he is young himself.

And again the years are different. Had Garnett or Kobe won the finals MVP this year they would be #1.

Whereas in the 2009 year, Kobe was still top 3 overall in the season and then won finals mvp and title.

I'm not going to give title of best player in the league to a player because he won the title unless everyone else that was a top 4-5 player that season didn't perform well.

So again, just to review:

The player who averages 38.5 points, 8 assists and 8.3 rebounds is punished for "not getting his teammates going," while the guy who averages 26.7 points, 7.6 assists, 6.6 rebounds gets slack because he did "get his teammates" going, all so you can preserve your go-to -- and completely arbitrary -- standards.

Here's something to chew on -- how might that 08 series have turned out if LeBron hadn't waited until Game 5 to show up?

This is a case example why you absolutely cannot use any sort of check list or formula to determine these things. They must be studied on a case-by-case basis, else you end up with inconsistent, and more than a little hypocritical, results.

[TrueLAfan]

I realize that I have a tendency to make wall-of-words posts, and I'm trying to avoid doing that, but this topic was essentially the entire point of my first post in this thread (i.e. that KG's numbers were right there with LeBron and Paul as the best in the league that season). Was I not convincing, or is it the type of thing where you're already sure enough about your own evaluation that you can't really be swayed (which is certainly fair, of course).

Another stat that would directly refute your last line that I bolded is that during the '08 playoffs, the Celtics were - 8.8 points/48 minutes during the time when Garnett wasn't on the court. When literally any other player on the team outside of KG or Ray Allen (-2.6) was out, the team was still a net positive, but when Garnett was out the team fell apart. http://www.82games.com/0708/playoffs/0708BOS.HTM

I just don't think the reality meshes with the recollection in many cases about just how central Garnett was to that '08 title run for the Cs, but when you take a step back and really look at the numbers his impact was pretty enormous in those playoffs.

(ETA 82games.com link)

Well, no. They weren’t. They were right there with LeBron , etc. using statistical metrics that you chose and if you forgive him for having fewer minutes played than any other top 3 player in MVP voting the last decade. I don’t. Players have always been hit for that; I’m not going to overlook it for anyone. And I’m sure there are others analytic tools that will say Garnett was lower…but that’s why I’m opposed to people making this a war of statistical tools. There are so many types of different tools and analysis and context that it sucks all the air out of the room and doesn’t leave a damn thing. I respect that fact that you’ve got an analysis you like. But I don’t buy it. Keep in mind that I’m saying Kevin Garnett was the fourth best player in the league, which is a tremendous accomplishment for a guy that averaged less than 33 minutes a game and missed nearly a dozen games and had his worst rebounding year in close to a decade. I just don’t think his intangibles were epically high. They were great, but not that high. And they’d have to be top put him in the top 3. I still have him fourth. He was great.

[Silver Bullet]

Just for posterity's sake, I'm going to say that throughout this thing I'm going mostly by on-court production, with games in December mattering as much as games in March, and games in the playoffs meaning only about 50% more than games in the regular season. Which is to say: if you play 20 playoff games and 82 regular season games, your regular season still accounts for roughly 2/3rds of where I'm placing you. Why? Because a 20 game sample size pales in comparison to 82 or, together, 102 games.

Also, I don't much care about how well your team did. It's basketball, not ping pong- one player can't dictate whether an entire team wins or loses. That said, the Gongxi top 5 for 2007-2008 are:

1- LeBron James
2- Chris Paul
3- Kobe Bryant
4- Kevin Garnett
5- Dirk Nowitzki

I thought it was pretty clear that LeBron and CP3 were the best players that year, having outrageous seasons from a production standpoint (well, they'd both eclipse that the very next season, but still), and carrying their teams. Kobe had a great season and was clearly the best 2 that year. Garnett was the hardest to rank: obviously he was the best player on the best team, and obviously he was responsible for a historic turnaround, and he would probably be #1 if the question was "Who's the great player you most want on a team with other great players?", but that ain't the question. Dirk had another stellar, quiet, underrated year. Kind of par for the course for him.

How is it clear cut that Lebron was the best player that year ?

[An Unbiased Fan]

Regular Season:

1) Kobe - MVP, All-NBA/All-D(1st), Best record overall in one of the toughest conferences ever, and with Bynum out half the year.
2) Paul - MVP runner-up, All-NBA(1st), Was statistaclly outstanding
3) KG - All-NBA/All-D(1st), DPOY, turn Boston into one of the all-time great defensive squads
4) Lebron - All-NBA(1st), Scoring title, great year
5) Duncan - All-D(1st), had a stellar year

-Kobe was the best player during the regular season. His numbers were great as usual, and he coupled it with elite defense, and great leadership even when Bynum went down, and when it looked like NO would win the West. In the FInals weeks of the season, Kobe led LA to HCA, while Paul faltered.

-Paul had a breakout year. His numbers were amazing, though again, his ball-dominance must be factored in. That said, he took NO to within 1 game of winning the West and gave hope to a city in need.

-KG brought defense to a Celtic team that hadn't played any since the 80's. His numbers don't quite show the huge impact he had this year, nor just how good he was playing.

-Lebron had a great year and won the scoring title. He would eb higher than KG, but he wasn't a great defender in 08', and his team won only 45 games in a not very deep East.

-Duncan's all-around play took SA to 56 wins in a tie with No for 2nd in the West. Offense, Defense, leadership, he delivered enough to crack the Top 5.


Playoffs:

1) Kobe - Best player overall in the playoffs, led a Bynum/Ariza-less LA team to the Finals through 3 straight 50+ win teams
2) Pierce - Pierce came up big in big games for Boston. He was the Finals MVP, and countered Lebron in that hard fought series. His leadership was great, and his stats don't represent just how good he was playing.
3) KG - Was the anchor of the Celtics, and was dominant on defense.
4) Paul - Great stats, but could lead his team past Duncan despite HCA
5) Lebron - Shot a poor 41%, but still had a nice 28/8/8 statline

-Kobe to me is the clear #1 in the 08' playoffs, even with 2 starters out, he dropped 30 ppg and took LA all the way to a game 6 in the Finals.

-Some may disagree with Pierce beign so high, but I would argue that his stats are decieving because of the offensive system of the Celts and how the use all available options. His defense on both Lebron & Kobe was underrated and key.

-Lebron is below both Paul & KG to me. He didn't play very efficiently, and his defense was lacking. He did however produce enough intangibles to take Boston to a gmae 7.


Final rankings:

1) Kobe
2) Paul
3) KG
4) Lebron
5) Duncan

Kobe is my clear number #1 from start to finish.After that it become jumbled because some guys like Paul fell short in the postseason, while a guy like Pierce took over in the playoffs.

[drza]

I realize that I have a tendency to make wall-of-words posts, and I'm trying to avoid doing that, but this topic was essentially the entire point of my first post in this thread (i.e. that KG's numbers were right there with LeBron and Paul as the best in the league that season). Was I not convincing, or is it the type of thing where you're already sure enough about your own evaluation that you can't really be swayed (which is certainly fair, of course).

Another stat that would directly refute your last line that I bolded is that during the '08 playoffs, the Celtics were - 8.8 points/48 minutes during the time when Garnett wasn't on the court. When literally any other player on the team outside of KG or Ray Allen (-2.6) was out, the team was still a net positive, but when Garnett was out the team fell apart. http://www.82games.com/0708/playoffs/0708BOS.HTM

I just don't think the reality meshes with the recollection in many cases about just how central Garnett was to that '08 title run for the Cs, but when you take a step back and really look at the numbers his impact was pretty enormous in those playoffs.

(ETA 82games.com link)

Well, no. They weren’t. They were right there with LeBron , etc. using statistical metrics that you chose and if you forgive him for having fewer minutes played than any other top 3 player in MVP voting the last decade. I don’t. Players have always been hit for that; I’m not going to overlook it for anyone. And I’m sure there are others analytic tools that will say Garnett was lower…but that’s why I’m opposed to people making this a war of statistical tools. There are so many types of different tools and analysis and context that it sucks all the air out of the room and doesn’t leave a damn thing. I respect that fact that you’ve got an analysis you like. But I don’t buy it. Keep in mind that I’m saying Kevin Garnett was the fourth best player in the league, which is a tremendous accomplishment for a guy that averaged less than 33 minutes a game and missed nearly a dozen games and had his worst rebounding year in close to a decade. I just don’t think his intangibles were epically high. They were great, but not that high. And they’d have to be top put him in the top 3. I still have him fourth. He was great.

Fair enough. I will point out, though, that I didn't just choose arbitrary metrics or metrics that I like to make KG look good. I listed every metric that I know of from all of the sites that I know of. If there are any advanced stats from 2008 that say that Garnett wasn't right there with LeBron and Paul at the top of the league while he was on the court, then I haven't seen them and would be curious to know of them.

If your standard is that he didn't play enough minutes, I respect that and there's nothing I can really do to argue it, except to say that in the postseason he played 38 minutes/game and validated his on-court numbers from the regular season.

But I'm not really trying to convert anyone who just categorically disagrees with my reasoning. I'm mainly just trying to make sure everyone here has access to all of the facts that I can find, because at the end of the day I think the available info is pretty persuasive if not necessarily intuitive to everyone's memory. If it's not for you, I respectfully nod my head (I can't tell from the tone of your post whether or not I'd offended you, and if I did then please accept my apologies and I'll keep it moving).

[An Unbiased Fan]

Just for posterity's sake, I'm going to say that throughout this thing I'm going mostly by on-court production, with games in December mattering as much as games in March, and games in the playoffs meaning only about 50% more than games in the regular season. Which is to say: if you play 20 playoff games and 82 regular season games, your regular season still accounts for roughly 2/3rds of where I'm placing you. Why? Because a 20 game sample size pales in comparison to 82 or, together, 102 games.

The playoffs mean A LOT more because it's against better competition than you get in the regular season. There are no 20-30 win bottom feeders to beat up on, and as the post season moves along, the challenge gets greater and greater. For instance, in 2008, LA played all of their games against 50+ win opponents. So every game of a series poses a challenge, and there are no gimme games like in the regular season.

Also, I don't much care about how well your team did. It's basketball, not ping pong- one player can't dictate whether an entire team wins or loses.

While it's true that one man can't lead a title to a ring, it's also true that stars do have a major impact on team success in the NBA, as opposed to other leagues. To disassociate team success would be wrong.

[drza]

I'm having trouble evaluating Paul, LeBron and Kobe. My feeling is that LeBron was the best of them in the regular season, with Paul second and Kobe third. In the postseason LeBron obviously wasn't efficient against the Celtics, but he came awfully dang close to toppling that team and I credit him for that. So I guess I'm talking myself into having him above the other two.

When it comes to Kobe vs Paul, I'm torn. The stats tell me that Paul was significantly better. I thought that Kobe was pretty strong in the postseason, though. I do feel that he was given some of the credit for the Lakers' run that should have gone to the Gasol/Odom front line. Kobe was definitely the best player, but I think Gasol should have gotten a bit more love.

I'm interested to see if any particularly compelling arguments come to light for any of the above

[mysticbb]

Regarding Garnett and the Celtics I want to point out one thing:

Barzilai's APM has Garnett for the RS with +9.95, but Garnett only played 2328 minutes, thus he gave the Celtics +579.1 overall (Barzilai's APM is adjusted to 40 minutes). Pierce on the other end played 2874 minutes and had a +9.15, that makes +657.4. In the playoffs it becomes +245.8 for Garnett and +193.5 for Pierce. Garnett was clear cut the best and most valuable player for the Celtics during the playoffs, but not so much in the regular season. Pierce just played more minutes in which his APM was rather close to Garnett, taking the margin of error into account it becomes a wash to me.

It is also a fact that the Celtics got great contribution from the whole team in 2008. I also wouldn't pick Garnett first, if the task would be building a championship team for the 2007/08 season with the knowledge we have right now.

Bryant played overall a pretty good playoff year except for an awful finals series. That series alone makes me think about it very hard were I should put Bryant on the list. He for sure wouldn't be my first pick for a championship contender, I would pick Garnett over him.

A couple of not mentioned players in my post so far which have a shot for the Top5 (or even #1): LeBron James, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash, Chris Paul

Paul's boxscore numbers are looking awesome, his adjusted +/- not so much. Steve Nash played really well during the RS, but not in the series against the Spurs, the Mavericks shut themself in the foot by making that mid-season trade. They were on pace for the best record in the West (well, same goes for Nash and the Suns), when the Franchise player gives a team 27/12/4 with great efficiency and the team is losing in 5, because the other teams point guard is going nuts, you know your team has just the wrong build. Duncan played as usually really good in the regular season and playoffs, he just doesn't have that much playing time which is not only a knock on Garnett, but also on Duncan in my books. That leaves me with James here, who was the best in the regular season imho, but couldn't quite reach his level of play in the playoffs against the Celtics. But he also had not much help and seeing how Bryant played against the Celtics, he is for sure ahead of Bryant.
I would still pick James as the start of my championship team for season 2007/08.

That leaves me with my vote list (consider that I didn't write everything about my thought process here in the post):

1. LeBron James
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Chris Paul
5. Dirk Nowitzki

HM: Tim Duncan, Steve Nash

[drza]

Some things to start us off:

Season Summary http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _2009.html
Playoff Summary http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _2009.html
Award Voting http://www.basketball-reference.com/awa ... _2009.html

Not sure if it's just my computer, but none of these links are working for me. I can get there on my own, but just pointing it out in case you want to fix it (unless, of course, it's just my computer and if so then ignore this post).

[An Unbiased Fan]

I'm having trouble evaluating Paul, LeBron and Kobe. My feeling is that LeBron was the best of them in the regular season, with Paul second and Kobe third. In the postseason LeBron obviously wasn't efficient against the Celtics, but he came awfully dang close to toppling that team and I credit him for that. So I guess I'm talking myself into having him above the other two.

When it comes to Kobe vs Paul, I'm torn. The stats tell me that Paul was significantly better. I thought that Kobe was pretty strong in the postseason, though. I do feel that he was given some of the credit for the Lakers' run that should have gone to the Gasol/Odom front line. Kobe was definitely the best player, but I think Gasol should have gotten a bit more love.

I'm interested to see if any particularly compelling arguments come to light for any of the above

The problem with Lebron is that he didn't play great defense in 2008, and led the Cavs to only 45 wins in a very weak East. In the playoffs he beat a 43 win Wiz team, but was very erratic on both offense & defense in the Celtic series. He ended up shooting 41% for the playoffs.

Kobe to me was the best. Paul had great numbers, but in the context of the opposing offensive schemes, I would say both were even. Kobe added defense to the equation though, and this along with his leadership, especially 2 weeks before the end of the season and the playoffs, give him the edge.

[bastillon]

Well, no. They weren’t. They were right there with LeBron , etc. using statistical metrics that you chose and if you forgive him for having fewer minutes played than any other top 3 player in MVP voting the last decade. I don’t. Players have always been hit for that; I’m not going to overlook it for anyone. And I’m sure there are others analytic tools that will say Garnett was lower…but that’s why I’m opposed to people making this a war of statistical tools. There are so many types of different tools and analysis and context that it sucks all the air out of the room and doesn’t leave a damn thing. I respect that fact that you’ve got an analysis you like. But I don’t buy it. Keep in mind that I’m saying Kevin Garnett was the fourth best player in the league, which is a tremendous accomplishment for a guy that averaged less than 33 minutes a game and missed nearly a dozen games and had his worst rebounding year in close to a decade. I just don’t think his intangibles were epically high. They were great, but not that high. And they’d have to be top put him in the top 3. I still have him fourth. He was great.

so what are those criterias that you chose that put Garnett behind LeBron, Kobe and Paul ? KG was the best player on the best team, putting up the best numbers (if you have any respect for adv stats) and dominated one of the guys you put ahead of him... but I don't wanna continue this with you, because I haven't seen you being convinced by anyone, so I don't think it would make sense for me to argue with you in the first place.

some things to consider:
1) Garnett was leading MVP candidate until he injured himself. he wasn't thereafter simply because they happened to play against poor opponents.
2) Garnett dominated LeBron in their head2head matchup. I think people forgot what happened during that series. LeBron averaged over 5 TOV and 35% FG (and like 40% TS IIRC) while KG posted his usual 20/10 while shooting 55% FG.


17 TOs in those two games as well

also, I'll strongly argue about LeBron's impact in that year. somehow the Cavs were able to force game 7 against Boston despite LeBron playing terribly... they won with their team defense while LeBron wasn't yet recognized for his play on that end of the court. in that game 1, Cavs were pretty much even with the Celtics (before KG hit the game winning lay-up) with LeBron playing absolutely horrendous basketball. this was not the same LeBron we see today. he had no jumpshot to speak of, he made silly mistakes, he was much worse defender. there's a very CLEAR seperation between LBJ of '08 and today's.

my list for now:
1.KG
2.Paul
3.Bryant
4.LeBron
5.Nash

[penbeast0]

I actually have Garnett in 1st. I think the mental impact he had in that Celtics turnaround transcends on court production. Now credit should also be given to Pierce and Allen and their HOF vetness, but to me the defining part of the Celtics was their intensity... I think KG was the main ticket. He was my MVP vote that year for the same reason. Nobody had more impact on a team IMO

So many good posts I find myself again with nothing to add. Dr.Mufasa said it first, as have others.

1. Garnett -- greatest turnaround in NBA history deserves an MVP
2. LeBron -- carried that mediocre team impressively
3. Paul -- tough but best statistical season ever by a PG gets credit
4. Kobe -- Great play, but in a great year
5. Duncan -- another tough choice but did more with less than Dirk it seems

[drza]

I'm having trouble evaluating Paul, LeBron and Kobe. My feeling is that LeBron was the best of them in the regular season, with Paul second and Kobe third. In the postseason LeBron obviously wasn't efficient against the Celtics, but he came awfully dang close to toppling that team and I credit him for that. So I guess I'm talking myself into having him above the other two.

When it comes to Kobe vs Paul, I'm torn. The stats tell me that Paul was significantly better. I thought that Kobe was pretty strong in the postseason, though. I do feel that he was given some of the credit for the Lakers' run that should have gone to the Gasol/Odom front line. Kobe was definitely the best player, but I think Gasol should have gotten a bit more love.

I'm interested to see if any particularly compelling arguments come to light for any of the above

The problem with Lebron is that he didn't play great defense in 2008, and led the Cavs to only 45 wins in a very weak East. In the playoffs he beat a 43 win Wiz team, but was very erratic on both offense & defense in the Celtic series. He ended up shooting 41% for the playoffs.

Kobe to me was the best. Paul had great numbers, but in the context of the opposing offensive schemes, I would say both were even. Kobe added defense to the equation though, and this along with his leadership, especially 2 weeks before the end of the season and the playoffs, give him the edge.

Re: postseason. I have some experience paying close attention to what happens to a lone-superstar that is expected to do everything when he is leading a team without a lot of talent against great opposition in the playoffs. In most cases your efficiency gets a lot lower, which makes your boxscore stats not as impressive. But I tend to look more at overall impact than purely what the box scores show, which is one of the things I like about the +/- stats. They aren't perfect, but they often seem to show when a player is having a big impact that the box scores don't catch.

That said, LeBron's postseason +30.9 on-court/off-court plus minus was telling to me. He might not have been efficient, he might have been grinding, but dangit he made a lot of people in Boston hold their breaths. To me, that was more impressive than what Kobe accomplished under better circumstances.

[mysticbb]

5. Duncan -- another tough choice but did more with less than Dirk it seems

Just want to say that all the advanced stats are indicate that Duncan had more help and Nowitzki played overall better than Duncan.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=HFkuc

Look at the numbers for the playoffs. Nowitzki also had the higher APM and Net+/-, don't think that you can say Nowitzki had more help overall.

[Doctor MJ]

Regular Season:

5) Duncan - All-D(1st), had a stellar year

-Duncan's all-around play took SA to 56 wins in a tie with No for 2nd in the West. Offense, Defense, leadership, he delivered enough to crack the Top 5.

I'm not going to say Duncan's not a worthy pick, he's a reasonable choice. That said I think it has to be noted there was a pretty major fall off from the previous year. His shooting % went way down, and he wasn't the team's leading scorer in either the regular or post-season. It was indeed a stellar year, but it was a poor year by Duncan standards.

[semi-sentient]

I'll do the best I can off of memory and by glancing at stats here and there.

I think Kobe and CP3 battling for the MVP award out West might have overshadowed what others were doing, particularly when you consider that it was one of the most competive conferences ever, but I'm hard-pressed to find anyone else that I'd take over those two guys for that particular season. IMO, they were the best two players in both the regular season AND the playoffs. Which other players can say they dominated both?

Kobe came into the season with a ton of question marks after pissing off practically everyone (Lakers fans included, hence the boos at Staples in the season opener) with all that trade nonsense in the off-season. To his credit, he came in ready to play from day one and so did the rest of the team, as evidenced by the Lakers being atop the West prior to Bynum going down with a knee injury. I actually loved the way that he was playing (and leading for that matter) because he took a reduced scoring role and made a real effort to get Bynum going. For the first time since the 3-peat days he had competant teammates and went back to being a strong team player. After Bynum went down things looked rather bleak, but in came Gasol who meshed perfectly with Kobe and put up some of his most efficient numbers of his career. In short, Kobe went from being a "chucker" back to being a great teammate that got everyone going, so that's a large part of the reason I think he's the best that year. Playing in all 82 regular season games certainly doesn't hurt his case either.

CP3, meanwhile, had his team right there fighting for the top seed in one of the toughest conferences in a long while. Going into the final stretch of the season he had them at the top, but he and the Hornets somewhat struggled to end the season which cost them a higher seed and ultimately the MVP award. However, he did have the luxury of playing with a relatively injury free supporting cast, although not as talented as what Kobe had post-Gasol trade. That factored into the MVP voting, and it also said something of who was able to carry more of the load for their team when needed. Still, I think you can make a perfectly reasonable case for CP3 over Kobe in the regular season because he wasn't just a great offensive player, he was also a very good defender.

As for the playoffs, CP3 was on a real tear to start things off and then came down to Earth somewhat. As good as he was, Kobe was even better as he tore up with West averaging 31.9 PTS (.605 TS%), 6.1 REB, and 5.8 AST (including a game-winner against the Spurs in the WCF), and I don't think there was anyone in the league that got more attention than Kobe or was more feared from opposing defenses. Not until he went up against the Celtics did he "struggle," which is understandable considering they shut down EVERY star perimeter player. Still, I think he played decent and under control all things considered, and I don't know how he could have done any better with a historically great defense focused in on stopping him.

What puts Kobe over the edge above the other players is how he performed in the playoffs, simply put. That's where there is a clear separation. NO ONE expected the Lakers to make the Finals that year, not even after we got Gasol, but they got there and gave the Celtics a good run for their money (well, first few games at least) so I like Kobe's overall body of work over CP3's.

LeBron was also having another great season, but he had yet to really cement himself as anything but a slightly above average defender and he still had a shakey outside shot. In terms of post-season play, he wasn't playing on the level of CP3 or Kobe. Not even close. While he tore up the Wizards (who suck), he definitely struggled against the only good team he faced (Celtics). I don't think he was really that far off, and he certainly had lesser teammates than either CP3 or Kobe, but as an individual player I simply don't think he was better or more impactful than either of those two.

Garnet had a pretty big impact for the Celtics, but the fact that they were able to win consistently without him was somewhat telling. His defensive intensity and hunger was a pretty big part of why the Celtics were so dominant defensively, but I do believe that them being healthy and adding other strong defenders had just as much to do with it. The reason I can't put Garnet higher is because he played only 32.8 MPG in addition to missing 11 complete games, which tells me he didn't mean as much to his team as other players seeing as how they didn't really miss a beat. Certainly he didn't have to carry them on offense the way the others did, and I'm not convinced that they wouldn't have still been a strong (although not all-time elite) defensive team with even a solid PF replacing Garnet. At the same time, how big of an impact does he truly have when you consider how poor the Wolves were just one season earlier? I don't think Garnet was good enough to led a weaker cast (such as those that the 3 above him had), so he can have the #4 spot.

So, that said, here's my rankings:

1) Kobe Bryant
2) Kevin Garnet
3) Chris Paul
4) LeBron James
5) Dirk Nowitzki

Edit: Changed my mind on the rankings based on getting more info from other posters. Bumped KG up to #2.

[Silver Bullet]

Okay. You guys are getting carried away here.

Consider this:

How many people have ever won the MVP award playing less than 2400 minutes in a season ?
Nobody. Ever.

And then Consider the last 6 big men to win the MVP award, including KG himself.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Please tell me how are you guys even considering putting him at 1. He's pulling 18 points and 9.7 boards, compared to some of the seasons we have, like O Neal in 99-00 at 30 and 13.6 -