Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #11-#12 Spots

[One_and_Done]

2020 Davis should indeed be getting buzz... yet I still don't see how he was more impressive than peak Jimmy.

[lessthanjake]

One problem with Tatum is there’s not exactly a specific year that sticks out. He won the title in 2024, but he was genuinely not particularly good overall in those playoffs. He went to the Finals in 2022, but he had a genuinely weak Finals performance. He had a great first-round series in 2025, but then got injured in the second round (and was disappointing in that series until the game he got injured in). And prior to 2022 was a definite step down from his more recent years and just wouldn’t be good enough to appear on anyone’s ballot. So that basically just leaves 2023, I guess? It feels pretty weird to pick a year where a guy’s team got massively upset in the playoffs, but he actually had a solid series (though he had a weak performance in Game 7). So that probably is his best year individually. But losing in the conference finals in a huge upset isn’t all that inspiring in terms of team success (and, by extension, “greatness”) that year.

So yeah, I guess the way I conceptualize things with Tatum is this:

If we compare to the bucket of guys that were MVP-level players that didn’t have huge team success (Harden, Nash, Chris Paul), I think Tatum is clearly just a less impactful player than those guys. If we compare to the bucket of guys that did have major team success (Dirk, Kobe, Durant, Davis, Manu, etc.), Tatum just does not have anywhere near the playoff performance that those guys did in the years they had that success. So I just find it hard to get him above those guys. And that’s despite thinking that there’s players in there that are not generally more impactful than Tatum. Like, I don’t necessarily think Durant is more impactful than Tatum, but Durant played far better in the 2017 playoffs than Tatum ever did, and certainly better than Tatum did in 2024 (and honestly, the same is true for other Durant years beyond just 2017). So I don’t find it difficult to pick Durant as having a “greater” peak than Tatum, even if I’m not really sure Durant is more impactful in large regular season samples.

Is there a single metric out there that shows Tatum to be roughly as good as KD in terms of peak impact in the rs? I mean I'm open to any and all data someone can bring forwards for an argument. I just don't know of any out there which say that those two are roughly equal in terms of rs impact. If there's literally zero then I don't think that argument holds much of any water. Maybe some kind of rapm derivative does that I'm unaware of but I'd just like to know if one exists.

So, if you look five-year RAPM on the NBArapm website, Durant peaks at 6.4 and Tatum peaks at 6.4 as well. And even beyond their best five-year period, the numbers in their prime look very similar. If anything, Tatum actually probably looks a little better. Tatum’s five-year RAPM in TheBasketballDatabase’s RAPM also looks similar but actually a bit better. When you layer on box-score stuff into the equation, Durant looks solidly better, so he’s better in stuff like EPM. So basically, I’d say Tatum looks slightly better than Durant in multi-year RAPM, but Durant looks better in impact-box hybrid measures and pure box measures. I guess the assessment here depends a fair bit on how much you like specific types of measures. For me, it basically leaves me unsure which one is more impactful in the regular season.

[iggymcfrack]

(...) I still feel like 2020 Davis is better than any version of Nowitzki as a basketball player. Certainly not a lot better but he's at least reasonably close offensively while being an elite defensive big man.

2020 Davis is better than any version of Nowitzki, Shai, Kawhi, Kobe, etc.

The problem (at least for me) is that 2020 Davis does not exist. He's just a variance issue beyond any confidence intervals. The bubble dice said that he was a 55% midrange shooter, 39% from three, but that's clearly not who he was as a player.

The lack of Jimmy Butler respect is wild. I don't think there's any chance half the guys named could carry a team of Bam, Gabe Vincent, Max Struss, and a washed K.Kove to the finals. How are guys like Tatum & Kobe being mentioned over Butler?

It's more impressive than anything Tatum has ever done, that's for sure. Unless we're counting breaking the cringemeter as an achievement.

Here are the career leaders in playoff TS% while scoring at least 20 PPG:

1. Anthony Davis .622
2. Kawhi Leonard .621
3. Nikola Jokic .612
4. Stephen Curry .608
5. Adrian Dantley .607

If there’s anyone whose playoff shooting isn’t fluky it’s Anthony Davis. He’s been incredibly efficient his entire career.

[One_and_Done]

Why do career stats even matter in a peak project?

[eminence]

Oh, Tatum is more than one tier up on KD as a playmaker.

Ball-holding is not bad by itself (ignoring absurd hypotheticals), the decision made is what matters. Regardless, Tatum is not particularly prone to it, pretty much around average for a lead ballhandler (Jokic on the quick side, Butler the slow for other current player examples).

Belief is up to oneself, but it's a fact that the '24/'25 Celtics have the two highest after-a-make Ortgs in league history (RS) and that Tatum was the lead halfcourt ballhandler and decision maker (more time, more touches, more passes made and received than anyone else on the squad). Small to midsize leads in the RS, mostly expanding in the POs (also adding on a clear apg lead if that's more to taste).

'Would you really want Tatum in a lead playmaking role on your team?' is an insane question.

It's on par with 'Would you really want Draymond as your defensive anchor?' because he doesn't have big block numbers.

[One_and_Done]

Oh, Tatum is more than one tier up on KD as a playmaker.

Ball-holding is not bad by itself (ignoring absurd hypotheticals), the decision made is what matters. Regardless, Tatum is not particularly prone to it, pretty much around average for a lead ballhandler (Jokic on the quick side, Butler the slow for other current player examples).

Belief is up to oneself, but it's a fact that the '24/'25 Celtics have the two highest after-a-make Ortgs in league history (RS) and that Tatum was the lead halfcourt ballhandler and decision maker (more time, more touches, more passes made and received than anyone else on the squad). Small to midsize leads in the RS, mostly expanding in the POs (also adding on a clear apg lead if that's more to taste).

'Would you really want Tatum in a lead playmaking role on your team?' is an insane question.

It's on par with 'Would you really want Draymond as your defensive anchor?' because he doesn't have big block numbers.

Ok, so why do you not have Tatum over Kobe by this same logic? Kobe never led an offense like the 25 (or 24) Celtics either.

[jalengreen]

One problem with Tatum is there’s not exactly a specific year that sticks out. He won the title in 2024, but he was genuinely not particularly good overall in those playoffs. He went to the Finals in 2022, but he had a genuinely weak Finals performance. He had a great first-round series in 2025, but then got injured in the second round (and was disappointing in that series until the game he got injured in). And prior to 2022 was a definite step down from his more recent years and just wouldn’t be good enough to appear on anyone’s ballot. So that basically just leaves 2023, I guess? It feels pretty weird to pick a year where a guy’s team got massively upset in the playoffs, but he actually had a solid series (though he had a weak performance in Game 7). So that probably is his best year individually. But losing in the conference finals in a huge upset isn’t all that inspiring in terms of team success (and, by extension, “greatness”) that year.

So yeah, I guess the way I conceptualize things with Tatum is this:

If we compare to the bucket of guys that were MVP-level players that didn’t have huge team success (Harden, Nash, Chris Paul), I think Tatum is clearly just a less impactful player than those guys. If we compare to the bucket of guys that did have major team success (Dirk, Kobe, Durant, Davis, Manu, etc.), Tatum just does not have anywhere near the playoff performance that those guys did in the years they had that success. So I just find it hard to get him above those guys. And that’s despite thinking that there’s players in there that are not generally more impactful than Tatum. Like, I don’t necessarily think Durant is more impactful than Tatum, but Durant played far better in the 2017 playoffs than Tatum ever did, and certainly better than Tatum did in 2024 (and honestly, the same is true for other Durant years beyond just 2017). So I don’t find it difficult to pick Durant as having a “greater” peak than Tatum, even if I’m not really sure Durant is more impactful in large regular season samples.

FWIW, Tatum twisted his ankle pretty bad in Game 7 (on the first play of the game) and looked quite hobbled the rest of the way. Not sure this affects your calculus at all, just wanted to throw it in there; I recall you saying 2017 Kawhi's not somebody you'd consider due to season ending injury, but of course this wasn't season ending so that's different (well.. in a manner of speaking).

[eminence]

Oh, Tatum is more than one tier up on KD as a playmaker.

Ball-holding is not bad by itself (ignoring absurd hypotheticals), the decision made is what matters. Regardless, Tatum is not particularly prone to it, pretty much around average for a lead ballhandler (Jokic on the quick side, Butler the slow for other current player examples).

Belief is up to oneself, but it's a fact that the '24/'25 Celtics have the two highest after-a-make Ortgs in league history (RS) and that Tatum was the lead halfcourt ballhandler and decision maker (more time, more touches, more passes made and received than anyone else on the squad). Small to midsize leads in the RS, mostly expanding in the POs (also adding on a clear apg lead if that's more to taste).

'Would you really want Tatum in a lead playmaking role on your team?' is an insane question.

It's on par with 'Would you really want Draymond as your defensive anchor?' because he doesn't have big block numbers.

Ok, so why do you not have Tatum over Kobe by this same logic? Kobe never led an offense like the 25 (or 24) Celtics either.

A) 'Do you really want Tatum in a lead playmaking role'

and

B) 'Is Jayson Tatum better than Kobe' (or whichever player in place of Kobe)

Are not the same question.

A) Is crazy to ask, the answer is yes, 80-90% of teams in NBA history would be quite happy to have Jayson Tatum as their lead playmaker.
B) Is reasonable, though I prefer Kobe.

[Cavsfansince84]

Oh, Tatum is more than one tier up on KD as a playmaker.

Ball-holding is not bad by itself (ignoring absurd hypotheticals), the decision made is what matters. Regardless, Tatum is not particularly prone to it, pretty much around average for a lead ballhandler (Jokic on the quick side, Butler the slow for other current player examples).

Belief is up to oneself, but it's a fact that the '24/'25 Celtics have the two highest after-a-make Ortgs in league history (RS) and that Tatum was the lead halfcourt ballhandler and decision maker (more time, more touches, more passes made and received than anyone else on the squad). Small to midsize leads in the RS, mostly expanding in the POs (also adding on a clear apg lead if that's more to taste).

'Would you really want Tatum in a lead playmaking role on your team?' is an insane question.

It's on par with 'Would you really want Draymond as your defensive anchor?' because he doesn't have big block numbers.

Ya but isn't it possible that the Celtics' ORtg's in recent years are more to do with them shooting close to 40% from 3(with the highest 3PAr in the league) as a team and over 80% on their ft's while also having the lowest tov% than Tatum being a new age Oscar? idk how much of that is due to Tatum's playmaking. I think there's a bit of an adv to having 3 playmakers on the floor at the same time as well. I mean its fine if you are really high on Tatum in this regard but at least try to address what I am asking here. It's not like I hate Tatum, I just don't know that all the numbers being bandied about can be chalked up purely to Tatum's playmaking.

[Cavsfansince84]

Oh, Tatum is more than one tier up on KD as a playmaker.

Ball-holding is not bad by itself (ignoring absurd hypotheticals), the decision made is what matters. Regardless, Tatum is not particularly prone to it, pretty much around average for a lead ballhandler (Jokic on the quick side, Butler the slow for other current player examples).

Belief is up to oneself, but it's a fact that the '24/'25 Celtics have the two highest after-a-make Ortgs in league history (RS) and that Tatum was the lead halfcourt ballhandler and decision maker (more time, more touches, more passes made and received than anyone else on the squad). Small to midsize leads in the RS, mostly expanding in the POs (also adding on a clear apg lead if that's more to taste).

'Would you really want Tatum in a lead playmaking role on your team?' is an insane question.

It's on par with 'Would you really want Draymond as your defensive anchor?' because he doesn't have big block numbers.

Really want him as your leading playmaker isn't really the question since that's really just asking if you'd want Tatum on your team so much as the idea of having a more traditional pg next to him might be and that's a question I know many Celtics fans have talked about as well in recent years. The idea that the J's always needed a more traditional pg to run the offense and which they sort of got with Jrue&White. It would also be par with asking if you want Draymond as your team's primary rim protector, not as a def anchor much like how Tatum is a scorer and a playmaker. That's more of the real parallel.

[eminence]

Oh, Tatum is more than one tier up on KD as a playmaker.

Ball-holding is not bad by itself (ignoring absurd hypotheticals), the decision made is what matters. Regardless, Tatum is not particularly prone to it, pretty much around average for a lead ballhandler (Jokic on the quick side, Butler the slow for other current player examples).

Belief is up to oneself, but it's a fact that the '24/'25 Celtics have the two highest after-a-make Ortgs in league history (RS) and that Tatum was the lead halfcourt ballhandler and decision maker (more time, more touches, more passes made and received than anyone else on the squad). Small to midsize leads in the RS, mostly expanding in the POs (also adding on a clear apg lead if that's more to taste).

'Would you really want Tatum in a lead playmaking role on your team?' is an insane question.

It's on par with 'Would you really want Draymond as your defensive anchor?' because he doesn't have big block numbers.

Ya but isn't it possible that the Celtics' ORtg's in recent years are more to do with them shooting close to 40% from 3(with the highest 3PAr in the league) as a team and over 80% on their ft's while also having the lowest tov than Tatum being a new age Oscar? idk how much of that is due to Tatum's playmaking. I think there's a bit of an adv to having 3 playmakers on the floor at the same time as well. I mean its fine if you are really high on Tatum in this regard but at least try to address what I am asking here. It's not like I hate Tatum, I just don't know that all the numbers being bandied can be chalked up purely to Tatum's playmaking.

I have never implied Tatum is a 'new age Oscar' (offensively presumably) or that anything is 'chalked up purely to Tatum's playmaking'. If I thought that was even arguable I may have voted Tatum #1 in this project. I do think Tatum has been the lead playmaker and clear best offensive player on the Celtics for the last few years. I have said I think he's a significantly better playmaker than KD (plenty of players are). The gap between those goalposts is pretty big and I ain't the one moving em.

'I have a hard time believing ... that you'd really want him in a helio/lead playmaking role on your team.'

It seems like a hater position to me for a player who was the lead playmaker on the best Ortg in league history (not the same as being best offense ever, but they were certainly pretty damn good).

[lessthanjake]

One problem with Tatum is there’s not exactly a specific year that sticks out. He won the title in 2024, but he was genuinely not particularly good overall in those playoffs. He went to the Finals in 2022, but he had a genuinely weak Finals performance. He had a great first-round series in 2025, but then got injured in the second round (and was disappointing in that series until the game he got injured in). And prior to 2022 was a definite step down from his more recent years and just wouldn’t be good enough to appear on anyone’s ballot. So that basically just leaves 2023, I guess? It feels pretty weird to pick a year where a guy’s team got massively upset in the playoffs, but he actually had a solid series (though he had a weak performance in Game 7). So that probably is his best year individually. But losing in the conference finals in a huge upset isn’t all that inspiring in terms of team success (and, by extension, “greatness”) that year.

So yeah, I guess the way I conceptualize things with Tatum is this:

If we compare to the bucket of guys that were MVP-level players that didn’t have huge team success (Harden, Nash, Chris Paul), I think Tatum is clearly just a less impactful player than those guys. If we compare to the bucket of guys that did have major team success (Dirk, Kobe, Durant, Davis, Manu, etc.), Tatum just does not have anywhere near the playoff performance that those guys did in the years they had that success. So I just find it hard to get him above those guys. And that’s despite thinking that there’s players in there that are not generally more impactful than Tatum. Like, I don’t necessarily think Durant is more impactful than Tatum, but Durant played far better in the 2017 playoffs than Tatum ever did, and certainly better than Tatum did in 2024 (and honestly, the same is true for other Durant years beyond just 2017). So I don’t find it difficult to pick Durant as having a “greater” peak than Tatum, even if I’m not really sure Durant is more impactful in large regular season samples.

FWIW, Tatum twisted his ankle pretty bad in Game 7 (on the first play of the game) and looked quite hobbled the rest of the way. Not sure this affects your calculus at all, just wanted to throw it in there; I recall you saying 2017 Kawhi's not somebody you'd consider due to season ending injury, but of course this wasn't season ending so that's different (well.. in a manner of speaking).

Oh yeah, that’s a good call out. I’d somehow forgotten all about the injury. I don’t see that one as a playoff-ending injury, so it wouldn’t preclude consideration of that year for me. More generally, I’m not sure whether the fact that he had a bad game due to injury really moves things one way or the other for me. I’m inclined to ding him for the performance regardless of why it happened.

[Cavsfansince84]

I have never implied Tatum is a 'new age Oscar' (offensively presumably) or that anything is 'chalked up purely to Tatum's playmaking'. If I thought that was even arguable I may have voted Tatum #1 in this project. I do think Tatum has been the lead playmaker and clear best offensive player on the Celtics for the last few years. I have said I think he's a significantly better playmaker than KD (plenty of players are). The gap between those goalposts is pretty big and I ain't the one moving em.

'I have a hard time believing ... that you'd really want him in a helio/lead playmaking role on your team.'

It seems like a hater position to me for a player who was the lead playmaker on the best Ortg in league history (not the same as being best offense ever, but they were certainly pretty damn good).

What I was questioning was having him as your team's leading scorer and leading playmaker aka in the role of a helio. What I said about him as a new age Oscar(which I never said you actually said) has to do with a guy with a large scoring role also doubling as a strong playmaker while leading a team to some of the best ORtg's of all time. I think he's unquestionably their best offensive player but they also won a title with him shooting pretty badly. So my point was that maybe some of what is being ascribed to Tatum's playmaking is also due to things like coaching, teammates who can also run offense and a team that is just really good at 3pt shooting, ft shooting and taking care of the ball. We're debating the playmaking part of this quite a bit because if his playmaking isn't that great then I think its almost impossible to have him on a ballot right now. It's nothing to do with liking or hating as a person or player. It's just where the crux of his candidacy lies imo. As of now I'm not convinced that his playmaking is that good while you and maybe 1-2 others think that it could be. What I'm bringing up are question marks relating to that. What I do hate is this idea that taking a side in any sort of debate implies some degree of hate for what is being argued.

[trelos6]

We're still within my greater tier of players from 7-15.

11.Chris Paul 2014-15 ('15 > '14 > '09). Fantastic regular season. One of the best creators and passers in the era. Scoring volume isn't good (20-23 pp75), but with elite efficiency. Drives an elite offense rOrtg +6.8, and is elite defensively for a guard.

12. Kevin Durant 2016-17 ('17 ≥ '16 > '14). Amazing playoffs, amazing scoring volume and efficiency. A plus on defense, providing some additional rim protection. But he's here for 2 numbers: 29 +13. That's a volume and efficiency that's basically only been matched by peak Kareem.

13. Steve Nash 2006-07 ('07 > '08 > '06). Driver of the best offenses in history. Like Paul, his scoring volume is good with elite efficiency.

14. Dirk Nowitzki 2010-11 ('11 > '10 > 06). Fantastic scorer and one of the best post season runs (30 +9).


Others considered: AD ‘20, Harden ‘20, Embiid ‘23, Draymond ‘16, Ginobili ‘05, Kobe ‘08.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

It's been a really long time lol but hope it's okay if I join back.

1 - 2011 Dirk
2 - 2009 Kobe Bryant
3 - 2024 Joel Embid
4 - 2008 Chris Paul

Okay so I'm going to be real Dirk's stats kind of aren't impressing me with like 23/3/7 on 60% true shooting. But Dirk then goes to like 27 points on the same true shooting and this is kind of a big deal, beats Kobe and the Lakers and Lebron and Wade when no one was really giving them a chance. Now look I don't want to be someone who just goes with the narrative and stuff but Mavs were actually not that good without Dirk and actually kind of bad which you know we make a really big deal about when it's Lebron or whoever but when the Mavs are 2-7 we're just like yeah whatever great team and alot of people are like cool but he can't be that good. And while I totally get why because he's not some awesome passer or defender and his scoring isn't like crazy I feel like I kind of have to do that thing I did with Bill Russell and give him love even if I don't fully get how he's doing it.

I know Kobe is considered not that good by alot of the fancy impact stuff like RAPM but I feel like maybe it's just wrong here. Like woah Shaq is carrying him but then he almost three peats without him. He's kind of like the opposite of Dirk where he has all these different things he does and I can't really look past him giving 30/5/5 with a good TS and then beating the defense which took peak Lebron and his 66 win team out. Like I'm not saying we totally ignore the RAPM but I feel like saying he isn't even top 10 for this period is a bit much?

I feel like Embid could be a lot higher if he wasn't getting injured every year but he's so good I think he has to go in somewhere. This seems like CP3's best stat year even though I know he was more successful in LAC so i'll pick that.

[Jaivl]

Here are the career leaders in playoff TS% while scoring at least 20 PPG:

1. Anthony Davis .622
(...)

If there’s anyone whose playoff shooting isn’t fluky it’s Anthony Davis. He’s been incredibly efficient his entire career.

No wonder, the bubble playoffs are almost half that sample size, and more than half in terms of 3 pointers attempted

These are Davis' shooting splits during 2015 to 2025, RS + PO:

39.8% on long midrange (887/2194)
29.9% on 3PT (415/1389)

If we split by season, he peaked at 46.1% long midrange (2024) and 34.2% 3PT (2020).

On the bubble-offs, he went 37/67 (55.2%) and 23/60 (38.3%). That is 3% and 4% of the original sample sizes. He scored 10 middies and 5 threes more than his average. I'll let the reader decide what Davis' actual capabilities as a shooter are.

[iggymcfrack]

Here are the career leaders in playoff TS% while scoring at least 20 PPG:

1. Anthony Davis .622
(...)

If there’s anyone whose playoff shooting isn’t fluky it’s Anthony Davis. He’s been incredibly efficient his entire career.

No wonder, the bubble playoffs are almost half that sample size, and more than half in terms of 3 pointers attempted

These are Davis' shooting splits during 2015 to 2025, RS + PO:

39.8% on long midrange (887/2194)
29.9% on 3PT (415/1389)

If we split by season, he peaked at 46.1% long midrange (2024) and 34.2% 3PT (2020).

On the bubble-offs, he went 37/67 (55.2%) and 23/60 (38.3%). That is 3% and 4% of the original sample sizes. He scored 10 middies and 5 threes more than his average. I'll let the reader decide what Davis' actual capabilities as a shooter are.

Since when is 769/2259 minutes “almost half”? If you use his post-bubble playoff minutes with the Lakers as the whole sample, his TS% is “only” .603. 5th all-time among volume scorers, halfway in between Steph Curry and Kevin Durant. What a bum. You’re reaching super, super hard to parse the data into tiny little subsections to discredit him.

Like of course people are gonna shoot a little better in their best playoffs than they do on average. KD’s 2017 season was much fluky statistically than AD’s 2020 playoffs and he had much more of a reason for it to be fluky than AD did since he was playing in pretty much the best offensive environment ever for a superstar. He went from shooting .561 his last 3 playoffs with OKC to shooting .683 next to peak Steph and Klay in Golden State. If there’s anyone whose stats as a #2 should be discounted it’s KD, not AD.

[Jaivl]

You’re reaching super, super hard to parse the data into tiny little subsections to discredit him.

Like of course people are gonna shoot a little better in their best playoffs than they do on average.

Yeah I'm done here

[iggymcfrack]

You’re reaching super, super hard to parse the data into tiny little subsections to discredit him.

Like of course people are gonna shoot a little better in their best playoffs than they do on average.

Yeah I'm done here

What I’m saying by tiny subsections is that you’re saying “well he shot better from outside 16 feet in the bubble than he did other years so we should discount his peak season”. Yes, it’s absolutely true that he hasn’t matched his bubble level in that one little specific category.

However as a whole, his peak isn’t unusually above his other seasons. For example, this year in the loss to the Wolves he had the exact same PPG and TS% as he did in the 2020 playoffs while shooting 0/5 from three for the series. It’s just that this time he did it by beasting at the rim, taking 40% of his shots there and making 84% of those. The fact that he scored different ways in different seasons doesn't make his overall value any lower, and the fact that he's the most efficient volume scorer of all-time in the playoffs over his entire career means his peak scoring isn't likely any flukier than anyone else’s.

Let’s look at his career more holistically:

PER: 4th all-time, 5th all-time playoffs
WS/48: 15th all-time, 5th all-time playoffs
BPM: 17th all-time, 12th all-time playoffs

Does anything about that scream “guy who rode good shooting luck to a top 15 peak of the last quarter century?”

[One_and_Done]

1. KD (2014 I guess?)

2. Luka (2022)
3. CP3 (2008)
4. Dirk (2011)

HM: Butler, Nash, Harden, T-Mac, AD.

We have ample evidence KD had a huge impact on winning, even for non-stacked teams.

In 2014 for example, the Thunder were 25-11 in the games Westbrook missed, thanks to KD.

His Brooklyn time is a bit of a mess to assess, because of all the stuff that happened involving availability of guys, but we can see in 21 the team was 23-12 with KD, and only 25-24 without him. Similarly, the Nets in 22 were 36-19 with him, and only 8-19 without him. We also saw KD carry the Nets in the 21 playoffs, almost past the Bucks, with Kyrie and Harden both going down with injuries. If KDs toe isn’t on the line, the Nets likely win the championship this year largely on the back of KD.

In KD’s Phoenix tenure, despite being past his prime, the win-loss still holds up well for KD. From 23 to 25 the Suns were 85-60 with him, and 15-30 without him. The contrast was stark.

But hey, some computer formulas that, by their nature, are unreliable at accurately measuring value don’t agree, so I guess forget all that other stuff.

I found the 3 names after KD to be harder. I ultimately think Luka and CP3 gave the biggest lift. Dirk is my #4 mainly for pragmatic reasons. I’m not 100% sure he should be over Butler for example, but given that nobody will vote for Butler right now I don’t see any point throwing my vote away. I also go back and forth on CP3 v.s Nash, but for now I’m going with Paul.

In terms of Luka, the argument is pretty clear. The guy basically carried a fairly solid-ish support cast to the finals, and only lost because his team was totally outgunned (and because he was hurt). If Luka had been healthier in 2024 I’d have that as the year to vote for him, but he was sufficiently banged up in the playoffs for it to be a demerit. I’ll take the younger and springier Luka from 2022, who “only” got them to the WCFs.

In terms of skillset, Luka is way above guys like Kobe. He runs an offense, which Kobe can’t, and he can score and set up guys in a way that is levels above Kobe. Ok, Luka’s defence isn’t good, but you can get away with that when you’re point guard. Kobe’s D was overrated and average after 2004 anyway.

Looking at numbers, it’s not even close.

Luka 22 RS: 40/13/12 per 100, on 571 TS%
Kobe RS 09: 38/7/7 per 100, on 561 TS%

Luka 22 PS: 45/14/9 per 100, on 577 TS%
Kobe PS 09: 39/7/7 per 100, on 564 TS%

It’s not even close. Luka is a guy who will elevate a bad team more, and raise the ceiling of a good team higher as well.

At this point it’s somewhat redundant to explain how Kobe is overrated on offense, but I’ll give it another crack.

Let’s look at just 2009 CP3 v.s 09 Kobe as an example. Paul’s per 100 numbers are particularly impressive this year; 32/8/16 on 599 TS%, with a 124 Ortg, and justifiably finishing 6th in DPOY voting

Now, if we took a simplistic approach, and assumed assists are worth 2.4 points each, then prima facie CP3 added 70+ pp100 to his team, compared to 54pp100 for Kobe. This is a simplistic approach obviously, but it’s intended to try and demonstrate how much more there is to generating offense than “ppg!”.

In reality CP3 was generating even more points of course, because of things like hockey assists, and because he’s scoring at better efficiency, or because he’s putting his team mates in their sweet spots so they can shoot at better efficiency, etc, but even by a flat numbers comp was CP3 waaayyy ahead. CP3 even rebounds more per 100 than Kobe in 09. He looks better than Kobe in everything really. The reason CP3’s teams often have great offensive ratings is because setting guys up for easy and efficient baskets is often more important than actually scoring at so-so efficiency.

Ultimately, I haven’t gone with 09 Paul, because I think he was better and healthier in 08. I don’t care that it was one of his earlier years, I think it was his best. CP3 is a guy who can carry your team more too. He’s just more impactful than Kobe. There are other years you can take for CP3, but 2008 is as good a choice as any.

I’d like to be voting for Butler #4, but so far nobody else seems to remember his heroics from 3 separate playoff runs in 20, 22, and 23.