RealGM

RealGM Greatest Player Peaks of All-Time List
1. Michael Jordan ('91---unanimous)
2. Shaquille O'Neal ('00---unanimous)
3. Lebron James ('13---non-unanimous ('09, '12))
4. Wilt Chamberlain ('67---non-unanimous ('64))
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ('77---non-unanimous ('71, '72))
6. Hakeem Olajuwon ('94---non-unanimous ('93))
7. Tim Duncan ('03---non-unanimous ('02))
8. Kevin Garnett ('04---unanimous)
9. Bill Russell ('65---non-unanimous ('62, '64))
10. Magic Johnson ('87---unanimous)
11. Larry Bird ('86---non-unanimous ('87, '88))
12. David Robinson ('95---non-unanimous ('94, '96))
13. Bill Walton ('77---unanimous)
14. Julius Erving ('76---unanimous)
15. Oscar Robertson ('64---non-unanimous ('63))
16. Dwyane Wade (year to be determined)
17. ????


Go at it guys. Target stop time for this thread will be late Saturday night or possibly Sunday sometime (I have a lot going on this weekend).

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

Mutnt wrote:.

RSCD_3 wrote:.

Quotatious wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

yoyoboy wrote:.

RebelWithoutACause wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

The-Power wrote:.

SKF_85 wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

PCProductions wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

theonlyclutch wrote:.

BallerHogger wrote:.

michievous wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

thizznation wrote:.

SideshowBob wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

Repost from peak thread #16:

1st Ballot: 15 Curry

2nd Ballot: 14 Durant

3rd ballot is wide open ATM, thinking one of Dirk/Paul/Barkley/Davis/T-Mac and maybe some others as well, would also be open to moving Durant down if there is good logic for it.

Not really in agreement with Wade being voted in, as it sets a precedent that "as long as someone as good numbers, obtained in part from having as much primacy as he can handle, it doesn't matter at all what the team record is!" Instead of considering whether such impact could be maintained in a situation with (presumably) less primacy, ala 06 vs 08/09 Kobe being able to scale well, in contrast to Kevin Love from Timberwolves to Cavs etc...

Edit: An extension of this thinking would be like saying that Jordan is better in '88 or '89 than '91 due to his better numbers and providing more "lift" (If BPM/VORP are to be believed), without considering that '88 or '89 Jordan wouldn't be averaging those same numbers in the '91 Bulls...

theonlyclutch wrote:Not really in agreement with Wade being voted in, as it sets a precedent that "as long as someone as good numbers, obtained from having max primacy, it doesn't matter at all what the team record is!" Instead of considering whether such impact could be maintained in a situation with (presumably) less primacy, ala 06 vs 08/09 Kobe, Kevin Love from Timberwolves to Cavs...etc

I don't get that argument, at all. Prime Wade was just fine impact-wise when he played on strong teams, like '06 or '11. Besides, Wade's efficiency was outstanding for the usage he had. It was totally justifiable for Wade to have as much offensive primacy as he actually had. 30+ PER and 10+ BPM with 35+% USG for an entire season is an incredible feat.

I don't understand why you mentioned Kobe in '06 vs '08/'09 AND Love in '14 vs '15, in the same sentence...Bryant had an incredibly smooth transition in terms of usage/role, and so did Wade from '10 to '11, after LeBron and Bosh joined the Heat. Love's transition wasn't exactly "smooth". Wade didn't have to sacrifice a lot of his game in '11 compared to '09 or '10. If not for LeBron's choke in the finals against Dallas, Miami would've won the title in '11 and nobody would talk about Wade or LeBron being a poor fit (but Wade did exactly what he was supposed to do in those finals, he certainly doesn't deserve any blame for that loss).

Quotatious wrote:

theonlyclutch wrote:Not really in agreement with Wade being voted in, as it sets a precedent that "as long as someone as good numbers, obtained from having max primacy, it doesn't matter at all what the team record is!" Instead of considering whether such impact could be maintained in a situation with (presumably) less primacy, ala 06 vs 08/09 Kobe, Kevin Love from Timberwolves to Cavs...etc

I don't get that argument, at all. Prime Wade was just fine impact-wise when he played on strong teams, like '06 or '11

It's easy to look in hindsight and say that 2006 Heat was a title contender all along, but that just wasn't the case, they won 52 games in a mediocre conference (at best), had an SRS of 3.59 (below first-round fodder MEM that year!), that does not scream "contender-level".

The 2011 Heat were a contender level team, but even then there are signs of redundancy, one would think that adding an MVP-caliber offensive player in Wade to Lebron would yield a ATG-level offense, NTM Bosh, but in fact the offense is still not clearly better than what Lebron + shooters managed in 09 and 10,
2009 - +4.1 ORTG
2010 - +3.6 ORTG
2011 - +4.4 ORTG


Besides, Wade's efficiency was outstanding for the usage he had. It was totally justifiable for Wade to have as much offensive primacy as he actually had. 30+ PER and 10+ BPM with 35+% USG for an entire season is an incredible feat.

In that particular team context, yes.

But there's also very little examples of that sort of play on a team with better supporting casts:
Of all player-seasons with 35+% USG (19 in total), only 5 were on teams with 50+ wins, and that's despite this list being littered with ATG-level scoring talents, there's
2001 Iverson
2013 Carmelo
1988 Nique
2011 Kobe
2007 McGrady

Of those seasons, only McGrady and Kobe could be labeled as on "Strong title contenders" (5+ SRS), ergo, a hypothetical title team built around 2009 Wade is probably not going to have him take up 36.2% USG...

Anyways, this is probably off topic, so let's go back to discussion about players still on the board..

Theonlyclutch, Wade is in and you're still spewing anti-wade propoganda. Don't think you should just let it go and accept the fact that Wade was an elite superstar and not some scrub player?

I'm just going to reiterate, while Wade never had the fortune of being the best player with a good fitting supporting cast with lots of talent (it was either the support was all past their prime on the 06 Heat, or 11-14 Heat with Wade near the end of his prime and shaped towards LeBron moving forward), he was arguably the best performer on the 2008 Olympics team. The leading scorer, on the best efficiency, taking less shots/isolations than both of the other top 2 scorers (LeBron/Kobe).

Granted its far different than the NBA, but I think that has to show at least to some degree that he has no problem providing a great lift to a stacked team without needing to take from others.

Because ultimately that's what Wade is being penalized for from some here, because he never got to be the #1 on an all around stacked team, it was either a team with a bunch of guys past their primes, or he had to share with LeBron. I would love to see what Wade would have done on a team with the talent the Warriors this past season had from 2-14 basically, but that just didn't happen, and I think its unfair to suggest he couldn't have done as well as a guy like Curry did, especially when Wade did dominate on a similarly stacked Olympics team.

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:I'm just going to reiterate, while Wade never had the fortune of being the best player with a good fitting supporting cast with lots of talent (it was either the support was all past their prime on the 06 Heat, or 11-14 Heat with Wade near the end of his prime and shaped towards LeBron moving forward), he was arguably the best performer on the 2008 Olympics team. The leading scorer, on the best efficiency, taking less shots/isolations than both of the other top 2 scorers (LeBron/Kobe).

Granted its far different than the NBA, but I think that has to show at least to some degree that he has no problem providing a great lift to a stacked team without needing to take from others.

Because ultimately that's what Wade is being penalized for from some here, because he never got to be the #1 on an all around stacked team, it was either a team with a bunch of guys past their primes, or he had to share with LeBron. I would love to see what Wade would have done on a team with the talent the Warriors this past season had from 2-14 basically, but that just didn't happen, and I think its unfair to suggest he couldn't have done as well as a guy like Curry did, especially when Wade did dominate on a similarly stacked Olympics team.

First I'll note that theonlyclutch and I are not anti-Wade, we just see things a different way.

Second, the main point of the argument is that Wade's numbers are so ridiculous because his cast was so poor he had to do everything for them. That's fine, but the issue arose when people then began using those his outrageous box score stats to suggest he was better than players who had lesser stats but similar (or greater) impact as indicated by that family of stats. The issue is that were Wade transported to a supporting cast like Curry or Dirk had, he would not be taking 36% USG and would not be averaging 30/10/10, and thus the pro-Wade argument goes away. Do you see why that's a problem?

Dr Spaceman wrote:

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:I'm just going to reiterate, while Wade never had the fortune of being the best player with a good fitting supporting cast with lots of talent (it was either the support was all past their prime on the 06 Heat, or 11-14 Heat with Wade near the end of his prime and shaped towards LeBron moving forward), he was arguably the best performer on the 2008 Olympics team. The leading scorer, on the best efficiency, taking less shots/isolations than both of the other top 2 scorers (LeBron/Kobe).

Granted its far different than the NBA, but I think that has to show at least to some degree that he has no problem providing a great lift to a stacked team without needing to take from others.

Because ultimately that's what Wade is being penalized for from some here, because he never got to be the #1 on an all around stacked team, it was either a team with a bunch of guys past their primes, or he had to share with LeBron. I would love to see what Wade would have done on a team with the talent the Warriors this past season had from 2-14 basically, but that just didn't happen, and I think its unfair to suggest he couldn't have done as well as a guy like Curry did, especially when Wade did dominate on a similarly stacked Olympics team.

First I'll note that theonlyclutch and I are not anti-Wade, we just see things a different way.

Second, the main point of the argument is that Wade's numbers are so ridiculous because his cast was so poor he had to do everything for them. That's fine, but the issue arose when people then began using those his outrageous box score stats to suggest he was better than players who had lesser stats but similar (or greater) impact as indicated by that family of stats. The issue is that were Wade transported to a supporting cast like Curry or Dirk had, he would not be taking 36% USG and would not be averaging 30/10/10, and thus the pro-Wade argument goes away. Do you see why that's a problem?

I'm not sure you have enough data to support the underlined. Dirk and Curry both had casts that fit their skill-sets perfectly, even if the top-end talent wasn't as high as the Heatles. And in both cases their casts had skillsets to fit productive roles around a transcendant superstar. If you gave Wade a cast of similar overall caliber, but tailored to his strengths, I don't doubt he could have led a contender from a high primacy/high usage role that would have been very high impact. I agree with you that Wade's portability isn't as strong as Dirk's or Curry's because of their shooting ability/spacing impacts, but I'm not sure that we have any evidence that he couldn't scale to an excellent team if he was surrounded by more talent that fit his game.

drza wrote:

Dr Spaceman wrote:

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:I'm just going to reiterate, while Wade never had the fortune of being the best player with a good fitting supporting cast with lots of talent (it was either the support was all past their prime on the 06 Heat, or 11-14 Heat with Wade near the end of his prime and shaped towards LeBron moving forward), he was arguably the best performer on the 2008 Olympics team. The leading scorer, on the best efficiency, taking less shots/isolations than both of the other top 2 scorers (LeBron/Kobe).

Granted its far different than the NBA, but I think that has to show at least to some degree that he has no problem providing a great lift to a stacked team without needing to take from others.

Because ultimately that's what Wade is being penalized for from some here, because he never got to be the #1 on an all around stacked team, it was either a team with a bunch of guys past their primes, or he had to share with LeBron. I would love to see what Wade would have done on a team with the talent the Warriors this past season had from 2-14 basically, but that just didn't happen, and I think its unfair to suggest he couldn't have done as well as a guy like Curry did, especially when Wade did dominate on a similarly stacked Olympics team.

First I'll note that theonlyclutch and I are not anti-Wade, we just see things a different way.

Second, the main point of the argument is that Wade's numbers are so ridiculous because his cast was so poor he had to do everything for them. That's fine, but the issue arose when people then began using those his outrageous box score stats to suggest he was better than players who had lesser stats but similar (or greater) impact as indicated by that family of stats. The issue is that were Wade transported to a supporting cast like Curry or Dirk had, he would not be taking 36% USG and would not be averaging 30/10/10, and thus the pro-Wade argument goes away. Do you see why that's a problem?

I'm not sure you have enough data to support the underlined. Dirk and Curry both had casts that fit their skill-sets perfectly, even if the top-end talent wasn't as high as the Heatles. And in both cases their casts had skillsets to fit productive roles around a transcendant superstar. If you gave Wade a cast of similar overall caliber, but tailored to his strengths, I don't doubt he could have led a contender from a high primacy/high usage role that would have been very high impact. I agree with you that Wade's portability isn't as strong as Dirk's or Curry's because of their shooting ability/spacing impacts, but I'm not sure that we have any evidence that he couldn't scale to an excellent team if he was surrounded by more talent that fit his game.

I don't doubt that either. What I doubt is that he would be putting up 36% USG in such a situation, because even Russell Westbrook has more of a conscience than that.

The point is Wade delivered a lot of raw production because his team needed raw production more than anything else.

Curry and Dirk did not provide the same raw production because there were other players capable of producing and their teams needed other things.

And because of this line of reasoning, I take serious issue with the notion that Wade is better than the other two because he beats them in raw production.

drza wrote:

Dr Spaceman wrote:

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:I'm just going to reiterate, while Wade never had the fortune of being the best player with a good fitting supporting cast with lots of talent (it was either the support was all past their prime on the 06 Heat, or 11-14 Heat with Wade near the end of his prime and shaped towards LeBron moving forward), he was arguably the best performer on the 2008 Olympics team. The leading scorer, on the best efficiency, taking less shots/isolations than both of the other top 2 scorers (LeBron/Kobe).

Granted its far different than the NBA, but I think that has to show at least to some degree that he has no problem providing a great lift to a stacked team without needing to take from others.

Because ultimately that's what Wade is being penalized for from some here, because he never got to be the #1 on an all around stacked team, it was either a team with a bunch of guys past their primes, or he had to share with LeBron. I would love to see what Wade would have done on a team with the talent the Warriors this past season had from 2-14 basically, but that just didn't happen, and I think its unfair to suggest he couldn't have done as well as a guy like Curry did, especially when Wade did dominate on a similarly stacked Olympics team.

First I'll note that theonlyclutch and I are not anti-Wade, we just see things a different way.

Second, the main point of the argument is that Wade's numbers are so ridiculous because his cast was so poor he had to do everything for them. That's fine, but the issue arose when people then began using those his outrageous box score stats to suggest he was better than players who had lesser stats but similar (or greater) impact as indicated by that family of stats. The issue is that were Wade transported to a supporting cast like Curry or Dirk had, he would not be taking 36% USG and would not be averaging 30/10/10, and thus the pro-Wade argument goes away. Do you see why that's a problem?

I'm not sure you have enough data to support the underlined. Dirk and Curry both had casts that fit their skill-sets perfectly, even if the top-end talent wasn't as high as the Heatles. And in both cases their casts had skillsets to fit productive roles around a transcendant superstar. If you gave Wade a cast of similar overall caliber, but tailored to his strengths, I don't doubt he could have led a contender from a high primacy/high usage role that would have been very high impact. I agree with you that Wade's portability isn't as strong as Dirk's or Curry's because of their shooting ability/spacing impacts, but I'm not sure that we have any evidence that he couldn't scale to an excellent team if he was surrounded by more talent that fit his game.

There's not much evidence that he could do so in a role with that much primacy, which is the driving force behind his boxscore production:

In 2009, Wade was taking 36.2% USG and 40.3% AST%, this indicates a near-historical amount of ball-dominance, here are the seasons where a player has taken >=35% USG and >=40% AST:
2009 Wade
2015 Westbrook

loosening the requirement to >=30% USG, we can add:
2010 Lebron
2011 WB
2009 Parker
2012 D-Will

i.e, D-Wade on a contending team is incredibly unlikely going to be taking such off-the-charts ball dominance

Oh, I get it. Wade's impact wasn't high and his ball dominance didn't lead the 09 Heat to a lot more wins. 15 Curry would have led the 09 Heat to 60+ wins playing 32 MPG. Not to even mention Beasley is a huge upgrade over Top 5 player Draymond Green.

Isn't Wade already in?

I mean I have no love lost for the guy, but I can't imagine being outraged that he's viewed as having the 17th best peak of all-time. If I had been asked prior to the start of the project I would have thought he'd even be higher than that.

I also don't truly understand the argument of "what if". I mean this is about a singular historical year, right? Same thing happened during Russell discussions where some refused to vote for him because their projection of a hypothetical situation told them he couldn't be as good as he actually was, you know, IRL. So I don't much get it here for Wade now. Obviously his 09 season would have been different if he was on the 15 Warriors or any of Dirk's Mav teams. I guess I don't totally understand the relevance.

Dr Spaceman wrote:

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:I'm just going to reiterate, while Wade never had the fortune of being the best player with a good fitting supporting cast with lots of talent (it was either the support was all past their prime on the 06 Heat, or 11-14 Heat with Wade near the end of his prime and shaped towards LeBron moving forward), he was arguably the best performer on the 2008 Olympics team. The leading scorer, on the best efficiency, taking less shots/isolations than both of the other top 2 scorers (LeBron/Kobe).

Granted its far different than the NBA, but I think that has to show at least to some degree that he has no problem providing a great lift to a stacked team without needing to take from others.

Because ultimately that's what Wade is being penalized for from some here, because he never got to be the #1 on an all around stacked team, it was either a team with a bunch of guys past their primes, or he had to share with LeBron. I would love to see what Wade would have done on a team with the talent the Warriors this past season had from 2-14 basically, but that just didn't happen, and I think its unfair to suggest he couldn't have done as well as a guy like Curry did, especially when Wade did dominate on a similarly stacked Olympics team.

First I'll note that theonlyclutch and I are not anti-Wade, we just see things a different way.

Second, the main point of the argument is that Wade's numbers are so ridiculous because his cast was so poor he had to do everything for them. That's fine, but the issue arose when people then began using those his outrageous box score stats to suggest he was better than players who had lesser stats but similar (or greater) impact as indicated by that family of stats. The issue is that were Wade transported to a supporting cast like Curry or Dirk had, he would not be taking 36% USG and would not be averaging 30/10/10, and thus the pro-Wade argument goes away. Do you see why that's a problem?

fwiw, '09 Wade is still very competitive with these other players even using that family of stats, no? I mean his PI RAPM in '09 was 4th in the league behind only Lebron, KG, and [randomly] Lamar Odom; notables he's ahead of include Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Manu Ginobili (peak or near-peak versions for some of those players, too).

And I don't think impact data should be the sole yardstick anyway, again noting that "impact" = "goodness + fit + utilization". And fwiw, Wade perhaps found even better synergy with this sub-par supporting cast the following year, when his PI RAPM was 2nd in the league to only Lebron James (and they had distanced themselves from the pack, with ratings that are not even approached in some years.....literally no one remotely close to them that year).

And then in the subsequent couple of years---with obviously a very different supporting cast and role (usage down to just over 31%)---and his impact data was at a similar level of "elite-ness" as in '09 (PI RAPM of >6.0 and league rank no lower than 7th in each of '11 and '12; and this was when physical decline was becoming evident, too, fwiw).

So, I mean if he's competitive in box and advanced metrics, and he's competitive in the impact family of stats too, and we have evidence of large impact in varied settings/roles (to at least partially quench doubts about portability, I would think)......idk, but it seems to me there's not a lot grounds to suggest that he wasn't a valid selection for that spot. I know you didn't directly state that he wasn't (but it seems like that's the subtext). Anyway, my 2c.


Additionally I'll say I thought it curious that the bulk of debate centered around Wade's offensive stats and his ability to anchor a good offense (*I'll use this spot to point out that in '10 he tied Steve Nash for the league-leading PI ORAPM, even ahead of Lebron). When faced with this criticism or skepticism about his offensive impact (by way of comparing to Curry or Nowitzki or TMac), I was somewhat surprised Wade's biggest supporters attempted to attack that criticism head-on. Not that some context shouldn't be addressed, but it's frankly just not necessary to consider Wade the equal of Curry or Nowitzki or TMac offensively to consider him a better player.......he has a clear defensive edge on all of them.

Well, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'm going to stick with my same top two picks from last thread (mostly, but not entirely, same arguments). 3rd pick is new....

1st ballot: Kevin Durant '14
I freely acknowledge the Durant is a completely average defender overall. But: very good to elite as both a rebounder and playmaker for a SF. And then GOAT-level pure scorer: 41.8 pts/100 possessions @ 63.5% TS . fwiw, I'd also constructed formula founded on Moonbeam's Score+ rating (I called mine "Modified Score+").......'14 Durant is the 2nd-highest MS+ rating on record (just barely behind '88 Barkley, and just barely ahead of '83 Dantley).
He couldn't quite maintain that in the playoffs, but still......35.9 pts/100 poss @ 57.0% TS while playing 42.9 mpg; that's still very elite level scoring, and---collectively with the rs numbers---has him in contention for greatest ever pure scoring season. And bear in mind the defense he was facing in the '14 playoffs:
1st round: -2.1 rDRTG (ranked 7th of 30; being guarded primarily by Tony Allen, who I think is arguably the greatest perimeter man-defender of this generation)
2nd round: -1.9 rDRTG (9th of 30)
3rd round: -4.3 rDRTG (3rd of 30; being guarded by Kawhi Leonard)

fwiw, where portability is concerned, although obviously it's very speculative, I suspect Durant's is reasonably high, as he's primarily an off-ball player (takes less of the table), and---at least in the modern setting---provides a ton of floor spacing, which is quite important. I mean, his defender literally has to be glued to him even 25-26 ft from the hoop, and is basically taken out of help defense entirely.


2nd ballot: Dirk Nowitzki '06
Helluv' an offensive anchor, who also must be listed as one of the greatest pure scorers, especially when factoring his ability to hold steady or even scale up in the playoffs. He didn't dwindle in the post-season in '06 while bringing his team to the brink; and I'll be honest, the '06 Finals almost has a small asterisk by it in my mind, as there was some fishy-seeming officiating going on in that one.

Why '06 over '11? I know his post game isn't as refined as in '11, and hasn't figured out how to deal with double-teams quite as well as in '11 either.....but I kinda like the better motor and mobility he had on him in his younger years, like that fact that he could carry the load and have a big impact for 38 mpg (instead of 34) while missing only a single game all year, too. Significantly better rebounder in '06 than he was in '11. And it was my impression of both eras of his career that he was a better defender in '06 (again maybe the better motility and lateral quickness, etc), though I'll admit the impact data does not reflect this opinion.


3rd ballot: Stephen Curry '15
Can't decide yet, though I'll say it's primarily between Steph Curry, Tracy McGrady, Chris Paul, and Charles Barkley for me (West, both Malones are in the immediately vicinity, too). Tough decision, I'll take a stand with somebody before closing time.

EDIT: Going with Curry. Reasoning provided in post #28 itt.

The hate for Wade is unreal. Unbelievable.

cyclix wrote:The hate for Wade is unreal. Unbelievable.

I disagree with some of the posters itt on Wade too, but its absurd to suggest their reasoning is hate.

cyclix wrote:The hate for Wade is unreal. Unbelievable.

Please don't post stuff like this here. It isn't constructive or detailed or evidence-based, it only stokes the fire, to the point that I'd almost label it trolling. Besides which, Wade has already been voted in (and I don't think #16 all-time is at all unfair to him), and we've probably already derailed this thread enough.
EDIT: And as Chuck has stated, the majority of Wade's "detractors" (if they can even be labeled as such) arrived at their conclusions thru a great deal of consideration.

EDIT2: Let's just leave it, guys. Or if you do want to continue it, please do so in the #16 thread where he was still on the table.

trex_8063 wrote:

cyclix wrote:The hate for Wade is unreal. Unbelievable.

Please don't post stuff like this here. It isn't constructive or detailed or evidence-based, it only stokes the fire, to the point that I'd almost label it trolling. Besides which, Wade has already been voted in (and I don't think #16 all-time is at all unfair to him), and we've probably already derailed this thread enough.
EDIT: And as Chuck has stated, the majority of Wade's "detractors" (if they can even be labeled as such) arrived at their conclusions thru a great deal of consideration.

...If Wade has already been voted in, then why are we revisiting something that has been decided? That makes no sense to me. It must really disturb them that bad.

Dr Spaceman wrote:

drza wrote:

Spoiler:

Dr Spaceman wrote:
First I'll note that theonlyclutch and I are not anti-Wade, we just see things a different way.

Second, the main point of the argument is that Wade's numbers are so ridiculous because his cast was so poor he had to do everything for them. That's fine, but the issue arose when people then began using those his outrageous box score stats to suggest he was better than players who had lesser stats but similar (or greater) impact as indicated by that family of stats. The issue is that were Wade transported to a supporting cast like Curry or Dirk had, he would not be taking 36% USG and would not be averaging 30/10/10, and thus the pro-Wade argument goes away. Do you see why that's a problem?

I'm not sure you have enough data to support the underlined. Dirk and Curry both had casts that fit their skill-sets perfectly, even if the top-end talent wasn't as high as the Heatles. And in both cases their casts had skillsets to fit productive roles around a transcendant superstar. If you gave Wade a cast of similar overall caliber, but tailored to his strengths, I don't doubt he could have led a contender from a high primacy/high usage role that would have been very high impact. I agree with you that Wade's portability isn't as strong as Dirk's or Curry's because of their shooting ability/spacing impacts, but I'm not sure that we have any evidence that he couldn't scale to an excellent team if he was surrounded by more talent that fit his game.

I don't doubt that either. What I doubt is that he would be putting up 36% USG in such a situation, because even Russell Westbrook has more of a conscience than that.

The point is Wade delivered a lot of raw production because his team needed raw production more than anything else.

Curry and Dirk did not provide the same raw production because there were other players capable of producing and their teams needed other things.

And because of this line of reasoning, I take serious issue with the notion that Wade is better than the other two because he beats them in raw production.

OK, but to me that seems like a weaker condition than what you said in the last message in the quote because the pro-Wade argument in fact wouldn't go away. I would think that the case for having Wade in before Curry and Dirk was a combo of several things, including raw production and impact. In 2010, the year I voted for Wade (note, I voted him ahead of Curry but behind Dirk), he had (as far as I can tell) a better RAPM score than Curry's was last year and similar to 2011 Dirk. In addition to the incredible raw production.

So I was taking your stance to be, he couldn't be as good/impactful overall on a better team as he was on a lesser team while using Dirk and Curry as examples of players that could do that. To that, I argue that if you put a team of similar caliber around Wade that fit his skill set, he could still put up stellar boxscore numbers with a similar impact on a championship caliber team. But if you aren't arguing about his overall value in this scenario (which would be directly relevant to a peak discussion) but instead are arguing about whether his raw boxscore numbers would decrease (without consideration of impact) then I guess I'd say..."ok, maybe" but that the point of such a statement on your part no longer seems worth much because it doesn't affect the "pro-Wade argument" in any noticeable way.

Dr Spaceman wrote:
Did you see the post-up numbers fpliii posted in the #14 thread? Would it sway your opinion at all if he were a far more effective post scorer in 2011?

Also thanks for the Oscar video.

Yup, they’re very impressive. My general feeling (which I meant to expand on in the last thread, but didn’t have time) is simply that dirk peaked before 2011, and his teammates didn’t show up in the playoffs, so no one paid attention. They were even worse in 2010 vs. 09, and i’ll touch on that in this thread. The “soft choker” claims by the average fan remained, even though he really did become unstoppable on an individual level.

I picked 09 for his peak sort of as a middle ground, as he was still a good rebounder in the RS (and even better in the playoffs, as usual). Even if the difference is slight, I think he was more active defensively, and his rebound rate shows that. On offense, as I said, the patience and added footwork really started in 08, and it just progressed from there.

If anyone can provide more synergy stats on dirk, i’d certainly take a look at them. And as I said, I’d easily side with 2011 if given the choice between that and 06 or 07, so it’s not a big deal. I guess my goal here is just to point out that dirk had been playing that way for a few years as opposed to this miraculous change in 2011.