Peaks project update: #11

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,596
And1: 3,355
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Peaks project update: #11 

Post#1 » by LA Bird » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:48 am

1) Michael Jordan 1990-91
2) LeBron James 2012-13
3) Wilt Chamberlain 1966-67
4) Shaquille O'Neal 1999-00
5) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1976-77
6) Tim Duncan 2002-03
7) Larry Bird 1985-86
8) Bill Russell 1963-64
9) Hakeem Olajuwon 1993-94
10) Magic Johnson 1986-87

Deadline has been slightly extended due to early start of this round. Please submit your votes by 11 pm August 2 Eastern Time

The rules

Reasoning/statistical support is required for votes to be counted. A simple list of names will not be counted.

THE VOTING SYSTEM:

Everyone gives their 1st-ballot choice, 2nd-ballot choice, and 3rd-ballot choice. I'll award 4.5 pts for a 1st ballot, 3 for a 2nd ballot, and 2 for a 3rd. Highest point-total wins the spot (24-hour run-off will then only be done in the unlikely event of a tie).

Players don't get credit for all the votes they receive in a round, we just count the votes (and the points) for the designated year. At the end of the 48 hours (not sure about that) the season that has most points wins. Other voted seasons of the winning player will get a mention.

So, you can use your 3 choices to vote for more than 1 season of the same player (if you think that the best 3 seasons among the players left belong all to the same player, nothing is stopping you from using all you 3 choices on that player), but you can't continue voting for other seasons of that player once he wins and gets his spot. The final list will be 1 season per player.

Thank you for your participation!

Spoiler:
[quote="freethedevil"]
[quote="euroleague"]
[quote="eminence"]
[quote="Colbinii"]
[quote="70sFan"]
[quote="trex_8063"]
[quote="E-Balla"]
[quote="penbeast0"]
[quote="Ambrose"]
[quote="Lou Fan"]
[quote="Amares"]
[quote="Clyde Frazier"]
[quote="yoyoboy"]
[quote="DrSpaceman"]
[quote="dontcalltimeout"]
[quote="DatAsh"]
[quote="PCProductions"]
[quote="LA Bird"]
[quote="Gregoire"]
[quote="_Game7_"]
[quote="Point-Forward"]
[quote="Jaivl"]
[quote="drza"]
[quote="pandrade83"]
[quote="Timmyyy"]
[quote="HHera187"]
[quote="Bel"]
[quote="Dr Positivity"]
[quote="Vladimir777"]
[quote="Samurai"]
[quote="ardee"]
[quote="Owly"]
[quote="Sublime187"]
[quote="Homer38"]
[quote="Joey Wheeler"]
[quote="JoeMalburg"]
[quote="Blackmill"]
[quote="Bel"]
[quote="Lou Fan"]
[quote="cecilthesheep"]
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#2 » by E-Balla » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:26 pm

1. 76 Dr. J
2. 63 Oscar

I've already made my arguments for these two.

3. 64 Oscar - Similar to 02 vs 03 Duncan I think his level of play is probably equal to 63. He won MVP but that was mainly because the team defense improved a ton and they won way more games. Overall this year vs 63 came down to how he played against Boston.

I'm probably going to make a big post for my next few up like I did last time explaining my next few spots in order, but I'll also try to keep my analysis of the seasons out so I can do them 1 by 1. It's hard to jump into a conversation with a big list of topics.

Not going to go deep into this for now (saving it for the D. Rob post) but:

Owly wrote:Traded his team from under him being ... what .... the trade of his backup point guard (Strickland) for a backup/timeshare point guard (Cheeks - an upgrade in that season based on boxscore and their defensive reps, fwiw).

That's his team? His whole team. Gone. From under him?

Did the team play well after the one-for-one trade? No. Does that mean "his team" was traded from under him? No.

And regardless of the merits of this team replacement, it is unclear why the before spell would get the focus, more so than the after (11-20 overstates it, but they were marginally outscored - by 25 points - over these game) or, most relevant, the overall.

It was obvious hyperbole, the main point is that the team's drop in performance and Ewing's drop from MVP contention had more to do with his team falling apart due to major lineup changes. They fit together perfectly before the trade but the trade marked the start of their unraveling.

After the trade for Cheeks the only All Star Ewing ever played with (whether or not Mark Jackson was a meh pick for the ATG or not) lost a ton of PT and ultimately got benched, Oakley missed a lot of March and all of April, Keke came back and was clearly subtraction by addition (the Knicks also got worse after trading for him in 89 going from being on pace to 55 wins to being 15-12 which is on pace for 45 wins), and Rod was swapped for Mo Cheeks who became the starter.

You can see this in comparing the 89 Knicks to the 90 Knicks too. The 89 Knicks before trading for Keke were on pace for 55 wins with that same roster they had in the start of 90 that also happened to be on pace for 55 wins and the team in 91 went 39-43 which is far off their 11-20 finish but as you said they played more like a slightly below .500 team during that stretch.

But you are right they didn't trade the team from under him, it's more like they fundamentally changed the way they wanted the team to play and the direction of the franchise.
HHera187
Freshman
Posts: 75
And1: 17
Joined: Jan 21, 2019
       

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#3 » by HHera187 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:33 pm

N.1 BILL WALTON 1977
The best defensive season in the pre 3point era after Bill Russell. All time level passing for a Big, and solid scoring ability.
Wcf Vs Kareem Lakers: 19/15/6 and 2.3 blk per game, Chamberlainesque.
Finals Vs Dr. J Philly: 18/19/5 and 3.7 (!!!) blk per game.

N.2 STEPHEN CURRY 2016
Goat offensive regular season, GS was a 50 W team. Despite the injuries and bad finals, he was the best player on the court in the WCF VS OKC.

N.3 KEVIN GARNETT 2004
Floor raiser par excellence, LeBron James level. All time defense, all time passing. According to Elgee Passer Rating, his 04 value was 6.3, a good pg value.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using RealGM mobile app
liamliam1234
Senior
Posts: 679
And1: 663
Joined: Jul 24, 2019

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#4 » by liamliam1234 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:04 pm

Glad the new thread started early, because now it gets interesting.

1. 1976 Julius Erving
I will credit the Erving supporters from the previous threads for pushing this one. It should undoubtedly be considered a top five remaining regular season, and it is the only one which maintains that both into the playoffs and such that the result was overall playoff success. My reservations were because of the era – I really do not think Erving could have carried the Timberwolves the way Garnett did – but Garnett’s postseason dip, even if understandable, has been nagging at me for a while. It would feel inconsistent to dismiss the best playoff season left on the board (apart from maybe Walton) when I have emphasised its importance on several prior occasions.

2. 2004 Kevin Garnett
I mean, it is still one of the most statistically ridiculous regular seasons. After Erving, a playoff drop is either the norm or the regular season is just is too far below this absurdity.

3. 1964 Oscar Robertson
Becoming more tenuous as I ponder Walton and Robinson and others. Walton is close, but the injuries do subtract from the actual value of his peak (in my eyes). As for the 1963 versus 1964 discussion, I am not really buying it. Yeah, I guess it is better for the team to lose to Boston in seven games, but that is such a marginal distinction for what by the numbers does not exactly indicate a principally better individual postseason. And because of the postseason format, the sample size distinctions here seem especially unreliable, especially when noting these are all kind-of part of the same year.
Gregoire
Analyst
Posts: 3,517
And1: 667
Joined: Jul 29, 2012

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#5 » by Gregoire » Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:55 pm

1. 2016 Curry
2. 1990 Barkley
3. 2004 Garnett
Heej wrote:
These no calls on LeBron are crazy. A lot of stars got foul calls to protect them.
falcolombardi wrote:
Come playoffs 18 lebron beats any version of jordan
AEnigma wrote:
Jordan is not as smart a help defender as Kidd
JoeMalburg
Pro Prospect
Posts: 885
And1: 520
Joined: May 23, 2015
     

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#6 » by JoeMalburg » Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:33 pm

First Vote: 1976 Julius Erving - It can't be overstated how great Doctor J was during this season. It's one of the few seasons in the 70's there is a legitimate rival to Kareem for the #1 spot. I give Dr. J the edge for the season. He is the league MVP, the playoff MVP and his team wins the title. But it's not like he has the best team. The second and third best players from his 1974 Championship Nets (Larry Kennon & Billy Paultz) are now on the Spurs along with George Gervin and peak James Silas. The defending Champion Kentucky Colonels have Artis Gilmore, Louie Dampier, Caldwell Jones and Maurice Lucas and the Nuggets are loaded with David Thompson, Bobby Jones, Ralph Simpson and Dan Issel. Ervings bets teammates are Brian Taylor and Super John Williamson who you've probably never heard of unless you have read about the ABA extensively. 35/13/5/2/2 on .610 ts% in the playoffs against the Spurs and Nuggets with NBA quality starting lineups. It's basically 2019 Kawhi's postseason on steroids.

Second vote: 1964 Oscar Robertson - The best season of the 1960's by a non-center. Oscar leads the NBA's top offense and gives the Celtics one of their few regular season Eastern Division rivals prior to Wilt joining the 76ers. A picture of efficiency and control on offense. The little film available shows a player who can get whatever he wants, whenever he wants. It's like the NBA is made up of Wilt, Russell, the Big O and Oscar's 87 children who he just backs down in the driveway and shoots over at will. I am fine with 1963 or 1962 or 1965 as well, but why not take the year where he won the MVP?

Before my third vote, I had to make a list of candidates as my first list is running very low. Here's the next players I think we should be discussing:

Garnett '04
Currry '16
Walton '77
Moses '83
Barkley '93 (although I understand the argument for 1990 as well and it makes sense)
David Robinson '94, '95 or '96
Durant '14
West '70
Pettit '59
Wade '09 (long shot, but worth mentioning)
And there's probably a Kobe and a Karl Malone season in there too, not sure which one for either yet.


Third vote: 1983 Moses Malone

Settled on this one because of how much pressure was on him to deliver and how emphatically he did. 25/15 on a loaded team when he was previously accustomed to having a much greater work load and player games with much lower stakes. The best defensive season of his career, buying into the Sixers system and making everyone better. 69 out of 75 first place votes for MVP and it's his second consecutive award signaling a level of sustained dominance over two years and almost 200 games that is capped off by his Finals MVP.
HHera187
Freshman
Posts: 75
And1: 17
Joined: Jan 21, 2019
       

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#7 » by HHera187 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:25 pm

Do you know that Julius Erving only played 2 rounds in the '76 playoffs?! What the hell, he is not a top 15 peak player. Anyway, 77 > 76

Sent from my CLT-L09 using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#8 » by Odinn21 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:35 pm

HHera187 wrote:Do you know that Julius Erving only played 2 rounds in the '76 playoffs?! What the hell, he is not a top 15 peak player. Anyway, 77 > 76

What kind of a criteria is that? Hakeem could've been voted in with 1993 over 1994, the tally was so close, yet he 'only' played 2 rounds in 1993 playoffs.

Ad it wasn't exactly Erving's fault that a player could win the ABA title after 2 rounds. He didn't lose a series.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#9 » by E-Balla » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:42 pm

Odinn21 wrote:
HHera187 wrote:Do you know that Julius Erving only played 2 rounds in the '76 playoffs?! What the hell, he is not a top 15 peak player. Anyway, 77 > 76

What kind of a criteria is that? Hakeem could've been voted in with 1993 over 1994, the tally was so close, yet he 'only' played 2 rounds in 1993 playoffs.

Ad it wasn't exactly Erving's fault that a player could win the ABA title after 2 rounds. He didn't lose a series.

Yeah this could be used to parse out a ton of great seasons. All of Bill Russell's years worthy of the list are years where he only played 2 series too.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#10 » by E-Balla » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:46 pm

liamliam1234 wrote:Glad the new thread started early, because now it gets interesting.

1. Julius Erving
I will credit the Erving supporters from the previous threads for pushing this one. It should undoubtedly be considered a top five remaining regular season, and it is the only one which maintains that both into the playoffs and such that the result was overall playoff success. My reservations were because of the era – I really do not think Erving could have carried the Timberwolves the way Garnett did – but Garnett’s postseason dip, even if understandable, has been nagging at me for a while. It would feel inconsistent to dismiss the best playoff season left on the board (apart from maybe Walton) when I have emphasised its importance on several prior occasions.

2. 2004 Kevin Garnett
I mean, it is still one of the most statistically ridiculous regular seasons. After Erving, a playoff drop is either the norm or the regular season is just is too far below this absurdity.

3. 1964 Oscar Robertson
Becoming more tenuous as I ponder Walton and Robinson and others. Walton is close, but the injuries do subtract from the actual value of his peak (in my eyes). As for the 1963 versus 1964 discussion, I am not really buying it. Yeah, I guess it is better for the team to lose to Boston in seven games, but that is such a marginal distinction for what by the numbers does not exactly indicate a principally better individual postseason. And because of the postseason format, the sample size distinctions here seem especially unreliable, especially when noting these are all kind-of part of the same year.

Why would you say Oscar's regular season is far below KG in 04?
HHera187
Freshman
Posts: 75
And1: 17
Joined: Jan 21, 2019
       

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#11 » by HHera187 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:56 pm

Hakeem had a bad supporting cast, is not the same scenario. How can I give this kind of credit to a player who needed to win 2 series for a title? Why not 77?
Odinn21 wrote:
HHera187 wrote:Do you know that Julius Erving only played 2 rounds in the '76 playoffs?! What the hell, he is not a top 15 peak player. Anyway, 77 > 76

What kind of a criteria is that? Hakeem could've been voted in with 1993 over 1994, the tally was so close, yet he 'only' played 2 rounds in 1993 playoffs.

Ad it wasn't exactly Erving's fault that a player could win the ABA title after 2 rounds. He didn't lose a series.


Sent from my CLT-L09 using RealGM mobile app
HHera187
Freshman
Posts: 75
And1: 17
Joined: Jan 21, 2019
       

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#12 » by HHera187 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:58 pm

You are only voting championship season, this is pure winning bias.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#13 » by Odinn21 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:02 pm

HHera187 wrote:You are only voting championship season, this is pure winning bias.

What!?

Winner's might look like they are champions but if you care enough to actually read voting threads you'll see LeBron's 2008-09 season, Wilt's 1961-62 and 1963-64 seasons, Hakeem's 1992-93 season wouldn't get that many points in tally.

Heck, if the winning was a bias like your claim Kevin Garnett wouldn't get mentioned in this very thread.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
HHera187
Freshman
Posts: 75
And1: 17
Joined: Jan 21, 2019
       

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#14 » by HHera187 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:10 pm

1977 DR. J PO:
27 PTS / 6.4 TRB / 4.5 AST With 52% fg%.
From WCSF game 1 Vs Houston to game 6 of the finals against Portland: 29.3 / 6.6 / 5.5 with 55% fg%.
He was arguably the best player in Walton-Jabbar league, how can 76 be better with considering the considerably lower level?!
And I repeat: in my opinion he was a top 15-17 peak, not top 11.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using RealGM mobile app
Mavericksfan
Senior
Posts: 531
And1: 198
Joined: Sep 28, 2011

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#15 » by Mavericksfan » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:48 pm

HHera187 wrote:Hakeem had a bad supporting cast, is not the same scenario. How can I give this kind of credit to a player who needed to win 2 series for a title? Why not 77?
Odinn21 wrote:
HHera187 wrote:Do you know that Julius Erving only played 2 rounds in the '76 playoffs?! What the hell, he is not a top 15 peak player. Anyway, 77 > 76

What kind of a criteria is that? Hakeem could've been voted in with 1993 over 1994, the tally was so close, yet he 'only' played 2 rounds in 1993 playoffs.

Ad it wasn't exactly Erving's fault that a player could win the ABA title after 2 rounds. He didn't lose a series.


Sent from my CLT-L09 using RealGM mobile app


So you don’t agree with Russell’s peak either?
HHera187
Freshman
Posts: 75
And1: 17
Joined: Jan 21, 2019
       

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#16 » by HHera187 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:53 pm

Bill faced the toughest competition possible for his era.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,222
And1: 26,100
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#17 » by Clyde Frazier » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:40 pm

HHera187 wrote:Do you know that Julius Erving only played 2 rounds in the '76 playoffs?! What the hell, he is not a top 15 peak player. Anyway, 77 > 76

Sent from my CLT-L09 using RealGM mobile app


Well that decides it.
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#18 » by Odinn21 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:45 pm

HHera187 wrote:Bill faced the toughest competition possible for his era.

It feels like instead of having a set criterias and shifting the rankings accordingly, you have a set rankings list and shift the criterias.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 16,884
And1: 11,707
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#19 » by eminence » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:55 pm

The ABA was absolutely not considerably lower level competition by the end.
I bought a boat.
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: Peaks project update: #11 

Post#20 » by ardee » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:25 pm

Sorry guys, been out of town the last few days and just busy in general. Top 10 went about how I expected (thought Hakeem and Magic would be higher and I think Russell should be 10 but nbd).

1. 1977 Bill Walton

Not much needed to be said about this season. I think it's basically equal to peak Russell. Below him defensively but above offensively: I think if I had to pick the second best defensive peak of all time though it would be hard to choose against him here. There was a quarter against the Sixers in the Finals when he took over defensively in a manner comparable to when an offensive player scores 20 in a quarter. Announcers were losing their ****, screaming "the Sixers cannot find a way to score against Bill Walton!!" Unreal awareness on defense, insane rebounder, and one of the top 3 playmaking centers of all time (with Wilt and Jokic). To me his offense is worth more than someone like Alonzo Mourning or most of Patrick Ewing's career outside of his outlier peak. Those guys aren't outlier scorers like Kareem or Shaq, in which case I'd rather have Walton's creation and lower volume than medium volume on not so great efficiency.

2. 2008 Kobe

ardee wrote:Lakers have a 7.4 SRS, 57 wins, no.1 seed.

The standard line-up with everyone healthy was Fisher/Kobe/Radmanovic/Odom/Pau. Pau was only healthy 27 games. Bynum was healthy for 35, and they never played together.

Player by player: Fisher had a good year. 12/23, 44% from the field and 41% from 3. He was still all right on defense. I want you to note his jump in efficiency going from the Jazz to playing with Kobe. This is something that has been seen when many players play with and then without Kobe. He draws so much attention that they see their percentages rank.

Radmanovic was also basically a shooter. He shot 41% from 3, and 44% for the first half of the '09 season. This dipped to 36% when he was traded in the second half, and further to 28 the next season. So elite shooter with Kobe, average to bad without.

Odom was phenomenal that year, no doubts about it, great player all around. The main reason was because we first had Bynum and then Pau to be the second option to Kobe, while Odom was more comfortable as no. 3. His TS% jumped 3.5% from 55 '05-'07, when he was no. 2, to 58.5 in '08, when he was no. 3. In the stretch between Bynum's injury and the Gasol trade when he had to be the no. 2 option again, he shot 42% TS.

Pau was the perfect no. 2 option for Kobe, of course he was, we won 2 titles with him. Remember 2 things though:

1. He played 27 games.
2. As the no. 1 in Memphis, his team was 13-32 before he got traded. They ended up 22-60, so they went from a .280 win pace with him to a .244 win pace without him.

Bynum was also good, however, he wasn't as good as Pau, the numbers spell it out. He played 35 games, and would likely get injured quicker if he

Kobe took this cast to a 7.4 SRS and 57 wins.

I want you to imagine this team with no Kobe.

You'd be starting Fisher/Vujacic/Radmanovic/Odom/27 games of Pau + 35 games of Bynum + 16 games of Turiaf.

The best team would be the one with Pau. Consider, however, like I said, how Pau did on a Memphis team that was poorly built but still had some talent. Their lead scorer was Rudy Gay, who is a flawed player but can at least provide some kind of offense when needed. They had a lights out shooter at the 2 in Mike Miller.

This hypothetical Lakers team built around Pau would have Odom as their second option. Scoring wise, he is worse than Gay for this role. I have already shown he struggles to be consistent in that role. He struggles like that with KOBE as his first option. Pau is a far inferior first option to Kobe and that would put a ton more pressure on Odom. Fisher and Radmanovic can't create, neither can Sasha, and their efficiency dropped heavily when not playing with Kobe.

You can make the argument that this efficiency was due to the triangle partially, and not all Kobe, but the triangle only WORKS when you have an elite perimeter creator like Kobe. So therefore, you can rest assured their efficiency would drop a good bit, if not all the way down to what it was when they didn't play for the Lakers.

So, Pau, inconsistent in the 2nd option role Odom now with the added pressure of playing with a worse no. 1 option than Kobe, and Sasha, Fisher and Radmanovic offering little. I honestly don't see more than .500 in those 27 games and that's being VERY optimstic. In fact, it's more likely to be like 10-11 wins out of 27. The Blazers were a .500 team and they had 2 legit scoring options in Roy and Aldridge surrounded by fitting role players. The Lakers without Kobe are worse then that, even with Pau. Let's call it a push at 12-13 wins in those 27 games.

Bynum's 35 games. Bynum was worse than Pau at everything. He doesn't offer Pau's high-post playmaking. He can still be the main scorer but now Odom has to be the primary creator. More pressure on him. Bynum might get injured from the extra strain. I don't see more than 12-14 wins out of 35. Again, optimstically.

16 games of Turiaf. Odom in the no. 1 role. The team completely falls apart. Maybe 1-2 wins in 16 games.

So essentially, that team in a full season without Kobe wins 25-29 games. They won 57. Kobe was providing roughly ~30 wins of lift.

With this knowledge, it is hard for me to rank Kobe lower than 12 on the all-time peaks. I have Walton at 11, and this is equivalent to the kind of lift we know him to provide.

This was not a good supporting cast. If he had a full season of Pau it would be different, I think the '09 Lakers were great, but 27 games means he was working with a lot less for the rest of the season. It was a good-fitting supporting cast but aside from Pau all the players were supremely dependant on Kobe to do well in their roles.

He took an otherwise lottery team to elite status and put up a historical ORtg for the team when he had Pau.



Through the first 3 rounds of the Playoffs, the Lakers played 3 50 win teams and Kobe averaged 32-6-6 on 60% TS. That is peak Jordan level production against elite opposition. People forget the Jazz were a 7 SRS team and Kobe averaged 33-7-7 against them. People forget he dropped 30 ppg on 53% from the field against the defending champ Spurs while no other star in the series got anything going on that end.

On the weight of the RS and his stunning Playoff performances, Kobe absolutely should not be ranked any lower.

3. 2006 Kobe

Very similar lift to 2008 Kobe. Led a putrid cast to 48 Pythogorean wins, the 7th best SRS and the 8th best ORtg in the league. For reference, the 2006 Lakers performed as well as the 2019 Nuggets relative to the league and the 2019 Sixers offensively. Look at those rosters and then look at the roster Kobe was surrounded with. Tell me he doesn't deserve this spot.

Return to Player Comparisons