RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #11 (Kevin Garnett)

[trex_8063]

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. ???

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[DQuinn1575]

So Garnett starts with 11-1 lead with 23 voters from last thread so this should be a rout. I’m not sold, but that won’t change anything. So i want to learn why KG is a lot better than David Robinson, who seems to have a lot of the same favorable plus minuses as KG. I’m not planning on any big arguments, trying to understand the viewpoint better

[freethedevil]

So Garnett starts with 11-1 lead with 23 voters from last thread so this should be a rout. I’m not sold, but that won’t change anything. So i want to learn why KG is a lot better than David Robinson, who seems to have a lot of the same favorable plus minuses as KG. I’m not planning on any big arguments, trying to understand the viewpoint better

Because KG's defense doesn' shrink iagainst good offenses and he has way more good offensive series against good defenses and he has better longetivty.

KG vs Robinson is basically Hakeem vs robinson.

[freethedevil]

1. KG, most career value by a a landlside, most valuable peak playoff or rs by a landslide, has proven his value in a wide set of cricumstances, most portable player left, ect, ect.

Kg should sweep this imo. Should have swept bird frankly, but at least there's something there with peak.





2. [B[ Kobe, career vaue[/b]


3. Undecided on who comes after, wiling o be persuaded

[Hornet Mania]

I hate that I missed last round, I thought I had a few more hours but didn't have time off until now. My vote was for Bird anyway so it would not have made any difference. I really like how the top 10 turned out tbh, the order isn't exactly as I would have it personally but that is a really solid top 10 that encompasses the most obvious choices imo. I'll start trying to get my votes in earlier, even if I have to truncate my reasoning a bit at times, just to be sure I don't miss out.

This round I'm going with three lead guards who I think have very little separation between them. Kobe is the conservative choice for me because I'm most familiar with him and have a complete picture of his career. As I noted in the last thread, I have a sneaking suspicion that Oscar should be closer to the top 5 than #11, but without the game footage to back it up I have to dip a little too far into conjecture to feel totally comfortable putting him ahead of Kobe. Jerry West is the third guard who really interests me around this point, Mr. Clutch was revered by his peers and is responsible for establishing the LA Lakers as a consistent winner.

After those three I will probably start to shift my focus towards several PFs who I like for different reasons. KG for defense, Dirk for offense, and Karl Malone for his insane longevity.

My vote:
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Oscar Robertson
3. Jerry West

[penbeast0]

There's only one player left who was THE best player in the game for any extended time (Pettit a couple of years, Curry a couple of years) . . .

1. George Mikan -- yes, he was that dominant from what I can tell; yes his league was that weak, it's a balancing act
2. Jerry West -- Then we have West and Oscar; Oscar produced better offenses but the other end never held up like it did for the Lakers despite their hole in the middle and West was an excellent defender so I give him some of the credit for that. That and, like Hakeem, he was a guy who produced deep into the playoffs, something Oscar never really got the chance to do in his Cincinnati days. Kobe on the other hand, didn't approach West's level of dominance over the other guards of his era; West was both super efficient and extremely productive in the playoffs. And, I've never been that sold on Kobe's defense despite the awards. When I saw him he just didn't put the consistent effort in on that end and I watched him pretty much his whole career. His results with good but not great talent around him (Gasol, Odom, Bynum) make me reevaluate his abilities upwards. This may be winning bias but to me, when you have a team win consistently (more than 1 title especially) and you don't think they are the most talented team, you have to look at why they won. That's why Kobe is in the mix here for me though I went with West.
3. Kevin Garnett I have never had him this high before (usually around 15) but the arguments about his defensive impact being stronger than my eye test have him and his passing being better than I give him credit for make me look at him again. His fans are among the outstanding posters writing on this site and have convinced me he belongs above Oscar, Erving, Kobe, DRob, the Malones, and/or the other top candidates here.

[penbeast0]

So Garnett starts with 11-1 lead with 23 voters from last thread so this should be a rout. I’m not sold, but that won’t change anything. So i want to learn why KG is a lot better than David Robinson, who seems to have a lot of the same favorable plus minuses as KG. I’m not planning on any big arguments, trying to understand the viewpoint better

Because KG's defense doesn' shrink iagainst good offenses and he has way more good offensive series against good defenses and he has better longetivty.

KG vs Robinson is basically Hakeem vs robinson.

David Robinson's defense shrinks against good offenses? Garnett has way more good offensive series against good defenses than David Robinson? As a top option, does he hold up that well? I'd like to see the numbers on those pretty strong statements. I have Garnett over Robinson too but if you took the best 8 years of each, I would probably lean Robinson. Garnett has superior longevity.

[Odinn21]

11. Kobe Bryant
When the top 10 is over, my tier 1 peak list will be done. And there are players peaked higher than Bryant. The thing about him is though, his overall prime was really impressive and stacks up. When I follow my process and think of 10/12 best seasons between two players. even though Bryant wouldn't take the top spot against a few names, he has 7 incredibly solid seasons going for him. Not saying all 7 would make that top 10 lists but so strong.
Another important thing to look is his rise in the playoffs from 2008 to 2010. He went from 4.9 obpm to 6.7 obpm. That 6+ obpm range while making a jump from the regular season is a pretty select company.
Surely Bryant also had his low moments. His longevity was blocked.

12. Oscar Robertson
One of the greatest offensive players that ever graced the game and his defensive performance was not bad enough to hold him down against players like Moses, Erving, Erving and Garnett.
Based on so little knowledge compared to what we have for modern times, I'd go on a limb and say Robertson's performance in 1963 was the greatest individual performance against Bill Russell's Celtics. Better than Chamberlain's, West's and Baylor's. Surely, this is not a decider or a huge factor. Just wanted to mention and would like you to entertain this idea and hit me back with some feedback.

13. Moses Malone
I believe this will be my most controversial choice so far but I'm pretty confident in this pick.
His single season peak was tier 2 on overall for me. I'd put 1982 or 1983 Moses in the same tier as 2004 Garnett, even though I'd rate Garnett slightly higher for single season peak. One of the things going for Moses though, his 3 season peak from 1980-81 to 1982-83 is definitely at the top level among the available names. He does not come short in peak, extended peak, prime and extended prime for me. His career resume is also massive.
He was one of the most skilled bigs on offense. His name rarely comes up among the best low post scorers but he literally had every move in his book and he was at least pretty good on some and great or best on most. Look at the players he thought; Hakeem Olajuwon and Charles Barkley. Also he was at least as good as old man Duncan from mid range.
The arguments against him usually go such as this;
- "He wouldn't be that good in the modern times which utilize PnR far more."
Portability is very important, yes. But, TBH, this is like saying Oscar Robertson did not shoot enough threes to me. Don't see the point of penalizing a player for a play style that was not there in his time.
Also, one of the things that gets easily overlooked while thinking about Moses' portability is that he's quite possibly the greatest foul drawing big. That would make wonders in any era. I don't have the exact numbers right now because BBRef made their play index service paid but I know that Moses Malone before fell out of his prime made young Hakeem Olajuwon fouled out in majority of their h2h games. I wrote the exact numbers in the past on the forum, if I find, I'll edit this part.
- "He was a negative impact on defense."
This is flat out wrong and it's not about some preference unlike the previous point. If Moses Malone was a negative impact on defense, then how did the Sixers improved on defense after losing their best defender in order to get Moses?
1982 Sixers; 7th in DRtg with -3.0 rDRtg
1983 Sixers; 5th in DRtg with -3.8 rDRtg
The thing about his defense was, he was inconsistent. He had bad defensive seasons and good defensive seasons, in the end both sides would cancel out each other and I'd put down Moses Malone as an average defender. But I never get the point of talking about him as if he was Nowitzki who got way more traction than him so far.
- "He was not an impact player."
This is also one of the wrong assumptions about him. I think I watched enough games of him to get the sense of a very positive impact player.
Also there was a Dipper 13 thread at the time, showing on/off Rtg numbers for the '80s Sixers. I'm looking for that, couldn't find it so far. If anyone has the link, it'd be appreciated.
Edit; Found it.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZxRM9p2dFil5w6s21VEB4HnQZJymEY8_2vej-jREuUo/edit#gid=459687126
Just look at the numbers he had in '83 and '85 in Philly. (I tend to consider 1984 of Moses as something like 2005 for Bryant, a down year but also an outlier.)

The only aspect I'd hold against him is his passing. He was not a black hole, he was a decent facilitator. Though his passing lacked in some sense and you wouldn't see him those cutting passes to a guard under the basket. That type of stuff was the only major gap in his game for me.
His skillset was great, his scoring volume was great, he had the proper impact on offense, he's among one of the greatest rebounders. We usually overlook rebounding, the neutral aspect of the game, in this offense and defense evaluations. His defensive inconsistencies and passing issues are there to be addressed surely but, his great qualities are enough for me to put him on 13th spot.

[Dr Positivity]

So Garnett starts with 11-1 lead with 23 voters from last thread so this should be a rout. I’m not sold, but that won’t change anything. So i want to learn why KG is a lot better than David Robinson, who seems to have a lot of the same favorable plus minuses as KG. I’m not planning on any big arguments, trying to understand the viewpoint better

To start KG prime longevity is much better than Robinson so he ranks above him on that alone. Secondly I prefer his offensive game personally. Robinson was a good but not elite post player or shooter in my opinion, and relied on dominating players physically. It's like how Giannis is dominant in the regular season but his skill game has had holes in the postseason. KG is also a good not elite scorer, however he's one of the best midrange shooting bigs which allows him to space the floor, and is an elite ballhandler/passer. Therefore he doesn't need to be a top level scorer to be a great offensive player.

[Doctor MJ]

13. Moses Malone
I believe this will be my most controversial choice so far but I'm pretty confident in this pick.
His single season peak was tier 2 on overall for me. I'd put 1982 or 1983 Moses in the same tier as 2004 Garnett, even though I'd rate Garnett slightly higher. One of the things going for Moses though, his 3 season peak from 1980-81 to 1982-83 is definitely at the top level among the available names. He does not come short in peak, extended peak, prime and extended prime for me. His career resume is also massive.
He was one of the most skilled bigs on offense. His name rarely comes up among the best low post scorers but he literally had every move in his book and he was at least pretty good on some and great or best on most. Look at the players he thought; Hakeem Olajuwon and Charles Barkley. Also he was at least as good as old man Duncan from mid range.
The arguments against him usually go such as this;
- "He wouldn't be that good in the modern times which utilize PnR far more."
Portability is very important, yes. But, TBH, this is like saying Oscar Robertson did not shoot enough threes to me. Don't see the point of penalizing a player for a play style that was not there in his time.
Also, one of the things that gets easily overlooked while thinking about Moses' portability is that he's quite possibly the greatest foul drawing big. That would make wonders in any era. I don't have the exact numbers right now because BBRef made their play index paid service but I know that Moses Malone before fell out of his prime made young Hakeem Olajuwon fouled out in majority of their h2h games. I wrote the exact numbers in the past on the forum, if I find, I'll edit this part.
- "He was a negative impact on defense."
This is flat out wrong and it's not about some preference unlike the previous point. If Moses Malone was a negative impact on defense, then how did the Sixers improved on defense after losing their best defender in order to get Moses?
1982 Sixers; 7th in DRtg with -3.0 rDRtg
1983 Sixers; 5th in DRtg with -3.8 rDRtg
The thing about his defense was, he was inconsistent. He had bad defensive seasons and good defensive seasons, in the end both sides would cancel out each other and I'd put down Moses Malone as an average defender. But I never get the point of talking about him as if he was Nowitzki who got way more traction than him so far.
- "He was not an impact player."
This is also one of the wrong assumptions about him. I think I watched enough games of him to get the sense of a very positive impact player.
Also there was a Dipper 13 thread at the time, showing on/off Rtg numbers for the '80s Sixers. I'm looking for that, couldn't find it so far. If anyone has the link, it'd be appreciated.
Edit; Found it.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZxRM9p2dFil5w6s21VEB4HnQZJymEY8_2vej-jREuUo/edit#gid=459687126
Just look at the numbers he had in '83 and '85 in Philly. (I tend to consider 1984 of Moses as something like 2005 for Bryant, a down year but also an outlier.)

The only aspect I'd hold against him is his passing. He was not a black hole, he was a decent facilitator. Though his passing lacked in some sense and you wouldn't see him those cutting passes to a guard under the basket. That type of stuff was the only major gap in his game for me.
His skillset was great, his scoring volume was great, he had the proper impact on offense, he's among one of the greatest rebounders. We usually overlook rebounding, the neutral aspect of the game, in this offense and defense evaluations. His defensive inconsistencies and passing issues are there to be addressed surely but, his great qualities are enough for me to put him on 13th spot.

Cool to see someone champion Moses.

I'll be honest, I tend to see Moses a bit the same way I see old Wilt and Rodman as a guy who was able to have outsized impact largely by concentrating on rebounding in a way I don't expect would have the same effectiveness today.

Reasons:
1. 3-point shot means all other scoring is less valuable.
2. 3-point shot means that one guy can't dominate the boards the same way.
3. Transition focus means that a guy who crashes the boards on offense becomes more of a liability on defense.

While on one level I'm okay with saying "He did what he needed to in his day", when you get by with a more crude overall skillset based on an exploit that no longer exists, I find myself gravitating those who both a) had more overall skill and b) I think would have more impact today.

So there's the question of whether this philosophy holds as well as the question of whether the assessment is reasonable.

Re: at least as good as Duncan from mid-range. I have to be honest, I tend to see Moses as a guy who is really focused on getting as close to the basket as possible to get the rebound rather than actively working form the mid-range. That's not to say he literally couldn't shoot it, but to me to the extent we're talking about how Moses would do in other circumstances, the main thing to ask is how he'd do with his bull-in-a-china-shop interior banging.

And I think the answer there is that it would still be good, but probably less effective overall than it was back then.

Re: defense. I respect Moses on defense for much the same reason why he was such a good rebounder. Moses was intensely physical. He'd still be able to be a bully today with those stepping into the ring with him. I'm not sure if his approach would be as valuable however, given the way the game has moved to the perimeter.

[penbeast0]

Why should it matter what impact a player like Moses would have today? (I'm really tempted to bold this and put it in all caps but I won't.) That's like penalizing Curry because before 1980, the 3 pointer wouldn't be counted as 3 points. I absolutely refuse to do this, in either direction. What matters is how strongly he impacted his era (and of course, how strong that era was).

[Doctor MJ]

Why should it matter what impact a player like Moses would have today? That's like penalizing Curry because before 1980, the 3 pointer wouldn't be counted as 3 points. I refuse to do this, in either direction. What matters is how strongly he impacted his era (and of course, how strong that era was).

I'm not saying anyone else has to think in these terms, but for reasons that I've gone into, I often find it hard to avoid.

[Joao Saraiva]

Kobe getting traction. Niiiice. I'll vote tomorrow.

Plan on voting Kobe, Jerry West and Karl Malone.

[Odinn21]

Cool to see someone champion Moses.

I'll be honest, I tend to see Moses a bit the same way I see old Wilt and Rodman as a guy who was able to have outsized impact largely by concentrating on rebounding in a way I don't expect would have the same effectiveness today.

Reasons:
1. 3-point shot means all other scoring is less valuable.
2. 3-point shot means that one guy can't dominate the boards the same way.
3. Transition focus means that a guy who crashes the boards on offense becomes more of a liability on defense.

While on one level I'm okay with saying "He did what he needed to in his day", when you get by with a more crude overall skillset based on an exploit that no longer exists, I find myself gravitating those who both a) had more overall skill and b) I think would have more impact today.

So there's the question of whether this philosophy holds as well as the question of whether the assessment is reasonable.

Re: at least as good as Duncan from mid-range. I have to be honest, I tend to see Moses as a guy who is really focused on getting as close to the basket as possible to get the rebound rather than actively working form the mid-range. That's not to say he literally couldn't shoot it, but to me to the extent we're talking about how Moses would do in other circumstances, the main thing to ask is how he'd do with his bull-in-a-china-shop interior banging.

And I think the answer there is that it would still be good, but probably less effective overall than it was back then.

Re: defense. I respect Moses on defense for much the same reason why he was such a good rebounder. Moses was intensely physical. He'd still be able to be a bully today with those stepping into the ring with him. I'm not sure if his approach would be as valuable however, given the way the game has moved to the perimeter.

Well, when I think of Moses Malone in a different time frame, especially more modern times, I don't know how to evaluate his game would change because his entire life would be different. He grew up in such poverty on an absurd level, he was so shy and avoided talking (due to his bad teeth) to a point his teachers and classmates thought him as a (Please Use More Appropriate Word).
He was probably the ultimate "keep your head down and work as hard as you can" guy in the NBA history. Surely, changing birth dates would entirely change the outcomes. Maybe we wouldn't have the LeBron James in basketball as we know now if he were born 10 years earlier or later. But on this level, I can't think of a single that was more shaped by circumstances of their life times.
And that always makes me sidetracked because he was shaped by the environment he grew up in.

For example when I think of Larry Bird playing modern eras, I directly focus on him getting used to PnR plays in college because I tend to focus on development phase to see through possible changes on the outcome. With Moses, that explanation happens with me.

As response to your points directly;
re 1st point - shot at the rim is still the most valuable in the game. Also I'd argue that painted area getting bigger is just as important as 3 point shot in that sense and that would mean rebounding wouldn't lose its impact in the manner you're talking about.
re 2nd point - rebounding has different dynamics and fundamentals than scoring, so I don't know if I agree. Players like Howard, Duncan, Garnett were all great in the '10s for grabbing boards. Maybe Moses wouldn't just as aggressive as he used to, but I don't think his rebounding would be less efficient / beneficiary for his team.
re 3rd point - strongest suit of the best players dictate how the game is played, so, while I see where you are coming from I'd say if you have Moses Malone on your team, you would want to crash the offensive board no matter.

I stated Moses' mid range success as he didn't need to settle or force his way for only low block plays.

[mailmp]

Since we are playing around with eras, what do we think would happen if we threw 27-year-old Ewing on that 76ers team instead of Moses? Nice little direct peak comparison, seeing as 1990 Ewing was the same age as 1983 Moses. I am inclined to say they would have been even better — but alas, Ewing was born seven years too late.

Anyway...

With the stipulation that I see a very clear demarcation between the top nine and this next bunch:

1. Kevin Garnett
Impact giant, defence maintained in the playoffs, ace longevity... I do find the Dirk arguments interesting, and I wonder if more of a discussion will develop between those two.

2. Oscar Robertson
I am not judging these players for what they would do in the modern league. West’s spacing would indeed be an innate advantage now — but I am judging them in the context of the entire history of the league, and I think Oscar had a clear step up throughout their careers that would likely carry over up to the more recent three-point explosion. I also am not penalising Oscar for a smaller playoff sample resulting from inferior teams and a dramatically more difficult conference. I do not think West really had much of a true playoff advantage, if any, and for the talk about Oscar’s teams missing postseasons (because of the aforementioned team and conference obstacles), West missing postseasons his team made is a much more severe issue. I see West as a good defender but not by an amount that offsets Oscar’s stronger offence or his longevity edge.

3. Kobe Bryant
Mostly a longevity case here, but he did have high tier offensive impact, an excellent (if overblown) résumé, and clear evidence of complementary play with other stars. He and Oscar are much closer to #17 than they are to #9, so broad strokes I do not care if like West or Dirk end up getting enough backers to switch that up. And I need to save my outrage equity for the soon to arrive Robinson fanatics haha.

Some of the arguments here for Kobe belonging below Dirk are strong. I am inclined to agree with Ben that team construction may have overstated Dirk’s impact, but I also do think he undersold Dirk (and the evaluation he mentions at the end of his profile which would have put Dirk up to #14 is one I feel he should have followed), and I am willing to be swayed as to which better merits the 2000s bronze medal.

[Odinn21]

Since we are playing around with eras, what do we think would happen if we threw 27-year-old Ewing on that 76ers team instead of Moses? Nice little direct peak comparison, seeing as 1990 Ewing was the same age as 1983 Moses. I am inclined to say they would have been even better — but alas, Ewing was born seven years too late.

First, Ewing wasn't the offensive force Moses Malone was and Moses Malone was pretty great on defense in that season. So, I don't know how you can explain that opinion.

Also the team finished the season with 65 wins, top 5 in both offense and defense, they had an SRS gap bigger than 2 to 2nd highest value. (7.53 to 5.06).
Went 12-1 in the playoffs, 3rd best win rate in NBA playoffs history while playing 2 of the top 5 SRS teams.
I mean, that performance right there is very very hard to up.

And, Moses played against great frontcourts, so it was not like he lacked a great positional competition.

[Whopper_Sr]

KG not making the top 10 hurts but it is what it is. I'm voting for him once again. Sticking with my 2nd vote for West as well.

He won't get any traction yet but I'm seriously considering Paul for my third pick. Excluding KG and West, CP3 has a solid argument against anyone left on the board. Incredible combination of shooting, passing, and playmaking (with all time level turnover economy) at the PG position. Skill-set wise, Paul is second to none (including Magic). He's also one of the greatest defensive smalls ever. And now, he has accumulated enough notable seasons that you can no longer cite his longevity as a negative even with his health issues.

When looking at the pool of candidates (players I have in the #11 to #20 range), CP3's peak stacks up against Kobe, Dirk, Oscar, Nash, and Dr. J. I'd put peak Curry and peak Admiral ahead of peak CP3 but not by a significant margin and neither have the longevity. I also fail to see how Paul's prime would be a full tier below these guys.

Some concerns I have about advocating for him this early:
1. Playoff failures/injuries: 3-1 collapse in 2015 (this was the year for the Clips to gun for the title), injuries in 2016 (could've challenged the Warriors somewhat) and 2018 (likely a title run otherwise).
2. Conservative style: Risk averse style on offense limited his team offenses and was often reluctant to take over games late with his scoring.

If I give him less credit for his defense ("how much does PG defense matter?") and penalize him more for his injuries, Paul would slide to the back of the top 20.

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Jerry West
3. Chris Paul

[Odinn21]

Skill-set wise, Paul is second to none (including Magic).

I think you severely underrate Magic's skills, especially low block skills. Magic had the greatest low block game from a guard.

He's also one of the greatest defensive smalls ever.

Is this about height or position? Height is agreeable but saying he was one the greatest defensive PGs would be a big stretch. Especially considering the top defensive PGs were Jason Kidd and Walt Frazier, and Chris Paul never came close to them on defense.

BTW, these are directly to your reasons and not your pick. I think Chris Paul is a good mention. Just don't agree with these particular reasons.

[O_6]

KG not making the top 10 hurts but it is what it is. I'm voting for him once again. Sticking with my 2nd vote for West as well.

He won't get any traction yet but I'm seriously considering Paul for my third pick. Excluding KG and West, CP3 has a solid argument against anyone left on the board. Incredible combination of shooting, passing, and playmaking (with all time level turnover economy) at the PG position. Skill-set wise, Paul is second to none (including Magic). He's also one of the greatest defensive smalls ever. And now, he has accumulated enough notable seasons that you can no longer cite his longevity as a negative even with his health issues.

When looking at the pool of candidates (players I have in the #11 to #20 range), CP3's peak stacks up against Kobe, Dirk, Oscar, Nash, and Dr. J. I'd put peak Curry and peak Admiral ahead of peak CP3 but not by a significant margin and neither have the longevity. I also fail to see how Paul's prime would be a full tier below these guys.

Some concerns I have about advocating for him this early:
1. Playoff failures/injuries: 3-1 collapse in 2015 (this was the year for the Clips to gun for the title), injuries in 2016 (could've challenged the Warriors somewhat) and 2018 (likely a title run otherwise).
2. Conservative style: Risk averse style on offense limited his team offenses and was often reluctant to take over games late with his scoring.

If I give him less credit for his defense ("how much does PG defense matter?") and penalize him more for his injuries, Paul would slide to the back of the top 20.

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Jerry West
3. Chris Paul

I’m definitely a believer in CP3s defense. Tremendous defender for his size. But how much do you penalize the constant injuries when it matters? I’m a real fan of CP3 but I think it’s too early to bring him up because of the durability issues.

[trex_8063]

1. KG, most career value by a a landlside, most valuable peak playoff or rs by a landslide, has proven his value in a wide set of cricumstances, most portable player left, ect, ect.

Kg should sweep this imo. Should have swept bird frankly, but at least there's something there with peak.

He seems the very heavy favourite, but I anticipate it'll be much closer than that (I'd not be shocked to see him NOT have an outright majority from the 1st votes, actually).

Anyway, just for the sake of etiquette [and maybe giving people something else to discuss], can you provide your theoretical alternate picks?