Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #10 - 1986-87 Magic Johnson

[MyUniBroDavis]

For the record, I'd take Kobe 1-on-1. The main thing holding Kobe back was the whole 5-on-5 thing.

Tbf purely 1v1 I would take Kobe over bron pretty easily lol

My first thought is to agree, but I'd be remiss if I didn't say: I'm really not sure what the optimal 1v1 player is in today's game when we consider something that was traditionally huge in true 1v1: power.

If there's no 3-point line, very hard to beat bigs with a strong post game and scoring touch, because their possession success rate is pretty much optimized.

All that changes with the 3-point line. If a 3-point shooter can consistently get himself a good look from 3, then in a losers-out match, that might prove to be the best strategy now.

That might mean someone like Kobe is pretty much optimal, whereas I think LeBron would have the edge in earlier eras with his power advantage.

Regardless, when I took Kobe over West here, I wasn't thinking about any of this. Only that I think Kobe probably honed his on-ball shot-getting skillset like no one else with a combination of extreme fine-motor physical talent and obsessive dedication to it.

When I consider iso scoring I’m thinking of their post game and their isolation game in a synergy sense, my recollection from synergy was quite elite in isolation effeciency from 06-10, without considering his volume dwarfed others, but his post scoring was on a completely different level especially for a guard, I do think Kobe with a team that was either better at running post counters or running an offense that facilitated leveraged 1v1 like some current offenses rather than having it as a necessity would have been great

It’s also worth noting the reneissance 2013 Kobe had as an offensive player from running a more pick and roll based offense, I’d be curious to see how he’d fare in an offense like that at the peak of his powers. It’s worth noting that he mentioned that this was the year he was being a floor general more so, in his abbreviated words “telling everyone where to be and when” which I know doesn’t fit his basketball philosophy because he thinks it doesn’t lead to championship basketball, but given the level of impact despite the fact he had been declining, and with this being more so how superstars operate today, I do wonder how how floor general Kobe would have worked (not necessarily a playmaker Kobe, but one that took more charge of running the offense rather than being a part of it like in 08-10. 06 and 07 he was hero balling it because of chemistry issues which I don’t blame him for but I don’t think that’s indicative of him as a floor general either)

Kobes the weird one for me to rank in terms of peaks, because I do think his impact in other eras would be very different, especially today.

Otoh, my evaluation of Kobe is pretty much what keeps me from ranking guys like Kawhi super high, and I’m not sure if this should boost my Kawhi ranking or lower mine of kobes

Kobes impact itself is hard to pinpoint, I’d say in his 06-10 prime run his 06, 08, and 09 years are a clear top 3. 07 he just said no to passing completely and he had declined a bit in 10 compared to 08 and 09.

His offensive rankings in offensive NPI RAPM those years are 2nd (behind Wade), 4th, 5th, and in PI RAPM it’s, 3rd, 2nd and 4th

Off a cursory look thats not too impressive, but there were definite collinearnity issues in 08 and 09, which were his peak years in the sense of him combining his scoring talent + passing (not skill wise necessarily but willingness because of trust).

Radmanovich ranks 2nd in offense in 2008, while Odom is an outlier first in 2009 (highest overall in standard deviations ever I think) in NPI RAPM.

I could buy them having more intrinsic impact if Odom wasn’t a neutral on offense in 08 and 10, or radmanovich a negative in the years surrounding that (by RAPM) and while PI RAPM would take this into account, it’s hard it fully eliminating this especially with Kobe having a down year of impact in 07 for tangible reasons

[Proxy]

When I consider iso scoring I’m thinking of their post game and their isolation game in a synergy sense, my recollection from synergy was quite elite in isolation effeciency from 06-10, without considering his volume dwarfed others, but his post scoring was on a completely different level especially for a guard, I do think Kobe with a team that was either better at running post counters or running an offense that facilitated leveraged 1v1 like some current offenses rather than having it as a necessity would have been great

2007-08 Kobe playtype stuff, passes not included(I could find more later), pretty great

[MyUniBroDavis]

When I consider iso scoring I’m thinking of their post game and their isolation game in a synergy sense, my recollection from synergy was quite elite in isolation effeciency from 06-10, without considering his volume dwarfed others, but his post scoring was on a completely different level especially for a guard, I do think Kobe with a team that was either better at running post counters or running an offense that facilitated leveraged 1v1 like some current offenses rather than having it as a necessity would have been great

2007-08 Kobe playtype stuff, passes not included(I could find more later), pretty great

This mainly fits what I thought, people talk about kobes low turnover percentage making up for his lower than ATG fg% but it’s more so the offensive role he had led to both of those things.

On the margin absolutely elite though so it doesn’t matter much, this is actually kind of insane his iso and post up scoring matches up with Durants best years (probably not his 2014 one) is beats out kawhi

[70sFan]

Don't have much time to contribute, but I don't find anything wrong with thinking that West was the better player than Kobe in absolute terms. He was physically gifted enough to do very well in later eras and he was significantly smarter player. His defensive value wouldn't take a hit either.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Don't have much time to contribute, but I don't find anything wrong with thinking that West was the better player than Kobe in absolute terms. He was physically gifted enough to do very well in later eras and he was significantly smarter player. His defensive value wouldn't take a hit either.

Absolute terms implies getting time portalled and not getting born in a later time right?

I think we had a Kawhi and west discussion about that so we’re probably not gonna come to an agreement here lol

[Proxy]

When I consider iso scoring I’m thinking of their post game and their isolation game in a synergy sense, my recollection from synergy was quite elite in isolation effeciency from 06-10, without considering his volume dwarfed others, but his post scoring was on a completely different level especially for a guard, I do think Kobe with a team that was either better at running post counters or running an offense that facilitated leveraged 1v1 like some current offenses rather than having it as a necessity would have been great

2007-08 Kobe playtype stuff, passes not included(I could find more later), pretty great

This mainly fits what I thought, people talk about kobes low turnover percentage making up for his lower than ATG fg% but it’s more so the offensive role he had led to both of those things.

On the margin absolutely elite though so it doesn’t matter much, this is actually kind of insane his iso and post up scoring matches up with Durants best years (probably not his 2014 one) is beats out kawhi

KD is ironically the only other player I have screenshots saved for rn that I could post so why not throw in his stuff for anyone interested cuz it might be useful for anyone considering him soon

2014(couldn't get PS):


2017:

[MyUniBroDavis]

2007-08 Kobe playtype stuff, passes not included(I could find more later), pretty great

This mainly fits what I thought, people talk about kobes low turnover percentage making up for his lower than ATG fg% but it’s more so the offensive role he had led to both of those things.

On the margin absolutely elite though so it doesn’t matter much, this is actually kind of insane his iso and post up scoring matches up with Durants best years (probably not his 2014 one) is beats out kawhi

KD is ironically the only other player I have screenshots saved for rn that I could post so why not throw in his stuff for anyone interested cuz it might be useful for anyone considering him soon

2014(couldn't get PS):


2017:

God durants such a monster lol

[70sFan]

Don't have much time to contribute, but I don't find anything wrong with thinking that West was the better player than Kobe in absolute terms. He was physically gifted enough to do very well in later eras and he was significantly smarter player. His defensive value wouldn't take a hit either.

Absolute terms implies getting time portalled and not getting born in a later time right?

I think we had a Kawhi and west discussion about that so we’re probably not gonna come to an agreement here lol

Yeah, I think that West is a better player. I watch him and think he's a better player. I know you disagree.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Don't have much time to contribute, but I don't find anything wrong with thinking that West was the better player than Kobe in absolute terms. He was physically gifted enough to do very well in later eras and he was significantly smarter player. His defensive value wouldn't take a hit either.

Absolute terms implies getting time portalled and not getting born in a later time right?

I think we had a Kawhi and west discussion about that so we’re probably not gonna come to an agreement here lol

Yeah, I think that West is a better player. I watch him and think he's a better player. I know you disagree.

Yeah, let’s just agree to disagree here then lol

[DraymondGold]

8. 2016 Steph Curry
...

10. 2008 Kobe Bryant
...

11. 1987 Magic Johnson
...

1- 2015-16 Stephen Curry

- Stephen Curry is the greatest shooter of all time, and 2015-16 is no exception to that. If injuries didn't happen in the postseason, it was arguable that this was the top peak of all time. Curry's ability to warp defenses with his off-ball gravity is unparalleled and he was unstoppable all season long. That's why I think this is the best option at number 10.

2. 2003-04 Kevin Garnett

- Coming in at second place is 2003-04 Kevin Garnett. Garnett very well might be the greatest "Defensive Number 1, Offensive Number 2" in league history. His '04 campaign was sheer dominance, leading a Timberwolves team to the 1 seed who most likely would not have even made the postseason if it wasn't for his presence. On top of the all-time defense, Garnett provided good spacing for the time, good passing, and great playmaking.

3. 2008-09 Dwyane Wade

- Wade was dominant in '09 whether it was scoring, passing, playmaking at will, or providing amazing guard defense, he pretty much did it all for them. What holds him back for me is lack of 3pt shooting that season, but otherwise, would have most likely been the MVP if LeBron James didn't exist that season.

Hi ceoofkobefans, confucius! I can see why you'd pick 08 Kobe, 87 Magic, 04 Garnett, and 09 Wade as those players' best years. I think I'd pick the same years for them. For Curry, do you see 17 Curry as clearly beneath 08 Kobe / 87 Magic and 04 Garnett / 09 Wade?

You're allowed to vote for multiple years (e.g. "1a. 16 Curry, 1b. 17 Curry, 2. 08 Kobe, 3. 87 Magic"), so I'm just wondering, did you vote for 16 Curry instead of both 16 and 17 because you actually see a drop in 17?

[jalengreen]

If we think that 2017 Curry's regular season value was lower than 2016 but his "goodness" was the same and the drop in value was because of him taking a step back ... to me, that's his fault. The same way it's a player's fault for coasting. It's fair to not put much weight on that because of "goodness" the same way you would for coasting, but I don't personally agree with going the other direction and framing it as a positive (the cultural leadership point) instead of just taking it as what it is.

You're certainly not the only one who takes this perspective, but I think you though reflect more on what you consider when you think about "what it is".

My processing of your logic would seem to be that you think that fundamentally it was Curry's job to maximize his own on-court impact, but it's not. It's his job to help his team win, and being okay with bringing Durant in, and letting Durant be the first scoring option, were things he did in service of his team, while probably knowing that it would mean that people would be less impressed with him individually.

And yes, this is an aspect of cultural leadership, which coaches, GMs & owners greatly value when they get it. If you don't value it, then I think you have to ask yourself what it says about your approach that you're ignoring things that professionals whose careers depend on factoring in everything they can, don't ignore.

I actually don't think Curry taking the step back that he did in the regular season was helping his team win. The main reason for that being: Through the first 20 games of the 2017 regular season, Curry averaged 26.9 PPG on 66.5% TS% and the Warriors were 17-3, a bonkers 70-win pace. In this same stretch, Durant averaged 27.3 PPG on 68.0% TS%. They had a good thing going and then later in the season is when Curry began to slump and it was blamed on him having taken a step back. Perhaps I haven't been clear - I'm not saying that in a vacuum it would be wrong for him to defer more often to get his teammate acclimated in the regular season because it hurts his own individual numbers. I'm saying that in the specific case of the 2017 regular season, it was not necessary for Curry to do so and I'm not convinced it was of much benefit. One could make the argument that their postseason success was due to that regular season deferral, but I wouldn't be super convinced of it.

And it's not that I don't value cultural leadership - it's that I don't think Curry unnecessarily becoming more passive in the 2017 regular season is an example of it. Nor do I think him being willing to bring Durant in is very convincing of it either as I'm skeptical of that being a rare characteristic. (I think the better argument for Curry's impact through his leadership would be his role in establishing and maintaining the culture that was so appealing for Durant to come in the first place. That's something that I view as extremely valuable - once Durant actually wants to sign, it's a no-brainer. The more valuable trait to me at these margins is what brought him there in the first place.)

To be clear, I simply don't think Curry's 2017 regular season leadership is any more of an excuse than coasting is for another player's regular season (Giannis, LeBron, etc). He had a reduction in regular season value (while still arguably being the most valuable player in the league - just a reduction relative to 2016) while likely not having a reduction in "goodness" - I just don't see a reason to evaluate it any differently than a coasting regular season (and a coasting regular season is perfectly reasonable to be on this list, I'm also not saying this is some sort of disqualifier).

[Doctor MJ]

If we think that 2017 Curry's regular season value was lower than 2016 but his "goodness" was the same and the drop in value was because of him taking a step back ... to me, that's his fault. The same way it's a player's fault for coasting. It's fair to not put much weight on that because of "goodness" the same way you would for coasting, but I don't personally agree with going the other direction and framing it as a positive (the cultural leadership point) instead of just taking it as what it is.

You're certainly not the only one who takes this perspective, but I think you though reflect more on what you consider when you think about "what it is".

My processing of your logic would seem to be that you think that fundamentally it was Curry's job to maximize his own on-court impact, but it's not. It's his job to help his team win, and being okay with bringing Durant in, and letting Durant be the first scoring option, were things he did in service of his team, while probably knowing that it would mean that people would be less impressed with him individually.

And yes, this is an aspect of cultural leadership, which coaches, GMs & owners greatly value when they get it. If you don't value it, then I think you have to ask yourself what it says about your approach that you're ignoring things that professionals whose careers depend on factoring in everything they can, don't ignore.

I actually don't think Curry taking the step back that he did in the regular season was helping his team win. The main reason for that being: Through the first 20 games of the 2017 regular season, Curry averaged 26.9 PPG on 66.5% TS% and the Warriors were 17-3, a bonkers 70-win pace. In this same stretch, Durant averaged 27.3 PPG on 68.0% TS%. They had a good thing going and then later in the season is when Curry began to slump and it was blamed on him having taken a step back. Perhaps I haven't been clear - I'm not saying that in a vacuum it would be wrong for him to defer more often to get his teammate acclimated in the regular season because it hurts his own individual numbers. I'm saying that in the specific case of the 2017 regular season, it was not necessary for Curry to do so and I'm not convinced it was of much benefit. One could make the argument that their postseason success was due to that regular season deferral, but I wouldn't be super convinced of it.

And it's not that I don't value cultural leadership - it's that I don't think Curry unnecessarily becoming more passive in the 2017 regular season is an example of it. Nor do I think him being willing to bring Durant in is very convincing of it either as I'm skeptical of that being a rare characteristic. (I think the better argument for Curry's impact through his leadership would be his role in establishing and maintaining the culture that was so appealing for Durant to come in the first place. That's something that I view as extremely valuable - once Durant actually wants to sign, it's a no-brainer. The more valuable trait to me at these margins is what brought him there in the first place.)

To be clear, I simply don't think Curry's 2017 regular season leadership is any more of an excuse than coasting is for another player's regular season (Giannis, LeBron, etc). He had a reduction in regular season value (while still arguably being the most valuable player in the league - just a reduction relative to 2016) while likely not having a reduction in "goodness" - I just don't see a reason to evaluate it any differently than a coasting regular season (and a coasting regular season is perfectly reasonable to be on this list, I'm also not saying this is some sort of disqualifier).

Hmm. You post Curry's PPG as a statement of Curry not taking a step back, when you know he scored on comparable efficiency the previous year. Typically people who are focused on individual production as evidence of impact would use a scoring drop as the very first thing they'd look at, yet you don't seem to process it even within that category? Strange to me.

Now, you are making a point I can see the logic of when you say, in essence, "That mid-season Curry slump shouldn't be blamed on Durant." I think Curry is responsible for falling prey at times to passivity, and I'll say I think it got worse in the second & third seasons with KD (until KD got injured in the playoffs).

But, more broadly here, the focus of the '16-17 regular season for the Warriors was about gaining comfort, not about max-ing out regular season dominance. Curry still ended up with similar +/- numbers, which remain off-the charts compared to anything we've seen from other champion other than '95-96 Jordan, but it was pretty dang clear from the jump that they would not be trying to break their 73 win mark from the year before.

The combination of Curry having something near GOAT levels of individual +/- in '16-17, the fact that we know that he was more focused on getting the team (and KD specifically) comfortable, along with that Warrior team putting up a run of playoff dominance that stands alone compared to any champion in the modern strategic era, just leaves me asking:

What exactly are we finding "fault" with with Curry in that season?

If the answer is simply "he could have scored more!", that's not compelling because the team didn't need that.

If the answer is "Not knocking him, but I think others proved more than Curry '17", that I do get, but just don't forget: This is the MVP of the best regular season team in NBA history, the best post-season team in NBA history (given strategic edge), as well as someone who led teams to titles before and after. All this stuff, to me, seems like it should be looming large in people's minds as they evaluate this team sport.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I guess when evaluating Kobe as a player, he appears as an extremely strong versatile scorer.

Without debating his in era impact (not saying it’s bad or anything just saying ignoring that)

I think the 2000s onwards for most offensive players, outside of guys that were ahead of their time as volume three point shooters, we see a transition for iso scoring to pick and roll scoring as the most effecient offensive style.

Had Kobe shown an inability to be a leader of a strong pick and roll based offense I might think of this as a knock on him for playing a system that doesn’t feature it as much, but we see him achieve much success in 2013 despite his decline. It’s worth noting the range from 5th-3rd is 2.8-3 and he’s very much in that second tier with Cp3 and Bron heads and shoulders above the rest. Furthermore shotcharts Luck adjusted RAPM has him at third, pretry close to bron (with cp3 at first). That he did this in a 4th year of a steady decline from 2010-2013 is significant to me. He was still isolating more than anything and for various reasons his pick and roll scoring effeciency was actually far lower than his usual, so I’d be extremely curious to see, for example 2008 Kobe in place of 2013 Kobe.

Beyond that in terms of portability, Kobe can be summarized as a generational 1 on 1 talent. As an iso scorer his effeciency was actually pretty incredible, I think the 90th percentile was where he hovered around throughout his prime although I would have to check again, which puts him on par with the harden despite not playing in an offense designed to increase that effeciency.
His post scoring is beyond generational, effeciency wise only dirk I think at his prime was clearly better. Beyond that, while not amongst the greatest passers ever he was definately a great to elite playmaker

In that sense, a generational 1v1 scorer who was great at regular isolation that at the same time even better than all time great big men at scoring efficiently from the post
(He outdid Duncan, who was absolutely incredible in that regard, in effeciency I think), while being a great passer and strong off ball, sounds like a player that fits into other eras rather seamlessly

Without taking into account absolute level of play differences, it feels as if he has a skillset that may fit earlier eras better, but was still elite enough at it to have incredible impact offensively.

While this may be more of an issue had he been a man of few strengths, he had also shown that despite declining he was capable of running a offense that fit that time better, at least in terms of going away from iso scoring into more of a pick and roll centric offense. And now in the era of spacing we have seen offenses that rely on 1v1 scoring wings more resurface, even guys like peak second stint cavs bron mainly used ball screens to get favorable switches and mismatches.

As a whole I think Kobe may have been even more impactful in different deployment or offense, while still maintaining his incredible generation 1v1 scoring talent but having an offense enhance it rather than rely on it like the triangle did more so, but at the same time I think that talent itself isn’t outdated by any means and probably would be more successful in any era outside of the 2000s. I think had the idea that Kobe is a guy that forced 1v1 possessions and took ill advised tough shots is true for sure, but the idea that it led to him being inefficient at those things simply wasn’t, that would be more supported if his efficiencies at these things weren’t incredibly elite


This becomes a bit of an issue ranking peaks for me.

Kawhi in my opinion, offensively speaking, seems like a pretty clearly inferior version of Kobe.

Now this is fine for most because most aren’t high on Kawhi offensively in general, but it’s not as if he’s had a history of being not super high impact on offense because of 2019 where his impact lagged behind his box score totals.

However, from 2019-2022 his offensive RAPM is first in the nba, and especially the past few years his offensive impact data in that regard has been great. He’s 4th in regular in 2020, and 1st in luck adjusted, while he’s first in 2021 although that drops to 36th with a Luck adjustments


(My recollection is luck adjustments for multi year samples actually do more harm than good but It was a Twitter guy that said it so grain fo salt)

Either way, while maybe not a Curry or anything, Kawhi does end up looking like an incredibly impactful offensive player as a whole, so him being a pretty discounted Kobe in many ways offensively bodes well for him.

It’s not as if the Clippers are built around him, in the sense that they can and have shown to function well without Kawhi as well, or theyre kinda built in a way to be good in non Kawhi minutes.

I think in terms of purely their offensive skillset you could plug peak Kobe in for a Kawhi he’d do a good bit better, and that’s backed up by his synergy profile basically looking like a better version of Clippers Kawhi in many ways, particularly in many of kawhis strengths (a bit of an oversimplification of course)

[jalengreen]

You're certainly not the only one who takes this perspective, but I think you though reflect more on what you consider when you think about "what it is".

My processing of your logic would seem to be that you think that fundamentally it was Curry's job to maximize his own on-court impact, but it's not. It's his job to help his team win, and being okay with bringing Durant in, and letting Durant be the first scoring option, were things he did in service of his team, while probably knowing that it would mean that people would be less impressed with him individually.

And yes, this is an aspect of cultural leadership, which coaches, GMs & owners greatly value when they get it. If you don't value it, then I think you have to ask yourself what it says about your approach that you're ignoring things that professionals whose careers depend on factoring in everything they can, don't ignore.

I actually don't think Curry taking the step back that he did in the regular season was helping his team win. The main reason for that being: Through the first 20 games of the 2017 regular season, Curry averaged 26.9 PPG on 66.5% TS% and the Warriors were 17-3, a bonkers 70-win pace. In this same stretch, Durant averaged 27.3 PPG on 68.0% TS%. They had a good thing going and then later in the season is when Curry began to slump and it was blamed on him having taken a step back. Perhaps I haven't been clear - I'm not saying that in a vacuum it would be wrong for him to defer more often to get his teammate acclimated in the regular season because it hurts his own individual numbers. I'm saying that in the specific case of the 2017 regular season, it was not necessary for Curry to do so and I'm not convinced it was of much benefit. One could make the argument that their postseason success was due to that regular season deferral, but I wouldn't be super convinced of it.

And it's not that I don't value cultural leadership - it's that I don't think Curry unnecessarily becoming more passive in the 2017 regular season is an example of it. Nor do I think him being willing to bring Durant in is very convincing of it either as I'm skeptical of that being a rare characteristic. (I think the better argument for Curry's impact through his leadership would be his role in establishing and maintaining the culture that was so appealing for Durant to come in the first place. That's something that I view as extremely valuable - once Durant actually wants to sign, it's a no-brainer. The more valuable trait to me at these margins is what brought him there in the first place.)

To be clear, I simply don't think Curry's 2017 regular season leadership is any more of an excuse than coasting is for another player's regular season (Giannis, LeBron, etc). He had a reduction in regular season value (while still arguably being the most valuable player in the league - just a reduction relative to 2016) while likely not having a reduction in "goodness" - I just don't see a reason to evaluate it any differently than a coasting regular season (and a coasting regular season is perfectly reasonable to be on this list, I'm also not saying this is some sort of disqualifier).

Hmm. You post Curry's PPG as a statement of Curry not taking a step back, when you know he scored on comparable efficiency the previous year. Typically people who are focused on individual production as evidence of impact would use a scoring drop as the very first thing they'd look at, yet you don't seem to process it even within that category? Strange to me.

Good point - I specified this in a previous thread but not this one, but the initial step back is one that I think is expected when two all-time great scoring talents join teams. I don't think anybody expected either Curry or Durant to take quite as many shots as they did in 2016.

Relative to the 2016 regular season, both Curry and Durant had usage drops as I would expect (you could argue that both players being willing to take that drop in usage deserves praise, but I think that's a low bar). The claim that was given previously as to why he slumped in the 2017 regular season is that he took a *further* step back - my problem with just handwaving that away is that the sample at the start of the season suggests that said further step back was unnecessary.

Now, you are making a point I can see the logic of when you say, in essence, "That mid-season Curry slump shouldn't be blamed on Durant." I think Curry is responsible for falling prey at times to passivity, and I'll say I think it got worse in the second & third seasons with KD (until KD got injured in the playoffs).

But, more broadly here, the focus of the '16-17 regular season for the Warriors was about gaining comfort, not about max-ing out regular season dominance. Curry still ended up with similar +/- numbers, which remain off-the charts compared to anything we've seen from other champion other than '95-96 Jordan, but it was pretty dang clear from the jump that they would not be trying to break their 73 win mark from the year before.

The combination of Curry having something near GOAT levels of individual +/- in '16-17, the fact that we know that he was more focused on getting the team (and KD specifically) comfortable, along with that Warrior team putting up a run of playoff dominance that stands alone compared to any champion in the modern strategic era, just leaves me asking:

What exactly are we finding "fault" with with Curry in that season?

I very much agree with the bolded. The fault I'm finding is that there was a slump in the 2017 regular season and the explanation for that slump was given to be a sudden passiveness from Curry in an attempt to get Durant comfortable - which was entirely unnecessary in my opinion. I think Curry's regular season value dropped from 2016 (while, again, still being at the top of the league - we're talking relative to perhaps the most valuable regular season of all-time) and I'm not sure he was any worse of a player than he was before. I view it as no different than coasting - it was a drop that doesn't need to be read into too much and I think it's a reach to be giving him a boost in cultural leadership for unnecessary passivity that even some people around him felt went too far (IIRC DraymondGold had some quotes about conversations Myers and Kerr had with Curry regarding his lack of aggression midseason). In the same way that it's on a player for choosing to coast through the regular season, it was on Curry to choose to go passive when it wasn't necessary. As I said previously, I am not saying that this is meant to be a disqualifier - if a person doesn't put too much stock in a coasting regular season where a player's "true value" comes out in the postseason, then there's no reason to do anything differently for 2017 Curry. I just really, really don't see the "cultural leadership" angle of Curry's slump. I can't get behind giving him bonus points for that but it's fair if others want to do so.

[jalengreen]

Regarding Oscar, how do people view his scalability relative to other offensive engines?

[70sFan]

Regarding Oscar, how do people view his scalability relative to other offensive engines?

We have seen him next to Kareem, who was high volume scorer and he maximized Bucks potential to their limits. I have little concerns with Oscar's scalability.

[capfan33]

Regarding Oscar, how do people view his scalability relative to other offensive engines?

We have seen him next to Kareem, who was high volume scorer and he maximized Bucks potential to their limits. I have little concerns with Oscar's scalability.

To be fair, Oscar was aging and more than willing to take a backseat to Kareem in terms of scoring. I do think if he was in his prime/peak there would be more issues with diminishing returns with both of them doing the same thing scoring-wise. I'm not sure how much off-ball value Robertson brings, I actually don't think I've ever seen him shoot a spotup shot lol but I probably need to go watch more of him.

[70sFan]

Regarding Oscar, how do people view his scalability relative to other offensive engines?

We have seen him next to Kareem, who was high volume scorer and he maximized Bucks potential to their limits. I have little concerns with Oscar's scalability.

To be fair, Oscar was aging and more than willing to take a backseat to Kareem in terms of scoring. I do think if he was in his prime/peak there would be more issues with diminishing returns with both of them doing the same thing scoring-wise. I'm not sure how much off-ball value Robertson brings, I actually don't think I've ever seen him shoot a spotup shot lol but I probably need to go watch more of him.

I should get new 1964 Oscar footage this week. Maybe it will include something worth uploading.

[ceoofkobefans]

8. 2016 Steph Curry
...

10. 2008 Kobe Bryant
...

11. 1987 Magic Johnson
...

1- 2015-16 Stephen Curry

- Stephen Curry is the greatest shooter of all time, and 2015-16 is no exception to that. If injuries didn't happen in the postseason, it was arguable that this was the top peak of all time. Curry's ability to warp defenses with his off-ball gravity is unparalleled and he was unstoppable all season long. That's why I think this is the best option at number 10.

2. 2003-04 Kevin Garnett

- Coming in at second place is 2003-04 Kevin Garnett. Garnett very well might be the greatest "Defensive Number 1, Offensive Number 2" in league history. His '04 campaign was sheer dominance, leading a Timberwolves team to the 1 seed who most likely would not have even made the postseason if it wasn't for his presence. On top of the all-time defense, Garnett provided good spacing for the time, good passing, and great playmaking.

3. 2008-09 Dwyane Wade

- Wade was dominant in '09 whether it was scoring, passing, playmaking at will, or providing amazing guard defense, he pretty much did it all for them. What holds him back for me is lack of 3pt shooting that season, but otherwise, would have most likely been the MVP if LeBron James didn't exist that season.

Hi ceoofkobefans, confucius! I can see why you'd pick 08 Kobe, 87 Magic, 04 Garnett, and 09 Wade as those players' best years. I think I'd pick the same years for them. For Curry, do you see 17 Curry as clearly beneath 08 Kobe / 87 Magic and 04 Garnett / 09 Wade?

You're allowed to vote for multiple years (e.g. "1a. 16 Curry, 1b. 17 Curry, 2. 08 Kobe, 3. 87 Magic"), so I'm just wondering, did you vote for 16 Curry instead of both 16 and 17 because you actually see a drop in 17?

I’m not voting for multiple years I’m solely focused on single year peaks not necessarily best single seasons then highlighting peaks

[MyUniBroDavis]

8. 2016 Steph Curry
...

10. 2008 Kobe Bryant
...

11. 1987 Magic Johnson
...

1- 2015-16 Stephen Curry

- Stephen Curry is the greatest shooter of all time, and 2015-16 is no exception to that. If injuries didn't happen in the postseason, it was arguable that this was the top peak of all time. Curry's ability to warp defenses with his off-ball gravity is unparalleled and he was unstoppable all season long. That's why I think this is the best option at number 10.

2. 2003-04 Kevin Garnett

- Coming in at second place is 2003-04 Kevin Garnett. Garnett very well might be the greatest "Defensive Number 1, Offensive Number 2" in league history. His '04 campaign was sheer dominance, leading a Timberwolves team to the 1 seed who most likely would not have even made the postseason if it wasn't for his presence. On top of the all-time defense, Garnett provided good spacing for the time, good passing, and great playmaking.

3. 2008-09 Dwyane Wade

- Wade was dominant in '09 whether it was scoring, passing, playmaking at will, or providing amazing guard defense, he pretty much did it all for them. What holds him back for me is lack of 3pt shooting that season, but otherwise, would have most likely been the MVP if LeBron James didn't exist that season.

Hi ceoofkobefans, confucius! I can see why you'd pick 08 Kobe, 87 Magic, 04 Garnett, and 09 Wade as those players' best years. I think I'd pick the same years for them. For Curry, do you see 17 Curry as clearly beneath 08 Kobe / 87 Magic and 04 Garnett / 09 Wade?

You're allowed to vote for multiple years (e.g. "1a. 16 Curry, 1b. 17 Curry, 2. 08 Kobe, 3. 87 Magic"), so I'm just wondering, did you vote for 16 Curry instead of both 16 and 17 because you actually see a drop in 17?

I’m not voting for multiple years I’m solely focused on single year peaks not necessarily best single seasons then highlighting peaks

The multiple years is because each season gets a vote, so like since the peak season for Curry for most is 2017, which at the very least isn’t a big drop off from 2016, currently your vote isn’t tallied as a Curry vote practically lol