70sFan wrote:So no, I don't buy that 2000 Shaq was close to 2003 Duncan because of the rDRtg. He doesn't need to be ranked higher because he's much better offensive centerpiece, but defense isn't even arguable in my opinion. Shaq was still Shaq in 2000 - slightly more motivated and in better shape, but he still had poor fundamentals, low effort, slow feet etc.
Shaq in 00 has offense that is clearly ahead of Duncan (you couldn't argue it). Also I don't even know if Duncan is really that good offensively, in comparison to Shaq's elite defense. I'd like to hear a case for 03 Duncan over 00 Shaq.
I mean, we disagree with the elite defense in the first place, so that should be the start of discussion, not Duncan's offense.
VanWest82 wrote:Yes, Lakers had plenty of good defenders that year and their team defense (Phil should get some credit here) propelled them. But Shaq was easily the biggest driver that year. It's not so disimilar (as a thought exercise, not a direct comparison) to 2020 Lakers when AD was clearly the team's main driver defensively, but people got a little confused looking at the other names, on-offs, etc., because you had bench line ups featuring Dwight with Lebron and Caruso (not well known at the time). Similarly in 2000, DFish, Horry, and Fox led a feisty defense first unit off the bench. But look at what happened in 2001 when Shaq shows up way out of shape. Lakers go from -5.9 rDRTG to +1.8 despite adding Horace Grant. There were some mitigating factors at play (e.g. Fisher got hurt), but the main thing was Shaq went from one of the most impactful defenders in the league the year before (within context of Lakers defense) to a guy who more resembled your claim. There's no other good explanation here. Plus, the eye test in this case was pretty overwhelming one year to the next.
I am not sure I agree with the conclusion that Lakers regression on defense is mostly caused by Shaq's effort. That doesn't explain why they went from 99.1 DRtg to 105.6 DRtg in lineups without him for example. His defensive on-off is basically the same as well.
I think the Lakers were a mess in the 2001 RS for number of reasons and Shaq was a huge contributor to that, but it's hard to put all the blame on him, because the Lakers just didn't play defense the same way they did in 2000.
I think the DPOY voting is also revealing. Shaq goes from never making all defense or receiving a DPOY vote to 2nd overall. Lakers were the most televised team in the league in 2000, so perhaps that was a contributor, but the better explanation is everyone saw that Shaq had bought in defensively and was killing it because that's what actually happened.
Lakers overall success definitely helped, they were extremely dominant. Shaq was also very popular, especially after Jordan's retirement. Then as you said, Shaq played well, tried hard and he definitely was a key contributor for that elite defense.
I don't have anything against putting Shaq's defense high in DPOY context, but peaks project is a little bit more about the actual abilities in my opinion. Shaq was not a better defender than Mutombo, Mourning or Duncan in 2000, he just faced a better context.
2001 is a different story with what only can be described as a reputation vote. The fact Shaq received any votes at all in 2001 is a testament to how good he was in 2000 imo. The drop off was immense.
I think it's more about block numbers to be honest, although the perception from the last year could also influence voters heavily.
And yes, it didn't hold up in the playoffs because Shaq wasn't a great defender. He could be exploited by small guards and with basic game planning. That doesn't change how utterly dominant he was in 2000 regular season.
I think it is a similar case to how we judge David Robinson offensive game. He had some absurdly good offensive RS performances, but I rarely see people concluding that he's in the conversation for top peaks, because his offense didn't translate to the postseason. I would argue it's the similar situation to Shaq, with the exception that Shaq's offense hold up significantly better than Robinson's defense of course.
Some may disagree and point out 2001 and 2002 runs, but I don't agree that Shaq had 2000 RS level impact in these runs. 2001 PS is ridiculous outlier among outliers and Shaq played very well defensively, but he wasn't better than in 2000 PS from my experience. 2002 was worse for him, his mobility started to look extremely bad.
I wish there were more games from 76 where I could make a convincing case that 2000 Shaq was > defensively than 76-77 Kareem, but I have watched enough of Kareem from other years to know his strengths and weaknesses, and given he was a much more consistent performer than Shaq, i feel comfortable saying 2000 regular season Shaq was likely better defensively (or at least had a greater impact) than that version of Kareem.
We only have footage from 1977 postseason, which is a huge shame indeed. I would argue that Kareem looked clearly better in the playoffs though and that should matter.
Would you take 2000 Shaq RS defense over early 1970s Kareem as well?
70sFan wrote:So no, I don't buy that 2000 Shaq was close to 2003 Duncan because of the rDRtg. He doesn't need to be ranked higher because he's much better offensive centerpiece, but defense isn't even arguable in my opinion. Shaq was still Shaq in 2000 - slightly more motivated and in better shape, but he still had poor fundamentals, low effort, slow feet etc.
Shaq in 00 has offense that is clearly ahead of Duncan (you couldn't argue it). Also I don't even know if Duncan is really that good offensively, in comparison to Shaq's elite defense. I'd like to hear a case for 03 Duncan over 00 Shaq.
With their best traits be almost as Valuable to me ( both transcendent or At least Close to it for Shaq end ). The difference is in their secondary end of the floor which I have Duncan be more sustainable on offense even against tougher coverage than he face in RS. While Shaq defense get Significantly expose due to his much bigger weakness that team can easier scheme against.
Shaq was Anchoring +10 offense Duncan was Anchoring -10 Defense
That show how prolific they were. But when looking at the other side Duncan seem to hold his ground much deeper than Shaq.
Shaq on court defense was around -1 rDRTG adj. Duncan on court offense was around +3 rORTG adj.
While Duncan have much less help to initialize the offense compare to Shaq with decent defensive personnel help.
Comparing Kareem and Shaq, I would side comfortably with Kareem in terms of who the better defender is. Kareem is more agile, a superior shot blocker and has better defensive instincts on top of that. None of the stupid fouls by swiping at the ball, fewer lazy possessions etc. Although one of Kareem's weaknesses on film (since I'm tracking a bunch of Lakers' games these days) is that he didn't run down the floor. Obviously it's the same with Shaq but Kareem's teams particularly prior to 1980 were often exploited by other teams just running even after a made shot. Kareem would rarely make it back on D to contest the shot. Part of that is always posting up near the basket and having the longest distance to run back but sometimes he just seemed gassed. Anyways this weakness is shared by the two of them but just thought I'd point it out. It's pretty glaring on tape how many times Kareem doesn't make it back on defense and the other team scores in the paint.
VanWest82 wrote:Yes, Lakers had plenty of good defenders that year and their team defense (Phil should get some credit here) propelled them. But Shaq was easily the biggest driver that year. It's not so disimilar (as a thought exercise, not a direct comparison) to 2020 Lakers when AD was clearly the team's main driver defensively, but people got a little confused looking at the other names, on-offs, etc., because you had bench line ups featuring Dwight with Lebron and Caruso (not well known at the time). Similarly in 2000, DFish, Horry, and Fox led a feisty defense first unit off the bench. But look at what happened in 2001 when Shaq shows up way out of shape. Lakers go from -5.9 rDRTG to +1.8 despite adding Horace Grant. There were some mitigating factors at play (e.g. Fisher got hurt), but the main thing was Shaq went from one of the most impactful defenders in the league the year before (within context of Lakers defense) to a guy who more resembled your claim. There's no other good explanation here. Plus, the eye test in this case was pretty overwhelming one year to the next.
I am not sure I agree with the conclusion that Lakers regression on defense is mostly caused by Shaq's effort. That doesn't explain why they went from 99.1 DRtg to 105.6 DRtg in lineups without him for example. His defensive on-off is basically the same as well.
I think the Lakers were a mess in the 2001 RS for number of reasons and Shaq was a huge contributor to that, but it's hard to put all the blame on him, because the Lakers just didn't play defense the same way they did in 2000.
I think the DPOY voting is also revealing. Shaq goes from never making all defense or receiving a DPOY vote to 2nd overall. Lakers were the most televised team in the league in 2000, so perhaps that was a contributor, but the better explanation is everyone saw that Shaq had bought in defensively and was killing it because that's what actually happened.
Lakers overall success definitely helped, they were extremely dominant. Shaq was also very popular, especially after Jordan's retirement. Then as you said, Shaq played well, tried hard and he definitely was a key contributor for that elite defense.
I don't have anything against putting Shaq's defense high in DPOY context, but peaks project is a little bit more about the actual abilities in my opinion. Shaq was not a better defender than Mutombo, Mourning or Duncan in 2000, he just faced a better context.
2001 is a different story with what only can be described as a reputation vote. The fact Shaq received any votes at all in 2001 is a testament to how good he was in 2000 imo. The drop off was immense.
I think it's more about block numbers to be honest, although the perception from the last year could also influence voters heavily.
And yes, it didn't hold up in the playoffs because Shaq wasn't a great defender. He could be exploited by small guards and with basic game planning. That doesn't change how utterly dominant he was in 2000 regular season.
I think it is a similar case to how we judge David Robinson offensive game. He had some absurdly good offensive RS performances, but I rarely see people concluding that he's in the conversation for top peaks, because his offense didn't translate to the postseason. I would argue it's the similar situation to Shaq, with the exception that Shaq's offense hold up significantly better than Robinson's defense of course.
Some may disagree and point out 2001 and 2002 runs, but I don't agree that Shaq had 2000 RS level impact in these runs. 2001 PS is ridiculous outlier among outliers and Shaq played very well defensively, but he wasn't better than in 2000 PS from my experience. 2002 was worse for him, his mobility started to look extremely bad.
I wish there were more games from 76 where I could make a convincing case that 2000 Shaq was > defensively than 76-77 Kareem, but I have watched enough of Kareem from other years to know his strengths and weaknesses, and given he was a much more consistent performer than Shaq, i feel comfortable saying 2000 regular season Shaq was likely better defensively (or at least had a greater impact) than that version of Kareem.
We only have footage from 1977 postseason, which is a huge shame indeed. I would argue that Kareem looked clearly better in the playoffs though and that should matter.
Would you take 2000 Shaq RS defense over early 1970s Kareem as well?
We're pretty much in agreement with all of this except for the credit/blame for 01 drop off, and I like the reverse DRob comparison.
I would comfortably take early 70s Kareem > 00 Shaq defensively. It just seemed like he'd slowed down enough by mid-late 70s to make it more of a conversation, and I think Shaq eeks him out for that one season if we allow for the context that yes he played in a good system with good defenders but executed his role very well.
Further to Doctor MJ's point, I also think there are some era advantages for Shaq in this comp in that 00 Lakers play at 93 pace whereas 76 Lakers are at 108 (or 104 in 77). It's a big ask for guys this big to play transition defense for 40 mpg while also being the focal point of the offense on the low block.
I guess if I was to sum up why I have 00 Shaq this high, including flirting with calling it the GOAT peak (and I'm still not sure that isn't right), it's because NBA trended toward toughness and physicality from late 80s (arguably earlier depending on where you want to start, skipping over certain years) all the way until the rule change in 04. Shaq was the king of tough basketball in the toughest, most physical era on record, and although it was already trending there anyway, it became that extreme in early 00s because of Shaq. And so even though I don't like time machine debates, when we do indulge we almost have to do so from the standpoint of neutering Shaq in other eras via rules/officiating (understanding he benefitted a lot in his own era). Unfortunately for someone like Wilt, he lived that reality out, which makes it harder to evaluate him in these discussions because I'm not sure we got the most dominant version on him. In short, there are certainly many, many examples of prettier, more skilled basketball, and Kareem is a good big man example of that compared to Shaq, but I'm drawn in ceiling debates to the physical dominance here and in other sports (e.g. Josh Allen > Patrick Mahomes) as long as it's paired with enough skill and cerebral play to form a complete package which I believe was the case for Shaq outside of the FTs (i.e. the reason I can't quite propel him to #1).
70sFan wrote:So no, I don't buy that 2000 Shaq was close to 2003 Duncan because of the rDRtg. He doesn't need to be ranked higher because he's much better offensive centerpiece, but defense isn't even arguable in my opinion. Shaq was still Shaq in 2000 - slightly more motivated and in better shape, but he still had poor fundamentals, low effort, slow feet etc.
Shaq in 00 has offense that is clearly ahead of Duncan (you couldn't argue it). Also I don't even know if Duncan is really that good offensively, in comparison to Shaq's elite defense. I'd like to hear a case for 03 Duncan over 00 Shaq.
I mean, we disagree with the elite defense in the first place, so that should be the start of discussion, not Duncan's offense.
Ok, then what's your reasoning for Shaq having a worse peak than Tim Duncan?
70sFan wrote:I would like to talk with someone that recently has watched 2000 Lakers tape and take a close look at Shaq's defense, because as far as my memory goes (I tracked his games 3 years ago and I don't have the access to notes now) the Lakers was definitely an assembly defense during that season. Shaq was definitely a very important piece, with his immense inside presence, and it's true that it was probably the best season of his career for defensive effort and motor, but even keeping that in mind, the Lakers did remarkable job as a whole team in the RS games I have seen. Shaq looked nice, but he was still pretty far from someone like Duncan in that regard. Especially when you start realising that this defense didn't sustain their excellence in the playoffs.
So no, I don't buy that 2000 Shaq was close to 2003 Duncan because of the rDRtg. He doesn't need to be ranked higher because he's much better offensive centerpiece, but defense isn't even arguable in my opinion. Shaq was still Shaq in 2000 - slightly more motivated and in better shape, but he still had poor fundamentals, low effort, slow feet etc.
But it was much the same team in the same system the following year - actually maybe a slightly better defensive roster given Rick Fox, a superior defender to Glen Rice, was given a bigger role after Rice's departure, and Horace Grant was added in place of AC Green - and they still recorded a notably lower dRtg. When you've actually added arguably better defenders in some places and the rating goes down at the same time Shaq doesn't replicate his effort from the year before, I feel it is logical to draw the conclusion that Shaq's effort in 2000 and relative lack of it in 2001 was the biggest factor.
Regarding the second bolded line...I don't think anyone would argue that Shaq was a more skilled defender in 2000 than Duncan was in 2003 - I'm not arguing that - but I question if that matters if his sheer size/girth/power, combined with his career best effort, produced an at least comparable impact anyway.
Top10alltime wrote: Shaq in 00 has offense that is clearly ahead of Duncan (you couldn't argue it). Also I don't even know if Duncan is really that good offensively, in comparison to Shaq's elite defense. I'd like to hear a case for 03 Duncan over 00 Shaq.
I mean, we disagree with the elite defense in the first place, so that should be the start of discussion, not Duncan's offense.
Ok, then what's your reasoning for Shaq having a worse peak than Tim Duncan?
I didn't say he has, I just stated an obvious thing that Shaq wasn't close to peak Duncan on defense.
70sFan wrote:I would like to talk with someone that recently has watched 2000 Lakers tape and take a close look at Shaq's defense, because as far as my memory goes (I tracked his games 3 years ago and I don't have the access to notes now) the Lakers was definitely an assembly defense during that season. Shaq was definitely a very important piece, with his immense inside presence, and it's true that it was probably the best season of his career for defensive effort and motor, but even keeping that in mind, the Lakers did remarkable job as a whole team in the RS games I have seen. Shaq looked nice, but he was still pretty far from someone like Duncan in that regard. Especially when you start realising that this defense didn't sustain their excellence in the playoffs.
So no, I don't buy that 2000 Shaq was close to 2003 Duncan because of the rDRtg. He doesn't need to be ranked higher because he's much better offensive centerpiece, but defense isn't even arguable in my opinion. Shaq was still Shaq in 2000 - slightly more motivated and in better shape, but he still had poor fundamentals, low effort, slow feet etc.
But it was much the same team in the same system the following year - actually maybe a slightly better defensive roster given Rick Fox, a superior defender to Glen Rice, was given a bigger role after Rice's departure, and Horace Grant was added in place of AC Green - and they still recorded a notably lower dRtg. When you've actually added arguably better defenders in some places and the rating goes down at the same time Shaq doesn't replicate his effort from the year before, I feel it is logical to draw the conclusion that Shaq's effort in 2000 and relative lack of it in 2001 was the biggest factor.
Regarding the second bolded line...I don't think anyone would argue that Shaq was a more skilled defender in 2000 than Duncan was in 2003 - I'm not arguing that - but I question if that matters if his sheer size/girth/power, combined with his career best effort, produced an at least comparable impact anyway.
So you think Shaq's effort is worth +7 points per 100 possessions on defense alone? I don't think we have any example of one player having that significant impact on one end, let alone the difference between motivated and unmotivated versions of one player.
As I said, the Lakers were also horrible without Shaq in 2001, while they were also great without Shaq in 2000. I am not sure what happened to them in one year, but I don't buy that Shaq is worth +7 pp100 on defense alone, compared to his second best season.
70sFan wrote:I would like to talk with someone that recently has watched 2000 Lakers tape and take a close look at Shaq's defense, because as far as my memory goes (I tracked his games 3 years ago and I don't have the access to notes now) the Lakers was definitely an assembly defense during that season. Shaq was definitely a very important piece, with his immense inside presence, and it's true that it was probably the best season of his career for defensive effort and motor, but even keeping that in mind, the Lakers did remarkable job as a whole team in the RS games I have seen. Shaq looked nice, but he was still pretty far from someone like Duncan in that regard. Especially when you start realising that this defense didn't sustain their excellence in the playoffs.
So no, I don't buy that 2000 Shaq was close to 2003 Duncan because of the rDRtg. He doesn't need to be ranked higher because he's much better offensive centerpiece, but defense isn't even arguable in my opinion. Shaq was still Shaq in 2000 - slightly more motivated and in better shape, but he still had poor fundamentals, low effort, slow feet etc.
But it was much the same team in the same system the following year - actually maybe a slightly better defensive roster given Rick Fox, a superior defender to Glen Rice, was given a bigger role after Rice's departure, and Horace Grant was added in place of AC Green - and they still recorded a notably lower dRtg. When you've actually added arguably better defenders in some places and the rating goes down at the same time Shaq doesn't replicate his effort from the year before, I feel it is logical to draw the conclusion that Shaq's effort in 2000 and relative lack of it in 2001 was the biggest factor.
Regarding the second bolded line...I don't think anyone would argue that Shaq was a more skilled defender in 2000 than Duncan was in 2003 - I'm not arguing that - but I question if that matters if his sheer size/girth/power, combined with his career best effort, produced an at least comparable impact anyway.
So you think Shaq's effort is worth +7 points per 100 possessions on defense alone? I don't think we have any example of one player having that significant impact on one end, let alone the difference between motivated and unmotivated versions of one player.
As I said, the Lakers were also horrible without Shaq in 2001, while they were also great without Shaq in 2000. I am not sure what happened to them in one year, but I don't buy that Shaq is worth +7 pp100 on defense alone, compared to his second best season.
I see your point, but in the absence of a clear explanation for what else is to account for the difference in defensive rating between those two seasons, I'm not prepared to dismiss Shaq's defensive impact in the 2000 season.
My larger point in all this is that if 2000 Shaq is clearly the more impactful scorer, and he anchored a higher-rated defense, then I lean to him over 2003 Duncan.
1. 1991 Michael Jordan (> 1996 > 1992) 2. 1964 Bill Russell (> 1965 > 1962) 3. 2017 Steph Curry (> 2016 > 2015)
Okay first, I'm going to include my #1 vote in spoilers which has reasoning for Jordan & Russell:
Spoiler:
Doctor MJ wrote:Vote:
1. 1991 Michael Jordan (> 1996 > 1992) 2. 2016 LeBron James (> 2013 > 2009) 3. 1964 Bill Russell (> 1965 > 1962)
So my perspective here is going to be looking to deal with era differences basically in-line with the respect I give it in the Career project.
In that project, people may recall that my top 3 was the same guys, but in the opposite order. So why the flip?
Well, career-wise, LeBron's staggering longevity gives him the clear advantage over Jordan.
And meanwhile, I consider Russell's total career, as the ultimate paradigm shifter in basketball history and most dominant team success over an insane duration, to be unmatched in basketball history.
But while Russell's career amounts to more than the other guys, it's more about that sustaining dynasty than it is really about a season vs season argument, and there are bumps in the road for Jordan & LeBron that are causing them to fall behind Russell's career that just aren't relevant here.
Before I leave the Russell discussion though, I'll speak to two things:
First, the years. To me, that first year without Cousy ('63-64) is Russell's signature. Other than the following '64-65 I don't really have any debate here for the top spot. After those years, I'd tend to go with the 2 immediately prior years (Cousy's last 2), simply because I think Russell was at the peak of his powers in this time frame (age 27-30). I don't know where the swan song '68-69 would be on my list honestly. Huge accomplishment to win that chip, and we shouldn't pretend Russell wasn't critical to it, but he was more limited by that point than he was a few years earlier.
Second, it's a bit too convenient for me that OP suggested a 3-man ballot given that it kinda allows me to avoid (for now) debates between Russell and guys I'm voting Russell ahead of. Those debates will probably be frustrating given that I don't believe Russell is the 3rd best talent for the modern league with that all important painted arc.
Okay, I'm going to head over to LeBron next to talk about how hard it is to pick seasons for him.
I would consider 2009 LeBron's regular season to be arguably the GOAT regular season, and it is certainly his best regular season, but despite the fact that I think he could have easily won a chip in that first Cav stint, I do also think that LeBron became a more resilient playoff performer in the years after.
I would say that 2013 LeBron shows us a new bulletproofed-Bron who has spent his time in Miami working hard to change how he plays to get better at playing with other on-ball talent, with a major part of this involving setting a defensive tone that required a ton of energy and commitment. I would say this probably represents LeBron at an apex of capacity. Extremely good physical shape, working hard constantly on both sides of the ball, figuring out how to work best with a team that has different needs from his Cavs.
Then you have 2016 LeBron where he gives his signature playoff run, toppling the 73-9 Warriors to win the title. While he didn't give the whole season defensive focus he did in the past, his 2-way impact was devastating in critical moments during that run. Offensively, I would say that part of what's going on is that he had better fit in Cleveland again. He chose to go play with Wade, and because that wasn't actually a great move synergistically, they both hade to learn a lot to make it work, which was impressive...but it was nice to move forward with a star guard who could shoot well from range, for example.
In the end, I sided with 2016, but part of what I want to emphasize here is how amazing it is that it's so hard to judge these different years, and what that says about LeBron's ability to keep adjusting how he played to remain an outlier for a very, very long time. Say what you want about LeBron, being his rival generally didn't mean getting more and more effective playing against him, but watching him figure out new ways to leverage his vast physical bag to beat you again.
But in the end, I'm still a believer that there was something distinct to Jordan's focus over the course of particular seasons to push his team to the brink. I also believe that part of what allowed him to do this was a bullying-form of leadership that we know including him throwing unprovoked punches to teammates, and yeah, there's a part of me that would like to normalize for this positive/negative in some way...but if we're just talking about the success of a season, Jordan to me still seems like the king though I think that the way he drove his teams probably did reduce their shelf life.
Now, I went with 1991, but was tempted for 1992 & 1996. I think that effect of the Jordan drive is probably best seen in those years rather than the 1991 breakthrough, but aside from the fact that I think Jordan was the peak of his overall capacity before the 1st retirement, there's also the matter that the actual breakthrough is important in my eyes.
It's understandable why people choose years like 1988 as Jordan's best given that Jordan was at his "Most Air Jordan" in that time frame. But I'm extremely impressed with the way Jordan adapted to Phil Jackson's Triangle. Had Jordan been either unable or unwilling to change to this more read & react style, it would have backfired, and Jordan would have likely been doomed to be that guy who people swore "Would have won it all if they could have given him good teammates?"...but of course, he'd have had the same teammates, he'd just not be able to make as good of a use for them as he could in a system like the Triangle.
Perhaps oddly, the fact that Jordan lacks the off-the-charts floor generalship of LeBron made something like this necessary for Jordan, but then because he embraced it, I believe it enabled Jordan's Bulls best years to blaze through with a level of consistent proficiency that I'm frankly in awe of.
If you asked me to name one team in NBA history as "Most ready for battle", I'd have to go with those Bulls coming with such an unusual level of intensity given their stature.
So why am I siding with Curry for the next spot?
Well, first let me emphasize again that I'm trying to use a criteria that focuses on separation from contemporaries only adjusted for my perception of how good the NBA was at that time.
Then key point: This last decade in the NBA is like nothing that came before except arguably the NBA's first decade in terms of rapid change in performance. While I think any discussion for the Pace & Space era needs to begin by focusing on Colangelo/D'Antoni/Nash in Phoenix, the reality is that the NBA treated this innovation like a gimmick and insiders convinced new Suns owner and non-basketball man Sarver to give up on it with that legendarily bad Marion-for-Shaq deal (which was done by GM Kerr and we shouldn't forget that, but I've never been under the impression that this was Kerr's idea, and of course Kerr ended up choosing not to sign an extension as GM, which I don't think he'd have done if he felt he had true control of basketball operations).
This then to say that while I tend to start the history of the Pace & Space era in '04-05, the NBA didn't actually change that much in the next decade. It wasn't until the Warriors won the title that the paradigm shift actually took place. To tell that story with league average stats:
In '04-05 the league average was 15.8 3PA/g. In '14-15 the league average was 22.4 3PA/g. In '24-25 the league average was 37.6 3PA/g.
Obviously 3's were going up this whole time - and going up prior to '04-05 - but the craziest growth happened in this past decade.
Even that undersells how the league has been changing in the past decade though because the biggest shift in how coaching staffs worked wasn't simply about embracing pace & space, but about making use of data - and especially video - to micro-analyze everything every other team was doing, and it's really in this era where you start getting major shifts in Xs & Os in something close to "real time" and you start getting playoff series coaching chess matches like never before.
All this then to say, judging players from the past decade against "contemporaries" has never been trickier because things that made you an outlier one year quickly began getting coopted by the entire league like never before, and it's not hyperbole to say that teams from 5 years ago would be completely outclassed by teams now for reasons that really have little to do with improved basketball talent pool (which is a real phenomenon, but it's not improving THAT fast compared to NBA strategy).
I think then it's right to remember the player at the epicenter of this phase transition, Steph Curry, and - if you're looking at it with my criteria, which of course no one is under any obligation to do - not to simply compared '20s Steph to other '20s players. He's one of the great players of this decade still, but it was the '10s were he had the greatest separation from his competitors.
I'm going to start with something visual. Here's a graph from ElGee that shows the greatest positive outliers in On & On-Off among 5-year peak samples.
(crap, it's not showing up. Trying to post from my Google Drive, open to suggestions as to what I'm doing wrong)
When (if) you see the image what you''ll see is this:
1. There's one dot way ahead of everyone else in On with +16.6 while no one else breaks +15, and that's Curry '15-19.
2. There are two dots way ahead of everyone else in On-Off with values in the +19 to 20 range with no one else breaking +15, and those dots are Curry & Jokic (who believe me, I gave strong consideration to here).
Now of course, this is a Peak project not a 5-year Prime project, but I think seeing the multi-year range for Curry is critical specifically because his peak RS ('15-16) has the playoff disappointment. The narrative after the 2016 finals into the new superteam with Durant was basically that Curry wasn't "all that" and needed more help to beat all comers. Of course "all comers" includes LeBron and all of this was happening at a time when the LeBron vs Curry debate was extremely heated, but of course, LeBron already got voted in here so let's make sure we don't let that anchor us too much as we now can look back with a less myopic focus.
While I wouldn't be making a case for anyone just based on the regular season, I think the fact that Curry was so regularly putting up insane numbers like this consistently over 5 years is not something anyone should brush aside. This is dominance, pure and simple.
The arrival of KD in GS complicated all of the analysis of the key Warriors, and there's more to cover in that than I intend to try to do here. The first thing I'll say is that I actually think both Steph & KD (as well as Dray for that matter) got underrated relative to what they accomplished in '16-17 when they created the greatest team in pro sports history but collectively got less MVP Shares than Isaiah Thomas. I'm sure it would have been different if '16-17 had been the year they broke the RS win record, but again as we look back from 2025, do any of us actually care that they didn't? I'm skeptical. All this to say, I don't want my post to be primarily seen as some kind of anti-KD thing. KD arriving on the Warriors created the GOAT team, and being on the GOAT team is a big deal which he deserves pretty major credit for.
But, all the impact favors always favored Curry over Durant as teammates. Consider:
In the Curry-KD years, the Warriors played 31 RS games with Curry without KD. They went 27-4 with +12.4 MOV.
Meanwhile, the Warriors played 40 games with KD without Curry. They went 23-17 with a +0.1 MOV.
In the playoffs such comparisons get tricky because Curry's missed games came early in the playoffs while Durant's came later in the playoffs. As always, the issue of sample size in the playoffs isn't primarily with the small number of games, but the small number of opponents.
But I always think it's so critical to remember what Curry did a) before KD was a Warrior, b) after KD went down injury against the Rockets in '18-19, and of course c) the fact that Warriors did come back and win another title after Durant without adding another superstar.
Moving over to the Steph & Dray relationship, which has to be addressed: The fact that the Warriors had not one but two transformative players emerge at near the same time has confused the analysis and led to a tendency to use the goodness of each against each other. But I think we have to remember that because one is the offensive star and the other is the defensive star, and we have access to PBP data, we have plenty of evidence that neither is the product of the other (though Dray clearly has a tendency to mail it in when games aren't meaningful for contention, as we saw most dramatically in Curry's major injury year).
So yeah, I think Steph was the Offensive Player of the Decade while Dray was the Defensive Player of the Decade, and that's why the Warriors' dominated the decade. I don't want to give all that credit to Steph and not his teammates, and further I have tried to earnestly, repeatedly ask the question of whether Dray was actually the MVP of the team - I don't want to assume the offensive guy is better - but to me Steph has always come out ahead.
While I'm on the topic of the emergence of these two guys, I'll emphasize that from my perspective, Curry's breakout came during '12-13 rather than '14-15, whereas Dray (and Klay) broke out in '14-15. Because Steph played in such an unusual rover style once Kerr arrived as coach, and that's also when they started winning chips, many have talked about Steph as a product of a system, but this gets things wrong.
The reality is that Curry had broken the 3P record in '12-13, and while his impact indicators weren't clear until '13-14, a good contingent of us saw what was emerging in '12-13 and were not surprised when he looked like a clear cut impact superstar in '13-14. The most impressive thing about Curry in '14-15 was arguably not the fact that his impact went up further (though it did), but that it happened with Curry forced to play very differently from what he'd done the prior year. His eager, adroit adoption of what his new coach wanted was remarkable, and it's what enable Kerr's system to work so well for other players who hadn't been able to break out under the previous coach (Jackson).
Okay, piggy-backing off the 3P record, I think a critical thing to understand about how Curry changed the NBA is the fact that leading the league in 3-pointers used to be a fringe thing. The 3 previous 3-point champs were Ryan Anderson, Dorell Wright, and Aaron Brooks, none of whom were ever NBA all-stars let alone MVP candidates.
In the time since, we've only had 4 3-point champs:
Curry, 8 times Harden, 3 times Klay, once Ant, once
The only one of those players that wasn't seen as a superstar when he did this was Klay, and we should note that Klay averaged less 3P/g and lower 3P% than Steph in that season, Curry just missed games to injury.
Curry is thus responsible for turning this particular category of statistical champion from a minor thing to a major thing.
Okay, zooming back out a bit:
The fact that Steph Curry is arguably the most influential player since Bill Russell doesn't mean he was the best player since Russell or in his own era (LeBron), but it does strike me as very relevant to the Peaks question when we see such huge indicators of both Steph's specific dominance as he was causing the paradigm shift, and this makes him a logical next choice in my assessment.
I feel like like I'm specifically going to be revisiting the Curry vs Jokic Peak conversation quite a bit in the years to come, and frankly as I do, I'll revisit Jokic vs Jordan/LeBron/Russell/etc, but for this time around I'm going to side with Curry.
Let me also specifically bring up Curry vs Magic. I consider to this point Magic to still be the 2nd best player classified as a guard in NBA history (behind Jordan) over Curry from a career perspective, despite the fact that Magic's career effectively ended at age 31, and Curry was still going strong next year at 36. It's weird that I'm siding with Steph for peak given that he also has longer longevity and yet I don't favor him for career in the Magic debate. So what's the explanation?
Well, Magic had one of the best starts to a career we've ever seen, while Steph took longer to take off. In my personal POY, I have Magic as a Top 5 player in all 11 seasons in which he played nearly the whole season, whereas I have Steph as a Top 5 player in 9 seasons. The fact that Magic was 11-for-11 puts him up there only with Russell (13-for-13) as guys who were just always having seasons on that level, and I consider it a really big deal.
Nevertheless, I believe the separation the Chef achieved when he really started cooking was even more extreme despite being in a more advanced era.
Last, why the years in question? Well, I'm choosing to win/place/show those first 3 years when he broke out as a consensus NBA superstar because that's when I believe he achieved his clearest separation. This is something we can see pretty cleanly in his 2 MVP seasons which are also his 2 years with 300+ TS Add, and also the last two 300+ TS Add seasons we've seen (though Curry did play at pace by game to break that threshold again in subsequent years). '15-16 of course stands out the most with that +454.7 TS Add that has only ever been topped by Kareem ('72).
Okay this explains the two MVP years, but why do I have the next year first when a) he didn't seriously challenge for the MVP, and b) he had it "easy" with KD next to him?
Well, I go back & forth. We can all agree that '15-16 was Steph's best RS but not anywhere near his best PS. Part of Steph's issues at the time were about him needing to get into better shape (cardio & strength) to be able to stand up when a playoff opponent like LeBron targeted him over and over again and wore him out, but also part of what was going on in the 2016 post-season was injury issues for him after a regular season where the Warriors went all out to break the Bulls' 72-10 record.
There's a part of me that wants to "average out" Curry's play across the '15-16 season season and say it was still his best, but in modern NBA culture the playoffs are king and so injuries in that time period can't be ignored, and as I've talked about with guys like LeBron & Kareem, I do think they figured out way to be more bulletproof in the playoffs AFTER they struggle against particularly tough playoff opponents. Because of the arrival of KD, it's impossible to know exactly when Steph put on that bulletproof vest, but I think we know that he devoted himself to that process in the 2016 off-season.
And then there's just the matter that in '16-17, Curry:
a) Welcomed an extremely insecure diva on to his team, and let that diva do his thing even though it meant hurting his personal stats and accolades.
b) Specifically had the greatest season +/- we've ever seen by both all-season & post-season (regular season is still topped by Dray & Steph from '15-16) with all the indicators favoring him over said diva.
It was understandable at the time to be cautious about giving Steph specifically too much credit for the success of the super-team, but not do the data points still stand out looking back in 2025, we've also seen him be able to repeatedly get back into alpha volume scoring mode in the years since, and so we know any notion of him "taking a step back" with the arrival of KD wasn't about a decrease in his own capacity, it was simply about what his team needed, and he was happy to make that sacrifice for the good of the team.
Eh, one more note: With me mentioning Kareem leading the all-time season TS Add, it does raise the question of whether I should be choosing Kareem here. He had that going, plus high quality defense, so how is that not the greatest separation ever? Is the preference for Curry simply about the assumption that the quality of the league was getting that much better?
Only partially. The other thing for me is that it bugs me that Kareem didn't seem to have transformative impact as a matter of course all through his prime. Sure there's bad luck involved, but BBIQ is also a thing, and there, while I wouldn't say Kareem was poor, I do think that his offensive impact was always really about waiting for teammates to get him the ball in a sweet spot, and as with other bigs with that requirement, this gave the defense the opportunity to gum up the works. It's no small thing that Kareem had a shooting ability that extended out extremely well to even beyond 10 feet - which gives him a major advantage over bigs who had to be closer to the basket, but it's still quite limiting compared to a player who terrified defenses 30 feet away from the basket.
Alr this took a hot minute to write so I hope you’re appreciative. I’m mostly going to be talking keem cause he’s my favorite guy and that shi is the one I think I need to defend the most and I’m not tryn to get fried. Picking years with chips since thats the point and the guys i think peak best all have em. —69 Russell— OR 64 > 62 Look. Idk if he would be good today. There’s someone I know who keeps calling him Bagless Bam but I’m just tryna rate who was making it work and I been convinced Russ was like that over the last couple weeks. And I think if someone averaging 25 a night did what he did before he stopped, everyone here is putting him somewhere 1, 2, or 3. You’re the coach. You’re on a team that isn’t that good. You got Jerry West and Wilt. And you got the Knicks who end up winning 2 chips right after you leave. Let’s be real now. If Lebron beats that. If MJ beats that. If Hakeem beats that. If Duncan beats that. We’re calling them the GOAT. If they can be the GOAT for winning that. Then when Russell does that shi let’s give him proper respect. —94 Hakeem— OR 95 > 93 This ones one of those I had no one and won but I’m going all out to defend my man Hakeem here. Big thanks to all of you watching games: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2415142 I always liked Hakeem’s game but it was just a vibe if I’m real with it. Wouldn’t be tryn to push this without ppl here supplying me all this ammo on and off this site. First wow he’s great on defense
Protecting the rim way more than anyone on this crazy defense
Spoiler:
Here’s what the ‘85—‘87 Lakers did in the playoffs: 1985 Lakers vs.Suns: +18.7 NRtg, 124.6 ORtg 1985 Lakers vs. Blazers: +10.2 NRtg, 117.9 ORtg 1985 Lakers vs. Nuggets: 10.8 NRtg, 117.4 ORtg 1985 Lakers vs. Celtics: +2.5 NRtg, 112.3 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Spurs: +31.4 NRtg, 122.7 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Mavs: +5.1 NRtg, 119.7 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Rockets: -3.6 NRtg, 107.4 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Nuggets: +25.2 NRtg, 125.1 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Warriors: +10.5 NRtg, 121.7 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Sonics: +11.4 NRtg, 117.2 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Celtics: +4.3 NRtg, 118.4 ORtg NOBODY could stop that Lakers offense—the 1985 Celtics slowed them a little, but the Rockets did something pretty extraordinary in 1986 that really doesn’t get celebrated enough. 1990 Jordan was of course amazing, and played great in the playoffs (though the 1990 Pistons aren’t in the same tier as this Lakers team—1990 pistons had some of the best health ever and were still a tier below that Lakers’ juggernaut), but 82 games, 39 mpg of a player basically at his peak producing that SRS (and then playinand seems to be swept away while what 1986 Hakeem did doesn’t seem to get the fanfare it should.
Hakeem also sneaky underrated playmaker with really good scoring:
Put those 2 together and you got a sophmore carrying a mid or weak team to championship level play vs historic opps as a sophmore
Spoiler:
Round 1: Chicago Bulls (-3.1), won 3-0, by +13.7 points per game (+10.6 SRS eq) Round 2: Atlanta Hawks (+3.7), won 4-1, by +9.6 points per game (+13.3 SRS eq) Round 3: Milwaukee Bucks (+6.7), won 4-0, by +15.0 points per game (+21.7 SRS eq) Round 4: Houston Rockets (+7.4), won 4-2, by +6.2 points per game (+13.6 SRS eq)
Now pair this with his O going saiyan under rudy and you get some crazy overall impact. Rockets from 2-10 to 55 and i won’t say its all hakeem but it’s mostly him scoring like 5 more ppg more efficiently. 94 Hakeem is basically is 93 hakeem with a full playoff run and championship so i use him. But the important thing is he’s improving his team as much as any 80s/90s guy in the rs, he’s rising more in the pos, and he’s doing it despite being in a way worse situation and not getting used properly until he’s 30. So I think as prob the best peak of his era he can be top 3 —71 Kareem— OR 74 Kareem > 77 Kareem This mainly just because of what I’ve been reading to be truthful. I’m lyin if I act like I know his game that well. But he kind of doing that Hakeem thing just carryin a team on both ends. He doesn’t win so I can’t put 74 highest. I don’t think 71 Kareem was allat but I’m aight with it at 4. For clarity tho, I’m comfy with this but not locked in.
70sFan wrote:Shaq has two main advantages over Kareem offensively - foul drawing and offensive rebounding. I think these two aspects of the game are important, but I always thought I am in the minority. I don't see anyone raving about Moses Malone peak here thanks to his even more impressive foul drawing and putback generation abilities.
All the other advantages are clearly overstated. Kareem at his peak had ridiculous inside gravity, he was excellent passer and playmaker for a center, he was extremely imposing physically, just in a different way than Shaq. He also has clear advantages over O'Neal, which are well known.
On top of that, I can't think of any advantage Shaq has on defensive end outside of post defense - which is again, rarely valued here. Outside of that, Kareem was better at basically everything.
I am not saying that Shaq over Kareem is wrong, I just find it hard to understand why it's such a popular view here.
So, I’d say there’s a history here - and I’m sure in other places on the internet - to look at Jordan and Shaq as the two great peaks prior to LeBron.
I specifically remember that when we were doing All-Time Draft Leagues here circa around 2006 while Jordan or Wilt tended to be the first pick, when we did the actual “playoff” voting, Shaq’s teams would be the ones winning out. Yes his team having the advantage of earlier draft picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds in a snake draft, but in the end, it just seemed like when people imagine all the greats battling each other, Shaq felt unstoppable.
Clearly part of what was going on here were the 3-peats, which combined with massive PPG seemed to tell an “unstoppable” story.
I should note that I can kinda speak to this personally. I remember believing that Shaq’s brute force made him more unstoppable than Kareem’s finesse game.
Where my perspective has shifted so much over time is in applying the lessons of the pace and space era back to Shaq and coming to the conclusion that the league during Shaq’s prime was serendipitous for his strengths and weaknesses.
- Illegal Defense made low post scoring more effective than it had been since they widened the key, and so being the biggest baddest MFer in the league was really nice at that time.
- officiating allowed offensive bully ball to proceed ina way they just didn’t let happen back in, say, Wilt’’s day.
- Flopping was in its nascent stages of acceptability and so teams really did try to stand up to Shaq rather than get him called for offensive fouls. (Note that in earlier eras, defenders didn’t need to flop against bully ball because the refs whistled the offense simply for applying the bully force.)
- Then there’s the defensive side of the ball where the lack of 3-point shooting allowed Shaq to stay in the interior where he could be effective on size and strength. In the modern game, he’d be forced out of his comfort zone and I don’t think it would be pretty.
As always, feel free to chime in if you think I’m mischaracterizing anything in the actual basketball, but my point here is really that I think Shaq just came along at a perfect time, and that’s why he was able to be the most valuable offensive player in the game, while also typically being quite effective on defense despite iffy BBIQ and spotty effort.
And this propagated forward to now still has an effect that honestly, isn’t necessarily wrong but it is a thing.
How do we do a Peak debate between a guy who played in a perfect context compared to a guy who didn’t? It very much depends on your personal philosophy, and me personally I still go back and forth whenever we do this.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I consider Garnett and Duncan to be better fits than Shaq in most basketball eras, but I don’t think either had a season as dominant as Shaq 2000, so how should I rank them ?
I’ll leave it there and welcome response from you and others particularly on that last question.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wouldn't say you're wrong that Shaq came along at a good time, but I think a lot of the imaginings of Shaq not being adaptable to other eras is based on the idea of the Shaq that was adapting specifically to his own era. Yeah, 400 pound Shaq benefited from playing in a physical era and would have trouble getting out on the perimeter, but I think if he comes along in a different era, Shaq doesn't let himself get anywhere near that big in the first place. Maybe the Shaq that stays at 285 can do all that stuff with ease and turns into a better all-around player by not being so focused on trying to get bigger on the low block. So you're right that Shaq was advantaged by era, but I'd say not anywhere near to the degree that Wilt and Russell were with how important center play was before the development of the 3-point line.
First, appreciate you throwing me a bone with the first clause.
My big disagreement with you post has to do with the assumption that Shaq became a 400-pounder for reasons that were in any way strategic - he knew damn well he wasn't taking his fitness as well as he might have, and even had the excuse of "company time" essentially saying he was going to do whatever the hell he wanted in the off-season, and then use the season itself to get him into better shape, but crucially, he never won another chip with the Lakers once these issues emerged. He became obese, while being a professional athlete, because he didn't take care of his body like a professional, and this led him to be less successful in his career that he would have otherwise been. Simple as that.
Might Shaq have had a completely different attitude had he come around in the '60s? Maybe, not because he personally recognized that he needed to discipline himself back then in a way he couldn't figure out in his own time. If things played out differently, it would be because the franchise that owned his career would simply force him to be take better care of his body through micromanagement that he lacked the clout to reject.
Now, the 400-pounder issues are irrelevant to his actual peak so I don't want to imply that they should be at the forefront of a Peaks discussion, but I would say what's undoubtedly the case is that the late-stage Illegal Defense era was the best time in history for the most giant giants in basketball history.
Did guys like Russell & Wilt have a greater advantage based on aspects of size relative to their peers? Quite possibly, but not because of the rules in place at the time. The rules of the '60s were developed specifically to mitigate the advantage of bigs, whereas the Illegal Defense rule brought in in the '80s - while I wouldn't say they were about helping bigs specifically in their intention so much as helping one-on-one scorers - shifted the game to make volume post-scoring bigs more effective relative to their peers compared to any time post the key widening of 1951.
Not saying anyone here has to knock Shaq for benefitting from the era he played in when ranking Peaks, but I think we should recognize that more extreme bigs benefitted from those rule changes more than less extreme bigs. In Shaq, we have the single biggest man to ever become an NBA superstar, and it's no coincidence that this happened at a time when rules were favorable to that.
While we do that, when considering perception of the time, I would emphasize that being the best while also being the biggest, baddest MFer contributed to a feeling that we were watching a continued evolution of the game that had been associated with human giants for a half century by that point. Shaq's unmatched success at that time felt inevitable in a way that looking back, I think we can see it wasn't, and not just because of subsequent rule changes, but specifically because of the rise of the 3-point shot, which absolutely could have happened before Shaq ever arrived in the NBA.
Top10alltime wrote: Ok, then what's your reasoning for Shaq having a worse peak than Tim Duncan?
I didn't say he has, I just stated an obvious thing that Shaq wasn't close to peak Duncan on defense.
And Duncan wasn't close to peak Shaq on offense either.
Never suggested so, but Duncan was a legitimate first option on a championship team. I just question that you can say the same about Shaq on defense, even with 2000 in mind.
Shorter explanations than the last thread since I’ve been absurdly busy, but after last thread, and reading through this one, Kareem makes my list, and goes over MJ
1) Lebron ‘09: I genuinely don’t believe we’ll ever see a player of this caliber again. Pretty much the complete package at the time.
2) Kareem ‘74: Liking these Kareem choices I'm seeing. Main thing is it seems he would have been DPOY in his second year which is crazy when you're also a scoring GOAT; and in ‘74, he's a game away from a big carry job championship like Duncan or Hakeem while putting crazy scoring and top 2 DPOY type play. Lots of reasonable doubt with MJ on both ends so I think I'll swap to Kareem because of the ‘88 steals scandal I learned about.
3) MJ ‘88: Steal scandal or not, it’s still one of the most impressive individual seasons of all time. Debated switching this to ‘92 because of the steal thing, but ultimately I don’t think it takes away from the fact the MJ was still a defensive beast, while being the focal offensive point of the Bulls.
4) Curry ‘16: Just feel like I still need to include him in the list, still the heaviest gravity a player has commanded ever I feel, maybe early Shaq had more gravity in the paint, but Curry had to be doubled at the halfway line…
Chip wrote:Shorter explanations than the last thread since I’ve been absurdly busy, but after last thread, and reading through this one, Kareem makes my list, and goes over MJ
1) Lebron ‘09: I genuinely don’t believe we’ll ever see a player of this caliber again. Pretty much the complete package at the time.
2) Kareem ‘74: Liking these Kareem choices I'm seeing. Main thing is it seems he would have been DPOY in his second year which is crazy when you're also a scoring GOAT; and in ‘74, he's a game away from a big carry job championship like Duncan or Hakeem while putting crazy scoring and top 2 DPOY type play. Lots of reasonable doubt with MJ on both ends so I think I'll swap to Kareem because of the ‘88 steals scandal I learned about.
3) MJ ‘88: Steal scandal or not, it’s still one of the most impressive individual seasons of all time. Debated switching this to ‘92 because of the steal thing, but ultimately I don’t think it takes away from the fact the MJ was still a defensive beast, while being the focal offensive point of the Bulls.
4) Curry ‘16: Just feel like I still need to include him in the list, still the heaviest gravity a player has commanded ever I feel, maybe early Shaq had more gravity in the paint, but Curry had to be doubled at the halfway line…
But why are you focusing on 88 for Jordan? Everyone else who's voted for him has selected 1991.
Kinda wish I saved the honourable mentions now. The next few posts are gonna be very repetitive lol.
Peak 2; #1, 1974 Kareem At the time the best scorer of all time whilst also being the best defensive player in the league. Very rarely does a player have an argument to be (and not on a position relative basis) the best offensive and defensive player in the league. In the purest sense of the term is likely the best two-way player in NBA history at his peak. Very resilient in the playoffs at his best also whilst facing excellent competition and whilst carrying a huge load.
Peak 2; #2, 2004 Kevin Garnett In my opinion the 2nd most talented player in NBA history at his peak after Lebron. Could do everything at an elite level. Was so good offensively that if he was neutral on defence he’d still deserve an MVP, + he was a DPOY caliber player. Nowhere near as good as Kareem as a scorer but infinitely better ball handler and passer whilst being comparable and likely slightly better on defence (remember this is 04 not 08-13 KG defence i’m talking about so don’t get yer panties in a twist). Insane impact, insane carry job in the 04 season also. Not as high as a win total as other seasons but big boi impact stats. Reason he's below Kareem is because I don't think he elevated his game as much as Kareem did. KG was just as good in the post season as the regular season, but Kareem upped his game imo.
Peak 2; #3, 1991 Michael Jordan Also proto-Lebronesque in that MJ was the first perimeter player (to my knowledge anyway) to be in the GOAT conversation on offence whilst being DPOY level (though only relative to his position) on defence. GOAT level scorer, rises in post season, very resilient.
Lower than Kareem and KG because they seem infinitely more portable and less dependant on a system to maximise their talents than MJ. I think Kareem and KG are just as good at elevating their team in multiple different hypotheticals and team settings. I'm not confident that the "why the **** would I pass to teammates lol" hyper-antisocial would be however. I guess you could say that'd only be relevant for a career discussion not a peak but this is my comment so suck ya mudda
That and I think you kinda have to be a big man or at least capable of doing big man ish to be in the GOAT conversation anyway tbh. The center of gravity and shorter stature of guards allows them to be much better ball handlers and on ball playmakers yes, + the 3 point shot decreases the physicality induced efficiency gap in bigs and smalls BUT bigs can still get very close to doing everything guards can do offensively whilst the opposite isn't even close to being true.
You said to me “I will give you scissor seven fine quality animation".
You left then but you put flat mediums which were not good before my scissor seven".
What do you take me for, that you treat somebody like me with such contempt?
