Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #3-#4 Spots

[Verticality]

It is just my opinion but we may lean too much on RAPM if we are to consider Steve Nash over Shaq.

[ReggiesKnicks]

It is just my opinion but we may lean too much on RAPM if we are to consider Steve Nash over Shaq.

There are other reasons to consider Nash highly, but few to consider him above Shaq.

I expect Nash to start getting some love after "The Big 6" (KG, Duncan, Shaq, Curry, Jokic, LeBron).

[Doctor MJ]

It is just my opinion but we may lean too much on RAPM if we are to consider Steve Nash over Shaq.

So, I would suggest that considering X over Y and then choosing Y over X for given reasons is precisely the sort of thing that an unbiased approach does.

Me using a particular stat as a starting point here is presumably going to anchor me in some ways compared not simply to others, but to myself in other projects, but for me that’s not actually a bug but a feature.

I actually want to see how I end up with a different order from a different starting point, not because such differences add to the stature of my prior rankings, but because it allows me to better understand the limitations in my endgame analysis.

If my X vs Y order differs by method, I want to study how that comes to be.

And in terms of it being seen as potentially ridiculous to have a particular order, well, so be it. I’d rather be judged ridiculous by others than to simply parrot what popular consensus is.

Of course, I’d much rather people just respond with specific logical points that sincerely seek to rebut me than to have people just bringing me up to dismiss my process based on potential results, and so I’d say to the more-than-one poster doing this right now:

Be curious, not judgmental, if you can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doctor MJ]

It is just my opinion but we may lean too much on RAPM if we are to consider Steve Nash over Shaq.

There are other reasons to consider Nash highly, but few to consider him above Shaq.

I expect Nash to start getting some love after "The Big 6" (KG, Duncan, Shaq, Curry, Jokic, LeBron).

So, im going to respond in the nested quote because that seems like the best starting point for describing the the dialogue emerging in response to my voting posts as I see it, and I also want to emphasize that this is not meant to be directed at any one person.

I started with a stat that happens to put Nash and others over Shaq, and then went about explaining how Shaq came out on top based on my reasoning.

People took that and responded not to issues in my reasoning - which again, led to me agreeing with them in my ranking conclusion - but to the fact that a) I even talked about a guy here or b) I put forth a stat as a starting point that deviated from their ranking conclusion.

And to that I’d say:

A) it should never be a problem to talk about a player if we’re all trying to be rational, and the less qualified a player is, it should make it easier for people to explain how their own method why - and thus if they are responding instead with posts looking to discredit the author, keep in mind that that is what they are doing with that post instead of potentially giving on-topic insight.

B) they are criticizing me not for my conclusion, which again agrees with theirs, but with me giving reasoning to get there from a starting point they don’t want to use as a starting point, and for some, seem to see the all-in-one nature of the stat as something that makes it and ending point.

But it’s just a place to start, and all of us are starting from somewhere, and what each of those “wheres” have in common is that they are some distance away from our ending point, with that gap then bridged by reasoning.

Not saying everyone lays all this out in their posts from first principles of course, nor even that putting it into words can be expected to capture the entirety of a process that has significant sub-conscious links in the chain.

But for every poster, there is a path they’ve taken to come to the conclusions they present here in this project, and frankly I like it when people simply make clear where they’re coming from and we ca. identify where our perspectives diverge.

I also like seeing a diversity of perspectives well-mapped out as I think capturing some constellation of thinking is really what a project like this ends doing for a curious future reader, and I’ve tried to be explicit clear about my approach for this project to that end. If there are questions - sincere please, I’m not pledging to reply to snark - that remain because of my continued failure to be clear enough, I hope folks feel comfortable asking me.

Cheers,
Doc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[homecourtloss]

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Every once in a while, I go and see what the general board is talking about, and all I can say is that I am so, so thankful for this specific sub-forum to exist.

[babyjax13]

I am not going to reinvent the wheel here, in the spoiler is my rational for my top-4 and I am going to be voting for the two that did not make it, Jokic and Curry! Shaq is really close for me, so it is hard to leave him off. This thread is, once again, a really great read!

3. 2022-23 Jokic: championship, MVP runner up, FMVP // 70.1% TS, 13.0 BPM
Laying my cards on the table, I do think Jokic has had the best 5-year stretch I've ever seen, and I am not sure it is over. The only player to really touch him since I've watched basketball seriously (03-04 to the present) is LeBron. There are several seasons to choose from, but given the poor supporting cast relative to many other championships and the individual dominance he showed in both the regular season and the playoffs, I think this is the one to pick. I do have LeBron's incredible longevity and cultural impact giving him an edge, and I do think that longevity matters a lot when talking about best primes, best players, and how to view specific players. But Jokic may have the second longest stretch of dominant basketball in the 2000-2025 era.

4. 2015-16 Curry: championship runner-up, MVP // 66.9% TS, 11.9 BPM
I really wanted to pick a championship year for Steph, but I think this season is the best we ever saw him and it was part of an era defining run. I think Curry, Nash, Dirk, Pop, Carlisle, and D'Antoni are primarily responsible for the stylistic changes we have seen in the NBA from 2000-2025.

5. Shaq 2000-2001: championship, 3rd in MVP, FMVP // 57.4% TS, 7.7 BPM
I am giving Shaq a bit of extra credit because of the dominant playoff run by the Lakers. He had a great regular season where he was more durable than typical Shaq years, and his raw stats from the playoffs (30/15/3 +2.4b) are gaudy.

**I am torn for my next player, but I am going to softly add 13-14 Durant, I am torn between that and 15-16 because of his playoffs, or a Garnett or Giannis season***
6. Durant 2013-14: WCF, MVP // 63.5% TS, 10.9 BPM
13-14 is the best we've seen Durant in the regular season, and I think 15-16 is the best we have seen him in the playoffs. He thrived off the attention Curry and Klay took up in Golden State, so in some ways I feel like comparing Durant to himself gets a little difficult when his efficiency and impact stats in the playoffs are better in Golden State because of how he was able to play off of guys. He also had better coaching and a better system. But, my eyes told me that in 13-14 and 15-16 Durant was the best player in the NBA. Durant's 13-14 is the second best LEBRON WAR season in their database (2010-present) behind only LeBron in 2009-10 and 12-13. Most of DARKO/LEBRON/RAPM say that Durant should be the next layer down below Garnett, Duncan, Shaq, Curry, Giannis, Jokic, LeBron, and Paul - so I am probably wrong to put Durant here and it should be either Garnett or Giannis. I will think more about it, but if I am not able to get back to it I do think Durant is good enough to deserve at least one person advocating that he have a season in the top 6 of the top-25 from 2001-2025.

Spoiler:

Logic:

1. I agree that longevity matters. We can't have too much confidence that a player who had a 30 game stretch of amazing basketball that inflated stats for a 50 game season would have kept it up through the course of an entire season.

2. Their play should have, in some way, pushed the boundaries of what was possible during their era. In effect, the peak should be era defining. This is subjective, but I think it is a narrow list of candidates.

3. They should grade out relatively well on advance metrics. I will rely on BPM and VORP because they are easily available, crude proxies of impact, but they also are not nothing and I think over a long stretch (i.e., a 3 year peak) they are less noisy.

4. The "peak" needs to be more than one season. It can either include one incredible, era defining season, and some really good ones, or a lot that are amazing seasons (so, the difference between Duncan and Shaq). I will be looking at 5 year stretches, but some guys it could be argued have longer primes (e.g., LeBron 2008-2018), and some guys shorter primes ... while others are in the middle of theirs (I think there is a good chance Jokic is considered one of the 5 best players in NBA history when he retires).

5. Once I choose my top-4, 5 year stretches, I will choose the best season of each player from that stretch. For some players this might omit an arguably better season - so it comes down to how you identify a "peak." I will prioritize years with championships over years without, so some may be slightly different than what a player's best individual regular season is.

So, best 5-year streches

1. Jokic, 2020-2025: 3 MVPs, 2 MVP runner ups, 1 championship, BPM from +12.1 to +13.7, 5 year VORP of 47.8
2. LeBron, 2008-2013: 4 MVPs, 2 championships, BPM from +8.1 to +13.2, 5 year VORP of 47.4
3. Curry, 2014-2019: 2 MVPs, 3 championships, BPM from +6.9 to +11.9, 5 year VORP of 32.4
4. Duncan, 2000-2005: 2 MVPs, 2 MVP runner ups, 2 championships, BPM from +4.7 to +8.5, 5 year VORP of 27.8

I am set on Jokic/LeBron/Curry as top 4 for this exercise, after that I think it is pretty philosophical. I do think, though, that Shaq's 2000-2001 playoffs are so dominant that I may bump him over Duncan for my final ranking.

Missed the cut

Spoiler:

Giannis, 2018-2023: 2 MVPs, 1 championship, BPM from +8.5 to +11.5, 5 year VORP of 32.4
Kobe, 2005-2010: 1 MVP, 1 MVP runner up, 2 championships, BPM from +4.1 to +7.6, 5 year VORP of 30.7
Dirk, 2006-2011: 1 MVP, 1 championship, BPM from +3.4 to +8.3, 5 year VORP of 26.8
Garnett, 2003-2008: 1 MVP, 1 championship, BPM from +5.4 to +10.2, 5 year VORP of 38.0
Durant, 2009-2014: 1 MVP, 3 MVP runner ups, 0 championships, BPM from +4.9 to +10.2, 5 year VORP of 38.3
Shaq, 1999-2004: 1 MVP, 3 championships, BPM from +4.8 to +9.3, 5 year VORP of 31.8
Harden, 2014-2019: 1 MVP, 3 MVP runner ups, 0 championships, BPM from +6.6 to +11.0, 5 year VORP of 39.1

Other honorable mentions: Nash, Wade, SGA, Paul, Westbrook, AD, Kawhi, Kidd, Pau, Embiid, Rose, Westbrook

Top 4:
1. LeBron (11-12): championship, MVP, FMVP // 60.5% TS, 10.9 BPM
I think most people will pick 08-09, and certainly from a statistical perspective it is a better season. The reality is, LeBron has been so good for so long that there are several seasons you could put into a list of the top 25 seasons of all time. I've favored his first championship because I think he was just as individually dominant as he was in 08-09, but obviously balanced that with two other incredible players. LeBron was also a top-5 player for about a 15 year stretch, so accounting for the level of individual dominance he showed with less help AND that long, long stretch of incredible basketball (and he is still unbelievable) and I think he has to be here.

2. Nikola Jokic (22-23): championship, MVP runner up, FMVP // 70.1% TS, 13.0 BPM
Laying my cards on the table, I do think Jokic has had the best 5-year stretch I've ever seen, and I am not sure it is over. The only player to really touch him since I've watched basketball seriously (03-04 to the present) is LeBron. There are several seasons to choose from, but given the poor supporting cast relative to many other championships and the individual dominance he showed in both the regular season and the playoffs, I think this is the one to pick. I do have LeBron's incredible longevity and cultural impact giving him an edge, and I do think that longevity matters a lot when talking about best primes, best players, and how to view specific players. But Jokic may have the second longest stretch of dominant basketball in the 2000-2025 era.

3. Curry (15-16): runner-up, MVP // 66.9% TS, 11.9 BPM
I really wanted to pick a championship year for Steph, but I think this season is the best we ever saw him and it was part of an era defining run. I think Curry, Nash, Dirk, Pop, Carlisle, and D'Antoni are primarily responsible for the stylistic changes we have seen in the NBA from 2000-2025.

4. Duncan (02-03): championship, MVP, FMVP // 56.4% TS, 7.9 BPM
I went back and forth on Shaq and Duncan, but ultimately Duncan has more longevity and I do think his impact exceeds both box-score and a lot of +/- stats. His season is also coming from another era of basketball, but he remained an all-NBA caliber player even as the stylistic shift of 7-seconds to Curry took effect. It might not be popular (or perhaps even right, given his two-way impact) to have him below Steph, but Steph is so era defining that I have him 3rd.

Happy to see pushback against this, as I know this is a bit less technical than the PC board often is![/quote]

[iggymcfrack]

Kinda funny that the discussion for the #3 peak of the century has and been based around... Garnett vs Kobe vs Wade and Curry vs The 20th Best Peak Of The Century James Harden? What about Shaq, what about Jokic?

Indeed! Speaking of which, how do you (or others) see the defensive comparison between Shaq and Jokic?

I assume people have Jokic better offensively, although the relative gap on both sides might differ from person to person.

Don't think anyone answered this so I thought I would. I feel like if we were looking at Shaq's 99/00 season, there would be a very meaningful difference in defense as that's the one year he was a force on both ends of the court. Looking at the 2001 or 2002 season, though? I don't think there's any significant difference at all. They're both a little bit above average. Like I'm not even sure who's even better. Jokic shows more consistent regular season impact, but also might be easier to target in the playoffs. Basically, it's close enough I wouldn't really consider it. It's like trying to decide whether Reggie Miller was a better defender than Ray Allen. Neither one's having much impact, positively or negatively.

[70sFan]

Apologies for lack of the summary, but I have very serious personal situation this day. I will try to finish the voting late today, but I can't promise.

[Jaivl]

Kinda funny that the discussion for the #3 peak of the century has and been based around... Garnett vs Kobe vs Wade and Curry vs The 20th Best Peak Of The Century James Harden? What about Shaq, what about Jokic?

Indeed! Speaking of which, how do you (or others) see the defensive comparison between Shaq and Jokic?

I assume people have Jokic better offensively, although the relative gap on both sides might differ from person to person.

Don't think anyone answered this so I thought I would. I feel like if we were looking at Shaq's 99/00 season, there would be a very meaningful difference in defense as that's the one year he was a force on both ends of the court. Looking at the 2001 or 2002 season, though? I don't think there's any significant difference at all. They're both a little bit above average. Like I'm not even sure who's even better. Jokic shows more consistent regular season impact, but also might be easier to target in the playoffs. Basically, it's close enough I wouldn't really consider it. It's like trying to decide whether Reggie Miller was a better defender than Ray Allen. Neither one's having much impact, positively or negatively.

And I totally forgot about it

I think Shaq is better, but by virtue of playing on a more favourable era alone. He provides a real and tangible intimidation factor (2001+2002, teams went from 31% to 25% shots attempted at the rim without/with him on the court), while Jokic is an average rim protector at best. Not like he added anything else to a defense, and for such an athletic specimen he was ridiculously slow-footed on the perimeter, but I think it's enough.

[Joao Saraiva]

You misquoted but I'll adress. I'm not saying the data isn't good or correct, I just take exception trough analyzing something with one stat alone. I don't view it as KG doesn't have a case as I stated previously, but I just don't see it as definite proof either.

All the data I have presented suggests Garnett was clearly a better floor raiser.

-Garnett had a worse 2nd option (not close really)
-Garnett has significantly better +/- data (and On/Off)
-Garnett has better box-score stats
-Garnett has better RAPM
-Garnett was better in the clutch than Kobe

I have quite literally, over the past 2 days, presented multiple cases as to why Garnett is better than Kobe as a floor raiser when comparing 2003 to 2006.

Do you simply not want this to be true and continue to bury your head in the sand with your ears plugged?

Or do you have something, anything, which you can contribute to provide evidence as to why Kobe would be better? I'm about as open as they come to discourse and discussion regarding this topic.

I'm looking forward to the next era as I will be pounding the Reggie Miller drum earlier than everyone else, but here I don't have a true horse in the race.

Kobe 06
35.4 PPG 5.3 RPG 4.5 APG 28 PER 55.9 ts% 22.4 WS/48 7.6 BPM

KG 03
23 PPG 13.4 RPG 6 APG 26.4 PER 55.3 ts% 22.5 WS/48 10 BPM

Seems to me like better box score stats... is not actually true. I'd say they are very similar. There's a 12 PPG gap and Kobe still owns ts%, and on that much volume that speaks loud as a #1 option and scorer.

[ReggiesKnicks]

You misquoted but I'll adress. I'm not saying the data isn't good or correct, I just take exception trough analyzing something with one stat alone. I don't view it as KG doesn't have a case as I stated previously, but I just don't see it as definite proof either.

All the data I have presented suggests Garnett was clearly a better floor raiser.

-Garnett had a worse 2nd option (not close really)
-Garnett has significantly better +/- data (and On/Off)
-Garnett has better box-score stats
-Garnett has better RAPM
-Garnett was better in the clutch than Kobe

I have quite literally, over the past 2 days, presented multiple cases as to why Garnett is better than Kobe as a floor raiser when comparing 2003 to 2006.

Do you simply not want this to be true and continue to bury your head in the sand with your ears plugged?

Or do you have something, anything, which you can contribute to provide evidence as to why Kobe would be better? I'm about as open as they come to discourse and discussion regarding this topic.

I'm looking forward to the next era as I will be pounding the Reggie Miller drum earlier than everyone else, but here I don't have a true horse in the race.

Kobe 06
35.4 PPG 5.3 RPG 4.5 APG 28 PER 55.9 ts% 22.4 WS/48 7.6 BPM

KG 03
23 PPG 13.4 RPG 6 APG 26.4 PER 55.3 ts% 22.5 WS/48 10 BPM

Seems to me like better box score stats... is not actually true. I'd say they are very similar. There's a 12 PPG gap and Kobe still owns ts%, and on that much volume that speaks loud as a #1 option and scorer.

After all the data I provided, after all the time I put in to show you a multitude of reasons Kobe wasn't the best at raising the floor of a bad team, you revert back to basic box-score stats?

I do know now to save myself time here.

[Owly]

All the data I have presented suggests Garnett was clearly a better floor raiser.

-Garnett had a worse 2nd option (not close really)
-Garnett has significantly better +/- data (and On/Off)
-Garnett has better box-score stats
-Garnett has better RAPM
-Garnett was better in the clutch than Kobe

I have quite literally, over the past 2 days, presented multiple cases as to why Garnett is better than Kobe as a floor raiser when comparing 2003 to 2006.

Do you simply not want this to be true and continue to bury your head in the sand with your ears plugged?

Or do you have something, anything, which you can contribute to provide evidence as to why Kobe would be better? I'm about as open as they come to discourse and discussion regarding this topic.

I'm looking forward to the next era as I will be pounding the Reggie Miller drum earlier than everyone else, but here I don't have a true horse in the race.

Kobe 06
35.4 PPG 5.3 RPG 4.5 APG 28 PER 55.9 ts% 22.4 WS/48 7.6 BPM

KG 03
23 PPG 13.4 RPG 6 APG 26.4 PER 55.3 ts% 22.5 WS/48 10 BPM

Seems to me like better box score stats... is not actually true. I'd say they are very similar. There's a 12 PPG gap and Kobe still owns ts%, and on that much volume that speaks loud as a #1 option and scorer.

After all the data I provided, after all the time I put in to show you a multitude of reasons Kobe wasn't the best at raising the floor of a bad team, you revert back to basic box-score stats?

I do know now to save myself time here.

Not my discussion but thoughts … up to participants if you want to engage. Always worth thinking about that so if one thinks it’s not worth doing so, often that can make sense.

Reggie’s Knicks does seem to state
“Garnett has better box-score stats”
As a part of their argument. So I can see one might reasonably wish to debate that particular plank.

Joao Saraiva posts the following slashlines with box composites

Kobe 06
35.4 PPG 5.3 RPG 4.5 APG 28 PER 55.9 ts% 22.4 WS/48 7.6 BPM

KG 03
23 PPG 13.4 RPG 6 APG 26.4 PER 55.3 ts% 22.5 WS/48 10 BPM

The thing is mileage can differ but … slashlines miss out significant chunks of the boxscore and league contexts can change especially for raw numbers.
So I’d be looking more at the 3 box-aggregates.
(based on the numbers given, Garnett “wins” two of the three though one of those is effectively a tie. But otoh I’d say the 2.4 BPM gap is larger than a 1.6 PER gap. So whlist open to being wrong, and understanding people place different weight on different numbers … I’d say the numbers above do support Garnett’s as the better boxscore insofar as these primarily box-based aggregate “all-in-one” are considered to be a fair reflection of “the boxscore” (otoh WS, BPM have a bit of a team level tilt to them too).
Is it such a gap that such a statement of Garnett as better boxscore is un-challengeable … no. And as I say one can weight it differently. It’s probably close enough across the three that I’d understand or be fine with someone broadly calling it a tie. That said, I’d be inclined to see KG’s as the better where giving all three equal weighting.

Now checking it … because 10 BPM seemed high for ’03 Garnett … the number given is wrong. 10.2 is ’04 whilst 8.4 is the number for ’03. So that BPM gap should be 0.8. And now (assuming other numbers given are correct) it really is marginal. I’d want to look closer at “equivalences” across the metrics and mileage will be more closely tied to which numbers one trusts – particularly because Kobe is an outlier in how he’s providing his value – massive scoring usage with good-ish efficiency.

“Kobe still owns TS%” is a more dubious contention, given separate from volume. Given the rule switch in between, and changes in league norms, league relative is a fairer comparison. Garnett ’03 is 107 TS+, whilst Kobe ’06 is 104.

[Top10alltime]

04 KG should be #3 really, extremely underrated player. Elite offensive player with his passing, mid-range scoring and screening. Better off-ball than Larry Bird.

Then we have guys like 16 Steph, 00 Shaq, 23 Jokic, and 23 Embiid. Later on, we got guys like 08 Kobe, 06 Wade, 17 Kawhi, 11 Dirk, 15 CP3, 22 Giannis, and 17 KD....

[One_and_Done]

04 KG should be #3 really, extremely underrated player. Elite offensive player with his passing, mid-range scoring and screening. Better off-ball than Larry Bird.

Then we have guys like 16 Steph, 00 Shaq, 23 Jokic, and 23 Embiid. Later on, we got guys like 08 Kobe, 06 Wade, 17 Kawhi, 11 Dirk, 15 CP3, and 17 KD....

You missed Giannis, who peaked above most of those guys.

[Top10alltime]

04 KG should be #3 really, extremely underrated player. Elite offensive player with his passing, mid-range scoring and screening. Better off-ball than Larry Bird.

Then we have guys like 16 Steph, 00 Shaq, 23 Jokic, and 23 Embiid. Later on, we got guys like 08 Kobe, 06 Wade, 17 Kawhi, 11 Dirk, 15 CP3, and 17 KD....

You missed Giannis, who peaked above most of those guys.

He didn't though, his offense isn't good enough.. No real half-court counters, only relies on drive and kick for passing, and OK scoring at BEST (30% mid-range nice counter)

But I guess you can put him in the Kobe tier.

[One_and_Done]

04 KG should be #3 really, extremely underrated player. Elite offensive player with his passing, mid-range scoring and screening. Better off-ball than Larry Bird.

Then we have guys like 16 Steph, 00 Shaq, 23 Jokic, and 23 Embiid. Later on, we got guys like 08 Kobe, 06 Wade, 17 Kawhi, 11 Dirk, 15 CP3, and 17 KD....

You missed Giannis, who peaked above most of those guys.

He didn't though, his offense isn't good enough.. No real half-court counters, only relies on drive and kick for passing, and OK scoring at BEST (30% mid-range nice counter)

But I guess you can put him in the Kobe tier.

He is vastly more impactful than Kobe on both ends.

[Top10alltime]

You missed Giannis, who peaked above most of those guys.

He didn't though, his offense isn't good enough.. No real half-court counters, only relies on drive and kick for passing, and OK scoring at BEST (30% mid-range nice counter)

But I guess you can put him in the Kobe tier.

He is vastly more impactful than Kobe on both ends.

How when Kobe clears Giannis in the HC on offense (better scorer and playmaker while Giannis has no value in the HC). Kobe has a better handle, has more of a passing bag, is less schemable having many counters (Giannis has 0 half-court counters ).

He also limits his teammates offensively, something Kobe didn't do. I'd compare Giannis to DROB on offense, while Kobe is clearing on O, being in that CP3/Dirk tier on offense.

The thing that puts Giannis in the same tier as Kobe, is defense, but we didn't see that level of defense in 2022. So, using the facts...

Kobe is in the same tier as Giannis for peaks. Kobe is vastly better on offense, while Giannis is vastly better on defense.

[One_and_Done]

He didn't though, his offense isn't good enough.. No real half-court counters, only relies on drive and kick for passing, and OK scoring at BEST (30% mid-range nice counter)

But I guess you can put him in the Kobe tier.

He is vastly more impactful than Kobe on both ends.

How when Kobe clears Giannis in the HC on offense (better scorer and playmaker while Giannis has no value in the HC). Kobe has a better handle, has more of a passing bag, is less schemable having many counters (Giannis has 0 half-court counters ).

He also limits his teammates offensively, something Kobe didn't do. I'd compare Giannis to DROB on offense, while Kobe is clearing on O, being in that CP3/Dirk tier on offense.

The thing that puts Giannis in the same tier as Kobe, is defense, but we didn't see that level of defense in 2022. So, using the facts...

Kobe is in the same tier as Giannis for peaks. Kobe is vastly better on offense, while Giannis is vastly better on defense.

I hear a lot of this talk about “such and such player was more skilled”, etc, and it’s just irrelevant. All that matters is your ability to impact winning. If you can do that without a high level of skill, then good for you. You don’t get extra points because your basket was “more skillfully” scored. Who is more “skilled”; Shaq or Mugsy Bogues? You could point to all these different elements and say “Earl Boykins has a better handle, is a better passer, better shooter, etc”, but at the end of the day it’s completely irrelevant because Shaq doesn’t need all that stuff to be a dominant offensive force. “Skill” comparisons are usually just an attempt to disguise the fact that the more “skilled” player (whatever that means) was actually the worse player. Allen Iverson and Kobe are classic examples of this. Like, who cares how many moves Kobe has, if Shaq can pull off the same couple of moves to reliably score at a higher rate because he’s unstoppable?

Giannis is the modern Shaq on offense, and the archetype of the ideal defensive 4 of defensive. I could compare their stats, but it would be redundant because of how much better Giannis would look per100. As I noted earlier in the thread, Giannis has a good record elevating and floor raising his teams. Kobe does not. Kobe’s elaborate moves did nothing to help his team win games. Maybe he should have focused less on showy moves, and more on making effective and efficient plays. You assert Giannis is stoppable in the halfcourt, and while that is certainly an area Giannis could do better in, how stoppable did he look in 2021? Peak Giannis was pretty darn unstoppable, and that’s what this is about. Peak Giannis. Not Giannis when he has a back injury or something.

You say Kobe “didn’t limit his team mates offensively”. There are literal books written about how Kobe’s selfish play style hurt his team and team mates all the time. Phil Jackson makes it the major thrust of 2 of his books… and that’s coming from his own coach, who in those books cites dozens of Kobe’s team mates and coaches making the same point. Kobe’s selfishness is well documented.

You also then compare Kobe to CP3 and Dirk on offense, which is also crazily wrong. Both those guys were much better players than Kobe on offense, and it would be easy to cite stats that show that. No matter what stats you favour, Kobe loses by an embarrassing degree to guys like CP3 on offense, and also loses on logic because of course the guy who lifts your whole team’s offense to elite levels is going to be more valuable on offense than an iso scorer.

[Top10alltime]

He is vastly more impactful than Kobe on both ends.

How when Kobe clears Giannis in the HC on offense (better scorer and playmaker while Giannis has no value in the HC). Kobe has a better handle, has more of a passing bag, is less schemable having many counters (Giannis has 0 half-court counters ).

He also limits his teammates offensively, something Kobe didn't do. I'd compare Giannis to DROB on offense, while Kobe is clearing on O, being in that CP3/Dirk tier on offense.

The thing that puts Giannis in the same tier as Kobe, is defense, but we didn't see that level of defense in 2022. So, using the facts...

Kobe is in the same tier as Giannis for peaks. Kobe is vastly better on offense, while Giannis is vastly better on defense.

I hear a lot of this talk about “such and such player was more skilled”, etc, and it’s just irrelevant. All that matters is your ability to impact winning. If you can do that without a high level of skill, then good for you. You don’t get extra points because your basket was “more skillfully” scored. Who is more “skilled”; Shaq or Mugsy Bogues? You could point to all these different elements and say “Earl Boykins has a better dribble, better handle, is a better passer, better shooter, etc”, but at the end of the day it’s completely irrelevant because Shaq doesn’t need all that stuff to be a dominant offensive force. “Skill” comparisons are usually just an attempt to disguise the fact that the more “skilled” player (whatever that means) was actually the worse player. Allen Iverson and Kobe are classic examples of this. Like, who cares how many moves Kobe has, if Shaq can pull off the same couple of moves to reliably score at a higher rate because he’s unstoppable?

Giannis is the modern Shaq on offense, and the archetype of the ideal defensive 4 of defensive. I could compare their stats, but it would be redundant because of how much better Giannis would look per100. As I noted earlier in the thread, Giannis has a good record elevating and floor raising his teams. Kobe does not. Kobe’s elaborate moves did nothing to help his team win games. Maybe he should have focused less on showy moves, and more on making effective and efficient plays. You assert Giannis is stoppable in the halfcourt, and while that is certainly an area Giannis could do better in, how stoppable did he look in 2021? Peak Giannis was pretty darn unstoppable, and that’s what this is about. Peak Giannis. Not Giannis when he has a back injury or something.

You say Kobe “didn’t limit his team mates offensively”. There are literal books written about how Kobe’s selfish play style hurt his team and team mates all the time. Phil Jackson makes it the major thrust of 2 of his books… and that’s coming from his own coach, who in those books cites dozens of Kobe’s team mates and coaches making the same point. Kobe’s selfishness is well documented.

You also then compare Kobe to CP3 and Dirk on offense, which is also crazily wrong. Both those guys were much better players than Kobe on offense, and it would be easy to cite stats that show that. No matter what stats you favour, Kobe loses by an embarrassing degree to guys like CP3 on offense, and also loses on logic because of course the guy who lifts your whole team’s offense to elite levels is going to be more valuable on offense than an iso scorer.

1. It is irrelevant to you, because you have no knowledge of basketball film, and have never touched a basketball in your life. The eye-test (showing which player is better in skill), is what you lack in these discussions. Therefore, you make the excuses you make.

The Shaq comparison? Looks like you must've gotten this stuff from Quora. I think I remember you.... that doesn't work on me unfortunately. Shaq's skillset was more reliable to his team than AI's. As for Kobe, there is a debate (mostly because Shaq's peak is very overrated).
And, yes, Kobe isn't that great in skillset. You can still hate Kobe while watching games, don't worry!

2. Giannis is actually not the modern Shaq on offense. He's far far worse than Shaq on offense (we can compare him to Ant or DROB on offense, and push him below Baylor or Garnett offensively). You have, again, no evidence for either the offensive or defensive end.

Also, you don't understand how to compare their stats fairly, sadly. Kobe floor rises teams like Giannis will ever do, in the 05-08 stretch (his teammates aren't that good). I'd like to see these stats please. Cause Kobe obviously lifted his team to a greatger extent, at least on offense.
Yes, I said Giannis is terrible HC player. And it has been like this for his ENTIRE career. No half-curt counters, just a transition merchant. This is why he will always be compared to DROB and Ant offensively, unless he gets better in HC offense.

3. In what way did he limit his teammates offensively?

4. Yep, the Kobe hate never stops. It doesn't matter if he scores 50 points per 75 on +30 rTS, you will always hate him to push Duncan.

I think, as Kobe is a top 20 playmaker all-time and a top 10 scorer all-time (no film analysis needed here, too much effort to waste on you), makes him at same tier of both on offense. I'm open to anything else suggesting CP3 and Dirk over Kobe offensively, though.

And, look at 2005-06. Kobe lifted his offense to an amazing level. Top 5-10 offensive floor raising year all-time.

[One_and_Done]

How when Kobe clears Giannis in the HC on offense (better scorer and playmaker while Giannis has no value in the HC). Kobe has a better handle, has more of a passing bag, is less schemable having many counters (Giannis has 0 half-court counters ).

He also limits his teammates offensively, something Kobe didn't do. I'd compare Giannis to DROB on offense, while Kobe is clearing on O, being in that CP3/Dirk tier on offense.

The thing that puts Giannis in the same tier as Kobe, is defense, but we didn't see that level of defense in 2022. So, using the facts...

Kobe is in the same tier as Giannis for peaks. Kobe is vastly better on offense, while Giannis is vastly better on defense.

I hear a lot of this talk about “such and such player was more skilled”, etc, and it’s just irrelevant. All that matters is your ability to impact winning. If you can do that without a high level of skill, then good for you. You don’t get extra points because your basket was “more skillfully” scored. Who is more “skilled”; Shaq or Mugsy Bogues? You could point to all these different elements and say “Earl Boykins has a better dribble, better handle, is a better passer, better shooter, etc”, but at the end of the day it’s completely irrelevant because Shaq doesn’t need all that stuff to be a dominant offensive force. “Skill” comparisons are usually just an attempt to disguise the fact that the more “skilled” player (whatever that means) was actually the worse player. Allen Iverson and Kobe are classic examples of this. Like, who cares how many moves Kobe has, if Shaq can pull off the same couple of moves to reliably score at a higher rate because he’s unstoppable?

Giannis is the modern Shaq on offense, and the archetype of the ideal defensive 4 of defensive. I could compare their stats, but it would be redundant because of how much better Giannis would look per100. As I noted earlier in the thread, Giannis has a good record elevating and floor raising his teams. Kobe does not. Kobe’s elaborate moves did nothing to help his team win games. Maybe he should have focused less on showy moves, and more on making effective and efficient plays. You assert Giannis is stoppable in the halfcourt, and while that is certainly an area Giannis could do better in, how stoppable did he look in 2021? Peak Giannis was pretty darn unstoppable, and that’s what this is about. Peak Giannis. Not Giannis when he has a back injury or something.

You say Kobe “didn’t limit his team mates offensively”. There are literal books written about how Kobe’s selfish play style hurt his team and team mates all the time. Phil Jackson makes it the major thrust of 2 of his books… and that’s coming from his own coach, who in those books cites dozens of Kobe’s team mates and coaches making the same point. Kobe’s selfishness is well documented.

You also then compare Kobe to CP3 and Dirk on offense, which is also crazily wrong. Both those guys were much better players than Kobe on offense, and it would be easy to cite stats that show that. No matter what stats you favour, Kobe loses by an embarrassing degree to guys like CP3 on offense, and also loses on logic because of course the guy who lifts your whole team’s offense to elite levels is going to be more valuable on offense than an iso scorer.

1. It is irrelevant to you, because you have no knowledge of basketball film, and have never touched a basketball in your life. The eye-test (showing which player is better in skill), is what you lack in these discussions. Therefore, you make the excuses you make.

The Shaq comparison? Looks like you must've gotten this stuff from Quora. I think I remember you.... that doesn't work on me unfortunately. Shaq's skillset was more reliable to his team than AI's. As for Kobe, there is a debate (mostly because Shaq's peak is very overrated).
And, yes, Kobe isn't that great in skillset. You can still hate Kobe while watching games, don't worry!

2. Giannis is actually not the modern Shaq on offense. He's far far worse than Shaq on offense (we can compare him to Ant or DROB on offense, and push him below Baylor or Garnett offensively). You have, again, no evidence for either the offensive or defensive end.

Also, you don't understand how to compare their stats fairly, sadly. Kobe floor rises teams like Giannis will ever do, in the 05-08 stretch (his teammates aren't that good). I'd like to see these stats please. Cause Kobe obviously lifted his team to a greatger extent, at least on offense.
Yes, I said Giannis is terrible HC player. And it has been like this for his ENTIRE career. No half-curt counters, just a transition merchant. This is why he will always be compared to DROB and Ant offensively, unless he gets better in HC offense.

3. In what way did he limit his teammates offensively?

4. Yep, the Kobe hate never stops. It doesn't matter if he scores 50 points per 75 on +30 rTS, you will always hate him to push Duncan.

I think, as Kobe is a top 20 playmaker all-time and a top 10 scorer all-time (no film analysis needed here, too much effort to waste on you), makes him at same tier of both on offense. I'm open to anything else suggesting CP3 and Dirk over Kobe offensively, though.

And, look at 2005-06. Kobe lifted his offense to an amazing level. Top 5-10 offensive floor raising year all-time.

If we’re now going to talk about what skillset is more “reliable”, Giannis wins that handily.

The reality is that Giannis game has translated to the playoffs. Ignoring Giannis recent injuries, etc, his peak PS numbers from 2020-22 per 100 are 40/18/8, on a TS% of 586. Those are great numbers. They are better than any numbers Kobe has ever produced over a 3 year stretch, or in any stretch really. They’re not as high as Giannis RS numbers of course, which from 20-25 have been 43/17/9 on a 626 TS%, but they’re way out of Kobe’s league.

From 00-10 Kobe’s per 100 RS numbers are 37/8/7 on 558 TS%, and his PS numbers are 35/7/7 on 545 TS%. He’s not in Giannis league offensively, and while Giannis isn’t putting in DPOY effort anymore on a night to night basis, he is still on another planet compared to Kobe.

Peak to peak, I don’t know what year Kobe has that is compared well to peak Giannis. If we take 2021 as Giannis peak, he put up 40-16-8 on 633 TS% in the RS, and 40-17-7 on 60% TS. in the playoffs. Kobe has only one season where he scored 40pp100 or more, and he only had a TS% of 559 that year. Giannis has scored 40-46pp100 each of the last 6 years, and his TS% in those years ranges from 61-65%. Kobe has never had a TS% that high in his entire career. His highest ever was 580, and that is an outlier. Looking at Kobe in 2006, his RS numbers per100 were 46-7-6 on 559 TS%, then in the playoffs the supposedly “less stoppable” Kobe dropped all the way down to 32-7-6 on 587 TS%. In fact, Kobe has a large number of playoff disappointments. It’s something he’s as well known for as his bad attitude with team mates.

In terms of floor raising, we covered this before but I’m happy to go again. So, the Bucks from 19-24 were 281-118 with him, but only 40-35 without him. That’s the difference between a 57 and 43 win team. Contrast that to Kobe without Shaq from 00-07, with a 135-137 record, and only 11-9 in 2008 in games without Pau or Bynum. With truly great players you can see their impact in the team results. Kobe only succeeded on teams that were already favourites, heck he was probably on 10 title favourite teams during his career.

As for how did Kobe limit his team mates offensively, it’s very well documented. Kobe was very uninterested in adapting his style to optimise what his team mates could do, and it led to numerous issues throughout his career. It drove Phil Jackson and Mike D crazy, and a long list of team mates who are quoted saying as much. Go read Phil Jackson’s books would be my advice.

The claim Kobe was a better offensive player than CP3 stems from a lack of understanding that how much you help an offense is not tied to how many ppg you average.