Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #7-#8 Spots

[iggymcfrack]

This is an utterly absurd thing to say. In the first round, Kawhi faced the best/healthiest version of the Embiid Sixers we’ve seen. Embiid played all 7 games AND they had Jimmy Butler as a go-to guy. The rest of the Raptors scored 67 PPG on .533 TS%. Kawhi scored 35 PPG on .634 TS% while also playing elite defense and hit one of the greatest buzzer beaters of all-time to narrowly win in 7. Even an elite scorer like Kobe would be lucky to win that series 1 time in 10.

Then in Round 2, Giannis was absolutely destroying the Raptors. The Bucks had a 2-0 lead despite Kawhi scoring 31 points each game on 2% better TS% than the team average in Game 1 and 17% better TS% than the team average in Game 2. So Kawhi takes on the 1-on-1 matchup and completely shuts him down. It’s annoying that I don’t have more complete stats, but I know that going into Game 6, Giannis shot 30% from the field when guarded by Kawhi which I have to imagine is worse than he did at any other point in his career. In addition, Kawhi was the leading scorer in 5 of the 6 games. Who else from the top 10-15 would be able to do that? Probably LeBron and KG, but that’s about it. I feel like Kobe wins that series 0 times out of 10.

FWIW, the Raptors were +34 with Kawhi on the floor vs. the Sixers and -28 with him on the bench while he averaged 40 MPG. Against the Bucks, the Raptors were +13 with Kawhi on the floor and -7 with him on the bench averaging 41 MPG.

I don't think a "swap Kawhi for x guy, everybody else has the exact same statline" approach is fair. Randomness aside, part of the point is that I don't think a Raptors cast lead by Nash/Paul/Harden/Kobe/Dirk/etc in place of Kawhi would only score 67 PPG on .533 TS%, for example.

@iggymcfrack: I think you're miscalculating that 53.3% for the rest of the Raptors. I'm getting 50.1% from pbpstats (exact TS%) and 50.6% from the approximate formula.

Anyway @Jaivl: you also would not have thought that a Raptors cast led by Kawhi would have only scored 67 PPG on poor efficiency as they did.

I'm sure you're right. I was just trying to plug the formula in on my phone for attempts for the rest of the team, but now that I look at it, the numbers I got don't really make sense.

[Cavsfansince84]

Was it not relatively impressive that the series even went to 7 games? I don't support 2006 here and I probably won't have Kobe in my ballot, but the Sun's were significantly better and nobody expected the series to be this close.

It can be seen as something of an overachievement by the Lakers to go up 3-1 and lose in 7 to the Suns but that wasn't entirely due to Kobe's greatness. When the Lakers won 2 in a row to go up 3-1 Kobe didn't actually lead them in scoring in either game. Then the Suns blew them out in game 5, the Lakers lose game 6 in ot despite Kobe putting up 50 and then get blown out in game 7. My point is that you can't just assume the series went 7 because of Kobe's heroics. Odom had a great series and even guys we don't think of as good players can sometimes step up and be good players in a 7 game series. Much like how the Spurs would usually have a bench player or two step up and do that. Sometimes we are in too much of a hurry on here to act like everything that goes into team success is because of the star players(not to point a finger at you in particular here, just making a point).

[iggymcfrack]

They also added a post-prime but still very good Marc Gasol, and... look at that roster. That's a superb supporting cast that happened to have a top 80? top 100? guy at the helm. Remember, Toronto DeRozan can't pass and doesn't have a midrange, that'll come around 2020.

2017+2018, they are a +7.5 (!!!!) team without DeRozan on the court, RS+playoffs. Playoffs only? Just a +7.4...

In terms of impressive things Kawhi has done, leading the Raptors to a title is quite low on my list. Almost any top 10-15 guy would have a great chance.

This is an utterly absurd thing to say. In the first round, Kawhi faced the best/healthiest version of the Embiid Sixers we’ve seen. Embiid played all 7 games AND they had Jimmy Butler as a go-to guy. The rest of the Raptors scored 67 PPG on .533 TS%. Kawhi scored 35 PPG on .634 TS% while also playing elite defense and hit one of the greatest buzzer beaters of all-time to narrowly win in 7. Even an elite scorer like Kobe would be lucky to win that series 1 time in 10.

Then in Round 2, Giannis was absolutely destroying the Raptors. The Bucks had a 2-0 lead despite Kawhi scoring 31 points each game on 2% better TS% than the team average in Game 1 and 17% better TS% than the team average in Game 2. So Kawhi takes on the 1-on-1 matchup and completely shuts him down. It’s annoying that I don’t have more complete stats, but I know that going into Game 6, Giannis shot 30% from the field when guarded by Kawhi which I have to imagine is worse than he did at any other point in his career. In addition, Kawhi was the leading scorer in 5 of the 6 games. Who else from the top 10-15 would be able to do that? Probably LeBron and KG, but that’s about it. I feel like Kobe wins that series 0 times out of 10.

FWIW, the Raptors were +34 with Kawhi on the floor vs. the Sixers and -28 with him on the bench while he averaged 40 MPG. Against the Bucks, the Raptors were +13 with Kawhi on the floor and -7 with him on the bench averaging 41 MPG.

I don't think a "swap Kawhi for x guy, everybody else has the exact same statline" approach is fair. Randomness aside, part of the point is that I don't think a Raptors cast lead by Nash/Paul/Harden/Kobe/Dirk/etc in place of Kawhi would only score 67 PPG on .533 TS%, for example.

So Kobe's the most similar player to Kawhi of those you listed in that he's a wing scorer rather than a PG or a big. For his career, Kobe had an AST% of 23.3% in the playoffs peaking at 26.9% in 2008 surrounded by good teammates. Against the Sixers, Kawhi had an AST% of 23.5%. What exactly is it about Kobe's game that makes you think the Raptors would have performed better with Kobe as their lead scoring wing instead of Kawhi? I don't see a single playoff series in Kobe's entire career where he scored better than Kawhi did against the Sixers in 2019.

[lessthanjake]

This is an utterly absurd thing to say. In the first round, Kawhi faced the best/healthiest version of the Embiid Sixers we’ve seen. Embiid played all 7 games AND they had Jimmy Butler as a go-to guy. The rest of the Raptors scored 67 PPG on .533 TS%. Kawhi scored 35 PPG on .634 TS% while also playing elite defense and hit one of the greatest buzzer beaters of all-time to narrowly win in 7. Even an elite scorer like Kobe would be lucky to win that series 1 time in 10.

Then in Round 2, Giannis was absolutely destroying the Raptors. The Bucks had a 2-0 lead despite Kawhi scoring 31 points each game on 2% better TS% than the team average in Game 1 and 17% better TS% than the team average in Game 2. So Kawhi takes on the 1-on-1 matchup and completely shuts him down. It’s annoying that I don’t have more complete stats, but I know that going into Game 6, Giannis shot 30% from the field when guarded by Kawhi which I have to imagine is worse than he did at any other point in his career. In addition, Kawhi was the leading scorer in 5 of the 6 games. Who else from the top 10-15 would be able to do that? Probably LeBron and KG, but that’s about it. I feel like Kobe wins that series 0 times out of 10.

FWIW, the Raptors were +34 with Kawhi on the floor vs. the Sixers and -28 with him on the bench while he averaged 40 MPG. Against the Bucks, the Raptors were +13 with Kawhi on the floor and -7 with him on the bench averaging 41 MPG.

I don't think a "swap Kawhi for x guy, everybody else has the exact same statline" approach is fair. Randomness aside, part of the point is that I don't think a Raptors cast lead by Nash/Paul/Harden/Kobe/Dirk/etc in place of Kawhi would only score 67 PPG on .533 TS%, for example.

@iggymcfrack: I think you're miscalculating that 53.3% for the rest of the Raptors. I'm getting 50.1% from pbpstats (exact TS%) and 50.6% from the approximate formula.

Anyway @Jaivl: you also would not have thought that a Raptors cast led by Kawhi would have only scored 67 PPG on poor efficiency as they did.

I’ll chime in on this briefly, since I think something I posted earlier about the 2019 Raptors was part of how this discussion started. I think if the Raptors cast led by Kawhi played the 76ers a hundred times, they’d almost always do better than those numbers. Just some bad variance, IMO. That said, if the 2019 Raptors supporting cast was amazing but also hit a random patch of bad variance in the playoffs and Kawhi still managed to win the title with them, then there’s a pretty good argument that that’s no less impressive than winning a title with somewhat lesser supporting cast. Which is to say that I simultaneously find Kawhi’s 2019 playoff run very impressive, but also think that the 2019 Raptors could’ve potentially won a title with a notably lesser player than Kawhi. If they’d hit the same random bad variance as they did in reality, then it’s unlikely. But I think that team was *capable* of winning with a notably lesser star player if the supporting cast played at or above their normal level.

It’s a bit of an academic point that’s inherently speculative though. In reality, Kawhi played great and, with how things actually played out, the Raptors did actually need him to be great in order to win the title. And I think 2019 Kawhi is going to end up on my ballot in significant part because of his playoff performance.

[iggymcfrack]

I don’t even know what to say when Kobe’s 2006 playoffs is invoked as something positive in a comparison with the other incredible candidates on the board. Kobe’s playoff scoring per 100 dropped from 46 all the way down to 32. More importantly, 06 is the playoffs where in game 7, after being criticised for not passing the ball enough, Kobe tried to “make a point” to his critics by refusing to shoot the ball in the 2nd half. This was much commented on at the time. Kobe shot 13 times in the 1st half, and only 3 times in the 2nd. Instead he made exaggerated efforts to pass early and often to his team mates, which effectively destroyed their offense. Kobe’s petulant actions helped his team lose the game. I can’t imagine how this kind of behavior, in a game 7, could be viewed as a positive.

Was it not relatively impressive that the series even went to 7 games? I don't support 2006 here and I probably won't have Kobe in my ballot, but the Sun's were significantly better and nobody expected the series to be this close.

Butler in 2023 took a team of Bam and 3 nothing starters to the NBA finals, in a much stronger NBA, and we have to hear about how Kobe supposedly showed more impact by taking a team with Lamar Odom to 45 wins and a 1st round exit. That is not even in the top 20 of carry jobs in a single season by a player. Butler alone has 3 more impressive efforts in 20, 22, and 23.

Butler teams were significantly more talented than 2006 Lakers and if you try to deny that then you're just showing why nobody takes your Kobe opinions seriously.

I don't find it impressive at all. Kobe had a BPM of 2.4 for the series and the Lakers had a point differential of -9.5 when Kobe was on the floor and +8.5 when he was on the bench. If anything, Odom and the bench made the series close despite Kobe having a worse series than many of the current candidates have ever had in their prime. I think you could make a strong case that Nash, Marion, Odom, and Diaw all outplayed Kobe individually in that series.

[One_and_Done]

Was it not relatively impressive that the series even went to 7 games? I don't support 2006 here and I probably won't have Kobe in my ballot, but the Sun's were significantly better and nobody expected the series to be this close.

It can be seen something of an overachievement by the Lakers to go up 3-1 and lose in 7 to the Suns but that wasn't entirely due to Kobe's greatness. When the Lakers won 2 in a row to go up 3-1 Kobe didn't actually lead them in scoring in either game. Then the Suns blew them out in game 5, the Lakers lose game 6 in ot despite Kobe putting up 50 and then get blown out in game 7. My point is that you can't just assume the series went 7 because of Kobe's heroics. Odom had a great series and even guys we don't think of as good players can sometimes step up and be good players in a 7 game series. Much like how the Spurs would usually have a bench player or two step up and do that. Sometimes we are in too much of a hurry on here to act like everything that goes into team success is because of the star players(not to point a finger at you in particular here, just making a point).

Lots of bad teams get hot or grind it out in random 1st round series. The 37 win Hawks pushed the 66 win Celtics to 7 games in 08, but while it was a fun series it didn't mean the Hawks were even close to the Celtics. In game 7 when the Celtics got serious they won by a million points. That somewhat mirrors the 06 Suns series, where the Suns came in and let their guard down, and fell into a 3-1 deficit. After they made adjustments and got serious they won the next 3 games by clear margins (including a 31 point game 7 blowout).

[falcolombardi]

Was it not relatively impressive that the series even went to 7 games? I don't support 2006 here and I probably won't have Kobe in my ballot, but the Sun's were significantly better and nobody expected the series to be this close.

It can be seen something of an overachievement by the Lakers to go up 3-1 and lose in 7 to the Suns but that wasn't entirely due to Kobe's greatness. When the Lakers won 2 in a row to go up 3-1 Kobe didn't actually lead them in scoring in either game. Then the Suns blew them out in game 5, the Lakers lose game 6 in ot despite Kobe putting up 50 and then get blown out in game 7. My point is that you can't just assume the series went 7 because of Kobe's heroics. Odom had a great series and even guys we don't think of as good players can sometimes step up and be good players in a 7 game series. Much like how the Spurs would usually have a bench player or two step up and do that. Sometimes we are in too much of a hurry on here to act like everything that goes into team success is because of the star players(not to point a finger at you in particular here, just making a point).

Lots of bad teams get hot or grind it out in random 1st round series. The 37 win Hawks pushed the 66 win Celtics to 7 games in 08, but while it was a fun series it didn't mean the Hawks were even close to the Celtics. In game 7 when the Celtics got serious they won by a million points. That somewhat mirrors the 06 Suns series, where the Suns came in and let their guard down, and fell into a 3-1 deficit. After they made adjustments and got serious they won the next 3 games by clear margins (including a 31 point game 7 blowout).

Would you use the same reasoning for boston/hawks with okc/denver series ?

Unironical question here

[One_and_Done]

It can be seen something of an overachievement by the Lakers to go up 3-1 and lose in 7 to the Suns but that wasn't entirely due to Kobe's greatness. When the Lakers won 2 in a row to go up 3-1 Kobe didn't actually lead them in scoring in either game. Then the Suns blew them out in game 5, the Lakers lose game 6 in ot despite Kobe putting up 50 and then get blown out in game 7. My point is that you can't just assume the series went 7 because of Kobe's heroics. Odom had a great series and even guys we don't think of as good players can sometimes step up and be good players in a 7 game series. Much like how the Spurs would usually have a bench player or two step up and do that. Sometimes we are in too much of a hurry on here to act like everything that goes into team success is because of the star players(not to point a finger at you in particular here, just making a point).

Lots of bad teams get hot or grind it out in random 1st round series. The 37 win Hawks pushed the 66 win Celtics to 7 games in 08, but while it was a fun series it didn't mean the Hawks were even close to the Celtics. In game 7 when the Celtics got serious they won by a million points. That somewhat mirrors the 06 Suns series, where the Suns came in and let their guard down, and fell into a 3-1 deficit. After they made adjustments and got serious they won the next 3 games by clear margins (including a 31 point game 7 blowout).

Would you use the same reasoning for boston/hawks with okc/denver series ?

Unironical question here

No. OKC was the better team that year (and the year before), and the Nuggets needed alot of rough shooting and clutch moments to even get the series to 7. Then in game 7 the Thunder won by a million. Or did you mean the Nuggets got lucky? In which case, a little... but they were also a far better team than the 06 Lakers or 08 Hawks.

[70sFan]

I don’t even know what to say when Kobe’s 2006 playoffs is invoked as something positive in a comparison with the other incredible candidates on the board. Kobe’s playoff scoring per 100 dropped from 46 all the way down to 32. More importantly, 06 is the playoffs where in game 7, after being criticised for not passing the ball enough, Kobe tried to “make a point” to his critics by refusing to shoot the ball in the 2nd half. This was much commented on at the time. Kobe shot 13 times in the 1st half, and only 3 times in the 2nd. Instead he made exaggerated efforts to pass early and often to his team mates, which effectively destroyed their offense. Kobe’s petulant actions helped his team lose the game. I can’t imagine how this kind of behavior, in a game 7, could be viewed as a positive.

Was it not relatively impressive that the series even went to 7 games? I don't support 2006 here and I probably won't have Kobe in my ballot, but the Sun's were significantly better and nobody expected the series to be this close.

Butler in 2023 took a team of Bam and 3 nothing starters to the NBA finals, in a much stronger NBA, and we have to hear about how Kobe supposedly showed more impact by taking a team with Lamar Odom to 45 wins and a 1st round exit. That is not even in the top 20 of carry jobs in a single season by a player. Butler alone has 3 more impressive efforts in 20, 22, and 23.

Butler teams were significantly more talented than 2006 Lakers and if you try to deny that then you're just showing why nobody takes your Kobe opinions seriously.

I don't find it impressive at all. Kobe had a BPM of 2.4 for the series and the Lakers had a point differential of -9.5 when Kobe was on the floor and +8.5 when he was on the bench. If anything, Odom and the bench made the series close despite Kobe having a worse series than many of the current candidates have ever had in their prime. I think you could make a strong case that Nash, Marion, Odom, and Diaw all outplayed Kobe individually in that series.

You focus on 7 games ON/OFF sample in a series when Kobe played 45 minutes. That's 32 minutes without Kobe. The reality is that Kobe had positive +/- in two of the three Lakers wins (playing 45 minutes in both) and -1 in the third win they won by one. I don't know how you came up with the idea that the Lakers bench units carried Kobe, but I have a suspicion that you haven't watch a single game from that series and just looked at basketball-reference page.

I wouldn't call Kobe's performance great by any stretch of imagination, but saying that he had "a worse series than many of the current candidates have ever had in their prime" is a bit ridiculous. Nobody expected Kobe to do anything in that series and the Lakers were competitive. Like yeah, you could expect more from him individually, but the idea that it's some kind of black mark on his resume is just silly.

I say this as someone who probably won't vote for Kobe yet and definitely wouldn't vote for 2006, but we have to be fair in our evaluations.

[One_and_Done]

RE: Butler's support cast was more impressive than Kobe in 06... yes, that's true enough. But the results Butler achieved are far more impressive too. When you factor in what Butler achieved in say 23, vs what Kobe did in 06, and weigh up the different contexts, Butler's accomplishment and impact are vastly more impressive.

Kobe had one all-star calibre guy in 06, so did Jimmy. Jimmy's Robin was more impressive, but it's not some huge chasm. Then the other 3 playoff starters on both teams were substandard. OK, Kobe's starters were a bit worse, but it's not some chasm. Old Kevin Love, Vincent, and Struss, were not starter calibre players.

[70sFan]

Dirk eFG%: +4.6%
Dirk Oreb%: +0.5%
Dirk AST%: +0.1%
Dirk TOV%: -0.7%
Dirk FTA/100: +5.0

Kobe eFG%: +3.4%
Kobe Oreb%: +2.1%
Kobe AST%: -10.1%
Kobe TOV%: -3.5%
Kobe FTA/100: +7.3

Giannis eFG%: +2.6%
Giannis Oreb%: -2.9%
Giannis AST%: +1.9%
Giannis TOV%: -0.1%
Giannis FTA/100: +5.7

Durant eFG%: +3.5%
Durant Oreb%: -1.5%
Durant AST%: -1.2%
Durant TOV%: +0.1%
Durant FTA/100: +7.3

Nash eFG%: +7.6%
Nash Oreb%: +0.7%
Nash AST%: +6.4%
Nash TOV%: -0.2%
Nash FTA/100: +0.6

CP3 eFG%: +7.9%
CP3 Oreb%: +7.8%
CP3 AST%: +3.6%
CP3 TOV%: -2.2%
CP3 FTA/100: +7.8

A few questions for the data interpretation:

1. I am surprised how Giannis stacks up to the rest in terms of FTA/100. You might guess he'd have far bigger influence on that, but maybe that's because his style turns the rest of his teammates more into a spotup shooters. What do you think? I also don't like that Giannis has a very negative influence on ORB%.

2. Durant being the only one with negative influence (barely, but still) on TOV% is the evidence that my stance on KD is right in that regard. Could you provide the data for Harden, Embiid and Shai for comparison?

3. Is it just a noise that CP3 has such a massive influence on ORB%? Do you have any idea why it could be more than just a noise?

[70sFan]

At his peak he was aptly nicknamed Robo-Jordan, because he was a better version of MJ.

I don't think he was ever called that way in bigger audience and it's certainly not because of the bolded

Kawhi also stands out as a guy who has no real weaknesses. He gives you a better version of Jordan on offense, and a better version of Pippen on defence. That’s an insane combination.

He wasn't anywhere near close to either, that's just a massive exaggeration.

Compared to Dirk or Kobe, who often had great teams around them and came up short, the failures of the Bucks under Giannis have been eminently explainable. Pretty much every year they lost there were injuries or stronger opponents (or both).

I don't think you can explain 2020 loss with the injury, considering that it happened when the Heat were winning 3-0...

The reality is that Giannis game has translated to the playoffs. Ignoring Giannis recent injuries, etc, his peak numbers from 2020-22 per 100 are 40/18/8, on a TS% of 586. Those are great numbers.

These averages are heavily influenced by the series against horrible defensive teams like 2021 Hawks, 2021 Nets, 2022 Bulls etc. If you take a look at his numbers against the good defensive teams he faced, they don't look nearly as amazing:

2019 vs Celtics: 28.4/10.8/5.2 with 2.8 tov on 62.5 TS%
2019 vs Raptors: 22.7/13.5/5.5 with 4.2 tov on 51.8 TS%
2020 vs Heat (first 3 games): 22.7/13.3/7.0 with 3.7 tov on 50.5 TS%
2021 vs Heat: 23.5/15.0/7.8 with 3.0 tov on 49.7 TS%
2021 vs Suns: 35.2/13.2/5.0 with 2.3 tov on 65.8 TS%
2022 vs Celtics: 33.9/14.7/7.1 with 5.1 tov on 51.6 TS%

Not all of these series are bad of course, but I definitely wouldn't rave about these numbers.

[One_and_Done]

You can explain every loss for Giannis after they won the title I mean.

As for Jordan, I'm not sure he was at all better than Kawhi in a peak comparison. Despite playing in a much weaker league, Jordan's numbers still look worse.

91 MJ RS per100: 43/8/7 on 60 TS%
91 MJ PS per 100: 42/8/11 on 60 TS%

He's scoring a little more, on worse efficiency, while being a worse defensive player. In today's league, with his 3pt disadvantage, and stronger opponents, the difference would ve even more slanted to Kawhi.

[70sFan]

You can explain every loss for Giannis after they won the title I mean.

As for Jordan, I'm not sure he was at all better than Kawhi in a peak comparison. Despite playing in a much weaker league, Jordan's numbers still look worse.

91 MJ RS per100: 43/8/7 on 60 TS%
91 MJ PS per 100: 42/8/11 on 60 TS%

He's scoring a little more, on worse efficiency, while being a worse defensive player. In today's league, with his 3pt disadvantage, and stronger opponents, the difference would ve even more slanted to Kawhi.

We're not talking about Jordan here, so I will not continue this, but I find it amusing that you keep talking about "context" and all, but in the end all you provide is per100 slashlines with TS%.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Dirk eFG%: +4.6%
Dirk Oreb%: +0.5%
Dirk AST%: +0.1%
Dirk TOV%: -0.7%
Dirk FTA/100: +5.0

Kobe eFG%: +3.4%
Kobe Oreb%: +2.1%
Kobe AST%: -10.1%
Kobe TOV%: -3.5%
Kobe FTA/100: +7.3

Giannis eFG%: +2.6%
Giannis Oreb%: -2.9%
Giannis AST%: +1.9%
Giannis TOV%: -0.1%
Giannis FTA/100: +5.7

Durant eFG%: +3.5%
Durant Oreb%: -1.5%
Durant AST%: -1.2%
Durant TOV%: +0.1%
Durant FTA/100: +7.3

Nash eFG%: +7.6%
Nash Oreb%: +0.7%
Nash AST%: +6.4%
Nash TOV%: -0.2%
Nash FTA/100: +0.6

CP3 eFG%: +7.9%
CP3 Oreb%: +7.8%
CP3 AST%: +3.6%
CP3 TOV%: -2.2%
CP3 FTA/100: +7.8

A few questions for the data interpretation:

1. I am surprised how Giannis stacks up to the rest in terms of FTA/100. You might guess he'd have far bigger influence on that, but maybe that's because his style turns the rest of his teammates more into a spotup shooters. What do you think? I also don't like that Giannis has a very negative influence on ORB%.

I assume it is because so often he is surrounded with 4-out spacing and Giannis hogs the paint and rim attempts for his teams.

Giannis simply doesn't have strong offensive impact indicators, which is why to me as his defense begins to slip in 2023 his overall impact starts to stray from being in this discussion to not being in the discussion at all. It is also why Jokic seems to have separated himself from Giannis in 2023 to current day.

I also want to preface this by saying these numbers aren't drastic. A 0.1% change is not meaningful in any way and should be viewed as neutral. However, once you start getting in 1% or 2% and greater, those to me are indicators of something happening of importance and isn't just noise, especially if you look at stretches of seasons and the sample size approaches 5,000 minutes.

2. Durant being the only one with negative influence (barely, but still) on TOV% is the evidence that my stance on KD is right in that regard. Could you provide the data for Harden, Embiid and Shai for comparison?

RE Durant: I don't think he is negative in both 2013 and 2014 regarding TOV% and his only positive impact appears to be scoring efficiency. This falls in line with how I have thought of Durant during his best Thunder days--an amazing scorer who isn't high-level at other offensive components but truthfully his scoring is at such a level where he is still in consideration here.

Harden 2020
Harden eFG%: +0.0%
Harden Oreb%: +4.3%
Harden AST%: +1.0%
Harden TOV%: +0.1%
Harden FTA/100: +4.1

Embiid 2023
Embiid eFG%: +3.5%
Embiid Oreb%: -5.1%
Embiid AST%: +8.0%
Embiid TOV%: -0.6%
Embiid FTA/100: +6.9

SGA 2025
SGA eFG%: +2.8%
SGA Oreb%: +2.0%
SGA AST%: -6.7%
SGA TOV%: -2.5%
SGA FTA/100: +3.9

SGA and Embiid come away looking very good. In fact, SGA's and Embiid's profiles match how I view them. Embiid is going to have a lower Oreb% due to him, the center, playing so far from the rim. SGA having his offensive lift come from turnover economy and there being less assists goes hand-in-hand with his isolation style.

Harden is always lethargic in comparison to anyone we are considering here in +/- family. Now, that has always strikes me as odd, because he dominates the ball so much I always assume there needs to be some strong signals in some capacity for him but there never is. Even the argument he split time with some of his best players which affects his On/Off doesn't explain why his On numbers aren't blowing me away.

3. Is it just a noise that CP3 has such a massive influence on ORB%? Do you have any idea why it could be more than just a noise?

It is noise. He was also at +3.5% in 2017 and neutral for the rest of his Clippers seasons and probably due to DeAndre Jordan. DeAndre Jordan played 91% of his minutes with CP3 in 2015.

Speaking of DeAndre Jordan and Chris Paul, here is their +/- together in 2015.

CP3+DeAndre: +14.9 in 2560 minutes

[ReggiesKnicks]

I don't think a "swap Kawhi for x guy, everybody else has the exact same statline" approach is fair. Randomness aside, part of the point is that I don't think a Raptors cast lead by Nash/Paul/Harden/Kobe/Dirk/etc in place of Kawhi would only score 67 PPG on .533 TS%, for example.

@iggymcfrack: I think you're miscalculating that 53.3% for the rest of the Raptors. I'm getting 50.1% from pbpstats (exact TS%) and 50.6% from the approximate formula.

Anyway @Jaivl: you also would not have thought that a Raptors cast led by Kawhi would have only scored 67 PPG on poor efficiency as they did.

I’ll chime in on this briefly, since I think something I posted earlier about the 2019 Raptors was part of how this discussion started. I think if the Raptors cast led by Kawhi played the 76ers a hundred times, they’d almost always do better than those numbers. Just some bad variance, IMO. That said, if the 2019 Raptors supporting cast was amazing but also hit a random patch of bad variance in the playoffs and Kawhi still managed to win the title with them, then there’s a pretty good argument that that’s no less impressive than winning a title with somewhat lesser supporting cast. Which is to say that I simultaneously find Kawhi’s 2019 playoff run very impressive, but also think that the 2019 Raptors could’ve potentially won a title with a notably lesser player than Kawhi. If they’d hit the same random bad variance as they did in reality, then it’s unlikely. But I think that team was *capable* of winning with a notably lesser star player if the supporting cast played at or above their normal level.

It’s a bit of an academic point that’s inherently speculative though. In reality, Kawhi played great and, with how things actually played out, the Raptors did actually need him to be great in order to win the title. And I think 2019 Kawhi is going to end up on my ballot in significant part because of his playoff performance.

A big component of the 2019 Raptors winning a title was due to injuries to Golden State. Have you ever considered that in your thought process since your thought process is heavily influenced by the results rather than the context?

[ReggiesKnicks]

So Kobe's the most similar player to Kawhi of those you listed in that he's a wing scorer rather than a PG or a big. For his career, Kobe had an AST% of 23.3% in the playoffs peaking at 26.9% in 2008 surrounded by good teammates. Against the Sixers, Kawhi had an AST% of 23.5%. What exactly is it about Kobe's game that makes you think the Raptors would have performed better with Kobe as their lead scoring wing instead of Kawhi? I don't see a single playoff series in Kobe's entire career where he scored better than Kawhi did against the Sixers in 2019.

Kobe's offensive impact tends to scale higher than Kawhi's and bleeds through more than Kawhi's.

2019 Kawhi PS: 39.2 Points/100 on 61.9 TS% (+6.9 rTS%)
2008 Kobe PS: 38.0 Points/100 on 57.7 TS% (+3.7 rTS%)
2009 Kobe PS: 39.0 Points/100 on 56.4 TS% (+2.0 rTS%)

At first glance Kawhi is more efficient than Kobe and the volumes are similar.

What the end result is here, in a small sample, is Kawhi boasting a 112.3 Ortg when on the court in the 2019 post-season.

2019 Kawhi PS: 112.3 Ortg (+1.9 rORTG)
2008 Kobe PS: 110.2 Ortg (+2.7 rORTG)
2009 Kobe PS: 112.3 Ortg (+4.0 rORTG)

Now, these sample sizes are small, but the indicators here are that, while Kawhi is a better scorer by a couple percentage points, Kobe's offenses are reaching higher levels of offense in the post-season.

Below are the defenses they faced

2019 Kawhi PS: ORL (8th), PHI (15th), MIL (1st), GSW (13th) = 10th Average
2008 Kobe PS: DEN (10th), Jazz (12th), Spurs (3rd), BOS (1st) = 6th Average
2009 Kobe PS: Utah (10th), HOU (4th), DEN (8th), ORL (1st) = 6th Average

And yet, through all this, Kobe led better offenses against better defenses.

[lessthanjake]

@iggymcfrack: I think you're miscalculating that 53.3% for the rest of the Raptors. I'm getting 50.1% from pbpstats (exact TS%) and 50.6% from the approximate formula.

Anyway @Jaivl: you also would not have thought that a Raptors cast led by Kawhi would have only scored 67 PPG on poor efficiency as they did.

I’ll chime in on this briefly, since I think something I posted earlier about the 2019 Raptors was part of how this discussion started. I think if the Raptors cast led by Kawhi played the 76ers a hundred times, they’d almost always do better than those numbers. Just some bad variance, IMO. That said, if the 2019 Raptors supporting cast was amazing but also hit a random patch of bad variance in the playoffs and Kawhi still managed to win the title with them, then there’s a pretty good argument that that’s no less impressive than winning a title with somewhat lesser supporting cast. Which is to say that I simultaneously find Kawhi’s 2019 playoff run very impressive, but also think that the 2019 Raptors could’ve potentially won a title with a notably lesser player than Kawhi. If they’d hit the same random bad variance as they did in reality, then it’s unlikely. But I think that team was *capable* of winning with a notably lesser star player if the supporting cast played at or above their normal level.

It’s a bit of an academic point that’s inherently speculative though. In reality, Kawhi played great and, with how things actually played out, the Raptors did actually need him to be great in order to win the title. And I think 2019 Kawhi is going to end up on my ballot in significant part because of his playoff performance.

A big component of the 2019 Raptors winning a title was due to injuries to Golden State. Have you ever considered that in your thought process since your thought process is heavily influenced by the results rather than the context?

Yep, I have. I think the Raptors probably would’ve lost to a healthy Warriors team. But the Warriors weren’t healthy, and there’s not usually a team out there as good as a healthy Durant Warriors, so I wouldn’t really say they were lucky not to face that. All things considered, I don’t think the 2019 Raptors had an easy path to the title, even if their Finals opponent was very weakened by injury. Anyways, the point about the supporting cast is basically just that that was a great supporting cast even for a title-winning team. My view on that is based in large part on looking at those guys’ careers in a broader perspective, rather than looking specifically at just 2019 in particular.

As for what this all means for 2019 Kawhi, I think others have pointed out that the Raptors supporting cast was not actually always playing their best throughout the run, and in reality they did actually need him to be great in the playoffs in order to win. So I think it was a very impressive run from him, even though I think his supporting cast was really strong. Given the injuries to the Warriors, I’m more impressed by Kawhi leading the Raptors past the Bucks than I am by what they did in the Finals. As I mentioned in a prior post, I think the 2019 Bucks are notably better than any team 2009 Kobe, 2021 Giannis, or 2025 SGA faced. Which actually weighs in my mind in terms of trying to rank these guys, even though I do think that Kawhi’s supporting cast was generally better than Kobe’s or Giannis’s (but not SGA’s).

[70sFan]

I assume it is because so often he is surrounded with 4-out spacing and Giannis hogs the paint and rim attempts for his teams.

Giannis simply doesn't have strong offensive impact indicators, which is why to me as his defense begins to slip in 2023 his overall impact starts to stray from being in this discussion to not being in the discussion at all. It is also why Jokic seems to have separated himself from Giannis in 2023 to current day.

Yeah, that's why I don't get it why some people vote for 2025 Giannis. He might be a better offensive player at this point (is this true? I wonder if there is any significant difference) but without elite defensive profile Gianni's just can't touch the other players in the conversation. He's clearly the weakest offensive player mentioned here (well, maybe except Butler but O_a_D mentions him only to trash Kobe, so I don't count him) and he really needs to juice up his defensive advantage to remain in the discussion.

RE Durant: I don't think he is negative in both 2013 and 2014 regarding TOV% and his only positive impact appears to be scoring efficiency. This falls in line with how I have thought of Durant during his best Thunder days--an amazing scorer who isn't high-level at other offensive components but truthfully his scoring is at such a level where he is still in consideration here.

Yeah, he's definitely worth consideration now. I always struggle to rank him vs Dirk, because from the quick look at the skillset Durant seems to be a more complete offensive player and a better defensive player, but Dirk clears him as an offensive anchor when you start going deeper.

Harden 2020
Harden eFG%: +0.0%
Harden Oreb%: +4.3%
Harden AST%: +1.0%
Harden TOV%: +0.1%
Harden FTA/100: +4.1

It's strange that Harden doesn't help his team efficiency. He also doesn't move turnover economy to either direction (again, barely negative). I think it's a little too early for Harden, but I can see him finishing around #15-17 spots.

Do the other Garden peak seasons (2018 and 2019) look similar?

Embiid 2023
Embiid eFG%: +3.5%
Embiid Oreb%: -5.1%
Embiid AST%: +8.0%
Embiid TOV%: -0.6%
Embiid FTA/100: +6.9

It all looks good, except the offensive rebounding. This one is tough, because some people don't value offensive rebounding much but to me your center shouldn't have such a negative influence on the rebounding, even if it's strategic thing.

SGA 2025
SGA eFG%: +2.8%
SGA Oreb%: +2.0%
SGA AST%: -6.7%
SGA TOV%: -2.5%
SGA FTA/100: +3.9

All looks good, Shai is amazing

SGA and Embiid come away looking very good. In fact, SGA's and Embiid's profiles match how I view them. Embiid is going to have a lower Oreb% due to him, the center, playing so far from the rim. SGA having his offensive lift come from turnover economy and there being less assists goes hand-in-hand with his isolation style.

I think the problem with Embiid is that he plays the way he does, but I don't think he has the same impact Dirk has on the geometry of the court. He's excellent shooter, but I don't think he's comparable stretch big to the best ones and I have concerns with his ISO game in the postseason. All of that combined with the extremely negative signal on the offensive rebounding and his constant injuries makes me leave him out of the top 15.

It is noise. He was also at +3.5% in 2017 and neutral for the rest of his Clippers seasons and probably due to DeAndre Jordan. DeAndre Jordan played 91% of his minutes with CP3 in 2015.

Speaking of DeAndre Jordan and Chris Paul, here is their +/- together in 2015.

CP3+DeAndre: +14.9 in 2560 minutes

Thank you!

[ReggiesKnicks]

I’ll chime in on this briefly, since I think something I posted earlier about the 2019 Raptors was part of how this discussion started. I think if the Raptors cast led by Kawhi played the 76ers a hundred times, they’d almost always do better than those numbers. Just some bad variance, IMO. That said, if the 2019 Raptors supporting cast was amazing but also hit a random patch of bad variance in the playoffs and Kawhi still managed to win the title with them, then there’s a pretty good argument that that’s no less impressive than winning a title with somewhat lesser supporting cast. Which is to say that I simultaneously find Kawhi’s 2019 playoff run very impressive, but also think that the 2019 Raptors could’ve potentially won a title with a notably lesser player than Kawhi. If they’d hit the same random bad variance as they did in reality, then it’s unlikely. But I think that team was *capable* of winning with a notably lesser star player if the supporting cast played at or above their normal level.

It’s a bit of an academic point that’s inherently speculative though. In reality, Kawhi played great and, with how things actually played out, the Raptors did actually need him to be great in order to win the title. And I think 2019 Kawhi is going to end up on my ballot in significant part because of his playoff performance.

A big component of the 2019 Raptors winning a title was due to injuries to Golden State. Have you ever considered that in your thought process since your thought process is heavily influenced by the results rather than the context?

Yep, I have. I think the Raptors probably would’ve lost to a healthy Warriors team. But the Warriors weren’t healthy, and there’s not usually a team out there as good as a healthy Durant Warriors, so I wouldn’t really say they were lucky not to face that. All things considered, I don’t think the 2019 Raptors had an easy path to the title, even if their Finals opponent was very weakened by injury. Anyways, the point about the supporting cast is basically just that that was a great supporting cast even for a title-winning team. My view on that is based in large part on looking at those guys’ careers in a broader perspective, rather than looking specifically at just 2019 in particular.

As for what this all means for 2019 Kawhi, I think others have pointed out that the Raptors supporting cast was not actually always playing their best throughout the run, and in reality they did actually need him to be great in the playoffs in order to win. So I think it was a very impressive run from him, even though I think his supporting cast was really strong. Given the injuries to the Warriors, I’m more impressed by Kawhi leading the Raptors past the Bucks than I am by what they did in the Finals. As I mentioned in a prior post, I think the 2019 Bucks are notably better than any team 2009 Kobe, 2021 Giannis, or 2025 SGA faced. Which actually weighs in my mind in terms of trying to rank these guys, even though I do think that Kawhi’s supporting cast was generally better than Kobe’s or Giannis’s (but not SGA’s).

The 2019 Milwaukee Bucks also shot on the low-end of the possible variance from 3P they could have as a team. If they shoot their average from open and wide-open 3's, the Milwaukee Bucks convincingly beat Toronto.

Food for thought regarding teammates and variance from series to series.