Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #9-#10 Spots

[Cavsfansince84]

In my view, Kawhi’s offense is pretty great, even without being a very good playmaker. The volume scorer + low turnover archetype is just very effective offensively IMO.

For reference, if we look at Kawhi’s ORAPM, his 5-year RAPM according to NBArapm in his prime offensive years (which I’d say started in 2017, meaning 2017-2021 would be the first span) range from 5.1 to 5.9. The average of his various five-year ORAPM values since that time has been 5.6. For reference, Chris Paul peaks slightly higher (his highest is 6.3), but his values for his prime (which I define as 2008-2018) is 5.5. Dirk’s five-year ORAPM values from 2002-2011 average 5.3, with a peak of 5.9. Kobe’s five-year ORAPM values from 2001-2011 average 5.6, with a peak of 6.5. Durant’s prime five-year ORAPM values peak out at 5.6 and average like 4.8. Kawhi slots in very well with this group, and actually looks amongst the best of the group (though they’re all very close). The very best offensive engines are above Kawhi, but those guys are all either already voted in or are significant negatives defensively (Nash and Harden). If Kawhi were a great passer, he’d surely be in that zone, but I think he is still a great offensive player even without it.

One thing I'd note with the offensive prime is that it doesn't align with Kawhi's defensive prime. People probably have his overall several-year peak somewhere in 2016-2021, so 2017-2021 is a fine 5-year stretch to pick (+5.6 offensively, +6.9 overall).

But Kawhi develops quite a bit in his offense and defense over these years, so while a longer-term RAPm might most accurately get his average quality, it may miss some of the changes in the actual player. While he probably gets better as an offensive player going ahead toward 2021 e.g. with his playmaking development, he gets better as an overall defender going back to 2014/2016 with his younger speed and motor. I think 2017-2021 is probably more weighted towards the 2019 version of Kawhi. For estimating 2017 specifically, 2016-2020's probably a better estimate (+4.6 offensive, +6.4 overall). (side note: 2014-2018's +4.0 offensively, +7.5 overall, so he looks better overall in a smaller role when he was younger... and will end up looking best overall per-possession in 2020-2024 when his health is utterly unreliable).

This separation between offensive and defensive peaks also affects Kobe (although not according to nbarapm's rapm estimation). I probably would have had Kobe and Kawhi at the top of my previous ballot and in the conversation in the ballot before that, if either of them had combined their offensive and defensive peaks simultaneously.

I think if we use the 2017 season Kawhi is possibly at his best offensively and close enough to his best on defense. Even if the increased load on offense had made him not as good on the defensive end, this is still before he'd had any major injuries and he had the best physical tools of any perimeter player maybe bar LeBron. Then on top of that he is a career 39% 3p shooter which increases to 40% in the ps. So I'm not too concerned with the idea of his off&def not aligning that well in say 2019. To me he was the same guy in 2017 except he plays more games and is better on both ends. I also rewatched that game 1 of the wcf and was impressed with his athleticism. He literally had 3 awesome dunks where he attacked from near the 3 pt line in that game and I was also impressed with how SA would battle back each time GS tried to make a run. They built the 25 pt lead early in the 2nd qtr and then GS made 3 runs where they cut it down to like 15 and each time SA would just push it back to 25. Which is where it was when Kawhi got injured. So I personally have no qualms right now about putting him at the top of my ballot. Especially when we are forced to use lesser rs's for both Kobe and Dirk which aren't close to Kawhi's 2017.

[iggymcfrack]

Best remaining players (and official vote):

1. 2025 Shai Gilgeous Alexander
I feel like the raw stats are too powerful to ignore here. Hix xRAPM beats out every season the last 29 years except for 2025 Jokic and 2009-2011 LeBron. It's true he dipped a little in the playoffs, but he still won FMVP with his team playing at +10 while he was on the floor and he came up big when it mattered most, notably putting up 35 points on +19.4 rTS with 0 turnovers in Game 7 against Denver. He also led the best team of all-time in the regular season by point differential and SRS with a massive gap between #1 and #2 in plus/minus on the team. It would be one thing if his slight playoff dip was actually endangering the team, but they generally lost close games and won blowouts and he had his worst games when it mattered least (Games 1 and 2 vs. Memphis, Game 3 vs. Minnesota up 2-0).

2. 2019 Kawhi Leonard
Kinda the opposite case of SGA, Kawhi sleepwalked through the regular season, but pulled out huge performances when it mattered most. Against Philly, he averaged 35 PPG on +8.3 rTS% when Butler and Embiid were shutting down the rest of the Raptors, then scored 15 of the team's final 21 in Game 7, shooting 6/9 in the 4th quarter including one of the most difficult buzzer beaters of all-time. Then he followed that up with a series against the best SRS team in the league where he led both teams in scoring in 5 out of 6 games and held MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo to an insane 30% from the field as the primary defender while also forcing a ton of turnovers. Finally, he followed that up with a dominant Finals where he beat the same Warriors 4-2 who were 29-4 in the regular season and 7-0 in the playoffs over the previous 3 years when Kevin Durant didn't play.

3. 2010 Dirk Nowitzki
Led the league in PI RAPM and carried a Mavs team that went 2-7 without him to a 55-18 record when he played. Dallas was -5.4 with him on the bench in the regular season and -5.6 with him on the bench in the playoffs, but while he was on the floor had net ratings of +10.6 and +10.2 as he carried them to a ring past one of the toughest, most star studded roads to a title ever. He swept the back-to-back defending champs in Round 2, coasted past KD, Westbrook, and Harden in 5, and then beat the Heat superteam at full strength in 6 games.

4. 2014 Chris Paul
Missed 20 regular season games which hurts him on a 2 round playoff run, but had excellent impact stats and did everything he could possibly be asked for in a playoff run. First, he outplays Steph Curry head-to-head in Round 1 the year before his MVP season, and then follows it up with an even more dominant performance against OKC where he outplayed both KD and Russ, and the Clippers were a ridiculous +47 with CP on the floor. Unfortunately for him, the bench let him down and got outscored by 52 in the 61 minutes he was on the bench, costing the Clippers the series and ending his season.

[f4p]

I don't see any value in assessing 2020 Draymond Green as an example of what it may look like if he were on your team as your best player. The Reality is, Draymond Green is incredibly valuable in the NBA. Top 10-15 defender of all-time, elite passer for a PF/C, High BBIQ, Can push pace with his handle, good in half-court sets as a decision maker. And, the kicker of course, is that since some people love to zero-in on single seasons here since "what happened happened (I am looking at you 2006 Dwyane Wade voters), Draymond was a 39% 3P shooter and best player of a 73-win team during the NBA Finals.

You want to talk about players and their "NBA Finals Performance"? 17/10/6 while leading your team in efficiency, assists, rebounds, steals and blocks is rare and historically dominant.

Yep, and I plan on voting for Draymond in this project at some point, and that’s in part because for my votes I mostly just care about what happened, rather than about hypotheticals. But the discussion about Draymond was inherently about a hypothetical—i.e. what Draymond would do leading a fairly average team. For purposes of my votes, I don’t really care much about the answer to that question, but that doesn’t mean others don’t care about that (evidently they do, because the hypothetical was brought up by someone!), nor does it mean I can’t discuss it. As I’ve explicitly said before in this project while discussing Garnett/Wade with DoctorMJ, my voting approach takes a relatively narrow lens but that does not mean that I don’t find broader discussion of things interesting, even if it’s about things that won’t really factor much into my vote.

1) 2020 wasn't an average supporting cast
2) An average supporting cast doesn't win NBA titles

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but I feel like, circling back to portability, this thought exercise is too often used to assess portability.

"Which player would you prefer on an average team?" It is truly an unremarkable question for basketball discourse.

Yeah people need to acknowledge that 2020 was a horrible horrible team that lost its 3 best offensive players and then basically anyone decent, including Draymond, barely played half the games and they were also awful in the 5 games Steph played. I've seen someone say Draymond can't be the best on a team like a Lillard based on 2020, but 2020 would be like if you asked lillard.to be the best defensive player on a team, and the team had limited offensive talent as well. Like it would be the worst defensive team in history and an average offense probably. So a terrible team.

[One_and_Done]

So, my initial ranking puts Kawhi at the top, but reading the posts about him and other players (like Kobe criticism) makes me very uncomfortable putting him this high.

Kawhi was very fortunate to play with excellent supporting casts around his peak years and unlike someone like Shai, Kobe or Dirk, he didn't push their teams to the highest standards. The Spurs were extremely good during that 2015-17 period and the 2016 RS is historically great, but the postseason results are underwhelming, despite Kawhi's gaudy numbers.

The Raptors were of course extremely good, but their RS was again, not historic and their postseason was full of ups and downs for Kawhi. Then the Clippers years are just very disappointing.

I know that some of that is caused by his injury history, but you can't explain everything by that and even if you could, that should be a huge black mark on his resume anyway.

I also wonder if people overrate Kawhi's offensive impact based on his complete scoring game. He's not a great playmaker and his style doesn't pressure defenses to the same degree less efficient guys do (again, like Shai or Kobe).

What do you think?

Are the results underwhelming though? In 2015 the team, in particular Kawhi, weren't 100% healthy. Alot of people may not remember this, but when LMA signed with the Spurs in 2015 the idea was that he would replace Duncan and be the star of the team. Kawhi was still breaking out as a star in 2016 and wasn't at his peak form till the next year. They alo just lost to a very talented OKC team who they were less athletic than, and couldn't match up well with. That same OKC team almost beat the 73 win Warriors, they were no joke.

Then in his actual peak year in 2017 they win 61 games, beat the Grizzlies thanks almost entirely to Kawhi. Beat the Rockets, thanks mostly to Kawhi, and are killing the 73 win Warriors until Kawhi goes out with an injury. Not sure how that could be called an underwhelming postseason. Kawhi.was amazing that playoffs.

The next year, when Kawhi was sitting out to force a trade, the Spurs only win 48 games without him and were a 1st round exit.

[70sFan]

So, my initial ranking puts Kawhi at the top, but reading the posts about him and other players (like Kobe criticism) makes me very uncomfortable putting him this high.

Kawhi was very fortunate to play with excellent supporting casts around his peak years and unlike someone like Shai, Kobe or Dirk, he didn't push their teams to the highest standards. The Spurs were extremely good during that 2015-17 period and the 2016 RS is historically great, but the postseason results are underwhelming, despite Kawhi's gaudy numbers.

The Raptors were of course extremely good, but their RS was again, not historic and their postseason was full of ups and downs for Kawhi. Then the Clippers years are just very disappointing.

I know that some of that is caused by his injury history, but you can't explain everything by that and even if you could, that should be a huge black mark on his resume anyway.

I also wonder if people overrate Kawhi's offensive impact based on his complete scoring game. He's not a great playmaker and his style doesn't pressure defenses to the same degree less efficient guys do (again, like Shai or Kobe).

What do you think?

Are the results underwhelming though? In 2015 the team, in particular Kawhi, weren't 100% healthy. Alot of people may not remember this, but when LMA signed with the Spurs in 2015 the idea was that he would replace Duncan and be the star of the team. Kawhi was still breaking out as a star in 2016 and wasn't at his peak form till the next year. They alo just lost to a very talented OKC team who they were less athletic than, and couldn't match up well with. That same OKC team almost beat the 73 win Warriors, they were no joke.

Then in his actual peak year in 2017 they win 61 games, beat the Grizzlies thanks almost entirely to Kawhi. Beat the Rockets, thanks mostly to Kawhi, and are killing the 73 win Warriors until Kawhi goes out with an injury. Not sure how that could be called an underwhelming postseason. Kawhi.was amazing that playoffs.

The next year, when Kawhi was sitting out to force a trade, the Spurs only win 48 games without him and were a 1st round exit.

Yes, these are underwhelming results. First round exit in 2015 is very understanding after the title. The loss against the OKC while being outplayed by his matchup is not terrible, but we are talking about top 10 peak of the century.

The Spurs won the game without Kawhi against the Rockets, so I wouldn't say they win "mostly to Kawhi", although it's true that Kawhi was the best player on that team.

Kawhi was remarkable in 2017 postseason individually, but the truth is that he didn't accomplish much in comparison to the other candidates and we're still inside top 10 after all.

So winning 48 games without your best player is now "only", despite the fact that 2018 Spurs were clearly weaker than 2016 and 2017 teams? It's funny, because you keep talking about Kobe playing on stacked teams in 2008-10 but we actually have plenty of evidences that the Spurs were around 50 wins team without Kawhi in 2015-18 period and you use this argument FOR Kawhi, not against him. Very consistent, as usual.

[One_and_Done]

So, my initial ranking puts Kawhi at the top, but reading the posts about him and other players (like Kobe criticism) makes me very uncomfortable putting him this high.

Kawhi was very fortunate to play with excellent supporting casts around his peak years and unlike someone like Shai, Kobe or Dirk, he didn't push their teams to the highest standards. The Spurs were extremely good during that 2015-17 period and the 2016 RS is historically great, but the postseason results are underwhelming, despite Kawhi's gaudy numbers.

The Raptors were of course extremely good, but their RS was again, not historic and their postseason was full of ups and downs for Kawhi. Then the Clippers years are just very disappointing.

I know that some of that is caused by his injury history, but you can't explain everything by that and even if you could, that should be a huge black mark on his resume anyway.

I also wonder if people overrate Kawhi's offensive impact based on his complete scoring game. He's not a great playmaker and his style doesn't pressure defenses to the same degree less efficient guys do (again, like Shai or Kobe).

What do you think?

Are the results underwhelming though? In 2015 the team, in particular Kawhi, weren't 100% healthy. Alot of people may not remember this, but when LMA signed with the Spurs in 2015 the idea was that he would replace Duncan and be the star of the team. Kawhi was still breaking out as a star in 2016 and wasn't at his peak form till the next year. They alo just lost to a very talented OKC team who they were less athletic than, and couldn't match up well with. That same OKC team almost beat the 73 win Warriors, they were no joke.

Then in his actual peak year in 2017 they win 61 games, beat the Grizzlies thanks almost entirely to Kawhi. Beat the Rockets, thanks mostly to Kawhi, and are killing the 73 win Warriors until Kawhi goes out with an injury. Not sure how that could be called an underwhelming postseason. Kawhi.was amazing that playoffs.

The next year, when Kawhi was sitting out to force a trade, the Spurs only win 48 games without him and were a 1st round exit.

Yes, these are underwhelming results. First round exit in 2015 is very understanding after the title. The loss against the OKC while being outplayed by his matchup is not terrible, but we are talking about top 10 peak of the century.

The Spurs won the game without Kawhi against the Rockets, so I wouldn't say they win "mostly to Kawhi", although it's true that Kawhi was the best player on that team.

Kawhi was remarkable in 2017 postseason individually, but the truth is that he didn't accomplish much in comparison to the other candidates and we're still inside top 10 after all.

So winning 48 games without your best player is now "only", despite the fact that 2018 Spurs were clearly weaker than 2016 and 2017 teams? It's funny, because you keep talking about Kobe playing on stacked teams in 2008-10 but we actually have plenty of evidences that the Spurs were around 50 wins team without Kawhi in 2015-18 period and you use this argument FOR Kawhi, not against him. Very consistent, as usual.

Nobody said 2017 was one of the GOAT carry jobs of all-time or anything. This is also where the law of diminishing returns kicks in as well. The Spurs coasted to 61 wins, because they didn't care about the RS and 61 was plenty for them. That's reflected in the fact that their starters played 63-74 ganes each.

I also don't see any value discussing 2015 or 2016. Kawhi wasn't a 2 way superstar yet in those years, and this is the peaks project.

[70sFan]

Are the results underwhelming though? In 2015 the team, in particular Kawhi, weren't 100% healthy. Alot of people may not remember this, but when LMA signed with the Spurs in 2015 the idea was that he would replace Duncan and be the star of the team. Kawhi was still breaking out as a star in 2016 and wasn't at his peak form till the next year. They alo just lost to a very talented OKC team who they were less athletic than, and couldn't match up well with. That same OKC team almost beat the 73 win Warriors, they were no joke.

Then in his actual peak year in 2017 they win 61 games, beat the Grizzlies thanks almost entirely to Kawhi. Beat the Rockets, thanks mostly to Kawhi, and are killing the 73 win Warriors until Kawhi goes out with an injury. Not sure how that could be called an underwhelming postseason. Kawhi.was amazing that playoffs.

The next year, when Kawhi was sitting out to force a trade, the Spurs only win 48 games without him and were a 1st round exit.

Yes, these are underwhelming results. First round exit in 2015 is very understanding after the title. The loss against the OKC while being outplayed by his matchup is not terrible, but we are talking about top 10 peak of the century.

The Spurs won the game without Kawhi against the Rockets, so I wouldn't say they win "mostly to Kawhi", although it's true that Kawhi was the best player on that team.

Kawhi was remarkable in 2017 postseason individually, but the truth is that he didn't accomplish much in comparison to the other candidates and we're still inside top 10 after all.

So winning 48 games without your best player is now "only", despite the fact that 2018 Spurs were clearly weaker than 2016 and 2017 teams? It's funny, because you keep talking about Kobe playing on stacked teams in 2008-10 but we actually have plenty of evidences that the Spurs were around 50 wins team without Kawhi in 2015-18 period and you use this argument FOR Kawhi, not against him. Very consistent, as usual.

Nobody said 2017 was one of the GOAT carry jobs of all-time or anything. This is also where the law of diminishing returns kicks in as well. The Spurs coasted to 61 wins, because they didn't care about the RS and 61 was plenty for them. That's reflected in the fact that their starters played 63-74 ganes each.

I also don't see any value discussing 2015 or 2016. Kawhi wasn't a 2 way superstar yet in those years, and this is the peaks project.

The law of diminishing results always work, unless we're talking about the 2008-10 Lakers, then it doesn't

2016 was absolutely the first superstar year for Kawhi.

[One_and_Done]

Yes, these are underwhelming results. First round exit in 2015 is very understanding after the title. The loss against the OKC while being outplayed by his matchup is not terrible, but we are talking about top 10 peak of the century.

The Spurs won the game without Kawhi against the Rockets, so I wouldn't say they win "mostly to Kawhi", although it's true that Kawhi was the best player on that team.

Kawhi was remarkable in 2017 postseason individually, but the truth is that he didn't accomplish much in comparison to the other candidates and we're still inside top 10 after all.

So winning 48 games without your best player is now "only", despite the fact that 2018 Spurs were clearly weaker than 2016 and 2017 teams? It's funny, because you keep talking about Kobe playing on stacked teams in 2008-10 but we actually have plenty of evidences that the Spurs were around 50 wins team without Kawhi in 2015-18 period and you use this argument FOR Kawhi, not against him. Very consistent, as usual.

Nobody said 2017 was one of the GOAT carry jobs of all-time or anything. This is also where the law of diminishing returns kicks in as well. The Spurs coasted to 61 wins, because they didn't care about the RS and 61 was plenty for them. That's reflected in the fact that their starters played 63-74 ganes each.

I also don't see any value discussing 2015 or 2016. Kawhi wasn't a 2 way superstar yet in those years, and this is the peaks project.

The law of diminishing results always work, unless we're talking about the 2008-10 Lakers, then it doesn't

2016 was absolutely the first superstar year for Kawhi.

Kawhi was a star in 2016, but he wasn't a 2 way star like he became in future years. 2017 was the year Kawhi hit another level.

For the law of diminishing returns to help Kobe in 09, there would need to be some evidence Kobe had said floor raising in other years. Kobe's 135-137 record from 00-07 in games without Shaq indicates otherwise.

[70sFan]

Nobody said 2017 was one of the GOAT carry jobs of all-time or anything. This is also where the law of diminishing returns kicks in as well. The Spurs coasted to 61 wins, because they didn't care about the RS and 61 was plenty for them. That's reflected in the fact that their starters played 63-74 ganes each.

I also don't see any value discussing 2015 or 2016. Kawhi wasn't a 2 way superstar yet in those years, and this is the peaks project.

The law of diminishing results always work, unless we're talking about the 2008-10 Lakers, then it doesn't

2016 was absolutely the first superstar year for Kawhi.

Kawhi was a star in 2016, but he wasn't a 2 way star like he became in future years. 2017 was the year Kawhi hit another level.

For the law of diminishing returns to help Kobe in 09, there would need to be some evidence Kobe had said floor raising in other years. Kobe's 135-137 record from 00-07 in games without Shaq indicates otherwise.

Kawhi was significantly better defensively in 2016 than in 2017, so I wouldn't use "2 way star" argument here.

Kobe has far better record of carrying weak teams than Kawhi, who never played on a weak team.

[Primedeion]

Imagine if Kawhi had his solid MVP-level 2017 regular season—top 3–5 player but nothing transcendent—while playing all 82 games, and then combined it with a postseason only slightly worse than what he pulled off in 2019 (and that’s arguable; the slight difference in numbers between 2019 Kawhi’s postseason and 2009 Kobe’s is mainly due to Kawhi posting better stats in the relatively low-leverage first round). Imagine if he did that on a team and offense that grade out stronger than the 2019 Raptors. Surely he would have finished well within the top ten, right?

Well, 2009 Kobe did exactly that, and he won’t even finish in the top ten.

Classic.

[One_and_Done]

The law of diminishing results always work, unless we're talking about the 2008-10 Lakers, then it doesn't

2016 was absolutely the first superstar year for Kawhi.

Kawhi was a star in 2016, but he wasn't a 2 way star like he became in future years. 2017 was the year Kawhi hit another level.

For the law of diminishing returns to help Kobe in 09, there would need to be some evidence Kobe had said floor raising in other years. Kobe's 135-137 record from 00-07 in games without Shaq indicates otherwise.

Kawhi was significantly better defensively in 2016 than in 2017, so I wouldn't use "2 way star" argument here.

Kobe has far better record of carrying weak teams than Kawhi, who never played on a weak team.

Leaving aside whether Kawhi ever played for weak teams, the absence of success also tells us something, and Kobe's 135-137 record is certainly a lack of success when we're talking top 15 peaks of the millennia.

Even Harden and Butler have show more in that respect.

[One_and_Done]

Imagine if Kawhi had his solid MVP-level 2017 regular season—top 3–5 player but nothing transcendent—while playing all 82 games, and then combined it with a postseason only slightly worse than what he pulled off in 2019 (and that’s arguable; the slight difference in numbers between 2019 Kawhi’s postseason and 2009 Kobe’s is mainly due to Kawhi posting better stats in the relatively low-leverage first round). Imagine if he did that on a team and offense that grade out stronger than the 2019 Raptors. Surely he would have finished well within the top ten, right?

Well, 2009 Kobe did exactly that, and he won’t even finish in the top ten.

Classic.

Except Kobe in 09 was at best an average defensive player, while Kawhi was a DPOY type player, and Kawhi's offensive numbers and performance was better too. I literally discussed this already.
viewtopic.php?t=2475218&start=40#p119664220

[70sFan]

Kawhi was a star in 2016, but he wasn't a 2 way star like he became in future years. 2017 was the year Kawhi hit another level.

For the law of diminishing returns to help Kobe in 09, there would need to be some evidence Kobe had said floor raising in other years. Kobe's 135-137 record from 00-07 in games without Shaq indicates otherwise.

Kawhi was significantly better defensively in 2016 than in 2017, so I wouldn't use "2 way star" argument here.

Kobe has far better record of carrying weak teams than Kawhi, who never played on a weak team.

Leaving aside whether Kawhi ever played for weak teams, the absence of success also tells us something, and Kobe's 135-137 record is certainly a lack of success when we're talking top 15 peaks of the millennia.

Even Harden and Butler have show more in that respect.

You keep repeating this value as if that means that much. Kobe teams had negative record only once in 2005.

[One_and_Done]

I saw someone claim that Harden’s numbers weren’t better than Kobe. That’s plainly false. Let’s take 2009 Kobe, which is the year people are advancing as his peak, and compare it to Harden’s MVP year.

Harden RS: 42/12/8 per 100, on 619 TS%
Kobe RS: 38/7/7 per 100, on 561 TS%

Harden’s advantage is huge. How about the postseason then.

Harden PS: 41/8/8 per 100, on 548 TS%
Kobe PS: 39/7/7/ per 100, on 564 TS%

So while Harden does drop off in the playoffs some years, he merely drops back to a level that is more in line with Kobe’s level. Meanwhile, in the RS he is producing at a level significantly higher. Since the RS matters too, I am not sure what exactly Kobe’s argument over Harden would be. Note that I was charitable and chose Harden’s MVP year. I could have picked a year like 2020, where Harden had RS numbers of 44/10/8 per 100, on 626 TS%, with PS numbers of 39/10/7 on 636 TS%, numbers that absolutely kill Kobe.

When I look at the skillset Harden brings, it’s just better. He is bad on D, but as the lead guard who runs the offense you can get away with him being a bad defender reasonably well. Harden gives you absolutely elite offense, up to the Curry level in the RS, but dropping a bit some playoffs. His combination of moves, vision, and shot making, is just vastly superior to what Kobe can bring on offense. Moreover, Kobe’s game is kind of a dying position in the NBA. Teams almost invariably expect their lead guard to run an offense now, something Kobe simply can’t do. He struggled enough just fitting into the triangle, he isn’t able to run an offense. The few players who are somewhat in that mold now, like Ant, are killer 3pt shooters and off-ball players, in a way Kobe just was not.

I look at some of Harden’s teams, and the support cast is often not that great, and yet the team is contending. It’s easy to see his impact. If you want to see one example of that, look at teams like the 2015 and 2017 Rockets. His starters in 2017 were Capela, Ryan Anderson, Ariza, and Patrick Beverley. That isn’t exactly a good support cast for a 55 win team. In 2015 his support cast was a declining Dwight (who missed half the season), Beverley (only played 56 games), Ariza, and Motiejunas. Their back-up 5 to replace Dwight was Terrence Jones. That is again a pretty weak support cast, yet they won 56 games.

That said, I’m not sure I can justify peak Harden over peak Butler… and I am still not ready to vote for Butler. It just seems ludicrous to me to vote for Kobe at this point tbh.

[TrueLAfan]

#9 SGA 2025. (From earlier) I’m not 100% clear on the reasons why Shai shouldn’t be here, or even higher. I get that he “slumped” in the PS, but it didn’t hurt his team. I man, look at how the rest of OKC played in the Finals. And they got the job done, and that it done because of SGA. It’s a bit like Jokic; there’s too much there there. I gave Giannis the nod for my #7—but SGA had a better RS and was still mighty good on the PS. I really think we might be suffering from recency bias used against SGA here; the bias skewed down because his best year was just last year. Giannis has a few years for context; Jokic has a few years for context. SGA has less and takes (I think) more of a hit than he should. Or maybe we’ll regard him less in a couple of years. Can’t tell. But I’m betting on Shai.

#10 Dirk 2011. (From earlier) Dirk is probably a little harder to quantify than most players. He was (much) more of a unicorn in his first decade and, from a statistical viewpoint, it introduces a bit more/different noise. Just my .02 on that—and as I’ve noted, I’m kind of avoiding too much reliance on analytics for players at this level. The question for me is whether to choose the 2006 or 2011 version of Dirk. Again, the postseason runs lifts the overall player impact higher.

#11 Kawhi 2017. FWIW, I don’t think it would have mattered if he’d been healthy for the whole 2017 playoffs. No way they Spurs were taking down the Warriors. Although he led the Raps to the title two years later, I can’t put Kawhi 2019 over 2017. I do think he was a slightly smarter player in 2019. I think he way he compensated for some loss in his physical skills was terrific. But he played more and simply played a bit better in 2017. The decider is the one game (actually one half and about three minutes) he played in the WC Finals against the Warriors. Steph had a truly great game. Durant was outstanding. But in the 24 minutes that Kawhi was out there, he was the best player on the court.

#12 Kobe 2009. It’s tough for me to distinguish between CP3 and Kobe and Durant here. But of those three, I think Kobe had the most consistency and impact. I’m aware of the statistical analysis and evidence regarding his impact. There’s so much that both sides can find/pic numbers to justify having him higher or lower. And that’s fine. And that’s why a project like this is fun for me … to acknowledge the importance of analysis and simultaneously recognize that different people with different ideas see the same data and are able to argue for different positions.

But, in this case, I’m going with Kobe by a little bit. I do think some of the arguments about his value miss the forest for the trees. Kobe had some pretty bad (and, well, bad) teams in the mid-2000s. Kobe was a floor raiser when the team needed it. And when they got good, they went to finals and won titles and Kobe was the best player. And I think he was at his best in 2009, so he’s my #12.

[Cavsfansince84]

9. 2017 Kawhi(19). To me he has the highest two way playoff impact of anyone left. Top 3 mvp/dpoy. Excellent half court/3 pt/off ball scorer which he more than kept up in the playoffs(career 39% rs/career 40% ps). Near 10.0 rs bpm, played a career high 74g, led the Spurs to 61 wins and wcf loss where we all know the context. Plus 94% on his ft's in this playoff run and low tov%.
10. 2025 SGA(24). Leads the all time srs team despite only 2 teammates playing over 2000 minutes in the rs. I would say excellent two way impact though he sort of runs out of gas towards the end but still pulls off the mvp/fmvp double.
11. 2011 Dirk(06). I have him and Kobe very close but to me the high's Dirk hit in that playoff run were a bit higher with his insane 3pt shooting streak and also high fta's/% and the teams the Mavs beat were a bit better which includes sweeping the defending champ Lakers, taking out the Thunder and then the Heat. He also did not have a #2 equal to Pau. So he gets this spot.
12. 2009 Kobe(03). One of his better rs's(though not really a great one) where he's also a + defender and maybe his best overall playoffs given the finals he had. So he gets this spot for me.

[lessthanjake]

I saw someone claim that Harden’s numbers weren’t better than Kobe. That’s plainly false. Let’s take 2009 Kobe, which is the year people are advancing as his peak, and compare it to Harden’s MVP year.

Harden RS: 42/12/8 per 100, on 619 TS%
Kobe RS: 38/7/7 per 100, on 561 TS%

Harden’s advantage is huge. How about the postseason then.

Harden PS: 41/8/8 per 100, on 548 TS%
Kobe PS: 39/7/7/ per 100, on 564 TS%

So while Harden does drop off in the playoffs some years, he merely drops back to a level that is more in line with Kobe’s level. Meanwhile, in the RS he is producing at a level significantly higher. Since the RS matters too, I am not sure what exactly Kobe’s argument over Harden would be. Note that I was charitable and chose Harden’s MVP year. I could have picked a year like 2020, where Harden had RS numbers of 44/10/8 per 100, on 626 TS%, with PS numbers of 39/10/7 on 636 TS%, numbers that absolutely kill Kobe.

When I look at the skillset Harden brings, it’s just better. He is bad on D, but as the lead guard who runs the offense you can get away with him being a bad defender reasonably well. Harden gives you absolutely elite offense, up to the Curry level in the RS, but dropping a bit some playoffs. His combination of moves, vision, and shot making, is just vastly superior to what Kobe can bring on offense. Moreover, Kobe’s game is kind of a dying position in the NBA. Teams almost invariably expect their lead guard to run an offense now, something Kobe simply can’t do. He struggled enough just fitting into the triangle, he isn’t able to run an offense. The few players who are somewhat in that mold now, like Ant, are killer 3pt shooters and off-ball players, in a way Kobe just was not.

I look at some of Harden’s teams, and the support cast is often not that great, and yet the team is contending. It’s easy to see his impact. If you want to see one example of that, look at teams like the 2015 and 2017 Rockets. His starters in 2017 were Capela, Ryan Anderson, Ariza, and Patrick Beverley. That isn’t exactly a good support cast for a 55 win team. In 2015 his support cast was a declining Dwight (who missed half the season), Beverley (only played 56 games), Ariza, and Motiejunas. Their back-up 5 to replace Dwight was Terrence Jones. That is again a pretty weak support cast, yet they won 56 games.

That said, I’m not sure I can justify peak Harden over peak Butler… and I am still not ready to vote for Butler. It just seems ludicrous to me to vote for Kobe at this point tbh.

I know you decide not to care about relative TS% for Kobe based on some sort of logic that Kobe would somehow have the same raw TS% in another era, but I think it goes without saying that 56.4% TS% in 2009 is way better than 54.8% TS% in 2018. Like, leaving aside your whole purely hypothetical and speculative “how would they play today” stuff, just in era-relative terms Kobe’s playoff scoring efficiency there is clearly way more valuable.

Anyways, I know you’re basically just trolling with the comparisons between Kobe Bryant and Jimmy Butler, but I will actually note that I actually think Butler will eventually make my ballot. Not for a while, but I do think he’s in my top 25 peaks in this timeframe.

[homecourtloss]

2011 Dirk (> 2006): provided high end lift for nearly his entire career that reached some real highs with his rather unique skill set of efficient scoring on high difficult shots and overall + defense. +7.8 rORtg and -6.8 rDRtg, +14.6 rNRtg on court in the 2011 playoffs (-14.2 rORtg and -4.9 rDRtg without him). Frankly, I trust Dirk’s playoffs offense more than anyone else’s anything in the playoffs out of those left.

2. 2009 Kobe (>2008): Kobe has become underrated as a reaction to some ridiculous positions taken by the diehard Kobe fandom, but 2008-2010 Kobe away from Shaq was anchoring resilient offenses. 2009 Kobe’s run is underrated. +8.4 rORtg, -6.2 rDRtg on court through the 2009 playoffs after a very good regular season.

3. 2017 Kawhi (> 2019): It’s a shame he got injured, but this version was right in the sweet spot for his offense and defense and was a better player than the 2019 version though both were good. His on/off and other impact metrics doesn’t stand out due to some specific circumstances but I feel this was the best version of him.

4. SGA 2025 honestly could have him higher and he probably should be higher, but I really thought he'd be better in the playoffs, but he did have a historic regular season. I'm basically messed with every single type of player that he played with. I have no doubt he has a few seasons in him. Where are you going to especially shine in the playoffs?

[One_and_Done]

I saw someone claim that Harden’s numbers weren’t better than Kobe. That’s plainly false. Let’s take 2009 Kobe, which is the year people are advancing as his peak, and compare it to Harden’s MVP year.

Harden RS: 42/12/8 per 100, on 619 TS%
Kobe RS: 38/7/7 per 100, on 561 TS%

Harden’s advantage is huge. How about the postseason then.

Harden PS: 41/8/8 per 100, on 548 TS%
Kobe PS: 39/7/7/ per 100, on 564 TS%

So while Harden does drop off in the playoffs some years, he merely drops back to a level that is more in line with Kobe’s level. Meanwhile, in the RS he is producing at a level significantly higher. Since the RS matters too, I am not sure what exactly Kobe’s argument over Harden would be. Note that I was charitable and chose Harden’s MVP year. I could have picked a year like 2020, where Harden had RS numbers of 44/10/8 per 100, on 626 TS%, with PS numbers of 39/10/7 on 636 TS%, numbers that absolutely kill Kobe.

When I look at the skillset Harden brings, it’s just better. He is bad on D, but as the lead guard who runs the offense you can get away with him being a bad defender reasonably well. Harden gives you absolutely elite offense, up to the Curry level in the RS, but dropping a bit some playoffs. His combination of moves, vision, and shot making, is just vastly superior to what Kobe can bring on offense. Moreover, Kobe’s game is kind of a dying position in the NBA. Teams almost invariably expect their lead guard to run an offense now, something Kobe simply can’t do. He struggled enough just fitting into the triangle, he isn’t able to run an offense. The few players who are somewhat in that mold now, like Ant, are killer 3pt shooters and off-ball players, in a way Kobe just was not.

I look at some of Harden’s teams, and the support cast is often not that great, and yet the team is contending. It’s easy to see his impact. If you want to see one example of that, look at teams like the 2015 and 2017 Rockets. His starters in 2017 were Capela, Ryan Anderson, Ariza, and Patrick Beverley. That isn’t exactly a good support cast for a 55 win team. In 2015 his support cast was a declining Dwight (who missed half the season), Beverley (only played 56 games), Ariza, and Motiejunas. Their back-up 5 to replace Dwight was Terrence Jones. That is again a pretty weak support cast, yet they won 56 games.

That said, I’m not sure I can justify peak Harden over peak Butler… and I am still not ready to vote for Butler. It just seems ludicrous to me to vote for Kobe at this point tbh.

I know you decide not to care about relative TS% for Kobe based on some sort of logic that Kobe would somehow have the same raw TS% in another era, but I think it goes without saying that 56.4% TS% in 2009 is way better than 54.8% TS% in 2018. Like, leaving aside your whole purely hypothetical and speculative “how would they play today” stuff, just in era-relative terms Kobe’s playoff scoring efficiency there is clearly way more valuable.

Anyways, I know you’re basically just trolling with the comparisons between Kobe Bryant and Jimmy Butler, but I will actually note that I actually think Butler will eventually make my ballot. Not for a while, but I do think he’s in my top 25 peaks in this timeframe.

We disagree on methodology.

I also don't really see the argument for Kobe over say Butler. Butler carrying a starting 5 of himself, Bam, Gabe Vincent, Max Struss, and a washed Kevin Love to the finals is far more impressive than Kobe and a super stacked cast winning in 09 when the league was weaker. All 3 of Butler's runs in 20, 22, and 23, are more impressive than Kobe's best run.

[iggymcfrack]

There was a discussion on Reddit where I was comparing xRAPM numbers for Kobe and Chris Paul by age during their primes. Thought the results were pretty interesting so I wanted to post them here:

https://xrapm.com/table_pages/xRAPM.html

• ⁠Age 21: CP3 3.7, Kobe 1.4
• ⁠Age 22: CP3 5.5, Kobe 3.5
• ⁠Age 23: CP3 7.7, Kobe 3.9
• ⁠Age 24: CP3 7.1, Kobe 4.9
• ⁠Age 25: CP3 6.7, Kobe 4.0
• ⁠Age 26: CP3 6.8, Kobe 3.2
• ⁠Age 27: CP3 7.0, Kobe 5.4
• ⁠Age 28: CP3 7.9, Kobe 4.8
• ⁠Age 29: CP3 8.1, Kobe 6.4
• ⁠Age 30: CP3 8.0, Kobe 5.5
• ⁠Age 31: CP3 7.6, Kobe 5.0
• ⁠Age 32: CP3 7.5, Kobe 3.2
• ⁠Age 33: CP3 5.2, Kobe 2.2
• ⁠Age 34: CP3 4.5, Kobe 1.9

I find it interesting that not only does CP3 clear Kobe at every prime age, he does so relatively easily. The closest is age 29, Kobe’s 2008 season and Chris Paul’s 2015 season where Chris Paul still leads Kobe by 1.8. Kobe’s 3rd in the league in RAPM in 2008 while CP3 leads the league in 2015. CP3 also has 10 seasons in a row with better numbers than Kobe’s peak from age 23-32.

Even if you naturally want to focus on an individual season or two for this project, I think the context of how Chris Paul clears Kobe so easily at every prime age shows a lot of important context that the numbers aren’t just fluky in an individual year.