Retro POY '07-08 (Voting Complete)

[drza]

I think you don’t understand my point.
Both KG 2008 and Ewing (I’ll use 1993 version as example) were anchoring all time great defenses (Knicks 1993 were at the same level as Celtics 2008). (snip)

I understand your point perfectly, I just think it's not the correct point for this thread. IIRC there was a Garnett vs Ewing thread at some point on this board, and this type of debate would go there. But this is a player of the year thread, and this thread is for 2008. So the only way that bringing Ewing into the debate has any value is if you can make the case that Ewing was as good WITH RESPECT TO HIS PEERS as Garnett was with respect to his peers in 2008. How Garnett compares to Ewing directly is irrelevant.

And the fact is, again, that Ewing wasn't as good WITH RESPECT TO HIS PEERS in 1993 as Garnett was with respect to his. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this until we actually get to the 1993 thread, but my memory and a quick glance at basketball-reference tells me that in 1993:

Ewing (PER 20.8, 10.6 win shares, .17 WS/48) was not nearly as good as Michael Jordan (PER 29.7, 17.2 WS, .27 WS/48, more team success), Charles Barkley (PER 25.9, 14.4 WS, .242 WS/48, more team success), Olajuwon (PER 27.3, 15.8 WS, .234 WS48), or Karl Malone (PER 26.2, 15.4 WS, .238 WS/48). When we get to '93 I'm sure we'll go more in-depth with our analysis than this, but the point should be clear: Ewing wasn't as good as the best of 1993 no matter HOW you judge things.

What makes the Ewing stuff irrelevant is that it doesn't MATTER how KG stacks up to '93 Jordan, Barkley, Olajuwon, or Ewing. It only matters how he stacks up to LeBron of '08, Kobe of '08, and Paul of '08. And as has been posted in this thread, KG's regular season advanced stats are competitive, his postseason stats are competitive, his intangibles effect is outstanding, his team impact was outstanding, and the team success was outstanding when compared to his contemporaries. That is really the only thing of importance to this thread, not some tangent about a former player. That stuff would be more appropriate in another thread on the PC board.

[Silver Bullet]

I think you don’t understand my point.
Both KG 2008 and Ewing (I’ll use 1993 version as example) were anchoring all time great defenses (Knicks 1993 were at the same level as Celtics 2008). (snip)

I understand your point perfectly, I just think it's not the correct point for this thread. IIRC there was a Garnett vs Ewing thread at some point on this board, and this type of debate would go there. But this is a player of the year thread, and this thread is for 2008. So the only way that bringing Ewing into the debate has any value is if you can make the case that Ewing was as good WITH RESPECT TO HIS PEERS as Garnett was with respect to his peers in 2008. How Garnett compares to Ewing directly is irrelevant.

And the fact is, again, that Ewing wasn't as good WITH RESPECT TO HIS PEERS in 1993 as Garnett was with respect to his. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this until we actually get to the 1993 thread, but my memory and a quick glance at basketball-reference tells me that in 1993:

Ewing (PER 20.8, 10.6 win shares, .17 WS/48) was not nearly as good as Michael Jordan (PER 29.7, 17.2 WS, .27 WS/48, more team success), Charles Barkley (PER 25.9, 14.4 WS, .242 WS/48, more team success), Olajuwon (PER 27.3, 15.8 WS, .234 WS48), or Karl Malone (PER 26.2, 15.4 WS, .238 WS/48). When we get to '93 I'm sure we'll go more in-depth with our analysis than this, but the point should be clear: Ewing wasn't as good as the best of 1993 no matter HOW you judge things.

What makes the Ewing stuff irrelevant is that it doesn't MATTER how KG stacks up to '93 Jordan, Barkley, Olajuwon, or Ewing. It only matters how he stacks up to LeBron of '08, Kobe of '08, and Paul of '08. And as has been posted in this thread, KG's regular season advanced stats are competitive, his postseason stats are competitive, his intangibles effect is outstanding, his team impact was outstanding, and the team success was outstanding when compared to his contemporaries. That is really the only thing of importance to this thread, not some tangent about a former player. That stuff would be more appropriate in another thread on the PC board.

You guys are basing all of your arguments off of just one stat that is extremely flawed - I already debunked how Garnett was not the best big using either PER or WS. And he's not anywhere close to any other big men who've ever won the award.

The only advanced stat that is supporting your thesis is the APM - which is just ridiculous. Last year, Durrant was near the bottom of the league in APM, this year he's near the top. Dwight Howard went from +10 APM to -3 or whatever, I don't know the exact numbers - but to base everything off of a 1 year APM is ridiculous - specially when Peirce is right there in terms of the same stat.

[drza]

I just went back and found a series of articles I wrote about the MVP race in '08, talking about the 4 main characters (LeBron's isn't in-depth because when I wrote it I wasn't envisioning an MVP series and the article was about fantasy basketball) in this thread. I'll post each one individually as kind of a "case for each candidate" note that isn't as stat-heavy and reflects more of what I was thinking at the time. I'll start here with what I wrote about LeBron:

The Unfair One

It has long been obvious that LeBron James enjoys absurd physical gifts in a combination that has never been seen before in the NBA in a wing player listed at 6-8, 240 pounds. But he made a statement this week that moves his physical advantage beyond absurd, all the way to simply not fair.

"I'm 6-9, 260," James http://www.nypost.com/seven/03062008/sp ... 100671.htm> said. Six-feet nine inches tall, 260 pounds. Let me put this in perspective for you. Karl Malone, considered one of the most physically gifted POWER forwards of all-time, was listed at only 6-9, 250 pounds. Let that sink in for a second.

So to complete this thought: James has the physical dimensions of a bigger Karl Malone. He can get from one end of the court to the other about as fast as Allen Iverson. He has a vertical leap similar to Michael Jordan in his prime. And oh yeah, at only 23 years old, he could still be growing!

OK, enough ranting, let me find some roto significance in this. First of all, at this size it seems clear that his career-best 8.1 rebounds per game average this season could actually go up in future years and that double-digit board averages are not out of the question.

Secondly, it is worth noting that James very rarely utilizes a post-up game on offense, preferring to set up off the dribble from the perimeter. If he ever comes back after one summer having picked up a post game, his offensive potential goes from ridiculous to unguardable. With the possible exception of Ron Artest, there isn’t a player in the NBA that is both quick enough to stay in front of him off the dribble and strong enough to prevent him from establishing whatever post position that he wants. James with a post-game is a scary though.

Finally, in a keeper league, can you think of any TWO player combos that you would rather keep than just James? I can’t. Even if someone offered me the rights to Chris Paul and Dwight Howard as keepers, I would be hard-pressed to pull the trigger and give up the rights to James. His future potential is crazy.

[drza]

Chris Paul

The Maestro

Last week I talked about the physical gifts that allow LeBron James to dominate the NBA game. This week, in the second piece of what will be a five-part MVP series, I want to talk about the best little man that we have in the NBA today: Chris Paul.

Paul has distanced himself a bit from the other elite point guards by being the absolute epicenter of everything that the Hornets do on offense. Paul, like all great point guards, knows the strengths and weaknesses of his teammates, himself, and the opposition to such an advanced degree that he is able to make pinpoint decisions on what weapon to employ to best exploit the defense with the tools he has at hand. He knows that Tyson Chandler is extremely long and athletic but does not create his own offense, so they have perfected their alley-oop timing this season (lead the NBA in alley-oop connections). He knows that Peja Stojakovic is an excellent spot-up shooter, that he likes to shoot from some areas of the floor more than others, and how he likes to receive the pass to best get into his shooting motion (best 3-pt. shooting of career). Paul also knows how best to incorporate the inside-outside skills of David West to maximum benefit (career-high scoring). All great point guards know these things, but Paul is able to combine that knowledge with excellent floor vision and outstanding passing ability that only the greats have.

Paul also knows his own strengths and weaknesses well, and makes outstanding decisions about when to pass versus when to look for his own offense. Paul is incredibly quick with the ball in his hands, physically strong enough to finish in traffic, and has the touch to score from anywhere in the mid range. The fact that Paul is the best scorer as well as the best distributor on his team makes him unique among the other elite point guards.

Fantasy-wise, Paul is also clearly the man among point guards. There are four players in the NBA averaging double-digit assists (Paul, Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Jason Kidd). Of that group there are three shooting 50% from the field (Paul, Williams, Nash), and two shooting 85% from the line (Paul and Nash). But there is only one averaging 20+ points with those 10+ assists. There is only one averaging fewer than three turnovers/game with those 10+ assists. And there is only one that is leading the NBA in steals. That one is Chris Paul.

[drza]

Kobe

The Assassin

I have heard it said that Kobe Bryant is the basketball version of Tiger Woods, and I think this is a good comparison. Tiger is extremely gifted as a golfer, but what makes him the best is that he knows every nuance of how to play the game and is mentally strong enough to do whatever is necessary to win. Bryant is also like this. He is taller, quicker, bigger, and/or jumps higher than almost everyone that guards him and he uses that to ultimate advantage. He has no qualms about taking a smaller player to the post, abusing a slower player off the dribble, or simply rising up to shoot over any opponent. His vast array of skills in addition to the mental processor that knows his opponent so well allows him to score efficiently in any situation, very similar to how Woods is able to bring any golf course to its knees. Finally, on top of the physical skills and high basketball IQ, Bryant also has the reputation as a late-game assassin. His cold-blooded execution in crunch time situations makes him one of the most feared players in the NBA when the game is on the line, much like how opposing golfers must feel when Woods is stalking at the end of a tournament.

Bryant is also an excellent defender. He is a seven-time NBA All-Defensive team selection, and his efforts this season should get him to team number eight. He is allowing his individual opponent to produce a PER of only 12.6 (82games.com), one of the best marks in the NBA among swingmen. The Lakers defense is also quantifiably stingier with him on the floor than without him (2.4 points fewer per 100 possessions). Bryant’s defensive prowess separates him a bit from other MVP candidates Chris Paul and LeBron James, who each have good numbers of steals but worse defensive statistics overall.

Finally, let me point out another way in which he has helped make his team into a championship contender: his will. No one questions neither Bryant’s ability to play at a championship level nor his demand that his team perform at the same level. Being anything less than the best is not an option for Bryant, and thus he wills his teammates, his coach, and his front office to be the best that they can be so as not to hold him back.

In Machiavelli’s famous treatise The Prince, he writes of shrewd methods that a leader can use to acquire a throne and establish his reign. Machiavelli states that “it is best (for a leader) to be both feared and loved; however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved.” This season, it can be said that Bryant employed some Machiavellian methods to ensure that the Lakers help him to reach his championship goals. His much publicized contempt of the Lakers’ decision to keep Andrew Bynum instead of trading for established superstar Jason Kidd was perceived as negative leadership for his young teammate, yet the end result was that Bynum reportedly used his leader’s contempt as a goad to work harder than ever before to bring his game to the elite level. Bryant’s public requests to be traded last summer, along with perceptions that he was still unhappy to start the season, were seen as negatives. Yet, the Lakers’ fear of what Bryant’s discontent could mean long-term led them to forge a franchise-altering trade to acquire Pau Gasol. These two developments have helped make the Lakers contenders this season.

Bottom line: Bryant is the best individual offensive player in the NBA today. He is also one of the better individual perimeter defenders in the league. And his off-court behavior over the past year, which some have seen as negative, has in the end contributed to making the Lakers a stronger team that could legitimately win the NBA championship. Bryant’s fantasy credentials are already well established as one of the best in the league, a multiple-time scoring champion who contributes positively to just about every roto category. In short: Bryant has long-been a fantasy feast, and this year he can make a very strong case to be the Most Valuable Player in the NBA.

(ETA: what you know about a write-up about basketball that mentions Machiavelli!? Who says sports fans aren't educated?! )

[drza]

Garnett

The Heart

The Celtics are on-pace to win 65 games this season, a whopping 41 game improvement from last season’s 24 that would obliterate the record for biggest turnaround season in NBA history (Tim Duncan’s 1998 Spurs, 36 games). The Celtics are on pace to lead the NBA in points allowed, field-goal percentage allowed, and 3-pt. percentage allowed, only the second time ever that one team would lead the league in all three defensive categories (1992-93 Knicks). With all due respect to Paul Pierce and Ray Allen, the man most directly responsible for both of these historical achievements is Kevin Garnett.

How can a player averaging “only” 19 points and nine rebounds be as valuable as players like Chris Paul, LeBron James, or Kobe Bryant who are all putting up bigger rotisserie numbers? Answer: Garnett is the absolute heart of everything the Celtics have done this season. On defense his length, timing, athleticism, communication skills and intensity have made him the engine for the best unit in the NBA. On offense his highly efficient inside/outside scoring game, his infectious unselfishness, and his non-stop screens (both on and off the ball) have opened up the court and helped six of the top eight Celtic rotation players (including Garnett) to average career highs in adjusted field goal percentage. On the court Garnett is both the best player and the biggest cheerleader on the team, while off the court his work ethic and focus have changed the way his teammates approach the game. Pierce said it well last week: “The whole face of the Celtics nation turned around when the trade happened with this guy (Garnett). Everyone talks about the MVP and they talk about numbers, but this guy has changed the whole culture around here and I think that says a lot for everything.”

While we are here, let’s clear up one misconception. Garnett does have the numbers to compete directly with the other MVP candidates when you factor in defense, where he should be the NBA Defensive Player of the Year. According to Dave Berri from wagesofwins.com, Garnett entered this week behind Paul in Wins Produced per 48 minutes but ahead of both James and Bryant. According to 82games.com, Garnett is second in the NBA in Roland Rating, behind James but slightly ahead of both Paul and Bryant. These stats factor in both offensive and defensive production, and the Roland Rating also includes on-court/off-court +/-. So while you might prefer the bigger fantasy numbers of the other three candidates for your roto team, in terms of overall on-court effect Garnett’s individual numbers are just as good as any other MVP candidate.

But statistics only tell part of the story of Garnett’s impact. Perhaps his most important contributions have been his leadership, passion, and intensity that have transformed the Celtics team. Celtics coach Doc Rivers points has often stated how easy it is to coach a team when the best player is also the energy source and refuses to let the team lose focus ( http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/six ... rence.html ). His teammates have stories about how Garnett has fostered an environment of team chemistry and hard work ( http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=7841 ). Long-time Celtics announcer Mike Gorman has related how Garnett came in and established himself as the defining player whose personality dominates the team ( http://blitz.bostonsportsmedia.com/?p=162 ). Garnett’s intangibles can’t be quantified, but when looking at the Celtics record this year it is clear just how valuable these contributions have been.

Bottom line: Garnett has been the best defensive player in the NBA this season as the key component of a historically great defensive unit. His efficiency and unselfishness have helped foster an environment where the majority of his teammates have career years on offense. He has on-court production that rivals any player in the league, and he has led the change in culture that has resulted in the biggest single-season turnaround in NBA history. His impact has arguably never been greater, and as the heart of the best team in the league he has a great argument to take home his second MVP trophy.

[drza]

I think you don’t understand my point.
Both KG 2008 and Ewing (I’ll use 1993 version as example) were anchoring all time great defenses (Knicks 1993 were at the same level as Celtics 2008). (snip)

I understand your point perfectly, I just think it's not the correct point for this thread. IIRC there was a Garnett vs Ewing thread at some point on this board, and this type of debate would go there. But this is a player of the year thread, and this thread is for 2008. So the only way that bringing Ewing into the debate has any value is if you can make the case that Ewing was as good WITH RESPECT TO HIS PEERS as Garnett was with respect to his peers in 2008. How Garnett compares to Ewing directly is irrelevant.

And the fact is, again, that Ewing wasn't as good WITH RESPECT TO HIS PEERS in 1993 as Garnett was with respect to his. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this until we actually get to the 1993 thread, but my memory and a quick glance at basketball-reference tells me that in 1993:

Ewing (PER 20.8, 10.6 win shares, .17 WS/48) was not nearly as good as Michael Jordan (PER 29.7, 17.2 WS, .27 WS/48, more team success), Charles Barkley (PER 25.9, 14.4 WS, .242 WS/48, more team success), Olajuwon (PER 27.3, 15.8 WS, .234 WS48), or Karl Malone (PER 26.2, 15.4 WS, .238 WS/48). When we get to '93 I'm sure we'll go more in-depth with our analysis than this, but the point should be clear: Ewing wasn't as good as the best of 1993 no matter HOW you judge things.

What makes the Ewing stuff irrelevant is that it doesn't MATTER how KG stacks up to '93 Jordan, Barkley, Olajuwon, or Ewing. It only matters how he stacks up to LeBron of '08, Kobe of '08, and Paul of '08. And as has been posted in this thread, KG's regular season advanced stats are competitive, his postseason stats are competitive, his intangibles effect is outstanding, his team impact was outstanding, and the team success was outstanding when compared to his contemporaries. That is really the only thing of importance to this thread, not some tangent about a former player. That stuff would be more appropriate in another thread on the PC board.

You guys are basing all of your arguments off of just one stat that is extremely flawed - I already debunked how Garnett was not the best big using either PER or WS. And he's not anywhere close to any other big men who've ever won the award.

The only advanced stat that is supporting your thesis is the APM - which is just ridiculous. Last year, Durrant was near the bottom of the league in APM, this year he's near the top. Dwight Howard went from +10 APM to -3 or whatever, I don't know the exact numbers - but to base everything off of a 1 year APM is ridiculous - specially when Peirce is right there in terms of the same stat.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that I listed PER, Win Shares (per 48), Wins Produced, Roland Rating, and two different APM measures when discussing Garnett. And in doing so showed pretty clearly that KG measured out better than Amare or any other big in '08 by a solid margin.

HERE, when discussing Ewing in '93, I'm only discussing PER and WS because I don't plan to put much time into evaluating 1993 until we get there. I was just making the (blatantly obvious) point that Ewing was not nearly top-2 in 1993, to illustrate why that makes Ewing irrelevant to the current conversation.

But if you can read through all of the many posts in this thread and say that I'm "basing all of (my) arguments off of just one stat "...I don't know what to tell you. The good thing about a dedicated thread like this is that it lets all of us go pretty in-depth in our analysis and arguments. By this point we've moved well, well beyond just what PER or WS might say about 2008 and are just using those particular stats as one (of many) data points with which to make our decisions.

[sp6r=underrated]

Drza

Those are some great articles. Thanks for sharing.

[Baller 24]

Interesting season, there are four guys that I can for sure say that are part of the top 5.

1) Chris Paul
2) Kevin Garnett
3) Kobe Bryant
4) LeBron James

Paul's team benefited the most off of his individual epic season. Statistically he was awesome all-around, but he was dominant, and his team impact was very significant in the teams success overall. KG is easy, anchored one of the greatest defense of all time, statistically which is considered the GREATEST, fantastic all-around season, helped his team to the best record and championship. Kobe, the MVP, he was solid, had a great all-around trip in the playoffs, fell short, but I think he belongs behind KG and CP3. LeBron was phenomenal as usual, even though his playoff performance was OKAY, he still took the champs to 7 games despite having a sub-par supporting cast. Another dominant all-around season.

5th place is pretty hard, McGrady led his team to a 22 game winning streak, where before he got hurt with his shoulder and knee injuries, he was scoring 22PPG on 45%, although that dropped after his injury to around 42%, but he didn't have the same kind of team success as his other counterparts, same with Dirk. I'm gonna go with Duncan, had some great clutch moments in the playoffs, anchored his defense, played solid from an all-around standpoint, especially if you include team success. That was also the last season where any team that faced Duncan's Spurs and beat them up until '08, went to the finals.

5) Duncan

[ElGee]

Everyone seems to agree about the top 4 that season...can we have more thoughts on #5? Dirk? Duncan? Howard? Nash?

[Doctor MJ]

Everyone seems to agree about the top 4 that season...can we have more thoughts on #5? Dirk? Duncan? Howard? Nash?

Good call, that's what I want to see too.

Howard - surprised I don't see more discussion on him given how strong he was in the '08-09 thread. If you think he's much better in '08-09, why?

Nash - people probably know I'm a Nash fan. I didn't have Nash in my top 5 after the '08 season, but now I'm trying to remember why exactly.

Duncan - I'm putting a lot of thought into Duncan now. Dude's amazing generally I know, and upsetting your way to the WCF is great. Still, to me this was the year where Duncan finally looked old, and the gap between him and Manu & Tony was suddenly small.

Also, Pierce. Anybody thinking about him here?

[Silver Bullet]

Everyone seems to agree about the top 4 that season...can we have more thoughts on #5? Dirk? Duncan? Howard? Nash?

Good call, that's what I want to see too.

Howard - surprised I don't see more discussion on him given how strong he was in the '08-09 thread. If you think he's much better in '08-09, why?

Nash - people probably know I'm a Nash fan. I didn't have Nash in my top 5 after the '08 season, but now I'm trying to remember why exactly.

Duncan - I'm putting a lot of thought into Duncan now. Dude's amazing generally I know, and upsetting your way to the WCF is great. Still, to me this was the year where Duncan finally looked old, and the gap between him and Manu & Tony was suddenly small.

Also, Pierce. Anybody thinking about him here?

Re: Pierce, yes I am
Re: Duncan, he had a lot less help than KG, and they both put up nearly identical stats. And I would suggest that their impact on defense is indistinguishable.

[sp6r=underrated]

Seconded, Doctor MJ point on Duncan. I am as big a Duncan homer as you can find. I remember rooting for the guy against Oklahoma State. But his performance in the 2008 playoffs was very disappointing. In retrospect, I'm ashamed of the arguments I made on this board to justify his post-season performance.

[Sedale Threatt]

I gave Duncan the nod as he had another outstanding season, in typically understated style, while leading a depleted team to the Final Four. Yeah, he was starting to fade a little bit, but that's more, not less, impressive in my opinion considering he still put up 19/11, the sixth-best PER in the league and was dominant on defense (as usual).

[bastillon]

from my memory:

-Howard failed epically in the playoffs when he was matched up with Rasheed and Maxiell. his team lost 4-1 to Billups-less (injured or playing but limited) Pistons. he wasn't the player that can create shots for himself nor was he as good a defender as he is right now.

-Dirk was playing great and he dominated in the playoffs, but he had no help vs Hornets (I think it was them), because I believe Josh was injured and Kidd trade didn't really turn out very well for them. Paul absolutely, positively dominated Kidd on both ends of the court. Dirk was great though.

-Nash was having another MVP-like season until Shaq came for Marion. the impact he had on his teammates could be seen in Marion's numbers which dropped through the roof once he was in Miami. he somewhat disappointed in the playoffs, but D'Antoni didn't really know what role would Shaq play and the Suns never regained fluidity of their offense, and more importantly, Shaq exacerbated their problems in pick and rolls. Spurs pretty much scored on those situations every time down the floor. IIRC Manu, Parker and Duncan all averaged close to 30 PPG in that series, playing pick and rolls all series long. nevertheless Nash somewhat disappointed in the playoffs. it's true that it was mainly because of how Shaq changed their team (for the worse) thus limiting Nash's role in the offense, but still you have to take that into account as playoffs should matter more.

-Duncan really regressed in that season. his numbers were still great, mainly because of how Ginobili and Parker created for him. I'd like to see what his numbers looked like in terms of assisted FG in comparison to his normal years. perhaps someone could look that up as I'm kinda busy right now with all this project going on, the playoffs etc. IIRC, he was also completely stopped by Tyson Chandler and Pau Gasol in consecutive two rounds (and Shaq pretty much stopped him too from iso scoring, but Suns pick and roll defense made Duncan even better scorer than usually; btw. ironically that was the job Shaq was supposed to do on Duncan, but it turned out even for the worse for Phoenix because how they pick and rolled his ass all the time, it's gonna be interesting what Celtics or Magic are gonna do against the Cavs as we can pretty much expect the same thing).

my vote goes to Nash, though I could see cases Dirk and Duncan (not so much in regard to Dwight).

[bastillon]

Everyone seems to agree about the top 4 that season...can we have more thoughts on #5? Dirk? Duncan? Howard? Nash?

Good call, that's what I want to see too.

Howard - surprised I don't see more discussion on him given how strong he was in the '08-09 thread. If you think he's much better in '08-09, why?

Nash - people probably know I'm a Nash fan. I didn't have Nash in my top 5 after the '08 season, but now I'm trying to remember why exactly.

Duncan - I'm putting a lot of thought into Duncan now. Dude's amazing generally I know, and upsetting your way to the WCF is great. Still, to me this was the year where Duncan finally looked old, and the gap between him and Manu & Tony was suddenly small.

re: Dwight - I remember reading the quote from Dwight before the 08-09 season in which he stated that he had wanted to lead the league in rebounds, blocks and shoot 70% FTs. he failed in FTs, but really improved as a defender and rebounder. that kinda put him over the top. also, most importantly, Dwight played an amazing series against the Cavs, IMO outplaying the almighty LeBron. that series was the main difference. in the playoffs you really have a small window of opportunity and Howard maximized his, as he took advantage of what the defense gave him and dominated. his 40/14 from game #6 is what started the Shaq comparisons at the time.

re: Nash - probably because of the playoffs. I remember him missing some really important shots in that Spurs series and I think he had some crucial turnovers too. this was definitely not his finest moment. people don't remember this now, but Suns-Spurs series was pretty much even the whole time. there were couple of blowouts but what put SAS over the top was how they closed games and Nash was somewhat disappointing. though to be fair, my memory tells me that Amare's idiocy was much bigger factor as he really lost Suns the game #1 which kinda turned the whole series around. also can't forget Spurs guarding him with Michael Finley during one game when he couldn't take advantage of that... that's what happens when you're face up big without any back-to-the-basket game. Spurs had to double either Amare or Shaq, so they put inferior defender on Amare since they were about to double (if necessary) anyway... because Amare can't pass. this series is the embodiment of how poor Amare is as an isolation threat.

[ElGee]

I do not have Garnett at #1 as of right now. I didn't think of his as #1 during that season. I do think he was the most valuable player, but a lot of that is circumstance. My understanding is that this is a "best player" project, and he wouldn't be my first pick in that regard.

The biggest issue with Garnett he wasn't really a true #1 scoring option. Now, that doesn't preclude someone from being the game's best, but KG's offense wasn't quite where it was at his peak in Minnesota. He was heavily criticized in Boston at times during the playoffs because of lack of offensive aggressiveness. Obviously, we have to weigh this against his defense.

He was excellent in the Detroit series, peaking in game 5. Pierce was better during the Finals. I think I want my #1 player to be the best player on the floor during the NBA Finals (if he's playing in them) and to be a larger offensive presence. These are my reservations about KG...counter-arguments?

[Sedale Threatt]

Duncan was assisted on 51% of his FGs in 08, compared to 46% in 03, 53% in 04, 51% in 05, 50% in 06 and 51% in 07. He actually had the best rebounding postseason of his career in 08, nearly 22 TRB%. He also had the worst shooting playoffs of his career, 49 TS%. Still great defensively, in my opinion.

[Silver Bullet]

I do not have Garnett at #1 as of right now. I didn't think of his as #1 during that season. I do think he was the most valuable player, but a lot of that is circumstance. My understanding is that this is a "best player" project, and he wouldn't be my first pick in that regard.

The biggest issue with Garnett he wasn't really a true #1 scoring option. Now, that doesn't preclude someone from being the game's best, but KG's offense wasn't quite where it was at his peak in Minnesota. He was heavily criticized in Boston at times during the playoffs because of lack of offensive aggressiveness. Obviously, we have to weigh this against his defense.

He was excellent in the Detroit series, peaking in game 5. Pierce was better during the Finals. I think I want my #1 player to be the best player on the floor during the NBA Finals (if he's playing in them) and to be a larger offensive presence. These are my reservations about KG...counter-arguments?

So you do think Peirce was clearly better than Ray Ray in the Finals ?

[ElGee]

Everyone seems to agree about the top 4 that season...can we have more thoughts on #5? Dirk? Duncan? Howard? Nash?

Good call, that's what I want to see too.

Howard - surprised I don't see more discussion on him given how strong he was in the '08-09 thread. If you think he's much better in '08-09, why?

Nash - people probably know I'm a Nash fan. I didn't have Nash in my top 5 after the '08 season, but now I'm trying to remember why exactly.

Duncan - I'm putting a lot of thought into Duncan now. Dude's amazing generally I know, and upsetting your way to the WCF is great. Still, to me this was the year where Duncan finally looked old, and the gap between him and Manu & Tony was suddenly small.

Also, Pierce. Anybody thinking about him here?

Howard - agree completely. I don't see that big of a difference between the two seasons.

Nash - For me, it was Shaq. The team was basically a non-factor post-trade and Nash didn't seem to have the same level of performance in previous years. That perception may be unfair, but I think that's what happened. Nash is worth further examination for me.

Duncan - absolutely right on finally looking old. Ginobili's injury made that WCF situation worse, but Manu was amazing before that. TD usually "coasts" in the regular season and reminds us he's elite in the playoffs. Didn't quite happen that year - 49% TS% in the playoffs.