Retro POY '02-03 (ends Tue morning PST)

[drza]

Garnett's second accomplishment:

I mentioned before that, with Wally hurt half the year, Garnett carried the most untalented cast to 51 wins that I've ever heard of. Well, in glancing through this thread, I've seen a mention or two that his cast wasn't really that bad. That maybe it was his teammates’ contributions that helped get them to their level of success. If for some reason anyone still has the notion that KG wasn't by-far...by FAR...the only reason for that team's success, I submit a second huge KG accomplishment from 2003:

Garnett in '03 recorded the largest on-court/off-court +/- value in 82games.com history. The Wolves were 22.8 points better per 48 minutes with Garnett than without him. http://82games.com/teams0203.htm The rest of his team was -17.1 when KG wasn't on the court.

I know some of you aren't partial to APM (clearly, Garnett was #1 in the league in APM in this time period), because sometimes it can give non-intuitive results that can be explained away with logical reasoning (there’s a thread like that floating around this board right now). And even if you believe in APM, being the most vital to your team's success doesn't necessarily make you the best player, because sometimes a player just might be unique or necessary for the system to work and not necessarily the best.

I get that.

But now that KG's ridiculous +23 number is out there, go back and take another look at the other members of the starting 5 and their resumes. And their 51 wins. CLEARLY, that team did not have the talent to win even half of that many games with even a reasonable 5th member. Shareef Abdur-Rahim, for instance, was putting up near 20-10 numbers with better casts on 25 win teams during that time. But Garnett was BANANAS that year, making an unprecedented impact to carry not-very-much to far beyond what they should've been able to do.

Since 82games has been tracking this net +/- stat (2002-03 first season), we've had the '03 TMac season, the '05 KG, the '06 and '07 Kobe, the '09 Wade. We've had historic MVP years like LeBron the last couple of years and KG in '04. We've had two of the biggest win/loss turnarounds in NBA history, both triggered by men credited for having huge intangibles that drove the team. We've seen Chris Paul turn in some of the greatest statistical seasons ever by a point guard, we've had Dirk win his MVP. We even had Duncan '03 lead a cast of good but perceived as too-olds or not-quite-old-enoughs to an NBA title.

But through all of that, in almost a decade we have never seen another season where one man had as large of an impact on his team's success as Garnett had in 2003. That's reason number two for why he should be player of the year.

[mysticbb]

But through all of that, in almost a decade we have never seen another season where one man had as large of an impact on his team's success as Garnett had in 2003. That's reason number two for why he should be player of the year.

Actually Nowitzki in 2002/03 was equal impressive. Why? Because Nowitzki had a +18.0 Net on an ELITE team. The Mavericks were the best team in league, had clearly the highest SRS of that season. Nowitzki had 25/10/3, was 6th in PER, 2nd in Win Shares, 3rd in WS/48 and the 2nd highest Net+/-. Just imagine, the best team of the season is -6.5 points per 48 minutes in the time Nowitzki wasn't on court. They win by +11.5 with him on the court.
The Mavericks won 60 games and went to WCF, just to lose to the Spurs. And yes, I'm sure that they could have beaten the Spurs that season, if it weren't for Nowitzki's injury. Additional to that they lost Shawn Bradley too. The Spurs were very fortunate in that playoffs series.

My vote:

1. Tim Duncan
2. Dirk Nowitzki
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Tracy McGrady

HM: Kobe Bryant, Jason Kidd

[mysticbb]

Why not use TS% when comparing their efficiency? Kobe's TS% was .520 in the 15 games without Shaq, which is certainly not great, but his improvement everywhere else balances that out.

Actually not, the Lakers went 5-10 without Shaquille O'Neal. And I really don't care, what kind of other players replaced Shaquille O'Neal. If the Lakers end that season with 27 wins, nobody is considering Bryant for POY. Garnett went for 40+ wins with similar help, Bryant wasn't as good and impactful.

[semi-sentient]

One thing I don't think's been mentioned in the Kobe vs McGrady debate: Kobe played about 450 more minutes in the regular season. Now if you think McGrady was having a much bigger impact, that 450 minutes shouldn't stop you from picking him. Don't kid yourself though, the Magic could have easily gone up a couple seeds if McGrady had played more - I'll be probably picking Kobe over McGrady because I consider their level of play close, and I can't see giving up 400+ minutes to have McGrady instead of Kobe.

Games played and minutes was part of my reasoning. Including the playoffs, Kobe played 12 more games and 670 more minutes. That's significant.

[semi-sentient]

Why not use TS% when comparing their efficiency? Kobe's TS% was .520 in the 15 games without Shaq, which is certainly not great, but his improvement everywhere else balances that out.

Actually not, the Lakers went 5-10 without Shaquille O'Neal. And I really don't care, what kind of other players replaced Shaquille O'Neal. If the Lakers end that season with 27 wins, nobody is considering Bryant for POY. Garnett went for 40+ wins with similar help, Bryant wasn't as good and impactful.

Not sure how your response is related to mine? I realize that the Lakers didn't do too well without Shaq (and Fox, mind you), but it's important to look at who else was on the roster and who their opponents were if we're going to judge team performance. The Lakers were not going to play that difficult of a schedule the entire season, so there's no reason to suggest they would have finished with 27 wins. I'd agree that Kobe wasn't as impactful as Garnett. I mentioned that those two (Duncan and Garnett) were on their own level and that no one had their impact.

Those guys have to be #1 and #2 on lists simply because they impacted both ends of the floor like none of the other candidates.

[bastillon]

what's the argument for Duncan over KG ? it sure isn't boxscore stats, it sure isn't impact when KG had highest recorded +/-, it can't be playoffs where KG played as well agains the Spurs as Duncan did, it can't be RS recognition either because they were neck and neck in MVP voting. if you guys are basing that solely on championship vs no championship you might keep in mind that Spurs bench players would be 2nd best on those Wolves. Garnett played with essentially d-leaguers that fit well within their offensive scheme and led them to some amazing results.

This is probably a good place for me to point out why I think the '03 Spurs cast has become underrated over time. People point out that DRob was old an on his way out (true), they point out that Parker, Manu, and Jackson weren't yet what they would become (true), and they point out that no one outside of Duncan was an impact offensive player on that team (true as well). But what doesn't often get pointed out is that those Spurs were a defensive all-star team at 4 of 5 positions. Drob, even at a shadow of himself, was still one of the best defensive big men in the league. And a swingman rotation of prime Bowen, young Manu and young Jackson is a great combo of on-ball aggression and disruptive help defense against opposing swings.

This was vital because the truth is that the 2003 championship had to go through the Lakers. And the Spurs were much better equipped to defend Shaq and Kobe than the Wolves were. Actually, Kobe more-so than Shaq. Those Wolves had a swing rotation of Anthony Peeler, Wally Szczerbiak, and old Kendall Gill with a center rotation of Rasho Nesterovic and Marc Jackson...all TERRIBLE defensive players at that point in their careers. The upshot of that is that no matter how ridiculous KG played (and he was pretty ridiculous that series), the Lakers could always go to Kobe for free buckets the other way. Shaq was a handful like always, but with KG helping out the centers they were able to keep Shaq as contained as was reasonably possible that year. But Kobe just flat laughed at Peeler and Wally, which was ultimately the difference in that series.

I don't believe that KG needed more talent than Duncan in 2003 to beat those Lakers, or that the reason that he lost was that he shoots more from the perimeter than Duncan does. Replace Peeler/Wally/Gill/Rasho with Bowen/SJax/Manu/DRob and I think he could have got it done.

As far as accomplishments go, I've always felt that Garnett somehow managing to carry a crew of Hudson (career journeyman), Szczerbiak (injured half of that season, limited even when healthy), Peeler (career journeyman), Gill (old career journeyman), and Rasho (career journeyman) to 51 wins and a legit shot to beat the 3-peat Lakers was one of the most impressive accomplishments of this decade. I still maintain that from players 2 - 15, that is the worst 51-win team in my lifetime (and quite possibly in NBA history). But the thing is, without championships no one is willing to give these kinds of "moral victories" weight on a historic scale. So no, I don't think KG's title in '08 was as big of an accomplishment as Duncan's in '03...my hope is that once KG has title(s) to his name people will go back and re-evaluate just how amazing his accomplishments were with so little help in his prime in Minnesota.

2) 2003: You took issue with me saying that the '03 Spurs started a defensive All Star team at 4 of the 5 positions. David Robinson was still one of the best defensive centers in the game even in that last year, and he started and played roughly half of the game. Duncan is self evident. Bowen was in his 3rd year of a run of 8 consecutive All Defense selections. SJax and Manu were not decorated defensive All Stars, but they were both above average defenders and good athletes that, when put in rotation with Bowen, assured that the Spurs fielded a line-up with 4 plus defenders (3 of which were legitimately great).

I contrast that with KG in Minnesota, where his starting line-up consisted of 2 extremely poor defensive guards (Hudson and Peeler), 1 extremely poor defensive small forward (Wally), 1 below average defensive center (Rasho), and Garnett. I do not find it coincidence that the Lakers role players shot so poorly against the Spurs team defense after shooting well against the Timberwolves. I also don't find it coincidence that Kobe went from averaging 6.7 assists/2.5 TOs against the Wolves to 3.7 assists/4.5 TOs against the Spurs. Against the Wolves, Kobe controlled the games by blowing past his defenders (Peeler? Wally?) at will and breaking down the defense, creating easy shots for those same shooters. Against the Spurs he was unable to do so, forcing him and Shaq to be lone scorers. And Kobe trying to force it made him much less efficient overall, despite his similar shooting/scoring numbers. Perhaps some of that was due to Kobe's shoulder injury, perhaps some of it was due to Fox being out, but a good bit of it came from the fact that the Spurs had defenders that could pressure Kobe while the Wolves did not.

[bastillon]

no, that's not the point. I was just trying to put an end to this ridiculous notion that Duncan's 2003 title was extremely impressive, better than some other in some way. his individual performances were impressive, not the lone fact that he won a title. he had the best supporting cast out of any teams in the league, considering all the injuries and competition... he was supposed to win that title and many players would've done the same under those circumstances. let's not overrate Duncan's title, because this competition was 2ndroundesque, he didn't beat one strong team.

you know, at first
Parker/Claxton
SJax/Manu
Bowen/SJax
Robinson/M.Rose
doesn't look that impressive, but when you consider that his main rivals, players on which opponents were built around - Marbury, Shaq, Finley and Kidd - had even worse teammates, then this title doesn't look that impressive. Marbury and Finley have no business being there anyway, they were just players who took on too much responsibility, they should've been playing as 3rd option scorers, not 'leaders'.

Shaq had
Horry/Medvedenko
George
Kobe/Rush
Fisher

Kidd had
Collins/A.Williams
K-Mart/A.Williams
Jefferson/Kittles
Kittles/L.Harris

PG
Nets
Spurs
Lakers

SG
Lakers
Spurs
Nets

SF
Spurs
Nets
Lakers

PF
Spurs
Nets
Lakers

C
Lakers
Spurs
Nets

so even if we focus on PG, SG, SF, C, Spurs were still the best team. Duncan simply had the best talent around him, that's why he won.

02-03 was a fine year for Tim in the playoffs, though. Regardless of what anyone says, when you're dropping 25/15/5, you're doing something special. Parker sucked that year, Manu was terrible... I mean, you're talking about some pretty weak-sauce teammates for him. There were certainly timely contributions, and the Finals were a joke.

The first round was a joke, but it usually is. The Suns had no hope of beating the Spurs that year, even after the false hope the opener gave them.

The Lakers series was a little different. Game One was basically epic-fail from the role players and a relatively poor performance from Kobe. Shaq had a 20/20 game before fouling out, but guys not named Kobe or Shaq shot 8/28, which was pathetic. That, for reference, was the year that Robert Horry couldn't have hit the broad side of a barn with a 10-ton thermonuclear weapon. He shot just over 5 percent (5, not 25, 5!!) from downtown in the playoffs that year. Epic meltdown from Horry. Game 2 was a blowout where Kobe looked awful and guys not named Shaq/Kobe shot 17/42 (and Kobe shot 9/24). Also, Bruce Bowen was 7/8 from downtown and 10/12 on the game, which was insane. Lakers grabbed two wins after that, lost a close one, then got blown apart in the clincher. The role players just sucked that year. Really, really bad.

I think you have to put a good word in for how Bowen handled Kobe, but that team was the Lakers squad most LACKING proper support for its star players when it counted.

The WCFs though, were where it happened. DIrk was lights-out in the opener, then OK. Then terrible. Then ABSENT in games four, five and six. The Spurs caught a HUGE break on that one. Dirk was missing for three games, during which the Mavs went 1-2. If they'd had DIrk, that would have been at least a 7-game series, and maybe even a Dallas victory.

[semi-sentient]

Like I said before, there's three guys you can legitimately put at #1 (or four if you prize Shaq's dominance when he played more than most), so I'm not gonna get bothered too much, but you can say Kobe's defense was better than McGrady's, but...

#1- Individual defense is less important than individual offense in professional basketball anyway.

#2- McGrady's offense (and rebounding) weren't just better than Kobe's. They were echelons better. It was, as I mentioned, comparing a prime Jordan or prime LeBron to Kobe. It simply wasn't close.

You'd really have to be big on individual defense and team success- like really big- to go with Kobe over McGrady.

In the '05-06 thread, you said the following:

At the end of the regular season, I had/would've had Bryant decently ahead of Nowitzki, James, Garnett, and Wade (no particular order). Not enough changed in the postseason to move any of those five out of contention, especially with Duncan having one of his worst years as a pro (although great in the playoffs, that was only 13 games of his season), so those are my five and- with Kobe having an edge going in- the playoffs defining where they fall in.

But at the end of the day, Wade's taking over in one series is what elevated him in your rankings (the Detroit series was not a takeover -- Shaq was big in that series). I know you've argued against posters who have weighed one series heavily in the past, but that's precisely what's happening here.

Shouldn't that same logic apply to Duncan as well, especially since he has a massive advantage in terms of games played (23+) and dominated everyone in the playoffs? Look at how much better his numbers are from the regular season, and then compare them to the drop off that McGrady had.

Speaking of which, what about McGrady's failure against the Pistons (and he did stink in the closing games of that series)? How is that not a negative for him, yet Wade performing in the Finals in '05-06 was a positive and boosted him up to #1 in the rankings for that season?

I see a lot of the same with other voters. Why the change of heart? Suddenly having a garbage supporting cast is more important than guys that elevate their game in the post-season?

...

Oh, and I think Dirk Nowitzki being #2 on any list this season has to be questioned as well. He doesn't have nearly the defensive impact of guys like Duncan and Garnett, and he's even below Garnett in terms of +/- (who led the league). Dirk's essentially being rewarded for team success. I can see him cracking the top 5, but #2? No way...

[bastillon]

Speaking of which, what about McGrady's failure against the Pistons (and he did stink in the closing games of that series)?

IIRC the Pistons switched Prince onto T-Mac in game 5 and from that point on, T-Mac struggled to get his shot off.

[Sedale Threatt]

what's the argument for Duncan over KG ? it sure isn't boxscore stats.

Duncan had the better PER and defensive rating, more win shares and win shares/per 48, all of which I've seen denigrated as "box score stats." KG is right there with him in some cases, but again -- Duncan was ahead of him.

it sure isn't impact when KG had highest recorded +/-.

Yes. Although I'd have to wonder how KG's 23/13/great defense was significantly more impactful than Duncan's 23/13/great defense. I guess those two extra assists really do make that much difference.

it can't be playoffs where KG played as well agains the Spurs as Duncan did.

Duncan had one of the great playoff runs in recent memory. His production in every major category went up. His efficiency improved. He was outstanding in all the advanced measures. His individual numbers were ridiculous -- six games with at least 20 rebounds, nine games with at least four blocks, five games with at least 30 points (another with 29), 15 (!!!) games with at least five assists -- all capped by the near quadruple double in the Finals clincher.

Clearly, this was a Top 10 player at his absolute peak.

No question KG had an outstanding series against the Lakers. But seriously, does six games of that compare to 24 games of what Duncan did? Not even close, in my opinion.

it can't be RS recognition either because they were neck and neck in MVP voting.

But Duncan won. Not that I put any stock into that, but still -- Duncan won the award. They don't give anything out for second place.

if you guys are basing that solely on championship vs no championship you might keep in mind that Spurs bench players would be 2nd best on those Wolves. Garnett played with essentially d-leaguers that fit well within their offensive scheme and led them to some amazing results.

I guess it comes down to what one thinks is more noteworthy -- KG leading a terrible team to 50 wins and a first-round ouster against the defending champs, or Duncan leading a good but hardly great team to 60 wins, past the defending champs and another championship.

To me, another advantage for Duncan.

[Sedale Threatt]

I don't believe that KG needed more talent than Duncan in 2003 to beat those Lakers, or that the reason that he lost was that he shoots more from the perimeter than Duncan does. Replace Peeler/Wally/Gill/Rasho with Bowen/SJax/Manu/DRob and I think he could have got it done.

This is another assertion that I have a problem with. I don't understand how it's fair to give KG hypothetical credit for winning with Duncan's supporting cast.

"I think (KG) could have got it done..." Well, that's great. But in Duncan's case, we already know. Advantage, Tim.

[Baller 24]

One thing I don't think's been mentioned in the Kobe vs McGrady debate: Kobe played about 450 more minutes in the regular season. Now if you think McGrady was having a much bigger impact, that 450 minutes shouldn't stop you from picking him. Don't kid yourself though, the Magic could have easily gone up a couple seeds if McGrady had played more - I'll be probably picking Kobe over McGrady because I consider their level of play close, and I can't see giving up 400+ minutes to have McGrady instead of Kobe.

Semi mentioned it earlier, and TMACFORMVP had a nice response to it if you look at page 3, explaining the differences and what not. McGrady's team had a better perimeter defense despite Bryant being considered the more "Elite" by a "GOOD MARGIN" a defensive athlete. Despite McGrady having absolute crap as support.

[Baller 24]

5. McGrady -- Outstanding season. This probably shouldn't play a factor, but I view this as something of a fluke season, which mars the luster in my mind.

I'm just curious, I know it's not considered as a factor, but can you please point out the "fluke" in his season? I'd just like to get your opinion on it, because I pretty much have seen all 82 games of the Orlando Magic during that season (including the game against the Lakers with Kobe and Shaq where McGrady and Kobe are going at it and all that great stuff---where McGrady closes out the 4th hitting pretty much every kind of shot on Kobe).

[Baller 24]

I'm thinking many are thinking about '03 Tmac and stating how it was a fluke in the sense that he put up that season and didn't follow from it. But take a look at his resume from 00-08 WITHOUT his 2003 NBA season:

25.3 PPG | 6.4 RPG | 5.5 APG | 1.4 SPG on .430 and .330 from distance.

- 6 Time NBA All-Star
- 5 Time All-NBA
- NBA Scoring Champion
- NBA's Most Improved Player
- 5 Times Top 10 in MVP Voting (6th, 4th, 7th, 6th, 8th)

Mind that this is without including the '03 NBA season, where he was epic statistically. I honestly think fluke is the wrong word to use when he was in and out one of the best players in the league. And with those statistics his impact was STRONG in Houston:

Code: Select all

04-05: 2-2 (49-29)
05-06: 7-28 (27-20)
06-07: 2-9 (50-21)
07-08: 9-7 (46-20)

Total w/o McGrady: 20-46 (.434%)
Total w/ McGrady: 172-90 (.523%)

That's pretty significant considering those wins without T-Mac are WITH Yao Ming included. Even if you don't include the 2003 season his resume is still pretty stacked since he's still a scoring champ, 6 time all-star, 5 time all nba, and 5 times finished in the top 10 of mvp voting, and he's been a fantastic playoff performer, even in '03, where he had to SCORE 40 in two of the three wins for that Magic team to win.

[Gongxi]

One thing I don't think's been mentioned in the Kobe vs McGrady debate: Kobe played about 450 more minutes in the regular season. Now if you think McGrady was having a much bigger impact, that 450 minutes shouldn't stop you from picking him. Don't kid yourself though, the Magic could have easily gone up a couple seeds if McGrady had played more - I'll be probably picking Kobe over McGrady because I consider their level of play close, and I can't see giving up 400+ minutes to have McGrady instead of Kobe.

When it comes down to people playing 10-15 games less, I'll consider it. McGrady playing 75 games as to Kobe's 82 really doesn't register for me. Sure, if McGrady had played more the Magic would've gotten a better seed. Likewise, if Kobe had played better (like McGrady, for example), the Lakers would've won the championship.

Games played and minutes was part of my reasoning. Including the playoffs, Kobe played 12 more games and 670 more minutes. That's significant.

Well, he played more games because he was on a better team. You can say that the team was better because Kobe was on it (although he played worse so...), but then we get into the chicken and the egg argument wherein people are wondering if Ben Wallace was the fifth best player in basketball in 2004, which I think is beyond silly.

Like I said before, there's three guys you can legitimately put at #1 (or four if you prize Shaq's dominance when he played more than most), so I'm not gonna get bothered too much, but you can say Kobe's defense was better than McGrady's, but...

#1- Individual defense is less important than individual offense in professional basketball anyway.

#2- McGrady's offense (and rebounding) weren't just better than Kobe's. They were echelons better. It was, as I mentioned, comparing a prime Jordan or prime LeBron to Kobe. It simply wasn't close.

You'd really have to be big on individual defense and team success- like really big- to go with Kobe over McGrady.

In the '05-06 thread, you said the following:

At the end of the regular season, I had/would've had Bryant decently ahead of Nowitzki, James, Garnett, and Wade (no particular order). Not enough changed in the postseason to move any of those five out of contention, especially with Duncan having one of his worst years as a pro (although great in the playoffs, that was only 13 games of his season), so those are my five and- with Kobe having an edge going in- the playoffs defining where they fall in.

But at the end of the day, Wade's taking over in one series is what elevated him in your rankings (the Detroit series was not a takeover -- Shaq was big in that series). I know you've argued against posters who have weighed one series heavily in the past, but that's precisely what's happening here.

No, it wasn't one series. It was two. Those two series being 12 games- 24 if you count them double. Counting all playoff games as double (although they do get weighed a little heavier as they move on, not too much though, that would be a whole 18% of Wade's season.

Shouldn't that same logic apply to Duncan as well, especially since he has a massive advantage in terms of games played (23+) and dominated everyone in the playoffs? Look at how much better his numbers are from the regular season, and then compare them to the drop off that McGrady had.

And his numbers in the playoffs still aren't better than McGrady's from the regular season. McGrady's playoffs are a very small sample size.

Speaking of which, what about McGrady's failure against the Pistons (and he did stink in the closing games of that series)? How is that not a negative for him, yet Wade performing in the Finals in '05-06 was a positive and boosted him up to #1 in the rankings for that season?

Who said McGrady's series against the Pistons wasn't a negative for him? And if you think Wade's performance in the Finals was the only outstanding series from him, you're sorely mistaken.

I see a lot of the same with other voters. Why the change of heart? Suddenly having a garbage supporting cast is more important than guys that elevate their game in the post-season?

There's no change of heart at all. You just think there is. All about how well you play on the court, baby.

[Sedale Threatt]

5. McGrady -- Outstanding season. This probably shouldn't play a factor, but I view this as something of a fluke season, which mars the luster in my mind.

I'm just curious, I know it's not considered as a factor, but can you please point out the "fluke" in his season? I'd just like to get your opinion on it, because I pretty much have seen all 82 games of the Orlando Magic during that season (including the game against the Lakers with Kobe and Shaq where McGrady and Kobe are going at it and all that great stuff---where McGrady closes out the 4th hitting pretty much every kind of shot on Kobe).

Looking back over his career, it just sticks out like a sore thumb. There are some really good seasons before and after, but nothing on the same level. I know everyone's got a peak, but I'm not sure I've ever seen such a substantial one-year spike.

[Silver Bullet]

So right off the bat, just so I don't get accused of trying to manipulate the vote later on, I'll most likely be putting Shaq at 1 the next 4 years.

[Sedale Threatt]

Anybody who doesn't pick him for the next three is going to have some serious explaining to do.

And I'm already girding my loins for the Olajuwon onslaught for the late 80s and early 90s.

[Baller 24]

Looking back over his career, it just sticks out like a sore thumb. There are some really good seasons before and after, but nothing on the same level. I know everyone's got a peak, but I'm not sure I've ever seen such a substantial one-year spike.

Yeah it was a pretty ridiculous season no doubt. I think he was the same player in '02, but he didn't necessarily utilize all aspects to his game to a degree of that nature. In '01, he was pretty solid too, just was more of an attacking machine where he was actually still using his defensive skills where he was considered a specialist in Toronto.

Much afterwards, I think he fell off or declined was due to his conditioning, aside from '05 and '07, McGrady never relied much on his conditioning, because he was an absolutely gifted player from the get-go, I think the same for Carter. Though still maybe he wasn't that solid of a player, but he was still pretty impact full and good.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'll let people know while Shaq has my vote for 2000 and 2001 he doesn't have it for 2002, and I'm more than willing to give you the explaining.