#2 Highest Peak of All Time (Shaq '00 wins)

[PTB Fan]

"The Portland Trail Blazers, formally announced the firing of Lenny Wilkens yesterday naming Jack Ramsey to succeed him as a coach of the National Basketball Association team. Ramsey, fired by Buffalo after guiding the Braves into the Eastern semi-conference finals, is the fourth coach of the Blazers, who joined in the 1970. Ramsey said, "I think this the best coaching opportunity in professional basketball, and I took the position here for that reason."

"I have great regard for the talent of this team" Ramsey said. "It is like an iceberg. What you see isn't the mass that is really there. Sure Bill Walton has to be healthy and play almost a full season if we are to achieve great success.

"I want a team that can run, a team that can make the transition from offense to defense and be aggressive when it gets to defense. Bill Walton is a great big man and he will give us up front quality. I am looking forward to his playing a major part of the schedule."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Mf ... lton&hl=en

"Depend on the health of center Bill Walton, this could be the turnaround season for the Portland Trail Blazers in the National Basketball Association. So far, Walton is healthy -- the healthiest he's ever been since he's turned pro -- and Portland is in a high state of optimism.

"Our future has to be now" says Ramsey, a successful veteran of the NBA wars who left Buffalo after three straight playoff seasons after falling out with the Braves front office. Ramsey admits Walton is the key to a turnaround. "I want at least 60 games out of Bill this season" he said. "If we get that, we will be in good shape."

Walton, the former UCLA All-American, can be awesome when healthy. But he was an injury prone in his first two pro seasons, getting in the equivalent of only one season's play over two years. For the first time, he came to training camp with no injuries:

"Walton is such a fine talent, so coachable, and unselfish." said Ramsey. "He does everything well. I like the spirit on this club. These players want to win. You can see it in practice and we saw it in exhibition games."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1E ... lton&hl=en

"His third season's been a charm, so far, for big Bill Walton of the Portland Trail Blazers. The sometimes controversial redheaded is off to his best National Basketball Association start ever, and the reason is simple.

For the first time in his pro career, Walton's completely healthy. "I don't think about the injuries. I try to keep up in the best physical condition that I can prevent injuries, but I don't think about them" Walton says.[/b]

But he's had a bad reason to think a lot. He had nine broken bones of one kind or another in his first two NBA seasons. Coach Jack Ramsey wanted the 6-11 center, who was drafted No.1 from the UCLA in 1974, to come to camp a bit lighter this season. And he did -- about 10 pounds.

Ramsey thinks with less weight, there's less chances of an injury from pressure on the legs and knees. The Blazers have something of a new attitude under Ramsey, more of a team concept. But Walton says his attitude are about the same ever.

"I don't think I've changed. I have the same values and the same interests." says Walton, who turned 24 last week. Still bearded, he says he's got long hair cut for comfort, nothing else. The coach has nothing but praise for Walton.

"He is a blend of all the skills of the game" Ramsey says. "He'll do whatever is necessary to win, and that's all he's concerned about.

"I think he could be the most valuable player in pro basketball." But Walton, who has been a leading scorer for Portland and tops the league in rebounds so far in this season, says what counts in the end is the final tally on the scoreboard.

"I go by wins and loses and not by the boxscore. Boxscores are extremely misleading." Walton says. And he's glad to be mended. "It is pleasant to go to practices this season and be able to practice." [/i]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7P ... lton&hl=en

"The red ponytail is gone and so is the bandanna. So, too, are the aches and pains, the injuries that dogged Bill Walton through his first two years as a pro. "I'm healthy, that's the biggest difference" said Walton, who is playing the way Portland folks had hoped when they drafted him at No.1 in 1974 out of UCLA.

The 6-foot-11, 225 pounded is in great shape and is playing nearly 40 minutes a game. He still wears bandages on his knees, and after games he soaks his chronically sore feet in a tray of ice. But to have gone through seven weeks of the season with no injuries is a new experience, one he is enjoying.

"This is the most I've played in the NBA in one strach" Walton said following a 114-96 victory over the New York Knicks Tuesday night in which he contributed with 16 points, 15 rebounds and 8 blocked shots.

"Consistency, that's the most important thing," he said. "I've been able to develop all the areas of my game. When you play two weeks and then get hurt and sit out two weeks, you can't do that."

Ramsey who has nothing but praise for Walton, who leads the league in rebounds and blocked shots and is Portland's leading scorer at 21.1 points a game. "Bill's been just super" Ramsey said. "He's a very team first oriented guy. He's been working his tail off to help this team. He has great rapport with his teammates."

Walton, 24, is the captain of the Blazers. a position which he was voted to by other players. "It was nice of the guys to select me captain" he said with a smile. "but this team doesn't really need a captain to get them going. They know what to do, how to win games. But it was nice."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Ia ... lton&hl=en

"Center Bill Walton of the Portland Trail Blazers will not play Sunday in the National Basketball Association All-Star Game in Milwaukee because of an inflamed Achilles tendon. He will be replaced by Don Buse of the Indiana Pacers.

Walton, who leads the NBA in rebounds and blocked shots, hasn't played in two weeks because of the injury. He said there has been noticeable improvement in the injury in the past three days."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NB ... lton&hl=en

"A jubilant coach Jack Ramsey called it the return "of the old Portland Trail Blazers" and the New Orleans Jazz felt the sting, losing 131-104 in a National Basketball Association game here Tuesday night.

The win broke a three-game Portland losing streak and put the Blazers back within 2 and half games within the leading Los Angeles in the Pacific Division. Center Bill Walton made his return to the Portland lineup after missing five games because of an ankle sprain. He played only 17 minutes, but tallied 12 points, eight rebounds, four assists and four blocked shots.

"We ran well" said Portland forward Maurice Lucas who scored 18 of his 20 points as the Blazers built 66-44 lead. "It makes so much difference with Bill (Walton) back. Also I can do many more things with him there."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=12 ... lton&hl=en





I don't if I really need to make a post on the postseason and Finals considering how knowledgeable group of guys we have here.. but I'll still do it... part 2 is coming later or maybe just in an other thread

[ardee]

Of course, the logical counter is that in general Walton and Garnett tend to be massively underrated, because (like Russell) their strengths come in areas besides scoring and scoring is massively overrated. Shrugs. Seems like that's the purpose of a project like this, to put your arguments on the table in a medium where a lot of people will be reading for potentially years to come. Spending a lot of time on opinion statements like "overrated" or "don't have an argument" seems not to add much to it. Everyone here has opinions on who should be where...instead of making definitive statements based on your opinion, we'd all be better served if you put your reasoning behind your opinion on the board instead.

People underrate Walton and Garnett? I'd say Russell, Garnett and then Walton/David Lee ( ) are the PC board's favorite players in that order.

Well, my argument that these two should not be in the top 8-9 discussion is not to do with them, but rather to do with the others above them.

Lol at the David Lee shout-out from the other thread. But I think you're looking at "underrating" in a different way. The default in basketball analysis everywhere (not just on the PC board) tends to be that scoring is king. Russell gets more attention than most "non-scorers" because his rings buy his way in the door, but even he doesn't get the kind of universal acclaim that he would have gotten if he had all of the same career accomplishments but made his impact more like Wilt with the video game offensive numbers (e.g. had such an event occurred, there's no way that Jordan would be so universally considered the GOAT).

The reason that the these players get so much run on the PC board is that this board tends to be filled with basketball junkies/nerds of an order that you don't see most places. Which means that there is a willigness/eagerness by most to really look at the complete story, and not just default to the ESPN-level/barbershop-style analysis that is more the default everywhere else.

And in addition, even with the PC board being more willing to examine the whole picture, those players still are not universally rated on here at the level that they actually played. That's the other reason why they're discussed so much on here...so many threads pop up where they aren't given their due that the same evidence/arguments have to presented and re-presented and re-presented on a weekly basis because their value isn't common knowledge. Because they are underrated. Which completes the great circle of life

I don't know what you mean by 'scoring is massively overrated'. The best offensive players of all time (except for Nash probably) were all very efficient volume scorers during their best years. Someone like a Shaq or a Jordan, who helps his team's offense by drawing defenders and then getting his team-mates easier shots.

However, if he wasn't a good scorer, he wouldn't be drawing that defensive attention, simple as that.

Scoring is the whole point of playing basketball, and it tends to get taken for granted. It's not a coincidence that Magic reached his zenith and the Lakers offense exploded when he became a capable volume scorer.

As ElGee mentioned, Bird's 1988 regular season was arguably his best, and he scored 30 ppg on 50-40-90 splits. The Cs also had the best offense in history when McHale was healthy.

The best offensive players are of two components: their ability to score, and their ability to help their team-mates get better shots. The second is dependent on the first, and the first just gets taken for granted.

I'd go ahead and say scoring is underrated when people discuss things like this.

The underlineds here tell the story here, and the underlined-bolded part is the huge crux of where we disagree and why I say scoring is overrated. Scoring is NOT, repeat NOT!!! the whole point of playing basketball. OUTSCORING your opponent is the whole point of playing basketball. In that post you just gave to defend scoring, you mentioned offense or scoring more than 10 times...and didn't mention defense as a key aspect of winning a single time.

But the thing is, what you just wrote fits right in with the default attitude of the basketball public in general, and even a large component of this board. So it's not that you're offering some type of minority opinion. Which is, again, the point. Because the ability to prevent your opponent from scoring is just as large of a part of the actual point of winning basketball as the ability to score.

And in addition to purely scoring, or purely preventing your opponent from scoring, there are the other aspects of the game. [b]The ability to use passing to help make your team offense more potent than scoring on your own (even at good efficiencies)[/b], the ability to dominate the glass and generate more possessions for your team, the ability to space the floor so that others can score more easily, the ability to help your team prevent opponents from scoring when it's not your man with the ball. These are all definite, tangible basketball abilities that, in the correct proportions, can be more valuable in a player than the ability to efficiently score.

Basketball is much, much more than just high efficiency scoring. And success in that area doesn't remotely mean that a player is definitely better or more impactful than a player that makes their mark in other ways.

I never said that it isn't, man. Defense is just as important as offense. My basic point is that you are unfairly not giving scoring the credit it deserves, which leads me to this:

You didn't detract from my main point: being a capable scorer is the benchmark for the best offensive players. All the players who led the best offenses were great at scoring the basketball. See my bolded and underlined point in what you said. Let me break down what I'm trying to say.

1. The likes of Jordan, Bird, Magic, all the great offensive players, were very good at getting team-mates easy shots.

2. However, the basic meaning of an easy shot is a non-contested shot.

3. How are shots uncontested? When the shooter's defender is not in the same vicinity as him.

4. Why is the shooter's defender not in the same vicinity as him? Because he has gone to help the defender of the player with the ball.

5. Why has he done that? Because the player with the ball is a dangerous scorer and cannot be handled one on one.

6. If the player with the ball was not a dangerous scorer, the second defender would have never left the other offensive player, and thereby the easier opportunity would not have been created.

Now do you see what I mean?

A player's own ability to score, or rather the threat to score, is what results in efficient shots for others.

[therealbig3]

From what I've checked of the 2012 Heat offense in the playoffs:

They had an average ORating of 110.5 vs an average DRating of 101.2 (+9.3). That's better than any Bird-led playoff offense, and better than any Nash or Magic-led playoff offenses except for the 85 Lakers (+9.8), the 87 Lakers (+10.5), the 05 Suns (+16.2...), and the 10 Suns (+12.6...).

And checking the on/off numbers for that playoff run:

The Heat without LeBron on the court were -14.22 overall, with a 95.65 ORating. With LeBron on the court, the Heat were +10.59 overall, with a 111.42 ORating. That's an overall lift of +24.81, with a lift on offense of +15.77.

[colts18]

From what I've checked of the 2012 Heat offense in the playoffs:

They had an average ORating of 110.5 vs an average DRating of 101.2 (+9.3). That's better than any Bird-led playoff offense, and better than any Nash or Magic-led playoff offenses except for the 85 Lakers (+9.8), the 87 Lakers (+10.5), the 05 Suns (+16.2...), and the 10 Suns (+12.6...).

And checking the on/off numbers for that playoff run:

The Heat without LeBron on the court were -14.22 overall, with a 95.65 ORating. With LeBron on the court, the Heat were +10.59 overall, with a 111.42 ORating. That's an overall lift of +24.81, with a lift on offense of +15.77.

Based on B-R, the Heat a 109.6 O rating not 110.5 which would come out to +8.4.

The Thunder had a 111.8 O rating against a 102.57 schedule which comes out to +9.23. Durant should be in this project somewhere. He had an amazing season capped off with a great finals.

[MisterWestside]

Right but by '86-87 he doesn't have anyone on his team as good as Chris Bosh, and the Laker offense far, far superior to the current Heat team.

I'd still take Worthy over Bosh. Could always hit the midrange shot but he was not allergic to getting to the rim or posting up.

I do think you make a good point about LeBron playing a different role on the Olympic team, and doing it well, but I'm not really sure how to use that. I mean, if LeBron gets injured tomorrow, that team likely still destroys the world, so how can anything he does there be used as a trump card in a GOAT-level discussion?

We get a bit too caught up with "impact" here. Yes, Team USA is loaded with talent outside of LeBron, but it doesn't take away from how he meshes with other "needy" scorers on the court and keeps them happy. He can take a step back and facilitate and move the ball instead of looking to score (six shots in 25 minutes), while playing his usual defense. And he should be commended for that.

More to the point, aesthetically speaking, when you watch LeBron play, he simply doesn't look like Magic or Nash.

Sure, and I'm not saying he's a carbon copy of the greatest point guard ever or Nashty. But on this Heat team, he hasn't had a ton of opportunities to be the pure facilitator of his team's offense - only two other players on the Heat can create their own shot, and there were stretches where one or both of them were injured/injured and in the game at less effectiveness. HE NEEDS to score for his team at those times, not play "Magic".

[Doctor MJ]

We get a bit too caught up with "impact" here. Yes, Team USA is loaded with talent outside of LeBron, but it doesn't take away from how he meshes with other "needy" scorers on the court and keeps them happy. He can take a step back and facilitate and move the ball instead of looking to score (six shots in 25 minutes), while playing his usual defense. And he should be commended for that.

Points taken on the other stuff, but with this particular point, if LeBron isn't having impact with what he's doing, if all he's doing is placating other egos, who cares?

I understand you could come back with "What I mean is that is that the team may be great without him but I think he makes them far greater with what he's doing", but I personally don't really believing he's having a ton of impact as is, so primarily what he's doing is just letting other guys do their thing. This is commendable. It's something Michael Jordan was never able to do (his shot jacking in the '92 Olympics is perhaps the one embarassing fact on the entire team), but it does not persuade me that LeBron's quarterbacking skills are up their with Magic.

[Doctor MJ]

btw, that was a monster post from PTB Fan. Nicely done!

[colts18]

btw, that was a monster post from PTB Fan. Nicely done!

If we have a consensus like we do now (Shaq 00) shouldn't we start the next thread early? It would save time because I don't think we need 3 days for the early rounds (maybe the later rounds though).

[JordansBulls]

Looks like Shaq takes this one.

1. ardee - Wilt 1967
2. Doctor MJ - (leaning towards Shaq 2000)
3. C-izeMe - Shaq 2000
4. colts18 - Shaq 2000
5. DavidStern - Shaq 2000
6. DrMufasa now Dr Positivity - Wilt 1967
7. drza - Russell 1965
8. ElGee - Shaq 2000
9. JordansBulls - Kareem 1971
10. Rapcity_11 - No Vote
11. Vinsanity420 - Shaq 2000
12. therealbig3 - Shaq 2000
13. Josephpaul - Kareem 1971
14. ThaRegul8r - Wilt 1967
15. PTB Fan - Shaq 2000

Shaq has 7 and the next closest is 3.

[ardee]

btw, that was a monster post from PTB Fan. Nicely done!

If we have a consensus like we do now (Shaq 00) shouldn't we start the next thread early? It would save time because I don't think we need 3 days for the early rounds (maybe the later rounds though).

I agree.... We had might as well move on.

[ElGee]

Really enjoyed this thread. A few final points before we pick it up in the next thread.

If people are unclear on why I think portability is important, please read the research I've done on the odds of winning based on SRS differences and the implications that come with that. Typically, we think of guys that "carry" teams as doing something remarkable, but if they can't "carry" them to a certain level it might be really impressive, but it's not as USEFUL as players who help good teams get better. This has more to do with marginal players than the first 13 we'll likely discuss...but it's still a small factor in differentiating between these guy.

In short, I'm trying to build a 13 SRS team (without getting into the nitty-gritty of salary). After that, I'm trying to build 10 SRS teams. And after that 8. And maybe 6. But I don't care about the multitude of ways to construct 2 to 4 SRS teams, so if you can't provide good impact impact on better teams, you aren't as good to me.

Do we all agree that anyone shooting under 70% from the FT line is a vain fool for not using Barry's granny FTs?

When one considers how much better Shaq (and Wilt for that matter) would have been if he weren't a vain fool just on this one front, does it seem far fetched to think that the GOAT debate we actually have seems as close as it does? Meaning, if we grant that Shaq should have been better than Jordan given decent free throw shooting, are we equivocating by agreeing that the gap between Shaq and the #1 highest peak is THIS close? Is it not more likely that, regardless of the direction, the gap is going to be relatively sizable?

Yes, many athletes are vain to a fault. I've always said, just off the cuff, that 70% FT-shooting Shaq would be the GOAT. If you look at the numbers, you'd see an extra 145 points in 2000, or an increase in ORtg of a little less than 2 points. They'd probably foul him slightly less, so let's say "70% FT Shaq" is 1.5 points better on offense than 2000 Shaq. I'm not sure how much debate there would be to the GOATness of this season. Remember, the Lakers offense would be FIRST in the NBA (108.8) under this scenario, and LA would be expected to win 69 games. You think it's far fetched that we'd view such a player as the clear GOAT?

------
As a teaser for the next post, I'm planning on voting Russell. I am however open to voting Bird, Magic, LeBron (unlikely) or Wilt (more likely) in the next spot...I just don't see the Sacred Peak pack, although relatively close together, as having an argument for the next spot outside of these guys.

A simple question for the Wilt > Russell folks:

-Did Bill Russell ever play with a team as good as the 67 76ers?

-If not, how do you reconcile the difference between the Celtics dominance and the 76ers dominance?

62 Celtics (8.3 SRS, more dominant than the 67 76ers relative to competition: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4723) arguably outperforming the 76ers with old Cousy, Jones, Heinsohn, Sanders? (9 points better than league average on defense.)

64 Celtics (6.9 SRS and 9.5 PS SRS) ~1.6 behind Philly in both categories, almost identical number of "dominant" wins, with 2nd-year Havlicek, Jones and Sanders and in spite of Heinsohn's gunning. (11 points better than league average on defense.)

Do people really feel these teams are comparable to 2nd-year Cunningham, Greer, Walker, Jackson and Jones??

[Doctor MJ]

Do we all agree that anyone shooting under 70% from the FT line is a vain fool for not using Barry's granny FTs?

When one considers how much better Shaq (and Wilt for that matter) would have been if he weren't a vain fool just on this one front, does it seem far fetched to think that the GOAT debate we actually have seems as close as it does? Meaning, if we grant that Shaq should have been better than Jordan given decent free throw shooting, are we equivocating by agreeing that the gap between Shaq and the #1 highest peak is THIS close? Is it not more likely that, regardless of the direction, the gap is going to be relatively sizable?

Yes, many athletes are vain to a fault. I've always said, just off the cuff, that 70% FT-shooting Shaq would be the GOAT. If you look at the numbers, you'd see an extra 145 points in 2000, or an increase in ORtg of a little less than 2 points. They'd probably foul him slightly less, so let's say "70% FT Shaq" is 1.5 points better on offense than 2000 Shaq. I'm not sure how much debate there would be to the GOATness of this season. Remember, the Lakers offense would be FIRST in the NBA (108.8) under this scenario, and LA would be expected to win 69 games. You think it's far fetched that we'd view such a player as the clear GOAT?

I don't think I'm being clear. I'll try one more time:

For anyone who sees Jordan vs Shaq as a really, really tough call, isn't it rather remarkable that with Shaq shooting so far below what he should have he ended up playing at a level right next to Jordan? A little too remarkable? Ask yourself: If Shaq shot 10% higher or lower from the charity stripe than he actually did, would that really end your personal Jordan vs Shaq debate?

What I'm seeing in myself is that I think the debate I'm having with these two wasn't so much that they are actually super-close, but rather that I lack confidence in precisely pegging where these two guys stand. My tendency to see arguments from both sides seems to put me at a default position of equality between the two, and then to find specific pluses or minuses to break the tie. Is this resulting in me focusing on the molehills rather than the mountains?

In short, I'm seeing dangers in the way I find myself thinking here that I didn't with more career-based projects. I'm bringing it up, because it seems relevant to all of us, and perhaps I can learn something from someone else when we discuss it.

[Doctor MJ]

btw, that was a monster post from PTB Fan. Nicely done!

If we have a consensus like we do now (Shaq 00) shouldn't we start the next thread early? It would save time because I don't think we need 3 days for the early rounds (maybe the later rounds though).

I appreciate the enthusiasm. If conversation really stops being beneficial, I'll consider it. In general I want posters to have confidence in the upcoming deadline schedule for when they get busy, and I don't think saving a half day here or there in a recreational project that is going to take a few months is that big of a priority.

This isn't to say that I'm not going to try to get it down to a vote every two days - chopping turnaround by a third is a big deal - but thread by thread optimization won't have as big a returns and it has a downside.

[Chris435]

my 2 cents.. i always saw the Shaq/Jordan debate as extremely close to the point that the slightest edge will be the deciding factor.

I mean, under the scenario you are imagining Doc, Shaq would be virtually unstoppable. There's no edge anywhere.. but his problems at the stripe left just enough open for a guy like Jordan to possibly exploit him. You literally have to be near-perfect to defeat a team with peak Shaq.

Are you having second thoughts on these 2?

[ElGee]

Ah I see. Well, this is exactly what I was trying to say (also ineffectively I imagine) about my re-evaluation of Wilt. My current peaks list actually comes from trying to re-evaluate each individual's career. When it was all said and done, I had two outliers (Jordan and Shaq). Russell aside (a unique evaluation IMO), I had those two guys a full SRS point ahead of everyone else to ever play basketball. To me, that felt like a lot.

Now, maybe it's not. Either way, I think everyone should be thinking about what you're saying. I'll defend the "this feels really close camp" though because I think, in theory, being something like 2 SRS points better than the next guy is a sizeable gap...but based on the complexity of the game and the limitations of our evaluations, it's also not as obvious as say, a 0.3 gap in the 100m.

[PTB Fan]

btw, that was a monster post from PTB Fan. Nicely done!

Thanks. I'll add in more when we start the next one.

BTW, I'm locked on voting Wilt in the next one. I wouldn't mind anyone else winning like '86 Bird, '77 Kareem, '87 Magic etc etc but they need good cases.

[ThaRegul8r]

(do people have these peaks clearly separated in their minds??)

Well, for one thing, as I recall, it took Bird a third of the season before he got up to speed. It wasn't until after Christmas that Bird turned it around and started playing at GOAT peak levels, whereas Magic was Player of the Month in December. I suppose one could only "count" the last 53 games and playoffs and act like the first 28 games never took place, but Magic was consistent throughout the whole season. Of course, people can do what they want.

[ElGee]

(do people have these peaks clearly separated in their minds??)

Well, for one thing, as I recall, it took Bird a third of the season before he got up to speed. It wasn't until after Christmas that Bird turned it around and started playing at GOAT peak levels, whereas Magic was Player of the Month in December. I suppose one could only "count" the last 53 games and playoffs and act like the first 28 games never took place, but Magic was consistent throughout the whole season. Of course, people can do what they want.

Well, based on my research, your impact in the RS only has a small amount to do with your seeding with probabilistically gives you easier opponents in the first 2 rounds. Your impact in the PS is almost EVERYTHING. (You can see the difference in title odds between a guy that plays 50% of season and full season is small.)

That does NOT mean you don't look at the RS to evaluate...only bc the PS is such a small sample. But yeah, if you only thought 86 Bird rocked it after xmas, then my analysis of that impact would definitely focus on those 53 games + 18 PS games.

[JordansBulls]

You literally have to be near-perfect to defeat a team with peak Shaq.

Are you having second thoughts on these 2?

Portland nearly did it in 2000 and were up 15 in the 4th in game 7.

[MisterWestside]

Points taken on the other stuff, but with this particular point, if LeBron isn't having impact with what he's doing, if all he's doing is placating other egos, who cares?

On a team that has so much talent, I'd argue that it's invaluable. Out of his four makes, one was a long three. The others came out of transition, the post, or off the ball - the rest of the time he moved the ball effectively (not even just looking at his eight assists and one TOVs) and even used a "Showtime" bounce pass in transistion for a Durant dunk. LeBron's a mismatch against every international opponent (more so than in the NBA) and yet he gets everyone involved instead. He was arguably THE key offensive player even though someone else scored 22 points.

Anyway, I suppose votes have been cast already but I would be obliged to vote in the next player peak thread.