#9 Highest Peak of All Time (Duncan '03 wins)

[PTB Fan]

I'd lean toward 1990 because of the fact that they both had monster series' against the no. 1 defense in the league in the ECF.

I would point out that the difference between Pistons defense and the Magic's was quite huge. They were literally punching Jordan when he got into the key.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE[/youtube]

The Magic's defense wasn't physical at all, and they were hampered the entire series due to touch fouls being called on Howard. While the Magic had the #1 defense in the league they were certainly underwhelming as a defensive-minded ball club.

Good video. Those Bad Boys Pistons were as good defensive team as it gets.

[semi-sentient]

Quite simply, the best offensive season left, and I think the no. 2 in DPoY voting has to count for something.

I don't think him coming in 2nd for DPOY voting should count for much of anything. Wade was 3rd for crying out loud, and LeBron didn't get a single vote the year before. He went from not playing defense to suddenly being DPOY caliber? It's crazy how winning games changes perception like that.

Look at the 2011 voting. Guys like Rondo and Grant Hill got more votes... lol.

I mean, I know he improved in 08-09 and made the jump from decent defender to borderline elite defender, but IMO both Battier and Artest were better defensive players and should have gotten more votes than he did.

I'm inclined to agree with those that said LeBron's 2012 season was better and not just because he won the championship. His defense looks better and he plays smarter basketball (he never posted up in 2009 the way he does now, and his play off the ball looks a bit better as well). There's also something to be said about his leadership. In 2009 he was more of a jokester and at times took his foot off the gas, which is exactly why the Magic kept overcoming large deficits to beat the Cavs. LeBron 2012 was completely focused on the task, a better leader, and just a smarter, more experienced all-around player.

If given a choice between the two players I'd take 2012 LeBron without a 2nd thought.

[Doctor MJ]

When you say Walton's separated from Erving, while making clear that Kareem's above Walton in your mind, it raises an eyebrow for me.

I guess that's just the impression that I got from going back through that thread. It seemed like the real battle was between Kareem and Walton, with Julius being a very distant 3rd.

In that year, that made perfect sense. That was not Erving's peak year by any means.

It's interesting that in that thread Walton and Kareem went down to the wire, and in this thread the separation is several spots on the all-time PEAK list. The voting in that particularly RPOY thread was one of the closest in the project in terms of separation between 1st and 2nd, so I guess that sort of shows how different the voters think from one project to the next. If they were indeed so close then you'd expect Walton to have gotten in at #6 just behind Kareem and ahead of Bird, and yet he may not even crack the top 10.

It's very interesting, and something everyone should think about. There are reasons why someone could give Walton RPOY that year but still rate Kareem ahead of him in this project, but I don't think anyone should take that opinion lightly.

[drza]

Garnett vs. Walton

Here's a great thread (RPOY Project) that should give people more insight into Walton's '77 season.

It got me thinking about whether or not he should have actually landed just behind Kareem given that the voting was so close. Lots of great posts regarding his impact and I think it quite clearly separates him from Dr. J.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1042101&start=6

Once LeBron's in, Erving vs Walton is probably my big debate for my next vote so I'm definitely with you.

When you say Walton's separated from Erving, while making clear that Kareem's above Walton in your mind, it raises an eyebrow for me.

To my mind, Walton has a legit argument over both Kareem and Erving, but I see it as basically the same argument, and the counterarguments are largely the same to. If that's not how it appears to other people, then I question whether they are focused too much on Erving in Philly on a team with terrible fit.

Walton was more valuable to the Blazer than Erving was to the 76ers, just like he was more valuable than Kareem to the Lakers. In terms of obvious basketball outstanding-ness though, Walton's below both Erving & Kareem. And with Erving in '77, he's coming off just one year prior having value at least comparable to Walton's when he was in a Walton-like situation where everyone of his strengths was needed and used to its maximum.

Doc MJ, I'm specifically targeting you with this post but obviously I'm very interested to hear from everyone, especially PTB Fan and ElGee on the subject of Walton vs KG. I just got done re-reading through most of that RPoY 1977 thread, which refreshed all of the standing impressions that I have about Walton, the quality of his impact at his peak, and the way he played the game. But based on my understanding, I question why Walton would be voted in before KG. Doc, here is one of your posts from the RPoY '77 thread that seems pertinent to me:

This is a crucial point for me. I've talked before about the identical twin scenario - I don't want to mistakenly conclude one identical twin is better than the other because of his situation. If Walton is giving more lift to his team than Kareem, but Kareem has all Walton's skills and then some, then Kareem's my clear choice.

So I look at what Garnett and Walton bring to the table:

Physically: Basketball-reference lists Walton as 6-11 and 210 pounds, and lists Garnett as 6-11 220 pounds. Both are clearly incorrect, as both Walton and Garnett are both openly recognized as being well over 7-feet tall. I also know that KG was weighing in around 250 pounds in 2004. I can't speak to Walton's weight at his peak, but my point here is that Walton doesn't have any kind of height or girth advantage here. And any that have more expertise on Walton are welcome to challenge this, but I think I can fairly say that peak Garnett was (if anything) the quicker laterally and the bigger leaper of the two.

Impact stats: ElGee's in/out stats paint Walton's on-court impact as massive in 1977 and 1978. On the other hand, Garnett's on/off +/- stats for 2003 and 2004 are the #1 and #3 highest marks in the decade of +/- stats we have available (sandwiched around #2 LeBron in '09), and Garnett also finished #1 in the NBA in RAPM for both years. Considering that the impact stats are not directly comparable, I think all we can safely say is that in both seasons in question Walton and Garnett were beyond-the-max as far as what the impact stats can tell us.

Non-scoring offense: Walton is acknowledged to not be the scorer that many of the all-time greats are, but he is still considered an elite offensive player because of his passing ability, ability to run an offense through the high-post, basketball smarts, and ability to use picks/teammate cutting to his advantage to make an offense run. Here is one of ElGee's posts from the RPoY thread:

On a more subtle level, I think that highlights some of the differences between Walton and Jabbar offensively. Although, in Jabbar's defense, his teammates weren't very good in 77 and 78, so it's possible LA/Jabbar's approach was closer to optimal anyway.

Walton and Jabbar clearly have different offensive skill-sets. It's possible that Walton's defense/outlet passing does just help the Blazers that much when he's on the court. But it's also possible, that despite his lower TS% and fewer post moves, he was playing at a more "optimal" approach offensively; he had a perfect balance of when to shoot, when to cut, when and where to screen, where to pass, spacing, angles and boxing out. And of course, he was a ridiculous half-court passer and "coached" on the floor.

Obviously, in a one-on-one game, we'd all take Kareem. When he puts his pivot foot down and goes to work, he can spin, hit the jumper over his left shoulder, finger roll, drop step, and of course...dribble...dribble...swing...Sky Hook.

But Walton's bringing something very different to the table, and I'm not sure it isn't better at the end of the day. Or at least, better if we include his defense.

And here is another blurb from DocMJ, from his notes watching Blazers/Lakers game 4:

Kareem's defense on Walton is clearly much more successful, but Walton doesn't spend a lot of time trying to score when Kareem's on him. Instead, he immediately starts looking for someone to pass it to, and once the ball is passed, Kareem seems largely out of the play. Part of that is due to Walton being able to draw Kareem out, which leaves Kareem in poor position to challenge shots. Walton's passes seem strategically smart, and often quite sharp, but he is committing a good amount of turnovers in the process.

So if these are the primary areas of strength for Walton, can't we also compare them directly with Garnett? For example, we can compare peak Garnett to peak Walton. I'm going to use numbers from 2003 Garnett and 1978 Walton because those are the seasons when both had roles that maximized their facillitator abilities and we have more complete stats for 1978, but these are still peak seasons and speaks to skill sets:

B-R single season comp of 2003 Garnett and 1978 Walton: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2003

If you follow that link, you'll see that Garnett had a higher assist percentage (25.8% vs 22.8%) and a MUCH lower turnover percentage (11.9% vs 17.2%). Garnett is openly acknowledged as an extremely effective pick setter (even if he's accused of illegal screens, he takes advantage of what the ref gives and gets lots of open shots for his teammates. Garnett routinely ran the Wolves' offense from the high-post, and led them to multiple high efficiency team offenses from that role. Garnett also provides excellent spacing as a 7-footer that must be accounted for in the high post.

In other words, Garnett seems to have all of Walton's non-scoring offensive strengths in at least similar measure, and in the tangible passing/turnover stats Garnett seemed to be the more efficient and effective of the two.

Defense This is the most difficult comparison to make across 25 years and a big lack of consistent global defensive stats. About all I can say is that Walton is openly acknowledged as one of the better defenders ever, and Garnett is the same. Walton has a lot of defensive strengths, highlited by his huge motor, his ability to help out in a large area, and his shot-blocking. Walton is a slightly bettter shot-blocker than Garnett showed, but at their peaks we're talking a small margin (5% block % for Walton '77 and 4% for Garnett '04). Meanwhile, Garnett had the higher steal percentage (2.0% vs 1.3%) and his horizontal defensive abilities are unmatched in this generation. He is openly acknowledged as the best pick-and-roll defender of this generation, he can and did switch off onto point guards when needed without issue, and at his peak he routinely guarded excellent wings for entire games if needed (KG famously shut down TMac during TMac's historic 2003 season).

Again, in this area that is the biggest feather in Walton's cap, is there any separation in his favor over Garnett? Is there any way that anyone can confidently say that he was a better defender?

Garnett's strengths: I look forward to rebuttals, but as far as I can tell KG at worst plays Walton to a stand still skill-set wise in the two absolute biggest strength-areas that Walton has: team defense and team offense. But on the other hand, Garnett is clearly a better scorer than Walton. Garnett showed the ability to score at higher volumes on similar efficiency. Garnett's scoring was also more versatile than Walton's, with a consistent jumper out to 20 feet that supplemented the excellent post skills that he could call upon at need.

Also, it goes without question that at their peaks Garnett was much more durable and available to play big minutes than Walton. KG played about 1000 more minutes in 2004 than Walton in 1977, and it wasn't all missed games. KG played about 5 more minutes per game in both the regular and the post season than Walton did. While I recognize that the ability to be there at the end is the biggest point, and Walton was there at the end, there is something to be said about the reliability of knowing that peak KG would be on the court every night while you didn't have that with Walton. And more importantly, the fact that Garnett could play more on a game-to-game basis is a key because both are per-minute giants, so every extra minute Garnett gives you is massive.

Leadership intangibles: This is even more murky than defense so you can't necessarily judge entirely on this, but Garnett is openly acknowledged as one of the best leaders of this generation. His focus on winning has been known to change the culture of two franchises. His fanaticism in practice has done the same. And his emphasis on team-over-all is also note-worthy. Again, I welcome rebuttals, but my understanding and reading on Walton's off-court leadership intangibles is that it isn't quite the strength for him that it is for Garnett.

Summary: this post was long, so let me re-post Doc MJ's quote of interest from above:

This is a crucial point for me. I've talked before about the identical twin scenario - I don't want to mistakenly conclude one identical twin is better than the other because of his situation. If Walton is giving more lift to his team than Kareem, but Kareem has all Walton's skills and then some, then Kareem's my clear choice.

From what I can tell, Walton vs KG at their peaks is EXACTLY the identical twin scenario, with the only exception that we don't actually know that Walton was giving more lift to his team than Garnett. KG may have been giving similar lift, he has all of Walton's skills and then some, and he was the much more reliable player. So...why would Walton's peak be rated higher?

[Lightning25]

I'm inclined to agree with those that said LeBron's 2012 season was better and not just because he won the championship. His defense looks better and he plays smarter basketball (he never posted up in 2009 the way he does now, and his play off the ball looks a bit better as well). There's also something to be said about his leadership. In 2009 he was more of a jokester and at times took his foot off the gas, which is exactly why the Magic kept overcoming large deficits to beat the Cavs. LeBron 2012 was completely focused on the task, a better leader, and just a smarter, more experienced all-around player.

If given a choice between the two players I'd take 2012 LeBron without a 2nd thought.

It's practically the same reasons I gave as to why 2012 Lebron is better than 2009 Lebron but I guess you didn't have the time to read my post, lol.

The only thing you said that I didn't say was the improved leadership but like you I also said that he improved at everything else such as defense, off-ball play, post-up play, and I also think he improved as a rebounder.

Numbers don't really show it but he does get after the rebounds more based on the eye-test but I think a lot of it might have to do with the fact that he plays the 4 spot more often. It's another thing though and that's that he is more comfortable and natural at the 4 spot. He seemed pretty uncomfortable at PF in the past but now he can play it just fine.

He was too streetball for my liking in Cleveland compared to what he was in 2012.

[PTB Fan]

Damn, Doctor MJ killed it with his last post.

[colts18]

Drza, how will you put KG ahead of Dirk if Dirk finished ahead of KG in the "impact" stats and played at a higher level in the playoffs? IMO, Dirk's 2011 playoff run is better than LeBron's 2012 playoff run. Dirk literally singlehandedly willed his team in the Lakers and Thunder series. Here were the numbers:

29-7-3
56-55-96
.690 TS%
125 O rating

The Mavericks were huge underdogs in the Lakers series since they had no HCA. In fact the Lakers were -380 to win the series which converts to 79% chance to win the series. Remember that entering the playoffs, the Lakers were the favorites to win the NBA title even ahead of the Heat. The Heat were -175 favorites in the finals which is 64%, still a big upset.

[semi-sentient]

It's practically the same reasons I gave as to why 2012 Lebron is better than 2009 Lebron but I guess you didn't have the time to read my post, lol.

Yeah, I read it. Good stuff.

I'm inclined to agree with those that said LeBron's 2012 season was better and not just because he won the championship.

I was sort of summarizing and giving the particular reasons that I'd vote for him, but you did a much better job of explaining the differences than I could have hoped to have done.

[semi-sentient]

Dirk literally singlehandedly willed his team in the Lakers and Thunder series.

Come on now. It wasn't single-handedly. Dirk was awesome in that he led some of their comebacks, but the difference in the series was the Lakers inability to hit outside shots (as in, 3-pointers) compared to the Mavs.

Dallas: 9-20 (45%), 8-25 (32%), 12-29 (41%), 20-32 (63%, wtf?)
Lakers: 5-19 (26%), 2-20 (10%), 3-13 (23%), 5-24 (21%)

[Lightning25]

I think some people here are looking at the numbers a little too much because the game extends beyond stats you know especially the post-season because the sample size is relatively small then.

I know the group of voters in this project are a fan of the RAPM stat and such but I think some of you guys, not all, but some need to look beyond the stat, use the eye-test, take it into context, etc.

I'm personally not a fan of that stat but I do look at it in occasion.

[Doctor MJ]

Damn, Doctor MJ killed it with his last post.

Well thank you...but truth be told I'm thinking more about drza's post quoting my old posts than my current posts. drza makes some very good points.

Responding to him:

Don't take this to mean I don't think you've got a great argument, but the one thing I'll definitely say is that I think the defensive edge is still significant.

This is tricky because I'm not at all sure that Celtic Garnett wasn't having more defensive impact than Walton, but overall peak vs overall peak, Walton was the best defender in the game while being the offensive hub.

Offense though I think has to go to Garnett. They are playing rather similar roles and Garnett's scoring is more impressive. I will state/admit that I tend to cut Walton a lot of slack in terms of the scoring for 2 reasons:

1) I think it's quite clear that if you're a classic big focusing on being a hub in the high post, this is going to do a number on your scoring stats.

2) It's really hard to me to see him as that limited as a scorer given the things we see him do in college. I understand that the increased competition and his own injuries can make the pros a very different story, but a player with that much touch, how can that go away?

This to say, I do think Walton could have scored more and done it more efficiently if the Blazers had wanted to use him primarily for his scoring ability.

Also, the way Jack Ramsey raves about Walton influences me. If you just listen to Ramsey, it sounds like Walton's the best center in history because of his ability to excel on both sides of the ball. I'm sure there's a bit of homerism there, but Ramsey has coached other superstars in his career and he doesn't go hyperbolic for all of them. When Drexler got named the best Blazer of all-time, Ramsey argued fiercely that that was completely wrong and had some choice words to say about Drexler.

[Doctor MJ]

Drza, how will you put KG ahead of Dirk if Dirk finished ahead of KG in the "impact" stats and played at a higher level in the playoffs? IMO, Dirk's 2011 playoff run is better than LeBron's 2012 playoff run. Dirk literally singlehandedly willed his team in the Lakers and Thunder series. Here were the numbers:

29-7-3
56-55-96
.690 TS%
125 O rating

The Mavericks were huge underdogs in the Lakers series since they had no HCA. In fact the Lakers were -380 to win the series which converts to 79% chance to win the series. Remember that entering the playoffs, the Lakers were the favorites to win the NBA title even ahead of the Heat. The Heat were -175 favorites in the finals which is 64%, still a big upset.

I think this runs headlong into the distinction some of us have been talking about between contextual value and absolute goodness. Dirk in these last couple years has been exceptionally valuable, I don't think anyone would argue that if you dropped Dirk on most teams he'd give comparable value to what he does in Dallas.

The crux of this - why this is a particular issue with Dirk in terms of portability - that Dirk doesn't actually do that much compared other megastars. He's an amazing shooter who is very tall, and he makes good decisions. Yes his shooting will be valued anywhere, but his value in Dallas at this point goes far beyond that.

With Garnett, there's just a lot more he can do. A lot more versatility. Were I drafting these two guys on a typical team, it wouldn't be hard for me to decide in favor of Garnett.

[ThaRegul8r]

When you say Walton's separated from Erving, while making clear that Kareem's above Walton in your mind, it raises an eyebrow for me.

I guess that's just the impression that I got from going back through that thread. It seemed like the real battle was between Kareem and Walton, with Julius being a very distant 3rd.

It's interesting that in that thread Walton and Kareem went down to the wire, and in this thread the separation is several spots on the all-time PEAK list. The voting in that particularly RPOY thread was one of the closest in the project in terms of separation between 1st and 2nd, so I guess that sort of shows how different the voters think from one project to the next. If they were indeed so close then you'd expect Walton to have gotten in at #6 just behind Kareem and ahead of Bird, and yet he may not even crack the top 10.

For me, there is no question as to Walton being in my top ten. The only matter is pegging down exactly where.

[colts18]

I think this runs headlong into the distinction some of us have been talking about between contextual value and absolute goodness. Dirk in these last couple years has been exceptionally valuable, I don't think anyone would argue that if you dropped Dirk on most teams he'd give comparable value to what he does in Dallas.

The crux of this - why this is a particular issue with Dirk in terms of portability - that Dirk doesn't actually do that much compared other megastars. He's an amazing shooter who is very tall, and he makes good decisions. Yes his shooting will be valued anywhere, but his value in Dallas at this point goes far beyond that.

With Garnett, there's just a lot more he can do. A lot more versatility. Were I drafting these two guys on a typical team, it wouldn't be hard for me to decide in favor of Garnett.

I'm not sure how you can say Dirk is not portable considering he has had high offensive value from 01-12 and did it on different kinds of teams. He had the greatest offense in history with Nash and a high usage player like Finley. He did great as a 1 man team in 2011. He was pretty good with a balanced lineup in 06-07. He was solid in 01 before Nash emerged with a 2nd scoring option like Finley. I posted this before but I'm going to repost it:

2001: 53 wins, 4th in O rating
-11.3 off, +20.1 plus/minus
109.4 O rating on court, 99.9 off, +9.5

2002- 57 wins, 1st in O rating
-3.0 off, +10.3 plus/minus
114.6 O Rating on court, 105.1 off, +9.5

2003-60 wins, 1st in O rating
Dirk: -8.8 off court, +21.7 Plus/minus
113.7 O rating on, 99.4 off, +14.3

2004- 52 wins, 1st in O rating: Rated the #1 offense of all-time by O rating
-2.0 off court, +9.2 plus/minus
113.9 O rating on, 106.8 off, +7.1

2005- 58 wins, 4th in O rating
DIrk: -6 off court, +15.3
112.1 O rating on court, 102 off, +12.1 in offense

2006- 60 wins, 1st in O rating
Dirk: -0.6 off court, +8.5
115.4 O rating on court, 104.5 off, +10.9

2007-67 wins, 2nd in O rating
Dirk: -1.6 off court, +12.4
116.6 O rating on court, 101.9 off, +14.7
Very much a deserved MVP


2008- 51 wins, 8th in O rating
Dirk: -4.4 off court, +12.7
115.6 O rating on court, 104 off, +11.6

2009- 50 wins, 5th in O rating
Dirk: -4.2 off court, +8
112.9 O rating on court, 106.3 off, +6.6

2010- 55 wins, 10th in O rating
Dirk: -6.2 off court, +11.7
111.6 O rating on court, 106.1 off, +5.5

2011- 57 wins, 8th in O rating
Dirk: -6.1 off court, +16.3
114.4 O rating on court, 104.3 off, +10.1

So here are Dirk's averages
56.4 wins, 4.1 in O rating (4 #1 finishes, 8 top 5, 11/11 in top 10)
-5.1 Off court, +13.9 +/- (He's +14.1 if you include 2012 into this)
113.3 O rating on court, 102.3 off, +11 on offense

That's right, in every single season plus minus is available, Dirk's team has been a negative when he was off the court. He won 50+ games in every single one of those seasons, yet every single season they sucked without him especially on offense. That +11 on offense puts him up there with MJ and Nash as the GOAT of offense.

Here is what Dirk/Nash did +/- from 01-04 when they were on the same team:
01:
Dirk: +20.1 (+9.5 offense)
Nash: +5.9 (+6.5 offense)

02:
Dirk: +10.3 (+9.5 offense)
Nash: +3.7 (+2.6 offense)

03:
Dirk +21.7 (+14.2 offense)
Nash: +10.7 (+7.4 offense)

04:
Dirk: +9.2 (+7.1 offense)
Nash: +6.8 (+6.5 offense)

So every year Dirk was significantly better even on offense. I'm 100% confident that Dirk is more portable offensively than Nash is. Dirk has dominated with a great PG, good 2nd option perimeter wise, as the man, or on a balanced offense. Arguably a top 5 offensive player ever.

[ElGee]

See I just don't see the data you posted -- which I assume everyone in this discussion already knew -- and say "top 5 offensive player ever!" Just from a peak perspective, why would you take him over, say, Kobe Bryant?

Then you get into the bigger issue with Dirk in this context, which is his defense. He's always been underrated as a defender, well above replacement (and a positive IMO at his best, which is I tend to side with 06 Dirk), but man, he's a PF. He's giving up a lot in that area, like Barkley (and how is he better than Barkley on offense!?). When I'm building dominant teams, Dirk is forcing me to get a defensively oriented big and then making the sacrifice that I probably can't hit a dominant ceiling on defense with him as my 4. And Dirk isn't really functional playing the 3 (how would that work)?

And Dallas tried just that for many years. Only there wasn't a single dominant team from my POV. It's confusing to then hear you say "top-5 offensive player and Sacred peak" player after watching his career unfold, apparently, because his team narrowly won a title last year.

To me, this kind of talk either comes down to Winning Bias or just a major over-emphasis on one-on-one play...and you know where I stand on both issues.

[therealbig3]

Lots of votes already, here's a quick tally so far:

09 LeBron - 5 (colts18, therealbig3, Doctor MJ, ardee, DavidStern)

03 Duncan - 4 (PTB Fan, C-izMe, Josephpaul, Dr Positivity)

12 LeBron - 1 (ElGee)

[colts18]

Here are some offensive plus/minus numbers from 01-04 with Dirk and Steve Nash on the same team.

Overall Mavs: 110.6 O rating, .544 TS%

With Dirk: 112.8 O rating, .556 TS%
W/O Dirk: 103.2 O rating, .506 TS%
Difference: +9.6 O rating, +5.0 TS%

With Nash: 112.3 O rating, .555 TS%
W/O Nash: 106.9 O rating, .521 TS%
Difference: +5.4 O rating, +3.4 TS%

With Dirk, no Nash: 109.8 O rating, .533 TS%
With Nash, no Dirk: 104.3 O rating, .512 TS%

With Dirk/Nash on court: 114.0 O rating, .564 TS% (the LA at that time was around 103.5 so thats +10.5 )
With no Nash/Dirk: 102.0 O rating, .500 TS%

With Nash/Finley/Dirk: 113.9 O rating, .563 TS%
With Nash/Finley, No Dirk: 104.6 O rating, .510 TS%
Diff: +9.3 O rating, +5.3 TS%


On this board, Nash gets acknowledged as the greatest offensive player ever, yet Dirk was clearly the offensive catalyst when they played together. Dirk ran the show on arguably the greatest offenses in history. Then Nash improved when a team was clearly built around him. Dirk could have that success if he had that kind of offensive talent and a system built around him. Dirk was a superstar with Nash, a superstar with Finley, a superstar with scrubs like 11-12, a superstar with avg role players like Stackhouse/Terry/Howard, etc.

[ThaRegul8r]

On this board, Nash gets acknowledged as the greatest offensive player ever

I wasn't aware this board considered Nash the GOAT offensive player. Doc MJ and ElGee, for instance, who are Nash supporters, have said Magic is the GOAT offensive player. So which of this board's other prominent posters who are Nash supporters have said he's the offensive GOAT?

[lorak]

03 Duncan - 4 (PTB Fan, C-izMe, Josephpaul, Dr Positivity)

So tell me PTB Fan, C-izMe, Josephpaul and Dr Positivity - why Duncan 03 over LJ 09 or 12?

[lorak]

I wonder, if you picked 5 random games from the 2009 PS and the 2012 PS, and watched every LeBron possession on offense and defense (off-ball included), which player do you think would look better?

None, they are equally good. The only difference is style of play.