#14 Highest Peak of All Time (Oscar '63 wins)

[therealbig3]

I see peak Nash as slightly but clearly better than peak Paul, so I can't consider Paul until Nash gets voted in.

Well we know Paul is better defensively. So are we really saying Nash is a clearcut superior offensive player to make up for that?

I know people are in love with the ORTGs Nash anchored, but there's a lot of situational variables in those numbers. A Marion/Amare frontcourt, a ton of 3pt shooters, and the fastest pace/Mike D'Antoni's offense only mindset (players have said he doesn't coach defense in practices), albeit they also put up an elite number in 2010. The Suns and Royals having better ORTGs than the Hornets doesn't necessarily mean Nash and Oscar are better offensive players. Those teams paid the price defensively to be that good offensively. Playing Amare at C in particular and having a devastating pick and roll play as a result is poison candy, it might taste really good for a while, but then it will make you sick and kill you

Well, yeah, I do think Nash is superior offensively, and by enough to compensate for Paul's defense.

I agree, the Suns played lineups that ramped up their offense and sacrificed defense...but Nash has still maintained historic ORatings with conventional lineups as well, better than Paul typically has. In 06, without Amare and with 53 games of Kurt Thomas, Nash led the Suns to a +5.3 offense. As you pointed out, without Marion in 2010 and with Channing Frye, Grant Hill, Amare Stoudemire, and Jason Richardson filling out the roster, Nash led the Suns to a +7.7 offense.

And the last two years, with a pretty sad supporting cast, Nash has led a top 10 offense both years, past his prime.

Paul has never led offenses like that, even with similar talent in LAC and NO at times.

Also, as someone who does value RAPM, Nash consistently beats Paul offensively, and beat him overall in 2008, while being pretty much even with him in 09. And that wasn't even Nash at his best, I think 05 or 07 was Nash's peak.

[Doctor MJ]

Well we know Paul is better defensively. So are we really saying Nash is a clearcut superior offensive player to make up for that?

I know people are in love with the ORTGs Nash anchored, but there's a lot of situational variables in those numbers. A Marion/Amare frontcourt, a ton of 3pt shooters, and the fastest pace/Mike D'Antoni's offense only mindset (players have said he doesn't coach defense in practices), albeit they also put up an elite number in 2010. The Suns and Royals having better ORTGs than the Hornets doesn't necessarily mean Nash and Oscar are better offensive players. Those teams paid the price defensively to be that good offensively. Playing Amare at C in particular and having a devastating pick and roll play as a result is poison candy, it might taste really good for a while, but then it will make you sick and kill you

It's the combination of team offense plus +/- related things that does it.

#1 team plus meh +/- leaves uncertainty
meh team plus #1 +/- leaves uncertainty
#1 team plus #1 +/-? What's the issue?

Of course, that's a value-centric argument. It doesn't stop you from saying "I think in the right setting, Paul could be more valuable?". The question is, what's your basis for saying that?

I can't know how you think of it, but what I can say is that if you think the current evidence says that Paul is Nash without the weak spots, you're mistaken. They have very different strengths as distributors. Nash dominates in his ability to get his players to make better shots, Paul dominates in his ability to do a solid job producing opportunities while keeping turnovers to an absolute minimum.

Re: Paid the price defensively. As has been mentioned before, the Suns' offense did not require that the center suck at defense. When Amare went out in '05-06, the Suns offense remained fantastic with Kurt Thomas at center. And obviously while having an offensive player as gifted as Amare helps, Nash wouldn't be dominating the offensive +/- statistics if the team's success had hinged first and foremost on Amare.

[Doctor MJ]

HCA is big when the two teams are closer as I showed in the posts above. Here is more data on conference finalists.

Team with HCA is:
5-5 series record when having a worse SRS
7-4 series record when SRS difference is between 0 and +1

Team w/HCO at home:
+1.98 better than opponent in regular season (by SRS)
+5.27 point differential
+3.28 HCA

Team w/o HCO at home:
-1.97 worse than opponent in regular season
3.22 point differential
+5.19 HCA

Average HCA is +4.24 based on that.

Teams that are within -1 to 1 SRS of each other:
Home team: 69-35 (.663)
home team: +3.85 point differential

Teams that are within -0.5 to 0.5 SRS of each other:
Home team: 46-23 (.667)
Home team: +4.10 point differential

Games 6 and 7 for teams within -1 to 1 SRS of each other:
home team: 12-4 (.750) record
point differential: +5.19

So even with teams that are very even (within 1 or 0.5 SRS) with each other, HCA is still big. It's about 2/3 for the home team and that advantage increases later in the series.

colts, first off, you seem to be repeatedly coming back with different data that you think says something else than what ElGee is instead of telling him what he's doing wrong. This is bound to get annoying to him because he's already told you what he thinks you're doing wrong, and to my knowledge you aren't addressing it.

You do make a point that I find compelling though:

If home teams in the playoffs seem to do better than we'd expect given what home court advantage means in the regular season, what does that mean?

I can understand a philosophy that it doesn't matter what causes it, we should simply accept the data. However we shouldn't forget how weird the concept of HCA is to begin with.

To me, there's a few things that stand out relating to playoff series:

1. Home crowds are more amped. This could make HCA bigger.
2. Visiting teams get far more comfortable with the venues, should make HCA smaller.
3. The prolonged nature of the competition, and the perception that home games are more winnable, means teams tend to try harder at home, which makes HCA appear bigger.
4. The strategic adjustments of the series make it difficult for one team to win multiple games in a row, which sometimes helps HCA and sometimes hurts it.

[Dr Positivity]

The 06 Suns had the same ORTG as the 08 Hornets and did drop down a few points from 05 and 07. This is with Diaw getting a lot of center minutes over the year (backup center to Kurt Thomas, then starting center without him, + Tim Thomas becomes backup center at that point) The Suns offense went from 100.3 pts per all-star break to 107.2 pts after it, with the latter being the stretch without Thomas. Kurt Thomas' on court ORTG was 110.4 via 82games while Diaw's was 113.8, Amare's in 05 was 118.9 and in 07 was 115.8. This is all aside from the fact that the Hornets were a bottom 5 pace team that walked up the court vs the Suns SSOL which makes a difference. So I wouldn't say the evidence that the Suns would match their 05/07 offense/get to a level Paul hasn't touched with Kurt Thomas at C, is very strong

[MisterWestside]

Also, as someone who does value RAPM, Nash consistently beats Paul offensively, and beat him overall in 2008, while being pretty much even with him in 09.

Eh...kinda unfair to Paul, since 08 was his "breakout" year and Nash hit his peak as a player in 06 (prior-informed RAPM likes that a little bit). The Hornets also had some decent PGs behind Paul during some seasons; like Collison, who actually played more traditional PG in a reserve role than the larger Dragic, who played more combo guard.

Not only that, he played with the like of washed-up Peja/Posey and useless Songalia in '10, and Willie Green (turbulent season) and the inconsistent Ariza in '11. Not the most ideal pieces and offensive specialists to fit Paul with.

[Doctor MJ]

Ok, very controversial pick to some, but I really haven't seen anything against him that I find to be all that convincing.

Vote: 09 Dirk Nowitzki

I've posted my rationale before:

Dirk has my #14 vote as of right now. Robinson to me is Amare with elite defense (to be clear: damn good player, and a top 20 peak ever). Not a great passer, can't really create for himself consistently, and his only real attribute offensively is his crazy athleticism which he uses to face up and finish around the rim and get to the line. Good player offensively, but not really close to what Dirk provides as an offensive player. And Dirk is super portable offensively. IMO, I would take Robinson over Dirk if Dirk was a bad defensive player, but that's not the case, because Dirk is definitely a positive impact player on defense, even if it is small, and even if you can't build a great defense around him specifically.

Dirk just had more impact at his peak than Kobe/T-Mac/Wade, and is easier to build around, which is why I'm going with him over them. Admittedly, I'm still not super sure about where West or Oscar go, but since I have them around the same level as Kobe/T-Mac/Wade, I have Dirk ahead of them as of right now too.

Really haven't heard anything convincing against Dirk, and why he can't be considered at this level.

Don't really understand why Dirk being in the top 15 is such a ridiculous thought. He probably is my #14 pick, and it's not even based off 11.

I do think Dirk pre-08 was a flawed player in terms of skillset (couldn't take advantage of smaller defenders), but after that, he really did become a pretty unstoppable offensive player. I'd probably take Dirk in 08, 09, or 10 to be honest, over 11. 11 gets all the credit, because he won a title, but he was doing the same things in those years, except with better rebounding and probably better defense because he was younger. I'd probably go with 09 Dirk to be honest.

And what is Dirk at his peak? He's a ridiculous offensive player, probably top 10 offensive player of all time, or in that vicinity. And on top of that, he's an excellent defensive rebounder, and he's a solid defensive piece that rotates well, has great positioning, and has great hands.

His offense is most likely getting underrated here if his peak isn't considered close to top 15. I'd take him as an offensive player over guys like Kobe or Wade or T-Mac, for example.

Compare his ORAPM from 03-07 (before his peak imo) to other top offensive stars:

03

Dirk: +2.6

T-Mac: +1.4
Kobe: +2.5
Shaq: +4.3
KG: +3.6

04

Dirk: +3.7

T-Mac: +1.9
Kobe: +2.0
Shaq: +4.1
KG: +4.5

05

Dirk: +3.4

T-Mac: +1.9
Kobe: +1.8
Shaq: +3.2
KG: +3.1
LeBron: +2.0
Wade: +2.3
Nash: +4.0

06

Dirk: +4.5

Kobe: +5.9
KG: +2.5
LeBron: +3.9
Wade: +4.6
Nash: +4.5

07

Dirk: +6.0

Kobe: +6.0
KG: +2.7
LeBron: +7.1
Wade: +6.1
Nash: +7.9


We see a guy who is clearly on the same level offensively as some of the best offensive players in the league.

From 07/08-10/11 (which is his highest level of play imo, after he incorporated his midpost game), the offensive RAPM of the league's stars look like this (based on the 4-year RAPM study):

Dirk: +5.0

Kobe: +4.7
Paul: +5.5
LeBron: +6.6
Wade: +6.2
Nash: +7.7

He's right there on par with Kobe and Paul...LeBron and Nash are two of the 6 or 7 best offensive players ever imo, and Wade was really, really good and peaked ridiculously high as well during this time.

And overall, Nowitzki is 2nd in the 4-year study, with +7.8, tied with Nash.

So I'm seeing a ridiculously high impact player, with underrated defense and historically good offense. I have no problem voting him in right after the top 13, and I probably will.

To me, Dirk is like the 3rd or 4th best offensive player left, behind Nash and Oscar, and more or less even with Barkley. And he provides a lot more on defense than any of them provide. Not saying he's an elite defensive player, but his shortcomings have always been majorly exaggerated on that end...as I've posted before, he's an excellent defensive rebounder, and very good at positioning himself. He's a pretty solid man defender in the post, and he has quick hands. High IQ player as well. I'd consider Dirk a "good" defender, while Nash and Oscar are more or less neutral, and Barkley might be a negative.

mysticbb has also posted in another thread at some point about Dirk peaking higher than Kobe as well, I'll try and find that.

I want to say that I really like the effort you're putting in, and you trying to apply logic coherently. I think you're probably right to say that Dirk didn't go through a personal transformation in '11, the team just changed...but isn't that disconcerting?

After all, the Mavs in this later era aren't putting up super-impressive offense really. The defense is improving, and along with it, Dirk's defensive RAPM is improving.

I get the idea that Dirk's got a defensive edge on the Barkleys of the world, but no one thinks he's huge on defense right? And meanwhile, the offenses later Dirk is producing aren't in the same league as what Barkley's teams did at his peak. Even more so with Nash, and Oscar too if you adjust for league standards.

So when this is an offensive guy who isn't producing mega-team offense with his subtle improvements, on what grounds do you put him up on a pedestal with these other guys to the point where you jump right to the defensive tie break?

[therealbig3]

Well, first of all, the playoff offenses that Dirk has lead since he made the improvement in his mid-post game HAVE been elite...historically good even.

Every 2nd round or better offense from the Mavericks since 07 has been +7 or better in the playoffs.

Also, it seems weird that all of a sudden pointing to team offenses makes more sense than to see how Dirk is stacking up to the league's offensive superstars by RAPM, and he looks very comparable.

And anyway, can you even make the case that later Dirk has had offensive support similar to Nash or Oscar or Barkley? Again, maybe less so than with defense, but it does take a team effort to build a great offense, and it's unfair to me to say "Dirk with 2 decent ball handlers and creators, and a solid group of role players isn't leading the same offense as Barkley with KJ/Majerle/Ceballos and a similar cast of role players or Nash with Amare/Marion/Barbosa/Dragic and an elite group of shooters". With that said, I do think Nash is better offensively. But Barkley led some really disappointing results in Philadelphia, FWIW.

And even then, I've also always been confused why Nash gets the credit for running elite offenses while in Dallas, when it was clear to me that the offense was built around Dirk, or at the very least both Dirk and Nash. So Dirk should get the same credit for leading elite offenses in the early 2000s with the Mavericks as well.

01 Mavs: +4.1
02 Mavs: +7.7
03 Mavs: +7.1
04 Mavs: +9.2

93 Suns: +5.3
94 Suns: +5.4
95 Suns: +6.2
96 Suns: +2.7

Granted, KJ was injured a lot during these years. But a relatively healthy KJ without Barkley in 97 was able to lead a +2.6 offense, comparable to the offense the year before with Barkley, and considering Barkley's reputation as an offensive superstar, not too much of a dropoff from 93-95.

Why Dirk from 08-now has been so impressive is that he's been able to lead very good but not quite elite offenses, despite the Mavericks playing a lot more defensive-oriented lineups. He's able to keep the offenses afloat and playing at a solid level, while the Mavericks can play guys like Kidd, Stevenson, Chandler and Marion with Dirk and also play very well on the defensive side of the ball.

So I don't really agree with the idea to look at the team offenses of the Mavericks in recent years and compare it to the Barkley Suns, or Nash Suns, or Oscar Royals, because A. the Mavericks have focused more on defense than offense, and B. Dirk hasn't played with nearly the same amount of offensive talent.

I do think pre-08 Dirk on the 08-12 Mavericks wouldn't have been able to lead the same offenses, because he was a lot easier to slow down.

[therealbig3]

And if you want to discuss portability, maybe Dirk there isn't more impressive than Nash (who is so good with the ball in his hands that it doesn't even really matter if he can play without it, because only a fool would make him) or Oscar (similar to Nash, but also showed a great ability to adapt to Kareem's game)...but he's clearly vastly more portable than Barkley to me. Current Dirk with a slightly past their primes Hakeem and Drexler/Pippen would have resulted in much better team results.

[therealbig3]

And here are the offenses that Dirk led (or co-led with Nash) in his prime (on 2nd round or better teams):

01 Mavs: +4.0 (10 games)
02 Mavs: +9.0 (8 games)
03 Mavs: +10.0 (20 games)
05 Mavs: +9.1 (13 games)
06 Mavs: +7.4 (23 games)
09 Mavs: +7.4 (10 games)
11 Mavs: +7.3 (21 games)

From before. So it's actually only been two teams that have made it past the 1st round since 07, but 09 was +7.4 and 11 was +7.3.

In the 5 game series loss against the Hornets in 08 (Dirk per 36 averaged 23/10/3 on 59% TS), the Mavs had a 108.0 ORating against the 105.7 DRating of the Hornets (+2.3). I know everyone outside of Dirk, Terry, and Bass shot like crap, and I remember Kidd being hopelessly ineffective as Chris Paul ran wild.

In the 6 game series loss against the Spurs in 10 (Dirk per 36 averaged 25/8/3 on 64% TS), the Mavs had a 105.1 ORating against the 104.5 DRating of the Spurs (+0.6). Again, while Dirk played great, nobody outside of Butler shot well at all, and Kidd was again embarrassingly bad in that series. Parker, Ginobili, and Hill all played great, while Dampier and Haywood couldn't stop a 33-year old Duncan.

I fail to see how those are on Dirk, or what else he could have done. Again, we can "assume" the supporting cast plays poorly for anyone else ever, and they wouldn't be leading great offenses either.

[Doctor MJ]

The 06 Suns had the same ORTG as the 08 Hornets and did drop down a few points from 05 and 07. This is with Diaw getting a lot of center minutes over the year (backup center to Kurt Thomas, then starting center without him, + Tim Thomas becomes backup center at that point) The Suns offense went from 100.3 pts per all-star break to 107.2 pts after it, with the latter being the stretch without Thomas. Kurt Thomas' on court ORTG was 110.4 via 82games while Diaw's was 113.8, Amare's in 05 was 118.9 and in 07 was 115.8. This is all aside from the fact that the Hornets were a bottom 5 pace team that walked up the court vs the Suns SSOL which makes a difference. So I wouldn't say the evidence that the Suns would match their 05/07 offense/get to a level Paul hasn't touched with Kurt Thomas at C, is very strong

Eh, well first, PPG can be misleading. Check out how much more the Suns score on the road for example. Note also what happens to the Suns FTAs and ORBs as the season ends. If you want to say that Kurt Thomas' injury didn't affect the offense nearly as much as the defense, I agree. If you want to say that playing Diaw at center was a cheat toward offense over defense, I'll agree but not that it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about a team's "offensive cheats" when the team is that injury depleted.

Second, if you're wanting to say that Paul's best has equaled what Nash's offense has done without Amare, make sure you drill down. Those Hornets were certainly not as good at putting the ball in the basket on the first try as the '06 Suns. They made up for it with their offensive rebounding, because the '06 Suns were dead last in offensive rebounding.

Now this is clearly territory where you can talk about different teams with different strengths. I have no issue with saying the Hornets were the equal of the average-'06 Suns on offense because offensive rebounding should count, but the strength of the Hornets offense had a lot more to do with its boarding strength than the Suns did, and when they lost that boarding strength in future years, the Hornets went right back to mediocrity in offensive ratings.

So what I"m seeing is Paul being able to lead a team to a similar offensive rating as Nash in certain situations, but when you're comparing healthy to healthy, and injured to injured, Nash has been the one who has the better track record with both offense and overall performance.

[lorak]

And a giant PS: I think West was a better defender based on contemporary praise and limited eye test (long, long arms). More flashbacks of Bird-Magic...

But what your in/out numbers say?
Also, you can't ignore huge Oscar's impact on Bucks...

Oscar 1963. video game RS stats, amazing well-documented impact throughout his career, huge portability without pretty much any ceiling (look at his impact on 71-72 Bucks, they were like +12.5 with him being healthy, +4.25 before his trade, +4.8 when he missed games).

[LikeABosh]

Still voting 2010 Wade

And I would say to reconsider his 09 season. I won't choose 2010 wade because of 5 playoff games and ignore the regular season, and you shouldn't either. You're applying too much weight to those 5 games and not giving enough credit to the entirety of his 09 season. Even if we're gonna exclude the bulk of the regular season, we can still say wade had a better season in 2009. That celtics series....it was a great performance by wade and it was against a great team, but that series was over before it began. Boston did a perfect job making it a one-man series. With atlanta, wade and miami actually had a chance to win in 7. Doesn't the 2 more wins and potential to be in the 2nd round mean more than the difference in wade's stat lines? And his stat line wasn't even that bad. Take away his awful game 1 and he averages: 30.8 points - 5.0 rebounds - 5.3 assists - only 2.8 TO's - 59 TS%

Now, I'm with you that wade coasted in 2010. He displayed much more effort in 08-09 when he was coming off the 15 win season and had something to prove. I don't think there's any clear drop in skill or talent between the two years, but the fact that 09 wade gave it his all and 2010 wade was looking beyond the current season should mean something. I haven't heard of many peaks where the player didn't try his hardest

Does 2008 Paul have a case against any of Wade, Kobe, Oscar, West, Tmac? I did feel he should've gotten MVP before Kobe that year, then had a great playoffs. I'm almost definitely voting 08 Paul over the best Nash season

Yes, I was reading through the previous threads and I was just thinking it was about time to start debating 08 Paul. I've always considered it top 20 in terms of peaks.

[Doctor MJ]

Also, it seems weird that all of a sudden pointing to team offenses makes more sense than to see how Dirk is stacking up to the league's offensive superstars by RAPM, and he looks very comparable.

Hmm. You're not voting for Dirk '11 here. You're voting for Dirk '09, who doesn't have the great RAPM numbers. So why are you bringing the numbers up?

See, what that makes me fear your doing is essentially taking the big glamour points of Dirk's '11 season, plus your own common sense about Dirk in '09, and simply apply the numbers across the years to make Dirk look as good as possible. I'm not accusing people of dishonesty, but you can't just dismiss all but the biggest numbers without having a very good reason.

As far as team offense & +/-, to me that's just logical and it's something I've always used together. Not saying the best player always has to be on the best team of course, but certainly it's reassuring when it happens.

And anyway, can you even make the case that later Dirk has had offensive support similar to Nash or Oscar or Barkley? Again, maybe less so than with defense, but it does take a team effort to build a great offense, and it's unfair to me to say "Dirk with 2 decent ball handlers and creators, and a solid group of role players isn't leading the same offense as Barkley with KJ/Majerle/Ceballos and a similar cast of role players or Nash with Amare/Marion/Barbosa/Dragic and an elite group of shooters". With that said, I do think Nash is better offensively. But Barkley led some really disappointing results in Philadelphia, FWIW.

This is a tricky one because obviously part of the pro-Dirk argument is that he won a title without other big stars on his team. However, the fit on that title team was fantastic, and fantastic to the point that I think people just really need to think it through.

Dirk became a RAPM monster in '11 in part because he all of a sudden got great defensive numbers. I think it's wrong to look at that as if he all of a sudden became a great defender. I don't have an issue with people taking the RAPM to be roughly in line with what his "value" was, but I don't know if any player has had their team so chemically crafted toward his strengths and weaknesses as Dirk over the years.

And even then, I've also always been confused why Nash gets the credit for running elite offenses while in Dallas, when it was clear to me that the offense was built around Dirk, or at the very least both Dirk and Nash. So Dirk should get the same credit for leading elite offenses in the early 2000s with the Mavericks as well.

Understandable complaint. Nobody should be claiming it's impossible to build outstanding offenses around Dirk. Clearly it can be done

[mysticbb]

And if you want to discuss portability, maybe Dirk there isn't more impressive than Nash (who is so good with the ball in his hands that it doesn't even really matter if he can play without it, because only a fool would make him) or Oscar (similar to Nash, but also showed a great ability to adapt to Kareem's game)...but he's clearly vastly more portable than Barkley to me.

I don't see how someone can suggest that Nowitzki isn't portable. In fact he is MORE portable than Nash. He was able to fit in and help producing high level of basketball when he played with Nash and Finley while BOTH had worse +/- based numbers than Nowitzki. From 2001 to 2004 the Mavericks with Nowitzki on the court where at +7.4, they had +5.6 with Nash and +5.3 with Finley. Then, from 2005 to 2008 he had +8.1 when Dampier, Howard, Terry and Harris where next to him. Then he is +6.0 from 2009 to 2012 with Kidd, Marion and Terry next to him. We see him on three completely different teams with different coaches (Nelson, Johnson and Carlisle), and yet, he always is the catalyst of the Mavericks best basketball. I don't even see a single team in which Nowitzki could not fit in well. It is that myth that Nowitzki would only make an impact, if he has the ball and scores, while in reality the Mavericks ran several plays in which Nowitzki doesn't even need to touch the ball a single time.

For me, the 2006 and 2007 version was on par with the 2011 playoff version. In 2006 and 2007 he was able to carry a bigger load, while his +/- numbers suffered a bit from more inconsistent teammates. In 2011 his efficiency and the effect of his oncourt presence (it seemed like every opponent was afraid of Nowitzki) were bigger, but the production level was lower.

Overall I can see arguments for Paul and Wade over Nowitzki in terms of peak, I don't see any reasonable argument for Bryant and McGrady. Bryant had his highest no-prior informed RAPM in 2006, and that was lower than Nowitzki's in 2006. McGrady's no-prior informed was the highest in 2003, but Nowitzki in 2003 exceeds that level. In fact, if I look at my blended SPM+RAPM values for 2003, Nowitzki ends up higher than McGrady. For 2006 Nowitzki ends up higher than Bryant, and those are the two years which have McGrady and Bryant at their best.

[Doctor MJ]

And here are the offenses that Dirk led (or co-led with Nash) in his prime (on 2nd round or better teams):

01 Mavs: +4.0 (10 games)
02 Mavs: +9.0 (8 games)
03 Mavs: +10.0 (20 games)
05 Mavs: +9.1 (13 games)
06 Mavs: +7.4 (23 games)
09 Mavs: +7.4 (10 games)
11 Mavs: +7.3 (21 games)

From before. So it's actually only been two teams that have made it past the 1st round since 07, but 09 was +7.4 and 11 was +7.3.

In the 5 game series loss against the Hornets in 08 (Dirk per 36 averaged 23/10/3 on 59% TS), the Mavs had a 108.0 ORating against the 105.7 DRating of the Hornets (+2.3). I know everyone outside of Dirk, Terry, and Bass shot like crap, and I remember Kidd being hopelessly ineffective as Chris Paul ran wild.

In the 6 game series loss against the Spurs in 10 (Dirk per 36 averaged 25/8/3 on 64% TS), the Mavs had a 105.1 ORating against the 104.5 DRating of the Spurs (+0.6). Again, while Dirk played great, nobody outside of Butler shot well at all, and Kidd was again embarrassingly bad in that series. Parker, Ginobili, and Hill all played great, while Dampier and Haywood couldn't stop a 33-year old Duncan.

I fail to see how those are on Dirk, or what else he could have done. Again, we can "assume" the supporting cast plays poorly for anyone else ever, and they wouldn't be leading great offenses either.

So this dovetails nicely with what you've been arguing about Dirk being on good offenses.

I feel obligated to point out some things:

-The recent Mav numbers are nice, and an improvement over the regular season, but the team's been as likely to get upset and pull an upset.

-While 7's are strong numbers, the greater variance of the playoffs does mean we see those number not that infrequently.

But still, I think you're making good points.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't see how someone can suggest that Nowitzki isn't portable. In fact he is MORE portable than Nash. He was able to fit in and help producing high level of basketball when he played with Nash and Finley while BOTH had worse +/- based numbers than Nowitzki. From 2001 to 2004 the Mavericks with Nowitzki on the court where at +7.4, they had +5.6 with Nash and +5.3 with Finley. Then, from 2005 to 2008 he had +8.1 when Dampier, Howard, Terry and Harris where next to him. Then he is +6.0 from 2009 to 2012 with Kidd, Marion and Terry next to him. We see him on three completely different teams with different coaches (Nelson, Johnson and Carlisle), and yet, he always is the catalyst of the Mavericks best basketball. I don't even see a single team in which Nowitzki could not fit in well. It is that myth that Nowitzki would only make an impact, if he has the ball and scores, while in reality the Mavericks ran several plays in which Nowitzki doesn't even need to touch the ball a single time.

What the heck? You are using the fact that Dallas based their offense around Dirk as evidence as to why he's more portable than the teammates who had to sacrifice their games to play around him? This makes no sense.

ftr, Dirk is highly portable in his off ball shooter role. When you move him to be more of a hub, and when you start making smart moves to maximize what he can give you on both ends of the floor, well that specialization is obviously not an advantage he'll have in most places.

[Dr Positivity]

Looking at 09 Wade's splits, before the ASB he averages 28.3 pts in 38 minutes, 47.8% FG. That's 26.5 pts per 36. In 2010 as a whole he averages 26.6 pts .476, 26.4 pts per 36. So essentially what it comes down to is that in the first half of the 09 season and the entirely of the 2010 season, he's the same guy, more or less. The difference between 09 and 10 statistically is not the whole season, it's just the 27 G stretch after the all-star break, where Wade goes ninja with 33.9 pts in 39.7mpg/30.7 per 36, 51.4%. I definitely feel strongly valuing 2010 Wade being better in the postseason than 2009 Wade, as more important than 2009 Wade going to another level for the last 27 Gs of the regular season. Postseason is where the performance really matters.

[MisterWestside]

I'm still not buying Dirk's 2011 season over some of his earlier campaigns. I understand therealbig3's point about Dirk adding more wrinkles to his low-post game, but honestly it's not like Dirk (in 2006, for example) wasn't playing amazing without it. He was getting to the rim, hitting from outside, finding teammates with crisp passes (watched them in the Spurs series in particular), he did it all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXrTFwZ0K2g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Htj3b9xswk He posted few and far in between subpar games offensively: game 1 vs. SA, game 4 vs. Phoenix, games 1, 4, 5 vs. Miami. That's it. He played in 23 playoff games and over 150 more minutes than he did in 2011, and those were his duds.

I'm not giving him more credit for impacting a team that was perfectly built around him in 2011.

[Doctor MJ]

So, I'm thinking a lot about Jerry West right now, and about his '68 year specifically.

I should say that in general my perception of West is as the best scorer and best perimeter defender of the '60s. I can go into more detail on that, but suffice to say that I'm very certain about his scoring, and while the defense is more uncertain, it's clear he was very well respected as a man and help defender with his freakishly long arms and his "not afraid to break my nose" aggressiveness.

It's always bothered me though the way he and Baylor conflicted with each other. I absolutely blame Baylor more than West, but West doesn't get absolved. But I've been putting some things together about '68 West's season with the data ElGee's provided:

1. In '68, the Lakers blew past their old standards to achieve as dominant of an offense as had ever been seen before (only the '67 76ers were comparable). And they did it with their best player (West) missing 30 games.

2. The on/off of West indicates that the Laker offense was far better still whenever he played, and absolutely pedestrian without him. So this was not a Ewing theory case where the team keeps on thriving without the star. The team just got so good that even missing their star desperately for a major period of time, the team was still very good. Had West been healthy, they'd have blown the doors of offensive standards of the time by a large margin.

3. In that year the Lakers got a new coach who implemented a very different offense (Princeton) which emphasized ball movement. Clearly it worked like a charm...but only when West was there.

4. The next year, '69, the Lakers acquired Wilt. Wilt fought the coach every step of the way, and so the team never returned to the success-to-talent ratio of '68 until '72, when West was clearly not at his best any more (and Wilt was in a tremendous groove).

What all this is telling me is that West's even more impressive as I thought. Give him the right offensive role to work with, and he could create a dominant offense for you even if he had to deal with a bad fit along the way. While he still doesn't show evidence of taking control of offensive strategy like Oscar did, Oscar also never had to join an existing alphas team.

Sufficed to say, I think I'm more impressed with West's '68 season than I am with any other candidates, and I'm leaning toward voting for him. There's clearly an elephant in the room though about his missed time. My thoughts:

My take on missing games in the regular season in relationship to the greatness of a player's year, is that if I can't see where it actually hurt the team, I just don't take it that seriously. Now, obvious I don't mean by that that if the player's team did great without him I'd ignore that juicy factoid. I just mean that in the end, I don't care very much about regular season standings. If the team was still in a position to thrive in the playoffs, and they do, it'd take a ton for me to really care about the missed time.

Consider that in the case of West's '68, despite his missed time, the team still turned in arguably the most impressive offensive season of the '60s and they had the 2nd best SRS in the league. Is this a team really that desperately in need of West to play more in the regular season?

So yeah, I'm leaning West '68. It was the year he really tore it up with the new offensive strategy before Wilt showed up. It seems to me the one most representative of his potential. I'm trying to decide now whether i'll piggy back on another West year if others can't ignore the missed games, and I'm not sure. It'll probably depend on what they say.

[mysticbb]

What the heck? You are using the fact that Dallas based their offense around Dirk as evidence as to why he's more portable than the teammates who had to sacrifice their games to play around him? This makes no sense.

They played about +0 basketball with Nash and without Nowitzki on the court. So, do you want to argue that the Mavericks just decided to let Nash look worse in order to push Nowitzki? And, the Mavericks started to really build around Nowitzki's strength and looking for more complementary players in 2004. From 2001 to 2004 they had Finley, Nash and Nowitzki with the same usage rate in average. Honestly, you are talking nonsense here, if you want to argue that either Finley or Nash sacrificed their game for Nowitzki.

ftr, Dirk is highly portable in his off ball shooter role. When you move him to be more of a hub, and when you start making smart moves to maximize what he can give you on both ends of the floor, well that specialization is obviously not an advantage he'll have in most places.

It sounds like you never seen a Mavericks game at all. They have multiple plays in which Nowitzki doesn't even touch the ball. His presence gives his teammates also the confidence to play to their own strength while in the case of a failed play, Nowitzki will not hestitate to take the difficult shot to bail them out.
So, I don't see any team in which Nowitzki wouldn't fit and would lead to a high level of basketball, if the talent level is adequat. We have 7 seasons in which the Mavericks with Nowitzki on the court where at or higher than the average level of basketball the NBA champion with their respective best player on the court played, while in 6 of those seasons the level without Nowitzki was below the average level of the champion without their respective best player, two of those seasons: 2001 and 2003. Questioning his portability is just stupid talk.