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

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Were Wade to have taken his team deep into the playoffs I'd agree, but we're talking one series here. One losing series. Is a 5 game stretch where the opposing team didn't even need to stop the star in order to advance really a bigger deal that the regular season finale that's more than 5 times as long?

[mysticbb]

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.

Hindsight bias. I doubt that you argued how well the team was build around Nowitzki before the season started. Well, maybe you are on par with Elgee here, who had Chandler as a Top20 player before the season started.
And then again, even if that is build around him, they completely fall apart without him, which still hurts a team more than it helps. While it is weird to see that you want to argue Nowitzki's ability to lift a team of incomplete players to championship level. I never seen you arguing that point in a Nash discussion. It really becomes weird to a point, that I think, people here love to point out the ignorance of other while they enjoy their own ignorance.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Well point taken with my hyperbolic language, but obviously the style the Mavs were using was geared in a way that fit Dirk's style more than Nash's. Are you actually arguing that because Dirk was the MVP in an offense not explicitly designed for him this means he was more portable than his teammates?

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.

Okay, so do you think he'd have similar RAPM to what he has now on the Mavs if he moved to an average team?

[mysticbb]

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

I have Nowitzki with +7.5 in 2006 and +7 in 2011 during the playoffs. The difference in the level of production and efficiency wasn't that different. And, we have to keep in mind that my adjustment for the strength of schedule is a bit screwed for 2011, because I take the level of play from the regular season as estimator while the Blazers, Thunder and Heat played clearly above their regular season level. So, it is not completely unreasonable to argue that 2011 Nowitzki and 2006 Nowitzki were basically on par in terms of production and efficiency combination.

And I really question the argument "the team was perfectly build around him". The Mavericks wanted to build a team to win it all. We hardly can use that argument against Nowitzki here. And then again, it is true for ALL championship teams, that the teammates played well with the respective best player on the court. It more and more seems to be an excuse to give Nowitzki credit for 2011, because he doesn't fit the typical idea of a great basketball player.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Hindsight bias. I doubt that you argued how well the team was build around Nowitzki before the season started. Well, maybe you are on par with Elgee here, who had Chandler as a Top20 player before the season started.
And then again, even if that is build around him, they completely fall apart without him, which still hurts a team more than it helps. While it is weird to see that you want to argue Nowitzki's ability to lift a team of incomplete players to championship level. I never seen you arguing that point in a Nash discussion. It really becomes weird to a point, that I think, people here love to point out the ignorance of other while they enjoy their own ignorance.

So you think that as the guy here who's trying to keep people in perspective about Dirk being largely the same guy before the title, I'm the one with hindsight bias?

Maybe I don't understand your opinion. What's your peak Dirk year? Why? And if you're going by stats, what's your qualitative evaluation of the stats?

Re: Nash. With Nash it seems so much more clear what happened. He went to Phoenix, and basically from that point on, he's put up huge +/- numbers.

Dirk's data by contrast just shot through the roof in '11 in the 11th year of his prime despite the changes to his team being subtle. I don't care what your interpretation of the events are, it's weird.

[MisterWestside]

It more and more seems to be an excuse to give Nowitzki credit for 2011, because he doesn't fit the typical idea of a great basketball player.

It's funny you say this, because I'M ACTUALLY ARGUING FOR DIRK IN THE SACRED PEAKS (just a different season), NOT AGAINST HIM. So chill out with the "Nowitzki can't get his due" posts.

I'll pick his '06 season, simply because I want to. Pick YOUR Dirk season, and, unless the names changed here, we're going for the same player.

[mysticbb]

Well point taken with my hyperbolic language, but obviously the style the Mavs were using was geared in a way that fit Dirk's style more than Nash's.

For sure it fits more to Nowitzki's style, because Nowitzki has less restriction to fit in than Nash. If Nash does not have the ball in his hand, his impact will become lower. While Nowitzki still forces the more agile big defender out of the zone, even when he does not have the ball. It is just easier to make Nowitzki fit than Nash. So, that argument you want to bring up is a loophole, because you want to use Nowitzki's higher portability against him. Makes no sense at all.
Nash got the ball plenty of time on the Mavericks, he actually sacrificed more for Finley, in the sense that without Finley on the court the offense became better. BUT, overall Finley during those years had actually the better +/- based numbers than Nash, making his impact more on the defensive end.
The 2001 to 2004 Mavericks played different offensive sets than the 2005 to 2008 and then the 2009 to 2012. And yet, in all different sets Nowitzki looks similar strong.

Are you actually arguing that because Dirk was the MVP in an offense not explicitly designed for him this means he was more portable than his teammates?

What else would the argument be? If Nowitzki can impact a team which is not "perfectly build" around him in a similar manner as a team build around his strength, that is actually an argument for his portability and against the portability of his teammates. What else should that be?

Okay, so do you think he'd have similar RAPM to what he has now on the Mavs if he moved to an average team?

Why not? And how well fitting was the 2012 team? Would you argue that the 2012 team was perfectly build around Nowitzki as well, if the 2011 team wouldn't have succeeded, while Nowitzki had the similar +/- based numbers? Uh well ...

[mysticbb]

It's funny you say this, because I'M ACTUALLY ARGUING FOR DIRK IN THE SACRED PEAKS (just a different season), NOT AGAINST HIM. So chill out with the "Nowitzki can't get his due" posts.

I'll pick his '06 season, simply because I want to. Pick YOUR Dirk season, and, unless the names changed here, we're going for the same player.

I don't care whether you arguing for Nowitzki at all. If you make an argument, which is not logical sound, I will point that out. And ignoring the 2011 high level of production and effiiciency for Nowitzki duing the playoffs (and actually also during parts of the regular season, if we take out the games in which Nowitzki played through his shoulder and knee injury), we are coming up close to the 2006 level. That is all I said.

And overall I agree with you. 2006 would be the year of his peak. The stuff with the smaller defenders is overblown. Nowitzki had no trouble against Bowen, he used the post-up in the right situation at that time too. But when we look at the overall level, I don't see much difference between 2006, 2007 and 2011. In fact, I would argue that Nowitzki was rather constant in all those years, something the Mavericks were able to rely on.

[mysticbb]

So you think that as the guy here who's trying to keep people in perspective about Dirk being largely the same guy before the title, I'm the one with hindsight bias?

You can answer the question by yourself. Look at the way you saw the Mavericks in 2010, before the season started. Did you argue at that time, that the Mavericks were perfectly build around him? Wasn't it rather the case, that Kidd was too old and inconsistent, that Terry as the 2nd scorer was too inconsistent, that the Mavericks are lucky, if they get enough minutes out of Chandler, while Chandler is a walking injury? They added Butler and Haywood the season before, where Haywood was just the Dampier replacement and Butler in essence brought not more than Josh Howard to the Mavericks. No, I seriously doubt that someone argued the Mavericks were perfectly build around Nowitzki before the season started.

Re: Nash. With Nash it seems so much more clear what happened. He went to Phoenix, and basically from that point on, he's put up huge +/- numbers.

Dirk's data by contrast just shot through the roof in '11 in the 11th year of his prime despite the changes to his team being subtle. I don't care what your interpretation of the events are, it's weird.

So, we use the argument that Nash needed a different style of play in order to make a bigger impact, as a way to arguing him as being as portable or more portable than Nowitzki? It gets insane at this point.

http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=996

Unfortunately we only have the APM values by Winston going from 2000 to 2010, but as you can see Nowitzki was pretty constant for the whole decade.

DId the numbers really went through the roof? And is that really just based on the teammates level? The no-prior informed value for 2011 is just slightly higher than the 2006 no-prior informed.

[MisterWestside]

I don't care whether you arguing for Nowitzki at all. If you make an argument, which is not logical sound, I will point that out. And ignoring the 2011 high level of production and effiiciency for Nowitzki duing the playoffs (and actually also during parts of the regular season, if we take out the games in which Nowitzki played through his shoulder and knee injury), we are coming up close to the 2006 level. That is all I said.

And overall I agree with you. 2006 would be the year of his peak. The stuff with the smaller defenders is overblown. Nowitzki had no trouble against Bowen, he used the post-up in the right situation at that time too. But when we look at the overall level, I don't see much difference between 2006, 2007 and 2011. In fact, I would argue that Nowitzki was rather constant in all those years, something the Mavericks were able to rely on.

Now this is a more fruitful post than throwing out baseless statements that I don't want to vote for 2011 because he doesn't "fit" some romanticized idea of great basketball players. Which I DON'T hold, or Dirk wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my rankings in the first place.

And I'll add again that the difference between Dirk '06 and Dirk '11 is that played in his most ideal team dynamic in 2011, not him necessarily playing on another level. Everyone not named Dirk that season knew their role and played off of him, as they should, with him on the floor. As opposed to the Stackhouses and Harrises of the world in the 06 playoffs jacking up silly shots and occasionally clogging the team offense. I don't disagree with the argument that Dirk was a constant throughout the seasons you mentioned; I'm just picking what I believe was the most impressive season.

[mysticbb]

Now this is a more fruitful post than throwing out baseless statements that I don't want to vote for 2011 because he doesn't "fit" some romanticized idea of great basketball players. Which I DON'T hold, or Dirk wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my rankings in the first place.

Sorry, if my wording made it seem as if that would be some basis of you voting not for 2011. I in fact wouldn't vote for 2011 either. I have much more of an issue with the argument "the teammates played well with him" used against Nowitzki, while I haven't seen that used in the same fashion for other players. For me it doesn't make a difference whether a player makes the last pass for a score and gets the credit via assists or makes it possible to open up passing, driving and cutting lanes via his presence which leads to a teammate score. The main problem in a 5on5 game is that everyone has to be put into a position to succeed. Some need to get the perfect pass for scoring, some other rather need the ball in their hands while dribbling and having the open lanes to the basket. People are valuing the impact of a passer more highly than the off-ball impact, which is stupid when the result is the same.

And I'll add again that the difference between Dirk '06 and Dirk '11 is that played in his most ideal team dynamic in 2011, not him necessarily playing on another level. Everyone not named Dirk that season knew their role and played off of him, as they should with him on the floor As opposed to the Stackhouses and Harrises of the world in the 06 playoffs jacking up silly shots and occasionally clogging the team offense. I don't disagree with the argument that Dirk was a constant throughout the seasons you mentioned; I'm just picking what I believe was the most impressive one.

Completly logical, and seeing that I pick the same season, we might be closer in our view than it originally seemed.

[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.

Were Wade to have taken his team deep into the playoffs I'd agree, but we're talking one series here. One losing series. Is a 5 game stretch where the opposing team didn't even need to stop the star in order to advance really a bigger deal that the regular season finale that's more than 5 times as long?

By my criteria, yes. I think a player is as valuable as how much he helps his team playoff run/quest to win a championship. For one thing I definitely disagree with your stance about a player's value being dictated by "how much they need him" or how much his performance changes their fate (ruling out players on suck teams, because they didn't have a chance anyways). I don't think it's fair to judge a player's performance by his team not being good enough. If his team is bad at times it's a good thing to ask whether it's indicative of a flaw in him (ie Dantley) but in this case I think it's pretty clear Wade carrying a team to 43/47 Ws with a roster nothing short of garbage passes the sniff test for top 20 peak impact. Likewise for 03 Tmac, who I think will make top 20 and who has probably been underrated so far in this project. People have been talking a lot about portability in this project - I think the idea is to take a player's performance as judge it as if it's used in multiple situations. So that would seem to indicate something like Wade's team never having a chance against the Celtics, being kind of irrelevant

The regular season still matters to me by a) Getting HCA and seeding is important (IMO), b) It helps sort out the weeds of short sample sizes in the playoffs. I'm not going to vote Tony Parker in the next few months, just because he had a 5 G series in 09 where he dropped 28/7/4/28 PER. I know that's not who Tony Parker is and the regular season is the biggest reason why. 09 Paul is still a better player in regards to value in the playoffs than 09 Parker despite the wide gap in 1st round performance between the two

However in the case of 2009 vs 2010 Wade, I feel it's debating between roughly the same guy. 2010 Wade has all the reasons I'm voting for Wade's peak this high (getting into the paint at will and finishing strongly, playmaking, defense, etc.). The biggest tangible difference between the two seasons is 09 Wade using his midrange game more. The thing is that Wade is not a very good midrange shooter. In 09 he hits 42% of him, which is still a far cry below his TS% of .574. The other 6 years hoopdata tracks going back to 07 are all between 36 and 38%. So the '10 version is taking less of his worst shot (by choice? because an improved team allows him to?), but also hitting the ones he does that of that shot at a lower percentage, thus it seems like the change to an arguably cleaner shot selection, it pushes his total TS% downward or to neutral instead of upward. Furthermore, one could also argue that the fact that his midrange shot apparently sucked in the ATL series, probably means there's no reason to factor in whatever led Wade to be a 42% midrange shooter instead of his normal 36% the following year - because whatever statistical variance led to such a big gap in midrange shooting between the two regular seasons, wasn't even there in the playoffs anyways. All in all the 2009 version having a midrange shot isn't a big deal to me. I'm fine if someone wants to argue otherwise but I'm fairly certain Wade's value is just about the same if he's taking less of those. Otherwise I feel like 2010 Wade is the same guy and he just got mind-f*ckingly hot for 1/6 of the 2009 and 2010 seasons combined (the last 1/3 of the 2009 season)

So if I feel like 2010 is fundamentally as good a player as 2009 Wade, in his abilities/skillset/etc., then I don't have a problem at all putting a big weight on a 5 G playoff series. Being great in the 1st round of the playoffs has value. Not as much as the later rounds because the odds are it's a walk for most contenders, but there is years where the performance is definitely key. 95 Rockets go home if Hakeem isn't great in the 1st round. 2011 Dirk's most underrated moment easily IMO was saving the Mavs' HCA in the very first game against Portland (Blazers led by 8 with 6 minutes left). Dirk in 2007 needed that very same performance when G1 was slipping away or in a Golden State home game to save their HCA, season and possibly go on to the title, and he didn't do it. Etc.

Also, is 09 Wade not the anti 68 West? Both players have a 25-30 G stretch that is we feel is irrelevant to their ultimate value, because of what they can bring to a team in the playoffs - it's just Wade goes crazy in his stretch and West doesn't play. I feel 06/11 Wade has a stronger argument against 10 Wade, because then one could say they just can't vote for one of the Wade seasons that ends in the 1st round, compared to one where he proves himself in a long playoff run and crushes it in the FInals

[PTB Fan]

Looking at '63/'64 Oscar, some of Barkley's seasons and Moses' seasons.

[bastillon]

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.

that's a pretty ridiculous statement. I don't where that came from, perhaps I just misunderstood what you were saying but Oscar joined Kareem, deferred to him on offense and that worked out beautifully. I have no idea why Oscar's 71-72 seasons are getting so disrespected. in 72 he posted one of the best in/out runs ever. in 71 he joined a 4.25 SRS team and transformed them into 11.91 SRS team. if we had in/out on that season I believe that'd make Oscar 71 GOAT candidate by that metric. certainly more impressive to go from 4 to 12 than from 0 to 8. a lot more impressive. ElGee never mentioned it as if it didn't even exist. but Oscar's role in those Bucks was huge and his impact was at all-time level, apparently.

I've just watched Knicks vs Bucks game from the beginning of '71 season, with Oscar just traded to Bucks and Reed pre-injury. Knicks won that game snapping Bucks 16-game winning streak but you could see Oscar's impact. when he was leading the offense, he made sure they got a good look. Kareem was praising Oscar for his contributions in halftime interview pointing out how he lowered his turnovers and made his life easier. Kareem also pointed out that Oscar made everyone else a lot better, including Dandridge, McGlocklin and Greg Smith. there's a reason why everyone posted their career highs on those Bucks and they were posting that kind of numbers until Oscar's injury in the 2nd half of '72. Oscar was never really the same again as age was starting to get to him, but his impact until that injury is getting seriously underrated. Bucks were +13 team and the credit should be divided accordingly. it wasn't a one-man team.

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.

so now you don't really care about RS standing or whether player missed 1/3 of the season but when Wade was concerned you couldn't believe anybody would rather have his '10 version because he posted much better RS numbers ? if you're not penalizing West for missing games, you can't penalize someone for coasting in the RS. missing games hurts your team a lot more. kind of hypocritical of you to argue against one and for the other in the same thread...

[bastillon]

I'd also like to point out that everybody who was championing Bill Walton '77 for his intangibles should be doing the same for Oscar. Oscar was controlling the tempo, setting up the offense, telling everybody where to go and just orchestrated everything. he was also a guy who kept his teammates at high intensity, something Kareem would've never been doing. Erving was getting praised for his leadership but nobody mentioned Oscar's qualities in that area. you gotta love the double standards not to give Oscar credit for those things. especially with his in/out runs being as they are.

oh and I'm pretty sure nobody knows this (well, maybe Reg), but Oscar was Bucks best perimeter defender in 71 and coach Costello put him on the best offensive players. that resulted in some devastating defensive performances, holding Jerry West and Mullins to ass-tastic shooting nights, something announcers commented on in that Knicks-Bucks game. it was early in the season and you could already hear praises of Oscar's impact, how he was the difference between the Bucks being a good team the year before and great team at the time. seriously, everybody who says Oscar didn't play defense or that he was the one to blame for Royals poor defense is simply talking out of his ass because there's really no historical source for this nonsense. there was no player/coach comment that would make it seem as if Oscar was a poor defender. he was certainly capable in that area and as his offensive responsibilities diminished, he started playing very good man defense as well.

from what I can tell from player/coach quotes and quantitative analysis it seems like Oscar was quarterbacking both offense and defense. "quarterbacking" is actually the term that announcers used regarding Oscar's floor generalship, not some made-up wise-sounding description of Walton's game that we like to use 35 years later, it's actually the original sources that said it about Oscar.

[lorak]

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.

We don't know that, beacuse we don't know what was Lakers pace.

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.

So why it wasn't worked so good in 1969? Really Wilt's impact was so negative on offense?!

Also, why you guys so easy accept so small sample: West played only 51 games - isn't it odd his best season was when he played so little?

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.

Bucks?


BTW, West vs 1968 Celtics (-5 drtg):
31.3 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 5.7 APG, 55.9 (+6.1) TS%
So still significantly worse than Robertson 1963 vs much better defensively Celtics (-9.1 drtg): 33.4 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 8.5 APG, 58.1 TS% (+8.8)

It's like comparing LeBron (Oscar) and Kobe (West). It's no contest unless we are biased by narrative, stories, reputation, style of play.

[ElGee]

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.

We don't know that, beacuse we don't know what was Lakers pace.

No, we don't know that a team's ORtg is a perfect reflection of its offense, either. But we can assume, on average, it's a really strong indicator. And the same can be said here with regards to pace -- go through your database and see what the biggest change in pace is with/without a star guard. I think you'll find most teams speed up by like 2-3 possessions, at most, and there are some outliers like Wade and McGrady (5-6)...obviously the 68 Lakers wouldn't need to shut it down like a mid-major to control the game the way the 02-04 Magic and 09-10 Heat would, as they were equipped w Archie Clark and Gail Goodrich. So, go ahead and assume the team still slowed down by 2 possessions...and you'll still see Doc MJ's observations about the 68 offense are correct. (Such a change would shave 0.7-0.8 pts of efficiency away from the offense.)

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.

So why it wasn't worked so good in 1969? Really Wilt's impact was so negative on offense?!

Also, why you guys so easy accept so small sample: West played only 51 games - isn't it odd his best season was when he played so little?

There is nothing "small" about a 51g RS season plus 15 PS games. If you are calling 66 games small-sampled, then you need to start throwing out all team results from a full season.

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.

Bucks?


BTW, West vs 1968 Celtics (-5 drtg):
31.3 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 5.7 APG, 55.9 (+6.1) TS%
So still significantly worse than Robertson 1963 vs much better defensively Celtics (-9.1 drtg): 33.4 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 8.5 APG, 58.1 TS% (+8.8)

It's like comparing LeBron (Oscar) and Kobe (West). It's no contest unless we are biased by narrative, stories, reputation, style of play.

Are these numbers from the PS?

[ElGee]

Woah. Ardee -- why Kobe over Wade? McGrady? Robinson? West? Barkley? I mean, I could list a lot of players but just the wings I mentioned -- why Kobe over Wade or Mac??

And I'd like to clarify something about Jerry West because apparently no one read it or they didn't understand it:

The Lakers were a SUB .500 team in 31 games without West in 1968 (no other significant injuries or roster flux), With West, they were better than an 8 SRS team with basically the best offense in basketball history to that history, and an offense that was maybe matched once in the next 20 years. Individually, West was nearly 10% better than league average on HIGH VOLUME...then he improved on that in the PS and was a major catalyst in pushing the Celtic team that just clipped the "shoulda been a dynasty" 76ers. (When West's ankle didn't hold for G6, the team was finally blown out...)

West also basically owns the record for In/Out value in surrounding seasons, constantly missing between 12 and 30 games and effecting his teams greatly whether they had prime Baylor, post injury Baylor, no Baylor, a bunch of guards, Wilt Chamberlain, different coaches, etc. This wasn't a fluke, this was a peak.

For me I'm having a battle of Wade v West at the 15 spot, but I'm also afraid these kinds of debates will fly by the wayside like KG-Duncan did or Kareem-anybody did. Hopefully they don't...

Ok, this is going to be a bit long, ElGee.

The main premise for my putting Kobe this high is the offensive heights he led that Laker team to. They were posting 114+ ORtgs when Gasol was playing, and even though he only played 27 games they were still about 111-112 for the season I believe.

Now look at that Laker team: aside from Gasol, everyone relies on Kobe's creation.
Look at the shooter's numbers: Vujacic and Farmar had career shooting years, massive outliers compared to their other seasons.

Fisher experienced a pretty surprising rejuvenation thanks to the offensive attention Kobe was drawing. Gasol's efficiency skyrocketed when he came to the Lakers.

Breaking down the players you mentioned:

Kobe vs. Robinson: I love DRob more than anyone on the board I think, but the Playoffs are relevant. I think '94 is his best season, but he performs rather not up to the standards he set in the regular season when being guarded by Malone. 20-11 on 41% shooting is well... Not that good. That '94 regular season has an argument for being a top 5 regular season of all time, though. Meanwhile Kobe averaged 32-6-6 on 60% TS against quality opponents in '08, destroying a 7.4 SRS Jazz team to the tune of 33-7-7 with no less than Andrei Kireilinko on him.

Kobe vs. McGrady: The '03 McGrady season seems quite similar to '06 Kobe to me in terms of narrative. A putrid offensive supporting cast, Kobe/Mac has to go for 33-35 ppg on decent efficiency to keep them relevant. The difference, to me, however, is that Kobe's 06 team overachieved massively. Starting Smush Parker at PG and Kwame Brown at C, they still managed the 7th best SRS in the league.

The narrative continues. It's astounding really. The team makes the first round and is pitted against a 1st/2nd seed. They jump out to a shock 3-1 lead behind great play from their superstar. Then, it all falls away. Mac averaged 26 ppg on just 36% shooting in the last three games, all losses. And here's the thing: that Detroit team, they weren't very good. They were the 1st seed in the EC with just a 50-32 record, and they were just a 2.9 SRS team. I don't see '08 Kobe, or even '06 Kobe for that matter, struggling so much against them.

When someone loses in round 1, you can give them credit if they go all out and burn their opponents like Wade '10. But Mac really underperformed as compared to the regular season. Can't rank him over Kobe '08 the same reason I can't rank Kobe 06 over Kobe 08.

Kobe vs. Wade 09: The best statistical season by a non-Jordan 2-guard. My personal pick as his peak. The reason I can't separate it from Kobe's '06-'08 peak is that despite all those incredible numbers, the Heat still had only the 22nd best offense in the league.

Break it down further. Remove Kobe and Wade from the '06-'07 Lakers and the '09 Heat. Odom probably stands out as the best offensive player of the lot. Then after that, Wade has Marion, Haslem, Beasley and Chalmers. Kobe has.... Kwame and Smush.

Even with a comparable or even maybe a slightly better supporting cast, Wade in 09 was unable to replicate Kobe's offensive performances in terms of team offense, or even really come close (7th offense vs. 22nd offense).

Plus, Wade dropped off from his regular season against a very, very average Hawks team. This was the same Hawks team that LeBron all of disemboweled in the very next round.

Its the same story as T-Mac's 03 and to some extent Kobe 06/07. I'd say Wade's playoff performance in 09 was probably better than T-Mac's in 03 and about as good as Kobe in those two years, but Kobe's 08 WC Playoffs were on a different level: those three rounds before he played the GOAT defense were on an MJ/LeBron level.

Kobe vs. West: Now this.... This is hard. Why? Because I can't pinpoint a peak year for West.

'65: The highest scoring Playoffs ever. 40.6 ppg with Baylor out. Destroys the Bullets to the tune of 46.3 ppg (!).

'66: Drags an awful supporting cast with Baylor mostly on one leg or injured to the Finals once more. 31-7-6 regular season, sets an all-time record with 840 free throws made. Scores less but is far more efficient. 34-6-6 on 58% TS is Jordan-esque. Now this year I might have to reconsider.

However, I think everyone will agree Kobe was demonic on the defensive end in '08. Arguably his best year defensively since 2001. I don't know if we can say West had the same defensive impact. He was good at playing the passing lanes, but was he as good a man-defender and help-defender as Kobe?

2008 was a really monster defensive year for Kobe. He finished 5th in DPoY voting and played some incredible man defense. There's a video on youtube of a game when Miami was visiting Staples, and he just ruined Wade. This was Wade in his athletic prime: 26 years old, and Kobe wasn't letting him breathe.

Not using that one game as an argument but just an example of how disruptive Kobe was during that year at times.

To me, honestly, the two players I have a hard time separating from Kobe are Oscar and Barkley.

Oscar's offensive impact in those early 60s years was crazy as others have shown, plus he had some truly kickass Playoff performances.

'93 Barkley has the same narrative as Kobe. Leads a kick-ass offensive regular season team, and some monster Playoff performances. In particular, during the WCF, he was just unstoppable.

Again, these are nearly perfect seasons. Some bare separation. I would for sure put Kobe 08 over Wade's 09 and Robinson's 94, but I'm open to argument with Barkley '93, West '66 and Oscar '63/'64, and most notably Erving '76.

The last is probably the closest one for me, and I would like to hear someone's take on Erving vs Kobe.

Ardee I just saw this, and there's a lot to say, but so much of it has been said in past projects or threads that you may not have heard. I'm not going to take the time to re-hash them all, but just throw you some thoughts to think about as I know you are an open-minded poster:

-the Laker ORtgs once Gasol joins ARE impressive. Keep in mind though that the guys were talking about here have similar or better feats (eg Charles Barkley)

-The only reason you probably think the 06 Lakers overachieved and the 03 Magic didn't is because you were paying closer attention to the Lakers. The 03 Magic were just a terrible terrible team. At LEAST the 06 Lakers had Odom -- who played a big creation role on that team that frankly is constantly overlooked by people touting Bryant.

-03 McGrady then almost single-handedly carries Orlando past an enormously superior Detroit team. They were only a 2.9 SRS team...but the Pistons were ALL defense (-3.7 defense). Wings shot 42.1% against Detroit in 2003. Your understating this defense, and how little help McGrady had on the offensive side. (For perspective, wings shot 45.6% against 06 Phoenix).

-The 09 Heat were a defensively oriented team with a defensively slanted coach. And Wade would have killed to have 06 Lamar Odom on his team. Not to mention using ordinal rankings is overstating the difference in final team offense: +2.2 for LA, -0.5 for Mia. Not sure if you've seen them, but I've done some normalizations of offensive rebounding strategy and that alone looks like it can be worth up to 2 points in ORtg/DRtg shifts.

-08 Wade was massively injured and not anywhere close to his athletic prime. He was dragging. I'm not sure how much of the 08 Lakers you watched, but I would call Bryant's defense on that team the opposite of 'demonic." It was unimpressive to me. This was the same year JVG called it a "joke" Bryant made the all-nba team because he kept making defensive errors in PS games and because he rested so much on D against weak opposing players. Don't watch fanboy highlights, go back and watch some PS games of that year if you can -- you won't see an impact defender.

-94 D-Rob is his peak to me. Since I estimate his defense to be about twice as valuable as his offense, I'm not concerned that he had a slightly down offensive series against a team that gave him trouble in the PS for some reason (physicality?). Consider that you probably don't want D-Rob as your primary scorer on a well-built team anyway.

[ardee]

Woah. Ardee -- why Kobe over Wade? McGrady? Robinson? West? Barkley? I mean, I could list a lot of players but just the wings I mentioned -- why Kobe over Wade or Mac??

And I'd like to clarify something about Jerry West because apparently no one read it or they didn't understand it:

The Lakers were a SUB .500 team in 31 games without West in 1968 (no other significant injuries or roster flux), With West, they were better than an 8 SRS team with basically the best offense in basketball history to that history, and an offense that was maybe matched once in the next 20 years. Individually, West was nearly 10% better than league average on HIGH VOLUME...then he improved on that in the PS and was a major catalyst in pushing the Celtic team that just clipped the "shoulda been a dynasty" 76ers. (When West's ankle didn't hold for G6, the team was finally blown out...)

West also basically owns the record for In/Out value in surrounding seasons, constantly missing between 12 and 30 games and effecting his teams greatly whether they had prime Baylor, post injury Baylor, no Baylor, a bunch of guards, Wilt Chamberlain, different coaches, etc. This wasn't a fluke, this was a peak.

For me I'm having a battle of Wade v West at the 15 spot, but I'm also afraid these kinds of debates will fly by the wayside like KG-Duncan did or Kareem-anybody did. Hopefully they don't...

Ok, this is going to be a bit long, ElGee.

The main premise for my putting Kobe this high is the offensive heights he led that Laker team to. They were posting 114+ ORtgs when Gasol was playing, and even though he only played 27 games they were still about 111-112 for the season I believe.

Now look at that Laker team: aside from Gasol, everyone relies on Kobe's creation.
Look at the shooter's numbers: Vujacic and Farmar had career shooting years, massive outliers compared to their other seasons.

Fisher experienced a pretty surprising rejuvenation thanks to the offensive attention Kobe was drawing. Gasol's efficiency skyrocketed when he came to the Lakers.

Breaking down the players you mentioned:

Kobe vs. Robinson: I love DRob more than anyone on the board I think, but the Playoffs are relevant. I think '94 is his best season, but he performs rather not up to the standards he set in the regular season when being guarded by Malone. 20-11 on 41% shooting is well... Not that good. That '94 regular season has an argument for being a top 5 regular season of all time, though. Meanwhile Kobe averaged 32-6-6 on 60% TS against quality opponents in '08, destroying a 7.4 SRS Jazz team to the tune of 33-7-7 with no less than Andrei Kireilinko on him.

Kobe vs. McGrady: The '03 McGrady season seems quite similar to '06 Kobe to me in terms of narrative. A putrid offensive supporting cast, Kobe/Mac has to go for 33-35 ppg on decent efficiency to keep them relevant. The difference, to me, however, is that Kobe's 06 team overachieved massively. Starting Smush Parker at PG and Kwame Brown at C, they still managed the 7th best SRS in the league.

The narrative continues. It's astounding really. The team makes the first round and is pitted against a 1st/2nd seed. They jump out to a shock 3-1 lead behind great play from their superstar. Then, it all falls away. Mac averaged 26 ppg on just 36% shooting in the last three games, all losses. And here's the thing: that Detroit team, they weren't very good. They were the 1st seed in the EC with just a 50-32 record, and they were just a 2.9 SRS team. I don't see '08 Kobe, or even '06 Kobe for that matter, struggling so much against them.

When someone loses in round 1, you can give them credit if they go all out and burn their opponents like Wade '10. But Mac really underperformed as compared to the regular season. Can't rank him over Kobe '08 the same reason I can't rank Kobe 06 over Kobe 08.

Kobe vs. Wade 09: The best statistical season by a non-Jordan 2-guard. My personal pick as his peak. The reason I can't separate it from Kobe's '06-'08 peak is that despite all those incredible numbers, the Heat still had only the 22nd best offense in the league.

Break it down further. Remove Kobe and Wade from the '06-'07 Lakers and the '09 Heat. Odom probably stands out as the best offensive player of the lot. Then after that, Wade has Marion, Haslem, Beasley and Chalmers. Kobe has.... Kwame and Smush.

Even with a comparable or even maybe a slightly better supporting cast, Wade in 09 was unable to replicate Kobe's offensive performances in terms of team offense, or even really come close (7th offense vs. 22nd offense).

Plus, Wade dropped off from his regular season against a very, very average Hawks team. This was the same Hawks team that LeBron all of disemboweled in the very next round.

Its the same story as T-Mac's 03 and to some extent Kobe 06/07. I'd say Wade's playoff performance in 09 was probably better than T-Mac's in 03 and about as good as Kobe in those two years, but Kobe's 08 WC Playoffs were on a different level: those three rounds before he played the GOAT defense were on an MJ/LeBron level.

Kobe vs. West: Now this.... This is hard. Why? Because I can't pinpoint a peak year for West.

'65: The highest scoring Playoffs ever. 40.6 ppg with Baylor out. Destroys the Bullets to the tune of 46.3 ppg (!).

'66: Drags an awful supporting cast with Baylor mostly on one leg or injured to the Finals once more. 31-7-6 regular season, sets an all-time record with 840 free throws made. Scores less but is far more efficient. 34-6-6 on 58% TS is Jordan-esque. Now this year I might have to reconsider.

However, I think everyone will agree Kobe was demonic on the defensive end in '08. Arguably his best year defensively since 2001. I don't know if we can say West had the same defensive impact. He was good at playing the passing lanes, but was he as good a man-defender and help-defender as Kobe?

2008 was a really monster defensive year for Kobe. He finished 5th in DPoY voting and played some incredible man defense. There's a video on youtube of a game when Miami was visiting Staples, and he just ruined Wade. This was Wade in his athletic prime: 26 years old, and Kobe wasn't letting him breathe.

Not using that one game as an argument but just an example of how disruptive Kobe was during that year at times.

To me, honestly, the two players I have a hard time separating from Kobe are Oscar and Barkley.

Oscar's offensive impact in those early 60s years was crazy as others have shown, plus he had some truly kickass Playoff performances.

'93 Barkley has the same narrative as Kobe. Leads a kick-ass offensive regular season team, and some monster Playoff performances. In particular, during the WCF, he was just unstoppable.

Again, these are nearly perfect seasons. Some bare separation. I would for sure put Kobe 08 over Wade's 09 and Robinson's 94, but I'm open to argument with Barkley '93, West '66 and Oscar '63/'64, and most notably Erving '76.

The last is probably the closest one for me, and I would like to hear someone's take on Erving vs Kobe.

Ardee I just saw this, and there's a lot to say, but so much of it has been said in past projects or threads that you may not have heard. I'm not going to take the time to re-hash them all, but just throw you some thoughts to think about as I know you are an open-minded poster:

-the Laker ORtgs once Gasol joins ARE impressive. Keep in mind though that the guys were talking about here have similar or better feats (eg Charles Barkley)

-The only reason you probably think the 06 Lakers overachieved and the 03 Magic didn't is because you were paying closer attention to the Lakers. The 03 Magic were just a terrible terrible team. At LEAST the 06 Lakers had Odom -- who played a big creation role on that team that frankly is constantly overlooked by people touting Bryant.

-03 McGrady then almost single-handedly carries Orlando past an enormously superior Detroit team. They were only a 2.9 SRS team...but the Pistons were ALL defense (-3.7 defense). Wings shot 42.1% against Detroit in 2003. Your understating this defense, and how little help McGrady had on the offensive side. (For perspective, wings shot 45.6% against 06 Phoenix).

-The 09 Heat were a defensively oriented team with a defensively slanted coach. And Wade would have killed to have 06 Lamar Odom on his team. Not to mention using ordinal rankings is overstating the difference in final team offense: +2.2 for LA, -0.5 for Mia. Not sure if you've seen them, but I've done some normalizations of offensive rebounding strategy and that alone looks like it can be worth up to 2 points in ORtg/DRtg shifts.

-08 Wade was massively injured and not anywhere close to his athletic prime. He was dragging. I'm not sure how much of the 08 Lakers you watched, but I would call Bryant's defense on that team the opposite of 'demonic." It was unimpressive to me. This was the same year JVG called it a "joke" Bryant made the all-nba team because he kept making defensive errors in PS games and because he rested so much on D against weak opposing players. Don't watch fanboy highlights, go back and watch some PS games of that year if you can -- you won't see an impact defender.

-94 D-Rob is his peak to me. Since I estimate his defense to be about twice as valuable as his offense, I'm not concerned that he had a slightly down offensive series against a team that gave him trouble in the PS for some reason (physicality?). Consider that you probably don't want D-Rob as your primary scorer on a well-built team anyway.

ElGee, I'm a Laker fan. I watched practically every minute of every game of the Lakers' 2008 PS.

Ginobli averaged 13 ppg on 36% shooting against the Lakers, who's only perimeter defender of note was Bryant. Ariza was injured. Kobe wasn't guarding Manu full-time, but he was disrupting him well. Manu had arguably the worst Playoff series of his career, he had an average game score of 6.7

Melo had an awful series against LA as well. 23 ppg on 36% shooting. You think Radmanovic or Walton was shutting him down? The Lakers were not exactly a hellacious defensive team... They were just about average in the Playoffs.

Maybe I was going into a bit of hyperbole, but 2008 was one of Kobe's best defensive years. 2009 was a bit worse, and 2010 he did kinda drop off.

[ElGee]

Chiming in on the main players here right now:

West-Wade-Robinson: My next 3 votes, and I'm pretty comfortable with that. The question is Wade's portability and how much to give these guys defensively. Wade and West both do tend to go big and against good defenses, but I'm ridiculously impressed with Wade's 2-guard defense. One of the few 2-guard defenders ever who can legitimately rotate to protect the rim (no doubt due to his 6-10 wingspan).

Oscar-Barkley: I haven't talked a lot about Oscar and no one has talked about Barkley (Doc just started to bring him up which is nice). First let me clarify something about Oscar's In/Out numbers. All old numbers from past projects or on my site are based on MOV and not always complete. I'm updating everything, so what you see in this project are the more accurate SRS numbers AND thanks to the B-R boxscore update, everything is complete and detailed (and easier to control for other players missing time).

Oscar 1968 (19g) -10.5 SRS out, +2.6 in
Oscar 1970 (13g) -7.4 out, -1.3 in
Oscar 1972 (18g) 7.1 out, 11.9 in

While that last number is impressive, it's also kind of what we expect to see. If the number represented "true" value, then going from 7 to 12 is great...but remember this was in a widely distributed, totally spread-thin league. Thus, adding a player like Oscar, in theory, makes a bigger effect. Just something to keep in mind.

As for Barkley, he reminds me of West in that with all the missed time (and his teammates missing time), all the retroactive 21st century stats missed how freakishly awesome his team offenses were. Consider:

1989 Phi: +5.2
1990 Phi: +5.4
1993 Pho: +7.6 w KJ
1994 Pho: +7.1 w KJ
1995 Pho: +6.7 w KJ

This is, simply put, dynastic. Which totally jibes with Barkley's statistics. Which totally jibes with the eye test, where I see Barkley as some sort of mini-savant on offense -- amazing passer, amazing shot selection, amazing feel for using space with his body.

Regulat8r asked about Oscar's peak...I think it's 1964 based on the height of the team offense. I do consider the surrounding seasons to be extremely close though.

Kobe-Malone-McGrady-Paul-Nash-Howard-Pippen: I tacked on Howard and Pippen because they are somewhere in this range, although if he's healthy this year I imagine we will all have a much clearer idea of Dwight Howard's impact on the game (eg Can LA DOMINATE defensively w Howard-Gasol-Artest FC?). Basically like a slightly lesser David Robinson to me right now, and since I'm up on Robinson based on everything I've said about portability, title odds, etc. I feel the same about Howard, but we'll get to him in a few weeks...

I like what Positivity is saying about Paul over Nash. I tentatively agree, although I think it's a great debate. I do consider Nash a better offensive player clearly -- 7 to 6 type thing -- but I also like Paul defensively. It's not an obvious choice for me.

Karl Malone is someone we should really start talking about. I've slapped him on my scale as a +4.5 offense guy and +2 defense guy at his peak. Those don't intersect so I see him as a +6 guy too...but the obvious question is how to judge his defense. (I hope that's the obvious question!) I'd be lying if I didn't say the single season in LA is on my mind as I judge mid and late-90's Malone -- the best version of Malone -- because of how well he grasped basketball concepts, how good of a passer he is, and frankly how tenacious he was on defense without having to be the offense...at age 40. He was a strong, bothersome defender in Utah, who used space well and was obviously a pain in the ass for many players as a man-to-man defender.

Mac v Kobe...well, I'd just like to hear more.