#15 Highest Peak of All Time (Kobe '08 wins)

[Lightning25]

The biggest reason why I would say Kobe's peak was better than Wade's was because of Kobe's ability to carry a team in both the regular and the post-season.

Wade proved that he really wasn't capable of proving to carry a team for both RS and PS.

In 2009, he carried the Heat in the regular season but he faltered and stopped his dominance by the time the post-season started. My theory is that he got fatigued from carrying his team all of the regular season. He also supposedly got injured which doesn't help him. Durability is a huge part of the game and if you aren't healthy, you aren't helping your team win.

In 2010, Wade coasted in the regular season by showing up to the season out of shape and not putting in consistent effort night in and night out which gave him all the energy in the world to dominate and thrive in the post-season which he did.

You only get one dominant version of Wade, regular season or post-season, you don't get both like you can with a Kobe.

I would say Wade's peak was better than McGrady's, but not Kobe's. Mcgrady is a step behind due to his sub-par defense.

[lorak]

I don't like Robinson actually. he really was a different player against strong competition. people talk about his performances vs Malone and Olajuwon but he was equally bad vs other strong defenders. Mutombo demolished him IIRC.

Here you are wrong Bast. Nuggets throw multiple defenders on Robinson during 1995 1st round (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQyaZGWq_GA) and it was rather team effort that Robinson's FG% was so low. Besides:
1. Robinson shot 21/49 FG, so you know, small sample - 4 made instead of 4 misses and his FG% would look completely different.
2. Mutombo played only 28 MPG during that series (19, 36 and 30 minutes) and had foul trouble during every game (4 fouls in 19 minutes in G1, 5 fouls in G2 and 6 fouls in G3)

[mysticbb]

As I think some interesting informations about McGrady in 2003, Robinson in 1994 and Nowitzki in 2006.

GameScore per 36 min against below average teams with the average SRS of the opponents in brackets:

Robinson: 27.2 (-5.76)
McGrady: 24.2 (-3.84)
Nowitzki: 20.0 (-3.03)

Against above average teams:

Robinson: 19.7 (3.73)
McGrady: 19.4 (3.12)
Nowitzki: 18.4 (3.75)

I did not look into the specific pace for each selection, but the Mavericks had in average 88.0, the Magic 92.7 and the Spurs 90.0. That makes Nowitzki and McGrady basically equal in pace-adjusted GameScore (20.9 each) against the better teams, while Nowitzki faced in average stronger opponents. And Robinson ends up with 21.9. The raw boxscore numbers and some of the adjusted metrics for McGrady and Robinson are just higher, because they were beating up on bad teams, while that is not seen for Nowitzki to that degree. At least for Robinson that might be a very good explanation why his regular season level did not carry over to the playoffs, while Nowitzki sees no such drop.

Edit:

GameScore for Nowitzki in 2007: 21.2 per 75 poss vs. below average teams (-2.22 SRS in average), while being at 21.3 per 75 poss against above average teams (3.84 SRS in average).

[LikeABosh]

I'm kind of set on david robinson over wade and kobe. I'm also sure I want to vote for 95 robinson since it's similar to #11 on our list - Kg's 04 season. Let's compare:

KG RS: 39.4 mins. - .499 FG% - 5.7 FTA - .791 FT% - 24.2 points - 13.9 rebs - 5.0 assists - 1.5 steals - 2.2 blocks

58-24/6th ranked defense/5th ranked offense/#1 seed/MVP

DRob RS: 38.0 mins.- .530 FG% - 10.5 FTA - .774 FT% - 27.6 points - 10.8 rebs - 2.9 assists - 1.7 steals - 3.2 blocks

62-20/5th ranked defense/5th ranked offense/#1 seed/MVP
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KG PS: 43.5 mins. - .452 FG% - 6.9 FTA - .776 FT% - 24.3 points - 14.6 rebs - 5.1 assists - 1.3 steals - 2.3 blocks

Series: 4-1 win over Nuggets, 4-3 win over Kings, 4-2 loss to Lakers

Drob PS:41.5 mins. - .446 FG% - 9.9 FTA -.812 FT% - 25.3 points -12.1 rebs - 3.1 assists - 1.5 steals - 2.6 blocks

Series: 3-0 sweep over Nuggets, 4-2 win over Lakers, 4-2 loss to Rockets
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KG's losing series: 44.2 mins. - .463 FG% - 5.3 FTA - .781 FT% - 23.7 points - 13.5 rebs - 4.5 assists - 1.2 steals - 1.2 blocks

DRob's losing series: 41.7 mins. - .449 FG% - 11.8 FTA - .775 FT% - 23.8 points - 11.3 rebs - 2.7 assists - 1.5 steals - 2.2 blocks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I noticed the similarities and I thought I would share. Garnett is obviously better considering that he had the all-around game, and whatever scoring advantage DRob had in the RS seemed to disappear in the playoffs. But I think by now, the gap between #11 and #15 is appropriately sized to vote in Drob. A lot of people, including myself, like to bash DRob for his WC finals....but getting outplayed by Hakeem who was having a ridiculous post season isn't as bad as we make it out to be.

As for the 91 season and 94 season, I'm not a fan of the playoff brevity. The 94 regular season wasn't even that much better than 95. 7 fewer wins, no MVP, less efficient, and per36 is nearly identical (except for assists). Follow that up with a god awful playoff performance and it's easy for me to choose 95 over 94.

[LikeABosh]

I don't like Robinson actually. he really was a different player against strong competition. people talk about his performances vs Malone and Olajuwon but he was equally bad vs other strong defenders. Mutombo demolished him IIRC.

Here you are wrong Bast. Nuggets throw multiple defenders on Robinson during 1995 1st round (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQyaZGWq_GA) and it was rather team effort that Robinson's FG% was so low. Besides:
1. Robinson shot 21/49 FG, so you know, small sample - 4 made instead of 4 misses and his FG% would look completely different.
2. Mutombo played only 28 MPG during that series (19, 36 and 30 minutes) and had foul trouble during every game (4 fouls in 19 minutes in G1, 5 fouls in G2 and 6 fouls in G3)

2 of those games were also complete blow outs. I question how focused DRob was when his team was up by 15-20 points

[Expert-Sizzle]

The biggest reason why I would say Kobe's peak was better than Wade's was because of Kobe's ability to carry a team in both the regular and the post-season.

Wade proved that he really wasn't capable of proving to carry a team for both RS and PS.

In 2009, he carried the Heat in the regular season but he faltered and stopped his dominance by the time the post-season started. My theory is that he got fatigued from carrying his team all of the regular season. He also supposedly got injured which doesn't help him. Durability is a huge part of the game and if you aren't healthy, you aren't helping your team win.

In 2010, Wade coasted in the regular season by showing up to the season out of shape and not putting in consistent effort night in and night out which gave him all the energy in the world to dominate and thrive in the post-season which he did.

You only get one dominant version of Wade, regular season or post-season, you don't get both like you can with a Kobe.

I don't really agree with this at all.
What you're saying here doesn't make any sense to me.

Wade had no issue carrying a team in both the regular season and playoffs and I really don't see any evidence to say he couldn't in 2009 and 2010.
He did it in 2006 where he had an absolutely dominant regular season and a dominant playoffs.

In 2009 and 2010 he could have easily done it again if he had any sort of decent supporting cast around him. (he was surrounded by pure trash... literally)
He took a very deep, strong Hawks team to 7 games single handedly in 2009.
The same Hawks team that took the 2008 Celtic's to 7 games.

He averaged 29 / 5 / 5apg / 1.6bpg on 57%TS against them... not sure how that can be looked at as under-performing especially considering the Hawks had an excellent perimeter defense and were double/triple teaming Wade.

Also what is your basis behind calling Wade out of shape in 2010 or not putting forth his full effort in the regular season?
In his first 40 games of the season he was averaging 29, 5, 7.5apg, 2.3spg, 1.6bpg on 55%TS.

If you are looking specifically for the combined excellence of a regular season + post season I'd probably rank Wade's 06 over Kobe's 09.
Better regular season and "arguably" a better and more dominant playoff run.

[Doctor MJ]

Two guys I'm surprised haven't got even a whisper:

1. Bernard King: The 1984 season ranks among the greatest offensive ones in history. 26.3 ppg may not cause you to raise your eyebrows too much, but his efficiency was nothing short of startling. 57.2% from the field!!! That's Kareem/Shaq level, from a 6'7 wingman! Not Jordan, not LeBron, not West, no wing has managed that kind of efficiency and volume at the same time, while not adversely affecting his team (looking at you, Adrian Dantley).

What's more incredible is that the Knicks somehow got the 3rd best SRS (a 47-35 record) in the league when Bill Cartwright was their second best player. Better than the Lakers, better than the Sixers: only Boston and Milwaukee surpassed them. The entire offense was on King.

Then in the Playoffs he ripped off 33 ppg on 62% TS, including 42.6 ppg on 65% TS against the Pistons. He then faced the eventual champion Celtics, and held his own against Bird in a shootout of a series: 29.1 ppg on 60% TS, against a -3.2 defensive team. All of this while he was probably the only consistent scorer on his team.

You could call it on par offensively with Tracy '03, Wade '09 and Kobe '06. Just stunningly efficient in the regular season, and unlike the other three followed it up with a monstrous Playoffs.

I think this is a very good call. He needs to at least be discussed with the other guys we're already talking about.

[Lightning25]

Wade had no issue carrying a team in both the regular season and playoffs and I really don't see any evidence to say he couldn't in 09, 10 and 2011.

2010 and 2011, he looked like he coasted a lot. 2011 makes more sense though because he had Lebron. 2010 didn't make much sense though. 2009 he played great in the regular season but didn't play as great in the post-season.

He did it in 2006 where he had an absolutely excellent regular season and a dominant playoffs.

I am thinking that 2006 was his peak but even so, I'm not even sure if he was even the most important player on the team.

As Fatal9 posted in the other thread, Heat were 10-13 without Shaq that season and they had one of the best, if not the best backup Center in the league with Alonzo Mourning.

2009 was Wade's best season in terms of ability and individual performance but 2006 was his best in terms of accomplishments and overall combined RS and PS production.

In 2009 and 2010 he could have easily done it again if he had any sort of decent supporting cast around him. (he was surrounded by pure trash... literally)

I would say that Wade's '09 cast was a little better than Kobe's '06 cast. Both were pretty bad though but I do think Wade has the edge. He had more depth/role players on his teams whereas Kobe just had a young and immature Lamar Odom on his team and that was about it.

He took a very deep, strong Hawks team to 7 games single handedly in 2009.
The same Hawks team that took the 2008 Celtic's to 7 games.

If I remember correctly, those Hawks were quite banged up in the 2009 post-season.

He averaged 29 / 5 / 5apg / 1.6bpg on 57%TS against them... not sure how that can be looked at as under-performing especially considering the Hawks had an excellent perimeter defense and were double/triple teaming Wade.

Well I also look at FG% and it was like 43-44% which is quite subpar for Wade's standards. I believe he was somewhat inconsistent in that post-season as well. He just didn't look like Wade every game of the series. One game he looked like Wade and then another game, he didn't look like a superstar. It was an odd series.

Also what is your basis behind calling Wade out of shape in 2010 or not putting forth his full effort in the regular season?
In his first 40 games of the season he was averaging 29, 5, 7.5apg, 2.3spg, 1.6bpg on 55%TS.

Pat Riley was the one that questioned it. I think he has a decent amount of credibility? yeah?

4. Pat Riley publicly questioned Dwyane Wade's conditioning as his numbers have dropped off a bit over last season. (He averaged 30.2 points, 7.5 assists and 5.0 rebounds a game while shooting 49.1 percent last season. Now he's averaging 26.6 points, 6.2 assists and 5.0 rebounds while shooting 43.2 percent.) Is Riley's concern legit?

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/b ... z25Fhvp1ur

If you are looking specifically for the combined excellence of a regular season + post season I'd probably rank Wade's 06 over Kobe's 09.
Better regular season and "arguably" a better and more dominant playoff run.

06 Wade vs. 09 Kobe would be tough, I might give the edge to Kobe due to being a better defensive player. Wade wasn't as great of a defensive player or all-around player until 2009 which is why I say Wade's best individual/peak season was 2009 and not 2006. 2006 Wade was more successful and produced better combining both RS + PS but 2009 Wade was just a better overall player and could do more to help your team win.

[Doctor MJ]

1. I know what was Wilt's offensive value and I wouldn't be surprised if his offensive impact on offense in '69 would be around 0 or slightly negative. But I would not believe that he was around -4 ortg negative. I need hard evidence in that case, because no matter how plausible story about coach-Wilt relations looks like, without numbers which would support such big negative impact from Wilt, it's nothing more than interesting story.

Perhaps it would help if I made a distinction:

I'm not literally saying that if we ran APM over the '69 season that Wilt would have -4 rating. I'm saying the team went on a fundamentally different trajectory because of Wilt's resistance to the coach's plan (and the coach's response to the resistance).

I'm reluctant to use Nash as an example because everyone knows my history with Nash, but since the '05 Suns represent the biggest offensive improvement in NBA history by a large margin it's the obvious choice. You couldn't have simply added Nash to the Suns, continued running the same offense, and expect that kind of unreal improvement. It only happened because the team set upon an entirely new strategy with Nash on the team. Had Amare refused to go along with the new plan, and forced the team to stay with the old approach then, he'd be responsible for severely diminishing the team's offensive capabilities, but it wouldn't show up in the +/- data.

What we're really talking about here is tiers of impact. To move it into business context, it's possible to have a manager who is incredibly on the ball, and who runs his department in a very tight ship, which yields positive impact compared to a manager trying to do the same thing but doing it more sloppily. However, if that "on the ball" manager is preventing his company from taking on a new technology that could revolutionize the entire process, the he could easily be having such a big negative effect on the big picture that it overwhelms all the good he's doing in the day-to-day operations.

2. Maybe I will give you example why I so often talk about small sample in this case (51 games for West). The most efficient season for West was '68: .590 TS%, his second best result was .573 in '66 and then three more seasons in .571-.572 range. His career average is .550. So we see that '68 season was big outlier and IMO the most resonable explanation is - small sample.

Of course in playoffs he had similar efficiency, but look at teams he played against: -3.77 SRS Bulls and Warriors without Thurmond. Then Celtics against whom he didn't look so good (for sure worse than prime Oscar vs much better defensively Celtics).

This is the second time in this project I've seen people use TS% like that to show a peak year that's an outlier, and I have to tell you, I look at those numbers and I don't see anything all that weird here. A .02% change in shooting efficiency is not that uncommon of a thing.

More to the specific context of the '68 Lakers, we're talking about a new offense where there's more focus on passing to the open man, and West's efficiency went up a bit as his volume went down slightly. This pretty much seems like what I'd expect if a volume scorer was taking to such an offense in earnest.

[Expert-Sizzle]

06 Wade vs. 09 Kobe would be tough, I might give the edge to Kobe due to being a better defensive player. Wade wasn't as great of a defensive player or all-around player until 2009 which is why I say Wade's best individual/peak season was 2009 and not 2006. 2006 Wade was more successful and produced better combining both RS + PS but 2009 Wade was just a better overall player and could do more to help your team win.

I think 2006 Wade was actually a significantly better defender then 2009 Kobe.

They were both good defenders but Wade had a huge edge in athleticism and his help defense was a good tier or two above Kobe's.
His speed and explosiveness allowed him pressure the lanes while staying with his man in a way Kobe couldn't.
He also was imo a slightly better m2m defender.
He had insanely quick feet and great length and really locked up his defensive assignments and he had better stamina.
He would go all out constantly on both ends while Kobe didn't really have the energy to do that.
Kobe would get gassed at times and visibly slack off a bit on that end.

Wade's DRTG was 4points lower then Kobe's and he had 2-DWShares to Kobe's 1.4 in the same number of games.

[drza]

I threw out 1991 as a potential peak year for DRob, but that didn't get much traction and upon further review I can get behind that. The Spurs had the best defensive ratings in the league around that time in the regular season, but in the playoffs they didn't seem to be a huge impediment to opponent team ORtgs. And I'm always an advocate for the box score not necessarily fully reflecting individual defensive impact, so in the absence of any good impact stats it is a bit concerning that we didn't see more of a team defensive effect in the postseason for early 90s Spurs.

That brings it to 1994 vs 1995. ElGee is voting for 1994, while I've seen a couple of others championing 1995. And at first blush, I'm tempted to go 1995 as well because of the better postseason performance. ElGee, do you have 1994 so much higher than 1995 that you'd be determined to stay with that year come hell or high water? And if so, what is it about '94 that impresses you so much more?

[therealbig3]

I just think it's really confusing how people are so willing to focus on 3-4 game sample sizes and make their judgement of a player. We're really going to focus on a 3-game stretch from T-Mac, trying to carry a poor supporting cast, against an elite defensive team, with an elite defender like Prince guarding him (the same guy that locked down Kobe the next year, who was only one year removed from what a lot of people consider his peak).

And then we're going to focus on a 7-game sample size in 09 vs a 5 game sample size in 10, and conclude that 10 Wade is better, when Wade was a lot better in the regular season of 09, and wasn't even that bad in the 09 playoffs. What could 10 Wade do better than 09 Wade?

I thought people were kind of against this type of methodology in the beginning, to not focus on small sample sizes in the PS and base EVERYTHING off that. The PS is what matters, true, which is why durability during the regular season doesn't really matter as much as people may think, but your actual level of play over the course of a season should be considered, not a small stretch of games in the PS.

[Lightning25]

I just think it's really confusing how people are so willing to focus on 3-4 game sample sizes and make their judgement of a player. We're really going to focus on a 3-game stretch from T-Mac, trying to carry a poor supporting cast, against an elite defensive team, with an elite defender like Prince guarding him (the same guy that locked down Kobe the next year, who was only one year removed from what a lot of people consider his peak).

How on earth was Tayshaun Prince an elite defender? He was just a rookie then and a complete nobody/unknown.

The point I believe those people were trying to make is that Tracy McGrady flamed out in the final 3 games of the 2003 playoffs which cost him and the team the series because they were up 3-1. That is a blackmark on his season.

[Expert-Sizzle]

2010 and 2011, he looked like he coasted a lot. 2011 makes more sense though because he had Lebron. 2010 didn't make much sense though. 2009 he played great in the regular season but didn't play as great in the post-season.
------------------------------------------------------
I would say that Wade's '09 cast was a little better than Kobe's '06 cast. Both were pretty bad though but I do think Wade has the edge. He had more depth/role players on his teams whereas Kobe just had a young and immature Lamar Odom on his team and that was about it.
----------------------------------------------------

#1. I don't really see any reason to think he "coasted" in 2010/11.
The statistics don't show any significant change from 2009.
Unless you followed the Heat religiously back then I can't imagine what strong basis you would have for believing that.

#2. I disagree.
I think Kobe had a significantly better supporting cast in 2006.
Kobe had a solid All-Star in Odom and a couple of decent roleplayers.
Odom was a 19 / 11 / 5.5apg on 57% TS in the 2006 playoffs.

Wade's 2nd best player was Micheal Beasely... who averaged 12ppg on 38% shooting.
He also had an Old, Broken down J. O'neal who averaged 13 / 4rpg and was unavailable for some of the games.

So Kobe got vastly better production play by his 2nd best player and his 3 best supporting players and even his other 5-7 roleplayers produced better then Wade's 5-7 other roleplayers.
Wade's bench was just as thin as Kobe's and filled with the same quality of players and actually produced less.

[Chosen01]

Wade had no issue carrying a team in both the regular season and playoffs and I really don't see any evidence to say he couldn't in 09, 10 and 2011.

2010 and 2011, he looked like he coasted a lot. 2011 makes more sense though because he had Lebron. 2010 didn't make much sense though. 2009 he played great in the regular season but didn't play as great in the post-season.

He did it in 2006 where he had an absolutely excellent regular season and a dominant playoffs.

I am thinking that 2006 was his peak but even so, I'm not even sure if he was even the most important player on the team.

As Fatal9 posted in the other thread, Heat were 10-13 without Shaq that season and they had one of the best, if not the best backup Center in the league with Alonzo Mourning.

2009 was Wade's best season in terms of ability and individual performance but 2006 was his best in terms of accomplishments and overall combined RS and PS production.

In 2009 and 2010 he could have easily done it again if he had any sort of decent supporting cast around him. (he was surrounded by pure trash... literally)

I would say that Wade's '09 cast was a little better than Kobe's '06 cast. Both were pretty bad though but I do think Wade has the edge. He had more depth/role players on his teams whereas Kobe just had a young and immature Lamar Odom on his team and that was about it.

He took a very deep, strong Hawks team to 7 games single handedly in 2009.
The same Hawks team that took the 2008 Celtic's to 7 games.

If I remember correctly, those Hawks were quite banged up in the 2009 post-season.

He averaged 29 / 5 / 5apg / 1.6bpg on 57%TS against them... not sure how that can be looked at as under-performing especially considering the Hawks had an excellent perimeter defense and were double/triple teaming Wade.

Well I also look at FG% and it was like 43-44% which is quite subpar for Wade's standards. I believe he was somewhat inconsistent in that post-season as well. He just didn't look like Wade every game of the series. One game he looked like Wade and then another game, he didn't look like a superstar. It was an odd series.

Also what is your basis behind calling Wade out of shape in 2010 or not putting forth his full effort in the regular season?
In his first 40 games of the season he was averaging 29, 5, 7.5apg, 2.3spg, 1.6bpg on 55%TS.

Pat Riley was the one that questioned it. I think he has a decent amount of credibility? yeah?

4. Pat Riley publicly questioned Dwyane Wade's conditioning as his numbers have dropped off a bit over last season. (He averaged 30.2 points, 7.5 assists and 5.0 rebounds a game while shooting 49.1 percent last season. Now he's averaging 26.6 points, 6.2 assists and 5.0 rebounds while shooting 43.2 percent.) Is Riley's concern legit?

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/b ... z25Fhvp1ur

If you are looking specifically for the combined excellence of a regular season + post season I'd probably rank Wade's 06 over Kobe's 09.
Better regular season and "arguably" a better and more dominant playoff run.

06 Wade vs. 09 Kobe would be tough, I might give the edge to Kobe due to being a better defensive player. Wade wasn't as great of a defensive player or all-around player until 2009 which is why I say Wade's best individual/peak season was 2009 and not 2006. 2006 Wade was more successful and produced better combining both RS + PS but 2009 Wade was just a better overall player and could do more to help your team win.

Wade had back spasms for the half the series against the Hawks, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2009-0 ... lstra-heat

Jermaine Oneal, the 2nd leading scorer for the Heat missed game 6 and 7, Jamario Moon a key role player missed game 5, 6 and 7 so the Hawks weren't the only ones suffering from injury especially not their 2 best players in Joe Johnson and Josh Smith. Also, FG% doesn't do a better job of showing efficiency than TS% and I'm sure we all know that by now. Wade posted a 57% TS with back spasms half the series.

09 Wade's roster consisted of 2 rookies, 2 sophomores, a D-league player,hobbled Jermaine Oneal and Haslem with a rookie coach compared to arguably the greatest coach of all time. 06 Kobe's roster was also putrid but there's no doubt in my mind that as immature as Odom was, Wade would still take him over any player he had in 09 PERIOD.

Lamar averaged 15ppg 9rpg 5apg 1spg 1bpg on 48% shooting 37% 3pt shooting and 56% TS in the regular season and 19 and 11 5 1.1bpg in the playoffs and was just a more reliable 2nd option compared to Jermaine who missed the last two games and averaged 13 and 4 for the 5 games he played in.

[therealbig3]

I just think it's really confusing how people are so willing to focus on 3-4 game sample sizes and make their judgement of a player. We're really going to focus on a 3-game stretch from T-Mac, trying to carry a poor supporting cast, against an elite defensive team, with an elite defender like Prince guarding him (the same guy that locked down Kobe the next year, who was only one year removed from what a lot of people consider his peak).

How on earth was Tayshaun Prince an elite defender? He was just a rookie then and a complete nobody/unknown.

The point I believe those people were trying to make is that Tracy McGrady flamed out in the final 3 games of the 2003 playoffs which cost him and the team the series because they were up 3-1. That is a blackmark on his season.

But it's the same thing people use against LeBron in 2010, when he "flamed out" in the final 3 games of the playoffs and "cost" his team the series. But I remember even you disagreed with that, and you said LeBron 2010 was better than LeBron 2009. So why is it different here? Why should 03 T-Mac's last 3 games count so much, but it's ok to overlook LeBron's play in the 2010 playoffs?

Prince was an elite defender then...rookies can't be elite man defenders (Shumpert, Bradley)? He was physically gifted (athletic and long) and was a part of a great team defense. And again, he's the same guy who locked down Kobe the next year too (as "only" a 2nd year player).

And we should just ignore the fact that T-Mac went for 36 ppg on 63% TS through the first 4 games?

[therealbig3]

@bastillon

According to RAPM, Michael Curry in 03 and 04 was actually a good defender, who was a horrendous offensive player.

He seemed to be similar to someone like Jason Collins...a negative impact player offensively who only got playing time because of his defense.

[bastillon]

I just think it's really confusing how people are so willing to focus on 3-4 game sample sizes and make their judgement of a player. We're really going to focus on a 3-game stretch from T-Mac, trying to carry a poor supporting cast, against an elite defensive team, with an elite defender like Prince guarding him (the same guy that locked down Kobe the next year, who was only one year removed from what a lot of people consider his peak).

Kobe gets criticised too much for his 04 finals. he shot poorly but he was the only guy Pistons paid attention to. they flat out ignored Lakers forwards and Payton. Kobe was the only guy who could create anything off the dribble so Pistons put on a defensive clinic against him. I've never seen a team so determined to stop one player. I've recently re-watched half of that series and announcers were calling it explicitly "Kobe Rules" referring to famous Bad Boys vs MJ strategy. except Pistons 04 were much better defensive team than Bad Boys. it was so ridiculous that Shaq was being guarded man-to-man without any help defense and Kobe got triple teamed every time he put the ball on the floor.

Larry Brown was aware of Lakers problems very well. their starting PG, Payton, sucked. Fisher was playing through sprained MCL after WCFs. Kareem Rush was their best perimeter shooter. George was trash. so was Fox. don't get me started on Malone (useless after the injury) or Medvedenko. often Kobe and Shaq would score 80% of team's pts in those games. the rest of that team was TERRIBLE. at least Wade/LeBron/Dirk had great spot up shooters, even if they struggled to win without them, they were a good fit with the superstars. Lakers cast in the finals was absolutely horrendous. and this was the reason for their loss, primarily.

Shaq's performance was as bad as Kobe's. he couldn't dominate Ben Wallace and Elden Campbell man to man, unthinkable in his prime. he was getting worse and worse as the series went on. his defense was one of the main reasons why Payton couldn't guard Billups. Payton is an overrated defender overall but he wasn't that bad. Kobe played like trash on offense because he kept turning the ball over and couldn't hit a basket from outside but at least he played elite defense (basically firefighter switching to Billups/Rip, whoever got hot) and drew great defensive attention. the rest of the team deserves a lot of blame for those finals as well.

[Lightning25]

But it's the same thing people use against LeBron in 2010, when he "flamed out" in the final 3 games of the playoffs and "cost" his team the series. But I remember even you disagreed with that, and you said LeBron 2010 was better than LeBron 2009. So why is it different here? Why should 03 T-Mac's last 3 games count so much, but it's ok to overlook LeBron's play in the 2010 playoffs?

Well I am actually re-thinking Lebron in 2010 vs. Lebron in 2009 but there are two reasons

#1 - Lebron played against a much easier Orlando Magic defense in 2009 compared to the Boston Celtics defense in 2010.

If Lebron played agaisnt the Celtics in 2009 ECF instead of the Magic and he put up the same numbers (healthy 09 Celtics team too, so KG has to be playing) then I would undoubtedly put Lebron in 2009 ahead of Lebron in 2010 but he didn't.

#2 - Lebron did not have a 3-1 lead like against the Celtics in 2010 like Tmac did against the Pistons in 2003.

Sure Lebron was up 2-1, but that's not as big of an advantage as being up 3-1. The chances of losing with a 3-1 lead in series is far more slimmer than a losing a series with a 2-1 lead.

And we should just ignore the fact that T-Mac went for 36 ppg on 63% TS through the first 4 games?

How did he do in the last 3 games? The entire series matters, not just the first something games or the last something games. It helped them get a 3-1 lead but he wasn't good enough to maintain it for the next 3 games to help his team win the series which is why they lost.

[bastillon]

@bastillon

According to RAPM, Michael Curry in 03 and 04 was actually a good defender, who was a horrendous offensive player.

He seemed to be similar to someone like Jason Collins...a negative impact player offensively who only got playing time because of his defense.

there is no amount of stats to convince me that Curry was a good defender. I have Pistons 03 entire postseason run on my PC, Curry was playing terrible defense against TMac.