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

Dr Positivity · Post #141 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 8:13 pm

My count:

Kobe 08 (2) – ardee, bastillion
Kobe 09 (1) – Josephpaul
Robinson 94 (1) – ElGee
Robinson 95 (1) – DavidStern
Wade 10 (1) – Dr Positivity
Wade 06 (1) - JordansBulls
Tmac 03 (1) – therealbig3
Moses 83 (1) – PTB fan

LikeABosh came pretty close to saying he was voting 95 Robinson. Drza seems like he's voting a Robinson year. Dr MJ seems like he's leaning 68 West.

Josephpaul · Post #142 » by **Josephpaul** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 8:56 pm

Changes my vote dr. Positive to Kobe 08

SDChargers#1 · Post #143 » by **SDChargers#1** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 8:59 pm

I feel there a bunch of seasons that can be argued Kobe's peak year. Personally I would take '09 over '08 because he actually dominated in the Finals that year, but I can understand arguments for '08 since he won his MVP that year, and was amazing through the first 3 series of the playoffs.

Vote: '08 Kobe

drza · Post #144 » by **drza** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:09 pm

Vote: David Robinson '95

ElGee · Post #145 » by **ElGee** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:09 pm

Well, we are headed for voting armageddon again I can see. Kind of mind-blown that Oscar 63 (of all years??) was sort of surreptitiously voted in and yet no one besides Doc like West. Strange, this is. I also feel like my post about 94 being Robinson's peak may have been too complicated or people simply missed because there's been some, umm, long tangents filling up the space. I'll re-post it below for those who missed it, but let me sum up in simpler terms:

The Spurs team SRS's from 93 to 96 were:
93 2.2
94 5.1
95 5.9
96 6.0

The 94 team did not have a true PG. They lost Sean Elliot for the year. They improved tremendously from 93 and still posted nearly identical numbers to 95 and 96 (they added Dennis Rodman). If you're first instinct is to say "Rodman missed a lot of time in 95," he did, but the team was 6.4 SRS team with him. And that's with a PG (Johnson), all-star Elliot back (41% 3), and upgrades seemingly all over the roster.

In 1994, Robinson takes his offensive game to a new level -- incidentally he leads the team in assists while lowering his turnovers, and leads the league in scoring on high efficiency. He's still very much in his defensive "prime," and the results are the best overall team in his tenure by far to that point. The defense wasn't far off from the non-Larry Brown defenses he'd been on before. (Rob loses the DPOY vote to Hakeem by 1 vote, ftr)

The one criticism of the year is the PS. The Spurs lost to Utah TEN TIMES IN A ROW during this span, and were crushed all 5 times they played them in the RS. The teams they beat in 95 were teams that the Spurs crushed in the RS (and they were .500 teams at that, not a 4.1 SRS team with the experience of the Jazz). It makes little sense to me to use this as damning to Robinson in this particular year.

Robinson's Peak?

I see the progression of a team in Robinson's time there that goes something like this:
-In 1991, Terry Cummings (very underrated historically) is still a good part of what is a very strong team. When he misses 15 games, the Spurs were a sub -.500 team (there were other injuries as well, but I do believe these Spurs to be quite underrated around Robinson).

-In 92 Robinson himself does miss 17 games if we include the PS, and the Spurs were -4.0 w/out him. Of course, they tried to play Antoine Carr as his backup which meant all of this loss in team performance came on the defense end. With Bass coaching the team, and Robinson playing (30g), they were +3.8.

The issue so far here is that the Spurs are a -4 defensive team with Larry Brown. Larry Brown leaves (who would have thought!?) halfway through the 92 season, where SAS is -6.4 on defense. For the rest of the year, they are -2.9 before Robinson's injury.

-In 93, the team went through 3 coaches and posted a disappointing SRS (and defensive) future. The team DRtg is -1.2.

-In 94, the Spurs lost Avery Johnson, meaning they were essentially playing without a PG. (Del Negro was more of an off guard.) They added Dennis Rodman, which of course made them the No. 1 offensive rebounding team in the league and boosted the offense. But to me, without a PG, with a marginal coach, at best, the Spurs posted a +4.1 ORtg. Lucas was always an "offensive" coach IMO as well.

Now,they had Dennis Rodman on the team and maybe that's automatically worth something like 2 points, regardless of level of offensive, just from his offensive rebounding. But they also lost their PG. The rotations:

93
Robinson
Carr/Reid
Ellis/Daniels
Elliot
Johnson/Del Negro

94
Robinson
Rodman/Cummings/Reid
Ellis/Daniels
Anderson
Del Negro/Knight

So you'll notice that in addition to Rodman, the team loses a PG (they were trying Negele Knight, who could barely make it in the NBA. They lost Sean Elliot after a really good 1993 season.And while Cummings (now 32 and not the same player) and Reid battled injuries, the Spurs still posted the highest ORtg in the David Robinson era. And they did this Robinson expanding his offensive game. I don't know what evidence people have that his defensive value suddenly changed a lot, if at all. And I certainly don't think the PS series is damning -- I've broken it down before (it's 4 games!).

Now you may say "but the defense wasn't elite like in 1996" (another strong Robinson year), or the overall team in 95...well let's look at that in a sec. And let's also note that if the team has an offensive bend with Rodman/Lucas/shooters, etc. and STILL posts a -2 team DRtg around Robinson, well that's really darn awesome, is it not?

The 95 Spurs, contrary to popular belief, had a "second option" level player, in a valuable shooter/spacer and 41% 3-pointer named Sean Elliot. Avery Johnson also played a full 82 after his cameo in GS. This allowed another shooter (41% 3), Del Negro to slide to the 2-guard, his more natural offensive position. They brought in ANOTHER shooter off the bench, in 39% specialist Chuck Person. They got Doc Rivers to shore up the backup PG spot or off guard spot because Doc was still smart and considered a gritty defender at the time. Cummings and Reid were healthy.

With all that, the teams SRS basically stayed the same. If you're saying "but Rodman missed 33 games!" well, they were a 6.4 SRS team with Rodman (about a point better than 94), and they were a +6.1 offense with Rodman (again, because of that whole Rodman offensive value from his rebounding thing).

95 Spurs w Rodman (49g): +6.1 ORtg, -0.7 DRtg, +6.4 SRS
95 Spurs w/o Rodman (33g): +0.4 ORtg, -4.7 DRtg, +5.2 SRS

So in terms of identity, they look like an offensive powerhouse with Rodman in (because he's spamming the offensive glass) and they look like a defensive powerhouse with Rodman out. My first instinct is to say they played with a different strategy to a degree, since it seems unlikely Rodman is true a +5 offenseive and -4 defensive player (especially without evidence of this in surrounding seasons and context). This is something to consider when evaluating that 94 O/D splie of the team. Either way, you'll note that all the lineup changes WITH Rodman brought a slightly increased offense at the expense of defense.

96 Spurs
Robinson
C. Smith/Purdue/Person (!)
Elliot
Del Negro
Johnson/Rivers

This team also posted a similar SRS (+6). Same coach, same players = good continuity.

So which of those seasons do I find most impressive? 94. Almost same SRS, a younger Robinson defensively, and his best "offensive" carry job (even though I agree with drza that that doesn't need to be his forte here). I don't really like the defensive structure of the 94 Spurs, and offensively they look like the weakest of the group and yet...the best results. So you get a "polished" Robinson on offensive and still a prime defensive version (IMO).

Finally, one more piece of perspective on the PS here for these years. The 94 Jazz were a 4.1 SRS team. They played the Spurs 5 times in the regular season and...they beat them all 5 times. (MOV 9.6) To look at that first round series as an indictment on the team strength or Robinson (even if I agree he has vulnerabilities that someone like Hakeem may not have) seems silly at this stage.

The 95 Spurs got to play the Denver Nuggets in the first round...a 1 SRS team they beat 4 of the 5 times they played (MOV 8.2) then the 0 SRS Lakers who they beat 3 of 4 times (8.8 MOV).

LikeABosh · Post #146 » by **LikeABosh** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:10 pm

ElGee wrote:Finally, one more piece of perspective on the PS here for these years. The 94 Jazz were a 4.1 SRS team. They played the Spurs 5 times in the regular season and...they beat them all 5 times. (MOV 9.6) To look at that first round series as an indictment on the team strength or Robinson (even if I agree he has vulnerabilities that someone like Hakeem may not have) seems silly at this stage.

I'm not sure it's that silly. The fact that San Antonio struggled to win against the Jazz in the RS doesn't explain why they suddenly struggled to score against the Jazz in the post season. They were a +5.14 offense against Utah in their 5 RS games. That's a noticeable dip from their season average of +10.4, but that's right on par with teams like New York and Houston who also built their offense around a big man. For the post season, their offense took another dive (not surprisingly) down to only +1.05 in 4 games with the last 3 games, all resulting in a loss, averaging out at -3.4

Now who gets to be attributed with this disappointing offense? Let's look at some RS/PS splits against Utah:

Dale Ellis -
RS: 16.0 points - 1.8 rebs - 1.5 assists - .519 FG%
PS: 10.5 points - 2.5 rebs - 0.3 assists - .395 FG%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRob -
RS: 27.6 points - 10.8 rebs. - 4.0 assists - .510FG% - 9.4 FTA
PS: 20.0 points - 10.0 rebs. - 3.5 assists - .411FG% - 6.8 FTA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodman -
RS: 5.2 offensive rebs. - 14.4 total rebs.
PS: 8.0 offensive rebs. - 16.0 total rebs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willie Anderson -
RS: 8.6 points - 1.8 rebs. - 3.2 assists - .391FG%
PS: 8.3 points - 2.0 rebs. - 3.0 assists - .378FG%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Del Negro -
RS: 13.3 points - 7.5 assists - .377FG% - 33.5 mins.
PS: 7.3 points -4.5 assists - .444FG% - 23.3 mins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rodman was a madman on the offensive boards as usual, but Ellis and DRob had a combined 13 point drop in production per game. Now does this mean DRob and Ellis cost them the series? Of course not. The jazz were an obvious problem for the Spurs all year long and I don't have a problem with DRob losing that series. But his production is just awful. I don't feel comfortable pitting 94 robinson against Wade, kobe, and Tmac with that kind of a performance. With the 95 season and the WC finals, I feel better knowing he lost to the best team in the league and the best player in the league all while producing similar numbers in his Houston split in the regular season:

RS - 6 games: 22.2 points - 10.3 rebs. - 3.3 assists - 482% - 6.2 FTA per game
PS - 6 games: 23.8 points - 11.8 rebs. - 2.7 assists - .449% - 11.8 FTA per game

The swing from winning 5-1 in the RS to losing 4-2 in the playoffs is pretty big and in 94, the spurs never convinced anyone that they were better than the Jazz. So, the perception of DRob in those 2 years is: in 94, he lost to a team that he was suppose to lose to and in 95, DRob lost to a team that he was suppose to beat. I take issue with this because first of all, the 95 rockets proved to be a better team than the 94 jazz and if there's one thing we know about the 95 rockets, they were way better than their record and SRS suggested. Saying 94 DRob lost to a 53 win team with a 4.1 SRS and 95 DRob lost to a 47 win team with a 2.3 SRS doesn't mean a lot to me.

Some really good analysis on your part though. The 94 RS is better than I originally thought. However, I don't think I can make a case for DRob over wade, kobe, or t-mac if I use the 94 season

Vote: 95 DRob

Dr Positivity · Post #147 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:15 pm

My problem with 94 Robinson isn't that he lost to the Jazz. It's that 2 of the 4 games were statistical stinkbombs (7.0 Game Score in G2, 7.7 Game Score in Game 3, which were his 3rd and 5th worst games all year by GameScore including the regular season's)

Josephpaul · Post #148 » by **Josephpaul** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:16 pm

SDChargers#1 wrote:I feel there a bunch of seasons that can be argued Kobe's peak year. Personally I would take '09 over '08 because he actually dominated in the Finals that year, but I can understand arguments for '08 since he won his MVP that year, and was amazing through the first 3 series of the playoffs.

Vote: '08 Kobe

That's were I'm at

Dr Positivity · Post #149 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:19 pm

Alright I'll change my vote to 08 Kobe, I personally prefer 2009 as his peak year, but I'd agree with either Kobe season getting in before Robinson and Tmac

LikeABosh · Post #150 » by **LikeABosh** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:21 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:My problem with 94 Robinson isn't that he lost to the Jazz. It's that 2 of the 4 games were statistical stinkbombs (7.0 Game Score in G2, 7.7 Game Sore in Game 3)

Exactly. Losing a 1st round playoff series in your peak year....not a big deal. Wade, kobe, t-mac all lost in the 1st round their peak year. The thing that bothers me is that DRob put up good numbers against them in their 5 RS games, but then proceeded to go into an offensive free fall in the playoffs. The 95 split RS/PS split against Houston were very similar and that's why I think he gets treated unfairly for the WC finals that year.

Josephpaul · Post #151 » by **Josephpaul** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:28 pm

That gives Kobe 08 5 votes. Is that enough?

ElGee · Post #152 » by **ElGee** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:35 pm

Well, obviously I think it's silly to look at 2 games and make such conclusions. The reality is that all analysis points to 94 Robinson being the best offensive version of Robinson, so to point to these 2 games is like taking an 80% FT shooter, watching him go 1-3 and then saying his FT shooting is a problem.

What happened in G2 and G3 of that series? The Spurs had a 16 minute stretch in G2 where they scored one basket. Robinson missed open looks. The game was an absolute blowout by halftime. To use this to indict an entire season is ridiculous. Then they went to Salt Lake where they had lost 22 of 23 (and with Rodman suspended for undercutting Tom Chambers in a prior game). In G3, Robinson wasn't as bad, despite no Rodman and Dale Ellis getting even worse (and all they talked about was getting Dale going more)...but they were down by 17 at half and nearly 40 by the 4th (Malone sat out the last 10:17). In G4, of course, he played well. Part of the "stinkbombs" of those two games is that Robinson sat so much because of the score differential and fouls (IIRC), but also because he had no one out there to help him.

Contrast that to 1995, where Robinson's two opening games against Denver were fairly weak. Not to mention a few of his games against Houston...I'll switch my vote after seeing this voting run despite all signs (and my memory) pointing to 94 being Robinson's peak. Kind of nonsensical me that people want to take 2 games (really, like 25 minutes of ball) to un-do his best offensive season. *shrug*

PS Yet another clutch moment from Karl Malone. Up 91-90 on the final offensive possession, Malone hit a 23-footer against the shot clock buzzer, then made a key steal in the final seconds on the other end on SAS's final pos.

PPS Bastillon, this would be yet another example of a team winning a game in a blowout (17 pt for SAS G1, up by 20-something in 4th) and then being blown out in the next game (down by 26 entering 4th next game).

Dr Positivity · Post #153 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:39 pm

The other thing about the Rockets/Spurs WCF is it's closer than it's treated as. Through the first 4 games it was 2-2 with 2/3 remaining in San Antonio, and the Spurs had a +4 MOV (mainly thanks to the G4 22 pt win, but anyways), with all the momentum managing to win back to back games in Houston to revive a dead series. So at that point the smart money was on the Spurs. They lost G5 big and then G6 was a 5 pt loss, for the overall margin of victory being +1.67 HOU. The closest cousin to that series is actually probably the 93 Bulls/Suns Finals. In both that and Rockets/Spurs, the road team won 5 of the 6 games and it was a bizarre situation where the HCA team lost the first two games at home and still ended up with HCA again sometime later in the series (The Spurs getting it after G4, the Suns after G5), before managing to blow it with a 3rd home loss in a row. Yet I think people treat the Suns effort in that L a more better than the Spurs in 95. Not to mention while Barkley's numbers are a little better, he's not perfect in the 93 Finals, he could've stepped it up more in G1 and G6 for sure

ImissJordan · Post #154 » by **ImissJordan** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:49 pm

I like 2002-03 Kobe best, but he was marvelous in 2008 and did win MVP that year...make that six for '08 Mamba.

Dr Positivity · Post #155 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 9:51 pm

You have to be on the panel to have a vote that counts. Doctor MJ usually handles the process of adding voters, so if you'd like to be on just say so and I assume he'd take it from there after reading this

Father Time · Post #156 » by **Father Time** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 10:04 pm

What reasoning are people using to vote Kobe over guys like Wade, McGrady or Robinson? I mostly see votes with little explanation.

Dr Positivity · Post #157 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 10:29 pm

mysticbb wrote:
DavidStern wrote:off topic: that's very interesting thing about Rodman, who always had great defensive reputation. But with/without data suggest his impact was very good on offense and bad on defense. 1996 season tells the same story as 1995: Bulls offense was better by +5.3 ortg with Rodman and defense worse by 1.8 drtg!

That is much more an issue with the used analytical technique and the weird obsession with differentiating between offense and defense. The overall result (scoring margin) is important, not the differences in offense or defense. Good defenders may just impact the overall result on the offensive end due to a changed focus. With a better defensive player around, teammates may just get lazy on defense while spending more energy on offense. Or, the defensive player allows the usage of more offensive talented players in a more appropiate role for them, leading overall to an increased scoring margin while the defense gets worse. Also, a better defender may lead to easier opportunities in transition by forcing turnovers without gambling.
That's why a better defensive player like Garnett gets good offensive RAPM values during his days in Minnesota, his presence just helped his teammates to be in better offensive positions, much more appropiate to their skills, while still mainting an adequat defense. For Nowitzki we saw a similar thing with the defensive values, his skillset just allowed better defensive players with limitations on the offensive end to succeed on both ends of the floor.

Definitely. It's pretty easy to spot red flags with splitting up ORTG/DRTG to me. For example in 2005, the Wolves were 6th in ORTG and 15th in defensively, and the Spurs were 8th ORTG and 1st DRTG. 02 and 03 Wolves were also top 5 in ORTG and average defensively. Are we supposed to believe that the only reason KG's Wolves in 02, 03, 05 weren't as good as say the 05-07 Spurs, was that they couldn't get it together defensively? When in reality we know the main difference talent wise is Parker and Manu being stars offensively. Or is it more reasonable to say the Spurs having more offensive talent allowed them to play defensive ball, and the Wolves under Saunders stacked towards offense and away from defense to make up for their lack of talent

Likewise Scott Skiles and Larry Brown have a long history of turning teams into top 5 DRTG whenever they arrive. In 2010 Bobcats and Bucks were 1 2 in the league in DRTG, basically because those guys were their coaches. Yet whenever the Skiles/Brown effect happens, their teams always suck offensively. If a guy like Skiles was able to turn a team into a top 5 defense without it having an impact on their offense, he would be as valuable as an MVP caliber player. You'd add him to the 2011-2012 Clippers who were top 5 offensively and below average defensively, and if he jacked up their DRTG without effecting offense, they'd go from a team worth 48 Ws over 82 games last year to one worth 60+. Yet there's not a lot of proof that Skiles and Brown can take teams above their talent level, at least not for more than like 1 yr, which would indicate more excitement for the new coach than superior xs and os

Tom Thibodeau is an interesting case because his teams are elite defensively, but it definitely didn't hurt their offense at least in 2011-2012. What I've been feeling really strongly about in regards to the Thibs/Bulls era lately, is that they play harder than everyone else in the regular season in GENERAL. They're basically at a playoff gear all year long IMO. While he's responsible for this, I think in part having a roster with players with insane motors helps out his case.

Two other things, I'm pretty sure NY got a lot better defensively and worse offensively after trading for Melo in the 2010-2011 season, because their style of play changed - and I personally predicted an improvement on the defensive end is exactly what that trade would do for them. Also I'm pretty sure Toronto in 2010 and 2011 are very blatant examples of a coach's style being great for ORTG and horrible for DRTG, as they finished 5th/30th with a good team but not that good, and 21st/30th with one of the least talented offensive teams in the league + no 3pt shooting. In 2011 they were ahead of the Hornets most of the year in ORTG despite that team having Paul/West (NOH eventually caught up, when TOR shut down Bargnani/Calderon and tanked), which was a clear result of the Hornets being defense first and TOR being offense only IMO. In 2012 they improved defensively and feel off offensively (29th ORTG, 14th DRTG) with the new coach Dwane Casey, though Bargnani being injured half the year makes those numbers less concrete evidence. I did write an article specifically on TOR's strange turnaround in rebounding numbers, though http://asubstituteforwar.com/2012/02/18 ... ng-change/ I would bet a lot that 2013 team is worse than the 2010-2011 one offensively despite improving their talent level w/ Kyle Lowry, which would be an indicator of the effect of that coaching style difference

Overall I think a player's impact is a lot more consistent without splitting up ORTG and DRTG

bastillon · Post #158 » by **bastillon** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 10:30 pm

Father Time wrote:What reasoning are people using to vote Kobe over guys like Wade, McGrady or Robinson? I mostly see votes with little explanation.

Wade - poor portability, doesn't work well with other ball dominant players.

TMac - unproven as a consistent playoff performer against top defenses, during the year we were discussing TMac was rendered useless as an offensive anchor in the last 3 games, with his team getting outscored by 56 points in 131 mins with TMac on the floor. there were other collapses with TMac coming up short in pressurized situations, he just didn't seem to play well as the favorite, with the series on the line... 3 of his game 7s are among his worst playoff performances ever (G7 vs Pistons 03, G7 vs Mavs 05, G7 vs Jazz 07). TMac was a great talent but do you have the confidence in him for the entire playoff run ? I just trust Kobe more, he's more proven as a pressure performer.

Robinson - fundamentally flawed offensive player who came up short in the postseason time after time. this dude was consistently disappointing in the same fashion as Reggie was stepping up his game. postseason D-Rob is what you have to expect from him with the season on the line. great talent, but lacked mental strength and basketball skills. ElGee's entire argument is based on the RS... but Robinson's opponents are arguing that RS is irrelevant in his case because of the consistent drop off in the postseason.

I also don't get why you're so amazed with Oscar being voted in before Jerry West. Oscar destroyed 2nd best Russell defense ever with 33/12/9 @ 58% TS performance and West didn't come close to that vs much worse Celtics defense. are you honestly surprised ? again, RS impact seems to be the argument favoring West... but then again Oscar was a much more valuable RS performer because he actually played in every game.

LikeABosh · Post #159 » by **LikeABosh** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 10:32 pm

ElGee wrote:Well, obviously I think it's silly to look at 2 games and make such conclusions. The reality is that all analysis points to 94 Robinson being the best offensive version of Robinson, so to point to these 2 games is like taking an 80% FT shooter, watching him go 1-3 and then saying his FT shooting is a problem.

I'm not positive on 94 robinson being the best offensive version of Robinson. He had more of a responsibility on offense given the injuries, but it was the year that he really beat up on the bottom defense teams. Look at how 94 robinson and 95 robinson did against the top 10 defenses of their respective year:
94 robinson (29 games): 26.2 points / .462 FG% - 41.2 mins.
95 robinson (25 games): 30.5 points / .513 FG% - 37.8 mins.

Unfortunately I only have the opportunity to do points and FG%. I'd like to do TS%, FTA, rebs., etc. and see how much further the comparison goes. Even without TS% and rebs., it looks like DRob produced more against the best defensive teams. Does this mean anything to you? I hope so because I'd hate to have you switch years and not be comfortable with it

ElGee wrote:Contrast that to 1995, where Robinson's two opening games against Denver were fairly weak. Not to mention a few of his games against Houston...I'll switch my vote after seeing this voting run despite all signs (and my memory) pointing to 94 being Robinson's peak. Kind of nonsensical me that people want to take 2 games (really, like 25 minutes of ball) to un-do his best offensive season. *shrug*

Well the same point you made about Jazz and how 2 games were blowouts can be said about the Denver series. Game 1 they were up 18 when the 4th quarter started and game 2 they were up by 21 when the 2nd half started.

Expert-Sizzle · Post #160 » by **Expert-Sizzle** » Mon Sep 3, 2012 10:36 pm

bastillon wrote:Wade - poor portability, doesn't work well with other ball dominant players.

There is no evidence that this is true at all.
Wade was at his best playing next to Old Shaq and he has worked absolutely fine with Lebron.

Kobe was no better next to O'neal (infact I'd say he was a worse fit) and he has never even had to try and fit in next to a Lebron type player so you can't say he'd do any better then Wade has done so far (and he's done well).
There is zero evidence to back this supposed claim of Wade lacking portability.

I don't see any reasonable argument for 08 Kobe over 06 Wade.

06 Wade was better then 08 Kobe offensively.
Similar volume scoring on significantly better efficiency with better consistency + higher ORTG and AST%.

Much better defensively. (MUCH lower DRTG and higher DWS)
More consistent performer.
Plus he had a much better playoff run with an epic finals performance while Kobe bombed in the Finals arguably getting outplayed by Paul Pierce.

The Boston excuse doesn't hold water either since Wade during his Prime/Healthy years always destroyed them.