#19 Highest Peak of All Time (Ewing '90 wins)

[bastillon]

the more I analyse and read about TMac, the less impressed I am. I've always considered him a great talent but I don't regard him as Kobe/Wade ballpark player anymore. his history of impact stats is really unimpressive, even moreso than not winning in the first round since the latter was linked to some other stuff such as supporting cast etc. I understand his 03 RAPM may be screwed because of prior from 02 but why didn't he impact the game more later on ? let's take a look at 04-09 APM. TMac is at 5.14, really nowhere near elite. guys like Yao, Shaq, Gasol and Pierce best him. I understand he was better in 03 but I'd still expect him to produce higher impact with his alleged all around game. his defense for example, which was also brought up as a point here, paints him as a net negative (slight), even though big part of this was Houston period where he was supposedly high impact defender.

I do think TMac is an elite player at his best, his offense was clearly top-notch, but I just don't see how he's all-time level offensive player (like top5-10) and his defense doesn't seem that impressive after all. there are also many many questions about TMac which are gonna be left unanswered by their nature - portability, ceiling, unproven-ness in the deep playoff rounds, is he physically capable of playing a full RS + PS without suffering an injury at some point ? is he mentally capable of handling the big games as a favorite when in fact he was doing a lot better as an underdog, there are just so many asterisks I can't vote TMac over guys like Nash, Ewing, West whose all-time level impact was well documented and who have proven themselves as high impact players in multiple environments (high/low ceiling, different teammates etc).

I also think TMac's cast from 03 gets underrated offensively. their top20 defense was much deserved but I'd expect them to play a lot better offense if TMac was this all-time level offensive player (lmao @ "he's close to Nash", there's no evidence for that). as I said, Garnett 03 anchored top5 offense with similar role players offensively.

[ardee]

Ebere/Equid is a huge troll obviously but he does have a point. there is no reason to compare Kobe's 06 series vs Suns and TMac's 03 series vs Detroit in the last 3 games. boxscore wise TMac is destroyed as Equid suprisingly correctly pointed out. his impact was very likely a lot higher as well. I mentioned how poorly Orlando played with TMac on the court in the last 3 games. as far as impact goes, it was a different situation. Lakers were having a lot of success beating up on Phoenix inside up until game 4. but that strategy stopped working after that game. Kobe was doing what he was doing previously, only the strategy failed. his boxscore stats actually improved in that 3-game timespan.

in TMac's case his individual performance suffered a lot. it was clearly because of Detroit changing their focus more into TMac and letting Prince guard him a lot more after 1st four games. also where did you get this notion that we're nitpicking random 3-games for TMac ? it has been stated several times by me and others that it was 3-consecutive games, vs the same playoff opponent, with the series on the line and there was clear causation with Prince's presence making TMac's impact suffer. if TMac just had bad shooting games I'd more reluctant to punish him as part of variance. he exploded in the first 4 games, struggled in the last 3, that's ok (I guess). but when Prince was clearly the reason why TMac started to suffer it makes me wonder... what if Detroit put Prince on TMac right from the get go ? are the Magic swept ? it wasn't about TMac having a random 3-game stretch, it was about him unable to adjust to a better defender/unable to produce against him period.

so all in all, I see Kobe as playing pretty much the same way outside of game 6 (more on that below), while TMac's struggles (playing much worse) were linked to opponnent's adjustments. really big difference.

Goes for 50 points in game 6...in contradiction of what got his team in that position in the first place. And on that Tim Thomas 3 that sent it to OT...he was the one out of position.

that was one of the worst comments you've ever made on realGM. Phil specifically demanded that Kobe went all out in that game. let alone focusing on one play, for a guy who seems to champion consistency and large samples. wow, another one with double standards ?

Quits in game 7, goes 0-3 with 1 point in the 2nd half. That was still a winnable game, his team was down 15 points at halftime, and he had 23 at that point.

this game was over at the halftime, come on now. I'd rather blame Phil Jackson for using that idiotic strategy again. Lakers bigs were epic fail in the first half and if they just converted their inside shots Lakers could've been leading the game. not to mention their horrible defense, nobody stepped out on the pick and rolls to defend Barbosa. Kobe actually played perfect 1st half imo, scored tons of pts on great efficiency while also getting his teammates involved and executing Phil's gameplan. this game was much more about Kwame Brown & co suckin than it was about Kobe. he did quit in the 2nd half, it was pretty obvious, but there was no way Lakers could win that game either way with that level of play of their role players (even though Nash was injured). I mean Kobe couldn't literally play better in the 1st half and they still lost by 15 pts.

Other than big box score stats (against a much worse defensive team) that didn't have much impact, Kobe didn't play better than T-Mac down the stretch of his series.

empty statement. why don't you give some evidence ?

BTW, Kobe in 08 against the Pistons in the regular season, per 36 (2 games):

24.9 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.1 apg, 5.6 TOpg, 56.0% TS, 105.8 ORating

I will remember that. expect to have this brought up when you start talking sh*t about large samples. unbelievable. I would never expect that comment from you.

And so we're basically using winning bias against T-Mac. As if no other superstar wing had a poor 3 game stretch in the playoffs.

okay let's play this game. find similarly bad stretch for a superstar in the playoffs: 3 games, consecutive, the same opponent, series on the line, combo of huge dropoff in the boxscore and terrible on-court beatdown, caused by team putting a different defender on that superstar. Kobe, LeBron, Wade would literally get crucified.

Thank you

You know the funny thing? This was a ROOKIE Tayshaun Prince, who played 42 games in the regular season and barely averaged 26 mpg. He was a NOBODY at that point and he just locked T-Mac up and threw away the key.

I see it as:

19. West
20. Barkley
21. Nash
22. Paul
23. Moses

Then T-Mac comes into the discussion for me. It'll be a travesty if he gets voted in above West.

[The Infamous1]

29/7/5/69% TS
50/8/5/3/66% TS
24/4/1/1/66% TS

vs.

19/8/4/3/45% TS
37/11/5/2/52% TS
21/5/6/40% TS

Yeah, that's comparable.

LMAO>

It's not even close and it shows the anti Kobe bias people have

Tmac- 26 ppg on just 45% T/S shooting the last 3 games

Kobe-34-6-4 on 67% TS shooting the last 3 games

As for that game 7

Halftime
Kobe - 21 points, 8 Made FGs
Rest of Lakers - 24 points, 9 Made FGs

Kobe shot 50% for the game. Rest of his teammates 32%.

Odom - 35%
Smush - 31%
Kwame - 20%

[C-izMe]

I'm with bastillion on this. Hakeem is far out but the fact that DRob got selected so high and Ewing isn't getting votes already is crazy. Personally I rank them neck and neck. Ewing is slightly worse defensively and I can hear an argument that they're equal on offense. I think it's more DRob being overrated then Ewing being underrated though (even though Pat is underrated. I mean Bernard and Walt were mentioned before he was).

[MisterWestside]

Not sure exactly what you're asking here. Sounds like you agree that TMac's game is more like Kobe's than Wade's, you just think he was better than Kobe. He very well may have been, I just have uncertainties.

I was just curious on what your qualms about T-Mac were. You said that he's more like Kobe but it seems you'd lean more toward Kobe than T-Mac -- which you could do. But I wanted to highlight the strength he had over Kobe.

Oh I'm just saying my friend:

You made a comment about Nash that was really more about volume scoring vs floor generalship than it was about the players in question.

Well I think all of these concepts are connected. Nash is a great floor general -- he's also been surrounded with great "fitting" players especially during his tenure in Phoenix, and he's not put in a position where he has to increase his usage to carry a less talented squad like T-Mac in Orlando. A reflection of Nash's dynamic skillset? Sure. But when you make the move to Phoenix and a coach ALSO consider the talented skillsets of Marion, Amar'e, Johnson, Barbosa, etc. there's no incentive to ask Nash to change his usage; you can just set up shop and put a more "team-centric" offense together.When you see its high level of play, then you can just switch and change parts accordingly. Can you honestly say with a straight face that Nash was that much more talented of a player than any of his teammates in Phoenix? Can we say the same for T-Mac in Orlando?

I suppose it's a bit of a chicken and the egg argument, but this is why I consider coaching, teammates, and front office philosophies in these projects to be relevant when ranking these peaks. Some personnel are more capable of implementing an offensive system and getting their players to run it to optimal efficiency than others, but that takes work and creative genius. And the teammates to put it together.

[MisterWestside]

I understand his 03 RAPM may be screwed because of prior from 02 but why didn't he impact the game more later on ?

Why is that relevant though? We're talking about 2003 T-Mac here.

as I said, Garnett 03 anchored top5 offense with similar role players offensively.

Can't agree with that. And I've always admired Garnett for playing well with the "trash" he played with in Minny, but even he would take some of his teammates over T-Mac's in 2003.

[bastillon]

I understand his 03 RAPM may be screwed because of prior from 02 but why didn't he impact the game more later on ?

Why is that relevant though? We're talking about 2003 T-Mac here.

as I said, Garnett 03 anchored top5 offense with similar role players offensively.

Can't agree with that. And I've always admired Garnett for playing well with the "trash" he played with in Minny, but even he would take some of his teammates over T-Mac's in 2003.

why is this relevant ? because TMac wasn't all THAT different in 03. I see it as expanding our sample size. I understand he wasn't quite as productive but I'd still expect his impact to be quite better, especially on the defensive end where he didn't seem to make any at all. I mean really, where's the empirical evidence that TMac made a bigger impact on defense than Nash ?

as for Orlando vs Minnesota, could you elaborate ? Garrity was a stretch four so he had a huge offensive impact for TMac with his spacing, Gooden was better offensive player than anyone on the Wolves not named Szczerbiak (who played half year anyway) he also had Mike Miller/Grant Hill (together played almost entire season, let's call him Grant Miller), Kemp/DeClerq at center (compared to Rasho they're likely better offensively since Rasho was a huge negative on offense). I don't think this cast was quite as bad as people think it is offensively. Garrity/Gooden and DeClerq/Kemp actually seem pretty strong in comparison to their counterparts on the Wolves (Rasho and Peeler/Gill). I think it's quite probable Wovles were worse than Magic without Garnett or TMac playing.

[ardee]

I understand his 03 RAPM may be screwed because of prior from 02 but why didn't he impact the game more later on ?

Why is that relevant though? We're talking about 2003 T-Mac here.

as I said, Garnett 03 anchored top5 offense with similar role players offensively.

Can't agree with that. And I've always admired Garnett for playing well with the "trash" he played with in Minny, but even he would take some of his teammates over T-Mac's in 2003.

why is this relevant ? because TMac wasn't all THAT different in 03. I see it as expanding our sample size. I understand he wasn't quite as productive but I'd still expect his impact to be quite better, especially on the defensive end where he didn't seem to make any at all. I mean really, where's the empirical evidence that TMac made a bigger impact on defense than Nash ?

as for Orlando vs Minnesota, could you elaborate ? Garrity was a stretch four so he had a huge offensive impact for TMac with his spacing, Gooden was better offensive player than anyone on the Wolves not named Szczerbiak (who played half year anyway) he also had Mike Miller/Grant Hill (together played almost entire season, let's call him Grant Miller), Kemp/DeClerq at center (compared to Rasho they're likely better offensively since Rasho was a huge negative on offense). I don't think this cast was quite as bad as people think it is offensively. Garrity/Gooden and DeClerq/Kemp actually seem pretty strong in comparison to their counterparts on the Wolves (Rasho and Peeler/Gill). I think it's quite probable Wovles were worse than Magic without Garnett or TMac playing.

Ok now I wouldn't go that far.... KG had a legit second option and a 40% 3P shooter in Wally. Hudson and Rasho were better than any of T-Mac's role players.

I can't believe I saw that line actually typed out.

[bastillon]

I'd expect Mike Miller to do equally well with the Wolves.
as for Garrity, I happen to think stretch fours have enormous offensive value. they're basically taking away a big man outside the paint and leaves them in uncomfortable position where they're really unable to help. agree to disagree ?

edit: not to mention that Wally wasn't even playing in 52 games.
ElGee:

03 Wolves w/out Szczerbiak were +0.4 SRS (30g) +3.7 w/Szczerbiak

I'm assuming Wally did not improve their defense. so that makes him a very valuable offensive player... but it also makes the Wolves about top2 offense. so Garnett really does have a better supporting cast with Wally but he also has far better results.

[MisterWestside]

why is this relevant ? because TMac wasn't all THAT different in 03.

Do you mean from 02 to 03? Because T-Mac upped his shot-creation while setting career highs in ts% and tov rate. He definitely stepped his game up that season.

as for Orlando vs Minnesota, could you elaborate ? Garrity was a stretch four so he had a huge offensive impact for TMac with his spacing, Gooden was better offensive player than anyone on the Wolves not named Szczerbiak (who played half year anyway) he also had Mike Miller/Grant Hill (together played almost entire season, let's call him Grant Miller), Kemp/DeClerq at center (compared to Rasho they're likely better offensively since Rasho was a huge negative on offense). I don't think this cast was quite as bad as people think it is offensively. Garrity/Gooden and DeClerq/Kemp actually seem pretty strong in comparison to their counterparts on the Wolves (Rasho and Peeler/Gill). I think it's quite probable Wovles were worse than Magic without Garnett or TMac playing.

Garrity was solid, but Wally could do everything Garrity could do with more shot-creation. Gooden only played 500+ minutes that season.

You prefer Kemp over Rasho? Kemp was out of shape and on the wrong side of 30 in 2003; he produced at a cringe-worthy .468 ts% clip as a roleplayer and was also turnover prone. Out of the league in 04. Rasho was in DeClercq's league offensively but could also provide a little better defense and with more minutes played.

Mike Miller/Grant Hill were solid, but Hudson could give you what they provided with almost the same amount of minutes played as Grant Miller with lineup continuity. And Trent/Smith was a productive F/C combo that surpassed the inconsistent bigs on the Magic roster.

[ardee]

bastillion,

No one here is arguing that Garnett was FAR and away a MUCH better player at his peak than McGrady at his. It's not even a debate.

I just wanted to make sure you realize that in case that was the reason you've made Minnesota vs Orlando supporting casts a topic of debate.

[drza]

1990 Patrick Ewing

Needs to be getting more discussion IMO. Here is the B-R breakdown for 90 Ewing vs 2 of his peers that are already in: 1994 Hakeem and 1995 Robinson:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=1995

If you follow that link you might be surprised by how similar the 3 were in boxscore stats. I was...even though I was watching those years, I'd kind of started associating Ewing with his mid-1990s self. I kinda forgot how he was pre-knee injury. Ewing was scoring and rebounding at the exact same volume and efficiency as Hakeem and Robinson, and was better even than Robinson in the postseason.

I'm typing 1 handed at moment which is limiting (and annoying), so I'll stop and quote Fatal's good Ewing post for more context:

oh I'm sorry but this Olajuwon parallel is just way off. his offense was nowhere near Hakeem because he was far worse at both scoring and passing. his stats really overstate his offensive abilities here. peak Hakeem was pretty much a perfect low post player. do you really think Knicks would have those results with Olajuwon ?

Re-read what I wrote, particularly the underlined. I never said Ewing was as good as Olajuwon. I said that he produced almost exactly the same boxscore stats, particularly scoring (volume + efficiency) and rebounding. And what I said was exactly true:

'90 Ewing:
Reg season: 28.6 points, 59.9% TS, 10.9 reb
Post season: 29.4 points, 57.9% TS, 10.5 reb

'94 Hakeem:
Reg season: 27.3 points, 56.5% TS, 11.9 reb
Post season: 28.9 points, 56.8% TS, 11.0 reb

'95 Robinson:
Reg season: 27.6 points, 60.2% TS, 10.8 reb
Post season: 25.3 points, 53.6% TS, 12.1 reb

Again, if I thought Ewing was as good as Hakeem I'd have voted him in long ago. Hakeem's status isn't what's currently being debated. I'm trying to figure out where I have Ewing, and on first blush (box scores) it seems like he's in the neighborhood. Ewing is also a Dream Teamer, so it's not like he wasn't hugely thought of at the time. And it certainly does appear that in this peak season his offense was at worst comparable to Robinson, who (unlike you) I DON'T think got in prematurely. And if the boxes suggest so strongly that Ewing was producing similar to them, that's at least a data point worth putting out there.

My question marks fall in the area of defense, because this offensive peak didn't correspond with the Knicks' peak defensive results. So what I have to decide is if Ewing was able to give this offense while still maintaining his max defense contribution. His shot-blocking (4.0 per game) was still hugely impressive, and Fatal did a good job of pointing out the roster/coaching issues that could have contributed to the weaker defense. And the Knicks were only a couple of seasons from a historic defensive peak anchored by Ewing, and there's no particular reason to believe that Ewing post-knee issues should have been a better defender than Ewing pre-injuries.

So I don't know. The more I look at it, the more I'm leaning to Ewing. I'm hoping that more conversation gets generated, because I'd love to flesh out the details more before I decide.

[colts18]

How do we compare Ewing to Howard offensively? Here is a comparison between 90 Ewing and 11 Howard

DH: 23-14-1, .616 TS%, 3.8 stl/blk, 16 TOV%, 113 O rating, 94 D rating, 26 PER
PE: 28-11-2, .599 TS%, 5.0 stl/blk, 12 TOV%, 115 O rating, 103 D rating, 26 PER

Both led mediocre offenses (Ewing 13th ranked O, Howard 14th), but Howard led a real good defense (3rd) while Ewing's was mediocre (13th). I think Howard was the better defensive player, but Ewing seems to be a little better on offense. Very close comparison.

[therealbig3]

Ebere/Equid is a huge troll obviously but he does have a point. there is no reason to compare Kobe's 06 series vs Suns and TMac's 03 series vs Detroit in the last 3 games. boxscore wise TMac is destroyed as Equid suprisingly correctly pointed out. his impact was very likely a lot higher as well. I mentioned how poorly Orlando played with TMac on the court in the last 3 games. as far as impact goes, it was a different situation. Lakers were having a lot of success beating up on Phoenix inside up until game 4. but that strategy stopped working after that game. Kobe was doing what he was doing previously, only the strategy failed. his boxscore stats actually improved in that 3-game timespan.

in TMac's case his individual performance suffered a lot. it was clearly because of Detroit changing their focus more into TMac and letting Prince guard him a lot more after 1st four games. also where did you get this notion that we're nitpicking random 3-games for TMac ? it has been stated several times by me and others that it was 3-consecutive games, vs the same playoff opponent, with the series on the line and there was clear causation with Prince's presence making TMac's impact suffer. if TMac just had bad shooting games I'd more reluctant to punish him as part of variance. he exploded in the first 4 games, struggled in the last 3, that's ok (I guess). but when Prince was clearly the reason why TMac started to suffer it makes me wonder... what if Detroit put Prince on TMac right from the get go ? are the Magic swept ? it wasn't about TMac having a random 3-game stretch, it was about him unable to adjust to a better defender/unable to produce against him period.

so all in all, I see Kobe as playing pretty much the same way outside of game 6 (more on that below), while TMac's struggles (playing much worse) were linked to opponnent's adjustments. really big difference.

Ok, so the strategy the Lakers used worked great through 4 games, doesn't work too well in one game, so that means the strategy failed and isn't worth continuing? Not to mention that in Kobe's 50 point game, Odom and Kwame had big games as well. I remember watching that game, and even though Kobe went off, I think he should have involved others more. And he did have a defensive breakdown at the end which caused the game to go to OT.

But to be honest, it was a great game...I did actually point out I was being hyperbolic.

And it was pointed out by ElGee and me that it's still silly to focus so much on 3 games, in which Prince didn't even shut down T-Mac! If we include the ridiculous blowout in game 5, T-Mac had 49% TS against Prince...not good, but considering the defensive era (league average was 52%), and considering the dropoff in teammate production (57% TS in 3 wins vs 47% in games 5-7), it wasn't horrible either. BTW, not trying to exclude information, but a 30+ point blowout doesn't tell me much about how T-Mac did against Prince, since when blowouts like that happen, the star either stat pads or plays like crap, regardless of defense. Outside of game 5, T-Mac had 52% TS against Prince (aka league average). Also, Prince guarded T-Mac in games 2 and 3 as well.

that was one of the worst comments you've ever made on realGM. Phil specifically demanded that Kobe went all out in that game. let alone focusing on one play, for a guy who seems to champion consistency and large samples. wow, another one with double standards ?

Like I said before, it actually was a great game, and I was kind of using the logic being used against T-Mac here, in which people want to focus on 3 games (really, 2) in which he didn't play well. I can nitpick with small sample sizes too.

And btw, that actually was the criticism of Kobe at the time. He went away from playing facilitator and reverted to what he was in the regular season.

this game was over at the halftime, come on now. I'd rather blame Phil Jackson for using that idiotic strategy again. Lakers bigs were epic fail in the first half and if they just converted their inside shots Lakers could've been leading the game. not to mention their horrible defense, nobody stepped out on the pick and rolls to defend Barbosa. Kobe actually played perfect 1st half imo, scored tons of pts on great efficiency while also getting his teammates involved and executing Phil's gameplan. this game was much more about Kwame Brown & co suckin than it was about Kobe. he did quit in the 2nd half, it was pretty obvious, but there was no way Lakers could win that game either way with that level of play of their role players (even though Nash was injured). I mean Kobe couldn't literally play better in the 1st half and they still lost by 15 pts.

Since when is a 15 point game at halftime "over"??? And since it wasn't "over", how does that make Kobe's quitting acceptable???

empty statement. why don't you give some evidence ?

Lakers ORating through the first 4 games went from 106.6 (and a focus on defense) to 107.6 with crap defense. A +1 jump on offense and sacrificing defense with Kobe playing "Kobe-ball" isn't much impact coming from his increase in volume scoring.

I will remember that. expect to have this brought up when you start talking sh*t about large samples. unbelievable. I would never expect that comment from you.

LMAO. Way to completely leave out the part where I said "small sample size of 2 games". Again, I'm using the same pretty silly logic of focusing on 2-3 game stretches that the anti-T-Mac crowd is using.

find similarly bad stretch for a superstar in the playoffs: 3 games, consecutive, the same opponent, series on the line,

Last 3 games of 09 series, Kobe vs Orlando...compare his first 2 games to his last 3.

combo of huge dropoff in the boxscore and terrible on-court beatdown, caused by team putting a different defender on that superstar.

Prove it was because T-Mac was being guarded by Prince, and not because the supporting cast stopped hitting shots. And keep in mind, T-Mac was around 47-49% TS regardless of Prince out there or not in the last 3 games, which means the different defender theory doesn't make much sense, since T-Mac didn't see marked improvement in play after Prince went to the bench. It seems that it was moreso T-Mac going cold and the Detroit defense learning how to defend him as the series went on...and a whole bunch of variance goes on in a 3 game sample size, which has been my point all along. My arguments consisting of small sample sizes the other way has been qualified by "it's a small sample size", and I've used it to simply point out the flaws of the case being used against T-Mac.

[SDChargers#1]

I am going to vote for who I did last time for the same reasons.

Vote: 1983 Moses Malone

I don't care if Moses impact wasn't great in other seasons, because it was clearly great in '83, and this is a single year peak project.

His rebounding clearly affected the team, and his offensive rebounding was arguably the All Time Great season. Yes, he wasn't a great passer, and they didn't run the offense through him, but adding extra possessions through offensive rebounding has value in itself (and for Moses incredible value because he was so amazing at it).

And clearly it didn't hurt the team. The '83 Sixer are one of the greatest regular season and postseason teams ever.

[Doctor MJ]

I was just curious on what your qualms about T-Mac were. You said that he's more like Kobe but it seems you'd lean more toward Kobe than T-Mac -- which you could do. But I wanted to highlight the strength he had over Kobe.

Right so, I get when people say he's a more natural passer than Kobe, but then I also know that he was typically less efficient than Kobe. Forget that that's not true about the year in question, just think about what it says generally about McGrady:

If McGrady's passing up the bad shots that Kobe's taking as a rule, shouldn't we expect him to be an efficient shooter? Forget about Orlando for a second, this trend of inefficiency was a rule for McGrady his entire career. Why is it he didn't seem to be capable of finding a balance?

Put it another way: Were we truly doing a Kobe vs TMac debate, I'd feel pretty silly trying to make the claim that Kobe's selfishness was a problem relating to his efficiency when he was till beating TMac most of the time. The rebuttals that come to mind are numerous and obvious.

This doesn't mean you can't argue for TMac over Kobe in '03 of course, it's just that the arguments for him that fixate on a general mental abilities need to be in evidence in other years.

Oh I'm just saying my friend:

You made a comment about Nash that was really more about volume scoring vs floor generalship than it was about the players in question.

Well I think all of these concepts are connected. Nash is a great floor general -- he's also been surrounded with great "fitting" players especially during his tenure in Phoenix, and he's not put in a position where he has to increase his usage to carry a less talented squad like T-Mac in Orlando. A reflection of Nash's dynamic skillset? Sure. But when you make the move to Phoenix and a coach ALSO consider the talented skillsets of Marion, Amar'e, Johnson, Barbosa, etc. there's no incentive to ask Nash to change his usage; you can just set up shop and put a more "team-centric" offense together.When you see its high level of play, then you can just switch and change parts accordingly. Can you honestly say with a straight face that Nash was that much more talented of a player than any of his teammates in Phoenix? Can we say the same for T-Mac in Orlando?

I suppose it's a bit of a chicken and the egg argument, but this is why I consider coaching, teammates, and front office philosophies in these projects to be relevant when ranking these peaks. Some personnel are more capable of implementing an offensive system and getting their players to run it to optimal efficiency than others, but that takes work and creative genius. And the teammates to put it together.

Well, but what I mean when I say that is that I expect a volume scorer to do more with crappy teammates and I expect a floor general to do more with capable teammates. I just take that as a rule, and I reject from the start any attempt to reduce a comparison between different types of players in to a focus on one particular scenario unless the person making that attempt is very clear why that scenario is at the forefront of their mind.

You don't win titles without making use of your teammates effectively, and what do we call a player who is really good at making use of his teammates? A floor general.

So I get that Nash couldn't do his thing with worthless teammates, but when people say something along those lines, I always want to call out any implication that "If Player X had great teammates, he could do what Nash does." The implication is common, but people actually making such an argument explicitly and effectively is pretty dang rare.

[SDChargers#1]

Last 3 games of 09 series, Kobe vs Orlando...compare his first 2 games to his last 3.

You realize Kobe averaged 30/7/6 over the last 3 games right?

He had one game that was really poor efficiency wise. The rest were right in line with what he was doing the rest of the series. His best game just happened to be game 2.

[therealbig3]

If McGrady's passing up the bad shots that Kobe's taking as a rule, shouldn't we expect him to be an efficient shooter? Forget about Orlando for a second, this trend of inefficiency was a rule for McGrady his entire career.

I actually do understand this point of view, but I think the context matters here. McGrady was on one of the worst teams of all time in 04, and he kind of made it clear that he didn't care for defense and was going for the scoring title that year (by sacrificing his efficiency to an extent). Not a good attitude, but he was on a poor team that was done within the first month of the season.

After that in 05, with Houston and with the rule changes that should favor him...the injuries really started hitting him. It didn't make him miss a lot of games that year, but he had to play hobbled most of the time with knee, back, and hip injuries, and that was really his last healthy, prime season.

EDIT: In summary, I'm not sure if 03 was a fluke, or if it was the one time after he hit his peak in terms of skills and athleticism that everything didn't go wrong. 04, he's stuck with a crap team that leaves him with less motivation. 05, he starts dealing with the first of many major injuries to come.

[Doctor MJ]

I am going to vote for who I did last time for the same reasons.

Vote: 1983 Moses Malone

I don't care if Moses impact wasn't great in other seasons, because it was clearly great in '83, and this is a single year peak project.

His rebounding clearly affected the team, and his offensive rebounding was arguably the All Time Great season. Yes, he wasn't a great passer, and they didn't run the offense through him, but adding extra possessions through offensive rebounding has value in itself (and for Moses incredible value because he was so amazing at it).

And clearly it didn't hurt the team. The '83 Sixer are one of the greatest regular season and postseason teams ever.

Okay, but I want to make sure you understand the objections to this:

First off, just because a guy puts up the biggest numbers on a great team, doesn't mean he deserve crazy amounts of credit. The 76ers SRS improvement that year was less than 2. This is really quite small. It's pretty understandable to say "I don't care about fit issues, look at the night and day difference he made." but this actually wasn't THAT big of a difference.

Although as I say that, I'll acknowledge that there's a bit of a ceiling on SRS levels on a lot of teams. I personally would not let the small SRS improvement here stop me if I was otherwise sold on Moses, but if you're making the argument for Moses based on the team improvement, it simply has to be pointed out that the 76ers were already a VERY good team without him. He had impact certainly, but if he'd been in Philly first, and Erving instead had joined the team that year, it's very possible that it would be Erving's addition that would put them over the top.

Secondly, it's well and good to say that you don't care about Moses' impact in other seasons, but if a player is having massively more "impact" in one particular context than in other context, you need to be very careful about what you call "impact". Basketball is not additive like baseball. A baseball team that adds a new star can literally and accurately talk about the value that star will "add" to the team because they are just talking about him making more of opportunities than the guy he was replacing.

A new basketball player by contrast has a role that is interdependent with his fellow teammates. They all make adjustments based on what their other teammates can give them, and if Player A's thing only results in net good things because he has a hard to duplicate set of teammates that are making up for his deficiencies, then they need to be given some of the credit for some of the success that comes with Player A doing that thing.

[Doctor MJ]

If McGrady's passing up the bad shots that Kobe's taking as a rule, shouldn't we expect him to be an efficient shooter? Forget about Orlando for a second, this trend of inefficiency was a rule for McGrady his entire career.

I actually do understand this point of view, but I think the context matters here. McGrady was on one of the worst teams of all time in 04, and he kind of made it clear that he didn't care for defense and was going for the scoring title that year (by sacrificing his efficiency to an extent). Not a good attitude, but he was on a poor team that was done within the first month of the season.

After that in 05, with Houston and with the rule changes that should favor him...the injuries really started hitting him. It didn't make him miss a lot of games that year, but he had to play hobbled most of the time with knee, back, and hip injuries, and that was really his last healthy, prime season.

I don't see how that's relevant. If you're talking about a player truly having a better balance shooting vs passing in his brain despite trends of poor efficiency, shouldn't I see some ability at some point in his career to adjust his shooting vs passing based on how his own scoring ability fluctuates?

TMac's FG/36 stayed in about the same ballpark from '01 to '08 despite the fact that his efficiency reach pretty terrible levels in Houston. I don't see how you can recognize that, and not have significant questions in your mind as to whether he truly was more balanced than Kobe.