#22 Highest Peak of All Time (Paul '08 wins)

[ardee]

It's between Paul and Barkley for me.

To weigh them up, I think they were about equal as offensive players. Both incredibly gifted athletically, both undersized, but both so smart that it was impossible to stop them.

Barkley's other major contribution came on the boards, obviously, but Paul matched that by being arguably one of the top three playmakers in history with Magic and Nash.

On defense, there were times when Barkley was a net negative. He could not handle the bigger and more physical Malone-type forwards. Paul was a decent man defender and a wizard playing the passing lanes.

So I'm leaning Paul here. There are only two viable seasons to discuss, '08 and '09. '09 was a superior regular season. He was scoring more, scoring more efficiently, rebounding at an incredible rate for a guy of his size, and had cut down on his turnovers.

It all comes down to the Playoffs, I guess. He was definitely not up to his standard in the '09 Playoffs. Really wish he hadn't gotten injured, a Billups-Paul duel would have been one for the ages.

Tentatively, I'm going:

Vote: 2008 Chris Paul

Very interested in hearing the arguments for 2009, and also quite open to switching.

[mysticbb]

I'm not saying this is actually my opinion regarding Paul (it's between 08, 09, and 12 for me), but I would think it's because 09 Paul played poorly in the playoffs, while 08 Paul was very good in the playoffs.

He was injured during the 2009 playoffs. Is it reasonable to assume that injury happens in every possible scenario, which then leads to the conclusion that 2008 was better than 2009? I don't think so. An not injured 2009 Paul would have played worse than the 2008 version against the same opponents?

Why 97 Malone over 98? What about Robinson? Do you think hes better than those guys here?

Malone 98 showed better playoff numbers, but was overall slightly worse. I would pick 1998 Malone over 1993 Barkley and 1983 Moses Malone as well.
I actually think that David Robinson was indeed better than those 4 players, not by much. Well, I think that Karl Malone was clearer closer to David Robinson than Barkley or Moses Malone.

we've talked about this before. Paul 09 had injured groin in the playoffs and was playing at 60% tops.

I ask that again: Is it reasonable to assume that this injury would have happen no matter what the circumstances are? In average for the whole season including the playoffs Paul in 2009 still comes out ahead of 2008 Paul.

Ewing 90 with these players ? why ?

Defense. None of those players showed a similar big impact on the defensive end.

I guess statistically Chris Paul does seem better than Kobe but I think Kobe's portability (off ball offense) and play after Gasol's trade really seems more impressive.

Do you think that Paul couldn't have achieved a better result with a Chandler-Gasol-West frontcourt as well? I see the portability argument here, but I don't think that Bryant can make a similar peak impact with more ball dominant player as well. We can see how that works with Nash, I guess, even though both are clearly not at their peak level anymore (for Bryant it is more clear than Nash, btw.).

I don't think Kobe seperated himself from peak Nash/Paul but these are definitely the factors I'd look at when comparing the 3.

There are reasonable factors, no doubt about this. But we have to see that we take into account the average availability of fitting players. Taking that, I can see Nash/Paul making the life for frontcourt players easier, while Bryant at his peak can't compare to that level. I would pick Nash 2007 and Paul 2009 over Bryant 2008 or 2009, while I don't think the seperation is that huge, just pretty clear in my eyes.

[tsherkin]

Actually, it has been shown that both could not sustain their level of production and impact. The major improvement for both comes rather from better defensive play and then getting out in transition. The Heat are not a good halfcourt team, while they can be without James or Wade on the court.

Mmm, I never said they were sustaining their level of performance from the ideal situation of playing the way they did prior to playing alongside one another, I said that they found a way to make it work on the court. They have been a 57- to 58-win team for two years, rather than a 72-win team, because it'd be better if they had less overlap in their skill sets and what-not, but it's still functional and they still won a title doing it.

It's not though, because a big part of the project has been a player's portability, and how well a player scales to good teams. LeBron and Wade got knocked for it a bit, because even though they both still play well, they haven't shown the super-dominant type offense that they SHOULD lead due to their talent, and that's because neither one of them is all that great without the ball in their hands. So it's been something to think about with these players, how well they can fit with great talent around them, and for the most part, that's meant how well they can play without the ball in their hands as much.

Right, and in the context of the project that makes more sense, but the way it was phrased in the post to which I was responding, it seemed like it was this huge blow to Paul that he was ball-dominant and would struggle if the ball was taken out of his hands... which just seems counter-intuitive, because the majority of NBA stars through the years have been that way.

Like I said, they've actually gotten criticized for it, because in the 2 seasons they've been together, they have yet to lead an offense that's historically good, which is what you would expect when you put two all-time great offensive wings together. But because of both of them not being nearly as effective without the ball in their hands, they've led "merely" very good offenses, not all-time great ones. And for that reason, they were criticized for it earlier in the project.

It'll be interesting to see this year, particularly if Lebron carries forward this whole "spending lots of time at PF and passing out of the post" thing that they got going during the RS and then that he was exploiting throughout the playoffs.

[bastillon]

He was injured during the 2009 playoffs. Is it reasonable to assume that injury happens in every possible scenario, which then leads to the conclusion that 2008 was better than 2009? I don't think so. An not injured 2009 Paul would have played worse than the 2008 version against the same opponents?

more about philosophical approach than actually different views. to me I have to assume injuries happen in every scenario because it's just going out to fantasy world for me. I mean this is almost like saying Walton 78 is better than Walton 77. I think injury happened BEFORE the playoffs, for the record, I remember Paul coming into the series already with that f*cked up groin.

Malone 98 showed better playoff numbers, but was overall slightly worse. I would pick 1998 Malone over 1993 Barkley and 1983 Moses Malone as well.

I would pick Karl Malone over those versions of Barkley/Moses as well because of his passing/defense over Moses and defense over Barkley. but 97 ? I'd think Malone 93-95 was his best version. considerably more athletic (29-31 years old as opposed to 33-34), already an improved defender/passer over his 20s versions, far more likely to dominate playoff games because of his superior athleticism. Karl Malone thrashed David Robinson in 94 playoffs (who was voted in couple of spots ago, probably too high).

Defense. None of those players showed a similar big impact on the defensive end.

my question is why isn't Ewing clearly better in your eyes. 90 Ewing was still a very potent scorer who stepped up offensively and also a typically dominant defender that we're so accustomed to see. to me he's like Tim Duncan with worse passing.

Do you think that Paul couldn't have achieved a better result with a Chandler-Gasol-West frontcourt as well? I see the portability argument here, but I don't think that Bryant can make a similar peak impact with more ball dominant player as well. We can see how that works with Nash, I guess, even though both are clearly not at their peak level anymore (for Bryant it is more clear than Nash, btw.).

no, I don't see Hornets playing like a +11 team at all. and what makes me more confident in Bryant is that he was already posting those results while not being a very ball-dominant player. I don't care what usg% says because people misinterpret this stat all the time. Bryant wasn't playing with the ball in his hands all shot clock as it was the case with CP.

also I'm surprised to see you focusing on the RS in these recent posts (first with Paul, then with Malone). what's your take on the PS vs RS in general for all players ? don't you think that value of PS play is vastly more important ? Bryant was a truly dominant playoff performer in 08-09, particularly vs WC teams. just flat out dominated every team from start to finish. I don't think Kobe was playing up to his standards in 08-09 regular seasons because he didn't have to put up big numbers for his team to win games. he was able to sacrifice his stats for the team and I appreciate it a lot. I think he was doing it so willingly because of the label people attached to him in 04-07. but when he was supposed to perform, he was bringing it on a consistent basis. finals weren't nearly as good for him but Celtics were extremely dominant defensively and Magic still lost 1-4 (I think his struggles vs Magic were more about sample size rather than actual lack of skills like it was often the case with people like Karl Malone/D-Rob/Moses etc). so the reason I'm so impressed with Kobe is his playoff performances. just a dominant offensive player at his best.

[mysticbb]

Mmm, I never said they were sustaining their level of performance from the ideal situation of playing the way they did prior to playing alongside one another, I said that they found a way to make it work on the court. They have been a 57- to 58-win team for two years, rather than a 72-win team, because it'd be better if they had less overlap in their skill sets and what-not, but it's still functional and they still won a title doing it.

You said that they showed to be able to co-exists, which implied that they had no trouble fitting in together. Problem is, the results are showing a different picture. Nonetheless, as you said, it still can work, and can work very well. But we have to put the success into context here as well. I doubt that the Heat make it to the finals, if Rose stays healthy.

I think Wade plus James is a good example how the skillset of players will have an effect on the overall performance level. But for that project I don't think that this should be the major concern. When I get the chance to build a team, I want a player first and foremost who makes it easy to find fitting players in order to achieve maximum team success. Someone like Chris Paul makes my job to find those players easier than someone like Charles Barkley for example. My expectation must be that I just get an average supporting cast, everything else is just not reasonable. If I have such average supporting cast and assuming reasonable fit, how much team success can I have, if the team is reasonable healthy? And the players who are topping that list should be considered to be the players with the higher peak. (Ok, that all is only slightly related to the point we both discussed, but whatever ...)

[mysticbb]

more about philosophical approach than actually different views.

Yeah, it seems like that.

I would pick Karl Malone over those versions of Barkley/Moses as well because of his passing/defense over Moses and defense over Barkley. but 97 ? I'd think Malone 93-95 was his best version. considerably more athletic (29-31 years old as opposed to 33-34), already an improved defender/passer over his 20s versions, far more likely to dominate playoff games because of his superior athleticism. Karl Malone thrashed David Robinson in 94 playoffs (who was voted in couple of spots ago, probably too high).

Reasonable argumentation, but I think the higher efficiency is caused by better decision making, which then just correlates with higher team success. Older good players tend to replace fading athleticism with strength and something I will call "experience", which then can make them the better player. For some players their skillset is highly determined by athleticism, I don't think that this was the case with Malone. And being able to explode might be a valuable asset, if you have a clearly below average team, but on a contending team better consistency is preferable for starting/high minutes players.

my question is why isn't Ewing clearly better in your eyes. 90 Ewing was still a very potent scorer who stepped up offensively and also a typically dominant defender that we're so accustomed to see. to me he's like Tim Duncan with worse passing.

Because the "Duncan with worse passing" is not a really accurate description here. Duncan is better at basically everything, even though the differences might not be huge, but overall it adds up.

I also don't like such expressions (Duncan with worse passing), because it implies that those traits are not that valuable. A more extreme example is that of "Shawn Marion was James without the passing and ball handling", while in reality the incredible passing and ball handling abilities are the reason why James is so good. Having someone with that size being that great at those things is difference between GOAT discussion and being "better than average". Duncan being a better passer is huge here, because he provides a low post passing threat which helps to put teammates into better positions on the court without making the final pass (aka having incredible assists numbers).

Bryant wasn't playing with the ball in his hands all shot clock as it was the case with CP.

But Paul is also making constanly better decisions with the ball in his hands. And also, it is not like Bryant didn't tend to hold the ball too long even in 2008.

also I'm surprised to see you focusing on the RS in these recent posts (first with Paul, then with Malone).

Sorry to give that impression, but in reality I look more into the overall averages and at that more on how they played in average against above average teams, because those will be the most likely opponents in the playoffs.

don't you think that value of PS play is vastly more important?

More important? Yes, but also a much smaller sample against a small amount of teams. The goal of the game is to win as a team, and sometimes an opposing team will chose to let the dominant scorer take more shots, because that increases the chances to win, while the focus of the defense is on stopping the overall team. I think there is too much focus on the playoff numbers (and also on those offensive/defensive splits), while the overall average impact/production/efficiency against the better teams is more important. The RS is giving just more games for that.
I understand your point, that a player must be able to perform at a high level during the playoffs, but a drop in the playoffs is somewhat expected, while we should look at how they performed against similar strong teams during the RS as well.

so the reason I'm so impressed with Kobe is his playoff performances. just a dominant offensive player at his best.

He showed similar impressive performances during the regular season as well, against similar opponents. Still the same weaknesses to see in those playoff games as during the regular season regarding decision making, especially in late game situations or then in elimination games. Nonetheless Bryant's playing level was really impressive, basically a +6 player from 2006 to 2010, really consistent. I would still say that peak level Paul and Nash are giving me a slightly better chance to win it all with an average supporting cast.

[lorak]

[ Karl Malone thrashed David Robinson in 94 playoffs (who was voted in couple of spots ago, probably too high).

Malone was guarded by Rodman during that series. In 1996, when he was guarded by Robinson, Karl's performance was worse.

[JordansBulls]

--------- RS PER, WS48, --------- PER, WS48 playoffs
Moses Malone 1983: 25.1, 0.248 -----25.7, 0.260 (13 playoff games, title)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2 ... nces-11-20

MOSES MALONE FINALS STATS
Points per game: 25.8
Boards per game: 18.0
Blocks per game: 1.5
PER: 26.0



VOTE: Moses Malone 1983.

[MisterWestside]

It's not though, because a big part of the project has been a player's portability, and how well a player scales to good teams. LeBron and Wade got knocked for it a bit, because even though they both still play well, they haven't shown the super-dominant type offense that they SHOULD lead due to their talent, and that's because neither one of them is all that great without the ball in their hands.

1) They play with more than two players on a basketball court. 2) Why should they be knocked for it when they came together in a unique situation in the first place? These were two high-usage players with similar skillsets that paired up on a top-heavy team with inconsistent/injured roleplayers, and with unprecedented scrutiny to win now. They both also played under a young head coach, guided by Riley but still doesn't have the same know-how to call shots or make adjustments on the they fly. And as a matter of fact, one of those players was often himself injured or play through injuries (Wade, knee drains). Name another duo who pulled that off with their success.

LeBron didn't join Wade because he wanted to be enshrined in the RealGM historic offense HoF. He went for the sheer talent that he didn't have with his "fitting" roleplayers in Cleveland, players that let him down when the bright lights were on. And he wanted to win a championship.

Re: Barkley -- should be voted in right around here. Period.

[tsherkin]

You said that they showed to be able to co-exists, which implied that they had no trouble fitting in together.

No it doesn't, not at all. I said that they showed that they could play together and be functional... and they did. They weren't all-time mega-awesome, but they've won 57-ish games (or the equivalent) in each season and made the Finals both years. I never said ANYTHING that implied that they did it flawlessly or without issues along the way, that's your own projection.

My expectation must be that I just get an average supporting cast,

Why assume that, when an average supporting cast almost never leads to a title? Or are you just looking at playoff contention and RS success over a period of time, and not worrying specifically about championship contention?

[colts18]

How is CP3 higher than Howard 09-11? I don't see it. Howard made a bigger impact. In fact, Howard in in 09 was one of 3 teams in NBA history to beat 2 60+ win teams in the playoffs without HCA. The others were MJ and Wade.

[bastillon]

[ Karl Malone thrashed David Robinson in 94 playoffs (who was voted in couple of spots ago, probably too high).

Malone was guarded by Rodman during that series. In 1996, when he was guarded by Robinson, Karl's performance was worse.

well the point stands. D-Rob was thoroughly outplayed during 94 series. the same D-Rob was already voted in, mind you, so it seems a little weird that he got in before the guy who was a much better playoff performer the very same year.

Yeah, it seems like that.

don't you think you're assuming too much ? you're borderline making stuff up now. does Walton 78 count ? he could somehow avoid getting injured that year on a different team. to me that kind of stuff should stay the same in those hypothetical scenarios. when player gets injured I'm gonna knock him down because I just don't think he's very valuable playing 60% or not playing at all. if Chris Paul was healthy in 09 postseason, I'd surely take him over 08 Paul. as it was though, 11 Paul seems like he gives me a much better shot at NBA title with his mediocre RS and all.

Reasonable argumentation, but I think the higher efficiency is caused by better decision making, which then just correlates with higher team success. Older good players tend to replace fading athleticism with strength and something I will call "experience", which then can make them the better player. For some players their skillset is highly determined by athleticism, I don't think that this was the case with Malone. And being able to explode might be a valuable asset, if you have a clearly below average team, but on a contending team better consistency is preferable for starting/high minutes players.

I'm not sure where you're coming from. I believe 93-95 Malone was quite clearly more efficient postseason performer than 97-98 Malone. imo it was due to his better athleticism which resulted in willingness to draw fouls and attack the paint as opposed to shooting those freakin jumpshots all game. Malone 97 in particular strikes me as a postseason failure. offense was centered around him and instead of attacking the defense and making it collapse, he was shooting fadeaway jumpshots on bad efficiency. I just don't see Malone 93-95 being that passive.

I'd take Malone 94 as his peak probably, quite clearly the best playoff performance including surrounding years, great skillset, at 30 years old great age for peak year, still monster athleticism but improved strength over 20s Malone and better passing/defense/jumpshot. he still had the same qualities later on but regressed athletically which forced him away from the basket, made him less efficient, gave him less offensive versatility and he was more of a pnp threat now.

Because the "Duncan with worse passing" is not a really accurate description here. Duncan is better at basically everything, even though the differences might not be huge, but overall it adds up.

Duncan better at basically everything ? how so ? I have Duncan as better passer and help defender but Ewing was imo more intimidating shotblocker, better post defender and actually yes, slightly better scorer (we're talking 90 Ewing only here). Duncan is a better rebounder but I think it's more due to Ewing altering more shots with his shotblocking. I think the difference between Spurs defense in 02 and Knicks defense in 90 was mostly coaching impact. as we saw later with those Knicks, they became all time great defensive team with Riley. I just dont see Duncan as quite clearly better in this comparison. after looking at 90 Ewing in depth I'm coming away more and more impressed. but scoring in particular is something that I'd never expect him to do so well. I don't think peak Duncan was as good as a scorer.

I've been saying for a long time now, to me Duncan is quite easily "stoppable" against strong post defenders, somewhat like D-Rob. I don't see him performing well vs Karl Malone/Mutombo/Hakeem (the guys D-Rob struggled mightily against). as a matter of fact 40-year old Malone was holding Duncan to some putrid games in a backdoor sweep in 04. Duncan had some bad playoff moments against strong post defenders.

But Paul is also making constanly better decisions with the ball in his hands. And also, it is not like Bryant didn't tend to hold the ball too long even in 2008.

Kobe wasn't Reggie Miller but for a superstar perimeter player he was definitely not holding the ball very long. 08-09 playoff Kobe put up 30/5.5/5.5/1.7/0.7 @ 57% TS with only 10% TO-rate for a 115 ORTG. that's a 44-game sample of the guy beasting against extremely tough opposition. let's not forget how many elite teams Kobe was facing in those years. you had to be a 50 win team just to get to the playoffs. domination like that vs tough playoff opposition while leading a very dominant offense is something that really impresses me a lot more than Paul being superior RS player but not quite as impactful as a playoff performer

Sorry to give that impression, but in reality I look more into the overall averages and at that more on how they played in average against above average teams, because those will be the most likely opponents in the playoffs.

so you're arguing the actual playoff performance is less important because of sample size/variety issues ? I think looking at RS performances vs good teams is definitely a valuable information to know but at the end of the day players get cold in the postseason or can't make FTs (97 Malone) and despite performing better in the RS I just can't put it on sample size that he was sub-par.

More important? Yes, but also a much smaller sample against a small amount of teams. The goal of the game is to win as a team, and sometimes an opposing team will chose to let the dominant scorer take more shots, because that increases the chances to win, while the focus of the defense is on stopping the overall team. I think there is too much focus on the playoff numbers (and also on those offensive/defensive splits), while the overall average impact/production/efficiency against the better teams is more important. The RS is giving just more games for that.

but Lakers playoff offense was actually very dominant in those years. Kobe's supporting cast was talented offensively but it was also overrated. one Laker fan from another board explained it the best when he argued that Kobe never played with great shooters on his team as the man. after all spacing is something that every superstar needs. well he did have the right spacing with Fisher/Vujacic/Radmanovic/Walton/Odom/Gasol and their offense was insane (well, until the finals. but even then they were performing well considering the opposition). so Kobe wasn't putting up big numbers on unsuccesful teams, he was actually giving his team serious offensive lift, in the postseason I think he was better than Paul (ironically who I saw more as a player you were describing). I think perfect Kobe supporting cast would be Hinrich/Lewis/Gasol/Ilgauskas or smth like that. it's one thing that's really underrated about Kobe, how he's able to perform without elite spacing unlike other superstars of his era who enjoyed playing with elite spot up shooters almost every year they were leading top offenses.

He showed similar impressive performances during the regular season as well, against similar opponents. Still the same weaknesses to see in those playoff games as during the regular season regarding decision making, especially in late game situations or then in elimination games. Nonetheless Bryant's playing level was really impressive, basically a +6 player from 2006 to 2010, really consistent. I would still say that peak level Paul and Nash are giving me a slightly better chance to win it all with an average supporting cast.

Nash can't play as many mins, Paul has ceiling issues (IMO). that's why I think Bryant 06-10 is slightly better. I also second tsherkin's comment about average supporting cast. if you wanna win a title, you have to play on above average team. what really matters to me is how players impact the game with good players around them, not with average support. MoPete/Peja/West/Chandler was a perfect "average" supporting cast for Paul because they fit so well together. but if you replaced Peja and West with Marion and Brand, I wouldn't expect them to be some dominant playoff team (or even dominant playoff offense). for example fatal9 mentioned how easily Paul was getting to the lane back in the day... but wasn't it because people were so concerned about West/Peja/MoPete shooting from the perimeter ? in those clips you don't even see their defenders coming over on Paul/Chandler screen and roll, which is why Paul looks so dominant in that 2-man set up. Kobe was actually doing it on teams without spacing.

[bastillon]

How is CP3 higher than Howard 09-11? I don't see it. Howard made a bigger impact. In fact, Howard in in 09 was one of 3 teams in NBA history to beat 2 60+ win teams in the playoffs without HCA. The others were MJ and Wade.

I generally respect your analysis but you're just not getting it done in this post. you'll need much more convincing evidence for Dwight over Paul. I could be totally swayed for example, but not with something like this. you're arguing for Dwight's individual impact with impressive team feat ? how does that make any sense ?

[Jazzfan12]

I'm not in the project and you guys have done a lot more research than me, but I'm also pretty confused by CP3 over Dwight. CP3 had amazing offensive impact, but Dwight had an even bigger defensive impact with his team finishing top 3 in defense in all three years that could be considered his peak despite really bad help on defense compared to CP3's team finishing 5th in offense in 2008 despite having pretty good support. Dwight was also the focal point of the Magic's offense whereas CP3 doesn't impact the game that much defensively. It seems like Dwight's D > CP3's O and Dwight's O >> CP3's D.

Dwight's plus or minus isn't as good, but it seems like that's more about him having good backups while CP3 had bad backups. When the Magic's backup center was bad like this year, Dwight's plus or minus was terrific.

[lorak]

[ Karl Malone thrashed David Robinson in 94 playoffs (who was voted in couple of spots ago, probably too high).

Malone was guarded by Rodman during that series. In 1996, when he was guarded by Robinson, Karl's performance was worse.

well the point stands. D-Rob was thoroughly outplayed during 94 series. the same D-Rob was already voted in, mind you, so it seems a little weird that he got in before the guy who was a much better playoff performer the very same year.

1995 DRob was voted in, not 1994.

[bastillon]

I'm not in the project and you guys have done a lot more research than me, but I'm also pretty confused by CP3 over Dwight. CP3 had amazing offensive impact, but Dwight had an even bigger defensive impact with his team finishing top 3 in defense in all three years that could be considered his peak despite really bad help on defense compared to CP3's team finishing 5th in offense in 2008 despite having pretty good support. Dwight was also the focal point of the Magic's offense whereas CP3 doesn't impact the game that much defensively. It seems like Dwight's D > CP3's O and Dwight's O >> CP3's D.

Dwight's plus or minus isn't as good, but it seems like that's more about him having good backups while CP3 had bad backups. When the Magic's backup center was bad like this year, Dwight's plus or minus was terrific.

good analysis. I think Dwight's defense is quite underrated by impact stats, as we've seen this year with Magic defense collpasing altogether along with Dwight going down with back injury. I think colts made a post that Magic were by far the worst defensive team in the league. (can someone find that post?) offensively though I'm not very high on Dwight. he's a good 2nd/3rd option guy on a good team but not someone I'd give keys to leading the offense. Dwight's value is certainly on the defensive end though, as you would expect out of a center, so that's not that big of a deal. at this point Dwight is definitely worth serious consideration as well as all two way bigs (Gilmore 75, Alonzo 00, Yao 07).

[ardee]

--------- RS PER, WS48, --------- PER, WS48 playoffs
Moses Malone 1983: 25.1, 0.248 -----25.7, 0.260 (13 playoff games, title)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2 ... nces-11-20

MOSES MALONE FINALS STATS
Points per game: 25.8
Boards per game: 18.0
Blocks per game: 1.5
PER: 26.0



VOTE: Moses Malone 1983.

I haven't heard him make a single argument for his vote except listing WS and PER...

[bastillon]

DS, it's not like D-Rob 95 was any different. the same player with the same fundamental flaws in his game. poor offensive repertoire resulting in weak iso scoring vs strong playoff defenders. Malone would still lock him up if it came down to this confrontation. he'd outplay Robinson very likely. D-Rob only has a case over Malone if you find charismatic offensive perimeter players alongside him - then D-Rob can make his huge defensive impact along with finishing when others make the defense collapse. his overall impact would probably be bigger in that scenario. Malone is far away better offensive playoff performer than D-Rob. puts a lot more pressure on the opposing defenses. although I'm critical of Malone's playoff efficiency, he was still getting to the line, drew double teams and passed well out of the post, while Jazz offense was still very good most years in the playoffs. D-Rob sometimes just made negligible offensive impact period. didn't draw double teams or anything, just did nothing. his 18/9 or whatever he put up vs Malone still overstates his offensive impact.

[colts18]

good analysis. I think Dwight's defense is quite underrated by impact stats, as we've seen this year with Magic defense collpasing altogether along with Dwight going down with back injury. I think colts made a post that Magic were by far the worst defensive team in the league. (can someone find that post?) offensively though I'm not very high on Dwight. he's a good 2nd/3rd option guy on a good team but not someone I'd give keys to leading the offense. Dwight's value is certainly on the defensive end though, as you would expect out of a center, so that's not that big of a deal. at this point Dwight is definitely worth serious consideration as well as all two way bigs (Gilmore 75, Alonzo 00, Yao 07).

Here it is:

With Howard: 1.42 SRS, .611 win%
Without Howard: -4.30 SRS, . 333 win%
Difference: +5.72 SRS, .277 win%

With Howard: 102.22 D rating (8th in NBA)
W/o Howard: 112.52 D rating (Last place by 2.12 points)
-10.30 Difference. The Magic played a weak 103.2 (-1.2 LA) O rating schedule without Howard. So that terrible defense is even worse when you adjust for that

Other defense stats:
With: 92.2 PPG, 43.8 FG%, 46.6 2P%, 41.7 reb
W/0: 98.7 PPG, 49.8 FG%, 53.8 2P%, 39.9 reb
Diff: 6.5 PPG, 6.0 FG%, 7.2 2P%, 1.8 reb, 6.3 TS%

vs. Indiana in playoffs:
Allowed: 94.6 PPG, 107 D rating (-4.3), -10.8 MOV
Ind vs. Mia: 87.3 PPG, 99.23 O rating
Diff: -7.3 PPG, 7.77 D rating points


Here are the inside the paint stats with Howard and without Howard (Per game) and their rank within the NBA:
With: 33.43 PPG (2nd), 46.3 FG% (6th), +4.24 Reb (3rd)
W/O: 37.41 PPG (20th), 49.9 FG% (25th), -0.71 Reb (25th)
Diff: 3.98 PPG, 0.36 FG%, +4.95 Rebounds

The defense was +9.3 without Howard. Based on what I've seen so far, that might have been the worst defense ever. Here are the worst defenses ever by D rating and where they were in relation to LA:

93 Mavs- 114.7 (+6.7)
91 Nuggets 114.7 (+6.8)
09 Kings 114.7 (+6.4)
06 Sonics 114.4 (+8.2)
82 Nuggets 114.2 (+7)

So the +9.3 would be more than 1 point worse than the worst defense ever.

[Lightning25]

Vote: 2008 Chris Paul

I said in the last thread that my next 3 were going to be between Moses, Barkley, and CP3. CP3 has all the momentum here and he is the best two-way player of the three so I'm comfortable with this pick.

Those three over Tmac is not a hard decision for me.....at all.

Tmac was not better than CP3 at anything except being a better volume scorer. He was less efficient, worse defender, worse playmaker, worse decision maker, and he wasn't as dominant as CP3 was in their peak post-seasons.