Peaks project update: #17

[E-Balla]

3. 11 Dirk - For the longest I had Dirk under all of Kobe/Wade/T-Mac but honestly revisiting it I place him over Kobe mainly because I don't think Kobe put it all together in a single year like Dirk did. It's hard enough to differentiate his different seasons in my mind but once I do I don't think any years he has holds up to Dirk leading a Mavs team that was very strong at full strength (+8-9 level) with good but not great support, and a great postseason run where he was only outplayed once. 09 is the closest Kobe had to putting it all together and he was clearly under Wade in my mind that year. Outside of that you have his bad series in 06 muddying that year, his Finals muddying 08, and 07 being what I'd call his most complete year at the end of the day but that's a year not as good as Dirk's by any objective measure in my own mind.

I’m curious about your reasoning regarding picking 2011 over 2006 for Dirk.

Yeah, Dirk and the Mavs blew a 2-0 lead in the NBA Finals but Dirk was better and more impactful in 2005-06 regular season. I think the gap is too big. His runs against the WC are pretty close. And in 2011 Finals, despite the win he didn’t pull a series performance like LeBron’s 2016 performance. So, I don’t see a gap big enough to make up for the regular season gap.

And these things bring me to the following comparison; 2005-06 Dirk vs. 2007-08 Kobe. Even though you wouldn’t agree with my opinions about 2006 Dirk vs. 2011 Dirk, I’d still like to hear your take on this comparison.

I will say that based on E-Balla's assessment of D Rob, at least he's consistent. He places a lot more value on the playoffs than on the RS.

Basically. 06 Dirk had a fatal flaw in his game, and it was one that made stopping him pretty trivial. From 05 to 07 he was locked down by T-Mac, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington, and Posey in 3 straight years thanks to a flaw in his game (his lack of ability to post smaller guys and use his size advantage). Starting in 09 he no longer had that issue and he became truly unstoppable. To add to that 2011 Dirk outside of the boxscore looks just as good as 2006 Dirk.

Remember I'm voting 17 Westbrook with my second pick here, win or loss is only a tie breaker, but it's not how I rank players and it's completely out of sight unless I can't figure out how else to separate players (because the winner has "proven" the theory of whether or not they won at the end of the day). How they played is what matters and what's being discussed and Dirk back then was someone that played better against true bigs and horrible against SFs.

[E-Balla]

This is simple. It's 94 or 95 D Rob. My vote is 95. +/- data (adjusted and otherwise) are so wildly in his favor. I'll add to my argument from before that D Rob man-handled Hakeem 30-12 and held him to 48.9 TS% in the 42 games they played outside of their playoff series. D Rob won 57% of his playoff games, compared to 52% by Hakeem. I've never seen people place so much disproportionate weight on a single playoff series.

I really don't think it's close. The list will look more and more inconsistent if he continues to drop given that Hakeem/KG both rank top 11.

So I kinda posed this question to you in the other thread but let's bring it here.

Basically thinking on it more my issue with the D-Rob support is it shows an inconsistency in standards. What argument does D-Rob have that can't be equally applied to Draymond and Alonzo Mourning outside of his better raw boxscore numbers, and if his raw boxscore numbers are what creates the gap in your mind, why does his drop off in raw boxscore numbers in the playoffs not become a factor.

People voting DRob like to say it's his impact they're voting for but how many of you have Draymond Green in your top 20? Alonzo Mourning? Manu Ginobili? Or are we saying to only take the regular season into account when judging players? In that case are we saying the playoffs and regular season are similar and that we should expect players to perform similarly in the postseason and regular season, because we have definite proof that's not what happens and the playoffs are a totally different beast.

I used your post to ask these questions but I want to hear from cecil and no more rings too, they're good posters with unique looks on things. If you guys feel you have sufficiently answered these questions already, my bad for asking them again.

[E-Balla]

If you flip the results of the 06 and 11 finals, or even make the outcome the same i could pretty much guarantee no one or very few would have 11 Dirk ahead of 06 Dirk.

Not really. Dirk still has a major flaw in his game in 06 he clearly improved upon in 2011. The result being flipped because Dirk's teammates played differently wouldn't change a thing, we'd still look at the 06 Finals as a major failure where Dirk was dragged to a win by FMVP Jason Terry, the same way tons of posters see the 2015 Finals as a failure by Steph. You're looking too much at the wins, not why a player won or lost.

[E-Balla]

In 2005-06 regular season; the Mavs had 60 wins, 3rd best SRS with 5.96, 1st in ortg and 11 in drtg.
In 2010-11 regular season; the Mavs had 57 wins, 8th best SRS with 4.41, 8th in ortg and 8th in drtg.

Though the team was 2-7 without Dirk in 2011. And I don’t know how to reach with/without SRS values.
I made my comment about Dirk being more productive in a better outcome.

Also my example stands still about your approach.
RAPM is not (should not be) the only tool to determine what’s more impactful. You saying this is not how RAPM works has no meaning because I used an exact mirror situation about your response.

Edit: I think you shouldn’t point a finger about my approach since yours was no better. Anyways.

The 2011 Mavs had a +8.0 SRS without Caron Butler and with Dirk, including the postseason. They were better than the 06 Mavs pretty clearly, especially at full strength. And RAPM being used to estimate impact is better than not using anything even if it is overrelied upon and people place way more importance in small gaps in RAPM than they should.

[No-more-rings]

If you flip the results of the 06 and 11 finals, or even make the outcome the same i could pretty much guarantee no one or very few would have 11 Dirk ahead of 06 Dirk.

Not really. Dirk still has a major flaw in his game in 06 he clearly improved upon in 2011. The result being flipped because Dirk's teammates played differently wouldn't change a thing, we'd still look at the 06 Finals as a major failure where Dirk was dragged to a win by FMVP Jason Terry, the same way tons of posters see the 2015 Finals as a failure by Steph. You're looking too much at the wins, not why a player won or lost.

No, i’m looking at entire body of work and what the narrative would’ve been.

If Dirk loses in 2011 he’s going to take heavy criticism as not being able to get it done in the finals. If he wins in 06, people will likely view it as an all time carry job.

I don’t care much if he had a flaw in 06 vs 11, his finals performance was only a little better anyway and his run prior to it was arguably better. Too much is made of that stuff, Dirk was a better rebounder and defender in 06, with a better motor too and more athleticism. That can’t be glossed over.

[E-Balla]

First off this is a great post.

I mean, what puts him over 09 Kobe?

Well 01, 03, 06, 07, and 08 Kobe are over 09 IMO so 09 Kobe isn't even the peak I'm discussing with Kobe. I admit it's his best year ON PAPER but actually remembering how good Kobe was it's not his best year so I feel it's disingenuous to focus on it, similar to how I think it's disingenuous to vote for 17 Curry over 15 Curry because he has a more solid case or how I felt voting for 06 Wade instead of 09 Wade was disingenuous.

Beyond that I did mention 09 Kobe and it's still a great year worthy of the comparison so it's a good question.

--The 09 Lakers were one of the best teams ever, and I'd describe Kobe's support as very good but hardly special in all-time sense

--They won 65 gms with a 7.3 SRS and won a great conference by ten games. They were one of the best "healthy" teams ever:



2008 Lakers: +9.7
2009 Lakers: +9.0

2008-09 Lakers and Celtics. These teams were fantastic in an incredibly competitive league. The Celtics were +8.8 and +9.3 when healthy, and the Lakers +9.7 and +9.0 once Pau Gasol joined. Kevin Garnett’s injury robbed us of possibly the NBA’s greatest trilogy

Amazingly, of the top 40 healthy teams of all-time, seven are Pop’s Spurs teams. Five are Jordan’s Bulls. Four are Laker teams with Kobe Bryant.

The best NBA teams ever (according to Elo). The 09 Lakers ranked eighth all-time in overall ELO.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-warriors-are-in-the-goat-debate-but-they-blew-their-chance-to-end-it

*The 2011 Mavs rank #50

So this is all great but 3 things here:

1. The 08 Lakers were better than the 09 Lakers, which makes it harder to say 09 is THE peak for Kobe. I admit it's his best case here, but I feel like voting for it for that reason while not seeing it has his best is just an attempt to bypass the spirit of the project. If I can't make a case for 09 as Kobe's best year I'm not making a case for it against other years.

2. The Lakers were definitely stacked. Pau was all NBA, Odom was a borderline All-Star and +/- darling, Bynum was an All-Star level C when healthy, and Ariza/Fish/Walton/Shannon/Farmar weren't great but they were serviceable role players especially next to 4 top 50 players.

3. If you want to use healthy SRS the 2011 Mavs had a +8.0 SRS. I think the gap between their supporting casts can easily make up that +1.0 gap in SRS.

The 09 Lakers are higher than teams like the 92 Bulls, 91 Bulls, 83 Sixers,2014 Spurs, etc

The 09 Lakers had the [b]sixth greatest peak ELO Rating in NBA histroy at 1790.0:
[/b]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/last-years-warriors-werent-the-best-ever-but-this-years-might-be/

They completely dominated in the post-season:

Their post-season adjusted SRS of 12.7[/b] was the sixth highest since 1984: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-year-of-the-warriors

Here they're ahead of teams like the 85 Lakers, 87 Lakers, 08 Celtics, and 97 Bulls.

If you're impressed by Dirk leading the Mavs team to 8-9 pt level at full strength, what about Bryant anchoring one of the most dominant teams in history? I say that speaks volumes about his ability to build synergy with other talent. Hell, the 09 Kobe/Pau/Odom was the most dominant trio we have on record. The Kobe/Pau/Odom 09 trio (+17.5 in 3739 possessions) was the best we have recorded. This says amazing things about Kobe's portability, and his ability to scale with other talent.

GAHHHHHHHH. This is a great argument. I flipped between Dirk and Kobe a bunch here, and this might've flipped me back because like I said before players that are proven are easier to argue for. That said the Mavs were still a +10.0 team even with a worse supporting cast. Could we say Dirk in 2011 with a better second option ala Pau could lead a +13 team like Kobe did?

Then there's the mentioning of his portability, which I accept for discussing him as a first option. I rank Kobe's offense well over most here mainly for that reason, but we know he couldn't be 2nd banana even to a vastly superior talent in Shaq. Dirk on the other hand doesn't seem like the type to have issues with that. I get this is splitting hairs, but I have Kobe and Dirk practically even.

I also didn't realize that was the top trio, I assumed Steph/Klay/Dray in 16 topped it. Even so Pau was still top 15 level, Kobe is Kobe, and Odom was a top 30 player. That's a combo that can't really be touched by any trios we've seen recently talent wise. Usually the 3rd isn't as good as Odom or the first isn't as flexible as Kobe (because LeBron should've had multiple better trios, but you should all know how I feel about LeBron's playmaking by now). Man now I'm thinking again, might have to switch to Kobe.

The 09 Lakers were also very arguably the best passing team in the league. Their team passer rating was #1 in the league and #61 all-time: http://www.backpicks.com/2018/07/15/nba-passer-ratings-since-1978/

And can I get a source on the Mavs full strength SRS? According to Ben Taylor, no Mavs team with was ever that dominant:

Among the top-20 players on this list, Dirk is one of five to never play on an 8-SRS team during his prime.

They never struck lightning in a bottle during his decade-plus prime, but the ’03 and ’11 teams nearly crossed the 8-SRS mark when healthy, and four other full-strength squads weren’t too far behind

Source: http://www.backpicks.com/2018/02/26/backpicks-goat-18-dirk-nowitzki/#easy-footnote-10-7090

I think he was saying +8 in the regular season in that first note, and the +8.0 figure came from Elgee's WOWY data. Maybe it rounded up to +8.0 at full strength so technically he's still correct and Dirk never played for a +8.0 team but instead for a +7.96 team.

Otherwise I don't really see how Dirk was better.

In the RS he's at 23.0/7.0/2.6/0.5/0.6/23.4 PER/11.1 WS/.213 WS/48/3.8 BPM with a 61% TS (+7) and 118 (+11) ORTG in 73 gms
Bryant was at 26.8/5.2/4.9/1.5/0.5/24.4 PER/12.7 WS/.206 WS/48/4.5 BPM with a 56.4% TS (+1.7) and a 115 ORTG (+7) in 82 games

* Dirk has better impact metrics, but Bryant beats him almost across in the box-score metrics (though how much that should matter...) and most importantly he has a fairly significant advantage in health (yes, I think those nine extra games makes a difference when you're talking about guys this close...)

Kobe gets the regular season edge but I don't really care about that. The regular season only affects seeding, and if you can win from a low seed toppling the top talent in the league it's irrelevant. I'd take just enough games of Hakeem to get me to the 8th seed over all 82 games of David Robinson if it meant I'd have Hakeem on my 8th seed squad come playoff time vs Robinson in the first round.

Then the post-season comes around and I don't see how Dirk had a better run at all.

*He puts up 27.7/8.1/2.5/0.6/0.6/25.2 PER/3.6 WS/.210 WS/48/3.8 BPM on 60.9% TS (+7.9 relative to opp avg) and a 115 ORTG (+9 relative to opp avg)
*Kobe puts 30.2/5.3/5.5/1.7/0.9/26.8 PER/4.7 WS/.238 WS/48/7.5 BPM on 56.4% TS (+3.5) and a 117 ORTG (+12)
* By the raw numbers Bryant is ahead in volume, APG, stls, blks, turnovers, MPG
*By the advanced box-score numbers he's ahead in PER/WS/WS48/BPM/VORP/USG/AST%/STL%/BLK% and ORTG
*Dirk is a slightly better scorer. He has a fairly noticeable lead in scoring efficiency, but Bryant scores at a higher per-game clip, and they're Per 100 scoring rate is even
*Kobe is easily more efficient OVERALL. He has a much lower turnover rate (8.7% to Dirk's 12.0%) AND a higher OREB% (2.4% to Dirk's 1.8%) which is reflected in their individual ORTG. 117 (+12) for Kobe vs 115 (+9) for Dirk
*Kobe crushes him as a passer. This is evident on tape and in the box-score. 5.5 APG/26.0% AST% vs 2.6/13%...(yes, I know APG isn't a perfect measure of passing but Kobe is also way ahead in passer rating so...
*If you place a lot of stock in Finals performances...I mean, it's not even close.
32.4/5.6/7.4/1.4/1.4/34.7% AST%/38% USG/9.4% TOV rate/111 ORTG (+9)/52.5% TS (+1.6) vs
26.0/9.7/2.0/0.7/0.7/10.6% AST%/33% USG/10.5% TOV rate/105 ORTG (+1)/53.7% TS (+1.9)
Kobe was much more efficient. He carried a bigger load and had a much higher scorer rate with virtually zero difference in scoring efficiency, obliterates Dirk as a passer, has a higher STL%, way higher BLK%, higher OREB%, took much better care of the ball,etc etc. I mean, it's close at all.

Moving on to the impact stuff...


Kobe had the higher recorded post-season +/- overall

Curry 15 - 166
Ginobili 14 - 181
James 13 - 129
James 12 - 199
Dirk 11 - 170
Kobe 10 - 98
Kobe 09 - 181
Garnett 08 - 184
Duncan 07 - 82
Wade 06 - 134
Duncan 03 - 172
Shaq 02 - 118
Shaq 01 - 186
[b]Kobe 01 - 213

Dirk was #1 in post-season RAPM. Kobe was #2 in post-season RAPM, but on a far stronger team
https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2008-09/playoffs/
https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2010-11/playoffs/

So first off those numbers aren't accurate.

But to the major point I don't judge playoff runs off aggregates, I go series to series since that's how the format works. One bad series can be recovered from even if it tanks your averages and one great series can overlap horrible production in other series.

Against Portland Dirk outplayed 2 All Star PFs every game of the series (LMA made his first ASG in 2012 but was a major snub and Wallace made the ASG at PF in 2010) and averaged 27/8/3 on 58 TS% against 2 tough defenders. Kobe's first round was less impressive. He played against Utah and killed them but IIRC they didn't have Raja Bell yet and Ronnie Brewer and old man AK47 had to check him. Not at all bad, but not as impressive as Dirk.

Against the Lakers in round 2 the Mavs in general, and Dirk specifically just embarrassed the defending champion Lakers. Ran them off the floor. Meanwhile Kobe's 2nd round was against Houston who had tons of Kobe stoppers and he was spectacular but he had a few games where they locked him up. Houston actually pushed it to 7 just by locking up Kobe three times. In this case I'm taking Dirk's performance over them.

Then we have the WCF. Kobe destroyed Denver. Like absolutely demolished them. It's an all time great series. Problem is Dirk's performance was so great we call a man Serge Nowitzki now because he must've been Dirk's son the way he got manhandled out there. He did that to an All Defensive player too, not a scrub.

Now in the Finals Kobe was way better. Kobe had one of the 20ish greatest Finals performances ever and just dismantled the Magic with his playmaking while Dirk was great but mostly in the 4th quarter, playing a bit lackadaisical through most of the games before turning it on. Still in all this Kobe never really had much competition at his own position as he played teams with more Fs than Gs. Dirk on the other hand beat up on 3 future HOFers in their primes at the PF position on his way to a ring.

Now maybe Kobe's numbers look better, but series to series, and game to game Dirk was the better performer IMO. If you disagree with my assessments of those series, let me know, maybe the gap can be found there or cleared up in there because I'm back to calling Kobe and Dirk a coin toss for now and not really comfortable voting for either right now.

I could go on but I'll stop here. Seriously tho..what exactly makes his season "not complete". Honestly, what more do you want? It's going to be a total joke when he finishes outside the top twenty but this is the PC board so...

What makes it not complete is I don't think Kobe was over Wade in 09 at all. I can't see anything that isn't just team strength to put him over Wade or any argument other than team strength to put him over Wade. I also don't think it's Kobe's best year even if it's the year where he accomplished the most.

[E-Balla]

If you flip the results of the 06 and 11 finals, or even make the outcome the same i could pretty much guarantee no one or very few would have 11 Dirk ahead of 06 Dirk.

Not really. Dirk still has a major flaw in his game in 06 he clearly improved upon in 2011. The result being flipped because Dirk's teammates played differently wouldn't change a thing, we'd still look at the 06 Finals as a major failure where Dirk was dragged to a win by FMVP Jason Terry, the same way tons of posters see the 2015 Finals as a failure by Steph. You're looking too much at the wins, not why a player won or lost.

No, i’m looking at entire body of work and what the narrative would’ve been.

If Dirk loses in 2011 he’s going to take heavy criticism as not being able to get it done in the finals. If he wins in 06, people will likely view it as an all time carry job.

I don’t care much if he had a flaw in 06 vs 11, his finals performance was only a little better anyway and his run prior to it was arguably better. Too much is made of that stuff, Dirk was a better rebounder and defender in 06, with a better motor too and more athleticism. That can’t be glossed over.

I don't agree. I think it's worth mentioning if a player has a flaw that stops them from leading their team to wins, especially when that weakness is kinda broad like athletic 6-7 to 6-9 players. The league is full of those guys now. Then adding to that we have a version of Dirk without that weakness. Is his superior rebounding and defending in 06 ever going to make up for the fact that the primary draw of his game (his scoring) can be turned into a complete non factor?

[eminence]

That's a fairly old copy and paste from strepbacter, the Warriors (at least) have passed that Kobe/Pau/Odom number multiple times in the past few seasons.

[E-Balla]

Picking up on last thread: pointing to Robinson’s regular seasons wins over Hakeem when Hakeem is maybe the most significant playoff elevator we have seen (well, alright, Reggie Miller has a case, lol) and Robinson the exact opposite is pretty poor reasoning given that all our problems are with his playoffs.

Counting playoff win rate is an even worse argument. Robinson won five playoff series during his prime and made it to the conference finals once. The fact he swept a few scrubs should not be praiseworthy.

Anyway, this round is likely going to Robinson, but West had enough support that I hope he can make a final push.

Jerry West was far and away the best playoff guard of his era. He was one of two top-tier guard scorers (Robertson) in a league utterly dominated by centres, and he played even better when it mattered most. He pushed Russell’s Celtics as regularly as Wilt did. As he aged, he became one of the league’s best passers. His relative efficiency was exemplary, especially in the playoffs; given how he performed with no spacing, translating his game to the modern era would be a breeze. Oh, and he was also the best defensive guard of the decade. His WOWY/CORP is exceptional, and he annually led top offences (which would dramatically decline without him), so even the advanced metrics fetishists have something they can endorse (and of course he tends to have great win share numbers, to whatever extent that counts). He deserves to be taken at this spot.

1. 1966 West
Probably scoring peak in combined volume and efficiency. Incredible playoffs. Not a huge CORP guy, but the fact he led over Wilt and Russell this early says a fair bit.

2. 1969 West
Passing has picked up. Regular season scoring take a bit of a dip to accommodate Wilt, but in the playoffs West takes over. Has a nuclear finals against the Celtics, capping in a wasted forty-point triple double because his coach was a stubborn idiot. I know he hates the award, but after this performance there is something right about him receiving Finals MVP. Also, again led in CORP.

3. 1970 West
Yet again led in CORP. Had maybe his best regular season: led league in scoring on 57.2% true shooting and added 7.5 assists per game. Playoffs were a bit less impressive, but still ridiculous: he essentially retained his scoring (slight efficiency dip to 55% true shooting), and in the Finals he averaged nearly 48 minutes per game (because of two overtimes, but still) and nine assists per game, with a 33/13 game and a 37/18 game. What a player.

So West is 20th on my list so far, why should I place him over Kobe who had similar levels of team success in the modern era and strong impact numbers too? And why West over Walton who had similar injury issues in his best seasons but was better when healthy?

Personally I have 69 and 68 as his 2 best seasons IMO, and my apprehension to 65 and 66 West is that Oscar was around at the same time and clearly better in my mind so it's hard to see him as the top talent at G when he was a small but clear step behind Oscar. In 68 and 69 when healthy I fell he was clearly above any level a G played at prior to Magic Johnson. Then post 70 Clyde was better than him pretty clearly and outplaying him head to head. Or does it not factor to you how good he was compared to other Gs but instead how dominant he was in the league as it was as the time?

[E-Balla]

That's a fairly old copy and paste from strepbacter, the Warriors (at least) have passed that Kobe/Pau/Odom number multiple times in the past few seasons.

Seems like it's from 2015 if I had to guess but IDK.

[eminence]

That's a fairly old copy and paste from strepbacter, the Warriors (at least) have passed that Kobe/Pau/Odom number multiple times in the past few seasons.

Seems like it's from 2015 if I had to guess but IDK.

Could be, but yeah, the record claim in the first place is pretty dubious, I think it requires an extremely specific minutes requirement (plenty of 1000 minute lineups have gone higher than that, eg the '04 Pacers). Heck the '09 Fisher/Odom/Gasol trio has a +18.0 in 1127 minutes.

Though the main point that Kobe is a good ceiling raising player is fine enough to me.

Actually went back and looked at some others, and lol the '08 Celtics from the season before have a pair of trios that are both higher minutes and higher +/- per 100.

As far as I can tell the current record would be the '16 Warriors trio of Steph/Dray/Klay (1964 minutes +20.2 - using the '09 Lakers trio as the minutes cut-off).

[E-Balla]

That's a fairly old copy and paste from strepbacter, the Warriors (at least) have passed that Kobe/Pau/Odom number multiple times in the past few seasons.

Seems like it's from 2015 if I had to guess but IDK.

Could be, but yeah, the record claim in the first place is pretty dubious, I think it requires an extremely specific minutes requirement (plenty of 1000 minute lineups have gone higher than that, eg the '04 Pacers).

Decided to run the top 3 man lineups since 08 (using since 08 so we have the most accurate data on possession counts) over 1,000 minutes and the big 3 Celtics in 08 (4 different 3 man lineups), and the Warriors (between 16, and 17 it's 7 different 3 man lineups) are the only teams over the 09 Lakers and the Kobe/Pau/Odom lineup (they had a +18.1 net rating). Still very impressive, but not better than the 08 Celtics and their lineups.

EDIT: Ah you beat me to it with your edit.

[LA Bird]

Seeing as the +17.5 in 3739 possessions stat quoted came from my NBAWOWY post, I thought I will clear things up by pointing out that the 09 Lakers had the best +/- of the four big 3s that I had looked at at the time, not the best ever recorded. Strepbacter also left out the full +/- chart, which was less favorable to Kobe since he wasn't actually the player spearheading that elite scoring margin on his own team. (link to the original thread if anybody is interested).

[No-more-rings]

1. 95 Drob- Monster 2-way player, like usual fell off some in the playoffs, but still held up pretty good. Somewhere around 25/12 on 53.6 ts% and a 6.7 BPM is nothing to sneeze at. Probably a little worse than Ewing offensively for peaks, but I don’t think Ewing played this level of defense when he was peaking offensively.

2. 06 Kobe- The best volume scoring season of that era, 35.4 ppg on +2.3 relative ts%, 28 PER, led a poor supporting cast to the 8th ranked offense and 45 wins, had one of the best offensive on/offs ever recorded, lost in the 1st round but took a team that won 9 more games than them to 7 games. I don’t fall for Kobe being better in 08 or 09, he just had better teams. I do think he was 98% as good in those years, but yeah.

3. 90 Patrick Ewing- Highly efficient volume scorer and defensive anchor, took it to the Celtics in the 1st round dropping 31.6 ppg/59.7 ts%, and won in 5 who appeared to would’ve been favored over them that year, still managed 27 ppg/56 ts% against the eventual champion and very strong defense Pistons. Idk, maybe this is a bit high for Ewing but i do think he has a solid case for top 20 peak.

[liamliam1234]

Anyway, this round is likely going to Robinson, but West had enough support that I hope he can make a final push.

Jerry West was far and away the best playoff guard of his era. He was one of two top-tier guard scorers (Robertson) in a league utterly dominated by centres, and he played even better when it mattered most. He pushed Russell’s Celtics as regularly as Wilt did. As he aged, he became one of the league’s best passers. His relative efficiency was exemplary, especially in the playoffs; given how he performed with no spacing, translating his game to the modern era would be a breeze. Oh, and he was also the best defensive guard of the decade. His WOWY/CORP is exceptional, and he annually led top offences (which would dramatically decline without him), so even the advanced metrics fetishists have something they can endorse (and of course he tends to have great win share numbers, to whatever extent that counts). He deserves to be taken at this spot.

1. 1966 West
Probably scoring peak in combined volume and efficiency. Incredible playoffs. Not a huge CORP guy, but the fact he led over Wilt and Russell this early says a fair bit.

2. 1969 West
Passing has picked up. Regular season scoring take a bit of a dip to accommodate Wilt, but in the playoffs West takes over. Has a nuclear finals against the Celtics, capping in a wasted forty-point triple double because his coach was a stubborn idiot. I know he hates the award, but after this performance there is something right about him receiving Finals MVP. Also, again led in CORP.

3. 1970 West
Yet again led in CORP. Had maybe his best regular season: led league in scoring on 57.2% true shooting and added 7.5 assists per game. Playoffs were a bit less impressive, but still ridiculous: he essentially retained his scoring (slight efficiency dip to 55% true shooting), and in the Finals he averaged nearly 48 minutes per game (because of two overtimes, but still) and nine assists per game, with a 33/13 game and a 37/18 game. What a player.

So West is 20th on my list so far, why should I place him over Kobe who had similar levels of team success in the modern era and strong impact numbers too? And why West over Walton who had similar injury issues in his best seasons but was better when healthy?

Will answer the second first. By the final Walton vote I had backed off the idea of picking West over Walton (and Kobe, who had initially received my vote before I changed it). I had (well, still have) some issues with Walton’s defensive reputation, i.e. “best approximation of Bill Russell” even though in that playoff run he did not exactly slow down Kareem and even Erving was still highly effective (tough to compare the relative “quality” of play, but a case could be made Walton was only the third best performer of those playoffs). I acknowledged the team impact, but as I have said previously I want guys to have a strong case beyond impact. I also had/have an issue with his passing reputation; yes, he was great for a big, but 19% assist rate is hardly unprecedented (while acknowledging there is more to passing than assist rate). Ultimately, I figured that a guy who everyone (at the time and long after) said was amazing, totally impacted his team, was the best defender in the league, acted as the primary initiator on offence, and led a decent team to a title over two top sixteen-ish players operating at their relative peaks, had enough abstract tiebreakers, so to speak, to justify giving him the edge even if I personally did not understand every aspect of what he was doing that make him so uniquely great. I left him below 2006 Wade just because of the whole postseason thing.

That was probably much longer than was necessary for a player voted in several rounds ago. Anyway, in comparing Kobe to West, for late career West a lot of it is the passing. I also think he was a better defender than peak Kobe (maybe not better than peak defence Kobe, but as has been discussed, the two had something of an inverse relationship). And then at his peak, I think the argument can be made that West was a better scorer. Again, West’s peak scoring year was 1966 in terms of combined efficiency and volume. And despite lacking a three-point line, and having no spacing, and going up against Russell’s Celtics (a year or two off his defensive peak), West scored more on better efficiency than Kobe. Will grant that 2008 Kobe may have been a better passer than 1966 West, and superficially his box score suggests he was, but then we get into the whole issue of suppressed assists (in before someone does the same on Kobe’s behalf by referring to the triangle), and I would say it is close enough that West does not lose much, if any, ground there. I am also skeptical of the idea of West suddenly figuring out how to become an incredible passer, rather than it being more a question of his evolving role (sidetrack: this is part of why I take issue with people criticising Wilt for being a black hole early on; he always knew how to pass, but that was never the coach’s plan!). All of that is speaking broadly, of course, and ignoring the issue of their respective Finals (not great for Kobe; spectacular for West). Also, for its imperfections, I do think West’s win share advantage is at least worth considering.

Personally I have 69 and 68 as his 2 best seasons IMO, and my apprehension to 65 and 66 West is that Oscar was around at the same time and clearly better in my mind so it's hard to see him as the top talent at G when he was a small but clear step behind Oscar.

Agree on 1968, but people shot that down for games missed, so I am nothing if not pragmatic; to me his peak is 1966-70 for evolving reasons (scoring in 1966, better passing each year after), and I do not really care which year it is in the same way I have cared about a few of the other year distinctions.

Robertson is already in, so I do not care about Robertson maybe being better (could make a case that 1966 was the shift year, though). Did you ding 2009-10 Wade for being worse than Lebron? I think that mentality is good for comparing players who are not in yet (the issue of 2006 Wade versus 2006 Kobe bugged me for a while), but I am not going to hold it against players in the 1970s for being worse than Kareem or Erving, so that same type of consideration is extended to West maybe being worse than Robertson in the same year. I also do not agree with the macro-concept that suggests, whereby being the best guard is preferable to being the second-best guard regardless (pun acknowledged but not especially deliberate) of the actual season quality.

In 68 and 69 when healthy I fell he was clearly above any level a G played at prior to Magic Johnson. Then post 70 Clyde was better than him pretty clearly and outplaying him head to head. Or does it not factor to you how good he was compared to other Gs but instead how dominant he was in the league as it was as the time?

Tying into my response to the preceding quotation, more the latter. West also had a pretty clear drop-off after 1970, so Frazier becoming better is not really prohibitive. That is just kind-of how it goes. Same thing happened with West and Robertson, and Wade/Kobe and Curry. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Either way, yeah, league-relative excellence is what I look at more, although I still try to compare to other players in other eras to the extent I am able (condolences to George Mikan).

[E-Balla]

Will answer the second first. By the final Walton vote I had backed off the idea of picking West over Walton (and Kobe, who had initially received my vote before I changed it). I had (well, still have) some issues with Walton’s defensive reputation, i.e. “best approximation of Bill Russell” even though in that playoff run he did not exactly slow down Kareem and even Erving was still highly effective (tough to compare the relative “quality” of play, but a case could be made Walton was only the third best performer of those playoffs). I acknowledged the team impact, but as I have said previously I want guys to have a strong case beyond impact. I also had/have an issue with his passing reputation; yes, he was great for a big, but 19% assist rate is hardly unprecedented (while acknowledging there is more to passing than assist rate). Ultimately, I figured that a guy who everyone (at the time and long after) said was amazing, totally impacted his team, was the best defender in the league, acted as the primary initiator on offence, and led a decent team to a title over two top sixteen-ish players operating at their relative peaks, had enough abstract tiebreakers, so to speak, to justify giving him the edge even if I personally did not understand every aspect of what he was doing that make him so uniquely great. I left him below 2006 Wade just because of the whole postseason thing.

Ah my bad here I remembered you voting for Kobe and not Walton so I assumed your voting for West over Kobe meant you also had him over Walton.

Went back to the thread and saw you changed your vote in an edit, so that was my bad for forgetting that.

That was probably much longer than was necessary for a player voted in several rounds ago. Anyway, in comparing Kobe to West, for late career West a lot of it is the passing. I also think he was a better defender than peak Kobe (maybe not better than peak defence Kobe, but as has been discussed, the two had something of an inverse relationship). And then at his peak, I think the argument can be made that West was a better scorer. Again, West’s peak scoring year was 1966 in terms of combined efficiency and volume. And despite lacking a three-point line, and having no spacing, and going up against Russell’s Celtics (a year or two off his defensive peak), West scored more on better efficiency than Kobe. Will grant that 2008 Kobe may have been a better passer than 1966 West, and superficially his box score suggests he was, but then we get into the whole issue of suppressed assists (in before someone does the same on Kobe’s behalf by referring to the triangle), and I would say it is close enough that West does not lose much, if any, ground there. I am also skeptical of the idea of West suddenly figuring out how to become an incredible passer, rather than it being more a question of his evolving role (sidetrack: this is part of why I take issue with people criticising Wilt for being a black hole early on; he always knew how to pass, but that was never the coach’s plan!). All of that is speaking broadly, of course, and ignoring the issue of their respective Finals (not great for Kobe; spectacular for West). Also, for its imperfections, I do think West’s win share advantage is at least worth considering.

Hmm... So I chalk this up to basically mean you mostly enjoy West's superior boxscore numbers (completely understandable and it's also why I asked, because I could see myself voting for West a bit higher based off his numbers) but how do you feel about Kobe being underrated by the boxscore? I mean his whole career his impact has lapped the impact of guys with similar numbers and his team success has too. In that case is West having a superior boxscore a show of his superiority to Kobe, or just a show of exactly how bad Kobe looks by traditionally used boxscore measurements?

Agree on 1968, but people shot that down for games missed, so I am nothing if not pragmatic; to me his peak is 1966-70 for evolving reasons (scoring in 1966, better passing each year after), and I do not really care which year it is in the same way I have cared about a few of the other year distinctions.

Robertson is already in, so I do not care about Robertson maybe being better (could make a case that 1966 was the shift year, though). Did you ding 2009-10 Wade for being worse than Lebron? I think that mentality is good for comparing players who are not in yet (the issue of 2006 Wade versus 2006 Kobe bugged me for a while), but I am not going to hold it against players in the 1970s for being worse than Kareem or Erving, so that same type of consideration is extended to West maybe being worse than Robertson in the same year. I also do not agree with the macro-concept that suggests, whereby being the best guard is preferable to being the second-best guard regardless (pun acknowledged but not especially deliberate) of the actual season quality.

This is a good point and maybe I didn't explain myself all too well. What I meant to say was that what affected me wasn't necessarily Oscar being better, but being clearly better. It's not like I have Oscar well into a class over these guys, instead I ranked Oscar 12th going into this with Kobe at 18th. Where there is a drop off it's with 04 KG to 17 Westbrook at 14 and 15 on my list but it's still not major. If West is a clear step behind Oscar, that meant to me that he's clearly in a class with Kobe and at that point I'd be lying if I said I didn't partially mentally default to the player that played in an era with more competition at his individual position. That's a big part of why I asked, I think maybe I didn't give West a fair shot as I've probably seen less of him in the 60s than any other 60s stars (I've seen a ton of his 70s games thanks to the Finals vs NY).

Tying into my response to the preceding quotation, more the latter. West also had a pretty clear drop-off after 1970, so Frazier becoming better is not really prohibitive. That is just kind-of how it goes. Same thing happened with West and Robertson, and Wade/Kobe and Curry. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Either way, yeah, league-relative excellence is what I look at more, although I still try to compare to other players in other eras to the extent I am able (condolences to George Mikan).

Understandable. I'll think on it more, maybe I should go and give West that third spot on my list, he is good enough for it.

I'm also thinking of putting 82 Moses there. I was looking into some posts from the top 100 project about him and now I don't know if I should place him with these other guys off the strength of his offensive impact even though I think his defense was lacking in 82.

Basically right now my 3rd spot under 83 Moses and 17 Westbrook can be any of West/Kobe/Moses/Dirk right now. I'll leave the Dirk vote in for now, and keep reading. Maybe something will break this virtual tie in my head.

[liamliam1234]

Ah my bad here I remembered you voting for Kobe and not Walton so I assumed your voting for West over Kobe meant you also had him over Walton.

Went back to the thread and saw you changed your vote in an edit, so that was my bad for forgetting that.

Nah, I would not expect people to remember edits I made a day after the fact. And it is good that you gave me an excuse to actually put my reasons for changing that vote on the record, seeing as my initial edit was not more detailed than “I think I overrated Kobe a bit”.

Hmm... So I chalk this up to basically mean you mostly enjoy West's superior boxscore numbers (completely understandable and it's also why I asked, because I could see myself voting for West a bit higher based off his numbers) but how do you feel about Kobe being underrated by the boxscore? I mean his whole career his impact has lapped the impact of guys with similar numbers and his team success has too. In that case is West having a superior boxscore a show of his superiority to Kobe, or just a show of exactly how bad Kobe looks by traditionally used boxscore measurements?

I do not really know what you mean here. Okay, for win shares, sure, that is why it was kind-of a throw-in point. But in terms of basic box score, Kobe has always done well. I mean, at his peak he was a 29/5/5 guy. Not many can claim that for one year, yet alone ~5. I am also not sure who his perimeter peers were apart from Wade, but Wade had better impact valuations. McGrady for one year, I guess. Pierce was never on that level. Allen was never on that level. Carter was never on that level. Chris Paul? In as much as he can be compared, I recall his impact metrics being significant in their own right (but the perpetual second round exits are a blemish).

And in terms of just a comparison with West, West has strong CORP, WOWY, offensive rating, and team success (until game sevens, at least).

I agree whatever disadvantage Kobe has is relatively minor; he will be my next vote, and as mentioned I did have him a spot above West a few rounds ago before being somewhat talked down on it.

This is a good point and maybe I didn't explain myself all too well. What I meant to say was that what affected me wasn't necessarily Oscar being better, but being clearly better. It's not like I have Oscar well into a class over these guys, instead I ranked Oscar 12th going into this with Kobe at 18th. Where there is a drop off it's with 04 KG to 17 Westbrook at 14 and 15 on my list but it's still not major. If West is a clear step behind Oscar, that meant to me that he's clearly in a class with Kobe and at that point I'd be lying if I said I didn't partially mentally default to the player that played in an era with more competition at his individual position. That's a big part of why I asked, I think maybe I didn't give West a fair shot as I've probably seen less of him in the 60s than any other 60s stars (I've seen a ton of his 70s games thanks to the Finals vs NY).

Ah, okay. Yeah, I also do tiers, but my latest drop-off happened as soon as Robertson was in. I have another one looming, after which I will basically be throwing darts because outside of the top twenty or so each player has a substantial fault against them (and as votes are going, even within the top twenty...).

I'm also thinking of putting 82 Moses there. I was looking into some posts from the top 100 project about him and now I don't know if I should place him with these other guys off the strength of his offensive impact even though I think his defense was lacking in 82.

Basically right now my 3rd spot under 83 Moses and 17 Westbrook can be any of West/Kobe/Moses/Dirk right now. I'll leave the Dirk vote in for now, and keep reading. Maybe something will break this virtual tie in my head.

Yeah, I agree it is close. Moses has been a tougher case for me, and I will likely not vote him ahead of Dirk, but if you want to share some of the better comments from the peaks project, please feel free. That goes for everyone, because I think those old arguments will become especially useful as consensus is reduced (which I think will happen... four or five rounds from now).

[GeorgeMarcus]

This is simple. It's 94 or 95 D Rob. My vote is 95. +/- data (adjusted and otherwise) are so wildly in his favor. I'll add to my argument from before that D Rob man-handled Hakeem 30-12 and held him to 48.9 TS% in the 42 games they played outside of their playoff series. D Rob won 57% of his playoff games, compared to 52% by Hakeem. I've never seen people place so much disproportionate weight on a single playoff series.

I really don't think it's close. The list will look more and more inconsistent if he continues to drop given that Hakeem/KG both rank top 11.

So I kinda posed this question to you in the other thread but let's bring it here.

Basically thinking on it more my issue with the D-Rob support is it shows an inconsistency in standards. What argument does D-Rob have that can't be equally applied to Draymond and Alonzo Mourning outside of his better raw boxscore numbers, and if his raw boxscore numbers are what creates the gap in your mind, why does his drop off in raw boxscore numbers in the playoffs not become a factor.

People voting DRob like to say it's his impact they're voting for but how many of you have Draymond Green in your top 20? Alonzo Mourning? Manu Ginobili? Or are we saying to only take the regular season into account when judging players? In that case are we saying the playoffs and regular season are similar and that we should expect players to perform similarly in the postseason and regular season, because we have definite proof that's not what happens and the playoffs are a totally different beast.

I used your post to ask these questions but I want to hear from cecil and no more rings too, they're good posters with unique looks on things. If you guys feel you have sufficiently answered these questions already, my bad for asking them again.

I'll start by stating that I'm not aware/in possession of reliable RAPM data prior to 94, so that's where my argument begins. D Rob's impact on wins/losses and BPM reflect very favorably pre-94, but such is life.

The Admiral ranked #1 in RAPM (by a lot) in 94. Adjusted with variance he was 7.31, followed by Kevin Willis and Karl Malone who were 5.44 and 5.37 respectively. In 95, he was #1 (once again by a lot) with 7.42 followed by Shaq and Malone who were 5.80 and 4.93. In 96 he dropped to a disappointing #2 showing with 5.89, behind only MJ at 6.67. This is very different than Zo and Draymond squeaking out a #1 spot on one occasion.

In your other post, you made a point about Draymond's superior playoff RAPM "since 98". Don't you see the problem there? That removes D Rob's peak completely and hones in on his post injury years. Which, oddly enough, he was still able to grind out the best playoff RAPM in the league when the Spurs won it in 99 (almost triple that of Finals MVP Duncan). That is exactly what I mean by my Embiid comparison and defensive impact being overlooked. Duncan was a smoother operator and the go-to option on offense, but his defense wasn't D Rob level (nor would it ever be, as good as he was).

[E-Balla]

I do not really know what you mean here. Okay, for win shares, sure, that is why it was kind-of a throw-in point. But in terms of basic box score, Kobe has always done well. I mean, at his peak he was a 29/5/5 guy.

When I talk boxscore I mean the whole boxscore including advanced stats. As it relates to Kobe that means not his volume stats but his efficiency stats. You made a mention of West being more efficient, and I agree it's a strong argument for him. I mean his boxscore production compared to the other players around in the 60s is tremendous.

Not many can claim that for one year, yet alone ~5. I am also not sure who his perimeter peers were apart from Wade, but Wade had better impact valuations. McGrady for one year, I guess. Pierce was never on that level. Allen was never on that level. Carter was never on that level. Chris Paul? In as much as he can be compared, I recall his impact metrics being significant in their own right (but the perpetual second round exits are a blemish).

In Kobe's era we have Vince with 28/6/4 in 01 while being more efficient than Kobe ever was relative to league average, Drexler peaked at 27/8/6 while being as efficient as Kobe, all of T-Mac's Orlando seasons are similar to Kobe on paper, Gervin was a 30/5/3 player while being more efficient than Kobe, and maybe there's others but off top that's what I got. Looking at their boxscore numbers all guys are similar to Kobe, but his impact was well over all of them.

Kobe's main draw is that he maintained that level consistently while these guys didn't, but this is a peak project so that's a bit less relevant here.

And in terms of just a comparison with West, West has strong CORP, WOWY, offensive rating, and team success (until game sevens, at least).

This is probably my hangup here, like you said by most measures West is better, but I still don't see it that way. Maybe I need to throw out that side of my brain and go with the analytical side here.

Yeah, I agree it is close. Moses has been a tougher case for me, and I will likely not vote him ahead of Dirk, but if you want to share some of the better comments from the peaks project, please feel free. That goes for everyone, because I think those old arguments will become especially useful as consensus is reduced (which I think will happen... four or five rounds from now).

I'll see if I have the time later, I'm on my phone now but there were tons of great ones.

[DatAsh]

Think I'm going with 95 or 94 Drob here. His offensive value really does drop off a cliff in the playoffs, but he's second to only Bill Russell in the strength of playoff defenses he's led, and I think you can argue him reasonably as a top 2-5 defender of all time.

For the last spot, I'm considering 11 Dirk, 08/09 Kobe, 66-69 West, 16 Draymond, and 90 Ewing. Also, I think Giannis is on my radar. I think he's similar to Robinson in the playoffs. His offense doesn't suffer quite as much, but he's not the defender that Robinson is.