#20 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[Odinn21]

Agreed that Westbrook over Barkley is a bit much, especially based on the idea that Barkley's stat lines overrate him - Westbrook is the definition of that.

As far as Kidd, has it been established that he was the most impactful defender, the reason those defenses were so good? I don't think it has. Point guard defense is, usually, just not as important as other positions. I might be swayed by a more detailed assessment of how Kidd impacted those defenses and why he was the anchor despite his position. So far I've just heard a lot of people saying he was really good at defense.

Well, TBH I rely on memory about Kidd’s defensive impact. And even though I don’t have RAPM or PIPM or any type of on/off numbers for the season; in 2001-02 (Kidd’s first season in NJ) he had sophomore Kenyon Martin and rookie Richard Jefferson by his side. Good defensive players but not among elite level. At least not yet. Kidd was the one on elite level and he led that team to 5th in ppg allowed and 1st in drtg (-5.0). In the previous season, the Nets were 23rd with +2.5 relative drtg. Surely, Martin got better and Jefferson was a valuable addition. So I can’t say Kidd made an impact equal of -7.5 drtg improvement. But he was the major difference and it was his impact mostly. He anchored that defense. We’re just too used to bigs anchoring defense and it seems a bit bizarre. But that was the situation. In 2002, he did the opposite of what Nash did in 2005. It was on the defensive end.
I explicitly remember that season because Duncan was going strong for his 1st MVP, it was his best season ever to that point. And he was competing against Kidd for the award.

- - -

So me not being as high on a player as you makes me biased? Okay then..

As for the link given, that’s interesting stuff and all but I don’t really know how much i can take raw on/off at face value and how accurate the numbers even are to begin with.

How is a guy that up a 30 point triple double, on decent efficiency and a record in BPM over Barkley not believable? I mean Westbrook ain’t as good as his numbers either, but he seems comparable to Barkley to me, likely better.

I do agree that some put too much faith into +/-, RAPM etc, some seem to use or ignore depending if it fits their argument. The eye test of course matters, because if it didn’t there’d be no point in watching the games.

Not sure what to make of your last point..if you wanna bring up the defenses Kidd was on, how do you ignore Nash’s year after year team offensive dominance?

I talked about you being biased as you have a certain opinion about the player and the way you put it made me think that you’re not open to change it. English isn’t my native language, so maybe I couldn’t express myself properly.

Westbrook didn’t do anything close to what Barkley did in 1993 playoffs. So it’s just out of place to mention RW. RW is the living proof that advanced numbers are still in need of big improvements.

As for Nash and Kidd debate, I didn’t leave out Nash’s offensive impact. I stated those things because people are already aware of Nash’s offensive impact and argued in favour of it. I just made Kidd’s case.

[No-more-rings]

Agreed that Westbrook over Barkley is a bit much, especially based on the idea that Barkley's stat lines overrate him - Westbrook is the definition of that.

As far as Kidd, has it been established that he was the most impactful defender, the reason those defenses were so good? I don't think it has. Point guard defense is, usually, just not as important as other positions. I might be swayed by a more detailed assessment of how Kidd impacted those defenses and why he was the anchor despite his position. So far I've just heard a lot of people saying he was really good at defense.

Well, TBH I rely on memory about Kidd’s defensive impact. And even though I don’t have RAPM or PIPM or any type of on/off numbers for the season; in 2001-02 (Kidd’s first season in NJ) he had sophomore Kenyon Martin and rookie Richard Jefferson by his side. Good defensive players but not among elite level. At least not yet. Kidd was the one on elite level and he led that team to 5th in ppg allowed and 1st in drtg (-5.0). In the previous season, the Nets were 23rd with +2.5 relative drtg. Surely, Martin got better and Jefferson was a valuable addition. So I can’t say Kidd made an impact equal of -7.5 drtg improvement. But he was the major difference and it was his impact mostly. He anchored that defense. We’re just too used to bigs anchoring defense and it seems a bit bizarre. But that was the situation. In 2002, he did the opposite of what Nash did in 2005. It was on the defensive end.
I explicitly remember that season because Duncan was going strong for his 1st MVP, it was his best season ever to that point. And he was competing against Kidd for the award.

- - -

So me not being as high on a player as you makes me biased? Okay then..

As for the link given, that’s interesting stuff and all but I don’t really know how much i can take raw on/off at face value and how accurate the numbers even are to begin with.

How is a guy that up a 30 point triple double, on decent efficiency and a record in BPM over Barkley not believable? I mean Westbrook ain’t as good as his numbers either, but he seems comparable to Barkley to me, likely better.

I do agree that some put too much faith into +/-, RAPM etc, some seem to use or ignore depending if it fits their argument. The eye test of course matters, because if it didn’t there’d be no point in watching the games.

Not sure what to make of your last point..if you wanna bring up the defenses Kidd was on, how do you ignore Nash’s year after year team offensive dominance?

I talked about you being biased as you have a certain opinion about the player and the way you put it made me think that you’re not open to change it. English isn’t my native language, so maybe I couldn’t express myself properly.

Westbrook didn’t do anything close to what Barkley did in 1993 playoffs. So it’s just out of place to mention RW. RW is the living proof that advanced numbers are still in need of big improvements.

As for Nash and Kidd debate, I didn’t leave out Nash’s offensive impact. I stated those things because people are already aware of Nash’s offensive impact and argued in favour of it. I just made Kidd’s case.

I didn’t say anything about not willing to change, so that’s a wrongful assumption on your part.

Westbrook’s team wasn’t good enough in 2017 to make the kind of run Barkley’s did, a year prior Westbrook was their best player in the playoffs and they almost knocked off the Warriors..something people bow down in front of Lebron for.

[trex_8063]

Anywho, I still think you're way way off with your Gasol athleticism comp (Gasol is slow and always has been, Mikan was absolutely not slow before the broken feet and ankles).

I may have initially under-assessed Mikan's athleticism; but if I did so "badly", I think you're possibly underrating prime/peak Gasol's athleticism. Maybe I'm misreading, but it almost seems you're trying to lump him with the lumbering stiffs (a la Randy Breuer, Mark Eaton types).
Just a few highlights, but take a gander at the following:

Watch on YouTube

#8 on the countdown (0:31 on video) - Right from the start of the play, his back-down dribble looks.....nimble enough for a 7-footer; his steps/footwork doesn't look slow or plodding. And then the small bit of elevation and body control in mid-air......also not too shabby.

#4 on the countdown (1:26) - I especially like the 2nd block. Decent lateral movement (especially considering he keeps his hand high the whole time), good reaction time and slight elevation (with no gather from the arms, as again: he's got the hands high). Nothing phenomenal, but looks pretty decent for a guy who stands 7'0".

#1 [2nd part of] (2:38) - Another one that includes Gasol, though nothing phenomenal. I almost bring attention to it just to show him accelerate from stop to a run (in celebration) after the play; not even attempting to pull into a sprint, but it still doesn't look completely like the lumbering, slow ["unhook the plow!", as my dad would say] acceleration from some of the truly slow bigs.


Not saying M.Gasol was any kind of phenomenal athlete; but I personally don't think there's adequate evidence to suggest Mikan was more than a little [not a lot] better athlete than Marc Gasol.

[babyjax13]

I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to usefully contribute, but why 06 Kobe over 17-19 Harden?

[eminence]

Anywho, I still think you're way way off with your Gasol athleticism comp (Gasol is slow and always has been, Mikan was absolutely not slow before the broken feet and ankles).

I may have initially under-assessed Mikan's athleticism; but if I did so "badly", I think you're possibly underrating prime/peak Gasol's athleticism. Maybe I'm misreading, but it almost seems you're trying to lump him with the lumbering stiffs (a la Randy Breuer, Mark Eaton types).

Gasol is not what I would call a lumberer, but he's a fairly middling athlete for NBA bigs standards (strong/balanced, but slower and lacking explosion - stamina a bit suspect to me as well). Mikan was arguably the most athletic bigman of his day (strongest by far to my eye, and among the more nimble/coordinated as well, with no questions about his stamina). Very hard to judge explosiveness from those days, though I think Mikan looks fine in that regard. It's just pretty nuts to me to look at an average athlete today and say they're on about the same level as the best of some other day.

[cecilthesheep]

I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to usefully contribute, but why 06 Kobe over 17-19 Harden?

Personally I voted '09 Kobe, but two main things are probably defense and playoff sustainability - Kobe was not a consistently good defender, but still much better than even an improved Harden, and he didn't suffer the same kind of consistent playoff efficiency reduction

[cecilthesheep]

Agreed that Westbrook over Barkley is a bit much, especially based on the idea that Barkley's stat lines overrate him - Westbrook is the definition of that.

As far as Kidd, has it been established that he was the most impactful defender, the reason those defenses were so good? I don't think it has. Point guard defense is, usually, just not as important as other positions. I might be swayed by a more detailed assessment of how Kidd impacted those defenses and why he was the anchor despite his position. So far I've just heard a lot of people saying he was really good at defense.

Well, TBH I rely on memory about Kidd’s defensive impact. And even though I don’t have RAPM or PIPM or any type of on/off numbers for the season; in 2001-02 (Kidd’s first season in NJ) he had sophomore Kenyon Martin and rookie Richard Jefferson by his side. Good defensive players but not among elite level. At least not yet. Kidd was the one on elite level and he led that team to 5th in ppg allowed and 1st in drtg (-5.0). In the previous season, the Nets were 23rd with +2.5 relative drtg. Surely, Martin got better and Jefferson was a valuable addition. So I can’t say Kidd made an impact equal of -7.5 drtg improvement. But he was the major difference and it was his impact mostly. He anchored that defense. We’re just too used to bigs anchoring defense and it seems a bit bizarre. But that was the situation. In 2002, he did the opposite of what Nash did in 2005. It was on the defensive end.
I explicitly remember that season because Duncan was going strong for his 1st MVP, it was his best season ever to that point. And he was competing against Kidd for the award.

This makes a lot of sense, thank you. I may try and dig into relative Kidd defense / Nash offense in future threads, see if I can't quantify it somehow

[Clyde Frazier]

Ballot #1 - 90 Ewing
Ballot #2 - 93 Barkley
Ballot #3 - 03 McGrady

- - - - -

Ballot #1 - 90 Ewing

Lending some support for Ewing here. Being at his peak athletically in 1990, Ewing was a workhorse on both ends of the floor. His combination of volume scoring on great efficiency and ability to anchor a defense should be worthy of this range. Led the 13th ranked SRS knicks to a 1st round upset of the 8th ranked SRS celtics in the first round. Would end up being eliminated by the eventual champion pistons, put still put up a valiant effort in the series, with 27.2 PPG. 9.6 RPG, 2.2 APG, .8 SPG, 2.2 BPG on 56% TS. Pistons also ranked 2nd in defense that season. If only Riley got his hands on Ewing a few years earlier...

Ballot #2 - 93 Barkley

Totally see a case for 90 being his peak, but I like Barkley’s more refined game in PHX where he was still an excellent athlete (and in amazing shape), but was a little less reckless. Of course he had more talent around him, but I think that slightly toned down version helped them get as far as they did in the postseason. I’m not quite sure 90 barkley gets them there.

93 WCF game 7 against the sonics - 44 PTS / 22 REB / 1 AST / 1 STL / 1 BLK / 74.1% TS / 167 ORTG

Watch on YouTube

Ballot #3 - 03 McGrady

Have to say... looking at 03 McGrady vs. 09 Kobe vs. 2014 Durant comes off as close of a comparison as we've had in the project thus far. I see a good case for all 3, and I decided to go with the 09 Wade thinking here in picking McGrady. He carried a weak supporting cast on his back for an entire season, putting up very impressive individual #s in the process.

His 3 best teammates were arguably pat garrity, 34 yr old darrell armstrong, and mike miller for 49 games. Grant hill also appeared in 29 games, but didn't play in the playoffs, and miller was traded for drew gooden midway thru the season. McGrady's on/off that season was a pretty staggering +13. McGrady then nearly led the magic to a major upset of the 5th ranked SRS pistons, eventually going down in 7 games. I just like his overall package that he brought to the table slightly more than Kobe and Durant that season.

[DatAsh]

So I was revisiting Kidd’s offence and defence, and, uh, exactly how much defensive credit are we giving him here? Because from what I can tell, his presence seemed to correlate a lot more strongly with good defences than with good offences. To the point that if I were to apply that data to a centre, they would be receiving a lot of praise for being a (likely) defensive anchor. But are we actually saying he had defensive impact equivalent to a good centre? Because that seems to be his case against Nash, and to me that seems patently ridiculous. The offensive gap is a lot larger than people seem to be assuming, so he kind-of needs that centre-level defensive impact just to keep up, which at least we should be able to acknowledge is rather improbable and much more likely a matter of imperfect correlation than direct causation.

Does he?

If Nash is a negative on D(Around -1-2) and around +5ish on offense Kidd would need aroud 3 on offense and 2 on defense to be comparable.

That’s only if you think offense and defense have equal value, I don’t think it’s even close to being equal for point guards. Maybe for centers it’s like 50/50 or 60/40, but point guards i’d say it’s like 80/20 in favor of offense.

I agree with the likelihood of seeing such values at various positions, but I don't see why the values themselves should count differently. If anything, I think I could make a weak case to myself that defense should be valued more at PG, and less at center, as it's easier to replace. IE a +5 def PG is more valuable than a +5 center, as the center might get replaced with a +2 guy and the PG might get replaced with a -1 guy.

Not sure if that really makes sense, but maybe it's similar to a 7 rpg PG being a much better rebounder than a 7 rpg center, as the PG is likely improving his team's rebounding more(all else being equal).

[cecilthesheep]

Does he?

If Nash is a negative on D(Around -1-2) and around +5ish on offense Kidd would need aroud 3 on offense and 2 on defense to be comparable.

That’s only if you think offense and defense have equal value, I don’t think it’s even close to being equal for point guards. Maybe for centers it’s like 50/50 or 60/40, but point guards i’d say it’s like 80/20 in favor of offense.

I agree with the likelihood of seeing such values at various positions, but I don't see why the values themselves should count differently. If anything, I think I could make a weak case to myself that defense should be valued more at PG, and less at center, as it's easier to replace. IE a +5 def PG is more valuable than a +5 center, as the center might get replaced with a +2 guy and the PG might get replaced with a -1 guy.

Not sure if that really makes sense, but maybe it's similar to a 7 rpg PG being a much better rebounder than a 7 rpg center, as the PG is likely improving his team's rebounding more(all else being equal).

i think y'all are talking about slightly different things here which is causing a bit of confusion

You're using "+5" to describe an objective value contribution independent of position, which I think we all agree is equally important no matter what position someone plays. No-more-rings, on the other hand, is describing defensive play level relative to position.

So like, if you could somehow condense all defensive impact into one number and rank everyone in the league segregated by position (and do the same for offensive impact), he's saying a point guard in the 85th percentile of defensive impact among point guards is adding about one-quarter as much value there as a point guard in the 85th percentile of offensive impact among point guards, if that makes sense. Whereas a center in the 85th defensive percentile among centers would likely be adding more value than a center in the 85th offensive percentile among centers.

Idk if I'm explaining this terribly well, I could probably make it easier to visualize if I had the time to make charts but hopefully this communicates the gist of it

[DatAsh]

Looking at Ewing's career in more detail now, I'm switching to an earlier peak(1990). I had 93 mixed up with 94 in my mind, but after putting more thought and research into it, I think I've got to go with 1990. I think the Knick's improvement can be reasonably attributed to the additions of Pat Riley, Xavier McDaniel, Anthony and others, as well as general improvement of other players.

I could see Ewing as a +1-2 offense, +4-5 defense player

Still have to go with Paul overall though, as his defense at the PG position is matched or exceeded by only a few others(imo), and none of them were close to the offensive players he was. I don't quite rate his defense as highly as his 4 year RAPM(+3.3), but I would probably put in the +2ish range. He's incredibly strong for a PG, and some of the best defensive instincts ever, but he's limited by his small size. Offense is probably in the +5-6 range; maybe a little less than Curry/Nash. Curry's offense also seems more portable, though perhaps a little less durable, but he's already in. I would say Nash is comfortably the better offensive player, but I just don't think he can make up that +3 gap that Paul has on defense.

Barkley is interesting for me. I kinda see him in that GOAT offense tier with Magic, Jordan, Lebron, Nash, ect, and if not, he's not very far behind at all. Obviously his defense is levels below Jordan and Lebron, but they went 1 and 2, and Magic has been in for awhile. How does Barkley's defense compare to Nash's? Also it feels weird ranking Ewing ahead of Barkley, as Barkley was definitely seen as the better player at the time.

So for now,

1. 2015 Paul
2. 1990 Ewing
3. 1993 Ewing

[DatAsh]

That’s only if you think offense and defense have equal value, I don’t think it’s even close to being equal for point guards. Maybe for centers it’s like 50/50 or 60/40, but point guards i’d say it’s like 80/20 in favor of offense.

I agree with the likelihood of seeing such values at various positions, but I don't see why the values themselves should count differently. If anything, I think I could make a weak case to myself that defense should be valued more at PG, and less at center, as it's easier to replace. IE a +5 def PG is more valuable than a +5 center, as the center might get replaced with a +2 guy and the PG might get replaced with a -1 guy.

Not sure if that really makes sense, but maybe it's similar to a 7 rpg PG being a much better rebounder than a 7 rpg center, as the PG is likely improving his team's rebounding more(all else being equal).

i think y'all are talking about slightly different things here which is causing a bit of confusion

You're using "+5" to describe an objective value contribution independent of position, which I think we all agree is equally important no matter what position someone plays. No-more-rings, on the other hand, is describing defensive play level relative to position.

So like, if you could somehow condense all defensive impact into one number and rank everyone in the league segregated by position (and do the same for offensive impact), he's saying a point guard in the 85th percentile of defensive impact among point guards is adding about one-quarter as much value there as a point guard in the 85th percentile of offensive impact among point guards, if that makes sense. Whereas a center in the 85th defensive percentile among centers would likely be adding more value than a center in the 85th offensive percentile among centers.

Idk if I'm explaining this terribly well, I could probably make it easier to visualize if I had the time to make charts but hopefully this communicates the gist of it

No, I agree with that completely, though I have no idea of the relative percentiles.

Perhaps I misunderstood him, I thought he was saying +5 is worth less at PG than it is at Center(on defense).

[cecilthesheep]

I agree with the likelihood of seeing such values at various positions, but I don't see why the values themselves should count differently. If anything, I think I could make a weak case to myself that defense should be valued more at PG, and less at center, as it's easier to replace. IE a +5 def PG is more valuable than a +5 center, as the center might get replaced with a +2 guy and the PG might get replaced with a -1 guy.

Not sure if that really makes sense, but maybe it's similar to a 7 rpg PG being a much better rebounder than a 7 rpg center, as the PG is likely improving his team's rebounding more(all else being equal).

i think y'all are talking about slightly different things here which is causing a bit of confusion

You're using "+5" to describe an objective value contribution independent of position, which I think we all agree is equally important no matter what position someone plays. No-more-rings, on the other hand, is describing defensive play level relative to position.

So like, if you could somehow condense all defensive impact into one number and rank everyone in the league segregated by position (and do the same for offensive impact), he's saying a point guard in the 85th percentile of defensive impact among point guards is adding about one-quarter as much value there as a point guard in the 85th percentile of offensive impact among point guards, if that makes sense. Whereas a center in the 85th defensive percentile among centers would likely be adding more value than a center in the 85th offensive percentile among centers.

Idk if I'm explaining this terribly well, I could probably make it easier to visualize if I had the time to make charts but hopefully this communicates the gist of it

No, I agree with that completely, though I have no idea of the relative percentiles.

Perhaps I misunderstood him, I thought he was saying +5 is worth less at PG than it is at Center(on defense).

Yeah I mean I could be wrong too, that's just how I read what he was saying.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

Robinson was at the same level as 2018-19 Giannis in my opinion. Outstanding regular season but too much of a weak 1 on 1 scorer and had a disaster for playoffs. I would think their peaks would be right next to each other. While a guy like Leonard who can actually score in the playoffs, leapfrogs the both of them.

[DatAsh]

I do think Leonard could be in consideration here, along with Giannis. Still a few other guys I'd have ahead, though.

[LA Bird]

I think we are only 1 vote short right now so I'll cast my own votes to avoid a deadline extension.

1. 2014 Kevin Durant
Incredible statistical dominance throughout the season and played heavy minutes as well. Kept OKC without Westbrook at 6 SRS level and put up Jordan-esque scoring performances during that stretch which have since been overlooked due to 2016 Curry. Playoffs were somewhat underwhelming though.

2. 2008 Kobe Bryant
With a less underwhelming postseason, I think 2006 could have been Kobe's peak. As it stands though, 2008 had a much better playoffs and the 08 Lakers had the best SRS for a Kobe-led team. The best RAPM score of his career as well and played better defense than in 2006.

3. 1983 Moses Malone
Not much data to go off here but 83 appears to be the best defensive season of his career and combined with Moses's regularly high offensive impact, this is a great all-time level season. Excellent postseason performance and led an already elite team to become a GOAT level championship team.

[Odinn21]

LOL. I forgot to vote.

1. 1983 Moses Malone
Well, it’s too hard to pick a single season for Moses from 1980-81 to 1982-83. Three great choices... But I’m gonna go with the safest choice. Dominant on every level. According to my own calculations (based on box score numbers though), Moses was on par with many goat level legends such as MJ, Bird, Magic, LeBron regarding performance on a loaded team. Playing on a loaded team, and benefiting from it, is not a con for Moses because he performed as well as anybody.

2. 1993 Charles Barkley
Natural scorer and rebounder and it wasn’t like he didn’t pay attention on defense in this particular season. That WCF performance was something to behold. The Sonics were 5th in ppg allowed and 2nd drtg (also, despite the W numbers, they led the league in SRS) and that 44/24 game 7 performance is one of the best ever game 7 performances. Also, despite losing in 6, the Suns didn’t get outscored by the Bulls in the NBA Finals. That was the level of Chuck elevating the team. I’m particularly big on this because there are team performances winning the series despite not outscoring the opponent but those series are usually decided in the last game, either game 5 or game 7. Not in this case.

3. 2008 Kobe
Well, I was between Kobe and Dirk as you know from the previous threads. Dirk got in, so, it’s Kobe clearly now.

[ardee]

Already explained my Kobe vote ad nauseum.

1. '08 Kobe

Lakers have a 7.4 SRS, 57 wins, no.1 seed.

The standard line-up with everyone healthy was Fisher/Kobe/Radmanovic/Odom/Pau. Pau was only healthy 27 games. Bynum was healthy for 35, and they never played together.

Player by player: Fisher had a good year. 12/23, 44% from the field and 41% from 3. He was still all right on defense. I want you to note his jump in efficiency going from the Jazz to playing with Kobe. This is something that has been seen when many players play with and then without Kobe. He draws so much attention that they see their percentages rank.

Radmanovic was also basically a shooter. He shot 41% from 3, and 44% for the first half of the '09 season. This dipped to 36% when he was traded in the second half, and further to 28 the next season. So elite shooter with Kobe, average to bad without.

Odom was phenomenal that year, no doubts about it, great player all around. The main reason was because we first had Bynum and then Pau to be the second option to Kobe, while Odom was more comfortable as no. 3. His TS% jumped 3.5% from 55 '05-'07, when he was no. 2, to 58.5 in '08, when he was no. 3. In the stretch between Bynum's injury and the Gasol trade when he had to be the no. 2 option again, he shot 42% TS.

Pau was the perfect no. 2 option for Kobe, of course he was, we won 2 titles with him. Remember 2 things though:

1. He played 27 games.
2. As the no. 1 in Memphis, his team was 13-32 before he got traded. They ended up 22-60, so they went from a .280 win pace with him to a .244 win pace without him.

Bynum was also good, however, he wasn't as good as Pau, the numbers spell it out. He played 35 games, and would likely get injured quicker if he

Kobe took this cast to a 7.4 SRS and 57 wins.

I want you to imagine this team with no Kobe.

You'd be starting Fisher/Vujacic/Radmanovic/Odom/27 games of Pau + 35 games of Bynum + 16 games of Turiaf.

The best team would be the one with Pau. Consider, however, like I said, how Pau did on a Memphis team that was poorly built but still had some talent. Their lead scorer was Rudy Gay, who is a flawed player but can at least provide some kind of offense when needed. They had a lights out shooter at the 2 in Mike Miller.

This hypothetical Lakers team built around Pau would have Odom as their second option. Scoring wise, he is worse than Gay for this role. I have already shown he struggles to be consistent in that role. He struggles like that with KOBE as his first option. Pau is a far inferior first option to Kobe and that would put a ton more pressure on Odom. Fisher and Radmanovic can't create, neither can Sasha, and their efficiency dropped heavily when not playing with Kobe.

You can make the argument that this efficiency was due to the triangle partially, and not all Kobe, but the triangle only WORKS when you have an elite perimeter creator like Kobe. So therefore, you can rest assured their efficiency would drop a good bit, if not all the way down to what it was when they didn't play for the Lakers.

So, Pau, inconsistent in the 2nd option role Odom now with the added pressure of playing with a worse no. 1 option than Kobe, and Sasha, Fisher and Radmanovic offering little. I honestly don't see more than .500 in those 27 games and that's being VERY optimstic. In fact, it's more likely to be like 10-11 wins out of 27. The Blazers were a .500 team and they had 2 legit scoring options in Roy and Aldridge surrounded by fitting role players. The Lakers without Kobe are worse then that, even with Pau. Let's call it a push at 12-13 wins in those 27 games.

Bynum's 35 games. Bynum was worse than Pau at everything. He doesn't offer Pau's high-post playmaking. He can still be the main scorer but now Odom has to be the primary creator. More pressure on him. Bynum might get injured from the extra strain. I don't see more than 12-14 wins out of 35. Again, optimstically.

16 games of Turiaf. Odom in the no. 1 role. The team completely falls apart. Maybe 1-2 wins in 16 games.

So essentially, that team in a full season without Kobe wins 25-29 games. They won 57. Kobe was providing roughly ~30 wins of lift.

With this knowledge, it is hard for me to rank Kobe lower than 12 on the all-time peaks. I have Walton at 11, and this is equivalent to the kind of lift we know him to provide.

This was not a good supporting cast. If he had a full season of Pau it would be different, I think the '09 Lakers were great, but 27 games means he was working with a lot less for the rest of the season. It was a good-fitting supporting cast but aside from Pau all the players were supremely dependant on Kobe to do well in their roles.

He took an otherwise lottery team to elite status and put up a historical ORtg for the team when he had Pau.

Through the first 3 rounds of the Playoffs, the Lakers played 3 50 win teams and Kobe averaged 32-6-6 on 60% TS. That is peak Jordan level production against elite opposition. People forget the Jazz were a 7 SRS team and Kobe averaged 33-7-7 against them. People forget he dropped 30 ppg on 53% from the field against the defending champ Spurs while no other star in the series got anything going on that end.

On the weight of the RS and his stunning Playoff performances, Kobe absolutely should not be ranked any lower.

2. '06 Kobe

Very similar lift to 2008 Kobe. Led a putrid cast to 48 Pythogorean wins, the 7th best SRS and the 8th best ORtg in the league. For reference, the 2006 Lakers performed as well as the 2019 Nuggets relative to the league and the 2019 Sixers offensively. Look at those rosters and then look at the roster Kobe was surrounded with.

3. '09 Kobe: This is tough, was gonna go '09 Wade here but I thought about the '09 season and basically who I trusted more to get it done when necessary: Kobe in '09 was an all time leadership/intangibles year. The Lakers were ultra-focused for every big game (snapped the Celtics' 19 and 12 game win streaks and the Cavs' 23 game home win streak), blew out every opponent in key Playoff games, and that is all on Kobe. He was also basically just as good as he was in the Playoffs as in the '08 Playoffs, 27 PER is no joke.

[Mavericksfan]

1) Kobe Bryant 2008-
Great regular season followed by an even great playoffs. Beat tough competition and only fell short against one of the best defenses of all time.

2) Kobe Bryant 2009-
Similar to above except his playoff competition wasnt as tough

3) Moses Malone 1983-
Didnt raise their ceiling much during the regular season but had an absolutely dominant playoff run.

[No-more-rings]

I understand the deadline thing, but i think the votes should still count if the next thread isn’t put up yet.