Which PF was the best at their peak? - Playoff edition

[AussieSteve]

I analyzed which power forward was the best at his peak in this thread...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=421950

I concluded that, based on a combination of stats and team performance, Barkley had the highest peak of any PF. But that was based solely on regular season performance.

This post attempts to quantify who was the best PF at their peak, based solely on playoff performance. That is, which PF had the single best 20 consecutive playoff game stretch. (I chose 20 games, because its about the minimum you would expect for a championship run)

Using the same formula as I described in the link above, which takes each players average game score and weights it by their teams win %, the best 20 consecutive playoff games by the top 5 all time PFs were

1. Barkley - 21.380 (13 wins, 28.7ppg, 13.8rpg, 4.9apg, 1.8spg, 0.9bpg, 2.3tov .588 TS%) (18/5/93 -> 11/5/94)
2. Duncan - 21.375 (16 wins, 26.4ppg, 14.5rpg, 4.7apg, 0.9spg, 3.3bpg, 3.6tov .589 TS%) (13/5/03 -> 5/5/04)
3. Nowitzki - 19.69 (14 wins, 27.7ppg, 12.1rpg, 3.3apg, 1.2spg, 0.6bpg, 2.1tov, .606 TS%) (20/5/05 -> 11/6/06)
4. Malone - 17.88 (11 wins, 29.5ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.0apg, 1.3spg, 1.2bpg, 2.8tov, .590 TS%) (2/5/91 -> 24/5/92)
5. Garnett - 15.72 (11 wins, 24.9pg, 14.9rpg, 5.1apg, 1.6spg, 2.4bpg, 3.9tov, .520 TS%) (20/4/03 -> 23/5/04)

So the stats say that, when considering both individual output and team results, Barkley and Duncan had the highest peak playoff performance. Barkley's average weighted game score during his peak was a whisker higher than Duncan, but a 20 game peak is a kind of arbitrary figure, so we can call it a draw. In fact, given that Chuck's 20 games included a losing finals series, and TD's included a winning one, you might actually give the edge to Duncan.

But interestingly, Barkley's peak appears to have been the highest of any PF, regardless of whether you look at regular season or playoff performances. This does not change the fact that Duncan is the GOAT PF, but it seems to suggest that Barkley's best was indeed better than any other PF has ever been.

[fourkicks44]

I analyzed which power forward was the best at his peak in this thread...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=421950

I concluded that, based on a combination of stats and team performance, Barkley had the highest peak of any PF. But that was based solely on regular season performance.

This post attempts to quantify who was the best PF at their peak, based solely on playoff performance. That is, which PF had the single best 20 consecutive playoff game stretch. (I chose 20 games, because its about the minimum you would expect for a championship run)

Using the same formula as I described in the link above, which takes each players average game score and weights it by their teams win %, the best 20 consecutive playoff games by the top 5 all time PFs were

1. Barkley - 21.380 (13 wins, 28.7ppg, 13.8rpg, 4.9apg, 1.8spg, 0.9bpg, 2.3tov .588 TS%) (18/5/93 -> 11/5/94)
2. Duncan - 21.375 (16 wins, 26.4ppg, 14.5rpg, 4.7apg, 0.9spg, 3.3bpg, 3.6tov .589 TS%) (13/5/03 -> 5/5/04)
3. Nowitzki - 19.69 (14 wins, 27.7ppg, 12.1rpg, 3.3apg, 1.2spg, 0.6bpg, 2.1tov, .606 TS%) (20/5/05 -> 11/6/06)
4. Malone - 17.88 (11 wins, 29.5ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.0apg, 1.3spg, 1.2bpg, 2.8tov, .590 TS%) (2/5/91 -> 24/5/92)
5. Garnett - 15.72 (11 wins, 24.9pg, 14.9rpg, 5.1apg, 1.6spg, 2.4bpg, 3.9tov, .520 TS%) (20/4/03 -> 23/5/04)

So the stats say that, when considering both individual output and team results, Barkley and Duncan had the highest peak playoff performance. Barkley's average weighted game score during his peak was a whisker higher than Duncan, but a 20 game peak is a kind of arbitrary figure, so we can call it a draw. In fact, given that Chuck's 20 games included a losing finals series, and TD's included a winning one, you might actually give the edge to Duncan.

But interestingly, Barkley's peak appears to have been the highest of any PF, regardless of whether you look at regular season or playoff performances. This does not change the fact that Duncan is the GOAT PF, but it seems to suggest that Barkley's best was indeed better than any other PF has ever been.

Obviously incomplete data available but Bob Pettit 1956-58 has got to be the best.

[AussieSteve]

Obviously incomplete data available but Bob Pettit 1956-58 has got to be the best.

Perhaps I should qualify this as being 'in the three point era'. Prior to that, too much has changed in the game to make meaningful comparisons based on stats.

[feyki]

02 and 03 would've been more accurately for the Duncan , instead of 03 and 04 .

[Harison]

Team success isnt the same as players success and impact. One can have GOAT dominance and be demolished by much superior teams (MJs initial seasons on Bulls case and point), on the other hand even average player can have amazing success by being on great teams (Horry has 7 rings, nobody in modern history of NBA has as many).

Thats why such comparisons are faulty.

[Ben Simons]

I analyzed which power forward was the best at his peak in this thread...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=421950

I concluded that, based on a combination of stats and team performance, Barkley had the highest peak of any PF. But that was based solely on regular season performance.

This post attempts to quantify who was the best PF at their peak, based solely on playoff performance. That is, which PF had the single best 20 consecutive playoff game stretch. (I chose 20 games, because its about the minimum you would expect for a championship run)

Using the same formula as I described in the link above, which takes each players average game score and weights it by their teams win %, the best 20 consecutive playoff games by the top 5 all time PFs were

1. Barkley - 21.380 (13 wins, 28.7ppg, 13.8rpg, 4.9apg, 1.8spg, 0.9bpg, 2.3tov .588 TS%) (18/5/93 -> 11/5/94)
2. Duncan - 21.375 (16 wins, 26.4ppg, 14.5rpg, 4.7apg, 0.9spg, 3.3bpg, 3.6tov .589 TS%) (13/5/03 -> 5/5/04)
3. Nowitzki - 19.69 (14 wins, 27.7ppg, 12.1rpg, 3.3apg, 1.2spg, 0.6bpg, 2.1tov, .606 TS%) (20/5/05 -> 11/6/06)
4. Malone - 17.88 (11 wins, 29.5ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.0apg, 1.3spg, 1.2bpg, 2.8tov, .590 TS%) (2/5/91 -> 24/5/92)
5. Garnett - 15.72 (11 wins, 24.9pg, 14.9rpg, 5.1apg, 1.6spg, 2.4bpg, 3.9tov, .520 TS%) (20/4/03 -> 23/5/04)

So the stats say that, when considering both individual output and team results, Barkley and Duncan had the highest peak playoff performance. Barkley's average weighted game score during his peak was a whisker higher than Duncan, but a 20 game peak is a kind of arbitrary figure, so we can call it a draw. In fact, given that Chuck's 20 games included a losing finals series, and TD's included a winning one, you might actually give the edge to Duncan.

But interestingly, Barkley's peak appears to have been the highest of any PF, regardless of whether you look at regular season or playoff performances. This does not change the fact that Duncan is the GOAT PF, but it seems to suggest that Barkley's best was indeed better than any other PF has ever been.
This also doesn't include defense that can't be measured statistically that favors Duncan.

[AussieSteve]

02 and 03 would've been more accurately for the Duncan , instead of 03 and 04 .

Based solely on average game score, or simply adding basic stats, you are right. TD's last 20 games of the 03 playoffs were his best.

26.0ppg, 15.5rpg, 5.6apg, 0.7spg, 3.4bpg, 3.1tov, .572 TS%

But, during this stretch the spurs had 14 wins. When you weight the average game score by win%, his average score from the 20 games in the OP (during which he had 16 wins) are slightly better.

I'm not married to this methodology though. I was just trying to find a way to quantify a players peak based on more than just box stats, and i figured factoring in team success would make for a better assessment.

[AussieSteve]

Team success isnt the same as players success and impact. One can have GOAT dominance and be demolished by much superior teams (MJs initial seasons on Bulls case and point), on the other hand even average player can have amazing success by being on great teams (Horry has 7 rings, nobody in modern history of NBA has as many).

Thats why such comparisons are faulty.

Yeah but normally on a poor team, a players stats are inflated because they carry a heavy load and have a high usage (eg. Russell Westbrook). And on a good team, a players stats are often deflated because the team is less reliant on them dominating.

So combining both stats and team wins, seems like a good way to quantify a players overall performance.

[Round Mound]

What about Kevin McHale too?

Offensively Barkley and McHale Are The Best Ever

[Hakeem Olajuwon]

Tim Duncan is the most complete, reliable and clutch power forward I've seen in the playoffs.

[AussieSteve]

What about Kevin McHale too?

Offensively Barkley and McHale Are The Best Ever

Your wish is my command.

1. Barkley - 21.380 (13 wins, 28.7ppg, 13.8rpg, 4.9apg, 1.8spg, 0.9bpg, 2.3tov .588 TS%) (18/5/93 -> 11/5/94)
2. Duncan - 21.375 (16 wins, 26.4ppg, 14.5rpg, 4.7apg, 0.9spg, 3.3bpg, 3.6tov .589 TS%) (13/5/03 -> 5/5/04)
3. Nowitzki - 19.69 (14 wins, 27.7ppg, 12.1rpg, 3.3apg, 1.2spg, 0.6bpg, 2.1tov, .606 TS%) (20/5/05 -> 11/6/06)
4. McHale - 18.28 (15 wins, 25.1ppg, 9.3rpg, 2.6apg, 0.5spg, 2.2bpg, 2.7tov, .653 TS%) (2/6/85 -> 3/6/86)
5. Malone - 17.88 (11 wins, 29.5ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.0apg, 1.3spg, 1.2bpg, 2.8tov, .590 TS%) (2/5/91 -> 24/5/92)
6. Garnett - 15.72 (11 wins, 24.9pg, 14.9rpg, 5.1apg, 1.6spg, 2.4bpg, 3.9tov, .520 TS%) (20/4/03 -> 23/5/04)

McHale was damn good at his peak. Gotta be one of the most efficient playoff scorers ever!!! He was exceptional defensively also.

I also added his regular season peak in the other thread...
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12684288&postcount=50

[aj1987]

Duncan and it's not even close. Offensively or defensively, Duncan had the GOAT PF Playoff run.

[feyki]

Based solely on average game score, or simply adding basic stats, you are right. TD's last 20 games of the 03 playoffs were his best.

26.0ppg, 15.5rpg, 5.6apg, 0.7spg, 3.4bpg, 3.1tov, .572 TS%

But, during this stretch the spurs had 14 wins. When you weight the average game score by win%, his average score from the 20 games in the OP (during which he had 16 wins) are slightly better.

I'm not married to this methodology though. I was just trying to find a way to quantify a players peak based on more than just box stats, and i figured factoring in team success would make for a better assessment.

I see . But you listed them based on gmscr . I'm confused with what is your main point . Gmscr or gmscr with including W% .

I know toying with numbers is enjoyable . I have no problem with this ( even while i don't like Hollinger's point system ) .

[Pointguard]

Defense, especially KG and Duncan level, trumps all stats in the playoffs. You could NOT get a layup against their teams.

[tpols]

What about Kevin McHale too?

Offensively Barkley and McHale Are The Best Ever



the almighty's performance in '11 sh!ts on anything Barkley or McHale ever did offensively in the playoffs though....


Clutch God
GOAT off ball / spacing
Lights out efficiency

[Round Mound]

Your wish is my command.

1. Barkley - 21.380 (13 wins, 28.7ppg, 13.8rpg, 4.9apg, 1.8spg, 0.9bpg, 2.3tov .588 TS%) (18/5/93 -> 11/5/94)
2. Duncan - 21.375 (16 wins, 26.4ppg, 14.5rpg, 4.7apg, 0.9spg, 3.3bpg, 3.6tov .589 TS%) (13/5/03 -> 5/5/04)
3. Nowitzki - 19.69 (14 wins, 27.7ppg, 12.1rpg, 3.3apg, 1.2spg, 0.6bpg, 2.1tov, .606 TS%) (20/5/05 -> 11/6/06)
4. McHale - 18.28 (15 wins, 25.1ppg, 9.3rpg, 2.6apg, 0.5spg, 2.2bpg, 2.7tov, .653 TS%) (2/6/85 -> 3/6/86)
5. Malone - 17.88 (11 wins, 29.5ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.0apg, 1.3spg, 1.2bpg, 2.8tov, .590 TS%) (2/5/91 -> 24/5/92)
6. Garnett - 15.72 (11 wins, 24.9pg, 14.9rpg, 5.1apg, 1.6spg, 2.4bpg, 3.9tov, .520 TS%) (20/4/03 -> 23/5/04)

McHale was damn good at his peak. Gotta be one of the most efficient playoff scorers ever!!! He was exceptional defensively also.

I also added his regular season peak in the other thread...
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12684288&postcount=50

Good Stuff :applause:

[DMAVS41]

Defense, especially KG and Duncan level, trumps all stats in the playoffs. You could NOT get a layup against their teams.

LOL...tell that to the 02 Timberwolves.

I do agree that KG and Duncan, even though they are thought of as two of the best players ever, do tend to see their true value under-rated because of how dominant they were defensively.

However, saying that trumps everything in the playoffs seems misguided. Sometimes having an on fire championship first option is more valuable in my opinion.

As to this thread and the other.

After Duncan (who was clearly the best PF ever imo)...you could rank the next 5 or 6 guys in just about any order.

Anyone claiming Barkley was for sure better than KG or KG was for sure better than Dirk or Dirk was for sure better than Pettit....they simply don't know what they are talking about or are too biased on this issue.

It was Duncan....and then the rest.

[AussieSteve]

After Duncan (who was clearly the best PF ever imo)...you could rank the next 5 or 6 guys in just about any order.

Anyone claiming Barkley was for sure better than KG or KG was for sure better than Dirk or Dirk was for sure better than Pettit....they simply don't know what they are talking about or are too biased on this issue.

It was Duncan....and then the rest.

I'm a Barkley fan, and I would love to be able to say that he is the GOAT PF, but you're right... There is daylight between TD and the rest.

When I was a kid I used to hate that MJ was so f***ing good. I saw Chuck as the next best player in the league and made him my favorite. I felt vindicated when he won the 93 MVP. I'll admit my bias that, apart from anything based in reality, I do want to put Chuck ahead of KG and others. But despite this, I think that his peak genuinely was the best - particular when we look at playoff performances. I know Chuck doesn't have a ring while KG and Dirk do, but Barkley was a much more consistent and dominant playoff performer than these two, and Malone. And if you look at each players playoff peak in the OP, Barkley has a clear edge. In most eras, with a half decent supporting cast, I think he wins a ring.

If someone wants to tell me that KG, Dirk or Malone are greater players than Chuck, I don't necessarily disagree. But I think my case that Barkley at his best was better than all three is pretty solid.

[Round Mound]

I'm a Barkley fan, and I would love to be able to say that he is the GOAT PF, but you're right... There is daylight between TD and the rest.

When I was a kid I used to hate that MJ was so f***ing good. I saw Chuck as the next best player in the league and made him my favorite. I felt vindicated when he won the 93 MVP. I'll admit my bias that, apart from anything based in reality, I do want to put Chuck ahead of KG and others. But despite this, I think that his peak genuinely was the best - particular when we look at playoff performances. I know Chuck doesn't have a ring while KG and Dirk do, but Barkley was a much more consistent and dominant playoff performer than these two, and Malone. And if you look at each players playoff peak in the OP, Barkley has a clear edge. In most eras, with a half decent supporting cast, I think he wins a ring.

If someone wants to tell me that KG, Dirk or Malone are greater players than Chuck, I don't necessarily disagree. But I think my case that Barkley at his best was better than all three is pretty solid.

:applause:

[AussieSteve]

I see . But you listed them based on gmscr . I'm confused with what is your main point . Gmscr or gmscr with including W% .

I know toying with numbers is enjoyable . I have no problem with this ( even while i don't like Hollinger's point system ) .

If we rank the top 5 PFs best 20 consecutive playoff games based soley on average game score it goes like this

1. Barkley - 26.02 (29.3ppg, 13.7rpg, 4.6apg, 1.9spg, 0.9bpg, 2.3tov .589 TS%) (5/6/93 -> 2/5/95)
2. Duncan - 24.58 (26.0ppg, 15.5rpg, 5.6apg, 0.7spg, 3.4bpg, 3.1tov, .572 TS%) (29/4/03 -> 15/6/03)
3. Malone - 23.56 (29.6ppg, 11.9rpg, 2.6apg, 1.4spg, 1.2bpg, 2.8tov, .605 TS%) (9/5/91 -> 28/5/92)
4. Nowitzki - 23.47 (28.5ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.1apg, 1.3spg, 0.6bpg, 2.2tov, .611 TS%) (15/5/05 -> 3/6/06)
5. Garnett - 21.08 (24.9pg, 15.6rpg, 5.5apg, 1.4spg, 2.2bpg, 3.6tov, .527 TS%) (28/4/01 -> 12/5/04)

So If we don't consider winning and only look at box stats, Chuck comes out on top. But stats alone is a crap way to rank. Hence, including the weighting based on winning % gives the rankings in the OP as the best peak playoff runs by each player. In which case Barkley & Duncan had the equal best peak.

[Round Mound]

Barkley was like a Mix of Shaq and Wade. Him and McHale Where The Best Offensively (Although McHale Had Bird and DJ Two Great Passeres Feeding The Ball). Defensively its Duncan as a Rim Protector and Garnett as Defensive Versatility. Passing Wise Barkley was The Best and Rebounding Wise Too. Malone Was The Best Finisher as a Catch and Finish Player While Barkley Wasnt Far Behined.

I Have No Problem with Duncan Being the GOAT PF but Barkley Had The Best Prime and Peak of All PFs. People Think He Was Just Breakaway Dunks or Rebounds The Dude Had One Of the Softest Touches Around the Basket. At That Height....We Probably Will Never See It Again :cry:

[AussieSteve]

the almighty's performance in '11 sh!ts on anything Barkley or McHale ever did offensively in the playoffs though....


Clutch God
GOAT off ball / spacing
Lights out efficiency


Let's compare Dirk's last 20 games of the 2011 playoffs with Barkley's and McHale's best 20 game playoff runs... but only offensively.


Nowitzki (last 20 games 2011) - 27.7ppg, 0.6orpg, 2.6apg 3.0tov, .613 TS%

Barkley (18/5/93 -> 11/5/94) - 29.3ppg, 4.0orpg, 4.6apg, 2.3tov .589 TS%

McHale (11/6/87 -> 28/4/89) - 25.1ppg, 3.1orpg, 2.4apg, 2.2tov .660 TS%

Which was the best offensive run? Would you take more points and assists, less turnovers and complete domination on the offensive glass, or better spacing and a couple of extra clutch plays?

And keep in mind that Chuck was constantly double teamed. So even the extra spacing that Dirk created with his range is somewhat offset by Barkley drawing an extra defender.

[GimmeThat]

'I like game score, but we need to factor in winning. Stats are meaningless if they are not translating to wins. So I came up with the formula GmSc*0.5*(1+win%). Which means that a loss is only worth half of a win. If a player has an average GmSc of 10.0, and his team won 82 games, his weighted GmSc will remain at 10.0. If he had 41 wins, it would be 7.5. If he had 0 wins, it would be 5.0. Using this formula the highest 82 game peak by each of these PFs was'

If we were to choose an MVP, then this logic seems accurate.

If we were to talk about leading a team to a championship, where the amount of games would be played is determined by how many win you get, and how fast you get them. then the formula may need to be tweaked.

I suppose the first question that may be asked, is why 20 games?

because since we already know how many games a player would lose, per playoff year to be eliminated, a formula derived from that in calculating how total impact ought to be calculated could be done through then.

sure, for the argument of 'peak' sake it is quite difficult to talk about which seed, and the opponent difficulty and whatnot.

If we were to argue for players that were individually dominant and nullify rounds of playoffs by the 20 games metric.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is where statistician tweets the weight of the win/loss ratio and see how places are switched up, then utilize it over a larger sample before they determine which is the "most accurate" ratio

or if we go by championship run, then wins shouldn't be calculated with a linear ratio, but an exponential one.

[iamgine]

The answer to this should be very easy...it's Tim Duncan in '03 playoff.

Not only he averaged 25-15-5-3, but you know he brings with him DPOY level defense, something that cannot be said of most other PFs.

[72-10]

Well, statistically Barkley was a beast and carried many of his teams, but I'd still say Duncan due to his overwhelming success.

[Round Mound]

Well, statistically Barkley was a beast and carried many of his teams, but I'd still say Duncan due to his overwhelming success.

Do you think Tim Duncan would have any rings if he played in the 80s and early 90s?

[iamgine]

Do you think Tim Duncan would have any rings if he played in the 80s and early 90s?
Depends on his team.

[AussieSteve]

'I like game score, but we need to factor in winning. Stats are meaningless if they are not translating to wins. So I came up with the formula GmSc*0.5*(1+win%). Which means that a loss is only worth half of a win. If a player has an average GmSc of 10.0, and his team won 82 games, his weighted GmSc will remain at 10.0. If he had 41 wins, it would be 7.5. If he had 0 wins, it would be 5.0. Using this formula the highest 82 game peak by each of these PFs was'

If we were to choose an MVP, then this logic seems accurate.

If we were to talk about leading a team to a championship, where the amount of games would be played is determined by how many win you get, and how fast you get them. then the formula may need to be tweaked.

I suppose the first question that may be asked, is why 20 games?

because since we already know how many games a player would lose, per playoff year to be eliminated, a formula derived from that in calculating how total impact ought to be calculated could be done through then.

sure, for the argument of 'peak' sake it is quite difficult to talk about which seed, and the opponent difficulty and whatnot.

If we were to argue for players that were individually dominant and nullify rounds of playoffs by the 20 games metric.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is where statistician tweets the weight of the win/loss ratio and see how places are switched up, then utilize it over a larger sample before they determine which is the "most accurate" ratio

or if we go by championship run, then wins shouldn't be calculated with a linear ratio, but an exponential one.


I agree that this methodology doesn't work as well in the playoffs as for the regular season. The reason I chose 20 games is because 20 games is about the minimum you would expect for a championship run. I didn't feel I could simply do it based on best single post season, seeing as though one player's best individual post season may have been 24 games, while another's may have been only 12 or something... this makes for an unfair comparison.

I'm sure this could be improved, like weighting wins and/or stats higher for each successive round of the playoffs. But I don't have the time or inclination to go that in depth.

I'm sure TD would come out on top if I did. I have a hunch the rest of the order would probably stay the same.

[Round Mound]

Depends on his team.

Giminski, Dawkins, Hawkins & Mahorn.

It Think NOT.

[Pointguard]

LOL...tell that to the 02 Timberwolves.
I think you missed the word PEAK in the title. Its only the most important word in the title. And not only was that not a peak year, it was a time in which there was no real defensive scheme by the coach in the playoffs.




However, saying that trumps everything in the playoffs seems misguided. Sometimes having an on fire championship first option is more valuable in my opinion.
Not misguided at all. If its at the level where other teams can't get easy baskets and are always on plan C and D its true throughout all team sports. If guys are averaging 25 ppg like KG and Duncan and have better all around games than the rest of the crew, then super defense trumps it all.



After Duncan (who was clearly the best PF ever imo)...you could rank the next 5 or 6 guys in just about any order.

This is about peak. This isn't about other things. If you have Duncan clearly above everybody else. It would follow that the player who stood out and who could nearly match Duncan in all of his strengths would also be a standout. If Duncan and KG are the only two that had all time great defensive teams its because they were that too in their play.

[DMAVS41]

I think you missed the word PEAK in the title. Its only the most important word in the title. And not only was that not a peak year, it was a time in which there was no real defensive scheme by the coach in the playoffs.


Not misguided at all. If its at the level where other teams can't get easy baskets and are always on plan C and D its true throughout all team sports. If guys are averaging 25 ppg like KG and Duncan and have better all around games than the rest of the crew, then super defense trumps it all.



This is about peak. This isn't about other things. If you have Duncan clearly above everybody else. It would follow that the player who stood out and who could nearly match Duncan in all of his strengths would also be a standout. If Duncan and KG are the only two that had all time great defensive teams its because they were that too in their play.

If you think 02 KG wasn't a defensive monster...LOL...and if you think 04 KG is shutting down Dirk an that Mavs team...an even bigger LOL.

Can't do it alone...and sometimes great offense trumps great defense...nature of the game.

It is misguided. Individual offense at all time great level is more valuable than all time great defense. Imagine you had a player that was graded on a scale of 1 to 10 on both offense and defense.

Player A is a 10 on offense and a 1 on defense

Player B is a 10 on defense and a 1 on offense

Almost always is player A going to be more valuable in a vacuum.

Ron Artest was never in his career at any point as valuable as peak Nash...and to illustrate the point...if you graded those two guys:

Nash would be a 10 on offense and a 0 or 1 on defense

Artest would be a 9.5 on defense and a 7 on offense

Transcendent offense simply moves the needle more. And if you want to do it with a big man...go ahead. Just look at KG...how would you grade him?

A 10 on defense for sure and like a 8.5 on offense probably...how could a player like Kobe be better than KG?

Even if we give Kobe a 10 on offense...which he wasn't....he never was over a 7 defensively.

How about Magic? He never was above a 5 on defense. So...how can he be better if defense always trumps offense?



Nah...Duncan did things offensively in the post and in terms of positional defense at the rim that were a bit more valuable in the era they peaked in. In the game of today...KG's skillset would be more valuable though.

[iamgine]

Individual offense at all time great level is more valuable than all time great defense. Imagine you had a player that was graded on a scale of 1 to 10 on both offense and defense.

Player A is a 10 on offense and a 1 on defense

Player B is a 10 on defense and a 1 on offense

Almost always is player A going to be more valuable in a vacuum.

Ron Artest was never in his career at any point as valuable as peak Nash...and to illustrate the point...if you graded those two guys:

Nash would be a 10 on offense and a 0 or 1 on defense

Artest would be a 9.5 on defense and a 7 on offense


This is a flawed reasoning for the simple reason that smaller players defensive impact are much less valuable than bigs. Especially in the PG position.

i.e No one can deny Bruce Bowen or Tony Allen were two of the highest level defensive players in their position but clearly they were much inferior players compared to Ben Wallace.

[AussieSteve]

If you think 02 KG wasn't a defensive monster...LOL...and if you think 04 KG is shutting down Dirk an that Mavs team...an even bigger LOL.

Can't do it alone...and sometimes great offense trumps great defense...nature of the game.

It is misguided. Individual offense at all time great level is more valuable than all time great defense. Imagine you had a player that was graded on a scale of 1 to 10 on both offense and defense.

Player A is a 10 on offense and a 1 on defense

Player B is a 10 on defense and a 1 on offense

Almost always is player A going to be more valuable in a vacuum.

Ron Artest was never in his career at any point as valuable as peak Nash...and to illustrate the point...if you graded those two guys:

Nash would be a 10 on offense and a 0 or 1 on defense

Artest would be a 9.5 on defense and a 7 on offense

Transcendent offense simply moves the needle more. And if you want to do it with a big man...go ahead. Just look at KG...how would you grade him?

A 10 on defense for sure and like a 8.5 on offense probably...how could a player like Kobe be better than KG?

Even if we give Kobe a 10 on offense...which he wasn't....he never was over a 7 defensively.

How about Magic? He never was above a 5 on defense. So...how can he be better if defense always trumps offense?



Nah...Duncan did things offensively in the post and in terms of positional defense at the rim that were a bit more valuable in the era they peaked in. In the game of today...KG's skillset would be more valuable though.

:applause:

This is why I'm so sick up people ignoring Barkley's obvious GOAT PF status offensively, and focussing solely on his defensive flaws.

[Round Mound]

:applause:

This is why I'm so sick up people ignoring Barkley's obvious GOAT PF status offensively, and focussing solely on his defensive flaws.

Barkley wasnt that bad of a defender when he was in his 20s in the Sixers. When he had a decent center in Moses Malone he ranked 7th in defensive rating one year. He also hada season of 1.6 bpg and 2.2 spg. Barkley is the GOAT stealing PF btw. He was a good team defender and above average in his time in phily. With the Suns and Rockets do to him loosing athletic ability in his 20s he wasnt that good of a defender. Also the game opened up and you could hard touch anybody contraty to the american football like style of the 80s.

BTW: Barkley is the only PF to have caused a rule change cause of his style of play (physical) "5 second back to the basket rule".

No other PF has caused rule changes...

[Pointguard]

If you think 02 KG wasn't a defensive monster...LOL...and if you think 04 KG is shutting down Dirk an that Mavs team...an even bigger LOL.

That Boston team would have totally embarrassed that Dirk team. Absolutely destroy them. KG outscored Dirk in more games in '04, '05, '06, '07. when they played each other - why? Because he actually guarded him sometimes. He shot better as well. BiG LOL. Want to talk about rebounds, defense, passing, setting up players???




Can't do it alone...and sometimes great offense trumps great defense...nature of the game.

That's not the nature of the game at all.

Great defensive teams win the chip waaaaaay more than great offensive teams do. Teams with better defense win the chip at something like a 95% rate. Last years GSW lost their defensive edge and they lost. They were one of the best offensive teams ever. Most of the time its about who can prevent easier baskets.


It is misguided. Individual offense at all time great level is more valuable than all time great defense. Imagine you had a player that was graded on a scale of 1 to 10 on both offense and defense.

Player A is a 10 on offense and a 1 on defense

Player B is a 10 on defense and a 1 on offense

Almost always is player A going to be more valuable in a vacuum.

Ron Artest was never in his career at any point as valuable as peak Nash...and to illustrate the point...if you graded those two guys:

Nash would be a 10 on offense and a 0 or 1 on defense

Artest would be a 9.5 on defense and a 7 on offense

Transcendent offense simply moves the needle more. And if you want to do it with a big man...go ahead. Just look at KG...how would you grade him?

A 10 on defense for sure and like a 8.5 on offense probably...how could a player like Kobe be better than KG?

Even if we give Kobe a 10 on offense...which he wasn't....he never was over a 7 defensively.

How about Magic? He never was above a 5 on defense. So...how can he be better if defense always trumps offense?

Anchoring a defense and moving the defensive pieces are worth waaaay more than perimeter defenders as the poster Imagine mentioned above. KG is a great communicator and doing that from the frontcourt is a tremendous advantage.

Magic controlled how the game was played, which in soccer is defense. Magic also got five players Easy Baskets.



Nah...Duncan did things offensively in the post and in terms of positional defense at the rim that were a bit more valuable in the era they peaked in. In the game of today...KG's skillset would be more valuable though.
Communication is an advantage in any team sport at any time. So you are wrong there.

Tim played defense at the rim. That's too late. But it has worked for him effectively for the most part, but against great offensive players its not the best way to do things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCG0JIorzGI&t=5s.

KG was much better positionally. He changed what the offense wanted to do before they could get set. Most very good players aren't bothered by a shot blocker under the rim. KG got to them before they thought about the basket. Its much harder to score when you are working on plan B and plan C earlier in the clock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK1drlcEmE4. KG was definitely one of the best in the game at making sure the opposing team did not get easy baskets.

[Pointguard]

BTW: Barkley is the only PF to have caused a rule change cause of his style of play (physical) "5 second back to the basket rule".

No other PF has caused rule changes...

They called it the Mark Jackson rule. A guy I played against in AAU.

[Round Mound]

They called it the Mark Jackson rule. A guy I played against in AAU.

I know but Mark Jackson wasnt scoring 58% Two-Point FG on over 20 PPG for 11-12 FGAs Taken 12 to 1 feet to the rim. :confusedshrug: The rule clearly was designed as an Anti- Barkley rule and everyone knows this :confusedshrug:

[swagga]

I know but Mark Jackson wasnt scoring 58% Two-Point FG on over 20 PPG for 11-12 FGAs Taken 12 to 1 feet to the rim. :confusedshrug: The rule clearly was designed as an Anti- Barkley rule and everyone knows this :confusedshrug:

stop being autistic. It was the mark jackson rule because he abused it much more than barkley. Barkley could face up a lot of bigs so he didn't abuse the rule that much. Wtf, as his stan you should know this.

[swagga]

also, duncan at his peak went through peak shaq AND peak kobe to get a ring, he was incredibly dominant. Anybody not saying duncan is straight up retarded.

[ArbitraryWater]

also, duncan at his peak went through peak shaq AND peak kobe to get a ring, he was incredibly dominant. Anybody not saying duncan is straight up retarded.

Pretty terrible logic... Bron and Wade werent any further off their peak than Kobe and Shaq were

[FKAri]

Anthony Davis

[AussieSteve]

also, duncan at his peak went through peak shaq AND peak kobe to get a ring, he was incredibly dominant. Anybody not saying duncan is straight up retarded.

I agree that TD's '03 run was probably the best among PFs but what you are saying here is a massive overstatement.

In 1993, Barkley had 44 points and 24 rebounds in game 7 of the WCF, to get the Suns into the finals and then he averaged 27.3ppg, 13.0rpg, 5.5apg on .544 TS%, with only 1.7tov in the finals. In game 2 he had 42 points and 13 rebounds, but Jordan had 42, 12 and 9, and the Bulls got up by 3 points. In game 4 Chuck had a 32 point triple double only to see Jordan score 55 and the Bulls win again!! He can't be blamed for losing to Jordan, who put up probably the greatest finals performance of all time.

In the 2003 finals, Duncan averaged 24.2ppg, 17.0rpg, 5.3apg and 5.3bpg on .546 TS%, with 3.8tov. So yes, defensively Duncan was completely dominant, but offensively he produced less and turned it over more. The edge is still with Duncan, but the main thing to be aware of is that the '03 Nets were hardly the 1993 Bulls!! How can you state so categorically that Duncan was superior.

Barkley's 93 finals - and playoffs in general - were all time great among PFs. This is taking nothing away from Duncan, but it seems some people just don't want to entertain the comparison.

[feyki]

If we rank the top 5 PFs best 20 consecutive playoff games based soley on average game score it goes like this

1. Barkley - 26.02 (29.3ppg, 13.7rpg, 4.6apg, 1.9spg, 0.9bpg, 2.3tov .589 TS%) (5/6/93 -> 2/5/95)
2. Duncan - 24.58 (26.0ppg, 15.5rpg, 5.6apg, 0.7spg, 3.4bpg, 3.1tov, .572 TS%) (29/4/03 -> 15/6/03)
3. Malone - 23.56 (29.6ppg, 11.9rpg, 2.6apg, 1.4spg, 1.2bpg, 2.8tov, .605 TS%) (9/5/91 -> 28/5/92)
4. Nowitzki - 23.47 (28.5ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.1apg, 1.3spg, 0.6bpg, 2.2tov, .611 TS%) (15/5/05 -> 3/6/06)
5. Garnett - 21.08 (24.9pg, 15.6rpg, 5.5apg, 1.4spg, 2.2bpg, 3.6tov, .527 TS%) (28/4/01 -> 12/5/04)

So If we don't consider winning and only look at box stats, Chuck comes out on top. But stats alone is a crap way to rank. Hence, including the weighting based on winning % gives the rankings in the OP as the best peak playoff runs by each player. In which case Barkley & Duncan had the equal best peak.

Has no problem with having Barkley over Duncan in this metric . Because of ignoring Defence . But why did use Dirk's 05 postseason ? I'm sure his 2006 easily better than any of Malone's in gmscr .

Of course , KG is the worst of them offensively . He had not carry his game into the playoffs when faced tougher D's .

It's a good thread . At least we're talking about bball only .

[brownmamba00]

02 TD
11 Dirk
04 KG


93 Barkley
98 Malone

IMHO

[DMAVS41]

That Boston team would have totally embarrassed that Dirk team. Absolutely destroy them. KG outscored Dirk in more games in '04, '05, '06, '07. when they played each other - why? Because he actually guarded him sometimes. He shot better as well. BiG LOL. Want to talk about rebounds, defense, passing, setting up players???




That's not the nature of the game at all.

Great defensive teams win the chip waaaaaay more than great offensive teams do. Teams with better defense win the chip at something like a 95% rate. Last years GSW lost their defensive edge and they lost. They were one of the best offensive teams ever. Most of the time its about who can prevent easier baskets.

Anchoring a defense and moving the defensive pieces are worth waaaay more than perimeter defenders as the poster Imagine mentioned above. KG is a great communicator and doing that from the frontcourt is a tremendous advantage.

Magic controlled how the game was played, which in soccer is defense. Magic also got five players Easy Baskets.


Communication is an advantage in any team sport at any time. So you are wrong there.

Tim played defense at the rim. That's too late. But it has worked for him effectively for the most part, but against great offensive players its not the best way to do things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCG0JIorzGI&t=5s.

KG was much better positionally. He changed what the offense wanted to do before they could get set. Most very good players aren't bothered by a shot blocker under the rim. KG got to them before they thought about the basket. Its much harder to score when you are working on plan B and plan C earlier in the clock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK1drlcEmE4. KG was definitely one of the best in the game at making sure the opposing team did not get easy baskets.

What does Boston have to do with this? You realize you'd be making my point for me...right? You can't do it alone and it is more about team defense than individual defense.

I never said a defensive anchor isn't important. It is extremely important. Please listen to my argument. My argument is that all time elite offense on the individual level often trumps all time elite defense on the individual level.

Who was better? Peak Magic Johnson or peak Kevin Garnett? Peak Nash or peak Ben Wallace?

Every all time elite offensive player gets his teammates easy baskets. Total non point. Basketball is different than football in the way you are trying to align them, but that is off topic anyway.

Never said communication didn't matter. Straw man.

Duncan wasn't too late on defense...just false.

[Pointguard]

What does Boston have to do with this? You realize you'd be making my point for me...right? You can't do it alone and it is more about team defense than individual defense.
Its more about how the coach uses him defensively than anything else.


I never said a defensive anchor isn't important. It is extremely important. Please listen to my argument. My argument is that all time elite offense on the individual level often trumps all time elite defense on the individual level.
Just like Magic was on a different level offensively, because of his interplay with the other 4 players. KG was on another level because of his defense and telling others how to close out.


Who was better? Peak Magic Johnson or peak Kevin Garnett? Peak Nash or peak Ben Wallace?
Magic offensively. KG defensively. As explained above. Magic is the exception offensively because of control of the game.


Every all time elite offensive player gets his teammates easy baskets. Total non point. Basketball is different than football in the way you are trying to align them, but that is off topic anyway. Magic could affect opposing players by pushing the game. His defense has affected more than one playoff run at levels no center has come close to affecting great players: When Magic saw that the Celtics were short and winded, Magic went directly for their wind by pushing the ball. Ainge shot 4 for 24 in the 2 elimination games of '85 and '87 and Bird 37% because of playing Magic's game. Bird shot 12 for 29, Ainge shot 3 for 16 (188%) Dennis Johnson shot 3 for 15 (200%) all of whom were clutch shooters, Should qualify as one of the best defensive efforts in a closeout game.

Great running teams didn't want to run against Magic because he would out execute them. He was in great offensive teams heads. Unconventional defense but the way he affected how teams played their game was as effective as great defensive centers.



Duncan wasn't too late on defense...just false.
I showed the video so its not false. KG was a totally innovative defensive player. I can show you how Jordan was able to beat all the great centers of his era because defense at the rim is too late.

[DMAVS41]

Its more about how the coach uses him defensively than anything else.

Just like Magic was on a different level offensively, because of his interplay with the other 4 players. KG was on another level because of his defense and telling others how to close out.

Magic offensively. KG defensively. As explained above. Magic is the exception offensively because of control of the game.
Magic could affect opposing players by pushing the game. His defense has affected more than one playoff run at levels no center has come close to affecting great players: When Magic saw that the Celtics were short and winded, Magic went directly for their wind by pushing the ball. Ainge shot 4 for 24 in the 2 elimination games of '85 and '87 and Bird 37% because of playing Magic's game. Bird shot 12 for 29, Ainge shot 3 for 16 (188%) Dennis Johnson shot 3 for 15 (200%) all of whom were clutch shooters, Should qualify as one of the best defensive efforts in a closeout game.

Great running teams didn't want to run against Magic because he would out execute them. He was in great offensive teams heads. Unconventional defense but the way he affected how teams played their game was as effective as great defensive centers.


I showed the video so its not false. KG was a totally innovative defensive player. I can show you how Jordan was able to beat all the great centers of his era because defense at the rim is too late.


We all know Magic was better on offense than KG...and we all know KG was better on defense.

I'm asking who the better player overall was.

Could you please answer.

[Young X]

I don't think it's crazy at all to take peak KG over Magic. Yeah I said it.

Imagine if it was 2003 KG on the 2008 Celtics. Imagine how dominant they would be.

[DMAVS41]

I don't think it's crazy at all to take peak KG over Magic. Yeah I said it.

Imagine if it was 2003 KG on the 2008 Celtics. Imagine how dominant they would be.

I probably wouldn't call it crazy, but I really disagree.

However, one would have to take KG if they really thought defense trumps offense on the individual level in terms of importance.

[Young X]

I probably wouldn't call it crazy, but I really disagree.

However, one would have to take KG if they really thought defense trumps offense on the individual level in terms of importance.It doesn't, but a really good offensive player that plays elite defense is probably better than a guy who doesn't do much on defense and is elite offensively.

What gets lost in these discussions with KG is he was really good on offense. He led the whole league in total points in his MVP year. It's the weakest part of his game and he still ended up with over 26k.

[IGOTGAME]

I probably wouldn't call it crazy, but I really disagree.

However, one would have to take KG if they really thought defense trumps offense on the individual level in terms of importance.

Well, I'd call that crazy.

[DMAVS41]

It doesn't, but a really good offensive player that plays elite defense is probably better than a guy who doesn't do much on defense and is elite offensively.

What gets lost in these discussions with KG is he was really good on offense. He led the whole league in total points in his MVP year. It's the weakest part of his game and he still ended up with over 26k.

How does it get lost?

I just got done ranking KG...on a scale of 0 to 10....

A 10 on defense and an 8.5 on offense.

What you said above is exactly my point.

KG was not only one of the best defensive players of all time...he was also an incredibly gifted all around offensive force.

Having said that...I also think it was and should be clear that Magic Johnson was a better overall basketball player.

Even if one doesn't agree with that...no intelligent and informed basketball fan puts KG on a higher tier than Magic.

So...my point stands here and I haven't heard much of a response.

If individual defense trumps individual offense...how does one explain Bird/Magic/Dirk/Kobe/Wade...etc.

Or are you guys going to actually argue that KG was clearly better than all of them.

Because if you aren't...I don't see how one can then hold to the defense trumps offense at the individual level.

Magic was a 10 on offense, but at best a 5 on defense...at best.

So how was he better than KG? And if you don't agree with that statement...how was he as good as KG?

[Pointguard]

We all know Magic was better on offense than KG...and we all know KG was better on defense.

I'm asking who the better player overall was.

Could you please answer.
Magic. Unquestionably. The reason I brought that up is because I'm showing you how team play works on both ends of the floor and that you used it wrong. Magic wasn't a bad defensive player so he's a bad example. A Magic steal was the best defensive play probably in all of basketball history. It was a usually 4 point turnaround and often a momentum changer that allowed Magic to jumpstart players he wanted to get involved more so in the game.

I am being very specific in my answers to you. I am categorically answering them. You said Duncan was better position ally than KG. When KG was organizing the whole defense and more interrelated to the defensive scheme. KG was positionally always placed in the right spot.



However, one would have to take KG if they really thought defense trumps offense on the individual level in terms of importance.
Great defense trumps offense when the player is offensively near the other player. When KG played Dirk in their prime, KG outscored Dirk and shot better than him when he guarded him from '03 to '07. And KG is primarily a great team defender more so than an individual defender. After '07 KG was totally a team defensive guy. KG was outscoring Dirk because his defense equalized the situation. If Dirk guarded KG its even more lopsided in KG's favor.

[DMAVS41]

Magic. Unquestionably. The reason I brought that up is because I'm showing you how team play works on both ends of the floor and that you used it wrong. Magic wasn't a bad defensive player so he's a bad example. A Magic steal was the best defensive play probably in all of basketball history. It was a usually 4 point turnaround and often a momentum changer that allowed Magic to jumpstart players he wanted to get involved more so in the game.

I am being very specific in my answers to you. I am categorically answering them. You said Duncan was better position ally than KG. When KG was organizing the whole defense and more interrelated to the defensive scheme. KG was positionally always placed in the right spot.


Great defense trumps offense when the player is offensively near the other player. When KG played Dirk in their prime, KG outscored Dirk and shot better than him when he guarded him from '03 to '07. And KG is primarily a great team defender more so than an individual defender. After '07 KG was totally a team defensive guy. KG was outscoring Dirk because his defense equalized the situation. If Dirk guarded KG its even more lopsided in KG's favor.

You are talking about something else than I am.

I'm talking about overall value as a player...not about very specific instances of two players guarding each other or being near each other on the court.

I'd agree that KG vs Dirk 1 on 1 would lean in favor to KG...

I just don't think that is what we are talking about...at least I'm not...and certainly don't think that is indicative of overall value as a player.

Again...take the Nash vs Artest example. If they played 1 on 1...Artest would destroy Nash. Seems like a non point to me as Nash was considerably more valuable than any version of Artest in reality.

[DMAVS41]

I wasn't talking about you specifically, just in general.

And no I agree with you about your offense/defense point.

But why do you think peak KG was clearly inferior?

If Magic played in 2003 or 2004, call me crazy but I don't think he clearly be the best in the league. Duncan and Garnett would be right behind him.

Magic controlled a game better than anyone I've ever seen. He got the most out of his teammates in a way I've ever seen matched.

And I value those qualities more...much more in some cases...than what KG brought.

[Pointguard]

If individual defense trumps individual offense...how does one explain Bird/Magic/Dirk/Kobe/Wade...etc.

You keep using the word individual. Magic and KG were not "individual players" They are great team players.



Or are you guys going to actually argue that KG was clearly better than all of them.
Lebron was at his offensive peak during the Celtic years. He made career decisions based on what that defense did to him. The guys you mentioned offense wasn't going to do that to him. Point number two is that if Wade, Bird and these other players you mentioned played the same position as KG then its fair game. Bird was a great team player like Lebron, Bird and Wade who were also good defenders.


Because if you aren't...I don't see how one can then hold to the defense trumps offense at the individual level. We are talking KG so this individual level... . If the offense is similar and the defense is great, its about the better defender.


Magic was a 10 on offense, but at best a 5 on defense...at best.

So how was he better than KG? And if you don't agree with that statement...how was he as good as KG?
I detailed Magic's defense several times here. He's more like an 8 on defense than a 5. But Magic offensively is on a whole different level than guys like Dirk. His thinking, his judgement, his creativity, his team play, his control, his smarts, his clutch play, his getting other players involved is just far above other greats.

[DMAVS41]

You keep using the word individual. Magic and KG were not "individual players" They are great team players.


Lebron was at his offensive peak during the Celtic years. He made career decisions based on what that defense did to him. The guys you mentioned offense wasn't going to do that to him. Point number two is that if Wade, Bird and these other players you mentioned played the same position as KG then its fair game. Bird was a great team player like Lebron, Bird and Wade who were also good defenders.
We are talking KG so this individual level... . If the offense is similar and the defense is great, its about the better defender.

I detailed Magic's defense several times here. He's more like an 8 on defense than a 5. But Magic offensively is on a whole different level than guys like Dirk. His thinking, his judgement, his creativity, his team play, his control, his smarts, his clutch play, his getting other players involved is just far above other greats.


When I say "indiviual"...I'm talking about an individual player. That is all.

I don't follow you here.

You say above...if the offense is similar...then the defense is what seperates two players. I agree.

Obviously if you have two players that are equal on offense...but one is great at defense and the other isn't...the great defender is the better player.

That is obvious and nobody in the world would disagree.

Not sure the point you are attempting to make.

[Pointguard]

You are talking about something else than I am.

I'm talking about overall value as a player...not about very specific instances of two players guarding each other or being near each other on the court.
If a player affects 40 possessions defensively and 20 offensively, the overall value is better than the guy that affects 25 offensively and 20 defensively. If you are affecting that many more possessions, its a value statement.

The fact that he changed a bottom defensive team to the best in the post hand check era is of great value. A team with still prime Shaq and Kobe could lose to a team with Billups and Ben Wallace as best players. Defense is a value statement.




Again...take the Nash vs Artest example. If they played 1 on 1...Artest would destroy Nash. Seems like a non point to me as Nash was considerably more valuable than any version of Artest in reality.

A defensive anchor that changed his team from one of the worst in the league to all time great, shouldn't be substituted with Ron Artest. Nor is Ron Artest very close to Nash offensively.

[DMAVS41]

If a player affects 40 possessions defensively and 20 offensively, the overall value is better than the guy that affects 25 offensively and 20 defensively. If you are affecting that many more possessions, its a value statement.

The fact that he changed a bottom defensive team to the best in the post hand check era is of great value. A team with still prime Shaq and Kobe could lose to a team with Billups and Ben Wallace as best players. Defense is a value statement.



A defensive anchor that changed his team from one of the worst in the league to all time great, shouldn't be substituted with Ron Artest. Nor is Ron Artest very close to Nash offensively.

Again, your point is a non point.

All you are saying is that when two offensive players are similar...defense is what separates them.

Who would ever disagree with this assertion?

Have you ever had anyone agree with you that two players are equal on offense...one of them is bad on defense and one is great on defense...and take the bad defender as the better player?

Your point isn't addressing the actual question...and is the most obvious notion that literally nobody would ever disagree with.

[Pointguard]

Again, your point is a non point.

All you are saying is that when two offensive players are similar...defense is what separates them.

Who would ever disagree with this assertion?

Have you ever had anyone agree with you that two players are equal on offense...one of them is bad on defense and one is great on defense...and take the bad defender as the better player?

Your point isn't addressing the actual question...and is the most obvious notion that literally nobody would ever disagree with.
Get back to specifics. Who are you talking about? I'm talking about KG and Duncan vs the rest of the field of PF's. You say Duncan is far an away the best of PF's. Yet his strengths are KG's strengths. The accolades are different but this thread is about peak play so the accolades are trashed. Duncan and KG have very similar strengths.

[DMAVS41]

Get back to specifics. Who are you talking about? I'm talking about KG and Duncan vs the rest of the field of PF's. You say Duncan is far an away the best of PF's. Yet his strengths are KG's strengths. The accolades are different but this thread is about peak play so the accolades are trashed. Duncan and KG have very similar strengths.

You made a comment about defense trumping offense or at least offensive stats...and I took issue with that.

I simply don't think it is true.

As for Duncan vs KG...I think Duncan was as good defensively actually. And in fact, some of his defensive attributes were more valuable given the way the game was played during his peak.

Also, I think Duncan was a more reliable offensive force...specifically out of the post in a more dominant and consistent way than KG was.

But I don't really care to argue Duncan vs KG vs Dirk...etc. It has been done before.

I was interested in your point about defense, but now I realize the point you were making...and I agree.

[Pointguard]

As for Duncan vs KG...I think Duncan was as good defensively actually. And in fact, some of his defensive attributes were more valuable given the way the game was played during his peak.

When KG was given a defensive coach, I think he definitely surpassed TD. The modern game defensively changed after that. TD was more traditional. KG moved much better in '04 than in '08 but was used for his movement better in '08. which was post KG prime, because of coaching. The advantage was that TD had a great defensive coach with some great defensive pieces in his prime.



Also, I think Duncan was a more reliable offensive force...specifically out of the post in a more dominant and consistent way than KG was.

If you go that route than there is no way Dirk should be in the conversation with most of the PF's right?

[DMAVS41]

When KG was given a defensive coach, I think he definitely surpassed TD. The modern game defensively changed after that. TD was more traditional. KG moved much better in '04 than in '08 but was used for his movement better in '08. which was post KG prime, because of coaching. The advantage was that TD had a great defensive coach with some great defensive pieces in his prime.



If you go that route than there is no way Dirk should be in the conversation with most of the PF's right?

KG was an all time great...who is disputing that? You make it sound like I'm arguing that KG wasn't an all time elite player.

Why would you say that about Dirk? He did things on offense KG/Duncan couldn't dream of.

Totally different style of player.

Oh...and he had a great post game as well.

Again...you don't know enough about Dirk to have a decent debate if you think his lack of post game keeps him out of a discussion.

[Pointguard]

KG was an all time great...who is disputing that? You make it sound like I'm arguing that KG wasn't an all time elite player.

Why would you say that about Dirk? He did things on offense KG/Duncan couldn't dream of.

Totally different style of player.

Oh...and he had a great post game as well.

Again...you don't know enough about Dirk to have a decent debate if you think his lack of post game keeps him out of a discussion.
When people say more dominant and consistent way I taking it that you meant deeper in the post.
Duncan was more so in the deep post than KG. But he wasn't down there like Malone or Barkley was down there. Dirk and KG played a little further out. Nobody scored as far out as Dirk. But nobody was as consistent as Malone. KG in a more structured environment would have been better offensively. as playoff ball was rather erratic under Flip (RIP) as in KG's early years he could take over a game in the same offensive way as TD did. But Flip didn't have many cards to deal with.

[DMAVS41]

When people say more dominant and consistent way I taking it that you meant deeper in the post.
Duncan was more so in the deep post than KG. But he wasn't down there like Malone or Barkley was down there. Dirk and KG played a little further out. Nobody scored as far out as Dirk. But nobody was as consistent as Malone. KG in a more structured environment would have been better offensively. as playoff ball was rather erratic under Flip (RIP) as in KG's early years he could take over a game in the same offensive way as TD did. But Flip didn't have many cards to deal with.

Yes...and if KG could do the things Dirk could do on offense....I'd rank him over Duncan.

Just like if Dirk was as good as Duncan and KG defensively...he'd be a better player than both because he was a better offensive player than both of them.

Again...I'm not seeing anything worth debating here.

We simply agree it seems.

[Round Mound]

Magic was both and individual and team player. He had many clutch last second shots made. He just did not need to do everything scoring wise cause he had Kareem and Worthy. When Kareem declined he took over scoring wise more.

[Pointguard]

Magic was both and individual and team player. He had many clutch last second shots made. He just did not need to do everything scoring wise cause he had Kareem and Worthy. When Kareem declined he took over scoring wise more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWldMhxzvdM

Barkley with the most freak of nature plays. He was a blurr. Thanks, you posted this years back.

[Round Mound]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWldMhxzvdM

Barkley with the most freak of nature plays. He was a blurr. Thanks, you posted this years back.

:applause: :cheers: :rockon: :pimp: :bowdown:

[veilside23]

KG is not ranked fair enough because the TS posted stats without factoring his defense. Since dmav gave a rating to KG a 10 on defense and 8.5 on offense

does that mean dirk is 9 on defense and 10 on offense? because honestly even with the 11 dirk he wont get to 8 defense for me. he played good when it mattered but he didnt played like anything close how good Tim and Kg were during their peak.

[Young X]

KG is not ranked fair enough because the TS posted stats without factoring his defense. Since dmav gave a rating to KG a 10 on defense and 8.5 on offense

does that mean dirk is 9 on defense and 10 on offense? because honestly even with the 11 dirk he wont get to 8 defense for me. he played good when it mattered but he didnt played like anything close how good Tim and Kg were during their peak.He's saying that even with those ratings the higher rated player isnt neccesarily the better player because individual offense and defense are not equal. Which I agree with.

But I still rank KG higher.

If you ask me, KG is competing with Duncan for #1 peak and Nowitzki and Barkley are almost tied right after.

[DMAVS41]

KG is not ranked fair enough because the TS posted stats without factoring his defense. Since dmav gave a rating to KG a 10 on defense and 8.5 on offense

does that mean dirk is 9 on defense and 10 on offense? because honestly even with the 11 dirk he wont get to 8 defense for me. he played good when it mattered but he didnt played like anything close how good Tim and Kg were during their peak.

That wasn't my point.

My point is that ranking like that is flawed because (again..in my opinion)...elite/transcendent offense at the individual level (and by individual I just mean player) is more valuable than elite defense.

Hence why a player like Magic is clearly seen as better than KG despite adding up his offense/defense...and it being less than KG.

Magic...10 on offense and 5 on defense

KG...10 on defense and 8.5 on offense

18.5 is better than 15...therefore KG is better...

But I'm arguing that is not reality...I think Magic was definitely better than KG and there is actually a pretty big gap there.

So anyone arguing that defense is more important than offense at the elite level in terms of individual players is somewhat stuck unless they are willing to argue the likes of KG over Magic...Ben Wallace over Nash...etc.

And I'm not saying one is an idiot or something to take KG over Magic...I just disagree. And likely we view the game differently in a pretty drastic way in which I'm not sure a productive discussion/debate can be had.

[veilside23]

The TS Said PF why are you dragging Magic here he is not A PF through his entire career. we cant really argue because your argument favors you. we are talking about PF again Magic is not a PF

[ArbitraryWater]

The TS Said PF why are you dragging Magic here he is not A PF through his entire career. we cant really argue because your argument favors you. we are talking about PF again Magic is not a PF

that doesnt matter, its about overall impact generated. :facepalm

[DMAVS41]

The TS Said PF why are you dragging Magic here he is not A PF through his entire career. we cant really argue because your argument favors you. we are talking about PF again Magic is not a PF

My argument favors me? What?

It is simply an argument. You can either reject or accept the argument. Has nothing to do with me.

If you want to make it about power forwards only...take a look at Barkley vs KG vs Malone.

If defense matters more...one would have to immediately rank Barkley last and it wouldn't be close.

If I was ranking them on offense it would be:

Barkley 10
KG 8.5
Malone 8

Defense:

Barkley 5
KG 10
Malone 8

KG destroys Barkley on this method...and Malone is higher as well.

And that is assuming offense and defense are equal...if you accept the "defense matters more" argument...it is even bigger of a gap.

So is that how you feel? Is it reasonable for someone to take Barkley over KG or Malone?

This is the point I'm trying to make...there are certain skills basketball players have that are inherently more valuable.

Barkley had some of those skills...although I don't want to get too much in the weeds on Barkley...this is a broad point about the game itself.

Anyone really gonna argue that KG's defense or Ben Wallace's defense was as valuable as Shaq's offense? Really?

[AussieSteve]

KG is not ranked fair enough because the TS posted stats without factoring his defense. Since dmav gave a rating to KG a 10 on defense and 8.5 on offense

does that mean dirk is 9 on defense and 10 on offense? because honestly even with the 11 dirk he wont get to 8 defense for me. he played good when it mattered but he didnt played like anything close how good Tim and Kg were during their peak.

I agree that these win-weighted game score rankings do under value defense. I tried to factor overall performance by including wins, but there's only so much you can do without ignoring stats completly. I also agree that KG was the GOAT defensive PF. You could argue that TD was his equal as an interior defender but when you combine overall defensive impact and versatility... KG wins hands down.

BUT.. this thread is about peak playoff level. The list here are the BEST combination of box stats and win% that each player had during their playoff career.

Offensively KG was well below all the rest. He scored the least, had the worst efficiency and the most turnovers. His defense would obviously bring him up to the pack, but it didn't correlate to wins... as he also had the least wins in this run. Also TD was a monster defensively during his peak run... he averaged 5 blocks a game in the 03 finals in probably one of the best defensive performances in a finals ever. There may have been other times in KGs playoff career when he performed at a higher level defensively, but if he did it didn't correlate to more wins, or at least it came at the expense of offensive output, otherwise it would be on this list.

Offensively Barkley clearly had the GOAT playoff run of any PF. Defensively TD had the GOAT run. And in regards to the next three, Dirk and Malone were so far ahead of KG offensively that I'm not sure his defense could have made up the difference... based on the number of wins it probably didn't. I think the ranking is about right.

[Pointguard]

Offensively KG was well below all the rest. He scored the least, had the worst efficiency and the most turnovers.

Wow, so he's the best rebounder and the best passer, the best set up player, the most versatile defensively, the most versatile offensively, the most active player and this sorry bit of writing is all you say in a sorry effort to act like you are being balanced??? You mentioned TO without mentioning he lead his team in assist? Last I checked offense was more than just scoring. You act like you don't have a clue.


His defense would obviously bring him up to the pack, but it didn't correlate to wins... as he also had the least wins in this run. Also TD was a monster defensively during his peak run... he averaged 5 blocks a game in the 03 finals in probably one of the best defensive performances in a finals ever. There may have been other times in KGs playoff career when he performed at a higher level defensively, but if he did it didn't correlate to more wins, or at least it came at the expense of offensive output, otherwise it would be on this list.
Either you're oblivious or just don't know. KG played for the worse GM in recent history. Once he played for a quality organization and coach he was on the best defensive team in the post handcheck era and won it all. If you are saying we can only compare KG with the incredible handicap its crazy. True it makes it harder to compare peaks because his stats were intentionally toned down for a defensive team in '08. If you are saying he had the least amount of wins while playing with a limp team its crazy. If you are saying stats are the only way to prove this its because you don't know basketball. It was the only time you could not get layups on a team. And it wasn't like he had the defensive pieces that Duncan had in '03.



Offensively Barkley clearly had the GOAT playoff run of any PF. Defensively TD had the GOAT run. And in regards to the next three, Dirk and Malone were so far ahead of KG offensively that I'm not sure his defense could have made up the difference... based on the number of wins it probably didn't. I think the ranking is about right.
Defensively KG had the GOAT run. You are intentionally going at KG because he's some sort of threat. But if you want to argue that I got you.

[AussieSteve]

Wow, so he's the best rebounder and the best passer, the best set up player, the most versatile defensively, the most versatile offensively, the most active player and this sorry bit of writing is all you say in a sorry effort to act like you are being balanced??? You mentioned TO without mentioning he lead his team in assist? Last I checked offense was more than just scoring. You act like you don't have a clue.

Either you're oblivious or just don't know. KG played for the worse GM in recent history. Once he played for a quality organization and coach he was on the best defensive team in the post handcheck era and won it all. If you are saying we can only compare KG with the incredible handicap its crazy. True it makes it harder to compare peaks because his stats were intentionally toned down for a defensive team in '08. If you are saying he had the least amount of wins while playing with a limp team its crazy. If you are saying stats are the only way to prove this its because you don't know basketball. It was the only time you could not get layups on a team. And it wasn't like he had the defensive pieces that Duncan had in '03.


Defensively KG had the GOAT run. You are intentionally going at KG because he's some sort of threat. But if you want to argue that I got you.


I am not going to argue with you about this point. It is clear to me that you know KGs game better than me, and you probably know this era of basketball better than me. So all I can say is that you may well be right in everything you say.

I am not going at KG. Prior to doing this analysis, I actually expected that he would have the highest peak (at least in the RS) because he was such a box score dominator in his prime.

My goal here is to find an objective way to assess the level at which a player was performing at their peak. I am not claiming its perfect, it clearly isn't. KG may be an example of where the methodology fails. But in general, I feel like weighting team performance and individual box stats equally will give a very good guide as to the level that a player is performing at... Assuming that player is the star of the team.

Another example where this method might not work well is if there is more than one superstar on a team. For example Kobe's playoff ranking when he was teamed up with prime Shaq. That team dominated so much that their win % seems to artificially skew Kobe's level to be higher than it was later when he was the sole star on the Lakers, which was obvioulsy his peak.

And in the OP, KG has the lowest PPG and TS%, and the most TOVs by a larger margin than he has the most APG. He also averaged the least offensive RPG... so at least statistically speaking it was the least impressive run offensively of the five in the OP.

[Pointguard]

I am not going to argue with you about this point. It is clear to me that you know KGs game better than me, and you probably know this era of basketball better than me. So all I can say is that you may well be right in everything you say.

I am not going at KG. Prior to doing this analysis, I actually expected that he would have the highest peak (at least in the RS) because he was such a box score dominator in his prime.

My goal here is to find an objective way to assess the level at which a player was performing at their peak. I am not claiming its perfect, it clearly isn't. KG may be an example of where the methodology fails. But in general, I feel like weighting team performance and individual box stats equally will give a very good guide as to the level that a player is performing at... Assuming that player is the star of the team.
Your work is done well. Its never easy to do this work. KG in his prime was the most active. He never stopped moving and had three rebounding titles. You are correct he wasn't the scorer that the others were. But was a superb passer, as was Barkley.




Another example where this method might not work well is if there is more than one superstar on a team. For example Kobe's playoff ranking when he was teamed up with prime Shaq. That team dominated so much that their win % seems to artificially skew Kobe's level to be higher than it was later when he was the sole star on the Lakers, which was obvioulsy his peak.

And in the OP, KG has the lowest PPG and TS%, and the most TOVs by a larger margin than he has the most APG. He also averaged the least offensive RPG... so at least statistically speaking it was the least impressive run offensively of the five in the OP. The reason for the turnovers was that he was the primary set up guy on his team. He had limited scorers and had to do more to get them off before his prime. He was a real smart player.and not mistake ridden. But if you didn't see his prime, and Duncan's you did a great job of reading the stats. Its never a substitute for seeing them play tho.

[DMAVS41]

KG was a great offensive player...he just wasn't on the level of the all time elite offensive players.

Now, neither was Duncan mind you.

But this is the point I'm trying to get across.

If KG was as good offensively as it seems some are claiming...and he was one of the best defenders ever (which is just a fact...KG was one of the handful of best defenders in NBA history)...you'd simply have a GOAT type candidate.

But KG wasn't a GOAT type candidate. He was a top 20 type player.

I guess one could argue that is all circumstances, but I'd really disagree with that. But I don't want to go down that road again...others can.

My aim is to try to illustrate that one would be missing something if they valued the defensive ability of a player the same way they value the offensive ability of a player if said offensive player is one of the all time best and capable of being a championship first option.