The top 25 players from 2000-2009

[ShaqAttack3234]

1) Simpatico - We're lockstep 1-11. That's kind of scary. As I go through each season, the way you do this makes more and more sense. What were the toughest decisions for you in the top 11? For me KG over Shaq was very close, same with T-Mac over Kobe and Finally Webber over Pierce despite Webber's injury in the playoffs.

KG over Shaq was a tough one for me as well. Shaq's impact was still viewed as being on another level than other players prior to Duncan dethroning Shaq and the Lakers as evidenced by him finishing first again in the GM survey, and that was before he played his best ball of the season as he had gotten in better shape and won the March player of the month award and then had a strong playoff showing.

But ultimately what did it was Shaq's "hurt on company time, heal on company time", Shaq's decline in effort defensively, KG leading the Wolves to 51 wins(on pace for 55 when Wally played) and this being 1 of 2 years when I saw more dominance and assertiveness/aggressiveness from Garnett along with '04. In fact, I thought he played pretty much as well as '04, he just didn't have the support. Also, Shaq didn't even have the best regular season on his own team this year.

Regardless, Shaq had a career season at the line at a still mediocre 62%, but this put a stop(at least for that season) to the hack-a-Shaq strategy, and at 57% from the field, it did the job. He was still the league's biggest mismatch 1 on 1, the most unstoppable player in single coverage, the league's most efficient high scorer, the player who caused the most adjustments and probably the most effective offensive player overall. And as disappointing as the Lakers season was, and despite Shaq having a down year relative to his others, we'd have probably seen a 4peat if Horry's 3 doesn't rim out in game 5 vs the Spurs, or if Fox wasn't out with an injury/Horry wasn't in that mysterious shooting slump going 0/18 on 3s in the Spurs series.

T-Mac and Kobe wasn't as tough for me. While I think their ability was too close to call, and it was basically too difficult to pick one purely on the eye test just by watching them depending on the night, T-Mac had a more consistent season, put up better numbers, had more significant team accomplishments considering his miserable roster vs Bryant's championship contending team, and Kobe's more disappointing playoff. In other words, I thought they were very close as players, but when looking at each player's case over the others, I thought McGrady had the clear edge, though their ability was identical as I mentioned. I thought the same thing about '02 as well, but in that year, all of the edges went to Bryant with the title, clutch performances and defense.

Webber vs Pierce was also one of the tougher ones for me, much like Shaq vs KG. In fact, NugzHeat made a really good case for Pierce that almost caused me to change my mind. And Webber's injury in the playoffs didn't help. But a big man as versatile and talented as Webber on a championship contender, I believe was more of a commodity than a high-scoring swingman, albeit one who was adding to his all around game. I also remember Webber being more highly regarded at the time. I also believe that the Kings with Webber were the best team in the NBA, and I think they would have won the championship had he not gotten injured. The Kings offense was one of my favorites to watch, if not my favorite, and Webber's passing, particularly from the high post was a huge part of the Kings Princeton offense.

And another one that was difficult for me was Kidd vs Dirk. What Dirk did on a 60 win Western Conference team while upping his numbers to 25/10/3 and having some monster games before his injury in game 3 of the WCF made me tempted to put him over Kidd.

But Kidd had his best season improving his 3 point shot and increasing his scoring average by 4 points from the previous year to a career high of nearly 19 points per game and over 20 per game in the playoffs in addition to being the NBA's best rebounding point guard, the best defensive point guard and the best passer.

He was actually averaging 20.4 ppg and having a solid shooting season for the time at 44% from the field, 35% on 3s and 84% from the line while making 1.5 threes per game and the Nets were 30-14 before his strained groin, and he later had tendinitis in his foot about a month later that brought his numbers down a bit more.

His Nets also swept a Piston team that I thought was deeper and more talented than the Nets and Detroit had HCA. And the Nets were legitimately competitive in the finals, the series was tied 2-2, and they actually had a chance to win unlike 2002.

I always liked Kidd's intangibles, I could go on all day about them, but when he started improving his shooting before his microfracture surgery, he was on another level, imo. His prime was from '99-'04, imo, but '03 stands out as Kidd as his absolute best.

2) Denzel's Boy - Ray Allen a but high maybe? My thinking is the Bucks are 25-22 with Allen and 15-13 with Payton. Not seeing a big difference. Allen did make the Sonics better, but ultimately at 16-13 with Seattle they weren't anything great either, essentially playing in between where they were in 2002 and 2003. Additionally, it was Allen's worst shooting year in five seasons and yet he's ranked as high or higher than he was the previous three seasons when he also made the playoffs.

A lot of that was due to it being a weak year when it gets to that point, imo. Allen did not have as good of a season as he did in '01, but while there was a very strong top 10 in '03, it gets weaker as you go on, imo. Allen also did get to show more of his all around game in Seattle. He averaged 24.5 ppg, 5.6 rpg and 5.9 apg after the trade. All of which would've been career highs at the time over a full season, and the rebounds and assists would still stand as his career highs.

And I don't hold missing the playoffs against him, he probably makes it if he hadn't been traded, but he went to a team that finished 40-42 despite Allen's 16-13 record with the team.

I do look at player's rankings across years to see how consistent they are, but I can only compare them to the other players in that particular season.

3) Monster Mash - Mashburn had his best NBA season and I have to argue for him over the likes of Peja (playoff choke, number 2 option, not better stats), Payton (down year, traded, not as good as Mash in their respective playoff series), Francis (No playoffs, more of a head case, distraction i.e your criticisms of Sheed) and Marbury, for reasons discussed below.

Good point, I did think about Mashburn above Payton, but GP was ultimately still pretty close offensively to what he was. His defense had slipped, and he found himself off of the all-defensive teams for the 1st team, though honestly, it was about several years overdue.

Francis had some really explosive games(particularly that laker game), he led a young Rocket team to a respectable record, was a triple double threat every night, and I thought he was only one step below legitimate superstar level.

I'll get into Marbury more below, but regarding Peja, he was right up there with Ray as the best pure shooter, and while he wasn't as versatile as Mashburn, he was much more efficient, and fit very well into Sacramento's offense.

After Peja's injuries in November/December, he was at 20.6 ppg on 51/41/87 shooting while making 2.3 threes over his last 50 games while turning the ball over just 1.3 times per game.

And he had a much more impressive playoff run than in previous years, he had some explosive games and his Kings took Dallas to 7 despite Webber getting injured in game 2.

I did like some things about Mashburn's game, he was crafty and good in the mid-post and low-post area, iirc. He was also a versatile player, but there were negatives with Mashburn. He did have a reputation as a selfish player, though I believe he matured in New Orleans, but he was also still an inefficient scorer.

I think you can argue him a little higher, but players like Marbury and Francis were more talented, imo and had better seasons while leading Western Conference teams to within a few wins of Mashburn's Hornets in the East.

4) And 1...more thing - Why Marbury over Marion? To me Marion brings more to the table. He shoots as well or better, scores without needing isolation, ball screens or plays run for him, much better on ball and help defender, his rebounding has more impact than Steph's playmaking.

It's tough for me because they bring such different things. For the higher ranking, I chose the guy that I felt had superstar ability, and I really did like how Marbury was playing that year.

He was getting more praise, and people thought he had "figured it out". He led a young Suns team to the postseason, though they were pretty talented. He could be an absolutely explosive scorer who could beat you off the dribble, with floaters, or with jumpers when he got hot. And was one of the most athletic point guards who had talent as a playmaker. He looked to score first and foremost, but I don't think he was playing particularly selfish this year, and I didn't expect his Suns to do anything more than they did.

Marion could score without having a play run for him, was the best rebounding small forward and a very versatile defender, but Marbury could take over a game, and set up his teammates. Marion couldn't really do either, and getting into the top 15 range, I thought a player like Marbury fit better in that range.

I thought he deserved his all-nba selection. Then again, I must admit that I was actually a Marbury fan in the late 90's/early 00's, actually until his 3rd year with the Knicks, and had been excited about the trade to NY.

[Gifted Mind]

Out of curiosity ShaqAttack, 05 Duncan or 07 Kobe?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Out of curiosity ShaqAttack, 05 Duncan or 07 Kobe?

I'd probably lean towards Kobe. Would have been really tough if Duncan didn't have the nagging injuries in '05, and if he had played more minutes. Only negative about '07 Kobe is that his defense was subpar and he was still recovering from knee surgery at the start, but he was doing a great job of getting his teammates involved early, and then when on the amazing scoring binge late when Phil gave him the greenlight.

[G.O.A.T]

2004
1.Kevin Garnett
2.Tim Duncan
3.Shaquille O'Neal
4.Kobe Bryant
5.Tracy McGrady
6.Jermaine O'Neal
7.Jason Kidd
8.Dirk Nowitzki
9.Ben Wallace
10.Peja Stojakovic
11.Sam Cassell
12.Baron Davis
13.Paul Pierce
14.Vince Carter
15.Andrei Kirilenko
16.Ron Artest
17.Elton Brand
18.Ray Allen
19.Steve Nash
20.Yao Ming
21.Pau Gasol
22.Stephon Marbury
23.Rasheed Wallace
24.Lamar Odom
25.Michael Redd

my 2004 top 20

1. Garnett
2. Duncan
3. Shaq
4. Kobe
5. Wallace
6. O'Neal
7. McGrady
8. Kidd
9. Dirk
10. Pierce
11. Stojakovic
12. Cassell
13. Davis
14. Sheed
15. Billups
16. Artest
17. Kirilenko
18. Allen
19. Carter
20. LeBron

1) This is such a hard year to figure out. Nothing made sense all season. I have McGrady behind O'Neal and Ben Wallace because his team won just 21 games that season, even with good numbers and horrible talent around him, a top five player gets you to at least 30 wins. Thoughts?

2) Why the drop for Pierce? Like McGrady he had virtually no help. His shooting numbers were poor, but he got that crap team into the playoffs.

3) Billups/Sheed/Artest - These players may not have been so valued in other NBA seasons, but they were exact;y what you needed in 2004. Surprised not to see Billups in your top 25, even more surprised to see Wallace drop considering he sort of proved his critics wrong by winning a title as the Pistons most talented all-around player. And Kirilenko over Artest? Artest won DPOTY and was as effective offensively and most of all was on a contending team.

4) No LeBron? What makes Vince Carter so much better in 2004 than LeBron than there are at least 12 players between them?

VC's numbers: 73 games (Toronto 33-40 with him), 23-5-5; 2.1 combined blocks and steals per game. 42/39/81 shooting.

LBJ's numbers: 79 games (Cleveland 33-46 with him), 21-6-6; 2.3 combined blocks and steals per game. 42/29/75 shooting.

[ShaqAttack3234]

1) This is such a hard year to figure out. Nothing made sense all season. I have McGrady behind O'Neal and Ben Wallace because his team won just 21 games that season, even with good numbers and horrible talent around him, a top five player gets you to at least 30 wins. Thoughts?

Well, I didn't like ranking him top 5 considering his team's record, but I just had a hard time justifying anyone below him.

Despite being lazy defensively and settling for jumpers quite a bit, McGrady was just such a skilled and talented scorer, a very good rebounder for his position, and he passed as well as anyone at his position. It wasn't his best season, he impressed me much more the following year, or '02 and '03, but the players below him can't really compete in talent, skills or production. He still had quite a big games this year, and was generally an impressive player when I watched him.

Looking at why Orlando was so bad, aside from his poor leadership which probably contributed to some extent, the primary reasons they were bad had nothing to do with him.

They ended up losing their first 14 games they played without McGrady including a game vs the Knicks he played 11 scoreless minutes in and they lost 114-86, and this was the pre-Marbury/pre-Lenny Wilkens Knicks who were 12-19 entering the game. They didn't win until the final 2 games when they beat a 23-59 Bulls team and a 33-49 Sixer team that was playing without Iverson and Glenn Robinson.

Orlando was a decent offensive team for the year, they were 13th best 103.7 points per 100 possessions, and obviously significantly higher in just the games McGrady played because when he was out, they scored just an anemic 98.3 points per 100 possessions and just 87.6 points per game.

But the reason they were a bad team even with McGrady was their defense. They were easily the worst in the league allowing 110.4 points per 100 possessions. And McGrady didn't make them worse defensively because they allowed 114.4 points per 100 possessions when he was out.

2) Why the drop for Pierce? Like McGrady he had virtually no help. His shooting numbers were poor, but he got that crap team into the playoffs.

His team did suck, but I didn't think his performance justified any higher than 14th, which is a pretty solid ranking. His season was extremely similar to Carter's, so I ranked them back to back.

3) Billups/Sheed/Artest - These players may not have been so valued in other NBA seasons, but they were exact;y what you needed in 2004. Surprised not to see Billups in your top 25, even more surprised to see Wallace drop considering he sort of proved his critics wrong by winning a title as the Pistons most talented all-around player. And Kirilenko over Artest? Artest won DPOTY and was as effective offensively and most of all was on a contending team.

Wallace was in a reduced role, though, so there wasn't as much pressure on him. He played great in his role, but part of the reason many felt he was comfortable was that he now wasn't expected to be the man. And that's one of the reasons why Rasheed never ranked higher because despite having superstar talent, he never embraced the burden of carrying a team consistently. While I also liked his unselfish attitude, it also prevented him from being the dominant player I think he could have been.

Billups didn't make it because I just didn't think he was good enough prior to the finals. I thought Rip was Detroit's best offensive player by far through the first 3 rounds. I did give Billups a lot of thought, but I didn't want to give it to him just for the finals. He impressed me a lot more in the years after '04.

Artest's man to man defense was better than AK47, but Kirilenko was the better help defender, and overall player, imo. He played out of position at PF, rebounded well, and almost led Utah team expected to finish with one of the worst records to a 42-40 record and they competed for a playoff spot. They probably would have made the playoffs if they weren't 0-4 without Kirilenko. Some of their success has to be attributed to Sloan, but Kirilenko was their only notable player, and versatility can make a big impact.

I didn't think there was a big difference so they were ranked back to back.

4) No LeBron? What makes Vince Carter so much better in 2004 than LeBron than there are at least 12 players between them?

VC's numbers: 73 games (Toronto 33-40 with him), 23-5-5; 2.1 combined blocks and steals per game. 42/39/81 shooting.

LBJ's numbers: 79 games (Cleveland 33-46 with him), 21-6-6; 2.3 combined blocks and steals per game. 42/29/75 shooting.

Vince could shoot, while Lebron was an awful shooter when he entered the league. And the fact that Toronto was 0-9 without Vince tells you something about his team. He actually had a pretty underrated year, imo, he obviously wasn't giving effort in '05 before the trade, but he had a solid year that was definitely on par with Pierce's in '04. Vince had improved his passing considerably by that point. Given his talent, production, and the fact that he did have a positive impact on his team compared to what they were capable of without him, I don't see him dropping much further.

I initially had Lebron in one of the lower spots on the list, but NugzHeat made a good case for Lebron not being deserving yet. There were other players who were more effective, and I started thinking that I was giving Lebron too much credit for what he'd go on to do.

[magnax1]

And Kirilenko over Artest? Artest won DPOTY and was as effective offensively and most of all was on a contending team.

While I'm not sure if AK or Artest was better, I have to disagree about him being as effective offensively. I think Artest often time took shots that he didn't really need to because he thought he was a better scorer then he was. He averaged 18 ppg, but shot an awful % (51 TS%) and turned the ball over an awful lot. While AK is often times a very frustrating player on offense, he averaged 56 TS% that season, was capable of playing a point forward role (he's one of the most under rated passers in the NBA) and has always been an absolutely fantastic cutter, and that's where he got most of his points. Defensively I'll probably take Artest, because I think even at his peak AK was a bit over rated because of his crazy stats, but AK was a lot better on offense to me.

Artest's man to man defense was better than AK47, but Kirilenko was the better help defender, and overall player, imo. He played out of position at PF, rebounded well, and almost led Utah team expected to finish with one of the worst records to a 42-40 record and they competed for a playoff spot

Well AK was actually better off at PF. His body type might not suggest it, but he really excelled at that spot, and he never really returned to his level of play at PF in 04 again, probably because he never really had a chance to play PF again.

I have to disagree with people ranking Shaq so high in 04 though. He just didn't play as well as he did the year before, or the year after. I think if he comes in 04 in as good of shape as 05, they probably win the title. He scored less while not really putting in an extra effort in any other part of the game.
04 was the first year Kobe was the absolute first option, and when he was healthy it was clear to me he was a lot better then Shaq. After January Kobe averaged 26-6-6 on 56 TS%, and when there was a 34 game stretch where they went 29-5 when he played, and much of that stretch was without Malone, which made it even more impressive since he was huge as a glue guy for that team, and looked quite weak without him much of the time.
I think Shaq was much close to the guys after the top 4 (TMac, Duncan, Kobe KG) then those four.

[Nash]

Isn't Lebron a bit too low on your 2007 list? Didn't he literally carry a shit team all the way to the finals.

[Ikill]

Isn't Lebron a bit too low on your 2007 list? Didn't he literally carry a shit team all the way to the finals.

he didn't carry them tho most overrated playoff run ever

[ShaqAttack3234]

While I'm not sure if AK or Artest was better, I have to disagree about him being as effective offensively. I think Artest often time took shots that he didn't really need to because he thought he was a better scorer then he was. He averaged 18 ppg, but shot an awful % (51 TS%) and turned the ball over an awful lot. While AK is often times a very frustrating player on offense, he averaged 56 TS% that season, was capable of playing a point forward role (he's one of the most under rated passers in the NBA) and has always been an absolutely fantastic cutter, and that's where he got most of his points. Defensively I'll probably take Artest, because I think even at his peak AK was a bit over rated because of his crazy stats, but AK was a lot better on offense to me.

Good post about AK47. I remember Kirilenko in the point forward role a bit even later. I believe when Deron missed some games, or when Deron went to the bench.

On a side note, 51 TS% wasn't awful in '04, it was about league average that year.

Well AK was actually better off at PF. His body type might not suggest it, but he really excelled at that spot, and he never really returned to his level of play at PF in 04 again, probably because he never really had a chance to play PF again.

He did have a very good season in '06 too.

I have to disagree with people ranking Shaq so high in 04 though. He just didn't play as well as he did the year before, or the year after. I think if he comes in 04 in as good of shape as 05, they probably win the title. He scored less while not really putting in an extra effort in any other part of the game.
04 was the first year Kobe was the absolute first option, and when he was healthy it was clear to me he was a lot better then Shaq. After January Kobe averaged 26-6-6 on 56 TS%, and when there was a 34 game stretch where they went 29-5 when he played, and much of that stretch was without Malone, which made it even more impressive since he was huge as a glue guy for that team, and looked quite weak without him much of the time.
I think Shaq was much close to the guys after the top 4 (TMac, Duncan, Kobe KG) then those four.

I really don't see your point here. Shaq was declining by that point, but he was in better shape than '03, and it paid off defensively. His defense was clearly improved over '03, and he had his best rebounding and shot blocking seasons since '01. Aside from his free throw shooting falling off, one of the bigger reasons his scoring dropped so much was the Lakers not only had a 3rd option, but also a 4th option for half the year.

I agree that Malone was very important for them. People sometimes group the Malone/Payton signings in together as mistake, but Malone was a great addition, it was just bad luck that he got injured. But his skill set fit well in the triangle and next to Shaq. Payton was a bad fit, and terrible in the playoffs, though. They did need Malone because that was the first year the Lakers couldn't get by as much with Shaq and Kobe as a 2 man team with Shaq starting to decline a bit at 32, and Kobe being limited due the off the court issues and knee surgery as well as some other nagging injuries.

Phil did say that Kobe wasn't healthy until the second half, and he did average 27 ppg, 6.6 rpg ad 6.1 apg on 45% shooting compared to 21.5 ppg, 4.7 rpg and 4.3 apg on 42% shooting in the 1st half. And that was with a game where he only played 1 minute, without that game, he was at an even 28 ppg in the second half.

But Shaq was more consistent throughout the season and clearly better in the playoffs. And Kobe's knee surgery affected him noticeably defensively, while Shaq's shot blocking made a bigger impact at that end.

I thought Shaq was clearly the better player, Kobe had a disappointing season in '04, while Shaq was clearly aging, but not really disappointing and still physically dominant. And the impact of a dominant big man and a power player makes him a clear top 3 in such a weak year.

Kobe wasn't clearly the 1st option either. Phil called Shaq the 1st option, though I wouldn't disagree with someone saying it was 1.A/1.B like '04 the way it worked out.

But any case Kobe had over Shaq based on those 28-29 second half games went out the window in the playoffs.

Isn't Lebron a bit too low on your 2007 list? Didn't he literally carry a shit team all the way to the finals.

He's top 5, considering how bad his shooting was, I'd say that's about where he belongs. Nash had an unbelievable year, maybe the greatest shooting season by a guard, and his passing was obviously comparable to the best point guards ever. Dirk had a great regular season, he drops below Nash because of the embarrassing 1st round, but I still thought he was a less flawed player than Lebron that year.

'07 was a disappointing year for Lebron, imo, easily his worst from '06-present. And you could make a case for '05 over it.

Lebron faced very weak competition in the playoffs. He faced a Wizards team without their 2 best players Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler. And faced a Net team with a terrible frontcourt. Their big men were Mikki Moore, Jason Collins and Josh Boone. And that was actually a close 6 game series. Game 1 was probably decided by a late chasedown block by Sasha Pavlovic on a potential Jason Kidd, game 4 was decided by Vince Carter turning the ball over vs Eric Snow when he was going for a last second shot, and game 6 was a 1 point game entering the 4th, but Donyell Marshall came off the bench and made 6 threes in that game. And that was with Vince Carter, who the Nets really relied on for scoring, shoot 35% in the series. So many of the differences vs a mediocre Nets team weren't even Lebron.

Detroit was a legit opponent, though. But his jumper was exposed in the finals when Bowen backed off of him and San Antonio close off the paint as Lebron shot 35% from the field and averaged 5.8 turnovers.

But outside of the competition, the Cavs were also top 4 defensively and they outrebounded opponents by 3.7 rpg. I don't think rebounding and defense can be overlooked when talking about Lebron's help, particularly in such a weak conference. And Lebron's cast was filled with legit NBA players at least, even though they weren't the most talented team.

[G.O.A.T]

Two at a time

2005
1.Tim Duncan
2.Kevin Garnett
3.Shaquille O'Neal
4.Steve Nash
5.Tracy McGrady
6.Dirk Nowitzki
7.Dwyane Wade
8.Allen Iverson
9.Lebron James
10.Kobe Bryant
11.Vince Carter
12.Amare Stoudemire
13.Ray Allen
14.Paul Pierce
15.Manu Ginobili
16.Elton Brand
17.Gilbert Arenas
18.Ben Wallace
19.Shawn Marion
20.Jason Kidd
21.Yao Ming
22.Chauncey Billups
23.Stephon Marbury
24.Grant Hill
25.Carmelo Anthony

2006
1.Kobe Bryant
2.Dwyane Wade
3.Lebron James
4.Dirk Nowitzki
5.Tim Duncan
6.Kevin Garnett
7.Steve Nash
8.Allen Iverson
9.Elton Brand
10.Shaquille O'Neal
11.Paul Pierce
12.Gilbert Arenas
13.Chauncey Billups
14.Vince Carter
15.Carmelo Anthony
16.Ray Allen
17.Shawn Marion
18.Pau Gasol
19.Yao Ming
20.Andrei Kirilenko
21.Jason Kidd
22.Manu Ginobili
23.Tony Parker
24.Michael Redd
25.Ben Wallace

My 2005
1. Duncan
2. Shaq
3. Garnett
4. Nash
5. Dirk
6. Wade
7. McGrady
8. Iverson
9. James
10. Kobe
11. Amare
12. Allen
13. Pierce
14. Billups
15. Manu
16. Wallace
17. Brand
18. Kidd
19. Carter
20. Arenas

My 2006
1. Kobe
2. Wade
3. Dirk
4. Duncan
5. Shaq
6. Nash
7. LeBron
8. Garnett
9. Iverson
10. Billups
11. Brand
12. Pierce
13. Carter
14. Arenas
15. Carmelo
16. Gasol
17. Allen
18. Marion
19. Kidd
20. Manu


For 2005

1) Why not Shaq (my pick for MVP in '05) over Garnett who missed the playoffs (in a very tough conference with injuries to key players)?

2) Dirk/Wade/McGrady - I had Dirk on top because the other guys had major injuries that cost their teams a lot in the end. Why does McGrady get the nod over Nowitzki but not Wade?

3) Carter way too high. For the level he played at to start the year in Toronto he'd have needed to do a lot more than get the Nets the eight seed while Orlando and Cleveland collapsed down the stretch. And even though he played the best of any of the Nets down the stretch, Kidd was more valuable to that team in my opinion as evidenced by the start NJ had with him out and how well he played (13/9/10) down the stretch as NJ made their push.

For 2006

1) Surprised how high LeBron is. I had him behind Nash because despite how great James numbers were, I though the playoffs showed how his game was still developing and not there yet. To me 2007 was his better season simply for what he was able to do in the playoffs. Just explain your thinking here.

2) Shaq lower than I'd have expected. He was still a 20-10 guy shooting 60% from the field and anchoring a defense. I don't think Elton Brand (who had an amazing season, his best) should be above him. He wasn't their star anymore, but Miami doesn't win a title wihtout Shaq. What were the factors leading to Shaq's drop here?

3) How close is the Kobe/Wade debate for you that season?

[oolalaa]

I've decided to copy you, shaqattack, and compile my own lists (Only top 15, not top 25 like you've done ). It's taken me a few days but I've done the '12, '11 and '10 seasons, and I'm reasonably happy with them. I welcome any critiques/feedback....

2012....
1. Lebron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Chris Paul
5. Dwight Howard
6. Kevin Love
7. Rajon Rondo
8. Dwyane Wade
9. Russell Westbrook
10. Andrew Bynum
11. Tony Parker
12. Tim Duncan
13. Kevin Garnett
14. Deron Williams
15. Derrick Rose


2011....
1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Lebron James
4. Dwight Howard
5. Kevin Durant
6. Derrick Rose
7. Chris Paul
8. Kobe Bryant
9. Zach Randolph
10. Deron Williams
11. Carmelo Anthony
12. Amare Stoudemire
13. Steve Nash
14. Paul Pierce
15. LaMarcus Aldridge


2010....
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Lebron James
4. Dwight Howard
5. Dirk Nowitzki
6. Steve Nash
7. Deron Williams
8. Carmelo Anthony
9. Pau Gasol
10. Kevin Durant
11. Rajon Rondo
12. Tim Duncan
13. Chris Bosh
14. Paul Pierce
15. Brandon Roy

[che guevara]

For 2006

1) Surprised how high LeBron is. I had him behind Nash because despite how great James numbers were, I though the playoffs showed how his game was still developing and not there yet. To me 2007 was his better season simply for what he was able to do in the playoffs. Just explain your thinking here.

2) Shaq lower than I'd have expected. He was still a 20-10 guy shooting 60% from the field and anchoring a defense. I don't think Elton Brand (who had an amazing season, his best) should be above him. He wasn't their star anymore, but Miami doesn't win a title wihtout Shaq. What were the factors leading to Shaq's drop here?

3) How close is the Kobe/Wade debate for you that season?

1. What? Lebron played just fine in the playoffs, he averaged 31-8-6 on 48% FG (5 TOs, though), made two game winners in his first playoff series ever (including scoring 45 and making the game winner in the pivotal game 5), and pushed a 64 win Detroit team to 7 games in the 2nd. In '07, he averaged worse numbers (25-8-8 on a paltry 42% FG), played a Wizards team missing their two best players in the first round, and a 6th seeded Nets team in the 2nd round with Vince shooting 35%. We all know what happened in the Detroit series, but people forget that Lebron was having a mediocre game 5 up until 6 minutes left in the 4th.

He was a lot better in '06 than '07, just look at the numbers, watch the games (his shooting was much better in '06) and don't get blinded by his game 5 (which wasn't really even much better than his game 5 vs. the Wizards in '06).

As far as shooting:

'06 Lebron:
.738 FT%
.335 3p%
.398 16-23

'07 Lebron:
.698 FT%
.319 3p%
.344 16-23

I honestly don't know what the case is for '07 over '06. He regressed in just about every area that year, except defense.

[oolalaa]

1. What? Lebron played just fine in the playoffs, he averaged 31-8-6 on 48% FG (5 TOs, though), made two game winners in his first playoff series ever (including scoring 45 and making the game winner in the pivotal game 5), and pushed a 64 win Detroit team to 7 games in the 2nd. In '07, he averaged worse numbers (25-8-8 on a paltry 42% FG), played a Wizards team missing their two best players in the first round, and a 6th seeded Nets team in the 2nd round with Vince shooting 35%. We all know what happened in the Detroit series, but people forget that Lebron was having a mediocre game 5 up until 6 minutes left in the 4th.

He was a lot better in '06 than '07, just look at the numbers, watch the games (his shooting was much better in '06) and don't get blinded by his game 5 (which wasn't really even much better than his game 5 vs. the Wizards in '06).

As far as shooting:

'06 Lebron:
.738 FT%
.335 3p%
.398 16-23

'07 Lebron:
.698 FT%
.319 3p%
.344 16-23

I honestly don't know what the case is for '07 over '06. He regressed in just about every area that year, except defense.

Completely agree. He flat out REGRESSED in 2007, compared to '06. I've noticed that a lot of superstars seem to do this - after ascending for 3 straight years upon entering the league, they regress in their 4th year (as a starter). Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe and Tmac (As well as many more who I can't remember off the top of my head) all experienced a 4th year slump.

Lebron's entire '07 season rested on one game.

[ShaqAttack3234]

1) Why not Shaq (my pick for MVP in '05) over Garnett who missed the playoffs (in a very tough conference with injuries to key players)?

His minutes were limited to a new career low of 34 per game, yet got injured late in the season and it prevented him from playing like himself in the playoffs. In fact, he missed playoff games for the first time in his career.

Shaq being less mobile did hurt his defense a bit, and also resulted in more foul trouble.

I didn't think Garnett was quite as good as he was in '03 and '04, but he was as good as any of his other seasons, imo. And Garnett edged out a late prime Shaq or at worst, slightly past his prime Shaq in '03 so I thought it'd be more logical to still choose prime Garnett over a past his prime Shaq.

I think their impact was very comparable even at that stage, though, so I can't argue too much.

2) Dirk/Wade/McGrady - I had Dirk on top because the other guys had major injuries that cost their teams a lot in the end. Why does McGrady get the nod over Nowitzki but not Wade?

McGrady didn't have injuries that year, his back would act up every now and then, but it hadn't really derailed his career yet. He was still at prime level, and had a really memorable season, imo. They depended on him heavily, particularly since Van gundy was far from an offensive genius. He dropped 40 quite a few times and still as deadly of a streak scorer as there was in the league, but he was also a fantastic playmaker, pretty much as good as there was among non-PG.

T-Mac really got going after his first month in Houston, he had been looking to fit in for the first month, but when Van Gundy told him he wanted him to step up and carry the team in early December, he really picked it up. I liked his approach coming off a season where his motivation was questionable at times in '04. He seemed really motivated, and healthy for the most part.

At that point, I thought T-Mac was still more talented and could impact the game in more ways than Dirk. Plus McGrady completely outplayed Dirk in their playoff series. Dirk won, but it was because he had more overall talent around him, and a more balanced team. And beyond McGrady just outplaying him averaging 31/7/7 on 46% shooting to Dirk's 21/9/3 on 35% shooting, T-Mac even guarded Dirk very effectively for stretches, which showed another part of McGrady's game when he stepped up in a big match up. While this was not the determing factor, McGrady being able to be a game changer defensively when he wanted help make it easier. And if I did have any doubts, I'd use the playoffs as a tiebreaker.

I was tempted to put Wade higher because of how well he was playing in the playoffs, but despite breaking out that year, Wade was still too raw, imo. He didn't have a jump shot yet, everything was going to the basket, while he started showing a nice mid-range game in '06. And he could also play out of control at times, an example is his average of over 4 turnovers. I still thought he had a little to learn and add to his game before I'd put him over more skilled players like Dirk and McGrady.

3) Carter way too high. For the level he played at to start the year in Toronto he'd have needed to do a lot more than get the Nets the eight seed while Orlando and Cleveland collapsed down the stretch. And even though he played the best of any of the Nets down the stretch, Kidd was more valuable to that team in my opinion as evidenced by the start NJ had with him out and how well he played (13/9/10) down the stretch as NJ made their push

I did drop Carter lower than he would've been had he played the entire season at his New Jersey level, but he was arguably playing like the best SG/SF in the league after his trade. And he also played the best basketball of his career after the trade to New Jersey. It doesn't top 2001 as his best season because I dropped him for the Toronto stretch, but not only was Vince motivated again, but he was a smarter and more skilled player than he had been in '01. He had become a better ball handler, and a very good playmaker, while also improving his mid-range game, and taking less off balance shots. Vince really saved the Nets season, they were well under .500 when he joined thand Richard Jefferson went down until the playoffs shortly after, and they had also lost Kenyon Martin and Kerry Kittles in the offseason.

Kidd got better as the season went on, but I personally had no doubt that Vince was the Nets best player after Kidd's microfracture surgery.

The Nets finished up 26-14 and over those last 40 games, Carter averaged 29/6/5 on shooting % of 47/44/84 while making 2.2 threes per game and turning the ball over just 2.7 times per game. Like I've said, I've never seen him play better.

1) Surprised how high LeBron is. I had him behind Nash because despite how great James numbers were, I though the playoffs showed how his game was still developing and not there yet. To me 2007 was his better season simply for what he was able to do in the playoffs. Just explain your thinking here.

I thought Lebron was significantly better in '06 because he had actually improved his jump shot and become a respectable shooter. His shooting was atrocious in '07, and just a major weakness that the Spurs exposed, and throughout that season, and in general, Lebron's level of play had disappointed me throughout that year. I had thought he clearly regressed and he wasn't having the same type of big games. His one noticeable improvement was defensively where he went from poor in '06 to average in '07.

But Lebron had also led the Cavs to 50 games in '06 without Larry Hughes even playing half a season. And not only did Larry hughes fail to play even half the season, but the Cavs were also still an average defensive team in '06, while they became elite defensively in '07 and Hughes didn't miss a significant amount of games that year. And Lebron took an '06 Piston team to 7 games that had won 64 games and still had Ben Wallace.

His '07 playoff run didn't blow me away either, his playmaking was what really impressed me that run. I don't see the problem with his '06 playoff play. That's one of the 3 years he hasn't disappointed me along with '09 and '12.

I was tempted to put Dirk above Lebron in '06. Was very close, but Lebron with a pretty good jump shot as well as his athletic ability and the passing ability he entered the league with was a little too much.

2) Shaq lower than I'd have expected. He was still a 20-10 guy shooting 60% from the field and anchoring a defense. I don't think Elton Brand (who had an amazing season, his best) should be above him. He wasn't their star anymore, but Miami doesn't win a title wihtout Shaq. What were the factors leading to Shaq's drop here?

Durability was one. He dropped below 31 mpg, and was slower. You could argue him a little higher, but considering the limited minutes, I thought top 10 was high enough.

But aside from the limited minutes, he lost more mobility, and I noticed what that did at times defensively, it also caused him to be in foul trouble more often including more offensive fouls.

3) How close is the Kobe/Wade debate for you that season?

Wade's excellent ECF and legendary finals make me understand why people consider him, but it wasn't too close in the regular seaso and I thought Kobe was jut the better, more skilled player. Wade winning a title wasn't going to change that for me because Kobe obviously didn't have the team to contend, but he did a remarkable job of carrying that Laker tea.

2012....
1. Lebron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Chris Paul
5. Dwight Howard
6. Kevin Love
7. Rajon Rondo
8. Dwyane Wade
9. Russell Westbrook
10. Andrew Bynum
11. Tony Parker
12. Tim Duncan
13. Kevin Garnett
14. Deron Williams
15. Derrick Rose

Well, I'd drop Kobe below Paul and Howard for sure. Paul would be top 3 for me and Howard top 4. Love is quite a bit too high, he's never seemed like a player approaching top 5 status to me.

2011....
1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Lebron James
4. Dwight Howard
5. Kevin Durant
6. Derrick Rose
7. Chris Paul
8. Kobe Bryant
9. Zach Randolph
10. Deron Williams
11. Carmelo Anthony
12. Amare Stoudemire
13. Steve Nash
14. Paul Pierce
15. LaMarcus Aldridge

It's pretty debatable, the top 4 can be in any order, but I'd go with lebron and Howard at 1 and 2, and I haven't decided on who would be 3rd between Wade and Dirk. I definitely don't think Randolph was top 9, though. Pau Gasol was also still top 15 at least to me despite the poor playoffs.

2010....
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Lebron James
4. Dwight Howard
5. Dirk Nowitzki
6. Steve Nash
7. Deron Williams
8. Carmelo Anthony
9. Pau Gasol
10. Kevin Durant
11. Rajon Rondo
12. Tim Duncan
13. Chris Bosh
14. Paul Pierce
15. Brandon Roy

I understand why some rank Kobe 1st, but Lebron was still the best player to me despite those last 3 games vs Boston.

I definitely don't understand Wade over Lebron, though. Wade is clearly 3rd that year behind Lebron and Kobe, imo. His jump shot completely diappeared and he was out of shape and playing well below his standards to start the season. Wade was averaging 26.3 ppg, 5 rpg, 6.1 apg on just 43.9% shooting in his first 2 months or first 30 games that season. I understand Wade over Kobe more because he was playing very poorly due to injuries from January until the end of the OKC series when he got his knee drained. And hurting the team at times because he was trying to shoot himself out of the But he was having an MVP type season the first 2 months killing guys in the post and scoring more efficiently and consistently than I've seen him, and was back to playing very well after the 1st round.

I wouldn't put Rondo or Duncan at that stage ahead of Bosh either, particularly not Rondo, who I think should be in the top 15-20 range.

[G.O.A.T]

@ Shaqattack

Just wanted to run a thought by you.

I think we agree that a lot times there is more than one correct/fair spot to rank a player based on talent. For example Shaq and Garnett from 2003-2005.

When it's that close in terms of skill/impact, is it fair to determine which player gets the higher ranking based on how well he led/fit in with his team?

Because Shaq did not show great leadership in 2003 and 2004 I have Garnett above him, because he did in 2005, I gave him the nod over KG.