Moderators: PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063
postertag wrote:Where does Isiah Thomas fit in? I haven't seen his name mentioned yet, but something doesn't feel right about a large gap between him and CP3. Paul was the better all around player, but Zeke was one of the greatest leaders/competitors of all time and put up playstation stats in the mid 80's. In my view he's certainly the next PG on the board.
ShaqAttack3234 wrote:Cool project, unfortunately, I joined too late to participate, but I enjoyed seeing the list so far and will enjoy following the project. My post will be long so I'll break it down into sections to make it easier to read.
General comments and a few disagreements
I am surprised to see Russell so high on a peak list, usually his unmatched ability to win year after year is what's brought up for him rather than one particular season. I'm unsure of when he peaked myself. '65 is a valid choice, though Russell himself called '64 his best season and I've often thought about '62 because of the extra scoring, and his playoff run was really impressive from the articles I've read.
I disagree with Oscar and Dr. J over Kobe. It's easier for me to make a comparison to Dr. J so I'll focus on him. Kobe was a much better ball-handler, he had better footwork and he was a much better shooter. Dr. J was the better finisher and he had a nice skill set himself with the ability to post up and hit bank shots from about 15, but I value Kobe's superior ability to get his shot from anywhere in a half court game whenever he wanted over Erving's ability in the open court. While Dr. J was an underrated passer, Kobe has a significant advantage as a playmaker, he's been the closest thing his team has had to a point guard for the better part of his career, and he did a phenomenal job as a playmaker in 2008, the season in question. It was easily the best I've seen Kobe in terms of game management, intelligence, maturity and his impact on his teammates. The closest he's been as a playmaker was the 2001 playoffs, but he only sustained it for 16 games then, while he did it for an entire season in '08, and he also had to deal with far more double teams in '08, while he also faced single coverage often in '01 making his decision making all the more impressive. Doc has the advantage as a rebounder, but it's not nearly enough to make up for the scoring and playmaking, imo. In the past, I would have called Kobe the better defender, but someone whose opinion I respect recently told me Dr. J was an underrated defender, so I'll hold off for now, I'll have to go back and watch more games and focus more on his help/team defense. While Kobe's defense wasn't consistent throughout his career, 2008 was the year he rededicated himself defensively and had his best defensive season since the 3peat. His man to man defense was elite when he was focused. I do have trouble making comparisons between the NBA and ABA, and while '76 is a legitimate choice for Dr. J's peak I'm more comparing '80 Erving, which I don't think is a problem since I don't think Dr. J was ever significantly better than he was in '80, if at all.
I'm sort of undecided between '06 and '08 as Kobe's peak and have been for several years. '06 was his most dominant year individually, Phil told him to carry the offense until the team got comfortable in the triangle, and he did that as well as anyone could have hoped for. I was also impressed that he switched his approach to somewhat of a decoy in the Phoenix series to nearly pull off the upset. But '08 was definitely Kobe's best from an all around standpoint, his scoring ability was still close to his peak, imo and while this may have more to do with the situation, Kobe was still playing a style better suited to a championship team than '06.
I am surprised that '63 was chosen as Oscar's peak. I've always considered '64 to be an easy choice as his peak, and it also seemed to be the consensus as well as Oscar's choice for his best year.
I'd also have to take Ewing over Robinson. Even Ewing's numbers were on par with Robinson's best this year, but Ewing's numbers were more indicative of his ability, imo and unlike Robinson, he sustained them in the playoffs. The biggest advantage for me was Ewing's back to the basket game, and he was also the better shooter. The added quickness Ewing had this year made his turnaround a devastating go to move. He already had range out to 18-20 feet, but didn't settle and shoot that many of them like later, he didn't have to because he was so dominant in the low post. Robinson never had a go to move like Ewing did, and he looked awkward with his back to the basket, it was never where he was comfortable, and that's why I suspect he wasn't able to sustain his offense from the regular season in the playoffs. He could rack up points because of his quickness, which made it almost impossible for opposing centers to stay with him when he faced up, especially with his improved mid-range shot in the mid 90's. His athleticism also helped him pick up easy baskets from lob passes and running the floor, but those things proved far more reliable in the regular season than the playoffs. So, '90 Ewing has a significant advantage as a scorer over any version of Robinson, imo.
Ewing made major improvements to his game in '90 such as added strength from lifting weights, improved rebounding and improved passing out of double teams. I believe he handled double teams better because of the extra quickness which made him less predictable, see his game 5 vs Boston when he had 10 assists. Robinson was the better passer, but I still prefer Ewing as an offensive option because of his post game. Rebounding is pretty close, and while Robinson was typically the better defender, Ewing was a beast at that end himself, especially in '90 when he was blocking 4 shots per game, he could control a game defensively at that end as well. For an example, see the January 15th, 1990 game vs the Bulls. What seals it for me is what Ewing did in the playoffs with the last 3 games all facing elimination to will the Knicks to a victory over a much more talented Celtic team. I've never seen Robinson do anything close to that in the playoffs.
'90 was clearly Ewing's peak, while I think an argument can be made for either '94 or '95 for Robinson. His playoffs were worse in '94, but he didn't face Utah in '95, and he always struggled against them. I'll still agree with '95 though.
I'd also take '90 Ewing over any version of Dirk without hesitating. If Dirk was better than '90 Ewing offensively, the advantage was a lot smaller than Ewing's advantages defensively and even on the boards.
If Wade is this high, then I don't think '03 T-Mac can be much lower. Wade had the advantage defensively, but T-Mac was the better scorer, shooter and rebounder. Playmaking is debatable, but T-Mac impressed me more as a passer. Their team accomplishments were almost identical as well, but T-Mac's team was even worse, imo. T-Mac also had a better playoff showing vs a Detroit team that was better than '09 Hawks and vastly superior defensively. I think it's a matter of preference who you think is better, I give T-Mac a slight edge myself, but either way, I just don't think they can be ranked too far apart.
I'm surprised to see Nash this high, but it's nice to see him get the credit. He's probably the best since prime '87-'90 Magic at balancing scoring and playmaking at the point guard position. '05 is a solid choice for his peak and featured his best playoffs, plus the regular season and playoffs perfectly demonstrated how well he balanced scoring and playmaking. He was content to be essentially the 5th scoring option during the regular season while leading one of the best offenses we've seen in recent years, but when his team needed it, he took over with his scoring in the playoffs. Dallas wanted Nash to become a scorer, and Steve beat them with a scorer while still keeping his teammates involved. Though '07 is probably the best I've seen Nash play.
Each player's peak
As far as the years picked for peaks, they look accurate for the most part. Jordan's '91 has as good of a case as any, and is the consensus, though I sometimes go with '90. He was pretty much the same player both seasons as far as approach, skills and ability, though Jordan seemed like he may have been a bit quicker in '90. The main difference in approach was that Jordan looked for his shot more early in games in '91 in response to the coaching staff limiting his minutes and he also shot 3s in '90 and they relied on him even more since the team wasn't as good. The championship could be viewed as the tiebreaker, though I think the results would be the same in each case if you switched '90 and '91 Jordan. Shaq's 2000 is the clear choice. His skills, athleticism and ability were the same in '01, and he played at his 2000 level after the slow start the first 2 months, but he was more committed to defense for the entire 2000 season and didn't have the slow start, which is the difference. '67 is the clear choice for Wilt. The 3 years from '93-'95 are all valid choices for Hakeem, I go with '94, but I didn't see much of him in '93, and still haven't found that many games. '77 is definitely the choice for Kareem, imo and it's nice to see this chosen over early years which I'm convinced people only choose because of stats. He clearly had added to his game by '77 without really losing anything. '86 is my choice for Bird as well. '87 is my choice for Magic as well, though I think a case can be made for '90 because he either improved his post game or used it more and became a legit 3 point shooter. '03 is clear for Duncan, his '02 regular season was about as good, but the playoffs are the difference. '09 is probably still my choice for Lebron, though I do think he made some improvements to his game that made him more capable of fitting in with talent in '12, and he's become a better defender. '04 is also my choice for KG, I think he was pretty much as good in '03, but the team success can be the tiebreaker. Obviously '77 for Walton, he looked to be headed for a year at least as good in '78, but the injuries make this obvious. I think Dirk has 4 years that can be argued as his best('06, '07 and '09 in addition to '11.) It feels wrong choosing '07 because of the Warriors series, but it is the best I've seen his all around game.
I've also always found it interesting how often players peak at 27-28 years old. Out of the players chosen so far, there's '87 Magic, '04 KG, '09 Wade, '90 Ewing and '66 West at 27 years old as well as '91 MJ and '00 Shaq at 28 years old. That's something I'll be looking at as the lists go on.
ardee wrote:bastillon wrote:we all know you can't fall in love with Wilt's stats because they're empty. the guy was arguing for every stat with scorekeepers. look at his monstrous stats in 65 and compare them to his negligible impact. it's almost sad that you can put up 35/23/3.5 and make no impact (Wilt 65). what matters more is that Wilt-less Sixers would still put up about 5-6 SRS quite easily. so Wilt didn't even give them more lift than Rodman 96-97 did on the Bulls.
'93 Bulls (with Jordan): 6.19 SRS
'94 Bulls (without Jordan): 2.87 SRS
'93 MJ made only a 3.32 SRS difference! '93 MJ was having the same impact as '97 Rodman!
You see how silly that sounds?
Ginobili wrote:ardee wrote:bastillon wrote:we all know you can't fall in love with Wilt's stats because they're empty. the guy was arguing for every stat with scorekeepers. look at his monstrous stats in 65 and compare them to his negligible impact. it's almost sad that you can put up 35/23/3.5 and make no impact (Wilt 65). what matters more is that Wilt-less Sixers would still put up about 5-6 SRS quite easily. so Wilt didn't even give them more lift than Rodman 96-97 did on the Bulls.
'93 Bulls (with Jordan): 6.19 SRS
'94 Bulls (without Jordan): 2.87 SRS
'93 MJ made only a 3.32 SRS difference! '93 MJ was having the same impact as '97 Rodman!
You see how silly that sounds?
Yeah, those are the type of arguments that the Garnett and Nash cult love to use. Its reaching a ridiculous point now.
ardee wrote:With Garnett and Nash there is a tangible proof of their impact. You can actually see their effect on team-mates from a leadership standpoint as well as the way Nash directs the offense on the floor and KG does the same to the defense.
SRS differential is the lamest anti-Wilt argument I've heard. And really, it's probably the ONLY anti-Wilt argument I've heard. Read the first few threads of the project, it's hilarious that while myself and other guys voting for Wilt were practically writing a book about the things he did, the anti-Wilt posters were just continually crowing about 'only -3 SRS! Only -3 SRS!' Almost as bad as Russell getting voted in at 3 with the sole argument being '-10 defense! -10!!!'
thebottomline wrote:ardee wrote:With Garnett and Nash there is a tangible proof of their impact. You can actually see their effect on team-mates from a leadership standpoint as well as the way Nash directs the offense on the floor and KG does the same to the defense.
SRS differential is the lamest anti-Wilt argument I've heard. And really, it's probably the ONLY anti-Wilt argument I've heard. Read the first few threads of the project, it's hilarious that while myself and other guys voting for Wilt were practically writing a book about the things he did, the anti-Wilt posters were just continually crowing about 'only -3 SRS! Only -3 SRS!' Almost as bad as Russell getting voted in at 3 with the sole argument being '-10 defense! -10!!!'
With all due respect, none of the Wilt supporters (you, Regul8r, DrMufasa, and PTB) really tried to rebut the arguments against him in those threads and instead relied on posting raw box score stats (which we know don't capture the whole story). Instead of trying to give consideration to non-box score arguments and discuss them, it seems they were entirely dismissed by the Wilt supporters, as you just did in this above post. "SRS? Lamest argument ever!"
But what WERE the arguments against his '67 season?
ardee wrote:But what WERE the arguments against his '67 season? "-3 SRS from '67 to '69!" It began and ended there. And I've already rebutted that with the '93 Jordan point.
If you can point me to posts where people were actually able to find arguments against the '67 season ITSELF, please, by all means.
ardee wrote:But what WERE the arguments against his '67 season? "-3 SRS from '67 to '69!" It began and ended there. And I've already rebutted that with the '93 Jordan point.
If you can point me to posts where people were actually able to find arguments against the '67 season ITSELF, please, by all means.
Doctor MJ wrote:This is not Wilt's '67 by any stretch of the imagination, and this raises eyebrows for me a bit. Putting it succinctly: I don't believe in the Wilt '67 model as much as I do in the other models, and this makes me ask how it could work so incredibly well for one year for a guy known for doing something very different. And when I come to answer, it includes in it the reality that that strategy 1) exploited the weaker defensive sophistication of the time, and 2) really relied on fear of Wilt's scoring as a decoy, which is not something that is particularly sustainable, particularly nowadays.
Dipper 13 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:This is not Wilt's '67 by any stretch of the imagination, and this raises eyebrows for me a bit. Putting it succinctly: I don't believe in the Wilt '67 model as much as I do in the other models, and this makes me ask how it could work so incredibly well for one year for a guy known for doing something very different. And when I come to answer, it includes in it the reality that that strategy 1) exploited the weaker defensive sophistication of the time, and 2) really relied on fear of Wilt's scoring as a decoy, which is not something that is particularly sustainable, particularly nowadays.
This is a fair point, especially with how the 3 point line has changed the game. But why would Wilt as a decoy not work in your judgement? The zone defense? Opponents would have to know that he is an impossible matchup one on one in the low post. Besides that he is a bail out guy to dump it down to when they need a key basket. Plus with the Sixers versatility and firepower, there are numerous players who can step up. One night during the '67 season, Wilt was able to take advantage of Thurmond after a change in strategy at halftime.
Dipper 13 wrote:The main reason Wilt wasn't as impactful on offense as he could have been was due to his scoring method. He was exclusively a back to basket center who played in the low post. There weren't as many shooters back then and there was no 3 point line at all. Wilt was said to impede his teammates driving lane by planting himself in the low post. I have read articles citing this as the sole reason for any possible on court chemistry issues early in '65 Philly, and '69 in Los Angeles (mainly with Baylor). In this era, with far better floor spacing, would this really be a problem? I don't think so. Coach Hannum mentions this below.
Doctor MJ wrote:Well the issue I see is this:
If you're at by far you're most valuable when used as a scoring decoy, rather than when you score, teams are going to force your to score. Obviously one can make the argument that by doing that they are allowing enough space so that Wilt would have an easy time of scoring, but the assumption that that would work well is not all that trivial because as mentioned: He was FAR less valuable when he was scoring in volume for his entire career.
If you're at by far you're most valuable when used as a scoring decoy, rather than when you score, teams are going to force your to score.
Dipper 13 wrote:If you're at by far you're most valuable when used as a scoring decoy, rather than when you score, teams are going to force your to score.
For the most part teams back then played 1 on 1 defense, like an organized pickup game. There was little help defense, but far more player movement. I have seen ample video footage of Wilt consistently hitting players & cutters who were being guarded & denied the ball, rarely forced by a double team on him. He was making the plays, as teams didn't know whether to play him for the pass or the shot. If he did draw excessive attention, as he does here (4:30 mark) the pass would be that much easier to make. What would the teams today do to force him to score that they couldn't back then? Might they leave him unguarded in the paint as if he is Kwame Brown or Thabeet? Perhaps they would, with the modern day defensive 3 sec rule and their preoccupation with the Sixers other deadly scorers. Though I don't understand the idea that a team would be able to keep him from distributing, seeing as he would pick the defensive gaps apart in the modern day quasi zones. No way a man to man defensive style would work, considering the conversion of basketball to a near non contact sport relative to the old days. There won't be any waiting for him to put the ball on the floor since he rarely did as a playmaker. I will admit however he did enjoy taking his HUGE drop step with just one bounce that would propel him to the rim with tremendous ease.
MisterWestside wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:Well the issue I see is this:
If you're at by far you're most valuable when used as a scoring decoy, rather than when you score, teams are going to force your to score. Obviously one can make the argument that by doing that they are allowing enough space so that Wilt would have an easy time of scoring, but the assumption that that would work well is not all that trivial because as mentioned: He was FAR less valuable when he was scoring in volume for his entire career.
This needs to be taken into context though, because 1) he was still among the league's elite in ts% even while shooting alot and 2) most of his scoring came during a different time in NBA history. Strategies, skill sets, etc. were different. Shooting and shooting some more wouldn't be as much of an issue today, with this age of shooter specialists, 3-pt line and offenses that are designed to take advantage of scoring pivot men.
We see alot of evidence that offenses in the modern game benefits from decoys, especially decoys that can put the ball in the basket at a nice clip. And Wilt was no scrub at that.
Doctor MJ wrote:The bottom line for me is that if you are achieving a basic statistical achievement without having the actual impact that stat is supposed to mean you're having, it means you've "hacked" the stat by a micro-optimization strategy which undoes the good a player typically does.
