RealGM 50 Highest Peaks Project Thread

[Gregoire]

Great post! Peak Barkley was beast offensively... Right there with Magic, Jordan and Bird

How would you rank the 4 offensively, peak-wise?

Also, where does Nash fit in there?

My ranks about them:
Magic, Bird, Jordan - 7,0 SRS
Barkley - 6,5 (= Lebron)
Nash - 6,0 (= Shaq)
I didnt have the high opinion about Nash because I think you should create very fitted offense to him being effective... Only in his environment Nash became great offensive player IMO.

[SideshowBob]

Great post! Peak Barkley was beast offensively... Right there with Magic, Jordan and Bird

How would you rank the 4 offensively, peak-wise?

Also, where does Nash fit in there?

My ranks about them:
Magic, Bird, Jordan - 7,0 SRS
Barkley - 6,5 (= Lebron)
Nash - 6,0 (= Shaq)
I didnt have the high opinion about Nash because I think you should create very fitted offense to him being effective... Only in his environment Nash became great offensive player IMO.

Cool.

Regarding Nash, even despite that, just looking at what he was bringing in say 2007, you've got to consider him pretty highly, no? He's pretty impressive as a scoring threat; off the dribble he can create just about anywhere on the floor at a high percentage. Is remarkably deadly at finishing around the basket despite being a relatively unexplosive PG, while being one the best shooters of all time and able spot up anywhere on the floor (so he's excellent at providing spacing and effective when not handling the ball). Probably the GOAT offensive PnR player, among the best offensive transition players (outlet passing and great vision on the break/secondary break, as well as being able to spot up on the break). Excellent at probing and scrambling the defense enabling crafty shot creation when outside the PnR. I have to think that with what he brings to the table (at his peak), he's going to thrive big time under any system that just puts the ball in his hands.

[Gregoire]

How would you rank the 4 offensively, peak-wise?

Also, where does Nash fit in there?

My ranks about them:
Magic, Bird, Jordan - 7,0 SRS
Barkley - 6,5 (= Lebron)
Nash - 6,0 (= Shaq)
I didnt have the high opinion about Nash because I think you should create very fitted offense to him being effective... Only in his environment Nash became great offensive player IMO.

Cool.

Regarding Nash, even despite that, just looking at what he was bringing in say 2007, you've got to consider him pretty highly, no? He's pretty impressive as a scoring threat; off the dribble he can create just about anywhere on the floor at a high percentage. Is remarkably deadly at finishing around the basket despite being a relatively unexplosive PG, while being one the best shooters of all time and able spot up anywhere on the floor (so he's excellent at providing spacing and effective when not handling the ball). Probably the GOAT offensive PnR player, among the best offensive transition players (outlet passing and great vision on the break/secondary break, as well as being able to spot up on the break). Excellent at probing and scrambling the defense enabling crafty shot creation when outside the PnR. I have to think that with what he brings to the table (at his peak), he's going to thrive big time under any system that just puts the ball in his hands.

Clever things you wrighting... but would Nash be as effective in not up-tempo system?

[B_Creamy]

Clever things you wrighting... but would Nash be as effective in not up-tempo system?

Question for you. With a player as effective as Nash why would you not want to build an up-tempo system on your team around him?

[Quotatious]

Question for you. With a player as effective as Nash why would you not want to build an up-tempo system on your team around him?

Yeah, this.
With Nash, you need quite a few different types of players though. Defensive center who can run the floor and finish on a break/throw down lobs, like DeAndre Jordan, Drummond or even better, Tyson Chandler. All-Star caliber athletic power forward, preferably good defensively, too (there are not that many of them, though, it wouldn't be easy to find one) - Shawn Kemp is the perfect candidate. In today's game, Blake Griffin. Athletic defensive hub at SF - Marion, Kirilenko, Gerald Wallace, Kawhi Leonard...those are a bit easier to find, and a good defensive two guard who can shoot a three ball well - Afflalo, Wes Matthews, Raja Bell. Good backup combo guard scorer would be nice as well, Jarrett Jack or Barbosa. That'd be one stacked team, that's for sure.

[Gregoire]

Clever things you wrighting... but would Nash be as effective in not up-tempo system?

Question for you. With a player as effective as Nash why would you not want to build an up-tempo system on your team around him?

Maybe. But how many teams won the championship with these strategy?

[SuperJobs]

1. Jordan
2. Hakeem
3. Shaq
4. Wilt
5. Lebron

[ThaRegul8r]

Clever things you wrighting... but would Nash be as effective in not up-tempo system?

Question for you. With a player as effective as Nash why would you not want to build an up-tempo system on your team around him?

Maybe. But how many teams won the championship with these strategy?

'60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers, to name two.

[Gregoire]

Question for you. With a player as effective as Nash why would you not want to build an up-tempo system on your team around him?

Maybe. But how many teams won the championship with these strategy?

'60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers, to name two.

60s Celtics ? disagree, and its completely different game back then.

[ThaRegul8r]

Maybe. But how many teams won the championship with these strategy?

'60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers, to name two.

60s Celtics ? disagree, and its completely different game back then.

...

That the '60s Celtics were an up-tempo team with Russell sparking the break with his defensive rebounding/outlet passing/controlled-blocks-to-break and Cousy running it is the most basic of common knowledge. (One can be a defensive team and uptempo. The problem with the uptempo teams that didn't win is that they didn't play defense, not that an uptempo style of play is inherently incapable of winning, as the '60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers proved that isn't the case.) They were the GOAT dynasty due to Russell's defensive dominance, but one can't just disagree with the fact that they were an uptempo team. (This isn't about their efficiency, but them being uptempo.) It shouldn't even be necessary for me to post anything on this. Any talk about uptempo teams begins with the '60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers. Anyone who doesn't know this is unaware of NBA history. People even referenced the Celtics after Nash went to Phoenix and the question was posed if they could win a title with their style of play. Anyone who was following the NBA then should know this, as Nash's Suns were a big story. The difference was that the Suns didn't have Russell, the GOAT defensive anchor.

And whether or not the game was "completely different back then" is irrelevant. One doesn't get to ask "how many teams won playing x kind of way" and then say a team doesn't count because they played before one was born. If the question is how many teams won with a certain style of play, that covers every team that ever won a championship. I don't care about agendas, I care about facts. Facts are not subjective.

[Gregoire]

'60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers, to name two.

60s Celtics ? disagree, and its completely different game back then.

...

That the '60s Celtics were an up-tempo team with Russell sparking the break with his defensive rebounding/outlet passing/controlled-blocks-to-break and Cousy running it is the most basic of common knowledge. (One can be a defensive team and uptempo. The problem with the uptempo teams that didn't win is that they didn't play defense, not that an uptempo style of play is inherently incapable of winning, as the '60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers proved that isn't the case.) They were the GOAT dynasty due to Russell's defensive dominance, but one can't just disagree with the fact that they were an uptempo team. (This isn't about their efficiency, but them being uptempo.) It shouldn't even be necessary for me to post anything on this. Any talk about uptempo teams begins with the '60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers. Anyone who doesn't know this is unaware of NBA history. People even referenced the Celtics after Nash went to Phoenix and the question was posed if they could win a title with their style of play. Anyone who was following the NBA then should know this, as Nash's Suns were a big story. The difference was that the Suns didn't have Russell, the GOAT defensive anchor.

And whether or not the game was "completely different back then" is irrelevant. One doesn't get to ask "how many teams won playing x kind of way" and then say a team doesn't count because they played before one was born. If the question is how many teams won with a certain style of play, that covers every team that ever won a championship. I don't care about agendas, I care about facts. Facts are not subjective.

Nash played in 00s, so give the example from the time when all the league was up-tempo is irrelevant. And Celtics won because of defense primarly, not offense.

[ThaRegul8r]

60s Celtics ? disagree, and its completely different game back then.

...

That the '60s Celtics were an up-tempo team with Russell sparking the break with his defensive rebounding/outlet passing/controlled-blocks-to-break and Cousy running it is the most basic of common knowledge. (One can be a defensive team and uptempo. The problem with the uptempo teams that didn't win is that they didn't play defense, not that an uptempo style of play is inherently incapable of winning, as the '60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers proved that isn't the case.) They were the GOAT dynasty due to Russell's defensive dominance, but one can't just disagree with the fact that they were an uptempo team. (This isn't about their efficiency, but them being uptempo.) It shouldn't even be necessary for me to post anything on this. Any talk about uptempo teams begins with the '60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers. Anyone who doesn't know this is unaware of NBA history. People even referenced the Celtics after Nash went to Phoenix and the question was posed if they could win a title with their style of play. Anyone who was following the NBA then should know this, as Nash's Suns were a big story. The difference was that the Suns didn't have Russell, the GOAT defensive anchor.

And whether or not the game was "completely different back then" is irrelevant. One doesn't get to ask "how many teams won playing x kind of way" and then say a team doesn't count because they played before one was born. If the question is how many teams won with a certain style of play, that covers every team that ever won a championship. I don't care about agendas, I care about facts. Facts are not subjective.

Nash played in 00s, so give the example from the time when all the league was up-tempo is irrelevant. And Celtics won because of defense primarly, not offense.

I'm not even going to continue this discussion with you, as apparently you're one of those people for whom ego gets in the way of the recognition of facts. You asked how many teams won playing uptempo. I gave you two teams who did so, who just so happened to be two of the greatest teams in NBA history. Anyone who knows anything about NBA history should've known that, as I didn't exactly make some revelation. As I said, I couldn't care less about agendas. Yours or anyone else's. If you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the facts whenever they don't fit your agenda, then there's nothing more to be said.

And I don't see the point of acting like you're telling me something I already said in my post as if you're informing me of something I didn't know. It has nothing to do with the point. Their uptempo system was predicated on Russell's defensive dominance.

[Gregoire]

...

That the '60s Celtics were an up-tempo team with Russell sparking the break with his defensive rebounding/outlet passing/controlled-blocks-to-break and Cousy running it is the most basic of common knowledge. (One can be a defensive team and uptempo. The problem with the uptempo teams that didn't win is that they didn't play defense, not that an uptempo style of play is inherently incapable of winning, as the '60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers proved that isn't the case.) They were the GOAT dynasty due to Russell's defensive dominance, but one can't just disagree with the fact that they were an uptempo team. (This isn't about their efficiency, but them being uptempo.) It shouldn't even be necessary for me to post anything on this. Any talk about uptempo teams begins with the '60s Celtics and Showtime Lakers. Anyone who doesn't know this is unaware of NBA history. People even referenced the Celtics after Nash went to Phoenix and the question was posed if they could win a title with their style of play. Anyone who was following the NBA then should know this, as Nash's Suns were a big story. The difference was that the Suns didn't have Russell, the GOAT defensive anchor.

And whether or not the game was "completely different back then" is irrelevant. One doesn't get to ask "how many teams won playing x kind of way" and then say a team doesn't count because they played before one was born. If the question is how many teams won with a certain style of play, that covers every team that ever won a championship. I don't care about agendas, I care about facts. Facts are not subjective.

Nash played in 00s, so give the example from the time when all the league was up-tempo is irrelevant. And Celtics won because of defense primarly, not offense.

I'm not even going to continue this discussion with you, as apparently you're one of those people for whom ego gets in the way of the recognition of facts. You asked how many teams won playing uptempo. I gave you two teams who did so, who just so happened to be two of the greatest teams in NBA history. Anyone who knows anything about NBA history should've known that, as I didn't exactly make some revelation. As I said, I couldn't care less about agendas. Yours or anyone else's. If you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the facts whenever they don't fit your agenda, then there's nothing more to be said.

To saying one of whom people I am is offensive a bit, but I dont worry about you just know only your opinion... - its classical. And if poster became so offensive early, its his ego gets in the way, not his opponent.
I stated my opinion and explain it, if you disagree - its your problem or gain. Your interpretations arent facts, we will just agree to disagree

[RebelWithACause]

I just got done compiling my very own Top25 peak list.
Did not want to start a new thread so I decided to post it here.

I put a lot of value into era portability, so you are warned


1. Jordan 90
2. Shaq 00
3. Hakeem 93
4. LeBron 13

5. Kareem 77
6. Duncan 02
7. Magic 90
8. Bird 86
9. Kobe 06
10. Wade 09
11. Robinson 95
12. KG 04
13. T-Mac 03
14. Nowitzki 11
15. Walton 77
16. Durant 13

17. Nash 06
18. Paul 08
19. Ewing 90
20. Erving 76
21. Barkley 93
22. K. Malone 98
23. Penny 96
24. M. Malone 83
25. Dwight 11

I did not include the guys from the 60s (Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar, Baylor), because I do not have enough knowledge about them and I also find it very hard to compare them to the modern guys for the most part.

5-16 is very close, so some rankings here could go either way

Thoughts?

[Doctor MJ]

Nash played in 00s, so give the example from the time when all the league was up-tempo is irrelevant. And Celtics won because of defense primarly, not offense.

Eh, let's strip this back to basics here:

Giving an argument like "We haven't seen anyone win with X so you can't win with X" is not a substantial argument. Really you need to be aiming to giving precise reasons for you think something is impossible or extremely challenging to do. I think the general rule that I've found is that statements about something being next to impossible are timebombs waiting to go off and be disproven. Focus on why fast pace would be an issue, not superficial correlations.

And since the Showtime Lakers have already been mentioned. Focusing on the "why" of fast pace being an issue should also focus on why fast pace apparently wasn't an issue around 1990 but it is now.

[Gregoire]

I just got done compiling my very own Top25 peak list.
Did not want to start a new thread so I decided to post it here.

I put a lot of value into era portability, so you are warned


1. Jordan 90
2. Shaq 00
3. Hakeem 93
4. LeBron 13

5. Kareem 77
6. Duncan 02
7. Magic 90
8. Bird 86
9. Kobe 06
10. Wade 09
11. Robinson 95
12. KG 04
13. T-Mac 03
14. Nowitzki 11
15. Walton 77
16. Durant 13

17. Nash 06
18. Paul 08
19. Ewing 90
20. Erving 76
21. Barkley 93
22. K. Malone 98
23. Penny 96
24. M. Malone 83
25. Dwight 11

I did not include the guys from the 60s (Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar, Baylor), because I do not have enough knowledge about them and I also find it very hard to compare them to the modern guys for the most part.

5-16 is very close, so some rankings here could go either way

Thoughts?

Good list, but maybe you underrate Barkley a bit... Cant see Nash and Paul over him...

[giordunk]

Why didn't this ever finish?

[AceofSpades69]

This was a great project. 4 years later, wouldn't it be a good idea to remake this, and this time, take it until the very end? I figure it'd be very interesting to have a definite RealGM top 50 peaks list (2016).

[Quotatious]

This was a great project. 4 years later, wouldn't it be a good idea to remake this, and this time, take it until the very end? I figure it'd be very interesting to have a definite RealGM top 50 peaks list (2016).

We did a peaks project last year.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1404723

Went 40 deep.

[Doctor MJ]

Why didn't this ever finish?

Participation fizzled.

It turns out that people have a hard time judging 1 year than they do a career, which logically indicates backwards thinking, but I'm guilty of it as well.

As was noted before me, someone did come and do a new one that worked better. They could probably speak to the success more than me, but my feeling is that a really shrewd decision involved eliminating specific years from the decision as to WHO would get the next spot, and then having a separate vote for which version of that player got the spot. Shrewd because in an ideal world this would give you worse results, but in the real world it gave you more interesting conversation which drove more worthwhile results.