#1 Highest Peak of All Time (Jordan '91 wins)

[rrravenred]

Magnificent numbers for Wilt, but I'd ask how much those numbers reflected Wilt and how much those numbers reflected the excellent team around him (Jones, Jackson, Walker et. al.) that basically put him in the box seat to have that sort of statistical impact.

To be clear, I'm not clearly distinguishing Wilt's game impact with his statistical impact (which Wilt himself had trouble with), but I'm asking how much the team context impacted his production.

[GSP]

I haven't committed to anyone yet but I have to ask the Wilt voters why Wilt over Shaq? Shaq led a supporting cast around as good as Wilt's (give or take) to just as good of a season. He also led an offense that was +3.2 over league average and a defense that was -5.9 on defense (negative being good). His team's defense was better than Wilt's offense and his offense better than Wilt's defense. He also beat 4 teams in the playoffs all better than two of the three teams that the Warriors played.

What about strength of opposition?
Wilt went through the greatest defensive dynasty in history (being the only number one option to beat a team by led by a healthy Russell) and the second best defensive center of that time in Thurmond (who has a very strong case for greatest man defender ever).

Shaq went through Vlade Divac, past prime broken down Sabonis (who Id argue wasnt better than Jerry Lucas at that point) and Rik Smits...

[C-izMe]

I haven't committed to anyone yet but I have to ask the Wilt voters why Wilt over Shaq? Shaq led a supporting cast around as good as Wilt's (give or take) to just as good of a season. He also led an offense that was +3.2 over league average and a defense that was -5.9 on defense (negative being good). His team's defense was better than Wilt's offense and his offense better than Wilt's defense. He also beat 4 teams in the playoffs all better than two of the three teams that the Warriors played.

What about strength of opposition?
Wilt went through the greatest defensive dynasty in history (being the only number one option to beat a team by led by a healthy Russell) and the second best defensive center of that time in Thurmond (who has a very strong case for greatest man defender ever).

Shaq went through Vlade Divac, past prime broken down Sabonis (who Id argue wasnt better than Jerry Lucas at that point) and Rik Smits...

In terms of 1 on 1 position matchups he played weaker competitions but he beat better teams. The only good teams that year were the Celtics and the Sixers.

[Dr Positivity]

I haven't committed to anyone yet but I have to ask the Wilt voters why Wilt over Shaq? Shaq led a supporting cast around as good as Wilt's (give or take) to just as good of a season. He also led an offense that was +3.2 over league average and a defense that was -5.9 on defense (negative being good). His team's defense was better than Wilt's offense and his offense better than Wilt's defense. He also beat 4 teams in the playoffs all better than two of the three teams that the Warriors played.

It sounds like Wilt was better defensively to me, as I think he is more suited to defense because of his mobility in comparison to Shaq. Offensively it's probably pretty close.

[C-izMe]

Another thing I have to ask is if I'm the only person who sees 67 Wilt as a healthy, high minute playing 77 Walton on steroids? I've recently been trying to find out more about Bill (for this thread) and he's shot up my list peak wise

[C-izMe]

I haven't committed to anyone yet but I have to ask the Wilt voters why Wilt over Shaq? Shaq led a supporting cast around as good as Wilt's (give or take) to just as good of a season. He also led an offense that was +3.2 over league average and a defense that was -5.9 on defense (negative being good). His team's defense was better than Wilt's offense and his offense better than Wilt's defense. He also beat 4 teams in the playoffs all better than two of the three teams that the Warriors played.

It sounds like Wilt was better defensively to me, as I think he is more suited to defense because of his mobility in comparison to Shaq. Offensively it's probably pretty close.

Defensively he was probably more mobile but Shaq had man defense and paint guarding perfected. He wasn't second in DPOY for no reason.

[AVolumeScorer]

Another thing I have to ask is if I'm the only person who sees 67 Wilt as a healthy, high minute playing 77 Walton on steroids? I've recently been trying to find out more about Bill (for this thread) and he's shot up my list peak wise

I'm of the opinion that Wilt played better competition[in terms of 1 on 1 matchups] than Walton did. Saying that, Walton's best 1 on 1 matchup[Kareem] got swept, but I don't know if that was more to Walton's talent level, or the team's.

I'll have to look more into the 77 playoffs before I make a decision on that though, I just did a brief look at it.

[AVolumeScorer]

Also, Wilt almost averaging more APG in that series than Oscar did is outstanding and shocking at the same time

[lorak]

EDIT
Vote: Michael Jordan '91

-----------------------------------------------------------

Hakeem 1993/94
- Only (?) player in history who won DPOTY, MVP and Finals MVP during one season.
- Unlike MJ '91 or even Wilt '67, Hakeem '94 was great on BOTH ends of the floor
- Hakeem '94 had less support than MJ '91 or Wilt '67
- 1994 Hakeem dominated one of the best centers of all time in H2H matchup (Ewing); 1991 MJ didn't do so to someone similar at SG position or Wilt at C position
- 1994 Rockets faced tougher competition in the playoffs than 1991 Bulls or 1967 76ers:
Phila '67
SFW 2.58 SRS
BOS 7.24 (and Russell was injured in the playooffs)
ROY -0.23

Bulls '91
LAL 6.73 (Worthy and Scott injured)
DET 3.07 (Isiah injured)
PHI -0.39
NYK -0.44


Rockets '94
NYK 6.48
UTA 4.10
PHO 4.68
PTB 2.6

[lorak]

So for me on Wilt '67, I'd really like to see thoughts on why the team's offense was so incredible that year, and what happened in the next year to change things. Was this just a difference in Wilt's focus, or was there more to it?

I would also like to know why 1967 76ers were relatively weak defensively. I men, if Wilt really was so good on defense like Russell, why 1967 76ers were only slightly better than league average on D?

[ElGee]

So for this project, I'll be working with the following criteria:

"What player gives a random team the best chance to win a title in a given season?"

That means to evaluate this, I'll be looking at how the player performed in his setting, and use that performance to evaluate how well his play would translate to other settings. I'll be judging these performances against the league environment that the player played in, not against some all-time standard or against different rule changes. Yes, this will mean using the surrounding seasons in a player's career (i.e. different context) to help evaluate a player's Portability -- how well he impacts other teams -- as well as his general strengths and weaknesses.

My general thoughts on that matter and on in-season health can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1197767#p32836033

For consistency, I'll be talking a lot about SRS shifts a player causes on an average team. I don't think any player in NBA can take an average 0 SRS team to 10 SRS (+10).

----

As for the No. 1 spot, I have it between Jordan and Shaq. Since Wilt has some buzz early, I'll try to explain why I've dropped his 67 peak down in my mind lately. (Right now my blog is down with the team estimations, but I have them on file if anyone wants them.) To evaluate 67 Wilt -- a year I certainly agree is his peak -- I look at the surrounding seasons:

Estimated Phi ORtg 1965: +0.2
Estimated Phi ORtg 1966: +0.4
Estimated Phi ORtg 1967: +5.3

1967 Wilt stopped volume scoring and changed his role to an offensive hub. The result was an enormous jump in his team's performance, putting out the best statistical offense in NBA history up to that point. This was with near perfect roster continuity between the two seasons. It was almost like it was set up for an NBA experiment.

In 68, the non-volume Wilt offense was still good, although it regressed. Some of this could have been due to Chamberlain's bizarre infatuation with the assist title. Nonetheless, it's important to note that coming off what many feel was a GOAT-level season, and his absolute apex (on the two best teams he'd ever been on), a a THREE-TIME DEFENDING MVP (!) Chamberlain went to Los Angeles and...

Nothing happened again!

In fact, the team got worse on offense. This may have been less concerning if he switched back to volume scoring, but that he continued his newly effective "facilitator" role and couldn't help the mini-offensive dynasty Jerry West cornerstoned in LA should raise another red flag.

Meanwhile, what happens in Philadelphia to the offense?

1968 76ers
-Greer
-Walker
-Cunningham
-Jones
-Jackson
-Guokas

Imhoff comes in at center for Wilt and they slide up Billy C who now plays 40 minutes a game. The offense improves back to ~+3. Jackson misses most of the year and Guokas has a smaller role. Archie Clark comes in.

So again, it seems unlikely that the team Chamberlain left was a below average offensive team. Indeed, it seems like simply redistributing the offensive focal point away from Wilt resulted in an above average offensive team.


So in 1969, the "new" version of Wilt left an above average offensive team and joined an above average offensive team...and neither team seemed to mind very much. If anything, the Lakers regressed with Wilt, unless Jerry West was having a large defensive impact (the team was much better with West in the lineup).

Wilt Chamberlain didn't seem to have a large impact on above average to elite offensive teams...who did just fine without him.

Estimated Phi ORtg 1968: +1.3
Estimated Phi ORtg 1969: +2.7

Estimated LA ORtg 1968: +5.3 (Jerry West missing 30 games)
Estimated LA ORtg 1969: +3.6 (Jerry West missing 20 games)

So we can either conclude that subsequent Chamberlain seasons really truly were "down" years, or that there is something fishy about giving Wilt so much credit for the success of the 67 76ers. Now keep something in mind -- I still think Wilt Chamberlain had a sacred peak. Only in evaluating it (and trying to put an SRS number on it), it came about below other players. How?

The 1967 76ers are clearly a stacked team. Just like the 96 Bulls were stacked. This isn't damning or encouraging necessarily, but look at that team more closely. They were basically a dead average offense/defense team in 1965 before Wilt arrived. The roster:

1965 76ers
Greer 2600 MP
Jackson (R) 2600 MP
Walker 2200 MP
Gambee 2000 MP
Costello (33) 2000 MP
Red Kerr (32) 1800 MP
Bianchi 1100 MP

1966 76ers
Greer 3300 MP
Walker 2600 MP
Cunningham (R) 2100 MP
Jones (2nd yr) 2200 MP
Jackson 2000 MP
Bianchi 1300
Gambee 1100 MP

I think this is clearly a better team than the .500 team we saw in 1965. Cunningham is excellent, even as a rookie. They trade Kerr, an old man who was no longer needed, for Wali Jones (only in his 2nd year). Greer plays 10 more games and the lineup continuity and health of the team is absolutely phenomenal. My research suggests that this alone is worth some wins over the course of a season.

In 1967 the roster and minutes distribution is nearly identical. Jones and Jackson are a year older, and presumably, better. Matt Guokas is now in the bench rotations. And there's a coaching upgrade in 1967 to Alex Hannum, which seems to me to be relevant in evaluating how much lift Wilt is providing this team.

So we know this: the 65 76ers were ~0 SRS. The 66 76ers were healthier and improved. The 67ers were even healthier and even more improved. Thinking this is a 3, or even 4 SRS team without Chamberlain seems like a fairly realistic estimate. Let's compare to 1969

1969 76ers
Cunningham 3300 MP
Greer 3300 MP
Walker 2800 MP
Imhoff 2400 MP
Jones 2300 MP
Clark 2100 MP
Jackson 800 MP

Luke Jackson missed most of the season. Cunningham stepped in as the major offensive co-piece alongside Greer, a top-10 staple of much of the decade and a pretty undisputed HOF-level player. Imhoff -- not exactly a star -- plugs in Wilt's spot as a big. Archie Clark is a nice addition as a scorer.

What was that team's SRS? 4.8! We know Cunningham improved from his second to fourth season...but by how much? How big was the jump? Does it offset Greer's aging? Or the loss of Luke Jackson? The offense still seemed pretty darn fine (+2.7 estimated ORtg).

That leaves me thinking the 67 roster was somewhere in the ballpark of a 3-4 SRS team without Chamberlain. That the impressive numbers from that year partially come from playing with such teammates (this happens repeatedly in NBA history) and partially from Chamberlain being so good as to know how to play in concert with those teammates. I view Wilt's defense as excellent and his offense as very good, but it's not nearly as good as Shaq's offensive impact in 2000 (which in turn is another click below peak MJ's). Heck, I don't think it's better than what Kareem did 4 years later from the center position. I don't see any evidence that the 67 76ers aren't well above average offensively without Wilt Chamberlain.

Put it all together, and I view the 76ers as closer to a +10 SRS team (see: first 50 games, PS performance), Which makes Wilt's performance pretty darn awesome. (I view it as a +8 season.) It's just a click behind what peak Jordan and peak Shaq did.

[therealbig3]

There's actually a few peaks in my mind when discussing GOAT...MJ, Wilt, Shaq, LeBron, Magic, Bird, Russell, and Kareem all are legitimate candidates imo. BTW, yes, I'm very high on LeBron.

But I think the best peak for a wing is Jordan. Just looking at some of his playoff numbers, and looking at how literally unstoppable he was pretty much all the time...awesome. He's the one volume scorer you can make an argument for as being the GOAT offensively (although I'd go with Magic). Anyway, this eliminates LeBron, Magic, and Bird.

Out of the big men, I think it's clear Russell and Kareem didn't peak as high as Wilt and Shaq. IMO, Wilt vs Shaq is a complete toss-up. Wilt was basically a better version of Bill Russell in that 67 season (a good thing), but Shaq in 00 was just super dominant offensively and he was the single greatest mismatch in the history of the game, imo. His defense was also pretty dominant in 00.

But I think I have to go with Jordan over either of them. His defense in his early years was almost as good as a wing can get (almost because Pippen was better)...remember, despite what people seem to think now...the primary defender of Magic Johnson in the 91 Finals was Jordan. Pippen guarded him for the 2nd half in game 2, and then only got him for short stretches throughout the series. Jordan matched up with Magic for the most part. Combining his defense and his scoring together with his incredibly low TO rate and with how well he played as a facilitator (over 11 apg in the Finals!), I think 91 Jordan was the closest thing we've seen to a "perfect" basketball player. Doesn't automatically mean he's the best just because he was so all-around, but I do think that's the case. I think his offense this season was definitely better than what 67 Wilt or 00 Shaq displayed, and compensates for his inherent defensive disadvantage, especially since Jordan was a great wing defender too.

Vote: 91 Jordan

[PTB Fan]

Somewhat I'm leaning towards '00 Shaq. Swept the MVP awards, won a title, dominated the competition all the way (expect in that Game 7 against Portland where he still did enough for his team to win), put huge numbers on very good defensive Indiana team which played him with multiple defenders and his supporting cast wasn't exactly that awesome (a group of role shooters basically with young Kobe being injured). He should have been the first unanimous choice for MVP. He put up huge numbers on his way to get to the Finals and even better as he got there. I'd consider few more games for the No.1 spot though.

I still have to decide. There're ton of good choices.

[PTB Fan]

Also, Wilt almost averaging more APG in that series than Oscar did is outstanding and shocking at the same time

Oscar choked in the final game of that series. That was among his least impressive performances in elimination games (his '74 Finals Game 7 is just as bad if not worse. Others are amazing though)

[PTB Fan]

However, it's also worth noting that from a pure team lift perspective, I don't think any of those guys ever lifted truly weak teams to great heights. When I think of that accomplishment, I think of Erving and LeBron. I'm expected to be persuaded to pick guys other than these two for the first spots, but we'll see.

With any of this stuff, if you'd like me to expound, let me know, I'll mix it in with the rest of my bloviation.

Can we consider Dr J's 76 season in this project? Just wondering. He was god like that season. Perhaps the greatest all-around season overall.

[lorak]

.remember, despite what people seem to think now...the primary defender of Magic Johnson in the 91 Finals was Jordan.

I'm not so sure, but unless someone actually will count all possessions we will never know.
But if it's true, then that's nothing good for MJ, because Magic still scored 19 PPG with TS% better than in any other series during 1991 playoffs. (61.2 vs CHI, 60.3 vs PTB, 58.8 vs GSW and 58.9 vs HOU).


BTW, Ewing in 1994 Finals had 39.0 TS% (!). Olajuwon defended him mostly alone, while whole Knicks team was focused on Hakeem, they throw multiple defenders on him and he still was amazing against one of the best defensive teams of all time. So why nobody is talking about Hakeem in this thread except me? What I'm missing? Why do you guys think he wasn't as good as Shaq '01, MJ '91 or Wilt '67?

[lorak]

However, it's also worth noting that from a pure team lift perspective, I don't think any of those guys ever lifted truly weak teams to great heights. When I think of that accomplishment, I think of Erving and LeBron. I'm expected to be persuaded to pick guys other than these two for the first spots, but we'll see.

With any of this stuff, if you'd like me to expound, let me know, I'll mix it in with the rest of my bloviation.

Can we consider Dr J's 76 season in this project? Just wondering. He was god like that season. Perhaps the greatest all-around season overall.

I can't imagine having any season from 70s (well, at least until merger) in top 10 because of talent split between two leagues.

[therealbig3]

.remember, despite what people seem to think now...the primary defender of Magic Johnson in the 91 Finals was Jordan.

I'm not so sure, but unless someone actually will count all possessions we will never know.
But if it's true, then that's nothing good for MJ, because Magic still scored 19 PPG with TS% better than in any other series during 1991 playoffs. (61.2 vs CHI, 60.3 vs PTB, 58.8 vs GSW and 58.9 vs HOU).


BTW, Ewing in 1994 Finals had 39.0 TS% (!). Olajuwon defended him mostly alone, while whole Knicks team was focused on Hakeem, they throw multiple defenders on him and he still was amazing against one of the best defensive teams off all time. So why nobody is talking about Hakeem in this thread except me? What I'm missing? Why you guys think he wasn't as good as Shaq '01, MJ '91 or Wilt '67?

I just recently re-watched the series, and although I didn't keep count of exactly how many possessions Jordan guarded him vs how many possessions Pippen guarded him, I was making sure to see who spent more time on Magic, and it was Jordan in a landslide.

Outside of his ridiculously efficient game 1, Magic averaged 18.5 ppg on 55.5% TS. Not trying to ignore game 1, but even though Magic has always been a very efficient scorer, that was obviously not a typical game from him in terms of efficiency, even if he had been facing a bad defender (and Jordan wasn't a bad defender, obviously). He had a >100% TS in game 1!

Magic also averaged 4.4 TOpg in that series, 2nd only to the 4.5 TOpg he averaged in the Portland series.

Now, regarding Hakeem, I'm not sure if his peak is better than Duncan's. mysticbb posted this before, and I've reposted it a couple of times...Hakeem in 94 and 95 seems to be clearly inferior to Duncan in 02 and 03 in the playoffs. If Hakeem can't clearly outdo what Duncan did, how does he have a case over guys like Jordan or Wilt or Shaq?

At least that's the way I see it.

Well, my SPM (state of the art boxscore metric based on impact analysis of the respective boxscore entries combined with the regression analysis of the overall boxscore stats on the team average scoring margin, while adjusting for the strength of the opponents) has Duncan during the 2003 playoffs with +8.05, Olajuwon in 1994 with +6.61 and in 1995 with +6.01. Duncan in 1999 +6.16, in 2005 +6.25, in 2007 +6.18. Basically Duncan done what Olajuwon done in 1994 and 1995 in all of his championship years, while exceeding it in 2003. In 2002 Duncan posted a +9.11 rating. When Duncan was on the court during the 2002 playoffs, the Spurs had +8.3 per 100 possessions (oer 675 possessions), with him off the court they had -14.3 per 100 possessions (in 183 possessions). Duncan had an amazing run from 1999 to 2007, with the exception of 2000, when he missed the playoffs due to an injury. Olajuwon was not on that level, not in 1994 and not in 1995.

[Doctor MJ]

However, it's also worth noting that from a pure team lift perspective, I don't think any of those guys ever lifted truly weak teams to great heights. When I think of that accomplishment, I think of Erving and LeBron. I'm expected to be persuaded to pick guys other than these two for the first spots, but we'll see.

With any of this stuff, if you'd like me to expound, let me know, I'll mix it in with the rest of my bloviation.

Can we consider Dr J's 76 season in this project? Just wondering. He was god like that season. Perhaps the greatest all-around season overall.

Ah, yes, I'm sorry I took that as a bit of a given, but I should make clear:

When I refer to the NBA, I'm referring to all seasons by leagues that have been merged in to what is now called the NBA. So that includes the ABA, the BAA, and the NBL.

[Doctor MJ]

I can't imagine having any season from 70s (well, at least until merger) in top 10 because of talent split between two leagues.

Well that is a factor to consider, but I don't think that's as big a factor as you must. I don't have time to go off on Erving's '76 season right tonight, but suffice to say we saw in the very next year what that supporting cast would do without him in the merged league, and what the team he beat in the finals would do in that NBA. If you're looking to compare his season to other all-time seasons, it's not hard to get an estimate of his lift. And if you're going by box score stats, you can extrapolate there as well.