I’ll start us off again with my tentative selections…..
1st ballot selection: Shaquille O’Neal ‘00
I’ll be honest, I’m not sure I shouldn’t have given him 1st ballot honors LAST thread. Dr. Spaceman makes a good case about it all. Was a near unstoppable force of nature as a scorer once he received the ball anywhere near the post, who was also a near-elite caliber passing big man. Was also the league’s 2nd-leading rebounder (8th best TRB%, while playing 40 mpg, too), and the anchor for the #1 defense in the land.
Near GOAT level statistical dominance---not only led the league in all major advanced metrics, but led many of them by a handy margin (no one within 3.5 of him in PER, no one with 2.8 of him in BPM, nor within 1.5 of him in VORP, nor within 3.3 total WS of him)---as well as possessing qualities that warped or otherwise forced opposing defenses to make huge adjustments. I remember him being swarmed at times (triple teams not uncommon), remember teams having to carry a whole line-up of big stiffs just to absorb the foul burden that was necessary to "contain" Shaq.
Impact data for that season is stellar as well.
2nd ballot selection: Lebron James (‘13????)
For now, I’ll stick with this order. Must admit he also has an excellent case to be the #1 ballot. otoh, could easily slip Wilt (or maybe Kareem) in here, too. I’m waffling somewhat on which year I consider his peak; ‘09 looks better and better to me, and were some very compelling arguments to that effect in the last thread. His overall statistical profile perhaps looks marginally better in ‘09, and his impact data is marginally higher for that year, too. How much of that is “better fit”, though is something I’m not sure about. I still like the ‘13 version because he was a more complete offensive weapon. There really weren’t any effective adjustments to be made against him by that point: his mid-range shot, 3ball, and post game were all improved over ‘09. Just wasn’t quite as explosive, perhaps (but still really damn close).
I kind of considered ‘12 or ‘13 Lebron’s peak as a defensive player, associated with the eye-test….I simply thought he looked consistently sharp in the half-court defensive setting. His DRAPM is better in ‘09, though. Maybe because he was so adept at taking gambles and/or help D???? Did avg 2.4 stl and 1.6 blk per 100 possessions that year.
Anyway, the stats have been well-covered. Gist is that peak Lebron has an argument as the greatest ever all-around offensive player, also a fairly elite (and super-versatile) defender.
3rd ballot: Wilt Chamberlain (‘64???)
It’s always between ‘64 and ‘67 (leaning toward ‘64) with ‘62 not far behind for me, when I think about Wilt’s peak.
My biggest criticism of Wilt’s overall career (which is the largest factor involved in me backing him out of the top 5 on my all-time list) is that he was so frequently a poor leader and outright toxic teammate.
He was a guy who all too often undermined and openly quarreled with coaches, who alienated teammates, who was guilty of diva-like behavior (behaviors which endorsed the notion that the rules which applied to the rest of the team did not apply to him because he was “special”), who occasionally threw coaches and teammates under the bus with the media, and who often had more interest in his peculiar records and statistics than he did about the welfare of his team.
Why do I bring up this criticism within the context of casting a ballot for him you may ask. Because this is the primary factor that puts ‘67 in good contention as his peak year, because it’s the year (perhaps the ONLY year of his prime) where he appeared to embrace the team concept, and largely put aside his personal demons. But it otherwise doesn’t appear to compare well (statistically) to ‘64.
His scoring efficiency was much higher in ‘67 (+14.38% rTS), but on MUCH less volume; actually only a little above league average scoring rate. He was 5th in the league in ppg, but this was while playing 45.5 mpg. His pts/36 min average was only 26th in the league that year; his Pts/100 poss estimate is 20.7 (league avg that year was 19.3).
So, relatively speaking, this would be the equivalent of someone averaging ~22.8 pts/100 possession on just under 68% TS today. Guys like Tyson Chandler, Chris Andersen, and Tiago Splitter have hit marks similar to that in recent years (albeit on significantly fewer minutes).
So I kinda like ‘64 a little better, because he’s shouldering that massive scoring load (and doing it very well), while rebounding at a fairly similar rate as he did in ‘67, and at 5.0 apg (4.6 ast/100 poss) he’s obviously getting teammates involved relatively well, too; and playing decent defense, too, if I recall some anecdotal stuff I’d read previously.
His usual problems with what you might call “intangibles” (that I alluded to above) appear to be relatively minimal this year, and he led a fairly mediocre supporting cast to .600 win%, +4.41 SRS, past a fairly loaded Hawks team in the WDF, and took one game off a Celtics team featuring a peak(ish) Bill Russell.
And fwiw, due to Wilt’s phenomenal physicality, he’s got a game and dominance that I believe translates very well to other eras.
My top HM (and I might switch) is Kareem (either ‘71 or ‘72---probably ‘72--for me). I have some skepticism about the competition of that particular era in the NBA (which is my primary reservation about Kareem being this high). But otoh, Samurai made a fantastic point in the last thread about just how far and away above the rest he was dominating this supposedly watered-down league:
In ‘71 Kareem’s PER was 28.95…..the guy in 2nd place was Jerry West at 23.48. His WS/48 was .3256…...2nd was Walt Frazier at .217!!
In ‘72 his PER was 29.94…….2nd was Bob Lanier at 23.14
. His WS/48 was .3399 (this is the highest single-season rs mark in NBA history; his ‘71 season is 2nd all-time, too)…...2nd that year was Chet Walker at .2685. And Kareem was playing a massive 44.1 mpg in ‘72, too. He wasn’t just dominating this league, he was utterly crushing it (statistically) like no one save perhaps Wilt ever had before. So he has a legitimate case here.
