Peak Project: #2

[theonlyclutch]

My Final Ballot vote:

Ballot 1: Lebron 2009

Reasons here: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1406055&start=140#start_here

In short, GOAT carrying job ever, huge impact as shown through boxscore and plus-minus, somehow got even better in the playoffs...

Ballot 2: Shaq 2000

Reasons here: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1406055&start=140#start_here

In short, huge warping of defenses force the opposing team between a rock and a hard place when defending the Lakers..hack-a-shaq poses issues however..

Ballot 3: Kareem 1971

Possibly the GOAT big man scorer ever at his peak overall season (1972 RS was better, but PS is big issue), led a team similar in SRS to the best of the Bulls teams with much less comparable help, was still very mobile and good on defense..

[Clyde Frazier]

Ballot #1 - 00 Shaq

Shaq showed in 2000 why he has a case for the most dominant offensive force in NBA history. I'm sure some of you have been watching the games on NBA TV during shaq week, and it's a good reminder of how he really played. The notion that he was just bigger and stronger than everyone else is silly. His ability to create space and find the right angles on his array of post moves was exemplary. His decision making and physical quickness for his size was unmatched. This included passing out of the post when necessary.

It's noted by some that he didn't face the likes of hakeem, ewing, robinson, etc. on the way to his first championship. This is with the implication that he didn't hold his own in the past against those guys, which simply isn't true. Also, the lakers faced the 10th, 3rd, 5th and 13th ranked defenses on their way to the championship that season, so they were definitely tested.

Ballot #2 - 2013 LeBron

I could just as easily go with 2012 here, but since they're both close, i'll go with 2013 being the full season and lebron facing a tougher opponent in the finals. While the spurs were a ray allen missed 3 away from winning the title that year, lebron showed up in game 7 and closed them out.

This is the version of lebron we saw really control a game without scoring, and it put it over the top for me compared to 09. I was so impressed with the attention he commanded in the post, not even being a dominant post player. His ability to find the open man and create from that area was unmatched. It was almost bizarre to watch. Add that to his being an elite, versatile defender, and it sealed it for me.

Ballot #3 - 77 Kareem

I went back and forth between 71 and 77 for a while here. Part of me still wants to go with 71. However, my picking of 77 is 2 pronged:

- A player’s peak doesn’t necessarily have to come in a championship year
- 77 is post merger, which many feel increased the competition in the league

Using trex and bball ref’s per 100 #s, let’s look at 71 vs. 77:

71: 34.4 PPG, 16.9 RPG, 3.5 APG, +10.57% rTS
77: 32.7 PPG, 16.6 RPG, 4.8 APG, +9.7% rTS

On top of being incredible #s on their own, we see kareem performed about as well in 77 as he did in 71. This also included an excellent playoff performance with the following (keeping with per 100 here to be consistent):

37.8 PPG, 19.4 RPG, 4.5 APG, 1.9 SPG, 3.8 BPG, 64.6% TS, .332 WS/48

His postseason would end in a sweep to the eventual champion blazers, who ranked 1st in SRS that season and 5th in defense. To say their front line of walton and lucas was solid would be a real understatement. They rounded out the roster with key guys like lionel hollins, bob gross and johnny davis. Outside of cazzie russell and lucius allen, the lakers roster was pretty bare. I’d say they performed to about as well as expected that season.

77 was his 5th MVP season, so it’s reasonable to say that kareem had reached his peak in terms of developing his game on both ends of the floor.

Some footage of kareem from 77

Spoiler:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uTtcKfo2T8[/youtube]

Spoiler:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTMEtNM44n8[/youtube]

[PCProductions]

#1 - 2000 Shaq

This thread and the previous have done a good enough job to ensure that Shaq was indeed defensively active this year which was all it really took for me to be convinced of him having the GOAT peak over Jordan/Lebron. Jordan was already voted in at 1, though, so 2 will have to do. From my own viewing--at least of watching some playoff footage--Shaq seemed to rotate crisply to employ his shot blocking and simply his sheer mass in the lane to really have a global defensive value despite just being elected to the All Defensive 2nd unit. He may have upped his game in the playoffs, but that vote at least paints the picture that he regularly performed in the regular season on that end.

His offense has been discussed enough and is abundantly clear to anyone who watches or gives a glance at his basic stats that he's a one-of-a-kind monster on that end. Even without scoring, he creates a gravity that opens up lanes for cutters or room for shooters. Quite an effect on a per-possession basis that makes him uniquely effective as a first option center.

#2 - 2013 Lebron
What I hope people will start to see is just how damn good this guy was on defense when he had the motor to go on both ends consistently. If you're just looking at 2014/2015 Lebron, you'll occasionally see him get blown by or lazy in transition. Miami Lebron was not only one of the most disciplined defenders on the wing, he was sharp in knowing where to help, when to switch and knowing the tendencies of the opponent. This was high level stuff that made the Miami defense so frustrating to play against. He covered up mistakes and was good-to-great at guarding the 1-4. He could guard the center if the other team went super small, but only in a crisis, essentially. Like JLei and SSB have mentioned, he was good enough to not need help, even if it meant that he wasn't locking them down.

His offense was a year shy of his true peak (2014) but showed most of the skills he needed to be there, he just sort of did them a little less. His shooting was the best of his career where he hit over 40% from three and was absolutely deadly on catch and shoots in the corner. His finishing at the rim was also right up there with 2014 with Shaq-like efficiency and overall the guy scored 56% from the field as a wing player. Simply unthinkable stuff, really.

#3 - 1993 Hakeem
I would like a little more discussion on this guy. He to me has the #4 peak ever, and I'm becoming more comfortable with his offense the most I read and see. He should have been the MVP this year and I think fpliii is a good guy to consult about that argument.

[The-Power]

Now, the driving reason for this impact is diversity. When looking strictly at offense, he's the rare master of all trades. GOAT level off-ball game, GOAT level outside shooting, [...] He can space the floor, he can divert defensive attention with just smart positioning, he can play inside and allow better spacing for an additional ball handler or ball dominant wing[...]

I would like to discuss his off-ball impact during the era he played in. If you would like to defer this discussion until more people have picked Bird that's totally fine by me. I believe his off-ball impact, while great for his era, doesn't compare to the elite shooters of today's league and this mainly has to do with the way basketball was played back then and is played nowadays. But I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on that topic because I got to know you as a smart and knowledgeable poster – maybe you can convince me in this regard.

During the 1980s the effective of spacing was extremely limited, for basically two reasons: a) the half court offense was predicated on low-post offense and the space close to the basket was crowded. It is always great to watch a game from the 80's and directly after that recent games. The difference in the approach of basketball is like night and day, something I tend to forget at times when I'm watching straight hours of 70s, 80s or even 90s basketball. Offenses don't really make use of spacing outside of 18ft or so. And b) defenses dared their opponents to defeat them from outside, sometimes even from mid range. Sure, some players were better contested and Bird has to be the prime example but the degree was still blatantly different compared to the elite shooters these days.

I re-watched most of the 1984 and 1987 finals with a particular focus on Bird and Magic. Therefore Bird's off-ball game was something I looked at intensively and at least the special spacing effect wasn't apparent to my eyes. Some observations: Bird rarely positioned himself further outside than 18ft in order to free up space. Overall, he seemingly behaved like most of his peers who could shoot the ball at least with some accuracy – they would be prepared to catch and shoot the ball, but they still absolutely preferred to establish position as close to the rim as possible while being an option to pass to. He was simply more successful at it. So we can't criticize Bird for it and since he had a good post-game it also made some sense to not constrain himself for the sake of spacing by not being close to the rim. But all in all, it was obvious that the fundamental concept of spacing and pull-out gravity was only very rudimentarily developed.

Still, opponents didn't want Bird to shoot mid range shots. They were more contested than the average shot from those spots, there was help more often. But I've never seen the defense doing everything they could to avoid him getting the ball far away from the basket. I've also seen multiple instances where players visibly sagged off of Bird when there was some distance to the ball and I've rarely seen the defense panic when he got the ball in a spot to shoot without a defender nearby, therefore rarely saw them overplaying but let him shoot instead. It wasn't the plan but still not the end of the world. It were still only two points on a jump shot. And this sentence is of particular importance to me. Extreme spacing can only work when opponents fear your 3pt-shot, the extra point is what it's all about. And this wasn't the case with Bird and if only because of the era he played in. In 1986 he took three 3pt-shots per 100 possessions. Many for his era, nothing compared to modern players who can shoot from long distance (and mostly worse than Bird, at that). The league-average 3PAr was 0.038 in 1986 and 0.268 in 2015. The increasing use of the 3pt-shot has been unbelievable on a historical scale. On a side-note, the lack of spacing also led to visbily less drives right to the rim in half-court sets.

This is why I don't see him as a GOAT outside-shooter, nor as someone who was able to distract defenses due to his shooting like some other players in history did and do, all of them playing in the post-Bird era for that matter. And this leads me to question the greatness of his overall off-ball impact. Off-ball impact is not only about shooting but it is by far the most important part unless we're talking about the exception Shaquille O'Neal is. Among his peers I believe in his comparatively incredible off-ball impact but I doubt it at a historical scale. In an era with more emphasis on the 3pt-shot and also, because of that, more spacing his off-ball impact would be higher. But the era also had advantages for his game: he was able to be a positive defender because he was a good post-defender and rebounder, both of it would be of less use in the modern era. He also was good at post-ups on offense and a good offensive rebounder, both of it would be of less use in the modern era. And his shots from longer distance were less contested overall and he didn't have to work very hard to get them and get them off (note: I'm not talking about mid range shots here, that would need further assessment). So when we decide to prop him up for being the shooter, rebounder, post-defender and post-player he was – which is only fair and sensible – we should by the same token probably re-think his off-ball impact when we're making cross-era comparisons. At least in my mind, feel free to disagree.

By the way, Bird is another case I hate to not have plus/minus data, on/off data, comprehensive shot-logs and some gravity data. Would make it much easier to rate him as a player for me, as of now we have to rely on the limited amount of data, rational reasoning and the eye-test. It can work but still makes is much more difficult.

[Owly]

But that single Orlando team wasn't the only team mentioned in either post. The basic build mentioned by Q of a perimeter star, great passing stretch 4, and shooters (one of which can create most likely) isn't hard to come by when you have a star that talented. Period. Anything else you are putting into that post is coming from you.


He's just as under All Star caliber as Nick Anderson is. Both have about 17 PERs and Anderson wasn't the defender Mozgov is - but Mozgov does play limited minutes but its more in the Robin Lopez sense (RoLo prior to Portland was stuck on the bench under some other bigs or on teams that didn't like trotting out traditional lineups). I mean if your standard for just under All Star is Nick Anderson a lot of guys (for example Wes Matthews) are just under All Star level.

And none of them hit the criteria of a 25 PER because Love is stuck with Lebron on his team turning him into a shooter like he did to Bosh. Oops. I mean its easy to say he doesn't have a 25+ PER but when the argument is that Lebron stops them from producing like they could and he was a 25 PER guy for 4 years prior to stepping on the court with Lebron it strengthens my point if anything.

Actually Kyrie without Lebron on the floor was a 25+ PER player last year. Per 36 (and this isn't a small sample over a third of his 2700+ minutes came without Lebron) he averaged 28/4/6 on 57 TS (115 ORTG). By all measures Lebron is pushing the team ahead by being there but lowering the numbers and impact of the other two stars on the floor with him.

Also the whole complementary role player skills thing is the issue. Next to Lebron everyone becomes a role player with complementary skills because if they don't Lebron's play falls off. Look at Lebron's production when Wade wasn't sacrificing his game in 2011. How difficult it is to get Lebron a good complementary piece is why he doesn't have these types of teams around him. I mean before playing with Lebron both Bosh and Love were seen as top 5 bigmen in the league (and many saw Love as a top 5 player).

Except no he isn't because
1) Nick Anderson posted a higher PER (17.5 to 16.6)
2) Anderson posted numbers close to those numbers consistently (as opposed to Mozgov who has only flashed them)
3) Anderson is better across other metrics (.154 WS/48 to .133; 3.9 BPM to -0.4)
4) Mozgov has played only in a limited role and with others creating shots for him, whilst Anderson showed the capacity to do more and arguably was on a trajectory to do that before sublimating his game (including his formidable post attack) when Shaq and Penny came along.

Anderson was also good defender, he doesn't have Mozgov's upside there but nor could he be forced out of games as Mozgov was in the finals.

So no, Mozgov isn't at that level.

That you're persisting with either Love or Kyrie last year being at peak Penny's level or capable of such is laughable. Love was underutilised, but that doesn't mean he's at peak Penny's level. Even if we had proof Love could co-exist with another star and maintain Minny level productivity (and he may yet do so, but you're arguing casts thus far) Penny wasn't a very poor defender as Love is.

And if you want to advocate for Kyrie in this project go ahead. With or without LeBron, thus far his career metrics have been very stable (except ws/48 this year, because that metric is so tied to team outcomes).

And that still doesn't address which of those guys fits the ideal fit, floor spacer, defender, all-star level player archeotype, because it's no one.

You've cut the original context fromo the conversation which isn't surprising because it includes Q specifically talking about the Magic. In fairness to you your response does refer to those as archetypes. But it also says in response to a post about that specific team

Well no because he also mentioned the (better) 98 Lakers. Yes he mentioned Orlando but it was part of a larger point (that while they've had equal supporting casts in terms of talent Shaq has had the better fit). Why aren't you harping on the 98 Lakers?

Also when did I ever say they were better than Penny? I said they were possibly 25+ PER stars without Lebron (seeing as how Love was one in 2014 and Kyrie in about 900+ minutes without Lebron played like one). Plenty of people produce at that level without having the intangibles of Penny. Again stop referring to this team when its not even his best offense and it isn't even the point of my posts. I never said Penny type players are easy to come by that's absurd but great second options aren't that hard to come by when you already have the franchise talent (the list of great players who's teams couldn't get that talent around them is short).

But that's not a very hard supporting cast to get. Lebron's had a perimeter creator, great shooters, and a great shooting and passing bigman TWICE, Jordan once, and Shaq THREE times (Mia, Orl, and LA). Its just not that hard a team prototype to gather.

Nothing is required to be read into this (and if this was what was being done you would have addressed it immediately). You say of the Orlando team, it's "not a very hard supporting cast to get". You go on to talk about broader types but the context is a post about how good that Magic team was.

No I didn't say that did you even see the rest of what you quoted? Its obvious I was referring to those archetypes if you read the rest of my post. I made it easy to spot just in case you miss it again.

Then too, you deviate further from the original point, saying LeBron can't play with other stars citing Wade, specifically ignoring 2012. Were there teething problems, of course. As you would expect from putting together two slashers, who had been used to being the main star and whos Js/range were average (LeBron) and poor (Wade). You say Wade "wasn't sacrificing" in '11 and presumably this is meant to imply he did so in 2012, yet Wade's "sacrifice" meant his productivity went up. This either means (a) that wasn't what was happening or (b) "sacrificing" to LeBron makes you even more productive.

You think 22/5/5 isn't a decline in production compared to 26/6/5? Wade clearly took on a smaller role in 2012 compared to 2011. Also his productivity mostly remained the same per possession.

You said the Orlando supporting cast was an easy one to get, and if you hadn't meant it you should and would have replied as such in you first response, rather than suggesting that LeBron had such a cast in Cleveland, which is repeating the claim (and specifically not in archetypes because the Cleveland players don't fit with the 4 good starters laid out by Q).

I'm not talking about the Lakers (well I did mention them as talented but dissapointing in the playoffs) because the thing I took issue with in your post was the suggestion that a 25 PER point guard, an All-D all-star role player who spaces the floor and a guy just the tier below all-star level was "easy" cast to build. Which is laughable. You said this in part of post which you chopped up to respond specifically about Magic. Why would I be talking about the Lakers?

You say when have you said Love or Irving are better than Penny. You haven't nor have I claimed that you have. You have claimed them as somehow equivalent.

Spoiler:

I don't know how many all-time greats have had a team with
25+ PER teammate,
Elite low usage "role-player" type, but in an all-star level player who fits ideally next the star (D, spacing etc at an adjacent position)
then a fourth guy just under all-star level.

Basically everyone in consideration for this spot has had the same. What do you call Kyrie, Love, and Mosgov?

Which is false. Kyrie has thus far been a 21.5ish PER PG (and a poor defender) and Love struggled to adapt to Cleveland (and has remained a poor defender).

Finally why do you keep chopping bits out of your quotes. Making something in a larger font (after the fact) doesn't mean it should read as the only thing written. Chopping bits out doesn't mean they weren't there. The last line of Q's post about the Orlando Magic was how the Magic, not just players with those skillsets, but that team, was "a perfect fit for Shaq" and you respond that such a cast is "not a very hard supporting cast to get". You twist and turn to avoid to suggest it only means player types, but a supporting cast isn't just made of player types, it's of player quality too, a fact you're all to aware of hence the constant harping on about Love and Irving, in a discussion that wasn't really about them [this strand was about the Magic].

And the thing that made the Magic an ideal cast wasn't just player types but quality. How many power forwards had there been through that time that don't need the ball but can score efficiently, that are all-star calibre, that were considered by the the defensive co-ordinator of a defense contain two-premier all-time defenders to be the key to their defense, that can adquately space the floor. Those to are extraordinary pieces and it was silly to dismiss them as "not a very hard supporting cast to get", because it. And as I say not everyone performed up to standard on the big occasions, so it's not like it's a "Shaq did bad thing". But it was wrong to state that it would be an easy (or un-difficult) cast to get alongside an all-time elite player.

[SideshowBob]

Now, the driving reason for this impact is diversity. When looking strictly at offense, he's the rare master of all trades. GOAT level off-ball game, GOAT level outside shooting, [...] He can space the floor, he can divert defensive attention with just smart positioning, he can play inside and allow better spacing for an additional ball handler or ball dominant wing[...]

Spoiler:

I would like to discuss his off-ball impact during the era he played in. If you would like to defer this discussion until more people have picked Bird that's totally fine by me. I believe his off-ball impact, while great for his era, doesn't compare to the elite shooters of today's league and this mainly has to do with the way basketball was played back then and is played nowadays. But I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on that topic because I got to know you as a smart and knowledgeable poster – maybe you can convince me in this regard.

During the 1980s the effective of spacing was extremely limited, for basically two reasons: a) the half court offense was predicated on low-post offense and the space close to the basket was crowded. It is always great to watch a game from the 80's and directly after that recent games. The difference in the approach of basketball is like night and day, something I tend to forget at times when I'm watching straight hours of 70s, 80s or even 90s basketball. Offenses don't really make use of spacing outside of 18ft or so. And b) defenses dared their opponents to defeat them from outside, sometimes even from mid range. Sure, some players were better contested and Bird has to be the prime example but the degree was still blatantly different compared to the elite shooters these days.

I re-watched most of the 1984 and 1987 finals with a particular focus on Bird and Magic. Therefore Bird's off-ball game was something I looked at intensively and at least the special spacing effect wasn't apparent to my eyes. Some observations: Bird rarely positioned himself further outside than 18ft in order to free up space. Overall, he seemingly behaved like most of his peers who could shoot the ball at least with some accuracy – they would be prepared to catch and shoot the ball, but they still absolutely preferred to establish position as close to the rim as possible while being an option to pass to. He was simply more successful at it. So we can't criticize Bird for it and since he had a good post-game it also made some sense to not constrain himself for the sake of spacing by not being close to the rim. But all in all, it was obvious that the fundamental concept of spacing and pull-out gravity was only very rudimentarily developed.

Still, opponents didn't want Bird to shoot mid range shots. They were more contested than the average shot from those spots, there was help more often. But I've never seen the defense doing everything they could to avoid him getting the ball far away from the basket. I've also seen multiple instances where players visibly sagged off of Bird when there was some distance to the ball and I've rarely seen the defense panic when he got the ball in a spot to shoot without a defender nearby, therefore rarely saw them overplaying but let him shoot instead. It wasn't the plan but still not the end of the world. It were still only two points on a jump shot. And this sentence is of particular importance to me. Extreme spacing can only work when opponents fear your 3pt-shot, the extra point is what it's all about. And this wasn't the case with Bird and if only because of the era he played in. In 1986 he took three 3pt-shots per 100 possessions. Many for his era, nothing compared to modern players who can shoot from long distance (and mostly worse than Bird, at that). The league-average 3PAr was 0.038 in 1986 and 0.268 in 2015. The increasing use of the 3pt-shot has been unbelievable on a historical scale. On a side-note, the lack of spacing also led to visbily less drives right to the rim in half-court sets.

This is why I don't see him as a GOAT outside-shooter, nor as someone who was able to distract defenses due to his shooting like some other players in history did and do, all of them playing in the post-Bird era for that matter. And this leads me to question the greatness of his overall off-ball impact. Off-ball impact is not only about shooting but it is by far the most important part unless we're talking about the exception Shaquille O'Neal is. Among his peers I believe in his comparatively incredible off-ball impact but I doubt it at a historical scale. In an era with more emphasis on the 3pt-shot and also, because of that, more spacing his off-ball impact would be higher. But the era also had advantages for his game: he was able to be a positive defender because he was a good post-defender and rebounder, both of it would be of less use in the modern era. He also was good at post-ups on offense and a good offensive rebounder, both of it would be of less use in the modern era. And his shots from longer distance were less contested overall and he didn't have to work very hard to get them and get them off (note: I'm not talking about mid range shots here, that would need further assessment). So when we decide to prop him up for being the shooter, rebounder, post-defender and post-player he was – which is only fair and sensible – we should by the same token probably re-think his off-ball impact when we're making cross-era comparisons. At least in my mind, feel free to disagree.

By the way, Bird is another case I hate to not have plus/minus data, on/off data, comprehensive shot-logs and some gravity data. Would make it much easier to rate him as a player for me, as of now we have to rely on the limited amount of data, rational reasoning and the eye-test. It can work but still makes is much more difficult.

Appreciate the response on Bird I don't disagree with some of your points but perhaps I can offer a different perspective on a couple things. Forgive me though, I'll have to get back to it after some digging. If not this thread then certainly once Bird becomes a more popular candidate.

[ceiling raiser]

#3 - 1993 Hakeem
I would like a little more discussion on this guy. He to me has the #4 peak ever, and I'm becoming more comfortable with his offense the most I read and see. He should have been the MVP this year and I think fpliii is a good guy to consult about that argument.

I think 90sAllDecade, fatal9, bastillon, lorak, and some others are terrific authorities on Hakeem. Been gathering playoff footage to reevaluate him recently.

Regarding 93 specifically, here is my post on the MVP race from awhile back:

First season I started watching. Would have to go with Hakeem by a good margin...either the last or second-to-last season of his defensive prime. I typed this quote up from the project (from his autobiography) about his working out over the summer in 92:

Spoiler:

I worked hard that summer I hired a trainer named Charles who helped with my program, and each morning Charles would pick me up and I would run on the beach. I didn’t like running in the sand, it was tough on me, but it was worthwhile, building up endurance. I would eat a light lunch and in the afternoon I would lift weights. In the evenings Charles and I would go to a local high school and shoot buckets and work on my moves.

Charles also took me to Gold’s Gym. He told me it was the weight trainer’s Mecca. I had been to Mecca, all my life Mecca to me had meant the city in Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam. I didn’t know that Mecca also meant the ultimate center, an ultimate place to go, but when I walked into Gold’s Gym I understood exactly when he meant.

These people were like animals. Enormous animals. Even the women. Everyone there was pumped up and full of muscle and I looked so skinny. There were women much thicker than I was and everybody was so intense. I said, “This is a place for the devoted. If you’re not serious you shouldn’t even be walking in here.”

When I’d gotten to the University of Houston they’d taken me into the weight room the first say and I hadn’t been able to lift the bar off my chest. The bar, by itself. I didn’t have the technique and i wasn’t very strong. I had put on a little strength since then but I said to Charles, “This is not my game.” He understood clearly.

I started building by using light weights scaled to my abilities. At first it was strange. I had to get used to the technique and the concentration. But the more I wired with these weights the more I relaxed. In three days I really grew to like it.

I also realized I was getting immediate benefit from these workouts. When I took my shot or worked on my moves all the pain that I usually had in my knees and ankles went away. I was used to having my back ache and my muscles be tight and sore after a good session on the court—if you don’t really work out you can’t do the moves—but now everything seemed so relaxed and easy. Still, I would go to sleep *tired* at night and be sore in the morning. I knew if it was just me I would feel so tired I wouldn’t go work out the next day, but Charles really pushed me and I would warm up and be surprised to feel my body respond and recover quickly.

Charles had arranged for some high school students to rebound for me, so all I did on the court was work on individual moves.

I had never worked on my moves before. During the summers at Fonde I just played and competed, and whatever I wanted to try I tried in game competition. I had never stood off to one side and worked on footwork or leaping or any technique at all, I had worked on learning what worked, I had worked on winning. This was very different.

There was music in the background, a tape of pop music, and it made me creative. I had a lot of energy. I would shoot my jumper and see how high I could go and release the ball. In my mind I saw myself making each move and I felt like it was art. I would fake right, fake left, spin to the baseline. There was a rhythm, like I was dancing to the music. I felt like I was dancing on the court.

My jump hook had extra spring. Everything was sharp. I would make a jump hook, get tossed the rebound, take one bounce, and *go!* I could tell I was on top of my game. In athletics everything is control, you don’t do anything in a lazy way. I had energy and my breathing was wary because I was in condition.

I would shoot twenty-five jump hooks from the right side. Not just ordinary jump hooks, we were talking about preparing at a certain angle and jump hooks of a certain height. You did it right or you did it over. I stopped thinking about the jump hook and just shot it.

Then we worked on shooting jumpers from behind a pick. Sometimes in the past I would get the ball and realize I didn’t want to shoot it. Now I began thinking like a guard, like the in-between player I was. I would work on making my inside foot, the one closest to the basket, hit the floor just as I got the ball so when I jumped to shoot I was already squared up, shoulders facing the basket. It’s all in the footwork. Inside foot, outside foot, spring. If your feet are underneath you and your shoulders are not spinning to catch up, you will be balanced, your elevation will be better, you will jump higher and straighter and will have more time to take a good look at the basket. I saw how high I was jumping and that I was getting a good release. My shot was falling very softly. I was even hanging for a while and I had time, If I didn’t like the shot I was taking, to make different choices. I could pass in front of me; I had time to find an open man on the perimeter. I was in control.

All of a sudden basketball became new again! I pictured myself shooting from the outside. My game had been all spinning moves for a couple of years; every game I was going up against men bigger than I was but not as mobile, and I could spin in the paint and lose them. Now I began to bring those moves outside. If you can handle the ball a little bit outside you can spin and shoot the jumper, which makes your game much more dangerous because now they have to come get you and you can go right around them. When I pictured that I really got motivated!

I was being represented at the time by the Los Angeles-based agent Leonard Armato and one day he brought one of his new clients to the high school gym, this guy just out of Louisiana State University, Shaquille O’Neal.

I had spent entire summers going up against Moses Malone so I had some idea of what Shaquille might be thinking when he met me on the gym floor. *”Be a man!”* But Armato had told me Shaquille had said some very complimentary things about me, and, of course, I had heard about the number-one pick in the 1992 draft. I was having such a good time getting into condition and working on my moves that I invited Shaquille to work with me. This was not a game and we were not competing, this was going to be very pleasant. We trained together that day.

The first thing I noticed about Shaquille was that he was a lot bigger than I was. I was 6’11” and weighted about 250 pound he was 7’2” and up around 300—and still growing! He had the perfect big man’s body; once he got in the paint there was nothing anybody was going to be able to do with him.

We practiced moves together, big man’s moves. He tossed me the ball and I put up a jump hook. I tossed him the ball and he did exactly what I did. We did that a couple of times. Then, as a courtesy, I said, “You do something and I’ll follow you.” He put up a turnaround jumper and I did the same thing.

To show him how to fake the turnaround and use it as a threat to make the jump hook more effective, I told him, “Okay, you guard me.”

He didn’t know whether I was going to shoot the jumper or the jump hook. The players I had gone up against in the league or in practice had consistently fallen for the fake. I got the ball with my back to the basket and faked to my right. He bought the fake. I turned hard to my left, and shot the jump hook. At that moment he was lost; that move was sharp and new to him.

But the next time I tried it Shaquille straightened out. That’s when I realized how quick Shaquille was. In the league when they go for the fakes they never recover. But that’s what was different about Shaquille, he recovered and was there for the block. Shaquille wanted to block everything. I remembered how that felt.

Then I gave Shaquille the ball and showed him the basics of the Dream Shake. I showed him the moves and the footwork. Why would I do that when I knew we were going to play against each other for the next ten or fifteen years? I like sharing moves. If you’re scared about competition you shouldn’t even be in this league. I take joy in watching a skillful big man use his skills and I knew that if he wanted to, Shaquille would use the Dream Shake well.

Then I guarded him.

Shaquille was a fast learner. I had showed my moves to people before, and very often I’ had to instruct them over and over, something would be wrong. Not Shaquille. If he saw it he could do it. Show him, give him the ball, and he’ll do it exactly. I saw how high he jumped, how he released the ball far out of my reach. He was bigger and stronger than I was and he was taking my shot at a higher level. I was there to block him if he tried only half-heartedly, but he found right away that if the move was *sharp* he could beat me. That, in a single lesson, is the bottom line of the NBA: Play hard, if people respect you move they will back off and you can beat them. And Shaquille got it.

Shaquille showed me some moves of his own. He had power and energy and he was young. He did not really shoot a hook shot, he threw it down. I would finish a move with a jump hook a few feet from the basket, he would finish with a hook *dunk* with his hand inside the rim! He also had a nice touch on his turnaround jump shot, which was unusual for a man as big as he was. The jumper was natural, nice touch, particularly from the baseline. He was so big I didn’t have time to see if he was faking, I had to go up with him in order to have any chance to block him. One time he faked, I went up and he went under me. He made a nice move on me. I had tremendous respect for his ability.

In the league we would hear about kids in college who were going to come out and be a force, but we never knew what was hype and what was truth. College reputations are fine for college players, but in the pros you make your name all over again. Some guys start from scratch, some come from nowhere, some guys surpass expectations, and some can never live up to them. None of this was Shaquille’s problem. I knew right away this young man was going to terrorize the league. Any publicity he was going to get, he deserved it.

It was a wonderful morning. We worked together for two hours and it was very good to practice my post moves against someone who could play strong defense against them. Shaquille worked hard and so did I.

I enjoyed playing with Shaquille and I enjoyed being with him. He was a cool guy. No ego. I told him I really liked his nickname: Shaq. Some nicknames are just okay but his rhymed and it had the right meaning, that was his game. Shaq Attack. I liked my nickname for the same reason, it rhymed and it had the right meaning: The Dream. My whole life was too good to be true. I told him and he smiled. He seemed kind of shy. We talked and he knew I liked him right away. We established a relationship with mutual respect and I was very happy to have met him.

His thoughts on Rudy T that season:

Spoiler:

Rudy’s offensive system was very much the same as the one Coach Fitch had run before him. It all began with the ball being tossed in to the big man in the post. That is the only system for a team that has a good center. All good things flow from there. Any big man who requires a double- or triple-team should automatically be the first option. The coach can put in plays, we can run them in practice, but when the plays break down you can go back to the big man. That’s your foundation. If you don’t have a foundation your whole building will collapse.

It’s very simple. When you establish your inside game it’s easier to win. A dominant center who can score anytime you get him the ball will attract a crowd. If I can score over my opponent one-on-one, he will need help guarding me. That help has to come from somewhere, which means that one of my teammates is now open. I have two choices: I can try to shoot over both of the en guarding me or I can pass the ball out and we as a team can whip the ball around and find the open man for an open shot.

In order for our entire offense to be effective I must show the opponents that I’m going to score if they let me. I have to be a threat, otherwise they won’t double-team me. So I have to prove I can score, and I have to do it immediately. I don’t want to give the opposition time to run someone at me or to develop a rotation so my teammates will be covered. I want to damage them early. So I shoot. Over the course of my career I have proved I can score if I’m being guarded by only one man.

At the same time our coach is watching their rotation. Who moves to double-team me? How well does the rest of the team react, what shifts are made to cover our other players on the floor? The opponents will, of course, have spent a lot of time developing a system to stop me and to cut down the options for the rest of my team. My coach will design a game plan to counter their game plan. For instance, when the Rockets’ guard throws the ball into the pivot Rudy will see if the defense is coming from the baseline or from another angle to guard me, and he will use that knowledge to put our guys in the best position to receive a pass and score. If they collapse on me I can toss the ball inside to one of my men cutting to the basket or outside to a guard for a three-point shot. If a man runs at the shooter he can pass it around the perimeter until an open man gets it or he can step inside the defender and shoot. There are thousands of options and they all change each time someone handles the ball. It’s chess with big guys.

Lastly, his feelings on the team in general, as well as a disappointing playoffs (in which they were potentially robbed against Seattle in G7):

Spoiler:

Our team was coming together. Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell had been starting in the backcourt together for three years now. Otis Thorpe was starting his fifth year as a Rocket. He had been selected to the All-Star team in 1992 and was a strong power forward who could rebound and score. The new guy in the starting lineup was the first round pick from the University of Alabama, Robert Horry. At 6’10” he was our small forward, a young, slashing, dunking forward who blocked shots and played good defense. On the bench we had Carl Herrera, Scott Brooks, Sleepy Floyd, Matt Bullard, and Winston Garland all playing solid minutes.

We didn’t start playing well until January, then we clicked. We were 16-16 on January 12, then we went 39-11 the rest of the way and won the Midwest Division by six games over the Spurs.

We were confident. We had split our season series with the Knicks and we’d beaten Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls both times we’d played them that year, once in Chicago early in the season when we weren’t playing our best and again at the Summit in January when we had just begun to jell. We matched up well against the Bulls. Vernon Maxwell did a good job defending against Michael, Otis Thorpe banged with Horace Grant, Robert Horry ran with Scottie Pippin, and Kenny Smith shot it out with B.J. Armstrong. I was matched against Bill Cartwright and both our benches were strong.

We were confident we could beat Chicago if we met them in the finals and we were confident we could beat the Phoneix Suns, even though they had the best record in the Western Conference. We had split our series with Phoenix, 2-2, but we had lost to them early in the season and beaten them the last two times we had met, the last being only three games from the end of the season, when we beat them by fourteen in their home arena.

Home-court advantage usually counts for so much in the playoffs. The fans are more excited than during the regular season, your own game is heightened, and you like to have everything familiar.

With two games to go in the regular season we were in place to finish with the second-best record in the west. All we had to do was win one of two games against Dallas at home or San Antonio on the road. It was a lock. Dallas was the worst team in the league and that win was almost guaranteed. There was no way we could lose to them; they had won only eleven games *all year!*

We played miserably against Dallas. We were not serious, we were looking ahead to the playoffs and not in front of us at the game at hand, we thought we had won this game just by showing up. We were careless. As soon as we got careless it cost us.

We lost to Dallas by five points *at home* and now we had to go and win in San Antonio to clinch home-court advantage into the Conference finals.

We were in San Antonio and had the game won, and in the last moment, when the clock had run out completely, the Spurs put back a miss and the refs ruled it good. There was no question that time had run out but the referee refused to change his call. We lost that game by two points in overtime, and we lost the home-court advantage. It was an outrage and I was furious. When I complained to the refs that their one terrible call had cost us so deeply, one of them said to me, “You should have beat Dallas.”

We beat the Los Angeles Clippers in the first round of the playoffs and faced the Seattle Supersonics in the Western Conference semifinals. They had home-court advantage.

We'd had trouble all year with the Sonics because their style of play was not something we could ever really design a game plan for; their game was never really organized, they scrambled all over the place. They pressed, they pressured us, they jumped in front of me and made it difficult for me even to get the ball into the post to start our offense. It was scrappy, unorganized basketball but it worked for them. On offense all season long they got balance scoring from Ricky Pierce, Sean Kemp, Eddie Johnson, Gary Payton, Derrick McKey, and Sam Perkins.

The first six games were all won by the home team. The series began in Seattle and they went up 2-0, we came back to Houston and tied them 2-2, we traded home victories, and game seven was played in the Seattle Superdome.

The game was close and in the last minutes the referees kept giving the ball to the Sonics. Seattle threw passes out of bounds several times but the refs kept ruling we had touched them. These phantom deflections gave the Sonics the ball and they finally won. If the game had been played in Houston, most likely we would have won it.

Everybody on the Rockets was tremendously disappointed. In the locker room afterward we weren't ready to stop playing. We had been thinking about a championship; that's what we always thought about at the beginning of a season, that's the goal. But there's a difference between saying you can win a championship and really seeing it in front of you. We really *saw* a championship. The winner of our series against Seattle would play Phoenix and then Chicago. It was clear in all of our minds that we were a better team than Seattle, and we felt we could beat both Phoenix and Chicago. I told my teammates, "We go from here."

I watched the NBA finals at home on TV and looked at the players and looked at the teams and knew we should have been there.

Probably legitimately the best defensive player in the league, and the ability to create high-level half court offense whenever needed. No contest for me here, he's the clear cut #1.

Just a note though...I feel like there may be a prevailing belief that MJ took it easy, and was affected by fatigue that season, from all the playoff runs, as well as the Olympics the previous summer. I don't think that was the case, and from the tape he seemed to consistently give tremendous effort, and perform at a high level defensively (EDIT: if anything, the wear and tear/fatigue affected Scottie more I'd say). This season probably isn't very far-removed from 90-92 IMO. Perhaps he was attacking the rim less often. From Pollack's guides (and stats.nba.com for his last two seasons), his dunk totals were (nothing available before 88):

88 - 158 in 82 games
89 - 117 in 81 games
90 - 153 in 82 games
91 - 126 in 82 games
92 - 98 in 80 games
93 - 94 in 78 games
95 - 25 in 17 games
96 - 92 in 82 games
97 - 49 in 82 games
98 - 89 in 82 games

Barkley is third of the three IMO. This is actually the one season of his for which we don't have plus/minus data (lorak calculated on/off for the rest of his seasons here: viewtopic.php?p=41147920#p41147920), though the numbers don't suggest he was having any profound defensive impact at that point in his career we can't ascertain from watching tape (as opposed to earlier in his career when he was a positive on that end).

I think Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq might feature in the discussion a bit as well, but my picks for both regular season MVP, and season+playoffs player of the year are Hakeem, MJ, and Barkley and that order.

What's your current position on KAJ? Not the same at-rim scorer as Shaq (so maybe there's not as much warping of defenses), so it's understandable if that's the difference. I think we also had a thread awhile back discussing KAJ/Magic, and how the offenses tended to improve as KAJ's primacy was reduced.

You mentioned the main difference for me. There are a few key other ones as well: offensive rebounding, Kareem tending to hold the ball longer, Kareem operating farther from the basket.

The main difference is a stylistic one, and the key is that Shaq overpowering single coverage and scoring was basically a 100% proposition. Kareem and Hakeem had ways of killing their man in isolation too, but there was more variance and a much lower hit rate.

The primacy thing I view as a symptom of the underlying skill deficit.

Thank you for the clarification. Have to catch up still but some of the posting is very high quality, as per usual here.

[Joao Saraiva]

So is Shaq ahead? By how much? I'd like to know how the votes are going.

[trex_8063]

So is Shaq ahead? By how much? I'd like to know how the votes are going.

Sorry guys, insanely busy these last 36 hours, so I wasn't able to close the thread this morning as was the usual schedule. Perhaps that's to the good, given how close the vote is (my being tardy has allowed two or three more voters to get their picks in). As of post #118, Shaq was ahead 49-47. I'll make the final tally and get the new thread up and running when I get home from work tonight.

Sorry for the delay everyone.

[trex_8063]

Shaquille O'Neal - 57
Lebron James - 53
Wilt Chamberlain - 18
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 9
Hakeem Olajuwon - 6
David Robinson - 2
Tim Duncan - 1
Larry Bird - 1


Looks like I'll call it for Shaq. Will start new thread in a few hours.

NOTES: Did NOT count one set of ballots (non-eligible voter, I will contact him).
Also, several people were guilty of on casting a 1st and 2nd ballot, but then not choosing a 3rd ballot (JordansBulls---though he at least hinted who he was leaning toward, and I counted a vote to who he was leaning---The-Power, couple others).
I know it's tough; it's razor-thin between almost everyone. And for better or for worse, I counted your 1st and 2nd ballot votes at the usual value. I'm not sure if that's right or not; after all, someone could claim strategic agenda, that you're trying to fend off other comers from your top two candidates, or that because you didn't pick a third your two picks should be weighted differently.

So please, next time just take a stand and vote for someone at 3rd, so we don't have to deal with that potential circumstance.

[The-Power]

NOTES: Did NOT count one set of ballots (non-eligible voter, I will contact him).
Also, several people were guilty of on casting a 1st and 2nd ballot, but then not choosing a 3rd ballot (JordansBulls---though he at least hinted who he was leaning toward, and I counted a vote to who he was leaning---The-Power, couple others).
I know it's tough; it's razor-thin between almost everyone. And for better or for worse, I counted your 1st and 2nd ballot votes at the usual value. I'm not sure if that's right or not; after all, someone could claim strategic agenda, that you're trying to fend off other comers from your top two candidates, or that because you didn't pick a third your two picks should be weighted differently.

So please, next time just take a stand and vote for someone at 3rd, so we don't have to deal with that potential circumstance.

I voted in my second post (the first one was just to share some thoughts), see http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=44629555#p44629555. I probably should have edited my first post to make things easier for you, though. So please excuse the confusion I caused.

[trex_8063]

NOTES: Did NOT count one set of ballots (non-eligible voter, I will contact him).
Also, several people were guilty of on casting a 1st and 2nd ballot, but then not choosing a 3rd ballot (JordansBulls---though he at least hinted who he was leaning toward, and I counted a vote to who he was leaning---The-Power, couple others).
I know it's tough; it's razor-thin between almost everyone. And for better or for worse, I counted your 1st and 2nd ballot votes at the usual value. I'm not sure if that's right or not; after all, someone could claim strategic agenda, that you're trying to fend off other comers from your top two candidates, or that because you didn't pick a third your two picks should be weighted differently.

So please, next time just take a stand and vote for someone at 3rd, so we don't have to deal with that potential circumstance.

I voted in my second post (the first one was just to share some thoughts), see http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=44629555#p44629555. I probably should have edited my first post to make things easier for you, though. So please excuse the confusion I caused.

Oops, and actually I double-counted your first two picks as a result; which would make the scores:

Shaquille O'Neal - 55
Lebron James - 50
Wilt Chamberlain - 18
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 9
Hakeem Olajuwon - 6
David Robinson - 2
Tim Duncan - 1
Larry Bird - 1