Best Average Prime Year?

mdonnelly1989 · Post #1 » by **mdonnelly1989** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 6:54 pm

70sFan · Post #2 » by **70sFan** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 6:57 pm

What do you mean by prime? How long should it be?

No-more-rings · Post #3 » by **No-more-rings** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 7:07 pm

Out of that list, I feel it’s definitely Ewing.

No-more-rings · Post #4 » by **No-more-rings** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 7:09 pm

70sFan wrote:What do you mean by prime? How long should it be?

I think he means just who was the best on average in their prime…

70sFan · Post #5 » by **70sFan** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 7:13 pm

No-more-rings wrote:
70sFan wrote:What do you mean by prime? How long should it be?

I think he means just who was the best on average in their prime…

But it should depend on the length of prime.

Regadless, Ewing is the choice to me.

HeartBreakKid · Post #6 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 7:24 pm

I think prime Stockton is pretty close but I give it to Patrick.

LukaTheGOAT · Post #7 » by **LukaTheGOAT** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 8:29 pm

Taking into account Average Prime, as well as how long I think his prime was, I will go Reggie Miller.

Reggie Miller in the Playoffs from 1990-99:
• 27.0 Points/75 on +11.3 rTS%

Kevin Durant in the playoffs from 2012-19:
• 29.0 Points/75 on +6.2 rTS%

Steph Curry in the playoffs from 2014-19:
• 28.0 Points/75 on +9.0 rTS%

James Harden in the playoffs from 2015-21:
• 28.1 Points/75 on +5.5 rTS%

3-year playoff stretches above +2 in ScoreVal (basically all-time level stuff)

Kareem 7x
Jordan 7x
Shaq 7x
Miller 7x
West 7x

The Pacers offenses were also typically spectacular with Miller, as he is one of 3 people ever in history to play on two separate teams with five-year stretches of +5 playoff offenses (Magic and Kobe are the other 2).

Heck, in 1999 the Pacers were the best offense in the NBA (+6.5 rORTG) as well as the best in 2000 (+4.4 rORTG) This is at 33 and 34 years old and Reggie was the best offensive player on those teams.

Reggie Miller in the 2000s Finals against an all-nba talent in Kobe (whose ankle injury might have him perform worse than his averages):

• 24.2 PPG
• 4.5 REB
• 3.7 AST
• 0.8 STL
• 58.8 TS%
• 37% From 3
• 98% From the Line (45-46)

And those numbers only cover the 90's decade. He was the best offensive player and player on a team that made to the Finals in 2000, despite not being close to his peak years.

In the Finals game 1:

Reggie Miller in G1 vs the Lakers of the 2000 finals: 7pts 1/16 FG (6.3%)

After the worse playoff game of his life he rebounded really well:

Reggie Miller in G2-G6: 27.8ppg on 47.7/40.5/97.6 shooting.

In the end:

Reggie Miller in the 2000s Finals against an all-nba talent in Kobe (whose ankle injury might have him perform worse than his averages):

• 24.2 PPG
• 4.5 REB
• 3.7 AST
• 0.8 STL
• 58.8 TS%
• 37% From 3
• 98% From the Line (45-46)

Kobe in the Finals in 2000 (Once again his ankle injury maybe made things significantly worse)

15.6 PPG
4.6 RPG
4.2 AST
1 Steal
41.1 TS%

Chasing Reggie around, probably was incredibly taxing for Kobe...

That's insanely impressive for a 34-year-old man. Reggie is the definition of consistency year after year.
The consistency for so long is just too much to pass over here.

mdonnelly1989 · Post #8 » by **mdonnelly1989** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 8:35 pm

70sFan wrote:
No-more-rings wrote:
70sFan wrote:What do you mean by prime? How long should it be?

I think he means just who was the best on average in their prime…

But it should depend on the length of prime.

Regadless, Ewing is the choice to me.

What is the difference between the length of prime and 'longevity' ?

I didn't want this to be about how long the career was and a lot of people mix that with prime.

That's why I keep at the average year during your prime.

Owly · Post #9 » by **Owly** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 9:05 pm

mdonnelly1989 wrote:
70sFan wrote:
No-more-rings wrote:I think he means just who was the best on average in their prime…

But it should depend on the length of prime.

Regadless, Ewing is the choice to me.

What is the difference between the length of prime and 'longevity' ?

I didn't want this to be about how long the career was and a lot of people mix that with prime.

That's why I keep at the average year during your prime.

I sounds like you don't want this to be anything to do with longevity?

If so, by not giving a specific description - for the purpose of this question - of what you mean by prime you integrate longevity into it.

An example:

Say one feels John Drew had a 5 year prime and Robert Parish had a 15 year one. You might feel Parish had the better top year, the better second year, the better third year ... etc all the way down but the current phrasing allows, indeed necessitates, rewarding a player for having a short prime.

The example is random, one can quibble about years, but the question as phrased rewards (what can be interpreted as) short (especially if clearly demarcated) prime. With a specific question, or multiple variants thereof (e.g. who had the best top 5, 7, 9, 12 years? [and whether required consecutive or otherwise, personal preference would be the latter]) it would be possible to ask a fairer question and get greater clarity, with everyone on the same page.

70sFan · Post #10 » by **70sFan** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 9:16 pm

Owly wrote:
mdonnelly1989 wrote:
70sFan wrote:But it should depend on the length of prime.

Regadless, Ewing is the choice to me.

What is the difference between the length of prime and 'longevity' ?

I didn't want this to be about how long the career was and a lot of people mix that with prime.

That's why I keep at the average year during your prime.

I sounds like you don't want this to be anything to do with longevity?

If so, by not giving a specific description - for the purpose of this question - of what you mean by prime you integrate longevity into it.

An example:

Say one feels John Drew had a 5 year prime and Robert Parish had a 15 year one. You might feel Parish had the better top year, the better second year, the better third year ... etc all the way down but the current phrasing allows, indeed necessitates, rewarding a player for having a short prime.

The example is random, one can quibble about years, but the question as phrased rewards (what can be interpreted as) short (especially if clearly demarcated) prime. With a specific question, or multiple variants thereof (e.g. who had the best top 5, 7, 9, 12 years? [and whether required consecutive or otherwise, personal preference would be the latter]) it would be possible to ask a fairer question and get greater clarity, with everyone on the same page.

Yes, that's my point. You can simply state that you mean top 5, 7, 9,12 years average and it will make the comparison easier. Otherwise, we'd have to adjust for the length of prime, which isn't an easy thing (Stockton has absurdly long prime, while Thoms was basically done after 8 years).

MiamiBulls · Post #11 » by **MiamiBulls** » Sat Jan 7, 2023 11:27 pm

Ewing doesn't belong here with those names when accounting for primes and peaks. He was significantly better than any of them during his prime run in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

migya · Post #12 » by **migya** » Sun Jan 8, 2023 12:15 am

Ewing looks like the choice but Stockton may have been more impactful.

Post #13 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Jan 8, 2023 12:59 am

I'm pretty much with the conventional wisdom here. Ewing seems on first thought to be the most dominant; Stockton is the other possible choice but his impact is more inferred by impact stats (and his ridiculous assist and steals totals) where Ewing's is your basic points and rebounds. If you are talking playoffs then Reggie certainly has a case; it might help Isiah too, but the OP says year and Ewing and probably Stockton are stronger over the course of an average prime year.