Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
drza wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:Hmm, okay so where we are right now among the leaders is a dilemma very much relating to peak year. Right now, here's the relevant standings as I see it:
LeBron '09 - 4
Hakeem '94 - 3
Hakeem '95 - 1
Hakeem - 1
Who is the Hakeem '95 vote? From JB's summary I see four Hakeem '94 votes, plus Bastillon who still needs to specify a year.
If you're counting me as the '95, then consider my vote officially changed to Hakeem '94.
Doctor MJ wrote:Hmm, okay so where we are right now among the leaders is a dilemma very much relating to peak year. Right now, here's the relevant standings as I see it:
LeBron '09 - 4
Hakeem '94 - 3
Hakeem '95 - 1
Hakeem - 1
The absurdity of the situation is plain. I'm not going to back off the rules of specification here, but I'm also not going to rush the result here when my rules seem so clearly like they'd give the win to a guy people aren't going for. So here's the deal:
1. Deadline is extended a day. Call it a tiebreak if you'd like.
2. I'm going with what penbeast did in the Top 100 project, you get ONE vote. You don't get to say "A, but B if A gets eliminated." That's essentially giving that poster additional voting power that others aren't having, and it will soon be followed by everyone and their mother giving instant runoff lists. Instant Runoff is a good idea, but I said no to it for a reason (it's very tricky to do right, and no, I don't feel like I could outsource it in good conscious), and I'm not going to have us sneak back into it.
If you want your vote to go to the majority year for your guy, you'll have to ensure that by manually checking these things. Sorry.
I will note that while some might think this is unreasonable because the two Hakeem camps would pick '94 & '95 Hakeem ahead of all other contenders, I actually think anyone who thinks that's a given needs to check themselves. Those were two vastly different years. I think it would be challenging to come up with any statistical metric that would rate those years in consecutive places.
3. As mentioned many times, you've GOT to pick a year if you want your vote to count.
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
bastillon wrote:lol I logged in on another account by accident (not mine). I just wanted to say I'm changing my vote to Hakeem 94 (though I'm pretty sure he was better in 93, check out his defense in that game 7). also going through those years I was very impressed by the level of competition as far as team play. Jazz, Suns, Spurs and Orlando were pretty much +7 teams when healthy (and they were vs Rockets). Suns 93-95 with KJ-Barkley were one of the best offensive teams of all-time. we all know how strong the Knicks were, even the Bulls had a lot of trouble beating them, and they were worse in 92-93 than in 94. just insane competition... not sure if anyone had a harder road to the title.
bastillon wrote:lol I logged in on another account by accident (not mine). I just wanted to say I'm changing my vote to Hakeem 94 (though I'm pretty sure he was better in 93, check out his defense in that game 7). also going through those years I was very impressed by the level of competition as far as team play. Jazz, Suns, Spurs and Orlando were pretty much +7 teams when healthy (and they were vs Rockets). Suns 93-95 with KJ-Barkley were one of the best offensive teams of all-time. we all know how strong the Knicks were, even the Bulls had a lot of trouble beating them, and they were worse in 92-93 than in 94. just insane competition... not sure if anyone had a harder road to the title.
77 Walton -3.4 to +7.9 SRS (18g)
78 Walton -2.8 to +9.5 SRS (24g)
75 Jabbar -4.2 to +1.4 SRS (17g)
77 Lakers after Washington injury were -0.9 SRS (28g) +4.5 before
78 Jabbar -1.7 to +4.1 SRS (21g)
So chew on this:
The 77 Lakers were +4.5 SRS around
Big
Ford/Washington
Tatum
Russell
Allen
The 77-78 Blazers were ~+8.5 around
Big
Mo Lucas
Gross
Twardzik
Hollins
ElGee wrote:I really think it's misguided when people default to H2H raw stats to see who outplayed each other in 4 games. Kareem's game was totally different than Walton's game. His role was totally different. It's not a question of who scored more points, it's a question of who impacted the game more. And Bill Walton was totally doing his thing in that series. (Not that I would even point to 4 H2H games as a determining factor in deciding who was better).
DEFENSE.* Kareem is really good on defense. Walton was a monstrous defensive player. To me, the best defensive impact player since the merger perhaps. Incredibly high motor, incredible rotations, shot blocking and great rebounding. Then on offense, he turns O into D with GOAT-level outlet passing, but he's also a highly functional mid-post hub. This is similar to the role 67 Wilt was playing, only Walton is a better passer and has a better mid-range jumper.
None of this is to say you're crazy or "wrong" if you think Kareem's peak > Walton's peak, but it's not hard to see how people would see Walton's as over Kareem's and thus behind other big men they see on par (or better) than Walton. But again, it certainly doesn't make sense to frame this debate by looking at raw box stats.
But this also means the 77 Lakers played sub-.500 ball for more than a third of the season without Washington. It's no wonder they were swept by Portland. Heck, it's impressive they beat GS.
ElGee wrote:I really think it's misguided when people default to H2H raw stats to see who outplayed each other in 4 games. Kareem's game was totally different than Walton's game. His role was totally different. It's not a question of who scored more points, it's a question of who impacted the game more. And Bill Walton was totally doing his thing in that series. (Not that I would even point to 4 H2H games as a determining factor in deciding who was better).
Beyond that though, and this is discussed extensively in the 77 RPOY project thread, I think Walton (healthy) was better than Kareem (healthy) that year, and it's nearly impossible to find a better year for Kareem. As realbig3 said, Kareem IS the second best offensive center ever. But he accomplishes this not with tremendous global impact and by ignoring his own impact, but mainly because his own individual impact is so freakishly good. In this sense, Kareem at his best will look better in the box than just about any center ever. It doesn't mean he's necessarily better, mainly because of...
DEFENSE.* Kareem is really good on defense. Walton was a monstrous defensive player. To me, the best defensive impact player since the merger perhaps. Incredibly high motor, incredible rotations, shot blocking and great rebounding. Then on offense, he turns O into D with GOAT-level outlet passing, but he's also a highly functional mid-post hub. This is similar to the role 67 Wilt was playing, only Walton is a better passer and has a better mid-range jumper.
None of this is to say you're crazy or "wrong" if you think Kareem's peak > Walton's peak, but it's not hard to see how people would see Walton's as over Kareem's and thus behind other big men they see on par (or better) than Walton. But again, it certainly doesn't make sense to frame this debate by looking at raw box stats.
As I've posted before:77 Walton -3.4 to +7.9 SRS (18g)
78 Walton -2.8 to +9.5 SRS (24g)
75 Jabbar -4.2 to +1.4 SRS (17g)
77 Lakers after Washington injury were -0.9 SRS (28g) +4.5 before
78 Jabbar -1.7 to +4.1 SRS (21g)
So chew on this:
The 77 Lakers were +4.5 SRS around
Big
Ford/Washington
Tatum
Russell
Allen
The 77-78 Blazers were ~+8.5 around
Big
Mo Lucas
Gross
Twardzik
Hollins
But this also means the 77 Lakers played sub-.500 ball for more than a third of the season without Washington. It's no wonder they were swept by Portland. Heck, it's impressive they beat GS.
*If you're thinking, Portland's defense in 77 was only -1.5 and in 78 -3.7, understand that Walton was injured for 25% of the games. In 1977, assuming a constant pace (highly unlikely), the Blazers DRtg would have been -2.2 w Walton. There is extensive discussion about how much faster they would play with Walton, but let's still assume they were behind the fastest teams and played at a 110 pace (up only slightly from 108 average) with Walton. That would make their DRtg -4.0 in 77 w/Walton.
In 1978, as we'd guess, the results would be even more pronounced. Portland would have been -4.5 with Walton in the lineup if we assume constant pace. Again, this is highly unlikely. Simply making the pace league average w Walton would change the defense w him in the lineup to -6.8.
For reference Portland's 1977 PS DRtg was -5.4 in 19 games. Their 1978 PS DRtg, without Walton, was +2.3 in 6 games to Seattle.
Yeah here is Game 4:fatal9 wrote:Regarding the '77 series, I don't think that series was at all decided by their individual matchup. KAJ looked like the better player in the two games we have to watch (and Lakers did in fact outscore the Blazers in the two games when KAJ was on the court) though it should be added that the other two games which aren't available were Walton's best. The series was clearly decided to me by the Laker backcourt absolutely getting destroyed by Portland. They simply couldn't deal with the defensive pressure and had major problems bringing the ball upcourt.
Walton's impact totally goes beyond the numbers however. Walton contested so many shots on the perimeter it's ridiculous (just watch him in the '77 finals) which is rare for a center but he rarely blocked them. He was a point center and coach, he read the defense and called out the appropriate play, you can see him doing signals all game and got the ball where it needed to be regardless of whether he even got a touch. If people ever need to look at proof of intangibles, just watch Walton play. He was the identity of the team on both ends, and you can see this in a sort of stylistic change which happens for the team when he goes out of the game.
That said, unless he totally destroyed KAJ in the other two games, I would say KAJ was the better player in the series from what we have to watch. The difference in how the two backcourts played was simply too much.