#7 Highest Peak of All Time (Bird '86 wins)

[colts18]

you also mentioned Cavs shooters getting swarmed by Orlando defense. well, if LeBron could use his post game back then, Orlando would be forced to double team and that'd leave shooters open. he wouldn't have to score 39 ppg to win the series then. at the time everyone criticized Cavs offense for being predictable and just poorly built for playoff basketball. for the series it seems like Cavs were great offensively but that's not even close. I remember them choking every time Magic turned it up, I think there were 2-3 big comebacks from like -20. Cavs offense was just disappearing. suddenly LeBron couldn't create an open look for his teammates.

LeBron was getting doubled plenty. Watch the highlight video. I see plenty of doubles here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o4JDxQ0IE8&feature=related[/youtube]

On the Pick and Roll, the Magic completely ignored Ilgauskas and doubled LeBron with Pietrus and Howard. That is despite the fact that Ilgauskas is a pretty good shooter. Just watch the video I linked before from game 4 in OT, you will see it there.

[ElGee]

@fatal -- the Celtics were +9.6 SRS without McHale. I've mentioned this plenty of times, it apparently doesn't seem to phase anyone. I find it to be one of the more remarkable things ever. *shrug*

[ElGee]

@Bast -- Oh, I thought it through. When you play on a weaker team, you take more shots. In 1980, Cap had 38 to close the Sonics and Jack Sikma. He had 33 (14-21) in G1 of the Finals while FIVE Lakers were in double-figures. THen 38 (19-31) in the next game. After 2 off games, he had 40-15 in G5 on 16-24 shooting. I really don't know how you see 77 as some sort of outlier. *shrug* again

[fatal9]

@fatal -- the Celtics were +9.6 SRS without McHale. I've mentioned this plenty of times, it apparently doesn't seem to phase anyone. I find it to be one of the more remarkable things ever. *shrug*

He pretty much missed all of February and it was maybe the toughest stretch in their schedule (long west coast road trip). Bird's numbers in that month: 27.4 ppg, 12.9 rpg, 8.1 apg on 59 TS% with Celtics I guess playing close to 10 SRS ball (followed by a 31/9/7 month on 66 TS%!). Amazing.

[bastillon]

I'll repost this gem:

I'm not surprised to see LeBron 09 get so much attention, in the same way people will adore Duncan 03 or Kareem 77 or any other "dragging" of a bad team to something near excellent. But I feel maybe I haven't been 100% clear about why portability is such a big issue to me and why I've changed by tune on these kinds of seasons.

I care about winning championships. Period. As such, it does not matter much at all how a player can boost a poor team. "Carrying" a team will win you MVP narratives, it will win you respect, but it won't win you very many championships, because frankly, the teams that are going to log championships regularly are teams with MAJOR (point-differential) advantages over their opponents. Perhaps it's my mistake for assuming people will read my links, but look at what happens when you go from 5 SRS range to 8-9 range:

SRS -- Title Odds (based on 4 best of 7 series)
14 90.4%
13 85.9%
12 81.4%
11 74.8%
10 66.4%
9 54.8%
8 43.6%
7 28.0%
6 17.7%
5 11.5%
4 6.6%
3 2.7%
2 0.3%
1 0.2%
0 0.0%

Most people probably don't have an intuitive grasp of 7-10% odds and 44-55% odds, but these are massive differences. It's the difference, on average, between winning ONE title in 10 years and FIVE. The former is seen as an accomplish, the latter is a dynasty.

With LeBron (and the other great "carrying" seasons), the instinct is to idolize what he did. ("Similar roster started 8-27! 66-16! 40 Win difference!") But, as I've done with every other player in this project Wilt firstly (who I will vote here if I don't vote Bird), we can just look at 2010 LeBron who was at worst comparable, and I'm with some of his ardent followers in believing there is an argument to made he was better (even if he didn't catch fire in the PS).

Well, do you see a 9-10 SRS team in 2010 rolling people?
Do you see a 9-10 SRS Heat team in 2011 rolling people?
Do you see a 9-10 SRS Heat team in 2012 rolling people?

So, should we view the 2009 Cavs as a "true" 9 SRS team (aka 66-win) team?

I don't. And here's why...

In 2010 they ran into a better team/bad matchup. Although some of that had to do with Mike Brown playing bizarre lineups. And of course, these series are close and involve variance so the 6-games, in my estimation, should not be used as a definitive dictator of the team strength.

2009 v Magic: The series is "close" because the other team shoots lights out from 3. The Cavs 3-point shooters around LeBron fade away at the same time.

2010 v Celtics: The series is "close" (Celtics felt more dominant this time around) because the Cavs offense is a one trick pony. (103 ORtg for series, sub 96-ORtg in all 4 losses)

This is not at all damning in my estimation toward James, as I don't think the team around him was very hot, but I don't think people should look at some of the basic metrics of these Cavs teams and take them a prima facie. For instance, I'd be more concerned that the Lakers were waiting for them in the Finals and LA pounded them in the RS twice and Jackson teams take away the 3 about as well as anyone. I also think people are living a fantasy if they think the 2009 Celtics, with healthy KG, weren't a better team as well.

So yes, I believe people need to re-evaluate the numbers (both SRS and wins) when judging the ceiling of the 09 Cavs, and by extension, judging the height LBJ "carried" them. The 3-point shooters deserve an appropriate amount of credit for Cleveland finishing where they did. This creates a higher-variance environment (something Neil Paine has statistically examined at the BBR blog) and thus makes a team more likely to lose in a short series. It means they are more likely to engage in a close series, which is exactly what happened in back-to-back years (although the Celtics series wasn't as close).

It could be a coincidence and it's just 12 PS games, but it doesn't look like one to me.

The distribution of strength in 2009 was also funky -- very top heavy. 12 of the 15 teams in the East were basically minced meat, and a 13th wasn't so hot after KG went down. (By my estimation, the Cavs played almost 70% of their games against below-average teams.) Cleveland was one of five 5+ SRS teams -- more than a typical year since the merger, btw. But Boston lost Garnett. Against those teams and Boston w KG:

Portland: 2-0 (+5.5 MOV, OT win w/out Aldridge)
Orlando: 1-2 (-11.7 MOV, blowout loss near end of season)
Boston: 1-1 (+5.0 MOV)
LAL: 0-2 (-13.0 MOV)

In the Orlando games, look at what happened:
Magic 3pt shooting: 34-86 (39.5%)
Cav 3pt shooting: 23-53 (43.3%)

The Magic took almost 30 3's a game and shot 40%...which is almost exactly what they'd do in the PS! I understand this is running long but I hope people see the point: I don't view this as a typical powerhouse 9 SRS team because of the circumstances surrounding them. Compare to the 86 Celtics (9 SRS), who beat the Bucks and Lakers by an average margin of 8.8 points and went 5-0 against them (and then swept Mil in the PS by 15 ppg!).

v 5+ SRS teams (no-KG Celtics not included)
86 Bos 9-0 +11.8 MOV
09 Cavs 6-9 -3.7 MOV

Summary
This is not to compare the 86 Celtics to the 09 Cavs.
It's also not to compare their supporting casts to each other.

But since I'm heavily leaning Bird, and having a hard time with seeing LBJ over Bird, I don't think people should be seeing these as anything close to comparable teams (ITO of results, not supporting casts). I see the 09 Cavs as much weaker than a typical 9 SRS team, and Celtics as stronger.

And, coming full circle to the original point about championships and portability, I then question:

(1) How much offensive boost LeBron actually gives a typical +0 Offense??
(2) It doesn't matter if he brings a typical (or perfectly constructed) 15-win team to, say, 57-win (6 SRS) level if he also brings a typical, 40-win team to 57-win level!

Getting back to business...I'm really feeling like people aren't feeling Bird here. Meanwhile, I'm having a hard time seeing an argument for peak Magic over peak Bird, because I really can't see a clear separation in their offense. Someone pointed out their defense/rebounding similarities, but at their peaks I don't entirely agree with that -- Magic looks like average or slightly below average on that front, strong arguments can be seen for Bird being a positive (and two years removed from respectable all-D honors).

My guess is that people who are leaning LeBron see his offense close to Bird's that James' incredible defenses make it a trump card. To that end, I haven't seen a compelling argument, because I don't find it compelling to play a unipolar role on a bad offensive team and get them to a respectable level. The argument has been made that the 09 Cavs hit much higher than respectable levels, but I hope my last few posts on the matter have explained why I disagree:

(1) Those 3-point shooters were shooting at a historically good rate...they deserve some of that credit.

(2) The ensuing season, we did not see such a level of offense with very minor tweaks. From where I stand (obsessively watching analyzing games in 2010), James wasn't really "worse" (if anything, I side with those saying he was better). So this makes it strange to think of James' QBing act as leading incredible offenses, unless you happen to believe 09 James was an aberration.

I've presented data from 3 different versions of Bird and 3 different team settings (early 80s w/Tiny and Parish, peak w/DJ, 2 jump-shooters, McHale post and Parish mid-range, past prime Bird on super-balanced teams). Bird's offensive lift looks incredible, and this jibes with the way he plays. I'm not sure if everyone here has seen peak Bird play -- there are full games now from the 86 or 87 season up on youtube. Everyone should watch one or two (or even highlights) before voting here if they don't have a feel for the difference between LBJ and Bird. Bird is a solid 6-9 -- he gets his shot off over basically everyone. He's a GOAT-level shooter, a GOAT-level off-ball player, a GOAT-level passer...I mean, the old "eye-test" is lining up with numbers we have available.

Let me use a numerical illustration to again hammer this home about unipolar performances. The first number is a team's ORTG w/out the player, the second with the player:

Player A ORTg change
-5 to 3
-3 to 4
0 to 5
+3 to 6
+5 to 7
+8 to +10

Player B ORtg change
-5 to -1
-3 to 1
0 to 4
3 to 7
5 to 9
8 to 12

Assuming their defense is equal, who do you think helps win more championships?

Everyone wants to say Player A. That should be your default instinct. I'm not going to make a separate thread and have people guess and whatnot, I'm just going to tell you Player A is not the right answer.

Player A Championship Odds: ~14%
Player B Championship Odds: ~18%

Why is this so relevant? Because the tendency is to look at 94 Hakeem, 03 Duncan, 09 LeBron and any other unipolar act and glorify the living hell out of it. But if that player has stronger diminishing returns on better teams, that player won't win you as many championships. Notice in the hypothetical I drafted here that Player A would be an MVP front-runner on his weak teams and Player B would look like a mere all-star on weak teams. But the ability to help average and good offenses is simply SO much more important than helping bad ones.

This doesn't mean that guys who help bad offenses can't scale to good ones -- you need to "guess" this yourself if he's never put in a different situation. It just means people should be very, very very careful about overrating the effect of some player "carrying" teams, especially when the heights they carry them to in the first place aren't all that high.

I like '86 Bird here. This is the year he started regularly getting GOAT talk (during the season - not just after they won the '86 championship). That's in large part because:

- He had mastered the 3 point shot after adding it to his game the previous season.

- He was ambidextrous by this point, having also added the left-handed shot to his game. He was pulling off stuff like hitting 7 left-handed shots (including one while falling out of bounds) in a Feb. 14 game, and hitting 10 out of 10 left-handed shots in the first two games of the ECF.

- He was being called by many the best passer ever.

- His offensive and defensive rebounding were of course tremendous: 7.2 ORB% / 20.4 DRB% (by comparison, LBJ peaked at 5.0/19.7 last season)

- McHale suffered a heel injury that sidelined him for most of late January to late February. During that stretch (Jan. 24 to Feb. 25) Bird averaged 27.2 points on 57.7 TS%, 12.6 rebounds, 7.1 assists, 2.1 steals, and 0.9 blocks.

- This is the year Bird went into the ASG locker room and asked about the three-point shootout, "Who's playing for second?" He won by going 18/25.

- After the All-Star break, Bird averaged 27.7 points on 62.4 TS% (53.7 FG%, 45.8 3P%, 86.9 FT%), 10.2 rebounds, and 7.4 assists in just 37.2 minutes over 36 games.

- In the playoffs he averaged 25.9/9.3/8.2 on 61.5 TS% (joined the 50/40/90 playoffs club). He nearly averaged a triple-double in the Finals (24.0/9.7/9.5) and capped off the season with a 29/11/12 performance in the title clincher.

- I don't care much for Win Shares, but for those who do, Bird was 2nd in OWS (9.6, behind Dantley's 10.4) and 1st in DWS (6.2).

As amazing as '87 Magic was, I don't think he was quite '86 Bird amazing.

The LeBron/Erving debate is a little odd to me considering peak Bird is clearly better than peak Erving to me.

27/13/7/2/1 on 58% on the way to 9.6 SRS - Larry Bird 86 without McHale. 28/10/7.4 on 62% TS. can you play any better ?

[C-izMe]

Didn't know about Bird 86. I always thought Magic 87 was better. I was about to vote Magic but it seems like in going with Bird next thread.

[bastillon]

@Bast -- Oh, I thought it through. When you play on a weaker team, you take more shots. In 1980, Cap had 38 to close the Sonics and Jack Sikma. He had 33 (14-21) in G1 of the Finals while FIVE Lakers were in double-figures. THen 38 (19-31) in the next game. After 2 off games, he had 40-15 in G5 on 16-24 shooting. I really don't know how you see 77 as some sort of outlier. *shrug* again

I agree that 80 is somewhat close. but in terms of peak value, missing one game in the finals is pretty big. we don't even know what he could do in that game 7 playing through injury. but still, his numbers were not as good, against worse competition, with much better teammates. not nearly as impressive to me as outscoring Bill Walton 40 to 14, or putting up that ridiculous statline vs Parish at his athletic best. 40-15 is amazing, but not as good as 36/26 in game 7 vs Warriors. that game 7 came after this (courtesy of regul8tor):

Abdul-Jabbar has been the most dominant force in the series, averaging 37.3 points per game. And he’s gotten better every night—scoring 27, 28, 40, 41, 43 and 45 points respectively, in the first six encounters.

He’s also averaged 17.5 rebounds, 4.3 assists and 3.8 blocked shots per game for the series.

so he AVERAGED ~37/19/4/4 for the series. and you could even argue it wasn't his best series that year. Kareem 77 was definitely better than 80 to me.

[bastillon]

Kareem actually followed that Warriors series with a 30/16/4/4 on 66% TS vs the best defensive team in the league, in a matchup vs the best defensive player on the 70s. that's exactly what happened 18 years later in WCFs.

In the Western Conference Finals against Portland, Kareem averaged 30.3 points on 60.8 percent shooting and 66.0 percent true shooting, 16 rebounds, 3.8 assists and 3.75 blocked shots.

Kareem never came close to that form. he was ridiculous that year. so insane.

@fatal9, you made highlights of both 77 Kareem and 86 Bird. who do you think was better and why ? how would you compare them offense/defense ?

[Dr Positivity]

I agree with the argument that the ability to have a huge impact on talented teams is more important turning lemons into respectability.

However I don't see the evidence that Lebron can't do this. Sure the 2011 Heat (2012 team was too banged up, lockout's impact was weird to use as evidence) "only" got 6.76 SRS. But the 2011 Heat had flaws that went beyond how their roster fit together. This is what their WS looked like after the top 3 guys: James Jones, Joel Anthony, Big Z, Mario Chalmers, Eddie House, Erick Dampier, Mike Miller (headcase mode), Carlos Arroyo, Mike Bibby, Juwan Howard. The 86 Celtics after the big 3: Danny Ainge, Dennis Johnson, Bill Walton, Jerry Sichting, Scott Wedman, Rick Carlisle, Sam Vincent. That's a huge difference. That group of Celtics is probably more talented than the 2009 Cavs entire supporting cast. The Heat group OTOH looks more like 2007 Wolves supporting cast. Not to mention the fact that 2011 Lebron's impact was weaker than in 09, 10, or 12 if only because it took time to fit the pieces together. And while 86 Bird would've fit playing with Wade more than Lebron, that doesn't necessarily mean Bird's impact wouldn't have suffered beside another superstar wing player instead of two bigs who fit him like a glove, just not as much as Lebron's did

Finally, Bird is supposed to be more valuable offensively on any team, for portability reasons or otherwise. He's the better offensive player. I think he'd improve the 09 Cavs offensively in comparison to Lebron's impact, too.

[colts18]

I agree with the argument that the ability to have a huge impact on talented teams is more important turning lemons into respectability.

However I don't see the evidence that Lebron can't do this. Sure the 2011 Heat (2012 team was too banged up, lockout's impact was weird to use as evidence) "only" got 6.76 SRS. But the 2011 Heat had flaws that went beyond how their roster fit together. This is what their WS looked like after the top 3 guys: James Jones, Joel Anthony, Big Z, Mario Chalmers, Eddie House, Erick Dampier, Mike Miller (headcase mode), Carlos Arroyo, Mike Bibby, Juwan Howard. The 86 Celtics after the big 3: Danny Ainge, Dennis Johnson, Bill Walton, Jerry Sichting, Scott Wedman, Rick Carlisle, Sam Vincent. That's a huge difference. That group of Celtics is probably more talented than the 2009 Cavs entire supporting cast. Not to mention the fact that 2011 Lebron's impact was weaker than in 09, 10, or 12 if only because it took time to fit the pieces together. And while 86 Bird would've fit playing with Wade more than Lebron, that doesn't necessarily mean Bird's impact wouldn't have suffered beside another superstar wing player instead of two bigs who fit him like a glove, just not as much as Lebron's did

Finally, Bird is supposed to be more valuable offensively on any team, for portability reasons or otherwise. He's the better offensive player. I think he'd improve the 09 Cavs offensively in comparison to Lebron's impact, too.

LeBron can play with another star as he proved the last 2 seasons. With him and Wade on the court, the Heat are a +13.1 team. The 96 Bulls were a +13.4 team. When LeBron and Wade played together, the Heat were fine as they proved the past 2 regular seasons and postseasons with the exception of the 11 Mavs series.

[bastillon]

Nash was like +15 on court in 05-07. Bill Walton was probably +20 when he was on the court. Jordan + Pippen were definitely around +17-18. that's not a good argument colts.

[Dr Positivity]

Yes, while Lebron and Wade don't fit like a glove, they're still one of the best SG/SF combos of all time in impact. In a way I'd almost say the "portability" of their defense has been underrated, for all the talk of how they don't fit offensively. I think they are actually greater than the sum of their parts defensively. They can expend themselves more defensively in energy/fouls compared to when they were their team's entire offenses, and having two guys who are basically X-Men mutants physically makes their help defense on the wing something that NBA history hasn't seen other than Jordan/Pippen, and that was a pretty successful strategy for them

[colts18]

Nash was like +15 on court in 05-07. Bill Walton was probably +20 when he was on the court. Jordan + Pippen were definitely around +17-18. that's not a good argument colts.

Nash was +10.9 from 05-07 on the court. Nash's best season was 05 at +12.7. Of course LeBron does lead in on court +/- since 09 with a +12. 2nd place is Ilgauskas and 3rd is KG (+10.6).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... y=diff_pts

Having Walton at +20 is absurd. No chance he was close to that. The Blazers MOV was +9.3 those years with Walton. You do the realize the best on court +/- the past 11 years was +15 (LeBron 09). No chance Walton surpassed that by such a huge margin. That would be unprecedented as no team in history plays +20 or close to it. The Blazers were +5 and +6 Ortg-Drtg those years which would make their differential at around +9 +10 with Walton. Him playing +20 from 2/3 of the game would mean the Blazers were playing like a -30 team in the minutes without him.

[ThaRegul8r]

I have '86 Bird over '09 LeBron as well, so I'll vote '86 Bird. If I get back in time, I'll do a post on Bird.

And I couldn't care less who has "traction." I'm not going to vote for anyone who I don't think has a legitimate case to be voted in a particular position. Why would I conform to everyone else's vote if I don't actually believe that player should go this high? I don't do bandwagon jumping.

[ElGee]

@Bast -- Oh, I thought it through. When you play on a weaker team, you take more shots. In 1980, Cap had 38 to close the Sonics and Jack Sikma. He had 33 (14-21) in G1 of the Finals while FIVE Lakers were in double-figures. THen 38 (19-31) in the next game. After 2 off games, he had 40-15 in G5 on 16-24 shooting. I really don't know how you see 77 as some sort of outlier. *shrug* again

I agree that 80 is somewhat close. but in terms of peak value, missing one game in the finals is pretty big. we don't even know what he could do in that game 7 playing through injury. but still, his numbers were not as good, against worse competition, with much better teammates. not nearly as impressive to me as outscoring Bill Walton 40 to 14, or putting up that ridiculous statline vs Parish at his athletic best. 40-15 is amazing, but not as good as 36/26 in game 7 vs Warriors. that game 7 came after this (courtesy of regul8tor):

Abdul-Jabbar has been the most dominant force in the series, averaging 37.3 points per game. And he’s gotten better every night—scoring 27, 28, 40, 41, 43 and 45 points respectively, in the first six encounters.

He’s also averaged 17.5 rebounds, 4.3 assists and 3.8 blocked shots per game for the series.

so he AVERAGED ~37/19/4/4 for the series. and you could even argue it wasn't his best series that year. Kareem 77 was definitely better than 80 to me.

Yes, you can make the case that 77 was his peak. The whole point is that it wasn't an outlier.

[colts18]

Yes, you can make the case that 77 was his peak. The whole point is that it wasn't an outlier.

In a sense it was an outlier, but he wasn't much different from 75-80. Its like a 3 point shooter shooting a 100 3 points shots many times. He is the same guy the whole time but he will have good stretches (09 Orl vs. Cle) and bad stretches (03 Horry vs. Spurs) but he is still the same player. But for peak consideration, you have to take the time where he played at his best

[Doctor MJ]

Hey guys, I'm going to start some conversation over on the Project thread. Business as usual here for now, but it would be good if everyone sees what's being discussed over there.

[bastillon]

Yes, you can make the case that 77 was his peak. The whole point is that it wasn't an outlier.

define outlier. to me it looks like Kareem was always a great, great player, but for a moment he became totally unreal. you just couldn't stop him in any way whatsoever in that postseason. you were extremely impressed by that 40/15, imagine he almost averaged that vs Parish 3 years earlier. you can go by any metric you want, but I don't think you'll find comparable impact.

[therealbig3]

Updating the last list:

03 Duncan - 5 (Dr Positivity, C-izMe, JordansBulls, drza, Josephpaul)

09 LeBron - 4 (therealbig3, colts18, Doctor MJ, DavidStern)

86 Bird - 4 (ElGee, PTB Fan, bastillon, ThaRegul8r)

87 Magic - 1 (ardee)

[colts18]

Do people think that Duncan was in his defensive peak in 03? Was he better from 98-02 or 04-07 than 03? Duncan might have been a better player in 01, 02, and 04, only he got the right matchups in the playoffs so thats considered his peak.