#26 Highest Peak of All Time (Malone '98 wins)

[colts18]

I would take the 12 game sample over 1000 minutes of offcourt data especially considering that Gortat was playing a ton of those minutes. The off court data has a lot of garbage time and 2nd teamers. Not too much of Orlando's first team. When a player misses a game, the team and the opponent have a chance to completely adjust the game plan so you get a good idea of their true value. They probably aren't the worst team in history but they are closer to a 110 D rating (Bobcats) than they are to the league average without Howard. That D rating probably regresses to 109 (+4.4) or at best 108 (+3.4). With Howard they are a top 10 defense.

I would bet good money that the Magic are a bottom 5 defensive team next season.

[lorak]

It's a matter of preferences. Malone is an offensive anchor. McHale might be, we don't know for sure.

1988 season (Celtics +3 ortg without Bird and McHale playing 74 games) isn't convincing enough?

And we don't know for sure if Malone was offensive anchor. No one provided any data that would suggest that Malone was more important for Jazz offenses than Stockton (or Hornacek for that matter).

Dwight isn't yet. In terms I see get thrown around here, Malone is like a +4-4.5 on offense and +1-1.5 on defense, with the caveat that his offense gets a little worse in the playoffs

Little worse? I completely disagree. It was serious flaw in his game and if he wasn't scoring effectively his offensive value was much lower than during regular season. So even if he was really +4-4.5 player on offense during regular season then he was at best +3 in the playoffs.

(defense may actually go up depending on matchup since Malone's strength is his post defense). McHale would be like +3 on offense, +2.5 defense, however his defense advantage is less because of his foot injury slowing him down in '87 playoffs and noticeably reducing his foot speed/mobility after that.

Well, he defended Wilkins very good during 1988 playoffs, so I don't think it's true that his defense was worse after '87. Besides, even if it's true (but I would like to see any evidence) why not to vote for '86 McHale?

Dwight is like +1.5-2 offense, +3-3.5 defense,

Oh, I think you underestimate Dwight's defensive value. Do you know for example that 2009 Magic are top 25 defensive team in history? And only Orlando players who played +2k minutes except of Howard were Lewis and Hedo. I wonder if anyone anchored better defense with worse defensive supporting cast.

and also easy to slow down offensively in the playoffs. Hayes' offensive impact is highly questionable. He has a lot of signs that flag him as a possible negative impact offensive player (though I don't think he was). Bad shot selection, bad intangibles, reputation as a bad teammate, average to mediocre offensive teams for almost all his career, mediocre efficiency (but this may not be as much of an issue in peak year) and low apg among other things. Strip away Malone's best offensive qualities and this is what you have. I don't necessarily think he was a negative on offense but it's hard seeing him as more than a +1-1.5 type offensive player. Unless you think Hayes is some GOAT level defender, I don't see how this is close.

Well, I agree 100% with you description of Hayes offense, but the thing is in scoring area (biggest Malone's strength) Karl was very similar to Hayes. Bad shot selection, too much trust in fadeaway jumper.... and on defense Hayes was around +3, so just like Malone on offense (i'm talking about playoffs all the time).

[lorak]

First, Pippen did us a favor by missing 10 games in 94. For those under the impression that Chicago wasn't a good defensive team, they would be wrong (All the Bulls teams of the 90s were well built defensively by that point, and in 1994 they replaced Jordan with defensively inclined Pete Myers and had players like Will Perdue providing really strong interior defense.) In the 10 games Pippen missed early in the year, a time when defenses are typically a little ahead of offenses, Chicago played -1.5 defense. With Pippen (controlling for Grant), they were -3.7. This change was on a good defensive team with solid defensive bigs. (That's with someone like Purdue out for half the year too.) That's impressive to me, and I don't see much a difference between replacing Grant with an elite defensive player and adding Pippen. Yes, he was certainly the greatest perimeter defender I've ever seen and his impact encroaches on most bigs to me.

How do you explain '98 season? Bulls defense was much better without Pippen, when offense was much worse. And that's on big sample.

[ElGee]

First, Pippen did us a favor by missing 10 games in 94. For those under the impression that Chicago wasn't a good defensive team, they would be wrong (All the Bulls teams of the 90s were well built defensively by that point, and in 1994 they replaced Jordan with defensively inclined Pete Myers and had players like Will Perdue providing really strong interior defense.) In the 10 games Pippen missed early in the year, a time when defenses are typically a little ahead of offenses, Chicago played -1.5 defense. With Pippen (controlling for Grant), they were -3.7. This change was on a good defensive team with solid defensive bigs. (That's with someone like Purdue out for half the year too.) That's impressive to me, and I don't see much a difference between replacing Grant with an elite defensive player and adding Pippen. Yes, he was certainly the greatest perimeter defender I've ever seen and his impact encroaches on most bigs to me.

How do you explain '98 season? Bulls defense was much better without Pippen, when offense was much worse. And that's on big sample.

Do you want me to actually answer this or is your question rhetorical and effectively a statement of disbelief? Because I've answered this question SO many times...I'm guessing half the panel could tell you my exact answer.

[lorak]

Yes, I want real answer.

[ElGee]

(1) Offense/defense aren't unrelated. See 2% jump in OREB% (suggesting strategy shift) with Pippen back, (Or, for eg Rodman going from like 5 to 9 OREB per game. Or that they played the 7g "Circus" Road Trip w/out Pip and posted a 33% OREB% (~4% drop.)

(2) Bulls had little to no offense around MJ, who was also struggling with a hand injury, so they were running defensive lineups to stay afloat http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... der_by=pts Pip's return on offense was a GREAT relief to a team that had been putting in big effort on defense to stay afloat.

(3) Pippen was coming off major surgery -- his offensive impact wasn't as affected by this in his return. (This is also why i didn't note 1998 in my Pippen post, since this is a peak's project and it's hard to ascertain how post-surgery Pippen has anything to do with his peak.)

[Doctor MJ]

Howard to me is Ewing with worse offense, to put it as simply as possible.

I'm fine with this diagnosis from a peak perspective, but quite literally, in a typical prime Ewing year, I wish he was scoring more like Howard. I'd much rather have a hyper-efficient 20 PPG big than a 24 PPG guy at okay efficiency.

[colts18]

Yeah. Ewing was more of a volume guy than efficiency guy. But in his prime he was very efficient. From 88-90, he had at least a .590 TS% each of those seasons. But his next best career TS% season was .563. He had 9 seasons under .550 TS%. He only had 3 110+ O rating offensive seasons with 10 seasons at 105 or lower.

Wheras Howard was .600 TS% or better every year from 07-11. Howard had 110+ O rating 5 out of 8 years and last year was his worst ever O rating at 106 (Ewing has 10 seasons lower than this).

The difference comes in usage. Howard only has 3 years better than 25 USG% where Ewing only has 4 years lower than 25. Howard has just 4 20+ PPG seasons. Ewing had at least 20 PPG in every single year of his career until he turned 36.

[ardee]

Ok, so before the project, I made a list about my top 25 after some thorough research.

Now that we're past that, I'm pretty cautious. I think its a bit too soon to be talking about Pipen when we still have guys like Barry, Drexler, Baylor and Malone on the board. These are guys who give you a legit title shot in any year if they're your best player. Pippen wasn't that.

I want to vote '92 Malone, but it doesn't seem like anyone is going to switch. Since I think '92, '95 and '98 are all pretty close anyway....

Vote: '98 Karl Malone

Probably voting Barry next. That '75 year is getting no attention, very unfairly.

And just by the way, not saying I'm considering him soon, but when do people think Iverson is going to come up?

[drza]

I've been off the grid for the last few votes, and the only player that was seriously on my radar before that didn't get in during my absence was Karl Malone. Thus, that makes this vote an easy one for me to get back in on...and since '98 seems to be the consensus, I'll roll with it:

Vote: '98 Karl Malone

[Lightning25]

I've been off the grid for the last few votes, and the only player that was seriously on my radar before that didn't get in during my absence was Karl Malone. Thus, that makes this vote an easy one for me to get back in on...and since '98 seems to be the consensus, I'll roll with it:

Vote: '98 Karl Malone

Nice to see you again, what do you have upcoming up for the next 5 in this vote? And what are your thoughts on Yao and his peak?

[Doctor MJ]

The difference comes in usage. Howard only has 3 years better than 25 USG% where Ewing only has 4 years lower than 25. Howard has just 4 20+ PPG seasons. Ewing had at least 20 PPG in every single year of his career until he turned 36.

Just feeling the need highlight that one word. High usage is not an accomplishment, it's just a description of what you're doing. Other than Ewing's very peak, I'm quite literally saying that his high usage is a problem. I simply don't think it wise using bigs for high usage roles unless they are truly exceptional.

[tsherkin]

I simply don't think it wise using high usage roles unless they are truly exceptional.

Corrected that one for you, Doc!

[colts18]

Just feeling the need highlight that one word. High usage is not an accomplishment, it's just a description of what you're doing. Other than Ewing's very peak, I'm quite literally saying that his high usage is a problem. I simply don't think it wise using bigs for high usage roles unless they are truly exceptional.

bet·ter
1    [bet-er] Show IPA
adjective, compar. of good with best as superl.
1.
of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech.
2.
morally superior; more virtuous: They are no better than thieves.
3.
of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable: a better time for action.
4.
larger; greater: the better part of a lifetime.
5.
improved in health; healthier than before.

[tsherkin]

As quaint and cheeky as is your response, colt, "better" is typically used to mean what the first definition you yourself posted describes:

"of superior quality or excellence."

It's most commonly used as a descriptor to imply greater value, not merely greater quantity.

Just feeling the need highlight that one word. High usage is not an accomplishment, it's just a description of what you're doing. Other than Ewing's very peak, I'm quite literally saying that his high usage is a problem. I simply don't think it wise using bigs for high usage roles unless they are truly exceptional.

bet·ter
1    [bet-er] Show IPA
adjective, compar. of good with best as superl.
1.
of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech.
2.
morally superior; more virtuous: They are no better than thieves.
3.
of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable: a better time for action.
4.
larger; greater: the better part of a lifetime.
5.
improved in health; healthier than before.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Malone '98

[Doctor MJ]

And I'm invoking the mercy rule here. I think Malone has it 10-1-1.

Karl Malone '98 takes it.