#27 Highest Peak of All Time (Pippen '95 wins)

[Dr Positivity]

Rick Barry isn't that inefficient. League average eFG in 75 was around 4 pts worse than it is now, so that turns .51 into .55 if the same adjustment is made to TS%. It's efficiency closer to Nique than Durant and King, but he was as efficient as them it wouldn't be a contest vs them, since Barry is a better passer. I do wonder if the difference between Barry and Pierce has been overrated, skillset wise Pierce can do most of the things Barry can, it's just the latter had volume scoring

I think though it's a touch dangerous to adjust for efficiency like that. If you do that across the board you get the impression that West & Oscar were absolutely insane in their efficiency early in their career, but their efficiency did not keep improving with the league as everything went along.

I'm not going to claim Barry should be looked at as a counterproductive chucker, but he was most certainly a far less effective scorer than West. Of course, I started voting for West at 14, so I'm pretty much fine with Barry getting some love now, but anyone who really had doubts about West I'd expect to see Barry's much inferior efficiency and see a sizable gap.

West and Oscar were insanely efficient compared to the rest of the league, though. When West led the league in TS% in 68 with .59 TS%, 5th was .559, 10th was .549, 20th was .527. In 2011 1st was .697, 5th was .617, 10th was .608 and 20th was .594. 1st was +10.7 in 2011 vs 1968, 5th was +5.8, 10th was +5.9, 20th was +6.7. This ties pretty well in with the difference in league average eFG between the two years (+5.2), and as a whole I think it makes sense to bump up West about 5 points, from .59 to .64 TS% or so.

The question is whether to attribute that to West, or to say "The rest of the league just had bad efficiency, while in a better one he wouldn't stand out as much". West and Oscar may have been having the greatest offensive impact in history, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're better than Magic and Bird, it could just mean everyone else is worse they're playing against. However in the cast of West and also Rick Barry, at the least we know that they'd have been one of the best 3pt shooters in the league, so that would have helped them if translated to a modern league. Furthermore we can really judge players on what they had the chance to do, and in that case Barry wasn't an inefficient gunner like a player at .50 TS% would be today, meaning for his time he wasn't taking a below average percentage shot by TS% like say, 02 Iverson was taking one.

To give another example, Barry ranked 4th on his team in TS% and 6th in eFG among players over 1000 minutes. Some other ranks: 2008 Kobe - 5th TS%, 7th eFG, 03 Tmac - 1st TS%, 3rd eFG, 10 Melo - 6th TS%, 7th eFG, 87 Nique - 5th TS%, 7th eFG, 06 Pierce - 2nd TS%, 6th eFG, 94 Pippen - 3rd TS%, 3rd eFG, 01 Iverson - 3rd TS%, 5th eFG, 02 Iverson - 6th TS%, 7th eFG, 62 Baylor - 3rd TS%, 5th eFG, 65 Baylor - 7th TS%, 7th eFG

Barry's efficiency compared to teammates ranks better than 08 Kobe, 10 Melo, 87 Nique, 02 Iverson, and 65 Baylor as he is above in both TS% and eFG rank. OTOH he is below 03 Tmac, 06 Pierce, 94 Pippen, 01 Iverson, 62 Baylor. Also therealbig3 did what I was too lazy to, actually calculate TS%, and Barry is still above average. So basically everything here is pointing towards treating him like a 30ppg .54 TS% guy a la Nique's scoring, rather than some 02 Iverson/65 Baylor shooting % that's so bad that they're probably hurting their team by taking the shots. With elite playmaking and spacing, that's a pretty sick player.

Also while I don't like attributing team success to a player, it reminds me of how I trust Nique in 87 a little more from a "If him taking 27 shots a game at so so efficiency is bad, how did they get to a top 5 offense without a ton of supporting talent?". Likewise the Warriors finish 2nd in ORTG with a team that's not very impressive offensively outside of Barry with him taking 30 shots a game, and a top 5 defensive rank, like the Hawks finishing 2nd in 87, at least rules out "they were cheating towards the offensive end at the cost of defense".

I'm actually leaning towards voting Pierce before Barry, but I don't think Barry should be treated like some AI in a bad year type of gunner, nor should pre-surgery Elgin Baylor

[colts18]

So why Howard over Pippen? Unless you're so sold on the fact that Howard's defense blows Pippen's out of the water, hard for me to imagine Howard compensating for Pippen's offensive advantages.

I don't see where Pippen's offensive advantage comes from at all. Pippen was a 109 O rating in 94, his peak. Howard was at 113+ every year from 08-11.

[ElGee]

realbig3, Ardee asked me why I didn't consider 94 but 95 of all the years for Pippen (91-92, 95, 97) that I consider basically a wash.

95 Pippen is the same player as 94 Pippen, only:
-more experienced
-healithier
-better 3-point shooter (due to the rules)

As such, it's really hard for me to side with what he did in 94 over 95. Not to mention the team result is arguably better as a major point of comparison (+4.3 SRS with Grant-based lineup in 94, +3.8 SRS w/no Grant in 95 -- Armstrong -- Harper/Myers -- Kukoc -- Purdue). The team was on fire with Myers in in the 13g before Jordan returned, playing 9.3 SRS over those 13 games (-6.7 DRtg), which means from G53 to 65 the Bulls played (2.2 points) better than in any 13-game stretch with Michael Jordan "replacing" Harper. As I've said, it's hard to criticize the end of the 95 season because the odds of "super alpha GOAT player returning from retirement at end of season to tilt Pippen's dynamic" are almost 0.

Can someone present the argument for why 94 Pip would be better for a team than 95 Pip?

[ElGee]

I agree with the tenor of Positivity's post on Barry and Baylor. I also do not like lumping some of these players together...

Barry is a darn near phenomenal offensive player in 1975 -- he would be one of my next 5 votes as such. I don't like to use ordinal rankings much, as they are significantly less accurate that the actually numerical distance from mean/median (with or without std). The 75 Warriors were a top-5 offense, but remember it was a +2.8 offense. When all the teams are closer together, the difference between the 10th and 4th-best offense may be near meaningless.

But a +3 offense/SRS team is still good. Not as good as the championship that overstates the year from Barry and the team (and they were a true team, even with George Johnson swatting shots off the bench). Then I ask myself "how well would he translate to a better team? Would he shoot 28x a game?" Well, in 1976 GS totes out a very similar team, and from my understanding, in a move that had nothing to do with Al Attles, the great passing Barry simply...passed more. Created more. Used his teammates more, as he felt needed. He took 8 fewer shots a game, the Warriors had a similar offense and finished w/a 6.2 SRS. I would like the offensive figure to move more, but the overall figure still matters here (offense/defense tradeoff). For instance, GS lost Jeff Mullins and Butch Beard at the guard and replaced them with good, young players like Phil Smith (increased role, performance) and rookie Gus Williams...but both weren't entirely "pass-first" guards. And that 76 team was SUPER young around Barry.

Nonetheless, you have the evidence that Barry's passing would translate, at least in role/willingness, to better teams than the 75 team that needed his Iverson Act.

Baylor, OTOH, wasn't a great passer. He was a slasher, not renown for his outside shooting and a great rebounder. I believe that slashing led to good creation at times based on apg and film review. It's unclear to me how well he would fit on elite offenses/teams in the early 60's, but I do NOT give him the benefit of the doubt given the trend to overrate the portability of volume scoring. ("Where are they gonna get the 30 ppg??" Amazingly, most teams find a way unless said volume scorer was exceptional -- see the above post about the 95 Bulls replacing Pete Myers with MJ's 27 ppg!)

We know that 62 Baylor missed 32 games and LA was a -2 SRS team, but a +4.6 SRS team with him (including PS). This is a sizable change and puts the Baylor-Early West combo peaking near 5 SRS, which in the first 10 years of the shot-clock was only eclipsed by Russell's Celtics. Considering this would be better than ANY non-Boston team until the 1967 76ers, it's a respectable ceiling. I consider 61 a comparable season (winning by health tie-breaker), but if anyone has evidence to suggest otherwise that would be appreciated.

Pierce is someone I have pretty clearly between Barry and Baylor. He's more of a "brown belt in everything" player. There were stretches at his peak where he basically played point forward, initiating and creating offense for Boston. He's a good iso-scorer at the foul-line extended. He's a near-great spot-up shooter. He's a strong team defender and uses his length and size to defend individual iso-scorers quite well. He even rebounds really well...and such is a high-portable player who has been noted for some of his huge playoff performances (such a skill-set will lead to such performances). Pierce vs. Grant Hill is a difficult debate to me given their massive difference in outside shooting.

[therealbig3]

@ElGee

Isn't it a little unfair to give 95 Pippen the benefit of the doubt as a shooter, while mentioning the shorter line...I mean, did he really improve his skillset and become a better shooter...or was he just lucky that the line moved in? Isn't this another rare circumstance that affected his game and thus should be taken with a grain of salt?

Your other points are pretty valid though, and I'll probably switch to 95 Pippen. In fact, might as well make it official now.


Switching my vote to 95 Pippen.

[Doctor MJ]

Rick Barry isn't that inefficient. League average eFG in 75 was around 4 pts worse than it is now, so that turns .51 into .55 if the same adjustment is made to TS%. It's efficiency closer to Nique than Durant and King, but he was as efficient as them it wouldn't be a contest vs them, since Barry is a better passer. I do wonder if the difference between Barry and Pierce has been overrated, skillset wise Pierce can do most of the things Barry can, it's just the latter had volume scoring

I think though it's a touch dangerous to adjust for efficiency like that. If you do that across the board you get the impression that West & Oscar were absolutely insane in their efficiency early in their career, but their efficiency did not keep improving with the league as everything went along.

I'm not going to claim Barry should be looked at as a counterproductive chucker, but he was most certainly a far less effective scorer than West. Of course, I started voting for West at 14, so I'm pretty much fine with Barry getting some love now, but anyone who really had doubts about West I'd expect to see Barry's much inferior efficiency and see a sizable gap.

West and Oscar were insanely efficient compared to the rest of the league, though. When West led the league in TS% in 68 with .59 TS%, 5th was .559, 10th was .549, 20th was .527. In 2011 1st was .697, 5th was .617, 10th was .608 and 20th was .594. 1st was +10.7 in 2011 vs 1968, 5th was +5.8, 10th was +5.9, 20th was +6.7. This ties pretty well in with the difference in league average eFG between the two years (+5.2), and as a whole I think it makes sense to bump up West about 5 points, from .59 to .64 TS% or so.

The question is whether to attribute that to West, or to say "The rest of the league just had bad efficiency, while in a better one he wouldn't stand out as much". West and Oscar may have been having the greatest offensive impact in history, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're better than Magic and Bird, it could just mean everyone else is worse they're playing against. However in the cast of West and also Rick Barry, at the least we know that they'd have been one of the best 3pt shooters in the league, so that would have helped them if translated to a modern league. Furthermore we can really judge players on what they had the chance to do, and in that case Barry wasn't an inefficient gunner like a player at .50 TS% would be today, meaning for his time he wasn't taking a below average percentage shot by TS% like say, 02 Iverson was taking one.

To give another example, Barry ranked 4th on his team in TS% and 6th in eFG among players over 1000 minutes. Some other ranks: 2008 Kobe - 5th TS%, 7th eFG, 03 Tmac - 1st TS%, 3rd eFG, 10 Melo - 6th TS%, 7th eFG, 87 Nique - 5th TS%, 7th eFG, 06 Pierce - 2nd TS%, 6th eFG, 94 Pippen - 3rd TS%, 3rd eFG, 01 Iverson - 3rd TS%, 5th eFG, 02 Iverson - 6th TS%, 7th eFG, 62 Baylor - 3rd TS%, 5th eFG, 65 Baylor - 7th TS%, 7th eFG

Barry's efficiency compared to teammates ranks better than 08 Kobe, 10 Melo, 87 Nique, 02 Iverson, and 65 Baylor as he is above in both TS% and eFG rank. OTOH he is below 03 Tmac, 06 Pierce, 94 Pippen, 01 Iverson, 62 Baylor. Also therealbig3 did what I was too lazy to, actually calculate TS%, and Barry is still above average. So basically everything here is pointing towards treating him like a 30ppg .54 TS% guy a la Nique's scoring, rather than some 02 Iverson/65 Baylor shooting % that's so bad that they're probably hurting their team by taking the shots. With elite playmaking and spacing, that's a pretty sick player.

Also while I don't like attributing team success to a player, it reminds me of how I trust Nique in 87 a little more from a "If him taking 27 shots a game at so so efficiency is bad, how did they get to a top 5 offense without a ton of supporting talent?". Likewise the Warriors finish 2nd in ORTG with a team that's not very impressive offensively outside of Barry with him taking 30 shots a game, and a top 5 defensive rank, like the Hawks finishing 2nd in 87, at least rules out "they were cheating towards the offensive end at the cost of defense".

I'm actually leaning towards voting Pierce before Barry, but I don't think Barry should be treated like some AI in a bad year type of gunner, nor should pre-surgery Elgin Baylor

I'd say the feeling I just want to try to communicate to everyone is full recognition of the efficiency gap between these contemporaries.

Elgin Baylor's candidacy is based on the idea that you have to take his horrendous-by-modern standards efficiency with a grain of salt because the man was born 78 years ago...but Jerry West was born 74 years ago and he played with modern levels of efficiency....right next to Baylor most of Baylor's career.

I'm not saying Baylor wasn't a good player, but I just see a huge gap between West and him, and I don't use that adjective lightly. I see the gap between Kobe, Wade, and McGrady to be negligible in comparison.

Barry I feel better about than Baylor because I do recognize that other than his scoring narcissism he actually showed sharp-as-they-come court awareness. Not enough though to make me not see a major gap between him and West/Oscar.

[Doctor MJ]

But a +3 offense/SRS team is still good. Not as good as the championship that overstates the year from Barry and the team (and they were a true team, even with George Johnson swatting shots off the bench). Then I ask myself "how well would he translate to a better team? Would he shoot 28x a game?" Well, in 1976 GS totes out a very similar team, and from my understanding, in a move that had nothing to do with Al Attles, the great passing Barry simply...passed more. Created more. Used his teammates more, as he felt needed. He took 8 fewer shots a game, the Warriors had a similar offense and finished w/a 6.2 SRS. I would like the offensive figure to move more, but the overall figure still matters here (offense/defense tradeoff). For instance, GS lost Jeff Mullins and Butch Beard at the guard and replaced them with good, young players like Phil Smith (increased role, performance) and rookie Gus Williams...but both weren't entirely "pass-first" guards. And that 76 team was SUPER young around Barry.

Nonetheless, you have the evidence that Barry's passing would translate, at least in role/willingness, to better teams than the 75 team that needed his Iverson Act.

I think the '76 season is incredibly telling about Barry.

On the one hand it shows he can still be the clear star of a great team even if he isn't volume scoring because he has so many other abilities.
On the other hand it to me makes very clear that there wasn't anything magical about his inefficient scoring, and he probably should have been shooting less most of his career.

Pierce is someone I have pretty clearly between Barry and Baylor. He's more of a "brown belt in everything" player. There were stretches at his peak where he basically played point forward, initiating and creating offense for Boston. He's a good iso-scorer at the foul-line extended. He's a near-great spot-up shooter. He's a strong team defender and uses his length and size to defend individual iso-scorers quite well. He even rebounds really well...and such is a high-portable player who has been noted for some of his huge playoff performances (such a skill-set will lead to such performances). Pierce vs. Grant Hill is a difficult debate to me given their massive difference in outside shooting.

Pierce is so sneaky. The more I think about him, the more he impresses. I'd place him like you do. I don't see him with the brilliance I see Barry, but I'm certainly more confident in his ability to thrive in all eras and most teams more than I am with Baylor.

Hill, I need to hear more on. I really like the guy, but the man racked up stats in part because he got placed in a McGinnis/LeBron-type role, that I think is a pretty unsustainable model.

[PTB Fan]

I don't know Baylor is thought of as a volume scorer, when his all-around game was clearly his biggest strength and it seems that people are punishing him for his high volume scoring.

[ElGee]

@realbig3 -- I do not begrudge someone who doesn't incorporate rule changes, especially a 3-year temporary one. Then again, my evaluation of players is of their "goodness" (odds of winning) within a season...and I always felt Pippen was a player who benefitted greatly from the 2-foot change in 3-point shot. Do you have a suggestion on how to separate that from in-season player evaluation if it helps certain players a lot? (eg what if they undid the perimeter contact rules from 2005 in 2008 -- would it undo the peaks of a few wing players?)

Hill, I need to hear more on. I really like the guy, but the man racked up stats in part because he got placed in a McGinnis/LeBron-type role, that I think is a pretty unsustainable model.

Agree on the Barry point about him shooting too much. Wanted to borrow the language here, which I really like because I think it helps make evaluating portability slightly less abstract. Hill was in a "do everything" situation. He wasn't on a very good team. We've seen that before, as you mentioned. Then we've seen similar guys who are basically QBing offense (or close), scooping boards from the forward position who also don't shoot well...and we know the impact or numbers aren't going to be the same on stronger teams, in trying to build cohesive, juggernaut clubs.

This is the essence of why Hill and Pierce are close in my mind. Hill is a phenomenal talent at his peak, and I have no doubt that he could come very close to some of what Scottie Pippen did on a bad or marginal team. He's probably a better iso scorer/creator than Pippen. But when you change the roles, Hill looks like a weaker Pippen in the same model. Suddenly, Hill is giving up oodles of what Pippen provides defensively. Offensively, you don't want him "McGinnising" so much with better offensive players around him, so the impact is greatly diminished. Heck, Hill didn't even have a post game like Pippen, and his superior mid-range shot might not even be felt so much off the ball in a lot of offenses.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Howard '11

So first off, obviously by making this choice, I'm not holding Howard's free agency hijinks against him too much for this year. In the end, it just doesn't seem right to me. Not saying I never could hold it against someone, in fact I think what Howard did in '12 is absolutely major enough to talk about, but what do we know of Howard's crimes in '11 really?

1) That he wouldn't state that he was definitely going to sign a max deal when he still had 2 years left on his contract.

2) That this drove the Magic to feel they needed to "do something" in order to sell Howard.

It would have been lovely if Howard committed and encouraged management to think long-term, but realistically when a player has been on a team for 6 years and is seeing stagnancy, you simply cannot expect this. Typically you just hope the player has an open mind, which Howard appeared to have, as opposed to some other superstars (Paul, Melo).

By contrast by '12:

1) Howard is saying things to the press that aren't helping morale.
2) Howard is showing signs that he's focused more on himself than the team.
3) Howard goes back & forth on whether he wants a trade.
4) Howard goes back & forth on what teams he'd accept a trade to.
5) Howard eventually signs a deal that makes no sense at all and only makes the situation worse.
6) Howard then gets petulant because he finally decides on the team he wants, but they gave up already because of the deal he signed.

The roots of '12 are in '11, but it's really only in '12 that Howard is revealed to be someone so out of his depth when asked to make adult decisions that he's hurting the Magic franchise accidentally again and again.


I find Howard '11 to just extremely impressive. 20 PPG, 60+ TS% on DPOY level defense? This is rare air indeed.

For the other contenders, I find Barry & Pippen interesting.

I'm also a bit weirded out that neither Frazier nor Reed is getting any traction.

[therealbig3]

Voting so far:

09 Howard - 1 (Dr Positivity)

11 Howard - 1 (Doctor MJ)

95 Pippen - 1 (therealbig3)

87 McHale - 1 (Ciz-Me)

96 Penny - 1 (JordansBulls)

[therealbig3]

So why Howard over Pippen? Unless you're so sold on the fact that Howard's defense blows Pippen's out of the water, hard for me to imagine Howard compensating for Pippen's offensive advantages.

I don't see where Pippen's offensive advantage comes from at all. Pippen was a 109 O rating in 94, his peak. Howard was at 113+ every year from 08-11.

You could argue that 95 Pippen was his peak, and he had a 114 ORating in the playoffs compared to 113 for 11 Howard.

Compare the 95 Bulls offense (after adjusting for the 17 games Jordan played, in which the Bulls were a +4.8 offense) to the 11 Magic offense:

95 Bulls: +0.3

11 Magic: +0.4

And this is with the fact that Howard was in a "4 out, 1 in" offense that gives him shooters and great spacing all over the court, which allows him to face single coverage on the block. It's a lineup tailor made for his offensive strengths, and they were pretty much average.

The 95 Bulls were just in their 2nd year of having Pippen as their number 1 option, and so they didn't have the luxury of having years to tailor the offense around him like the Magic had with Howard. He played with BJ Armstrong, Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc, and Will Perdue. IMO, this is less conducive to a strong offense than what Howard had.

So I'm more impressed with what Pippen did as a 1st option offensively than Howard, since he led a comparable offense with a worse offensive supporting cast.

[fatal9]

Regarding the wings.

I'd say Pippen and Durant are the most portable. Pippen makes the most two way impact, but also is the most limited in creating offense in the half court (still a very good player in that setting, runs the offense for you, can create good scoring opportunities for himself in the post, but jumpshot is just average, lacks the scoring ability of the rest of these guys). Out of these group of guys, I wouldn’t call anyone a bad or mediocre defender, but Pippen is the only one who makes impact and changes games on that end. His advantage over everyone else defensively is big. Only guy who can shoot 3/11 or something but leave his imprint all over the game. I agree with ElGee, looking at the boxscore of the '94 Knicks series might make you think Pippen had a bad series, but his impact goes waaay beyond ppg and fg%. Defense is something that's a constant that you can rely on so this is a pretty big advantage he has over the other guys.

I’m trying not to overrate Barry for winning a championship. He seems to be playing at this level in other years too? Might be a combination of good team fit, chemistry and weak competition that season (height of ABA-NBA split, KAJ misses playoffs because of how team played during his injury, no other real superstars that he had to run through in the playoffs). I agree that passing is the most underrated aspect in his game. Him and Penny might be best overall offensive players in the group, but his efficiency makes me pause when I say that. I don't want to make sweeping statements on Barry though, haven't looked into his career as closely as others (know the major details but things like say...how was he defensively? i have no clue, didn't make any notes on it), but I have a little bit of skepticism about '75.

KD drops an effortless 30, but has the least impact outside of scoring than all of them. But for me, his scoring more than makes up for it. He is the guy you want at SF on a good team because his offense thrives on playing with other talented players (good thing to me). He’s an average defender (only because of his length or he’d be bad), but he noticeably improved his handles, iso-scoring and as a passer last year. 2014 Durant will make this debate a lot easier.

For Penny, the game was easy. He could get to his spots on offense with ease. He could play above his stats (not just saying that, he averaged like 27/6/6 on 50+% shooting when Shaq was out in '96), had the ability to take over games more often than they would indicate because he was so skilled and versatile offensively. Penny is a great example of why evaluating skills is critical to analyzing players, because it's from understanding his skillset that we can truly get a gauge his true offensive ability (and his play without Shaq just confirms it). He had the versatility to do more but didn't because that's not what the team needed with Shaq in the middle. Penny was a high IQ player with a really polished skillset, played at his own pace, phenomenal court vision which was only helped by his size, solid midrange and slashing game, solid defender and he could post up ANYONE. Smaller guards, Pippen, MJ, Blaylock, seen him give all of them the business in the post. Speaking of which, his ability to light up top defenses/defenders is really impressive as well, and again goes with the point of how his skills allowed him to play at a level above what his numbers suggest. Lot of guards who play Penny's role (scoring, playmaking, running the offense) struggle to fit their individual game with the team, but Penny did it seamlessly. He knows he can "get his" whenever he wants. It's hard to point out weaknesses in his game. Totally on board with him going in the next 5.

It's a matter of preferences. Malone is an offensive anchor. McHale might be, we don't know for sure. 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 (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. Dwight is like +1.5-2 offense, +3-3.5 defense, 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.

Ha - exactly how I see these players, except for McHale. Let me expound: I think at his peak, he's even better offensively than you are giving him credit for here. Maybe like a slightly worse post version of Kareem. But again, at his peak, I see his defense as not what it was pre-foot. Closer to +0.5 or +1 impact. Thoughts?

I agree with '87 and '88 versions of him being better than that offensively (I was rating the '86 version). His defense in '88 was still effective but had fallen off. Some things I've noticed: reduced foot speed (but still good for a big man), not as good at recovering if thrown off by initial move, he still jumps out at midrange shooters to contest their shots but he's not quite getting in their space like before, his shot blocks are down. However I don't think he fell of THAT much where he's only a slightly above average defender. He's still a really smart and aware defender who plays great man/post defense (and still is versatile in terms of who he can guard) and has long arms and mobility to contest a lot of shots from 15 feet in. It's really tough separating '86-'88, each season has its own strengths/weaknesses. I think I can get behind voting for '88 over '86. But still, in the back of my head '87 well always be the year to me where he played his best ball, just had a freak injury at the end of the season against the Bulls that slowed him down a bit in the playoffs (he still played brilliantly all things considered).

[ardee]

Aha, so everyone seems to be voting for someone different now.

I'm looking at King, Barry, Baylor and McHale.

I still see no Barry traction. And actually, the more I look at it, yes, one could argue he doesn't belong yet. He had a great, great scoring year, but his efficiency dropped drastically in the Playoffs. And fine, I admit it, I just don't like the guy. I've seen the film. The looks he gave team-mates, that wig... He's waay too much of a locker room disruption, can't see him fitting on too many teams.

King is the anti-Barry. Hellaciously efficient, great team-mate, knows exactly when to take over and when not to. However, I still have questions as to if he could affect the game in a manner Barry could without scoring.

So, McHale or Baylor? Tough call. The hyper-efficient post scorer who could guard other positions, or LeBron James before LeBron James.

I think I'm going to go with Baylor. Picking a year is a tough call now. That '61 year stands out for his absurd Playoff performances. Remember, this was a very bad Laker team, and he dragged them to within 2 points of the Finals. His box score numbers, from BBR:

Vs. the Bailey Howell and Gene Shue led Pistons

40 points, 6-7 FT, 17 field goals made.
49 points, 15-20 FT, 17 field goals made.
26 points, 8-9 FT, 9 field goals made
47 points, 13-14 FT, 17 field goals made.
35 points, 9-12 FT, 13 field goals made.

Vs. the Bob Pettit Hawks

44 points, 13 rebounds, 18-31 FG and 8-13 FT.
35 points, 9 rebounds, 13-28 FG and 9-10 FT.
25 points, 18 rebounds, 7-22 FG but 11-13 FT. (Probably his shooting worst game, but he still got to the line at will and crashed the boards)
31 points, 15 rebounds, 12-24 FG and 7-9 FT. One point loss.
47 points, 20 rebounds, 17-45 FG, 13-16 from the line. Forget the extra shots, considering the pace being played at. Series tied 2-2, you're coming off a devastating loss, and you respond with THIS? Major props right there in my book.
39 points, 21 rebounds, 14-30 FG, 11-12 from the line. One point loss. ZERO help from his team-mates, they shot 35% from the field.
39 points, 12 rebounds, 16-36 from the field, 7-7 from the line. Two point loss. Team-mates shoot 35% again.

So, against a 51-28 team that had the second best defense in the league after the Cs (there was a pretty big gap between 2nd and 3rd), Baylor averages 37-15 on 52% TS. With zero offensive help. I mean literally zero. Look at the roster that year, West was a rookie, the team should have been going nowhere.

'62 Baylor vs. '61 Baylor is like '64 Oscar vs. '63 Oscar, except Baylor had 30 odd games missed due to military duty.

Tough call, but the Playoffs in '61 sway me. That team should not have been as close to the Finals as they were. Period.

Vote: 1961 Elgin Baylor

[Dr Positivity]

I'm thinking about changing my vote to Pippen, but why 95 over 94 therealbig3? Pippen's efficiency is slightly better in 1995, but that's with the shortened 3pt line, which increased league average eFG from .485 to .500, that 1.5 difference being like exactly the difference between Pippen's eFG and TS% in 94/95. Pippen rebounded and passed better in 94. Also his 94 playoff performance was more consistent. 95 Pippen seems to have some 2011 Wade/Lebron in it where bringing back MJ to a team where Pippen was the man, needed more than 17 Gs for both players' impact to be maximized

[bastillon]

still voting for McHale 88 but Im super busy now so can't really elaborate on it that much.

I've posted quite a bit about McHale though so it shouldn't really be a problem. shotblocking big who could guard pretty much any C-SF and the most dangerous scorer whose skills fit perfectly on strong teams. to top it off he had an underrating passing skills (could make some good passes, never ballhogged against triple teams and was asked to do much finishing instead of passing so he never had a chance to showcase those skills) and although his rebounding numbers were pretty low for a big, he always played on the best DRB% team in the league and often guarded 3s with Bird playing the 4. doesn't seem like people were posting good rebounding nubmers vs McHale and this is more important than his actual numbers. the goal is to limit opp ORB, not to post empty reb stats. looking at his stats they seem to be underrating him to a great degree and I feel McHale could post some crazy stats if he was asked to. 25/10/3/2 @ 60% FG with low TOV seems like easy for him. his phenomenal skillset allows him to maintain his big production against the best competition, something most players fail to do. Pippen for example is a very impactful player but scoring wise he's so freakin poor compared to McHale that its pretty much out of the question he could be over him. I don't think people appreciate just show much offensive load MJ had to carry through a lot of those scoring runs. Pippen was absolutely a great player but his scoring is a big red light to me.

[Lightning25]

I couldn't post last night because I changed my email address so my account was deactivated temporarily.

Anyways, if players like Pippen and Penny are already getting voted in at this stage then I think Durant's name should be out there because I do think Durant's peak was better than both. Hill is the only one that arguably had a better peak than Durant did.

I don't know why '95 Pippen is being voted instead of '94, that doesn't make much sense to me.

I'll elaborate more later since I have class in about 30 minutes.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I couldn't post last night because I changed my email address so my account was deactivated temporarily.

Anyways, if players like Pippen and Penny are already getting voted in at this stage then I think Durant's name should be out there because I do think Durant's peak was better than both. Hill is the only one that arguably had a better peak than Durant did.

I don't know why '95 Pippen is being voted instead of '94, that doesn't make much sense to me.

I'll elaborate more later since I have class in about 30 minutes.

I don't see the case for Durant against those two. Both Pippen/Penny were multi-dimensional, while Durant is all about assisted scoring. I would put him down around where Gervin/Dantley are.

[lorak]

vote: Dwight '11

[Lightning25]

I don't see the case for Durant against those two. Both Pippen/Penny were multi-dimensional, while Durant is all about assisted scoring. I would put him down around where Gervin/Dantley are.

This is based on what? Durant created most of his shots last year (at least compared to prior years) and was the most clutch scorer in the league. Players who are great scorers in the clutch don't score off of assists. Reggie Miller did but he really wasn't as reliable as most people make out of him. Plus, we all know Durant is a heck lot better than Reggie ever was and ever will be.