Peaks Project #5

[The-Power]

For those arguing Drob and KG's peak over Hakeem and Kareem, are we ignoring how much better the latter 2 were in the playoffs?

Ehm, no. When you rank Robinson and Garnett very high you have to address the playoffs one way or the other, everyone of us is well aware as to the reasons most people don't agree with our stance. And if you had a look at the posts before you would have already noticed it. Those who are advocating for DRob and KG pick them despite their statistical drop-off in the playoffs. Because they are explainable, because they are partially excuseable or because the drop-off in impact isn't as huge as a glance at the boxscore would suggest. It has been addressed multiple times. You don't have to agree with the stance eventually, but you should at least be able to see the rational reasoning and thoughtful arguments even if they aren't in line with your own evaluation or evaluation-criteria.

[mischievous]

For those arguing Drob and KG's peak over Hakeem and Kareem, are we ignoring how much better the latter 2 were in the playoffs?

Ehm, no. When you rank Robinson and Garnett very high you have to address the playoffs one way or the other, everyone of us is well aware as to the reasons most people don't agree with our stance. And if you had a look at the posts before you would have already noticed it. Those who are advocating for DRob and KG pick them despite their statistical drop-off in the playoffs. Because they are explainable, because they are partially excuseable or because the drop-off in impact isn't as huge as a glance at the boxscore would suggest. It has been addressed multiple times. You don't have to agree with the stance eventually, but you should at least be able to see the rational reasoning and thoughtful arguments even if they aren't in line with your own evaluation or evaluation-criteria.

Ok i can see you're getting offended, no need for that so just calm down.

I did read through some of those arguments that you acuse me of not reading, did i miss some of them? Maybe its possible i don't really have the time to read through every sentence written in these threads. I get the jist of it though, everyone has different criteria and perhaps don't see playoffs as important or see the drop off in production as exusable with context. I'm still looking for more clarity as to why the playoffs shouldn't be more accounted for here.

[Samurai]

Also if Kareem has entered as a serious candidate at this point then we need to get discussion started on Bill Walton. It's not clear at all that Kareem was even better than Walton in the very year we're bringing up, and in pretty much all the time I've considered peak rankings I've had Walton>Kareem.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGeI6ypgtP0[/youtube]

The Mountain Man was ridiculous, pretty easily a top 2 passing big man, and the evidence that he was the most impactful player of the late 70s is overwhelming. I'll say this too: if we're comfortable voting in Wilt Chamberlain knowing everything we do about the role he played, we should be comfortable with the idea of voting in Walton over Kareem as well.

.

I know you were a big Walton supporter during top100, would you consider making an argument here?

To me, the primary difference is playing time. Walton played in 65 games to Kareem's 82. Walton was great in 77 and 78....when he was on the court. And he just wasn't on the court helping his team as much as 77 Kareem.

[Dr Spaceman]

Also if Kareem has entered as a serious candidate at this point then we need to get discussion started on Bill Walton. It's not clear at all that Kareem was even better than Walton in the very year we're bringing up, and in pretty much all the time I've considered peak rankings I've had Walton>Kareem.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGeI6ypgtP0[/youtube]

The Mountain Man was ridiculous, pretty easily a top 2 passing big man, and the evidence that he was the most impactful player of the late 70s is overwhelming. I'll say this too: if we're comfortable voting in Wilt Chamberlain knowing everything we do about the role he played, we should be comfortable with the idea of voting in Walton over Kareem as well.

.

I know you were a big Walton supporter during top100, would you consider making an argument here?

To me, the primary difference is playing time. Walton played in 65 games to Kareem's 82. Walton was great in 77 and 78....when he was on the court. And he just wasn't on the court helping his team as much as 77 Kareem.

Fair, although in 77 he played every playoff game, and led all players in DRB, TRB, AST, and BLK en route to a title. He played enough in the regular season to give his team a top playoff seeding, and dominated everyone in the playoffs to a substantial degree. Kareem put up huge numbers in the H2H series, but visually it's clear Walton was having an effect defensively and every freaking turnover, missed shot, or weak attempt Walton as there to snatch or block the ball and immediately fling it down the floor to a streaking teammate. His effort level and motor were far above Kareem's- to a degree understandable because of all kareem's offensive responsibilities, but we've never actually seen Kareem perform with that kind of motor.

Walton was a team leader in a way almost no other players are, you can see him calling the plays and he's the primary ball handler/playmaker. Coaches RAVE about the dude in a way the haven't raved about anyone since the 60s. Walton was absurd, and unfortunately nothing outside of watching the dude on film will tell the whole story.

[MyUniBroDavis]

My eye test has Hakeem as a little better passer than Duncan. Duncan may average more assists per 100, but i don't think volume of assists always means "better passer". I could be wrong though, either way there ain't much diff in passing either direction.

Duncan's offense was indeed very good, but IMO not for the traditional reasons. Tim Duncan's offense was a heartbeat- just constantly pumping in the background, laying down the foundation of the team. They certainly don't win those titles without his offense.

That said, there's a ceiling on how high a Duncan-centric offense can go, and frankly it's not high. Hakeem should be seen as superior in that sense, given the way those Houston teams structured themselves. Could Duncan have done the same thing? IMO no; just not the same creative playmaker.

Also frankly there's a reason the Spurs have gotten so good on offense lately, and that directly coincided with the ball being taken out of Duncan's hands. Now peak Duncan is not a perfect analogue, because of the reduced mobility and such, but during the rest of dun can't prime after 03 Ginobili was clearly driving the offense, and doing a damn better job of it than Duncan.

Also re: Duncan, there should be a little more discussion about when exactly he peaked. 03 is obviously the best two-way season, but IMO every year from 99-02 he was a better offensive player, and every year from 04-07 he was better on defense. Are we sure he wasn't simply reallocating his energy in a different way in 03, and that his play wasn't just that damn consistent over that stretch?

Now, I cant say that I know alot about the early 2000s compared to most, but If im not mistaken, didnt Dipper show that the Rockets were only marginally worse on offense with Hakeem off the floor? ( in a 2 year sample)
Granted, it might have been calculated wrong.

I mean, in terms of them being good on offense as of late, I would say that has much more to do with how good they play as a basketball team (Wow, I really phrased that badly)
I mean, just a quick glance, outside of transition points of course, they ran 2 of the 3 most effecient play types WAY above league average. They were a good team at running the right plays per situation. And considering the remaining plays available, they ran 2 of the 3 least effecient play types way below average. they just played smart, if that made sense.
the post up statistically is among the least reliable plays in terms of ppp. I recall even when Hakeem used it, in ppp marks, according to a study, it still wouldn't have been "ideal" if that makes sense. (like, if he was able to use that play for a whole game, with the same effeciency, throughout 48 minutes, their offensive rating would still not be among San Antonio's this year)

IMO, offenses can only reach that "wow" level when using a big man if
A. the supporting cast is already pretty good offensively (Wilt in 67 really took the same team that really ranked 4th offensively when he left)
B. the offensive player is basically Akinfenwa body and transcendent offensively (Shaq)
C. the offensive player also has a playmaking role.

I mean, they ranked top 7th in the league on offense, so they were definately pretty good.

That "heart-beat" idea of Duncans offense is pretty much PERFECT though.

With his reputation though, He does all the little things on both sides of the floor well, while also doing the big things as well, if that makes sense.

Allow me to explain.

Lets use kobe on defense for an example. Kobe generally wasnt an oustanding defender. but lets be honest, what does the media think of a good defender? and by extension, we often think of it as well. It seems like alot of people value isolation defense extremely heavily.
Remember that kobe quote about how he would beat lebron one on one?
This wont prove anything, but allow me to show their isolation stats
From 04-10, they have had 28 isolation plays for kobe and 13 for lebron
Kobe scored 0.74ppp and Lebron scored 0.54ppp

HOWEVER, we know lebron is a FAR superior defender.

But honestly, whats the difference? We know for a fact that Kobe was a superior isolation defender overall
(This is rhetorical, i know the difference is super obvious)

Duncan did all of those things, and could do either when needed. Pretty much all the defender value the little things over the big things.

Basically, duncan did the things KG does here
http://www.sbnation.com/2013/10/1/4790408/kevin-garnett-breakdown-video-defense-brooklyn-nets


all of this is obvious, i know, but still.
I would say that I cant say that Ginobli was running the offense in my preliminary research.
In terms of where they ranked, ignoring the other team, at the shooting guard position, irrespective of defense San antonio ranked 22nd out of 29.

Defensively, imo, he was a beast in the playoffs.
Ill just use 1 series, since Dirk got injured halfway through (he was averaging 25 points during a stretch where his averages were closer to 28 though)
Against shaq, he held shaq to around 25 ppg. Now granted, one might say that Shaq wasnt exactly in his prime at this point.
Technically, I recall that in the last 26 games of the regular season, he was averaging 29.9, 12, on just shy of 60% shooting.
In the series preceding this one, he was averaging 29 ppg
against duncan, it went down to 25 ppg. Despite him being quoted as calling Duncan someone that he considers a "rival" and he is motivated against.
(his offensive rating was 5+ than from his first 41 games, so his stats might not been fluky)

And Personally, I rank a motivated shaq just under an offended MJ, so Duncan "containing" him to 25ppg is impressive, to say the least.
IMO, duncan played according to his competition. He seemed to play "harder" against the teams that really were threats.
(He averaged 28 against Dallas and the Lakers, but much less against the Suns, who they lost 2 game by margins of 1 point and 3 points, and the Byron Scott coached Nets)

[Owly]

For those arguing Drob and KG's peak over Hakeem and Kareem, are we ignoring how much better the latter 2 were in the playoffs?

KG 04 playoffs 24.3/14.6/5.1 4.2 TOV 51.3 ts% 25 PER His offense clearly fell off in the playoffs, nothing significant but noticeable.
DRob 1995 playoffs: 25.3/12.1/3.1 3.7 TOV 53.6 ts% 22.6 PER Drob's offense just flat out fell off a cliff from the regular season, he scored 2.3 less ppg on a -6.6 ts% and a -6.5 PER. That's a ridiculously bad drop off from regular season performance.

On the contrast:

77 Kareem playoffs: 34.6/17.7/4.1 64.6 ts% 32.4 PER
94 Hakeem plaoyffs: 28.9/11/4.3/ 56.8 ts% 27.7 PER

For analysis of playoff dropoff for star players, I highly recommend this great series of posts (accompanied by comprehensive data) by PatsSoxKnicks from Pro Sports Daily:

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?712733-dropoffs-in-WS-48-from-regular-season-to-playoffs

From this data source, we have:

Bottom ten WS/48 dropoffs (worst at the bottom)
Kareem
Drexler
Garnett
Wilt
Stockton
Payton
D-Rob
Pettit
Karl Malone
Nique


Bottom ten PER dropoffs (worst at the bottom)
Oscar
Pierce
Cousy
Parish
Pettit
Karl Malone
Nique
D-Rob
Wilt
Payton


Bottom ten TS% dropoffs (worst at the bottom)
Payton
Wilt
Parish
Nique
Barkley
Garnett
D-Rob
Ewing
Stockton
Karl Malone

Before we read those, could you explain the pertinence of playoff dropoff?

If a player posted a 40 PER in the RS and 30 in the playoffs would a relative negative ten for the playoffs make him twenty PER worse than 15 RS guy who elevated himself to a playoff 25 (playoff is a relative plus 10).

Why would you penalize a player for an excellent regular season. It makes no sense.


FWIW, the listing suggests a limited player pool sampled. For one thing Clifford Robinson would be lower than all mentioned players in terms of WS/48 dropoff (Tim Hardaway would be down there too). Okay so looking at it, it's the bottom ten of 47 players, selected on an unknown basis/criteria.

Then too there's no evidence of any attempt to mitigate (or even acknowledge) the different times in their career at which players played playoff minutes.

[SideshowBob]

As Walton vs. Kareem's being brought up:

I've re-read the articles about Walton and Kareem in 77 which were posted in #5 peak thread by regul8tor and PTB fan and we should seriously consider voting for Walton now that Kareem is voted in. ElGee made a great case for Walton in that thread. what impresses me the most is not the impact alone, it's the level at which those Blazers were playing. they weren't an extremely stacked team like 67 Sixers or 71 Bucks, and yet they were performing at +8-9. obviously Walton has a ridiculous ceiling. from what I can tell everyone on this pannel agrees that Walton was a monstrous defensive player who would've likely won back to back DPOYs in 77-78. he was perhaps the greatest defensive rebounder of all-time (whereas it has been shown by multiple posters how crucial defensive rebounding is to winning - as opposed to less important offensive rebounding), along with Russell, Garnett and Dwight, who posted insane 30+ DRB% ratings. he also blocked around 5% of the possessions. he contested insane amount of outside shots without blocking them. how much does he impact the defense ? is his defensive impact comparable to say... Magic/Bird offense ? his offensive value is legit, but the defense is what really made him so valuable IMO. the more impressive Kareem was putting up those 30 ppg against the best defensive player in the league. seems a lot like Hakeem 95 vs D-Rob.

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.

Btw, Here's as much lineup data around the peaks of the big guys that I can muster up:

91 Olajuwon +1.4 to 3.7 SRS (26g) -1.9 DRtg change
92 Olajuwon +11.7 to -0.2 SRS (12g) -10.8 DRtg change
93 Rockets w/out Thorpe were +1.6 SRS (12g) +3.9 w/Thorpe
95 Olajuwon w/Drexer In +6.0 to 1.7 SRS (8g) -4.8 DRtg change

00 Duncan +PS +0.6 to 3.7 SRS (12g)
04 Duncan w/Parker in +3.1 to 8.5 SRS (10g)
05 Duncan +10.0 to 9.1 SRS (16g)
06 Spurs w/out Ginobili were +3.1 SRS (17g) +7.7 w/Ginobili

02 Wolves pre-Brandon injury +6.9 SRS (22g) +5.6 ORtg
02 Wolves pre-Brandon return +7.3 SRS (37g) +7.3 ORtg
02 Wolves post-Brandon return +0.5 SRS (45g) +3.1 ORtg
03 Wolves w/out Szczerbiak were +0.4 SRS (30g) +3.7 w/Szczerbiak
05 Wolves w/out Cassell were -1.5 SRS (33g) +2.8 w/Cassell
06 Wolves w/out Wally and Garnett in were -3.5 SRS (42g) +0.5 w/Szczerbiak

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 93-94 Rockets were ~+4 around
Big
Thorpe
Horry
Maxwell
Smith

The 02 Wolves were +7 for half a year around
Rasho
J. Smith
Big
Szczerbiak
Competent PG

The 03 Wolves were +4 around
Rasho
Big
Wally
Gill/Peeler
Hudson

The 04 WOlves were +6 around
Johnson/Olowokandi
Big
Hassell
Sprewell
Cassell


The 77-78 Blazers were ~+8.5 around
Big
Mo Lucas
Gross
Twardzik
Hollins

The 03 Spurs +6 around
Robinson
Big
Bowen
Jackson/Ginobili
Parker

The 04 Spurs were +8.5 around
Rasho
Big
Bowen
Ginobili/Turkoglu
Parker

The 05 Spurs were +9 around
Rasho
Big
Bowen
Ginobili
Parker

You mean is it damning to turn an average defense to the top of the league? Is this really a question?

Not a single person has mentioned Walton as a GOAT defender because that title belongs to Bill Russell. Walton IS a GOAT defensive candidate post merger, and those numbers certainly do not do a thing to suggest otherwise. The idea that we should assume the team slows down seems so unlikely (even if remotely possible) that's it's silly to consider. Every contemporary, teammate, coach, and David Halberstram discuss how Walton was the trigger for the fastbreak offense with his defense and outlet passing, and that Portland badly missed that when he was out of the lineup.

The next piece of evidence is to look at other teams. Stern here is, again, simply wrong. Orlando, for instance, bumped it's pace from 88 to 94.2 in 2002 without McGrady (control for Hill). In 6 games without him the next year, 88.9 to 94.1. And in 04, 88.8 to 92.2. In 2007, before his shoulder injury, Miami played over 8 possessions faster w Wade in. (7g) The 86 Celtics without McHale played 5 possessions faster (15g). The 91 Celtics without Bird, controlling for McHale, played nearly 5 possessions faster (22g), because with Bird they were a 9 SRS team and without a .500 team. The 84 Lakers were over 4 pos faster with Magic, and on and on...When your team gets weaker or loses a major component, you either

(a) slow the game down to decrease number of possessions to keep it closer
(b) speed up by shifting to offensive lineup

It's unlikely Portland did B. If you want to assume there wasn't much of a change, look at the numbers without a pace change as an estimate.

-in 1977, a constant pace still gives Portland a defensive change from +1.4 to -2.1. 3.5 point change should not be looked at as evidence that "man, that guy was overrated on defense!"

-in 1978, a constant pace still gives Portland a defensive change from -1.2 to -3.8.

So I think if you make some unlikely assumptions, and view the sample as giving you a fair "result," taking teams that are around average on defense and bringing them to the top of the league with 3 or 4 point swings is DPOY stuff right there. Another way to look at the data would be

Portland 77 w Walton -2.1 (would be 2nd)
Portland 77 PS w Walton -5.4
Portland 78 w Walton -3.8 (would be 2nd)

How is this damning at all??

Then, to bring up 1979, when the team SRS was 1, after adding No. 1 pick Thompson and Owens giving them 18-9 at center, after they were trucking along with Walton for over 100 games at 9...I mean, where did that come from? If you don't think it's defense, doesn't that make Walton an offensive machine to you? I actually 1979 as a 3rd data point reinforcing Walton's value/impact in his 77-78 peak.

Understand, also, what small change in pace would do. Let's say

In 1977, Walton in 108.5. Walton out 106.7. Then you'd see a change from +2.8 to -2.4.
In 1978, Walton in 104.7. Walton out 102.8. Then you'd see a change from +0.2 to -4.3.

Dr. Spaceman I'm going to quote you here as well

Sure. Walton was a massive impact player (I've seen him attributed huge SRS scores in ElGee's spreadsheet), and for a superstar hat missed so much time I'm inclined to believe reports of crazy impact being true, given that he's a peak superstar and the saple size is like 1/4th the season. There's quite a bit of evidence that he was historically elite in terms of his Blazers impact.

Have to talk about Kareem too, though. He was a far superior scorer to Walton, and he carried an abominable cast about as far as they could go. But Walton was driving incredibly impressive teams for that era, with the merger and cultural factors driving league quality toward the mean, and his Blazers 5.39 SRS in 77 actually led the league, which is actually far below the 7.8 SRS they posted in all games he played. This was a team that was dominating on the order of the Warriors with Walton in.

Walton had a superior cast to Kareem, and that's not debatable. But the Blazers' roster was absolutely not one that should be talked about as a noteworthy supporting cast either, and here they were kind of running roughshod over the league, and dropping to below .500 level when Walton was hurt.

Kareem, noted above, had a gargantuan scoring edge over Walton, but there's more to offense than that. And looking at footage of Walton it's actually pretty clear that his scoring was one of the last options, and the shots he took were mostly contested mid-range shots late in the shot clock and quick hooks to keep defenses from sagging off. This wasn't a guy who looked for his shot, like, at all. And I hold Walton's playmaking to be pretty much without doubt the best I've seen in a big. The Blazers had a super intricate motion offense for the time period, and every play was set up for Walton to receive the ball before those sets began. He manipulated defenses with hard dribbles, and an endless series of cutters attacked the lane while Walton worked for a seam in the D. Portland's offense was a marvel, especially for that period, and it's the only example of a team that truly played with a full-time playmaking center.

I'm not especially high on Kareem's defense during this period, I don't think he was elite as he was in his younger years. The monstrous load he had to carry contributed for sure, and the rest of his cast was awful, but Kareem himself doesn't jump off the page to me as exceptional in any regard. And we're comparing him to Walton, who actually led the league in blocks and rebounds that season. He was a very good paint presence, and while I don't think he's an all-timer on that end, he was definitely a huge impact guy, and I'm willing to say he was more than a bit better than Kareem. Walton went on to have an astonishing playoff run, leading all players in blocks, rebounds, and assist, and posting an individual DRTG of 90.

Stylistically, I think a Russell-Walton comparison is one that makes a lot of sense, although I'd wager Walton was a handily superior offensive player while not as capable defensively. But it's a player archetype that has aha ton of success, and Walton excelled at small minutia that added up to be a huge deal. His offensive rebounding was excellent for someone that didn't hang around the rim all that much, his outlet passes were superb (and led to several dead-easy baskets for his team every game, even in the playoffs) and he had very active hands and excelled at strips and knocking passes away.

Waltonw as having superstar impact in non-superstar ways, which is why people are getting a little perturbed by this statement. But Walton was truly leading something tremendous those seasons, and I do wonder whether you could build something like that around Kareem without giving him basically any supporting talent that moves the needle in a meaningful way. Walton's portability is off-the-charts, and his real-world impact was second to none during that two-year window.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walton's 77 I value pretty highly; I don't penalize for missed time much, but when we're talking about razor-thin divisions between players at the top like this, that's enough to push him from top 5 to lower top 10 for me (I might have considered him last thread if it weren't for that.

I definitely still see Walton's peak as higher than Kareem's though. With Kareem IMO his "super-peak" (best offensive year + best defensive year) would have probably have been top 5, but I don't think his two-way play ever peaked together, and as a result, I hold him in slightly lower regard than most others (probably 12 or 13), and might be considering Robinson over him as well. I think his offense peaked in his later years (late 70s - 80), while the defense peaked pretty high earlier in his Milwaukee years (overall I think his top years are pretty similar, but 77 is the standout). I think if his peak was really top 5ish, then he'd have to be considered the easy GOAT because those other top years aren't really that far below 77 and his longevity is exceptional, even amongst the other all-timers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Ballot

4. Bird 86 +7.25 (+6.75/+0.50)

5. Hakeem 93 +7.25 (+4.25/+3.00)

6. Chamberlain 67 +7.25 (+4.25/+3.00)

7. Duncan 02 +7.00 (+3.00/+4.00)

Garnett and Russell I think are even with Duncan as well, I'm open to being swayed to switch the 7th spot to either of those (really I'm open to anyone else as well, but moreso those guys). I think I'll prefer Duncan/Garnett over Russell as I'm more confident in their balance than Russell's defense (when asked to break a tie).

IMO Duncan's offense/defense both peak together in 02 and maybe 03, but I have definitely preference for his shooting/scoring skills in 02 so I lean towards that year over 03. Strong and resilient low post game, excellent screening action, modern master of the give and go, etc. Defensively I think he's at about the same place from 99-03, and his lack of redundancy is made evident with the heights that SAS's defense is able to achieve with Robinson/Duncan playing together (given that Robinson might have been just as good as Duncan on that end even late in his career, and given that he's probably the most diverse out of the big 5 modern defenders, is even more portable than Duncan). He's an exceptional shot blocker/rim protector, but what's really key is how adept he is with his positioning which straight up denies/forces penetrators out of the middle (hence the lower raw block numbers). He's also go the lateral mobility/coverage to be a dominant PnR stopper, though I think Garnett is the real standout on that front.

On Garnett, his offense and defense don't peak at the same time IMO. I think he was probably capable of being even better on the defensive end in the 02-05 era, but I don't think it could have been simultaneously sustained along with the offensive game he was displaying (hence I like his Boston years better, particularly 08 and 09). Still, I do believe he was the best PnR defender in the league and that he was still a near ATG-level defensive player with his mobility, lateral coverage, positional versatility, floor awareness, rotational discipline, etc. OTOH I like his offensive game even better than Duncan's; I actually prefer the fact that he's perimeter oriented, that he can stretch the floor AND provide a solid low-post game AND anchor from the high-post as a passing hub that has some of the best vision ever from a big and can use his passing to force rotations and find cutters/shooters/etc AND be an extremely valuable screener not only due to his strong lower-base but also because of his dual threat as a PnR finisher or a PnP spacer. I also think this offensive skillset is extremely portable - he can function as a secondary or tertiary scoring option on his team and still be the best offensive player on the floor, its pretty remarkable. Overall I have his peak as dead-even with Duncan's and I'm not sure which I'm going to actually be picking once we get to voting them in.

[eminence]

1st Ballot: Tim Duncan 02-03 Not even sort of flashy, but his numbers stack up against anyone. Incredibly close between him and Hakeem, went with Duncan due to feeling he just sort of fits into more team structures a bit better while Hakeem is better off being built around. Also a bit more consistent on the boards than Hakeem. Both men upped their games for the playoffs.

2nd Ballot: Hakeem Olajuwon 92-93 - 93-94 is also a fine choice here. Still a huge defensive presence both these seasons and one of the best big men to run an offense through.

3rd Ballot: Kareem 76-77 Great great playoff run. Was good during the regular season, but playoffs is where he really poured it on, might be the best scoring big man playoffs of all-time. Falls behind the other two above him due to significantly lower defensive impact in my opinion.

HM: KG, Robinson, Dr.J (soured on Magic a bit, just seems the dominant two way big men had larger impacts)

[70sFan]

Okay I have a question for everyone who voted Wilt in the last thread: Considering that Wilt was 9th on his team in FGA/36 in both the regular season and playoffs, what exactly makes you think Robinson (or even Duncan or Garnett) couldn't do exactly the same thing on that team? I mean, if we accept the premise that Robinson is a near GOAT-level defender, and that team would mitigate David's biggest flaw (playoff scoring), what the heck is stopping you from just plugging Robinson into that team and seeing a greater result?

This frankly smacks of "the mystique of Wilt", and I think people are viewing that role reduction through some really rose-tinted lenses. There is in fact a reason that happened, and it leads to an essentially inescapable conclusion about Wilt's offense.

Ok, First of all Wilt peak isn't choosen yet. We have debate between 1964 and 1967. With 1964 his scoring gap is clear and I want to focus more about 1967 Wilt vs peak David. So why I choose him between those 2?
First of all, 1967 is his best rebounding season if I remember corectly. Wilt was better rebounder in his last season than Robinson ever. I know, David played some years with Rodman. When Wilt played with Nate or Happy Harrison he was still the best rebounder in the league. Gap here is very big.
Secondly, I know that Wilt didn't score much that year. Do you think Robinson could score around 25 ppg on 70% FG? Because I know Wilt could score at similar volume as Admiral, even at higher to be fair. No matter how much Wilt shoots, he is still GOAT finisher, he is still great low post player and draws TONS of fouls. David is better shooter and his scoring skills is underrated in my opinion, but he was never the same scorer Wilt was in his prime. Wilt still was main defense focus even if he didn't shoot (not that David wasn't, but I don't think he was as much as Chamberlain)
Also, everyone discredit Wilt assist averages because he played in specific system. Man, he was great passer even as a volume scorer. Let's not forget about it. To be fair, David was also amazing passer so here I would say it's a tie, maybe slight edge to Wilt.
Overall, David was clearly better defender than Wilt because of his mobility and activeness. But Wilt was one of the best rim protectors ever, so this gap isn't big enough.

I know you would probably disagree with me. David was amazing in his prime, just not as good as Wilt (for me at least). Also, you said about Wilt "mystique" but I think he became underrated nowadays. Everyone said he was "all numbers and not impact player". That just not true, he is all time great. Just like David and Hakeem, respect greatness.

[Jim Naismith]

Why would you penalize a player for an excellent regular season. It makes no sense.

When all the players under consideration (Hakeem, Robinson, Garnett, etc.) have had excellent regular seasons, then playoff performance can be the decisive factor.

[The-Power]

For those arguing Drob and KG's peak over Hakeem and Kareem, are we ignoring how much better the latter 2 were in the playoffs?

Ehm, no. When you rank Robinson and Garnett very high you have to address the playoffs one way or the other, everyone of us is well aware as to the reasons most people don't agree with our stance. And if you had a look at the posts before you would have already noticed it. Those who are advocating for DRob and KG pick them despite their statistical drop-off in the playoffs. Because they are explainable, because they are partially excuseable or because the drop-off in impact isn't as huge as a glance at the boxscore would suggest. It has been addressed multiple times. You don't have to agree with the stance eventually, but you should at least be able to see the rational reasoning and thoughtful arguments even if they aren't in line with your own evaluation or evaluation-criteria.

Ok i can see you're getting offended, no need for that so just calm down.

I did read through some of those arguments that you acuse me of not reading, did i miss some of them? Maybe its possible i don't really have the time to read through every sentence written in these threads. I get the jist of it though, everyone has different criteria and perhaps don't see playoffs as important or see the drop off in production as exusable with context. I'm still looking for more clarity as to why the playoffs shouldn't be more accounted for here.

I'm not getting offended by any means and didn't intend to come across that way. But when you say you read some of the arguments then I don't understand why you ask if we are simply "ignoring" the playoffs? Because it should be obvious that this isn't the case. Of course, as I already stated, everyone has different criteria and I definitely don't expect you to agree with the one I (or others) applied - that's absolutely fair.

[Owly]

Why would you penalize a player for an excellent regular season. It makes no sense.

When all the players under consideration (Hakeem, Robinson, Garnett, etc.) have had excellent regular seasons, then playoff performance can be the decisive factor.

No that doesn't explain why you would penalize a better regular season (thinking it does that could only be explained as believing playoff data - independent of RS performance- to be unavailable). The implied reasoning that they are all roughly equal in their "excellen[ce]" doesn't fit with using a methodology that explicitly doesn't consider them to be so (it penalizes good regular season play).

e.g. Robinson peak at 30.7 RS PER, Olajuwon 27.3. Why would Robinson have to maintain his RS margin (3.4) over Olajuwon to merely be considered his equal. It doesn't make sense.

Playoffs can be used as a decisive factor, if people so desire, but it is bizzare to measure it relative to regular season performance and thereby penalize excellent regular season play, and reward those worse at it (it's not a surprise to see that many of the players at the top of those lists had the largest opportunity to rise coming as they did from relatively low baselines Horry, Thomas, Hayes, Miller, Worthy; whilst those that reoccur on your lists are often coming from very high baselines, but were nonetheless more productive in absolute terms than those mentioned).


If it were a viable method
Derrick Coleman RS PER 18, playoffs 19.9, Plus 1.9;
RS WS/48 .119, playoffs .161, Plus .042
DC tops now tops the WS/48 list and is second on PER (McGrady became worse a playoff performer by playing on the Spurs)

Tim Thomas RS PER 14, playoffs PER 16.9, Plus 2.9
WS/48 RS 0.79, playoffs .135, plus .056
Tim Thomas elevates his game the most of all. All hail Tim Thomas for he is the GOAT.

[Jim Naismith]

e.g. Robinson peak at 30.7 RS PER, Olajuwon 27.3. Why would Robinson have to maintain his RS margin (3.4) over Olajuwon to merely be considered his equal. It doesn't make sense.

1995 Robinson's dropoff dwarfs the RS 3.4 PER difference between him and Hakeem.

[Dr Spaceman]

e.g. Robinson peak at 30.7 RS PER, Olajuwon 27.3. Why would Robinson have to maintain his RS margin (3.4) over Olajuwon to merely be considered his equal. It doesn't make sense.

1995 Robinson's dropoff dwarfs the RS 3.4 PER difference between him and Hakeem.

Please, please, please stop quoting a single line of someone's post and rebutting a single sentence as though that negates the entire point. It encourages the exact opposite of productive discussion.

Owl's point is larger than the PER difference (really?) between two players. Read the whole thing, and if you disagree then form a rebuttal. But don't jump all over the first line you see that can be challenged.

Explain your reasoning for your choices. Don't wait for someone to post something worthwhile and then nitpick the details.

[thizznation]

Playoffs are a smaller sample size. But the competition is tougher and the stakes are higher. A player should be rewarded or dinged depending on how they perform when the competition increases and there is more at stake. The best players of all time should be able to play in the playoffs at the same level they did in the regular season. If they don't it makes me think that they could of been feasting upon weaker teams in the regular season and couldn't recreate the same results vs the tougher competition.

Yes there are extenuating circumstances such as Spaceman showing Robinson's abysmal '95 cast. But as I said before that seems to be giving Robinson a HUGE pass, even if it was semi-warranted. There will be a question mark on Robinson's impact vs top level competition just like there is a question mark for Wilt and Kareem's RAPM data.

[RSCD3_]

Hakeem 4.25/3.0
Duncan 3.0/4.0

Why do you have Duncan > Hakeem defensively. Most people seen to think the opposite or at worst they are tied. I understand the dynamic ceiling of Hakeem argument for him offensively but what do you think?

[ceiling raiser]

Hakeem 4.25/3.0
Duncan 3.0/4.0

Why do you have Duncan > Hakeem defensively. Most people seen to think the opposite or at worst they are tied. I understand the dynamic ceiling of Hakeem argument but what do you think?

I can't speak for SSB, but it's worth noting that Hakeem almost certainly didn't peak during the same season offensively + defensively. I don't know how big a gap I'd put between Hakeem's earlier offensive seasons and those during his offensive peak, but he doesn't seem to have had the same motor defensively, especially in 95, 96 (even though he was terrific on the offensive end both years). He was great in 93, 94 (and I believe lorak has said before he thinks 93 vs SEA and 94 vs NYK are two of the GOAT defensive series), but from my understanding (and this is by no means fact, just my current opinion), Olajuwon probably peaked defensively in 89, 90.

[SideshowBob]

Hakeem 4.25/3.0
Duncan 3.0/4.0

Why do you have Duncan > Hakeem defensively. Most people seen to think the opposite or at worst they are tied. I understand the dynamic ceiling of Hakeem argument but what do you think?

From the #4 thread:

On Hakeem - IMO his defensive peak is earlier (like 89/90), but 93-95 are his best combination of offense AND defense. Going from 93-->95, I see his defense dropping off, while his offense improves (more refined, more comfortable, more diverse, more aggressive, etc.), to the point where I rank all three seasons about the same. BUT, as I value defense over equivalent offense due to portability (even though Hakeem's offensive skillset is meshable), I would take 93 over the other two seasons by a hair if I must choose one (well and RS health as a tiebreaker).

I'll start reposting my little summaries with the ballots for players that haven't gotten in yet.

Hakeem 4.25/3.0
Duncan 3.0/4.0

Why do you have Duncan > Hakeem defensively. Most people seen to think the opposite or at worst they are tied. I understand the dynamic ceiling of Hakeem argument but what do you think?

I can't speak for SSB, but it's worth noting that Hakeem almost certainly didn't peak during the same season offensively + defensively. I don't know how big a gap I'd put between Hakeem's earlier offensive seasons and those during his offensive peak, but he doesn't seem to have had the same motor defensively, especially in 95, 96 (even though he was terrific on the offensive end both years). He was great in 93, 94 (and I believe lorak has said before he thinks 93 vs SEA and 94 vs NYK are two of the GOAT defensive series), but from my understanding (and this is by no means fact, just my current opinion), Olajuwon probably peaked defensively in 89, 90.

Yup pretty much this

[Djoker]

This quote is from my own post on Hoops-Nation forums regarding Kareem's 1971-1972 campaign.

Much like Wilt's 1961-1962 season here are the game logs for Kareem's best season. I think this campaign is every bit as impressive as Wilt's.



34.8 ppg (1st)

16.6 rpg (3rd)

4.6 apg (1st among centers)

~4.0 bpg (unofficial)

57.4 %FG (2nd)

68.9 %FT

60.6 %TS (2nd)

29.9 PER (1st)

18.3 OWS (NBA Record)

7.1 DWS (2nd)

25.4 WS (NBA Record)



That combination of ppg and FG% is unbelievable. And he was amazingly well rounded.



And it happened on a 63-win team no less. Oscar missed a quarter of the season to injury and played hurt in many more.




He dominated against every other great C apart from Nate Thurmond. He outplayed everybody by a large margin.



5 games vs. Wilt Chamberlain (LA)

Kareem: 40.2 ppg, 15.0 rpg, 5.0 apg on 50.0 %FG

Wilt: 14.0 ppg, 20.8 rpg, 4.2 apg on 53.7 %FG



5 games vs. Dave Cowens (Boston)

Kareem: 44.8 ppg, 18.0 rpg, 4.4 apg on 57.1 %FG

Cowens: 23.6 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 3.8 apg on 45.8 %FG



5 games vs. Elvin Hayes (Houston)

Kareem: 35.4 ppg, 18.6 rpg, 5.6 apg on 59.1 %FG

Hayes: 20.0 ppg, 11.0 rpg



5 games vs. Wes Unseld (Baltimore)

Kareem: 34.2 ppg, 18.8 rpg, 4.2 apg on 54.9 %FG

Unseld: 13.8 ppg, 17.6 rpg, 5.3 apg on 44.7 %FG



6 games vs. Bob Lanier (Detroit)

Kareem: 34.2 ppg, 14.0 rpg, 5.0 apg on 59.9 %FG

Lanier: 27.2 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.2 apg on 42.7 %FG



5 games vs. Spencer Haywood (Seattle)

Kareem: 32.0 ppg, 16.2 rpg, 4.2 apg on 61.5 %FG

Haywood: 24.4 ppg, 12.2 rpg, 2.2 apg on 34.8 %FG (shooting % missing for one game)



6 games vs. Sidney Wicks (Portland)

Kareem: 31.3 ppg, 15.3 rpg, 4.8 apg on 62.0 %FG

Wicks: 23.7 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 4.5 apg on 36.2 %FG



5 games vs. Walt Bellamy (Atlanta)

Kareem: 29.8 ppg, 17.8 rpg, 3.2 apg on 57.3 %FG

Bellamy: 16.8 ppg, 14.4 rpg, 4.0 apg on 50.8 %FG (shooting % missing for two games)



6 games vs. Neal Walk (Phoenix)

Kareem: 37.8 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.3 apg on 60.5 %FG

Walk: 22.2 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 2.8 apg on 45.2 %FG



5 games vs Jerry Lucas (New York)

Kareem: 33.2 ppg, 14.6 rpg, 5.0 apg on 55.0 %FG

Lucas: 17.6 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 4.2 apg on 43.3 %FG



3 games vs. Nate Thurmond (Golden State)

Kareem: 24.0 ppg, 16.3 rpg, 5.3 apg on 44.1 %FG

Nate: 16.3 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.0 apg on 26.0 %FG



In 18 games Oscar Robertson missed with an abdominal strain which is also the injury the severely limited his mobility in the playoffs and doomed the Bucks' title hopes, Kareem averaged 39.9 ppg, 16.1 rpg, 6.0 apg on 59.5% shooting. Those gentlemen are not typos!

As far as regular seasons go 1971-1972 for Kareem is quite likely the best in league history. Such tough competition and such thorough domination. The 1972 postseason is where he receives a ton of criticism but his numbers against Nate and Wilt are still well in line with his overall production against these guys. It's also worth noting that he played through left knee tendinitis.

In the 1972 WCF against the Lakers the Bucks' backcourt was just decimated by injuries. Here are a few excerpts from https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AV80AAAAIBAJ&sjid=M5wEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6971,1413423&hl=en on the injury status of the Bucks entering the series.

Veteran guard Oscar Robertson has been bothered by pulled and inflamed abdominal muscles since early February. He returned to nearly fulltime action in the Bucks 4-1 victory over the Golden State Warriors in the first playoff round, but said afterward he was below par. "I couldn't go out and run, and couldn't start and drive," he said "I could just position and maneuver."

The two top reserve guards, Jon McGlocklin and Wally Jones, are both ailing. McGlocklin missed the Golden State series with strained back muscles and may miss the first week—four games—of the Laker series. Jones sat out Thursday night’s game with pulled ligaments in his left foot, and it isn’t known how much he’ll play Sunday.


Just how bad was Oscar in this series?

Game 1: 9/4/10 (4/16, 1/2)
Game 2: 10/8/7 (4/6, 2/3) - 1 point Bucks loss
Game 3: 18/7/5 (7/16, 4/6)
Game 4: 6/7/10 (3/12, 0/0)
Game 5: 9/5/2 (3/7, 3/3)
Game 6: 2/1/0 (1/4, 0/0) - 4 point Bucks loss

Series Average: 9.0 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 5.7 apg on 36.1 %FG/40.2 %TS

He did play great defense on Jerry West but he was still just a shell of himself. One has to think that with a healthy backcourt the Bucks may well have won the series considering three of their four losses were by 1, 3, and 4 points.

[ceiling raiser]

This quote is from my own post on Hoops-Nation forums regarding Kareem's 1971-1972 campaign.

danko8 from ISH? If so, awesome poster. Great to have you here.