Peak Project #8

[mischievous]

I'm not a participant, but I'm a little surprised that 2014 Durant hasn't gotten any mentions yet. He had one of the greatest scoring seasons ever (32 ppg on 64% TS) and a pretty good all-around game (7.4 rpg, 5.5 apg). Probably the greatest combination of shooting and slashing ever seen. He was doing it without Westbrook for a lot of games and without a well-designed offense. Is it too blasphemous to suggest that - for one season - Durant was better than guys like Bird or Duncan ever were?

KD's playoff run that year left a lot to be desired. He was great against the Clippers who are weak at defending the perimeter, but was so-so against the Grizzlies and Spurs. I think that will keep him from really getting mentions just yet. I'm not convinced KD belongs over Wade, but it is close though.

[drza]

Time for some quotes/hopefully conversation starters from previous threads. This was an article on Bill Russell, posted by Dipper13 in the last 'peaks' project

Minus shooting he did everything at a high level.

Sports Illustrated - November 18, 1963

"In my modest opinion," says Russell, who is not a particularly good shooter, "shooting is of relatively little importance in a player's overall game. Almost all of us in the NBA are All-Americas. We became All-Americas by averaging 20 points or more a game, so by the layman's standards all of us can shoot. It's the other phases of the game that make the difference. If you're going to score 15 and let your man score 20 you're a deficit. If your value to the team is strictly as a shooter, you are of very little value. Offense is the first thing you learn as a kid in any sport: catch a pass, dribble, bat, shoot. You learn the offensive aspects of a game long before you learn there even are defensive aspects. These are the skills you come by naturally. Defense is hard work because it's unnatural.

"Defense is a science," Russell says, "not a helter-skelter thing you just luck into. Every move has six or seven years of work behind it. In basketball your body gets to do things it couldn't do in normal circumstances. You take abnormal steps, you have to run backward almost as fast as you can run forward. On defense you must never cross your legs while running, and that's the most natural thing to do when changing direction. Instead, you try to glide like a crab. You have to fight the natural tendencies and do things naturally that aren't natural.

"In rebounding, position is the key. No two objects can occupy the same place at the same time. Seventy-five percent of the rebounds are taken below the height of the rim, so timing is important, because almost everyone in the league can reach the top of the rim. A really important part of rebounding is being able to jump up more than once. You have to keep trying for that ball. Sometimes you jump four or five times before you can get your hands on it. I used to practice jumping over and over again. When I was 6 feet 2, I could jump to the top of the rim 35 times, over and over.

"You have to have strong hands. Most of the time three guys will have their hands on the ball at the same time, and you have to be able to grab it away. I guess I just naturally have strong hands, but if I didn't I would exercise until they were strong. But getting the ball is only half the job. Then you have to do something with it."

[Joao Saraiva]

I don't have a lot of time right now but I'll elaborate tomorrow.

1st Magic 87
2nd Bird 86
(these two explained in the previous thread)
3rd Wade 06 (basically his RS was very good, but his rise in playoff time was absolutely stunning - specially ECF and NBA finals). Since I value playoff performance a lot I can't let it go here.

[RSCD3_]

I'm between D Rob and KG for my #1 can someone tackle robinson's non boxscore offensive prowess. I'd like to see how much of an advantage if any Garnett had because I've got Admiral Robinson as the better defender, almost as good horizontally, noticeably better on rim protection.

[drza]

I'm surprised at how "crickets" it is in here right now. I've been going back through the last peaks project, and there was some really good arguments about some of the players on the horizon. I'm looking forward to the Magic/Bird/Dr. J/Oscar/West/Kobe/Wade type arguments. After Garnett and Russell get in, I'll be looking more to those offensive wings/guards in addition to the Waltons and Robinsons of the world.

Speaking of the big men, here was an interesting post by El Gee about David Robinson's peak, and a bit about how he compared to Bill Walton. Background on the difference in board climate at the time, but Walton was considered the obvious favorite in that thread (this was #12, which Walton would win) while Robinson was the somewhat controversial new suggestion (he was voted in at #16). I was actually considered a bit of a rebel for being the one to bring Robinson up so early, lol. Anyway, here's the post:

I'm leaning heavily toward Walton here, but I'd love a crafty Dr. J argument...

As for the next group of players, I do see another "pack" of guys, perhaps I need to give them a name as well. As is the case with the Sacreds, I've done a lot of work trying to differentiate the pack, and I'll outline where I stand on them.

Robinson -- he has my 14 vote until someone can prove otherwise. This is mostly because of his defense, which is uber portable, and his second-optionness no longer being a bad thing to me (see: helping good teams win more).

Interesting. I can never get over how amazing Robinson was when he burst onto the scene in the NCAA tourney, then how he took the NBA by storm from day 1. With the criteria you laid out here, do you see Robinson as having a case over Walton? Robinson was arguably better on defense, and is there a way to quantify the value of an excellent finisher (capable of scoring 30 ppg under the right conditions) vs. a high-post hub that wasn't as much of a scoring threat?

I don't think it's impossible for David Robinson to have been a better player at his peak. I do see Walton having a defensive advantage AND an offensive one though. I'll take a high-post, passing hub, outside shooting big man on offense who fits with a billion types of teams and can score 15 or 30 depending on what you need over someone who seems miles behind as a passer, and worse as a screener and BBIQ guy, etc. (although Robinson can be very active around the hoop). Of course, Walton might not look as good if you trade him to a different as well...

Defensively, I like Walton more. Higher motor and smarter. We don't know exactly how the DRtg of the teams stacks up, we don't know the on/off or DRAPM, etc. but we do know we are talking about sizable effects with both. Individually, Robinson's about a 24% DREB% man on teams ranging from even (93) to +320 (92) in rebounding differential. Walton's a GOAT-level 32-34% DREB% guy on +160 to +260 differential teams (with him missing 25% of the season, it's reasonable to think the effect would be larger). Walton's a 5% blk% guy basically, Robinson is more like 6%. But the motor and IQ is Walton's biggest edge -- just never really seen someone so active with such court coverage.

And no, there's no way to quantify the difference in those kinds of players that I can see, other than to look at other archetypes. I think Walton fits great on certain offenses, whereas Robinson would do a better job picking up slack on more unipolar teams.

I'll also add, while discussing David Robinson, that there is something to be said about "being there." This is something that irks me about the Dirk chatter and in general, any opinion that comes out of left field. If something analytically surprises you, you have an unstable model. You need to re-evaluate your own methods, not make huge external shifts. If Dirk 11 surprised you a lot, the answer is not to deify Dirk 11, it's to figure out what the heck you were missing. (Personally, the 2004 Pistons did this to me and I became a much better predictor after I figured out why.)

There was no point in, say, 1994 or 1995 where ANYONE was talking about David Robinson as a GOAT-level player. GOAT athlete, yes. Player? No. No. No. For anyone to insinuate that if he didn't play Hakeem Olajuwon he would be viewed as having a Sacred Peak violates the opinion at the time strongly. Any such chatter would have swept out of the blue based on some sort of Winning bias, solo act, in the moment reaction.

I thought Robinson was underrated and he very much impressed me. He finished 2nd in MVP voting in 1994 (his peak IMO because I think it was his defensive peak, which is his best asset). The Spurs then lost a 4-gamer to the Jazz in which they were just smoked in the 2nd and 3rd games (26 and 30 point leads heading into the 4th, respectively). But this isn't damning at all given sample and the way those games played out (frankly they needed a PG).

The 95 Spurs were a more synergistic team (frankly Bob Hill was more stable than John Lucas too). It felt like a bit of jump from Sean Elliot, even if his 2nd-scorer mold was in the Glen Rice, Allan Houston vein (hopefully people realize that's not a bad thing with all the talk of shooters and spacing). That team finished slightly better than the year before, Robinson won MVP with a similar vote share, then basically did what we've seen Dwight Howard do in first rounds past: averaged 19 ppg and 6.7 rpg on 49.3% TS against Denver. NO ONE was talking about Robinson as being historically impressive, because he wasn't.

In the next round against the Lakers, he did average 30 ppg (53.7% TS) in nearly 45 mpg, along with 15.7 rpg and 3.7 blocks. People liked that, but make no mistake, it was not generating buzz. Frankly, I remember more media attention around (a) the Jazz as a possible favorite to make it out (b) The Suns, although injuries derailed that train and (c) of course the Knicks. IE Malone, Barkley, Ewing. Plus the 95 Lakers were a Cinderella team that was a dead-even 0 SRS squad, led by Van Exel, Campbell, Divac and Ceballos. G2 of the series went to OT in SA and Robinson was 6-26 from the floor. (Somewhere, Kobe's like "see! what's up now talking heads!?") The Spurs won in OT behind a 22 point 22 rebound game from Dennis Rodman (you read that right). They went on to win the series in 6 (losing a closeout game at home), but this felt like "that's what we expected, EASILY" from Robinson and SAS.

PS All this should force you to ask yourself, "Am i placing too much emphasis on the team success years?" In other words, has the extra exposure to the player made me think higher of them (ie team simply got better around him), or is it that the player in question got better and that's why the team has the extra exposure??

For me these are super hard questions historically and I find myself drifting away from the team success years in many cases:

02 Duncan > 03 Duncan
03 Garnett > 04 Garnett?
94 Robinson > 95 Robinson
93 Hakeem > 94 Hakeem?

and so on...

[drza]

I'm between D Rob and KG for my #1 can someone tackle robinson's non boxscore offensive prowess. I'd like to see how much of an advantage if any Garnett had because I've got Admiral Robinson as the better defender, almost as good horizontally, noticeably better on rim protection.

The first paragraph of ElGee's that I just posted could, along with SideshowBob's monster post on non-boxscore offense, be modified to help answer your question. Here's that blurb section again:

"I do see Walton having a defensive advantage AND an offensive one though. I'll take a high-post, passing hub, outside shooting big man on offense who fits with a billion types of teams and can score 15 or 30 depending on what you need over someone who seems miles behind as a passer, and worse as a screener and BBIQ guy, etc. (although Robinson can be very active around the hoop). Of course, Walton might not look as good if you trade him to a different as well..."

SSB's post pointed out that KG's spacing effect (tied to his high-efficiency/high-volume jumper), his ability to act as a high-post hub/initiator, and his ability to turn games with screens were high-impact parts of his game that aren't captured in the box scores and that are essentially immune to his scoring efficiency. ElGee makes the case here (keep in mind this is a few years ago now, so he may have changed his opinion) that Robinson isn't very strong at those things. And I think I'd agree.

Robinson's offensive strengths, to me, were the electricity of his athleticism. He got a LOT of dunks by being athletic enough to finish (either on the break, or even in the half-court) if someone could get him the ball near the rim. He also had the quickness to attack opposing centers off the dribble and finish at the rim. He could draw fouls in volume based on his ability to attack the rim. On the continuum of the traditional center he was comfortable from further out, he was a solid passer, and he had decent shooting touch. However, he wasn't strong enough at those things that you could run your team offense through him in the high post the way that you could a guy like KG, Walton or (certain years of) Wilt. He wasn't a guy that was going to kill you with a steady diet of midrange jumpers if you didn't get out on him. He could pick-and-roll to finish at the rim with the best of them, but he didn't have the "counter" if you will of the pick-and-pop or pick-and-initiate the way that KG did. Thus, I don't think that he would have shared those type of non-boxscore impacts.

Robinson's non-boxscore impact would have been tied to the fact that he was so electric as a volume finisher in the paint that teams had to over-account for him, giving him a center of gravity on defenses. However, because his center of gravity was located closer to the basket he would have tended to help get open jumpers for his team as opposed to opening up the rim the way that spacing does. Also, while a solid passer, he wasn't quite at the level of passer of KG or Walton, so the decisions and passes that he would make from the post on a regular basis wouldn't have led to as many offensive options as what SideshowBob laid out in his essay. His style was more conducive to the offensive rebound, though, which is a benefit.

But in general, in Robinson's case, I think that a larger part of his offensive contributions really were tracked in the boxscore. He was an elite finisher, so he made his impact by finishing (and thus scoring/drawing fouls). His impact wasn't (comparatively speaking) maximized by creating for teammates, spacing, or being a high-post hub...his impact was maximized by being the one to finish and score at high volume/high efficiency. We have +/- studies that show that, when he was finishing like that in the regular season, in conjunction with his great defense, he was able to put up +/- scores at least close to what KG was producing at his peak. But in the playoffs, when Robinson's scoring efficiency dipped, I think it really did have more of a negative effect on his ability to impact a game on offense than it would have for others with more ways in which to make their mark.

[SideshowBob]

Well that answered my question

thanks for the detailed breakdown, your main argument being that of his midrange based skillset most of his impact came around the attention he got because he was a great midrange shooter when Open and since he's so tall and quick he becomes a hard task to contain for anyone to stop, so teams will send a lot of help defense at him and garnett is skilled enough, with enough court vision to set up his teammates for buckets and tons of different levels of hockey assists.

Hey if you have the time could you breakdown his offense in 2004 like you did with lebron from 09-14 under the same categories.
Didnt know the Cassell Injury was that bad, I thought it was a nagging injury like 2012 Wade had in the PS.

Hmm. I'll try to stick to just the numbers, I feel like I already covered qualitatively what I wanted to in the above post. Remember, this isn't perfectly precise; there is definite overlap in across these categories, I'm just trying to give a broad-strokes summation. Also, Garnett's offensive breakdown is a bit different than Lebron's. I'm going split PnR and playmaking up. Off-ball will comprise of screening and movement. I'm unsure as to how I would classify high-post hub (playmaking? or post-game? or spacing?). I'm removing slashing and replacing it with isolation, which will also include mid-post. I'm going to group playmaking and post-game together, because so much of that comes from his high/low game. Transition would be his outlet passing/trailing/finishing/etc. (I'll end up listing it as +0.25 as I have for most everyone, but really its more like .15, I've just tried to stick with the .25 increments and that doesn't give me enough room for differentiation between all these guys on that front).

Playmaking/Post +1.25
Shooting/Spacing +0.75
PnR/PnP +0.75
Isolation +0.50
Off-Ball +0.50
Transition +0.25

I think this can apply to Garnett across 03-05. He's a 3.75-4ish offensive player in those years, IMO better than Duncan and Robinson. On the defensive end, all three guys do different things and IMO at their peaks, we're splitting hairs picking between them. However, I don't think Garnett peaks on both ends quite at the same time (though he's still tops in the league).

I think a "super-peaks" discussion would be interesting, the list would look a bit different (IMO Lebron becomes the clear GOAT peak, Hakeem is a clear cut #2, Wilt is now a bit ahead of Jordan/Shaq, Garnett rounds out the top 5 even with those 2, Kareem jumps into the top 10, Kobe jumps substantially, etc.).

[thizznation]

I have been pretty busy last couple of days and haven't gotten to look up the stats and information I would of liked. I'll try to get a ballot in by tomorrow. (FYI) My interest has not been waning, if anything the opposite, so you guys can count me in on still participating.

[mtron929]

I am not voting for this project but I feel very strongly about Kevin Garnett so I think this is the time to post this. I realize that he is probably going to be voted in as the #8th best peak player of all time in this thread, so this post won't make much of a difference in changing people's mind. But I really think he is overrated as a player and the selection of Garnett (mostly based on advanced statistics) is one of the big flaws of advanced statistics in general.

1) If you looked at who got selected (#1-#7) in this project and just concentrate on somewhat "modern" players, these were all players who were clearly the #1 option on their respective teams (Jordan, Lebron, Shaq, Olajuwon, Tim Duncan). Moreover, their team all won the championship (if we are counting Lebron's 2013 as his best season). Now, Garnett is the first player picked who goes against the trend. That said, we still have other players (e.g. Dirk 2011, Wade 2006) who have taken average players to the promised land so I find it interesting that Garnett's 2004 season is being considered above other cases that have resulted in championships. Moreover, Garnett's team missed the playoffs three years in a row after the 2004 season. So is it that Garnett dropped off so much from his 2004 season or that even at similar level, he couldn't carry his teammates to the 8th spot in the West. Do we have any doubt that someone like Lebron, Shaq, Olajuwon, or Duncan could have netted at least 1 playoff birth here? These are some of the things to think about.

2) One thing that people love about Garentt is his advanced stats. Moreover, the type of people who contribute in these threads will point towards a lot of advanced stats to make quantitative arguments on who should be ranked over one another. However, I think that too much emphasis is being put on advanced stats to essentially separate between 8th/9th/10th best peaks in these rankings. This is akin to predicting which students will excel in college based on SAT scores that differ by 5-10% and putting so much weight on these scores to select who is better.

3) With Garnett, I am always reminded that he might try too hard (which is not always good). I suspect that especially in the 2004 season, Garnett might have treated the regular season like the playoffs, because this was the first time in which he had legitimate team and given his history of never winning a playoff series, I would not be surprised if he treated this season like the playoffs. Now, this is good and all, but this type of "effort" distorts the true value of a player and his capabilities since many of the superstars (especially when they hit their peak years, 27-29 years old), scale it down in the regular season. That is, they have been through many different playoff wars and begin to learn about pacing in the regular season and turning it on in the playoffs (this is one of the reasons why you see such monster stats from players in their early/mid 20's and then the numbers stabilize or dips). However, the stat heads always assume that all players give the fullest effort. Because if that reference state changes, then the statistical argument just gets thrown out the window. That is, the statistics just cannot capture that a player can still be very great while taking it easy in the regular season, and then playing harder to win in the playoffs.

So all in all, I get that peple Love Garnett. They love his versatility and his portability. I believe that Garnett works very well if your team is very loaded (e.g. 2008-2010 Celtics) but as his teammates get worse and worse, his value (in terms of probability of winning a championship) drops much more so than other superstars. That is, if we re-run Garnett's career many times, you will rarely see a case where he can take a cast comparable to Olajuwon's 93-94 team, Dirk's 2011 team, or Wade's 2006 team, and win a championship "singlehandedly" for you. But these are the types of teams that you will have most likely in general. On top of that, I don't think you will ever see a situation where Garnett can take Lebron's 09 team (or similar caliber) and turn in a 60-65 win team. He never did this with the Timberwolves. Thus, Garnett's value is very very high when the team is stacked but other than that, I would rather gamble on Dirk or Wade in other scenarios. Is this the #8 peak player of all time? I think not.

[Joao Saraiva]

1. Magic Johnson 1987
RS: 23.9 PPG 12.2 APG 6.3 RPG 1.7 SPG 0.5 BPG 3.8 TOPG 27 PER 60.2ts% 26.3 WS/48.
In the regular season the Lakers won 65 games. It wasn't only Magic, they had a great team. Still Magic was the best player on that team, and the greats that played with him profited from his great leadership and amazing passing skills. He was scoring good volume, on great efficiency, and his playmaking was at the level that few ever reached (maybe Stockton?). He won the MVP award this season.

Playoffs: 21.8 PPG 12.2 APG 7.7 RPG 1.7 SPG 0.4 BPG 2.8 TOPG 26.2 PER 60.7ts% 26.5 WS/48.
Lakers just destroyed their oponents in the West. So Magic scored less points than he could have. But let's see his finals performances:
26.2 PPG 13 APG 8 RPG 2.3 SPG 0.3 BPG on 59%ts. He had 2 TOPG. So his assist/TO ratio is not comparable to any other player I've ever seen playing in the finals. He outscored Bird, with more efficiency, he had a ton more assists, and was only 2 RPG behind him and turned the ball much less. He even had more steals than Bird! What a great display to end a great season. Magic ended up winning the finals MVP, obviously.

2. Larry Bird 1986
25.8 PPG 9.8 RPG 6.8 APG 25.6 PER 58 ts% 24.8 WS/48
Scoring, rebounding, playmaking and efficiency. Truly amazing offensive impact from Larry the legend. He missed the 50/40/90 by 0.4% from FT, but I guess that's fine.
Dominated the league in PER, WS/48, VORP and BPM.
Celtics won 67 games and had a 9.06 SRS. That's absolutely elite in the regular season. #3 ORTG, #1 DRTG.

In the playoffs:
25.9 PPG 9.3 RPG 8.2 APG 23.9 PER 61.5 ts% 26.3 WS/48
Again a triple double machine, with high efficiency and team success.
In the finals the Celtics defeated Hakeem's Rockets. And Bird was even closer to the triple double average: 24 PPG 9.7 RPG 9.5 APG

Bird won both the MVP and the finals MVP this season.
And if you think his stats are amazing, you should watch him play that season. His impact goes even further, since his ball movement was absolutely terrific.
He also provided a 3 point threat that would still be very effective nowadays. That means he was ahead of his era in that regard, and that's a big plus in my evaluation.

3. Dwyane Wade 2006
RS: 27.2 PPG 5.7 RPG 6.7 APG 27.6 PER 57.7 ts% 23.9 WS/48 7.5 BPM 7 VORP
Wade had a very good regular season. It's maybe not among the best choices for peak here (I have T-Mac 03 above him for example, and even Kobe 06) but it's close enough to those guys.

His volume scoring was fine, his efficiency was very good and for a SG he rebounded very well, was a willing passer and a good playmaker, and his defense was very good too.

The record for the Heat was not fantastic, but Shaq only played 59 games and Shaq was not close to his dominant days (20 PPG 9.2 RPG is still very good, but you know what I'm talking about). I think it was pretty clear that Wade was the #1 on that team. Still, they were the 2nd seed in the East.

PS: 28.4 PPG 5.9 RPG 5.7 APG 26.9 PER 59.3 ts% 24 WS/48

Against the Bulls (1st round) I thought his playmaking was superb, and he still had major contributions with his scoring and rebounding. From there on he was absolutely fantastic.
Against the Nets: 27.6 PPG 6 RPG 6.6 APG on 59.8ts%
And this was supposed to be Wade playing at his best. But apprently, he wasn't.

Against the Pistons in the ECF (a 64 win team and clear favorites to win the East) Wade exploded:
26.7 PPG 5.2 RPG 5.5 APG on 68.4ts%. That's some historical efficiency, specially for a guard! Both game 3 and game 4 are mandatory if you wanna watch peak Wade.

And in the finals... one of the best performances ever in the NBA. Coming back from 0-2, Wade just killed the Mavs:
34.7 PPG 7.8 RPG 3.8 APG on 57.2ts%.He was above 60%ts in 3 of the 4 wins, and scoring a brutal amount of points.

He's still the player with the highest PER ever in the NBA finals.

[Joao Saraiva]

I'm not a participant, but I'm a little surprised that 2014 Durant hasn't gotten any mentions yet. He had one of the greatest scoring seasons ever (32 ppg on 64% TS) and a pretty good all-around game (7.4 rpg, 5.5 apg). Probably the greatest combination of shooting and slashing ever seen. He was doing it without Westbrook for a lot of games and without a well-designed offense. Is it too blasphemous to suggest that - for one season - Durant was better than guys like Bird or Duncan ever were?

He had a great season for sure. But some people usually rank centers higher because they believe their defensive impact makes a big gap to those perimeter players.

Regular season wise Kevin Durant has a case over almost anyone. However, his playoff run was kind of a let down. I understand the circumstances, but when you put him against LBJ 12, Magic 87, Bird 86, Wade 06, Duncan 03 there is no way you can say there isn't a significant gap in playoff performance. And that, for some people (myself included) is significant. I'd argue LeBron 14 over Kevin Durant 14 because of the playoff run.

[eminence]

I try not to have too much of a "winning bias", but the playoffs are the most important part of the season and I do have an extremely difficult time ranking players who didn't make at least a two round playoff appearance. Guys like Westbrook '15, Wade '09, Tmac '03 amongst others. Interested in hearing from others how they view these types of seasons.

[Dr Spaceman]

I'm surprised at how "crickets" it is in here right now. I've been going back through the last peaks project, and there was some really good arguments about some of the players on the horizon. I'm looking forward to the Magic/Bird/Dr. J/Oscar/West/Kobe/Wade type arguments. After Garnett and Russell get in, I'll be looking more to those offensive wings/guards in addition to the Waltons and Robinsons of the world.

Speaking of the big men, here was an interesting post by El Gee about David Robinson's peak, and a bit about how he compared to Bill Walton. Background on the difference in board climate at the time, but Walton was considered the obvious favorite in that thread (this was #12, which Walton would win) while Robinson was the somewhat controversial new suggestion (he was voted in at #16). I was actually considered a bit of a rebel for being the one to bring Robinson up so early, lol. Anyway, here's the post:

[spoiler]

Interesting. I can never get over how amazing Robinson was when he burst onto the scene in the NCAA tourney, then how he took the NBA by storm from day 1. With the criteria you laid out here, do you see Robinson as having a case over Walton? Robinson was arguably better on defense, and is there a way to quantify the value of an excellent finisher (capable of scoring 30 ppg under the right conditions) vs. a high-post hub that wasn't as much of a scoring threat?

I don't think it's impossible for David Robinson to have been a better player at his peak. I do see Walton having a defensive advantage AND an offensive one though. I'll take a high-post, passing hub, outside shooting big man on offense who fits with a billion types of teams and can score 15 or 30 depending on what you need over someone who seems miles behind as a passer, and worse as a screener and BBIQ guy, etc. (although Robinson can be very active around the hoop). Of course, Walton might not look as good if you trade him to a different as well...

Defensively, I like Walton more. Higher motor and smarter. We don't know exactly how the DRtg of the teams stacks up, we don't know the on/off or DRAPM, etc. but we do know we are talking about sizable effects with both. Individually, Robinson's about a 24% DREB% man on teams ranging from even (93) to +320 (92) in rebounding differential. Walton's a GOAT-level 32-34% DREB% guy on +160 to +260 differential teams (with him missing 25% of the season, it's reasonable to think the effect would be larger). Walton's a 5% blk% guy basically, Robinson is more like 6%. But the motor and IQ is Walton's biggest edge -- just never really seen someone so active with such court coverage.

And no, there's no way to quantify the difference in those kinds of players that I can see, other than to look at other archetypes. I think Walton fits great on certain offenses, whereas Robinson would do a better job picking up slack on more unipolar teams.

I'll also add, while discussing David Robinson, that there is something to be said about "being there." This is something that irks me about the Dirk chatter and in general, any opinion that comes out of left field. If something analytically surprises you, you have an unstable model. You need to re-evaluate your own methods, not make huge external shifts. If Dirk 11 surprised you a lot, the answer is not to deify Dirk 11, it's to figure out what the heck you were missing. (Personally, the 2004 Pistons did this to me and I became a much better predictor after I figured out why.)

There was no point in, say, 1994 or 1995 where ANYONE was talking about David Robinson as a GOAT-level player. GOAT athlete, yes. Player? No. No. No. For anyone to insinuate that if he didn't play Hakeem Olajuwon he would be viewed as having a Sacred Peak violates the opinion at the time strongly. Any such chatter would have swept out of the blue based on some sort of Winning bias, solo act, in the moment reaction.

I thought Robinson was underrated and he very much impressed me. He finished 2nd in MVP voting in 1994 (his peak IMO because I think it was his defensive peak, which is his best asset). The Spurs then lost a 4-gamer to the Jazz in which they were just smoked in the 2nd and 3rd games (26 and 30 point leads heading into the 4th, respectively). But this isn't damning at all given sample and the way those games played out (frankly they needed a PG).

The 95 Spurs were a more synergistic team (frankly Bob Hill was more stable than John Lucas too). It felt like a bit of jump from Sean Elliot, even if his 2nd-scorer mold was in the Glen Rice, Allan Houston vein (hopefully people realize that's not a bad thing with all the talk of shooters and spacing). That team finished slightly better than the year before, Robinson won MVP with a similar vote share, then basically did what we've seen Dwight Howard do in first rounds past: averaged 19 ppg and 6.7 rpg on 49.3% TS against Denver. NO ONE was talking about Robinson as being historically impressive, because he wasn't.

In the next round against the Lakers, he did average 30 ppg (53.7% TS) in nearly 45 mpg, along with 15.7 rpg and 3.7 blocks. People liked that, but make no mistake, it was not generating buzz. Frankly, I remember more media attention around (a) the Jazz as a possible favorite to make it out (b) The Suns, although injuries derailed that train and (c) of course the Knicks. IE Malone, Barkley, Ewing. Plus the 95 Lakers were a Cinderella team that was a dead-even 0 SRS squad, led by Van Exel, Campbell, Divac and Ceballos. G2 of the series went to OT in SA and Robinson was 6-26 from the floor. (Somewhere, Kobe's like "see! what's up now talking heads!?") The Spurs won in OT behind a 22 point 22 rebound game from Dennis Rodman (you read that right). They went on to win the series in 6 (losing a closeout game at home), but this felt like "that's what we expected, EASILY" from Robinson and SAS.

PS All this should force you to ask yourself, "Am i placing too much emphasis on the team success years?" In other words, has the extra exposure to the player made me think higher of them (ie team simply got better around him), or is it that the player in question got better and that's why the team has the extra exposure??

For me these are super hard questions historically and I find myself drifting away from the team success years in many cases:

02 Duncan > 03 Duncan
03 Garnett > 04 Garnett?
94 Robinson > 95 Robinson
93 Hakeem > 94 Hakeem?

and so on...

[/spiler]

The culture of the board has indeed shifted since the last project. I think the biggest mover was the Kevin Garnett focus in top 100, and the cataclysmic response that engendered. We have to really credit Doc and yourself because that was the first time the dots between all the different schemas we've been building (impact, portability, scaling, etc.) were connected into a cogent argument for a player whose previous reputation would've stifled such talk.

I've been advocating big time for Robinson on this board for half a year now, starting with a thread I made in about February asking why exactly so many have Bird over Robinson automatically without even thinking about it. I got some great discussion going, and it seemed people were legitimately open to the idea of David being a dominant peak type of guy.

Funny enough, most of my support for the guy goes back to me catching a game of him on YouTube and literally saying "Holy f***, this is one of the most dominant dudes I've seen." So basically the exact opposite impression that ElGee got. And it's funny that everything he uses to say Walton is better (motor, activity) is the point of difference I use to separate Robinson from the other great bigs (Duncan, Hakeem).

I can't emphasize enough how much Robinson jumped off the screen when i watched film of him, in a way that Walton nor Kareem did. Not only was he affecting the game at a supreme level, but he looked like a modern player doing it. He was some unstoppable hybrid of Draymond Green and Andrew Bogut, with far more athleticism than either. There's actually no player I enjoy watching more, simply because I see something new inches defense every time.

I'll also just note that ElGee's perception of popular perception (...) at the time may be skewed. Here's a quote from The Jordan Rules (written about the 91 season):

To many, Robinson was already the league's most valuable player.

Now he goes on to say nobody truly thought Robinson was the better player in a vacuum, but that they thought his more team-friendly approach led to his overall impact being higher.

Yes, in 1991 there were enough people already seeing Robinson as an impact hero that they would consider ranking him over Michael Jordan.

Might it have changed in the years leading up to 1995? I don't know. But to say that nobody was amazed by what Robinson was doing just seems a little like someone projecting his own perceptions, even considering the tremendous respect I have for ElGee.

[E-Balla]

There's an astounding lack of Bill Russell in here. I mean this is a guy who had the Celtics defense playing at a -10+ level. I mean we have seen votes going to guys like D Rob and KG mainly for their defense but a guy almost universally seen as noticably better on that end hasn't gotten any type of serious consideration. Now I get that those two are better offensively but both guys have major offensive issues preventing them from being the first option on championship team without a guy like Sam Jones to help them on that end. I don't know I just feel like people are forgetting Russell and the massive impact he had on the floor overall.

[70sFan]

1st ballot - Bill Russell 1962
2nd ballot - David Robinson 1995
3rd ballot - Julius Erving 1976

I have huge respect for Bill Russell and I explained before why I have him over Robinson.
About Julius - I think his peak is very underrated. 3rd best peak by perimeter player in my opinion. He's LeBron before LeBron, one of the most athletic players ever. Underrated mindrange game and playmaking. GOAT level playoffs (I think even better than LeBron 2009 run).
About his defense - based on what I've seen he was average man defender (really nothing special), but also he was OUTSTANDING help defender. Great at passing lanes and good help shotblocker for a forward.
He is also the best fastbreak scorer ever. Not as good at running fastbreaks as Magic or Cousy, but he was unstopable when he wanted to score. Even better than LeBron I think.
After him I have Bird, Magic and Oscar.

[JLei]

Well that answered my question

thanks for the detailed breakdown, your main argument being that of his midrange based skillset most of his impact came around the attention he got because he was a great midrange shooter when Open and since he's so tall and quick he becomes a hard task to contain for anyone to stop, so teams will send a lot of help defense at him and garnett is skilled enough, with enough court vision to set up his teammates for buckets and tons of different levels of hockey assists.

Hey if you have the time could you breakdown his offense in 2004 like you did with lebron from 09-14 under the same categories.
Didnt know the Cassell Injury was that bad, I thought it was a nagging injury like 2012 Wade had in the PS.

Hmm. I'll try to stick to just the numbers, I feel like I already covered qualitatively what I wanted to in the above post. Remember, this isn't perfectly precise; there is definite overlap in across these categories, I'm just trying to give a broad-strokes summation. Also, Garnett's offensive breakdown is a bit different than Lebron's. I'm going split PnR and playmaking up. Off-ball will comprise of screening and movement. I'm unsure as to how I would classify high-post hub (playmaking? or post-game? or spacing?). I'm removing slashing and replacing it with isolation, which will also include mid-post. I'm going to group playmaking and post-game together, because so much of that comes from his high/low game. Transition would be his outlet passing/trailing/finishing/etc. (I'll end up listing it as +0.25 as I have for most everyone, but really its more like .15, I've just tried to stick with the .25 increments and that doesn't give me enough room for differentiation between all these guys on that front).

Playmaking/Post +1.25
Shooting/Spacing +0.75
PnR/PnP +0.75
Isolation +0.50
Off-Ball +0.50
Transition +0.25

I think this can apply to Garnett across 03-05. He's a 3.75-4ish offensive player in those years, IMO better than Duncan and Robinson. On the defensive end, all three guys do different things and IMO at their peaks, we're splitting hairs picking between them. However, I don't think Garnett peaks on both ends quite at the same time (though he's still tops in the league).

I think a "super-peaks" discussion would be interesting, the list would look a bit different (IMO Lebron becomes the clear GOAT peak, Hakeem is a clear cut #2, Wilt is now a bit ahead of Jordan/Shaq, Garnett rounds out the top 5 even with those 2, Kareem jumps into the top 10, Kobe jumps substantially, etc.).

What is a super peak?

[Dr Spaceman]

There's an astounding lack of Bill Russell in here. I mean this is a guy who had the Celtics defense playing at a -10+ level. I mean we have seen votes going to guys like D Rob and KG mainly for their defense but a guy almost universally seen as noticably better on that end hasn't gotten any type of serious consideration. Now I get that those two are better offensively but both guys have major offensive issues preventing them from being the first option on championship team without a guy like Sam Jones to help them on that end. I don't know I just feel like people are forgetting Russell and the massive impact he had on the floor overall.

I don't think Russell was "noticeably better" than Robinson defensively. In fact I don't think he was better at all.

[SideshowBob]

What is a super peak?

Combination of best offensive and defensive year (ie. LeBron: 14 offense + 12 Defense).

[Quotatious]

There's an astounding lack of Bill Russell in here.

Not anymore.

Ballot #1 - Bill Russell '62

Ballot #2 - Julius Erving '76

Ballot #3 - Larry Bird '86



I don't use SRS type evaluations for players like for example SideshowBob uses, because I don't believe you can accurately measure a player's impact "in a vacuum" - he's not going to make the same impact on every team, supporting cast and role within a team has A LOT to do with that. For example Kevin Love - he seemed like a hugely impactful and productive player in '14 in Minnesota, seemed to be a superstar, and soon after, in '15 in Cleveland, he looked like just a borderline all-star. Nothing indicates that Love's abilities declined so much, all of a sudden. He just wasn't used in a role that would allow him to reach his full potential in '15 (or even close to it).

I've already explained my Russell and Erving picks. Russell to me is clearly the defensive GOAT, he's also likely a top 3 rebounder of all-time, good passer, playmaker and ball-handler for his position, and a decent scorer for his era, that year, especially in the playoffs ('62). Also, for what it's worth, he had arguably better intangibles and basketball IQ than anyone else in NBA history. He suffers a bit if we go with "time machine" approach, but every player has a weakness (if not in terms of skillset, then at least in terms of performance at some point of a season). Russell's scoring is a relative weakness, but he more than makes up for it in other areas. I see Russell as a slight positive on offense (if I was forced to use the SRS approach that SSB uses, I'd say he's between +0.5 and +1.0 on offense that particular year, although that +1.0 rating would be based more on the playoffs - in the RS, he was about neutral).

Russell's era-relative impact was just huge. He was a real outlier in terms of his defensive impact. Even though I generally believe that great offense beats great defense (because a great offensive player can dictate the way the game is played, and a great defensive player can only react to the moves the offensive player, and his possibilities of "dictating" the game are limited, even someone like Russell, who seemed to literally change the mindset of offensive players because of how smart he was on defense, still couldn't rival star offensive players in terms of dictating the way the game was played), I think that Russell's impact on team defense was big enough that the "great offense > great defense" (which is mostly about individual offense and defense, not about "global" impact on offense/defense) argument doesn't necessarily apply to him.

Erving behind Russell because even though Doc was a great offensive player, he wasn't really an all-time great playmaker/facilitator (he wasn't even a particularly impressive playmaker compared to other wings of a similar caliber, like Jordan, LeBron, Wade, Kobe), so his overall impact on offense wasn't as high it could be if he was an elite scorer AND playmaker (such as Magic and Bird, although he seems to have the edge on defense over those guys). Russell's global impact on defense was definitely higher than Erving's global impact on offense, IMO.

I've decided to go with Bird as my third pick here, to continue the theme of voting for players who stepped up their game in the playoffs.

Bird is a uniquely talented offensive player because he can make the same impact as elite on-ball players (Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Nash) as a primarily off-ball player, which makes him extremely valuable. That is not to say that Bird was not a great on-ball player/playmaker - he sure was. He was an excellent ball-handler for his size and most likely a top 10 (maybe even top 5) passer in NBA history. Contrary to popular belief, he wasn't a point forward in the same sense as guys like LeBron or Pippen, who often acted as the primary ball-handlers of their teams, but he was a point forward in the same sense as guys like Garnett (in the early/mid 2000s) or Webber (in the early 2000s). Big forward with excellent ball-handling and passing skills (but Bird was better than Garnett and Webber in both areas, plus he was a better outside shooter, who could stretch the floor much better). He could still run the pick & roll as a ball-handler very effectively (especially with Parish as the roll man), but he could also set good screens and be the roll man himself (even more so as a pick & pop guy, than pick & roll). He also had something in common with '14 Kevin Love, in terms of his great outlet passing and being able to accumulate a lot of assists solely as a passer from the post, at times, without acting as a perimeter player. He was also a great cutter who could finish very well with his vast array of close range shots, incredibly soft touch. Just an amazingly versatile offensive player.

Defensively, I think Bird was a clear positive.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpEAZMT5t_U[/youtube]

I know this is just a highlight video, but he was a very disruptive help defender in most of the games he played during his career, before his ailing back robbed him of his mobility.

Bird was certainly a flawed 1 on 1 defender, especially on the perimeter, where more athletic, quicker players could really give him problems, but he was an excellent team defender, below average/poor 1 on 1 defender on the perimeter, about average 1 on 1 defender in the post, so overall, he still seems to be a clear positive.

Why Erving over Bird? So, first of all, Erving has a clear edge in terms of advanced numbers (in a weaker league, so I wouldn't take those numbers at face value, but his advantage is big enough that even after making a reasonable adjustment, Erving would still come out on top in that comparison), comparable scorer, slightly better rebounder (most people would think that Bird was a better rebounder, but per 100 possessions, Doc looks slightly better - well, I guess we can call it a wash, both were GOAT level rebounders at SF), worse playmaker, but but better ball-handler, better defender (not a big gap, but noticeable in Erving's favor), and (this will be perhaps the primary argument for Dr J) - he seems more likely to vault a mediocre/average team into title contention, a team led by '76 Erving seems more likely to pull an upset win over a stronger opponent. Bird's '86 Celtics team was arguably the most stacked team in the 3-point era.

I'll put it this way - Erving is more likely to turn a weak team into a good team, and an average team into a great team, but is more likely to turn a good team into a historically great team. Both possibilities sound great, but ultimately, Doc's capabilities seem to be a little more impressive to me. This is about the same as LeBron vs Magic - James can help a weak or average team overachieve (like he did in '09), but he's not necessarily a great fit on a stacked team, while Magic thrives on stacked teams, but he's less capable of elevating a weak or average team into title contention due to his inferior motor, athleticism and two-way play.

Erving vs Bird is a very close comparison, and Larry also improved his game in the playoffs compared to RS in '86, but clearly not as much as Doc did in '76 (Bird's PER went down, but his WS/48, BPM and scoring efficiency went up, so I'd say he was better overall in the playoffs than he was in the RS), and Bird had a much better supporting cast around him (on the other hand, Bird's competition was clearly better, too, but I still think that Erving had more of an impact on his team than Bird did, and the Nets would've suffered more without him, than the Celtics would've suffered without Bird - well, we know that the Celtics were still an above average team in '89, without Bird).

Why Bird over Garnett, Robinson, Walton? So, it clearly seems like Bird performed better in the postseason (yes, even compared to Walton). Garnett, Robinson and Walton played at least a little worse in the postseason (I'm talking about '04 Garnett, '95 Robinson and '77 Walton) than they did in the regular season, while Bird played a little better in the postseason. Garnett and Robinson have an edge over Bird based on RS play (but it's not very significant and it doesn't have any kind of an important impact on winning - all of them were worth about 20 wins for their respective teams, in my estimation), not sure if Walton does - honestly, I'd probably go with Bird over Walton for RS, although the way I see it, Walton played closer to his RS standards in the postseason than Garnett and Robinson did. I think the playoff gap is more important, personally.

Why Bird over Magic? Oh, the comparison for the ages...Bird's advantage on defense (both had similar strengths and weaknesses - both mediocre 1 on 1 defenders, especially on the perimeter, but both good team defenders - the thing is, Bird's team defense was more impactful, so he gets the edge overall - everybody except for diehard Laker fans would likely agree that Bird was better defensively, even if it's not a huge gap) is the most important difference between them, to me. Besides, I think that Bird is slightly more portable, because of his superior off-ball play (but the question is - would you really want to take the ball away from Magic's hands? I wouldn't), and shooting ability. It's very close, and as soon as one of my top 3 picks (Russell, Erving, Bird) gets selected, I'll likely have Magic in my next top 3.

Why Bird over Wade? So, I don't think Wade's '06 regular season was as good as BIrd's '86 (Wade shot only 52.1% TS, which is below league average, in 18 games without Shaq in November and early December of '05, and the Heat were only 9-9, exactly 0.500% W, in those games - I mean, sure, he improved his game later on that season, as evident in the playoffs, where he was absolutely fantastic, but in such close comparisons, little details matter), and I'm not convinced if Wade's playoff run in '06 was really better than Bird's '86 playoff run.
Besides, I think that '09 Wade was a better player than '06 Wade. He just didn't prove enough in the postseason in '09 (I'm not talking about team results, I'm talking about his individual play - he was very good, but a little below his RS standards)

Bird was much better off-ball on offense than both '06 and '09 Wade, which makes him more portable. Wade was better on defense, but not to a degree that could sway me to support him over Bird right now.

Why Bird over Curry? Better individual play in the postseason. Especially against tough defenses - Bird had a phenomenal series against a very tough Bucks team, -4.5 defense, and a great series against a very solid Hawks defense, while Curry played a little below his standards against the Grizzlies).

Perhaps I seem to speak with more conviction than I really am, but I really have a lot of doubts. There are great arguments for many players. I'm just trying to stick to my general principle of voting for players who performed at least on the same level in the playoffs as they did in the regular season (or better).

[Clyde Frazier]

My first 2 ballots will still be 87 magic and 86 bird. Not sure about the 3rd, although 76 Dr. J is certainly tempting. Gathering some more info on magic and bird specific to those seasons and will post final ballot later.