Peaks Project #28

Post #21 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:49 pm

Thru post #20:

Steve Nash - 14
Dwight Howard - 8.5
James Harden - 6.5
Anthony Davis - 6
Elgin Baylor - 5
Walt Frazier - 5
Penny Hardaway - 4
Alonzo Mourning - 3.5
Bob McAdoo - 3
Willis Reed - 2
Bob Lanier - 1
Manu Ginobili - 0.5

I'll maybe leave this open until this afternoon or evening, since the turnout is so slim. Then I'll call a winner and move on.

Owly · Post #22 » by **Owly** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:25 pm

trex_8063 wrote:For instance, his rs PER in ‘07 is only 28th in the league THAT YEAR, and is not close to the top 250 in NBA history; there are more than 62 individuals (I don’t quite know how many more, as that’s where the top 250 all-time PER’s ends) from the shot-clock era with at least one season with better PER.

As of (roughly) a couple of years ago about 177

Spoiler:

Post #23 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:46 pm

bastillon wrote:The guy who is getting very overrated is Frazier. He was never an MVP level player. We're talking about a guy who is a great addition to a team that's already good. But this isn't the same type of impact we would see from a guy like Jerry West or Oscar in the 70s (let alone in their primes). Frazier was good, certainly performed well in the PS, but he wasn't even close to MVP-caliber player. Those Knicks were built more like Pistons 2004.

You realize no one is saying Frazier was on the level of Oscar or West, right? There's a reason they were voted in at 15 and 19 respectively, and we're at 28 right now. That's a pretty clear gap. So with that said, I don't see him being overrated here at all. The guy had great arguments for finals MVP in multiple championships, and stepped up his game even further in the 72 finals when reed was out.

While the 70s knicks may have resembled the 04 pistons in team structure, I believe the hierarchy in talent was more clear cut with reed and frazier at the top. Most (especially here) would consider Frazier's ability to seamlessly fit within a team concept to be a positive, not a means to downplay his impact. Statistically, he brought everything you could ask for to the table from a "lead guard", along with elite perimeter D, and didn't miss a beat in the playoffs.

As for McHale, I have no problem with him being in the discussion. The idea that he's a clear level above Frazier is a gross exaggeration to me, though.

Post #24 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:59 pm

Ballot #1 - 72 Frazier

Spoiler:

Ballot #2 - 75 Gilmore

Spoiler:

Ballot #3 - First time i'm doing this in the project, but the day got away from me and really can't come to a decision

Post #25 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:07 pm

I had literally just put in a vote for harden, and then I forgot about the way the rockets went out to the warriors in the playoffs:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201505270GSW.html

I know it's only 1 game, but that was flat out embarrassing, and harden was terrible. Does this bother anyone else?

MyUniBroDavis · Post #26 » by **MyUniBroDavis** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:09 pm

Clyde Frazier wrote:I had literally just put in a vote for harden, and then I forgot about the way the rockets went out to the warriors in the playoffs:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201505270GSW.html

I know it's only 1 game, but that was flat out embarrassing. Does this bother anyone else?

While I'm definitely not going to vote for harden, I don't feel like we can take one freak game to use it against him, in this magnitude. I feel like it shouldn't derail you to put him as 3rd ballot.

His turnover efficiency was great before that game I recall.

Post #27 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:12 pm

MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:I had literally just put in a vote for harden, and then I forgot about the way the rockets went out to the warriors in the playoffs:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201505270GSW.html

I know it's only 1 game, but that was flat out embarrassing. Does this bother anyone else?

While I'm definitely not going to vote for harden, I don't feel like we can take one freak game to use it against him, in this magnitude. I feel like it shouldn't derail you to put him as 3rd ballot.

His turnover efficiency was great before that game I recall.

I hear you... this was more about being so undecided on the 3rd ballot, and just checking that and it turning me off. His overall body of work in 2015 is still up there. Elimination games aren't everything, but I do think they matter.

MyUniBroDavis · Post #28 » by **MyUniBroDavis** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:21 pm

Clyde Frazier wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:I had literally just put in a vote for harden, and then I forgot about the way the rockets went out to the warriors in the playoffs:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201505270GSW.html

I know it's only 1 game, but that was flat out embarrassing. Does this bother anyone else?

While I'm definitely not going to vote for harden, I don't feel like we can take one freak game to use it against him, in this magnitude. I feel like it shouldn't derail you to put him as 3rd ballot.

His turnover efficiency was great before that game I recall.

I hear you... this was more about being so undecided on the 3rd ballot, and just checking that and it turning me off. His overall body of work in 2015 is still up there. Elimination games aren't everything, but I do think they matter.

Just a question, who is on your radar right now?
I see elimination games as a way you can "enhance" a playoff run, but not really detract it, at least to the same degree.

One could argue that if he performed well, harden showed that "killer instinct blah blah blah"

But because he isn't exactly a "choker"
I do t think one can argue that he lacks it. I think it was just an unlucky coincidence.

Post #29 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:27 pm

MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:

While I'm definitely not going to vote for harden, I don't feel like we can take one freak game to use it against him, in this magnitude. I feel like it shouldn't derail you to put him as 3rd ballot.

His turnover efficiency was great before that game I recall.

I hear you... this was more about being so undecided on the 3rd ballot, and just checking that and it turning me off. His overall body of work in 2015 is still up there. Elimination games aren't everything, but I do think they matter.

Just a question, who is on your radar right now?
I see elimination games as a way you can "enhance" a playoff run, but not really detract it, at least to the same degree.

One could argue that if he performed well, harden showed that "killer instinct blah blah blah"

But because he isn't exactly a "choker"
I do t think one can argue that he lacks it. I think it was just an unlucky coincidence.

Nah i'm not going for the "killer instinct" label. More about my evaluating his entire playoff (wasn't in love with his inconsistency in the LAC series, and then that elimination game was awful).

Shortlist would probably be AD, penny, nash and dwight for that 3rd ballot.

E-Balla · Post #30 » by **E-Balla** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:36 pm

Clyde Frazier wrote:I had literally just put in a vote for harden, and then I forgot about the way the rockets went out to the warriors in the playoffs:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201505270GSW.html

I know it's only 1 game, but that was flat out embarrassing, and harden was terrible. Does this bother anyone else?

That's not even the worst part. Beating LA because they benched him might be worse. Instead of Harden how about 61 Baylor, 97 Grant Hill, or 01 Vince if you're looking for wings? Statistically (for comparison because I've already done the comparison) Vince and Harden are about even when you remember Vince had to deal with zone defenses and handchecking (a harder league environment by far) and here's some posts I've had on them before:

E-Balla wrote:Harden is the clearly better playmaker and Vince is way better defensively and at taking care of the ball with Harden generally being terrible half of the time and average the other half on defense and a bit loose with the ball.

As scorers it's very close. Vince is just flat out on another level when it comes to actually making shots and Harden is on another level when it comes to getting to the line and converting. Overall I value making shots more than being able to get calls. Both players also had the same usage rates (31) and very similar efficiency overall (Harden with a +12 ORTG and Vince with a +11). Harden is way better at creating looks while still being pretty good at taking a secondary role while Vince is an elite finisher at the SG position where he's probably second to MJ in that regard.

Then in the postseason Vince played
The 3rd ranked Knicks defense and the 5th ranked 6ers defense (with the DPOY at C). He played horribly in games 1-3 against NY averaging 18ppg in 44 mpg on 37 TS. Game 2 wasn't too terrible (20 point blowout for Toronto) but games 1 and 3 were awful. He then averaged 29.5 ppg on 58 TS to closeout the Knicks only missing one minute of action in both games combined. Against Philly he fell one shot short in a very subpar game by his standards (after controversially going to his college graduation before the game) but overall was amazing averaging 30/6/6/2/2 on 57 TS with a 118 (+19!!!!) ORTG leading his team to a 108 ORTG (+9) on the series. In the last 9 games of that postseason he averaged 30/6/5/2/2 on 57 TS with a 118 ORTG.

Harden has been consistently good offensively but he's played the 20th and 15th ranked defenses so far (one game against the 1st ranked Warriors and he played well) and he stunk it up facing elimination in game 6 vs the Clippers where his team rallied for the win after he was benched. Overall he's averaged 27/5/8 on 62 TS with a 17 TOV% (117 ORTG). Not sure if it really tells the whole story though because his team has looked plenty good without him and his defense has been terrible.

There's also the issue of the handcheck and Vince having to deal with a tougher defensive enviroment. Overall I'd take Vince. Harden is a better creator and more suited for running an offense but Vince was still an offensive force and he took the league by storm at the turn of the century while not being one of the worst defensive starters in the league.

E-Balla · Post #31 » by **E-Balla** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:39 pm

Clyde Frazier wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:
I hear you... this was more about being so undecided on the 3rd ballot, and just checking that and it turning me off. His overall body of work in 2015 is still up there. Elimination games aren't everything, but I do think they matter.

Just a question, who is on your radar right now?
I see elimination games as a way you can "enhance" a playoff run, but not really detract it, at least to the same degree.

One could argue that if he performed well, harden showed that "killer instinct blah blah blah"

But because he isn't exactly a "choker"
I do t think one can argue that he lacks it. I think it was just an unlucky coincidence.

Nah i'm not going for the "killer instinct" label. More about my evaluating his entire playoff (wasn't in love with his inconsistency in the LAC series, and then that elimination game was awful).

Shortlist would probably be AD, penny, nash and dwight for that 3rd ballot.

Oh if that's your shortlist vote 2 Timez. Steven is a killer and is more proven as a franchise centerpiece than anyone left. Penny is a good runner up for the reasons I posted. Not feeling AD yet.

Owly · Post #32 » by **Owly** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:41 pm

Clyde Frazier wrote:Elimination games aren't everything, but I do think they matter.

I'd say they don't. Not any more than any other game. Because 1) you don't get eliminated for losing 1 game and 2) depending on your definition it may plausible make it better to have lost in a big game for the individual, than for them to have been slightly better, won and then lost in a "meh" or worse individual performance.

Which isn't to say I'd be pushing Harden here. I'd be pushing Davis, Pettit (depending on era strength opinions); then mulling Dwight/Zo/Lanier/McAdoo(?? - D an issue) and perhaps others being mentioned, with Harden in the pack (plus raising, if not yet voting, the unfashionable Brand n' Brandon).

Post #33 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:50 pm

Owly wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:Elimination games aren't everything, but I do think they matter.

I'd say they don't. Not any more than any other game. Because 1) you don't get eliminated for losing 1 game and 2) depending on your definition it may plausible make it better to have lost in a big game for the individual, than for them to have been slightly better, won and then lost in a "meh" or worse individual performance.

Which isn't to say I'd be pushing Harden here. I'd be pushing Davis, Pettit (depending on era strength opinions); then mulling Dwight/Zo/Lanier/McAdoo(?? - D an issue) and perhaps others being mentioned, with Harden in the pack (plus raising, if not yet voting, the unfashionable Brand n' Brandon).

Like I said, I'm not making elimination games out to be a "killer instinct" thing, but there has to be some human element to this game. I do think a player's ability to play well even in a losing effort when it matters most should be taken into account.

Good call on pettit. Someone I'd forgotten about a bit. Was pretty high on him in the top 100 project, so i'd definitely look closer at him in the next thread.

MyUniBroDavis · Post #34 » by **MyUniBroDavis** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 5:10 pm

E-Balla wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Just a question, who is on your radar right now?
I see elimination games as a way you can "enhance" a playoff run, but not really detract it, at least to the same degree.

One could argue that if he performed well, harden showed that "killer instinct blah blah blah"

But because he isn't exactly a "choker"
I do t think one can argue that he lacks it. I think it was just an unlucky coincidence.

Nah i'm not going for the "killer instinct" label. More about my evaluating his entire playoff (wasn't in love with his inconsistency in the LAC series, and then that elimination game was awful).

Shortlist would probably be AD, penny, nash and dwight for that 3rd ballot.

Oh if that's your shortlist vote 2 Timez. Steven is a killer and is more proven as a franchise centerpiece than anyone left. Penny is a good runner up for the reasons I posted. Not feeling AD yet.

Why? I mean, it seems like we aren't arguing on impact, and are solely arguing on how good the player is (meaning that things like fit and utilization are taken into account)

E-Balla · Post #35 » by **E-Balla** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 5:50 pm

MyUniBroDavis wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:
Nah i'm not going for the "killer instinct" label. More about my evaluating his entire playoff (wasn't in love with his inconsistency in the LAC series, and then that elimination game was awful).

Shortlist would probably be AD, penny, nash and dwight for that 3rd ballot.

Oh if that's your shortlist vote 2 Timez. Steven is a killer and is more proven as a franchise centerpiece than anyone left. Penny is a good runner up for the reasons I posted. Not feeling AD yet.

Why? I mean, it seems like we aren't arguing on impact, and are solely arguing on how good the player is (meaning that things like fit and utilization are taken into account)

Why? Mainly because I don't see his impact as being as high as a few of the other guys here. Defensively he's good but not amazing or DPOY level and offensively he's amazing but not team carrying good. To top that off he has durability issues. I actually think he should be lowered because I can't see a legit argument for him over Westbrook who I haven't even brought into play yet because of his injuries.

theonlyclutch · Post #36 » by **theonlyclutch** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:16 pm

E-Balla wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:
E-Balla wrote:Oh if that's your shortlist vote 2 Timez. Steven is a killer and is more proven as a franchise centerpiece than anyone left. Penny is a good runner up for the reasons I posted. Not feeling AD yet.

Why? I mean, it seems like we aren't arguing on impact, and are solely arguing on how good the player is (meaning that things like fit and utilization are taken into account)

Why? Mainly because I don't see his impact as being as high as a few of the other guys here. Defensively he's good but not amazing or DPOY level and offensively he's amazing but not team carrying good. To top that off he has durability issues. I actually think he should be lowered because I can't see a legit argument for him over Westbrook who I haven't even brought into play yet because of his injuries.

Why isn't he "team carrying" good? what is the hypothesis for such an argument? Given that Karl Malone is on the board with arguably less "team carrying" offense.....because I just get the feeling that "impact" is being used too much to just dismiss good boxscore production without much justification...

E-Balla · Post #37 » by **E-Balla** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:20 pm

theonlyclutch wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Why? I mean, it seems like we aren't arguing on impact, and are solely arguing on how good the player is (meaning that things like fit and utilization are taken into account)

Why? Mainly because I don't see his impact as being as high as a few of the other guys here. Defensively he's good but not amazing or DPOY level and offensively he's amazing but not team carrying good. To top that off he has durability issues. I actually think he should be lowered because I can't see a legit argument for him over Westbrook who I haven't even brought into play yet because of his injuries.

Why isn't he "team carrying" good? what is the hypothesis for such an argument? Given that Karl Malone is on the board with arguably less "team carrying" offense.....because I just get the feeling that "impact" is being used too much to just dismiss good boxscore production without much justification...

He isn't team carrying good because looking at his team I feel like they should've been better if he was that good. There's no excuse for how bad they were defensively with the players that they have. That might be partially the coaches fault but i cant say for sure yet. Plus he missed 14 games which brought him down in my rankings.

theonlyclutch · Post #38 » by **theonlyclutch** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:38 pm

E-Balla wrote:
theonlyclutch wrote:
E-Balla wrote:Why? Mainly because I don't see his impact as being as high as a few of the other guys here. Defensively he's good but not amazing or DPOY level and offensively he's amazing but not team carrying good. To top that off he has durability issues. I actually think he should be lowered because I can't see a legit argument for him over Westbrook who I haven't even brought into play yet because of his injuries.

Why isn't he "team carrying" good? what is the hypothesis for such an argument? Given that Karl Malone is on the board with arguably less "team carrying" offense.....because I just get the feeling that "impact" is being used too much to just dismiss good boxscore production without much justification...

He isn't team carrying good because looking at his team I feel like they should've been better if he was that good. There's no excuse for how bad they were defensively with the players that they have. That might be partially the coaches fault but i cant say for sure yet. Plus he missed 14 games which brought him down in my rankings.

The team was also, in typical Pels fashion, inflicted with tons of injuries
- Jrue Holiday, the starting PG, missed over half the season
- Eric Gordon and Ryan Anderson, the starting SG & 6th man stretch 4 respectively, missed over 20 games a piece
- Dante Cunningham, the backup PF, also missed ~15 games

These are all significant lengths of missing time to significant rotational players...

As far as the defense is concerned, team strategy is a significant factor, you said so yourself

E-balla wrote:Yeah but that goes back to when we were saying the Mavs were only that great on offense because they played small ball and completely ignored defense.

The Pels were very good at getting ORBs, which suggests a strategy of crashing the O-boards and subsequently sacrificing DRBs...this means that there is a subsequent increase in team ORTG and decrease in team DRTG due to this strategy..

Post #39 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:25 pm

Thru post #38:

Steve Nash - 14
Dwight Howard - 8.5
Walt Frazier - 8
James Harden - 6.5
Anthony Davis - 6
Elgin Baylor - 5
Penny Hardaway - 4
Alonzo Mourning - 3.5
Bob McAdoo - 3
Willis Reed - 2
Artis Gilmore - 2
Bob Lanier - 1
Manu Ginobili - 0.5

Calling it for Nash. Will have the next thread up in a moment.

bballexpert · Post #40 » by **bballexpert** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:03 pm

I am still very surprised that Kidd has not even gotten a vote yet for his 2002 or 2003 year i mean you already got Chris and Nash there. I mean i really do not fell that Kids peak is much behind that of Chris or Nash also for some of this peaks no one has even seen film on the guys they are voting for during those years Wilt, Kareem and Oscar i doubt anyone has seen there games that season. The only one out of those guys with film on them with a lot of games is Kareem reason why i rate him out of the older players because i seen film. I really don't see how you can truly rate a guy en less you have seen a season of that guy play.