#33 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[70sFan]

Taking the argument in a completely incorrect context obviously will lead to different results.

With no time to adjust, missing 1 game a few times over the course of 4 years, is different than missing a stretch of games over1 year. No coach will adjust a team’s play strategy for 1-5 games...

Isiah healthy led the team to 27-12. That’s With him gone/recovering from injury, the team was 23-20. That’s 43 win pace, which isn’t a playoff team in most conferences. Their increased losses would go to other teams, boosting their records... changing their win count while keeping the competition they beat in the same total wins is pretty facetious. At best, it’s borderline a playoff team... hardly ‘huge hyperbole’

Your argument is pretty misleading and doesn’t really address my points

You are right that it's not the same situation, though it shows how important Frazier was for the Knicks. It also shows that your opinion that Knicks would have won without him is baseless.

Why do you bring games when Isiah played bad due to injury? We're talking about how Pistons team played without him. They were 19-15, that's 46 wins pace which is clearly a playoffs team. This season shows that Thomas has clear and tangible impact on his team, but it doesn't show any collapse. Pistons were still decent team without him and they weren't ATG with him either (56 wins pace when healthy). It's not close to what you describe - Pistons would have made playoffs without him. Even 43 wins pace is enough to make playoffs in most cases, especially in early 90s East.

That’s again missing context. With Isiah, the pistons just needed to make the playoffs- they weren’t trying to get home court, because the play time in the postseason is massive.

Without Isiah healthy, they regressed from an effortless playoff contender to struggling to break even. They regressed from +5.1 points per game over opponents to +1.8. Joe Dumars increased his playtime from 36mpg to 40mpg, Rodman from 30 to 35 mpg, etc... their major players went into playoff mode to try to stay upright, and the team still got drastically worse.

That type of adjustment doesn’t occur when Frazier misses one game.

The Knicks were quite good with Frazier as a minor player in 69, and Frazier wasn’t considered the best on his team much of the time. That can’t easily be equated with a clear alpha in Isiah

You're just making excuses time and time again.

Frazier as a "minor" player averaged 18-6-8 on +6.9 rTS% and 20.2 PER, along with 21-7-9 on +3.4 rTS% and 21.3 PER in playoffs.

That's basically the same production as Thomas in 1990 with far better defense. The difference is that Frazier had many better seasons than 1969.

[euroleague]

You are right that it's not the same situation, though it shows how important Frazier was for the Knicks. It also shows that your opinion that Knicks would have won without him is baseless.

Why do you bring games when Isiah played bad due to injury? We're talking about how Pistons team played without him. They were 19-15, that's 46 wins pace which is clearly a playoffs team. This season shows that Thomas has clear and tangible impact on his team, but it doesn't show any collapse. Pistons were still decent team without him and they weren't ATG with him either (56 wins pace when healthy). It's not close to what you describe - Pistons would have made playoffs without him. Even 43 wins pace is enough to make playoffs in most cases, especially in early 90s East.

That’s again missing context. With Isiah, the pistons just needed to make the playoffs- they weren’t trying to get home court, because the play time in the postseason is massive.

Without Isiah healthy, they regressed from an effortless playoff contender to struggling to break even. They regressed from +5.1 points per game over opponents to +1.8. Joe Dumars increased his playtime from 36mpg to 40mpg, Rodman from 30 to 35 mpg, etc... their major players went into playoff mode to try to stay upright, and the team still got drastically worse.

That type of adjustment doesn’t occur when Frazier misses one game.

The Knicks were quite good with Frazier as a minor player in 69, and Frazier wasn’t considered the best on his team much of the time. That can’t easily be equated with a clear alpha in Isiah

You're just making excuses time and time again.

Frazier as a "minor" player averaged 18-6-8 on +6.9 rTS% and 20.2 PER, along with 21-7-9 on +3.4 rTS% and 21.3 PER in playoffs.

That's basically the same production as Thomas in 1990 with far better defense. The difference is that Frazier had many better seasons than 1969.

You keep using broken, misleading arguments with false equivalencies between Isiah and Frazier... so my response doesn’t change.

His teammate won league MVP. Frazier didn’t miss any large chunk of time, so it’s conjecture - however, it’s clear he wasn’t the driving force of his team’s offense...

DeBusschere, Reed, Frazier all on one team. If, as many seem to , two of those top 35 peaks ever were on the same team at the same time with a very strong supporting cast and a great fit, you’d think they wouldn’t lose to the Bullets in 71, or get crushed by the Lakers in 72.

Teams with elite defensive Centers, such as Wilt and Unseld, were the most difficult for the Knicks. That definitely suggests Reed was a driving force in their offense...

[70sFan]

That’s again missing context. With Isiah, the pistons just needed to make the playoffs- they weren’t trying to get home court, because the play time in the postseason is massive.

Without Isiah healthy, they regressed from an effortless playoff contender to struggling to break even. They regressed from +5.1 points per game over opponents to +1.8. Joe Dumars increased his playtime from 36mpg to 40mpg, Rodman from 30 to 35 mpg, etc... their major players went into playoff mode to try to stay upright, and the team still got drastically worse.

That type of adjustment doesn’t occur when Frazier misses one game.

The Knicks were quite good with Frazier as a minor player in 69, and Frazier wasn’t considered the best on his team much of the time. That can’t easily be equated with a clear alpha in Isiah

You're just making excuses time and time again.

Frazier as a "minor" player averaged 18-6-8 on +6.9 rTS% and 20.2 PER, along with 21-7-9 on +3.4 rTS% and 21.3 PER in playoffs.

That's basically the same production as Thomas in 1990 with far better defense. The difference is that Frazier had many better seasons than 1969.

You keep using broken, misleading arguments with false equivalencies between Isiah and Frazier... so my response doesn’t change.

His teammate won league MVP. Frazier didn’t miss any large chunk of time, so it’s conjecture - however, it’s clear he wasn’t the driving force of his team’s offense...

DeBusschere, Reed, Frazier all on one team. If, as many seem to , two of those top 35 peaks ever were on the same team at the same time with a very strong supporting cast and a great fit, you’d think they wouldn’t lose to the Bullets in 71, or get crushed by the Lakers in 72.

Teams with elite defensive Centers, such as Wilt and Unseld, were the most difficult for the Knicks. That definitely suggests Reed was a driving force in their offense...

Knicks lost to Bullets in a 7 games series because Reed got injured and they lost to ATG Lakers team without Reed. It's not because teams with elite centers were more difficult for them. They also beat Bullets in 1970, Lakers in 1970 and 1973, Celtics in 1973. Frazier played in all those series and played very well.

Frazier played all season without Reed and he led his team to the finals. That's not enough? I don't understand what are you talking about...

Your only argument for Thomas over Frazier is that Thomas didn't have as good teammate as Willis Reed. Then I can pick 1972 Frazier who played without Reed and he's still much better defender, better scorer and better playoffs performer. Isiah didn't face as good team as 1972 Lakers in his title runs.

There is absolutely nothing that suggests that Frazier is worse than Thomas.

[liamliam1234]

Just checked. The 1969 Knicks were a +7.0 playoff team in relative performance: +4.1 on offence, and -2.9 on defence. The 1970 Knicks were a +5.6 team in relative performance: -1.6 on offence (oof), but -7.2 on defence. So the argument that Reed was defensively “better” in 1970 has a reasonable amount of weight... but, as we can see by the box score, he was much better on offence in 1969. And considering the improvement of other Knicks, I think that is a reasonably strong suggestion that Reed’s 1969 offensive advantage outweighs whatever 1970 defensive advantage he may have shown. And again, the regular seasons were pretty much equal (I think in full context 1969 is better, but all I really need is for it be be acknowledged as an equivalent level). So once more: why does winning a championship (right after Russell retired) automatically give that year the advantage?

[70sFan]

Even if you feel forced to vote for Thomas, then why 1990 over 1985-87? The main difference is that Thomas played much worse in RS and he doesn't have any advantge in playoffs either. Hell, even 1988 is better choice. He faced better competition in all mentioned years and his PS runs are comparable. I'm sure that had 1990 Thomas faced 1987 Celtics or 1988 Lakers/Celtics, he would struggle a bit too. Instead he played two very weak teams, Bulls against which he didn't play well and had that outstanding finals. He was remarkable in 1990 finals, but it's not enough to pick 1990 over 1985-87 and probably neither over 1988.

I find Reed reasonably similar in 1969 and 1970. Both versions are good enough to be his peak. It's a cosmetic choice. On the other hand, I don't understand how can you choose 1990 Thomas over his youngee versions. He was far better scorer in mid-80s, far more agressive playmaker and comparable shooter. I don't see any difference in his defense either, at least not in 1987-90 period. The truth is that Thomas was clearly better player when he was younger, but he had worse team and faced better competition.

That's why I laugh when I see that someone suggests the Knicks would have won without Frazier while calling Pistons without Thomas "collapse". Pistons did fairly well without Isiah while we have not a single reason to believe that Knicks didn't need Frazier. Frazier proved that he could lead his team to the finals without Reed in 1972.

[cecilthesheep]

Damn, this is tough. I'm mostly settled on '11 Dwight as my first vote, with '09 probably in second or third, but who's behind that I don't know ... Pippen, Havlicek, Elgin Baylor, Anthony Davis, Rick Barry, the field's just wide open

[Owly]

Pistons were 19-15 without Thomas in 1991. That's 46 wins pace

Isiah healthy led the team to 27-12. That’s With him gone/recovering from injury, the team was 23-20. That’s 43 win pace, which isn’t a playoff team in most conferences.

Isiah was, so far as I can tell, never "healthy" that year (playing through an eye injury in preseason and the wrist problem that eventually required surgery, as best as I can tell, being from the prior season.

By healthy do you mean, up until surgery? If so are you including an 8 minute appearance versus Denver (win)?

If up to surgery, could you clarify why you incorporate the games back (4-5, if healthy means up to surgery) into the absence column (especially given marginally above season average minutes, and minimum 31mins played)?

parenthetical re 43 win teams below

Spoiler:

- 23-20 is 44 win pace to the nearest whole (43.86046512)
- in the 82 game era, 34 teams have won 43 games
68: 2 of 2 make the playoffs
75: 1 of 1 make
76: 1 of 1 make
77: 1 of 1 make
78: 2 of 3 make
79: 0 of 1 make
82: 1 of 1
83: 1 of 1
84: 1 of 1
89: 1 of 1
90: 1 of 1
91: 1 of 1
92: 1 of 1
93: 2 of 2
95: 1 of 1
98: 2 of 2
01: 1 of 1
02: 1 of 1
03: 0 of 1
04: 1 of 1
05: 1 of 1
08: 1 of 1
09: 1 of 1
11: 0 of 1
13: 0 of 1
14: 1 of 1
17: 2 of 2
18: 1 of 1
I make that 29 of 34. Overwhelmingly, 43 wins has been sufficient to make the playoffs.

[trex_8063]

But if it is a matter of scheme and internal improvement (lest we forget Walt’s own ascension), how is that an argument for him actually being a better player?

Especially considering how people waved away Ewing’s straight-up not good defensive metrics in 1990, lol.

One could argue the difference defensively between '90 Ewing vs '94 Ewing is largely a matter of coaching/scheme [Pat Riley], too.

And even with scheming aside, comparing the '69 Knicks/'70 Knicks is hardly the same as comparing the '90 Knicks/'94 Knicks as far as the defensive cast [and resulting defensive performance].

With the first comp, let's remove Reed from the equation and look at the rest of the cast in order of minutes played.....
'69 Knicks
1) Dick Barnett
2) Walt Frazier
3) Bill Bradley
4) Dave DeBusschere
5) Cazzie Russell
6) Walt Bellamy

'70 Knicks
1) Walt Frazier
2) Dick Barnett
3) Dave DeBusschere
4) Bill Bradley
5) Mike Riordan
6) Cazzie Russell

It's the same top four guys in both years (with Walt and DeBusschere each moving up one place in '70), and five of the same top six. Same coach both years, too. Walt may have improved some going to '70, but he did appear very much in his prime already in '69, too. So comparing the two seasons defensively seems a reasonable thing.

Between the Knicks of '90/'94, not only is there the coaching change, but there's a complete overhaul in Ewing's supporting cast.
Taking Ewing out and listing the leaders in minutes (also giving an off-hand assessment of their defensive value)....
'90 Knicks
1) Gerald Wilkins (maybe a fair/passable defender??)
2) Mark Jackson (fair defender)
3) Johnny Newman (very bad defender, iirc)
4) Charles Oakley (very good defender)
5) Trent Tucker (weak defender)
6) Kenny Walker (OK[ish]?? defender)
7) Rod Strickland (somewhat decent defender??)
8) Eddie Lee Williams (bad defender; bad at everything really, a career scrub who wouldn't find minutes on a better team)

'94 Knicks
1) Charles Oakley (very good defender)
2) John Starks (very good defender)
3) Greg Anthony (decent [to good??] defender)
4) Anthony Mason (good to very good defender)
5) Anthony Bonner (very good defender)
6) Hubert Davis (weak defender)
7) Derek Harper (decent to good defender)
8) Charles Smith (decent to good defender)

So when looking at the almost night/day difference in the defensive quality of supporting cast, AND considering the new coaching scheme of Pat Riley.......idk, it's just very murky business to assess Ewing's individual defensive imprint between the two years, especially if trying to classify potential (sort of independent of circumstance).


Ultimately, potential gets a little too tricky for me. I see that as a somewhat slippery slope (e.g. what might Derrick Coleman have been with better coaching/mentoring, what with the tools he had?? etc). I tend to go more by what they actually did in a given season, and not try too hard to tease out how much it might be due to coaching/scheme, etc.

Ewing was [imo] definitely better defensively [than in '90] in '94; how much better is hard to strictly say, looking at how drastically superior the '94 cast was defensively. That he managed to anchor a -0.1 rDRTG in '90 with that batch of mostly fair to poor defensive players says something good for him on that end, considering he had the highest block-rate of his career [and they were decent in opp eFG%], and was 2nd to only Oakley [barely] in DREB%. But yes, he was definitely better defensively in '94.
otoh, offensively he was definitely better in '90 (rs and playoffs).

So it still seems reasonable to argue either season as his peak. One doesn't need to "wave away" the defensive impact indicators to consider '90 Ewing's peak season. Sorry for the slight derail....

[cecilthesheep]

1. 2011 Dwight Howard - Trex has made the case better than I could, but I think Dwight is easily the best defender of the realistic candidates remaining on defense. He wasn't a great offensive player, but despite the lack of range/mediocre passing ability, he was the centerpiece of his team's offense for multiple years, and they ranged from average to good working with that system. So when taking his massive defensive impact into consideration, along with his offensive rebounding, I'm picking him first.

2. 1975 Artis Gilmore - Two-way hub, won a title by making his team great as the best and most important player on both ends. I'm penalizing him somewhat for slightly dropping off in the NBA, but I think that has more to do with age than anything else - a lot of guys from that era had short primes at the very start of their careers, and Artis extended his own by being in many ways a better Dwight for a really long time after his initial peak.

3. 2009 Dwight - Not quite as good at the post hooks as '11 Dwight, but every bit the defender and rebounder, and took his team to the Finals as the centerpiece.

[liamliam1234]

1. 1975 Artis Gilmore
Still hoping to hear more from 70sFan to further justify this switch. I kept saying I could not see a way he was meaningfully below Reed, but the more I think about him, and his whole career, the more I think he would have been better in place of any centre left (Howard, Reed, Mourning...). Led his team to a title, was a dominant defensive and offensive player, developed a half-decent passing game, knew how to score efficiently... maybe the most well-rounded player left.

2. 1969 Willis Reed
This was better than 1970, and Reed also deserved MVP this year: he was more essential to his team, seeing as the Knicks overall improved as players in 1970, and his numbers were almost identical (better offensively, maybe somewhat worse defensively). I know the Bullets had this huge leap with Unseld, but benefit of hindsight I think has put that vote in its proper context. First, in the eyes of MVP voters, apparently Unseld peaked as a rookie, because he never came close to replicating this. Second, the Bullets winning three more games than the Knicks does not reflect the fact the Bullets only had a +4.04 SRS, as compared to the +5.48 SRS of the Knicks. Reed also led the league in win shares and WS/48 (Unseld was 8 and 9), and considering the fact Russell was still clearly the league’s best defensive player, the case for Unseld wholly becomes just a matter of that wins leap and that misleading top seed finish. Which is not nothing, of course, but it does feel like too much weight was given to a few accumulated clutch wins (and hey, maybe Unseld was a clutch god on offence; but I kind-of doubt it).
But then you look at the playoffs: 25/14/2 on +7.1% rTS against... oh, look, Wes Unseld and Bill Russell. His .242 playoff WS/48 as the most impactful player on his team is one of the better marks left, he paired it with an MVP-worthy regular season, and he immediately proved his ability to lead a team to a title (with Russell gone and Frazier rapidly improving) the year after. The combination of all that is mostly enough for me this late in the rankings.

3. 1972 Walt Frazier
His best playoffs and regular season, with incredible team results in both considering Reed’s absence. Comparisons with Chris Paul colour my vote here. One of the league’s best perimetre defenders and passers, with superb scoring as well. Playoff elevator capable of leading his team to a title, as evidenced by what happened as soon as Reed returned the following year (frustrating that he missed out on Finals MVP, but it happens). Easily the best championship guard left on the board; I find the votes for Barry or Isiah over him to be profoundly baffling.

[70sFan]

1. 1975 Artis Gilmore
Still hoping to hear more from 70sFan to further justify this switch.

I wanted to do that badly, but I don't have enough time once I started new academic year. I will try to write something later, but can't guarantee that it will be done...

[liamliam1234]

No worries, I know those posts take a lot of time; obviously actual work is more important, but also, if it gets to feeling like just another piece of work, I definitely would not want that. I know in my fantasy football league I used to do these lengthy LM notes, but at a certain point I realised I could not justify setting ahead two hours to write them how I would like. Similarly, if making a lengthy forum post becomes a chore, it is probably not worth it, lol.

Looks like Gilmore should be able to make it in the next round or two anyway.

[trex_8063]

2. 1969 Willis Reed

fwiw, I was mostly just being "devil's advocate" in my prior posts regarding '70 Willis Reed. I actually consider '69 his peak as well. Though '70 is close enough that I'd not really have the inclination to argue somebody that wants to put '70 as his peak.

[Threetimes10]

I'm still waiting for convincing argument for Thomas over Frazier. Frazier is much better defender, better scorer and much more consistent playoffs performer. What is Isiah case here?

There isn't a reasonable one

[LA Bird]

I will be gone earlier than expected so I will move the deadline back to 6pm Eastern Time for the original 72 hour duration per round. I will probably return by the end of the day but if not, you guys are more than welcome to tally up the votes and make the next thread.

1. 19 James Harden
2. 73 Walt Frazier
3. 70 Willis Reed


Whats the argyment for howard over Reed? Reed was a better better post up player and shooter thanvHoward ever was. Defense is comparable also imo. 70 Reed anchored the best defensive tram in the league by a wide margin

Need some reasoning for Harden and Frazier for the vote to count.

[euroleague]

His 90s playoffs was his best, and it’s not only his play that determined it. His leadership, in running the offense and adapting defensive strategies, was clearly at his peak.

88 I considered- the ankle game was definitely one of the greatest finals games ever. Ultimately, considering his injury arguably led to his team losing the Finals, the reason to choose 90 is obvious.

In 85-87 he didn’t have the playoffs run he did in 90 - not even making the Finals. His regular season was good, but dominating the Finals against a great team (Portland was stacked, and Porter is often underrated) means more than the regular season.

[euroleague]

In terms of counting Isiah’s games, I obviously refer to the surgery. He was playing major minutes prior, and having surgery often takes longer to recover from than they allowed him back then

The idea that Reed in 72 was the only offensive weapon outside of Frazier isn’t born out by facts. That team was stacked, and could’ve done well without Frazier OR Reed. DeBusschere was a force on both ends, and he’s arguably the one who made the small ball system work.

Frazier was good, but the idea he was as important to the Knicks as Isiah was to the Pistons just isn’t evidenced by missing 1-2 games in a season, and having your team lose... especially without a solid backup or combo guard.

. Conjectures about the team without Frazier are just that - hypothetical...

[70sFan]

His 90s playoffs was his best, and it’s not only his play that determined it. His leadership, in running the offense and adapting defensive strategies, was clearly at his peak.

88 I considered- the ankle game was definitely one of the greatest finals games ever. Ultimately, considering his injury arguably led to his team losing the Finals, the reason to choose 90 is obvious.

In 85-87 he didn’t have the playoffs run he did in 90 - not even making the Finals. His regular season was good, but dominating the Finals against a great team (Portland was stacked, and Porter is often underrated) means more than the regular season.

That's why I have problem with people like you - Thomas didn't play better in 1990 playoffs than he did before, simply Pistons were better and faced weaker competition. This is the only reason why you pick 1990 as his peak, because Pistons made finals.

[70sFan]

The idea that Reed in 72 was the only offensive weapon outside of Frazier isn’t born out by facts. That team was stacked, and could’ve done well without Frazier OR Reed. DeBusschere was a force on both ends, and he’s arguably the one who made the small ball system work.

The idea that Thomas was the only offensive weapon and that Pistons weren't stacked is even funnier. Isiah had Dumars, Aguirre, Laimbeer, Vinnie and Rodman. That's at least as good offensive supporting cast as Lucas, Monroe, Bradley and DeBusschere.

You assume that Knicks would fare well without Frazier. We KNOW that Pistons did well without Thomas, that's the difference.

Calling Knicks stacked and crying at how bad Pistons were is beyond any logic. Both teams were structured in similar way, were very deep and strong defensively.

[liamliam1234]

The 1988-90 Pistons have one of the best rosters 2-6 in NBA history, but sure, the Reed-less 1972 Knicks were totally equivalent.

This is the level of analysis I always expect to see from Isiah backers, and it never fails to be laughable.