[Project] Top 5 single season peaks by franchises: The Nets

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm not sure if I fully grasp the skepticism about Rick Barry.

Yes, the ABA was not as competitive - but why is this relevant? It's not like Barry had a mediocre season, he did incredibly well in it - was up there with other guys who would be all-stars in the NBA if not superstars.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_top_10.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_top_10.html

I think some it's possible to question if Donnie Freeman or Willie Wise were necessarily NBA all-stars.

He was 27 years old, so he was in the middle of his prime, if not peaking. He was already one of the top players in the NBA in his first 2 seasons (he averaged 35 PPG in his 2nd season) - this is him now 5 years later, so it's safe to say that his stats are that good because he's really damn good, not because the guys he's playing are jabronis.

He would then go on to be a top player in the NBA after, and would win a title without any star teammates 3 years later.

I suppose the logic I am trying to use is this - Michael Jordan was the best player in the world in 1991. If he goes to play for Real Madrid in 1992 and plays at the same level he would have as a Bull in 1992, does this mean that he is still not the top player in the world? His competition may have gotten worse, but his level of play is still the same.

I don't love "he's 27, so he was in the middle of his prime". I think he peaked later than most when his passing developed. So maybe depending on how one measures prime etc one could argue he's at the mean chronological point of it, but I think invoking 27 ... well some guys get better later. Barry seems to have been one of those guys.

I don't love MJ going after 1 year that some might argue as the greatest peak as the analogy for Barry sitting out one year, playing in a lesser league, missing a bunch of time and not being MJ to begin with.

Level of competition skepticism makes more sense for players who played in the ABA but weren't very good outside of it. Rick Barry has a really large sample size (full career) of being good before, during and after his ABA career.

Furthermore, I would find it a bit odd if Rick Barry placed below 3rd on the Nets all time list (or not making rank at all), but has a similar ranking in a better/top heavy franchise like the Warriors - simply because he won an NBA title (during the ABA period no less).

He was very good. How good is the matter in question, I think how good the ABA is a fair matter for debate (though I do like it better for wings). I think it would be sad if he ranked higher on one list because of a title, but the other list hasn't been done yet and would hope no one is voting like that.

Also, another thing to keep in mind in Regard's the Rick Barry Nets - the Nets did not have an easy time in the playoffs. They had a major upset against Art Gilmore's Kentucky Colonels who had won 68 games that season in 6 games. They were also down 0-2 against Dr.J's Virginia Squires and came back for a win. They ultimately lost 6 games against the Pacers who at the time could challenge any top team in the NBA.

So while Rick Barry's 75 title run is often seen as the most dramatic event of his career, what happened with the Nets in 72 was legendary in its own right. If something like that happened today (let's say conferences were split up into leagues and Rick played in the East and upset the Nets and beat the Bucks coming from 0-2) it would be very heavily imprinted in fans minds

Big picture level of competition in playoffs is fair.

68 games overrates Kentucky (63 pythag wins over an 84 game schedule).

"Dr J's Squires ..." okay but an 0.56 SRS team with a rookie Erving whose 33.1 usage% first option has jumped to the other league (now Scott looks quite empty calories but that leaves a large hole in your gameplans late in the season). Comparing this team to the Bucks coming off two years with an SRS north of 8 ... might be a stretch.

Not sure if "coming back" is raised as an intended positive? If so, I'm unclear on the merits of going down two versus any other route to the same result.

And all of this is team level and arguably none of it happens if John Roche isn't, at a very preliminary glance, circa as productive as Barry in round 1 (I think one can argue for Barry on his overall playoff production but as far as it is based on team performance, I think it's fair to point out luck).

One more point - The Nets won on the backs of an elite offense which was anchored by a 30 PPG scorer in Rick Barry in 1972, their defense was 8th/11, and considering the worst clubs in the ABA were probably really bad this means that the Nets effectively were a bottom defense compared to other NBA level clubs.

The Nets in 2006 had an AWFUL offense (25th/30) but they had a top 5 defense (as per usual with Kidd).

So are their playoff runs really "equal"? Not only was Rick Barry's teams out matched, the games were higher stake but there was more correlation with a positive performance from Rick Barry and his team winning than Vince Carter's.

Again we are talking about a team that upset a 68 win team lead by Artis Gilmore (a superior player to both Kidd and Carter) in the first round. That team was deep, it had Dan Issel (a top 100 player all time, scoring champ over Barry) and Louie Dampier (the original 3 point bomber).

Then they beat Virginia in 7 games, again, lead by Dr.J who is the best player in the league at the time and is the best player this entire franchises history.

And then they take the Pacers, who were the best franchise in ABA history to 6 games. That Pacer team had Roger Brown, Mel Daniels (2x mvp), George McGuinness (average 27 next season, future mvp/scoring champ), Bob Netolicky and Freddie Lewis (a guy who could shoot 3 pointers at 35% in an era that had no 3 point line to even practice with) all on one team.

The Nets were the 3rd in offense and 8th on defense (out of 11 teams), if they were winning it HAD to be because Rick Barry was contributing a lot (they did have a miracle win with him sitting out a game, but that's also why it was considered a miracle win). They were an underdog against 3 teams, two of which could have contended for an NBA title.

Is this why you believe or pushing a case ...
68 wins again overrates the Colonels.

Erving as best player in the league from rookie isn't clear and the team is in any case average for the ABA before losing C Scott. And the Nets get significantly outscored in the series.

Netolicky was a good early ABA player, he's hardly a prize in this finals. The Pacers were consistent and did well in those (small sample) playoffs, this wasn't a powerhouse team (2.72 SRS in the ABA, maybe you could argue as established contenders not maxing RS performance, but even so).

Remembering the NBA title contenders of the era, even if SRSes were inflated by expansion, I really struggle to see any team other than the Colonels besting that eras Lakers or Bucks by anything other than considerable luck. I really struggle to see the case that any other team would generate an SRS in the NBA that would see them be considered "contenders" in general, and especially at that time. Re: Arguing for him based on team playoff performance and because "they were an underdog" ... wouldn't that mean he carries the can for them being a 0.21 SRS team.


Look Barry's one of 3 guys on all the ballots so far, and I'd guess he'll land in the vicinity you have him. Otoh that seems about right. I'm just not sure about some of the angles offered here that seem like forcing a case or just too bearish for my taste, where a lighter version of some of those points (improved in the playoffs against solid competition) combined with the basic easily visible productivity and minutes load might be more persuasive imo, with less hyperbole.

Not sure if it was lost in the thread, but the reason why I am bringing up Rick Barry's playoffs is because another poster said his playoff stats are about even with Vince Carter's, so Carter wins the tie breaker due to being in the NBA.

I am saying that Barry's games were much higher stake, more pressure and his teams were more under-matched. He also faced more elite defenses on a larger sample size of post season games.

I am not just randomly bringing up the playoffs for no reason, there was context for the post. I'm forcing a case - it's a response to another poster. Barry is not my relative, I swear it!


As for the Colonels being overrated - I mean that sounds like a circular argument. They lost to the Nets, so obviously they were overrated in some capacity. The 2016 Warriors were overrated also considering their performance against the Thunder and Cleveland, but it doesn't mean they're not an impressive win. I think you greatly brushed off the Nets upsetting them, based on your one sentence they may as well have beaten a 40 win team.

[Owly]

As for the Colonels being overrated - I mean that sounds like a circular argument. They lost to the Nets, so obviously they were overrated in some capacity. The 2016 Warriors were overrated also considering their performance against the Thunder and Cleveland, but it doesn't mean they're not an impressive win. I think you greatly brushed off the Nets upsetting them, based on your one sentence they may as well have beaten a 40 win team.

The argument on Colonels being overrated by wins is 84 games and a pythagorean win total and an SRS pythagorean win total pointing to them as a bit lower (63 pyth wins on 84 games or 62.5 SRS pyth wins on an 82 game schedule) and so I see no circularity. It also doesn't mean they were not good, you'll note I gave them some chance of winning a series versus the NBA heavyweights without it being entirely fluky (not a good chance I guess, but they were a fairly dominant team within their league).

I don't think I brushed off the Nets besting Kentucky. I did brush off "Erving's Squires" as akin to the Bucks because that struck me as a really bad comp. And I said I don't love team success in the playoffs as a proxy for player goodness. And part of the "upsetting" is the Nets - with Barry - were a pedestrian RS team. Just in terms of size of (team versus team) upset, it's clearly it's a significant one.

I'm not that into rating single seasons as small samples and even moreso playoffs with tiny samples ... if forced
I think Carter over Barry for the playoffs isn't crazy, Carter's productive with great turnover economy (for very strong box composites) and his team are competitive with him on court and very bad with him off it (in a not collinearity with other stars way – as ever caveat emptor with on-off with a very small sample and minutes distribution possibly changing against different opposition).
I do agree in that I don’t love “It’s the NBA” as a tiebreaker, I think you’d have to look at the teams, though different leagues and different size leagues make the comparison tougher.

I am saying that Barry's games were much higher stake, more pressure and his teams were more under-matched. He also faced more elite defenses on a larger sample size of post season games.

Without checking every statement (and “much higher stake[s]” - to me - seems a bit strong, you have to win every series and -so far as it is true - is contingent on earlier team level performance) this seems a more reasonable version than the initially presented version.

I don’t know what the M.O. is on “traded for in” years but Carter in Toronto in ’06 is ugly. Barry’s RS minutes load might be another legit advantage even accounting for era.

[homecourtloss]

1. Dr. J, 1976.

Clear choice.

2. Jason Kidd, 2003.

Incredible impact metrics show how impactful he was in raising this team to Finals caliber.

3. Vince Carter, 2006.

Great playoff run, highly impactful in both RS and PS. Team was awful without him on court.

4. Rick Barry, 1972.

Weaker ABA but great season nonetheless

5. Deron Williams, 2013.

Meh but not sure what’s better.

[HeartBreakKid]

This is less fun since we're not including 2021.

I don't mean to derail but I'm curious.. What would your list be if 2021 was included?

ultimately, it might not make a difference in my list because Harden and Durant may not have played enough games for it to be a fair sample size.

Irving is in the mix for a back end spot, but not a guarantee. Gun to my head I would say Irving doesn't make it based on what we've seen. I have Drazen as my #5 and there is a good chance I'll phase him out for Buck, and I am pretty sure Irving hasn't really done anything Drazen could not duplicate. Irving's volume and efficency doesn't seem much more impressive than what Drazen did, and Drazen's lackluster playoff performance isn't much of a handicap given Irving's averages are not good at the moment (and he has the benefit of playing with a very stacked roster).

Hypothetically if Durant and Harden played a full season and were near their primes I would put Harden at #2 and Durant at #3 behind Dr.J. (I think Harden looks a bit better than Durant as a Net and seems to be more responsible for their wins when he did play)

[sansterre]

I've been poking around on this. There isn't much objective evidence that Barry got a lot better in his NBA seasons later. But the WOWYR data suggests that Barry's impact was in the +6 range, way above Vince. I think that it's possible that Barry's steals and his outstanding passing (higher in quality than quantity) are underrated by box score metrics. Between these data points, I feel like Barry is probably a fair bit better (20-30%) than his box score metrics suggest. And if so, Barry's lead over Carter is probably enough to compensate for any ABA weakness.

I am officially changing my vote to Barry at #3 and Carter at #4.

And to be clear, this has nothing to do with any narrative-driven analysis. We were simply dealing with a player with limited stats, and I needed some sort of objective reason to think that Barry's stats underrated his contributions.

[70sFan]

1. 1975/76 Julius Erving - I don't think it needs much clarification, he had one of the finest peaks ever in 1976.

2. 1971/72 Rick Barry - yeah, I have him over Kidd despite uncertainity of the early ABA level. He's just one of the best offensive players ever and I don't think Kidd's all-around brilliance is enough to overcome that.

3. 2002/03 Jason Kidd - arguably the best defensive PG ever, excellent floor raiser.

4. 2005/06 Vince Carter - good season all-around, but I'm not that high on Carter overall.

5. 1982/83 Buck Williams - very impactful player, anchor of very strong defensive team. Good, although limited offensive player, a bit too turnover prone for my taste. I also thought about his 1984 season because of strong postseason run but 1983 is just more impressive from RS standpoint.

HM to one of my favorites - Brook Lopez.

[Jaivl]

1. 1975/76 Julius Erving
2. 2002/03 Jason Kidd
3. 1971/72 Rick Barry
4. 2005/06 Vince Carter
5. 1982/83 Buck Williams

Don't have my PC on me, will be away for the weekend, please forgive me for the lack of explanation!

[Reservoirdawgs]

3. '02-03 Jason Kidd - the perfect place at the perfect time

Curious...what do you mean "perfect place at the perfect time"? If memory serves me correctly you're not that high on Jason Kidd. Any reason for that?

[Doctor MJ]

3. '02-03 Jason Kidd - the perfect place at the perfect time

Curious...what do you mean "perfect place at the perfect time"? If memory serves me correctly you're not that high on Jason Kidd. Any reason for that?

A point guard who isn't much of a scoring threat leading a team that isn't good on offense but gets seen as an MVP candidate because he's playing in a weak conference on a team with great defense who happened to become elite on defense with his arrival - which is not something a guard can simply make happen.

In another universe where Kidd is less of an off-court problem, he never gets to New Jersey and the narrative re-calculation that happened based on what happened there never elevates his status to what it became.

[Reservoirdawgs]

3. '02-03 Jason Kidd - the perfect place at the perfect time

Curious...what do you mean "perfect place at the perfect time"? If memory serves me correctly you're not that high on Jason Kidd. Any reason for that?

A point guard who isn't much of a scoring threat leading a team that isn't good on offense but gets seen as an MVP candidate because he's playing in a weak conference on a team with great defense who happened to become elite on defense with his arrival - which is not something a guard can simply make happen.

In another universe where Kidd is less of an off-court problem, he never gets to New Jersey and the narrative re-calculation that happened based on what happened there never elevates his status to what it became.

Thanks, Doc. Am I misunderstanding your normalized RAPM spreadsheet then? Looking over the numbers, Kidd in his prime seems to look very good (particularly for a PG).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h20JYcZJu2tGNIyOwVbNfez0-zXXy5ItLyXC4qTE5D8/edit#gid=3

In the "SD RAPM Chronology" tab, he is #18 from 1998-2012. The only PGs ranked above Kidd is Steve Nash and Chris Paul which...well, yeah they're better...I don't think too many people will argue otherwise. I would argue that's pretty valuable.

[therealbig3]

I think Kidd vs Carter is a legit debate honestly.

I'd go:

1. Julius Erving 75-76
2. Rick Barry 71-72

Don't think much explanation is needed, they're clearly the two best in my mind, with Erving a clear #1.

3. Jason Kidd 02-03
4. Vince Carter 05-06

I'm pretty high on Carter during his NJ run actually, I thought he was the clear best player on the team when he was here. But I'll give the nod to Kidd for consistently impressive impact metrics that are superior to Carter's. Don't think Kidd was truly an MVP-level player, but certainly a worthy All-Star who had legit impact on both ends of the court. Carter had a really good RS in 05-06 and then a monster PS while his team lost to the eventual champs.

5. Buck Williams 82-83

Excellent defensive anchor and a really solid offensive player. Not much else to say, he was just a really solid big that on both ends of the court. To me, this beats out 2012-2013 Deron Williams, who was honestly a disappointment for half the year but was still quite good overall. Mainly due to his lack of a defensive impact.

Jefferson, Martin, Lopez...they were ok, borderline All-Star level players. Don't think they were as good as the top 5 + Deron Williams.

I do think Kyrie's 20-21 season is comparable to 02-03 Kidd and 05-06 Carter. Might take him over them to be honest. Depends how the playoffs go. But he was that good when he played during the RS.

[HeartBreakKid]

Irving over Kidd who is a top ten PG of all time seems off to me.

I mean is it because he has high PPG? If so many guards have scored around Irving's volume, and he plays in the easiest scoring era.

His efficiency is good but not unwordly for his volume relative to era. He's a +4 TS% shooter on a offensive slanted team (understatement).

His team is stacked....pretty obviously. And while the big 3 was never healthy at the same time (and it's not like the big 3 are the only players on the Nets), there was way more correlation with James Harden and the Nets winning than Irving.

Irving also missed like 20 games.

He also doesn't significantly help a team in any other way outside of scoring.

It's nice he doesn't turn it over and he has a jumper, but his utility is pretty limited. Just going off of this project alone, there have been several relatively forgotten players who put up big numbers in the regular season.

Maybe I am missing something, but what is special about Irving's regular season?

[Doctor MJ]

Curious...what do you mean "perfect place at the perfect time"? If memory serves me correctly you're not that high on Jason Kidd. Any reason for that?

A point guard who isn't much of a scoring threat leading a team that isn't good on offense but gets seen as an MVP candidate because he's playing in a weak conference on a team with great defense who happened to become elite on defense with his arrival - which is not something a guard can simply make happen.

In another universe where Kidd is less of an off-court problem, he never gets to New Jersey and the narrative re-calculation that happened based on what happened there never elevates his status to what it became.

Thanks, Doc. Am I misunderstanding your normalized RAPM spreadsheet then? Looking over the numbers, Kidd in his prime seems to look very good (particularly for a PG).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h20JYcZJu2tGNIyOwVbNfez0-zXXy5ItLyXC4qTE5D8/edit#gid=3

In the "SD RAPM Chronology" tab, he is #18 from 1998-2012. The only PGs ranked above Kidd is Steve Nash and Chris Paul which...well, yeah they're better...I don't think too many people will argue otherwise. I would argue that's pretty valuable.

I don't think it's weird at all to have Kidd just behind those two point guards for that era.

It's perhaps most reasonable to just ignore my comment and go by my ranking. Having him #3 all-time for the Nets hopefully doesn't seem like that big of a slap in the face.

Why am I so negative? Really just shows how I've been polarized through the years by folks who think in terms of him transforming a lottery team into a finals team.

[GeorgeMarcus]

1. '76 Julius Erving - easy shmeasy
2. '72 Rick Barry - heart of his prime, carried a lackluster supporting cast to the ABA Finals
3. '03 Jason Kidd - best player for a team on its 2nd consecutive Finals run, went 6 games against the juggernaut Spurs
4. '06 Vince Carter - clear #1 option on a good team and +/- monster that season
5. '83 Buck Williams - well rounded and high IQ All-Star, would love to see him as a small ball C today

[HeartBreakKid]

1. '76 Julus Erving - easy shmeasy
2. '73 Rick Barry - heart of his prime, carried a lackluster supporting cast to the ECF
3. '03 Jason Kidd - best player for a team on its 2nd consecutive Finals run, went 6 games against the juggernaut Spurs
4. '06 Vince Carter - clear #1 option on a good team and +/- monster that season
5. '83 Buck Williams - well rounded and high IQ All-Star, would love to see him as a small ball C today

I think you mean 72 Rick Barry.

[Odinn21]

1. 1976 Julius Erving
Incredibly obvious choice.

2. 2003 Jason Kidd
Not only I have peak Kidd over peak Barry, the ABA not being strong enough in Barry’s top seasons while he was there isn’t helping his case. Great combination of defense and floor general. To me, he gets way too flak for being a negative efficiency scorer.

3. 1972 Rick Barry
Not better than the top 2, definitely better than the rest.

4. 2006 Vince Carter
Not a strong season in all-time sense but he was pretty consistent through the season.

5. 1983 Buck Williams
Well, this was interesting for me because it was between him and D-Will, I looked at where Williams was in RAPM numbers and not quite good enough. If I had Deron Williams it’d be because he is a more known quantity. I have Buck and that’s also because Deron is a more known quantity.

-

What Kidd did in NJ has become too underrated. The narrative and hype around b2b finals appearances made people overcorrect those things too much. The Nets were not a good team to begin with. If we look at it as the competition they faced and the help they got, Kidd still deserves a similar level of respect.
Another thing is Kidd with only one good knee took the great 2004 Pistons side to a game 7 even. He needed a knee surgery and had to put it off to play the postseason. He shot insanely bad in the series yet his defense and on court leadership abilities made it a tight series. I’m very curious if he’d still get this much sh.t for 2002 and 2003, if there was no injury in 2004 and the Nets won over the Pistons...

-

I already had this but couldn’t post it because there’s been a family emergency. I’ll start the next one on time since I have the template on ready but won’t be able to post the results of this one until tomorrow. But the clock will stop at our usual time which is in 6 hours and 45 minutes or so. Cheers all.

[sansterre]

I already had this but couldn’t post it because there’s been a family emergency.

I hope that everyone's okay!

[GeorgeMarcus]

1. '76 Julus Erving - easy shmeasy
2. '73 Rick Barry - heart of his prime, carried a lackluster supporting cast to the ECF
3. '03 Jason Kidd - best player for a team on its 2nd consecutive Finals run, went 6 games against the juggernaut Spurs
4. '06 Vince Carter - clear #1 option on a good team and +/- monster that season
5. '83 Buck Williams - well rounded and high IQ All-Star, would love to see him as a small ball C today

I think you mean 72 Rick Barry.

Yep, good catch

[Odinn21]

The Nets results;

Code: Select all

1. 12-0-0-0-0 / 120 points / 1.000 share / '76 Julius Erving
2.  0-6-6-0-0 /  72 points / 0.600 share / '03 Jason Kidd
3.  0-5-5-1-1 /  64 points / 0.533 share / '72 Rick Barry
4.  0-1-1-8-1 /  37 points / 0.308 share / '06 Vince Carter
5.  0-0-0-2-6 /  12 points / 0.100 share / '83 Buck Williams

6.  0-0-0-1-0 /    3 points / 0.025 share / '93 Derrick Coleman
7.  0-0-0-0-2 /    2 points / 0.017 share / '13 Deron Williams
8.  0-0-0-0-1 /    1 points / 0.008 share / '06 Richard Jefferson
9.  0-0-0-0-1 /    1 points / 0.008 share / '93 Drazen Petrovic

Results on Google Sheet

[Odinn21]

I already had this but couldn’t post it because there’s been a family emergency.

I hope that everyone's okay!

Thanks a lot for the good wishes. It's not over yet but at least there's almost none to be scared off now. We're past the big issues. I'll be getting back to my usual posting left and right self again in a couple of days. Again, thank you.