RealGM 50 Highest Peaks Project Thread

[ceiling raiser]

I'm not sure this has been discussed but in general I think most players peak seasons have been captured. The order is obvious up for debate but in general a reasonable job has been done but I'd put Lebron's peak season up there higher since I believe it may be better then Jordan's after you adjust for the improved level of competition today. Sure Jordan more dominant in the finals but in his most dominant finals he just wasn't usually facing very good defenses. I'm also someone that would tend to vote the dominant centers higher.

There is one glaring error IMHO unless I miss the criteria which I may have. I don't think anybody could ever convince me that Barkley was as good with the Suns as he was in his prime with Philly. Was there any Philly fans from the 80's that were on the panel and how did they vote? Since I was a diehard Celtics fan and I was a Danny Ainge fan I followed Barkley's career with the Suns and Philly very closely. Watched lots of his games..remembered his interviews. In an interview back then with Phoenix, Barkley even said himself that his best years were with Philly and not in Phoenix.

Every time I've seen Barkley speak on the subject, he said he was better in Philly than in Phoenix, and when he won MVP, he said he had several seasons better in Philly.

Good point. It's also worth noting that the Sporting News Player of the Year, which was voted on by NBA Players (from its inception through 01, and again from 09-11; evidently voted on by front office personnel from 02-08, and in the last two years TSN hasn't conducted a poll) went to Barkley in 1990. I think it's fair to consider it to be a spiritual successor to the pre-81 MVP (though it's worth noting that the players picked Cowens in the MVP and Tiny in the SNPOY in 73, even though they voted for both), so there's no need to necessarily give the edge to 93 (in 1990 as we all know, Barkley received the most first place votes, FWIW).

Just my 2¢.

[soxfan2003]

Durant was the best player by a large margin on OKC when they went to the finals. That can never be said about Kobe IMHO..perhaps 1 year. Frankly I don't think Kobe was anything that special his last 2 finals appearances compared to Durant these last 2 seasons.

Kobe had players like Gasol, Odom, Artest, Bynum. Extremely impressive supporting cast and he obviously had prime Shaq for the 3 peat who was the most dominant playoff force I've ever seen.

IMHO Durant last year and this year reached a higher level then Kobe has ever reached. Durant's finals appearance considering he was guarded by Lebron at times is one of the best in nba history.

In a sport such as basketball it ridiculous to downgrade him for Harden having a very bad series and missing open shots, Westbrook a mediocre series and guys like Miller/Battier having great series by role player standards for the Heat.

And I don't think Durant should be penalized much for scoring 28-30 ppg very efficiently instead of trying to score 35 ppg less efficiently.

Trying to score too much was one of Kobe's problems and quite frankly with a better officiated 4th quarter of game 7 in 2010, it probably would have cost LA a championship when they had the better team.

Are you saying that the difference between Durant and Westbrook is greater than Kobe and Pau?!

I'm not talking about Pau Gasol over the last 3 years since right now he appears mediocre more often then not due to age/injuries and Kobe did have a better then expected season this year before the injury but Gasol during the 2 seasons LA won the title. It really doesn't surprise me that the Lakers kind of fell apart after Gasol/Odom started falling apart since what those 2 guys brought to the table was underrated.

So absolutely if we are talking 2009-2010 Kobe/Gasol and last years Durant/Westbrook. I think the difference between Kobe and Gasol was small. Gasol had a PER of 21.9 and 24.0 in those 2 playoffs which is a stat that favors volume scoring and a TS% of 62% and 59.9%. Kobe had a higher PER and a very good but not as good TS% as Gasol. Westbrook last year had a PER of 25.9 which is excellent for a PG but a TS% of 50.9% which is below league average.

Most nba teams need some player that can break down the defense but IMHO Westbrook is a bit overrated by some sort of like Rajon Rondo by some Celtic fans. I rate last year's Westbrook ahead of last year's Rondo but I'd certainly take other point guards before Westbrook including Stephen Curry if he is healthy at least. And I actually like watching Rondo play but when evaluating him, like any other player I have to look at average performance.

Among Harden and Westbrook IMHO OKC traded the wrong player. Westbrook in his best games is better then Harden but Harden is more consistent.

[RebelWithACause]

Why is Russell so high if we are talking about individual peak seasons?
How does Russell even trump other big men like Duncan, Wilt, Jabbar when we are solely talking about individual peak seasons?

I feel the bias towards winning (especially championships) influenced this list heavily!
This should not be the case if evaluating an individual

[ardee]

Why is Russell so high if we are talking about individual peak seasons?
How does Russell even trump other big men like Duncan, Wilt, Jabbar when we are solely talking about individual peak seasons?

I feel the bias towards winning (especially championships) influenced this list heavily!
This should not be the case if evaluating an individual

Yeah, I didn't like that particular placement.

People were extremely hung up on "-10 defense! -10 defense! WOW!" which to me is just as bad as RINGZZ RINGZZ RINGZZ.

It's very ironic that in the post project lists, nearly everyone had Russell in the 8-12 range. I personally have him at 9 or 10.

His career is so epic because of consistency, not any one particular season that stands out like '67 Wilt or '00 Shaq.

[RebelWithACause]

Why is Russell so high if we are talking about individual peak seasons?
How does Russell even trump other big men like Duncan, Wilt, Jabbar when we are solely talking about individual peak seasons?

I feel the bias towards winning (especially championships) influenced this list heavily!
This should not be the case if evaluating an individual

Yeah, I didn't like that particular placement.

People were extremely hung up on "-10 defense! -10 defense! WOW!" which to me is just as bad as RINGZZ RINGZZ RINGZZ.

It's very ironic that in the post project lists, nearly everyone had Russell in the 8-12 range. I personally have him at 9 or 10.

His career is so epic because of consistency, not any one particular season that stands out like '67 Wilt or '00 Shaq.

Pretty much!
As good as his D was, its hard to make it up when you are comparing him to all-time great 2way player (especially big men like Duncan, Kareem, Hakeem)
I would even argue KG and Robinson are at the same level indivdually when we only are looking at peak!
I have Russell around Top 15

[ardee]

Why is Russell so high if we are talking about individual peak seasons?
How does Russell even trump other big men like Duncan, Wilt, Jabbar when we are solely talking about individual peak seasons?

I feel the bias towards winning (especially championships) influenced this list heavily!
This should not be the case if evaluating an individual

Yeah, I didn't like that particular placement.

People were extremely hung up on "-10 defense! -10 defense! WOW!" which to me is just as bad as RINGZZ RINGZZ RINGZZ.

It's very ironic that in the post project lists, nearly everyone had Russell in the 8-12 range. I personally have him at 9 or 10.

His career is so epic because of consistency, not any one particular season that stands out like '67 Wilt or '00 Shaq.

Pretty much!
As good as his D was, its hard to make it up when you are comparing him to all-time great 2way player (especially big men like Duncan, Kareem, Hakeem)
I would even argue KG and Robinson are at the same level indivdually when we only are looking at peak!
I have Russell around Top 15

That's perfectly reasonable.

However, it depends on your criteria.

Look at it this way: there is no way KG and D-Rob were as dominant as Russell was IN THEIR OWN TIME.

Could they be as good in the 60s? Possible.

So it comes down to whether you want context/situation or you're looking at individual players in a vacuum.

[Gideon]

Why is Russell so high if we are talking about individual peak seasons?
How does Russell even trump other big men like Duncan, Wilt, Jabbar when we are solely talking about individual peak seasons?

I feel the bias towards winning (especially championships) influenced this list heavily!
This should not be the case if evaluating an individual

My take on Russell and whole "peak" concept (mostly copied from the Russell vs. Walton peak thread):

I understand why "peak" is so intriguing, and I think this was a valuable project. That said, I actually have a problem with the "peak" concept in general, which ties into the Russell debate.

Russell played well enough to lead his team to 11 titles in 13 years. Really 11 in 12 years with him on the court at the key moments, since he was injured in the 58 PS. Essentially, he did whatever he needed to do. We can go over stats (including "advanced" stats) until the cows come home -- and I'm not saying that sort of evaluation isn't worthwhile; I think it's worthwhile and interesting even if doesn't tell the whole story -- but Russell knew what the objective of the game was, and he did what was necessary to achieve that (obv along with various other factors going right, too) an insane percentage of the time.

If there had been a season between 57-66 or so when the Celtics had key players injured and were totally depleted, I think Russell would have done much more statistically than in other years, and then everybody would point to that season as his "peak" and he would suddenly have a GOAT-level peak in the eyes of posters on this board. Instead, he was just really steady, and did what was needed to help his team win season after season after season after season.

In that sense, judging "peak" (at least in the manner it's usually judged) can be pretty deceiving imo. I try to focus more on "prime" and "impact" when evaluating players because I don't value longevity that much... but, well, these are the sorts of issues you get into with peak. I can't point to any one season of Russell's that matches up statistically with some insane outlier years by other greats, but I still think Russell was the best (i.e. biggest impact) player ever during the late 50s and early 60s.

[HeartBreakKid]

I don't get the criticism toward Russell's peak. Just because he was always consistent does not mean he peaked at an extremely high level. A peak to me isn't just a statistical outlier, it's when the player was at their best, this is why I often do not downgrade peaks to one season.

[Gideon]

I don't get the criticism toward Russell's peak. Just because he was always consistent does not mean he peaked at an extremely high level. A peak to me isn't just a statistical outlier, it's when the player was at their best, this is why I often do not downgrade peaks to one season.

I do think Russell at his best was as good as anybody ever (better, actually, although it's so close with the very top guys that I'm sorta splitting hairs at that point), but he played a role where he never had to approach the statistical heights (or just flat-out do as much for his team) as players like Wilt in 67, Jordan in the early 90s, Magic in 87, Hakeem in the mid-90s, or Shaq in 00/01. Not only that, but those 60s Celtics teams never really had one season that stood out either. They pretty much followed Russell's lead and just did what they needed to do almost every year.

I'm not at all sure the best 60s Celtics team (or teams even) wouldn't have won a seven-game series over a team like the 69-13 Lakers (to use an example from pretty much the same era), though. I don't think stuff like winning 69 games instead of 60 or leading a team to a title with an amazing stat line vs. a still elite but less amazing stat line necessarily tells the story. It's all about impact and helping one's team to win, and it's hard for me to say that somebody like Russell, who did what he needed to do every single year except for 1967, ranks lower as a peak player than somebody who did the same thing but had a slightly more impressive stat line or was on a team that won a few more RS games in a specific season. I'm pretty sure I would feel more comfortable with Russell as the cornerstone of my team than anybody else.

The idea of peaks extending beyond one season is more in line with how I like to evaluate players (with neither longevity nor the traditional one-year peak being the key factor). However, I've always just thought of that as "prime" as opposed to peak. Maybe that's just semantics. If we're talking about a somewhat flexible stretch of time at which a player was at his best (for example, 58-65 or so for Russell, 84-88 for Bird, and the 77 PS through the first 60 games of the 78 RS for Walton), then that's what I usually find most interesting and revealing. I actually don't think 67 Wilt or 91 Jordan or 00 Shaq or 95 Hakeem were better than Russell at his best -- I think they just had different roles that stand out more during those seasons. And I think that demonstrates how the "peak" concept (at least in single-season form) is just super-circumstance dependent and not nearly as revealing about a player's greatness as many other evaluation approaches.

[thebottomline]

Russell has a GOAT contender peak. I think adding him to a mediocre team in the '60s gives you a larger opportunity to win championships than any other player in history relative to each's era. It's not easy to quantify this and definitively put him at #1, but the more we learn about him the more the evidence suggests that Russell's impact was up there with anyone.

We see him instantly improving the Celtics' defense by -6 his rookie year. We see the Celtics' defense falling off by +6 after he retires. We see the -10 defenses in his absolute peak.

Then in the 28 games Russell missed from '58 to '69 the Celtics were a -2.3 SRS team. They were +6.1 with him. A +8.4 SRS swing over his career. Limited sample, but it's in line with everything else we've seen. http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1242401#p35290231

So consider the fact that team offenses in the '60s were relatively inefficient and didn't deviate all that much from each other. Now drop peak Russell onto any average team in that era, with the extreme deviations his defensive impact creates, and they become title favorites by a significant margin. And I think he's a bigger title favorite in the '60s than putting peak Jordan on a mediocre team in the '90s or peak Shaq on a mediocre team in the '00s.

Of course, people are free to rate Russell's peak lower due to his era and I don't really have an issue with that, but statistically Russell's impact is GOAT level and personally I find it impossible to leave his peak out of the top 4 or 5.

[ardee]

Russell has a GOAT contender peak. I think adding him to a mediocre team in the '60s gives you a larger opportunity to win championships than any other player in history relative to each's era. It's not easy to quantify this and definitively put him at #1, but the more we learn about him the more the evidence suggests that Russell's impact was up there with anyone.

We see him instantly improving the Celtics' defense by -6 his rookie year. We see the Celtics' defense falling off by +6 after he retires. We see the -10 defenses in his absolute peak.

Then in the 28 games Russell missed from '58 to '69 the Celtics were a -2.3 SRS team. They were +6.1 with him. A +8.4 SRS swing over his career. Limited sample, but it's in line with everything else we've seen. http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1242401#p35290231

So consider the fact that team offenses in the '60s were relatively inefficient and didn't deviate all that much from each other. Now drop peak Russell onto any average team in that era, with the extreme deviations his defensive impact creates, and they become title favorites by a significant margin. And I think he's a bigger title favorite in the '60s than putting peak Jordan on a mediocre team in the '90s or peak Shaq on a mediocre team in the '00s.

Of course, people are free to rate Russell's peak lower due to his era and I don't really have an issue with that, but statistically Russell's impact is GOAT level and personally I find it impossible to leave his peak out of the top 4 or 5.

The only criteria you're using here is with/without. That's why I disagree about his being in the top 5. By that same logic, Nash and Walton should be in the top 5 as well and Walton no. 1 by a huge margin.

[ThaRegul8r]

I don't get the criticism toward Russell's peak. Just because he was always consistent does not mean he peaked at an extremely high level. A peak to me isn't just a statistical outlier, it's when the player was at their best, this is why I often do not downgrade peaks to one season.

I do think Russell at his best was as good as anybody ever (better, actually, although it's so close with the very top guys that I'm sorta splitting hairs at that point), but he played a role where he never had to approach the statistical heights (or just flat-out do as much for his team) as players like Wilt in 67, Jordan in the early 90s, Magic in 87, Hakeem in the mid-90s, or Shaq in 00/01. Not only that, but those 60s Celtics teams never really had one season that stood out either. They pretty much followed Russell's lead and just did what they needed to do almost every year.

I'm not at all sure the best 60s Celtics team (or teams even) wouldn't have won a seven-game series over a team like the 69-13 Lakers (to use an example from pretty much the same era), though. I don't think stuff like winning 69 games instead of 60 or leading a team to a title with an amazing stat line vs. a still elite but less amazing stat line necessarily tells the story. It's all about impact and helping one's team to win, and it's hard for me to say that somebody like Russell, who did what he needed to do every single year except for 1967, ranks lower as a peak player than somebody who did the same thing but had a slightly more impressive stat line or was on a team that won a few more RS games in a specific season. I'm pretty sure I would feel more comfortable with Russell as the cornerstone of my team than anybody else.

The idea of peaks extending beyond one season is more in line with how I like to evaluate players (with neither longevity nor the traditional one-year peak being the key factor). However, I've always just thought of that as "prime" as opposed to peak. Maybe that's just semantics. If we're talking about a somewhat flexible stretch of time at which a player was at his best (for example, 58-65 or so for Russell, 84-88 for Bird, and the 77 PS through the first 60 games of the 78 RS for Walton), then that's what I usually find most interesting and revealing. I actually don't think 67 Wilt or 91 Jordan or 00 Shaq or 95 Hakeem were better than Russell at his best -- I think they just had different roles that stand out more during those seasons. And I think that demonstrates how the "peak" concept (at least in single-season form) is just super-circumstance dependent and not nearly as revealing about a player's greatness as many other evaluation approaches.

If one looks at the seasons considered among the GOAT peaks, one finds that one thing about them is that the player did something different from what they always did: '67 Wilt scored less than he had before and put it all together under Alex Hannum; '91 Jordan learned how to start trusting his teammates under Phil Jackson; '00 Shaq combined offense with defense that he'd never played before over the course of a season before or since when Phil Jackson prioritized defense. In each of those seasons they did something they never did before.

Most of the peak seasons are outliers in some way. Russell was consistently excellent, so he doesn't have that one outlier season other players do. And he always did what the team needed in order to win from the beginning, so he didn't have to make a big change that would cause one season to stand out as some of the others do. So he wouldn't rank as high as some others on a list such as this. I was surprised he finished as high as he did, as I said while it was going on that he would be lucky to finish in the top ten. Though as was aforementioned, on virtually every list people gave afterwards he was considerably lower than the ranking he got in the project, which was odd, seeing how it was those same people who did the voting.

[pauk89]

Huh? Where has Durant taken OKC? Where did he ever take an average team? Dude is paired with Westbrook, had Harden off the bench(now KMart), and had Ibaka/Thabo holding down the defense.

Kobe took a good team to a 11-1 playoff record, 3 Finals, 2 titles during his prime. Wade took a good Heat to a title in 2006. Tmac....well I agree Durant is better than Tmac.

Durant's scoring efficiency comes back to Earth when his uAST% FGs shoot up to the level of Kobe, Wade. He's no where near the playmaker as them, and not the defender either.

Durant just carried an OKC team to the 2nd round without a second option, or 3rd option for that matter as everyone on his team played like trash.

Has Wade/Kobe/T-Mac ever made it past the 1st round without a 2nd option? I.e. Shaq, Gasol? Exactly.

[ardee]

Huh? Where has Durant taken OKC? Where did he ever take an average team? Dude is paired with Westbrook, had Harden off the bench(now KMart), and had Ibaka/Thabo holding down the defense.

Kobe took a good team to a 11-1 playoff record, 3 Finals, 2 titles during his prime. Wade took a good Heat to a title in 2006. Tmac....well I agree Durant is better than Tmac.

Durant's scoring efficiency comes back to Earth when his uAST% FGs shoot up to the level of Kobe, Wade. He's no where near the playmaker as them, and not the defender either.

Durant just carried an OKC team to the 2nd round without a second option, or 3rd option for that matter as everyone on his team played like trash.

Has Wade/Kobe/T-Mac ever made it past the 1st round without a 2nd option? I.e. Shaq, Gasol? Exactly.

Such terrible logic.

He had he best second option in the league for the entire season, which helped him get the first seed. Because of that he was able to play a much weaker team, while these guys were playing 1st and 2nd seeds.

And Ibaka/Martin were both better than anyone on either of those three guys' teams during their peak.

[colts18]

Ibaka/Martin were not better than 06-07 Odom. odom averaged 16-10-5 on .552 TS% in 07 plus good defense.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Ibaka/Martin were not better than 06-07 Odom. odom averaged 16-10-5 on .552 TS% in 07 plus good defense.

Odom only played 56 game sin 2007, and his defense was bad that year due to injury.

[colts18]

Odom only played 56 game sin 2007, and his defense was bad that year due to injury.

Are you really tearing down Odom's defense in a conversation that also involves Kevin Martin?

In 2006, Odom was better than this year's Martin who is a 1 trick pony.

[sp6r=underrated]

As always these projects lead to great discussions. I am reading through some of the topics and I would like a clarification about the voting rules. Who would have won in the following scenario

Player A (2004) 5 Votes

Player B (2000) 4 Votes

Player B (2001) 4 Votes

Would Player B have won because he received more votes or would Player A have won because his single season received more votes?

[colts18]

As always these projects lead to great discussions. I am reading through some of the topics and I would like a clarification about the voting rules. Who would have won in the following scenario

Player A (2004) 5 Votes

Player B (2000) 4 Votes

Player B (2001) 4 Votes

Would Player B have won because he received more votes or would Player A have won because his single season received more votes?

Player A would win

[sp6r=underrated]

As always these projects lead to great discussions. I am reading through some of the topics and I would like a clarification about the voting rules. Who would have won in the following scenario

Player A (2004) 5 Votes

Player B (2000) 4 Votes

Player B (2001) 4 Votes

Would Player B have won because he received more votes or would Player A have won because his single season received more votes?

Player A would win

thanks