#12 Highest Peak of All Time (Walton '77 wins)

[GrangerDanger]

IMO Barkley should be up fairly soon with those names you mentioned drza

[MacGill]

I'll be paying extra attention once West/Oscar come into the mix.

[An Unbiased Fan]

1. Yes, Walton only played 65 regular season games, but he played all the playoff games (40 mpg), which is way more important. At this level of peaks, 17 regular season games are pretty much nothing.

Ok, so are we looking at the best playoff peaks then? I mean the arguments I have heard in earlier threads spoke on the player's impact during their peak on offense and defense. The RS does matter, since it sets the table for your playoff path and HCA.

And even then, I don't see Walton's 17 games during that postseason as being better than many others. For starters, we're talking about perhaps the weakest era for the NBA. There were no great teams back then, and a handful of truly great players.

2. Using ElGee's simple in/out (SIO) for Walton, in 76, Portland was -2.9 in the 31 games without him, and were -0.3 with him, for a lift of +2.6. He was a 2nd year player who hadn't hit his peak yet, but even then, he gave the team pretty solid lift.

And he was having huge impact in 77 and 78. In 77, Portland was -4.2 without Walton, and +8.4 with him, for a lift of +12.6. In 78, Portland was -3.3 without Walton, and +10.0 with him, for a lift of +13.3.

With and without numbers speak to team depth. Portland didn't have a guy above 6'9 on that roster outside of Walton. That would be great if we were examining who should be MVP of 1977, but that doesn't tell me how great of a player he was.

3. Being a facilitator =/= racking up assists. He was used as a high post passing hub and outlet passer, and he was GOAT-caliber at it.

Oh I'm not equating apg with facilitating, but I do think Walton's impact as a passer is being overstated.

4. Walton's claim to a top 12 peak is not based on his box score stats. They are based on his impact, which is not the same thing.

Clearly, but again, I don't see how his impact is #12 worthy at all. He didn't lead some all-time great team, nor did he have an all-time great year. He was a highly skilled bigman, who teamed up with Lucas in 1977, had a good, not great record of 49-33, and won the title in an era where the Bullets and Soncis won with mediocre teams too. From 75-79, there were no great champs. The NBA was in it's dark days, and sorry, I don't see what's special about 1977 Walton.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I'd be curious of who the panel members think will be the next 10 names to go off the list. I know ElGee has talked about his 13 "sacreds", of which 11 are now in and Walton/Doc are battling it out now. Who is on the horizon? In the last few threads I've been seeing Dirk and Wade get mention. Kobe's had his name called in this thread, and UBF is making his presence felt so it must be in the vicinity of Kobe time. And if peak Kobe and Wade are in the conversation, I'm sure '03 TMac will get some run as well. Saw someone mention DRob. I have to feel like Oscar and West will start getting some play soon. Is this essentially the current list? Anyone I'm neglecting?

Well I'm not a voter, but all in all, I still see no set criteria for choosing one peak over another. One thread it's about DRtg impact, the next its about PER, the next it's about RAPM, and so on. It just seems that many are looking for reasons to select player A, rather than truly parsing out who had the better peak. I mean 2009 Bron over 2012 Bron? I guess....

I do wonder how a guy like Mikan will be handled. West/Oscar came up, as should Kobe, Barkley, DRob. I'm curious how Nash gets no mention when many here will usually proclaim him a Top 5 offensive player ever. He even has the APM stats that many have been using throughout this project. Just seems strange that his name hasn't come up.

[MisterWestside]

With and without numbers speak to team depth.

Not exclusively.

But for once, I actually agree with you. Walton being a #12 because of "impact" alone doesn't cut it for me. Little Mike Conley (35 mpg) "lifted" his teams to +11.3 in 2012 without any impressive box metrics; perhaps he should be slotted behind Walton for the #13 GOAT peak then

(Ftr, Conley is a solid player.)

[Dr Positivity]

Walton's impact seems pretty close to Tim Duncan's to me. The comparison I've heard for Walton's offense that I like is around Pau Gasol, but with even better passing with huge parts of the Blazers offense relying on his high post passing and outlets. Walton is then not just an excellent defender but has a case for being a top 2 or 3 defender of all time. I have never seen a player who looks like he's dominating a team defensively more than what Walton does to the Sixers in the 77 Finals. There is a moment where the announcers are saying "The Sixers have to figure out how to solve Walton's defense", meaning he is impacting plays on help defense so viscerally every play that it gives the same reaction as an offensive player that's red hot. That just doesn't happen.

So the best way to look at it maybe is a Duncan level defensive player if not better than him on that end, who's not as good as Duncan offensively but better than Pau Gasol offensively. I think it's fair to put him below Duncan, Hakeem and KG all of whom I think are better offensive players, but taking a little bit of offense off, isn't going to drop him that far, he's still got an enormously complete package of all time great defense, rebounding, and excellent offensive ability and very few players bring that combination

[therealbig3]

With and without numbers speak to team depth.

Not exclusively.

But for once, I actually agree with you. Walton being a #13 because of "impact" alone doesn't cut it for me. Little Mike Conley (35 mpg) "lifted" his teams to +11.3 in 2012 without any impressive box metrics; perhaps he should be slotted behind Walton for the #14 GOAT peak then

(Ftr, Conley is a solid player.)

I don't mean to say the with/without by itself proves anything. But it is one metric that points to Walton being an awesome player. I believe his impact was broken down in other methods as well, and he still comes out looking like a monster.

Furthermore, his box score stats aren't even bad. Adjust for possessions between Garnett, Duncan, and Walton:

The 04 Wolves played at an 89.0 pace (89 possessions/48 minutes), and Garnett played 39.4 mpg that year. So he got his numbers in about 73.1 possessions. Adjust to per 75, and I get for Garnett that year:

24.8 ppg, 14.3 rpg, 5.1 apg, 2.7 TOpg, .547 TS%

The 03 Spurs played at a 90.0 pace (90 possessions/48 minutes), and Duncan played 39.3 mpg that year. So he got his numbers in about 73.7 possessions. Adjust to per 75, and I get for Duncan that year:

23.7 ppg, 13.1 rpg, 4.0 apg, 3.2 TOpg, .564 TS%

The 77 Blazers played at a 108.0 pace (108 possessions/48 minutes), and Walton played 34.8 mpg that year. So he got his numbers in about 78.3 possessions. Adjust to per 75, and I get for Walton that year:

17.8 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.6 apg, .563 TS%


So adjusting for pace, I'm still seeing a guy who, outside of scoring (which I already said was why I took Duncan/Garnett over Walton), is very comparable in terms of box score stats to those two. And also keep in mind that box score stats and pace are not linear correlations and that Walton still may have maintained closer averages to what he did even in a lower pace environment. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, there was another big scorer on the team in Lucas, while Garnett and Duncan were THE offense for their teams. In a similar situation, Walton is probably closer in terms of volume scoring (but probably with decreased efficiency).

And using the eye test for Walton, I see an incredibly skilled big man that does everything really well. He's an outstanding defensive player, right up there with any of the other great defensive anchors of all time. He's an incredibly high IQ player with great court awareness. He's an excellent and willing passer. He's a great rebounder. And to top it all off, he's a skilled post scorer, but that's not even his main contribution to a team anyway, and it's not something he personally feels like he has to do. He's an incredibly portable and an incredibly high impact player for all these reasons.

[MisterWestside]

You see, you should've posted that for UAB the first time Great info. And re: Walton's box compared to Duncan/Garnett http://bkref.com/tiny/uoQ2I Definitely comparable.

Just wanted to see a more credible case than "His box wasn't impressive, but look at that "lift"!" (which can be said for alot of mid/high-minute guys, including those who don't belong on this list) to argue for Walton.

[colts18]

Walton made great impact. This is what I wrote for one of his games vs. Kareem. Kareem dominated him but I could see why Walton might have had a higher impact vs. the rest of the league than Kareem. Walton's passing is amazing. You might not see it in the box score, but in the half court he is great at finding the cutter. Walton does a lot of faceup, rather than posting up. The advantage in that is Walton can see the whole court and open up his passing

FG when kareem/Walton was guarding each other:
Walton: 6-20 FG, drew 1 shooting foul
Kareem: 8-14 FG, drew 2 shooting fouls (made 1 one of them), 4 of them doubled teamed (3-4 FG)

# of possessions where teammate passed the ball to them with both in game:
Walton: 35 (24 in post), 2 double teams
Kareem: 31 (28 of them in the post), 16 double teams (1 triple team)

Amazing thing is not once was Walton doubled in the post. There wasn't a time where even 1 one of the Lakers players made a move towards Walton in the post. They let Kareem handle him 1 on 1. The only doubles came late in the shot clock. While Kareem was doubled 15 times in the post in 28 post possessions. Most of the non double teams came because Kareem threw it back quickly. When he dribbled, more often than not, he was doubled.

In case you were wondering, Kareem was 6-9 in hook shots vs. Walton (made 2 of them with Walton out of the game too). Walton was 1 out of 6 in hook shots. Kareem's hook shot was unstoppable. I'm not sure how anyone can guard that shot if Kareem is within 10 feet of the basket.

+/-:
Walton: +5 in, -1 out
Kareem: +5 in, -9 out

As far as passing, Walton did beat out Kareem in that category. Most of his possessions came in a faceup where he could shoot or pass it. He threw a lot of passes to cutting teammates. Kareem mostly passed when he was doubled. He was surprisingly slow on those passes and made quite a few sloppy passes that were deflected/stolen.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I don't mean to say the with/without by itself proves anything. But it is one metric that points to Walton being an awesome player. I believe his impact was broken down in other methods as well, and he still comes out looking like a monster.

Furthermore, his box score stats aren't even bad. Adjust for possessions between Garnett, Duncan, and Walton:

The 04 Wolves played at an 89.0 pace (89 possessions/48 minutes), and Garnett played 39.4 mpg that year. So he got his numbers in about 73.1 possessions. Adjust to per 75, and I get for Garnett that year:

24.8 ppg, 14.3 rpg, 5.1 apg, 2.7 TOpg, .547 TS%

The 03 Spurs played at a 90.0 pace (90 possessions/48 minutes), and Duncan played 39.3 mpg that year. So he got his numbers in about 73.7 possessions. Adjust to per 75, and I get for Duncan that year:

23.7 ppg, 13.1 rpg, 4.0 apg, 3.2 TOpg, .564 TS%

The 77 Blazers played at a 108.0 pace (108 possessions/48 minutes), and Walton played 34.8 mpg that year. So he got his numbers in about 78.3 possessions. Adjust to per 75, and I get for Walton that year:

17.8 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.6 apg, .563 TS%


So adjusting for pace, I'm still seeing a guy who, outside of scoring (which I already said was why I took Duncan/Garnett over Walton), is very comparable in terms of box score stats to those two. And also keep in mind that box score stats and pace are not linear correlations and that Walton still may have maintained closer averages to what he did even in a lower pace environment. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, there was another big scorer on the team in Lucas, while Garnett and Duncan were THE offense for their teams. In a similar situation, Walton is probably closer in terms of volume scoring (but probably with decreased efficiency).

Wait. how exactly is Walton comparable to either Duncan or KG? There is a fairly large difference in scoring impact between him and those two. Also, stats for TOs weren't around during 1977, but we do see Walton posting 3.6 tpg in 1978. His ast/to ratio in the following years is not impressive at all. and again, Walton did this for just 65 games.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "Walton is probably closer in terms of volume scoring". He actually scored less PPG in 1976 on more FGA, with no Lucas. Si if anything, Lucas made it easier for him to score.

Again, Walton didn't carry the 1977 Blazers, it was both him and Lucas doing the work. And Lucas had to hold things down for 79 games.

And using the eye test for Walton, I see an incredibly skilled big man that does everything really well. He's an outstanding defensive player, right up there with any of the other great defensive anchors of all time. He's an incredibly high IQ player with great court awareness. He's an excellent and willing passer. He's a great rebounder. And to top it all off, he's a skilled post scorer, but that's not even his main contribution to a team anyway, and it's not something he personally feels like he has to do. He's an incredibly portable and an incredibly high impact player for all these reasons.

See, you're describing Walton the player to me, not explaining why his 1977 season should be highly ranked. I mean Walton was a great defender to be sure. But his ast/to ratio is not extraordinary, nor was his team in 1977. The only major difference from 1976 was the addition of Lucas. What i'm left with is a skilled bigman with injury problems, who along with Lucas led Portland to a sub 50 win record, and won a title in 75-79 era of the NBA.

I know this sounds harsh, but really, Walton's year is not better than DRob in 94 or 95'. I don't see it being better than Barkley's peak. Kobe has mutliple years better than this, as does Dirk.

And you'll have to explain how Walton is incredibly portable, and "high impact", when again, Both he and Lucas couldn't get Portland to 50 wins. The results don't match the narrative. Walton isn't even Top 20.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Walton's impact seems pretty close to Tim Duncan's to me. The comparison I've heard for Walton's offense that I like is around Pau Gasol, but with even better passing with huge parts of the Blazers offense relying on his high post passing and outlets. Walton is then not just an excellent defender but has a case for being a top 2 or 3 defender of all time. I have never seen a player who looks like he's dominating a team defensively more than what Walton does to the Sixers in the 77 Finals. There is a moment where the announcers are saying "The Sixers have to figure out how to solve Walton's defense", meaning he is impacting plays on help defense so viscerally every play that it gives the same reaction as an offensive player that's red hot. That just doesn't happen.

So the best way to look at it maybe is a Duncan level defensive player if not better than him on that end, who's not as good as Duncan offensively but better than Pau Gasol offensively. I think it's fair to put him below Duncan, Hakeem and KG all of whom I think are better offensive players, but taking a little bit of offense off, isn't going to drop him that far, he's still got an enormously complete package of all time great defense, rebounding, and excellent offensive ability and very few players bring that combination

This is all legend. Walton never had the defensive results that Duncan or even Dwight did as a defensive anchor. Not saying he wasn't a great defender, but he's nowhere near Top 2 or 3, not at all. Look at what Dwight has done in Orlando, with less defensive help, and a 3pt line. Look at what Duncan has done in SA.

And how exactly is Walton better than Pau offensively? Because Pau was the more efficient scorer, and put up better volume in an era with a much lower pace. Both guys are skilled passers, yet Pau has the better ast/to ratio.

i will say that Walton was a great rebounder, but so is Dwight. In fact, other than narrative, is 1977 Walton really much better than 2009 Dwight? i mean Dwight was DPOY, led Orlando to 59 wins, and the Finals. Put up 20.6 pgg, 13.8 rpg, 60% TS on just 92.3 pace. He didn't have a Lucas either on that team.

[ardee]

I don't mean to say the with/without by itself proves anything. But it is one metric that points to Walton being an awesome player. I believe his impact was broken down in other methods as well, and he still comes out looking like a monster.

Furthermore, his box score stats aren't even bad. Adjust for possessions between Garnett, Duncan, and Walton:

The 04 Wolves played at an 89.0 pace (89 possessions/48 minutes), and Garnett played 39.4 mpg that year. So he got his numbers in about 73.1 possessions. Adjust to per 75, and I get for Garnett that year:

24.8 ppg, 14.3 rpg, 5.1 apg, 2.7 TOpg, .547 TS%

The 03 Spurs played at a 90.0 pace (90 possessions/48 minutes), and Duncan played 39.3 mpg that year. So he got his numbers in about 73.7 possessions. Adjust to per 75, and I get for Duncan that year:

23.7 ppg, 13.1 rpg, 4.0 apg, 3.2 TOpg, .564 TS%

The 77 Blazers played at a 108.0 pace (108 possessions/48 minutes), and Walton played 34.8 mpg that year. So he got his numbers in about 78.3 possessions. Adjust to per 75, and I get for Walton that year:

17.8 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.6 apg, .563 TS%


So adjusting for pace, I'm still seeing a guy who, outside of scoring (which I already said was why I took Duncan/Garnett over Walton), is very comparable in terms of box score stats to those two. And also keep in mind that box score stats and pace are not linear correlations and that Walton still may have maintained closer averages to what he did even in a lower pace environment. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, there was another big scorer on the team in Lucas, while Garnett and Duncan were THE offense for their teams. In a similar situation, Walton is probably closer in terms of volume scoring (but probably with decreased efficiency).

Wait. how exactly is Walton comparable to either Duncan or KG? There is a fairly large difference in scoring impact between him and those two. Also, stats for TOs weren't around during 1977, but we do see Walton posting 3.6 tpg in 1978. His ast/to ratio in the following years is not impressive at all. and again, Walton did this for just 65 games.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "Walton is probably closer in terms of volume scoring". He actually scored less PPG in 1976 on more FGA, with no Lucas. Si if anything, Lucas made it easier for him to score.

Again, Walton didn't carry the 1977 Blazers, it was both him and Lucas doing the work. And Lucas had to hold things down for 79 games.

And using the eye test for Walton, I see an incredibly skilled big man that does everything really well. He's an outstanding defensive player, right up there with any of the other great defensive anchors of all time. He's an incredibly high IQ player with great court awareness. He's an excellent and willing passer. He's a great rebounder. And to top it all off, he's a skilled post scorer, but that's not even his main contribution to a team anyway, and it's not something he personally feels like he has to do. He's an incredibly portable and an incredibly high impact player for all these reasons.

See, you're describing Walton the player to me, not explaining why his 1977 season should be highly ranked. I mean Walton was a great defender to be sure. But his ast/to ratio is not extraordinary, nor was his team in 1977. The only major difference from 1976 was the addition of Lucas. What i'm left with is a skilled bigman with injury problems, who along with Lucas led Portland to a sub 50 win record, and won a title in 75-79 era of the NBA.

I know this sounds harsh, but really, Walton's year is not better than DRob in 94 or 95'. I don't see it being better than Barkley's peak. Kobe has mutliple years better than this, as does Dirk.

And you'll have to explain how Walton is incredibly portable, and "high impact", when again, Both he and Lucas couldn't get Portland to 50 wins. The results don't match the narrative. Walton isn't even Top 20.

There are two sides to a ball Lucas had nice scoring numbers, but Walton was a top 5 defender ever when healthy.

And why would you care how many regular season games your team wins as long as they win the title (which the Blazers did)?

[ardee]

Ok, arghhh, it gets tough now.

The candidates to me are:

1. 1977 Walton: He's pretty much owned the thread until now. Massive impact that transcends the box score, great defense, plays in the Russell mold, and unbelievable Finals. His defense against the Sixers has to be seen to be believed.

2. 1976 Doc: Took a very average team past a 60 Nuggets win team in the Finals. 29-11-5 with a 29 PER in the regular season, 35-13-5 with a 32 PER in the Playoffs, and 38-14 (!) in the Finals. He's a lot like LeBron for all intents and purposes, perimeter touch and passing aside.

3. 2008 Kobe: Took a team with no All-Stars to the best record in a brutal conference, won a deserving MVP with a 28-6-5 on 58% TS regular season. Averaged 32-6-5 on 60% TS through the WC Playoffs, and looked downright unstoppable against the Spurs. When he actually got an offensive player who could create his own shot, the Lakers offense touched 114: a mark that would have led the league by a mile and rivaled the Jordan Bulls and Magic Lakers. It took the GOAT defense to expose him, and other than the fact that his team-mates vanished on the big stage and Kobe couldn't break down the legendary Celtics' defense alone, you can't find fault with him. It was arguably his best defensive year since 2001. 2008 Kobe is certainly a contender here in my eyes.

Going to wait for some debate before I vote.

[therealbig3]

Wait. how exactly is Walton comparable to either Duncan or KG? There is a fairly large difference in scoring impact between him and those two.

It's not a large difference. KG is at 25 ppg on 55% TS per 75 possessions, playing on a unipolar offense. Duncan is at 24 ppg on 56% TS per 75 possessions, playing on a unipolar offense. Walton is at 18 ppg on 56% TS, playing on a multipolar offense. It's comparable, and again, pace and box score stats are not linearly correlated, so adjusting to 75 possessions probably underrates Walton's production. We've seen plenty of stars succeed in both low pace and high pace environments with minimal changes in their box score production (ie, Magic in 91, CP3 throughout his career). And notice what happened to Duncan's and Garnett's scoring once their teammates became quite good offensively (once Parker/Manu developed, and after KG was traded to Boston)?

Also, stats for TOs weren't around during 1977, but we do see Walton posting 3.6 tpg in 1978. His ast/to ratio in the following years is not impressive at all. and again, Walton did this for just 65 games.

His AST/TO ratio in 78 was 1.4 to 1. Duncan's from 98-07 was 1.1 to 1. Garnett's from 99-08 was 1.8 to 1.

His AST/TO ratio later on is irrelevant and frankly intellectually dishonest to use, because it's obvious that he broke down from injuries and his role decreased dramatically.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "Walton is probably closer in terms of volume scoring". He actually scored less PPG in 1976 on more FGA, with no Lucas. Si if anything, Lucas made it easier for him to score.

Not sure what 76 has to do with this, because Walton clearly improved between 76 and 77. Doesn't really tell us anything about who he was as a player at his peak.

Again, Walton didn't carry the 1977 Blazers, it was both him and Lucas doing the work. And Lucas had to hold things down for 79 games.

Nobody's saying he carried them. But he was CLEARLY their best player and the main reason why they won the championship.

And it's really weird to me that you're going to hold Walton's injury issues against him, but then say "Him and Lucas only led the Blazers to 49 wins"...um, if he played a full regular season, they'd win 55+, so what exactly is the big problem here? And winning less games due to Walton's injuries obviously didn't stop them from doing what they needed to do.

This is all legend. Walton never had the defensive results that Duncan or even Dwight did as a defensive anchor. Not saying he wasn't a great defender, but he's nowhere near Top 2 or 3, not at all. Look at what Dwight has done in Orlando, with less defensive help, and a 3pt line. Look at what Duncan has done in SA.

SVG is an outstanding defensive coach. Popovich might be the GOAT defensive coach. The supporting cast around Duncan has also been quite good defensively. Dwight's supporting cast gets ragged on a lot, but they've always done an admirable job without him (except for this year, and that could be due to a lot of other things too).

IMO, you're way too focused on team results and box score stats to really appreciate Walton. And I suspect that's also why you tend to underrate Kevin Garnett and Steve Nash.

I mean look at the numbers you posted for Dwight and adjust them to 75 possessions like I did for Duncan and Garnett. He ends up looking better. Was he really better?

[bastillon]

UBF, using wins to predict team's strength isn't going to cut in this project. you should know better. scoring differential and SRS are much better indicators of team's strength. Walton's Blazers might have been a 49W team theoretically, but their estimated wins was at 55. more importantly they were far better with Walton on the court which matters the most because this is exactly how good they were in the postseason. I couldn't care less if Walton played 50 or 75 games in the postseason, as long as it's long enough to take his team to the playoffs and as long as he's healthy after he got there.

you looked at wins (again, horrible way to evaluate team strength) and assumed they weren't an all-time team. that's extremely misleading. their scoring differential was: 7.7 in '77 RS, 10.0 in '78 RS, 4.3 in the '77 PS (facing tough competition, Bulls which ended the season 20-4, Nuggets team with 5 SRS, mediocre Lakers team which was about .500 after the injury but Kareem was going insane and stacked Sixers who were very likely 5 SRS team when healthy). you're looking at the wrong column, AUF. RS wins are irrelevant since he have much better tools to evaluate that team.

77-78: Walton's impact versus Kareem's impact.

Sort of a crude on/off type of measure, but when players miss large chunks of time like Walton and Kareem (in 78) it gives us a fairly interesting interesting picture of their value. Obviously there are potential confounds like other injuries, strategy changes, schedule, etc. This is raw data so pace isn't adjusted for either. Nonetheless, thought this data was pretty darn interesting from this period:

Portland 1977:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   43-21    113.4    105.1       +8.3
W/O Walton    6-12     105.7    110.0       -4.3       0.26      61%
Total Difference                            +12.6


Los Angeles 78:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Kareem   37-24    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    8-13     105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03      48%
Total Difference                            +5.7


Walton's game on 12/30 and Kareem's season opener counted as "missed" games because they both played only a few minutes. Of course, there's more Walton data, as he went on to miss a comparable chunk of time in 1978 as well.

Portland 1978:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   48-10    110.4    100.4       +10.0
W/O Walton    10-14     101.0    104.3       -3.3      -0.07     58%
Total Difference                            +13.3


Now, one major difference between 77 and 78 in Portland was Lloyd Neal's play off the bench. Praised by commentators and writers, he actually led the 78 team in pts/36, posted a nice .179 WS/48 line, and had 31 points filling in for Walton in the first game he missed (a 111-106 win at Detroit). And still the profound difference is still there without Walton.

If we combine the two seasons and pro-rate the records to 82-games:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS   %Road Games
With Walton   61-21    112.0    102.9       +9.1
W/O Walton    31-51    103.0    106.7       -3.7       0.07     60%
Total Difference                            +12.6
         
With Kareem   52-30    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    31-51    105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03     48%
Total Difference                            +5.7



[bastillon]

here's how good the Blazers were (Simmons on Walton):

For eleven months from March 29, 1977 to March 1, 1978, including the '77 playoffs, Portland finished 70-15 during an especially competitive era. And everything--everything--ran through Walton. Maybe some centers were better in specific areas, but none was the best passer, rebounder, shot blocker, outlet passer, defensive anchor, crunch-time scorer, emotional leader and undisputed "guy we revolve our offense around" for their team at the same time.

does that really look like a 49W to you ? Blazers were epically good. simple eye test totally confirms it.

[mysticbb]

When he actually got an offensive player who could create his own shot, the Lakers offense touched 114: a mark that would have led the league by a mile and rivaled the Jordan Bulls and Magic Lakers.

Some interesting facts about the 2008 Lakers:

With Radmanovic on the court and without Bryant: 120 ORtg
With Radmanovic and Bryant on the court: 118 ORtg
With Bryant and without Radmanovic: 112 ORtg

The catalyst for the high ORtg of the Lakers was rather Vladimir Radmanovic. With him playing at PF, the Lakers had a 123 ORtg! That is a pretty impressive evidence how much a stretch 4 can influence the offensive strength of a team, and that was independent of Bryant as well.

That doesn't mean that Bryant had no impact offensively, because he had GREAT impact. He had a +6 ORAPM from 2006 to 2009, 4 years in a row with a pretty consistent high offensive impact. And I really don't see much of an argument for the 2008 to be higher than any of the other years. In fact I would argue that 2006 and 2009 have to be seen as slightly higher due to a higher combination of production and efficiency.

Also, in 2008 the Lakers without Bryant on the court were able to outscore the opponents. That supporting cast wasn't as weak as it seems. Counting the amount of All-Star selections doesn't tell you anything about the overall strength.
And another point, the Lakers were NOT the 1st seed in the West when the Gasol trade occured. They were behind the Suns, Mavericks, Hornets and Spurs at 5th at that time. The Lakers were tied for the 1st seed with the Suns 2.5 weeks earlier, a half game ahead of the Mavericks, Hornets and Spurs.

[therealbig3]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omCQ2FcU7cg[/youtube]


Check out this video about the 77 Blazers and listen to what Walton has to say. Love his attitude here, and he totally "gets it"...it's about teamwork and the 5 different parts on the court to work together, and no one guy is totally responsible for a team's success (or failure for that matter).


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmxRIEyBiXo[/youtube]


The closeout game against the Sixers in the 77 Finals. Check out Walton's defense, both in terms of him helping out and his ability to coach others on the floor and telling them where to be. Check out his passing to the cutters. Check out his movement without the ball.

This is similar to Duncan's game 6 against the Nets in 03, when Duncan was lauded for a near quadruple-double. Walton in this game goes for 20 points, 23 rebounds, 7 assists, and 8 blocks.

[bastillon]

I still can't believe Doctor MJ thought Walton could've been a scorer. even looking at those highlights you can see his scoring skills were severely limited, even though he did put up a nice volume in that game. Walton didn't have much of a post game. he's offensive value comes from high post passing, quarterbacking without the ball and setting screens. but his scoring is severely limited and he'd get exposed in a HOF C matchup. he was very lucky that Gilmore and KAJ had such poor supporting casts that year - both really outproduced Walton in their h2h series.

that being said, Walton's impact is still great in the postseason, a lot like Garnett in that regard. his scoring skills being limited (McHale DESTROYS Walton as a scorer for example, not sure if Walton is even better scorer than Pau Gasol), I doubt he could maintain the same offensive impact though. you could see Blazers struggling to get a quality shot at times and they really underperformed vs Lakers. I know it was a sweep but that doesn't tell the whole story. Lakers were playing without their 2nd and 3rd best players, Blazers were full strength. Lakers were sub-.500 team without those players. Blazers were all-time epic full strength. and still, those games were very close... they shouldn't have been. but A-Train/KAJ made up for so much of that difference that Blazers struggled to dominate them.

btw, Dr J's defense:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1159673
some good articles posted by Dipper and Reg

[thizznation]

Walton was so good, kinda surprised he hasn't gotten picked yet. It gets tough when you have so many of these great seasons to choose from; it's a little overwhelming and you can't really go wrong either way in some of these comparisons.

The NBA was in it's dark days

Care to elaborate on this?