Peak Project: #2

[MyUniBroDavis]

I cant really vote right now, since Im in school
But I have a question, Why do people seem to never mention Wilts 50ppg season as his peak?
He brought the celtics to 7 games.

Also, what happened to the 63-64 team compared (48 wins) compared to the 64-65 team? (17 wins)
They didnt seem to have any roster changes, nothing substantial at least.

I did.... I have trouble understanding how the greatest scoring and greatest rebounding year isn't high around here.

Main arguments against it are extremely fast pace and small size / relative strength of the league at that time. The 62 warriors had an average pace of 131.1 possessions per game. If we convert his #s to correlate with the average pace last season (93.9 possessions per game), it comes out to 36.1 PPG and 18.4 RPG. Still very impressive, but not crazy staggering like the original #s. Also, wilt was playing 48.5 MPG that season. If we drop it to say, 38 MPG, those #s become 28.3 PPG and 14.4 RPG.

But didnt they bring the Celtics to 7 games? (albeit, they had a tendancy to go 7 games against inferior teams, I think they went to 7 games with teams that averaged 52 wins or somethign)
Also, Alot of people have said that pace doesent usually directly effect scoring, though I guess this is an extreme case.

[Clyde Frazier]

I did.... I have trouble understanding how the greatest scoring and greatest rebounding year isn't high around here.

Main arguments against it are extremely fast pace and small size / relative strength of the league at that time. The 62 warriors had an average pace of 131.1 possessions per game. If we convert his #s to correlate with the average pace last season (93.9 possessions per game), it comes out to 36.1 PPG and 18.4 RPG. Still very impressive, but not crazy staggering like the original #s. Also, wilt was playing 48.5 MPG that season. If we drop it to say, 38 MPG, those #s become 28.3 PPG and 14.4 RPG.

But didnt they bring the Celtics to 7 games? (albeit, they had a tendancy to go 7 games against inferior teams, I think they went to 7 games with teams that averaged 52 wins or somethign)
Also, Alot of people have said that pace doesent usually directly effect scoring, though I guess this is an extreme case.

Well, I was specifically referring to why his 50 + 25 isn't as renowned as you'd expect. As for taking the celtics to 7, here's a nice overview of just how close that series was:

But again the Warriors climbed back. With 50 seconds left, Boston had the lead at 107 to 102. Wilt Chamberlain, held largely in check (22 points) by Russell this night, connected on two foul shots and then finished a three-point play to tie the game. The notorious free throw shooter had hit 3 in the final minute and finished the game 8-9 from the line.

Just 16 seconds left. Score tied at 107. Boston, winners of 4 of the last 5 titles, was on the ropes. After getting the ball downcourt, guard K.C. Jones rose for a game-winning shot, but at the final moment decided against it and dished the ball to Sam Jones. With the hot potato in his hands, with little time left on the clock, with an open look and with everyone yelling at him to shoot, Sam Jones rose for a jumper.

The ball snapped through the net and put Boston up 109-107 with just a second left.

Or should it be three seconds?

Warriors coach Frank McGuire furiously pleaded with the ref to put two more seconds back on the clock. McGuire claimed the Boston scorekeeper had taken his sweet time stopping the clock after Jones had made his shot. McGuire’s pleas went unheeded and Philadelphia was left with just that one second to respond. An entry pass to Wilt was deflected by Russell into the hands of, who else, Sam Jones. The game and the series was over and Boston had won.

Years later, Auerbach would slyly admit the clock had “malfunctioned.”

http://prohoopshistory.com/2012/10/18/the-1962-eastern-division-finals-philly-vs-boston-wilt-vs-russell-barstools-vs-jungle-jim/

I would agree with you that it probably doesn't get talked about enough.

[E-Balla]

Also Shaq has somehow led better offenses than Lebron as a big man that's not supposed to be all that impactful.

I'm not a big fan of equating team offense with individual contributions of the best player on that team. It's pretty much the same thing as equating overall team success with individual performance.

True but I said that with the general understanding that most people would read that and remember they had similar supporting casts in their top seasons on that end plus Shaq wasn't even at his peak when he had his best offensive supporting casts.

I can understand why you feel this way, but Shaq had several supporting casts that fit better around him (and were also comparable in terms of talent) to any team LeBron had. Let's take a look at the '95 Magic, one of the top two offensive teams Shaq had even been on - they had a great perimeter creator who could score as well as deliver the ball (Penny), two great shooters (Anderson and Scott) to space the floor, which is very important when you have Shaq on your team, and one of them was also capable of creating shots for himself (Anderson), plus he had a pretty good mid-range shooting and passing bigman alongside him - Grant.

That's a supporting cast which was a perfect fit around Shaq.

But that's not a very hard supporting cast to get. Lebron's had a perimeter creator, great shooters, and a great shooting and passing bigman TWICE, Jordan once, and Shaq THREE times (Mia, Orl, and LA). Its just not that hard a team prototype to gather.

Also, the best offensive team Shaq played on - the '98 Lakers - they had three very talented offensive players on the perimeter, all of them could create shots and shoot from outside - Eddie Jones, Kobe and Van Exel. Also, Horry was a perfect fit next to Shaq with him outside shooting and ability to stretch the floor.

Van Exel was ok but he still ended up benched for Fisher and he missed a decent amount of the season (they went 14-4 without him). He did have two potential 20 point scorers in Kobe and Eddie Jones though. Also you're overstating Horry's impact offensively. He barely ever got the ball and his passing was probably more impactful than his passing.

The truth is, Shaq never played with other all-star/superstar low post scorer, like LeBron played with Wade, and now with Kyrie. I mean - the LeBron/Wade fit was far from ideal in the beginning. Two guys with pretty similar strengths and style of play. Shaq never had to deal with that kind of skillset overlap between him and another player. If you put Shaq and Barkley together, or Shaq and Duncan - it could be a less-than-ideal fit, too, as all of them liked to attack from similar spots on the court.

How common are superstar low post scorers? Now how common are superstar wings? The reason Shaq never played with another dominant low post presence is because outside of Shaq there's been like 5 players that fit that description since 2000. Then there's also the fact that I'm 99% sure Lebron doesn't get along well with most post scorers either...

[mtron929]

Also Shaq has somehow led better offenses than Lebron as a big man that's not supposed to be all that impactful.

I'm not a big fan of equating team offense with individual contributions of the best player on that team. It's pretty much the same thing as equating overall team success with individual performance.

True but I said that with the general understanding that most people would read that and remember they had similar supporting casts in their top seasons on that end plus Shaq wasn't even at his peak when he had his best offensive supporting casts.

I can understand why you feel this way, but Shaq had several supporting casts that fit better around him (and were also comparable in terms of talent) to any team LeBron had. Let's take a look at the '95 Magic, one of the top two offensive teams Shaq had even been on - they had a great perimeter creator who could score as well as deliver the ball (Penny), two great shooters (Anderson and Scott) to space the floor, which is very important when you have Shaq on your team, and one of them was also capable of creating shots for himself (Anderson), plus he had a pretty good mid-range shooting and passing bigman alongside him - Grant.

That's a supporting cast which was a perfect fit around Shaq.

But that's not a very hard supporting cast to get. Lebron's had a perimeter creator, great shooters, and a great shooting and passing bigman TWICE, Jordan once, and Shaq THREE times (Mia, Orl, and LA). Its just not that hard a team prototype to gather.

Also, the best offensive team Shaq played on - the '98 Lakers - they had three very talented offensive players on the perimeter, all of them could create shots and shoot from outside - Eddie Jones, Kobe and Van Exel. Also, Horry was a perfect fit next to Shaq with him outside shooting and ability to stretch the floor.

Van Exel was ok but he still ended up benched for Fisher and he missed a decent amount of the season (they went 14-4 without him). He did have two potential 20 point scorers in Kobe and Eddie Jones though. Also you're overstating Horry's impact offensively. He barely ever got the ball and his passing was probably more impactful than his passing.

The truth is, Shaq never played with other all-star/superstar low post scorer, like LeBron played with Wade, and now with Kyrie. I mean - the LeBron/Wade fit was far from ideal in the beginning. Two guys with pretty similar strengths and style of play. Shaq never had to deal with that kind of skillset overlap between him and another player. If you put Shaq and Barkley together, or Shaq and Duncan - it could be a less-than-ideal fit, too, as all of them liked to attack from similar spots on the court.

How common are superstar low post scorers? Now how common are superstar wings? The reason Shaq never played with another dominant low post presence is because outside of Shaq there's been like 5 players that fit that description since 2000. Then there's also the fact that I'm 99% sure Lebron doesn't get along well with most post scorers either...

Agreed. Lebron is just not that great when he does not have the ball. Accordingly, when Wade was still his very good self (2011), they just did not mesh well together because these two were both ball dominant and thus did not have much synergy. Now, let's assume that Lebron teamed up with dominant low post threats like Olajuwon. What would happen then? Lebron would throw it into the post and just wait for Olajuwon to do his thing. Given that Lebron is not the greatest 3point shooter, or a jumpshooter, the open shots that Lebron will get are not going to enhance his game as opposed to someone like Curry or Ray Allen or Kobe.

The fact of the matter is that we have never seen a dominant Lebron team akin to what we have seen from Jordan or Shaq. I think that is because with Lebron on your team, it is very easy to build a good team (even if everyone else is a scrub) but it is very difficult to build a great juggernaut.

[PCProductions]

Is 2009 Lebron a better defender than 2013 Lebron? Is it comparable? I remember Lebron being more disciplined and versatile in Miami on that end, but his regular season, on-court defense was at 100.6 in '09 vs 103.3 in '13. I do remember those Cavs being a good supporting defensive cast, though.

If people are really blown away by Lebron's 09 On/Off numbers, the defensive net rating has a lot to do with it. If it seems like Lebron just had the energy to play both sides of the ball at max effort for the entire season in his younger days, then perhaps he was in fact more impactful despite the improvement in skillset in Miami.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I assume that we are naming 2-4.

1st Shaq, 2000

Shaq, was, by all means, a monster that year. Like alot of others have said, he was DPOY worthy. Lebron was one of the top perimeter defenders of all time in 09, but in my opinion, especially considering their roles as defenders (imo, RAPM is a good stat, but it does have some flaws in terms of position)
I feel like whats important, is that it is well documented that Shaq has "an extra level" he can go to, defensively, if motivated.
This "extra" level is rarely seen, even during the playoffs, but the fact that he does occasionally tap into it makes me say that
Defensively, on an impact basis, I would have to say Shaq comfortably beats Lebron.

Offensively, like some others have said, I feel like Lebron is the type of player that can make even the most horrible teammates better with his incredible passing and scoring. The fact that, years removed from his prime, he was competitive with an ATG warriors team using a team that really would make the playoffs in the east (and yes, I consider them an all time great team, or at least near it. below the upper class of ATG teams, but somewhere in the middle. I believe they are criminally underrated) is incredible. As an offensive player, I would be inclined to say that Lebron is better than Shaq. While ball denial/double teaming is more possible with Shaq, I would say that Shaq commands more defensive attention.

Even though someone can use ball denial to stop shaq, occasionally at least, when he does get the ball, he rarely has "off-nights" in terms of pure point production.

In 00, he had 7 games scoring below 20 points
in 09, Lebron had 9 of these games.
In terms of minutes, They both really only had 1 game to use that as an excuse (below 20 minutes in only 1 game of those each).

In these games, Lebron averaged roughly 35 minutes per game, while Shaq averaged roughly 34 minutes a game.
Most of the time, it isnt because of ball denial, more so that Shaq or Lebron has an off day. ball denial stopping shaq happens probably 5-6 times in every 100 games.

To oversimplify things, Giving the ball to Shaq will ensure 30 points, 13 rebounds, on 58%
Giving Lebron the ball will ensure that everyone has a role, with him himself getting 28.5 points on a decent but still inferior 49%, while being decent from long range.
Positionally, they both seemed to be very good passers. Shaq ha 4 assists per game, Lebron had 8. considering how much Shaq got doubled, it seems like they protected the ball, turnover wise, similarly well.
The lakers were 6-6 Without Shaq from 99 to 01. (they were 1-3 from 99-00, and 1-2 in 00)

To put it bluntly, Lebron is the type of player that can create shots for himself and others. However, giving the ball to lebron and letting him go to work might not be a perfect situation (isos)

2nd Lebron, 09

I managed to find some of his synergy stats
http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic/122367-lebron-2009-season/

This probably doesent need to be stated, but from 08 to 10, the Cavs were 1-14 without Lebron.
(most of these were teh year before 09, meaning he wasnt in his prime for most of the time!)


Defensive stats for his position

17.3 pts/game allowed (1st in league)
41.2 FG% allowed (1st in league)
15.1 FGA allowed (2nd fewest in league)
16.6 Efficiency allowed (1st in league)
1.3 Offensive Rebounds allowed *boxouts* (3rd in league)





Clutch time per 48 in the 4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points:

58/18/8 on 69.6 TS%
Net: +30.5 plus/minus


This is honestly very comparable to Jordan's synergy stats (though imo, doesent quite top it)

I almost feel bad saying this, but I see a flaw in his offensive chart. His isolation game, while very good, while it was good that year (obviouslye every year is different so that might be why) 0.9 points per iso translates to 70th percentile today).
he was 50th percentile in post up.
Remember, when the stat says good or very good, that means its 60-70 percentile.

but he was just a beast in every sense of the word.


67 Wilt

I dont believe in adjusting for pace so much. I think that Wilt wouldnt score 50 a game because of a variety of factors, but I wouldnt take more than 7 or 8 points solely on pace.

That being said, I think 67 Wilt was incredible
team success wise
I believe that he is overrated, especially in terms of footage (CavsFTW has exceptional footage, but I find it hard to believe that a Shaq- ft shooter has a better fadeaway than a Nowitzki and Duncan combined, especially since after calculating it his fadeaway percentage was probably slightly below average, if he shot 80% from inside 3 feet, which Dipper's shot chart and basic common sense would probably show)
5.4 above league average on offense
2.2 better than league average on defense (comparable to the Celtics this year)

When wilt left, they were only 2.6 beter than league average on defense, and 2.6 better than league average on offense, while getting 2 players from teh lakers (the third player traded went to the military)

The year before he left, which was worse than his 67 season, they were 5.6 better than league average on defense, which was better than the celtics, and 1.3 better than league average on offense


Honorable mention

Russell (Im actually very inclined to choose Russel)

Duncan

[PCProductions]

I'm also curious about how good Shaq was at defending the pick and roll. If we're largely valuing his post or one-on-one defense, then I'm less confident on his impact on that end given the lack of playoff opponents he could have affected with it given the lack of scoring centers he played against, although Sabonis and Divac did not seem to impress in their respective series against Shaq.

[70sFan]

1st ballot - Wilt Chamberlain - 1967

Stats:
45.5 mpg. 24.1 ppg. 21.3 TRB% (estimate) 7.8 apg. 68.%3 FG% 44.1% FT% 63.7 TS%
Playoffs:
47.9 mpg. 21.7 ppg. 23.5 TRB% (estimate) 9.0 apg. 57.9% FG% 38.8% FT% 54,6% TS%
The most dominant season ever for an individual player. Wilt anchor 76ers to the best record in NBA, 1st offense and 3rd defense (behind Russell Celtcs and Nate Warriors). He shot aburdaly good from the field (nobody averaged around 25 ppg with close to 70% FG). Also, this is the first year when Wilt didn't lead the league in ppg. Alex Hannum creates new offensive system around Wilt. He became "low-post playmaker". Average 8 apg. for a center is amazing accomplishement.
In playoffs he defeated 4 of the best players from 1960s. First is Oscar Robertson. His numbers vs Royals:
28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg on 61.2 %FG/36.4 %FT/58.6 %TS
He averaged TRIPLE DOUBLE. At center position. Nobody can do that. To be fair, Royals was a bad defensive team in 1967, but still Oscar anchors one of the best offenses in the league. In second round they faced defending champions - Celtics. Numbers:
21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6.4 bpg on 55.6 %FG/50.9 %FT/56.1 %TS
Blocks numbers are from articles/newspapers etc. Another triple double performace. Against the best defensive team in the league and the best defensive player ever. He crushes Russell in every category. In finals 76ers defeated Nate and Barry Warriors. Stats:
17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS
While stats doesn't look as impressive, he faced the best post defender ever - Nate the Great.
Besides very bad FT shooting, Wilt was great at every aspect of the game and his 76ers is still probably the greatest team in history. In playoffs he faced strong competition and played great.

I still think he would be above Shaq. Shaq didn't played in playoffs against as great team as 1967 Celtics and even Warriors are arguable better than every Shaq opponents (maybe besides Portland). When Wilt faced not great defensive team (Royals) he killed:
28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg on 61.2 %FG/36.4 %FT/58.6 %TS
28 ppg. on 59%TS isn't amazing? Add 11 apg. and this becomes unreal. Also, better rebounding numbers (evern TRB% or PER100). The only weakness Wilt had during this season were FTs, but Shaq (while better than Wilt in 2000) was also bad in this aspect.
I don't think PER100 stats are good for measuring bigman scoring from 1960s/1970s. There were over 110 possesion per game during Wilt time, but how many of them are fast breaks? Wilt didn't score on fastbreaks, he killed on low post, his game is halfcourt game. Do you really think that Wilt today would shoot under 10 times at his peak? Even with the same role as in 1966-1968? He would still have around 15 shots per game with amazing FG%.
I'm still not sure if Wilt 1967 season is his best season. In 1964 he was amazing (volume scoring) with bad teammates, in 1966 he anchored his team to the best record in the league (but his playoffs aren't as impressive), in 1968 he was the best defender in the NBA (BETTER THAN RUSSELL) but his last 2 games vs Celtics probably destroyed everything, in 1962 he played great in playoffs.
Well I still choose 1967, but it's really close (especially if you think he needs volume scoring to be above Shaq or Kareem).

2nd ballot: Shaquille O'Neil 2000
For me he must be in top 3 peaks. Dominated with not great supporting cast. Here I said something about him:

tats:
40.0 mpg. 29.7 ppg. 18.3 TRB% 3.8 apg. 0.5 spg. 3.0 bpg. 57.4% FG% 0.00 3P% 52.4 FT% 2.8 tov.
Playoffs:
43.5 mpg. 30.7 ppg. 20.4 TRB% 3.1 apg. 0.6 spg. 2.4 bpg. 56.6% FG% 0.00 3P% 45.6 FT% 2.4 tov.
Shaq at his best. Defenders denied him from the ball (triple teams WITHOUT the ball) and he still scores 30 on 60%. DPOY-level defense (one of few his consistent defensive seasons) and all-time great level rebounding. In playoffs he didn't face strong competiton besides Portland (and this serie was below his standard to be fair) but that's not his fault. One of the best final permormace ever with not great team to be fair.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 1971/1974/1977
I don't know which season is the best.
1971 is probably the best RS (2nd ever behind 1972) but he didn't play amazing in playoffs (old Wilt without 2 best teammates arguably outplayed him). Still, he faced 2 of the best post defenders ever (Wilt and Nate) and his performace vs Warriors is the best of all series against Thurmond. This is probably the best scoring series vs Nate that anyone had:
27.8 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 0.6 apg on 48.6 %FG/52.8 %TS
1974 is combination with amazing RS (level below 1971 and 1972) and great playoffs performance. He played great in every playoff series even though he didn't win in the finals.
With 1977 I have a problem about his defense. He was clearly very impactful defender at this time (DPOY candidate) but based on what I've seen he looks worse than in Bucks. In Bucks he was more active and mobile. On the other hand he looks better on offense, draws more fouls and his moves looks more polished.
I need more opinion about his peak, but he is definitly my 3rd choice.

After them I have LeBron, but that doesn't matter right now.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I'm also curious about how good Shaq was at defending the pick and roll. If we're largely valuing his post or one-on-one defense, then I'm less confident on his impact on that end given the lack of playoff opponents he could have affected with it given the lack of scoring centers he played against, although Sabonis and Divac did not seem to impress in their respective series against Shaq.

Defending the pick and roll are wilt and shaqs 2 biggest weaknesses.

[Dr Spaceman]

I'm also curious about how good Shaq was at defending the pick and roll. If we're largely valuing his post or one-on-one defense, then I'm less confident on his impact on that end given the lack of playoff opponents he could have affected with it given the lack of scoring centers he played against, although Sabonis and Divac did not seem to impress in their respective series against Shaq.

I talked a bit about it on page 2, lots of ICE type stuff. He was pretty effective. I can break down further when I have more time

[PCProductions]

For the use of Shaq's consistency vs. the field, I would prefer not relying on arbitrary cutoffs like # of games with 55 TS% or 20 PTS and rather just use mean and standard deviation since having 19 PTS vs 20 or 54.9 TS vs 55.1 TS seems like a trivial difference.

2000 Shaq, Regular Season:
Mean PTS: 29.672, StD: 8.5
Mean TS%: 57.67, StD: 9.25

2000 Shaq, Post Season:
Mean PTS: 30.734, StD: 8.87
Mean TS%: 55.32, StD: 8.22

2009 Lebron, Regular Season:
Mean PTS: 28.438, StD: 8.75
Mean TS%: 59.47, StD: 11.40

2009 Lebron, Post Season:
Mean PTS: 35.281, StD: 7.7227
Mean TS%: 62.11, StD: 8.27

[PCProductions]

I'm also curious about how good Shaq was at defending the pick and roll. If we're largely valuing his post or one-on-one defense, then I'm less confident on his impact on that end given the lack of playoff opponents he could have affected with it given the lack of scoring centers he played against, although Sabonis and Divac did not seem to impress in their respective series against Shaq.

I talked a bit about it on page 2, lots of ICE type stuff. He was pretty effective. I can break down further when I have more time

Oh, I must have missed it. I will give it a read. Great contribution to the project thus far, Space.

[MyUniBroDavis]

1st ballot - Wilt Chamberlain - 1967

Stats:
45.5 mpg. 24.1 ppg. 21.3 TRB% (estimate) 7.8 apg. 68.%3 FG% 44.1% FT% 63.7 TS%
Playoffs:
47.9 mpg. 21.7 ppg. 23.5 TRB% (estimate) 9.0 apg. 57.9% FG% 38.8% FT% 54,6% TS%
The most dominant season ever for an individual player. Wilt anchor 76ers to the best record in NBA, 1st offense and 3rd defense (behind Russell Celtcs and Nate Warriors). He shot aburdaly good from the field (nobody averaged around 25 ppg with close to 70% FG). Also, this is the first year when Wilt didn't lead the league in ppg. Alex Hannum creates new offensive system around Wilt. He became "low-post playmaker". Average 8 apg. for a center is amazing accomplishement.
In playoffs he defeated 4 of the best players from 1960s. First is Oscar Robertson. His numbers vs Royals:
28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg on 61.2 %FG/36.4 %FT/58.6 %TS
He averaged TRIPLE DOUBLE. At center position. Nobody can do that. To be fair, Royals was a bad defensive team in 1967, but still Oscar anchors one of the best offenses in the league. In second round they faced defending champions - Celtics. Numbers:
21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6.4 bpg on 55.6 %FG/50.9 %FT/56.1 %TS
Blocks numbers are from articles/newspapers etc. Another triple double performace. Against the best defensive team in the league and the best defensive player ever. He crushes Russell in every category. In finals 76ers defeated Nate and Barry Warriors. Stats:
17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS
While stats doesn't look as impressive, he faced the best post defender ever - Nate the Great.
Besides very bad FT shooting, Wilt was great at every aspect of the game and his 76ers is still probably the greatest team in history. In playoffs he faced strong competition and played great.

I still think he would be above Shaq. Shaq didn't played in playoffs against as great team as 1967 Celtics and even Warriors are arguable better than every Shaq opponents (maybe besides Portland). When Wilt faced not great defensive team (Royals) he killed:
28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg on 61.2 %FG/36.4 %FT/58.6 %TS
28 ppg. on 59%TS isn't amazing? Add 11 apg. and this becomes unreal. Also, better rebounding numbers (evern TRB% or PER100). The only weakness Wilt had during this season were FTs, but Shaq (while better than Wilt in 2000) was also bad in this aspect.
I don't think PER100 stats are good for measuring bigman scoring from 1960s/1970s. There were over 110 possesion per game during Wilt time, but how many of them are fast breaks? Wilt didn't score on fastbreaks, he killed on low post, his game is halfcourt game. Do you really think that Wilt today would shoot under 10 times at his peak? Even with the same role as in 1966-1968? He would still have around 15 shots per game with amazing FG%.
I'm still not sure if Wilt 1967 season is his best season. In 1964 he was amazing (volume scoring) with bad teammates, in 1966 he anchored his team to the best record in the league (but his playoffs aren't as impressive), in 1968 he was the best defender in the NBA (BETTER THAN RUSSELL) but his last 2 games vs Celtics probably destroyed everything, in 1962 he played great in playoffs.
Well I still choose 1967, but it's really close (especially if you think he needs volume scoring to be above Shaq or Kareem).

2nd ballot: Shaquille O'Neil 2000
For me he must be in top 3 peaks. Dominated with not great supporting cast. Here I said something about him:

tats:
40.0 mpg. 29.7 ppg. 18.3 TRB% 3.8 apg. 0.5 spg. 3.0 bpg. 57.4% FG% 0.00 3P% 52.4 FT% 2.8 tov.
Playoffs:
43.5 mpg. 30.7 ppg. 20.4 TRB% 3.1 apg. 0.6 spg. 2.4 bpg. 56.6% FG% 0.00 3P% 45.6 FT% 2.4 tov.
Shaq at his best. Defenders denied him from the ball (triple teams WITHOUT the ball) and he still scores 30 on 60%. DPOY-level defense (one of few his consistent defensive seasons) and all-time great level rebounding. In playoffs he didn't face strong competiton besides Portland (and this serie was below his standard to be fair) but that's not his fault. One of the best final permormace ever with not great team to be fair.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 1971/1974/1977
I don't know which season is the best.
1971 is probably the best RS (2nd ever behind 1972) but he didn't play amazing in playoffs (old Wilt without 2 best teammates arguably outplayed him). Still, he f2 of the best post defenders ever (Wilt and Nate) and his performace vs Warriors is the best of all series against Thurmond. This is probably the best scoring series vs Nate that anyone had:
27.8 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 0.6 apg on 48.6 %FG/52.8 %TS
1974 is combination with amazing RS (level below 1971 and 1972) and great playoffs performance. He played great in every playoff series even though he didn't win in the finals.
With 1977 I have a problem about his defense. He was clearly very impactful defender at this time (DPOY candidate) but based on what I've seen he looks worse than in Bucks. In Bucks he was more active and mobile. On the other hand he looks better on offense, draws more fouls and his moves looks more polished.
I need more opinion about his peak, but he is definitly my 3rd choice.

After them I have LeBron, but that doesn't matter right now.

I would actually argue that the Celtics were a very "strange" team in the playoffs.
looking at their game 7s, season by season, not counting teams where wilt was on
I mean, in their first season, they were 44-28, and they went to game 7 against the 34-38 hawks.
the next year, they were 49-23, and they lost to the 41-31 hawks. (down 3-1 with Russell)
The next year, at 52-20, they went to game 7 against the 35-37 Nationals
The next year at 59-16, they went to game 7 against the 46-29 hawks
the next year they went 4-1 4-1
the next year, at 60-20, they went 7 games against the 54-26 lakers. not a huge difference this time, but a difference still.
The next year, at 58-22, they went to game 7 against the 42-38 royals.
the next year, they went 4-1 4-1
the next year 4-1
the next year, at 54-26, they went to 5 games (in a 5 game playoff format, this was a 3 round postseason) against 45-35 royals, and went to 7 against the lakers with the same record.
the next year was when they lost to the celtics. they won 3-1 against the 36-45 knicks.
the margins of victory were 30, 7, 11 (knicks), and 9.
next year was 4-2 4-2
next year game 7 against the lakers.

also, I would assume the matchup between Wilt and Russell distracted Russell from off-ball duties.


On average, despite averaging a solid but not perfect 55 wins overall (around 57 considering how many games were played per season), other than wilt led teams, in the game 7s they went up against, the opponent usually had around 44 wins (47 ish counting how many games were played per season)

[70sFan]

1st ballot - Wilt Chamberlain - 1967

Stats:
45.5 mpg. 24.1 ppg. 21.3 TRB% (estimate) 7.8 apg. 68.%3 FG% 44.1% FT% 63.7 TS%
Playoffs:
47.9 mpg. 21.7 ppg. 23.5 TRB% (estimate) 9.0 apg. 57.9% FG% 38.8% FT% 54,6% TS%
The most dominant season ever for an individual player. Wilt anchor 76ers to the best record in NBA, 1st offense and 3rd defense (behind Russell Celtcs and Nate Warriors). He shot aburdaly good from the field (nobody averaged around 25 ppg with close to 70% FG). Also, this is the first year when Wilt didn't lead the league in ppg. Alex Hannum creates new offensive system around Wilt. He became "low-post playmaker". Average 8 apg. for a center is amazing accomplishement.
In playoffs he defeated 4 of the best players from 1960s. First is Oscar Robertson. His numbers vs Royals:
28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg on 61.2 %FG/36.4 %FT/58.6 %TS
He averaged TRIPLE DOUBLE. At center position. Nobody can do that. To be fair, Royals was a bad defensive team in 1967, but still Oscar anchors one of the best offenses in the league. In second round they faced defending champions - Celtics. Numbers:
21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6.4 bpg on 55.6 %FG/50.9 %FT/56.1 %TS
Blocks numbers are from articles/newspapers etc. Another triple double performace. Against the best defensive team in the league and the best defensive player ever. He crushes Russell in every category. In finals 76ers defeated Nate and Barry Warriors. Stats:
17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS
While stats doesn't look as impressive, he faced the best post defender ever - Nate the Great.
Besides very bad FT shooting, Wilt was great at every aspect of the game and his 76ers is still probably the greatest team in history. In playoffs he faced strong competition and played great.

I still think he would be above Shaq. Shaq didn't played in playoffs against as great team as 1967 Celtics and even Warriors are arguable better than every Shaq opponents (maybe besides Portland). When Wilt faced not great defensive team (Royals) he killed:
28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg on 61.2 %FG/36.4 %FT/58.6 %TS
28 ppg. on 59%TS isn't amazing? Add 11 apg. and this becomes unreal. Also, better rebounding numbers (evern TRB% or PER100). The only weakness Wilt had during this season were FTs, but Shaq (while better than Wilt in 2000) was also bad in this aspect.
I don't think PER100 stats are good for measuring bigman scoring from 1960s/1970s. There were over 110 possesion per game during Wilt time, but how many of them are fast breaks? Wilt didn't score on fastbreaks, he killed on low post, his game is halfcourt game. Do you really think that Wilt today would shoot under 10 times at his peak? Even with the same role as in 1966-1968? He would still have around 15 shots per game with amazing FG%.
I'm still not sure if Wilt 1967 season is his best season. In 1964 he was amazing (volume scoring) with bad teammates, in 1966 he anchored his team to the best record in the league (but his playoffs aren't as impressive), in 1968 he was the best defender in the NBA (BETTER THAN RUSSELL) but his last 2 games vs Celtics probably destroyed everything, in 1962 he played great in playoffs.
Well I still choose 1967, but it's really close (especially if you think he needs volume scoring to be above Shaq or Kareem).

2nd ballot: Shaquille O'Neil 2000
For me he must be in top 3 peaks. Dominated with not great supporting cast. Here I said something about him:

tats:
40.0 mpg. 29.7 ppg. 18.3 TRB% 3.8 apg. 0.5 spg. 3.0 bpg. 57.4% FG% 0.00 3P% 52.4 FT% 2.8 tov.
Playoffs:
43.5 mpg. 30.7 ppg. 20.4 TRB% 3.1 apg. 0.6 spg. 2.4 bpg. 56.6% FG% 0.00 3P% 45.6 FT% 2.4 tov.
Shaq at his best. Defenders denied him from the ball (triple teams WITHOUT the ball) and he still scores 30 on 60%. DPOY-level defense (one of few his consistent defensive seasons) and all-time great level rebounding. In playoffs he didn't face strong competiton besides Portland (and this serie was below his standard to be fair) but that's not his fault. One of the best final permormace ever with not great team to be fair.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 1971/1974/1977
I don't know which season is the best.
1971 is probably the best RS (2nd ever behind 1972) but he didn't play amazing in playoffs (old Wilt without 2 best teammates arguably outplayed him). Still, he f2 of the best post defenders ever (Wilt and Nate) and his performace vs Warriors is the best of all series against Thurmond. This is probably the best scoring series vs Nate that anyone had:
27.8 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 0.6 apg on 48.6 %FG/52.8 %TS
1974 is combination with amazing RS (level below 1971 and 1972) and great playoffs performance. He played great in every playoff series even though he didn't win in the finals.
With 1977 I have a problem about his defense. He was clearly very impactful defender at this time (DPOY candidate) but based on what I've seen he looks worse than in Bucks. In Bucks he was more active and mobile. On the other hand he looks better on offense, draws more fouls and his moves looks more polished.
I need more opinion about his peak, but he is definitly my 3rd choice.

After them I have LeBron, but that doesn't matter right now.

I would actually argue that the Celtics were a very "strange" team in the playoffs.
looking at their game 7s, season by season, not counting teams where wilt was on
I mean, in their first season, they were 44-28, and they went to game 7 against the 34-38 hawks.
the next year, they were 49-23, and they lost to the 41-31 hawks. (down 3-1 with Russell)
The next year, at 52-20, they went to game 7 against the 35-37 Nationals
The next year at 59-16, they went to game 7 against the 46-29 hawks
the next year they went 4-1 4-1
the next year, at 60-20, they went 7 games against the 54-26 lakers. not a huge difference this time, but a difference still.
The next year, at 58-22, they went to game 7 against the 42-38 royals.
the next year, they went 4-1 4-1
the next year 4-1
the next year, at 54-26, they went to 5 games (in a 5 game playoff format, this was a 3 round postseason) against 45-35 royals, and went to 7 against the lakers with the same record.
the next year was when they lost to the celtics. they won 3-1 against the 36-45 knicks.
the margins of victory were 30, 7, 11 (knicks), and 9.
next year was 4-2 4-2
next year game 7 against the lakers.

also, I would assume the matchup between Wilt and Russell distracted Russell from off-ball duties.


On average, despite averaging a solid but not perfect 55 wins overall (around 57 considering how many games were played per season), other than wilt led teams, in the game 7s they went up against, the opponent usually had around 44 wins (47 ish counting how many games were played per season)

There were less teams in the league during this time, so winning 45-50 wasn't the same as it is today.

[MyUniBroDavis]

1st ballot - Wilt Chamberlain - 1967

I still think he would be above Shaq. Shaq didn't played in playoffs against as great team as 1967 Celtics and even Warriors are arguable better than every Shaq opponents (maybe besides Portland). When Wilt faced not great defensive team (Royals) he killed:
28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg on 61.2 %FG/36.4 %FT/58.6 %TS
28 ppg. on 59%TS isn't amazing? Add 11 apg. and this becomes unreal. Also, better rebounding numbers (evern TRB% or PER100). The only weakness Wilt had during this season were FTs, but Shaq (while better than Wilt in 2000) was also bad in this aspect.
I don't think PER100 stats are good for measuring bigman scoring from 1960s/1970s. There were over 110 possesion per game during Wilt time, but how many of them are fast breaks? Wilt didn't score on fastbreaks, he killed on low post, his game is halfcourt game. Do you really think that Wilt today would shoot under 10 times at his peak? Even with the same role as in 1966-1968? He would still have around 15 shots per game with amazing FG%.
I'm still not sure if Wilt 1967 season is his best season. In 1964 he was amazing (volume scoring) with bad teammates, in 1966 he anchored his team to the best record in the league (but his playoffs aren't as impressive), in 1968 he was the best defender in the NBA (BETTER THAN RUSSELL) but his last 2 games vs Celtics probably destroyed everything, in 1962 he played great in playoffs.
Well I still choose 1967, but it's really close (especially if you think he needs volume scoring to be above Shaq or Kareem).

2nd ballot: Shaquille O'Neil 2000
For me he must be in top 3 peaks. Dominated with not great supporting cast. Here I said something about him:


Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 1971/1974/1977
I don't know which season is the best.
1971 is probably the best RS (2nd ever behind 1972) but he didn't play amazing in playoffs (old Wilt without 2 best teammates arguably outplayed him). Still, he f2 of the best post defenders ever (Wilt and Nate) and his performace vs Warriors is the best of all series against Thurmond. This is probably the best scoring series vs Nate that anyone had:
27.8 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 0.6 apg on 48.6 %FG/52.8 %TS
1974 is combination with amazing RS (level below 1971 and 1972) and great playoffs performance. He played great in every playoff series even though he didn't win in the finals.
With 1977 I have a problem about his defense. He was clearly very impactful defender at this time (DPOY candidate) but based on what I've seen he looks worse than in Bucks. In Bucks he was more active and mobile. On the other hand he looks better on offense, draws more fouls and his moves looks more polished.
I need more opinion about his peak, but he is definitly my 3rd choice.

After them I have LeBron, but that doesn't matter right now.

I would actually argue that the Celtics were a very "strange" team in the playoffs.
looking at their game 7s, season by season, not counting teams where wilt was on
I mean, in their first season, they were 44-28, and they went to game 7 against the 34-38 hawks.
the next year, they were 49-23, and they lost to the 41-31 hawks. (down 3-1 with Russell)
The next year, at 52-20, they went to game 7 against the 35-37 Nationals
The next year at 59-16, they went to game 7 against the 46-29 hawks
the next year they went 4-1 4-1
the next year, at 60-20, they went 7 games against the 54-26 lakers. not a huge difference this time, but a difference still.
The next year, at 58-22, they went to game 7 against the 42-38 royals.
the next year, they went 4-1 4-1
the next year 4-1
the next year, at 54-26, they went to 5 games (in a 5 game playoff format, this was a 3 round postseason) against 45-35 royals, and went to 7 against the lakers with the same record.
the next year was when they lost to the celtics. they won 3-1 against the 36-45 knicks.
the margins of victory were 30, 7, 11 (knicks), and 9.
next year was 4-2 4-2
next year game 7 against the lakers.

also, I would assume the matchup between Wilt and Russell distracted Russell from off-ball duties.


On average, despite averaging a solid but not perfect 55 wins overall (around 57 considering how many games were played per season), other than wilt led teams, in the game 7s they went up against, the opponent usually had around 44 wins (47 ish counting how many games were played per season)

There were less teams in the league during this time, so winning 45-50 wasn't the same as it is today.

Wouldnt that make the 11 win difference even more pronounced?

nevertheless, 4 of their game 7s in this sample were against teams below 500, or barely surrpassing it, still indicating that they were middle of the pack teams.

[PaulieWal]

Agreed. Lebron is just not that great when he does not have the ball. Accordingly, when Wade was still his very good self (2011), they just did not mesh well together because these two were both ball dominant and thus did not have much synergy. Now, let's assume that Lebron teamed up with dominant low post threats like Olajuwon. What would happen then? Lebron would throw it into the post and just wait for Olajuwon to do his thing. Given that Lebron is not the greatest 3point shooter, or a jumpshooter, the open shots that Lebron will get are not going to enhance his game as opposed to someone like Curry or Ray Allen or Kobe.

The fact of the matter is that we have never seen a dominant Lebron team akin to what we have seen from Jordan or Shaq. I think that is because with Lebron on your team, it is very easy to build a good team (even if everyone else is a scrub) but it is very difficult to build a great juggernaut.

I don't agree with this.

LeBron was actually one of the best catch and shoot players in the league in 2013, 2014. His off-ball game was actually pretty good after 2012.

Wade and LeBron took a season to figure it out and by 2012 knew how to play with each other. After 2011 their main problems were not 'fit' IMO, it was the health of the team and Wade's knees. The peak of that Heat team was the 27 game win streak. I'd also say that they would have had an easier time winning the title in 2013 if Wade hadn't injured his knee towards the end of the season/win streak. The Heat had it figured out how to play with Wade/James by surrounding them with Chalmers/Allen/Battier/Bosh.

I'd also say that saying if you team up LeBron would Olajuwon his game would be enhanced. For one if you are pairing a prime LeBron with another superstar or any two superstars in their prime in general, I am pretty sure eventually they will figure it out how to play with each other. Hell I'd even say that if Wade and LeBron had paired up in 09 instead of 2011 they would have probably won more titles and won them without going to 7 against so many teams.

You can't just project superstar pairings in a vacuum. Why would LeBron not adjust to playing with Hakeem and do the things he started doing after 2011 with Wade?

[70sFan]

I would actually argue that the Celtics were a very "strange" team in the playoffs.
looking at their game 7s, season by season, not counting teams where wilt was on
I mean, in their first season, they were 44-28, and they went to game 7 against the 34-38 hawks.
the next year, they were 49-23, and they lost to the 41-31 hawks. (down 3-1 with Russell)
The next year, at 52-20, they went to game 7 against the 35-37 Nationals
The next year at 59-16, they went to game 7 against the 46-29 hawks
the next year they went 4-1 4-1
the next year, at 60-20, they went 7 games against the 54-26 lakers. not a huge difference this time, but a difference still.
The next year, at 58-22, they went to game 7 against the 42-38 royals.
the next year, they went 4-1 4-1
the next year 4-1
the next year, at 54-26, they went to 5 games (in a 5 game playoff format, this was a 3 round postseason) against 45-35 royals, and went to 7 against the lakers with the same record.
the next year was when they lost to the celtics. they won 3-1 against the 36-45 knicks.
the margins of victory were 30, 7, 11 (knicks), and 9.
next year was 4-2 4-2
next year game 7 against the lakers.

also, I would assume the matchup between Wilt and Russell distracted Russell from off-ball duties.


On average, despite averaging a solid but not perfect 55 wins overall (around 57 considering how many games were played per season), other than wilt led teams, in the game 7s they went up against, the opponent usually had around 44 wins (47 ish counting how many games were played per season)

There were less teams in the league during this time, so winning 45-50 wasn't the same as it is today.

Wouldnt that make the 11 win difference even more pronounced?

nevertheless, 4 of their game 7s in this sample were against teams below 500, or barely surrpassing it, still indicating that they were middle of the pack teams.

Yes, but how does it change that Wilt played amazing vs GOAT defensive team and GOAT defender almost every time (besides 1968 and 1969) he faced them in the playoffs?

[MyUniBroDavis]

There were less teams in the league during this time, so winning 45-50 wasn't the same as it is today.

Wouldnt that make the 11 win difference even more pronounced?

nevertheless, 4 of their game 7s in this sample were against teams below 500, or barely surrpassing it, still indicating that they were middle of the pack teams.

Yes, but how does it change that Wilt played amazing vs GOAT defensive team and GOAT defender almost every time (besides 1968 and 1969) he faced them in the playoffs?

Well, granted, in 1967, compared to their peers in DRTG points better than average, they were at their 3rd worst in the Russell era, including Russell's rookie year.

They were still a monstrosity of a defense, but 4.8 points better than average on DRTG is "human" if you know what I mean lol.

[70sFan]

Wouldnt that make the 11 win difference even more pronounced?

nevertheless, 4 of their game 7s in this sample were against teams below 500, or barely surrpassing it, still indicating that they were middle of the pack teams.

Yes, but how does it change that Wilt played amazing vs GOAT defensive team and GOAT defender almost every time (besides 1968 and 1969) he faced them in the playoffs?

Well, granted, in 1967, compared to their peers in DRTG points better than average, they were at their 3rd worst in the Russell era, including Russell's rookie year.

They were still a monstrosity of a defense, but 4.8 points better than average on DRTG is "human" if you know what I mean lol.

Yeah, that's not the best Russell team, definitely. But still this is impressive

[yoyoboy]

I'm really busy with classes and work today, but I should be able to get my response up around 5 today.

Heads up, I started working on my piece last night, and it'll probably end up being fairly long, but I think I can bring up some interesting points.