Peaks project update: #1

[Bel]

Some general thoughts:

My first vote is on 91 MJ with Shaq at #2, but that may well change. Colbinii and Joey Wheeler both had really good arguments for Duncan and Bird. Both are clearly top 5 players at the very least. I would argue actually that Bird is the best scaling offensive player: offensive goat seems certainly fair. Jordan provides a respectable low turnover offense with even with the worst supporting cast in the league, and Lebron provides great all around offense with just average hustle and catch and shoot players. But Larry is unique in that you can keep adding any kind of talent around him, and there's no need for excuses of 'x is a 3rd/4th option of course his production will suffer a lot' because everyone thrives instead. Larry barely touches the ball, gets everyone in a rhythm and playing really hard, the ball moves constantly and he still makes an enormous tangible impact. The 86 Celtics had all time team assist levels despite having imo a pretty mediocre coach.

Two questions on 2003 Duncan: on paper his supporting cast is beyond abysmal besides Bowen, and winning just seems so utterly improbable. How strong were the Lakers really that year, and did the Spurs have a strong momentum even if Dirk hadn't gotten injured? I'm in Duncan's favor on both questions (the Laker's were still quite good when Shaq healed and they stop coasting, and they had a good shot vs the Mavs either way), but I think they should be asked since I might be biased just because I like Duncan a lot.

I confess I'm rather uncertain on how to rank the peaks of the goat leaders (Russell/Duncan), since most of their leadership actions is summarized in aggregate rather than dated to one specific season or years. Has anyone found specific anecdotes of them linked to specific years? Russell could be as high as #1 to me or in the 4-6 range depending on how much he made his teammates better and kept the drive going, but it seems so hard to tell.

I think it is reasonable to ask the people that post a very unorthodox choice to substantially back it up, like some other posters have done so far. If the reasoning and evidence is really strong, well hey that's great. I definitely don't think Lebron is anywhere near a lock for the top 3: a lot of his career value comes from his superhuman durability and disciplined maintenance of his body, putting up top prime seasons year after year. So he can still have a slightly lower peak but still be one of the best ever players anyway. Lastly, I don't think 2009 Lebron is a reasonable choice here compared to either 2012 or 2013. If Lebron is to be excused for losing in certain years like 2015 because of injuries to his #2 (quite reasonably), then he cannot get a pass for losing to Dwight Howard who is missing his #2 to injury. The Cavs played great in the first half in the initial 5 games but collapsed every time in the second half despite being the deepest team in the league, melted down in game 6, and did not play like the same RS team in a lot of subtle ways. The same stats don't always translate to the same impact. Without inside accounts its tough to know what really happened, but something was not right.

I've seen some votes for different MJ seasons. I've watched 89-91 Jordan seasons quite substantially: I think purely on terms of oncourt play, 91/90 are very similar while 89 is a bit behind. In 89 Jordan still tried to force things too often rather than playing in the rhythm and lacked the strength to withstand all the punishment. I think that 90 Jordan is slightly faster with better stamina than 91 Jordan But the marginal on-court advantage is outweighed by by the improvement in leadership ability in 91. Ultimately we must remember that Jordan played fantastic and the Bulls lost in 90 because Paxson was out and the remaining Bulls players choked horribly against a better and menacing team. That's not Jordan's fault, but its his responsibility as a leader. And he ramped up the intensity, improved his connections/trust with teammates, and thus fixed that the next year, where everyone played with confidence and poise. i,e Pippen laughed when the Bad Boys tried to get under his skin in 91, their team offense was in sync, they didn't shrink after a tough game 1 in the finals, and MJ got more done with less effort. The one thing 89 has for it is the fantastic caliber of playoff opponents relative to the Bulls cast, but in 91 the Lakers beat a very good Blazers team to reach the finals. Jordan posted better stats in 89 and his playmaking was really elite, but a lot of that is because he held the ball a lot more than the next few years. Better stats doesn't always translate to better impact.

Euroleague, can you explain why you'd put 62 Wilt over 67?

[Timmyyy]

Ok come on, I will give my vote and worry about the rest later.

Really love to see Timmy getting that much love from Colbinii, great write up. I think he is underappreciated for peak even though he doesn't make my first ballot.

I think at the top it is just so crowded but I have the feeling that there are two guys looking a small step ahead at their absolute best. These guys are Lebron and MJ for me. I used to have Shaq in this group too until yesterday but had the feeling I might have overlooked something when I evaluated him. With my new analysis he might be closer to the Kareem Russell TD Wilt Hakeem group.

Lebron just had a phenomenal impact on the game in his peak years and we have the RAPM data to support that claim. Comparing it to the other contenders we have the data of it seems that he was the guy that had the best RAPM values no matter what data set or year of his peak contenders you are looking at. The only other guys that have somewhat comparable years are only Duncan, KG and Shaq at their perceived peak for only one data set I have each. It shows to me that from a pure +/- standpoint his peak is comfortably above everybody in the RAPM era.
Comparing him to Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem and Russell is tougher but knowing what I know I have Lebron as the clearly best offensive player of the bunch with a pretty big margin (coming from an impact POV not boxscore). Sure all these guys have a big gap on defense too but looking at his defensive impact he always was somewhat of a +2-+3 at his peak and I don't think anybody can beat that combined with a contender for best offensive player ever.

MJ is in a similar boat. Looking how the Bulls in 91 did I can't help but think that their ATG offense was driven to an insane level by MJ especially since he upped his game in the PO and the offense became even better. Their defense was great too and while I see MJ as 'only' a perimeter defender he was a really important part to that D. Have a hard time seeing anyone having that great impact except Lebron.

On that last spot I wasn't quite sure. I thought Shaq but saw that I maybe had a misconception on his D that year. I mean in the RS his D was low level DPOY candidate. In the PO's on the other hand the Lakers D was seriously bad. The fall is so significant that I can't get my head around other than that the defensive anchor played a lot worse (I think the eye test might not agree with a lot but his intensity seemed a little lower because of the concentration on offense). TD and Kareem seem close to me. Russell and Wilt too.

Finally my ballot:

1. Lebron 2009: Over MJ because I have MJ as the slightly better offensive player and Lebron as the better defender by a little more because he was able to act as a secondary rim protector or even primary rim protector in a shared role.

2. MJ 1991: Explanaition why I have him above the rest is above.

3. Shaq 2000: Still went with him. In my opinion the best offensive big by a rather clear margin and in this year his D was on a great level. The other guys have a huge margin on D too but offensively I see it a little bigger.

Again have to agree with Colbinii that it would be nice to see more discussion than straight voting.

Since I am unsure about my 3. place vote ever since I voted, I would like to hear your opinion on Shaq vs Timmy vs Kareem mainly, which I struggle with most right now. For sure comparisons of other contenders for that last spot with the ones I mentioned would also be helpful but there I have a better idea where I see them against each other.

Edit My thoughts.

Kareem 74. Somewhat the only comparable big on offense to Shaq in my opinion. Even has a lot of things he is better than Shaq. But I see Shaq as a Curry of the big men. I don't think his gravity effect was ever matched, even though others had the effect too but smaller. In the end I see the offensive gap in favor of Shaq as small but clear. The 74 Bucks had a great offense for the 70's both RS and PO with Kareem being the clearly most important guy.
That was Kareems best year defensively imo. The Bucks that year had the best RS defense and 2nd best PO D and Kareem was the clear anchor of it and I see his defensive Impact way better than Shaq.
Comparing it to Shaq I might get to the point where I see the defensive gap as bigger than the offensive one.

Tim Duncan 2003. We have impact stats from these years and both Timmy and Shaq look killer at their peaks and absolutely comparable. I see Shaq better in the regular season but really can see Duncan as better in the PO because the defensive gap becomes gigantic and the offensive gap doesn't seem to widen because both Timmy and Shaq went nuts offensively these PO. Since I value PO high I really see a good case for Duncan being in front too.


I'm really thinking about changing my vote there.

[70sFan]

Since I am unsure about my 3. place vote ever since I voted, I would like to hear your opinion on Shaq vs Timmy vs Kareem mainly, which I struggle with most right now. For sure comparisons of other contenders for that last spot with the ones I mentioned would also be helpful but there I have a better idea where I see them against each other.

I'm really thinking about changing my vote there.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using RealGM mobile app

I will try to post my top 3 and touch this topic a bit within next 10 hours. More discussion and less voting is always better for project like this

[Timmyyy]

Since I am unsure about my 3. place vote ever since I voted, I would like to hear your opinion on Shaq vs Timmy vs Kareem mainly, which I struggle with most right now. For sure comparisons of other contenders for that last spot with the ones I mentioned would also be helpful but there I have a better idea where I see them against each other.

I'm really thinking about changing my vote there.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using RealGM mobile app

I will try to post my top 3 and touch this topic a bit within next 10 hours. More discussion and less voting is always better for project like this

I'm looking forward to it, really respect and love your posts. I edited my post to give my own thoughts to start the discussion.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using RealGM mobile app

[penbeast0]

This goes for everyone involved. Do not call out or attack other posters. You can explain why your choices are valid or another set of choices are incorrect but when you talk about the poster, rather than the post you are violating the Code of Conduct for the board.

And, if you see it, let the mods deal with it.

[No-more-rings]

Imagine not having lebron in your top 3, T H R E E. Don't even get me started on kobe 05 06 i ring better than any lbj/mj season ever, or 1972 kareem goat season.
Be better guys, this isnt looking good

What's the point of doing this if you have certain set of expectations? What's this attitude?

Miss me with that. I'm not down to run this if I gotta see kobe at #3 all time (over Jordan and lbj) and that type of stuff. Its important to clear this up before we go. No biased/hippie/alternative/dumb/nostalgic takes here. Your vote fits those categories easily. This applies to not having lebron in a top 3 peak seasons too but Ima let that go. Sorry to hurt your feelings but.
Btw I have set expectations because the vast majority of things about basketball are known and accepted. If you think that kobe 05-06 is better than every version of Jordan and lebron, you are wrong. If you think that KG Played the goat season (I purposedly chose a forum darling with a great peak) you are wrong, and not only that, I think you are at fault for not Being super-partes, be it because you are Biased or because you like hippie takes

Only one poster voted Kobe over Lebron, and it will probably be the only one, unless unbiased fan or G35 join the project.

[Dr Positivity]

1. Lebron James 2013

His game is perfect on offense with driving, passing, post up/finishing, and also 40% 3pt while spacing the floor and causing mismatches. Plus he is great on defense. I have PF Lebron as the best version and he had a short window between that and starting to slow down on defense and this was the year.

2. Michael Jordan 1990

Jordan is the best playoff scorer ever not just due to his numbers but because his game works against any defense as you can't stop the midrange. Clearly a two way player and playmaker. In 1990 his 3pt shot is falling and he is one year closer to his peak years athletically and on defense and Jackson's system is already in place. Unless I see a convincing argument otherwise I'm not going to be a slave to the year the Bulls won the title.

3. Wilt Chamberlain 1967

Wilt is one of the best defending and passing big man of all time this year, which automatically gives him a high baseline of value. Scoring wise he is super efficient and picks his spots. I don't consider Wilt as valuable a scorer as players like Kareem and Shaq but his non-scoring impact is really high this year. He does well in the playoffs and beats the greatest dynasty ever.

New votes with the rule change

1. Lebron James 2013
2. Lebron James 2012
3. Michael Jordan 1990

[pandrade83]

For me, the #1 choice is Wilt ('67). Apex properly motivated Wilt is a destroyer of worlds. He led Philly to the most wins (at the time) ever with a sterling 68-13, & weren't really challenged in the playoffs. This version of Wilt combined (imo) the GOAT athlete who defended at a high level, scored hyperefficiently, and was an elite anchor/playmaker for others.

My #2 choice is Jordan - and I think a reasonable person could go with anything from '88-'91. I'll go with the '89 season because he overcame a couple formidable teams without much help, came fairly close to toppling Detroit and was hyperefficient without anyone else to help carry the load.

My #3 choice is Lebron ('13). I think this version contains his best blend of BBIQ and athleticism. Getting that Heat team to 66 wins is pretty remarkable.

[euroleague]

1. Wilt 62 - Wilt in 62 was quite obviously the greatest regular season scoring clinic ever put on in terms of volume. His eFG% was also elite. Often times scoring is a key factor in our rankings, and we value players who can maintain efficiency or score just slightly higher than average efficiency while scoring at double the average starter’s volume and rank them as elite scorers. Wilt in 62 isn't one of those cases. He scored 50ppg on 50.6% EFG when the league average was 42.6%. That’s roughly equivalent to 45ppg today on 60% eFG. Think about that for a minute.

While that efficiency isn't Wilt's best year, it should be noted he was only 9% and 5% below LBJ's and MJ's best years (2013 and 1991) while the league average was 7% and 6% higher. To state that more clearly - Wilt scored 50.4 ppg at about 2% lower relative EFG than LBJ scored 26.8 ppg, except Wilt did it without any prime all-stars on a team that wasn't strong compared to the league average. Off-ball impact? Wilt was one of the greatest defensive forces in the league, and averaged 26rpg while being unstoppable on the glass offensively and defensively. He doesn't have the playmaking of MJ or LBJ, but his other strengths (rebounding, rim protection, physically unstoppable) are greater than theirs. His volume is also so absurd at 40% of his team's total, that nobody since then has come even close to touching that - KD was an MVP based almost solely on his scoring, but he was nothing in volume or efficiency compared to Wilt. Wilt scored on a volume and efficiency that makes it almost unfair to compare others to him in the regular season.

The only reason there is even some debate over the top season is because of Wilt's playoffs. He is often criticized as not enough of a 'team player' to beat Russell. They note Russell's team impact. While I don't want to make this post too much about Russell, I will mention that the 6th best player on the Celtics was arguably better than the 3rd best on the Philadelphia Warriors, and they still went to 7 games and lost by 2 points in the decider.

On him "choking".

LBJ 13 playoff average 53% eFG, LBJ 13 Regular season average 60% eFG
MJ 91 playoff average 54% eFG, MJ 91 regular season average 55% eFG
Wilt 62 playoff average 47% eFG, Wilt 62 regular season average 50% eFG

To put that into perspective, Wilt's average in efficiency dropped less than LBJ's and the same amount as MJ's in their peak. The main difference is Wilt was defended by Bill Russell during more than half of his playoff games.

Furthermore, he's criticized about volume - however, his team's ppg dropped from 125 to 105 in the playoffs because of a pace decrease. So, while his points did drop off slightly from 50ppg/125ppg to 35ppg/105ppg, from 40% of his team to 33% of his team, that argument doesn't hold up - LBJ's and MJ's scoring never even reached 30%.

To finish this playoff summary off, he increased his rebounding average greatly despite the pace going down. His rebounding this series was, while not his best series, still one of the greatest rebounding series ever considering the competition.

To summarize what I've stated so far: Wilt scored on far greater volume, had a greater scoring %, and for the most part had better scoring outside of FTs than MJ/LBJ.

TS% - FT Shooting: FT shooting has become the darling of advanced analytics, and is often used by many great scorers to get to the line and effectively lead their teams. On the flipside, many players are fouled to go to the line intentionally because their FT shooting isn't as dangerous as their scoring in the flow of the game.

I would argue that these analytics don't due justice to great scorers who can't shoot the FT well - by deflating their TS% and increasing their scoring volume, while simultaneously fouling out opposing teams best players or taking out the opposing teams best player because of foul trouble. These players still score at percentages higher than almost any of their competitor's TS%, but often have weaker TS% because of their low FT% and the fact that they are often at the line. High TS% is good, but getting to the line is almost always better than making the 2 pointer - because it puts other teams over the foul limit, hurts who they can have on the floor, and saves your team energy in scoring that they can put into defense.

Because of this flaw in the analytics system, many rankings systems value points over getting to the line and drawing fouls, and effectively "punishes" players who shoot slightly above the league average TS% at the FT line despite this being a net positive for the team.

If we take FTs out of the equation, it's obvious Wilt was a greatly superior scorer to any of the others in this debate. I argue that FTs drawn that are completed at the league TS% level are in fact a net positive greater than scoring, regardless of whether it lower's that individual's TS%, because of the team-wide benefits it has in reaching the foul limit and effecting the players the other team can put on the court because of foul trouble.

That being said, if we discount the seemingly flawed criticism over FTs and playoff scoring, Wilt in 62 had superior scoring, rebounding, and defense to any of the other contestants except Hakeem Olajuwon's Defense. Thus, I vote the "Greatest and Most Dominant Season in the NBA since 1960" should go to Wilt.

2. Shaq 00 - Perhaps the most unstoppable scoring machine of all time. Many have much of the same arguments over FTs as they did with Wilt, and I've already established why him drawing fouls should be considered a positive. The most compelling aspect of his scoring isn't his volume, however - the way he completely warps defenses to help his team without even touching the ball that makes him such a great offensive player. When LBJ goes to the hoop, he can often draw a second defender and give a few seconds opening to a teammate. Shaq on the floor has the same effect, except he has it every time he touches the ball up until he passes it and oftentimes when he doesn't have the ball but is in position because of his proximity to the hoop. He creates a system where his teammates will almost always get easy shots - not just for a few seconds while he is driving, but for the entirety of the time he is on the floor. On top of that, he's obviously an elite scorer, he was an elite rebounder and defender this year, and lastly his passing was very solid and he excelled in finding the open guy for dish-outs. His 'off-ball' impact is easily the greatest I've ever viewed, because of how he warps defenses simply by establishing his presence in the post. Even Hakeem Olajuwon double teamed him in 95, before he reached his peak.

Ditto my criticism of using FTs (and via FTs, TS%) as an extremely important deciding factor, for rankings at this tier.

Ultimately there will be people who don't see eye to eye with you on LeBron, don't see eye to eye with BallHogger on Kobe and don't see eye to eye with Euroleague on Wilt.

I don't see any reason to single me out, as Wilt is quite an easy GOAT peak by any stretch, and I stated plan to back up my opinion with statistics.

[Colbinii]

I don't see any reason to single me out, as Wilt is quite an easy GOAT peak by any stretch, and I stated plan to back up my opinion with statistics.

I'm using it as an example. You dont see eye to eye on LeBron with me when I "stated plan to back up my opinion with statistics."

No harm, no foul.

[Pg81]

Mavericks: 110.7 Ortg played at their pace [92.5 RS, 92.4 PS] and outscored by 30 points over the 6 game series. The Mavericks were held to a 104.0 Offense [-6.7] while the Spurs nearly matched Dallas’ season Offensive Rating in 109.4.

While I agree that 2003 Duncan was a legendary playoffs performance you should have at least mentioned that Dirk played only 2 full games that series since he got injured in the third game and the series went to 6 games. Also the Mavs were a bottom of the barrel defensive team, as usual for Don Nelson, not hard to look good on offense. I am convinced that series would have went to 7 games with Dirk had been healthy, who surprisingly grabbed almost as many defensive rebounds as Duncan did, despite his reputation of being a soft euro.

[Colbinii]

Spoiler:

1. Wilt 62 - Wilt in 62 was quite obviously the greatest regular season scoring clinic ever put on in terms of volume. His eFG% was also elite. Often times scoring is slightly over-rated, and we overvalue players who can maintain efficiency or be even slightly higher efficiency while scoring at a higher volume and rank them higher than they should. Wilt in 62 isn't one of those cases. He scored 50ppg on 50.6% EFG when the league average was 42.6%. While that efficiency isn't Wilt's best year, it should be noted he was only 9% and 5% below LBJ's and MJ's best years (2013 and 1991) while the league average was 7% and 6% higher. To state that more clearly - Wilt scored 50.4 ppg at about 2% lower EFG than LBJ scored 26.8 ppg, except Wilt did it without any all-stars on a team that wasn't strong compared to the league average without him. Off-ball impact? Wilt was one of the greatest defensive forces in the league, and averaged 26rpg while being unstoppable on the glass offensively and defensively. He doesn't have the playmaking of MJ or LBJ, but his other strengths (rebounding, rim protection, physically unstoppable) are greater than theirs.

On him "choking".

LBJ 13 playoff average 53% eFG, LBJ 13 Regular season average 60% eFG
MJ 91 playoff average 54% eFG, MJ 91 regular season average 55% eFG
Wilt 62 playoff average 47% eFG, Wilt 62 regular season average 50% eFG

To put that into perspective, Wilt's average in efficiency dropped less than LBJ's and the same amount as MJ's in their peak. The main difference is Wilt was defended by Bill Russell during more than half of his playoff games.

Furthermore, he's criticized about volume - however, his team's ppg dropped from 125 to 105 in the playoffs because of a pace decrease. So, while his points did drop off slightly from 50ppg/125ppg to 35ppg/105ppg, from 40% of his team to 33% of his team, that argument doesn't hold up - LBJ's and MJ's scoring never even reached 30%.

To summarize what I've stated so far: Wilt scored on far greater volume, had a greater scoring %, and for the most part had better scoring outside of FTs than MJ/LBJ.

It appears that you state Often times scoring is slightly over-rated, and we overvalue players who can maintain efficiency or be even slightly higher efficiency while scoring at a higher volume and rank them higher than they should. but then follow up your post with a majority of the argument being Wilt was a better scorer than LeBron/Jordan, thus is better. I find this quite odd.

You also state Wilt scored 50.4 ppg at about 2% lower EFG than LBJ scored 26.8 ppg, except Wilt did it without any all-stars on a team that wasn't strong compared to the league average without him.
Do you have any evidence that the team without wilt wasn't strong compared to league average when Wilt sat down? As far as I know we have no such data for Wilt On/Off splits, thus coming to those conclusions seems like a shot in the dark.
Why are you ignoring the fact that Paul Arzin was an all-star? Did you forget this or omit this? They also had Guy Rodgers, a player who made the all-star team in 63, 64, 66 and 67. While Guy didn't make the all-star team in 62, he blossomed after being traded to SFW in 1963. Could it be that Wilt held him back as a player in 1962? I certainly think so.

Regarding Wilt and LeBron/Jordan as driving offenses forces: Both the 2013 Heat and 1991 Bulls were top offenses in the league [Heat #2, Bulls #1] while Wilt only led the 76ers to the 4th best offense. Considering you think Wilt was a better offensive player than both of these players, why did Wilt simply fall short in leading an offense the way Jordan/LeBron could?

Now, I know your first instinct and reply will be "but teammates!", Wade missed 13 games, the Bulls had one all-star and the Warriors had one all-star. I think you are overselling the difference in talent level between these teams.

Next, I would like to make a few points about why Jordan and LeBron are [in my mind clearly] better than Wilt.

1) Led elite teams in the regular season
The Miami Heat won 66 games, played at a 7.03 SRS, won 27 games in a row at one point and had an elite offense [2nd] and good to great defense [9th].
The Chicago Bills won 61 games, played at a 8.57 SRS, and had an elite offense [1st] and good to great defense [7th].
The Philadelphia Warriros weren't close to this; won 49 games, 2.63 SRS and were middle of the pack offensively [4th/9th] and okay to good defensively [3rd/9th].

2) Drop in post-season scoring
Wilt's drop in post-season scoring was a whopping 30%! He scored 30% less points than he did in the regular season [50 to 35] while already leading a comparably talented team in the regular season to a worse performance than both James and Jordan.
LeBron and Jordan, on the other hand had the following: LeBron dropped .9 points and Jordan dropped .4 points.

3) LeBron played just as difficult teams in the post-season as Wilt
Wilt played against the 2.24 SRS Nationals and then the 8.25 SRS Celtics, both of which were take to the max games [5,7] in the series. If we compare this to LeBron's Conference Finals and Finals teams then the Heat played against the 3.34 SRS Pacers and 6.67 SRS Spurs.
However, the Nationals were without their best player in Hal Greer, who injured himself in the first 5 minutes of game 1 and missed the entire series. That injury alone likely results in the Warriors losing in the first round,

4) Wilt struggled in game 7
Simply put, Wilt put up an egg in game 7 against the Celtics with 22 Points and 22 Rebounds while rookie Tom Meschery led the Warriors with 32 points on 66 TS%.
LeBron in game 7 scored 37 points while grabbing 12 rebounds on 70 TS% for the game! He was spectacular posting on the [if not the greatest] Individual Offensive/Defensive rating for an elimination game at 144/95 [+49!].
Hell, LeBron was spectacular in game 7 against the Pacers as well, scoring 32 Points and grabbing 8 rebounds on 67 TS%! He was as spectacular as his finals game 7 with individual Offensive/Defensive rating of 142/86 [+56!].

[Colbinii]

Mavericks: 110.7 Ortg played at their pace [92.5 RS, 92.4 PS] and outscored by 30 points over the 6 game series. The Mavericks were held to a 104.0 Offense [-6.7] while the Spurs nearly matched Dallas’ season Offensive Rating in 109.4.

While I agree that 2003 Duncan was a legendary playoffs performance you should have at least mentioned that Dirk played only 2 full games that series since he got injured in the third game and the series went to 6 games. Also the Mavs were a bottom of the barrel defensive team, as usual for Don Nelson, not hard to look good on offense. I am convinced that series would have went to 7 games with Dirk had been healthy, who surprisingly grabbed almost as many defensive rebounds as Duncan did, despite his reputation of being a soft euro.

The Mavericks weren't a bottom of the barrel defensive team; they were 9th in the regular season.

The series likely does go to 7 games with Dirk, but ultimately we don't know for sure. With Dirk playing [Games 1/2] the Spurs were putting up a 116 Offensive Rating while the Mavericks were at 112. What happened with the Dirk injury is the Spurs decided to slow down the game [95/101 Pace first two games -- 92, 86, 89, 91 remaining 4 games]. The bigger question [which really doesn't relate to this project] is determining whether the Spurs decided to slow the game down because of the firepower of Dallas or because Dirk was injured. I like to think it is the first of the two; Spurs getting back to Spurs basketball.

Dirk has always been a good defensive rebounder. During the regular season Dirk was at 25% while Duncan was at 27%. This really isn't a surprise to anyone who has watched Dirk, especially young Dirk. No need to throw in comments about "Despite his reputation a soft euro" because nobody in this particular project lacks the knowledge to make such foolish claims.

[penbeast0]

...While I don't want to make this post too much about Russell, I will mention that the 6th best player on the Celtics was arguably better than the 3rd best on the Philadelphia Warriors....

Let's actually look at that claim since many people make it constantly. 62 was one of the few Warrior years where Wilt actually had upgraded to a league average PF (Tom Meschery who feasted in the playoffs for 20 ppg on his man leaving him to double Wilt but was a decent player -- if an early pot smoking Waltonesque hippie figure).

Wilt
2. Arizin
3. Gola (for regular season, he was injured and almost completely ineffective in the playoffs)
4. Meschery
5. Attles
6. Rodgers

Team went only 6 deep, even with Gola limping, they didn't use a 7th man in the playoffs much

Russell
2. Sam Jones
3. Cousy (as usual for the Russell era, he was completely unable to shoot against playoff defenses)
4. Sanders
5. Heinsohn (Celtics leading scorer but with little defense and poor playoffs, I'm not a fan)
6. Ramsey (in the playoffs, probably the 3rd best player on the team)
7. KC Jones


In the regular season, I'd consider Arizin (good scoring and defense with foul draw making up for the league passing his 50s star game) and Gola (great rebounding guard with good playmaking and defense, some scoring but not where he makes his impact) to be roughly equivalent to Cousy and Jones (much stronger defense, Cousy's continued shooting efficiency issues were worse than Arizin's in terms of 50s stars translating to the 60s but still a high volume assist generator). I'd also take Gola over anyone else on the Celtics pretty easily for the 1962 regular season.

In the playoffs, you have a case as Sanders, who most people would put as 6th best, is reasonably equivalent to Attles (strong defensive roleplayers who don't bring much offensively). However, I'd take playoffs Meschery over playoff Heinsohn (equivalent scoring volume but Meschery is a better rebounder and defender) so I'd say your contention is still pretty false.

The Celtics always did have better deep depth and prior to this year, the PF forward slot on the Warriors was something of a black hole for Wilt but you are grossly overstating the Russell supporting cast and understating Wilt's as people frequently do. Note that overall, the Russell Celtics, while poor offensively (7th/9) were only 2.4 Ortg behind the unstoppable Wilt Warriors while the defensive monster Wilt Warriors, while above average defensively (3rd/9) were a full 7.3 Drtg behind the Russell Celtics, a ridiculous differential especially when you realize that 2 of the 4 starters around Russell were known as poor defensive players (Cousy and Heinsohn) while Sam Jones was nothing special, Sanders and 7th man KC Jones were the defensive specialists. The defensive team around Wilt was actually stronger than that around Russell (Rodgers was the only poor defender among the top 6 and Gola and Attles were very good).

Wilt had the greatest statistical footprint in the history of the league but his actual impact on winning probably still isn't equal to the Russell for the Celtics. Not to downplay Wilt's greatness but people just don't realize how incredible Bill Russell was; I have Wilt as #4-5 all time (basically tied with Kareem) but I have Russell as quite probably the GOAT.

My vote for top peak, btw, is for Russell, just to throw it out there. 62 is even a reasonable candidate season though most people prefer 65. IF it matters, I will look more closely and make a case.

[Pg81]

Mavericks: 110.7 Ortg played at their pace [92.5 RS, 92.4 PS] and outscored by 30 points over the 6 game series. The Mavericks were held to a 104.0 Offense [-6.7] while the Spurs nearly matched Dallas’ season Offensive Rating in 109.4.

While I agree that 2003 Duncan was a legendary playoffs performance you should have at least mentioned that Dirk played only 2 full games that series since he got injured in the third game and the series went to 6 games. Also the Mavs were a bottom of the barrel defensive team, as usual for Don Nelson, not hard to look good on offense. I am convinced that series would have went to 7 games with Dirk had been healthy, who surprisingly grabbed almost as many defensive rebounds as Duncan did, despite his reputation of being a soft euro.

The Mavericks weren't a bottom of the barrel defensive team; they were 9th in the regular season.

The series likely does go to 7 games with Dirk, but ultimately we don't know for sure. With Dirk playing [Games 1/2] the Spurs were putting up a 116 Offensive Rating while the Mavericks were at 112. What happened with the Dirk injury is the Spurs decided to slow down the game [95/101 Pace first two games -- 92, 86, 89, 91 remaining 4 games]. The bigger question [which really doesn't relate to this project] is determining whether the Spurs decided to slow the game down because of the firepower of Dallas or because Dirk was injured. I like to think it is the first of the two; Spurs getting back to Spurs basketball.

Dirk has always been a good defensive rebounder. During the regular season Dirk was at 25% while Duncan was at 27%. This really isn't a surprise to anyone who has watched Dirk, especially young Dirk. No need to throw in comments about "Despite his reputation a soft euro" because nobody in this particular project lacks the knowledge to make such foolish claims.

You are correct about the Mavs defense, for some reason I had the defensive rating of the 03-04 regular season in the back of my head instead of 02-03, I apologize for that faux pas. Of course it is possible that even with Dirk the Spurs win in 6, Duncan was on a mission that year.

[No-more-rings]

For anyone voting Duncan top 3 already, or giving him mentions. What makes his playoff run more impressive than 94 Hakeem’s? I mean yeah Duncan’s advanced stats look a little better, but nothing glaring and may be the result of era difference/style of play or role etc. I’d like to see a breakdown of their 2 playoff runs that goes beyond box scores if someone could.

[euroleague]

Let's actually look at that claim since many people make it constantly. 62 was one of the few Warrior years where Wilt actually had upgraded to a league average PF (Tom Meschery who feasted in the playoffs for 20 ppg on his man leaving him to double Wilt but was a decent player -- if an early pot smoking Waltonesque hippie figure).

Wilt
2. Arizin
3. Gola (for regular season, he was injured and almost completely ineffective in the playoffs)
4. Meschery
5. Attles
6. Rodgers

Team went only 6 deep, even with Gola limping, they didn't use a 7th man in the playoffs much

Russell
2. Sam Jones
3. Cousy (as usual for the Russell era, he was completely unable to shoot against playoff defenses)
4. Sanders
5. Heinsohn (Celtics leading scorer but with little defense and poor playoffs, I'm not a fan)
6. Ramsey (in the playoffs, probably the 3rd best player on the team)
7. KC Jones


In the regular season, I'd consider Arizin (good scoring and defense with foul draw making up for the league passing his 50s star game) and Gola (great rebounding guard with good playmaking and defense, some scoring but not where he makes his impact) to be roughly equivalent to Cousy and Jones (much stronger defense, Cousy's continued shooting efficiency issues were worse than Arizin's in terms of 50s stars translating to the 60s but still a high volume assist generator). I'd also take Gola over anyone else on the Celtics pretty easily for the 1962 regular season.

1. This is the post-season not the regular season. Gola wasn't as good as Ramsey or KC Jones in the playoffs. Heinsohn was also better than Gola by a good amount. Cousy I'd take over Sam Jones or Arizin, and was clearly the 3rd best player in this match-up.

2. Cousy is easily the most under-rated people by all the Russell fans who underrate the Celtics. Cousy wasn't a SG - he was a PG. Cousy was at that stage the greatest floor general of all time, and he was running the offense. While PGs normally don't carry the offense themselves, they enhance the skills of those around them - the offense with Cousy was better than with Havlicek after he left, until Bailey Howell came and Havlicek/Russell were fully in their primes.

Let's use some other metrics than our opinions to rank these players, so we have some objective criteria to measure team-strength:

PER: Celtics had 4 players in the top 20. Warriors had one - Wilt.
WS: Boston had 5 players in the top 20. Warriors had one - Wilt.
All-Star Game: Boston had 85 minutes played by 4 players. Warriors had 58 minutes played by 2 players. 37 minutes by Wilt.
All-NBA: Celtics had 3 players. Warriors had one - Wilt.

If we look at objective criteria to measure their strengths (not zeroing in on skills that weren't especially relevant to a player's greatest impact, such as Cousy's FG% or Russell's FT%) it's quite easy to see the Celtics had far more talent.

Then, in the playoffs, Celtics role players stepped up with their championship experience, and the superior coaching showed.
Celtics players over 13 PER: 6. Warriors Players over 9 PER: 4.

The Celtics team was far deeper at every position, and the only reason it went to 7 was Wilt's enormous 2-way impact on the game.

If you had put Wilt onto that Celtics team, there would be no question about GOAT. Just second place.

[Colbinii]

For anyone voting Duncan top 3 already, or giving him mentions. What makes his playoff run more impressive than 94 Hakeem’s? I mean yeah Duncan’s advanced stats look a little better, but nothing glaring and may be the result of era difference/style of play or role etc. I’d like to see a breakdown of their 2 playoff runs that goes beyond box scores if someone could.

1. I am not high on the 90s in general, especially 94/95. Hakeem led the 1994 Houston to the 15th offense/2nd defense while Duncan led the Spurs to the 7th offense/3rd defense. The 1994 season had 8 "really bad teams" [teams of sub -5 SRS] while the 2003 season only had 5 such seasons, which help with improving the "SRS and W/L record" of middling teams. Ultimately I believe that the Mavericks were the "best" opponent between the Sonics/Mavericks and then the Kings were a better team than the Knicks in that season. By that measure Houston was able to dodge the best team in their season [Sonics] while playing a team worse than the Mavericks in the Knicks [granted Dirk was injured g3 of the series, as noted by pg81 earlier].

Look no further than the Knicks, who were outscored in their second round series against Chicago [No Jordan] and then ended up tying in total points to an Indiana Pacers team [Both of which teams were around 3 SRS teams] while the Knicks were a 6.5 SRS team.

2. Looking at the rosters around these players I think Hakeem had slightly better teammates. Both teams essentially ran 7-man rotations; Houston with Hakeem, Maxwell, Thorpe, Horry, Smith, Cassell and Ellie while Spurs with Duncan, Parker, Jackson, Bowen, Ginobili, Rose, Robinson. It is worth noting Robinson played only 539 post-season minutes, ranking 13th out of the 14th players above [ahead of Sam Cassell].

Comparing the guys at the same minutes:
Maxwell vs Parker: Wash, both sucked. Maxwell had a -1.1 BPM, Parker with -1.8. Both inefficient [Parker at 46.8 TS%, Maxwell at 47.1 TS%], similar playmakers and while Parker was a bit better offensively I believe Maxwell was clearly better defensively.
Thorpe vs Jackson: Thorpe, much better offensively [more efficient, better turnover economy, tremendous offensive rebounder] which more than trumps Jackson's defensive ability.
Horry vs Bowen: Clearly Horry here. Underrated defender [1.5 steals/1 block per game] with flexibility to guard 3's and 4's but offensively just a better player than Bowen by a long shot. Horry was a good playmaker with great turnover economy, great shooter for his time [38% from 3 on 4 attempts/game]. Bowen helped on the perimeter defensively but his defense was primarily "Let me attempt to lock down player X" versus the versatility of Horry, though Bowen does get the edge here.
Smith vs Ginobili: Smith was shooting lights out this postseason [44.7% on 3.3 Attempts/Game] but was a liability defensively. His spacing and playmaking helped Hakeem offensively but Ginobili was great in this department as well. Defensively Ginobili was so far ahead of Smith that I give Ginobili the nod here.
Cassell vs Rose: I give this a Wash. Rose was pathetic offensively outside of drawing fouls. Not a good passer [a mini black hole so to speak] while Cassell had an ability to "run an offense" magnitudes better than Rose [shouldn't be a surprise considering Rose wasn't a PG]. Rose was definitely better defensively as Cassell was not Kenny Smith-Bad but certainly poor.
Robinson vs Ellie: I like Ellie but I am not going to talk about this

The advantage Hakeem had in spacing versus Robinson being the best player [in significantly less minutes] really makes these supporting casts close. Statistically speaking it is difficult to extrapolate who benefited more; the player with an elite defensive anchor next to him [Duncan with Robinson] or the player with elite shooters next to him [Hakeem].

[Colbinii]

Spoiler:

Let's actually look at that claim since many people make it constantly. 62 was one of the few Warrior years where Wilt actually had upgraded to a league average PF (Tom Meschery who feasted in the playoffs for 20 ppg on his man leaving him to double Wilt but was a decent player -- if an early pot smoking Waltonesque hippie figure).

Wilt
2. Arizin
3. Gola (for regular season, he was injured and almost completely ineffective in the playoffs)
4. Meschery
5. Attles
6. Rodgers

Team went only 6 deep, even with Gola limping, they didn't use a 7th man in the playoffs much

Russell
2. Sam Jones
3. Cousy (as usual for the Russell era, he was completely unable to shoot against playoff defenses)
4. Sanders
5. Heinsohn (Celtics leading scorer but with little defense and poor playoffs, I'm not a fan)
6. Ramsey (in the playoffs, probably the 3rd best player on the team)
7. KC Jones


In the regular season, I'd consider Arizin (good scoring and defense with foul draw making up for the league passing his 50s star game) and Gola (great rebounding guard with good playmaking and defense, some scoring but not where he makes his impact) to be roughly equivalent to Cousy and Jones (much stronger defense, Cousy's continued shooting efficiency issues were worse than Arizin's in terms of 50s stars translating to the 60s but still a high volume assist generator). I'd also take Gola over anyone else on the Celtics pretty easily for the 1962 regular season.

Let's use some other metrics than our opinions to rank these players, so we have some objective criteria to measure team-strength:

PER: Celtics had 4 players in the top 20. Warriors had one - Wilt.
WS: Boston had 5 players in the top 20. Warriors had one - Wilt.
All-Star Game: Boston had 85 minutes played by 4 players. Warriors had 58 minutes played by 2 players. 37 minutes by Wilt.
All-NBA: Celtics had 3 players. Warriors had one - Wilt.

No offense, but you must understand that someone dominating the ball as much as Wilt did [as opposed to the balanced attack of Boston] is going to result in PER and WS being heavily weighed to the ball-dominant player.

Perhaps it is worth looking at 1961 and 1963 as measures around these "objective measures" to see how the Philly players stack up.

1961 WS: Arzin at 8, Gola at 18, Rodgers at 28
1962 WS: Arzin at 21, Attles at 27, Gola at 34, Meschery at 38, Rodgers at 51
1963 WS: Gola at 29, Attles at 41 [71 games], Meschery at 48 (64 games), Rodgers at 52

I guess this leads to my next questions: Why are WS and PER good indicators of how good a role player is? Does it actually do enough by virtue of capturing box-score to actually tell us in a meaningful way how good [and/or impactful] a role player is?

[Lou Fan]

1: Shaq 00

I have never been able to definitively make up my mind about the greatest peak of all time between Jordan and Shaq and could definitely be swayed the other way but I think a Shaq that tries on defense is the scariest opponent of all time. Shaq's gravity around the rim and off the ball is unparalleled in modern basketball history. He was often double or triple teamed in the post and while he was never an elite passer he was a willing passer which given the defensive attention he garnered was more than good enough. I also give him a slight artificial boost for him having to fight through being fouled constantly and it not being called. It always struck me as rather unfair the way Shaq was officiated and the foul trouble he put other teams in would've been even more severe if refs officiated him properly.

2: Jordan 90
Even though MJ couldn't get it done this was the year it all came together for him. He finally understood that he needed his teammates to win games and didn't try to bulldoze through opponents as a one man wrecking crew while ignoring open teammates. He developed his mid-range and post up games to elite levels and even though he had such an enormous offensive responsibility he maintained a low turnover rate and a high rTS%

3: Jordan 91
Same as above but I just grade him out a little worse in 91.