#33 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[trex_8063]

His 90s playoffs was his best, and it’s not only his play that determined it. His leadership, in running the offense and adapting defensive strategies, was clearly at his peak.

88 I considered- the ankle game was definitely one of the greatest finals games ever. Ultimately, considering his injury arguably led to his team losing the Finals, the reason to choose 90 is obvious.

In 85-87 he didn’t have the playoffs run he did in 90 - not even making the Finals. His regular season was good, but dominating the Finals against a great team (Portland was stacked, and Porter is often underrated) means more than the regular season.

That's why I have problem with people like you - Thomas didn't play better in 1990 playoffs than he did before, simply Pistons were better and faced weaker competition. This is the only reason why you pick 1990 as his peak, because Pistons made finals.

The 1988-90 Pistons have one of the best rosters 2-6 in NBA history, but sure, the Reed-less 1972 Knicks were totally equivalent.

This is the level of analysis I always expect to see from Isiah backers, and it never fails to be laughable.

You guys are making some very valid points, but you're also making some replies that are a bit "personal". Maybe it's time to disengage if you're getting nowhere.

[liamliam1234]

By the way, have not really honed in on it because of lack of support, but voting for 1958 Pettit is an even greater case of title bias than voting for 1973 Frazier / 1970 Reed / 1990 Isiah. 1958 was demonstably not even one of Pettit’s top three postseasons. He was better in 1957 and 1960 in runs ending in game 7 losses to the Celtics (Russell’s game 7 success rate might be the most ludicrous accomplishment in American sports, lol), and his numbers were outstanding in 1963 when he “dodged” the Celtics by losing slightly early. And 1957 and 1963 were both accompanied by superior regular seasons as well.

[euroleague]

His 90s playoffs was his best, and it’s not only his play that determined it. His leadership, in running the offense and adapting defensive strategies, was clearly at his peak.

88 I considered- the ankle game was definitely one of the greatest finals games ever. Ultimately, considering his injury arguably led to his team losing the Finals, the reason to choose 90 is obvious.

In 85-87 he didn’t have the playoffs run he did in 90 - not even making the Finals. His regular season was good, but dominating the Finals against a great team (Portland was stacked, and Porter is often underrated) means more than the regular season.

That's why I have problem with people like you - Thomas didn't play better in 1990 playoffs than he did before, simply Pistons were better and faced weaker competition. This is the only reason why you pick 1990 as his peak, because Pistons made finals.

The 1988-90 Pistons have one of the best rosters 2-6 in NBA history, but sure, the Reed-less 1972 Knicks were totally equivalent.

This is the level of analysis I always expect to see from Isiah backers, and it never fails to be laughable.

You guys are making some very valid points, but you're also making some replies that are a bit "personal". Maybe it's time to disengage if you're getting nowhere.

They clearly have some bias as well, targeting ‘people like me’. They look at offensive rating, assist numbers, and minutes in a vacuum.

Not making the finals IS NOT WHY HIS PLAYOFF RUN WASNT AS GOOD. They misconstrue what I say, put words in my mouth, and argue points to make themselves seem clearly better...

When what they’re actually doing is making strawmen. I voted wilt 62 as his best season. Curry 16. If anything, they themselves value titles more than me - I’m not exactly voting BILL RUSSELL into the top 10. My peak season of all time didn’t win a title. Their lack of self awareness is laughable....

@liamliam The Reedless Knicks aren’t what anyone is discussing. The Pistons in 87 were one freak play from defeating a dynasty in the Celtics far better than anything the Knicks beat... and they had no great Rodman, rookie Dumars, etc. Laimbeer was the second best player. But, I don’t consider that Isiah’s peak just because he had a larger roll

[LA Bird]

The result stayed the same as with the early deadline:

1) 11 Howard = 11.0 points
2) 75 Gilmore = 10.5 points
3) 75 Barry = 7.5 points
T4) 19 Harden = 4.5 points
T4) 19 Harden = 4.5 points

11 Howard wins.

Spoiler:

Narigo's vote wasn't counted because of lack of reasoning.

[liamliam1234]

@liamliam The Reedless Knicks aren’t what anyone is discussing. The Pistons in 87 were one freak play from defeating a dynasty in the Celtics far better than anything the Knicks beat... and they had no great Rodman, rookie Dumars, etc. Laimbeer was the second best player. But, I don’t consider that Isiah’s peak just because he had a larger roll

A.) Except for those of us backing 1972 Walt.
B.) An injured Celtics team.
C.) Yeah, maybe you should. Except even then he would still not deserve to be placed above Frazier.

Also, if you feel you are being misrepresented, argue better. If you are not just voting because they won the title, make the difference clear.