Peaks project update: #9

[freethedevil]

They don't 17 games is a tiny sample size in the regular season too!

Yes, it is, but the sample size doesn't change that having a stacked team =/ inflated plus minus stats. Whatever sample size you're using, better teammates don't mean better +/- stats. That's now how they work.

Ok... Playing better leads to having a higher +/- right? If you play better because you're on a stacked team, reasonably we should assume you can have a higher +/- due to playing better due to having a better team.

No you shouldn't because depending on what +/- stat you're using, players can be punished for having very good teammates. Most of these stats don't look at efficiency, so even if you are "playing better"(more efficiently), that won't factor in. If I stagger lebron and curry's minuites on a team, both will likely have some of their +/- stats go down, because the team won'y suffer as much without one. The warriors staggered curry and kd in 2017 minuites, so chances are the +/- numbers went down rather than up. The +/- stats that account for this kind of thing are luck adjusted ones because they look at effiency. However the effiency only serves to counterbalance the fact that the base +/- metric it's being used on is going to give players who play on worse teams a higher +/- due to the fact that the teams are generally worse without them. It's harder to lift a good team by x points than it is to lift a bad team by x points. It's why harden was at the top of the league in rpm and bpm but far from it with luck adjusted metrics.

Simple +/- will generally underrate players on stacked teams and overrate players on worse teams.

[Mavericksfan]

1)Magic Johnson 1987

He took over the offense of the Lakers and took them to new heights and one of(THE best at the time) the best offenses of all time. The Western Conference was a joke but the Lakers beat the 1987 Celtics in 6 that year which is a big deal.

2)Hakeem Olajuwon 1994

Anchored the 2nd best defense and an average offense. But the playoffs is where he was absolutely insane and went through some tough teams. What he did to Patrick Ewing in the Finals was criminal.

3)Kevin Garnett 03-04

This one is tough for me. His playoff performance left a lot to be desired in terms of maintaining scoring production but the sheer ridiculousness that he dominated the regular season is hard to ignore. Led his team to the 2nd best SRS and top 6 on offense and defense. Even knocked off the 3rd best SRS Kings.

[E-Balla]

I’m going to focus on Curry with this response since I actually get your point regarding Magic. I feel the same way about Dirk and why I consider him the GOAT mid range shooter.

1)Reggie had some impressive runs but also some duds. Against the Pistons in 1990 the Pacers O-rating dropped by 7.8.His 1994 series against the Knicks stands out where the Pacers O-rating dropped 7.8 points compared to the regular season. It dropped by 2.7 in 95. So which series are you referring to specifically?

The Pistons were a -4.6 defense and the Pacers offense performed at a +0.3 level. In the regular season they were a +3.4 offense, and we all know the Bad Boy Pistons were one of the best defenses ever, especially in the postseason where they had a -8.3 defense. The Pacers offense actually outperformed the Bulls and Knicks offenses and fell just short of Portland (they had a 103.8, Portland a 104.2) for the Pistons postseason opponents. That's not at all a bad offensive performance especially considering he averaged 20.7 ppg on 70 TS%.

The 1994 Knicks aka the best defense ever had a -8.1 defense. Yeah the Pacers offense fell off, they were playing the 94 freaking Knicks. The Pacers still had a +1.9 ORTG in that series.

Either way there's no need to even get into the details yet, the numbers I cited are career numbers. Over his whole career his offenses performed at +6.4 levels in the playoffs. Even though his teammates were never that great outside of a few years (like 00 for example when they had a 9.1 offense in the playoffs). Off ball no one is close.

I don’t think it’s even close when comparing their impact. Curry is a better screen setter, moves just as well off the ball, and is an even better shooter with more range. He warps defenses like we’ve never seen.

I don't think he does. Curry moves well but he's not like Reggie who did it almost every possession. Curry stands around more.

And you're ignoring Reggie is the better finisher by a distance and the better athlete. Those are 2 major advantages when we're talking about their off ball gravity. Reggie was just as dangerous cutting to the rim where he could finish in traffic pretty well. Even from age 35-39 he was 75% at the rim back when the league average was under 60%.

2)I’m not sure why you’re writing off the MCL injury. Here’s a thread from Reddit showing the average return time is about 42 days for a Grade 2 MCL sprain.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/871e5k/grade_ii_mcl_sprain_data_how_long_nba_players/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

The injury occurred April 24th. 42 days puts it at June 5th. Curry returned May 9th only 2 weeks after. He was clearly not 100% at this point. I’m all for criticisms of his decision making at the time or his durability but you glossing over the injury and expected return time is disingenuous at best.

Curry had a grade 1 sprain in 2016 not a grade 2. He's actually used as an example in the grade 1 sprain list. Grade 2 is serious, it's why he played bad in 2018. Grade 1 isn't that serious to where he should've still been hurt. Looking at that list, remember Curry played 18 minutes in one game while recovering and actually was hurt and played like it. He really had a 7 day break, then a 15 day break for his injury. More than enough time to recover, and then there was another 24 days before the Finals after he was back and playing. The argument he was injured is absurd unless we're saying he's the most brittle athlete in the NBA which I'm not buying.

3)He struggled even taking advantage of the mismatches he did generate that series.

He struggled with TT in 2015 too.

Also I’m not sure why you’re referring to the attention he garners as “simple traps”. Curry gets trapped from 25-30 feet regularly and sees more attention than almost anyone in NBA history. His +/- data and his teammates performance on/off all reflect this.
Here’s a video showing some of the attention Curry got.
https://youtu.be/PTRKNlS1Ne0?t=23s

Those are simple traps. More than most other guys will see them? Yes. But these aren't super advanced defensive schemes, it's a trap off the PNR.

4)I think the criticism’s of Curry’s passing was valid in his prior years. I actually think that’s one of the areas he has improved the most (in addition to more strength and that ridiculous 15 foot floater he added). But do you have the data for his numbers in the other games well? I cant find pick n roll data against Portland or the Rockets. Just overall playoffs.

I couldn't find the breakdown by series but Curry had a lower ORTG, TS%, and TOV% in the Finals than the rest of the playoffs. Of course in some places eye test are going to have to fill a gap. I've been saying Cleveland did well because TT gave them the ability to guard Golden State on the PNR and that's where his playoff inefficiency that year came from. Doesn't seem like a coincidence to me, but I am also the one making that eye test observation.

This year in the Finals he posted a 26% assist % and 10% TOV. That’s a slight improvement from his regular season numbers going against the best rel playoff defense since the 04 Pistons without Durant. He has clearly improved as a playmaker.

Meh. I think his playmaking was the same as usual. 2016 is him at his worst, 2015 is like regular Curry, 2019 is him during a good stretch. Nothing too special, but solid. If I saw improved playmaking all season maybe I'd say otherwise but one series, while impressive, isn't really proof of improvement when he looked the same as usual all year.

[Mavericksfan]

Either way there's no need to even get into the details yet, the numbers I cited are career numbers. Over his whole career his offenses performed at +6.4 levels in the playoffs. Even though his teammates were never that great outside of a few years (like 00 for example when they had a 9.1 offense in the playoffs). Off ball no one is close.

Source? Is this +6.4 relative to playoff defense?

And you're ignoring Reggie is the better finisher by a distance and the better athlete. Those are 2 major advantages when we're talking about their off ball gravity. Reggie was just as dangerous cutting to the rim where he could finish in traffic pretty well. Even from age 35-39 he was 75% at the rim back when the league average was under 60%.

10% of his shots were at the rim that time period. And he only averaged 11 fga per game. We’re talking a 1.1 FGA per game sample size. He isnt a great finisher and I dont think he’s a better finisher than Curry overall. More of a threat as an off-ball cutter due to size and the fact that Curry floats around the 3pt line to stretch defenses. I don’t know if Miller is that much better of an athlete. Size of course but current Curry is likely stronger and of course quicker. I’d say they’re relatively close.

Curry had a grade 1 sprain in 2016 not a grade 2. He's actually used as an example in the grade 1 sprain list. Grade 2 is serious, it's why he played bad in 2018. Grade 1 isn't that serious to where he should've still been hurt. Looking at that list, remember Curry played 18 minutes in one game while recovering and actually was hurt and played like it. He really had a 7 day break, then a 15 day break for his injury. More than enough time to recover, and then there was another 24 days before the Finals after he was back and playing. The argument he was injured is absurd unless we're saying he's the most brittle athlete in the NBA which I'm not buying.

This is my mistake. Mixed up his more recent mcl sprain. I still don’t believe he was fully healthy, he lacked the usual quickness he had. And I’d all for arguing against his durability. He has a tough time making it through entire playoff runs.

Those are simple traps. More than most other guys will see them? Yes. But these aren't super advanced defensive schemes, it's a trap off the PNR.

Who else is pulling 3 people that close to the ball? The Cavs completely ignored Dray and Barnes on those plays. That isn’t a routine pick n roll blitz or trap. The Cavs literally allowed the roll man wide open driving lanes(everyone does due to Curry’s gravity leading to Draymond’s 4 on 3 situations)

I couldn't find the breakdown by series but Curry had a lower ORTG, TS%, and TOV% in the Finals than the rest of the playoffs. Of course in some places eye test are going to have to fill a gap. I've been saying Cleveland did well because TT gave them the ability to guard Golden State on the PNR and that's where his playoff inefficiency that year came from. Doesn't seem like a coincidence to me, but I am also the one making that eye test observation.

From what I remember that series even when Curry got Kyrie or JR matched up on him he failed to capitalize. That’s why I dont believe he was healthy.

Meh. I think his playmaking was the same as usual. 2016 is him at his worst, 2015 is like regular Curry, 2019 is him during a good stretch. Nothing too special, but solid. If I saw improved playmaking all season maybe I'd say otherwise but one series, while impressive, isn't really proof of improvement when he looked the same as usual all year.

I guess this is where we disagree. I feel like Curry has come a long way as a passer and even handles the extra attention a lot better. He saw multiple defenders a lot on the Finals and almost always managed to make the right read. He’s seen it all at this point.

[DatAsh]

Long-time observer (as a non-member), first-time poster.

1. 1994 Hakeem
I understand the arguments that Hakeem was probably “better” in 1993. And maybe if we wanted to remove all postseason narrative, I would consider that season more. But I think this forum has generally weighed postseason results very heavily, e.g. 2013 Lebron, arguably 1991 Jordan, arguably 1964 Russell (although support posts generally never seemed clear why that year was a true tier above), presumably 1987 Magic... Kareem being a notable exception I guess because of how indisputably better he was in the 1977 playoffs compared to any other year (not that the same logic apparently applied to Lebron). Also, this early on, even if it makes sense to a point (what with the frequent reliance on team success narratives), I would not want to select as his peak a year Hakeem was not even widely considered a top two player (oh, look, another reason 1964 was a bad pick for Russell).

The actual reasons for Hakeem at this point have been covered extensively, to the point I think we already have passed the disrespect marker.

2. 2004 Kevin Garnett
Very similar case as 2003 Duncan, minus the playoff success. And Garnett was not as good in the playoffs as Duncan, either as a player or comparing 2004 with 2003, but hey, that is why Duncan is several spots higher. This was a championship level peak, this all-time season was unjustly marred by team injury (much like people who say 1968 Wilt “choked” in part because he “stat-padded”), and this was very much a clear individual year peak. Oh, I know 2005 Garnett was nearly as effective, but what I mean is that unlike some other players (*cough*), this peak is clear. And Garnett is hardly a person on whom this board requires further “education”. One of the all-time team impact seasons, an all-time defensive season, and a supremely impactful (and his personal best) offensive season. Unlike the all-time rankings, marking him this high does not disrespect those who put together better overall groups of seasons. It is a top ten peak, because at his absolute best, Garnett was that type of player.

3. 1964 Oscar Robertson
Yes, the deserving MVP of the 1964 season is in my eyes probably the single greatest point guard season thus far, relative to his era (because getting into how swapping 1964 Oscar and 1987 Magic would yield different results is an ugly and maybe impossible hypothetical). If we are talking any period more than a single year, I would give it to Magic. But we are not, and I cannot help but dispute the 1987 Magic supporters for focusing so much on the team success when he was almost definitively better as a player two or three years later. Unlike 1993 Hakeem or 1964 Russell, both those years he still effectively maintained his reputation as the best player in the game (although of course Jordan raised a similarly strong challenge). Nor is this Hakeem losing in the semifinals to a .500 team – after 1987, Magic clearly led his ever declining team to three more Finals. I know the strategy here is often to just spam vote multiple seasons, but I feel like that dilutes the point. We are not covering multi-year peaks. If different years cannibalise the others, that means the peak is disputable. And I do not personally buy the premise that Magic’s third best year is better than Robertson’s 1964, which is pretty much what many people here are suggesting. So what, if we opened this up to repeats, with a blanket “best seasons ever”, the top twenty-five slots would be preoccupied by eight guys? Nah, I do not buy that. Robertson’s numbers speak for themselves. This is a peak point guard season, and the reason Robertson is ranked where he is in the all-time ranks is because he never really quite replicated this season the way the other top ten guys could replicate their best seasons. Also, in a meta sense, if 1964 Russell gets the nod (again, wrongly), then the guy who outplayed him for most of that year should hardly fall far behind.

Honourable mention to one of those Magic years; if Hakeem wins, I will probably back 1987 by default (but I do think we need more discussion on 1989 and 1990 so it stops being a vote by default).

I'm not sure I entirely understand your point. Are you saying that you think 93' Hakeem was better, but that since this forum typically puts a heavy bias towards postseason, you're going with 94'? I think you should go with what you think, not with how others typically vote.

I also don't really understand 64' Russell as an example of post season bias, considering that he won every year(unless you consider 67' his peak), and it was one of his weakest post seasons, statistically.

I might be misunderstanding your point.

I'm currently trying to decide between 93 and 94 Hakeem. Leaning 93, but also really considering 94.

[liamliam1234]

I would love to have more discussion, but i just want to say it's very unclear to me why Magic would be considered better in those years. I'm sure there's a case, but I haven't heard it, and team success doesn't have much to do with why I think 1987 is clearly his best year.

Sure, Magic's team was worse later on, but that doesn't necessarily mean he improved. His peak was just very high, high enough that as his team declined and he slowly declined he could still get them to the finals. His statistical peak seems to clearly be '87, unless you're approaching it from a totally different angle than anything I've thought of, and the eye test says that's part of a short time period when he'd raised his decision making to essentially perfect levels, he'd added the jump shot as a consistent weapon, and he was still at his athletic peak.

So I will acknowledge his postseason statistics peak in 1987. And I weigh that heavily as well, so I fully understand the case for 1987. But, looking at sample sizes, I think it is meaningful that his 1987 regular season trails 1989 and 1990.

A few things here:

1. Magic actually had his best postseason in 86. I think it's worth mentioning Magic's highest level of play statistically was 87, and the year leading up to 87. It paints a clear picture that those were the years Magic peaked athletically, mentally, and with his skillset.

2. How does his 87 regular season trail 89 and 90 at all? Career high scoring, one of his 4 years leading the league in assists (the others being 86, 84, and 83), the best team he led by far, the best offense he led by far. Outside of his scoring efficiency due to his 3 point shooting I don't see what makes his 89 and 90 regular seasons better. If anything they're on the same level.

Maybe in 90 I can hear the argument of the competition gap mattering but in 89 Magic wasn't anywhere near as good as he was in any other postseason between 84 and 91.

Personally I think watching him play Magic peaked starting in late 85 and maintained that level of play through 87. The 3 point shot was never a large enough part of his game for me to say it makes the difference.

I do not have his RAPM/RPM numbers on-hand, so I am willing to adjust my opinion if those paint a different picture, but his BPM, WS/48, and true shooting (as you slightly alluded to) are all respectably higher in 1989-90 than they were in 1987. And again, it being the best team/offence is not inherently indicative of his role as a player.

Long-time observer (as a non-member), first-time poster.

1. 1994 Hakeem
I understand the arguments that Hakeem was probably “better” in 1993. And maybe if we wanted to remove all postseason narrative, I would consider that season more. But I think this forum has generally weighed postseason results very heavily, e.g. 2013 Lebron, arguably 1991 Jordan, arguably 1964 Russell (although support posts generally never seemed clear why that year was a true tier above), presumably 1987 Magic... Kareem being a notable exception I guess because of how indisputably better he was in the 1977 playoffs compared to any other year (not that the same logic apparently applied to Lebron). Also, this early on, even if it makes sense to a point (what with the frequent reliance on team success narratives), I would not want to select as his peak a year Hakeem was not even widely considered a top two player (oh, look, another reason 1964 was a bad pick for Russell).

The actual reasons for Hakeem at this point have been covered extensively, to the point I think we already have passed the disrespect marker.

2. 2004 Kevin Garnett
Very similar case as 2003 Duncan, minus the playoff success. And Garnett was not as good in the playoffs as Duncan, either as a player or comparing 2004 with 2003, but hey, that is why Duncan is several spots higher. This was a championship level peak, this all-time season was unjustly marred by team injury (much like people who say 1968 Wilt “choked” in part because he “stat-padded”), and this was very much a clear individual year peak. Oh, I know 2005 Garnett was nearly as effective, but what I mean is that unlike some other players (*cough*), this peak is clear. And Garnett is hardly a person on whom this board requires further “education”. One of the all-time team impact seasons, an all-time defensive season, and a supremely impactful (and his personal best) offensive season. Unlike the all-time rankings, marking him this high does not disrespect those who put together better overall groups of seasons. It is a top ten peak, because at his absolute best, Garnett was that type of player.

3. 1964 Oscar Robertson
Yes, the deserving MVP of the 1964 season is in my eyes probably the single greatest point guard season thus far, relative to his era (because getting into how swapping 1964 Oscar and 1987 Magic would yield different results is an ugly and maybe impossible hypothetical). If we are talking any period more than a single year, I would give it to Magic. But we are not, and I cannot help but dispute the 1987 Magic supporters for focusing so much on the team success when he was almost definitively better as a player two or three years later. Unlike 1993 Hakeem or 1964 Russell, both those years he still effectively maintained his reputation as the best player in the game (although of course Jordan raised a similarly strong challenge). Nor is this Hakeem losing in the semifinals to a .500 team – after 1987, Magic clearly led his ever declining team to three more Finals. I know the strategy here is often to just spam vote multiple seasons, but I feel like that dilutes the point. We are not covering multi-year peaks. If different years cannibalise the others, that means the peak is disputable. And I do not personally buy the premise that Magic’s third best year is better than Robertson’s 1964, which is pretty much what many people here are suggesting. So what, if we opened this up to repeats, with a blanket “best seasons ever”, the top twenty-five slots would be preoccupied by eight guys? Nah, I do not buy that. Robertson’s numbers speak for themselves. This is a peak point guard season, and the reason Robertson is ranked where he is in the all-time ranks is because he never really quite replicated this season the way the other top ten guys could replicate their best seasons. Also, in a meta sense, if 1964 Russell gets the nod (again, wrongly), then the guy who outplayed him for most of that year should hardly fall far behind.

Honourable mention to one of those Magic years; if Hakeem wins, I will probably back 1987 by default (but I do think we need more discussion on 1989 and 1990 so it stops being a vote by default).

I'm not sure I entirely understand your point. Are you saying that you think 93' Hakeem was better, but that since this forum typically puts a heavy bias towards postseason, you're going with 94'? I think you should go with what you think, not with how others typically vote.

I also don't really understand 64' Russell as an example of post season bias, considering that he won every year(unless you consider 67' his peak), and it was one of his weakest post seasons, statistically.

I might be misunderstanding your point.

I'm currently trying to decide between 93 and 94 Hakeem. Leaning 93, but also really considering 94.

I am not saying I definitively think Hakeem was better in 1993; just that I can see the case. But citing to a certain voting pattern was more of a self-justification. Even if 1993 has a marginal statistical advantage, it is not enough to make up for losing two rounds earlier (to a team which lost to the team which lost to the champion...) with close to the same roster.

As for 1964 Russell, again, I felt explanations were extremely poor, so I am just speculating that maybe them running through the postseason in dominant fashion, as compared to 1965 where they were a stunning steal away from maybe losing to an otherwise grossly outmatched 76ers team, could be the reason. Because yeah, in terms of individual postseason performance and individual regular season performance, 1965 seems clearly better (apart from that almost upset).

[DatAsh]

So I will acknowledge his postseason statistics peak in 1987. And I weigh that heavily as well, so I fully understand the case for 1987. But, looking at sample sizes, I think it is meaningful that his 1987 regular season trails 1989 and 1990.

A few things here:

1. Magic actually had his best postseason in 86. I think it's worth mentioning Magic's highest level of play statistically was 87, and the year leading up to 87. It paints a clear picture that those were the years Magic peaked athletically, mentally, and with his skillset.

2. How does his 87 regular season trail 89 and 90 at all? Career high scoring, one of his 4 years leading the league in assists (the others being 86, 84, and 83), the best team he led by far, the best offense he led by far. Outside of his scoring efficiency due to his 3 point shooting I don't see what makes his 89 and 90 regular seasons better. If anything they're on the same level.

Maybe in 90 I can hear the argument of the competition gap mattering but in 89 Magic wasn't anywhere near as good as he was in any other postseason between 84 and 91.

Personally I think watching him play Magic peaked starting in late 85 and maintained that level of play through 87. The 3 point shot was never a large enough part of his game for me to say it makes the difference.

I do not have his RAPM/RPM numbers on-hand, so I am willing to adjust my opinion if those paint a different picture, but his BPM, WS/48, and true shooting (as you slightly alluded to) are all respectably higher in 1989-90 than they were in 1987. And again, it being the best team/offence is not inherently indicative of his role as a player.

Long-time observer (as a non-member), first-time poster.

1. 1994 Hakeem
I understand the arguments that Hakeem was probably “better” in 1993. And maybe if we wanted to remove all postseason narrative, I would consider that season more. But I think this forum has generally weighed postseason results very heavily, e.g. 2013 Lebron, arguably 1991 Jordan, arguably 1964 Russell (although support posts generally never seemed clear why that year was a true tier above), presumably 1987 Magic... Kareem being a notable exception I guess because of how indisputably better he was in the 1977 playoffs compared to any other year (not that the same logic apparently applied to Lebron). Also, this early on, even if it makes sense to a point (what with the frequent reliance on team success narratives), I would not want to select as his peak a year Hakeem was not even widely considered a top two player (oh, look, another reason 1964 was a bad pick for Russell).

The actual reasons for Hakeem at this point have been covered extensively, to the point I think we already have passed the disrespect marker.

2. 2004 Kevin Garnett
Very similar case as 2003 Duncan, minus the playoff success. And Garnett was not as good in the playoffs as Duncan, either as a player or comparing 2004 with 2003, but hey, that is why Duncan is several spots higher. This was a championship level peak, this all-time season was unjustly marred by team injury (much like people who say 1968 Wilt “choked” in part because he “stat-padded”), and this was very much a clear individual year peak. Oh, I know 2005 Garnett was nearly as effective, but what I mean is that unlike some other players (*cough*), this peak is clear. And Garnett is hardly a person on whom this board requires further “education”. One of the all-time team impact seasons, an all-time defensive season, and a supremely impactful (and his personal best) offensive season. Unlike the all-time rankings, marking him this high does not disrespect those who put together better overall groups of seasons. It is a top ten peak, because at his absolute best, Garnett was that type of player.

3. 1964 Oscar Robertson
Yes, the deserving MVP of the 1964 season is in my eyes probably the single greatest point guard season thus far, relative to his era (because getting into how swapping 1964 Oscar and 1987 Magic would yield different results is an ugly and maybe impossible hypothetical). If we are talking any period more than a single year, I would give it to Magic. But we are not, and I cannot help but dispute the 1987 Magic supporters for focusing so much on the team success when he was almost definitively better as a player two or three years later. Unlike 1993 Hakeem or 1964 Russell, both those years he still effectively maintained his reputation as the best player in the game (although of course Jordan raised a similarly strong challenge). Nor is this Hakeem losing in the semifinals to a .500 team – after 1987, Magic clearly led his ever declining team to three more Finals. I know the strategy here is often to just spam vote multiple seasons, but I feel like that dilutes the point. We are not covering multi-year peaks. If different years cannibalise the others, that means the peak is disputable. And I do not personally buy the premise that Magic’s third best year is better than Robertson’s 1964, which is pretty much what many people here are suggesting. So what, if we opened this up to repeats, with a blanket “best seasons ever”, the top twenty-five slots would be preoccupied by eight guys? Nah, I do not buy that. Robertson’s numbers speak for themselves. This is a peak point guard season, and the reason Robertson is ranked where he is in the all-time ranks is because he never really quite replicated this season the way the other top ten guys could replicate their best seasons. Also, in a meta sense, if 1964 Russell gets the nod (again, wrongly), then the guy who outplayed him for most of that year should hardly fall far behind.

Honourable mention to one of those Magic years; if Hakeem wins, I will probably back 1987 by default (but I do think we need more discussion on 1989 and 1990 so it stops being a vote by default).

I'm not sure I entirely understand your point. Are you saying that you think 93' Hakeem was better, but that since this forum typically puts a heavy bias towards postseason, you're going with 94'? I think you should go with what you think, not with how others typically vote.

I also don't really understand 64' Russell as an example of post season bias, considering that he won every year(unless you consider 67' his peak), and it was one of his weakest post seasons, statistically.

I might be misunderstanding your point.

I'm currently trying to decide between 93 and 94 Hakeem. Leaning 93, but also really considering 94.

I am not saying I definitively think Hakeem was better in 1993; just that I can see the case. But citing to a certain voting pattern was more of a self-justification. Even if 1993 has a marginal statistical advantage, it is not enough to make up for losing two rounds earlier (to a team which lost to the team which lost to the champion...) with close to the same roster.

As for 1964 Russell, again, I felt explanations were extremely poor, so I am just speculating that maybe them running through the postseason in dominant fashion, as compared to 1965 where they were a stunning steal away from maybe losing to an otherwise grossly outmatched 76ers team, could be the reason. Because yeah, in terms of individual postseason performance and individual regular season performance, 1965 seems clearly better (apart from that almost upset).

Gotcha, I'm still on the fence with 93 vs 94.

As for Russell, I think 62, 64, and 65 all have good arguments.

64 - Best defense, worst box score stats
65 - Second best defense, second best box score stats
62 - Worst defense, best box score stats

[Narigo]

1. 1993 Hakeem Olajuwon
2. 1996 David Robinson
3. 2004 Kevin Garnett

[DatAsh]

I guess I'll go ahead and say this just to get my vote in. I could still change my mind, but it seems unlikely to happen before 10am tomorrow.

1. 93 Hakeem
2. 94 Hakeem
3. 04 Garnett

All of these are incredible peaks. For what it's worth, I have all 3 of them over Kareem, Duncan, and Bird's peaks, but they've already been voted in.

[cecilthesheep]

So I will acknowledge his postseason statistics peak in 1987. And I weigh that heavily as well, so I fully understand the case for 1987. But, looking at sample sizes, I think it is meaningful that his 1987 regular season trails 1989 and 1990.

A few things here:

1. Magic actually had his best postseason in 86. I think it's worth mentioning Magic's highest level of play statistically was 87, and the year leading up to 87. It paints a clear picture that those were the years Magic peaked athletically, mentally, and with his skillset.

2. How does his 87 regular season trail 89 and 90 at all? Career high scoring, one of his 4 years leading the league in assists (the others being 86, 84, and 83), the best team he led by far, the best offense he led by far. Outside of his scoring efficiency due to his 3 point shooting I don't see what makes his 89 and 90 regular seasons better. If anything they're on the same level.

Maybe in 90 I can hear the argument of the competition gap mattering but in 89 Magic wasn't anywhere near as good as he was in any other postseason between 84 and 91.

Personally I think watching him play Magic peaked starting in late 85 and maintained that level of play through 87. The 3 point shot was never a large enough part of his game for me to say it makes the difference.

I do not have his RAPM/RPM numbers on-hand, so I am willing to adjust my opinion if those paint a different picture, but his BPM, WS/48, and true shooting (as you slightly alluded to) are all respectably higher in 1989-90 than they were in 1987. And again, it being the best team/offence is not inherently indicative of his role as a player.

Hmm. The advanced-stats case is really close - I don't know that anyone has RAPM from that far back, but I'm surprised at how close the other numbers are. I don't think BPM is a very good stat, especially not defensively; WS/48 is a little higher in the later years but i think the difference is small enough that his slightly higher PIPM in '87 makes it pretty much a wash.

I do think that, beyond the mere fact that the postseason stats in 1987 are just way better than the later years, it says something about his athleticism level that he was able to keep things up better in the playoffs in '87 and not so much in '89 or '90. Efficiency is the biggest thing that drops off in the playoffs in the later years, and that's often related to decreased physical dominance which shows when everyone's playing their hardest but not necessarily until then.

[liamliam1234]

Thanks, those are some great points about postseason carryover which mostly go past my “team quality” and “regular season sample size” concerns. And also thanks for mentioning the PIPM advantage. I think in that semi-new light, where the case for 1987 as an overall peak does deserve a fair benefit of the doubt over 1989-90, I am definitely considering 1987 on par with 2004 Garnett and 1964 Robertson. Not sure whether I am quite at the point of adjusting the vote, but it is something in the back of my mind, especially because I expect discussion will ramp up if Hakeem goes through for this round.

[Narigo]

Whats the case for Garnett over peak Robinson? Robinson was definitely the better offensive player despite his playoff struggles. And hes one of the best defenders at his position. Only Hakeem and Russell are better on D than he was imo.

[eminence]

Whats the case for Garnett over peak Robinson? Robinson was definitely the better offensive player despite his playoff struggles. And hes one of the best defenders at his position. Only Hakeem and Russell are better on D than he was imo.

Why is he definitely the better offensive player in your opinion?

Imo Robinson's main advantages offensively are being better on the glass and a better/more assertive play finisher around the rim. KG is the better shooter, better passer, and ball-handler in general. Robinson probably a bit more useful the worse the offensive supporting cast, KG better with better support. With Robinson's main advantage (play finishing) seemingly consistently shrinking in the playoffs I'm actually pretty comfortable saying KG was the clearly better offensive player.

[liamliam1234]

Playoff struggles are undeniably a part of it, as is their relative playoff situations (Garnett lost to the 2004 Lakers superteam after his best teammate was injured; Robinson was upset and outplayed by Hakeem). But beyond that, I do not think Robinson’s offensive/defensive advantage should be assumed: Garnett had otherworldly impact statistics, was certainly a more varied scorer, held a notable passing advantage, and could guard across more positions. I think Robinson will be meaningfully entering the discussion once Hakeem and Magic are off the table, but that playoff blemish will be hard to many to ignore (see the current debate over Steph, who at least had a bit of an injury excuse), and his regular season was not itself a clear enough advantage (if it even is one) to inherently make up for it at the current state of the competition.

[Colbinii]

Whats the case for Garnett over peak Robinson? Robinson was definitely the better offensive player despite his playoff struggles. And hes one of the best defenders at his position. Only Hakeem and Russell are better on D than he was imo.

Garnett was better off-ball and on-ball offensively for me.

I think Robinsons main argument is his defense being more impactful.

[GeorgeMarcus]

'87 Magic
'16 Curry
'95 D Rob

[liamliam1234]

I think your vote is late, but by my count final results would be 1994 Hakeem / 1993 Hakeem / 1987 Magic (maybe swapping the latter two) even if your vote were incorporated.

Almost want to skip straight to Peak #11, haha. This next one should be a landslide win for Magic. I suspect the Garnett discussion is about to start in earnest, though, so maybe that will keep the next thread interesting.

[LA Bird]

Final totals as at the deadline are:

1) 94 Hakeem = 38.5 points
2) 93 Hakeem = 35.0 points
3) 87 Magic = 27.0 points
4) 04 Garnett = 11.0 points
T5) 16 Curry = 6.0 points
T5) 76 Dr J = 6.0 points

1994 Hakeem wins.