#11 Highest Peak of All Time (Garnett '04 wins)

[Doctor MJ]

LeBron has been enshrined. We move on.

[drza]

Alright. LeBron's in. Next up appears to be a battle between Walton, KG and Dr. J. Here's a re-post of my comparison between KG and Walton.

Garnett vs. Walton

Here's a great thread (RPOY Project) that should give people more insight into Walton's '77 season.

It got me thinking about whether or not he should have actually landed just behind Kareem given that the voting was so close. Lots of great posts regarding his impact and I think it quite clearly separates him from Dr. J.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1042101&start=6

Once LeBron's in, Erving vs Walton is probably my big debate for my next vote so I'm definitely with you.

When you say Walton's separated from Erving, while making clear that Kareem's above Walton in your mind, it raises an eyebrow for me.

To my mind, Walton has a legit argument over both Kareem and Erving, but I see it as basically the same argument, and the counterarguments are largely the same to. If that's not how it appears to other people, then I question whether they are focused too much on Erving in Philly on a team with terrible fit.

Walton was more valuable to the Blazer than Erving was to the 76ers, just like he was more valuable than Kareem to the Lakers. In terms of obvious basketball outstanding-ness though, Walton's below both Erving & Kareem. And with Erving in '77, he's coming off just one year prior having value at least comparable to Walton's when he was in a Walton-like situation where everyone of his strengths was needed and used to its maximum.

Doc MJ, I'm specifically targeting you with this post but obviously I'm very interested to hear from everyone, especially PTB Fan and ElGee on the subject of Walton vs KG. I just got done re-reading through most of that RPoY 1977 thread, which refreshed all of the standing impressions that I have about Walton, the quality of his impact at his peak, and the way he played the game. But based on my understanding, I question why Walton would be voted in before KG. Doc, here is one of your posts from the RPoY '77 thread that seems pertinent to me:

This is a crucial point for me. I've talked before about the identical twin scenario - I don't want to mistakenly conclude one identical twin is better than the other because of his situation. If Walton is giving more lift to his team than Kareem, but Kareem has all Walton's skills and then some, then Kareem's my clear choice.

So I look at what Garnett and Walton bring to the table:

Physically: Basketball-reference lists Walton as 6-11 and 210 pounds, and lists Garnett as 6-11 220 pounds. Both are clearly incorrect, as both Walton and Garnett are both openly recognized as being well over 7-feet tall. I also know that KG was weighing in around 250 pounds in 2004. I can't speak to Walton's weight at his peak, but my point here is that Walton doesn't have any kind of height or girth advantage here. And any that have more expertise on Walton are welcome to challenge this, but I think I can fairly say that peak Garnett was (if anything) the quicker laterally and the bigger leaper of the two.

Impact stats: ElGee's in/out stats paint Walton's on-court impact as massive in 1977 and 1978. On the other hand, Garnett's on/off +/- stats for 2003 and 2004 are the #1 and #3 highest marks in the decade of +/- stats we have available (sandwiched around #2 LeBron in '09), and Garnett also finished #1 in the NBA in RAPM for both years. Considering that the impact stats are not directly comparable, I think all we can safely say is that in both seasons in question Walton and Garnett were beyond-the-max as far as what the impact stats can tell us.

Non-scoring offense: Walton is acknowledged to not be the scorer that many of the all-time greats are, but he is still considered an elite offensive player because of his passing ability, ability to run an offense through the high-post, basketball smarts, and ability to use picks/teammate cutting to his advantage to make an offense run. Here is one of ElGee's posts from the RPoY thread:

On a more subtle level, I think that highlights some of the differences between Walton and Jabbar offensively. Although, in Jabbar's defense, his teammates weren't very good in 77 and 78, so it's possible LA/Jabbar's approach was closer to optimal anyway.

Walton and Jabbar clearly have different offensive skill-sets. It's possible that Walton's defense/outlet passing does just help the Blazers that much when he's on the court. But it's also possible, that despite his lower TS% and fewer post moves, he was playing at a more "optimal" approach offensively; he had a perfect balance of when to shoot, when to cut, when and where to screen, where to pass, spacing, angles and boxing out. And of course, he was a ridiculous half-court passer and "coached" on the floor.

Obviously, in a one-on-one game, we'd all take Kareem. When he puts his pivot foot down and goes to work, he can spin, hit the jumper over his left shoulder, finger roll, drop step, and of course...dribble...dribble...swing...Sky Hook.

But Walton's bringing something very different to the table, and I'm not sure it isn't better at the end of the day. Or at least, better if we include his defense.

And here is another blurb from DocMJ, from his notes watching Blazers/Lakers game 4:

Kareem's defense on Walton is clearly much more successful, but Walton doesn't spend a lot of time trying to score when Kareem's on him. Instead, he immediately starts looking for someone to pass it to, and once the ball is passed, Kareem seems largely out of the play. Part of that is due to Walton being able to draw Kareem out, which leaves Kareem in poor position to challenge shots. Walton's passes seem strategically smart, and often quite sharp, but he is committing a good amount of turnovers in the process.

So if these are the primary areas of strength for Walton, can't we also compare them directly with Garnett? For example, we can compare peak Garnett to peak Walton. I'm going to use numbers from 2003 Garnett and 1978 Walton because those are the seasons when both had roles that maximized their facillitator abilities and we have more complete stats for 1978, but these are still peak seasons and speaks to skill sets:

B-R single season comp of 2003 Garnett and 1978 Walton: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2003

If you follow that link, you'll see that Garnett had a higher assist percentage (25.8% vs 22.8%) and a MUCH lower turnover percentage (11.9% vs 17.2%). Garnett is openly acknowledged as an extremely effective pick setter (even if he's accused of illegal screens, he takes advantage of what the ref gives and gets lots of open shots for his teammates. Garnett routinely ran the Wolves' offense from the high-post, and led them to multiple high efficiency team offenses from that role. Garnett also provides excellent spacing as a 7-footer that must be accounted for in the high post.

In other words, Garnett seems to have all of Walton's non-scoring offensive strengths in at least similar measure, and in the tangible passing/turnover stats Garnett seemed to be the more efficient and effective of the two.

Defense This is the most difficult comparison to make across 25 years and a big lack of consistent global defensive stats. About all I can say is that Walton is openly acknowledged as one of the better defenders ever, and Garnett is the same. Walton has a lot of defensive strengths, highlited by his huge motor, his ability to help out in a large area, and his shot-blocking. Walton is a slightly bettter shot-blocker than Garnett showed, but at their peaks we're talking a small margin (5% block % for Walton '77 and 4% for Garnett '04). Meanwhile, Garnett had the higher steal percentage (2.0% vs 1.3%) and his horizontal defensive abilities are unmatched in this generation. He is openly acknowledged as the best pick-and-roll defender of this generation, he can and did switch off onto point guards when needed without issue, and at his peak he routinely guarded excellent wings for entire games if needed (KG famously shut down TMac during TMac's historic 2003 season).

Again, in this area that is the biggest feather in Walton's cap, is there any separation in his favor over Garnett? Is there any way that anyone can confidently say that he was a better defender?

Garnett's strengths: I look forward to rebuttals, but as far as I can tell KG at worst plays Walton to a stand still skill-set wise in the two absolute biggest strength-areas that Walton has: team defense and team offense. But on the other hand, Garnett is clearly a better scorer than Walton. Garnett showed the ability to score at higher volumes on similar efficiency. Garnett's scoring was also more versatile than Walton's, with a consistent jumper out to 20 feet that supplemented the excellent post skills that he could call upon at need.

Also, it goes without question that at their peaks Garnett was much more durable and available to play big minutes than Walton. KG played about 1000 more minutes in 2004 than Walton in 1977, and it wasn't all missed games. KG played about 5 more minutes per game in both the regular and the post season than Walton did. While I recognize that the ability to be there at the end is the biggest point, and Walton was there at the end, there is something to be said about the reliability of knowing that peak KG would be on the court every night while you didn't have that with Walton. And more importantly, the fact that Garnett could play more on a game-to-game basis is a key because both are per-minute giants, so every extra minute Garnett gives you is massive.

Leadership intangibles: This is even more murky than defense so you can't necessarily judge entirely on this, but Garnett is openly acknowledged as one of the best leaders of this generation. His focus on winning has been known to change the culture of two franchises. His fanaticism in practice has done the same. And his emphasis on team-over-all is also note-worthy. Again, I welcome rebuttals, but my understanding and reading on Walton's off-court leadership intangibles is that it isn't quite the strength for him that it is for Garnett.

Summary: this post was long, so let me re-post Doc MJ's quote of interest from above:

This is a crucial point for me. I've talked before about the identical twin scenario - I don't want to mistakenly conclude one identical twin is better than the other because of his situation. If Walton is giving more lift to his team than Kareem, but Kareem has all Walton's skills and then some, then Kareem's my clear choice.

From what I can tell, Walton vs KG at their peaks is EXACTLY the identical twin scenario, with the only exception that we don't actually know that Walton was giving more lift to his team than Garnett. KG may have been giving similar lift, he has all of Walton's skills and then some, and he was the much more reliable player. So...why would Walton's peak be rated higher?

[JordansBulls]

Between these guys for me

--------- RS PER, WS48, --------- PER, WS48 playoffs
Moses Malone 1983: 25.1, 0.248 -----25.7, 0.260 (13 playoff games, title)
Dwyane Wade 2006: 27.6, 0.239-------26.9, 0.240 (23 playoff games, title)
Julius Erving 1976: 28.7, 0.262-----32.0, 0.321 (13 playoff games, title) - ABA



http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/ ... ormances-1

2006 WADE'S STATS
Points per game: 34.7
Boards per game: 7.8
Steals per game: 2.7
PER: 33.8


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2 ... nces-11-20

MOSES MALONE FINALS STATS
Points per game: 25.8
Boards per game: 18.0
Blocks per game: 1.5
PER: 26.0

VOTE: Dwyane Wade 2006. This guy carried the Heat this season and his production was clearly superior to any of his teammates this season and then to top it off had a historic Conference Finals and NBA Finals.

[colts18]

This thread for me is up to Walton and Dirk. Both are similar in that they took mediocre teams to titles. And made massive impacts in the process. I do like Dirk's playoff more because he wasn't outplayed like Walton was.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote 2004 Kevin Garnett. I like him a bit less than Duncan and Hakeem because KG is the most perimeter orientated. Otherwise you're basically looking at the same idea - a complete mix of elite defense, scoring, passing, etc. and a player who can fit with anyone

[Doctor MJ]

I'm with drza that for me it's probably between Erving '76, Walton '77, and Garnett '04.

I guess I'll start off by asking people to ask themselves:

Since all but one of you just voted for LeBron, why wouldn't Erving be next?

For me personally I see these two seasons as extremely similar: You've got the only two players in history to lead their contending team in points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals. In both situation, the players picked up their games quite clearly come playoff time.

Both are also classified as small forwards, although admittedly that's a touch too general to get carried away with. They didn't dominate the same way. LeBron is a more natural passer as is strong as-all-get-out. Erving was the ultimate guy who seemed to be playing on a trampoline while everyone else played on hardwood, and he added along with that unsurpassed grace and touch near the rim, the willingness to adjust to his teammates much more than ost scorers, and the dude seemed to have an aura around his head (beyond the afro) which inspired his teammates.

So yeah, I'd like to see people raise concerns that I can address.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Walton vs Garnett

As I mentioned before. This is quite difficult:

I'm inclined to say their peak defensive impact is quite possibly comparable, but I do think Walton's '77 impact is clearly ahead of Garnett's '04 impact. Walton was the best defensive player in the game at this point.

On offense, I give Garnett the offensive edge, but I do so with less confidence. It's relatively easy to look at Walton's scoring from individual stats and video that year and say that that gives Garnett the edge, but we already know:

1) That if you only used those measurements you'd have no idea the kind of GOAT on/off impact he was having.

2) Walton showed incredible scoring touch when he was at UCLA.

It's not only possible, but to my mind, basically a certainty that Walton could have put up more traditional big man volume scoring number had that been how his team decided to use him. They chose to do something else with him, and coach Ramsey has no end to how much praise he'll shower on Walton for what he did. Ramsey thinks he was a GOAT candidate. Simple as that.

I'll note as I say this to those who are skeptical: Walton's FG% in '77 was 52.8% and he had a very solid (for a big) FT% of 69.7%. This is Walton playing high post. He's not right by the basket, and he's putting up percentages in line with the Hakeem's and Ewing's of the world.

Don't let the comparison with Kareem fool you. Walton only looks like a bad scorer, because Kareem is freakishly, freakishly good.

Last note:

If anyone has some detailed data analysis on Walton that'd be great to share. The general on/off stuff is great of course (though we already know Walton is beyond massive there), but could we see break downs on offense vs defense?

[drza]

I'm with drza that for me it's probably between Erving '76, Walton '77, and Garnett '04.

I guess I'll start off by asking people to ask themselves:

Since all but one of you just voted for LeBron, why wouldn't Erving be next?

For me personally I see these two seasons as extremely similar: You've got the only two players in history to lead their contending team in points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals. In both situation, the players picked up their games quite clearly come playoff time.

Both are also classified as small forwards, although admittedly that's a touch too general to get carried away with. They didn't dominate the same way. LeBron is a more natural passer as is strong as-all-get-out. Erving was the ultimate guy who seemed to be playing on a trampoline while everyone else played on hardwood, and he added along with that unsurpassed grace and touch near the rim, the willingness to adjust to his teammates much more than ost scorers, and the dude seemed to have an aura around his head (beyond the afro) which inspired his teammates.

So yeah, I'd like to see people raise concerns that I can address.

1) For me personally, I don't see the players in these two seasons as extremely similar at all. LeBron and Doc are both freak athletes, but their style of play on offense is completely different. And in this case, the style seems to be pretty important because so much of LeBron's offensive value comes from his ability to be a team offensivel engine. From the lists of GOAT offensive players floating around, the tops of the list are always offensive creators. Magic, Bird, Nash, Jordan, etc. and now LeBron...they all are adept at creating with the ball for both themselves and for teammates.

Doc wasn't like that. I've said before that he was once my favorite player, and I remember...he wasn't a very good ballhandler. He was unselfish and had decent court vision, but he wasn't going to create for his teammates to that level. He was an amazing, can-you-believe-that??? finisher as a slasher. He was a face-up/quick step/2 dribbles finisher. But he wasn't an offensive creator on a team level the way that the other offensive GOATs were, nor was he a consistent shooter from range. While a better passer than Nique, Doc's offensive game was much more Dominique than it was Jordan. And this matters at this level, because my understanding is that we are trying to isolate a player from his circumstances to some extent. And about circumstances...

2) The NBA/ABA split has to be addressed. I've seen the logic that the leagues were roughly equal in overall talent, and that the Nuggets that Doc mersecuted in '76 went on to be a strong defense and play in the Finals for the combined NBA in '77. But there are a few issues with this line of thought:

For one, even if the ABA were exactly as strong as the NBA, in 1976 that means the ABA was still 1/2 as good as what the overall top professional league in the world should have been. If LeBron would have had the exact season that he had in 2009 but in half of a league, there absolutely would have been major questions about him getting elected at 10. I mean, his 2009 season faced legitimate criticism because one player (Garnett) was injured and people think that this made his 2009 playoffs outburst questionable. Just think about if his numbers would have come in a league where the Lakers, Celtics, and half of the rest of the talent was in a league that he never played against. That would count against him.

For two, I've seen several folks point out that the '76 Nuggets and the '77 Nuggets weren't the same entity. There were similar parts, but there was a lot of turnover as well. And since basketball isn't entirely additive...you don't just add/subtract the production of different pieces, but instead the whole changes as the ingredients do, I don't think you can just excise the '76 Nuggets and say that beating them was the same as beating the '77 version and thus being equivalent to winning the '77 crown.

And for three, even if the top end talent is similar, it's the middle and lower tiers where the split really makes a difference. Doc getting to play against lesser players and lesser teams for half of his games helped him stay fresher, compile bigger numbers, and have a bigger influence with his style of play than he would have in a unified league.

3) Doc has his own strengths, he doesn't need to borrow LeBron's. As you mentioned, he was able to fit his game in with other greats...I think that added portability comes from him being more finisher than creator. But that isn't very similar to LeBron. As you also mentioned, Doc was one of the greatest leaders of men that this game has seen and he had everyone (both players and fans) pulling for him to succeed and players willing to be a soldier for him in order to help him succeed. LeBron has never shown anything like this.

I guess my overall point is, it's not crazy at all to vote for Doc here. He had a season for the ages, and he was a player for the ages. BUT. His peak wasn't some kind of clone for LeBron such that a vote for LeBron necessitates a vote for Doc. Their styles, circumstances, and strengths were very different from each other. So I guess I'd say to judge J on his own merits against the current competition, not to feel like just because you voted for LeBron means you have to vote for him.

[drza]

Re: Walton vs Garnett

As I mentioned before. This is quite difficult:

I'm inclined to say their peak defensive impact is quite possibly comparable, but I do think Walton's '77 impact is clearly ahead of Garnett's '04 impact. Walton was the best defensive player in the game at this point.

On offense, I give Garnett the offensive edge, but I do so with less confidence. It's relatively easy to look at Walton's scoring from individual stats and video that year and say that that gives Garnett the edge, but we already know:

1) That if you only used those measurements you'd have no idea the kind of GOAT on/off impact he was having.

2) Walton showed incredible scoring touch when he was at UCLA.

It's not only possible, but to my mind, basically a certainty that Walton could have put up more traditional big man volume scoring number had that been how his team decided to use him. They chose to do something else with him, and coach Ramsey has no end to how much praise he'll shower on Walton for what he did. Ramsey thinks he was a GOAT candidate. Simple as that.

I'll note as I say this to those who are skeptical: Walton's FG% in '77 was 52.8% and he had a very solid (for a big) FT% of 69.7%. This is Walton playing high post. He's not right by the basket, and he's putting up percentages in line with the Hakeem's and Ewing's of the world.

Don't let the comparison with Kareem fool you. Walton only looks like a bad scorer, because Kareem is freakishly, freakishly good.

Last note:

If anyone has some detailed data analysis on Walton that'd be great to share. The general on/off stuff is great of course (though we already know Walton is beyond massive there), but could we see break downs on offense vs defense?

It's hard to tell what part of your statement is just nuanced writing and what part is your actual opinion. But I will say that the feel of this comment, much like the feel of the similar comment that you posted in response to me a couple of threads ago, is that you see Walton as clearly better on defense but that KG was only marginally better on offense with an asterisk, because Walton's college career convinces you that if he were used differently on offense he could have been better.

If I'm interpreting you correctly, that seems like a strange stance to me for 2 reasons: 1) there's a large body of information to suggest that 2004 Garnett was an all-world defender (if not the best in the league, at worst right there with peak Duncan and peak Wallace, both of which would be on the all-history defensive team anyway), and 2) we know from NBA (as opposed to NCAA) action that if used differently Garnett DEFINITELY could have had even more impact on defense at his peak. As such, if there were a line for which of the two should get more benefit of the doubt, I don't see how Garnett's defense shouldn't get that edge much (much) more-so than Walton's offense. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Also, as I pointed out in my long post earlier...isn't Walton's GOAT (that we know of) in/out "impact stats" countered by Garnett's GOAT (that we know of) on/off +/- stats? As you point out, if we went only by traditional box scores we wouldn't necessarily realize how absurd Walton was. But isn't the same true of KG? Only, not only were his +/- stats off the charts, but he was ALSO putting up historical box score stats. And not even just in the composite stats like PER or win shares...I pointed out that KG was, for example, much more efficient as a finishing passer than Walton with a higher assist percentage and a simultaneous (much) lower turnover rate. Since Walton doesn't have the kind of clear impact advantage over Garnett that he might have in other comparisons, shouldn't we at least make note that a player who does a lot of very similar things seemed to be doing them better, to every extent that we can possibly track?

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Walton vs Erving

Since they met in the finals, and pretty much everyone thinks of Walton as getting the best of the matchup, it's worth commenting on what that means for their comparison of peaks in this project.

I can certainly see arguments for Walton. Perhaps the scariest thing is that if you had switched Walton & Erving on to other teams, I think you can make a great case that Walton's team STILL wins. I like doing such short-hand comparisons, and that certainly gives Walton a big leg up to start us off.

Of course though, looking at just those two supporting casts isn't the complete way to do it.

Philadelphia was a horribly constructed team who already had Dr. J Lite in George McGinnis. It would have made a hell of a lot more sense to get a Walton-like guy on that team than add Erving. When you look at Erving '76's supporting cast, where you're literally talking about a guy lifting the last talent supporting cast around to a championship, on that team swapping Walton in causes a much weaker team.

I find myself thinking about a certain point:

One can argue that Erving was a low ceiling team guy in the role he was playing in '76. Yes they won a title, but they weren't a strong champion. Maybe Erving in a normal merged league situation comes up short? (I'll mention as something to consider before going too far in that direction: Erving's prior Net teams were stronger SRS-wise, and he did win another ABA title, so by no means was him winning ABA titles a fluke.)

But let's also consider Walton here. We are talking about a high post hub big man here. This is not the normal state of affairs. Yes, it's not unheard of, and it's something you consider doing with any big man who is with-it enough, but when you consider on/off data. You also want to consider how unusual the guy's position was.

This ties into why more data is good here because the following year with no access to Walton, the team's offense doesn't fall through the floor. In fact it gets better. Not better, I'm sure, than what it was when Walton was in, but better than it was when you only had Walton for a fraction of the time. Why is that?

Well, in part it has to be because the Blazer were lucky enough to have the #1 overall pick in '78, and to draft a big man. So again, best not to get carried away. However, it is worth wondering whether Walton's offensive portability could get overrated if we simply focus on on/off.

[colts18]

There's no way that 04 KG was making more impact than 77 or 78 Walton. Walton missed a few games those seasons and showed his true impact. I went back and plugged in the Blazers MOV with Walton as their full season total and wanted to see how far they were from the average in comparison to other teams.

78 Blazers: 2.87 Standard deviations from the mean
77 Blazers: 2.40 Standard deviations
96 Bulls: 2.32 Standard deviations
04 Spurs: 1.83 Standard deviations (leaders in 2004)
04 Wolves: 1.39 Standard deviations

Thats a massive gap in impact. When Walton played, the Blazers were a GOAT team. When KG played, his team was a run of the mill good team.

[ThaRegul8r]

Philadelphia was a horribly constructed team who already had Dr. J Lite in George McGinnis. It would have made a hell of a lot more sense to get a Walton-like guy on that team than add Erving. When you look at Erving '76's supporting cast, where you're literally talking about a guy lifting the last talent supporting cast around to a championship, on that team swapping Walton in causes a much weaker team.

As I posted before when I initially posted about Erving, which I'll repost now, 76ers coach Gene Shue said that he wasn't as enthused about acquiring Erving because they were already strong at forward, and actually said that if they had gotten Walton it would have been different:

The finishing touch for assembling the best team money could buy and then just awaiting the delivery of the championship came last October with the purchase for almost $3 million of Julius Erving from the New York Nets. It was made by the 76ers’ new millionaire owner, F. Eugene Dixon, despite the rather cool interest at first expressed by the 76ers’ coach, Gene Shue. Shue was not interested in adding another forward, even if that forward was Erving, the game’s most exciting player.

Shue recently explained that reasoning to a Philadelphia newsman.

“The reason was,” said Shue, “I didn’t know if he could strengthen our team. That sounds ridiculous, but the strength of our team was already in our forwards. I also told the owner there was no way I was going to guarantee we would win a championship just because we got Dr. J. If it would have been Bill Walton (the Trail Blazer center), I would have said something different.”

It was a bad fit. And afterwards, Gene Shue had glowing things to say about Walton:

He doesn’t have any weaknesses. You can’t shut him off. He can score when he has to but he is above all else a team player. He makes the players around him so much better.

PORTLAND, Ore (UPI) — Philadelphia Coach Gene Shue gave a quick congratulations to Portland Coach Jack Ramsey, then went into seclusion to mask his disappointment at losing the NBA championship to the Portland Trail Blazers.

But, when he came out of that seclusion, he spoke like a gentleman and with candor.

“I went in to congratulate Jack,” he said. “You know, if Bill Walton had been healthy the whole season, there is no doubt that the Portland Trail Blazers would have the best regular season record in the NBA.”

Asked about the championship matchup of Portland’s “classic style team-oriented play” versus his “one-on-one” type of team, and Shue said his own philosophy of basketball “always has been in favor of the classic style, the team that passes, the team that hits the open man. I learned that in college, and as a pro player.

“But you know, in the pros, you take what you can get. You can’t say I’ll take this guy or that guy. The object of the game is to win. I feel very satisfied that we reached our objective of the championship finals.

“I have a group of very strong-willed individual players. But I also wish I had Bill Walton.”

[lorak]

I'm with drza that for me it's probably between Erving '76, Walton '77, and Garnett '04.

I guess I'll start off by asking people to ask themselves:

Since all but one of you just voted for LeBron, why wouldn't Erving be next?

Because of weaker competition, talent split between two leagues so it's hard to determine how good Dr J really was.

[Doctor MJ]

1) For me personally, I don't see the players in these two seasons as extremely similar at all. LeBron and Doc are both freak athletes, but their style of play on offense is completely different. And in this case, the style seems to be pretty important because so much of LeBron's offensive value comes from his ability to be a team offensivel engine. From the lists of GOAT offensive players floating around, the tops of the list are always offensive creators. Magic, Bird, Nash, Jordan, etc. and now LeBron...they all are adept at creating with the ball for both themselves and for teammates.

I'm really not sold on either LeBron or Jordan being included on the list with those other guys, but especially Jordan.

I'll say up front people have made some arguments before for Jordan along these lines. My apologies for not having analyzed them enough to say I either agree or can rebut them. I'd welcome people mentioning it again.

What I see though is that Jordan ran meh offenses until Jackson, Pippen & co came along. Jackson's offense was designed specifically to keep Jordan from playing on ball like a wunderkind like Magic or Nash would, Pippen's game was excellent for distribution, and the rest of the talent was designed not with a great distributor in mind, but with non-scoring skills being thought to be in desperate needs. The Bulls became a GOAT level offense, only statistically because of their great rebounding, and one can argue only in name because the Bull defense created for the offense.

Let's note while we're at it, that over the course of their careers, Erving's offenses were better on average than Jordan's relative to norms. This was not Erving stuck in mediocrity while Jordan team offenses blew through the roof while he was doing the creating for himself and others.

Frankly, I wonder what Erving would have been able to do if he'd had the '91 Bulls to work with. He never had a coach that good, he never had a sidekick that suitable, and the non-scoring guys would be as useful to Erving as they were to Jordan.

Re: LeBron. I will at least agree with you that LeBron has a natural tendency to be a hub in a way I wouldn't arge that Erving. Let's just remember though that Erving led his team in assists, and did so while not forcing his teammates to play off-ball to anywhere near the same degree as LeBron in '09 did. There are pros and cons to both styles. I'm not going to say that Erving's was a recipe for GOAT eFG% for the team the way Magic & Nash did, but again, LeBron had a ceiling too.

2) The NBA/ABA split has to be addressed. I've seen the logic that the leagues were roughly equal in overall talent, and that the Nuggets that Doc mersecuted in '76 went on to be a strong defense and play in the Finals for the combined NBA in '77. But there are a few issues with this line of thought:

For one, even if the ABA were exactly as strong as the NBA, in 1976 that means the ABA was still 1/2 as good as what the overall top professional league in the world should have been.

drza, I cannot believe you just said that. That's a ridiculous statement. I'm going to chalk that up to you just using shorthand hyperbole, because I know you can't believe that. Just in case though, and for the rest of the gallery:

In baseball, in relatively recent time, the decision was made to have interleague play between the NL & AL. Previously, they'd only met in the pre-season, all-star game, and World Series. Now they actually play like one league throughout the season.

Here's the question: When they did this, did the NL & AL each become twice as strong as they'd been before?

Of course not. If you take half the top players and put them in each league, this does nothing to the level of competition each team is competing against. The only thing that would change that is if you had doubled the total amount of players playing between the two leagues.

Were there twice as many players playing in '76 compared to LeBron's '09 league? No, obviously.

Of course, having two champions makes it twice as easy to be called "champion" or "MVP", but hopefully no one is doing such superficial analysis that recognition of this would drastically change their assessments of the pre-merger era.

For two, I've seen several folks point out that the '76 Nuggets and the '77 Nuggets weren't the same entity. There were similar parts, but there was a lot of turnover as well. And since basketball isn't entirely additive...you don't just add/subtract the production of different pieces, but instead the whole changes as the ingredients do, I don't think you can just excise the '76 Nuggets and say that beating them was the same as beating the '77 version and thus being equivalent to winning the '77 crown.

Okay, but you have to have a starting basis don't you? I mean, it makes no sense to assume that the '76 Nuggets were a weak team. If you aren't tying them at least at a starting point to the '77 Nuggets team, how are you attempting to come up with your assessment of them?

I'm totally fine with someone diving into details here, and if they unearth something that goes against what I've described, that's cool. However, the same holds true for any consecutive versions of the same team. I emphasize what I do so much because people might not realize that unlike some other ABA teams, the Nuggets were not taken apart over the course of the merger. They literally got added to the new league, much like the Lakers when they joined the league way back when and won the title in the new league just liked they'd done in the old league.

And for three, even if the top end talent is similar, it's the middle and lower tiers where the split really makes a difference. Doc getting to play against lesser players and lesser teams for half of his games helped him stay fresher, compile bigger numbers, and have a bigger influence with his style of play than he would have in a unified league.

Well, that's something worth putting forth for people to ponder. I'm personal not sure what to do with it though. In theory, that could be meaningful, but it's not like guys in the '76 ABA were putting up steroid numbers during the regular season. Smells fishy to jump in when 1 guy goes nuclear in the playoffs and say, "Well, clearly all that coasting against weaker teams allowed him to store his energy so that he explode in the playoffs."

Either something is a trend with a plausible explanation, or it feels like an excuse used in one particular situation without looking at the implications of that explanation elsewhere to see if it holds up.

3) Doc has his own strengths, he doesn't need to borrow LeBron's.

Dude, I've been talking about how unreal it was for Erving to lead his team in all categories etc for years. Years before LeBron did it. For them to be the only two guys to have ever done it, and both being guys to discuss in this project, it's be silly not to mention them together when talking about this accomplishment. While doing so, it would be silly not to mention that they are both forwards.

And of course, while doing so it would be irresponsible not to note that they did have different games...which is why I noted that.

It feels like you're just disapproving because you think I talked about their shared accomplishment too much without spending enough time on the differences. Totally fine for you then to focus more on the differences, but I'm not here making anything up. Domination-wise, I see them very similar.

[Doctor MJ]

Because of weaker competition, talent split between two leagues so it's hard to determine how good Dr J really was.

Okay, be sure you read what's already been written to this point.

To say a touch more:

There weren't twice as many pros back then as now, so we're talking really about how talent got distributed between the two leagues. The best way to judge that is by looking at the best crossover points. NBA-ABA exhibitions, players moving between leagues in the late pre-merger years, and where possible, perspective on the competition Erving faced.

What we tend to see:

While the NBA dominated the ABA exhibitions in early years, the ABA had the clear edge for quite a while before the merger.

APBRmetric analysis done on player movement between leagues has shown that while early on ABA stats were superinflated, by the last few years there was no dramatic difference.

As luck would have, Erving's crescendo happened against the Denver Nuggets, who remained essentially intact and went on to be very good in the NBA generally, and the best in the league in defense.

Seems legit to me.

[Doctor MJ]

It's hard to tell what part of your statement is just nuanced writing and what part is your actual opinion. But I will say that the feel of this comment, much like the feel of the similar comment that you posted in response to me a couple of threads ago, is that you see Walton as clearly better on defense but that KG was only marginally better on offense with an asterisk, because Walton's college career convinces you that if he were used differently on offense he could have been better.

If I'm interpreting you correctly, that seems like a strange stance to me for 2 reasons: 1) there's a large body of information to suggest that 2004 Garnett was an all-world defender (if not the best in the league, at worst right there with peak Duncan and peak Wallace, both of which would be on the all-history defensive team anyway), and 2) we know from NBA (as opposed to NCAA) action that if used differently Garnett DEFINITELY could have had even more impact on defense at his peak. As such, if there were a line for which of the two should get more benefit of the doubt, I don't see how Garnett's defense shouldn't get that edge much (much) more-so than Walton's offense. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Good question. I'm only using Walton's college performance to establish a baseline for his actual Blazer value.

Whereas with Garnett, I'm saying that Garnett can reach that level defensively but only you sacrifice the offense, with Walton I'm not making assumption that he could have been better offensively, I just want people who are skeptical about his offensive impact to consider how big it had to be in this role to justify him not being used more as a scorer.

Also, as I pointed out in my long post earlier...isn't Walton's GOAT (that we know of) in/out "impact stats" countered by Garnett's GOAT (that we know of) on/off +/- stats? As you point out, if we went only by traditional box scores we wouldn't necessarily realize how absurd Walton was. But isn't the same true of KG? Only, not only were his +/- stats off the charts, but he was ALSO putting up historical box score stats. And not even just in the composite stats like PER or win shares...I pointed out that KG was, for example, much more efficient as a finishing passer than Walton with a higher assist percentage and a simultaneous (much) lower turnover rate. Since Walton doesn't have the kind of clear impact advantage over Garnett that he might have in other comparisons, shouldn't we at least make note that a player who does a lot of very similar things seemed to be doing them better, to every extent that we can possibly track?

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree here. I can't imagine saying Walton has to win this one based on his on/off indicators.

[lorak]

For two, I've seen several folks point out that the '76 Nuggets and the '77 Nuggets weren't the same entity. There were similar parts, but there was a lot of turnover as well. And since basketball isn't entirely additive...you don't just add/subtract the production of different pieces, but instead the whole changes as the ingredients do, I don't think you can just excise the '76 Nuggets and say that beating them was the same as beating the '77 version and thus being equivalent to winning the '77 crown.

Okay, but you have to have a starting basis don't you? I mean, it makes no sense to assume that the '76 Nuggets were a weak team. If you aren't tying them at least at a starting point to the '77 Nuggets team, how are you attempting to come up with your assessment of them?

I'm totally fine with someone diving into details here, and if they unearth something that goes against what I've described, that's cool. However, the same holds true for any consecutive versions of the same team. I emphasize what I do so much because people might not realize that unlike some other ABA teams, the Nuggets were not taken apart over the course of the merger. They literally got added to the new league,

and changed almost whole roster!
(minimum 1000 minutes played)
1976
Simpson
Skywalker
Issel
Jones
CH. Williams
Beck
Terry
Gerard


1977
Skywalker
Issel
Jones
McClain
Silas
Taylor
Wise
Price
Webster

So only 3 rotation players were the same on both teams and of course coach.

And 1976 Nuggets weren't anything special on defense. Only -0.7 drtg, so just below league average. 1977 team changed most of the roster and improved a lot defensively: -3.4 drtg. Completely different teams. 1976 version was offensively oriented, 1977 defensively.

[lorak]

As luck would have, Erving's crescendo happened against the Denver Nuggets, who remained essentially intact and went on to be very good in the NBA generally, and the best in the league in defense.

Seems legit to me.

So untrue.

And BTW, Erving played only TWO rounds on his way for the title in 1976...

[mysticbb]

A couple of numbers regarding the ABA/NBA stuff:

In 1976/77 90% of the minutes (accumulated player minutes) from the previous season played in the merged league. That numbers is true for BOTH leagues! That means, only 10% of the minutes getter in 1976 didn't found a job in the new league.
The ABA players which played then in the NBA in 1977 played about 4% above league average in the ABA (minute weighted average), they also played about 4% above league average in 1977. So, no change in their average performance level in comparison the league average was seen between 1976 and 1977. The NBA players who played in 1976 and 1977 had 4% above league average in 1976, while having exactly league average performance level in 1977. We see a drop in their performance level from 1976 to 1977. Those numbers are based on PER and WS/48, where the league average is set to 15 in PER and 0.099 in WS/48 (that is not exactly 0.100, because of OT minutes).
Players, who played 1976 in the ABA played in average 24.4 minutes per game in 1977, players who played 1976 in the NBA had in average 24.7 minutes per game in 1977.

Those numbers do NOT suggest any kind of significant difference in playing level between the 1976 NBA and 1976 ABA; in fact, the higher average performance level of the 1976 ABA players in the 1977 league suggest, that the better talent in the ABA was actually slightly better than in the NBA. And all that doesn't even adjust for the differences in the rules, which just applied to the ABA players, and the role changes for them due to the fact that only 4 teams survived while all 18 teams of the NBA were still present, thus, a lower shift in roles is to expected for the players who played 1976 in the NBA. We can find evidence for that by using correlation analysis. The ABA players had a 0.6 correlation coefficient for the minutes, while having 0.66 for the performance level. The NBA players seen a 0.72 correlation coefficient for the minutes and a 0.56 for the performance level. Here again, despite having similar roles more often on the teams, the performance level for the 1976 NBA players shifted more than for the ABA players. That is actually somewhat surprising, because the year-to-year correlation of the performance level is heavily dictated by the player role. That again suggest that the ABA players had actually a higher playing level.

So, put Julius Erving into a similar in the 1976 NBA as he had in the 1976 ABA, he would likely perform in a similar fashion above league average as he did in the ABA. Had he assumed the same role in the 1977 NBA, he would have very likely not seen such a drop in the production and efficiency. In fact, his numbers from 1980 to 1983 are giving more evidence to that, because the performance difference between 22 to 25 and then between 29 and 32 is bascially the same as the drop seen for someone like Kobe Bryant for the same age spans or Michael Jordan. And I'm pretty sure we will see a similar thing for LeBron James.
It just looks dubious for Erving, because his statistically best seasons were during his time in the ABA, but at the end the average wing player shows to have their best statistical season during the same age span too. While then he came to a new team, was put into a complete new role and performed worse right away. Tracy McGrady saw a much bigger drop in performance level between 22 to 25 and 29 to 32. Is someone questioning the value of his 2003 season as well in the same fashion as they do it with Erving?

[lorak]

The ABA players which played then in the NBA in 1977 played about 4% above league average in the ABA (minute weighted average), they also played about 4% above league average in 1977. So, no change in their average performance level

Performance level measured by what? How do you measure defense? Do you look at playoffs?

It just looks dubious for Erving, because his statistically best seasons were during his time in the ABA, but at the end the average wing player shows to have their best statistical season during the same age span too. While then he came to a new team, was put into a complete new role and performed worse right away. Tracy McGrady saw a much bigger drop in performance level between 22 to 25 and 29 to 32. Is someone questioning the value of his 2003 season as well in the same fashion as they do it with Erving?

Do you see anyone discussing TMac in #11 thread?