#35 Highest Peak of All Time (Cowens '73 wins)

[Doctor MJ]

Frazier '72 has been enshrined. We move on.

[JordansBulls]

He led the Hawks to more of an elite record. However 1986 Nique was higher in MVP voting and led the league in scoring.

Vote: 1987 Dominique Wilkins.

[ardee]

Vote: 1984 Bernard King

For reasons I stated in the last thread.

[Dr Positivity]

Edit - Change my vote to 73 Cowens

Vote 2008 Paul Pierce

One of the best scoring skillsets ever, great all around player, his best defensive year

[C-izMe]

I'm voting 2000 Zo. The highest RPOY finish of the remaining seasons, and probably as good as Dwight. Averaged 21.4/9.5/1.6 with 3.7 blocks on +6.5TS and won DPOY.

[Lightning25]

I'm voting 2007 Yao Ming.

I do think he is the best player remaining. Yes, he does have an injury problem that season but he was very dominant. Before the freak accident of a knee injury he suffered, he was favorite to be the MVP. He was out for about 2-3 months and McGrady was leading well without him which completely took him out of the race. They weren't just playing well because Yao wasn't important, they were playing well because they had the best backup C in the game with Mutombo. I've always said that if a team happens to play without you, chances are that it is more likely because your backup is very good and in this case it was the backup, not the impact.

I wouldn't have a problem voting for 2009 Yao though because I saw most of him that season and I actually felt like he was top 5 that season and better than Dwight that season. 2007 was just his most productive season.

People might look at Yao's playoff numbers in 2007 and say he underachieved. There is some truth to it because he turned the ball over frequently, had a mismatch on defense with a Boozer/Okur front-court, and didn't score as efficiently as normal but he was still very productive. Yao averaged 25/10 with 55% TS% in that series which is still very good although below his own normal standards.

I think a large part of why he played as bad as he did and McGrady as well was because JVG (the head coach at the time) just completely over-utilized them throughout the entire season. I also think that they underachieved and played below their standards because JVG was horrible outcoached and he has no offensive system. I've always said that JVG is practically a white Mike Brown. He is someone that has literally no clue how to coach an offense because of how unbelievable basic/predictable it is. He is a good defensive coach though but he provides nothing else.

People seem to confuse that JVG was a good coach because he's a good analyst but those are two separate entities.

Yao literally had to earn every single one of his baskets when JVG was around. He never had anyone setting him up for an easy layup/dunk except for McGrady occasionally but even then I don't remember McGrady feeding him that often in that series.

I think some of you might look at hoopdata and see that his AST% is pretty high but I think it's deceiving like most assists stats. There were plenty of times where McGrady/Alston gave Yao a simple entry pass and Yao just immediately shot a jump-hook, turnaround, etc. immediately and it would count as an assist. I'm really not sure if I would qualify that as someone that needed to be set up to score cause otherwise every NBA big in NBA history needs to be set up in order to score. He wasn't spoon-fed and didn't get easy buckets would be the best way to put it.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm voting 2000 Zo. The highest RPOY finish of the remaining seasons, and probably as good as Dwight. Averaged 21.4/9.5/1.6 with 3.7 blocks on +6.5TS and won DPOY.

I gotta point out that we still have winners left: Pettit, Arizin & Schayes, and that Mikan would have won had we gone back further in time.

[C-izMe]

I'm voting 2000 Zo. The highest RPOY finish of the remaining seasons, and probably as good as Dwight. Averaged 21.4/9.5/1.6 with 3.7 blocks on +6.5TS and won DPOY.

I gotta point out that we still have winners left: Pettit, Arizin & Schayes, and that Mikan would have won had we gone back further in time.

I thought we weren't including Mikan and I honestly didn't look back that far - my bad.

Thinking Pettit next though...

Maybe if he gets some momentum.

[Doctor MJ]

There is some force that doesn't want me to post about Bob Pettit. This is the fourth time I've tried to write about him...

-we're in the dark ages, we have to guess, be less sure, and it's harder to have a sense of impact
-I like the stats, the stories, and the film, but that doesn't auto-default to much of anything (eg +3 and +6 are two every different things)
-No one shows much outlying impact from about the early 50's to the mid 60's other than Bill Russell's Celtics. (In 1950 Mikan's team was 8.5 SRS)

In 55 there is a small jump from -4.5 to -2.5 when Pettit joins the Hawks. The 56 team is better, at -1.4 SRS, with Pettit going from by far the best Hawk as a rookie (20-11) to MVP of the league. He beat out Cousy and Arizin with a plurality win (0.43 share).

In 57 they add Ed Macauley from the Celtics, a rookie named Cliff Hagan, boast an average offense and an average defense, finish under .500, but no one notices because they take the Celtics to the brink. Pettit is second in MVP and averages 25-15. St Louis also moves from one great coach -- Holzman -- to another in Alex Hannum. In 58 they have almost the exact same results...

59 is the season to look at. Macauley takes over as coach and they go 43-19 under him (final SRS of 3, all of it, estimated, coming from offense). Cliff Hagan is now a 24-11 sidekick next to Pettit, with Clyde Lovellette showing prominence and many of the same players from the team since Pettit arrived.

So unless something very weird is happening with the impact of the coaches, guys like Hagan being deceptive from his stats (which was the opposite conclusion the remaining RPOY panel had for these seasons), and so on, it seems impossible to credit Pettit for taking a -4.5 team to +3. Such a feat would place him much higher on the list than 34th, of course, so the question is how much credit can be given to Pettit for the movement of this team?

Well, the FIRST jump in the his tenure over .500 -- and again, he didn't join a -10 SRS but more like a -4 one -- is in 1959 after a few years of roster continuity, the addition of Lovellette and the significant growth of Hagan, you have a +3 team. This just seems unlikely to me that Pettit, despite his 29-16-3 52% TS line in 1959 (and MVP), was having the +5 kind of impact of the players I'm looking at, and that the other changes had almost no impact (1-2 SRS points total?). Technically, he never played on a team that was above 3 SRS.

Kevin Love comes to mind, not as a comparison per se, but as an analogy. He's skilled. He has great stats. He's a good rebounder, smart and talented offensive player, and marginal defender. As such, his global impact on offense is darn good and his value on defense is marginal, at best.

It's not to say it's impossible or even highly unlikely that Pettit was having bigger impact and there were team dynamics that were making the results look less impressive...but it's just hard for me to see the evidence for that without assuming it, which is something I'm not comfortable doing. I mean, he won MVP in 1959, but I don't think he's in the same stratosphere as Bill Russell in 1959, so getting too excited about that to me is like getting excited about Wes Unseld's MVP 10 years later.

So I think fundamentally you've got a great point:

We know that that the outlier impact in those days was on defense more than offense. There is reason to question then whether any offensive player was doing anything that great to warrant our discussion right now. To some degree I'm getting sucked in because of my feeling that if the other guys from the rest of the '60s are in, then Pettit should be too, but as you've pointed out this is essentially piling on wrongs.

At the same time though, this is where I think it's such a big deal how you think about translating across eras. Other than Russell's game changing defense, there was a lot of parity in these small leagues. It's understandable to extrapolate saying 1) I think teams were worse then, and 2) if a guy was having less than superstar impact by today's standards then that means he was even less impressive given that the teams were worse.

But of course we also realize that much of the improvements to offensive strategy had nothing to do with talent, and hence given the strategic constraints placed on the players of the day, it actually might be plenty impressive for him to have the impact he did.

What I look for a lot in these pioneers is the ability to adapt. Yes I like that Russell was a spearhead, and certainly that factors into my estimation of his BBIQ, but on the whole if you're showing indications that you can keep adapting rather than letting the game pass you by, I'm inclined to believe you could keep succeeding across eras.

This is what I see with Pettit. His team impact is modest in some comparisons, but it's not like contemporaries we haven't spoken of blew him away on this front. He was having impact, he was having as much team success as anyone not named Russell, he scoring effectively by contemporary standards his whole career which only happened because of adaptation, he had a nose for the glass, and accounts from the time call him and active & shrewd defender.

I understand that all that is narrative, which means we have uncertainties, but were you to ask me how Pettit would be now, my answer would be that most likely he'd be a clear all-star. That's what I'm going by, my assessment of what he most likely was.

You mention Love: Love is a guy who if he puts it all together I could easily see being on this list. A comparison with Love doesn't daunt me at all for Pettit.

You mention Unseld, well, clearly I'm not nearly as excited about Pettit as I am about Russell, but I do think Pettit was as good as anyone else out there until Oscar & West showed up, that really was never the case for Unseld. I don't have to be that excited about Pettit to still have him well above that territory.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm voting 2000 Zo. The highest RPOY finish of the remaining seasons, and probably as good as Dwight. Averaged 21.4/9.5/1.6 with 3.7 blocks on +6.5TS and won DPOY.

I gotta point out that we still have winners left: Pettit, Arizin & Schayes, and that Mikan would have won had we gone back further in time.

I thought we weren't including Mikan and I honestly didn't look back that far - my bad.

Thinking Pettit next though...

Maybe if he gets some momentum.

I must not have made it clear. I'm basically fine with everyone in the greater NBA history being included. That includes the ABA, as well theoretically as the BAA & NBL (though I've never known anyone to try to champion any player from that era).

[C-izMe]

I must not have made it clear. I'm basically fine with everyone in the greater NBA history being included. That includes the ABA, as well theoretically as the BAA & NBL (though I've never known anyone to try to champion any player from that era).

Can I go back in time and vote Mikan?

[fatal9]

Pierce vs. Drexler...

- Drexler was one of the best open court players ever. Got your offense a lot of easy baskets by pushing the ball and that's a dimension Pierce doesn't really bring. Most of the time, you have to have players who attack in transition if you want to be a truly great offensive team, it brings explosiveness to your offense (this was key for the Blazers back in the day). This also allowed Drexler a way to "get his" when around other talented players who demanded the ball.
- Pierce was clearly the better half court scorer. His midrange game was on a completely different level, is close to a 40% three pt shooter in most of his best years, had a nice post up game and just had all sorts of crafty moves to get you a good shot in the half court. Drexler could create his own shot, but struggled if the defense really pressured him. If you took away his initial move, he didn’t really have a plan B, and had a tendency to rush jumpers when this happened. His jump shot from '92 and on was decent, but it would be best described as "streaky". Not exactly a pure shooter, but good enough where he can still do an adequate job of making them.
- Drexler made better "straight line" drives to the basket because he was really fast, Pierce though had the handles to work you around a bit more. Drexler didn't have great break down ability in the half court, especially off a live dribble.
- Drexler was a better team offensive player. Clyde's scoring might be not be portable in the traditional way we think of for a guard (ie. elite off ball shooting), but he fit his offensive game with the team extremely well. Always made quick moves and decisions, never pounded the ball, would get you couple of putbacks a game (phenomenal offensive rebounder for his position), moved well off the ball to get easy baskets, could get himself going in transition so didn't demand touches and was an adequate jumpshooter as his career progressed.
- Drexler was the better passer. Most underrated part of his game as the years go on because he has a bit of an "unpolished" feel to his game (particularly handles) and that kind of makes people sometimes think he wasn't a skill player. His court vision was excellent, he had a great feel for making the right pass.
- Drexler was a decent defender, he was really active especially in passing lanes but not exactly fundamentally sound. Pierce's defense when he was on non-lotto teams was good, probably a smarter defender and better man to man.

I have them within one spot of each other, both bring different things but have a similar impact imo. Usually I've leaned towards Clyde.



What do you guys think about Zo in comparison to Lanier, Cowens and Thurmond? Zo was a great defender, great shot blocker but also gave up a few defensive rebounds because of that. Definitly better than Thurmond offensively but not as good defensively. Better than Cowens defensively, but I will add that I think Cowens’ defensive impact goes beyond the box-score numbers (blks/stls). Offensively I'm not that sure, Cowens is a GREAT passer and has a solid midrange game to space the floor for his position and also forced centers to come out of the lane to play him which opened things up for his teammates. A lot of intangible qualities about him. Lanier is the best offensive center out of all of them. Awesome passing combined with really smooth post/scoring skillset. The question with Lanier is his defense though.

I like his defense based on what I’ve seen in games from his Bucks days, but was he playing like that with the Pistons? He never made any defensive teams, block numbers are poor comparatively to other centers, his Pistons teams were generally awful on that end. However, I’ve also read that in ’73 he really improved his defense and rebounding. The Pistons coaches were concerned with how bad their interior d was, and how (young) Lanier played no defense, so they had Bill Russell work with him. This is seen as Lanier's "first real introduction to defense". Russell greeted him with, “You big overweight ox, I’m gonna run that baby fat off you.” And he did, Lanier lost 15 pounds and commented on how he felt a lot better mobility wise. By ’74, the perception on Lanier had changed from an all-offense player to a complete center who plays pretty good defense. Had the best rebounding and shot blocking seasons of his career, and his Pistons teams had their best defensive years in all of the 70s (ranked #3 in ’74). He was rewarded with a top 3 finish in MVP voting behind KAJ and McAdoo.

But his defense seems really inconsistent over the years and Pistons are back to being bad defensively as he’s reaching his offensive peak in the latter half of the 70s. Is it effort or weight issues or a bad defensive cast or something else? Regardless, this is something that'll make me take Zo before him, but maybe it can be resolved by picking a right peak year for him ('74?).

[C-izMe]

I like the Cowens/Zo/Thurmond matchup a lot. Personally I see Cowens as being as good as Zo offensively with worse defense. Thurmond (IMO) is so far behind offensively he's not on my list yet.

[Dr Positivity]

I definitely have Cowens ahead of Zo or Thurmond offensively because his spacing and passing impact is elite for a center.

[lorak]

What do you guys think about Zo in comparison to Lanier, Cowens and Thurmond? Zo was a great defender, great shot blocker but also gave up a few defensive rebounds because of that. Definitly better than Thurmond offensively but not as good defensively. Better than Cowens defensively, but I will add that I think Cowens’ defensive impact goes beyond the box-score numbers (blks/stls). Offensively I'm not that sure, Cowens is a GREAT passer and has a solid midrange game to space the floor for his position and also forced centers to come out of the lane to play him which opened things up for his teammates. A lot of intangible qualities about him. Lanier is the best offensive center out of all of them. Awesome passing combined with really smooth post/scoring skillset. The question with Lanier is his defense though.

I like his defense based on what I’ve seen in games from his Bucks days, but was he playing like that with the Pistons? He never made any defensive teams, block numbers are poor comparatively to other centers, his Pistons teams were generally awful on that end. However, I’ve also read that in ’73 he really improved his defense and rebounding. The Pistons coaches were concerned with how bad their interior d was, and how (young) Lanier played no defense, so they had Bill Russell work with him. This is seen as Lanier's "first real introduction to defense". Russell greeted him with, “You big overweight ox, I’m gonna run that baby fat off you.” And he did, Lanier lost 15 pounds and commented on how he felt a lot better mobility wise. By ’74, the perception on Lanier had changed from an all-offense player to a complete center who plays pretty good defense. Had the best rebounding and shot blocking seasons of his career, and his Pistons teams had their best defensive years in all of the 70s (ranked #3 in ’74). He was rewarded with a top 3 finish in MVP voting behind KAJ and McAdoo.

But his defense seems really inconsistent over the years and Pistons are back to being bad defensively as he’s reaching his offensive peak in the latter half of the 70s. Is it effort or weight issues or a bad defensive cast or something else? Regardless, this is something that'll make me take Zo before him, but maybe it can be resolved by picking a right peak year for him ('74?).

I think Lanier is the best big man left. People underrates his defense, because most of his career he played on this poor Pistons teams. But we have many evidences that he was very good defender: both team (he improved Detroit defense and Bucks, when he joined them) and man to man (KAJ said he was the toughest defender he faced; Dawkins in his book said that he learned from Lanier how to play D vs KAJ). In fact one of his Pistons teams was very good on defense: in 1974 3rd place in DRTG (-3.9 relatively to league average). And from box score perspective it looks like Lanier's best defensive year - career highs in STL, BLK and DRB. He also played great in the playoffs that year and it was against very good defensively Bulls team (1st place in DRTG). And of course later in his career he proved he can be consistent defensive center on good defensive team.

My choice would be 1988 Stockton, who played as good as prime Magic, but nobody wants to vote for him, so maybe Lanier will get more attention.

So my vote goes to 1974 Lanier.

[C-izMe]

I definitely have Cowens ahead of Zo or Thurmond offensively because his spacing and passing impact is elite for a center.

I've literally only seen one of his games and I was looking for Hondo. YouTube to the rescue.

[bastillon]

Cowens was like a Garnett before Garnett. he was the most active player in the league, gave you insane intensity night in and night out (check out 4th qtrs of G6-G7 in '74 finals, he's diving on the floor repeatedly), not a pure scorer, struggled 1 on 1 vs set defenses but played well off of teammates, set good screens, moved without the ball for a jumpshot, great passer obv, really good shooter for a C - his spacing effect was the reason why Bucks lost 74 finals (KAJ rebounding totals dropped really bad compared to the rest of that PS). I don't think he could be #1 offensive guy but definitely valuable part of good offense. would work extremely well with someone like Manu. defensively he reminds me a lot of KG, very active, by far the best pnr defender of his generation (could legitimately guard a guard imo, his footwork was unbelievable), elite defensive rebounder, not a shotblocker but contested shots very well, didnt give up easy pts, always made the right rotation, high motor-energy-intangibles guy. in a way, a lot like Walton.

pros: versatility, D rebounding, pnr D, help D, passing, spacing effect, he'd play PF today
cons: poor post scorer, didn't finish well, didnt draw double teams, more of a #2 guy

btw, there's absolutely no way Cowens was 6'9 if Thurmond was 6'11. I've seen them go h2h and Cowens was EASILY taller. imo Cowens was probably somewhere between 6'10'5 and 6'11 and Thurmond was probably 6'9.

btw2, Cowens was robbed off 2 fMVP awards. literally robbed. not only did he post better stats than Hondo in '74 and Jojo White in '76 but his impact was also way better than his stats suggested. in '74 he took KAJ away from the basket and made him work for his pts. Celtics pressure on guards was the key to that series but that was also in large part due to Cowens presence all over the floor. I've only seen couple of 4th quarters from those finals but Cowens looked like the best player on the floor in game 7 on the road (outplayed Kareem considerably in that G7). in '76 I have no idea what those voters were smoking. I watched every game from that series and Cowens was definitely the best player on the floor, he was everywhere, he had the best stats, the highest impact etc. quite probably the worst fMVP in history. at least usually those guys have a case, JoJo did not.

[colts18]

Is it too early to bring up James Harden in this discussion?

[C-izMe]

Is it too early to bring up James Harden in this discussion?

If he has another game like that I'm open to discussion.

[Doctor MJ]

Okay, there's no way we have any kind of consensus here. Bumping the deadline another day. All of us (myself included, I think obviously, need to get an opinion on this).