People were interested in these podcasts
Play Episode
20min
RealGM Radio
Pacers Force Game 7
Tyrese Haliburton and the Indiana Pacers beat the Oklahoma City Thunder to force the first Game 7 in the NBA Finals since 2016. Who has the edge to win the 2025 championship? Wes Goldberg breaks down a surprising Game 6 and what comes next. #indianapacers #nba #okcthunder #tyresehaliburton RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
RealGM Radio
Oklahoma City Thunder's Game 7 Masterclass Shows Why They Are the NBA Championship Favorites
The Oklahoma City Thunder put on a masterclass in their Game 7 win over the Denver Nuggets that has Wes Goldberg feeling even better about his pick for the 2025 NBA championship. Wes talks about how the Thunder can hit a gear that nobody else in the league can hit and their Western Conference finals matchup against the Minnesota Timberwolves. RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
RealGM Radio
Thunder Take Control of NBA Finals, Desmond Bane Trade and Kevin Durant Destinations With Dave DuFour
OKC's defensive masterclass and Jalen Williams' breakout performance have the OKLAHOMA CITY THUNDER on the brink of a championship. Wes Goldberg and Dave DuFour (The Athletic) analyze the THUNDER's path to success, dissecting their suffocating defense and the PACERS' struggles. The conversation shifts to blockbuster trade scenarios, including Desmond Bane's move to Orlando and potential Kevin Durant destinations. Charlotte's challenges with LaMelo Ball and roster construction strategies for struggling franchises round out this comprehensive NBA discussion. Timestamps 0:00 Intro 3:37 Thunder Defense 25:31 Exciting Finals for fans 34:00 Desmond Bane trade 50:14 Kevin Durant's next team 57:30 Trade Machine ideas RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
RealGM Radio
Thunder Win Championship, Haliburton's Injury, Kevin Durant Trade Fallout and NBA Draft "My Guys" With Adam Mares
Wes Goldberg and Adam Mares (DNVR Sports, All NBA Podcast) break down the Oklahoma City Thunder's championship victory, Sam Presti's roster construction and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander's superstar ascension. Then they talk about Tyrese Haliburton's injury and its impact on the Pacers future, Kevin Durant getting traded to the Houston Rockets and the Denver Nuggets' plan for the offseason before diving into their "My Guys" in the NBA Draft. Timestamps 0:00 Intro: OKC wins the Finals 20:15 Haliburton's injury 27:15 Kevin Durant traded 33:58 Denver Nuggets offseason changes 35:00 Favorite NBA Draft prospects RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. #nba #shaigilgeousalexander #sga #okcthunder #denvernuggets #pacers #tyresehaliburton #kevindurant Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 - 2010-11 Dwight Howard

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,593
And1: 3,328
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 - 2010-11 Dwight Howard 

Post#1 » by LA Bird » Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:44 pm

RealGM Greatest Peaks List (2022)
1. 1990-91 Michael Jordan
2. 2012-13 LeBron James
3. 1999-00 Shaquille O'Neal
4. 1976-77 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. 1966-67 Wilt Chamberlain
6. 2002-03 Tim Duncan
7. 1993-94 Hakeem Olajuwon
8. 1963-64 Bill Russell
9. 1985-86 Larry Bird
10. 1986-87 Magic Johnson
11. 2016-17 Stephen Curry
12. 2003-04 Kevin Garnett
13. 2020-21 Giannis Antetokounmpo
14. 1963-64 Oscar Robertson
15. 1965-66 Jerry West
16. 2021-22 Nikola Jokic
17. 1976-77 Bill Walton
18. 2005-06 Dwyane Wade
19. 2007-08 Kobe Bryant
20. 1993-94 David Robinson
21. 2016-17 Kawhi Leonard
22. 1975-76 Julius Erving
23. 2010-11 Dirk Nowitzki
24. 2016-17 Kevin Durant
25. 1982-83 Moses Malone
26. 2019-20 Anthony Davis
27. 2006-07 Steve Nash
28. 2014-15 Chris Paul
29. 2018-19 James Harden
30. 1949-50 George Mikan
31. 1989-90 Charles Barkley
32. 1997-98 Karl Malone
33. 1989-90 Patrick Ewing
34. 2002-03 Tracy McGrady
35. 2010-11 Dwight Howard

Spoiler:
Please vote for your 3 highest player peaks and at least one line of reasoning for each of them.

Vote example 1
1. 1991 Jordan: Explanation
2. 2013 LeBron: Explanation
3. 2000 Shaq: Explanation

In addition, you can also list other peak season candidates from those three players. This extra step is entirely optional

Vote example 2
1. 1991 Jordan: Explanation
(1990 Jordan)
2. 2013 LeBron: Explanation
(2012 LeBron)
(2009 LeBron)
3. 2000 Shaq: Explanation

You can visit the project thread for further information on why this makes a difference and how the votes will be counted at the end of the round.

Voting for this round will close on Monday October 3, 9am ET.
Samurai
General Manager
Posts: 8,899
And1: 3,113
Joined: Jul 01, 2014
     

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#2 » by Samurai » Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:18 pm

1. Bob Pettit 1959. (alternate 58, 62) I have Pettit as very close to Mikan so I suppose it makes sense for me to list him just after Mikan. In terms of how he did against his peers, I think a good argument could be made that 59 Pettit could have been a top ten season. Obviously we also have to look at the context of his season and the quality of his competition and figure out how much to penalize him for the era he played in. He was MVP in a league that had Bill Russell averaging 23 boards/game, a rookie Elgin Baylor averaging 25 pts and 15 rebounds/game, and Hall of Famers like Schayes, Arizin, Hagan, Cousy and Twyman in their primes. Pettit led the league with 29.4 pts/game, a 28.2 PER and 14.8 WS while finishing second in rebounds with 16.4/game.

2. Artis Gilmore 1975. Tremendous all-around season for a player who is often underrated. Averaged 23.6 pts/game while finishing second (behind Dr. J) in OWS. Second in offensive rebounds behind a rookie named Moses Malone. Led the league in DWS, total rebounds, total blocks, and defensive rating. Named first team All ABA, All-defensive first team, and MVP of the playoffs as he captured the only ring in his career.

3. Bob Lanier 1974. A truly great offensive player. Feathery soft jump shot and the second best hook shot in the low post that I've ever seen. Based on his shooting mechanics, I am very confident that he could have been a good 3-point shooter if he played in today's era. Also an excellent screen setter and passer; his 17.9 assist % was the second highest of his career and is comparable to the career highs of centers like Kareem and Cowens. It is defensively where Lanier struggles more, but he put together an outlier career best defensive season in 74. His 7.1 DWS was by far the best of his career and was good for third best in the league and he actually led the league in Defensive Box Plus/Minus with 2.9. He anchored the Pistons defense which was 3rd best in the league despite the team not having any other defensive stalwarts.
trelos6
Senior
Posts: 521
And1: 210
Joined: Jun 17, 2022
Location: Sydney

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#3 » by trelos6 » Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:19 pm

35. Draymond Green 15-16. He doesn't score at a rate like the others, but at this point, the player isn't leading you to a title as the 1A. As a 1B, Draymond was impactful on both sides of the ball. His defense was malleable and fit the Warriors system perfectly, as did his offense and intellect with his passing game. I judge players offensively partially by how well their teams performed on offense and same for defense. We can see the Warriors were by far the best offensive team and a top 5 defense, both of which Draymond played a huge part in. His O-PIPM was 5.2 and D-PIPM was a 4.6. Huge numbers considering peak Lebron was +6.6 and +3.3.

36. Penny Hardaway 95-96. Solid scoring and great efficiency as the #2 to a young Shaq. He led his team to a fantastic offense which is the job of the lead guard. 23.2 pp75 at +6.3% rTS.

37. Scottie Pippen 95-96. Do it all wing. I have this as his best season. Amazing defensively, and was a key part of the Bulls defensive schemes, even as a wing. Not too fantastic offensively as a scorer, but distributed the ball well and you can't go wrong picking a guy who was the second best player on a team that went 72-10. 20.9 pp75 on .9 rTS%.

38. Grant Hill 96-97. Pre injury Grant was a beast. Shame we never got to see his full potential. 23.2 pp75 on +2 rTS% with 3.5 O-PIPM and 1.7 D-PIPM.

39. Dwight Howard 10-11. Good scoring on amazing efficiency. Not much versatility to his game, but who cares, it was effective. Primarily a play finisher, he's here for his defense. Anchored an great D, with his individual DRtg's below 100. 24 pp75 at +7.5 rTS%

40. Reggie Miller 93-94. A gravity unrivalled until Steph came into the league. His ability to space the floor for teammates and ramp up his scoring in the post season is why he's here. One of the most portable players of all time and a big ceiling raiser. 23 pp75 at +10.8 rTS%


HM: Artis Gilmore. Efficient big man, was probably best in the ABA, which makes it harder to evaluate his peak.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,921
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#4 » by 70sFan » Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:41 pm

Thanks for the response, I moved the discussion to the next thread.

AEnigma wrote:Kind-of like with Pettit versus Barry, I think the passing disparity is massive.

I don't know, I also view Barry as the better passer for sure, but Elgin was damn good passer himself. It's certainly not Jokic vs Moses here.

Also would give Barry a comfortable advantage in his ability to fit with guys like West and Wilt (imo West and prime Barry would have been much better equipped to push for titles).

I agree here, Barry's offensive game is certainly more portable. It's important to mention that Baylor was never close to his prime next to West and Wilt, he only played with West at his best. I definitely wouldn't use 1969 Baylor as an estimation of his peak, he was way too diminished at that point.

Abstract impact indicators are a fair bit stronger for Barry.

For some reasons, backpicks database doesn't work for me right now. It's possible that Barry has the edge here, is it significant though?

Obviously Barry led a title team, and although I do not think that particular run is worth going wild over, tough for me to imagine Baylor doing the same because of Baylor’s lowered ability to create strong looks for teammates.

I think that Baylor is quite underrated as a creator to be honest. They were such a different offensive players that it's hard to compare.

If Baylor has a defensive advantage — not sure he does, but he at least has an impressive edge in rebounding — I do not really see it making up for Barry’s superior offball movement, shooting, and playmaking.

I think peak Baylor was probably a bit better defender, but I don't think the gap is meaningful here. I think you have to take into account Baylor's transition game, ball-handling, slashing and pressuring the defense - that's where his main advantages are.

Era relative analysis also does not help Baylor out too much; you can at least kind-of argue Barry was the “best” player in 1975, with Kareem missing time and Erving having a mild down year, but Baylor’s ceiling was pretty much only ever maybe third to fifth, with absolutely zero conceivable claim to a top two spot. Even Pettit has a #2, maybe an injury induced #1, and you could easily argue both he and Barry figured out how to adjust to improving leagues better than Baylor did once Baylor’s athleticism advantage started slipping.

This is a very good point, Barry and Pettit definitely peaked higher relative to era than Baylor. I think the highest Baylor can be ranked is probably 3rd or 4th in 1960, depending on how you view him vs Pettit.
User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,067
And1: 5,882
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#5 » by AEnigma » Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:47 pm

1. Dwight Howard (2011)
Put simply, I think he is the best remaining defender in contention (perhaps depending on whether Thurmond qualifies as a contender, which he might), and while I have some issues with his offensive profile in the postseason* and with that profile’s ability to translate dynamically across different teams, his intense rim gravity gives him a pretty fair floor. He was a top player on par with several already admitted — 2009-11 Wade, 2009-11 Dirk, 2005-11 Nash — and has a theoretical framework of “Rudy Gobert with legitimate scoring pressure”. As with Ewing, also worth considering just how much timing affects our assessments: could the 2011 iteration of Dwight and a healthy Jameer Nelson have won the title in 2009?

*I thought I wrote out this line of thought already, but because I could not find any such comment, I will clarify. 70sFan brought up Howard’s volume dips, and that is a large part of what I mean here. He can absolutely be reduced by scheme. However, that requires heavy team commitment (Shaq’s volume and efficiency could also be schemed against… not that many people seemed to care…), which theoretically should free up teammates, and even without that raw scoring impact he still anchored a three year run of -5 postseason defences with at best middling support.

2. Joel Embiid (2022)
Best per possession player on the board, and has been for a while. Postseason durability is the major negative mark, but at this point I struggle to clearly say I would take any other bigs in place of a likely (but not inevitably) diminished Embiid. Look at Reed and Gilmore. Could the teams with which they won also win with a hampered Embiid, or with an Embiid who misses a couple of games? We know the answer for Reed, and I feel pretty secure in a similar answer for Gilmore too (those 1972-75 Colonels had an impressive collection of talent outside of him, even if he was the clear best piece). Even with health diminishment popping up in the postseason, he showcases immense team impact, has top tier range for a centre, is a competent passer, can shoulder a heavy scoring load (if not quite at his unprecedented-for-a-big-man regular season levels), and secures the middle better than anyone remaining shy of the top ten defensive bigs. And as a more meta bonus, I expect he will comfortably exceed this ranking in the next project.

3. Bob Lanier (1974)
Wrote a long explanation here which I would appreciate people reading.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2228113#p101330440
I will also paste it in its entirety into the below spoiler.
Spoiler:
AEnigma wrote:
Roger Murdock, A.K.A. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote:Listen, kid, I’ve been hearing that crap ever since I was at UCLA. I’m out there busting my buns every night! Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes!
Isiah Thomas wrote:I was having some success in the game early on. I remember coming down the lane, and [Lanier] literally grabbed me out of the air and gently set me down and said, ‘Don’t come down here anymore.’ For the rest of the game, I became a great jump shooter. He was one of the true enforcers in the game. And he patrolled the paint. I remember that moment vividly in my head. That was my rookie night.

Lanier is often lost in the throng of 1970s centres. He did not win an MVP and title like Walton, Reed, Cowens, Gilmore, and I guess technically McAdoo (sixth man titles well past your prime count too). During his prime in Detroit, he won a single (three-game) postseason series, against the 1976 no-more-Kareem Bucks. He never even made an all-NBA team, which is more a reflection of position in an era where the league’s third best centre may as well be its third best player, but that does still mean voters never saw him as a top two centre. And despite a generally productive career, Lanier never made one of those NBA all-time teams. For quite a few people, that paragraph may be an automatic non-starter for Lanier.

His 1974 season at least might occasionally grab people’s attention, if we try to move past accolades. The Pistons had the league’s second-best SRS (well behind the Bucks). Lanier finished second that season in both PIPM and BPM (and PIPM wins added and VORP), closely behind Kareem and well ahead of anyone else. That PIPM score is top 75 all-time, and in the pre-databall era, every higher peak option was admitted long ago (for reference, that score is higher than Ewing’s, KMalone’s, Barkley’s, Moses’s, etc.).

He also led the league in BBR’s individual defensive rating and finished third in defensive win shares (Hayes and Kareem), which you would expect from anchoring the league’s third best defence without the strong defensive support you see on the Bullets or Celtics or Bulls. The Pistons did go on to lose to that Bulls team, but against the league’s top defence Lanier elevated his already impressive regular season scoring level, and the Pistons actually outscored the Bulls over the course of that seven-game road series. Unfortunately for the Pistons, it turns out winning four games matters more than outscoring in aggregate, and total wins matters more for seeding than total SRS; in a seventh game decided by two points, that Chicago home advantage may well have been the difference.

Anyway, postseason elevation was not unusual for Lanier, who was quietly one of the top playoff risers in league history.
1974-78 Lanier regular season: 21/11/3.5/2 per 75 possessions on 56.6% efficiency (~+6 rTS), playing 38 minutes per game.
1974-77 Lanier postseason (22 games): 22.5/12/3/2 per 75 possessions on 58.6% efficiency (~+8 rTS), playing 41 minutes per game. 13/22 games were against that season’s #1 defence.

Most people recognise that as all-time offence at the centre position, so then the attention shifts to his defence. The 1974 Pistons were a -4 defence. They never were never above average in any other year. Can part of that collapse be attributed to Lanier? Absolutely. He had career high marks in block rates and steal rates, and nearly in rebounding rate, and this was by all accounts the healthiest season of his career. 1974 was his peak defensive season, by a distance which I think comfortably secures it as his overall peak season. However, an individual’s decline in defence tends not to lead to a six point swing in team defence… which brings us to the tortured history of the Detroit Pistons.

Keith Black Trudeau wrote:From the outset of Lanier’s rookie season, he was plagued by his bad knee. Despite not missing a single game, his contributions were limited and he played fewer than 30 minutes in at least 55 of them. Nevertheless, the Pistons, 31-51 the year prior, were transformed almost instantly. They won their first nine games of the 1970-71 season, a team record that stands to this day. Detroit ran their fast start to 12-1 before coming back to earth, but the point was proven. Led by their rookie big man, the Pistons were no longer a pushover. There was, unfortunately, another big change to the NBA that season. In an effort to streamline scheduling, the league broke its East and West divisions up into conferences, with playoff seeds awarded to the top two teams in each of the four divisions. The Pistons, to make things even, were banished to the Western Conference, and into the Midwest Divison with contenders Chicago, Phoenix, and a Milwaukee Bucks team that already had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and acquired Oscar Robertson to form one of the greatest 1-2 combos in NBA history.

The Pistons, despite winning 45 games, finished dead last in their division and were disqualified, while three teams with worse records made it, including the top two teams in the Eastern Conference’s Central Division. Bob Lanier’s on-the-job rehabilitation was cut short, and he once again had to watch from home as Dave Cowens accepted the Rookie of the Year award on behalf of a Celtics team that had actually won fewer games than the Pistons.

Drafting Lanier was hardly the cure for all of Detroit’s problems. They were still very much a circus act, which reared its ugly face in Lanier’s second season.

Point guard Dave Bing, on the cusp of superstardom, suffered a detached retina in the 1971-72 season opener that cost him 37 games and marked the start of his own physical decline. Head coach Butch Van Breda Koff quit his job just nine games later, shortly after signing a 2-year contract extension. Van Breda Koff was replaced on an interim basis by Terry Dischinger, who doubled as one of the team’s small forwards. Dischinger was eventually succeeded by Earl Lloyd, a scout/assistant coach that had been loyally waiting in the wings for almost a decade for a head coaching opportunity, repeatedly denied only because he was a black man. Howard Komives, of the few white players on the team, staged an attempted coup after being DNP’d, implying Lloyd was racist. The attempt failed and Komives was forced to apologize before being traded out of Detroit, but the stigma remained and Lloyd was fired shortly after the start of the following season.

I spotlight all of this because Bob Lanier still managed to arrive as a superstar in this cesspool, averaging a career-best 25.7 points to go with 14.2 rebounds and 3.1 assists. The 1972 season would be his first of seven trips to the All-Star game over the next eight seasons. The Pistons finished 26-56.

This changed in 1974:
Sports Illustrated wrote:Detroit has won 10 of its 15 most recent games against .500-plus clubs, and in one heady burst clobbered the NBA's two most successful clubs, Milwaukee (twice) and Boston. These winning ways continued last week as the Pistons swept three weak opponents at Cobo before losing at Chicago 109-91. That defeat prevented Detroit from moving ahead of the Bulls into second place in the Midwest Division, easily the league's toughest, but hardly tarnished the Pistons' 33-19 record, fourth-best in the NBA.

It is defense in its many forms—trap presses, switching man-to-man and occasionally a thinly disguised zone of the sort used by most good pro teams—that has turned the Detroit Pistons, for 16 seasons one of the NBA's most persistent losers, into insistent winners. Last year Detroit ranked 10th in defense, allowing 110 points per game—and that was a six-point improvement over 1971-72. Now the Pistons have a 98.9 defensive average and are getting better with almost every game; only three of their last 13 opponents have scored as many as 100 points.

Bob Lanier was accused of having too much gut and not enough guts. Today, he is no worse than the third-best NBA center and may well be named the NBA's Most Valuable Player.
According to Lanier, it has only been in the last year that he has overcome the physical and psychological effects of the knee injury that ended his college career in 1970 when he was playing in the NCAA regionals for St. Bonaventure and fell over Villanova's (now, ironically, the Pistons') Chris Ford… The most versatile shooter among pro centers, Lanier is grinding down opponents with his inside game and wearing them out with his defense. He averages 23.9 points and 14 rebounds per game, but impressive as those numbers are, his best statistic is the Pistons' defensive average, for which he is most responsible.

Lanier is not only clogging the middle with his immense frame, but is using his unexpected quickness to move away from the basket and help Detroit's switching defense in much the same manner that last year's MVP, Dave Cowens, does for the Celtics. Twice in the Pistons' 93-89 win over Houston last week, Lanier switched onto Rocket Calvin Murphy, the smallest (5'9") and perhaps the fastest man in the league. Both times Murphy attempted to drive past Lanier, only to end up passing off in frustration when he could not get by. The next night Lanier put together one of the tidiest performances of the season as Detroit beat Seattle 94-83. He scored 27 points, grabbed 19 rebounds, had five assists, stole the ball three times and blocked seven shots. He said of that night's work: "I've had quite a few games like this so far this year, and I expect I'm going to have even more of them in the future."

Then, the series against the Bulls:
Greg Eno wrote:The Pistons lost a brutal, angry seven-game series to the Chicago Bulls in the first round. The Pistons weren't done until the final inbounds pass of Game 7, with just seconds to play and the Pistons trailing by one. But David Bing's throw-in was batted away by Dennis Awtrey. Game over. Series over. Season over.

And the tears flowed; not just for 10 year-old Greg Eno, but for Ray Scott's grown-up Pistons players.

"Yeah, we cried, too," Scott said when I told him of my crying jag. "Bob was a spartan; he did everything that we could possibly get him to do… We got beat by Clifford Ray.” Clifford Ray was a big, long-armed shot-blocker and rebounder. He was not, by any stretch, an offensive threat. Kind of like Ben Wallace that way. But, Scott said, Ray was able to match Bob Lanier's offensive production in Game 7 -- a matchup that hadn't worked in the Bulls favor in the previous six games.

The team started to slide in 1975 as health issues and contract disputes ravaged their lineups:
Pat Putnam wrote:After using up 13 coaches since 1948, the Pistons came upon Ray Scott almost two years ago and suddenly, instead of a bunch of people playing one-on-one, there was cohesion. Instead of individual stars, the Pistons became a galaxy. Just as important, Scott convinced Lanier not only that he was a premier center but that anyone who is 6'11" and weighs in at 260 pounds just naturally ought to be an assassin. "More elbows," ordered Scott. By nature a gentle man, Lanier became an enforcer, and the Pistons, a team at last, began to win. Only a two-point loss to Chicago kept them from the Western Conference final against Milwaukee. [SI: Forwards Love and Walker provided their usual exemplary shooting, averaging 45.1 points per game between them, but the rest of the Bulls seemed cowed by the Piston defense, particularly by Lanier whenever any of them moved into his area near the basket.]

When the season opened the consensus was that Detroit would sprint ahead of its Midwest rivals... But the Pistons had problems of their own, although some of them were not quite visible. Bing and Don Adams, the brilliant defensive forward, had been preseason holdouts, and for Adams, at best a slow starter, the delay was costly. And Scott sensed that the holdouts had disrupted the team unity that by the end of last season had lifted the Pistons out of perennial mediocrity.

Then came the injuries. Bing hurt a foot and had to have half of his right big toenail removed. For the first two weeks of the season he wore a size 14 shoe on his right foot, where normally he wears a 12. Later he sprained an ankle. Two weeks into the season Adams injured an Achilles tendon, missed eight games and then needed another month to play himself back into shape. Then almost the entire forward corps collapsed. Willie Norwood started the first seven games and was shooting at 54% when he complained of extreme pain in his left knee. A few days later he had an operation to remove a bone spur and still is out. Curtis Rowe came down with near pneumonia, lost 15 pounds but continued to play, though he was not as effective. After 20 games the Pistons had won but 10. They bumped along, finally reaching 16-17, taking turns with the Bulls and the Kings in first place.

"That was enough," says Scott. "We thought in the beginning we could run and shoot. We found out we couldn't. And so we went back to the things we do best: tough defense and more patience on offense. That's what won for us last year."

The move suited the 6'11", 260-pound Lanier, who was having a fine year and at that point became even better. In an attempt to determine the NBA's most complete player, statistics were fed into a computer. They included total scoring, assists, rebounds, blocked shots and field-goal scoring. Lanier came out No. 1. After 40 games he was averaging 24.7 points and playing tremendous defense. And he was doing it with a left knee wracked by tendinitis and arthritis. Every few days the knee has to be drained, and after every game he packs it in ice to reduce the pain and swelling.
"He's our savior," says Rowe.
"Our healer," says Adams.
"Our leader," says Bing.
"Listen to those guys," says Lanier. "They think I'm Moses."

Returning to their old style of play and healthy again, the Pistons ran off six straight victories. In November they played 14 games and gave up an average of 102.4 points per game. In 21 games since then they have allowed but 91.8 points a game and lowered their season average to 97.4, second best in the NBA.

The Pistons went on to lose to the Sonics in a three-game series. Bing was traded. After a rough start, Coach Ray was fired in front of the team. Bad vibes all-around.

I am not the biggest fan of Dave Bing — utter joke he has consistently made all-time NBA teams over Lanier — but he did at least occupy defensive attention. Many games have been scrubbed from Youtube over the years, but in what 1976 postseason games are available (either from searching or from the list that 70sFan provided in Peak #29 of this project), you can see Lanier getting legitimately triple-teamed and hear commentators saying, “Guard Lanier, and you stop [Detroit’s] offence.” All the same, the Pistons managed to give the #1 SRS Warriors a strong push, falling just short in overtime of Game 6.

1977 was even more internally disastrous, but thanks to what was probably Lanier’s second best season, the Pistons stayed relatively steady.
https://vault.si.com/vault/1977/02/28/moaning-and-winning-in-motown
I am not quoting this one because it is not overly relevant to Lanier’s play, but it is a good read if you want to learn about maybe the most dysfunctional playoff team in league history.

After this last gasp, the Pistons ran out of juice. Two and a half years without postseason play. One and a half years spent in utter irrelevance. And then… Milwaukee.
Barry McDermott wrote:Only the Pacific Division champion Lakers (23-6) had a better record [than the Bucks] after the [1980] All-Star break.

It was then that the Bucks got Center Bob Lanier, trading Kent Benson and their 1980 first-round draft pick to Detroit, and Lanier proved to be the anchor that stopped the team's drifting. With the 6'11" 250-pounder on court, Milwaukee has demonstrated that it can compete with the best—even world champion Seattle, its probable opponent in the Western Conference semifinals. After Lanier arrived, the Bucks closed with a 20-6 rush, and the losses were by a total of only 16 points.

Nelson says Milwaukee could have won 62 games if Lanier had been with the team from the start, which the big fellow would have welcomed. Over the years, during the good times—the Pistons won 52 games in 1973-74—and the more recent bad ones, Lanier was Detroit's workhorse, a 22.8 career scorer and 11.9 rebounder. With the Bucks he isn't expected to carry the team on his broad back. "I don't have the emotional burden," he says. "Here I help on defense, set picks and pass the ball, things I do well anyway. It makes life easier. My playing time has gone down but the Ws are up."

"I'm happy for him," says Dave Bing, Lanier's former teammate. "It gives him a chance to go out a winner. He would have died in Detroit." Bing was a candidate for the Pistons' coaching job when Dick Vitale was fired earlier this season, and Lanier supported his candidacy, but Richie Adubato was given the position. It was the straw that broke Lanier's back. He told management he wanted out.

The deal with Milwaukee would have been made six weeks earlier except that Lanier broke the little finger on his left hand, and while recuperating he worried about his reputation as a loser who was injury prone. He previously had had two knee operations, a broken right hand, a bad toe, a sore back and a chronic shoulder problem. Lanier, who is from Buffalo, also fretted because Kent Benson, for whom it was rumored he would be traded, was Milwaukee's kind of guy: a hard-working, diligent Midwesterner. At the All-Star Game, Lanier approached Marques Johnson and asked him how the Bucks would view him. "Come on aboard," Johnson said.

With Lanier aboard, the floor looks a little bigger and less congested to Marques. Says Buckner, "Before, we would go to our guns down the stretch, and Marques was being forced so far from the basket that everything was long distance." Johnson points out, "When we take the floor now, you can just see the respect in the opposing center's eyes."

Lanier's importance was demonstrated in his very first game with the Bucks on Feb. 6. That night, Brian Winters made a game-ending 20-foot jump shot for a 111-109 win over Cleveland. Later Winters explained how he had gotten free: "Everybody was going to Bob as if he were a magnet." And at first Lanier thought Winters had missed; he was so conditioned to losing he had forgotten all about game-winning shots.

When Lanier joined up, Milwaukee trailed Kansas City by five games; it won 11 of its next 13. On March 16 the Bucks beat the Kings 128-121 and took the division lead for good. They had defeated Seattle twice, including a two-point victory in The Kingdome. The Bucks began calling Lanier "Coach" in deference to his age, 31, and stature. Because there weren't so many hands in their faces anymore, they began shooting better; at the All-Star break Milwaukee was shooting 47%; since then it has been 51%.
Anthony Cotton wrote:By the start of last season it was thought that all Milwaukee needed to make a run at the championship was a dominating center. That shortcoming was remedied right after last season's All-Star break when the Bucks traded Kent Benson and their 1980 first-round draft choice to the Pistons for Lanier. Milwaukee was 29-27 at the time, but with Lanier they went 20-6 for the remainder of the regular season before losing a tense seven-game playoff series to defending champion Seattle. Without Lanier, Detroit won two of its last 28 games.

Milwaukee has continued at that pace in 1980-81 despite what has been a depressing season for Lanier. In October his father was killed by a hit-and-run driver, and recently his wife filed for divorce. On the court Lanier, 32, has endured a broken nose, pain in his shoulders, neck and back, and floating bone chips in his left knee. At least five times this season the knee has locked.

"I guess you could say this hasn't been one of the grandest years of my life," says Lanier. "I've struggled, and there has been a lot of unrest in my mind—right now because of the knee. Some days I can play, some days I can't."

When he does play, Lanier still has his feathery touch from the outside. On the inside he's still 6'10", 250 pounds, which means he takes up a lot of room in the lane.

Nelson has sometimes held Lanier out of entire games to rest the knee. When he's not in the lineup, the Bucks seem to rise to the occasion—witness a 113-103 win over Boston on Feb. 5—but Nelson and everyone else know that a reasonably healthy Lanier is essential if Milwaukee is to seriously challenge for the NBA title. So, with Lanier's knee continuing to give him problems, Nelson has of late tried reducing the strain on it by limiting Lanier's playing time to short spurts. Lanier, however, balks at that treatment, saying he needs more playing time to loosen up the knee, which stiffens during rest periods on the bench. "People have started to dismiss us because they don't think Bob will be able to go full speed in the playoffs," says Nelson, "but I know he'll be tough." Says Lanier, "I haven't had the opportunity to get my game on track this year with all that's gone on, but my teammates have carried me. I'm not where I want to be yet, but if I can get there, I'll be doing the carrying."

Lanier has played in the NBA for 11 seasons but never made it to the championship series. Now he feels he may finally get there. "What makes this year so important to me is that I've had a full season with a good team," he says. "I know the system and I know the players. And, for me, there's no promise that there'll be a next year."

Marques Johnson is optimistic about the playoffs, but he's well aware that Lanier's soundness is crucial to Milwaukee's hopes. "Our strength is our flexibility," he says. "Whatever matchup we meet, we have a lineup to counter it. That Seattle series last year and the experience of taking the Sonics to seven games is our biggest plus. Not having handled that kind of pressure before was our downfall then. What I remember most is the Sonics' saying that it was their experience that helped them win. Now I guess you could say we're an experienced club. But without Bob we're not strong inside, and teams like Philadelphia. Boston and Chicago can take advantage of us on the boards."

Lanier continued to decline and retired in 1984. The Bucks hung his jersey in their rafters just a couple of months later. Only four and a half seasons with the team, but he sure made an impression.

Different RealGMers have sought to quantify Lanier’s “impact” on these teams.
Owly wrote:The Hollander handbooks remain pretty constantly positive after '74 (when he lost some weight), not really just a couple of years.
The 1975 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1974 wrote:Trimmer last season. Defense was his biggest improvement. He concentrated more on stopping other teams from penetrating and fourth in blocked shots with 247.
The 1976 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1975 wrote:Such awesome grace has never before been present in a man of this size...Dainty movements coming from a man who sometimes weighs 280 suggests image of a ballerina elephant...The single most versatile offensive center--ever...Actually has more moves than Abdul-Jabbar, who has become almost strictly a hook man.
The 1977 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1976 wrote:Has become a very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards… He also clogs the middle nicely.
The 1978 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1977 wrote:Can rebound, block shots, play defense, do everything but clean the kitchen floor… Injuries have been a problem, though, but he has always played hurt.
The 1979 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1978 wrote:Lanier seals off the middle and is tough and aggressive.
The 1980 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1979 wrote:Defensively he can be as imposing as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Walton or Artis Gilmore.

In large samples Lanier was having a substantial impact in '76-'78. The difference with him to without him (per game in points diff) was ...

'76: 5.2
team points differential over the year -86 over 82 games, -1.05 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -92 over 18 games, -5.1 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier +6 over 64 games, 0.1 per game

'77: 6.3
team points differential over the year -85 over 82 games, -1.04 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -107 over 18 games, -5.95 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier 22 over 64 games, 0.35 per game

'78: 4.3
team points differential over the year -102 over 82 games, -1.24 per game
team points differential over 19 games without Lanier -100 over 19 games, -4.35 per game
team points differential over 63 games with Lanier -2 over 63 games, -0.05 per game

This is from a guy hitting his apex in '74. In '75 still more or less as healthy as he ever was (he was injured late in his NCAA career and the Pistons hurried him back in his rookie year, which may have altered his career trajectory, but I digress), he's still blocking more than two shots a game, and I think for those first two years of my span ('74, '75) he's having a larger impact overall and a larger impact on D (than for ’76-’78). But even if it were just at these levels, I just don't buy that his impact was exclusively offensive, and in later Pistons years I don't think Lanier was put in a position to look good in terms of turnover, coaching turnover, coaching quality and teammates.

The Bucks in net in year improvement upon Lanier's arrival is huge suggesting at worst non-harmful at that point on that end. Those games with Lanier, and Lanier played in them all, they go +287, or +11.04 per game. Before that point, over 56 games they had been +36 or 0.64 per game.

I can't think really of another angle to analyse this from. I'd guess he's portable as he can score from the post, he space the floor and shoot the J, and it seems like at his best (anecdotally) he could defend guys out on the floor as well as play a more conventional anchor, and his assist % is pretty strong for a big man

Short-version:
- Mid-70s boxscore composite "advanced" metrics not too far off Kareem (on a per-minute basis).
- Despite missing time in his prime, above metrics were at a high level for a long time.
- With-without splits from when injured during prime indicates significant impact.
- Post-prime splits after trade for the more stable team (Milwaukee) suggest (on a small, but non-trivial sample) huge impact.
- From '74 on, a prominent yearly publication far more bullish on Lanier's D

His absence from All-NBA is very explainable, 2 teams, Kareem and various others as very strong competition often with better teams and so better team success and - a more genuine negative, though one that illustrated his net value in WoWY metrics - an inability to get to 70 games in many of his best years.

I think the most I can say on Lanier is the more I got into (1) the numbers and (2) the year by year history rather than the big, broad strokes, after the fact histories (and related rankings), the more I thought "Isn't he better than much more fabled 70s centers (Reed, Unseld, Cowens)?" Instinctively I'd say maybe in Ewing's ballpark.

Elgee wrote:Bob Lanier's defense I've argued repeatedly wasn't that bad, as evidenced by 4 things:

(1) Ability to be part of an elite defensive team
(2) The reputation of his Detroit teams as being absolutely god awful on defense at the other positions
(3) His individual praise in old articles for defending elite centers well (at times)
(4) His defensive role/impact in Milwaukee

Lanier had the following team DRtg's (estimated before 1974)
Det 70 +4.3 (pre Lanier)
Det 71 +1.7
Det 72 +4.4
Det 73 +1.6
Det 74 -3.9
Det 75 +2.0
Det 76 +1.9 (64g)
Det 77 +0.8 (64g)
Det 78 +0.6 (63g)
Det 79 +0.8 (53g)
Det 80 +3.5 (Lanier plays 37 games before trade)
--
Mil 80 -2.4 (26g post trade at +11 MOV)
Mil 81 -3.7 (67g)
Mil 82 -4.6

I've always argued he wasn't as bad as made out to be...maybe average or even slightly above average. That's what he looks like on film to me. Yes, Curtis Rowe looks like a decent defender...but how can you say some of these teams are decent defensively? There was an SI (I think) article I read discussing their lack of effort on that end... https://vault.si.com/vault/1974/02/04/great-scott-he-did-some-ring-job

Lanier was on 7 teams between 0.6 and 2.0 points worse than league average...that's not "significantly worse than league average." And he's considered the meat of the Milwaukee interior after the trade... That's based on quotes from his teammates and opponents when he came to Mil in the early 80s. You can call him aging but the team was monstrous when he arrived. It almost reminds me of a lite version of Kevin Garnett from Minny to Boston the way he is talked about. Not equating their defensive value, but KG has showed us how powerful a role like that can be, even post-prime. (Of course the Bucks were 6th in DRtg in 83 w Lanier out half the year...but the C's were 2nd with KG missing 25 games in 09.)

Remember, Lanier's value is primarily on offense, which is why in 74 and 77 he finished top-4 in MVP voting. Over and over we see the value in that high-post big who can pass and stretch the defense with shooting, and that was Bob Lanier. The 75 Pistons were a top-5 offense. As were the 76 Pistons...which is interesting because there was no more Dave Bing.

Then we look at Mutombo, and here were his team DRtg's
Den 91 +6.8 (pre Deke)
Den 92 +0.6
Den 93 -1.7
Den 94 -4.0
Den 95 -0.1
Den 96 +0.5
Den 97 +4.5 (post)
--
Atl 96 +0.4 (pre)
Atl 97 -4.4
Atl 98 -0.7
Atl 99 -5.1
Atl 00 +3.8
Atl 01 +1.3 (leaves post AS)

Without delving any further into scheme and roster, we can see Mutombo joins a bad defensive team, has them around average , with one elite defensive team he anchors in 1994. Again in Atlanta, he joins an average defensive team from the year before, has another impact (this time to elite) and anchors 2 elite defensive teams. He also is part of a horrible defensive team in 2000 (with the same coach.)

We can see when Deke misses 11 games in 1992 (rookie year) the team is -13.1 (!) without him and -7.1 with him...with all the change being in ppg against. In 96 he misses 8 more games and this time, theoretically around his peak as a player, they are -1.4 without him and -2.9 with him. Small sample, but negligible change at a cursory glance on both sides of the ball. In 01, we can see the difference in Atlanta and Philly pre/post trade, and in Atlanta they were -8.7 post trade (-2.8 pre), but in Philadelphia, the 76ers closed the year +1.6 while going +5.5 without Mutombo. (ppg against almost identical.)

Huh? So even a 4-time DPOY and block master has:
(1) evidence of little to no defensive impact in certain situations
(2) has been part of many average defensive teams
(3) has even been part of a bad defensive team

So Lanier "anchored" an elite team in 74 (he blocked a career best 3.0 per game that year w/1.4 steals). We know there is in/out evidence of him having little effect, like Mutombo, and him having considerable defensive effect. He is part of a horrible team in 72. He also has many average defensive teams. I said it reminded me of Kevin Garnett, who without PM data wouldn't have the reputation in the community as being as damn impressive as he's been defensively because he played on so many bad defensive teams in Minnesota and as an aging part of Boston's team, he's been surrounded by so many notable defenders on paper (Perkins, Posey, Rondo, etc.) And even with that, it still takes extensive analysis by people like drza to separate exactly how impressive KG's defense is.

TLDR: Lanier shows similar trends to Mutombo ITO of defensive teams, so we shouldn't be quick to dismiss him as a bad defender.

Relatedly, Lanier fares extremely well in WOWYR and its various iterations:
https://backpicks.com/metrics/wowyr/

In my own film watched of Lanier, I have always been impressed by his overall play, and his defence at least seems like something you could clearly build around. The 1974 postseason section which 70sFan linked was maybe the worst stretch of Pistons play you could find in that series — Pistons end the video down 34-14! — but even there you can see Lanier switching onto Van Lier and switching onto multiple players in one possession and clearly pushing the Bulls to take jumpshots (which unfortunately for Lanier and the Pistons they made at a disproportionately high rate), with the commentators highlighting how Detroit is switching everything and asking a lot of Lanier. Here we have an impact giant who can anchor a good defence, is one of the best ever big man scorers, elevates in the postseason, has great range, has good passing vision and instincts for his position (a few steps behind guys like KMalone or Walton, but well ahead of anything you see from Ewing or Gilmore or Mourning or McAdoo or Moses), fits well with a variety of teammates because of that passing and that range… Oh, and had his biggest outlier season perfectly coincide with the only year he could claim a reasonably normal level of health. That all just screams top 40 peak to me, but it is not as if I am alone on this assessment.
TrueLAFan wrote:Lanier. Imagine if Patrick Ewing was about an inch or two taller, and stronger, and had a little more range on his jumper. Take away a little of his defense—maybe 10%--but double his assist numbers. And make him the nicest, most respected guy in the league off the court, and one of the great fighters on it. I've always felt that, all in all, Peak Lanier was (at least) comparable to Peak Ewing. This is Peak Bob Lanier. Think of it like this; Clifford Ray got all the juice for being such a great defender in the 1975 playoffs. And Ray was a very good defender. Lanier averaged 26 and 15 with 3 assists and 2 blocks in the playoff series where they were matched up.
sansterre wrote:Lanier in the playoffs from '74 to '81 averaged a 118 offensive rating on 21.1% usage rate. Julius Erving in the playoffs in the same timeframe (including the ABA) averaged a 112 offensive rating on 27.4% usage. Using Neil Payne's Usage->ORating conversion (‪https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/index9e74.html?p=5500‬) he assigns a value of 0.833 for each usage percent that a high-usage player goes up or down. Dropping Erving to Lanier's level (a drop of 6.3% would be worth an estimated amount of 5.2 ORating. So, in theory, Erving's ORating with Lanier's usage would go up to about 117.2, still below Lanier's 118. I'm serious, Bob Lanier might well have been the 2nd best offensive player in the playoffs in the late 70s (besides Kareem obviously).
Quotatious wrote:Lanier and Reed emerged as great candidates because of their excellent all-around skill-set, and the fact they are centers, which earns a few points in my book, too- I give Lanier a slight edge, but it's basically a toss-up. Both were great offensively and defensively at their peaks, very good rebounders, too. Excellent in the playoffs, as well (and against #1 rated defenses, at that). It was an extremely tough choice to give Lanier the edge, but he looks marginally better, statistically, and that playmaking Lanier provided, is the thing that made me give it to him. Both guys really impressed me based on eye-test, too. Great post game for that era, good shooting touch, both really physical, but capable of finesse moves, as well. Especially Lanier's post game (that hook shot he had, was effective out to about 13-15 feet - that's awesome range for a hook shot or jump hook) was textbook perfect.

And for whatever additional value it is worth, he was voted securely as the top Detroit Pistons peak.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2088158&start=20#p91463240
MyUniBroDavis wrote:Some people are clearly far too overreliant on data without context and look at good all in one or impact numbers and get wowed by that rather than looking at how a roster is actually built around a player
User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,067
And1: 5,882
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#6 » by AEnigma » Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:58 pm

70sFan wrote:Thanks for the response, I moved the discussion to the next thread.
AEnigma wrote:Kind-of like with Pettit versus Barry, I think the passing disparity is massive.

I don't know, I also view Barry as the better passer for sure, but Elgin was damn good passer himself. It's certainly not Jokic vs Moses here.

Maybe more like Bird versus Marques Johnson.

It's important to mention that Baylor was never close to his prime next to West and Wilt, he only played with West at his best. I definitely wouldn't use 1969 Baylor as an estimation of his peak, he was way too diminished at that point.

I do not think peak Baylor fits well with Wilt either though.

Abstract impact indicators are a fair bit stronger for Barry.

For some reasons, backpicks database doesn't work for me right now. It's possible that Barry has the edge here, is it significant though?

Not sure what his BPM models say, but Barry is well ahead in all his WOWY(R) metrics except that GPM model. And I do like the GPM model most of the time, but it is a weirdly low outlier for Barry (maybe it has issues with the ABA years?).

Obviously Barry led a title team, and although I do not think that particular run is worth going wild over, tough for me to imagine Baylor doing the same because of Baylor’s lowered ability to create strong looks for teammates.

I think that Baylor is quite underrated as a creator to be honest. They were such a different offensive players that it's hard to compare.

Maybe, but again will go back to that idea of Marques (who I like and respect and would consider as a top fifty peak) versus Bird.

If Baylor has a defensive advantage — not sure he does, but he at least has an impressive edge in rebounding — I do not really see it making up for Barry’s superior offball movement, shooting, and playmaking.

I think peak Baylor was probably a bit better defender, but I don't think the gap is meaningful here. I think you have to take into account Baylor's transition game, slashing

Fair, but to the extent that plays to overall offensive impact, I still put that short of Barry.

ball-handling, and pressuring the defense - that's where his main advantages are.

Hmm, not sure I agree with that. I guess maybe if you give him an era related boost? He attacks the rim much better than peak Barry (or I suppose any Barry, but especially peak Barry, who became more of a pure shooter), but not treating it as a given that pressures defences more than Barry’s approach.

To bring it back once more to that Marques comparison… does Baylor have an especially strong argument over Marques either?
MyUniBroDavis wrote:Some people are clearly far too overreliant on data without context and look at good all in one or impact numbers and get wowed by that rather than looking at how a roster is actually built around a player
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,921
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#7 » by 70sFan » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:01 pm

AEnigma wrote:*I thought I wrote out this line of thought already, but because I could not find any such comment, I will clarify. 70sFan brought up Howard’s volume dips, and that is a large part of what I mean here. He can absolutely be reduced by scheme. However, that requires heavy team commitment (Shaq’s volume and efficiency could also be schemed against… not that many people seemed to care…), which theoretically should free up teammates, and even without that raw scoring impact he still anchored a three year run of -5 postseason defences with at best middling support.

Although you know I wouldn't have Shaq nearly as high as he ended up, the difference between reducing Shaq to 25 pp75 instead of 30 pp75 isn't the same as with Dwight. Nobody ever limited Shaq to the point he became low volume scorer. In his prime, his worst volume scoring series was in 2002 vs Spurs when he averaged 22.9 pp75, which is more than Dwight's second best RS in his whole career.

I also don't think limiting Dwight's volume comes with nearly the same costs as with Shaq. When Portland limited Shaq's volume in 2000, they threw everything at him and they had the right personel to do that. I don't remember Dwight creating similar attention against the Lakers in 2009 Finals for example. It just seems like once Dwight can't abuse you on the glass and you have some length to bother his finishes, you can reduce his offensive value.

I agree that he's one of the best defenders left and that's what makes him a strong contender now. I just have problems with his offense and I'm not sure he's good enough yet to be voted in.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,921
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#8 » by 70sFan » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:07 pm

AEnigma wrote:Maybe more like Bird versus Marques Johnson.

I can live with that :D although I think Barry was a bit worse than Bird, while Baylor was slightly more creative passer than Maqrues.

Hmm, not sure I agree with that. I guess maybe if you give him an era related boost? He attacks the rim much better than peak Barry (or I suppose any Barry, but especially peak Barry, who became more of a pure shooter), but not treating it as a given that pressures defences more than Barry’s approach.

As I said, it's tough to compare them. Baylor was certainly more on-ball creator and pressured the defense in more conventional way as a slasher and scorer. Barry's off-ball game with his touch passing and shooting was quite unique, especially for that era, so maybe it's a good discussion to have.

I think for now we have like 3 (almost) full peak Baylor games available - one from 1959/60, one from 1962 Finals and one from 1963 Finals. We have more for Barry, maybe that's why it's a tough comparison to make.

To bring it back once more to that Marques comparison… does Baylor have an especially strong argument over Marques either?

I think he was significantly better scorer and rebounder, while being also a slightly better passer. I like Marques peak a lot, but he's not on that level to me.
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,338
And1: 6,939
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#9 » by falcolombardi » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:10 pm

To people who use wowy stromgly in their evaluation

Is not there a worry that the sample sizes for it are questionable? Whether because they are too small or too sparse (random games missed across multiple years so is not too reprrsentative of a sample)

It also gives a big advantage to players who didnt have a decent backup to replace their role

I am not saying it doesnt have value. But it feels like there is a bit too much noise with it
User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,067
And1: 5,882
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#10 » by AEnigma » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:14 pm

70sFan wrote:
AEnigma wrote:*I thought I wrote out this line of thought already, but because I could not find any such comment, I will clarify. 70sFan brought up Howard’s volume dips, and that is a large part of what I mean here. He can absolutely be reduced by scheme. However, that requires heavy team commitment (Shaq’s volume and efficiency could also be schemed against… not that many people seemed to care…), which theoretically should free up teammates, and even without that raw scoring impact he still anchored a three year run of -5 postseason defences with at best middling support.

Although you know I wouldn't have Shaq nearly as high as he ended up, the difference between reducing Shaq to 25 pp75 instead of 30 pp75 isn't the same as with Dwight. Nobody ever limited Shaq to the point he became low volume scorer. In his prime, his worst volume scoring series was in 2002 vs Spurs when he averaged 22.9 pp75, which is more than Dwight's second best RS in his whole career.

I also don't think limiting Dwight's volume comes with nearly the same costs as with Shaq. When Portland limited Shaq's volume in 2000, they threw everything at him and they had the right personel to do that. I don't remember Dwight creating similar attention against the Lakers in 2009 Finals for example. It just seems like once Dwight can't abuse you on the glass and you have some length to bother his finishes, you can reduce his offensive value.

I agree that he's one of the best defenders left and that's what makes him a strong contender now. I just have problems with his offense and I'm not sure he's good enough yet to be voted in.

Shaq gets more value from scoring and is an outright better scorer; yes, it is not the same, but there is a comparable principle in play. I kind-of disagree that every dip for Shaq was related to throwing constant bodies at him; that was often the play, but I think he generally struggled against true giants who could match some of his strength. Yao, Arvydas, Vlade… I think guys like Wilt or even Marc Gasol could have kind-of held up too. The Lakers were a tough matchup for Howard, and that affected him worse than Shaq, but I do not think that is unique so much as it is a reflection of what happens when you have limited range and need to do almost all your scoring near the rim. And if your opponent cannot do that, which is increasingly the case, then it becomes a question of dedicated team efforts to cut down on that volume.

So to use Gilmore as a comparison, yeah, I like Gilmore’s offence somewhat more, but not by enough to overcome the advantage I give to Howard’s defence, who I see as at least a tier, maybe two tiers higher than that with his incredible total athleticism and mobility.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:Some people are clearly far too overreliant on data without context and look at good all in one or impact numbers and get wowed by that rather than looking at how a roster is actually built around a player
User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,067
And1: 5,882
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#11 » by AEnigma » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:24 pm

70sFan wrote:I think [Baylor] was a significantly better scorer than [Marques]. I like Marques’ peak a lot, but he's not on that level to me.

Relative to era, probably, but in the absolute? Once we start adjusted for league pace and efficiency I do not think Baylor really has any clear advantage — especially when factoring in “portability” aspects.

But you know what, yeah, I am probably being a bit unfair from a postseason perspective. Peak Baylor was at least holding up decently against Russell’s Celtics, and as much as I respect what Marques did against the 1981 76ers, that is a lower bar to clear.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:Some people are clearly far too overreliant on data without context and look at good all in one or impact numbers and get wowed by that rather than looking at how a roster is actually built around a player
User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,067
And1: 5,882
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#12 » by AEnigma » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:38 pm

falcolombardi wrote:To people who use wowy stromgly in their evaluation

Is not there a worry that the sample sizes for it are questionable? Whether because they are too small or too sparse (random games missed across multiple years so is not too reprrsentative of a sample)

I am not saying it doesnt have value. But it feels like there is a bit too much noise with it

This has come up repeatedly, so I will reiterate: WOWY is not the same as WOWYR. No, I would not say WOWY is overly relevant to guys like Karl Malone.

WOWYR is a bit more holistic in its attempts to work around those limited sample sizes, but sure, it is not the end-all-be-all, and the fact that Ben can get such notable variances by simply fiddling with the formulas is a good signal of that. However, when they generally match up well (as they do for a guy like Lanier ;-) ), I think that is worth mentioning.

It also gives a big advantage to players who didnt have a decent backup to replace their role

Of course, but you can make note of that as part of a whole comparison. You could also make note of on-court successes — but then what happens when players start getting their minutes tied to other strong starters, like Stockton and Malone. Or you could consider postseason changes, like Hakeem versus Robinson.

Dwight Howard trails Mourning in most of those measures, but he had Marcin Gortat as his prime backup, did not have an elite point guard partner sharing heavy minutes with him like what Mourning had with Tim Hardaway, had a shorter true prime, and probably could be said to have a postseason edge. All of this can be discussed in the exercise of quantifying “real” impact.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:Some people are clearly far too overreliant on data without context and look at good all in one or impact numbers and get wowed by that rather than looking at how a roster is actually built around a player
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,515
And1: 8,156
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#13 » by trex_8063 » Sat Oct 1, 2022 1:55 am

Don't know how much longer I'll participate, because around now the field feels SO BUSY, I stop having any particular confidence in my picks.
But I really do think Embiid should be in by about now, so I'll keep voting at least that long....


1st ballot: '22 Joel Embiid (> '21)
Honestly, on a per-minute basis, I think Embiid is a bit better/more valuable than anyone left on the table (and perhaps has been for a few threads now). We're talking about a top 3 defensive center who also led the league in scoring [on good efficiency]; and a decent passing big. That's crazy.
It's simply the missed games/durability concerns (in BOTH rs and playoffs) combined with relatively restricted minutes that held him back from top 20(ish) status for me.


2nd ballot: '11 Dwight Howard (> '09 Howard)
I like him for a lot of the same reasons I voted for Ewing: a high-level [all-time tier] defensive anchor who could also shoulder some offensive load. He's not the same as Ewing on offense; you can't just dump him the ball in the post and ask him to work. He was more of a rim-runner and punish on the offensive glass type of scorer [better on the ORebs than Ewing]. Limited, but once he got the ball in close, he was such a devastating finisher (like top 5(ish) all-time). It was either you fouled him [where he'd hit ~60% his FT's] or he scored two points.
Not as intelligent defensively as Ewing (not by a long shot, actually), but so athletically gifted at his peak. Dwight was really a monster from '09-'11 (and '12, prior to injury).


3rd ballot: '61 Elgin Baylor (> '62)
When I think of Elgin, I imagine: what if you had Carmelo Anthony's scoring, peak Kevin Durant's passing/playmaking, and Shawn Marion's rebounding (and at least average defense)?....
That would be an awfully nice player, no?
I sort of feel like that's very nearly what you have with peak Baylor.


4th: '75 Artis Gilmore (very similar to Howard)
5th: '22 Jimmy Butler (> '20) decided I need to put him in here.
6th: '22 Luka Doncic ('21, '20) -- not real sure to place him, but couple other posters are making me think it's time to get him in the mix
7th: '17 Russell Westbrook
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,338
And1: 6,939
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#14 » by falcolombardi » Sat Oct 1, 2022 3:37 am

1-1994 scottie pippen (1996, 1995)

Many will probably disagree here but i am that high on scottie. He can anchor a contending level team in both ends (shown in 94) and be one of the most impactful second options in the history of the game due to his ability to impact the game without dominating the ball or taking a ton of shots

Compare him with barkley. Pippen bulls in 94 match favorably with the best barkley sixers teams

The 93 suns were fantastic but that was a team that was routinely winning 55~ games a year before him and had a strong kevin johnson led offense already. Put 94 pippen in barkley place and i could see a scenario where they are even better

I dont think he is better than a healthy embiid but is healthier enough to prefer over embiid for me if i had to choose one

2- 2021 joel embiid

I thought about him vs mcgrady/reggie miller/luka/butler etc. And decided that at this point i would rather build a team around embiid two way package

Still strong defense when fully focused (which is mostly just the playoffs) and impressive scoring forcr that can force defenses to break and generate shots even if his so-so passing puts a cap on how much embiid can exploit this

His foul drawing (fully earned or not) is also a underated advantage in how consistwntly it puts the other teams in the bonus or fouk trouble

And even with playoffs drop offs his impact metrics in the postseason are way better than most would expect... like all time level good in admittedlt small sample sizes so he clearly moves the needle for his team by a lot (granted sixers have had some fairly unremarkable backups which may inflate his +/- derived metrics a bit)

My issues with him are his fragility albeit to his credit and comparing to paul he has mostly been able to stay on the court and inpactful even through injuries.
If he was healthier i would have him above pippen

3- reggie miller 1994 (1995)

Have not decided which year, probably settle for 94 because of the deep playoff run and one of his best box score years

He is sometimes underated for "underwhelming" boxscore total but these are incredibly good in the playoffs which is what most of this project has heavily focused on

31 points per 100 on nearly +10% efficiency + easy fit into any team and great spacing. Not a elite creator (although arguably creates more shots with his off ball gravity than assist numbers suggest) and by my evaluation a ok defender. He has the team results numbers of a offense superstar to go along with the wildly good scoring

4- 2022 jimmy butler (2020)

As of right now i still would pick him over luka, defense is a sizable gap and butler scoring amd creation in the playoffs has been impressive enough to rank above luka for me

I think We will look back on 2022 butler and realize he was a guy with tracy mcgrady-esque numbers who did it to more team success (in admoteddly better rosters) and sustained his game in the playoffs + better defense
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,921
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#15 » by 70sFan » Sat Oct 1, 2022 7:04 am

AEnigma wrote:
70sFan wrote:
AEnigma wrote:*I thought I wrote out this line of thought already, but because I could not find any such comment, I will clarify. 70sFan brought up Howard’s volume dips, and that is a large part of what I mean here. He can absolutely be reduced by scheme. However, that requires heavy team commitment (Shaq’s volume and efficiency could also be schemed against… not that many people seemed to care…), which theoretically should free up teammates, and even without that raw scoring impact he still anchored a three year run of -5 postseason defences with at best middling support.

Although you know I wouldn't have Shaq nearly as high as he ended up, the difference between reducing Shaq to 25 pp75 instead of 30 pp75 isn't the same as with Dwight. Nobody ever limited Shaq to the point he became low volume scorer. In his prime, his worst volume scoring series was in 2002 vs Spurs when he averaged 22.9 pp75, which is more than Dwight's second best RS in his whole career.

I also don't think limiting Dwight's volume comes with nearly the same costs as with Shaq. When Portland limited Shaq's volume in 2000, they threw everything at him and they had the right personel to do that. I don't remember Dwight creating similar attention against the Lakers in 2009 Finals for example. It just seems like once Dwight can't abuse you on the glass and you have some length to bother his finishes, you can reduce his offensive value.

I agree that he's one of the best defenders left and that's what makes him a strong contender now. I just have problems with his offense and I'm not sure he's good enough yet to be voted in.

Shaq gets more value from scoring and is an outright better scorer; yes, it is not the same, but there is a comparable principle in play. I kind-of disagree that every dip for Shaq was related to throwing constant bodies at him; that was often the play, but I think he generally struggled against true giants who could match some of his strength. Yao, Arvydas, Vlade… I think guys like Wilt or even Marc Gasol could have kind-of held up too. The Lakers were a tough matchup for Howard, and that affected him worse than Shaq, but I do not think that is unique so much as it is a reflection of what happens when you have limited range and need to do almost all your scoring near the rim. And if your opponent cannot do that, which is increasingly the case, then it becomes a question of dedicated team efforts to cut down on that volume.

So to use Gilmore as a comparison, yeah, I like Gilmore’s offence somewhat more, but not by enough to overcome the advantage I give to Howard’s defence, who I see as at least a tier, maybe two tiers higher than that with his incredible total athleticism and mobility.

Yeah, you can slow down Shaq to some degree with size, length and strength. The thing is that even with that, you can't make him sub-20 pp75 scorer and his efficiency was rarely affected. Howard is tiers below that, you can basically erase his offense from the equation with the right personel.

Why do you think Dwight was tiers ahead of Gilmore defensively? Peak Artis was an absolute monster on defense and he held up this defense in his first NBA season as well. Dwight was probably more mobile, but he's not Hakeem and Gilmore was as mobile as you can reasonably expect from 7'2 guy. I don't know, I find their defense closer than you do.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,921
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#16 » by 70sFan » Sat Oct 1, 2022 7:19 am

AEnigma wrote:
70sFan wrote:I think [Baylor] was a significantly better scorer than [Marques]. I like Marques’ peak a lot, but he's not on that level to me.

Relative to era, probably, but in the absolute? Once we start adjusted for league pace and efficiency I do not think Baylor really has any clear advantage — especially when factoring in “portability” aspects.

But you know what, yeah, I am probably being a bit unfair from a postseason perspective. Peak Baylor was at least holding up decently against Russell’s Celtics, and as much as I respect what Marques did against the 1981 76ers, that is a lower bar to clear.

I definitely disagree here, Baylor's volume is just on another level and he was actually reasonably efficient in his sustained 1960-63 peak. He also improved in the playoffs, as you mentioned, against top competition nonetheless.

I am not sure about portability either to be honest. Baylor's case is complicated. A lot of people view him as a chucker who can't scale next to other talent, but he managed to create an offensive dynasty next to West (most of the time after injuries). He didn't mesh with Wilt, but it was a poor fit from both sides.

When you actually start analyzing his skillset, I don't think he looks nearly as bad. He's clearly a better shooter than Marques, especially from long range. He could play a main and secondary ball-handler role perfectly fine. His scoring repertoire was very diverse, I often compare him to someone like worse shooting, but bigger Kobe in that regard. I really like his passing in transition as well.

I also think he was a less ball-dominant earlier in his career, in a way that he made his moves quickly and didn't waste nearly as much time. When he lost a lot of his athleticism, he became much more methodical player that could sometimes freeze offense, but younger Baylor doesn't look that way in games we have.
User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,067
And1: 5,882
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#17 » by AEnigma » Sat Oct 1, 2022 2:33 pm

70sFan wrote:
AEnigma wrote:
70sFan wrote:Although you know I wouldn't have Shaq nearly as high as he ended up, the difference between reducing Shaq to 25 pp75 instead of 30 pp75 isn't the same as with Dwight. Nobody ever limited Shaq to the point he became low volume scorer. In his prime, his worst volume scoring series was in 2002 vs Spurs when he averaged 22.9 pp75, which is more than Dwight's second best RS in his whole career.

I also don't think limiting Dwight's volume comes with nearly the same costs as with Shaq. When Portland limited Shaq's volume in 2000, they threw everything at him and they had the right personel to do that. I don't remember Dwight creating similar attention against the Lakers in 2009 Finals for example. It just seems like once Dwight can't abuse you on the glass and you have some length to bother his finishes, you can reduce his offensive value.

I agree that he's one of the best defenders left and that's what makes him a strong contender now. I just have problems with his offense and I'm not sure he's good enough yet to be voted in.

Shaq gets more value from scoring and is an outright better scorer; yes, it is not the same, but there is a comparable principle in play. I kind-of disagree that every dip for Shaq was related to throwing constant bodies at him; that was often the play, but I think he generally struggled against true giants who could match some of his strength. Yao, Arvydas, Vlade… I think guys like Wilt or even Marc Gasol could have kind-of held up too. The Lakers were a tough matchup for Howard, and that affected him worse than Shaq, but I do not think that is unique so much as it is a reflection of what happens when you have limited range and need to do almost all your scoring near the rim. And if your opponent cannot do that, which is increasingly the case, then it becomes a question of dedicated team efforts to cut down on that volume.

So to use Gilmore as a comparison, yeah, I like Gilmore’s offence somewhat more, but not by enough to overcome the advantage I give to Howard’s defence, who I see as at least a tier, maybe two tiers higher than that with his incredible total athleticism and mobility.

Yeah, you can slow down Shaq to some degree with size, length and strength. The thing is that even with that, you can't make him sub-20 pp75 scorer and his efficiency was rarely affected.

Never said you could.

Howard is tiers below that, you can basically erase his offense from the equation with the right personel.

Lol that is a needless exaggeration.

Why do you think Dwight was tiers ahead of Gilmore defensively? Peak Artis was an absolute monster on defense and he held up this defense in his first NBA season as well.

What makes 1973-77 (really 1973-75) Gilmore close apart from his raw strength and the degree to which that theoretically might give him an edge in post defence — not that Gilmore was some notoriously elite post defender in the way of Hakeem or even typically Robinson (to say nothing of Thurmond)? He was a monster defensive outlier in the ABA, sure… but even that was not leading to league deviations beyond Howard’s Magic. So outside of the 1972 ABA, where he does come in and kind-of blow everyone away in the regular season, the impact does not seem to be there, nothing in the box score seems to favour him, and nothing I have seem on film shows me “wow elite multiple-time DPoY” the way it does for Howard (with the acknowledgment that yeah Gilmore probably would have won four or five straight in the ABA lol).

Dwight was probably more mobile, but he's not Hakeem

Man, it is not “probably”, he was. His recoverability was incredible. He was not Hakeem, but he was much closer to that level than Gilmore.

and Gilmore was as mobile as you can reasonably expect from 7'2 guy.I don't know, I find their defense closer than you do.

I think Bucks Kareem was more mobile, and on that note, Kareem is the guy I would compare with Gilmore, not Howard.

I definitely disagree here, Baylor's volume is just on another level and he was actually reasonably efficient in his sustained 1960-63 peak.

When factoring pace, minute load, and team construction, again, that advantage drops pretty quickly, but sure, I was probably getting a bit too cute with the Marques arguing. I like his play-style more, I think he had a better head for the game, I personally prefer his passing but not by enough to push it that hard, and I like his defensive versatility 2-4, but Baylor is more proven in the postseason and I have made a general point of valuing that highly.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:Some people are clearly far too overreliant on data without context and look at good all in one or impact numbers and get wowed by that rather than looking at how a roster is actually built around a player
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,921
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#18 » by 70sFan » Sat Oct 1, 2022 5:22 pm

AEnigma wrote:Never said you could.

I know you didn't, but you did mention Shaq here and I think there is not much analogy between them in this regard.

Lol that is a needless exaggeration.

Depending on how you interpret my words, but Dwight didn't play at all-nba level offensively against the Lakers in 2009 finals for example.

What makes 1973-77 (really 1973-75) Gilmore close apart from his raw strength and the degree to which that theoretically might give him an edge in post defence — not that Gilmore was some notoriously elite post defender in the way of Hakeem or even typically Robinson (to say nothing of Thurmond)?

Well, for starters I'd say that Gilmore was a better rim protector. Dwight was a freak for his height, but he didn't have Artis length and size to bother shots without overcommiting.

I also strongly disagree with your take about post defense - Gilmore was significantly better post defender than Robinson. In fact, I don't view Admiral as a good post defender relative to other all-time centers. He relied heavily on his athleticism, often leaving himself in a bad position or allowing for deep position in the paint.

Gilmore was easily better post defender than Dwight. You can decide how much value it brings overall, but I don't find it debatable at all.

He was a monster defensive outlier in the ABA, sure… but even that was not leading to league deviations beyond Howard’s Magic. So outside of the 1972 ABA, where he does come in and kind-of blow everyone away in the regular season, the impact does not seem to be there, nothing in the box score seems to favour him, and nothing I have seem on film shows me “wow elite multiple-time DPoY” the way it does for Howard (with the acknowledgment that yeah Gilmore probably would have won four or five straight in the ABA lol).

1972 isn't actually Colonels best defensive year - it was 1975.

I don't know, what makes you believe that Howard is on that level, while Gilmore isn't? Do you have any specific criticism about his defense that eliminates him from the discussion?

Man, it is not “probably”, he was. His recoverability was incredible. He was not Hakeem, but he was much closer to that level than Gilmore.

He was closer, but he was also much smaller which affected his rim protection. I agree that his recovery ability was extremely impressive, but in other aspects like perimeter defense I wouldn't call him elite, despite his athleticism.

I think Bucks Kareem was more mobile, and on that note, Kareem is the guy I would compare with Gilmore, not Howard.

Maybe, I don't think it's clear that Howard is a better defender than Bucks Kareem.
User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,067
And1: 5,882
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#19 » by AEnigma » Sat Oct 1, 2022 6:12 pm

70sFan wrote:
AEnigma wrote:Never said you could.

I know you didn't, but you did mention Shaq here and I think there is not much analogy between them in this regard.

The analogy is in how they score and the potential weaknesses to that approach or otherwise the way that approach forces team to defend. Shaq did it better and at higher volume, but the style is not dissimilar, as scorers.

Lol that is a needless exaggeration.

Depending on how you interpret my words, but Dwight didn't play at all-nba level offensively against the Lakers in 2009 finals for example.

Agreed, they had all the size necessary to handle that particular matchup. But I do not need him to be that level of scorer in every matchup when his defensive impact is generally consistent.

What makes 1973-77 (really 1973-75) Gilmore close apart from his raw strength and the degree to which that theoretically might give him an edge in post defence — not that Gilmore was some notoriously elite post defender in the way of Hakeem or even typically Robinson (to say nothing of Thurmond)?

Well, for starters I'd say that Gilmore was a better rim protector. Dwight was a freak for his height, but he didn't have Artis length and size to bother shots without overcommiting.

Ironically that habit of overcommitting tended to act as a perpetual deterrent.

Artis had the length but I do not think that led to any advantage in rim protection because of Dwight’s athleticism. Again, maybe 1972 aside. I have read that Artis was hammered pretty hard for goaltending that year and adjusted in later seasons, but at that point that is value no longer provided.

I also strongly disagree with your take about post defense - Gilmore was significantly better post defender than Robinson. In fact, I don't view Admiral as a good post defender relative to other all-time centers. He relied heavily on his athleticism, often leaving himself in a bad position or allowing for deep position in the paint.

Gilmore was easily better post defender than Dwight. You can decide how much value it brings overall, but I don't find it debatable at all.

And what data do you have to support that? Unlike Robinson, Gilmore did not spend his prime dealing with elite post-scoring bigs. And hey, Dwight did not either much, which is why I am not pushing that point hard, but we do know he was strong in the post generally, and to whatever extent you want to profile him to Gobert playing against more post-capable bigs, I do not see where Howard is clearly losing out. Gilmore has plenty of traits that should make him elite in that area. In the ABA, I am sure he was. But those traits are not ones which really should have left him in the transition to the NBA, as they are not especially tied to raw athleticism, and I have never seen much to suggest truly elite results once he was in the NBA and dealing with Kareem and Lanier and Moses and so on (mostly those three I guess). I am no real fan of Robinson, but he has those results for pretty much everyone apart from 1995 WCF Hakeem.

He was a monster defensive outlier in the ABA, sure… but even that was not leading to league deviations beyond Howard’s Magic. So outside of the 1972 ABA, where he does come in and kind-of blow everyone away in the regular season, the impact does not seem to be there, nothing in the box score seems to favour him, and nothing I have seem on film shows me “wow elite multiple-time DPoY” the way it does for Howard (with the acknowledgment that yeah Gilmore probably would have won four or five straight in the ABA lol).

1972 isn't actually Colonels best defensive year - it was 1975.

Because they added two all-defensive starters, not because Gilmore suddenly elevated. Maybe it is Gilmore’s second best defensive season — that would make the drops in subsequent years a little more concerning, but oh well, this is a peaks project — but he never had as much raw impact as he did in his rookie year. Again, maybe a product of officiating, maybe a product of 1972 being a weaker league than 1975, but 1972 is the only year where you can clearly point and say Dwight probably did not approach that level of defensive impact in 2009-11.

I don't know, what makes you believe that Howard is on that level, while Gilmore isn't? Do you have any specific criticism about his defense that eliminates him from the discussion?

Mobility plus lack of clear advantage in drop / at the rim / as a general deterrent. Howard can cover the perimetre much better, recover better, defend pnrs better… better at stripping the ball or monitoring passing lanes… better rebounder, which is kind-of ridiculous given that should theoretically be one of the best ways Gilmore should get an edge… not a brilliant defensive mind, but at least had to respond to better offensive schemes and players than Gilmore did… yeah, I just do not really see where Gilmore is winning out apart from abstractly post defence.

Man, it is not “probably”, he was. His recoverability was incredible. He was not Hakeem, but he was much closer to that level than Gilmore.

He was closer, but he was also much smaller which affected his rim protection.

He was not smaller than Hakeem or Bill Russell, and similarly, his verticality is a great way to close or even exceed that base level gap against true giants like Gilmore or Kareem.

I agree that his recovery ability was extremely impressive, but in other aspects like perimeter defense I wouldn't call him elite, despite his athleticism.

Elite relative to guys like Hakeem or Ben Wallace or Bill Russell? Pretty much any other true defensive anchoring centre? Yeah I would.

I think Bucks Kareem was more mobile, and on that note, Kareem is the guy I would compare with Gilmore, not Howard.

Maybe, I don't think it's clear that Howard is a better defender than Bucks Kareem.

That is why you are 70sFan. ;-) Most people would disagree.

I do really like his defence in 1974 though, to the point I have never really been set on 1977 as his consensus peak. But maybe the Walton comparisons are excessively colouring my assessments.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:Some people are clearly far too overreliant on data without context and look at good all in one or impact numbers and get wowed by that rather than looking at how a roster is actually built around a player
User avatar
Proxy
Sophomore
Posts: 237
And1: 192
Joined: Jun 30, 2021
       

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #35 

Post#20 » by Proxy » Sat Oct 1, 2022 6:49 pm

Waaaayy too much uncertainty for me in this range, really just splitting hairs for these spots until the early 40s so i've began losing interest and will provide less for my 'explanations' - some of these players have also made these projects before if further brief reasoning is needed(*cough* Frazier), but anyways


1. 2022 Joel Embiid
-Mentioned before, him going this low for me is mainly durability related, but I did have Paul on my ballot starting in the early 20s with a similar problem.

2. 1972 Walt Frazier (1971, 1973)
-Arguably the best defensive PG of all-time(though I might prefer Jason Kidd, iirc he ended second in the project from a few years ago), and the best perimeter defender of the era, 70sfan also linked some Knicks footage for anyone interested.



Meshed well with a variety of different teammates(though there was not much roster turnover for some of those Knicks teams) and one of the rare superstars to consistently elevate their play in the PS and capped off the year with a dominant performance against the #2 ranked defense Lakers in the finals, averaging 23-8-8 on 61.25 TS%(+14 ish rTS% iirc, I can't tell if bballref is glitched but it also says they had a +10 rORTG that series but got killed on defense). Even w/o his co-star Willis Reed(who he led the team to a 50-win pace in games without him albeit with a fairly strong cast - they were some very strong teams when healthy, somehow they got like 5 players into the nba's 75th anniversary team lol).

3. 1996 Penny Hardaway
-This year placed Penny in rarefied air as an offensive engine in NBA history(note the following numbers may be slightly off, and I haven't checked them in a while so I would fact check them if you aren't already aware)

Proxy wrote:Penny 28 games without Shaq in '96
-Averaged 27 per 75 on +10 rTS%
-50 win pace(+3 team without Shaq and with Horace)
-+4 team rORTG

Other stuff from that year:
A top 50 RS AuPM/g peak OAT, top 5 in the league in 1996

#1 in the league according to Pollack's on/off estimates(+17.1) - on a side note the team numbers in *1995* being so similar makes me believe there was maybe some starter substitution stuff going on for those teams, but this year's result was still without Shaq 1/4 of the year so i'd say it's mostly fair

The 96 Magic finished with a rORTG of +5.3 even with Shaq missing 28 games

Shaq missed 28, Horace Grant missed 19. The Magic were a +10 ish SRS team with both iirc...with an offensive rating of 117.6!

After Penny sliced up the Bulls in the 1996 ECF...


and Shaq departed, the following year they were a respectable +3 team with Horace Grant again (+3 ORtg), only this time Penny missed 21 games and without him the Magic were a -6.5 SRS team w/ a -7.9 ORtg. 

The Orlando Magic had a stellar +7.7 PS Ortg from 95-97 with what i'd call close to 1A 1B situation on offense for some of those years.


Otoh concerns on his defense is what lowers him enough for me from what I think is a top-20 offensive peak OAT. When revisiting him I didn't necessarily think it was quite as bad as I did before, and fwiw on Phoenix he was considered a positive defensively(hard to measure actual improvements vs team situation). Anyways, that uncertainty gets him to being someone i'm fine in the back end of my top-40 and really just interchangable with the people i'm voting for this round.

4. 2022 Luka Doncič (2020)
-LukasGOAT has been making comparisons to him to players that have been in already that look fairly good for him - I could copy paste if needed, honestly I could somewhat see the case for him to have been ranked top-30 already based on his offensive brilliance in the PS so far.

I would probably prefer him to someone like Harden in a PS setting on as a primary for the same reasons as him(but like he said his defense might be even worse), he never really combined something like the RS dominance of 2020 with his PS performance in 2022 so ig it's maybe understandable with just one season making it out of the first round and the other two both against the Clippers so far(PS elevation confidence).
---
I really didn't think I would find myself ranking him this early going into the project but i'm thinking about Scottie Pippen next - the more I look into him I feel my concerns over his HC offense value maintaining in the PS(cuz of scoring ability specifically) were a little overstated, and his defensive versatility was just so valuable for the era, I would probably have either him or Bobby as the best non-big defender OAT w/ Kawhi, Dennis, and AK having cases as well.


I'm probably between him Dwight, Zo, Thurmond, or Barry next but the centers here are just so extremely packed. Solid cases for Lanier and Gilmore are being made even and just more to come.

Ballot recap:
1. 2022 Joel Embiid
2. 1972 Walt Frazier (1971, 1973)
3. 1996 Penny Hardaway
4. 2022 Luka Doncič (2020)
AEnigma wrote:Arf arf.
Image

trex_8063 wrote:Calling someone a stinky turd is not acceptable.
PLEASE stop doing that.

One_and_Done wrote:I mean, how would you feel if the NBA traced it's origins to an 1821 league of 3 foot dwarves who performed in circuses?

Return to Player Comparisons