RealGM

The peaks project has now come to an end after almost 5 months and here is the final list:

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
36. 2021-22 Joel Embiid
37. 1957-58 Bob Pettit
38. 1994-95 Scottie Pippen
39. 1995-96 Penny Hardaway
40. 2015-16 Draymond Green
41. 1974-75 Artis Gilmore
42. 1973-74 Bob Lanier
43. 2016-17 Russell Westbrook
44. 1971-72 Walt Frazier
45. 1999-00 Alonzo Mourning
46. 1969-70 Willis Reed
47. 1960-61 Elgin Baylor
48. 1966-67 Nate Thurmond
49. 2021-22 Luka Doncic
50. 1974-75 Rick Barry

Players who dropped out of the peaks list: Bob McAdoo

Players who were added to the peaks list: Nikola Jokic, Anthony Davis, Joel Embiid, Scottie Pippen, Penny Hardaway, Draymond Green, Bob Lanier, Alonzo Mourning, Elgin Baylor, Nate Thurmond, Luka Doncic

Change in ranking of players that made both the 2019 and 2022 list:
Giannis Antetokounmpo (-18)
Kawhi Leonard (-6)
James Harden (-6)
Stephen Curry (-4)
Steve Nash (-3)
Hakeem Olajuwon (-2)
Jerry West (-2)
Bob Pettit (-2)
Shaquille O'Neal (-1)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (-1)
Kobe Bryant (-1)
Michael Jordan (0)
LeBron James (0)
Tim Duncan (0)
Bill Russell (0)
Magic Johnson (0)
Oscar Robertson (0)
Kevin Durant (0)
Chris Paul (0)
Karl Malone (0)
Kevin Garnett (+1)
George Mikan (+1)
Wilt Chamberlain (+2)
Larry Bird (+2)
Dwyane Wade (+2)
David Robinson (+2)
Dwight Howard (+2)
Moses Malone (+3)
Bill Walton (+4)
Dirk Nowitzki (+4)
Walt Frazier (+4)
Charles Barkley (+5)
Artis Gilmore (+7)
Julius Erving (+10)
Patrick Ewing (+10)
Willis Reed (+10)
Tracy McGrady (+13)
Rick Barry (+13)
Russell Westbrook (+18)

Players voted in with a different peak season for the 2019 and 2022 list:
Stephen Curry (2016 -> 2017)
Giannis Antetokounmpo (2019 -> 2021)
Dwyane Wade (2009 -> 2006)
David Robinson (1995 -> 1994)
Kawhi Leonard (2019 -> 2017)
Kevin Durant (2014 -> 2017)
Steve Nash (2005 -> 2007)
Chris Paul (2008 -> 2015)
George Mikan (1949 -> 1950)
Charles Barkley (1993 -> 1990)
Karl Malone (1997 -> 1998)
Bob Pettit (1959 -> 1958)
Walt Frazier (1973 -> 1972)
Willis Reed (1969 -> 1970)

Players who received a vote but failed to make the 2022 list: Paul Arizin, Elton Brand, Jimmy Butler, Dave Cowens, Clyde Drexler, Paul George, Manu Ginobili, Rudy Gobert, Cliff Hagan, John Havlicek, Connie Hawkins, Grant Hill, Kevin Love, Bob McAdoo, Kevin McHale, Sidney Moncrief, Dikembe Mutombo, Paul Pierce, Jayson Tatum

Finally, a big thank you to all 48 voters who participated in this project: trelos6 (44), Proxy (41), Samurai (41), AEnigma (38), falcolombardi (37), trex_8063 (31), DraymondGold (29), Dutchball97 (28), capfan33 (27), SickMother (25), 70sFan (24), f4p (19), iggymcfrack (19), CharityStripe34 (19), ardee (17), OhayoKD (14), Ron Swanson (14), ceoofkobefans (13), Dr Positivity (10), Doctor MJ (10), homecourtloss (9), Djoker (9), MyUniBroDavis (7), letskissbro (7), Lou Fan (6), jalengreen (6), Eddy_JukeZ (5), JordansBulls (5), Blazers-1977 (5), Colbinii (5), mdonnelly1989 (5), cupcakesnake (4), E-Balla (3), Ginoboleee (3), LA Bird (3), Stan (2), Max123 (2), rk2023 (2), Gregoire (1), 90sAllDecade (1), ceiling raiser (1), 2klegend (1), coastalmarker99 (1), ChartFiction (1), ty 4191 (1), trelos (1), confucius (1), Mogspan (1)

Thank you for all the time you put into this, LA Bird!

I have a few quibbles — most significantly, Jordan staying at #1 and Shaq returning to a generous #3 — but looking at all four lists to this date, I definitely think this one turned out the best and represents the most balanced view of the sport. Extending to 50 spots opened up a lot too; I hope there is enough activity in future projects for that to become a new norm.

A pattern I pointed out early was that the backend of the lists are almost always de facto reserved for the old-school names. Held true here too with 7 of the last 10 going pre-merger, much as the 2019 list had 6 of the last 7 pre-merger and as the 2015 list had 7 of the last 9 pre-merger. If there were more of a feeling that the project would stop at 40, then maybe that Pippen/Penny/Draymond second star trio gets kicked out for the traditional “title leaders”.

Predictions for next project: Tatum and Luka climb 10 spots, Jokic falls unless he makes a Finals.

Happy to participate. I’m shocked to see I was the most voting person.

Anyways, the list seems ok. Nothing too egregious. We all have different perspectives so it’s interesting to see how it all came out in the wash.

AEnigma wrote::beer:

Thank you for all the time you put into this, LA Bird!

I have a few quibbles — most significantly, Jordan staying at #1 and Shaq returning to a generous #3 — but looking at all four lists to this date, I definitely think this one turned out the best and represents the most balanced view of the sport. Extending to 50 spots opened up a lot too; I hope there is enough activity in future projects for that to become a new norm.

A pattern I pointed out early was that the backend of the lists are almost always de facto reserved for the old-school names. Held true here too with 7 of the last 10 going pre-merger, much as the 2019 list had 6 of the last 7 pre-merger and as the 2015 list had 7 of the last 9 pre-merger. If there were more of a feeling that the project would stop at 40, then maybe that Pippen/Penny/Draymond second star trio gets kicked out for the traditional “title leaders”.

Predictions for next project: Tatum and Luka climb 10 spots, Jokic falls unless he makes a Finals.

I would argue that shaq offense gets taken a bit too for granted as better than kareem, and the defensive gap a bit too often equalized

Kareem was a much more efficient scorer with as good passing as shaq, and very underated off ball gravity to boot. Is not clear to me that shaq is a better offensive player

And the defensive gap is unarguable

Shaq place as a top 3 peak ever seems almost set in stone and i dont think is obvious at all

I love these projects and even though my participation was very mixed due to personal things, I still like the outcome overall.

Thank you LA Bird for running the project, it always takes a lot of work to keep it running and you did the best job possible!

falcolombardi wrote:

AEnigma wrote::beer:

Thank you for all the time you put into this, LA Bird!

I have a few quibbles — most significantly, Jordan staying at #1 and Shaq returning to a generous #3 — but looking at all four lists to this date, I definitely think this one turned out the best and represents the most balanced view of the sport. Extending to 50 spots opened up a lot too; I hope there is enough activity in future projects for that to become a new norm.

A pattern I pointed out early was that the backend of the lists are almost always de facto reserved for the old-school names. Held true here too with 7 of the last 10 going pre-merger, much as the 2019 list had 6 of the last 7 pre-merger and as the 2015 list had 7 of the last 9 pre-merger. If there were more of a feeling that the project would stop at 40, then maybe that Pippen/Penny/Draymond second star trio gets kicked out for the traditional “title leaders”.

Predictions for next project: Tatum and Luka climb 10 spots, Jokic falls unless he makes a Finals.

I would argue that shaq offense gets taken a bit too for granted as better than kareem, and the defensive gap a bit too often equalized

Kareem was a much more efficient scorer with as good passing as shaq, and very underated off ball gravity to boot. Is not clear to me that shaq is a better offensive player

And the defensive gap is unarguable

Shaq place as a top 3 peak ever seems almost set in stone and i dont think is obvious at all

Shaq place as a top 3 peak ever is strange to me, not because he doesn't deserve it, but because he's not even clearly top 3 peak ever among centers. The more I studied all these top tier centers, the less I am certain about the order.

Big shout out to LA Bird for organizing this massive project! It must have been a lot of work, and I imagine it was a thankless job at times, but it overall went very smoothly and that's largely thanks to you!

Greatest Peaks Related Threads
For Posterity, here's an (incomplete) list of threads related to the 2022 Greatest Peaks project.These are some of the threads that continued the discussion from the Greatest Peaks project, were referenced in the project, etc.

Possible topics to consider for this Review / Discussion:
I also thought it might be good to list a few prompting questions, just to give people some direction for this discussion. Feel free to add any more if you think of them!

1. What were our criteria?
-Which types of evidence did we value more or less? Film analysis, advanced plus minus metrics, more basic box metrics, more qualitative analysis, ‘big moments,’ team results, etc. ?
-How did we handle era? Did we just judge players relative to era, did we judge them relative to era with considerations for the talent pool, did we consider the time machine argument?

2. What were our preferences?
-how do we value offense (eg scoring vs creation) vs defense?
-How much do we value resilience: postseason vs regular season value
-how much do we value scalability: floor raising vs ceiling raising
-how much do we consider specific team fit / opponent matchups that might affect value/results?

3. What were our biases?
-championship bias / winning bias?
-small sample bias? eg late-game crunch time, hero moments, etc
-recency bias or nostalgia bias?

4. How much uncertainty was there?
-possible metrics : First time a player was mentioned vs when they got voted in, first top 3/5 finish for a player vs when they got voted in, how long after their first tie did a player get voted in, etc.

5. How was our discussion as a community?
-Is there any way we might improve discussion for the next project?

6. How have things changed vs previous projects?
-Which players rose in the ranks, who fell, and why?
-What do you predict might change for the next project?

On the topic of preferences/biases, there's one thing I noticed that I found... odd. We seemed to vote in players in batches by position. For example, if I were to group the peaks into tiers based on how people voted, it would be something like:

RealGM Greatest Peaks List (2022)
Tier 1: The usual GOAT perimeter players: 1-2
-Michael Jordan, LeBron James

Tier 2: the All-time Big Men (in order from offense to defense): 3-8
-Shaquille O'Neal, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Bill Russell

Tier 3: the all-time perimeter players: 9-11
-Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Stephen Curry

Tier 4: pairs of positional rivals: 12-19
-Kevin Garnett vs Giannis Antetokounmpo, Oscar Robertson vs Jerry West, Nikola Jokic vs Bill Walton, Dwyane Wade vs Kobe Bryant

Tier 5: The strong-MVP wings/forwards: 20-26
-(David Robinson), Kawhi Leonard, Julius Erving, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant, Moses Malone, Anthony Davis

Tier 6: the Offensive Guards: 27-29
-Steve Nash, Chris Paul, James Harden

Tier 7: Another tier of bigs: 30-37.
-George Mikan, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, (Tracy McGrady), Dwight Howard, Joel Embiid, Bob Pettit

Tier 8: the leftovers: 38-50
-Scottie Pippen, Penny Hardaway, Draymond Green, Artis Gilmore, Bob Lanier, Russell Westbrook, Walt Frazier, Alonzo Mourning, Willis Reed, Elgin Baylor, Nate Thurmond, Luka Doncic, Rick Barry

__________

As I see it, Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 are all clearly grouped by position.

Tier 4 is a bit more mixed positionally, but every player went in positional pairs... the two versatile all-time defenders went as a pair (KG, Giannis), then the two old 60s perimeter rivals (Oscar, West), then two of the remaining all-time bigs (Jokic, Walton), then the two 00s perimeter rivals (Wade, Kobe).

Tier 5 is slightly more mixed... Robinson seems out of place. But after him, there's clearly some grouping of these wings/forwards. Tier 6 is another clear grouping of offense-first guards, and Tier 7 is another clear grouping of bigs (with the only exception being Tracy McGrady). Only Tier 8 seems to be relatively free from positional grouping.

I'm not positive how much of this is random chance vs not, but it seems a bit unlikely to entirely random. For Tiers 2-3, why shouldn't Bird/Magic/Curry be mixed in with the bigs? In Tier 4, why would all the positional pairs be voted in next to each other? Why shouldn't the wings from Tier 5 be mixed in with the guards from tier 6 or the bigs of Tier 7?

Part of me wonders whether it's easier for people to compare players at a similar position, rather than compare players across position. If so, this might push the discussion to debate players in similar positions, which might be one cause for this grouping when we go to vote. ... alternatively, this is just random and I'm grasping at straws. Any thoughts?

70sFan wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

AEnigma wrote::beer:

Thank you for all the time you put into this, LA Bird!

I have a few quibbles — most significantly, Jordan staying at #1 and Shaq returning to a generous #3 — but looking at all four lists to this date, I definitely think this one turned out the best and represents the most balanced view of the sport. Extending to 50 spots opened up a lot too; I hope there is enough activity in future projects for that to become a new norm.

A pattern I pointed out early was that the backend of the lists are almost always de facto reserved for the old-school names. Held true here too with 7 of the last 10 going pre-merger, much as the 2019 list had 6 of the last 7 pre-merger and as the 2015 list had 7 of the last 9 pre-merger. If there were more of a feeling that the project would stop at 40, then maybe that Pippen/Penny/Draymond second star trio gets kicked out for the traditional “title leaders”.

Predictions for next project: Tatum and Luka climb 10 spots, Jokic falls unless he makes a Finals.

I would argue that shaq offense gets taken a bit too for granted as better than kareem, and the defensive gap a bit too often equalized

Kareem was a much more efficient scorer with as good passing as shaq, and very underated off ball gravity to boot. Is not clear to me that shaq is a better offensive player

And the defensive gap is unarguable

Shaq place as a top 3 peak ever seems almost set in stone and i dont think is obvious at all

Shaq place as a top 3 peak ever is strange to me, not because he doesn't deserve it, but because he's not even clearly top 3 peak ever among centers. The more I studied all these top tier centers, the less I am certain about the order.

Shaq benefits a lot from having 4 rings, but one of those was as a sidekick and two of them could easily have been conference finals losses

In a world where sixers win their game 7 vs celtics in 68 but lakers lose their game 7's against kings and blazers wilt suddendly becomes the player with a near unnanymous top 3 peak ever and shaq seen as a bottom top 3 peak

Just by bouncing a couple shots either way

DraymondGold wrote:I also thought it might be good to list a few prompting questions, just to give people some direction for this discussion. Feel free to add any more if you think of them!

1. What were our criteria?
-Which types of evidence did we value more or less? Film analysis, advanced plus minus metrics, more basic box metrics, more qualitative analysis, ‘big moments,’ team results, etc. ?
-How did we handle era? Did we just judge players relative to era, did we judge them relative to era with considerations for the talent pool, did we consider the time machine argument?

2. What were our preferences?
-how do we value offense (eg scoring vs creation) vs defense?
-How much do we value resilience: postseason vs regular season value
-how much do we value scalability: floor raising vs ceiling raising
-how much do we consider specific team fit / opponent matchups that might affect value/results?

3. What were our biases?
-championship bias / winning bias?
-small sample bias? eg late-game crunch time, hero moments, etc
-recency bias or nostalgia bias?

4. How much uncertainty was there?
-possible metrics : First time a player was mentioned vs when they got voted in, first top 3/5 finish for a player vs when they got voted in, how long after their first tie did a player get voted in, etc.

5. How was our discussion as a community?
-Is there any way we might improve discussion for the next project?

6. How have things changed vs previous projects?
-Which players rose in the ranks, who fell, and why?
-What do you predict might change for the next project?

On the topic of preferences/biases, there's one thing I noticed that I found... odd. We seemed to vote in players in batches by position. For example, if I were to group the peaks into tiers based on how people voted, it would be something like:

RealGM Greatest Peaks List (2022)
Tier 1: The usual GOAT perimeter players: 1-2
-Michael Jordan, LeBron James

Tier 2: the All-time Big Men (in order from offense to defense): 3-8
-Shaquille O'Neal, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Bill Russell

Tier 3: the all-time perimeter players: 9-11
-Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Stephen Curry

Tier 4: pairs of positional rivals: 12-19
-Kevin Garnett vs Giannis Antetokounmpo, Oscar Robertson vs Jerry West, Nikola Jokic vs Bill Walton, Dwyane Wade vs Kobe Bryant

Tier 5: The strong-MVP wings/forwards: 20-26
-(David Robinson), Kawhi Leonard, Julius Erving, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant, Moses Malone, Anthony Davis

Tier 6: the Offensive Guards: 27-29
-Steve Nash, Chris Paul, James Harden

Tier 7: Another tier of bigs: 30-37.
-George Mikan, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, (Tracy McGrady), Dwight Howard, Joel Embiid, Bob Pettit

Tier 8: the leftovers: 38-50
-Scottie Pippen, Penny Hardaway, Draymond Green, Artis Gilmore, Bob Lanier, Russell Westbrook, Walt Frazier, Alonzo Mourning, Willis Reed, Elgin Baylor, Nate Thurmond, Luka Doncic, Rick Barry

__________

As I see it, Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 are all clearly grouped by position.

Tier 4 is a bit more mixed positionally, but every player went in positional pairs... the two versatile all-time defenders went as a pair (KG, Giannis), then the two old 60s perimeter rivals (Oscar, West), then two of the remaining all-time bigs (Jokic, Walton), then the two 00s perimeter rivals (Wade, Kobe).

Tier 5 is slightly more mixed... Robinson seems out of place. But after him, there's clearly some grouping of these wings/forwards. Tier 6 is another clear grouping of offense-first guards, and Tier 7 is another clear grouping of bigs (with the only exception being Tracy McGrady). Only Tier 8 seems to be relatively free from positional grouping.

I'm not positive how much of this is random chance vs not, but it seems a bit unlikely to entirely random. For Tiers 2-3, why shouldn't Bird/Magic/Curry be mixed in with the bigs? In Tier 4, why would all the positional pairs be voted in next to each other? Why shouldn't the wings from Tier 5 be mixed in with the guards from tier 6 or the bigs of Tier 7?

Part of me wonders whether it's easier for people to compare players at a similar position, rather than compare players across position. If so, this might push the discussion to debate players in similar positions, which might be one cause for this grouping when we go to vote. ... alternatively, this is just random and I'm grasping at straws. Any thoughts?

Definitely easier to compare positionally, and to that point, the reason I think we saw 3-8 go ahead of Magic/Bird/Steph just as in 2019 and in 2015 (adding Garnett ahead too) is because the people who have [[BIGS]] ahead are probably going to try to clear them out first. If we have six people who would put Steph, Bird, and Magic top five, and fourteen who have them behind those bigs, well, the bigs go ahead.

To me it seems sensible that voting for one of Wade or Kobe would garner a close vote for the other… yet what happened in the prior two projects was that Kobe was tied to McGrady instead! To go back to your “biases”, this bloc was generally more interested in titles (again, 25 of the top 26 were title-winners, and 21/25 were the leaders for those titles) and playoff success. McGrady falls, but he cannot drag Kobe with him, so Wade is left as the obvious contemporary comparison. Only once both are clear do those voters see their consensus collapse on itself, as a new consensus forms. Which is a nice illustration of how these ties can fracture in different ways.

With that in mind, if I may resume at your tier 4 as a means of exploring some of my interpretations of your list of six discussion topics…

Garnett and Giannis: preferred over guards because of the bloc’s big man bias (as with title bias, not necessarily a wrong or bad one). Both are preferred over the next tier of bigs, Jokic, Walton, and Robinson, who ends up slightly split behind Wade and Kobe because of a few minute variations in participation (always an essential element), although the reasonings differ and lead to variance with that Kobe and Wade group.

Oscar and West: generally preferred over the next tier of bigs for reasons I could not determine (I was vocally against that placement), and preferred over Kobe and Wade because of their more efficient profiles and their era relative outlier status. However, I actually see these two as more of a pairing by coincidence: the voting base for both was quite divided, but those bases collapsed in on themselves immediately after their guard of choice entered.

Jokic, Walton, and Robinson, and Wade and Kobe: here the title-winning guards start to make up ground, splitting up what had been a big bias to this point.

Erving, Kawhi, Dirk: perimetre scorers who led teams to a title but lacked the singular offensive generation of Wade and Kobe. Many Wade and Kobe voters immediately pivoted to them as the big voters found themselves divided over whether Ewing or Moses or Davis deserved to be a tier above this group of wings.

Durant, Moses, and Davis: title-winning bigs who received penalties for the circumstances behind those titles

Nash, Paul, and Harden: clear trend here but again it was quite a divisive one and with a few slight differences in participation could have seen more of a break. Key element here is that we are now firmly in the non-title winners.

Mikan: as covered in that thread and the following thread, sense of “it is his turn” eventually wins out just as it did in 2019.

Barkley, Malone, and Ewing: Jordan and Hakeem’s failed rivals of the 1990s.

McGrady: Little bit of Mikan energy here. Historically has fared the best of everyone in the title-less group (I would argue for poor reasons), but in this bloc took major penalties for the lack of postseason success. Where he had once been compared closely to Kobe, he was now compared to Harden, Barkley, Penny, and Luka.

(Ewing,) Howard and Embiid: They can score, and they can defend, but are you confident in building around their archetypes? The gateway to a flood of big men with most of the traditional top offensive stars covered.

Pettit: It was his turn.

Penny, Pippen, Draymond, and Westbrook: overshadowed by higher peak teammates, these four were instrumental and quantifiably massive impact co-stars on legendary teams. Westbrook suffers in part because of an unattractive playstyle and in part because his voting bloc drops off before being picked up by a separate group of voters.

Gilmore, Lanier, Mourning, Reed, Thurmond: working our way through the remaining top big men (see also Bob McAdoo, who suffered here for lack of two-way play)

Frazier and Barry: the remaining title-leading perimetre stars, although here Barry took a play-style hit and saw his voting bloc drop out for a few rounds.

Luka: Eventual consensus that he needed to make it as the clear top remaining offensive peak, but much covered extreme division over his play-style and weak impact indicators sank him when his original voting bloc dropped out.

Butler: nearly made the top forty, but his modern-minded voting bloc dropped out.

70sFan wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

AEnigma wrote::beer:

Thank you for all the time you put into this, LA Bird!

I have a few quibbles — most significantly, Jordan staying at #1 and Shaq returning to a generous #3 — but looking at all four lists to this date, I definitely think this one turned out the best and represents the most balanced view of the sport. Extending to 50 spots opened up a lot too; I hope there is enough activity in future projects for that to become a new norm.

A pattern I pointed out early was that the backend of the lists are almost always de facto reserved for the old-school names. Held true here too with 7 of the last 10 going pre-merger, much as the 2019 list had 6 of the last 7 pre-merger and as the 2015 list had 7 of the last 9 pre-merger. If there were more of a feeling that the project would stop at 40, then maybe that Pippen/Penny/Draymond second star trio gets kicked out for the traditional “title leaders”.

Predictions for next project: Tatum and Luka climb 10 spots, Jokic falls unless he makes a Finals.

I would argue that shaq offense gets taken a bit too for granted as better than kareem, and the defensive gap a bit too often equalized

Kareem was a much more efficient scorer with as good passing as shaq, and very underated off ball gravity to boot. Is not clear to me that shaq is a better offensive player

And the defensive gap is unarguable

Shaq place as a top 3 peak ever seems almost set in stone and i dont think is obvious at all

Shaq place as a top 3 peak ever is strange to me, not because he doesn't deserve it, but because he's not even clearly top 3 peak ever among centers. The more I studied all these top tier centers, the less I am certain about the order.

Looking at the top 3 threads, the picks really seem to largely just done on a whim. Not alot of actual discussion and consideration of how these players caompared to other players they were placed above.

Also russell being so low is wild. Era-relativity when convenient i guess

OhayoKD wrote:

70sFan wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

I would argue that shaq offense gets taken a bit too for granted as better than kareem, and the defensive gap a bit too often equalized

Kareem was a much more efficient scorer with as good passing as shaq, and very underated off ball gravity to boot. Is not clear to me that shaq is a better offensive player

And the defensive gap is unarguable

Shaq place as a top 3 peak ever seems almost set in stone and i dont think is obvious at all

Shaq place as a top 3 peak ever is strange to me, not because he doesn't deserve it, but because he's not even clearly top 3 peak ever among centers. The more I studied all these top tier centers, the less I am certain about the order.

Looking at the top 3 threads, the picks really seem to largely just done on a whim. Not alot of actual discussion and consideration of how these players caompared to other players they were placed above.

Also russell being so low is wild. Era-relativity when convenient i guess

Fun fact, there is the same distance between lebron 2020 ring and jordan last 98 ring as between jordan first ring and russel last one

And arguably a bigger change in the player pool/game advancement/ league economic growth/sports medicine

falcolombardi wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

70sFan wrote:Shaq place as a top 3 peak ever is strange to me, not because he doesn't deserve it, but because he's not even clearly top 3 peak ever among centers. The more I studied all these top tier centers, the less I am certain about the order.

Looking at the top 3 threads, the picks really seem to largely just done on a whim. Not alot of actual discussion and consideration of how these players caompared to other players they were placed above.

Also russell being so low is wild. Era-relativity when convenient i guess

Fun fact, there is the same distance between lebron 2020 ring and jordan last 98 ring as between jordan first ring and russel last one

And arguably a bigger change in the player pool/game advancement/ league economic growth/sports medicine

Sorry I just have to call you out on this bs statement.

- There were like 14 teams in "69 vs 28 in '91

- A lot of players in 1969 had 2nd jobs and did not train full year round
.
- average salaries in 60s were like 150k (adjusted for inflation) and 90s were hitting over million

- peak popularity for NBA arguably was in 90s (TV, dream team 91 Olympics etc..)

- any semblence of sports science did not exist at all in 60s. Specific fitness coaches were already common in 90s).

-3pt shot introduced late 70s/ early 80s

I'm not doing this to disparage Bill Russell, he was before my time and it was just a totally different league back then.

There's a reason why I don't make judgements of players back then since the top players at the time had different hurdles and challenges they faced compared to today. And that's why I always say MJ is the goat in modern era since its hard to make the comparison prior to the 80s.

But I juat want to call you out on your hyperbole

And to suggest that just because a player is today are better than players 15-20 years ago, then explain how Federer who first came no1 in tennis in 2004 and remained top 3 for like 15 years and would probably remain top 3 for as many years as he would have liked if it wasn't for injuries and just getting old.

mysticOscar wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Looking at the top 3 threads, the picks really seem to largely just done on a whim. Not alot of actual discussion and consideration of how these players caompared to other players they were placed above.

Also russell being so low is wild. Era-relativity when convenient i guess

Fun fact, there is the same distance between lebron 2020 ring and jordan last 98 ring as between jordan first ring and russel last one

And arguably a bigger change in the player pool/game advancement/ league economic growth/sports medicine

Sorry I just have to call you out on this bs statement.

- There were like 14 teams in "69 vs 28 in '91

- A lot of players in 1969 had 2nd jobs and did not train full year round
.
- average salaries in 60s were like 150k (adjusted for inflation) and 90s were hitting over million

- peak popularity for NBA arguably was in 90s (TV, dream team 91 Olympics etc..)

- any semblence of sports science did not exist at all in 60s. Specific fitness coaches were already common in 90s).

-3pt shot introduced late 70s/ early 80s

I'm not doing this to disparage Bill Russell, he was before my time and it was just a totally different league back then.

There's a reason why I don't make judgements of players back then since the top players at the time had different hurdles and challenges they faced compared to today. And that's why I always say MJ is the goat in modern era since its hard to make the comparison prior to the 80s.

But I juat want to call you out on your hyperbole

And to suggest that just because a player is today are better than players 15-20 years ago, then explain how Federer who first came no1 in tennis in 2004 and remained top 3 for like 15 years and would probably remain top 3 for as many years as he would have liked if it wasn't for injuries and just getting old.

There were like 14 teams in "69 vs 28 in '91

Now do american population between 1969 and 1991 and that is before adjusting for basketball popularity growth

A lot of players in 1969 had 2nd jobs and did not train full year round

Train full year round? As in all 12 months of the year?

Who does that now?

average salaries in 60s were like 150k (adjusted for inflation) and 90s were hitting over million

Players today are winning 40 million salaries... per your numbers there is a bigger gap between 2020 salaries 1991 ones, that 1991 ones and 1969

peak popularity for NBA arguably was in 90s (TV, dream team 91 Olympics etc..)

Peak of american -tv- ratings maybe. Actual popularity? Not even close. Specially not worldwide

any semblence of sports science did not exist at all in 60s. Specific fitness coaches were already common in 90s

).

Now mention how many huge improvements we have in 2020 sports medicine compared to 1990, injuries that were career enders are relatively easily manageable now among other thinghs

-3pt shot introduced late 70s/ early 80s

There were zero 3's in 1969, 7 a game in 1991 and 34 a game in 2020....the difference in spacing/3 point shooting is much bigger between 91 and 20....

And that's why I always say MJ is the goat in modern era since its hard to make the comparison prior to the 80s.

So jordan era that had way less international players, 1/5th of the 3 pointers than now, different ruleset, weaker sports medicine, smaller player pool is the same era as now

But 60's and 90's are way too different to compare?

If the 60's and 80's/90's are too far and different to be the same era, so are the 80's/90's and 10's/20's

then explain how Federer who first came no1 in tennis in 2004 and remained top 3 for like 15 years and would probably remain top 3 for as many years as he would have liked if it wasn't for injuries and just getting old

Goat level players are great for long, more news at 11

This actually would be an argument for someone like lebron then, who actuallt overlaps with federer in longevity and recency. Not for jordan

Late 1960s is definitely closer to the early 1990s than the early 1990s to the 2020s. I don't understand how can anyone watch game from 1969, 1991 and 2021 and conclude that 1969 doesn't fit more to the 1990s than 2021.

falcolombardi wrote:

mysticOscar wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:
Fun fact, there is the same distance between lebron 2020 ring and jordan last 98 ring as between jordan first ring and russel last one

And arguably a bigger change in the player pool/game advancement/ league economic growth/sports medicine

Sorry I just have to call you out on this bs statement.

- There were like 14 teams in "69 vs 28 in '91

- A lot of players in 1969 had 2nd jobs and did not train full year round
.
- average salaries in 60s were like 150k (adjusted for inflation) and 90s were hitting over million

- peak popularity for NBA arguably was in 90s (TV, dream team 91 Olympics etc..)

- any semblence of sports science did not exist at all in 60s. Specific fitness coaches were already common in 90s).

-3pt shot introduced late 70s/ early 80s

I'm not doing this to disparage Bill Russell, he was before my time and it was just a totally different league back then.

There's a reason why I don't make judgements of players back then since the top players at the time had different hurdles and challenges they faced compared to today. And that's why I always say MJ is the goat in modern era since its hard to make the comparison prior to the 80s.

But I juat want to call you out on your hyperbole

And to suggest that just because a player is today are better than players 15-20 years ago, then explain how Federer who first came no1 in tennis in 2004 and remained top 3 for like 15 years and would probably remain top 3 for as many years as he would have liked if it wasn't for injuries and just getting old.

There were like 14 teams in "69 vs 28 in '91

Now do american population between 1969 and 1991 and that is before adjusting for basketball popularity growth

A lot of players in 1969 had 2nd jobs and did not train full year round

Train full year round? As in all 12 months of the year?

Who does that now?

average salaries in 60s were like 150k (adjusted for inflation) and 90s were hitting over million

Players today are winning 40 million salaries... per your numbers there is a bigger gap between 2020 salaries 1991 ones, that 1991 ones and 1969

peak popularity for NBA arguably was in 90s (TV, dream team 91 Olympics etc..)

Peak of american -tv- ratings maybe. Actual popularity? Not even close. Specially not worldwide

any semblence of sports science did not exist at all in 60s. Specific fitness coaches were already common in 90s

).

Now mention how many huge improvements we have in 2020 sports medicine compared to 1990, injuries that were career enders are relatively easily manageable now among other thinghs

-3pt shot introduced late 70s/ early 80s

There were zero 3's in 1969, 7 a game in 1991 and 34 a game in 2020....the difference in spacing/3 point shooting is much bigger between 91 and 20....

And that's why I always say MJ is the goat in modern era since its hard to make the comparison prior to the 80s.

So jordan era that had way less international players, 1/5th of the 3 pointers than now, different ruleset, weaker sports medicine, smaller player pool is the same era as now

But 60's and 90's are way too different to compare?

If the 60's and 80's/90's are too far and different to be the same era, so are the 80's/90's and 10's/20's

then explain how Federer who first came no1 in tennis in 2004 and remained top 3 for like 15 years and would probably remain top 3 for as many years as he would have liked if it wasn't for injuries and just getting old

Goat level players are great for long, more news at 11

This actually would be an argument for someone like lebron then, who actuallt overlaps with federer in longevity and recency. Not for jordan

Lets get realistic. No hyperboles.

Salary

1969 vs 1991 comparison
1969 average salary was ~15k a year (adjusted for inflation in 1991 is below 45k a year!!)
1991 average salary was ~900k a year.

Avg. NBA salary adjusted for 1991 inflation => 45k (1969) vs 900k (1991) = 20x

1991 vs Today comparison
1991 average salary was ~900k a year. (adjusted for inflation to today1.8mill)
2022 average salary is around 8.5 mill.

Avg. NBA salary 1.8M vs 8.5M = <5x

So in your world, 20x is less than 5x? Also once you get to a certain amount....it doesnt really impact as much on court. When players can pretty much afford to play full time and afford all the tools, support they need to be at there best, extra millions doesnt make much difference. Would it make a huge difference if the avg today moved from 8.5M to 20M? Compared to 50k a year to 1M?

Popularity and Economic Growth

1969 used to get 1 televised game a week. College basket was probably even more popular than NBA in this decade. In short, NBA was not mainstream at all and hardly had any brand endorsements and little tv contract.

90s can argue was the peak of NBA popularity especially in terms of TV viewerships. Big endorsements from big brands, big tv contracts, player household names.

So even if we take into account that more of the viewerships has now moved towards digital, you think 1991 is still closer to 1969 than today?

Sports Science

Considering the amount of money that were available in 1991 compared to 1969, the players in 1991 had access to the best trainers, nutritionist at the time. In 1969, some players had to even use public transport to get to the games let alone have personal coaches and trainers.

Even if we consider the advancement on the Sports Science from 1991 to today....do you think 1991 is closer to 1969 than today??

International Players
In 1969, how many international players did the NBA have? In fact, how many players outside of USA even knew about the NBA?

1991, NBA brand was already known pretty much everywhere in the world. Yes, NBA was still very reluctant to accept players from outside of the states, but you already had a couple of dozens of international players playing in the league. Some of them becoming household names i.e.Olajuwon, Detlef Schrempf, Mutombo

Again, you're assertion is that 1969 is a lot more like 1991 than 1991 is more like today....then tell me at least 1 international player that played in 1969 that is regarded a household name?

Your original claim was that 1991 to today had arguably a bigger change in the player pool/game advancement/ league economic growth/sports medicine....i just want to call you out on your BS

You trying to change your argument to the change in play style is straw manning.

I agree the league rule changes had made the play style changed drastically, from post oriented to now soley exclusive on the perimeter. But that's not what you were originally stating and not what my gripe is about

70sFan wrote:Late 1960s is definitely closer to the early 1990s than the early 1990s to the 2020s. I don't understand how can anyone watch game from 1969, 1991 and 2021 and conclude that 1969 doesn't fit more to the 1990s than 2021.

My gripe is not about playstyle. I agree the playstyle today has changed drastically. Thats not what the gripe is about.

mysticOscar wrote:Salary

1969 vs 1991 comparison
1969 average salary was ~15k a year (adjusted for inflation in 1991 is below 45k a year!!)
1991 average salary was ~900k a year.

Avg. NBA salary adjusted for 1991 inflation => 45k (1969) vs 900k (1991) = 20x

1991 vs Today comparison
1991 average salary was ~900k a year. (adjusted for inflation to today1.8mill)
2022 average salary is around 8.5 mill.

Avg. NBA salary 1.8M vs 8.5M = <5x

I need to see your source of these numbers, as I couldn't find anything about the average salary in 1969, but I did found the number for 1970 (just the next season) and the average salary was ~35K a year, which adjusted to 1991 inflation would be ~123K in 1991. So the difference between 1970 and 1991 isn't 20 times, but actually less than 8 times: 123K vs 886K is 7.2 times more.

In comparison, 886K in 1991 equals to 1.731 mill. today. Compare that to 8.5 mill. average now, that gives us the 5 times the growth. Not even close to what you tried to portrait.

Of course, there is a possibility that players earned significantly less money in 1969 vs 1970, but that's... unlikely.

Source for the 1991 average: https://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries91.txt

So in your world, 20x is less than 5x?

More like 7x vs 5x.

Also once you get to a certain amount....it doesnt really impact as much on court. When players can pretty much afford to play full time and afford all the tools, support they need to be at there best, extra millions doesnt make much difference. Would it make a huge difference if the avg today moved from 8.5M to 20M? Compared to 50k a year to 1M?

I think it would make a significant difference if you ask me. You act like players in the late 1960s weren't well paid professionals, when they clearly were. Again, 35K for an average player in 1970 is more than enough to live a good, secure life.

Popularity and Economic Growth

1969 used to get 1 televised game a week. College basket was probably even more popular than NBA in this decade. In short, NBA was not mainstream at all and hardly had any brand endorsements and little tv contract.

90s can argue was the peak of NBA popularity especially in terms of TV viewerships. Big endorsements from big brands, big tv contracts, player household names.

So even if we take into account that more of the viewerships has now moved towards digital, you think 1991 is still closer to 1969 than today?

It was a different era when radio broadcasts were still very important for sports fans. It's hard to compare it that way. I agree that in terms of marketability 1991 was closer to 2021 than 1969.

Sports Science

Considering the amount of money that were available in 1991 compared to 1969, the players in 1991 had access to the best trainers, nutritionist at the time. In 1969, some players had to even use public transport to get to the games let alone have personal coaches and trainers.

Even if we consider the advancement on the Sports Science from 1991 to today....do you think 1991 is closer to 1969 than today??

I think you overestimate the complexity of 1991 coaching and team staff. Most NBA players certianly didn't have the access to the best trainers or nurtitionists, it was only the beginning of the change.

International Players
In 1969, how many international players did the NBA have? In fact, how many players outside of USA even knew about the NBA?

Most basketball fans were aware of the existance of the NBA back in the 1960s.

I think there was only one international player in 1969. In 1991 there were only 18 international players in the league, despite the league being significantly bigger. Now, the league is like 30% international. I think the difference is bigger in 1991->2022 direction.

Again, you're assertion is that 1969 is a lot more like 1991 than 1991 is more like today....then tell me at least 1 international player that played in 1969 that is regarded a household name?

Tom Meschery.

Your original claim was that 1991 to today had arguably a bigger change in the player pool/game advancement/ league economic growth/sports medicine....i just want to call you out on your BS

But the talent pool incresed by massive amount today. In the 1960s and 1990s we only had American players and although the league became more popular, it also became bigger watering down the level of average player. Now we have the access to the best players in the world - not only in the US.

The economic growth is steady, as I showed previously.

You didn't show any evidences that the sport medicine growth decelerated.

mysticOscar wrote:

70sFan wrote:Late 1960s is definitely closer to the early 1990s than the early 1990s to the 2020s. I don't understand how can anyone watch game from 1969, 1991 and 2021 and conclude that 1969 doesn't fit more to the 1990s than 2021.

My gripe is not about playstyle. I agree the playstyle today has changed drastically. Thats not what the gripe is about.

It's easier to imagine 1969 team being competitive in 1991 than 1991 team in 2022, let's put it that way.

70sFan wrote:

mysticOscar wrote:Salary

1969 vs 1991 comparison
1969 average salary was ~15k a year (adjusted for inflation in 1991 is below 45k a year!!)
1991 average salary was ~900k a year.

Avg. NBA salary adjusted for 1991 inflation => 45k (1969) vs 900k (1991) = 20x

1991 vs Today comparison
1991 average salary was ~900k a year. (adjusted for inflation to today1.8mill)
2022 average salary is around 8.5 mill.

Avg. NBA salary 1.8M vs 8.5M = <5x

I need to see your source of these numbers, as I couldn't find anything about the average salary in 1969, but I did found the number for 1970 (just the next season) and the average salary was ~35K a year, which adjusted to 1991 inflation would be ~123K in 1991. So the difference between 1970 and 1991 isn't 20 times, but actually less than 8 times: 123K vs 886K is 7.2 times more.

In comparison, 886K in 1991 equals to 1.731 mill. today. Compare that to 8.5 mill. average now, that gives us the 5 times the growth. Not even close to what you tried to portrait.

Of course, there is a possibility that players earned significantly less money in 1969 vs 1970, but that's... unlikely.

Source for the 1991 average: https://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries91.txt

So in your world, 20x is less than 5x?

More like 7x vs 5x.

Also once you get to a certain amount....it doesnt really impact as much on court. When players can pretty much afford to play full time and afford all the tools, support they need to be at there best, extra millions doesnt make much difference. Would it make a huge difference if the avg today moved from 8.5M to 20M? Compared to 50k a year to 1M?

I think it would make a significant difference if you ask me. You act like players in the late 1960s weren't well paid professionals, when they clearly were. Again, 35K for an average player in 1970 is more than enough to live a good, secure life.

Popularity and Economic Growth

1969 used to get 1 televised game a week. College basket was probably even more popular than NBA in this decade. In short, NBA was not mainstream at all and hardly had any brand endorsements and little tv contract.

90s can argue was the peak of NBA popularity especially in terms of TV viewerships. Big endorsements from big brands, big tv contracts, player household names.

So even if we take into account that more of the viewerships has now moved towards digital, you think 1991 is still closer to 1969 than today?

It was a different era when radio broadcasts were still very important for sports fans. It's hard to compare it that way. I agree that in terms of marketability 1991 was closer to 2021 than 1969.

Sports Science

Considering the amount of money that were available in 1991 compared to 1969, the players in 1991 had access to the best trainers, nutritionist at the time. In 1969, some players had to even use public transport to get to the games let alone have personal coaches and trainers.

Even if we consider the advancement on the Sports Science from 1991 to today....do you think 1991 is closer to 1969 than today??

I think you overestimate the complexity of 1991 coaching and team staff. Most NBA players certianly didn't have the access to the best trainers or nurtitionists, it was only the beginning of the change.

International Players
In 1969, how many international players did the NBA have? In fact, how many players outside of USA even knew about the NBA?

Most basketball fans were aware of the existance of the NBA back in the 1960s.

I think there was only one international player in 1969. In 1991 there were only 18 international players in the league, despite the league being significantly bigger. Now, the league is like 30% international. I think the difference is bigger in 1991->2022 direction.

Again, you're assertion is that 1969 is a lot more like 1991 than 1991 is more like today....then tell me at least 1 international player that played in 1969 that is regarded a household name?

Tom Meschery.

Your original claim was that 1991 to today had arguably a bigger change in the player pool/game advancement/ league economic growth/sports medicine....i just want to call you out on your BS

But the talent pool incresed by massive amount today. In the 1960s and 1990s we only had American players and although the league became more popular, it also became bigger watering down the level of average player. Now we have the access to the best players in the world - not only in the US.

The economic growth is steady, as I showed previously.

You didn't show any evidences that the sport medicine growth decelerated.

The 15k was just an estimation (perhaps its a bit understated). It's based on the 12-15k average that was estimated from early to mid 1960s. The 1968/69 average would have been a lot less than what was estimated for 1970 of 35k (that includes Kareems contract that would have bumped overall avg salary) and considering that 1972 rose to 90k.

Let's be generous and give it 25k a year...or even lets give it the 1970 estimation of 35k (which would certainly be higher than the 1969)...that's still less than the <5x growth.

This doesn't include the brand endorsement that players received outside of the salaries which was common in 1991. Also, a lot of the big contracts were top heavy pulling the average up in the 60s even the 70s. That's why it wasnt uncommon for some players to have a 2nd gig. Could you imagine an NBA player in a roster in 1991 having a 2nd gig to support themselves?

I don't know how you could possibly think that 1991, teams didnt employ the best trainers and nutritionists into there roster. I mean, NBA was one top professional leagues in the country by this stage where teams had millions to burn and everyone being cutthroat in getting the edge. That just doesnt make sense. Individuals at this stage even employed there own personal coaches and trainers.

Tom Meschery? I mean who is that? I didn't know that name till you mentioned it. I bet if we ask 100 basketball fans who that player is, how many would know?

Regarding sport medicine growth decelerated? Who says that sport medicine decelerated? I mean 1991, teams spent millions on nutritionists and trainers and personal coaches. In 1969, it was almost non existent.

Yes, today the sport has opened up more to the rest of the world after NBA reluctantly getting players outside of the US. But this also has a lot to do with how the playstyle of the league has evolved (helped by changes to the rules in the sport). But basketball in 1960s participation vs 1980/90s particpation even just in the country of USA is not even comparable.

Lets get real here, to suggest that the difference between 1991 to today in terms of economic, sports medicine and player pool is greater than the difference between 1969 to 1991 is just wild. And there has been no evidence so far to back up this wild claim.