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. Kareem might have won last round if his peak wasn't split over 71/74/77 so if you are voting for him this round, please try to rank all three seasons in your ballot.
Voting for this round will close on Thursday June 30, 9am ET.
Who is taking 2013 LBJ over Shaq? Feel like our raters are getting younger, as 2013 LBJ was definitely rated lower than Shaq a couple of years ago in terms of peak - and his 2013 performance didn't change.
euroleague wrote:Who is taking 2013 LBJ over Shaq? Feel like our raters are getting younger, as 2013 LBJ was definitely rated lower than Shaq a couple of years ago in terms of peak - and his 2013 performance didn't change.
You can read through the thread and find every voter who is taking LeBron over Shaq
If You want to know how talented Wilt was as a player?
Take a look at the 63-64 Warriors.
Before the season even started, the Warrior's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a scrimmage, sans Wilt, between the veterans, and a team comprised of rookies and rejects.
To his horror, the rejects won.
Wilt then took basically that same roster, which may have been the worst roster ever surrounding a GOAT player in his prime to the finals.
While averaging insane numbers on both sides of the ball.
As here is Wilt Chamberlain's 1963-1964 Season
Regular Season -36.9 PPG (League leader) -22.3 RPG -5.0 APG -52.4% FG -31.6 PER -.325 WS/48 (Career high and league leader) -14.4 OWS -10.6 DWS (Career high) *For reference, Olajuwon's career high was 8.7
He also would have won the MVP over Oscar had the media voted for the award.
As in the NBA MVP Writers Voting; Wilt placed first.
-34.7 PPG (League leader) -25.2 RPG -3.3 APG -54.3% FG -31.3 PER (Career high and league leader) -.323 WS/48 (Career high and league leader) -2.3 OWS (League leader) -1.5 DWS
Finals (Against the greatest defender ever, Bill Russell) -29.2 PPG -27.6 RPG -2.4 APG -51.4% FG
His teammates shot a combined 34.8% and the Warriors lost in 5.
the clip that starts at about 2:44 is incredible to watch as Wilt is in the low post and hits a fadeaway off the glass.
Afterwards, Boston pushes the ball up the floor with a near full-court pass to catch the Warriors' defence napping and Wilt is already back, waiting in the lane and blocks Russell's dunk attempt.
Reggie Jackson is amazing and a killer in the clutch that's all.
1977 Kareem. This is peak offensive Kareem who was still impactful defensively. The efficacy of his scoring offense with such little variance from game to game probably makes it the most reliable scoring offense of any peak. If only that 1977 team had a semblance of a decent supporting cast, this season would be remembered differently, (1974 Kareem) (1972 Kareem)
1967 Wilt. Played differently than in previous year to devastating effect. He changed shot selection, played more of a power game, scored or was fouled, FT% wasn’t good or he’d be even more effective offensively, dominated defensively and was a very good playmaker. (1964 Wilt) (1968 Wilt)
2003 Duncan — great regular and post season in which he shouldered a heavy load and didn’t falter. Impact metrics look great, especially in the playoffs. Defense is replicable in many different eras while his offense was continuously resilient throughout the playoffs.
Honestly, at this point, there are quite a few seasons I could see go here as they’re not separated by much.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
I had 99-00 Shaq next on my list, so same ballot as last round for me...
01 Kareem 70-71: 29.0 PER | .696 TS% | 121 TS+ | 22.3 WS | .326 WS/48 01 Kareem 70-71 Playoffs?!?: 25.3 PER | .548 TS% | 3.3 WS | .271 WS/48 [maybe thee most dominant regular season ever, couldn't quite maintain that pace in the playoffs but still posted the highest PER and WS in the postseason en route to a 12-2 playoff record & youngest FMVP ever at that point.]
02 Wilt 66-67: 26.5 PER | .637 TS% | 129 TS+ | 21.9 WS | .285 WS/48 02 Wilt 66-67 Playoffs?!?: 25.3 PER | .546 TS% | 3.8 WS | .253 WS/48 [pretty much the same story as Kareem above, but just a notch below for me. Best RS of all time candidate, some playoff falloff but still the highest PER & WS in the postseason field & a pretty smooth 11-4 cruise on the way to finally winning it all.]
03 Duncan 02-03: 26.9 PER | .564 TS% | 109 TS+ | 16.5 WS | .248 WS/48 03 Duncan 02-03 Playoffs?!?: 28.4 PER | .577 TS% | 5.9 WS | .279 WS/48 [didn't quite dominate the regular season to the same extent that KAJ or Wilt above him did, but Timmy kicked his game into another gear for the playoffs posting the highest single postseason Win Share total of all time.]
Question for the 76/77 Kareem over 70/71 Kareem voters, if 76/77 was Kareem's offensive peak why was his TS Add (345.3) so much lower than in 70/71 (453.0)?
1. 1967 Wilt Chamberlain - I had a hard time not putting Wilt higher but I had some questions about him having offensive agency not leading to wins in the play-offs with the few losses the 76ers suffered all being games where Wilt went back to the volume scoring of his early career. This might be speaking to a bias in me because I believe the record breaking offensive juggernaut Wilt was decisively worse than his more well rounded iteration but it's unusual for any player to have such a strong correlation with shooting more and winning less over an entire play-off run than Wilt had in 1967. Still, Wilt won MVP convincingly and had a dominant post-season run capped off by a title in a season where everything really seemed to click on both sides of the ball. The trends we see in the play-offs made me have slightly more doubts about him than for 1991 MJ, 2000 Shaq and 2013 LeBron but he's still in the same tier of near flawless season imo.
2. 2003 Tim Duncan - At this point it's getting a bit weird not to have Kareem and he'd have certainly been here if I was looking at who reached the highest single game peak or best stretch of games but since I'm taking a season-based approach instead of a player-based one I can't really justify any of his seasons ahead of 2003 Duncan (and a couple others). Duncan didn't win MVP in a landslide but he's still my pick for best regular season player and in terms of the play-offs there is really no doubt. He had arguably the best post-season run ever with him carrying his team on both sides of the ball through some serious competition.
3. 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon - Very similar to 2003 Duncan overall but I do slightly prefer Duncan due to a couple of small advantages. While Hakeem faced probably the toughest gauntlet of teams in 95, the opposition he faced in 94 is comparable but slightly less impressive than Duncan came across in 03. Defensively it's a wash but I do think Duncan was overall the better and more consistent offensive force. While their post-season runs are nearly identical in terms of performance, I do think Duncan has a bit of an edge in the regular season.
So, given that the 2nd & 3rd place slots last time went to '77 & '74 Kareem respectively, curious to see analyses focused on those two seasons specifically.
I went with '74 over '77 last time and my argument was basically that '74 seemed like an overall peak as his offense keeps getting better but his youthful explosiveness drops. Does this seem unreasonable?
Im gonna make a case for Hakeem as the #3 here by arguing he was clearly the best floor raiser of the 80's/90's.
Let's start with 86 where the rockets were 7-7 without him and were 40-20 without him in the rs before they smashed a 62 win team and then took the gsw of the 80's to 6 with hakeem upping all his box-stuff. That's jordan-level regular szn impact+elite playoff elevation as a 3rd year player.
In 88, Rockets were a 45 win team with him and a 10 win team without him and hakeem broke nba statistics in a first round exit before lebron rebroke them in 09.
In 92 the rockets went 2-10 without him and 40-30 with him, missed the playoffs because he missed team.
(That's a similar drop off to the cleveland cavs without lebron from 08-11 albeit on a worse team.)
Finally in 93 with basically the same team and some improvement from a rookie, The rockets won 55 GAMES with Hakeem playing every game. For comparison jordan's bulls won 27 games before they drafted him and won at a 25 win pace withtout him when he hurt his foot. But jordan could never get that team to more than 50 wins until pippen/phil jackson/rodman arrived.
For most of his prime hakeem was roughly a +14 plus/minus player and he elevated massively in the playoffs. In 94 and 95 he led teams that played like a 60 win team agaisnt playoff opponents. Hakeem's skillset may not have lent itself to 72 win teams or the like, but he was probably the best floor raiser of his era and he was still able to lead dominant teams when provided with spacing. Given that Hakeem seems to have been this crazily impactful player for most of his prime i'm going to vote multiple hakeem seasons here. Even 2nd year hakeem was probably on the same tier as peak shaq or jordan imo, I think from 92-95 his passing improved and he was capable of also leading dominant title teams so those three will be my picks here.
1. 93 Hakeem 7-7 team to 55 wins and elevated in the playoffs 2. 94 Hakeem 3. 95 Hakeem I think u could probably also push for 86, 88, or 95 hakeem.
65 wilt warriors were horrible without wilt but with wilt they often did marginally worse than the uber dominant celtics in the playoffs. Then he had a career year with the sixers and won. Also took bill's celts to 7 with his co-stars hurt the following season. 63 bill russell took average teams to dynasties, won a ring with a bad team in 69. along with wilt better than any modern peak relative to era.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Doctor MJ wrote:Oh, to be clear, I wasn't focused on arguing that Hakeem was the best offensive player of this particular group, only that he was so successful in those '95 playoffs that he had an argument to be the best offensive player around at that point, which is no small thing for anyone - and a particularly big deal to me as a big man, where I'm more skeptical than most.
Sure thing, I understand that!
You mention Wilt here, and to me, there's just a disconnect between how effective Warrior Wilt looks as a scorer and how that actually translates into team offensive success.
I understand that, but I have a few counter points to that. The truth is that Hakeem basically never anchored strong offensive team in the RS, so the main case you're making here for Hakeem over Wilt is postseason sample. If you take a closer look at their offensive success in the playoffs, it's far more complicated than "Hakeem was amazing, while Wilt sucked".
RS offense:
1985-97 Rockets: -0.1 rORtg Peak: +2.9 in 1986 Bottom: -3.3 in 1990 1993-95 Rockets: +0.9
1960-66 Warriors/Sixers: -0.5 rORtg Peak: +0.9 in 1962 Bottom: -2.4 in 1960
PS offense:
1985-97 Rockets: +3.9 rORtg Peak: +9.3 in 1997 Bottom: -3.2 in 1985 1993-95 Rockets: +4.8
1960-66 Warriors/Sixers: +1.1 rORtg Peak: +5.8 in 1965 Bottom: -5.7 in 1961
Granted, Hakeem peaked higher but he it doesn't look like there is a massive difference between them and we're talking about small samples of size anyway.
I would tend to rank Shaq's offensive peak as better, but am giving the nod to Hakeem based on defense.
I agree here and I had Hakeem over Shaq due to that massive defensive difference.
Giannis is an interesting question. To this point, the Giannis-led offense has been pretty spotty in the playoffs. You watch them in the finals against Phoenix and they look like an elite offense, but it wasn't all like that that year or any year. I could see arguments for Giannis being comparably as strong as Hakeem on offense, but to this point, I'm not ready to go there. Additionally, while I'm very impressed by Giannis on defense, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that's an advantage for him over Olajuwon.
Again, I have Hakeem comfortably higher than Giannis as well.
Kareem to me is the guy from the bunch I'd be most considering here. I would consider Kareem's offense to be better than Olajuwon's, so it's then a question of how strong of an edge I'd give to Dream on defense where I think Kareem's prime was also excellent on defense.
Re: Kareem's '74 & '80s rTS%. It has to be noted that this wasn't his efficiency edge every post-season. While this is a peak project where in theory it makes sense to ignore weaker years, I think with Kareem we definitely saw him being more vulnerable to defensive match-ups than Olajuwon seemed to be, and while Kareem has a significant raw TS% edge in his career in the regular season, that basically disappears when we look over to their playoff careers where - let's note - Hakeem has the edge on PER and BPM (while Kareem maintains a slight lead by WS/48).
I mean, Hakeem has plenty of underperformances as well but we simply overlook what he did in some of his years. You can't tell me that Hakeem didn't struggle against Seattle (especially in 1996) or against the 1990 Lakers. Kareem struggled against Thurmond at the beginning of his career, but other than that he was remarkably consistent... it just happened that he faced Thurmond in three straight years. I have very little doubts that Hakeem would struggle just as much against Nate.
Looking back from 2022, I tend to think any arguments about '90s play where the team that wins with 3-point shooting are dismissed as "just getting hot" don't work any more. There's no doubt that Hakeem had an advantage over player's who played on teams with more backward strategy, but I'd say that when you win with spacing, you're just using proper strategy and the question isn't about you getting lucky but about whether you want to make an argument for someone else being even better had they used better strategy.
Frankly the fact in retrospect that Olajuwon was able to thrive like he did while playing with teammates who still didn't shoot 2020-levels of 3's, only makes me think about what he could do if his team had played even less-dumb.
I don't want to sound rude or anything, but I fail to see the logic here. Hakeem thrived with the spacing that was significantly worse than 2022 spacing, but we're comparing him to Wilt or Kareem here - two guys who didn't even have any opportunity to play with such spacing without three point line.
Dutchball97 wrote:Maybe my wording wasn't clear enough but I didn't say Hakeem and Duncan had just as little to work with as Kareem did in 1977. I didn't mean to say if Kareem was really as good as you say that he should've beat the Blazers. Where my problem comes in is where you say Duncan and Hakeem definitely wouldn't have won anything but who knows, maybe as better defensive anchors they could've made it closer.
So you think we could speculate if Hakeem would have won the title in LeBron's place in 2007 or 2018? Because Kareem had worse teams than James in 1977.
You're also implying with that statement that Kareem would've been able to get past the Blazers if he had a supporting cast along the lines of the 94 Rockets/03 Spurs, which is pure speculation, OR you're saying the 77 Blazers are at least a clear tier ahead of anyone Hakeem and Duncan faced during their runs, which I'm also going to have to disagree on.
Well, Blazers with Walton played at +8 SRS pace in 1977-78 period, so I'd say they could be better than any team Rockets or Spurs faced in the playoffs.
Could Kareem have won in 77 with a slightly more capable supporting cast? Yeah, probably. Is it something we should take for certain? I don't think so. It's the same old KG discussion pretty much where you either focus on what he could've done or what he actually did.
We've seen Kareem leading his teams to titles though, so it's not really KG discussion.
Possibly but I personally find looking for seasons that were as well rounded or "flawless" as possible to be more productive than trying to split statistical hairs across wildly different eras. As to your point, I do agree 77 Kareem would've most likely won the title in the place of 80 Kareem but would he have been able to do that the way he played in 1977 or would he have to play more team oriented in a way that produces better results but does slightly lower his statistical output? I'm leaning towards the latter. That's why I'm not as high on these statistical monster years on teams devoid of talent and also why I view 91 MJ on a tier of it's own because of the insane statistical output on a great team.
Could you point out any specific thing Kareem would have to change in his game to make 1980 Lakers better? I don't think any reason why he wouldn't be able to play like he actually did in 1977 with better suporting cast, but I'm willing to hear your arguments.
By the way, you didn't mention Kareem in threads #3 and #4, do you have him outside top 6 then?
Doctor MJ wrote:So, given that the 2nd & 3rd place slots last time went to '77 & '74 Kareem respectively, curious to see analyses focused on those two seasons specifically.
I went with '74 over '77 last time and my argument was basically that '74 seemed like an overall peak as his offense keeps getting better but his youthful explosiveness drops. Does this seem unreasonable?
I don't think it's unreasonable at all, Kareem played at his absolute peak in 1974 playoffs.
Doctor MJ wrote:Oh, to be clear, I wasn't focused on arguing that Hakeem was the best offensive player of this particular group, only that he was so successful in those '95 playoffs that he had an argument to be the best offensive player around at that point, which is no small thing for anyone - and a particularly big deal to me as a big man, where I'm more skeptical than most.
Sure thing, I understand that!
You mention Wilt here, and to me, there's just a disconnect between how effective Warrior Wilt looks as a scorer and how that actually translates into team offensive success.
I understand that, but I have a few counter points to that. The truth is that Hakeem basically never anchored strong offensive team in the RS, so the main case you're making here for Hakeem over Wilt is postseason sample. If you take a closer look at their offensive success in the playoffs, it's far more complicated than "Hakeem was amazing, while Wilt sucked".
RS offense:
1985-97 Rockets: -0.1 rORtg Peak: +2.9 in 1986 Bottom: -3.3 in 1990 1993-95 Rockets: +0.9
1960-66 Warriors/Sixers: -0.5 rORtg Peak: +0.9 in 1962 Bottom: -2.4 in 1960
PS offense:
1985-97 Rockets: +3.9 rORtg Peak: +9.3 in 1997 Bottom: -3.2 in 1985 1993-95 Rockets: +4.8
1960-66 Warriors/Sixers: +1.1 rORtg Peak: +5.8 in 1965 Bottom: -5.7 in 1961
Granted, Hakeem peaked higher but he it doesn't look like there is a massive difference between them and we're talking about small samples of size anyway.
Excellent data, but this is a Peaks project after all.
Additionally, I do always think it's important to not totally push the absolute ORtg to the side. We're talking about the Hakeem's Rockets with a 115 ORtg and Wilt's Warriors with a 96 ORtg. Of course we'd expect spacing and some other things to help narrow that gap if they played in the same era, but given that I have a concern about Wilt being able to get his team's offense optimized like we know NBA offenses can be optimized, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy whose team actually put up ORtg that we would consider elite today over the guy leading one that would be awful.
70sFan wrote:
Kareem to me is the guy from the bunch I'd be most considering here. I would consider Kareem's offense to be better than Olajuwon's, so it's then a question of how strong of an edge I'd give to Dream on defense where I think Kareem's prime was also excellent on defense.
Re: Kareem's '74 & '80s rTS%. It has to be noted that this wasn't his efficiency edge every post-season. While this is a peak project where in theory it makes sense to ignore weaker years, I think with Kareem we definitely saw him being more vulnerable to defensive match-ups than Olajuwon seemed to be, and while Kareem has a significant raw TS% edge in his career in the regular season, that basically disappears when we look over to their playoff careers where - let's note - Hakeem has the edge on PER and BPM (while Kareem maintains a slight lead by WS/48).
I mean, Hakeem has plenty of underperformances as well but we simply overlook what he did in some of his years. You can't tell me that Hakeem didn't struggle against Seattle (especially in 1996) or against the 1990 Lakers. Kareem struggled against Thurmond at the beginning of his career, but other than that he was remarkably consistent... it just happened that he faced Thurmond in three straight years. I have very little doubts that Hakeem would struggle just as much against Nate.
Good points, though I'd expect Kareem would struggle against the Sonics defense too.
70sFan wrote:
Looking back from 2022, I tend to think any arguments about '90s play where the team that wins with 3-point shooting are dismissed as "just getting hot" don't work any more. There's no doubt that Hakeem had an advantage over player's who played on teams with more backward strategy, but I'd say that when you win with spacing, you're just using proper strategy and the question isn't about you getting lucky but about whether you want to make an argument for someone else being even better had they used better strategy.
Frankly the fact in retrospect that Olajuwon was able to thrive like he did while playing with teammates who still didn't shoot 2020-levels of 3's, only makes me think about what he could do if his team had played even less-dumb.
I don't want to sound rude or anything, but I fail to see the logic here. Hakeem thrived with the spacing that was significantly worse than 2022 spacing, but we're comparing him to Wilt or Kareem here - two guys who didn't even have any opportunity to play with such spacing without three point line.
I understand your issue with my statement. Know that when I was writing it, I was pushing back against the "just got hot" idea, not meaning to use it as an apples-to-apples cudgel against everyone else.
1. Kareem 1977. This came down to 77 vs 74; I could go either way but picked 77. Kareem was perhaps a tad better defensively in 74 (I believe he would/should have been DPOY in 74 if such an award existed) but he was a slightly better rebounder in 77, both in the RS and playoffs. While he played 5 fewer playoff games in 77, he averaged 17.7 rebs/game compared to 15.8 in 74. In the 77 WCF in which the Lakers were swept by the Blazers, Kareem even out-rebounded Walton 64-59. In the 77 playoffs, Kareem shot 61% from the field compared to 55.7% in 74. I watched both the 74 and 77 playoffs in real time and while Kareem was incredibly dominant in both, the domination in 77 was just a hair more convincing to me. Granted, it may be the GSW fan in me so seeing Kareem almost single-handedly willing that Laker team to victory in 7 games while averaging almost 19 rebs/game, 3.6 blocks and 37 pts/game on nearly 61% shooting left a more painfully vivid memory!
2. Wilt 1967. Full disclosure - I watched very few games of Wilt that season in real time but reading what the pundits were saying about him that season still left a clear impression. Led the league in rebounds, third in assists (behind Guy Rodgers and Big O), fifth in scoring at 24.1 pts/game and led the league with a staggering 68% fg pct - a number that was just completely unheard of at that time. And while his numbers dipped a bit (for him) in the playoffs to 21.7 pts/game on 57.9% shooting, his rebounding jumped up to 29.1 reb/game. That season almost seemed mythical.
3. Russell 1964. I wouldn't be human to not include my first favorite player, watching Russell play is what got me interested in playing basketball. The GOAT defensive player having his best defensive season, setting the all-time record of 16 DWS that season; a number that just dwarfs the number put up by any player in history not named Russell. Led the league with 24.7 reb/game, 4th highest ever (behind 3 Wilt seasons). And while it is his defense that gets him this high, he also averaged 15 pts/game and finished 7th in the NBA with 4.7 assists/game.
Dutchball97 wrote:Maybe my wording wasn't clear enough but I didn't say Hakeem and Duncan had just as little to work with as Kareem did in 1977. I didn't mean to say if Kareem was really as good as you say that he should've beat the Blazers. Where my problem comes in is where you say Duncan and Hakeem definitely wouldn't have won anything but who knows, maybe as better defensive anchors they could've made it closer.
So you think we could speculate if Hakeem would have won the title in LeBron's place in 2007 or 2018? Because Kareem had worse teams than James in 1977.
You're also implying with that statement that Kareem would've been able to get past the Blazers if he had a supporting cast along the lines of the 94 Rockets/03 Spurs, which is pure speculation, OR you're saying the 77 Blazers are at least a clear tier ahead of anyone Hakeem and Duncan faced during their runs, which I'm also going to have to disagree on.
Well, Blazers with Walton played at +8 SRS pace in 1977-78 period, so I'd say they could be better than any team Rockets or Spurs faced in the playoffs.
Could Kareem have won in 77 with a slightly more capable supporting cast? Yeah, probably. Is it something we should take for certain? I don't think so. It's the same old KG discussion pretty much where you either focus on what he could've done or what he actually did.
We've seen Kareem leading his teams to titles though, so it's not really KG discussion.
Possibly but I personally find looking for seasons that were as well rounded or "flawless" as possible to be more productive than trying to split statistical hairs across wildly different eras. As to your point, I do agree 77 Kareem would've most likely won the title in the place of 80 Kareem but would he have been able to do that the way he played in 1977 or would he have to play more team oriented in a way that produces better results but does slightly lower his statistical output? I'm leaning towards the latter. That's why I'm not as high on these statistical monster years on teams devoid of talent and also why I view 91 MJ on a tier of it's own because of the insane statistical output on a great team.
Could you point out any specific thing Kareem would have to change in his game to make 1980 Lakers better? I don't think any reason why he wouldn't be able to play like he actually did in 1977 with better suporting cast, but I'm willing to hear your arguments.
By the way, you didn't mention Kareem in threads #3 and #4, do you have him outside top 6 then?
I don't get your point about Hakeem in LeBron's place as I clearly just said I'm not going to give credit to someone for something they didn't do even if it is very likely they could've done it. +8 SRS is also very impressive by the Blazers but Hakeem beat the +6.5 Knicks and Duncan beat the +7.9 Mavs, the Blazers might be the best opponent in these 3 runs but not on a completely different level. I think it's fair to at least question if an upgrade from the supporting cast Kareem had in 77 to a supporting cast similar to the 94 Rockets or 03 Spurs would turn the sweep to the Blazers into a series win instead.
It also seems pretty clear I do have him outside the top 6 peaks since I indeed do not have him on my ballot here. I've been consistent from the start with my criteria so I'm kind of not sure why you keep being surprised at this. I'd personally have 71 Kareem in the next group with 64/65 Russell and 86 Bird but didn't bother to talk about him much because he is getting voted in before he reaches my ballot anyway. Like I get you are high on Kareem but is it really so outrageous to take the best seasons by Wilt, Duncan and Hakeem over Kareem's best season? As far as I can see 67 Wilt, 03 Duncan and 94 Hakeem have been getting traction from the very beginning just like Kareem.
1. Reasoning for Wilt. Here are my metrics for Wilt vs Curry:
Spoiler:
5. Curry vs Wilt: Plus-minus based stats: Ai. AuPM (no data available for Wilt. 2016 Curry 2nd all time). Aii. Postseason AuPM (no data available for Wilt. 2017 Curry 2nd all time). Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: (miniscule sample available for Wilt, far below Curry’s 7th all time). Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): (no data available for Wilt. Curry’s 8th all time) Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: (no data available for Hakeem. Curry’s 1st all time) Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: 65-70 Wilt >= 2016-2017 Curry (not sure about full prime WOWY. I brought in 16 Curry because Ben hasn't finished publishing Curry's mid/post-2017 WOWY numbers yet). Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: (no data for Wilt. 16 Curry 2nd all time) Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: 1967 Wilt > 2017 Curry (healthy 2016 Steph Curry 4th all time > Wilt.)
Box score-based data Gi. Backpicks BPM: 2017 Curry > 1967 Wilt (and healthy 2016 Curry is 2nd all time) Gii. Postseason Backpicks BPM: 2017 Curry (4th all time) > 1967 Wilt Hi. BR’s BPM: (no data for Wilt. healthy 2016 Curry’s 4th all time) Hii. BR’s Postseason BPM: (no Data for Wilt). Additional box score stats: Ii. WS/48: 1967 Wilt > 2017 Curry (but healthy 2016 Curry 3rd all time > Wilt) Additional box score stats: Iii. Postseason WS/48: 2017 Curry > 1967 Wilt
We barely have any metrics to compare vs Wilt. Of the limited sample we do have, Wilt and Curry are tied 3 to 3. Curry leads in the postseason-only stats. If we add a neighboring year (2016 for Curry and either 1966 or 1968 for Wilt), Curry comes out on top in 5/6 stats. Still, we’re missing the majority of my preferred stats, so there's more uncertainty here. There's also enough contextual factors in Wilt's favor that sway me. Here's my 7 contextual factors: 1. Scalability (here Curry > Wilt). 2. Resilience (both were seen by media as playoff strugglers. Wilt suffered from GOAT-level defensive opponents, while Curry suffered from health. With favorable context, I see them equally resilient). 3. Health risks (which favor Wilt > Curry). 4. Defense, which plus/minus data can sometimes struggle measuring (obviously Wilt > Curry). 5. Fit (both had favorable fit in their peak year). 6. Time machine argument (the 60s certainly favor Wilt over Curry. In future eras, Wilt gains value with data / coaching / strategy / medicine, while losing value with the 3 point line and increased perimeter focus).
I want to focus on point 2: Resilience. ty 4191's comment made me realize just how much harder Wilt's opposing playoff defense was vs other all time great peaks.1967 Wilt faced Bill Russell and Nate Thurmond in 11/15 playoff games.... By my account, that means 1967 Wilt played 73% of his playoff games against the GOAT defender or the GOAT Big Man man-defender. Did Wilt decline in the playoffs? Yes by some metrics (ws/48), no by other metrics (Backpicks BPM). But this level of defensive opposition is absolutely ludicrous! The metrics where Wilt declined certainly do not account for opponent difficulty. Despite this, Wilt outperforms some competitors (Hakeem) in the metrics we have. While Curry, Shaq, and Kareem arguably have better metrics, they certainly did not face this level of defense. I'm willing to curve Wilt's performance here.
Counter to Wilt: Wilt wasn't able to "put it all together" (i.e. balance and combine his scoring value, playmaking value, or defensive value) all at once. 1967 might be his best balance of the three, but the fact that he doesn't replicate this balance in other years should limit our interpretation of 1967. I think this has some merits. If I were to dock Wilt: 1) I would say his intentional decision to focus on one of those three areas (e.g. scoring over passing in 1962, passing over scoring in 1968) did slightly limit his overall career impact. 2) I would say he was worse at quick decision making, and would sometimes get stuck in "scoring mode" or "playmaking mode." But! I think some of this comes from his era. The prevailing belief at the time actively encouraged him to focus on scoring over playmaking. Coaches even encouraged him to focus on this unbalanced approach. In a modern era, with better metrics and coaching, I think Wilt would improve in this area. Longer discussion of this point here:
Spoiler:
DraymondGold wrote:
ty 4191 wrote: Wilt is criminally underrated here at Real GM. That's why.
I'd like to once again, post this, just to see if anyone is listening/paying attention.
Note: You have to click the Tweet to see the entire thing.
Thanks for the response! It's definitely possible Wilt's underrated. In this board's defense, I do think there's more uncertainty with Wilt given we have less film and fewer statistics, at least compared to the more recent players. I see him as clearly in this Top Tier of peaks and clearly a top 10 peak of all time. If I were lower on his ability to "put it all together" (see below), he might end up on the lower end of this tier, while if I thought he successfully put it all together, he'd end up on the higher end of this tier.
One thing that stuck out to me after reviewing the tweet though: WOW, that's a difficult playoff run! I know you've been doing research on playoff opponent difficulty, where Wilt always is near the top of playoff opponent defense (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2185164). Thanks for your great research with this! I haven't gone through the most recent update (yet!), but it's been a joy to read so far. But seriously... facing Bill Russell and Nate Thurmond in 11/15 playoff games.... By my account, that means 1967 Wilt played 73% of his playoff games against the GOAT defender or the GOAT Big Man man-defender.
I wish we had better metrics for the 60s! Maybe one day we could get Squared2020 enough games (and time!) to go through and supply RAPM. Pasting my Wilt statistics here (using Curry as the barometer, as I've been doing throughout this project):
DraymondGold wrote:5. Curry vs Wilt: Plus-minus based stats: Ai. AuPM (no data available for Wilt. 2016 Curry 2nd all time). Aii. Postseason AuPM (no data available for Wilt. 2017 Curry 2nd all time). Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: (miniscule sample available for Wilt, far below Curry’s 7th all time). Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): (no data available for Wilt. Curry’s 8th all time) Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: (no data available for Hakeem. Curry’s 1st all time) Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: 65-70 Wilt >= 2016-2017 Curry (not sure about full prime WOWY. I brought in 16 Curry because Ben hasn't finished publishing Curry's mid/post-2017 WOWY numbers yet). Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: (no data for Wilt. 16 Curry 2nd all time) Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: 1967 Wilt > 2017 Curry (healthy 2016 Steph Curry 4th all time > Wilt.)
Box score-based data Gi. Backpicks BPM: 2017 Curry > 1967 Wilt (and healthy 2016 Curry is 2nd all time) Gii. Postseason Backpicks BPM: 2017 Curry (4th all time) > 1967 Wilt Hi. BR’s BPM: (no data for Wilt. healthy 2016 Curry’s 4th all time) Hii. BR’s Postseason BPM: (no Data for Wilt). Additional box score stats: Ii. WS/48: 1967 Wilt > 2017 Curry (but healthy 2016 Curry 3rd all time > Wilt) Additional box score stats: Iii. Postseason WS/48: 2017 Curry > 1967 Wilt We barely have any metrics to compare vs Wilt. Of the limited sample we do have, Wilt and Curry are tied 3 to 3. Curry leads in the postseason-only stats. If we add a neighboring year (2016 for Curry and either 1966 or 1968 for Wilt), Curry comes out on top in 5/6 stats. Still, we’re missing the majority of my preferred stats, so there's more uncertainty here.
[EDIT: may post Wilt vs Kareem and Duncan statistically if I have time here]. Wilt does show some postseason decline in WS/48, though he retains just as much value in Backpicks BPM. A few of the years he's competing against are behind in the regular season and creep ahead in the playoffs... but after reviewing the competition in your tweet, I wonder how well the postseason metrics we do have for Wilt capture the opponent difficulty. There's no way any of Kareem, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Curry faced playoff defenses as good as Bill Russell and Nate Thurmond in 73% of your playoff games!
Proxy wrote:Wilt: Inconsistency year to year gives me a bit less confidence in him, in 1967 it seems like he put things together, and that 76ers team was for sure one of the more dominant teams of all time, as well as him putting one of the more dominant playoff runs ever, but how sustainable is his value? Was that team just a perfect fit and I should have less confidence when picking him to lead my team in a vacuum? It wasn’t too long after his 64 and 67 seasons where he just had a flat-out questionable impact from the WOWY data we had(1965 and 1969)
Proxy wrote: I'm not the biggest fan of Wilt as a scorer in 1967 and don't think he blended his scoring attack with creating tor teammates at the same time quite as well as those two so it made me hold back on his offense a bit, there were also the weird WOWY indicators across his prime(where some just look straight up unimpressive) where i'm not sure if it was just a best fit situation or not and if I should have the same confidence in him as my other picks who had consistent very high impact indcators throughout their entire prime in different situations/team constructions. I would still give Wilt all 3 of those advantages and personally I could've seen myself voting him as high as like 3 if I viewed him a bit more optimistically, hopefully we can get more discussion going on him in later threads.
Thanks for responding to my question! I see where you're coming from. Wilt changed his play style more than many of the all-time greats over his career. With this stylistic change, the source of his value also changed. Earlier on, his value of course came more from his scoring volume. Later on, it came more from his defense and passing.
This is what I meant before by Wilt "putting it all together." In theory, if you think Wilt could put all these sources of value together at once (his scoring, efficiency, defense, passing, rebounding, screening, etc.), he'd have a tremendous argument for the greatest peak in this tier. A lower interpretation would posit the he could only choose a few areas at once, and thus be lower in this tier. It sounds like we're in agreement on this!
The question then becomes: did 1967 Wilt put it all together at once (i.e. did he successfully balance and combine scoring value, the playmaking value, and the defensive value)? You say you're less convinced on his ability to blend scoring value with playmaking, which I think is understandable -- like you say, if you were higher on his scoring value at his peak, you'd probably bump him in your ranking. To me, I think he still maintained enough scoring value in 67 to be in the conversation, which probably explains why I have him higher. I think he clearly balanced defense and playmaking in 1967. The question is scoring. Per Backpicks' ScoreVal, 67 Wilt is higher than peak Hakeem in the regular season by a lot and in the postseason. He's just behind Shaq and a bit more behind Kareem, with the gap larger in the playoffs. But as I mentioned earlier, I wonder how much the lost value is underrating his opponents defense (he faced Bill Russell and Nate Thurmond 73% of the time).
Why did Wilt put it altogether in 1967, but not in other years (or at least not as effectively)? You mention his inability to balance Scoring, Playmaking, and Defense in other years lowers your confidence in 1967. To me, this comes down to coaching and mindset. -In the early 1960s (peaking in 1962), there are tons of stories of young Wilt intentionally focusing on scoring, both because of his own preference (he though focusing on scoring would produce the most value) and due to coaching. -In the mid 1960s (peaking in 1967), Wilt and his coach saying they intentionally wanted to balance scoring, playmaking, and defense. In 1968, Wilt said he intentionally wanted to focus on playmaking over scoring. -In the early 1970s, Wilt said he further de-emphasized scoring with the approval of his coaches. -The Argument that Wilt DIDN"T "put it all together": 1) If you're lower on Wilt, I think you could argue his intentional decision to hyper-focus on scoring in the early 60 and playmaking in 68 limited his overall value. Whereas Russell saw the benefit of a balanced offense, Wilt's inability to see the benefits lowers his in-game value. 2) While Wilt was known as a smart player, his IQ advantage tended to be more slow and methodical. You could argue his in-game quick decision making wasn't quite as high. For example (like Hakeem, Duncan, and Durant), Wilt could sometimes get into the mindset of "Okay, now I'm in scoring mode. Okay, now I'm in playmaking mode," without being able to fluidly switch between scoring and playmaking (and even leverage them against each other) using quick decision making, like the best offensive players do. I think there's some merit to both of these counters. -The Argument that wilt DID "put it all together:" Still, it gives me pause that many of these decisions were approved and even encouraged by the coaching. It's much harder for Wilt to balance scoring and playmaking in 1962 if his coach is actively encouraging him to try to average 50 ppg. I wonder how much worse analytics and strategy in the 60s enabled this behavior. This is partially why I'm actually high on the time-machine argument for Wilt. What if, rather than having a coach encourage only scoring, Wilt was taken to a time where coaches valued more offensive balance (and had the perimeter spacing to better enable that balance)? Wilt was clearly very statistics driven... what if, rather than playing in a time where the best stat to maximize were points per game, he was taken to a time when the best stat to maximize was plus minus per game? Wilt might have had quite a few more years where he "put it all together."
2. Reasoning for Curry: In short, I think by the data, Curry slightly outperforms Kareem / Duncan, and clearly outperforms Shaq / Hakeem.
1a. Curry vs Shaq:
Spoiler:
Plus minus data Ai. AuPM: 2017 Curry > 2000 Shaq (and healthy 2016 Curry (2nd all time) >> 2000 Shaq ) Aii. Postseason AuPM: 2017 Curry (2nd all time) >> 2000 Shaq (4th all time) Bi. Goldstein RAPM: 2000 Shaq (5th all time) > 2017 Curry Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 2017 Curry (8th all time) > 2000 Shaq Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: 2017 Curry > 2000 Shaq Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: 2000 Shaq > 2017 Curry Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: 2017 Curry > 2000 Shaq Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: 2000 Shaq (2nd all time) > 2017 Curry (though healthy 2016 Steph Curry is 4th all time) 
Box score-based data Gi. Backpicks BPM: 2000 Shaq > 2017 Curry (but healthy 2016 Curry (2nd all time) > 2000 Shaq) Gii. Postseason Backpicks BPM: 2017 Curry (4th all time) >> 2000 Shaq Additional box score stats: Hi. BR’s BPM: 2000 Shaq > 2017 Curry (but healthy 2016 Curry (4th all time) > 2000 Shaq) Additional box score stats: Hii. BR’s Postseason BPM: 2017 Curve > 2000 Shaq Additional box score stats: Ii. WS/48: 2000 Shaq > 2017 Curry (but healthy 2016 Curry (5th all time) > 2000 Shaq) Additional box score stats: Iii. Postseason WS/48: 2017 Curry > Shaq
In short, 2017 Curry beats 2000 Shaq in 8/14 of these total stats and in 5/5 of the playoff-specific stats. If we add healthy 2016 Curry to the mix, Curry beats Shaq in 11/14 stats. Adding 2001 Shaq to the mix does not help Shaq. The only 3 stats where Shaq beats Curry are Goldstein's regular season RAPM (but not PIPM), WOWY (which is a particularly noisy stat in smaller samples), CORP (which is Ben Taylor's personal evaluation). There are some added contextual factors:
Spoiler:
possible contextual factors worth considering: 1. Scalability. If you value ceiling raising over floor raising, this supports 2017 Curry > 2000 Shaq. 2. Resilience. Shaq may have the advantage here over the course of his prime, but the data universally shows 2017 Curry as the better playoff performer over 2000 Shaq. Further studies have shown Curry does not play statistically worse in the playoffs when he’s healthy (which he is in 2017). Again, according to the data: Playoff 2017 Curry > Playoff 2000 Shaq. (though for overall primes, Shaq > Curry in resilience largely due to health). Speaking of health... 3. Health. Both Shaq and Curry are injury risks. Although Shaq is healthier in his prime, injuries are not a factor in their peak years. 4. Defense. Shaq is the better defender in a vacuum, but I’m not sure he’s that much better relative to position, and the data suggests the defensive advantage is not enough to put peak Shaq over peak Curry. 5. Fit. Both had favorable team circumstances, though in my estimation 2017 Curry had a more favorable fit than 2000 Shaq. Here's a point for Shaq! 6. Time machine. Hard to know for sure. People say Curry would suffer if forced to shoot less 3s in the past; on the other hand, if he found a coach that did let him shoot 3s in volume, his relative offensive advantage would be even greater. People say Shaq would be more valuable offensively playing bully-ball against smaller lineups today; on the other hand, higher pace (with Shaq’s poorer conditioning), stricter big man offensive fouling calls, and a massive increase in the importance of perimeter and pick and roll defense would decrease Shaq’s value.
But put simply, Curry clearly beats Shaq according to the plus minus metrics, and the contextual factors aren't enough to sway me otherwise.
1d. Curry vs Hakeem:
Spoiler:
Plus-minus based stats: Ai. AuPM: 2017 Curry > 1994 Hakeem Aii. Postseason AuPM: (no data for peak Hakeem. 2017 Curry 2nd all time) Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: (no data for peak 93-95 Hakeem. Partial data in 85/88/91/96 and full data in 97 are far below Curry, who’s 7th all time). Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 2017 Curry (8th all time) > 1994 Hakeem Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: (no data available for Hakeem. Curry 1st all time) Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: 1993-1995 Hakeem > 2016-2017 Curry (not sure about full prime WOWY. I brought in 16 Curry because Ben hasn't finished publishing Curry's mid/post-2017 WOWY numbers yet). Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: (no data for Hakeem. 16 Curry 2nd all time) Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: 2017 Curry > 1994 Hakeem (healthy 2016 Steph Curry and 1993 Hakeem tied 4th all time)
2017 Curry beats 1994 Hakeem 4/4 of my more trusted stats and by 9/10 stats total. If we add 2016 Curry and either 1993 or 1994 Hakeem (whichever helps Hakeem more), Curry beats Hakeem in 8/10 stats with 1 tie. The only stats Hakeem ties or beats Curry in are WOWY (which is famously noisy and missing data for Curry) and CORP (which is Ben Taylor's personal evaluation). In the four of the stats that aren’t old enough for Hakeem, Curry is at least 2nd all time in three of them. In short: I don't think there's any statistical argument for Hakeem > Curry.
1c. Curry vs Kareem:
Spoiler:
Plus-minus based stats: Ai. AuPM (no data available for Kareem. 2016 Curry 2nd all time). Aii. Postseason AuPM (no data available for Kareem. 2017 Curry 2nd all time). Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: 1985 Kareem (6th all time) > 2017 Steph Curry (7th all time) (But only a 41 game sample for Kareem. Earlier Historical RAPM years are lower but with smaller sample) Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 2017 Curry (8th all time) > 1977 Kareem (10th all time) Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: (no data available for Kareem. Curry 1st all time) Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: Kareem > 2016/2017 Curry (not sure about full prime WOWY. I brought in 16 Curry because Ben hasn't finished publishing Curry's mid/post-2017 WOWY numbers yet). Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: (no data available for magic. 2016 Curry 2nd all time) Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: 1977 Kareem > 2017 Curry (but healthy 2016 Steph Curry is 4th all time over Kareem)
2017 Curry beats 1977 Kareem by 3/4 of my more trusted metrics, though 1977 Kareem beats 2017 Curry by 6 metrics to 4 total. Their playoff-only stats are tied 2-2. In all four of the stats that aren’t old enough for Kareem, Curry is either 1st or 2nd all time. If we add 2016 Curry and either 1976 or 1978 Kareem (whichever helps Kareem more), Curry beats Kareem by 6 to 4 stats. It's close (closer than Shaq), but I think the added context favors Curry.
1d Curry vs Duncan:
Spoiler:
Plus-minus based stats: Ai. AuPM: 2017 Curry > 2003 Duncan Aii. Postseason AuPM: 2017 Curry > 2003 Duncan Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: 2003 Duncan > 2017 Curry Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 2003 Duncan (1st all time) > 2017 Curry (8th all time) Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: 2017 Curry (1st all time) > 2003 Duncan Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: 2003 Duncan > 2016/2017 Curry (not sure about full prime WOWY. I brought in 16 Curry because Ben hasn't finished publishing Curry's mid/post-2017 WOWY numbers yet). Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: 2017 Curry > 2003 Duncan (2016 Curry 2nd all time) Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: 2017 Curry > 2003 Duncan (and healthy 2016 Steph Curry is 4th all time)
Curry beats Duncan in 3-2 by my more trusted metrics, but Duncan beats Curry 7 stats to 6, including 3 to 2 postseason stats and 1 postseason tie. If we add 2016 Curry and either 2003 or 2004 Duncan (whichever helps Duncan more), Curry beats Duncan 8 to 5.
Duncan and Kareem have the closest arguments, but I side with Curry. I think Curry gains clear separation over Shaq and especially Hakeem.
Counter to Curry 1: Fit. The team around Steph was optimal fit (arguably better fit than these opponents), and the team was dominant. But the data seems to suggest the team's dominance was primarily driven by Curry. (Chuck might say Curry was the bus driver ).
From 2017–2019 (larger sample to give more stable values), here's the net rating with each of the stars on or off: -All 4 stars on: +17. (that's 20% better than the 1996 Chicago Bulls across 3 seasons!) -Only Klay off: +15.64. -Only KD off: +13.54 (still better than the 96 Chicago Bulls even with KD off) -Only Draymond off: +12.77 -Only Steph on, all 3 other stars off: +10.81 -Only Steph off: +1.94 With all 3 other all stars off, and just Steph on, the 17-19 Warriors have a better net rating than the 16 Warriors, 13 Heat, 2000 Lakers, 91 Bulls, 87 Lakers, or 86 Celtics. With all 3 all stars on, and just Steph off, the 17-19 Warriors are worse than this season's 2022 Cavs. This pattern remains in the playoffs (more info below).
Counter to Curry 2: Resilience. I would agree that the other all time peaks might be more resilient than Curry. But studies have shown this decline almost entirely correlates with postseason health. Per Per BPM and AUPM, Curry actually improves in the playoffs when he's healthy. Though others improve more in the playoffs, the difference isn't significant enough to sway me (e.g. Shaq's career +0.67% improvement vs Curry's career +0.57% improvement), particularly when 2017 Curry outperforms his opponents per the above statistics.
More in depth discussion of Curry's context and counters here:
Spoiler:
DraymondGold wrote:Steph Curry Discussion:
Proxy wrote: Really the way I saw the data was that rankings aside, the actual values seem so close to eachother between some of those players that you honestly could mostly still just go either way. I'm not too big on single season hybrid metrics like I said for KG as a be-all-end-all, especially in the playoffs due to the smaller sample size. But, while there was a chance Steph was still just better in his run compared to 2000 Shaq I would say he was probably in a more optimal situation, and think Shaq's game just had a longer sample size proving it's resilience both at an individual and team level at his peak without significant changes in his skillset, whether it was from Steph's durability or other factors - teams really did try so hard to wear him down and I do see slightly more dueability issues, so I just defaulted to him when making my list. I appreciate it though and think you brought up some interesting points. ...
Good points! It sounds like ike there were a few factors for why you have Shaq > Curry: 1) You're less a fan of hybrid metrics or plus minus data for a single postseason. This adds more uncertainty to the fact that 2017 Curry beats 2000 Shaq in 5/5 of the playoff-specific plus/minus stats I listed. 2) Curry's team fit was better. 3) Curry's less resilient than Shaq. As always, let me know if I misunderstood or missed anything!
For 1), I mentioned some of my counters to this in my Kareem Discussion above, so I won't rehash it too much here -- the main points were that box plus/minus stats are stabler in small sample sizes like the playoffs, and the PIPM stat I listed was for 3 playoffs which should help with the sample size issue. Personally, I find the fact that Curry beats Shaq in all 5/5 playoff stats pretty compelling, though they're definitely close! 2) I tend to agree here. The Warriors were definitely great scenario for Curry, with great coaching, great defenders, and great offensive players alongside Curry. Still, Shaq also had some great coaching, a great running mate in young Kobe, and great supporting cast (especially in the 2001 playoffs, Shaq's supporting cast had a clear 3 point shooting advantage vs league average).
Personally, I find Curry's scalability/portability enough to make up for this. Historically, it's easier for players to have their best plus minus value with worse supporting casts (or at least with no co-stars competing for value). The better the supporting cast and the better the co-stars, the more the team improves but the harder it is for a single individual to dominate the team's value (since they're competing for value against better teammates). And yet... Curry dominates the Warriors in terms of value.
From 2017–2019 (larger sample to give more stable values), here's the net rating with each of the stars on or off: -All 4 stars on: +17. (that's 20% better than the 1996 Chicago Bulls across 3 seasons!) -Only Klay off: +15.64. -Only KD off: +13.54 (still better than the 96 Chicago Bulls even with KD off) -Only Draymond off: +12.77 -Only Steph on, all 3 other stars off: +10.81 -Only Steph off: +1.94 When all four stars are on the court, the 17-19 Warriors are significantly better than the 1996 Bulls. With all 3 other all stars off, and just Steph on, the 17-19 Warriors have a better net rating than the 16 Warriors, 13 Heat, 2000 Lakers, 91 Bulls, 87 Lakers, or 86 Celtics. With all 3 all stars on, and just Steph off, the 17-19 Warriors are worse than this season's 2022 Cavs.
3) I agree here too, Curry is less resilient than Shaq. But I wonder how much of that decline comes from Curry's worse postseason health during his prime? Per Thinking Basketball's video, Curry on average declined by BPM from the regular season to the postseason (from 2013-2018). But if we only take healthy playoffs (2013-2018 except 16 and 18): Curry improves by +0.2 BPM. By AuPM, Curry improves by +0.57% from the regular season to the playoffs, even when including injured postseasons (from 2013-2021). With another healthy postseason in 2022, Curry improves by even more in both metrics. Now it's true that Shaq improves by more according to AuPM: +0.67% (from 1994-2006, 2008, 2010). But personally, I don't find +0.57% vs +0.67% a big enough difference to sway me in favor of Shaq.
Like you hint at, the biggest cause of Curry's playoff decline is health concerns. And you're definitely right that prime Steph had greater health issues than prime Shaq. If you take different approach on health that I do (e.g. docking players in every season a little bit because they're injury risks), I could see that swaying you against 2017 Curry. And that would be a valid approach! From my point of view though, Curry was healthy in 2017, and he outperformed 2000 and 2001 Shaq in all 5/5 of my playoff-only plus minus metrics. So... he was the more valuable playoff performer then (at least to me ).
Doctor MJ wrote: So, big thing:
I don't think Curry fits that well in a season-based peak conversation because different years have different arguments for and against him.
'14-15 wins the MVP and the championship. '15-16 is his best regular season, and his worst (or near worst) post-season. '16-17 is the smoothest season - MVP of the greatest team in the history of basketball - and his best statistical playoffs, but the degree of difficulty can be said to be all-time low. '21-22 proved his capacity for latent impact like never before and seemed the most resilient in the playoffs ever, but had regular season cold streaks causing him to have the lowest TS Add (shooting volume * relative league efficiency) of his entire prime.
Which year to pick? I honestly don't feel super strongly about it other than I really don't think '14-15 should be in the conversation.
Great points letskissbro and Doctor MJ! To answer your question in short, here are the changes I see from 2016 to 2017: 1. Postseason health: you mention this of course. If you take a more probabilistic approach to injury (e.g. partially docking every season based on perceived chance of injury, rather than fully docking injured seasons and not docking healthy seasons), I could definitely see you taking 2016 > 2017. I think it's hard to estimate injury probabilities though, and since this is a 1 year peak project, I just go with the simple route: 2017 was healthy, so he doesn't get docked! If we're just looking at skill improvements, I think 2017 was slightly better at pacing himself through the regular season (a la 2013 LeBron vs 2009, 1977 Kareem vs 1972/71), which helped him improve his chances of being fresh and healthy in the postseason. 2. Improved resilience: increased weight and strength allows for better defense and better ability to take contact on and off ball. Slightly improved decision making allows for slightly fewer boneheaded turnovers and more consistent (but less flashy) passes / shot selection (Athletic Alchemy mentioned he noticed this in his film study at some point ~2017). Slightly tighter handle (which would continue to improve and show noticeable results by 2022). 3. Improved scalability: I have Curry as the GOAT portable/scalable player, and he's certainly still all-time scalable in 2016. However, the actual act of adjusting to Durant forced Curry to improve even more without the ball and be even more efficient with his on ball usage.
I think I also have fewer concerns with the 2017 regular season: I see 2017 regular season Curry as just as good as 2016 regular season Curry, though definitely less valuable. By good, his actual goodness as a player (irrespective of team context); value is more context-dependent.
So why did his performance and value decline? I think fitting next to Durant (and making the Scalability improvements I mentioned in #3 above) actually took some work in the first quarter/half of the season. This took him out of rhythm and slightly decreased his impact metrics. In interviews, Curry actually says just that! He says he was pulling back too much in order to make room for Durant in the early part of the season, but by the end, he had figured out how to go full force without taking away from Durant's offense.
Statistically, Curry's performance improved in the second half of the season with Durant, when Durant was out for those last few weeks, and when Durant was back from the playoffs. By my eye (and from what I can tell by the metrics), Curry was just as good as he was in 2016 regular season during that span, which gives me confidence that he was just as "good" of a player in the 2017 regular season (even if figuring out how to fit alongside Durant in the first half of his season lowered his regular season impact metric value).
Like Doctor MJ says, Curry continued to make improvements in other areas over the next few years. By 2022, he had noticeably better defense, decision making, passing, handle, and resilience. I still take 2017 (and healthy 2016) because of his athleticism (specifically his speed/quickness) and his overall impact metrics. Like other people have said though, if the 2022 regular season ended up just being a cold spell (not an actual decline in shooting due to age/motor/athleticism/increased effort elsewhere), then 2021/2022 might also have an argument at his peak. Let me know if you disagree or if you have any questions!
3. Reasoning for Kareem: There's also an argument for Kareem > Shaq.
Spoiler:
Plus-minus based stats: A. AuPM (no data available for Kareem. Shaq 6th) Bi. Goldstein RAPM / Historical Square2020 RAPM: 2000 Shaq(5th all time) > 1985 Kareem (6th all time) (But only a 41 game sample for Kareem and non peak). Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 1977 Kareem (10th) > 2000 Shaq Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: (no data available for Kareem) Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: Shaq > Kareem Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: (no data available for Kareem) Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: Shaq > Kareem
Shaq wins 5/10, Kareem wins 5/10. Kareem wins 4/4 playoff-only numbers. Adding 2001 Shaq and 78 Kareem doesn’t make a difference. If you value the playoffs, Kareem has a surprisingly compelling case over peak Shaq. Check out 70sFan's previous comment for some fascinating film analysis vs Shaq here: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2204332 (Greatest Peak Thread 2, Comment 2).
Counters against Kareem: 1. lack of data (which might allow e.g. Shaq > Kareem), and 2. smaller playoff sample size, and possibly 3. some amount of coasting (i.e. worse regular season plus/minus metrics) in the regular season compared to younger Kareem or possibly other Greatest Peak competitors. Earlier Discussion of the concerns can be found in Thread 2 (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2204332&start=29) ~page 2 between me, 70sFan, and falcolombardi. More recent discussion of concerns here:
Spoiler:
DraymondGold wrote:
Proxy wrote: Really the way I saw the data was that rankings aside, the actual values seem so close to eachother between some of those players that you honestly could mostly still just go either way. I'm not too big on single season hybrid metrics like I said for KG as a be-all-end-all, especially in the playoffs due to the smaller sample size. ... The Kareem Vs Shaq stat-based argument is missing alot of the measures I think are more important(really no +/- or APM data) so i'm not too big on doing a comp between the 2 using mostly box score metrics. 70sfan did provide some compelling points(especially on defense which is why I removed 2001 Shaq from being at the top of my voting) but I also think one of the main differences in how he and I voted was that I don't believe Kareem's offense reached quite the same heights because I believe his creation was less valuable with the lack of 3 point shooting at his peak in the 70s - which he doesn't agree with doing I think.
As I read your argument, what I'm hearing is: 1) we don't have every available metric for Kareem which limits are statistical analysis, 2) The statistics for Shaq vs Kareem are super close overall, and 3) even if the playoff metrics favor Kareem, playoff sample size is an issue for single seasons. Thus, given how close it is, we can turn to other sources of analysis (e.g. Kareem's playmaking vs Shaq's, etc.), where Shaq ends up winning in your estimation (possibly due to his era, but you don't think we should do the time machine argument as much for Kareem's playmaking). Let me know if this summary missed anything!
Overall, that's fairly convincing! I see where you're coming from. I'll push back slightly on a few points (just because I'm enjoying the discussion! ), but overall I follow the reasoning and think it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion: 1a) For point 1, I absolutely agree that there's less data for Kareem. We're missing AuPM (regular season and postseason), full season RAPM/PIPM in Kareem's prime, and ESPN's RPM. We do still have Squared2020's Historical RAPM for 1985 Kareem. It's for a half season sample, and Kareem just pops off the page, which is particularly impressive given how many years after his peak he was. Still, it's a smaller sample size and different context than 1977 Kareem. Thinking Basketball also has 3 year Goldstein Playoff PIPM in his final video of the greatest peaks series (the top 10 summary). Not sure how he got his hands on it, but in it, 1977–1979 Playoff Kareem > 2000 –2002 Shaq. 1b) I think I'm not as low on box-score composites like Backpicks Box Plus Minus as you are. I think some of my confidence in it comes from this study (https://fansided.com/2019/01/08/nylon-calculus-best-advanced-stat/), which tests the predictive power of various box score stats and advanced stats. Backpicks BPM and Basketball Reference's BPM may not be as good as PIPM, but they still do a fairly good job (and a heck of a lot better than other stats like PPG and PER). 2) Agreed, the overall statistics are fairly close for both. 3) While it's true that one postseason sample is small for true plus/minus stats, the Box-score based estimations are much more stable (that's actually one of the reasons for using them)! Plus, Thinking Basketball somehow got his hands on 3-year playoff PIPM for Kareem, which is a larger sample. Kareem outperforms Shaq in both the more stable box-score estimations and the larger-sample 3 year playoff PIPM. For those reasons (along with 70sFan's film analysis, which you mentioned), I think I've been convinced to go Kareem over Shaq. But still, I see where you're coming from.
Doctor MJ wrote: Kareem to me is the guy from the bunch I'd be most considering here. I would consider Kareem's offense to be better than Olajuwon's, so it's then a question of how strong of an edge I'd give to Dream on defense where I think Kareem's prime was also excellent on defense.
Re: Kareem's '74 & '80s rTS%. It has to be noted that this wasn't his efficiency edge every post-season. While this is a peak project where in theory it makes sense to ignore weaker years, I think with Kareem we definitely saw him being more vulnerable to defensive match-ups than Olajuwon seemed to be, and while Kareem has a significant raw TS% edge in his career in the regular season, that basically disappears when we look over to their playoff careers where - let's note - Hakeem has the edge on PER and BPM (while Kareem maintains a slight lead by WS/48).
It's true that playoff Kareem is better in 77 than 74 and 79-80. The counter that 70sFan offered was that he was at his peak in 77 (and the surrounding years), but we lack any playoff sample in 75 or 76 -- if he had a larger sample in those years, he might show more playoff consistency closer to the heights he reached in 77 (though its hard to know for sure).
I also wonder whether the decline in other years is as big as you say. While his postseason Backpicks BPM peak was in 77 (7th best all time), he did get fairly close in 74 (would be 10th all time). Both playoff runs are over Shaq, the 77 playoff run is better than Hakeem's best by some separation, and the 74 playoff run is only worse than Hakeem's by 0.1. It's also worth mentioning his regular season BPM in 74/78/79/80 are higher than 77... this could make you lower on 77, or it could make you higher on the consistency of Kareem from 74-80, depending on your interpretation. What do you think?
Also... I don't see what you mean by his TS% advantage declining in the playoffs against Hakeem. He has a relative TS% of +13.7% in 1977, 12.5% in 79. 9.9% in 80, and 9% in 74. If we're only lookin at the years around their peak (Hakeem admittedly had better rTS% when he was younger), peak Hakeem's best playoff value is in 94 at +4.9% rTS. It looks like Kareem has the significant rTS% advantage in the playoffs too, at least by my interpretation. Do you disagree?
Additionally, I do always think it's important to not totally push the absolute ORtg to the side. We're talking about the Hakeem's Rockets with a 115 ORtg and Wilt's Warriors with a 96 ORtg. Of course we'd expect spacing and some other things to help narrow that gap if they played in the same era, but given that I have a concern about Wilt being able to get his team's offense optimized like we know NBA offenses can be optimized, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy whose team actually put up ORtg that we would consider elite today over the guy leading one that would be awful.
Good point, although a few things to keep in mind:
1. It was basically impossible to reach 115 ORtg within 1960s rules (no three point shot, significantly reduced offensive impact). I get that you give Hakeem more credit for anchoring modern-ish offense in terms of effectiveness, but from all your posting history, I think you go a bit further - implying that Wilt wasn't a good offensive anchor at all (relative to other great bigs). I don't think it's fair to Wilt to hold it too much against it, when even basketball savants like Oscar or West never anchored "modern-ish" offenses at any point of their careers. I mean, the absolute highest ORtg in the 1960s never reached 100 mark and even in the 1970s, we haven't seen ANY 107+ mark.
2. Hakeem faced relatively weak defensive competition in 1995 playoffs. They didn't face a single elite offense and only two of them I'd call above average (Spurs and Jazz). Unsurprisingly, Rockets offense was by far the worst against the best defensive team they faced - "only" 110.7 ORtg against the Spurs, which was still great for the 1990s but not really good by modern standards. Against truly elite defensive team (1994 Knicks), they were barely better than Wilt's teams in absolute terms (although Hakeem had weaker offensive supporting cast to be fair than the next year).
Good points, though I'd expect Kareem would struggle against the Sonics defense too.
I'm not really sure, Hakeem was significantly worse passer than Kareem and Jabbar's height made him inarguably harder to front and deny from the ball.
I understand your issue with my statement. Know that when I was writing it, I was pushing back against the "just got hot" idea, not meaning to use it as an apples-to-apples cudgel against everyone else.
Nothing against that, I always value your opinion in such conversations
Dutchball97 wrote:I don't get your point about Hakeem in LeBron's place as I clearly just said I'm not going to give credit to someone for something they didn't do even if it is very likely they could've done it.
That's fine, but does it mean LeBron was really "worse" in 2018 than in 2016? Maybe he was, but it definitely wasn't because of getting swept. Again, we're not talking about KG here - Kareem has plenty of postseason success.
+8 SRS is also very impressive by the Blazers but Hakeem beat the +6.5 Knicks and Duncan beat the +7.9 Mavs, the Blazers might be the best opponent in these 3 runs but not on a completely different level.
Well, +8 SRS is significantly better than +6.5 and Rockets almost lost the Knicks series, while Hakeem having a much better supporting cast than Kareem. Mavs would be a decent comparison point, but Dirk got injured and didn't play in last games.
I think it's fair to at least question if an upgrade from the supporting cast Kareem had in 77 to a supporting cast similar to the 94 Rockets or 03 Spurs would turn the sweep to the Blazers into a series win instead.
I'm not sure if it would, but it would definitely make it closer. I don't know, I just don't understand how anybody can believe that Kareem should have done more against Blazers than he did... Anybody who watched these games at least. I'm assuming you do, that's why I'm asking about more details.
It also seems pretty clear I do have him outside the top 6 peaks since I indeed do not have him on my ballot here. I've been consistent from the start with my criteria so I'm kind of not sure why you keep being surprised at this. I'd personally have 71 Kareem in the next group with 64/65 Russell and 86 Bird but didn't bother to talk about him much because he is getting voted in before he reaches my ballot anyway. Like I get you are high on Kareem but is it really so outrageous to take the best seasons by Wilt, Duncan and Hakeem over Kareem's best season? As far as I can see 67 Wilt, 03 Duncan and 94 Hakeem have been getting traction from the very beginning just like Kareem.
I really ment the next top 6 seasons, excluding already voted in top 3. You mentioned Shaq/Wilt/Hakeem/Duncan/Russell/Bird in the last thread, which I interpret as having them all above Kareem. I miscalculated it, as it seems that you could potentially have him 6th, but it would mean that he's 9th on your peaks list. Is it outregous? Probably not, but I find it extremely hard to justify.
Dutchball97 wrote:Maybe my wording wasn't clear enough but I didn't say Hakeem and Duncan had just as little to work with as Kareem did in 1977. I didn't mean to say if Kareem was really as good as you say that he should've beat the Blazers. Where my problem comes in is where you say Duncan and Hakeem definitely wouldn't have won anything but who knows, maybe as better defensive anchors they could've made it closer.
So you think we could speculate if Hakeem would have won the title in LeBron's place in 2007 or 2018? Because Kareem had worse teams than James in 1977.
You're also implying with that statement that Kareem would've been able to get past the Blazers if he had a supporting cast along the lines of the 94 Rockets/03 Spurs, which is pure speculation, OR you're saying the 77 Blazers are at least a clear tier ahead of anyone Hakeem and Duncan faced during their runs, which I'm also going to have to disagree on.
Well, Blazers with Walton played at +8 SRS pace in 1977-78 period, so I'd say they could be better than any team Rockets or Spurs faced in the playoffs.
Could Kareem have won in 77 with a slightly more capable supporting cast? Yeah, probably. Is it something we should take for certain? I don't think so. It's the same old KG discussion pretty much where you either focus on what he could've done or what he actually did.
We've seen Kareem leading his teams to titles though, so it's not really KG discussion.
Possibly but I personally find looking for seasons that were as well rounded or "flawless" as possible to be more productive than trying to split statistical hairs across wildly different eras. As to your point, I do agree 77 Kareem would've most likely won the title in the place of 80 Kareem but would he have been able to do that the way he played in 1977 or would he have to play more team oriented in a way that produces better results but does slightly lower his statistical output? I'm leaning towards the latter. That's why I'm not as high on these statistical monster years on teams devoid of talent and also why I view 91 MJ on a tier of it's own because of the insane statistical output on a great team.
Could you point out any specific thing Kareem would have to change in his game to make 1980 Lakers better? I don't think any reason why he wouldn't be able to play like he actually did in 1977 with better suporting cast, but I'm willing to hear your arguments.
By the way, you didn't mention Kareem in threads #3 and #4, do you have him outside top 6 then?
I don't get your point about Hakeem in LeBron's place as I clearly just said I'm not going to give credit to someone for something they didn't do even if it is very likely they could've done it. +8 SRS is also very impressive by the Blazers but Hakeem beat the +6.5 Knicks and Duncan beat the +7.9 Mavs, the Blazers might be the best opponent in these 3 runs but not on a completely different level. I think it's fair to at least question if an upgrade from the supporting cast Kareem had in 77 to a supporting cast similar to the 94 Rockets or 03 Spurs would turn the sweep to the Blazers into a series win instead.
It also seems pretty clear I do have him outside the top 6 peaks since I indeed do not have him on my ballot here. I've been consistent from the start with my criteria so I'm kind of not sure why you keep being surprised at this. I'd personally have 71 Kareem in the next group with 64/65 Russell and 86 Bird but didn't bother to talk about him much because he is getting voted in before he reaches my ballot anyway. Like I get you are high on Kareem but is it really so outrageous to take the best seasons by Wilt, Duncan and Hakeem over Kareem's best season? As far as I can see 67 Wilt, 03 Duncan and 94 Hakeem have been getting traction from the very beginning just like Kareem.
Couldn't you argue that Dirk getting injured in 03, made the Blazers a completely different level of team than the Mavs that Duncan ended up playing?
I recently watched some kareem footage, game 2 vs portland in 77
Kareem is just an absolutely unstopabble scorer, even 7'2 bill walton is basically a prop against kareem. Interestingly enough kareem lenght and strenght seemed to bother walton more than the other way around
In the first quarter walton tries to overplay the skyhook sitting on kareem left hype and he gets burned with absurdly easy looking counters (spin moves to the right) for easy layups. Kareem actually seems stronger thab walton and easily pushes him away to get in position to catch, which took me by surprise
Later 7'2 walton absolutely sells out to front kareem and the counter is merely spin and high catch or a quick move to the other side of the paint for a instant post up
Then bill walton plays him straight and kareem just burns him with like 90% fg from skyhooks, all swishing nothingh but net
Kareem receives often a sort of soft doubles or triples which gets his teammates clean jumpers whereas kareem is able to defend walton effectively 1vs1(walton still scores well but in lower volume from jump hooks that look like one handed jumpers and regular fade away jumpers)
There is a play where walton faceguards kareem from the front and the on ball defender stays close to kareem too leaving the baseline open for a walton less drive, some very strong gravity
Kareem is often chsnging sides for better position and grabbing tough offensive and defensive boards
In defensr he is not as active and mobile as a hakeem (he doesnt run so hard to chase fastbreak blocks or to bloxk everythingh in general, doesnt go too hard after perimeter players) but he often just blocks shots with pure lenght and decent mobility although his reactions felt a tad slow at times. blazers really avoid the paint against him
As a passer he clearly is willing and a precise passer to cutters although at times he takes a half second too long to pass to wide open players causing deflections, losing great assists windows or causing turnovers
Just absurd player, i already knew how absurd a scorer he was but for the era his rim protection seems dpoy worthy, he reminds me actually of a somewhat less active/ less quick in decision making rudy gobert defensively
And that is with lakers guards and perimeter players being awful at bringing the ball to him or creating him easy scoring chances
Seriously, they were not totally awful (some good cutting and ok defense imo shot adequately well although not as well as the red hot blazers shooters)
but they had so many backbreaking turnovers (on the fastbreak, forced 8 seconds, forced traveling in their own half, losing the ball literally in outbound pass after a blazer basket) blazers were very agressive on the ball and lakers ballhandlers looked like deer in the headlights quickly picking up their dribble and panic passing. Also cost then a lot of seconds to bring the ball up costing kareem time
I am feeling the defensive gap with wilt or duncan not being as big as i thought and maybe smaller than the scoring gap the other way (i suppose the rebounding still is a edge to wilt)
By my account, that means 
). 
