I'll be going away for the weekend and since I didn't have Kareem on my ballot yet I'll just do a copy and paste from the last thread to at least get my vote in:
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.
Wilt, 1967, because of this. Set all kinds of all time records while totally destroying Russell and the Celtics in the ECF and Thurmond and the Warriors in the Finals.
“The best power forward of all-time with his masterpiece. He still holds the record for (playoff) win shares (5.94), which is simply a staggering number.”
Oliver Maroney of Basketball Insiders:
“The list was deep but Duncan became an NBA champion, Finals MVP, MVP, All-NBA First Team, All-Defensive First Team and All-Star in this one season.”
Adam Joseph of SB Nation:
“One of the greatest NBA Finals ever witnessed, with 24.2ppg, 17.0rpg, 5.3apg and 5.3bpg, including a near quadruple double in game six, where he fell two blocks short.”
Justin Rowan of Fear the Sword:
“First team All-Defense, All-NBA First Team, regular season and Finals MVP, world champion. It is tempting to simply list the accomplishments for one of the League’s greatest yet most understated stars to ever lace them up. Duncan was the man, and while it wasn’t sexy, it was dominant.”
SAN ANTONIO - JUNE 15: Tim Duncan #21 of the San Antonio Spurs poses with his NBA Finals MVP (Most Valuable Player) award and the NBA Championship trophy after defeating the New Jersey Nets in Game six of the 2003 NBA Finals at SBC Center on June 15, 2003 in San Antonio, Texas. The Spurs won 88-77 to beat the Nets and win the NBA Championship.
“Coming off his second consecutive MVP season, Duncan’s performance in the 2003 playoffs was positively ridiculous. David Robinson was a shell of his former self, and Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili were young and not ready to lead a championship team. The most reliable teammate Duncan had may have been Stephen Jackson. Thanks to the 24 games the Spurs played, Duncan set records for postseason Win Shares and VORP. In the regular season, he essentially replicated his success from 2001-02, though he was just slightly off his career highs in several advanced statistics. But mostly, this was Duncan’s declaration to the NBA that he was a truly elite star, right as Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal were getting at each other’s throats.”
Matthew Drappel of Sportsnet:
“He averaged 24.7 PPG, 15.4 RPG, 5.3 APG and 3.3 BPG in the playoffs, 24.2 PPG, 17 RPG, 5.3 APG and 5.3 BPG in the Finals, and in his final game of the season, he nearly pulls off the nastiest quadruple double (21 -20-10-8). Talk about finishing strong. This was by far the best season of Duncan’s incredible career and arguably should be even higher on this list.”
Brandon Anderson of the Cauldron:
“Considering Duncan’s per-36 chart is basically identical year after year, it’s nearly impossible to pick a best individual season. And really, Duncan’s greatness lies in his non-individualism—except in the 2003 playoffs. TD had the single greatest playoff dominance of all time, culminating with 24/17/5/5 in the Finals and an absurd 21/20/10/8 against Kenyon Martin to close out the season with one of the all-time exclamation marks.”
3. Nikola Jokic, 2022:
People will probably laugh, but this is the greatest all-around season I've seen. Missing the team's two greatest players, by far, in Murrary and MPJ for the entire season, Jokic took a bunch of scrubs to 48 wins and a 5th Seed in the West. Probably no player in history could have taken (this year's) Nuggets to a victory over the fully healthy Warriors squad in the First Round this past season.
The league is far deeper and harder to dominate than it ever had been before. No Expansion since 2004 and a Fully Globalized NBA. Just look at these facts:
Consider: None of these guys would likely even be playing in the NBA prior to the 2010's!!
As far as Jokic's dominance, in the past 161 games (including the 2021 & 2022 Playoffs, dating back to the beginning of last season), Jokic has put up a slash line of:
27.0/12.3/7.9 (while leading all centers in steals by a huge margin) on .606 eFG% and +8.0 rTS% (while taking 596 threes as a Center).
--The only player in NBA history to put up a slash line of 27.0/12.3/7.9 in any single season is Oscar Robertson, all the way back in 61'-62', and he did it in a game that featured 127 possessions per game, playing 44 MPG.
--Jokic, on the other hand, has done this in a league averaging only 102 possessions per game, and while playing only 34 MPG.
And, Jokic has sustained this for the equivalent of two full seasons!!!
Jokic's defense was dramatically improved this year, also:
1. 1967 Wilt Chamberlain 2. 2017 Steph Curry (2b 2016 Steph Curry) 3. TBD (I'll edit in final vote later). Now that Kareem and Shaq are in, I'm probably going to be looking at Duncan, Hakeem, KG, Bird, Russell. EDIT: 2003 Duncan
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. Personally, I would have Kareem/Shaq around here, but they've been voted in already. So for this next tier, I'm probably going to be looking at Duncan, Hakeem, Russell, KG, Bird (unless anyone else shows up). -Duncan: definitely the most favored by the metrics, but he's also clearly less scalable than most here besides Hakeem. Not sure if the film analysis or other contextual factors help others catch up. -Hakeem: Probably favored in popular opinion over these other players, and definitely the best defender of the modern era by eye, but the data isn't as high on him as Duncan. Could the data be missing something? -Russell: GOAT defender by a wide margin, while still being a positive on offense. Harder to evaluate given the lack of data and era differences though, which makes direct comparison harder. -KG: Up there as a defender with these other players, while being one of the GOAT portable players. -Bird: The worst defender of this group obviously, but also the best offensive player here by a wide margin. Another GOAT-level portable/scalable player, so I find the comparison with KG quite interesting.
It seems like there's a pattern when people are voting where they just describe the things they like about each player, without as much direct comparison. But to me, the direct comparison is the most interesting stuff. I'd love to read more direct comparisons between these players above if people have more arguments on either side! Some interesting comparisons might be: Duncan vs Hakeem, Russell vs KG, KG vs Bird.
As for other possible candidates: -Jokic: Has now been mentioned, but going in I wouldn't have thought he was in this tier. This could be bias against "the new guy", so perhaps I should look closer at the metrics to see how he compares. There's definitely defense concerns, but his offense is a thing of beauty. It seems like there's a pattern that "the new guy" can get underrated while we're watching him, then slowly gets upgraded as people get more hindsight and see the player succeed over time. Perhaps I should look closer at him, but I wouldn't have thought he was in here yet. -Magic: I also don't think I'm ready to vote magic. I mentioned this in a previous thread (Thread 2? 3?), but the statistics put him below Curry for me. -After this group, the next group might include players like Kobe, KD, Robinson, Walton, West/Oscar, etc.
EDIT: The metrics are quite close comparing 2003 Duncan with 2004 KG (Duncan clearly beats Hakeem, and does so by a more convincing amount than Russell). I think I'm swayed by Duncan's resilience over KG's portability/fit/time machine advantage. Part of what helps this is that Duncan's famous leadership skills and willingness to adapt his game to be more portable later on helps me feel the Portability/Fit/Time machine gap is smaller than Duncan's clearly large resilience advantage. More discussion from me on Duncan vs KG found at post #57 on page 3 of this thread.
People will probably laugh, but this is the greatest all-around season I've seen. Missing the team's two greatest players, by far, in Murrary and MPJ for the entire season, Jokic took a bunch of scrubs to 48 wins and a 5th Seed in the West. Probably no player in history could have taken (this year's) Nuggets to a victory over the fully healthy Warriors squad in the First Round this past season.
I agree that Jokić this season took a jump as a defender, but how would you evaluate his defense in a playoff setting? Alot of the metrics that have held his regular seasons in high regard(that aren't just box score) the last few seasons seem to almost turn their back on him a bit in the playoffs aside from 2019 from what i've seen. The Nuggets since 2019 have had a horrid 118 DRTG in the PS with him on the court, and 122 with him on if you just do 2020 to 2022(pbpstats.com), in since 2020 he's even has a negative playoff on/off in 34 games(I personally don't but too much stake into this but with such a large contrast I feel it could be put into question whether his game translates 1:1. I know that he's had a pretty terrible defensive casts but there is also reason to believe his defense is more exploitable in a playoff setting, specificslly things like his pick and roll defense, what are your thoughts on this and how much would that affect your evaluation?
AEnigma wrote:Arf arf.
trex_8063 wrote:Calling someone a stinky turd is not acceptable. PLEASE stop doing that.
One_and_Done wrote:I mean, how would you feel if the NBA traced it's origins to an 1821 league of 3 foot dwarves who performed in circuses?
People will probably laugh, but this is the greatest all-around season I've seen. Missing the team's two greatest players, by far, in Murrary and MPJ for the entire season, Jokic took a bunch of scrubs to 48 wins and a 5th Seed in the West. Probably no player in history could have taken (this year's) Nuggets to a victory over the fully healthy Warriors squad in the First Round this past season.
I agree that Jokić this season took a jump as a defender, but how would you evaluate his defense in a playoff setting? Alot of the metrics that have held his regular seasons in high regard(that aren't just box score) the last few seasons seem to almost turn their back on him a bit in the playoffs aside from 2019 from what i've seen. The Nuggets since 2019 have had a horrid 118 DRTG in the PS with him on the court, and 122 with him on if you just do 2020 to 2022(pbpstats.com), in since 2020 he's even has a negative playoff on/off in 34 games(I personally don't but too much stake into this but with such a large contrast I feel it could be put into question whether his game translates 1:1. I know that he's had a pretty terrible defensive casts but there is also reason to believe his defense is more exploitable in a playoff setting, specificslly things like his pick and roll defense, what are your thoughts on this and how much would that affect your evaluation?
Jokic's interesting, because he's arguably the best all time offensive center all time, while being the worst of the group defensively. You're right that he's improved, but that the improvement has been less clear in the playoffs.
I will say in 2021, the Warriors offense (heavy on motion, heavy on 3 poitn shooting, initiating from the perimeter) was just about the worst matchup for the Nuggets' defense. That doesn't mean that Jokic necessarily would have been great against another team, just that the Warriors were equipped to show him at his worst defensively. As for 2020, the Lakers were a far less perimeter-centric team, but I have to imagine having two 7-game series before facing the Lakers probably didn't do any favors for Jokic's defensive motor/stamina.
I also wonder how much era plays a factor. The amount of 3 point shooting probably helps his offensive value, but this era is also likely the least friendly to traditional slower big men on defense. Thinking Basketball actually did a study that showed the declining resilience of traditional big men in the playoffs since Zone Defenses and 3 point shooting started increasing. I have to think Shaq would be worse defensively today vs in the 2000s, while Jokic would have to be better defensively back in the early 2000s.
...
Interesting aside, I recently noticed a pattern with the all-time big men peaks. If you line them up in order of their offensive impact, it's almost the exact reverse of if you line them up by defensive impact.
Big Man Defensive Ranking: Bill Russell > Hakeem Olajuwon > Wilt Chamberlain > Kareem Abdul-Jabbar > Shaquille O'Neal > Nikola Jokic. Big Man Offensive Ranking: Bill Russell < Hakeem Olajuwon < Wilt Chamberlain < Kareem Abdul-Jabbar < Shaquille O'Neal < Nikola Jokic.
To be clear, I'm not dead-set on each of these rankings. You could certainly argue moving one player up or down on each side of the ball -- I just thought it was cool that the offensive and defensive rankings are near mirrors of each other.
Copying from my last post in the #4 thread for peaks
1. 1964 Wilt Chamberlain
I've seen the arguments for 67 Wilt, but I think he was more dominant in 64. An incredible season as laid out by some people in this throughout the peaks project. He is still IMO the greatest athlete in NBA history. His FT weaknesses do worry me, but it's hard to ignore his general dominance throughout the court this season. I think Russell is higher in my overall player rankings and I consider 64 Russell's peak, but I really think Wilt outplayed him in the finals and just suffered from having worse teammates. So I'd be slightly more confident having 64 Wilt on my team than 64 Russell.
(1b. 67 Wilt)
2. 2017 Stephen Curry
I was debating between this and 64 Russell, but this remark by draymondgold swayed me: "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)."
That is just outrageous impact. I really think if he maintained his 16 RS level in the playoffs, I'd pick it as my top peak in NBA history. I just think he breaks the sport when he gets going, but he didn't get going as consistently as he did in 2016 throughout the 2017 season. That said, it's his best playoff run and some metrics have his RS impact higher this season than 2016(I personally think he was clearly better in the 2016 RS).
His playoff run is underrated and he pretty much eviscerated every single team he faced. And I believe Curry is the most portable player ever. He fits in more seamless compared to other all-time players and his gravity is groundbreaking. The only reason I put Wilt above him, is because I think Wilt bested Russell(and peak Russell) in a series and was just unlucky he was on a worse team.
I've seen arguments about his greater resilience in playoff scoring in 2019 and even 2022, but I think he had this resilience in 2017 as well. He bulked up a bit in the summer after 2016.
Curry maintains his impact this season throughout in almost any 5-man line-up. I'm pretty sure KD, Draymond and Klay all suffer dips without Curry in the line-up. Curry however does not. He is the system and is the spearhead behind the greatest modern NBA dynasty.
(2b. 2016 Curry, 2c. 2019 Curry)
3. 1964 Bill Russell
The best defensive player of all-time having his best defensive season. I think I'd have this higher, but I really do think as mentioned earlier, he was outplayed by Wilt in the finals. If you swap the 2, I'm not confident Russell even leads the Warriors to a win in that series. I don't hold his arguable worst offense of the top 10 candidates against him that much, because I think his defensive impact was monstrous and I do think his leadership/culture fully enabled the Celtics to be that dominant. But for this particular season, I honestly think Wilt bested him in impact. That said, it was an incredible season and his defensive impact throughout the RS likely won't ever be matched.
ty 4191 wrote:Single Season All Time Records set by Jokic this year, in the deepest and hardest to dominate NBA ever: -Player Efficiency Rating -Box Plus Minus
Great article on Jokic's all time great 2020-2021 Season. And, he only got that much better this year:
What logic is a league of small ball and practically no teams with post presence the hardest era to put up stats as a big man? Even the big men that do play in the league are built to guard perimeter players. And there's practically no teams with a two big man set up.
What would be hard would be 1. defending in that league 2. winning in that league such that you turn the tide. That would be the scenario to expect and what is happening.
I gotta say, didn't expect Kareem to go 4 in this project. 70sFan did a good job convincing a lot of us.
It also makes you think that if Kareem has the 4th best peak ever and the GOAT or second GOAT longevity, he really shouldn't be lower than 2 on any ATL.
ardee wrote:I gotta say, didn't expect Kareem to go 4 in this project. 70sFan did a good job convincing a lot of us.
It also makes you think that if Kareem has the 4th best peak ever and the GOAT or second GOAT longevity, he really shouldn't be lower than 2 on any ATL.
That's why he's my GOAT
Now I will move into Duncan/Wilt/Hakeem discussion. I will bring up some tracking data for Wilt tomorrow.
ardee wrote:I gotta say, didn't expect Kareem to go 4 in this project. 70sFan did a good job convincing a lot of us.
It also makes you think that if Kareem has the 4th best peak ever and the GOAT or second GOAT longevity, he really shouldn't be lower than 2 on any ATL.
I respect 70'sFan immensely, and we've collaborated together on massive projects. See here:
That said, Kareem as GOAT or even #2 all time is totally off base, IMO. Convince me otherwise.
First of all, the ABA decimated the NBA by the mid 70's. In fact, 15 of the top 50 players in 1976-1977 in the NBA and ten of the top 20 played in the ABA in 1975-1976. Source:
What did Kareem have, skill wise, better than Wilt? I still do not see the argument after something like 18 months debating it, here.
Why? The "Rings" argument? (Because he got blindly lucky enough to inherit a Dynasty and many of the greatest teammates ever (and arguably the greatest onwer and coacher ever) in the 80's?) So what? What does that have to do with his skill?
This deserves its own thread. In fact...I'm going to start one, in fact, to not derail this thread (further).
Second best defensive center (and frankly player) of all time IMO behind Russell. He came the closest of anyone ever after Bill to combine elite vertical defense (which you have guys like Ewing and Howard specialize at) with elite horizontal defense (KG, Draymond). The other one is David Robinson, but Hakeem's much more resilient offensive game in the Playoffs creates the separation here.
The '95 Playoff run and his demolition of David Robinson is what gets talked about a lot, and rightly so, but I think what Hakeem did to Ewing on both ends in the '94 Finals is one of the most underrated big stage performances ever. He averaged 27/9/4 with 4 bpg on 56% TS while holding Ewing to 19/12/2 on 39% TS. That's -16 from his RS TS%. That may even be more impressive than the '95 matchup with Robinson who at least managed to score against 'Keem at a decent rate.
To be a guy who can go off for 30/15 on any night against elite opposition while simultaneously being a 5x5 threat is just insane, a monster on both ends who would dominate in any era.
2. 2003 Tim Duncan
This was very tough for me, but my gut feeling has me go with Duncan here over Wilt.
I think I might have overrated Duncan a little bit earlier as his scoring is definitely a weaker point compared to some of the other guys here (the gap with Kareem in particular is enormous. 31.2 pts/75 on +13.7% TS vs 24.8 pts/75 on +6.2% TS was enough for me to move Kareem over him, considering it's not like his all-around game was exactly lacking either).
I still think I'd take him over Wilt though by a hair. Wilt was obviously hyper efficient scoring on a lower volume so I think that is about a wash between them. Duncan was a monstrous passer in the 2003 Playoffs and I think if there's an edge for Wilt there then it's another small one. Duncan was the better defender though.
On the whole, I think the difference for me is that Wilt filled a fairly specific role and while it led to phenomenal results in terms of team building I'd rather have someone like Duncan whom you can just plop down with any teammates and you're sure he'll make massive impact.
3. 1967 Wilt Chamberlain (HM: 1964)
Jesus. I used to have him 1st overall peaks wise. My view of the game has clearly evolved.
Again, as I said above, he was obviously extremely dominant but when building a team around a big I think what Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem and Duncan all offer is just simpler and easier to work with. It took specific conditions for Wilt to put this season together and I think what the other guys did was more easily replicable.
(still love the guy though and he was extremely extremely good)
ardee wrote:I gotta say, didn't expect Kareem to go 4 in this project. 70sFan did a good job convincing a lot of us.
It also makes you think that if Kareem has the 4th best peak ever and the GOAT or second GOAT longevity, he really shouldn't be lower than 2 on any ATL.
That's why he's my GOAT
Now I will move into Duncan/Wilt/Hakeem discussion. I will bring up some tracking data for Wilt tomorrow.
I just voted Hakeem/Duncan/Wilt in that order but I am amenable to change depending on what you got for us.
I am curious to your thoughts on what I said about Wilt in my post, regarding the idea that it took pretty specific circumstances for him to have that season and what guys like Shaq/Hakeem/Kareem/Duncan did is just simpler and more replicable.
ardee wrote:I gotta say, didn't expect Kareem to go 4 in this project. 70sFan did a good job convincing a lot of us.
It also makes you think that if Kareem has the 4th best peak ever and the GOAT or second GOAT longevity, he really shouldn't be lower than 2 on any ATL.
That's why he's my GOAT
Now I will move into Duncan/Wilt/Hakeem discussion. I will bring up some tracking data for Wilt tomorrow.
I just voted Hakeem/Duncan/Wilt in that order but I am amenable to change depending on what you got for us.
I am curious to your thoughts on what I said about Wilt in my post, regarding the idea that it took pretty specific circumstances for him to have that season and what guys like Shaq/Hakeem/Kareem/Duncan did is just simpler and more replicable.
Didn’t you used to have Wilt as your goat peak or 3rd or something?
Now I will move into Duncan/Wilt/Hakeem discussion. I will bring up some tracking data for Wilt tomorrow.
I just voted Hakeem/Duncan/Wilt in that order but I am amenable to change depending on what you got for us.
I am curious to your thoughts on what I said about Wilt in my post, regarding the idea that it took pretty specific circumstances for him to have that season and what guys like Shaq/Hakeem/Kareem/Duncan did is just simpler and more replicable.
Didn’t you used to have Wilt as your goat peak or 3rd or something?
Yeah I did.
Have changed how I evaluate players recently and have tried to let go of as much of my biases as possible and try and be more objective.
I used to insist that Kobe has to be over Shaq on the ATL but now I obviously know that's not realistic, and I was severely underrating Shaq simply because I am a Kobe guy. Now I have Shaq in the 4-6 range all time.
01 Wilt 66-67: 26.5 PER | .637 TS% | 129 TS+ | 21.9 WS | .285 WS/48 01 Wilt 66-67 Playoffs?!?: 25.3 PER | .546 TS% | 3.8 WS | .253 WS/48 [best regular season 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.]
02 Duncan 02-03: 26.9 PER | .564 TS% | 109 TS+ | 16.5 WS | .248 WS/48 02 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 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.]
03 Erving 75-76: 28.7 PER | .569 TS% | 110 TS+ | 17.7 WS | .262 WS/48 03 Erving 75-76 Playoffs?!?: 32.0 PER | .610 TS% | 3.7 WS | .321 WS/48 [a peak so high the NBA absorbed a whole other league to get this guy under their banner. Doctor turned in a top tier regular season, then followed it up with one of thee largest postseason efficiency increases of all time.]
i guess i don't understand picking Curry 2017. it's literally a season with a degree of difficulty of 0. a super easy regular season where the warriors were just on cruise control, limiting minutes, and not taking any chances with injuries and still won 67. and then the easiest playoff run ever thanks to adding durant to a 73 win team. and even when it seemingly might get hard, a goon took out kawhi and turned what could have been their one challenge into a joke series. having your best statistical playoffs in the playoffs where you had by far the least pressure doesn't say much to me. the impact metrics always love curry no matter how he looks so i don't see how this season is any different in the metrics overrating his actual impact. it feels like people want to have a curry season but know the 2016 playoffs make that season impossible, so they just pick the "way too easy to matter" 2017 season.
Kareem was chosen as number 4 but since he’s my number 5 I will just be lazy and keep him here with my expo
4. 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon
Although this arguably isn’t his peak on O or D I think it’s his best combination of scoring playmaking defense and portability. Hakeem’s RS metrics don’t look the best but he’s one of the biggest PO risers ever and his multi year PO metrics (I prefer multi year over single year metrics in the PO) look significantly better and they make a top 4 placement look much more reasonable. In 1994 he was a much more willing passer and didn’t miss very many basic reads like he did in the previous years (and made the occasional advanced read as well) and he was a great scorer as always and while he regressed as a defender he was still very clearly and all time defender and I don’t know how many defensive seasons there are better than 94 Hakeem outside of his own and BR’s. He was also a better Off ball player and more willing off the ball in 1994. I would like to watch a little bit more film to confirm if I’m overrating him but I think that 4 is a very fair sport for his peak
5. 1977 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5 is where the list really starts to get hard for me. I can see 03 TD and 67 Wilt here as well as 77 Kareem. Firstly I’ll explain why I chose specifically 77 Kareem then why Kareem > wilt and Duncan
77 Kareem is Kareem’s best year as a scorer by quite a decent margin Imo. This is probably the peak of the skyhook (by far his most used shot) And 77 is when Kareem really started implementing other things into his arsenal. He added a spin move (which usually lead into hooks but also into layups/dunks) and every now and then would shoot a fadeaway jumper. He started to improve as a post passer (although would peak there in 1980) and this is his peak defensively during his actual peak (77–80) and while he was better on D in Milwaukee, the offensive gap makes up for it.
Now I can see arguments for TD and wilt over Kareem but I think that Kareem’s scoring triumphs TD and wilts best attribute (their defense) and all 3 are pretty equal in terms of all around game. I like Shaq as a playmaker more than Kareem and Shaq is significantly better off the ball and is much more portable. Kareems biggest flaw was that he had a tendency to sit in the post and not move much. he got into position decently well (which helped him as an offensive rebounder) but he didn’t do it too much and he wasn’t nearly as good At it as someone like Shaq was. Hakeem I think provides more two way ability and being an elite offensive player + the best non BR defender ever arguably in 1994 is just hard to beat (although I see the arguments for Kareem > Hakeem as well as The other 2)
6. 2003 Tim Duncan
Wilt and TD are essentially interchangeable to me but I chose TD since I am more confident in his abilities due to him having more data and film.
I will talk about his defense first since I am relatively high on his D and want to talk about why. I believe TD Is the 3rd best defender of all time and have him closer to Hakeem on D than most. TD checks every box you can
Defenses lead? The 03 spurs were *only* a -3.9 rDRTG but the 01-05 Spurs are a -6.1 rDRTG (best rDRTG in a 5Yr stretch outside of the 61-65 Celtics depending on what pace estimates you use)
Impact metrics? 03 Duncan has a +3.5 DAPM/g despite only playing ≈ 70 possessions/g (his PI DRAPM for the same year is a +5.11/100 (+3.83 /75) and the spurs had a -5.6 rDRTG with Duncan on.
And he had one of the best defensive series ever in the 2003 Finals where he completely shut down the Brooklyn nets En Route to a 4-2 win for his 2nd ring.
While you can argue if 03 is his peak or not I think it can be argued as a +4 on D.
Offensively I believe TD is very good although maybe a step down from 95 Hakeem. He was a very good Iso scorer out of the post and could shoot deep 2s at a fair rate. He wasn’t a great cutter but he was really good out of the PnP and wasn’t a bad roller either. He’s also a really good playmaking big. He consistently would make the correct read and while you won’t get any Jokic level passes out of Duncan, he’s going to be great at the basics ( he’s called the Big Fundamental for a reason). He had a resilient game and that showed consistently in the PO. He had a pretty decent scoring arsenal headed with his signature move, the bank shot
Although I’m more worried and how one would hypothetically be in a Playoff environment rather than in the actual playoffs they played in itself TD’s 2003 PO are among the greatest ever averaging 25/5/15/.6/3.3 on only 3.2 tpg *per game* just about every impact metric has this in the Mount Rushmore if you don’t include duplicates
7. 1967 Wilt Chamberlain
This is the most all around version of wilt. He was. A high quality scorer, capable of reaching 17.9 IA PTS/75 on +14.4 rTS. This is also his peak as a playmaker imo although his highest apg came the next year he was reported as assist hunting more that year which would reflect in the 76ers offense regressing. 67 is the best Wilt ever did at mixing his scoring and playmaking
This is also one of his best seasons as a defender as well. While we don’t have much film on him he led a -2.2 rDRTG with the little defensive metrics we have looking at him in a very high light. the film we do have on him shows him being a GOAT tier rim protector. Being able to camp in the paint due to no 3 In the paint (which he did do) allowed him to utilize that rim protection more (which would be a good expo as to why he was able to record so many blocks if the unofficial block recordings we have of him are true). And while he did jump at everything when you’re as athletic as him it doesn’t penalize him as much as it would most rim protectors.
I think he’s an elite offensive player (noticeably better than Tim Duncan and slightly better than Hakeem) and is the 4th best defender ever after BR Hakeem and TD
If we had more info on him I’d be more confident in Wilt > TD (and maybe even Wilt > Kareem) but I think 7 is a fair spot for him.
f4p wrote:i guess i don't understand picking Curry 2017. it's literally a season with a degree of difficulty of 0. a super easy regular season where the warriors were just on cruise control, limiting minutes, and not taking any chances with injuries and still won 67. and then the easiest playoff run ever thanks to adding durant to a 73 win team. and even when it seemingly might get hard, a goon took out kawhi and turned what could have been their one challenge into a joke series. having your best statistical playoffs in the playoffs where you had by far the least pressure doesn't say much to me. the impact metrics always love curry no matter how he looks so i don't see how this season is any different in the metrics overrating his actual impact. it feels like people want to have a curry season but know the 2016 playoffs make that season impossible, so they just pick the "way too easy to matter" 2017 season.
If we are focused on the quality of how good a player is, it seems like 17 is a fair choice as other than 15, it is the closest year to his 16 season. Some feel the added muscle from Curry helped to make him more resilient in the PS, others still like Curry in other hypothetical situations where his team might not have as much offensive talent, etc.
By my account, that means 
). 
