Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #25 - 1982-83 Moses Malone

[No-more-rings]

Are we certain that Harden belongs above 03 Tmac? Tmac put up comparably impressive scoring numbers in the regular season, and maintained that in the playoffs while pushing a better team to 7 games. I know he doesn't have any series wins under his belt, but for a guy who gets a bad reputation for that he averaged 32/6.5/5.9 3.1 tov, 26.6 PER, 53.5 ts%, 9.3 BPM in Orlando in the playoffs.

His offensive floor lift in 2003 was comparable to Kobe's 2006 more or less, and yet he's probably going to go 15-20 spots lower the way it looks.

Is there something about Tmac's game that seems unsuited for a long playoff run? We can dock him a little for 2003 being an outlier, but at what point do we stop overlooking him in general?

I do not have major problems with his theoretical skillset, but are you really more confident in how he would fare against the 2018/19 Warriors than Harden did?.

I’m not sure if he would do better or worse, nor would I rank them by how they did vs one specific opponent. Harden that year struggled some against the Jazz, so I think sometimes it’s a matter of how hot or cold you are. Given the small samples we have of McGrady, I think he does have a case for better playoff resilience though it was never proven in stretches.

I think it’s sort of a problem CP3 has which a lot don’t want to talk about, he usually put up great numbers but his prime was loaded with 1st and 2nd round exits.

[LA Bird]

Here are the results for round 25

Winner: 83 Malone

There were 12 voters in this round: Samurai, DraymondGold, falcolombardi, AEnigma, Stan, trelos6, CharityStripe34, SickMother, capfan33, Dutchball97, Ron Swanson, f4p

A total of 30 seasons received at least 1 vote: 05 Nash, 06 Nash, 07 Nash, 08 Paul, 09 Paul, 14 Paul, 15 Paul, 18 Davis, 18 Harden, 19 Harden, 20 Davis, 20 Harden, 49 Mikan, 50 Mikan, 51 Mikan, 58 Pettit, 59 Pettit, 61 Baylor, 62 Pettit, 63 Pettit, 67 Barry, 68 Hawkins, 69 Barry, 75 Barry, 79 Malone, 82 Malone, 83 Malone, 90 Barkley, 90 Ewing, 93 Barkley

Top 10 seasons: 83 Malone, 50 Mikan, 51 Mikan, 20 Davis, 07 Nash, 08 Paul, 06 Nash, 19 Harden, 15 Paul, 49 Mikan

H2H record (1 season per player)
83 Malone: 0.660 (33-17)
50 Mikan: 0.571 (20-15)
07 Nash: 0.541 (20-17)
20 Davis: 0.486 (18-19)
08 Paul: 0.353 (12-22)
19 Harden: 0.290 (9-22)

[f4p]

3. James Harden 2019 (2018, 2020)

Crazy scoring volume and efficiency. One of the great regular season carry jobs in modern history. 35 ppg in his biggest playoff series and kept the Rockets in it with a struggling CP3. 2018 led the league in most major production stats and then went up 3-2 on one of the greatest teams ever before a teammate injury felled his team.

Not directed at you in particular, but are we certain that Harden belongs above 03 Tmac? Tmac put up comparably impressive scoring numbers in the regular season, and maintained that in the playoffs while pushing a better team to 7 games. I know he doesn't have any series wins under his belt, but for a guy who gets a bad reputation for that he averaged 32/6.5/5.9 3.1 tov, 26.6 PER, 53.5 ts%, 9.3 BPM in Orlando in the playoffs.

His offensive floor lift in 2003 was comparable to Kobe's 2006 more or less, and yet he's probably going to go 15-20 spots lower the way it looks.

Is there something about Tmac's game that seems unsuited for a long playoff run? We can dock him a little for 2003 being an outlier, but at what point do we stop overlooking him in general?

i mean if tmac '03 gets ranked over harden, harden might as well not get ranked. it would seemingly take such inconsistent criteria from previous voting to make the tmac case over harden that you could seemingly make any case for other people at that point. yes, it was an amazing season and 2003 orlando has an argument for worst 2-15 roster to ever step foot in the playoffs, but the voting has generally looked down on outlier seasons and 2003 is as outlier as outlier gets. that season vs career next best season:

PER 30.3 vs 25.3 (how many people have a gap of 5?)
TS+ 109 vs 102
TS Add 192 vs 43
WS48 0.262 vs 0.189

whereas harden churned out basically 4 monster regular seasons in a row that validated and built on each other.

and then of course we're comparing someone who arguably had to have a teammate get injured to be stopped from a championship by a 4 hall-of-famer juggernaut that everyone thought made the league unfair, and another guy who never won a playoff series and in this very 2003 season would be peaking with a 3-1 blown lead in a first round series. that is a super-wide gap between accomplishments. especially as tmac's playoff numbers would just get to be in one series as opposed to a deep run.

i know tmac is unfairly maligned in the playoffs and has had some super poor luck. i watched him put up 30/7/7 (when those were crazy numbers) in 2005 against dallas while being the main defender on prime dirk and holding him to a fairly incomprehensible 35% for the series. that's probably his actual best playoff moment. but even that was a series where his team won the first 2 on the road and still lost, which is pretty rare in nba history. and he has a 3-1 blown lead on his resume. and lost the only 2 series where his team actually was an SRS favorite for once (including a home game 7 loss against utah in 2007).

i would also say, even if the talent differential might be similar between ORL/DET and HOU/GSW, there's a big difference in putting up a great fight to an all-time team in the highest profile series of the entire playoffs and putting up a fight against a good-but-not-great team in a largely ignored first round series. the warriors weren't going to take the rockets lightly. the pistons seemed to realize they messed up and then got serious and put the hammer down by winning the final 3 games by 31, 15, and 15, and without any injuries or changes i know of that would suddenly turns the magic's fortunes.

[No-more-rings]

PER 30.3 vs 25.3 (how many people have a gap of 5?)
TS+ 109 vs 102
TS Add 192 vs 43
WS48 0.262 vs 0.189

whereas harden churned out basically 4 monster regular seasons in a row that validated and built on each other.

Yeah but that's why I also pointed out that Tmac's numbers in the playoffs for a 3 year stretch were comparable if not a little better than Harden's.

I guess I'm just saying I don't see the clear separation as far as playoff performance goes. It's less proven, but that's not the same as saying he's flat out less reliable.

and then of course we're comparing someone who arguably had to have a teammate get injured to be stopped from a championship by a 4 hall-of-famer juggernaut that everyone thought made the league unfair, and another guy who never won a playoff series and in this very 2003 season would be peaking with a 3-1 blown lead in a first round series. that is a super-wide gap between accomplishments.

Harden and Cp3 do deserve a lot of credit for what they almost pulled off that's for sure, and strangely Curry and KD don't get much if any flack for almost losing to a clearly inferior team.

i would also say, even if the talent differential might be similar between ORL/DET and HOU/GSW, there's a big difference in putting up a great fight to an all-time team in the highest profile series of the entire playoffs and putting up a fight against a good-but-not-great team in a largely ignored first round series. the warriors weren't going to take the rockets lightly. the pistons seemed to realize they messed up and then got serious and put the hammer down by winning the final 3 games by 31, 15, and 15, and without any injuries or changes i know of that would suddenly turns the magic's fortunes.

Yeah well, it's still important to remember that Houston went up on Golden State mainly because of how incredible their defense was, it wasn't because Harden had some amazing offensive series. He played good defense, and good offense I wouldn't call it a great overall series though.

I guess it comes down to how much you weigh surrounding seasons for this project, when we discuss "peak" more broadly that tends to get more weight thrown to it, but being the project lists one season for each player it makes me wonder how much to consider it. For a 3 year peak, I'm not going to pick Tmac even though I think it's closer than you admit. For strictly one season and ignoring everything else? Eh, I think that's pretty difficult to decide. I think there is reason to believe Harden allows for a higher ceiling offense, Tmac was a really good passer, and even if he's as good as Harden at it he never really utilized it as effectively.

[falcolombardi]

PER 30.3 vs 25.3 (how many people have a gap of 5?)
TS+ 109 vs 102
TS Add 192 vs 43
WS48 0.262 vs 0.189

whereas harden churned out basically 4 monster regular seasons in a row that validated and built on each other.

Yeah but that's why I also pointed out that Tmac's numbers in the playoffs for a 3 year stretch were comparable if not a little better than Harden's.

I guess I'm just saying I don't see the clear separation as far as playoff performance goes. It's less proven, but that's not the same as saying he's flat out less reliable.

and then of course we're comparing someone who arguably had to have a teammate get injured to be stopped from a championship by a 4 hall-of-famer juggernaut that everyone thought made the league unfair, and another guy who never won a playoff series and in this very 2003 season would be peaking with a 3-1 blown lead in a first round series. that is a super-wide gap between accomplishments.

Harden and Cp3 do deserve a lot of credit for what they almost pulled off that's for sure, and strangely Curry and KD don't get much if any flack for almost losing to a clearly inferior team.

i would also say, even if the talent differential might be similar between ORL/DET and HOU/GSW, there's a big difference in putting up a great fight to an all-time team in the highest profile series of the entire playoffs and putting up a fight against a good-but-not-great team in a largely ignored first round series. the warriors weren't going to take the rockets lightly. the pistons seemed to realize they messed up and then got serious and put the hammer down by winning the final 3 games by 31, 15, and 15, and without any injuries or changes i know of that would suddenly turns the magic's fortunes.

Yeah well, it's still important to remember that Houston went up on Golden State mainly because of how incredible their defense was, it wasn't because Harden had some amazing offensive series. He played good defense, and good offense I wouldn't call it a great overall series though.

I guess it comes down to how much you weigh surrounding seasons for this project, when we discuss "peak" more broadly that tends to get more weight thrown to it, but being the project lists one season for each player it makes me wonder how much to consider it. For a 3 year peak, I'm not going to pick Tmac even though I think it's closer than you admit. For strictly one season and ignoring everything else? Eh, I think that's pretty difficult to decide. I think there is reason to believe Harden allows for a higher ceiling offense, Tmac was a really good passer, and even if he's as good as Harden at it he never really utilized it as effectively.

Off topic but i have always wondered about this lol

They reached the heights everyone thought of in 1/3 seasons. Scrapped by against the injured rockets and lost the next season after a bad regular season even with durant

Is not that it was bad. 2 rings in 3 years is never bad....but is odd how they never get the same "flack" other multi ring teams get. Is like people think they were the 17 warriors for the full 3 year stretch

Another odd thingh is how the relatively small improvement numbets with and withour dursnt on court (specially post 17) dont get blamed on curry/durant portability like it would happen with other star duos having diminishin returns.

[AEnigma]

I mean a lot of us definitely blame Durant lol. That is probably what pushed him down to #24 even though a lot of people outside this board would likely give him a top fifteen peak.

That said, without him they might not have won either title, and variance happens even on stacked teams (Shaq/Kobe Lakers were basically two or three baskets away from only winning one title).

[No-more-rings]

Off topic but i have always wondered about this lol

They reached the heights everyone thought of in 1/3 seasons. Scrapped by against the injured rockets and lost the next season after a bad regular season even with durant

Is not that it was bad. 2 rings in 3 years is never bad....but is odd how they never get the same "flack" other multi ring teams get. Is like people think they were the 17 warriors for the full 3 year stretch

Another odd thingh is how the relatively small improvement numbets with and withour dursnt on court (specially post 17) dont get blamed on curry/durant portability like it would happen with other star duos having diminishin returns.

Yeah, I mean Curry seems to escape general criticism more than most other stars it seems. And I think him winning again last season really brought people’s attention away from some of the question marks regarding his prime. For this project it seemed like there was a few strong supporters coming out for him right off the bat and it sort of trickled down to a group think sort of thing. Not really something exclusive to him, i’ve seen it with other players where a player gets strong support earlier than expected and then a few start to think “well i’m not really sure if player X actually belongs this high but he’s getting votes so i’ll start voting for him too anyway”. And if he’s already one of their favorite players, it just makes it easier. That isn’t to take away from people putting out strong arguments, but I do think it’s sort of a phenomenon that occurs a lot.

[AEnigma]

Curry has been the best player on four title teams and has the best “impact” of this generation; the fact he came in only at #11 is already a sign that people were willing to punish him, not that everyone just shrugged and said, “Well, may as well…” Why would you think he could go any lower.

[falcolombardi]

I mean a lot of us definitely blame Durant lol. That is probably what pushed him down to #24 even though a lot of people outside this board would likely give him a top fifteen peak.

That said, without him they might not have won either title, and variance happens even on stacked teams (Shaq/Kobe Lakers were basically two or three baskets away from only winning one title).

I totally get that. I was just reminiscing how the same results in a different combo of players would see more "portability" criticisms" than they did, if that makes sense.

Like, people criticize lebron portsbility and ability to mesh with offensive talent. Yet his stint with kyrie yielded similar results offensively as curry/durant

Curry + durant being only slightly better than curry alone didnt get the portsbility/diminishing results lebron + kyrie/wade being only a bit better than lebron alone would get. or paul + harden would for similar result, etc

[No-more-rings]

Curry has been the best player on four title teams and has the best “impact” of this generation; the fact he came in only at #11 is already a sign that people were willing to punish him, not that everyone just shrugged and said, “Well, may as well…” Why would you think he could go any lower.

Well as I said before, he took a 4 spot jump from the previous project where he clearly already peaked. There was a good bit of guys pushing for him even sooner, but also a good number that thought he went a little high. Nothing egregious, but there’s no question him coming off a title in a non-peak year but prime year helped his case even though it should have no bearing.

[AEnigma]

Curry has been the best player on four title teams and has the best “impact” of this generation; the fact he came in only at #11 is already a sign that people were willing to punish him, not that everyone just shrugged and said, “Well, may as well…” Why would you think he could go any lower.

Well as I said before, he took a 4 spot jump from the previous project where he clearly already peaked. There was a good bit of guys pushing for him even sooner, but also a good number that thought he went a little high. Nothing egregious, but there’s no question him coming off a title in a non-peak year but prime year helped his case even though it should have no bearing.

Why do we do these projects if you think spots should never change but to accommodate new years.

In 2019 people had concerns about whether Curry fixed his seeming postseason flaws from 2015 and 2016, or whether Durant’s presence simply relieved so much pressure on the team that it did not really matter. People also were skeptical of the extent to which he could drive teams without elite support. These past two years have comfortably addressed both criticisms… yet even then he could not break his way into the top ten. People are if anything still cautious with Curry, not desperately searching for reasons to vote for him.

[falcolombardi]

I think 11th is very fair for curry. Could be a bit higher or lower but not by much imo

I agree that i was fairlt surprised there were so many voters pushing for him as high as #3

[AEnigma]

People have consistently done the same with Garnett yet 2015 was the sole time he broke into the top ten. Both are “impact” and “port” darlings, and Curry has one of the larger fanbases in the league behind him. The fact even with more postseason equity than Garnett he could not crack the top ten is a decent sign most voters are still holding back, or at least functionally holding him back by different means of assessment (no combined MVP + Finals MVP, no nostalgia, no true “best player” legacy by virtue of peaking near Lebron, no “relative to league” boost, etc.).

[No-more-rings]

People have consistently done the same with Garnett yet 2015 was the sole time he broke into the top ten. Both are “impact” and “port” darlings, and Curry has one of the larger fanbases in the league behind him. The fact even with more postseason equity than Garnett he could not crack the top ten is a decent sign most voters are still holding back, or at least functionally holding him back by different means of assessment (no combined MVP + Finals MVP, no nostalgia, no true “best player” legacy by virtue of peaking near Lebron, no “relative to league” boost, etc.).

Well Garnett is an interesting case too for sure. He has been falling in the projects, because he hasn’t had as many ardent supporters participating. It seems like many of those guys who had a lot of sway don’t really post here anymore.

I guess I just don’t think Curry is clearly above some names like Oscar, West and a few others. Maybe you do, and that’s fine but I think it’s far from a consensus around here. He’s not an easy guy to argue against I get that, but when it comes to a lot of older players we don’t have the same amount of impact data. But again, you seem to be implying he’s like clearly top 10 for peak, something I don’t agree with.

[AEnigma]

People have consistently done the same with Garnett yet 2015 was the sole time he broke into the top ten. Both are “impact” and “port” darlings, and Curry has one of the larger fanbases in the league behind him. The fact even with more postseason equity than Garnett he could not crack the top ten is a decent sign most voters are still holding back, or at least functionally holding him back by different means of assessment (no combined MVP + Finals MVP, no nostalgia, no true “best player” legacy by virtue of peaking near Lebron, no “relative to league” boost, etc.).

Well Garnett is an interesting case too for sure. He has been falling in the projects, because he hasn’t had as many ardent supporters participating. It seems like many of those guys who had a lot of sway don’t really post here anymore.

He was eleventh in 2012 and 2019 and only fell to twelfth this time because of Curry. His position has been pretty constant for a decade; the 2015 finish was an outlier where if anything Garnett supporters were disproportionately represented in that particular project (just look at Kobe’s placement lol), and even then all they could manage was a tight eighth place finish.

I guess I just don’t think Curry is clearly above some names like Oscar, West and a few others. Maybe you do, and that’s fine but I think it’s far from a consensus around here. He’s not an easy guy to argue against I get that, but when it comes to a lot of older players we don’t have the same amount of impact data. But again, you seem to be implying he’s like clearly top 10 for peak, something I don’t agree with.

He clearly has an argument for a top ten peak, and the argument to put him lower than exactly where he finished would require reasoning distinct from most other players. Yeah, if you want to give Oscar and West a major era relative boost, you can, but that is a less common approach than just recognising the multiple-MVP who led multiple all-time title teams in the modern era.

[No-more-rings]

People have consistently done the same with Garnett yet 2015 was the sole time he broke into the top ten. Both are “impact” and “port” darlings, and Curry has one of the larger fanbases in the league behind him. The fact even with more postseason equity than Garnett he could not crack the top ten is a decent sign most voters are still holding back, or at least functionally holding him back by different means of assessment (no combined MVP + Finals MVP, no nostalgia, no true “best player” legacy by virtue of peaking near Lebron, no “relative to league” boost, etc.).

Well Garnett is an interesting case too for sure. He has been falling in the projects, because he hasn’t had as many ardent supporters participating. It seems like many of those guys who had a lot of sway don’t really post here anymore.

He was eleventh in 2012 and 2019 and only fell to twelfth this time because of Curry. His position has been pretty constant for a decade; the 2015 finish was an outlier where if anything Garnett supporters were disproportionately represented in that particular project (just look at Kobe’s placement lol), and even then all they could manage was a tight eighth place finish.

I guess I just don’t think Curry is clearly above some names like Oscar, West and a few others. Maybe you do, and that’s fine but I think it’s far from a consensus around here. He’s not an easy guy to argue against I get that, but when it comes to a lot of older players we don’t have the same amount of impact data. But again, you seem to be implying he’s like clearly top 10 for peak, something I don’t agree with.

He clearly has an argument for a top ten peak, and the argument to put him lower than exactly where he finished would require reasoning distinct from most other players. Yeah, if you want to give Oscar and West a major era relative boost, you can, but that is a less common approach than just recognising the multiple-MVP who led multiple all-time title teams in the modern era.

I don’t look at it as an era relative boost, West has a pretty good defensive edge and Oscar has a solid case as a better offensive player.

Do you think Curry has a clear cut case over Magic and Bird?

[AEnigma]

Well Garnett is an interesting case too for sure. He has been falling in the projects, because he hasn’t had as many ardent supporters participating. It seems like many of those guys who had a lot of sway don’t really post here anymore.

He was eleventh in 2012 and 2019 and only fell to twelfth this time because of Curry. His position has been pretty constant for a decade; the 2015 finish was an outlier where if anything Garnett supporters were disproportionately represented in that particular project (just look at Kobe’s placement lol), and even then all they could manage was a tight eighth place finish.

I guess I just don’t think Curry is clearly above some names like Oscar, West and a few others. Maybe you do, and that’s fine but I think it’s far from a consensus around here. He’s not an easy guy to argue against I get that, but when it comes to a lot of older players we don’t have the same amount of impact data. But again, you seem to be implying he’s like clearly top 10 for peak, something I don’t agree with.

He clearly has an argument for a top ten peak, and the argument to put him lower than exactly where he finished would require reasoning distinct from most other players. Yeah, if you want to give Oscar and West a major era relative boost, you can, but that is a less common approach than just recognising the multiple-MVP who led multiple all-time title teams in the modern era.

I don’t look at it as an era relative boost, Oscar has a solid case as a better offensive player.

Saying that is an era-relative boost. Oscar was the best offensive player of his era. He was the most efficient scorer of his era. He was the best passer of his era. Curry is the best offensive player in the best offensive era in league history. At least with Magic and Bird you can say they would still be the ~best passers and did dominate the high-offence 1980s; Oscar is a ways behind.

Do you think Curry has a clear cut case over Magic and Bird?

No, and I never said he did, but I would also not say either have a clear cut case over him. They had more “complete” seasons and much more positive nostalgia, so I expect most voting blocs will continue to give them preference, but those are narratively driven arguments rather than basketball-driven arguments.