Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #42 - 1973-74 Bob Lanier

[LA Bird]

RealGM Greatest Peaks List (2022)
1. 1990-91 Michael Jordan
2. 2012-13 LeBron James
3. 1999-00 Shaquille O'Neal
4. 1976-77 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. 1966-67 Wilt Chamberlain
6. 2002-03 Tim Duncan
7. 1993-94 Hakeem Olajuwon
8. 1963-64 Bill Russell
9. 1985-86 Larry Bird
10. 1986-87 Magic Johnson
11. 2016-17 Stephen Curry
12. 2003-04 Kevin Garnett
13. 2020-21 Giannis Antetokounmpo
14. 1963-64 Oscar Robertson
15. 1965-66 Jerry West
16. 2021-22 Nikola Jokic
17. 1976-77 Bill Walton
18. 2005-06 Dwyane Wade
19. 2007-08 Kobe Bryant
20. 1993-94 David Robinson
21. 2016-17 Kawhi Leonard
22. 1975-76 Julius Erving
23. 2010-11 Dirk Nowitzki
24. 2016-17 Kevin Durant
25. 1982-83 Moses Malone
26. 2019-20 Anthony Davis
27. 2006-07 Steve Nash
28. 2014-15 Chris Paul
29. 2018-19 James Harden
30. 1949-50 George Mikan
31. 1989-90 Charles Barkley
32. 1997-98 Karl Malone
33. 1989-90 Patrick Ewing
34. 2002-03 Tracy McGrady
35. 2010-11 Dwight Howard
36. 2021-22 Joel Embiid
37. 1957-58 Bob Pettit
38. 1994-95 Scottie Pippen
39. 1995-96 Penny Hardaway
40. 2015-16 Draymond Green
41. 1974-75 Artis Gilmore
42. 1973-74 Bob Lanier

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

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

Voting for this round will close on Wednesday October 19, 9am ET.

[AEnigma]

1. Bob Lanier (1974)
2. Alonzo Mourning (2000)
3. Nate Thurmond (1969, 1967)
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2231209#p101507479

[Proxy]

Same thing
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2229541#p101431813

Appreciate this post by AEnigma

Settled on Mourning for my third vote.

Alonzo Mourning in the first 11 games of the 2000 season: 22.5/9.5/3.5 (blocks) on 61.7% efficiency with a +8 plus/minus in 36.4 minutes per game.
Alonzo Mourning during Tim Hardaway’s 26-game absence in the middle of the 2000 season: 23/10/5 (blocks ) on 56.65% efficiency with a +0.7 plus/minus (team went 16-10 in that stretch) in 37 minutes per game.
Alonzo Mourning’s next 37 games with Tim Hardaway: 21/9.5/3 (blocks) on 61.83% efficiency with a +4.1 plus/minus in 33.6 minutes per game.

To add to this, in 1996 Alonzo averaged 24 points in 38.7 minutes per game on 57.3% efficiency before Tim Hardaway arrived in Miami, and 22 points in 37.3 minutes per game on 60.4% efficiency after Tim Hardaway arrived in Miami.

1997: 81.5% of total minutes played alongside Hardaway
1998: 82.5% of total minutes played alongside Hardaway
1999: 77% of total minutes played alongside Hardaway; will note that Mourning scored at 52.2% efficiency in his first 14 games of the lockout season and at 58.7% efficiency in his subsequent 32 games
2000: 49% of total minutes played alongside Hardaway

Mourning set career highs in scoring rate, scoring efficiency, and relative scoring efficiency in 2000, as well as setting career lows in turnovers and turnover percentage — all despite playing a large portion of the season without his primary offensive initiator, taking more shots than ever from midrange, and (relatedly) generating a career low free throw rate. He also matched his spike in block production from the prior season. 1999 certainly featured a more impressive postseason performance, but 2000 similarly saw Mourning provide his team’s only capable scoring output. And for as maligned as his turnover rate has been in these types of projects (perhaps excessively as a peak), should note from 1998-2000 Mourning consistently decreased his turnovers in the postseason.

I alluded to this earlier, but I am even more secure now in the assertion that Mourning kind-of played in an unideal era for his skillset. He was an excellent rim-runner peaking when the league was at its slowest. He was a brilliant team and help defender with some comparative weaknesses squaring up against bigger all-stars, so of course he primarily played under illegal defence rules in a league that disproportionately pushed scoring in the post. Yeah, no one likes watching his isolation scoring, but it is not really his fault that it was such a necessity to his team, and he at least made it work.

I did briefly consider a penalty for “needing” good guard play to score at an elite level — contrast with guys like Lanier or Kareem or Moses or peak Ewing — but I just cannot really see it as a negative to be a plus efficiency isolationist who becomes immediately maximised with any capable lead passer. Muggsy Bogues had him putting up 22.5 points per 75 on 59% efficiency; imagine what he could have done with someone like Nash or DWill. Hard to find many teams that would not be thrilled with an efficient volume scoring DPoY sporting 18-foot shooting range and elite finishing in motion.

Also this one lol:

Been looking a bit more at a case for Thurmond.

Doing some rudimentary (i.e. no real SRS or even MOV analysis) WOWY work of my own…
1967: 38-26 with (3-0 with no Barry), 6-11 without (all with Barry in)
1968 (Barry gone): 32-19 with, 9-20 without
1969: 38-33 with, 3-8 without
1970: 21-21 with, 9-31 without
OVERALL 1967-70: 46.5-win pace with, 23-win pace without

“Thurmond is the key to our team. You’ve got to have a great center. We have one in Thurmond. The Celtics have Bill Russell, the 76ers have Wilt Chamberlain. We’d still be up there without me but not without Thurmond.” — Rick Barry
The Pittsburgh Press, February 3, 1967

“The growing number of people who think Nate Thurmond is the most valuable big man in pro basketball picked up a whole new group of believers Friday night.”
— LA Times writer Dan Hafer, after the Warriors lose to LA 129-80 without Thurmond
Los Angeles Times, February 4, 1967

“The Warriors, despite Super Soph. Rick Barry’s heroics, never would have won the Western Division title this season nor made it to the playoffs, for that matter, had it not been for Thurmond’s defensive work under the boards.”
The Pittsburgh Press, March 30, 1967

“If there was any doubt prior to this series that San Francisco’s Nate Thurmond is Chamberlain’s heir apparent as the league’s best center, it was quickly dispelled.”
— Christian Science Monitor, April 26, 1967

“Nate Thurmond, the man who is the only heir to Chamberlain and Bill Russell. […] He performed marvelously against Chamberlain; it was not just by choice that Wilt shot so infrequently.” — Frank Deford
Sports Illustrated, May 8, 1967

Oct. 28, 1966, Thurmond had 19 points and 25 rebounds in a 105-104 win over Baltimore, and “blocked a shot by Gus Johnson that would have tied the game […]” (The Sumter Daily Item, Oct. 29, 1966). Jeff Mullins tied up Baltimore’s Don Ohl with 39 seconds left. “With these key plays stopping the Bullets, Jim King connected on a 10-foot jump shot with 26 seconds left for the San Francisco victory” (The Sumter Daily Item, Oct. 29, 1966). Nov. 14, 1966, Thurmond had 20 points, 30 rebounds and 15 blocked shots in a 115-104 win over Detroit (The Evening Independent, Nov. 15, 1966). Dec. 8, 1966, Rick Barry had an off night with 21 points on 8-for-33 shooting (24.2%) in a 116-106 loss to Baltimore, but Thurmond picked up the slack with 30 points. Dec. 22, 1966, Thurmond held Wilt Chamberlain to 14 points (6-12 FG) and outrebounded him 25-22 in a 116-114 loss to Philadelphia (Tri City Herald, Dec. 22, 1966).

Nate Thurmond, Wilt Chamberlain’s understudy when both played for San Francisco, hounded Philadelphia’s super star tenaciously but in vain Thursday night. Thurmond may have won the contest, but the 76ers won the game.

In the only National Basketball Association action, the Philadelphia 76ers outlasted a dogged Warrior squad and won, 116-114, although Thurmond held Chamberlain to 14 points and outrebounded the Big Dipper.

[…]

Thurmond played for years in Chamberlain’s super image. When the Big Dipper was traded by the Warriors to Philadelphia, Thurmond took over as San Francisco’s regular center.

Against Chamberlain, the Warrior center allowed only one field goal in six attempts in the first half. In the final quarter, however, Wilt made five of six attempts from the field and ended with 14 points.

Chamberlain had 22 rebounds and eight assists, Thurmond scored nine points, gathered in 25 rebounds and assisted on three goals.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sXcoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IwYGAAAAIBAJ&pg=926,4442937"

In their next meeting, Feb. 2, 1967, Thurmond “blocked eight of Wilt’s shots, dominated both backboards with 23 rebounds and scored 16 points” in a 137-120 win over Philadelphia. “Chamberlain only managed 16 points” (Park City Daily News, Feb. 3, 1967).

San Francisco coach Bill Sharman said, “I consider Nate right in the same class, but kinda in between, a Russell or a Chamberlain. Bill Russell, now who’s a little quicker than either one of ’em, will go to the corners, block a shot, or get back underneath and get the big rebound, or again pick up the cutter. Where Nate, won’t go out quite as far, but he will go out a bit farther than Wilt. Now of course Wilt is much stronger than both of ’em, so he will muscle and do a better job in close”

Rick Barry was All-Star Game MVP with a game-high 38 points (16-27 FG, 6-8 FT)—second only to Wilt Chamberlain’s 42 in 1962, six rebounds and three assists in 34 minutes, but “[t]here are those who think it should have gone to Thurmond. ‘Nate was the equalizer,’ commented Coach Fred Schaus of Los Angeles who directed the West. ‘He was the entire key to the ball game. With Thurmond able to contest the entire East front line (on rebounds), we were able to run. This was our game plan’” (The Sumter Daily Item, Jan. 11, 1967). Thurmond had 16 points (7-16 FG, 2-4 FT) and 18 rebounds in 42 minutes. “Thurmond definitely was the most valuable player,” said Chamberlain. “He did the entire job while Barry just put the ball through the hoop.”

Feb. 5, 1967, Thurmond scored the winning basket on a tip-in with four seconds left and blocked a last shot in a 142-141 overtime win over Chicago. Feb. 10, 1967, Thurmond fractured two bones in his left hand during the second quarter of a 137-136 double overtime loss to Boston (The Free Lance-Star, Feb. 11, 1967). “If Thurmond is out for six weeks, he could miss one or two playoff games. But if he misses eight weeks, his teammates might join him on the sidelines because of elimination.”

Lodi News-Sentinel, March 15, 1967

The San Francisco Warriors clinched the Western Division regular season championship nine days ago, but it’s doubtful if they get anywhere when the National Basketball Association playoffs begin next week.

The combination of numerous injuries and erratic performances by those in good shape have resulted in a flock of defeats. The San Franciscans have lost nine of their last 11 contests and often looked like the worst team in the Western Division rather than the title winner.

The Warriors began to struggle when 6 ft. 11 in. center Nate Thurmond broke his hand against Boston Feb. 10. Thurmond is back but unless he’s in top shape for the playoffs, a doubtful prospect, the San Francisco pros will have a tough time beating anyone.

Sparked by high scoring Rick Barry and Thurmond, the Warriors got off to a fast start last October and had run up a 9½ game lead over second place St. Louis by the middle of January. They were breezing along until Thurmond’s injury.

[Thurmond] led Warriors to NBA Finals, and did best job on Chamberlain of anyone, and the Warriors did better in the postseason against the 76ers than anyone else. “It was a personal thing for us to fight back,” Thurmond said after San Francisco won Game 3. “Boston took only one game from the 76ers and as a matter of pride we want to do better than the Celtics [...].”

[1967] DRtg

Code: Select all

1.  Boston        91.2
2.  San Francisco 92.9
3.  Detroit       94.6
4.  Chicago       94.8
5.  Philadelphia  95.1
LEAGUE AVG.       96.1
6.  Los Angeles   97.3
7.  St. Louis     97.6
8.  Baltimore     98.2
9.  Cincinnati    98.8
10. New York      100.9

Ran the +/- for [1967] Thurmond:
w/out Thurmond - 119.1 ppg 126.6 opp ppg
with Thurmond - 123.2 ppg 117.8 opp ppg
That's a monstrous +12.9. It should be noted that the number is exaggerated by a pretty difficult schedule (SRS 1.13, 9H 6A).

So after all that, why am I giving preference to 1969 Thurmond?

I think his team anchoring without Barry was more laudable. Thurmond takes a lot of grief for his poor shot efficiency, and some have even unfairly maligned him as a chucker (he was not, he just played heavy minutes in a fast league). Look at those 1969 Warriors. Jeff Mullins is rightfully their leading scorer, although that year I think there around fifteen scorers I would take over him. Past Mullins, they have an inefficient Rudy LaRusso as their second option, and then by necessity Nate Thurmond is the third option. Thurmond is an ineffective scorer, do not get me wrong, and this is his biggest weakness relative to almost every other all-time centre. If you need Thurmond to be your third best scorer, it is pretty ugly… but man, not many teams would ever need Thurmond to handle the scoring load needed on the 1969 Warriors. The team also misses their best passer for 30 games, further exacerbating their offensive situation. Terrible offensive year, but the team structure makes him looks worse than he actually is, and I do not really believe that his 1967 self would do any better or that his 1969 self would do worse on the 1967 team.

Why am I hyper-focusing on this? Well, the playoffs come around. The Warriors build a shocking 2-0 road lead against the Lakers. And then… Jeff Mullins gets hurt. He manages to be in half-decent playing shape by Game 6 (which turns into a brutal blow-out), but by then it is too late. Games 3-5, he averages 3 points in 18.7 minutes per game on 20% efficiency. The team’s only real scoring option, reduced to that. How many centres are winning in that circumstance? You look at what Russell did that year on the Celtics. Do team results change if you swap the two of them for the postseason? Margins were close in the Finals, but I am not sure the results do change. And what would we say if Jeff Mullins stays healthy, and the Lakers are pushed to seven games or possibly even lose? I recognise these are not undeniable arguments to take 1969 over 1967, and you can just as easily ponder the what-if where 1967 Warriors make one more free throw in Game 1 of the Finals and push the Greatest Team Ever to a seventh game, but I do feel 1969 is a little more individually impressive with how much disruption Thurmond was able to impose on a dramatically more talented team (much as what he did to the Bucks a few years later).

1. 1972 Walt Frazier (1973, 1971)
2. 2022 Luka Dončić (2020)
3. 2000 Alonzo Mourning
4. 1969 Nate Thurmond (1967)

I may more Thurmond over Zo but haven't fully decided yet

[Samurai]

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

2. Connie Hawkins 1968. Another great season from yesteryear that if too often overlooked today. Yes, era strength is a legit concern, probably as much or more than it was for Mikan. But if not for era strength, I would have put Hawkins in before now so its a question of how much we want to continue penalizing him for it. Led the league in scoring at 26.8 ppg while playing nearly 45 minutes/game. Also led the league in PER, OWS, WS, WS/48, and TS% and finished second in rebounds/game, third in assists/game and even fourth in DWS. Was league MVP, won a ring and picked up the Playoffs MVP as well.

3. Russell Westbrook 2017 (alternate 2016). While I am definitely not a fan of Westbrook, his 2017 season has to be recognized. This was the first of his triple-double seasons with 31.6 ppg (led the league)/10.7 rebounds (10th in the league)/10.4 assists (3rd in the league). While I think the preoccupation with "triple doubles" goes overboard when over-emphasized, his performance in those areas were very strong. And while Westbrook is often criticized for his defense, particularly when compared to his much greater interest on offense, he also finished 8th in the league in DWS that season.

[70sFan]

Glad to see Gilmore finally making the list

1. 1971/72 Walt Frazier HM: 1970/71, 1972/73

Walt Frazier is certainly among the greatest defensive guards the league has ever seen. He was well known for his ability to steal the ball, but I'd argue that his man defense and versatility were just as important. Some people view him as a gambler, but he was the key factor of Knicks trapping defense and despite taking a lot of risks, he made surprisingly few mistakes per attempts.

I think what's misunderstood is how outstanding he was on offensive end though. If you ever found any time to watch prime Frazier games, you'll see the master of midrange game in action. Frazier's big frame in combination with his footwork, variety of fakes and shooting touch made him almost impossible to guard in midrange area. Not to mention that he was a criminally underrated ball-handler that could abuse smaller defenders down low and outquick bigger ones in switches with surprising speed.

This highlight reel from one game that I made a few years ago shows nicely who Frazier was at his peak - crafty midrange beast with strong ability to draw fouls and just an amazing defender on the other side of the court:

Watch on YouTube

To be honest, I'd put him ahead of Penny, but it's not a crime that Hardaway went in before him.

2. 1973/74 Bob Lanier HM: 1974/75

I decided to go with Lanier among the rest of centers competing for the spot here. I don't think anyone will disagree that Lanier is clearly the best offensive center among this next tier of Thurmond/Reed/Cowens/Mutombo/Mourninig/Gobert. The man was an absurd scorer with very versatile skillset. He was one of the best low post scorers ever, but he could also spread out the offense with his efficient jumpshot and he's a nice passer who could be used as a hub. On top of that, he's one of the very few stars in NBA history that improved their offensive production in the postseason - and Pistons usually faced strong competition because of the low seeds:

1974-76 Lanier: 24.3 pp75 on +8.0 rTS%
1975-77 Lanier: 24.5 pp75 on +10.7 rTS%

The one concern people have with him is his defense, but I don't think it's too problematic in his best years. I spent some time analyzing Lanier's teams stats with and without him in the second part of the 1970s. He came out fantastic (as WOWY stats show). I'm also starting to believe that his defense is undervalued due to his teams being consistently poor on that end:

1976 Pistons with Lanier: 106.8 points allowed (+3.2 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
1976 Pistons without Lanier: 103.5 points allowed (-0.1 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
3.3 worse

1977 Pistons with Lanier: 109.8 points allowed (+1.4 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
1977 Pistons without Lanier: 112.7 points allowed (+4.1 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
2.9 better

1978 Pistons with Lanier: 108.2 points allowed (-0.4 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
1978 Pistons without Lanier: 116.9 points allowed (+7.6 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
8.7 better

1979 Pistons with Lanier: 111.7 points allowed (+0.4 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
1979 Pistons without Lanier: 114.6 points allowed (+3.1 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
2.9 better

1980 Pistons with Lanier: 114.4 points allowed (+1.5 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
1980 Pistons without Lanier: 119.5 points allowed (+6.3 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
4.8 better

Lanier consistently made Pistons team better defensively (outside of 1976). In fact, Pistons were around average with Lanier in that period and absolutely terrible without him (again, assuming pace stays the same without Lanier). Granted, it's a rough estimate but I don't think we should count Pistons defensive weakness against Lanier. His overall impact was undeniable though:

And though I didn't quote it here to keep the length down, Owly also presented some data pertaining to Lanier's impact. I'll present my own [more coarse] findings in WOWY (with a few different means of looking at '80):

With/Without Records/Wins added per season (pro-rated to 82 games)
‘75: 39-37 (.513) with Lanier, 1-5 (.167) without him/+28.4 wins
‘76: 30-34 (.469) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+11.1 wins
‘77: 38-26 (.594) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+21.4 wins
‘78: 31-32 (.492) with Lanier, 7-12 (.368) without him/+10.2 wins
‘79: 21-32 (396) with Lanier, 9-20 (.310) without him/+7.1 wins
‘80 Pistons: 9-28 (.243) with Lanier, 5-12 (.294) without
‘80 Pistons overall before trade (for Kent Benson): 14-40 (.259)
‘80 Pistons after trade: 2-26 (.071)
‘80 Bucks before obtaining Lanier: 29-27 (.518)
‘80 Bucks after obtaining Lanier: 20-6 (.769) (Lanier played all 26 games)
*‘81: 48/49-18/19 with Lanier, *11/12-3/4 without him
*he actually played 67 games, but game log data only recording 66 (48-18); is possible [likely] they won they other game he played in, making the with record 49-18 (.731) and 11-4 (.733) without. Would be -0.1 wins added in that instance.
‘82: 53-21 (.716) with Lanier, 2-6 (.250) without him/+38.2 wins

The above data spans eight years, SIX different head coaches, and a fair amount of supporting cast turnover.

So one way are another, Lanier's impact appears to have been pretty consistently substantial in nature (and was so across multiple settings). And while Lanier's lack of All-NBA honors will work against him for some people, I'd caution against thinking that this means he was scarcely ever a top 5-10 player: he finished 3rd in the MVP vote in '74, 4th in '77 (POST-merger), and had TWO other top 10 finishes, and received at least slight MVP consideration in a total SEVEN seasons.

Personally, I could even go with 1976 or 1977, but he missed too many games in the RS to put him ahead of his best defensive season.

3. 1968/69 Willis Reed HM: 1969/70

Reed lost the battle barely against Lanier. I get that his boxscore production isn't the greatest, but we should consider that he did that under Holzman system that is well known for lowering the individual production, he wasn't a high volume iso scorer who ate shotclock in the post. He was extremely versatile scorer, capable of playing off-ball both as a rim runner and shooter (even used off the screens). He could bang up down low, but could also play more perimeter oriented basketball.

I also like how he scaled up his production against the toughest assignments. His overall postseason numbers are quite spectacular considering the competition faced. In 1967-70 period, Reed faced teams all-defensive level centers in all of his postseason series:

1967 ECSF vs Celtics - Russell
1968 ECSF vs 76ers - Wilt
1969 ECSF vs Bullets - Unseld
1969 ECF vs Celtics - Russell
1970 ECSF vs Bullets - Unseld
1970 ECF vs Bucks - Kareem
1970 Finals vs Lakers - Wilt

Results: 24.2 ppg on +4.0 rTS% (actually 25.3 ppg if we exclude games 5-7 of the 1970 finals). If we go with more contextualized numbers, here is his three year run:

1967-69 Reed: 22.7 pp75 on +8.6 rTS%
1968-70 Reed: 22.0 pp75 on +4.9 rTS%

Considering his style of play, the competition faced and his defensive impact, I think these numbers put him among the best candidates here. Like Lanier, he consistently outperformed his RS self and unlike Lanier, he proved his quality in significantly bigger sample.

On defense, Reed was very active, if slightly undersized center, who was a key for Knicks trap defense. He was quite willing to go outside and help his perimeter teammates outside. His athleticism is often underappreciated as well, he could move quite quick laterally despite his built and he wasn't a poor leaper either. The main weakness is his size - he just didn't have enough length to protect the paint on elite level. That's the only thing that separates him from Mourning defensively to me.

His post defense is also quite Mourning esque - he was very physical and strong, but his lack of size didn't allow him to really shut down his bigger opponents. He had considerable success against injured Wilt in 1970 finals, but as I got more footage from that series (and right now I have a lot of footage from games 3-7), I see that outside of a few successful possessions, Wilt usually did well on him in post up situations. That also limited his effectiveness against much taller Kareem.

HM: Russell Westbrook, Elgin Baylor, Kevin McHale, Nate Thurmond, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo

[trelos6]

42. Grant Hill 96-97. Pre injury Grant was a beast. Shame we never got to see his full potential. 23.2 pp75 on +2 rTS% with 3.5 O-PIPM and 1.7 D-PIPM. This is the only season I’d have above Reggie Miller.

43. Reggie Miller 93-94. A gravity unrivalled until Steph came into the league. His ability to space the floor for teammates and ramp up his scoring in the post season is why he's here. One of the most portable players of all time and a big ceiling raiser. 23 pp75 at +10.8 rTS%. Had about 9 seasons similar, so they’re all pretty close.


44: Manu Ginobili 04-05 > 06-07, 10-11. 21.9 pp75 @ +8 rTS%. +7.1 PIPM (4.4 OPIPM, 2.7 DPIPM). Amazing season, and fantastic playoffs.

45. Bob McAdoo 1974-75. 26.7 pp75 @ + 6.7% rTS. +4.6 PIPM (4.1 OPIPM, 0,5 DPIPM). NBA MVP.

46. Paul George 18-19. 26.6 pp75 @ + 2.6% rTS. +6.1 PIPM (3.9 OPIPM, 2.2 DPIPM). 3rd in MVP.

47. Walt Frazier 1969-70 > 72-73. 16.8 pp75 @ + 6.4% rTS. All D, All NBA first teams.

48. Paul Pierce 01-02. 25.3 pp75 @ + 5.0% rTS. + 5.2 PIPM (3.3 OPIPM, 1.9 DPIPM).

49. Willis Reed 69-70. League MVP. Led Knicks to the title. Fantastic D. All-D, All NBA first teams.

I think Butler and Embiid are hurt by their best seasons missing a fair bit of time due to injuries (and Jimmy's poor playoffs in 21).

[OhayoKD]

1. 17 Westbrook
(2016)
Having out-valued, out-box stat'd and out-played prime KD in the post-season while staying within range in the regular season, 2016 Westbrook(and to an extent 2014 westbrook) is a great peak aready. Adding in westbrook's tendency to get better vs stronger opponents and his significant playoff elevation on very strong playoff opponents(crushing the 70 win spurs, taking the warriors to 7, pushing the 14 spurs to overtime of game 6, beating the best clippersi iterations, ect, ect) and Westbrook accomplishing this without good spacing, 2016(and 2014 to a degree) sets a verty strong floor.

2017 Westbrook can claim a stronger regular season performance(second in impact stuff behind 2017 curry), a better skill-set(stronger catch and shoot) and nothing about the rockets first playoff exit really calls into questions Westbrook's track record as a playoff elevator.

2. 2022 Luka
(2021)
APM is kind of sus but "real impact" makes for a maybe he should have been rated higher case. Rookie Luka is plausibly beating the full fleged clippers with a healthy co-star(and himself), second year luka takes them to 7 with his co-star not performing well(consider how much praise durant was afforded for going 1-3 without qa healthy costar vs the bucks in the best performance of his career), and 2022 Luka is knocking out a 60 win team before losing to the eventual champs.. I think in absolute basketball terms luka could be alot better than his era-relative impact. Very few players in history have hisrange of playmaking/dribble penetrartion OR his versatility as a post-season scorer. At this point i'm willing to overlook the questionable apm results and vote him in

3. 2020 Jimmy Butler
(2021)
Multiple seasons make it seem like playoff butler isn't really a fluke in which case his production, versatility, and his role as the leader for a contender make him a reasonable pick here. Biggest knock is maybe bam was actually more valuable for two of rheir 4 wins, but his performance vs the lakers with bam hobbled affords him alot of credit. Not unreasonable to think that's a different series if the heat are healthy, As it is, the heat, despite being hobbled, were the only team to take 2 games off the lakers and beat a contention level celtics side(who trumped 60 win toronto) and an atg looking bucks team. I think they, and butler deserve more credit than they're usually afforded

[LA Bird]

Here are the results for round 42

Winner: 74 Lanier

There were 6 voters in this round: AEnigma, Proxy, Samurai, 70sFan, trelos6, OhayoKD

A total of 27 seasons received at least 1 vote: 00 Mourning, 02 Pierce, 05 Ginobili, 07 Ginobili, 11 Ginobili, 16 Westbrook, 17 Westbrook, 19 George, 20 Butler, 20 Doncic, 21 Butler, 21 Doncic, 22 Doncic, 67 Thurmond, 68 Hawkins, 69 Reed, 69 Thurmond, 70 Frazier, 70 Reed, 71 Frazier, 72 Frazier, 73 Frazier, 74 Lanier, 75 Lanier, 75 McAdoo, 94 Miller, 97 Hill

Top 10 seasons: 72 Frazier, 73 Frazier, 74 Lanier, 71 Frazier, 17 Westbrook, 16 Westbrook, 00 Mourning, 22 Doncic, 69 Thurmond, 67 Thurmond

H2H record (1 season per player)
74 Lanier: 0.667 (14-7)
72 Frazier: 0.588 (10-7)
17 Westbrook: 0.474 (9-10)
22 Doncic: 0.471 (8-9)
00 Mourning: 0.438 (7-9)
69 Thurmond: 0.312 (5-11)