What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks?

Moderators: penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063

Special_Puppy
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,871
And1: 2,593
Joined: Sep 23, 2023

What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#1 » by Special_Puppy » Sat Mar 1, 2025 9:55 pm

What time frame do you prefer to use when discussing peaks? 1-Year. 3-Years? 5 Years? 7-Years? 9-Years?
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,693
And1: 25,012
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#2 » by 70sFan » Sat Mar 1, 2025 10:09 pm

I think 2-3 years is perfect, unless you deal with injury-prone players.
User avatar
TheGOATRises007
RealGM
Posts: 21,415
And1: 20,072
Joined: Oct 05, 2013
         

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#3 » by TheGOATRises007 » Sat Mar 1, 2025 10:46 pm

2-3 years seems good.

Prime is like 5-10 years for me.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,165
And1: 9,777
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#4 » by penbeast0 » Sat Mar 1, 2025 10:55 pm

I think of peak as 1 year so you can get in the one year wonders; prime I tend to start at 8 years, much less than that is a "short prime" and much longer is "long prime."
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 8,724
And1: 5,460
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#5 » by One_and_Done » Sat Mar 1, 2025 11:33 pm

1 year. A longer or shorter period is probably driven by something.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
MiamiBulls
Sophomore
Posts: 204
And1: 210
Joined: Oct 25, 2022
 

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#6 » by MiamiBulls » Sat Mar 1, 2025 11:41 pm

Consecutive Seasons Peaks, whether that's 2 years or 3 years.

1 Year Peaks is filled with fluke, unreliable production. 2017 Regular Season Isaiah Thomas looks like a better Offensive player than Kyrie ever was. 2003 Tracy Mcgrady looks like an historic level player when in reality Mcgrady who TS ADD never ranked inside the Top 60 of the league in any season outside of 2003, was just more of a slightly better version of Allen Iverson.
EmpireFalls
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,052
And1: 8,271
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
   

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#7 » by EmpireFalls » Sun Mar 2, 2025 1:41 am

1 year is the definition of peak for me.
trelos6
Senior
Posts: 541
And1: 221
Joined: Jun 17, 2022
Location: Sydney

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#8 » by trelos6 » Sun Mar 2, 2025 10:44 am

It really depends on the player and seasons.

While some can have a one year peak (T-Mac, IT4), others have a 2-3 run of extremely similar stats. I think 3 years is also good for playoffs, as the sample size is smaller, it ends up being around 60 games for 3 years of deep playoff runs.
User avatar
Jaivl
Head Coach
Posts: 7,029
And1: 6,695
Joined: Jan 28, 2014
Location: A Coruña, Spain
Contact:
   

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#9 » by Jaivl » Sun Mar 2, 2025 11:08 pm

1 season can be a flukey peak, but still a peak.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,556
And1: 8,189
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#10 » by trex_8063 » Mon Mar 3, 2025 1:42 am

Contextually [within discussions] we hear it referred to for meaning anywhere from 1 year to 3-4 years.
When we do Peaks Projects here, we are specifically referring to a player's ONE best season......and thus that is the definition that I go by. And that fits with some players who have one season that is clearly better than any other (e.g. '03 TMac, '11 Rose, '00 Shaq, '16 Draymond, '77 Walton, '76 Dr. J).


For "prime", I don't like to settle on any one number, because I think it varies wildly by player [related to health]. For me, "prime" refers to the period of time a player is playing at their customary high level; not every year a peak, but generally each year within this period is not tremendously far off their peak.

But it can be super short (e.g. like 2 years in the case of Bill Walton), or something like 13 years (in the case of someone like Karl Malone), or even longer (LeBron or Kareem??).
I would say it USUALLY falls somewhere in the neighborhood of AROUND 8 seasons.......but again, highly variable.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
scrabbarista
RealGM
Posts: 20,257
And1: 17,961
Joined: May 31, 2015

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#11 » by scrabbarista » Tue Mar 4, 2025 11:30 pm

Peak is one season.

Prime is very different for different players.
All human life on the earth is like grass, and all human glory is like a flower in a field. The grass dries up and its flower falls off, but the Lord’s word endures forever.
ty 4191
Veteran
Posts: 2,598
And1: 2,017
Joined: Feb 18, 2021
   

Re: What Time Frame Do You Prefer to Use When Discussing Peaks? 

Post#12 » by ty 4191 » Tue Mar 4, 2025 11:37 pm

Special_Puppy wrote:What time frame do you prefer to use when discussing peaks? 1-Year. 3-Years? 5 Years? 7-Years? 9-Years?


First of all, in all other sports, and perhaps other venues than Real GM Forums, we call it "prime", rather than "peak" (which is reductive in that most people consider it only 1 single year.

"Prime" is usually 5-10 years (many people choose 6-7 years), because it measures so much more, and ergo is more valid, reliable, and more accurately representative of a player at their absolute best.

Return to Player Comparisons