#1 Highest Peak of All Time (Jordan '91 wins)

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

PTB Fan
Junior
Posts: 261
And1: 1
Joined: Sep 24, 2011

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#101 » by PTB Fan » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:34 pm

C-izMe wrote:I have one big issue here. Should "most dominant" get 1st over "most perfect".any players can argue for most dominant but most perfect is 91 Jordan (he had one bad game all year in 99 games), 03 Duncan (can't think of any bad PS games), or 94 Hakeem (3-4 legitimately bad games with about 7 below average games). Most dominate comes down to 00 Shaq (unstoppable, 2nd best defender in a 29 team league) and 67 Wilt (amazing offensive player and great defensive anchor).

I need to stop over thinking this I think.


It's a real pain in the ass when you get in a situation like that.

I hate it when it happens to me. Greatness can be defined in so many ways.
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#102 » by ThaRegul8r » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:53 pm

ElGee wrote:Well, since no player can individually win a game, and variance is abundant in the sport, losing would not disqualify someone from being the best ever. And since that's the case, all you are really doing is saying because Shaq had TWO GAMES below his own standards, you are disqualifying him, regardless of whether his standard the rest of the time was better than everyone else's. You can do that, but it's totally illogical. How do you know Chamberlain didn't have two 15 TOV games in 1967 or two atrocious defensive games?


It's not just two random games, they're the last two games of the conference finals. I find it interesting that, for example, Magic Johnson gets praise for ONE GAME in his first finals appearance and wins series MVP because of it because he came up big when the team needed it, but then I'm being "illogical" for holding a player accountable for a decidedly non-"MDE" performance from a player who's bandied strength is his unstoppability on the offense end in the two biggest games of a series they never should have won to begin with. I was under the impression that a player's actual performance mattered, but evidently I was mistaken. Portland choking is bad enough, because then it's more about what the other team didn't do than what the victors actually did. But in conjunction with Shaq having his worst two games at the precise moment his team is fighting for a Finals trip, and I can't give it the nod for #1 when there are other players who were consistently dominant the entire way. Why should I give Shaq credit for what Kobe did? As I said, if Portland didn't choke, then people would be talking about Shaq's choke. If it was Wilt, he'd get ripped for it. I don't do double standards.

And I'm not talking about some two, random meaningless games in the season. We know, for example, what Wilt did in the postseason. And I believe I specifically said, other people's mileage may vary. And as I also said, people can make up their own damn minds. I don't care how people vote, as I get no benefit however someone chooses to vote, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I said why for me it isn't #1. Other people can vote how they wish.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
User avatar
rrravenred
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,117
And1: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Location: Pulling at the loose threads of arguments since 2006

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#103 » by rrravenred » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:28 pm

C-izMe wrote:I have one big issue here. Should "most dominant" get 1st over "most perfect".any players can argue for most dominant but most perfect is 91 Jordan (he had one bad game all year in 99 games), 03 Duncan (can't think of any bad PS games), or 94 Hakeem (3-4 legitimately bad games with about 7 below average games). Most dominate comes down to 00 Shaq (unstoppable, 2nd best defender in a 29 team league) and 67 Wilt (amazing offensive player and great defensive anchor).

I need to stop over thinking this I think.


Perhaps! :D

More seriously, we're getting into the nitty-gritty of why we judge things in the way we do. Do we go by impact all time, relative to league, or based on team results?

Perfectibility (in the Confucian sense of the term) is one way of looking at it, which is where players like Wilt 67, Jordan 91 (to a degree Shaq and Hakeem as well - Erving and Duncan on arguably slightly lower level) come into it, in terms of there's not much to criticise and almost no flaws that would need redress (FT Shooting excepted for Shaq, of course!).

Then you've got players who are weaker in specific areas, but still have massive overall impact ('71 Alcindor, Magic '88, Bird '86, arguably Russell '64), who fail the global dominance test, but can be argued on the basis of their strengths.

Wouldn't say that any ways of looking at it are wrong, just that the frame of reference for greatness changes from person to person and it makes a bit of sense to do some self-analysis to work out why you have strong feelings for one player season or another...
ElGee wrote:You, my friend, have shoved those words into my mouth, which is OK because I'm hungry.


Got fallacy?
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,207
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#104 » by ElGee » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:32 pm

therealbig3 wrote:according to SPM, which seems to be more valuable than APM


How do you figure this? SPM is a box-score based stat...it's still orthogonal to APM.

David Stern wrote:Anyway, Wilt clearly had big positive impact on 76ers, but years before and after him don't show GOAT peak level impact. 1967 season is one of these Chamberlain's myths, but it's easier to believe this one because he finally won something and played more team ball than ever. Add great box score numbers (as always) and GOAT season myth is created. But in reality his impact wasn't that great that year, I honestly don't think it was bigger than Walton '77...


I don't think it was bigger at all. This doesn't even seem like a radical thought. Nash has bigger impact years than Jordan does because of team circumstance. I don't expect 77 Walton to have the same impact on every team he goes to. As I've said before, if David Robinson backs up David Robinson, it doesn't make him a lesser player! His impact would look totally minimal...because his backup is awesome. That's the difference between conditional "value" and how good someone is. We are saddled with a sample size of ONE (team setting) and we need to be aware of that when he evaluate players.


-----
I assume someone else is going to make the case for Michael Jordan, so I'll delve more into why I think so highly of Shaq in 2000. We don't have +/- data for 2000 (we do for 01 and 02), but we can look at the 16 games Kobe Bryant missed in 2000:

2000 LA Lakers

They slid Derek Fisher into the starting role for Bryant, meaning with this lineup (stats from first 16g):

Fisher (10.3 ppg 49% TS)
Harper (7.6 ppg 45% TS)
Rice (17.4 ppg 57% TS)
AC Green (6.6 ppg 51% TS)

they were a +6.7 SRS team for 15g (Shaq missed the 7th game). Fox, Shaw, Lue and Horry played 15-20 mpg off the bench.

In those games, they played roughly average offense and -7.0 defense. Shaq went to the line like a maniac, and shot 59% from the floor (averaged 29-14-3)-- Kobe didn't exactly impact Shaq's game because no one could handle Shaq in the post. Jackson tried to space the floor around O'Neal with shooters and run the TPO through him, only in those games Rice, Fisher, Fox, Harper, George, Lue and Shaw shot 34% from 3. This was not exactly the 95 Rockets shooting 3's.

They finished the year +3 in offense (~ +5 with Kobe the rest of the way).

In the 2000 PS, they posted a +8.7 offense. (21st 3-pt era)
In the 2001 PS, they posted a +12.2 offense (3rd 3-pt era)

O'Neal obviously improved his individual metrics in 2000, posting a 27.8% DRB% (20.4 overall), a 4.3% block% (slight RS decline) and only 8% TOV rate. He also saw a slight decline in efficiency at 56% TS, but not when adjusted for opponent strength.

In 2001 we DO have on/off data.

2001 LA Lakers
-21.6 per 48 w/out Kobe and Shaq (347 mp)
+3.6 per 48 w/Shaq and no Kobe (844 mp)
-2.1 per 48 w/Kobe and no Shaq (713 mp)
+9.2 per 48 w/Shaq and Kobe (2079 mp)

If we include the PS they were +10.4 with Shaq and Kobe in the game. So, with Shaq not being quite as good as he was the year before, we still have some evidence that the Lakers were an absolutely historically bad disaster without him (look at that team!) and yet with him they were better than a 50-win team.

2002 LA Lakers
0.2 per 48 w/out Kobe and Shaq (395 mp)
+13.4 per 48 w/Shaq and no Kobe (497 mp)
+0.6 per 48 w/Kobe and no Shaq (1141 mp)
+10.7 per 48 w/Shaq and Kobe (1923 mp)

Again we see a similar pattern of value with O'Neal...

And so this is the takeaway: Shaq's got amazing "+/-" impact numbers. So does Bill Walton. So do a few other players we would expect. What matters to me is HOW he got those numbers and if it's simply a matter of conditional value, or can we place Shaq on any team and get the same results?

Well, since there is clear evidence over multiple years during this "peak" Shaq period of him being able to take a team with the following construction:

-decent defenders, at best
-decent outside shooters
-no other creators or particular specialists

And make them a 50+ win team, I know that other players aren't really "helping" O'Neal. He's "helping" everyone else. I can replace the second-best center in the league with Shaq, get stifling defense (not laterally or on the PnR, but rim protection and defensive rebounding, yes) AND offense that will approach unstoppable. I can surround Shaq with better shooters, and the numbers should be better (see: Derek Fisher's spot-up shooting display in the 2001 PS.) I can surround him with defensive players and still get capable offense from him alone.

I'm not sure what other play in NBA history gives me that combination. There really is no such thing with redundancy with O'Neal, on either end of the court. The secret to his success, IMO, and something Phil Jackson understood, was that he could play the mid-post game. That allowed for proper spacing, but it also took advantage of Shaq's good passing. And since he really was an efficient scoring beast going one-on-one -- how do you like your whole front line being fouled out otherwise you give up like 1.4 to 1.5 ppp against his isolation? -- he dictated to basically ANY defense in the league.

I have his peak on par with Jordan's, and no one else's. (I will size up MJ next if no one else will make the case)
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,207
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#105 » by ElGee » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:43 pm

ThaRegul8r wrote:
ElGee wrote:Well, since no player can individually win a game, and variance is abundant in the sport, losing would not disqualify someone from being the best ever. And since that's the case, all you are really doing is saying because Shaq had TWO GAMES below his own standards, you are disqualifying him, regardless of whether his standard the rest of the time was better than everyone else's. You can do that, but it's totally illogical. How do you know Chamberlain didn't have two 15 TOV games in 1967 or two atrocious defensive games?


It's not just two random games, they're the last two games of the conference finals. I find it interesting that, for example, Magic Johnson gets praise for ONE GAME in his first finals appearance and wins series MVP because of it because he came up big when the team needed it, but then I'm being "illogical" for holding a player accountable for a decidedly non-"MDE" performance from a player who's bandied strength is his unstoppability on the offense end in the two biggest games of a series they never should have won to begin with. I was under the impression that a player's actual performance mattered, but evidently I was mistaken. Portland choking is bad enough, because then it's more about what the other team didn't do than what the victors actually did. But in conjunction with Shaq having his worst two games at the precise moment his team is fighting for a Finals trip, and I can't give it the nod for #1 when there are other players who were consistently dominant the entire way. Why should I give Shaq credit for what Kobe did? As I said, if Portland didn't choke, then people would be talking about Shaq's choke. If it was Wilt, he'd get ripped for it. I don't do double standards.

And I'm not talking about some two, random meaningless games in the season. We know, for example, what Wilt did in the postseason. And I believe I specifically said, other people's mileage may vary. And as I also said, people can make up their own damn minds. I don't care how people vote, as I get no benefit however someone chooses to vote, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I said why for me it isn't #1. Other people can vote how they wish.


The last two games of the CF's are no different than the first two. 2 games in a series is a 2 games in a series. His team was "fighting for a Finals trip" from the opening tip of the series.

You seem to be missing my point so I'll elaborate: "Kobe" didn't do work. Players don't win or lose games. If Wilt's teammates don't score, he loses every game. Ever. So you wouldn't give Shaq a hint of "credit" for anything ANYONE ELSE did, because it has nothing to do with Shaq. You'd give him credit for his performance. Just like you'd give Wilt credit for his. The question is, which player would make it more likely for his team to win?

I don't know what Magic has to do with this or what other people say...I was very specifically pointing to YOUR mileage. ;) You can either take it as some sort of an empty attack, or think about what I'm telling you...what you've outlined there in front of me for why you aren't voting for Shaq, it doesn't make much sense.

There would be no G6 or G7 if Portland were a weaker team, or if Shaq's teammates were stronger. I don't see you going off on Chamberlain for his 2 bad shooting games against the Celtics. *shrug* And, in general, placing much stock in TWO basketball games is a horrible idea.
User avatar
Dipper 13
Starter
Posts: 2,276
And1: 1,439
Joined: Aug 23, 2010

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#106 » by Dipper 13 » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:47 pm

ThaRegul8r wrote:No one here knows more about Russell than I do. There is no source other than what a poster here said one day. Same as when another poster claimed Kareem was injured against Nate Thurmond, which explains why he got shut down by Thurmond in the postseason, it wasn't that Thurmond's defensive ability had anything to do with it. Just excuses and attempted rationalizations.



I can vaguely recall reading an article dated a few years after the Sixers championship referring to it as "tainted". However it did not give any reasoning, nor did it mention a Bill Russell injury. I guess the closest would be Game 1, when Russell was said to have vomited & come out of the game for a bit after taking an elbow from Chet Walker.

This is the game where Wilt & Greer imposed their will and set the tone for the series.


Video Highlights (6:30 mark)


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq87va



Hartford Courant - Apr 1, 1967

Greer pumped in 39 points, mostly on long jump shots, while Chamberlain grabbed 32 rebounds, handed out 12 assists, scored 24 points and blocked a dozen shots.



Los Angeles Times - Apr 1, 1967

PHILADELPHIA - The devastating inside-outside duo of Wilt Chamberlain and Hal Greer carried the Philadelphia 76ers to a 127-113 victory over the Boston Celtics Friday night for a 1-0 lead in the best-of-seven series.


Reading Eagle - Apr 1, 1967


Image
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,207
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#107 » by ElGee » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:58 pm

One of the basketball columnists (syndicated) wrote a scathing review of Wilt in the early 70's. I can't remember his name right now -- someone colorful. He referred to the 67 championship as "tainted" but did not offer a reason. As far as I know, this is the closest thing to "evidence" that Russell was injured in 1967.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#108 » by ThaRegul8r » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:08 pm

ElGee wrote:One of the basketball columnists (syndicated) wrote a scathing review of Wilt in the early 70's. I can't remember his name right now -- someone colorful. He referred to the 67 championship as "tainted" but did not offer a reason. As far as I know, this is the closest thing to "evidence" that Russell was injured in 1967.


I'm searching my database, but I'm guessing that by "tainted" this columnist was likely referring to the Sixers blowing a 3-1 lead the following season, inferring that '67 was thus a fluke or aberration. I'm almost positive that had to be it, but as I dislike assuming anything, I'll see if I have the article in question somewhere. I have an idea of who it likely was.

But I know for a fact that there is no evidence to support the assertion that Russell was injured in '67. It's the only year that a healthy Russell failed to win a championship. Which is incredible.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
User avatar
Dipper 13
Starter
Posts: 2,276
And1: 1,439
Joined: Aug 23, 2010

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#109 » by Dipper 13 » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:17 pm

Perhaps it may have been Jim Murray.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,540
And1: 16,104
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#110 » by therealbig3 » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:17 pm

ElGee wrote:How do you figure this? SPM is a box-score based stat...it's still orthogonal to APM.


Well, like I said, I'm going off mainly what mystic's posted before regarding the value of APM and SPM:

mysticbb wrote:And again, what exactly is Ilardi's study giving us? What can we do with those values? Using the values to calculate in hindsight how much the scoring margin was for a team in any given season will give us a pretty bad estimate. Using the values to predict the outcome of future games will gives a clearly worse prediction. The usefulness of a model is decided by the ability to explain and predict. Models based on normal regression are losing out in that in comparison to models build on ridge regression. In fact APM models are clearly worse than my boxscore based metric. Using my SPM you will find a much better estimation of what happened and it is also better at predicting upcoming games. APM is really not that good.


I'm not a statistician, but mystic seems to believe that his SPM is better in terms of reliability and predictability than APM. I'm not sure how he figured that (hopefully, he'll chime in), but that to me suggests that SPM is a better tool than APM. But I do realize that SPM is box-score based while APM has nothing to do with the box score. But it seems that SPM tells you more about player value.

And from what I've read about RAPM vs APM, there doesn't seem to be much of a point to using APM anyway. RAPM seems to be clearly better. So for the cases that we do have the data, I agree with mystic that the best approach is to use RAPM and SPM together, along with common sense.
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#111 » by ThaRegul8r » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:51 pm

Hmm. I had to cross-reference because the article was actually talking about Lew Alcindor and mentioned Wilt in passing. Written by the NEA in March of 1971:

NEA wrote:An NBA championship for the Bucks would embellish Alcindor's achievement and might prevent him from suffering the fate of Wilt Chamberlain, who won the MVP award as a rookie but has been able to lead a team to only one tainted league championship and never was able to lead a team past Boston when his arch-opponent, Bill Russell, was healthy.


It's simply a case of a writer not knowing what he's talking about. Nothing more. There have been other instances, such as when George Johnson blocked 13 shots in a 131-126 win over the Golden State Warriors in the 1980-81 season, and the Associated Press wrote: "Johnson's latest rejection performance was his sixth time with 10 or more blocks in a game. In contrast, the legendary Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain never had a 10-block game." We know this to be categorically false. We know Chamberlain had a 23-block game among others, and we know Russell was blocking 10+ shots in games in his last season in the league. In '64, he had 12 blocks in the fourth quarter alone in one game, which is one less than Johnson had that entire game. I could cite another instances. Some people simply don't know ehat they're talking about. It's no different than some posters here or on any other internet message board.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
User avatar
rrravenred
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,117
And1: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Location: Pulling at the loose threads of arguments since 2006

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#112 » by rrravenred » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:55 pm

ElGee wrote:I assume someone else is going to make the case for Michael Jordan, so I'll delve more into why I think so highly of Shaq in 2000... <snippety snip>


Yeah. Sums up my case for O'Neal in that it's not just his personal production, but the effect he has on both his own and the opposing team, especially with his excellent passing (which you can argue is his real edge of Hakeem), which makes opposing teams seriously consider the wisdom of throwing half the team at Shaq whenever he posts up, especially when you've got three players on the court who can nail the open 3.

That was also the season where he was at his passing and defensive peak, and was also focused on just playing basketball, rather than peripheral crap (shades of Wilt, in that respect).
ElGee wrote:You, my friend, have shoved those words into my mouth, which is OK because I'm hungry.


Got fallacy?
SilkStream
Banned User
Posts: 279
And1: 1
Joined: Jun 29, 2012

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#113 » by SilkStream » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:27 am

Hey guys, would like to add some information about 00 Shaq.

I see some people complaining about Shaqs decline in offensive production in G6 and G7 against Portland but as someone who watched the series live and on youtube since I think it is pretty unfair to blame him.

He secured a G1 victory for LA with an incredible 41 / 11 / 7ast / 5blk game.
In the next two victorys he posted 26 / 12 / 3apg / 2.5bpg on 53%FG while shooting 71% from the line.

In Game 5 LAL lost a close game (where they could have advanced to the Finals) because his supporting cast just did not show up.
O'neal had an incredible game with 31 / 21 / 3ast / 2bpg on 62%TS

Kobe had 17 on 30% shooting
Rice went 1-8
Horry went 3-11
Fisher 2-6
Fox 1-5
etc...

I also wonder who on earth was guarding Pippen that game who had 22 / 6 / 3 / 6stl / 4blk on 66%FG / 73%TS
That was an amazing game by Pippen.

Anyway the Portland strategy in G6 and G7 changed.
They decided to force Shaq to give up the ball at all costs and make others beat them.
Had they gone to this stategy earlier in the series they may have actually made the Finals.
That isn't a knock on Shaq but more a knock on his supporting cast.

Their defensive strategy was to have have Sabonis stand under the basket and provide a guy big enough so that Shaq couldn't just get good position near the basket before he caught the ball.
Instead, he'd have to catch the ball further away and that allowed other Portland defenders to come when he put the ball on the floor.
They wouldn't allow him more than 1 dribble without him being surrounded by 3 different defenders.
Pippen was key to that strategy.
It really was a team effort, I can't count how many times Bob Costas said "and Portland holds a team meeting around O'Neal" in the 2000 WCF.

So while Kobe and others stepped up and went to work in G7 a big reason they were able to be so successful on the offensive end was the incredible amount of defensive attention Shaq demanded and how much pressure he constantly put on the opposing defense.

Shaq didn't fold under pressure and he consistently passed out when surrounded and this was apparent by his sudden rise in APG.
After averaging 3.3apg in the previous four games (he had 7 in G1) he averaged 5apg in the last two games
(5 in each game).
He also led LA in 4th Q scoring in G7 with 9 points and was key in leading the LA rally back after Sabonis fouled out.
In that G7 he also went 5-9 from the field and 8-12 from the line including making a bunch of huge FT's in a row down the stretch of the game.

So really while some argue he could have played better (and maybe he could have) I thought he played pretty well and simply reacted to the defense.
As unstoppable as he was its hard to beat a triple team that seems tailor made to stopping you with a heavy unmovable defender in Sabonis, a long athletic defender in Prime Wallace and a GOAT/long help defender in Pippen.

Then in the Finals they faced a pretty good team in the Pacers who had Rose/Miller on the perimeter and Shaq basically single handedly carried his team to the Championship. Kobe outside of G4 was not much of a factor.

Also it makes me laugh when people say Smits, Smits, Smits.
Rik Smits was not the primary defender on Shaq, All-Star Dale Davis was.
Davis was an excellent post defender. He was 285 pounds of pure muscle, very strong and very athletic.
Shaq made him look like a small child.
Not to mention the Pacers at times were doubling Shaq without the ball and frequently triple teaming him and like Portland did in previous rounds seemed to hold "team meetings" around Shaq at times and still he could not be stopped.

Yes I give Kobe credit for G4 where he finished off the Pacers but Shaq was the one who carried them throughout the game and had scored 16 points combined in the 4th Q + OT before fouling out.
Shaq's 11.5ppg average in the 4th quarters of the 2000 Finals is also an All-Time record.
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,738
And1: 5,709
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#114 » by An Unbiased Fan » Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:10 am

ElGee wrote:I assume someone else is going to make the case for Michael Jordan, so I'll delve more into why I think so highly of Shaq in 2000. We don't have +/- data for 2000 (we do for 01 and 02), but we can look at the 16 games Kobe Bryant missed in 2000:

2000 LA Lakers

They slid Derek Fisher into the starting role for Bryant, meaning with this lineup (stats from first 16g):

Fisher (10.3 ppg 49% TS)
Harper (7.6 ppg 45% TS)
Rice (17.4 ppg 57% TS)
AC Green (6.6 ppg 51% TS)

they were a +6.7 SRS team for 15g (Shaq missed the 7th game). Fox, Shaw, Lue and Horry played 15-20 mpg off the bench.

In those games, they played roughly average offense and -7.0 defense. Shaq went to the line like a maniac, and shot 59% from the floor (averaged 29-14-3)-- Kobe didn't exactly impact Shaq's game because no one could handle Shaq in the post. Jackson tried to space the floor around O'Neal with shooters and run the TPO through him, only in those games Rice, Fisher, Fox, Harper, George, Lue and Shaw shot 34% from 3. This was not exactly the 95 Rockets shooting 3's.

They finished the year +3 in offense (~ +5 with Kobe the rest of the way).

In the 2000 PS, they posted a +8.7 offense. (21st 3-pt era)
In the 2001 PS, they posted a +12.2 offense (3rd 3-pt era)

O'Neal obviously improved his individual metrics in 2000, posting a 27.8% DRB% (20.4 overall), a 4.3% block% (slight RS decline) and only 8% TOV rate. He also saw a slight decline in efficiency at 56% TS, but not when adjusted for opponent strength.

In 2001 we DO have on/off data.

2001 LA Lakers
-21.6 per 48 w/out Kobe and Shaq (347 mp)
+3.6 per 48 w/Shaq and no Kobe (844 mp)
-2.1 per 48 w/Kobe and no Shaq (713 mp)
+9.2 per 48 w/Shaq and Kobe (2079 mp)

If we include the PS they were +10.4 with Shaq and Kobe in the game. So, with Shaq not being quite as good as he was the year before, we still have some evidence that the Lakers were an absolutely historically bad disaster without him (look at that team!) and yet with him they were better than a 50-win team.

2002 LA Lakers
0.2 per 48 w/out Kobe and Shaq (395 mp)
+13.4 per 48 w/Shaq and no Kobe (497 mp)
+0.6 per 48 w/Kobe and no Shaq (1141 mp)
+10.7 per 48 w/Shaq and Kobe (1923 mp)

Again we see a similar pattern of value with O'Neal...

And so this is the takeaway: Shaq's got amazing "+/-" impact numbers. So does Bill Walton. So do a few other players we would expect. What matters to me is HOW he got those numbers and if it's simply a matter of conditional value, or can we place Shaq on any team and get the same results?

Well, since there is clear evidence over multiple years during this "peak" Shaq period of him being able to take a team with the following construction:

-decent defenders, at best
-decent outside shooters
-no other creators or particular specialists

And make them a 50+ win team, I know that other players aren't really "helping" O'Neal. He's "helping" everyone else. I can replace the second-best center in the league with Shaq, get stifling defense (not laterally or on the PnR, but rim protection and defensive rebounding, yes) AND offense that will approach unstoppable. I can surround Shaq with better shooters, and the numbers should be better (see: Derek Fisher's spot-up shooting display in the 2001 PS.) I can surround him with defensive players and still get capable offense from him alone.

I'm not sure what other play in NBA history gives me that combination. There really is no such thing with redundancy with O'Neal, on either end of the court. The secret to his success, IMO, and something Phil Jackson understood, was that he could play the mid-post game. That allowed for proper spacing, but it also took advantage of Shaq's good passing. And since he really was an efficient scoring beast going one-on-one -- how do you like your whole front line being fouled out otherwise you give up like 1.4 to 1.5 ppp against his isolation? -- he dictated to basically ANY defense in the league.

I have his peak on par with Jordan's, and no one else's. (I will size up MJ next if no one else will make the case)

There's a huge problem with this train of thought.

1) In 2000, the Lakers had Glen Rice along with Kobe. So while Kobe was hurt, they still had a good scorer to fill some of that void.

And while the did start they year 11-4 without Kobe, you forgot to factor in SOS. Only 3 of those wins came against an opponent with a SRS above 0.

2) It should also be noted that LA's backups at center during the 2000-02 period consisted of Travis Knight, Medvedenko, and Madsen.

It's quite a bit unfair to guys like MJ, Wilt, KAJ, etc., to use these type of numbers when his replacements were fairly horrible. Since this discussion centers around 2000 Shaq, the fact that his backup posted a PER of 9.5, may explain those numbers a bit more.

3) Shaq didn't have the greatest offensive, nor defensive, nor rebounding peak in 2000. So one has to ask in what way his peak was the GOAT. He had an epic run in the PS to be sure, but it came against an old Divac, old Longley, old Sabonis, and old Smits.

His scoring of 30.7 PPG on 55.6% TS in the PS, is not the GOAT, especially considering his competition in the middle that year. He did dominate the boards in the PS to the tune of a 20.4% TRB, but the Lakers really weren't a great defensive team with a 107.5 DRtg.

When you look at 2000, series by series, Shaq feasted on weak frontcourts, and came back to Earth against the one quality frontcourt he face(Portland). And while many remember LA facing a game 7 in the WCF, most forget they faced a game 5 elimination against the Kings, mainly due to Shaq posting a 41.5% TS in the Game 3 & 4 in Sacramento. His greatest strength that PS was on the boards, but offensively he was a bit up & down, and defensively he wasn't at his RS effort level.

Overall, I think Shaq's peak needs a bit more scrutiny, especially considering how Wilt is treated.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,423
And1: 9,951
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#115 » by penbeast0 » Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:11 am

ThaRegul8r wrote:....I could cite another instances. Some people simply don't know ehat they're talking about. It's no different than some posters here or on any other internet message board.


Other internet message boards maybe but NOT HERE! :clown:
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Erving '75-76 

Post#116 » by ThaRegul8r » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:47 am

Doctor MJ wrote:In the '75-76 ABA season, Julius Erving led his team to the title. In doing so, he led his team in points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals, making him the only player in history to do this while winning a title (LeBron would have been the 2nd if his team had won in '08-09). Also of interest, he did this while being arguably the most graceful player in history, winning the inaugural slam dunk contest, becoming known as "the League" for his combination of talent, grace, and universal leadership he displayed.

In the finals, he went for 37 & 14 while being the focus of the opponent's defense, and especially of all-world defender Bobby Jones. It might be the most impressive "biggest stage" performance in history.


Game 1 @ Denver: New York 120, Denver 118

Associated Press wrote:Nets’ Erving Is A One-Man Show

DENVER (AP)—“The Doctor was great,” said Denver Nugget Coach Larry Brown, licking his wounds after Julius “Dr. J” Erving almost single-handedly whipped his club.

“I’ve never seen him play better,” said Nugget forward Bobby Jones, a bit baffled at the ineffectiveness of his defensive efforts against Erving.

“The Doc is the greatest player in the world,” said New York Nets Coach Kevin Loughery, whose team rallied behind Erving to take a 1-0 edge in the best-of-seven American Basketball Association championship series.

The 6-foot-7 Erving scored 45 points, many of them on the incredible variety of shots that only he can make. But the most important points came on a 20-foot baseline jumper at the buzzer that gave the Nets a 120-118 triumph Saturday night before a league-record crowd of 19,034.

The Nuggets’ task in Game Two, scheduled here Tuesday night, is obvious: stop Erving.


Associated Press wrote:Nuggets’ Big Task - Halt Erving

Denver, Colo.—AP—Second shots, rhythm and Julius Erving, not necessarily in that order, put the New York Nets in command, for now at least, of the American Basketball Association championship playoffs.

Now you can add Nets momentum to that list of problems the regular season champion Denver Nuggets must solve Tuesday night to get back in the title picture.

“We must do a better job on Julius,” said Larry Brown, the Nuggets’ coach, as he tried to analyze what went wrong in Saturday night’s 120-118 Net victory that gave New York a 1-0 lead in the best of seven series.

It was an understatement.

Scored 45 Points

“When the rhythm got going, I just kept it up,” said Dr. J, who scored 45 points, including 10 of the Nets’ last 11 and the last two on a 15 foot baseline jumper at the buzzer.

He tried 36 shots from the field and the free throw line, scoring on 28. He had 12 rebounds and four assists. And he forced Bobby Jones, the Denver forward who’s acknowledged among the best defensive players in the ABA, into six fouls.

In addition, he was a demon under the Nets’ offensive boards. In a span of four minutes of the final quarter he rebounded four shots into the basket.

Starred Inside

“I started out trying to play an inside game, posting up with my back to the basket, 15 feet in,” Erving said. “I had some success with it, and they had some people in foul trouble.”

Erving said he was concerned over a possible overtime when 7 foot 1 Nugget rookie Marvin Webster stuffed a rebound with four seconds to go to tie the score. “I thought about it for a split second, and obviously they were negative thoughts,” Erving said. “If we had to play five more minutes, I would have just had to reach back for more.”



Game 2 @ Denver: Denver 127, New York 121

Associated Press wrote:Dr. J on Target, But Nuggets Triumph

DENVER (AP) — Denver Nuggets Coach Larry Brown insisted his team “learned a lot of things” after dropping the opening game of its American Basketball Association championship series with the New York Nets.

One of the lessons, obviously, was how to beat the Nets. Denver got its fast-break offense rolling in the second half and got better inside penetration with the ball to post a 127-121 victory last night and square the best-of-seven series at 1-1. Game Three will be played Thursday night in New York.

Some remedial work, however, will be necessary on how to stop New York forward Julius “Dr. J” Erving.

Erving, who scored 45 points in the opener, tossed in 48 last night. As in the first game, Erving did pretty much what he wanted.


His 25 points in the fourth quarter set a pro basketball playoff-game record for scoring in a period, and his 37 points in the second half likewise set a pro playoff mark.

“The way he’s playing now it’s incredible,” said Denver forward Bobby Jones, who has the unenviable task of defending Erving.

“We’ve tried to keep him outside, away from the basket,” Jones said. “And we have to deny him the ball as much as possible. But it’s tough, and he’s really shooting well besides.”

Erving connected on 15 of 23 two-point field goal attempts, a pair of three-pointers, and 12 of 16 foul shots. He added 14 rebounds, eight assists, three steals and a blocked shot.

But Erving’s efforts were in vain as Denver’s balanced scoring attack prevailed before an ABA record crowd of 19,107.

Guard Ralph Simpson, forced to play all but two minutes of the game because of a shortage of backcourt performers, had 25 points. Forwards Jones and David Thompson and center Dan Issel each scored 24.

Jones and Thompson both scored 12 points in the third period as the Nuggets surged to a 12-point lead.

After the Nets pulled within two points early in the fourth quarter, Issel hit five quick baskets, helping Denver take a 101-92 edge with 7:27 remaining.

But the Nuggets still had Erving to contend with. A flurry of steals that produced baskets and Erving’s three-point goal pulled the Nets within four points with 1:26 left.

The Nets were to get no closer, as Simpson promptly scored on a three-point play and Jones added a field goal for a 126-117 lead.



Game 3 @ New York: New York 117, Denver 111

Associated Press wrote: UNIONDALE, N.Y. (AP) New York’s Julius Erving played it low key as usual, but Denver Coach Larry Brown and rookie David Thompson were visibly upset after the Nets had beaten the Nuggets 117-111 Thursday night in the third game of their American Basketball Association championship series.

Erving’ the Nets’ star for the third consecutive game, scored his team’s final eight points and blocked two shots in the closing two minutes. Afterward, he said confidently, but not boastfully, “I can make any (offensive) play I want in any given situation.”

He had broken loose in the closing minutes after playing a sub-par game for him until then. After having gone wild in the first two games, with 45 points and 48, respectively, he was forced to be more reserved this time because of five early personal fouls.

“It was good, I thought, for the rest of the team to be put in the position of having to play so long without me,” said Erving, who was limited to 35 minutes after averaging 44 in the opening two games of the series.

“But I wasn’t worried,” he continued. “I thought when I got back in, I would be a lot stronger. However, I didn’t want to disrupt the team because John (Williamson) was shooting so well. I knew my shots would come.”

They did.


Emergency surgery lifts Nets

UNIONDALE, N.Y. — Now, about Dr. J.

Julius Erving carries that affectionate nickname because of the way he operates on the basketball court. The Denver Nuggets can understand that.

The New York Nets hold a 2-1 edge over the Nuggets in the American Basketball Association championship playoff mostly because of the Doctor’s operations. Game Four is scheduled tonight.

Shackled by five personal fouls, Erving was limited to only 35 minutes of action. He came off the bench in the last 65 seconds with New York leading by a single point.

FIRST, Dr. J scored on a drive, giving New York a three-point lead. Then he blocked shots by Bobby Jones and Chuck Williams, the latter in a 3-on-1 situation.

Denver’s David Thompson tied the score with a three-point play. But with 31 seconds left, Erving connected on a reverse, left-handed layup, breaking the 111-tie. Then he came up with a loose ball and converted two free throws. And finally he pulled down the rebound on Denver’s last shot and drove the length of the court for a soaring stuff shot that almost defied description.

Erving finished with 31 points — eight of them in that final, frantic minute. That followed 45 points in the first game, won by the Nets, and 48 in the second, taken by Denver.

“It was a good win, but not a good game for me,” said Erving, who picked up three of his fouls in the first period and then two more at the start of the third.



Game 4 @ New York: New York 121, Denver 112

Associated Press wrote: UNIONDALE — Julius Erving put on another one-man show with 34 points and 16 rebounds and the New York Nets capitalized on excellent team defense to move within one victory of their second ABA championship in the last three years with a 121-112 triumph over the sagging Denver Nuggets Saturday night.

Erving ran his four-game total in the championship series to 158 as he combined with reserve center Jim Eakins to dominate the Nuggets completely in the second half.

Denver, trailing in all but the first period, now takes a three-games-to-one-disadvantage back home for the fifth game Tuesday night.

Eakins came off the bench to score 13 of his 17 points in the second half. Neither Dan Issel nor rookie reserve Marvin Webster could keep Eakins from laying in easy taps and grabbing rebounds in the final period.

Issel led Denver with 26 points and 15 rebounds, while David Thompson, playing with a sore leg, scored 23. John Williamson notched 24 for New York and backcourt mate Brian Taylor had 23.

Leading, 89-82, after three quarters, the Nets kept the pressure on at both ends to stretch it to 95-84 in only 90 seconds. Spearheaded by Erving and Eakins, the Nets increased the bulge to 116-97 with three minutes left in the game, then coasted to the final buzzer.

Denver ran out to a 12-4 lead as the Nets started the game cold from the floor. New York fell behind, 22-11, before putting together any semblance of an attack. A brief surge by Erving and Williamson helped the Nets close to 34-29 by the end of the first period.

The Nets clamped down on defense in the second quarter, holding Denver to only eight points in the first 6½ minutes, while scoring 14 and taking a 61-57 lead at the half.

Williamson notched 18 points in the first half, while Erving added 13 points and nine rebounds. Issel had 15 points and nine rebounds for Denver.

New York benefitted from its continued strong defense in the third quarter when they began to run and shoot better. Taylor hit an 18-footer, blocked a shot and hit another 18-footer to give the Nets their biggest lead to that point, 85-75, with three minutes to go in the period.

While the Nets celebrated loudly with beer, the Nuggets were extremely quiet.

“I don’t think I’m trying to win it all by myself,” Erving said. “It was simply that (Rich) Jones got into foul trouble and I had to help out on rebounds. Eakins had a great game and he would be starting on most other clubs.

“I don’t think it’s all over, but we’re confident,” Net coach Kevin Loughery said.


Without him,” says Joe Mullaney, who coached the Spirits of St. Louis this season and who once coached the Los Angeles Lakers, “the Nets would be a mediocre team.”

With him, the Nets probably will win the ABA championship for the second time in three seasons since he was obtained from the Virginia Squires, the latest ABA team to go bankrupt.



Game 5 @ Denver: Denver 118, New York 110

Denver stymies Nets despite Dr. J’s 37

DENVER — Veteran guard Chuck Williams teamed with rookie forward David Thompson to direct a 42-point third-quarter rally Tuesday night, giving Denver a 118-110 win over the New York Nets and keeping alive the Nuggets’ hopes of winning the American Basketball Association championship.

The loss left the Nets with a 3-2 advantage in the best-of-seven title series, with the sixth game scheduled Thursday night at Nassau Coliseum in New York and the seventh, if necessary, on Sunday in Denver.

WILLIAMS, WHO averaged only 11 points per game in the regular season, scored 20 points, including 10 in the third quarter as Denver jumped to a lead of as much as 16 points. Thompson, ABA Rookie of the Year, had nine points in the third quarter and finished with 19.

Nets forward Julius Erving, the league’s Most Valuable Player, again dominated the game with 37 points, but it wasn’t enough to stop Denver’s more balanced attack. In the first four games of the series, Erving hit 158 points in 168 minutes of play.

The Nuggets, making their first appearance in a title playoff series, trailed by as many as 16 points in the second period but rallied to trail New York by only six, 53-47, at halftime.

DENVER, WHICH has been an explosive third-quarter team all year, outscored New York 10-2 in the opening minutes of the period and led 89-73 going into the final period.

John Williamson scored 24 points for New York, 18 in the final quarter, while teammate Al Skinner had 17 and Brian Taylor finished with 13. Taylor was ejected from the game early in the fourth quarter after getting into a fight with Denver guard Monte Towe.

Guard Ralph Simpson, who engineers Denver’s fast-break attack, and center Dan Issel finished with 21 points each. Bobby Jones added 17 and Gus Gerard 12.



Game 6 @ New York: New York 112, Denver 106
** Nets win ABA Title, 4 games to 2**


Erving, Nets Finish Off Nuggets

UNIONDALE, N.Y. (AP) — “I don’t ever expect to see this team give up,” said New York Coach Kevin Loughery, his clothes dripping with the joy of champagne. “They have too much confidence in themselves to do that.”

Thursday night, the Nets, despite falling 22 points behind Denver in the third quarter, didn’t give up. Combining the scoring of John Williamson and Julius Erving with a full-court pressure defense in the last quarter, they stormed back and overtook the Nuggets 112-106 to win the American Basketball Association championship.

Erving, the ABA’s Most Valuable Player for the third consecutive years, scored 31 points in the dramatic finale. Williamson, a confident but unheralded guard, was the catalyst in the fourth quarter, firing in 16 of New York’s 34 points. And the Nets’ defense, the best in the league throughout the regular season but porous early in the final game, finally asserted itself, limiting Denver to 14 points.

The tremendous comeback gave the Nets the best-of-seven series 4-2 and their second league championship in three years.

“You can only make a comeback like that when you have the guys who can play pressure defense,” said the joyous Loughery. “And we have them.

Coming out on top was much tougher this year because no one outside our organization expected it,” he added. “Before the season, Denver, San Antonio, Kentucky and even St. Louis were picked to finish ahead of us.

“But when we went to training camp on Sept. 15 we had only one goal in mind—and that was to win the championship.

“And we did it.”

Like their coach, most of the Nets’ players said they were not worried when the team fell behind by 22 points. The word they used was “concerned.”

“I never had any doubts we could come back,” said Jim Eakins, forced into the starting lineup because of any ankle injury that kept No. 1 center Kim Hughes on the bench. “I felt we could still win. But I felt we had to get moving right then. And fortunately we did.”



And this came after averaging 31.3 against San Antonio:

Game 1: New York 116, San Antonio 101 - Erving scores game-high 31.
Game 2: San Antonio 105, New York 79 - Erving lead the Nets with 27.
Game 3 @ SA: San Antonio 111, New York 103 - Erving scored a game-high 31.
Game 4 @ SA: New York 110, San Antonio 108 - Erving scored a game-high 35 points, and his dunk with time running out "put New York in the lead for the first time since early in the opening quarter."
Game 5: New York 110, San Antonio 108 - Erving had 32 points, 10 rebounds, six assists.
Game 6 @ SA: San Antonio 106, New York 105 - Erving had a game-high 35 points, 10 rebounds.
Game 7: New York 121, San Antonio 114 - Erving had 28 points, 18 rebounds and eight assists, which “were the critical ingredients that kept New York in the game most of the way.”

Doctor MJ wrote:The following year, as part of the merger that Erving's existence forced to happen, an existing NBA team got to have Erving. So he went from the Nets to the 76ers. Briefly, his year with the 76ers was quite good, however it differed first and foremost because on the 76ers the team already had their version of Erving in George McGinnis (who probably was the closest in build to LeBron we've ever seen), which gave us what is now a classic recipe for redundancy. Both players compromised, but especially the genial Erving who let McGinnis be ever so slightly the team's greater focal point (more shots, rebounds, assists). However, Erving obviously outperformed McGinnis (still ended up lead scorer on vastly superior efficiency, and led in modern advanced stats), and the eventually the team traded McGinnis.


People cite the '76-77 season and his reduced scoring average against Erving, but as is often the case, that's superficial "analysis" without acting looking deeply into the matter. The real problems here were bad fit and selfish teammates:

Although his teammates were in awe of his great athletic abilities, proven scorers like Doug Collins and Lloyd Free were not about to sacrifice any of their offensive game to appease the good Doctor. … “Here was the problem,” said Free, a rookie that season who now works in the 76ers’ community relations office. “A lot of us were young and wanted to make a name for ourselves; we had pretty big egos, and we wanted some of the accolades, too, so we went out there and did our thing. Sometimes, looking back on it, maybe we didn’t always get the ball to Doc when we should have gotten it to him. I think there was a lot of ego involved. We wanted to show the organization and our fans that we could play some ball as well. We wanted some of the respect that Doc always got.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that Doc was our leader; he knew how to lead, but we didn’t know how to follow. I went out there and took all my shots. [Doug] Collins was off doing his own thing, Darryl [Dawkins] was just trying to rip down as many backboards as he could, and Joe Bryant was out there putting the ball between his legs and doing all this fancy stuff. Doc did get frustrated at times, and I can’t blame him. He had a lot of meetings with the veteran guys like Billy Cunningham and George McGinnis and Steve Mix, but the guards just kind of stayed away from all that talk. We let the older, bigger guys try to hash it out, but it never really got resolved. That’s why it’s not always such a good thing when your team is as loaded [with big-name players] as we were, because you can just lose your way.”


(Emphasized for the NBA 2K-minded GMs who think you build a team by just throwing talent together.)

Doug Collins was a 20-point scorer per game, and he always needed somebody to throw the ball to him. Lloyd would come off the bench and shoot from everywhere—there was a lot of ego conflict going on there. The bottom line is that the 76ers were a pretty wild team in terms of shot selection and playing together out on the floor. They were a bunch of talented guys, but they were a little crazy, a little wild, and there was always a lot of competition for the ball.


That explains the regular season drop. Then once they got in the playoffs, Rick Barry prior to the Finals against Portland

suggested that the 76ers haven’t gotten the most out of Erving this season.

Maybe they missed the boat trying to share the responsibilities between Julius and George,” Barry said, referring to the Sixers’ other all-star forward, George McGinnis. “This is not a knock on George, don’t get me wrong. But they seem to be better off when Julius takes command.

“Look at the playoffs. With George suffering from a groin injury, Julius has taken over and the team has played better. When you have too many offensive weapons, you don’t know which one to go to. It’s hard to find the right chemistry.


In the Finals against Portland, Erving averaged 30.3 points on 54.3 percent shooting from the floor, 85.7 percent shooting from the line and 60.4 percent true shooting, 6.8 rebounds, 5 assists and 2.67 steals.

Julius Erving was magnificent in defeat, twice scoring 40 points and showing why he is regarded by his peers as the most dynamic player in the game.

But he received little help.

George McGinnis was embarrassingly inept for five of the six games of the final series and Doug Collins started quickly but fizzled in the last two games.

The other Sixers contributed little. So the series often seemed like a game of five-on-one, and Portland’s team concept overcame the individual brilliance of Erving.


The recently concluded National Basketball Association season will be best remembered for two significant events: the emergence of Bill Walton as one of the game’s dominant centers, and the proof that Julius Erving could play the game of basketball as well as anyone who had ever played before him.


There was no doubt in anyone's mind after the Finals that Erving was everything he was said to be.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — “I still think we have a championship team,” said Philadelphia superstar Julius Erving, the consummate court artisan. “We have a better team than Portland. We have more talent and more depth.”

But the Portland Trail Blazers – not the Philadelphia 76ers – are the National Basketball Association champions, and Erving knows why.

“They are cohesive,” he said. “They help each other better than we do. Their consistency enabled them to win.

“They have mental conditioning that they’ve developed in practices all year. They stuck with their basic game plan, the one they had been successful with all year.

“We attack defenses and try to create things. It was a matchup of opposing styles, and theirs won out.”

The Blazers won because, for all his individual brilliance, Erving could not offset the spotty play of his teammates.

George McGinnis was in a woeful slump which did not end until Sunday’s final game of the best-of-seven series, won by Portland 109-107 to give the Blazers the title four games to two.

Doug Collins played well until the last two games, when he tailed off badly. Centers Caldwell Jones and Darryl Dawkins were inconsistent, key reserves Lloyd Free and Steve Mix were hampered by injuries and playmaker Henry Bibby had trouble keeping pace with Portland’s speedier guards.


So, the team which had been conceded the championship by some people back in October, when Erving was purchased from the New York Nets, came up two victories short.

And the man who will take most of the heat for that shortcoming is Coach Gene Shue, who all along warned against expecting too much too soon.

“It takes time to mold a winning team,” said Shue over and over. “The players have to know each others’ moves and styles. It doesn’t happen overnight.”

And at least partly because of the undisciplined, free-spirited nature of the players Shue had to work with, the 76ers never did develop the cohesiveness that was so much a part of the Blazers’ victory plan.

“My philosophy is to play classic basketball, with great passes and great defense,” said Shue, describing concisely the game played by Portland. “But you have to coach the players you end up with.

“Naturally I would love to have a Bill Walton,” Shue said of the versatile Portland center. “Then we would play a classic style.

“But my job is to get the most out of the players I have. I don’t necessarily like the styles we use, but we win.”

But the fact remains, the 76ers did not win it all. Should Shue have tried to apply more of a disciplined approach to the group Erving described as “outlaws” and “a bunch of renegades?”

Shue said he felt the discipline had to come from the players themselves.

“I’m a strong believer in players learning to accept responsibility, learning how to handle themselves,” he said.

Last week, when the series was tied 2-2 and it looked like it could go either way, Shue was asked whether all the aggravation and intra-squad bickering he has had to cope with this season was worth it.

He paused for a moment before replying.

“If think if winning the championship were the goal, and it was possible that it could be accomplished, I would go through anything,” he said. “That’s the way I feel about this team.”


“The 76ers,” agreed Jack Ramsey, “have a lot of individual talent, but you need more than that.”

Not that Julius Erving did not show he has worth every penny of his 6 million cost - $3 million to the New York Nets, $3 million in his contract. But until the final game, George McGinnis was not worth much. And when George McGinnis finally started scoring, Doug Collins stopped. In the end, the 76ers lacked what the Trail Blazers had - balance and teamwork. Too often the 76ers were not willing to play together. Unless that problem is solved by a change in personnel, Julius Erving sooner or later will decide that he no longer wants to play in that atmosphere. He’ll ask to be traded, probably to Knicks who can afford him.


He could have been doing that before if not for his selfish teammates and him trying to blend in and make it work.

NEW YORK — The season of struggle ended yesterday in Portland, Ore., for the team of turmoil.

The Philadelphia 76ers, the best team money could buy, lost the National Basketball Association championship they were supposed to win, 109-107, to the Portland Trail Blazers.

In the 31-year existence of the NBA, there probably never has been a team like the 76ers and there may never again be another like it. They were a team of players with exaggerated egos in a season of exaggerated hopes, magic moments, inflamed temperaments, discontent and divisive public utterances.

The 76ers were at their best before the start of a game. They were a combination of cheerleaders and showmen. They sold out arenas and excited crowds in the Spectrum, their home arena, and in the other 21 league cities with their dunk drills and one-on-one moves that brought the crowds to their feet.

Most of their practice sessions had the appearance of a schoolyard get-together, where players had to win to keep possession of the basketball court. In essence, that was what the 76ers were all about — a collection of talented schoolyard and playground players whose egos came before team play.

After all, Lloyd Free, the backcourt man from the streets of Brooklyn, relished the name of “all world” that he picked up in the Brownsville playgrounds.

Darryl Dawkins, the 20-year-old, 6-foot-11-inch, 260-pound center, enjoyed bragging about the dunk shots he had not yet shown off. In the end, it was that schoolyard one-on-one play, and their lapses on defense, that did the 76ers in against the Trail Blazers, a team basketball textbooks could be written about.

The finishing touch for assembling the best team money could buy and then just awaiting the delivery of the championship came last October with the purchase for almost $3 million of Julius Erving from the New York Nets. It was made by the 76ers’ new millionaire owner, F. Eugene Dixon, despite the rather cool interest at first expressed by the 76ers’ coach, Gene Shue. Shue was not interested in adding another forward, even if that forward was Erving, the game’s most exciting player.

Shue recently explained that reasoning to a Philadelphia newsman.

The reason was,” said Shue, “I didn’t know if he could strengthen our team. That sounds ridiculous, but the strength of our team was already in our forwards. I also told the owner there was no way I was going to guarantee we would win a championship just because we got Dr. J. If it would have been Bill Walton (the Trail Blazer center), I would have said something different.”


The 76ers were already set at forward, which resulted in the problems that occurred.

With the New York Nets Erving was the most explosive and exciting player in basketball. With Philadelphia he modified his game to blend in with his teammates. The result has been enough to take the Sixers to the NBA finals. All year long people have criticized Dr. J for keeping so much of his talent under wraps—but an NBA title would prove he was right.


But Erving's performance in the '77 Finals in the NBA after his performance in the '76 Finals in the ABA against Bobby Jones, who we know is one of the greatest defenders ever, validates his season.

This is why it irks me when people are so lazy they just spout informed statements without looking into the matter.
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#117 » by ThaRegul8r » Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:25 am

Doctor MJ wrote:How good was Erving's defense? He didn't get defensive awards despite putting up numbers that typically guarantee such love nowadays, so what's the explanation? I've come to the conclusion that there is no good explanation in terms of a justification for this. We know that even nowadays defensive accolades are oftentimes far off the mark and based on reputation. And here's what else we know:

-As mentioned, the Nets were elite on defense in '75-76 with Erving, and fell off without him '76-77. (Though they didn't become hideous on that front. They were mediocre on defense, but utterly inept on offense as you'd expect when you lose Erving.)

-Erving joined the Nets in '73-74. The previous year they had had a below average defense, but with Erving they zoomed up to #1 in the league on defense on their way to winning the title.

-The narrative being painted that the ABA was an offense only league was a massive blitz campaigned BY the NBA in order to make the razzle dazzle of the ABA seem illegitimate. The face of that razzle dazzle was Erving. He was the player making basketball exciting, and so before they finally agreed to a merger, they first did quite a lot to try to demean what he represented.

-You can't really find articles specifically taking Erving to task for loafing around on defense or hurting his team by gambling ridiculously. By contrast you can find articles praising his defense especially from those familiar with the ABA.

-I will acknowledge that even in the ABA it's not like he was a lock every year for defensive accolades (he only made it in annus mirabilis '75-76), and I don't have a complete explanation for that. It's possible they bought into Erving to some degree as an offensive player as well. Certainly the fact that there was no 2nd team for All-Defense was a potential issue. It's also noteworthy that in that '73-74 season where Erving joins the Nets and they rocket up to the best defense in the league, the only Net on the All-Defensive team is one who was there less than half of the season and who had been on the All-Defensive team the previous year. One more case where it seems like people back then seemed to be struggling to identify even which teams were succeeding on defense.

I imagine all that is enough for people to say, "Okay, Erving was a solid defender who maybe could have gotten an All-Defensive team or two".

Actually, I think the underestimation of Erving was probably far more severe than that. Guys who flirt with 2 blocks & 2 steals, like Erving continued to do long after he joined the NBA, are doing something extremely unusual. Only 5 guys have ever done that (since they started tracking the star 40 years ago), and Erving managed to go for 1.8 & 1.8 at age 33, something no one else in history has done.

A player only does this by being extremely active, and covering large swaths of court space. And if he's doing that, either he's leaving his team's defense ready to get slaughtered by his gambles, or he's doing it in a smart way that let's the team thrive. Granted that everything is a bit of a grayscale. A sample gamble is still a gamble that fails sometimes, and it's possible that was a smart gamble at one point in a player's career because a dumb one later on when his athleticism wanes.

With Erving though, people don't talk about him as a stupid gambler, and his prime is filled with example of great defensive teams including examples where the greatness came with his presence.

Suffice to say, Erving probably should have been a lock for All-Defensive honors, and a dark horse DPOY contender in some years, much like LeBron is now.


I posted this in the Top 100 project:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1125974&start=240#p28620780

People were so entrenched in their anti-ABA bias perpetrating that the league played no defense that Erving's defense was ignored. You had ignorant people pointing out that Erving had 100 steals and 100 blocks, and he had to point out that he'd actually being doing it all along:

The 6-foot-6 forward was the only NBA player this season to record over 100 steals and 100 blocked shots. He says that is nothing new.

“Year in and year out in terms of those stats I’m generally leading all the forwards in the league,” he said. “It’s something generally not noticed or something I’m not given credit for but those defensive numbers have been there all along.”


As one guy from APBR said while I was a member there:

Dr J’s been getting docked for some time now. They say he couldn’t hit from outside, when his ABA 3-point-shooting % is far higher than MJ’s was in the NBA w/out the benefit of a shortened arc. They say Doc didn’t defend, when he’s still the best historical shotblocker/thief this side of Centers Hakeem, D-Rob, & Ben Wallace (add Kirilenko if he keeps it up a few more seasons).
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
User avatar
Vinsanity420
Rookie
Posts: 1,132
And1: 14
Joined: Jun 18, 2010

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#118 » by Vinsanity420 » Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:31 am

Well, I won't get too much into numbers when we're up this high. Everyone's pretty much off the charts and spectacular... and my favorite advanced stat ( RAPM/APM) wasn't around pre-2002, so that's that.

I am leaning towards MJ here. Ok, we all know this guy's offense was spectacular ( I am not a huge PER fan, but damn, his PER was off the chart... and considering how it undervalues passing some, it makes his numbers even more impressive), but he was also defending incredibly well... IIRC, MJ defended Magic really, really, well in the finals, but Phil decided to rotate Pippen on Magic later on. Either way, It was THE PERFECT SEASON. He was doing it all. Simply put, he had no weakness.

And has anyone addressed the competition issue with Shaq? Dwight gets underrated all the time due to this, while Shaq always seems to get a pass for this. I can't be bothered to check which poster it was, but someone made a good point about Shaq disappearing in stretches during WCF Games 6/7. He also had defensive errors that cost LA Game 3 as well. I don't see how he's got an offensive advantage, either. MJ was creating for his teammates at an absolutely elite level this year... and while Shaq helps, he wasn't quite in MJ territory this year. Considering how ridiculously efficient MJ was as a scorer at his peak, I don't see how Shaq's got an advantage on him. Any case for Shaq over MJ would have to be based on his defense ( which would be a good one, actually. He anchored the best defensive team that year while leading it in D Win Shares and D-Rating), but how much of an advantage does he have on MJ, considering MJ was playing really well on that end? MJ was Top 5 in DWS this year, after all.

This definitely was a GOAT level peak year for Shaq, but it wasn't as perfect as MJ's year was, and his play has a clear disadvantage on MJ's perfection.

Wilt is harder to analyze 'cause I haven't seen this guy's peak with my own two eyes. I will get around to him a little later.
Laimbeer wrote:Rule for life - if a player comparison was ridiculous 24 hours ago, it's probably still ridiculous.


Genius.
C-izMe
Banned User
Posts: 6,689
And1: 15
Joined: Dec 11, 2011
Location: Rodman's Rainbow Obamaburger

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#119 » by C-izMe » Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:44 am

First off Shaq was just as efficent as Jordan (adjusting for league average). Second Shaq was a way better defender. Jordan was a great defender "for a guard". Shaq was a great defender "for a center". Two totally different things. Also two Shaq games (including one where the team around him benefitted a ton from the constant triple teams being thrown at Shaq) doesn't make his season any less spectacular. Everyone but 91 Jordan (which is what makes the choice legit) has had many off days in a season.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,863
And1: 16,408
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: #1 Highest Peak of All Time 

Post#120 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:19 am

I don't know if I did it officially...

Vote: 1966-1967 Wilt Chamberlain

Return to Player Comparisons