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

[JordansBulls]

List of those in the project and who they have voted for already.

Well here is the panel and for official votes this is what I have seen.

1. ardee - Wilt 1967
2. Doctor MJ -
3. C-izeMe - Shaq 2000
4. colts18 - Shaq 2000
5. DavidStern - MJ 1991
6. DrMufasa - Wilt 1967
7. drza - Russell 1965
8. ElGee - MJ 1991
9. JordansBulls - MJ 1991
10. Rapcity_11 - Haven't seen a vote for him yet
11. Vinsanity420 - MJ 1991
12. therealbig3 - MJ 1991
13. Josephpaul - Kareem 1971
14. ThaRegul8r - Wilt 1967
15. PTB Fan - Shaq 2000


So we are awaiting on 2 more votes. But I haven't seen Rapcity_11 in this thread yet, so not sure if he will be participating.

[ElGee]

@Dipper -- these estimates are much more accurate: http://www.backpicks.com/pre-1974-estimations/
@Regulat8r -- I have Russell 3rd, as of right now.

I believe there are 13 players in NBA history who have stood out above the rest -- I call them "Sacred Peak" players. Russell is pretty comfortably near the top of that group to me, and if you think slightly lesser of him, then there still doesn't seem to be much of a difference between Russell at 4th versus Russell at 9th with all these guys jammed so close together.

My list right now:

1-2 Jordan/Shaq
3 Russell
4-7 Bird/Wilt/Magic/Duncan
8-9 KG/Walton
10-11 Kareem/Hakeem
12-13 Erving/LeBron

I consider the players after Jordan and Shaq very close -- I'm really thinking about portability, league competition and health in trying to differentiate these peaks sometime. It's almost fruitless to try and compare "so and so had THREE big games in the Finals and so and so had TWO!" What does that even tell you?

[ardee]

@Dipper -- these estimates are much more accurate: http://www.backpicks.com/pre-1974-estimations/
@Regulat8r -- I have Russell 3rd, as of right now.

I believe there are 13 players in NBA history who have stood out above the rest -- I call them "Sacred Peak" players. Russell is pretty comfortably near the top of that group to me, and if you think slightly lesser of him, then there still doesn't seem to be much of a difference between Russell at 4th versus Russell at 9th with all these guys jammed so close together.

My list right now:

1-2 Jordan/Shaq
3 Russell
4-7 Bird/Wilt/Magic/Duncan
8-9 KG/Walton
10-11 Kareem/Hakeem
12-13 Erving/LeBron

I consider the players after Jordan and Shaq very close -- I'm really thinking about portability, league competition and health in trying to differentiate these peaks sometime. It's almost fruitless to try and compare "so and so had THREE big games in the Finals and so and so had TWO!" What does that even tell you?

I'm not going to specify which, but I'm going to be very interested to hear your arguments for some of these rankings when it comes to it.

[GSP]

@Dipper -- these estimates are much more accurate: http://www.backpicks.com/pre-1974-estimations/
@Regulat8r -- I have Russell 3rd, as of right now.

I believe there are 13 players in NBA history who have stood out above the rest -- I call them "Sacred Peak" players. Russell is pretty comfortably near the top of that group to me, and if you think slightly lesser of him, then there still doesn't seem to be much of a difference between Russell at 4th versus Russell at 9th with all these guys jammed so close together.

My list right now:

1-2 Jordan/Shaq
3 Russell
4-7 Bird/Wilt/Magic/Duncan
8-9 KG/Walton
10-11 Kareem/Hakeem
12-13 Erving/LeBron

I consider the players after Jordan and Shaq very close -- I'm really thinking about portability, league competition and health in trying to differentiate these peaks sometime. It's almost fruitless to try and compare "so and so had THREE big games in the Finals and so and so had TWO!" What does that even tell you?

Thats a great list.

[Dipper 13]

@Dipper -- these estimates are much more accurate: http://www.backpicks.com/pre-1974-estimations/

Perhaps, however we must keep in mind the Sixers only real weakness was FT shooting, much of which traces back to Wilt at 44%. He used to practice for hours every day with little results. But today, instead of sending him to a psychiatrist, the team would hire a special foul shooting coach to fix his mechanics, ensuring that he would be practicing them the right way. Considering how good of a foul shooter he was at Overbrook, I believe he could shoot roughly 70% from the line. Add the modern day perimeter touch fouls, could this be enough to bump the Sixers from +5.3 to +6.7?



3/24/1991

On his free throw shooting, which was 51-percent for his career: "I even went to see a psychiatrist about it. After six months, the psychiatrist could make 10 out of 10 and I was still screwed up."

[Dipper 13]

Tall Tales: The Glory Years of the NBA - Terry Pluto


Rick Barry: Wilt would have shot 75% from the line if he had stuck with shooting underhanded and learned the proper technique. But he experimented so much that he never had a feel for how he wanted to shoot free throws.


Wilt Chamberlain: But let's talk about one thing that no one ever remembers. I may have missed a lot of foul shots, but by me going to the line so much, that meant my team got into the penalty situation faster and my teammates got to shoot more free throws. Besides, if I did make 75 percent, then what would people have to talk about?


Rod Thorn: Wilt was the reason they put in a rule to stop players from intentionally fouling away from the ball. Everyone was just grabbing Wilt and making the game last forever.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Michael Jordan '91

It's been a great thread with lots of great posts. The actual arguing has at times lacked a bit of punch, but I don't really mind this at this point. This is not an easy thing to really debate, and it's most beneficial for everyone to get the lay of the land.

Someone mentioned that it seemed like we were debating Shaq & Wilt more than Jordan, and that's my impression as well. Perhaps this a problem, perhaps not.

People have talked about Jordan's year as essentially flawless, and that's how I see it too. Jordan brought it year in and year out, but this year it's tough to find anything to take issue with. With this year, his team's offense leaps not only to best in the game levels, but all-time great levels, and it leaps even further in the playoffs (granted we know that the playoff number can be misleading, but when you are scoring 117 ORtg, again, it's esssentially flawless).

In response to one of my queries for the panel, it was pointed out that while Shaq's Laker offenses were ranking among the league's best, they actually weren't standing out rating-wise compared to the rest of the league. With closer inspection, we see that for all the talk of Jackson's Triangle, the team's offensive efficiency improved not at all from the previous year, which was the strike year...where offense sucked. The transformation of the team was completely on the defensive side of the ball, and I suppose in Shaq's defense relating to this project, much of that was Shaq actually playing defense (and playing it well) in '99-00.

I am convinced that peak Shaq had huge offensive impact, but really when you get down to it, there's not a lot of reason to think that Shaq in this one year was clearly superior to other years, and in spite of the fact that there's a general feeling that you just plug Shaq in place and the offense becomes amazing, it really wasn't. The best offenses Jackson ever ran were the Jordan Bulls and the Kobe-Gasol Lakers, not the Shaq-Kobe Lakers.

Gun to my head, I have to stick with Jordan here.

Regarding Wilt, in the end I'd say I do see some problems with the GOAT rating of his '67 season.

I mentioned before that in '67, Wilt was the best offensive player, which made people come back about West & Oscar. I stand by my statement and I'll clarify that I mean that I think Wilt had more impact in '67 than West or Oscar, which was an anomaly.

However, even if we agree that the reason for the fall off in '68 was due to injuries and Wilt screwing up the paradigm, this is an all-time project here, and when I make all-time lists, I consider the role being played. The fact of the matter is that while the high post distributing center is a recurring success story, there isn't really ever a time after '67 Wilt where that was the role of the best offensive player in the game. I love Walton and can buy his impact rivaled Kareem's, but I'm not going to claim he was Kareem's equal on offense.

So then, we end up approaching philosophy territory with strict value-added compared to good-ness. If I don't think that the role that Wilt played, would allow him to have the same impact in all eras, I have to factor that in, just like I do with Russell's defense. I'm on record with Russell as my GOAT of course, but that's because of the jaw dropping complete package of his career, not because I'm willing to rank his peak at #1 (which is why I haven't mentioned him).

There is also the matter that while Wilt was playing good defense in '67, it wasn't his best defense. He was better in '68 on that front according to most.

So yeah, Jordan takes this one for me.

[Doctor MJ]

Looking at the tally (thanks JB), it appears then that Jordan has an insurmountable lead with the panel (6 vs 3 for Wilt or Shaq), we will enshrine Jordan '91 was our #1, and move on to #2.

For this one, I'll set a deadline of 3 days.

[PTB Fan]

I'm just telling it like it is. I call it as I see it. Russell has no chance for top five. None. Going strictly with "modern" players first, are you telling me Russell will get a majority vote over one of Jordan, Shaq, Magic, or Bird? That leaves one spot left. You've got LeBron advocates. Hakeem. That's six. Kareem will go. Seven. Wilt. Eight. Duncan. That's nine, leaving one more spot for whomever else might be nominated. Maybe J's '76, depending on how many people discount the ABA completely. Meaning the best he could do is just sneak in the top ten, but there's a good chance he gets in somewhere from 10-15.

I didn't tell you anything. I know that Russell won't get enough votes to be top 10 because of the way he played. There might be a decent argument for Russell to have a top 5 peak (at best, I'd argue him somewhere from 4 and 15 at worst). It doesn't mean he'll get the respect for that.

[ThaRegul8r]

:lol:

I didn't tell you anything.

You told me Russell was a "without a doubt top 10 member and has a good case for the top 5, if not more." If you're going to make a statement, at least own up to it.

I know that Russell won't get enough votes to be top 10 because of the way he played.

See above. You said "He's without a doubt top 10 member," but now you're backpedaling. The above statement would mean you actually agree with me, which makes your initial reply both puzzling and pointless. There was no point in posting what you did if you're agreeing with what I said in the post of mine that you quoted which you seemingly took issue with.

There might be a decent argument for Russell to have a top 5 peak

"Might have a decent argument to have a top 5 peak" is not "has a good case for the top 5, if not more." It seems the strength of your conviction has weakened considerably. Perhaps because you've now realized the truth of what I said. Russell will not go above the best offensive players of the last 30 years. We're not talking about entire careers here.

[GSP]

Looking forward to hearing arguments when it get to Bird and Magic. I always though Bird had the consensus better peak but it seems there are some differing opinions about that.

[ThaRegul8r]

Looking forward to hearing arguments when it get to Bird and Magic. I always though Bird had the consensus better peak but it seems there are some differing opinions about that.

Magic's role also had something to do with it. I don't think that it's fair to penalize Magic for being a distributor whose job was to get the rest of his teammates involved. He showed he was clearly capable of being a #1 option when the team needed it from him in order to win. Bird was able to be the #1 option from the get-go, which he why his peak is perceived as better. Why should a player be penalized for doing what the team needs to win? What's the point of anything done on a basketball court if it isn't to help your team win?

[PTB Fan]

:lol:

I didn't tell you anything.

You told me Russell was a "without a doubt top 10 member and has a good case for the top 5, if not more." If you're going to make a statement, at least own up to it.

True. I find Russell's amazing defense, all-around excellence and impact a pretty good choice for this top 10 list. If you put high value on all the above besides the rest, you can argue that he should be in the top 5 if not more. Then again, you may don't. Depends on how do you define greatness..

I know that Russell won't get enough votes to be top 10 because of the way he played.

See above. You said "He's without a doubt top 10 member," but now you're backpedaling. The above statement would mean you actually agree with me, which makes your initial reply both puzzling and pointless. There was no point in posting what you did if you're agreeing with what I said in the post of mine that you quoted which you seemingly took issue with.

I did agree with you. It's just from all the Internet forums I've been people usually dismiss Russell's greatness which isn't found in the stats. I took your answer (with that emotion) a bit personal and that was so childish from my side. That's why I decided to make the post in the end, not because I didn't agree with your post. BTW, I always have a problem at the beginning in getting used to forums in general.

There might be a decent argument for Russell to have a top 5 peak

"Might have a decent argument to have a top 5 peak" is not "has a good case for the top 5, if not more." It seems the strength of your conviction has weakened considerably. Perhaps because you've now realized the truth of what I said. Russell will not go above the best offensive players of the last 30 years. We're not talking about entire careers here.

I didn't try to make an argument. An argument for me is when you give valid reasons for why Player A should be.... (for what ever the debate is) based on facts, stats, quotes, comparisons and so on that would make it reasonable.

Russell will not go in the top 10... but nonetheless, he should be in that discussion.

[ThaRegul8r]

I did agree with you. It's just from all the Internet forums I've been people usually dismiss Russell's greatness which isn't found in the stats.

I agree with you. I've seen every major basketball forum—as well as others which have since ceased to exist—since the world wide web first came to be what it is. When talking about all-time greats, Russell has usually been dismissed. At first he was described as "an old-school Dikembe Mutombo," and then later it became "a 1960s Ben Wallace." It's interesting to me the change in public perception from then to now as generations have passed.

I see that you didn't become a member of this site until a year after it started, but this board had a Retro Player of the Year project, and—with the exception of 1964, as I didn't have the time—I posted what Russell did for every single season, as most people actually know nothing about Russell other than the fact that he's "the guy who won 11 rings," and couldn't tell you a single thing about what he did in any given year. Whereas you've got legions of Jordan fans who could tell you any little detail about his career; Wilt's had supporters such as Judd Vance, who created what was the definitive resource on Wilt that any fan has ever created, and which has been cited on numerous occasions in the decades since he made the page, and on this board, Dipper 13 and writerman (though I haven't actually seen him in a while), and on other boards posters who are as downright fanatical about Wilt as any Jordan or Kobe fan regarding the object of their obsession—perhaps even moreseo; I've seen Kareem supporters who've posted in detail about his seasons and posted video. But no one really knows much about Russell. I've sought to remedy that. So it's hardly the case that I'm being dismissive of him.

I took your answer (with that emotion) a bit personal and that was so childish from my side. That's why I decided to make the post in the end, not because I didn't agree with your post. BTW, I always have a problem at the beginning in getting used to forums in general.

It's okay.



Understand though, that whenever I post, I do so dispassionately. I post here because I enjoy discussing basketball, but ultimately, it is only one of many interests. So I don't get too emotionally invested into it.

[PTB Fan]

I agree with you. I've seen every major basketball forum—as well as others which have since ceased to exist—since the world wide web first came to be what it is. When talking about all-time greats, Russell has usually been dismissed. At first he was described as "an old-school Dikembe Mutombo," and then later it became "a 1960s Ben Wallace." It's interesting to me the change in public perception from then to now as generations have passed.

I see that you didn't become a member of this site until a year after it started, but this board had a Retro Player of the Year project, and—with the exception of 1964, as I didn't have the time—I posted what Russell did for every single season, as most people actually know nothing about Russell other than the fact that he's "the guy who won 11 rings," and couldn't tell you a single thing about what he did in any given year. Whereas you've got legions of Jordan fans who could tell you any little detail about his career; Wilt's had supporters such as Judd Vance, who created what was the definitive resource on Wilt that any fan has ever created, and which has been cited on numerous occasions in the decades since he made the page, and on this board, Dipper 13 and writerman (though I haven't actually seen him in a while), and on other boards posters who are as downright fanatical about Wilt as any Jordan or Kobe fan regarding the object of their obsession—perhaps even moreseo; I've seen Kareem supporters who've posted in detail about his seasons and posted video. But no one really knows much about Russell. I've sought to remedy that. So it's hardly the case that I'm being dismissive of him.

The first part is really interesting. I didn't get to forums in '08, but the place that I started wasn't good for studying in the game. It was until I got shut down badly in debate that I started to learn.. I didn't know how to use the newspaper archives for more info or any sites because I literally had no idea about them, so I used every good post that I could.

I really liked your posts on the RPOY project for several reasons: 1) I started to use the old articles as sources to know more and 2)to learn how to post rightly and to be reasonable while doing the posting. This forum is my second, and I've came here for this project. I hoped I'd find out more, maybe get some site, debate and so on. This isn't the debate I liked to discuss, but somewhat it's something new I've learnt today and for that, I'm thankful.

It's okay.



Understand though, that whenever I post, I do so dispassionately. I post here because I enjoy discussing basketball, but ultimately, it is only one of many interests. So I don't get too emotionally invested into it.

I'm 16.. and I'm kinda in one period now where emotions get the best of me. It will sure pass..

[Jordan23Forever]

- Unlike MJ '91 or even Wilt '67, Hakeem '94 was great on BOTH ends of the floor

Huh? Both MJ '91 and Wilt were BEASTS defensively (this is possibly MJ's peak defensive season, and he was a top 4 defensive player in the league at a minimum), and Jordan was significantly superior to Hakeem offensively.

EDIT: Never mind, I see David Stern trolling hard on his anti-MJ crusade in subsequent posts, so it's clear he's not interested in honest debate, though implying that MJ '91 or Wilt '67 weren't elite two-way players is enough evidence of that in and of itself.

[Jordan23Forever]

BTW, here are all players who have at least 6 SPM in the playoffs. Unfortunately mysticbb don't have most years from 80s and early 90s.

1980 KAJ 6.34
1981 Bird 6.05
1994 HO 6.63
1995KJ 6.17, Kemp 6.11, HO 6.01
1996 MJ 7.64, Malone 7.13
1997 MJ 7.54, Shaq 6.65
1998 MJ 7.38, Malone 6.6, Shaq 6.36
1999 Duncan 6.16, Hill 6.11
2000 Shaq 7.23, DRob 6.66
2001 Shaq 8.79, KB 7.24
2002 Duncan 9.11, Shaq 7.15
2003 Duncan 8.05, Shaq 6.77
2004 KG 6.05
2005 Pierce 6.63, Manu 6.43, Duncan 6.25
2006 Dirk 7.47, Duncan 6.74, Wade 6.69
2007 Amare 7.04, Duncan 6.18
2008 LJ 7.33, CP 6.71, TMac 6.08
2009 LJ 11.88, KB 6.87, Dwight 6.14
2010 LJ 6.99, Dirk 6.45
2011 Dirk 7.06, CP 6.75, Dwight 6.5
2012 LJ 8.72, Durant 6.29

Amazing that Jordan was averaging ~7.5 SPM in the playoffs in his past-prime seasons. I can't even imagine what it must have been from '87-'93, where he was on worse teams (meaning they had to rely on him more) and was in his prime. And this doesn't even account for his defensive impact, which even in '96-'98 (never mind his prime) is way higher than any non-big on this list save perhaps for '12 Lebron. Scary.

EDIT: Mysticbb, if you read this post, it would be great if you created a thread where you and others (ElGee etc.) posted some of the advanced stats you've manually calculated. I see posts by you and others scattered in certain threads - it would be great to have them all in one place for easy reference. I'd send a PM to say this, but we can't.

[lorak]

- Unlike MJ '91 or even Wilt '67, Hakeem '94 was great on BOTH ends of the floor

Huh? Both MJ '91 and Wilt were BEASTS defensively (this is possibly MJ's peak defensive season, and he was a top 4 defensive player in the league at a minimum), and Jordan was significantly superior to Hakeem offensively.

EDIT: Never mind, I see David Stern trolling hard on his anti-MJ crusade in subsequent posts, so it's clear he's not interested in honest debate, though implying that MJ '91 or Wilt '67 weren't elite two-way players is enough evidence of that in and of itself.

They weren't as good defensively as Hakeem.

[Jordan23Forever]

They weren't as good defensively as Hakeem.

That's not what you said though. You said "Unlike MJ '91 or even Wilt '67, Hakeem '94 was great on BOTH ends of the floor" - clearly, this means/implies that MJ/Wilt were NOT great on both ends, which is farcical. Jordan in particular in 1991 had a greater defensive impact than any perimeter player in history not named 1994/'95 Pippen.

[lorak]

They weren't as good defensively as Hakeem.

That's not what you said though. You said "Unlike MJ '91 or even Wilt '67, Hakeem '94 was great on BOTH ends of the floor" - clearly, this means/implies that MJ/Wilt were NOT great on both ends, which is farcical. Jordan in particular in 1991 had a greater defensive impact than any perimeter player in history not named 1994/'95 Pippen.

Maybe, but that still isn't as good as Hakeem's impact on D and that's why I said they weren't as great as Hakeem on both ends of the floor. That doesn't mean they were bad defenders, they were very good, but simply not as good as Hakeem.