#4 Highest Peak of All Time (Wilt '67 wins)

[lorak]

Olajuwon was scoring on sick volume with very good efficiency and in the finals he played against one of the 5 best defensive teams in history and he still averaged 26.9 PPG on 55.6 TS%, while on the same time shooting down one of the 5 best centers of all time in his prime: Ewing had 18.9 PPG on 39.0 TS% (!)
You can’t play better than Olajuwon during 1994 postseason.

I'm always curious as to why when people discuss the '94 Finals, they never mention the fact that Ewing averaged 12.4 rebounds—3.3 more per game than Olajuwon did, and blocked 4.29 shots a game. Or that he set a Finals record for total blocks, and had eight blocks in Game 5, which tied the single-game record. It's especially bizarre to me when people talk about defense and still don't mention this.

Because, as every person who knows something about the game knows, defender can't defensively affect his opponents blocks or most of the rebounds. So it's really bizarre to talk about Olajuwon's defense and brings Ewings blocks and rebounds (most of them on defensive glass...)...

Hold top 5 center of all time in his prime on 39 TS% and 19 PPG - that's GOAT level of defensive dominance. And on the same time Hakeem was outstanding offensively against the best defensive team between 1965 and 2004. Nobody did something so great on both ends of the court like Olajuwon then. He was like Thurmond + Shaq.

[lorak]

As I already voted for '67 Wilt, I'm unsure as to why my vote would be expected to be any different now.

Because you know, we discuss here and then create opinion. But I guess no arguments can sway you. After all not surprising, because some people never change mind because they think they know the best.

[PTB Fan]

It's interesting how Wilt was in the discussions for #1 yet he might not want to be voted in the top 5 now...

[ThaRegul8r]

As I already voted for '67 Wilt, I'm unsure as to why my vote would be expected to be any different now.

Because you know, we discuss here and then create opinion. But I guess no arguments can sway you. After all not surprising, because some people never change mind because they think they know the best.

I don't know what your problem with me is, nor do I care. But it has long since become tiring. Though on the other hand somewhat amusing that you take every opportunity to take a shot at me.

[mysticbb]

It's interesting how Wilt was in the discussions for #1 yet he might not want to be voted in the top 5 now...

it is not interesting at all. It is a result of the used voting method. Those who didn't have Chamberlain in 67 very high are likely in the majority. An Instant-runoff voting would very likely reveal, that those hwo didn't have Chamberlain as possible #1, don't have him in the Top5 at all.

For example, my voting would likely look like this:
1. Jordan
2. O'Neal
3. Russell
4. James
5. Erving

Then there are players like Bird, Magic, Abdul-Jabbar etc. pp. who might have a case over Chamberlain. Now, if all people voted who didn't have Chamberlain at #1 have a similar list (which is likely given the voting results in #2, #3 and #4 so far), Chamberlain was never seen as a Top5 for the majority of voters.
That is also a great example for which IRV would be really, really useful. But well ...

[lorak]

As I already voted for '67 Wilt, I'm unsure as to why my vote would be expected to be any different now.

Because you know, we discuss here and then create opinion. But I guess no arguments can sway you. After all not surprising, because some people never change mind because they think they know the best.

I don't know what your problem with me is, nor do I care.

Your actions speak better than your words - you care enough to answer

[ThaRegul8r]

Your actions speak better than your words

Yes, indeed they do.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Evidently you have a problem with that. As I said before—but apparently you didn't get the message, I'm here to talk basketball, not waste my time with insipid inanities. Since you're incapable of growing up and moving on, I have no need to have further communication with you. This is my last post directed to you. Hopefully, you'll be able to move on with your life, although that'll remain to be seen. Of course "making sure you get the last word in" is obligatory and expected.

[kabstah]

I MUST bring this up with (not just Lebron but also Wade, Kobe, etc.) modern perimeter players but how much do you believe these guys were helped by handcheck rule changes. IMO we have to take their stats and impact with a grain of salt just like we have to do with 3pt numbers during the shortened line years.

League ORTG/DRTG and eFG% have stayed stable for the past 30 years with the exception of the two lockout years and the late 90's through mid 2000's period. I don't know what your cutoff point for modern is, but the 3 guys you mentioned are in the same boat as Magic and Bird.

[colts18]

I MUST bring this up with (not just Lebron but also Wade, Kobe, etc.) modern perimeter players but how much do you believe these guys were helped by handcheck rule changes. IMO we have to take their stats and impact with a grain of salt just like we have to do with 3pt numbers during the shortened line years.

League ORTG/DRTG and eFG% have stayed stable for the past 30 years with the exception of the two lockout years and the late 90's through mid 2000's period. I don't know what your cutoff point for modern is, but the 3 guys you mentioned are in the same boat as Magic and Bird.

Magic and Bird had it much easier because they played in a fast pace era with terrible defenses. They could play in today's game, but I think it would take them some time to adjust to the slower pace and much better defensive schemes.

[kabstah]

Magic and Bird had it much easier because they played in a fast pace era with terrible defenses. They could play in today's game, but I think it would take them some time to adjust to the slower pace and much better defensive schemes.

Well if you believe that, then you must also believe that Magic and Bird played on similarly terrible offenses because, again, the relative balance between 80's offense/80's defense is virtually the same as 2011 offense/2011 defense. So maybe they face tougher defenses today, but they'll also have better offensive schemes, particularly those that take advantage of the 3, to help them out

[colts18]

Magic and Bird had it much easier because they played in a fast pace era with terrible defenses. They could play in today's game, but I think it would take them some time to adjust to the slower pace and much better defensive schemes.

Well if you believe that, then you must also believe that Magic and Bird played on similarly terrible offenses because, again, the relative balance between 80's offense/80's defense is virtually the same as 2011 offense/2011 defense. So maybe they face tougher defenses today, but they'll also have better offensive schemes, particularly those that take advantage of the 3, to help them out

Thats why I said it would take them time to adjust. I was just watching the 87 finals and noticed how the Lakers would push the ball after every rebound. Not even the Nash suns do that in this era. It would take time for him to adjust to the pace, but Im confident he would and 3 point shooters would help him.

[C-izMe]

I MUST bring this up with (not just Lebron but also Wade, Kobe, etc.) modern perimeter players but how much do you believe these guys were helped by handcheck rule changes. IMO we have to take their stats and impact with a grain of salt just like we have to do with 3pt numbers during the shortened line years.

League ORTG/DRTG and eFG% have stayed stable for the past 30 years with the exception of the two lockout years and the late 90's through mid 2000's period. I don't know what your cutoff point for modern is, but the 3 guys you mentioned are in the same boat as Magic and Bird.

The change in the 90s came with when they added the 3 second rule. From then until the handcheck rule ORTG usually hovered around 102-104. Then they added the handcheck rules and it went up to 106.1 from 102.9 the previous year. Since then (excluding this lockout year) it's hovered around 106-108. That 4 point jump is large.

So it's back to late 80s - early 90s level. Now if we look a the distribution of scoring bigmen didn't increase their scoring after the rule changes. Perimeter players did. And to top it off they get soooo many free throws now. If you look at scoring from guards from the 80s and 90s and now, it's insane how much they are scoring. Some of that can be attributed to Jordan and many great guards coming to the league, but it's mostly because of the rules.

[ardee]

Olajuwon was scoring on sick volume with very good efficiency and in the finals he played against one of the 5 best defensive teams in history and he still averaged 26.9 PPG on 55.6 TS%, while on the same time shooting down one of the 5 best centers of all time in his prime: Ewing had 18.9 PPG on 39.0 TS% (!)
You can’t play better than Olajuwon during 1994 postseason.

I'm always curious as to why when people discuss the '94 Finals, they never mention the fact that Ewing averaged 12.4 rebounds—3.3 more per game than Olajuwon did, and blocked 4.29 shots a game. Or that he set a Finals record for total blocks, and had eight blocks in Game 5, which tied the single-game record. It's especially bizarre to me when people talk about defense and still don't mention this.

Because, as every person who knows something about the game knows, defender can't defensively affect his opponents blocks or most of the rebounds. So it's really bizarre to talk about Olajuwon's defense and brings Ewings blocks and rebounds (most of them on defensive glass...)...

Hold top 5 center of all time in his prime on 39 TS% and 19 PPG - that's GOAT level of defensive dominance. And on the same time Hakeem was outstanding offensively against the best defensive team between 1965 and 2004. Nobody did something so great on both ends of the court like Olajuwon then. He was like Thurmond + Shaq.

I personally had Olajuwon at 6:

1. Wilt
2. Jordan
3. Shaq
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Hakeem

But personally some of these arguments have moved me to consider moving him up to 4 (meaning I'd vote for him in the next thread since I'm voting Wilt right now).

The key here is his supporting cast. I mean, he REALLY made them tick. A roster like that would literally be a lottery team without him. As compared to Magic and Bird, who played on the two GOAT teams, imo.

[JordansBulls]

From what I'm seeing so far:

09 LeBron - 4 (Doctor MJ, colts18, DavidStern, therealbig3)

67 Wilt - 3 (ardee, PTB Fan, Dr Positivity)

94 Hakeem - 1 (C-izMe)

71 Kareem - 1 (Josephpaul)

I took Kareem 1971 as well. But I just want to know why not more love for Kareem 1971? I just don't get the Lebron 2009 especially losing to a team that he was favored over. I can understand maybe if he lost to the defending champs in the Celtics with KG around or LA but losing to Orlando who was missing it's starting PG.

[Lightning25]

From what I'm seeing so far:

09 LeBron - 4 (Doctor MJ, colts18, DavidStern, therealbig3)

67 Wilt - 3 (ardee, PTB Fan, Dr Positivity)

94 Hakeem - 1 (C-izMe)

71 Kareem - 1 (Josephpaul)

I took Kareem 1971 as well. But I just want to know why not more love for Kareem 1971? I just don't get the Lebron 2009 especially losing to a team that he was favored over. I can understand maybe if he lost to the defending champs in the Celtics with KG around or LA but losing to Orlando who was missing it's starting PG.

I would vote for 2012 Lebron over 2009 Lebron anyways but I'm not sure if I were to vote for 2012 Lebron if it would be a completely different vote. Could you help me out with this question?

[ardee]

From what I'm seeing so far:

09 LeBron - 4 (Doctor MJ, colts18, DavidStern, therealbig3)

67 Wilt - 3 (ardee, PTB Fan, Dr Positivity)

94 Hakeem - 1 (C-izMe)

71 Kareem - 1 (Josephpaul)

I took Kareem 1971 as well. But I just want to know why not more love for Kareem 1971? I just don't get the Lebron 2009 especially losing to a team that he was favored over. I can understand maybe if he lost to the defending champs in the Celtics with KG around or LA but losing to Orlando who was missing it's starting PG.

Once again, because '71 Kareem wasn't even Kareem's own best season. If someone has a full career, it's simply impossible for them to peak in their sophomore season.

Let me put it to you this way. You're the biggest Jordan fan on the board. Could you in ANYWAY justify someone picking '87 Jordan (his second full season) as his best year?

[lorak]

I would vote for 2012 Lebron over 2009 Lebron anyways but I'm not sure if I were to vote for 2012 Lebron if it would be a completely different vote. Could you help me out with this question?

LJ '09 and LJ '12 are two different votes.

[ElGee]

Some interesting stats. In 1987, Bird missed 8 games in a season right after his prime.

8 games Bird missed:
5-3 W-L (4.57 SRS)
115.1 O rating vs 108.3 opp Defense (+6.77)
109.4 D rating vs. 107.3 opp O rating (+2.16)

So the offense actually played better than when Bird played but the defense was also worse than when Bird played.


We keep discussing portability, but we also have to talk about Defensive portability. LeBron has proven he can play elite defense on many kinds of defensive teams like one with a big man anchor (09 Wallace), one that is perimeter based (Miami), and defenses with small guys in other positions (Mo, Delonte, Joe Smith, Varejao). How would Bird do defensively if he had weak big men behind to clean up his mess? What if he didn't have McHale who would sometimes guard the good opposing SF like McHale did vs. Wilkins.

This is not the information I have at all. First of all, when we have seasons with healthy samples, the 8-gamer is subject to huge variance. That said,

1987 Celtics
w/ Bird (74g) +5.9 ORtg -0.9 DRtg 6.9 SRS
w/out Bird (8g) +5.2 ORtg +0.7 DRtg 3.8 SRS

No notable lineup changes for opponents. Boston was healthy except for Ainge missing one game. The 74g sample with Bird includes 10g w/out Ainge and 5g w/out McHale. Again, we see no difference if we drop the 5g w/out McHale -- +6.7 SRS, +5.6 ORtg. (In the 5g McHale missed, Boston had a +9.2 ORtg and a 9.4 SRS). It's possible there's I have an error somewhere, but I didn't see one at quick glance...

[ElGee]

Constitution gives him right to have such opinion ;]
But the fact remains that clutch is something what matters. Not in a sense, that points scored during last 5 minutes count more, no. But when game is tied at the end, everybody plays at maximum concentration level, defenses are focused as much as possible and that’s why most people value so highly players, who are capable of scoring in such circumstances. And in no way Duncan was as clutch as Hakeem. Never.

You just aren't understanding still. All the stuff that happens at the end of the game is PART OF THE GAME. All the metrics we are using to evaluate players, INCLUDES CLUTCH already. Since no possession at any point in the game can count more (although garbage time could count less), you can't extract more value from your play at the end of the game.

[colts18]

Some interesting stats. In 1987, Bird missed 8 games in a season right after his prime.

8 games Bird missed:
5-3 W-L (4.57 SRS)
115.1 O rating vs 108.3 opp Defense (+6.77)
109.4 D rating vs. 107.3 opp O rating (+2.16)

So the offense actually played better than when Bird played but the defense was also worse than when Bird played.


We keep discussing portability, but we also have to talk about Defensive portability. LeBron has proven he can play elite defense on many kinds of defensive teams like one with a big man anchor (09 Wallace), one that is perimeter based (Miami), and defenses with small guys in other positions (Mo, Delonte, Joe Smith, Varejao). How would Bird do defensively if he had weak big men behind to clean up his mess? What if he didn't have McHale who would sometimes guard the good opposing SF like McHale did vs. Wilkins.

This is not the information I have at all. First of all, when we have seasons with healthy samples, the 8-gamer is subject to huge variance. That said,

1987 Celtics
w/ Bird (74g) +5.9 ORtg -0.9 DRtg 6.9 SRS
w/out Bird (8g) +5.2 ORtg +0.7 DRtg 3.8 SRS

No notable lineup changes for opponents. Boston was healthy except for Ainge missing one game. The 74g sample with Bird includes 10g w/out Ainge and 5g w/out McHale. Again, we see no difference if we drop the 5g w/out McHale -- +6.7 SRS, +5.6 ORtg. (In the 5g McHale missed, Boston had a +9.2 ORtg and a 9.4 SRS). It's possible there's I have an error somewhere, but I didn't see one at quick glance...

it's possible your numbers are wrong. For example on your site in the in/out section, you had the Cavs at +4.1 in the games LeBron played from 08-10, but thats not possible because I have the Cavs outscoring opponents by 1238 points (5.81 PPG) from 08-10 in the games LeBron played.

As far as that 8 game sample, I have the celtics outscoring opponents 893-849 with 775.8 possessions played in 8 games. So thats a +5.5 MOV with a -0.93 SOS which gave me the 4.57 SRS