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

[ardee]

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?

Doesnt apply because MJ 1991 had better stats and more success than 1987 MJ. In this case Kareem in 1971 and 1972 had better numbers than Kareem 1976 and 1977 and less playoff failures on top of that. At least in 1971 he won it all and in 1972 he lost to clearly superior teams. In 1976 that doesn't help his case and in 1977 he lost with HCA in a sweep.

Hmm, I wasn't aware that Kareem was out there playing one on five in the Playoffs during his career.

LOL at Kareem's 'playoff failures' in 1977. Do you realize 1977 is arguably the GOAT Playoffs performance EVER?

From the RPOY project....

Kareem's game logs for the playoffs:

Pts / Reb / Ast / Blks (FGM/FGA)

vs. Warriors:

Game 1: 27/16/7/3 (10/? FG)
Game 2: 40/19/3/9 (18/32 FG)
Game 3: 28/14/7/4 (12/20)
Game 4: 41/18/3/0 (15/?)
Game 5: 45/18/3/3 (16/28)
Game 6: 43/20/3/3 (17/25) Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTMEtNM44n8
Game 7: 36/26/4/1 (14/26) Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mloG22I2YtU

Series average: 37.6 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 4.3 apg, 3.3 bpg, 60.7 FG%.

vs. Blazers:

Game 1: 30/10/5/0 (11/19 FG)
Game 2: 40/17/1/3 (17/23 FG) Full game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2oTCUmEFiM
Game 3: 21/20/8/8 (5/12 FG) - foul trouble
Game 4: 30/17/2/4 (12/20) Full game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTQzI9uf5g

Walton vs. Kareem head to head stats in the playoff series:

KAJ - 30.3 ppg, 16 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.8 bpg, 60.8 FG%
Walton - 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, 51 FG%.

His defenders were Nate Thurmond (one of the GOAT defensive centers) and Bill Walton during his best season.

In 1972, Wilt held him to games of 15-37, 16-36 and 13-33..... Shooting numbers similar to which volume players like Kobe have repeatedly been criticized for! Chamberlain's defense on Jabbar as well as his outplaying of him on the boards was KEY to the Lakers beating the Bucks in '72... In 1977 it was clear who the better player was between him and Walton.

To sum up, in '72 he got outplayed by a near-retirement Wilt, and in '77 he destroyed a peak Walton.

He was also a MUCH much better defender in '77 than he was in '71 and '72.

My rankings of Kareem's best seasons would be:

1. '77
2. '76
3. '80
4. '74
5. '71

We're talking about HOW GOOD A PLAYER was during a particular season. Eliminate the details of team success and accolades. How much did he contribute to his team in that year? That's why '09 LeBron is rightly being considered this high.

And Kareem was simply a superior player in '76 and '77 than he was in '71 and '72.

[JordansBulls]

Again you are comparing 2004 when KG, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Tmac, Dirk were all in there primes. In 2009 who was in there primes? Not to mention KG, Manu, Yao, Tmac, Nleson were all out for the playoffs.

What the **** does that have to do with the stats I posted? Nothing. Why not mention that Kobe, Wade, CP3, Howard were in their primes in 2009?

Did you know that T-Mac was also out of the 2004 playoffs? Who cares about Duncan, Dirk, T-Mac if KG didn't face them in the playoffs. I'm pretty sure that your post is some backdoor way to prop up MJ since I'm guessing he beat a lot of players in their prime so thats one of your criteria for picking a player.

What??? I said it is different because those guys who actually put up great stats in the league in 2004 while in 2009 many of those guys were actually out of the playoffs or were just flat out terrible (CP3) in 2009 playoffs was pretty bad. His stats were threw the roof because they won there first 8 games by double digits in each game and those teams played like crap. Again I'm not saying KG in 2004 was better than LBJ in 2009, just was pointing out that his PER/WS is much higher due to many stars being out for the playoffs

[colts18]

Again you are comparing 2004 when KG, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Tmac, Dirk were all in there primes. In 2009 who was in there primes? Not to mention KG, Manu, Yao, Tmac, Nleson were all out for the playoffs.

What the **** does that have to do with the stats I posted? Nothing. Why not mention that Kobe, Wade, CP3, Howard were in their primes in 2009?

Did you know that T-Mac was also out of the 2004 playoffs? Who cares about Duncan, Dirk, T-Mac if KG didn't face them in the playoffs. I'm pretty sure that your post is some backdoor way to prop up MJ since I'm guessing he beat a lot of players in their prime so thats one of your criteria for picking a player.

What??? I said it is different because those guys who actually put up great stats in the league in 2004 while in 2009 many of those guys were actually out of the playoffs or were just flat out terrible (CP3) in 2009 playoffs was pretty bad. His stats were threw the roof because they won there first 8 games by double digits in each game and those teams played like crap. Again I'm not saying KG in 2004 was better than LBJ in 2009, just was pointing out that his PER/WS is much higher due to many stars being out for the playoffs

Having a few superstars out doesn't even come close to explaining a .200 WS/48 or 10 PER gap. Plus PER is compared to the average player in the league which a few superstars can't change much.

[ElGee]

vote: 1967 Wilt Chamberlain

I would vote Bird here but he doesn't seem to have any traction...and frankly I can't figure out what's going on with the voting in this project.

[colts18]

vote: 1967 Wilt Chamberlain

I would vote Bird here but he doesn't seem to have any traction...and frankly I can't figure out what's going on with the voting in this project.

Doesn't Wilt have the same problems offensively you outlined for LeBron? I mean he did have an offensive outlier year in 1967 like LeBron 09 but couldn't keep it up when teams adjusted. I'm still not fully convinced that 67-73 Wilt low volume is his best form. He left a lot on the table by not shooting anymore. Maybe his teams win in 68, 69, 70 if he actually shot it more instead of relying on his teammates to score.

[JordansBulls]

Hmm, I wasn't aware that Kareem was out there playing one on five in the Playoffs during his career.

LOL at Kareem's 'playoff failures' in 1977. Do you realize 1977 is arguably the GOAT Playoffs performance EVER?

From the RPOY project....

Kareem's game logs for the playoffs:

Pts / Reb / Ast / Blks (FGM/FGA)

vs. Warriors:

Game 1: 27/16/7/3 (10/? FG)
Game 2: 40/19/3/9 (18/32 FG)
Game 3: 28/14/7/4 (12/20)
Game 4: 41/18/3/0 (15/?)
Game 5: 45/18/3/3 (16/28)
Game 6: 43/20/3/3 (17/25) Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTMEtNM44n8
Game 7: 36/26/4/1 (14/26) Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mloG22I2YtU

Series average: 37.6 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 4.3 apg, 3.3 bpg, 60.7 FG%.

vs. Blazers:

Game 1: 30/10/5/0 (11/19 FG)
Game 2: 40/17/1/3 (17/23 FG) Full game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2oTCUmEFiM
Game 3: 21/20/8/8 (5/12 FG) - foul trouble
Game 4: 30/17/2/4 (12/20) Full game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTQzI9uf5g

Walton vs. Kareem head to head stats in the playoff series:

KAJ - 30.3 ppg, 16 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.8 bpg, 60.8 FG%
Walton - 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, 51 FG%.

His defenders were Nate Thurmond (one of the GOAT defensive centers) and Bill Walton during his best season.

In 1972, Wilt held him to games of 15-37, 16-36 and 13-33..... Shooting numbers similar to which volume players like Kobe have repeatedly been criticized for! Chamberlain's defense on Jabbar as well as his outplaying of him on the boards was KEY to the Lakers beating the Bucks in '72... In 1977 it was clear who the better player was between him and Walton.

To sum up, in '72 he got outplayed by a near-retirement Wilt, and in '77 he destroyed a peak Walton.

He was also a MUCH much better defender in '77 than he was in '71 and '72.

My rankings of Kareem's best seasons would be:

1. '77
2. '76
3. '80
4. '74
5. '71

We're talking about HOW GOOD A PLAYER was during a particular season. Eliminate the details of team success and accolades. How much did he contribute to his team in that year? That's why '09 LeBron is rightly being considered this high.

And Kareem was simply a superior player in '76 and '77 than he was in '71 and '72.

Even if you think Kareem 1977 was better than 1971 which I don't it in no way in hell is a GOAT playoff run. I mean to get swept with HCA against a team that wasn't even an all time great does not help your case here. And how exactly is Kareem 1976 #2 on your list and he didn't even make the playoffs. If he was at his peak at that time why wouldn't he be able to get a team in the playoffs when the ABA was around as well and not too strong of teams was winning it all?
Put it this way would you rank Hakeem 1992 over Hakeem 1986?

All in all I am just far more impressed with Kareem in 1971 than Kareem 1977 or Kareem 1976.

[drza]

3) Re: Duncan and KG vs LeBron

When comparing across years for players at the very top, I'm not sure how much we can rely purely on numbers (be they RAPM, SPM, PER, whatever) as our separating factors. To some extent we can, but if we look at the rankings for several of these stats in the regular and postseason for these players, we see:

2003 Duncan - 3rd in PER (26.9), 2nd in postseason PER (28.4), 2nd in RAPM (+5.0), +24 playoffs on/off

2004 Garnett - 1st in PER (29.4), 2nd in postseason PER (25), 1st in RAPM (+8.0), +25 playoffs on/off

2009 LeBron - 1st in PER (31.7), 1st in postseason PER (37.4!), 1st in RAPM (+9.3), +11 playoffs on/off

I mean, in all 3 cases we're talking clearly at the top of the league in every measure. LeBron's postseason PER was crazy, but on the whole once you get to the top I'm not sure that there's enough info in his boxscore domination to say for sure that this was more valuable than the huge 2-way impacts that Duncan and Garnett were having. In the end, once the stats agree essentially that these guys are "best of best" caliber statistically, from there I think the discussion moves more to situational analysis, scouting, discussions like the "portability" issue, and things of that nature.

To me these are the three most impressive peak seasons of the past decade, with Dirk, Wade, Nash and Kobe a step back. I'm just not as convinced as some that LeBron is clearly (or at all) better than Duncan and KG. I think he'd be third among the three on my ballot.

The postseason +/- is all but meaningless because the SSS of off court data (only 18 minutes of off court data vs. Lakers). But the on court data does have some meaning. KG played at least 42 Minutes in every playoff game but 2. I'll compare KG with LeBron first then I'll add Duncan.

LeBron 35-9-7, .399 WS/48, .618 TS%, 128 O rating-100 D rating
KG 24-14-5, .163 WS/48, .513 TS%, 100 O Rating-95 D rating

LeBron's WS/48 was over 2x higher and his TS% is 10 points higher. That efficiency gap is huge. If KG shot at LeBron's efficiency, he would have scored 90 more points which would add up 5 PPG extra.

On Court +/-:
LeBron 09: +15.0
KG 04: +2.5

Massive difference

avg Game score:
KG 19.2
LeBron 29.9



KG's team was outscored for the whole playoffs despite having HCA throughout. They +3.1 defensively compared to the average in those playoffs while the Cavs were -5.0. Cavs were +4.9 offensively compared to TWolves +3.1.

I somehow completely missed this post live action, and wouldn't have seen it if not for JB's response. So, a few responses:

1) No, the on/off data isn't meaningless once you start getting 15 or 20 games in, which is the case once teams start getting to the conference finals. It might not be a standalone data set worthy of significance in its own right, but when you start talking about more than 500 minutes on and almost 100 minutes off, it's at least a data point worth placing into context. (semi OT, but I won't even begrudge you that the nine 2008 Celtics games that KG missed that you love to bring up are a data point that was worth looking at and putting into context. One of the big differences between your interpretation of those 9 games and this situation is...

2) ...In this particular example, the story from the relatively small data set is completely corroborated by every bit of contextual information that we have. Garnett's '04 post-season on/off +/- stats are almost cartoonishly rock steady with a) his regular season +/- stats for the 02-03 and 03-04 seasons (well over 6000 minutes on and 1300 minutes off) and b) his postseason +/- stats for the 02 and 03 playoffs. For the 2002-03 - 2003-04 seasons Garnett's regular season on/off +/- was +24.7 per 100 possessions, and for the '02, '03 and '04 playoffs his postseason on/off +/- was +23.3 (almost 1200 minutes on, more than 100 minutes off). Thus, his +25 mark through 18 postseason games in 2004 looks to be very representative of the impact that he was having.

3) The entire purpose of the post that you snipped (and, indeed, much conversation over the last few threads) is to address the issue of whether LeBron's video game box score stats are more valuable than the not-as-well-measured 2-way impact of players like Duncan or Garnett. In your rebuttal you listed 5 different stats (raw scoring, TS%, WS, offensive rating, and game score) that all tell us the exact same thing, which we already knew...LeBron in those playoffs scored at a combination of volume and efficiency that neither Garnett nor Duncan ever approached. Got it. But what about the rest of the game, including defense?

Well, on the flip side, despite the lower scoring volume/efficiency Garnett was still having a massive positive impact on the game in those '04 playoffs...an impact value that is completely corroborated by both the regular seasons and playoffs preceding it...and (key) an impact at least as large as any measured impact that LeBron has ever achieved at any point in his career.

Which brings me back to things I wrote in that post that you snipped out. In 2009 LeBron was a dominant offensive player with good defense, while Garnett was dominant on both sides of the ball. Both finished #1 in both the boxscore based stats and the impact stats over the course of the season. LeBron's box score stats went video game (against lesser teams) in the postseason, while Garnett "only" finished 2nd in PER in his postseason (against stronger competition), which supports the obvious notion that LeBron's offense was ridiculous. But Garnett's positive impact remained just as huge as ever, which suggests that his not-well-measured defense was continuing to bolster his offense. Which, taken in the broader scope of what we saw at both his peak and over his career, makes a lot of sense and is well supported. And as we see over and over when dealing with stats, context and corroboration are everything.

[drza]

We're talking about HOW GOOD A PLAYER was during a particular season. Eliminate the details of team success and accolades. How much did he contribute to his team in that year? That's why '09 LeBron is rightly being considered this high.

And Kareem was simply a superior player in '76 and '77 than he was in '71 and '72.

Even if you think Kareem 1977 was better than 1971 which I don't it in no way in hell is a GOAT playoff run. I mean to get swept with HCA against a team that wasn't even an all time great does not help your case here. And how exactly is Kareem 1976 #2 on your list and he didn't even make the playoffs. If he was at his peak at that time why wouldn't he be able to get a team in the playoffs when the ABA was around as well and not too strong of teams was winning it all?

It seems to me that there is these concepts of "individual ranking" vs. "team circumstances" that I've heard bandied about a time or two. Maybe...and I'm stretching here...but maybe it's possible for Kareem to be the best but be in such a terrible team situation that the team results just didn't follow. Funny, I'm sure I've heard of that somewhere before

[colts18]

I somehow completely missed this post live action, and wouldn't have seen it if not for JB's response. So, a few responses:

1) No, the on/off data isn't meaningless once you start getting 15 or 20 games in, which is the case once teams start getting to the conference finals. It might not be a standalone data set worthy of significance in its own right, but when you start talking about more than 500 minutes on and almost 100 minutes off, it's at least a data point worth placing into context. (semi OT, but I won't even begrudge you that the nine 2008 Celtics games that KG missed that you love to bring up are a data point that was worth looking at and putting into context. One of the big differences between your interpretation of those 9 games and this situation is...

2) ...In this particular example, the story from the relatively small data set is completely corroborated by every bit of contextual information that we have. Garnett's '04 post-season on/off +/- stats are almost cartoonishly rock steady with a) his regular season +/- stats for the 02-03 and 03-04 seasons (well over 6000 minutes on and 1300 minutes off) and b) his postseason +/- stats for the 02 and 03 playoffs. For the 2002-03 - 2003-04 seasons Garnett's regular season on/off +/- was +24.7 per 100 possessions, and for the '02, '03 and '04 playoffs his postseason on/off +/- was +23.3 (almost 1200 minutes on, more than 100 minutes off). Thus, his +25 mark through 18 postseason games in 2004 looks to be very representative of the impact that he was having.

3) The entire purpose of the post that you snipped (and, indeed, much conversation over the last few threads) is to address the issue of whether LeBron's video game box score stats are more valuable than the not-as-well-measured 2-way impact of players like Duncan or Garnett. In your rebuttal you listed 5 different stats (raw scoring, TS%, WS, offensive rating, and game score) that all tell us the exact same thing, which we already knew...LeBron in those playoffs scored at a combination of volume and efficiency that neither Garnett nor Duncan ever approached. Got it. But what about the rest of the game, including defense?

Well, on the flip side, despite the lower scoring volume/efficiency Garnett was still having a massive positive impact on the game in those '04 playoffs...an impact value that is completely corroborated by both the regular seasons and playoffs preceding it...and (key) an impact at least as large as any measured impact that LeBron has ever achieved at any point in his career.

Which brings me back to things I wrote in that post that you snipped out. In 2009 LeBron was a dominant offensive player with good defense, while Garnett was dominant on both sides of the ball. Both finished #1 in both the boxscore based stats and the impact stats over the course of the season. LeBron's box score stats went video game (against lesser teams) in the postseason, while Garnett "only" finished 2nd in PER in his postseason (against stronger competition), which supports the obvious notion that LeBron's offense was ridiculous. But Garnett's positive impact remained just as huge as ever, which suggests that his not-well-measured defense was continuing to bolster his offense. Which, taken in the broader scope of what we saw at both his peak and over his career, makes a lot of sense and is well supported. And as we see over and over when dealing with stats, context and corroboration are everything.

100 minutes of off court data is completely meaningless. Plus you forgot to mention while KG was +23 or +25 or so, he was actually +2.5 when he was on the court. His teams were -17 to -20 in the small sample that he missed. That is why +/- stats have to taken with a grain of salt when its the off court data driving his high rating, not his on court rating. I can't believe you honestly believe that the +25 is indicative of his value. The -20 in small sample size is completely meaningless. No team is that bad. Even the all-time worse Bobcats are -15. Do you believe the 2004 TWolves are worse than the Bobcats minus KG? Because I don't. That's why off court data has to be regressed heavily, while I don't think the on-court data has to be regressed that much. I'm much more confident that +15 is closer to LeBron's value on court than -20 is the TWolves value without KG. Not to mention the ceiling effect where its easier to carry a -20 to 0 than to take a -5 to 15.

David West was +35 in the 2012 playoffs with over 100 minutes of off court data, do you think that is anywhere close to his true impact in the playoffs?

KG didn't face better competition. He faced the 8th, 13th, and 21st best defense. Not so coincidentally his worst postseason series was against the best defensive team. LeBron faced the #1 defense in the league and had his best series vs. them. Is it a coincidence that KG's best offensive series came from 02-04 when he played the 25th, 19th, and 21st best defenses?

[drza]

I somehow completely missed this post live action, and wouldn't have seen it if not for JB's response. So, a few responses:

1) No, the on/off data isn't meaningless once you start getting 15 or 20 games in, which is the case once teams start getting to the conference finals. It might not be a standalone data set worthy of significance in its own right, but when you start talking about more than 500 minutes on and almost 100 minutes off, it's at least a data point worth placing into context. (semi OT, but I won't even begrudge you that the nine 2008 Celtics games that KG missed that you love to bring up are a data point that was worth looking at and putting into context. One of the big differences between your interpretation of those 9 games and this situation is...

2) ...In this particular example, the story from the relatively small data set is completely corroborated by every bit of contextual information that we have. Garnett's '04 post-season on/off +/- stats are almost cartoonishly rock steady with a) his regular season +/- stats for the 02-03 and 03-04 seasons (well over 6000 minutes on and 1300 minutes off) and b) his postseason +/- stats for the 02 and 03 playoffs. For the 2002-03 - 2003-04 seasons Garnett's regular season on/off +/- was +24.7 per 100 possessions, and for the '02, '03 and '04 playoffs his postseason on/off +/- was +23.3 (almost 1200 minutes on, more than 100 minutes off). Thus, his +25 mark through 18 postseason games in 2004 looks to be very representative of the impact that he was having.

3) The entire purpose of the post that you snipped (and, indeed, much conversation over the last few threads) is to address the issue of whether LeBron's video game box score stats are more valuable than the not-as-well-measured 2-way impact of players like Duncan or Garnett. In your rebuttal you listed 5 different stats (raw scoring, TS%, WS, offensive rating, and game score) that all tell us the exact same thing, which we already knew...LeBron in those playoffs scored at a combination of volume and efficiency that neither Garnett nor Duncan ever approached. Got it. But what about the rest of the game, including defense?

Well, on the flip side, despite the lower scoring volume/efficiency Garnett was still having a massive positive impact on the game in those '04 playoffs...an impact value that is completely corroborated by both the regular seasons and playoffs preceding it...and (key) an impact at least as large as any measured impact that LeBron has ever achieved at any point in his career.

Which brings me back to things I wrote in that post that you snipped out. In 2009 LeBron was a dominant offensive player with good defense, while Garnett was dominant on both sides of the ball. Both finished #1 in both the boxscore based stats and the impact stats over the course of the season. LeBron's box score stats went video game (against lesser teams) in the postseason, while Garnett "only" finished 2nd in PER in his postseason (against stronger competition), which supports the obvious notion that LeBron's offense was ridiculous. But Garnett's positive impact remained just as huge as ever, which suggests that his not-well-measured defense was continuing to bolster his offense. Which, taken in the broader scope of what we saw at both his peak and over his career, makes a lot of sense and is well supported. And as we see over and over when dealing with stats, context and corroboration are everything.

100 minutes of off court data is completely meaningless. Plus you forgot to mention while KG was +23 or +25 or so, he was actually +2.5 when he was on the court. His teams were -17 to -20 in the small sample that he missed. That is why +/- stats have to taken with a grain of salt when its the off court data driving his high rating, not his on court rating. I can't believe you honestly believe that the +25 is indicative of his value. The -20 in small sample size is completely meaningless. No team is that bad. Even the all-time worse Bobcats are -15. Do you believe the 2004 TWolves are worse than the Bobcats minus KG? Because I don't. That's why off court data has to be regressed heavily, while I don't think the on-court data has to be regressed that much. I'm much more confident that +15 is closer to LeBron's value on court than -20 is the TWolves value without KG. Not to mention the ceiling effect where its easier to carry a -20 to 0 than to take a -5 to 15.

David West was +35 in the 2012 playoffs with over 100 minutes of off court data, do you think that is anywhere close to his true impact in the playoffs?

KG didn't face better competition. He faced the 8th, 13th, and 21st best defense. Not so coincidentally his worst postseason series was against the best defensive team. LeBron faced the #1 defense in the league and had his best series vs. them. Is it a coincidence that KG's best offensive series came from 02-04 when he played the 25th, 19th, and 21st best defenses?

Somehow, you read through a long post of mine and missed every bit of context and corroborating data that I presented. In fact, you somehow missed that I emphasized and re-emphasized that context and corroboration are the keys to stats analysis. Do I think David West is a +35 based on his postseason? Well, let's put that in even the slightest context...hmm, during the season West was a +7...you know, that's a pretty big difference. What's that you say? West has NEVER approached +35 anywhere else except these 11 games? Hmm. And hey, what do you know, all five Pacers starters had very similar +/- values, all five over 15, with three of them between +29 and +36. You know, what, after just the slightest common sense check, without even doing any real in depth thought about the circumstances, I'm going to conclude that David West's +35 in 11 games might not be representative of his value. (Shocking...I know)

But on the other hand, Garnett was +25 in 2003 for the whole season. Then, with literally an entirely different starting five, he was +21 in 2004 for the whole season. He was also +23 over 27 playoff games from 2002 - 2004. In the more refined advanced +/- stats, he finished #1 in the NBA in both 2003 and 2004. You know...that 2004 playoffs +/- of +25 might, maybe, be right in line with what he normally does. Perhaps there is other data that corroborates what otherwise would be a small dataset.

I emphasized "context" and "corroboration" for stats analysis. But the third 'C' which is even more important is "common sense." We don't have to get so caught up in winning an argument that we leave that outside the door.

[colts18]

But those regular season +/- still aren't indicative of his value because no player is a +25 player and there is a 0.1% chance that the Twolves without KG are significantly worse than the 2012 Bobcats so those -17 to -20 have to regressed significantly especially when you consider in that a good portion of that small sample size is garbage time and almost all of it contains a lot of bench players on both teams. KG played literally almost every single meaningful playoff minute between 2002 and 2004 minus minutes off for foul trouble. 3-5 minutes of off court data per game with some backups in won't reveal much. Thats why I like looking at full games missed. From 02-04, his on court +/- was -0.3. I more impressed with a player going from -5 to 10 than a guy going from -20 to 0

[drza]

But those regular season +/- still aren't indicative of his value because no player is a +25 player and there is a 0.1% chance that the Twolves without KG are significantly worse than the 2012 Bobcats so those -17 to -20 have to regressed significantly especially when you consider in that a good portion of that small sample size is garbage time and almost all of it contains a lot of bench players on both teams. KG played literally almost every single meaningful playoff minute between 2002 and 2004 minus minutes off for foul trouble. 3-5 minutes of off court data per game with some backups in won't reveal much. Thats why I like looking at full games missed. From 02-04, his on court +/- was -0.3. I more impressed with a player going from -5 to 10 than a guy going from -20 to 0

Well, again, let's look at it in context. Should it be noteworthy that the Wolves disintegrated in the 100 or so minutes that Garnett was off the court in the playoffs? Again, as a standalone point...maybe not. But considering that they disintegrated to nearly the exact same degree for two straight seasons (regular season and playoffs) with entirely different supporting casts prior to the 2004 playoffs..then yeah, I think the fact that they continued to disintegrate over the 18 playoff games of 2004 IS noteworhy. So then, let me follow your lead and start looking at the team itself instead of just the numbers.

Are the TWolves without KG significantly worse in the playoffs than the 2012 Bobcats?

Well, first, the 2004 Timberwolves in the playoffs without KG would be:

Sam Cassell (age 34), Latrell Sprewell (age 33), Trenton Hassell, Gary Trent, and Erv Johnson starting...

with Wally Szczerbiak (playing with a fractured vertebrae), Fred Hoiberg, Darrick Martin, Mark Madsen and Michael Olowokandi as the main players off the bench

Oh yeah, and Cassell is injured for at least 7 of those games, including several that he misses outright, to be replaced in the starting line-up by Darrick Martin. Who was signed to a 10-day contract during the season. With no other point guard on the team.

And to top it off, 13 of those 18 games are against a team with the #2 offense in the league and an SRS well over 5 and another squad whose SRS with all 5 starters healthy was on the order of +10 (that's from memory, from a post El Gee or someone made during the RPoY project. You're welcome to double-check me).

Bottom line: yeah, that Timberwolves squad without KG would get MERSECUTED in that situation. Repeatedly. Consistently. With no regard for human life. Would they get blown out by about 20 points a game? Yeah, I think they would. Do you disagree?

And yes, taking a team that would be well into the lottery and carrying them to the #1 seed and a Conference Finals before injuries took the final toll on the squad is extremely impressive. Using your parlance, that -20 to contender lift is huge. Especially when you again corroborate with other available data, and realize that the same player showed that he could also provide elite lift on a championship caliber team even well past his prime. So his impact is huge AND portable...

[drza]

On topic, I'm still not sure who to vote here. The favorites at this point are Wilt and LeBron, whereas by interest I'd have probably gravitated to either one of the other bigs (Hakeem/Kareem/KG/Duncan) or Magic...maybe Bird. I'm still not sure what to make of Wilt's 1967, but there's at least an argument that he was doing all of the things that I think the best bigs do. The thing with LeBron is that I know I don't have him at the top of this generation. But in a perfect world, I'd definitely consider arguments for LeBron over Wilt...I just wouldn't have been voting either here.

So color me undecided. But also color me as may-not-get-to-check-in-again-before-votes-tallied. So, for here:

Vote: Wilt '67

And if I get to come back later and am swayed by something I see, I reserve the right to change my vote.

[therealbig3]

@ElGee

But like we've discussed before, we haven't seen LeBron with a legitimate post presence, and I have a hard time seeing why a scoring wing and a scoring big wouldn't be able to fit perfectly, when we've seen Kobe and Shaq/Gasol work great, and I feel that LeBron is a superior offensive threat and a better fit next to a great big man because he's a much more willing and able facilitator. I don't know if it's fair to essentially punish him for not playing with one by just assuming he can't.

I think adding a Pau Gasol to the 09 Cavs would do wonders for them offensively, and it still wouldn't be an overwhelmingly talented supporting cast.

And since I do believe LeBron is a better offensive player than Paul, I do think his peak can match up to anybody's, I just felt that Jordan's/Shaq's/Russell's peaks were a tad bit better.

His portability isn't any worse than any ball-dominant player (Magic/Nash/Paul) imo. He's not quite as good as Magic/Nash in that role (better than Paul imo), but he's close enough that his excellent defense gives him the edge over someone like Magic imo. And since I personally take Magic over Bird, I take LeBron over Bird as well.

I guess it comes down to the degree of difference we see between LeBron and Magic/Nash offensively as that ball-dominant playmaker. I don't see a large one personally. And as I said before, I think he can give you the better overall team if you surround him with a comparably talented supporting cast that fits him than if you did the same with Magic or Bird. And this goes for even a supremely talented supporting cast imo.

[semi-sentient]

Are you seriously trying to convince people that LeBron is in the same league as Magic and Nash in terms of offense?

Because that's quite ridiculous. Magic and Nash have run the best offenses in history year-in, year-out. LeBron is nowhere near them in terms of running an offense. I know I'm not part of this project but it's getting ridiculous already, and I can't believe that people are seriously entertaining the idea of LeBron having a more dominant season that Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, and Hakeem all things considered.

[therealbig3]

Are you seriously trying to convince people that LeBron is in the same league as Magic and Nash in terms of offense?

Because that's quite ridiculous. Magic and Nash have run the best offenses in history year-in, year-out. LeBron is nowhere near them in terms of running an offense. I know I'm not part of this project but it's getting ridiculous already, and I can't believe that people are seriously entertaining the idea of LeBron having a more dominant season that Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, and Hakeem all things considered.

With more support and with pieces that fit them perfectly.

Unfortunately, we don't have offensive RAPM values for Magic, but Nash is the closest we've seen offensively to him since imo, and LeBron is slightly inferior, but still comparable according to offensive RAPM. And they play the same role, so I don't understand the issues of portability with LeBron that aren't levied at someone like Magic, or eventually Nash, as severely.

Why exactly is he clearly not on their level, all things considered? The only people I've seen get offended at LeBron being mentioned so far are Lakers fans.

I wonder why?

[PTB Fan]

@TheRegula8or

Brilliant post. Wasn't this the postseason where Oscar and Lucas were hit by injuries?

"Cincinnati needs a victory over the 76ers to advance in the Eastern finals against Boston. The Royals also need a few day's rest to get their bandage brigade, which includes starters Oscar Robertson and Jerry Lucas and reserve Bud Olson, back in working order.

Robertson, who bruised his right forearm and Lucas, who suffered a back injury Tuesday's defeat at Philadelphia both played the following night when the Royals won 101-89. Both are with the team today. But, whereas, Robertson is expected to play, Lucas status is doubtful. The rookie star was in for only eight minutes."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vu ... ries&hl=en


Do you have some info on Oscar's injury in the round against Boston? Regardless of it, the Celtics D was absolutely amazing in that season.

I have also few Q's to ask

1. Which season would you consider for Oscar as his absolute best: '63 or '64 and where would you rank it?

2. In the opening round of '64 playoffs against Philly, how many assists Oscar had in Game 2, 3 and 4? From what I have gathered, he had 16 dimes in the opening and closing games of the series.

3. Did all of the stats came from newspaper articles or some of it come from other sites like the one Celtics site that has stats from every game of the Bill Russell era etc?


Also, please continue to post in the following threads like the one that you made for the Doctor.

[ThaRegul8r]

I still have '76 Erving over LeBron.

Arguments here might sway me, and they'd definitely be fun. I'm on record seeing these years as virtual twins. I suppose in the end where I am is that LeBron puts up slightly bigger numbers, and when it comes to tiebreaks, I tend to favor modern players.

I will say for anyone who asks, "Does that mean you'll vote for Erving next?", the answer is "Quite possibly."

I actually missed this.

To me it's just interesting how people are talking about what LeBron did with the team he had, yet Erving did the same thing 33 years before LeBron did it--led his team in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks before LeBron did it too, yet he succeeded where LeBron couldn't quite get over the hump.

People talk about Orlando being a bad matchup for Cleveland (2-1 against the Cavs in the regular season), but Denver was just as bad a matchup for New York. The Nets were 5-9 against the Nets in the regular season, and 7-15 against them for the last two seasons. They were the underdog against Denver, and going into Game 1, they had never beaten the Nuggets in Denver in 11 meetings, losing by an average margin of 13.3 points a game. But Erving scored 45 and hit the game-winner to give the Nets their first win against the Nuggets in Denver ever (they would go on to lose their next two games in Denver, making them 1-13 against the Nuggets in Denver).

Erving was the only Hall of Famer going against two Hall of Famers in David Thompson and Dan Issel, for whom that matters, in addition to Bobby Jones, one of the greatest defensive players of all time. Erving was directly being guarded by one of the GOAT defenders and put up what was called afterwards "the greatest individual performance by a basketball player at any level anywhere." One coach said that without Erving, "the Nets would be a mediocre team." The Nets' own coach said that the team consisted of "a lot of role players around Doc." So what's missing?

Being MVP of the league in the season in question? Check.
Carrying a weak team further than it had any business going? Check.
Faced in the playoffs with a superior opponent? Check.
Looking over at the other team and seeing that the man who will responsible for guarding you is the of the greatest defensive players of all time? Check.
Having a historic postseason performance? Check.
Leading your team to a title against and despite the odds? Check.

Even LeBron can't check off all those boxes. So if people are willing to recognize LeBron's greatness, why is no one willing to do the same for Erving? Era bias? Because it likely took place before anyone was even born?

LeBron and Erving were in the same situation, but the tiebreaker is that Erving actually got it done. As I said before, that's not a knock on LeBron, that's just how great Erving was in '76. And therefore on my all-time list of greatest peaks, '76 Erving ranks above '09 LeBron. I'm not trying to "convince" anyone of anything or "sway" anyone, but that's just how I see it.

[QuantMisleads]

There was an economist in 1953 who wrote an article trying to defend orthodox mainstream economics from a constant barrage of attacks. What he said was that a theory didn't need to reflect reality per say, but had to have predictive power (in addition to, perhaps, being descriptive). If a theory is prescriptive it provides for an engine of analysis. The entire point of the paper was to protect positive economics from the normative side (positivism saying what is, normative saying what ought to be). What I mean by this is that he wanted to maintain that you can have economic theories that don't have a normative component to them, but of course the best way to do this for the mainstream of the profession was to have theories that didn't reflect reality. If they don't reflect reality and are allowed to be high in the sky, then you ignore the dirty debates surrounding the nature of economics and more importantly our economic system of capitalism. The mainstream economist trying to protect it was of course the bastard Milton Friedman. What began from that time period on was the mainstream of the profession beginning to shun the unorthodox crowd that criticized them (excluding them from journals, etc) and focusing on "advancing the science". What began from that period on was a bigger and bigger focus on mathematizing economics, as well as econometrics (statistics) becoming the one and only method of analysis. Historical analysis? Qualitative analysis? Oh, that's not economics!

This is precisely what some of you are doing in this thread. There is no real analysis, and no nuance, in believing that you're advancing something by abstracting from reality. You'd make a great neoclassical economist with that line of thinking.
Unfortunately you need to realize that all knowledge is social, and that there is no such thing as "positivism" as distinct from our beliefs in who the best player is.
This is why I become particularly annoyed when people come here using faulty analysis, and others praising their analysis as if it has the highest value, when in reality it has little (particularly when it comes to the guy named ElGee). Not for nothing do people commonly say that statistics conceal more than they reveal. Using statistical analysis rather than good hard nosed qualitative analysis/historical analysis is faulty to the nth degree.

Chamberlain, among others, is being destroyed by those who are looking to obscure rather than reveal. This "highest peak of all time" is just showing each person's individual bias and using questionable statistics (never mind cherry picked statistics) to obscure it. Let me just be one among many to say that these threads on the highest peak ever has no value whatsoever. Until I see someone using some actual historical analysis and obvious results (team record, actual numbers), these threads will be nothing more than pseudoscientific statements.

So there are a few problems here, to sum up. The first is that the statistics used are cherry picked to hide our biases. This is done so we don't have to admit them, first of all, and have everyone believe (including ourselves) that we're doing a sort of scientific analysis (when really, it's the worst kind of pseudoscientific analysis one can conduct). In addition, basketball is a 5 on 5 game. The statistics used show the subjectivism inherent in analysis, as we attribute things to one player rather than to a team. In addition, we make assumptions that cannot be tested, and there is little to no evidence from the mouth of players and coaches that such assumptions are actually true.

[C-izMe]

Are you seriously trying to convince people that LeBron is in the same league as Magic and Nash in terms of offense?

Because that's quite ridiculous. Magic and Nash have run the best offenses in history year-in, year-out. LeBron is nowhere near them in terms of running an offense. I know I'm not part of this project but it's getting ridiculous already, and I can't believe that people are seriously entertaining the idea of LeBron having a more dominant season that Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, and Hakeem all things considered.

With more support and with pieces that fit them perfectly.

Unfortunately, we don't have offensive RAPM values for Magic, but Nash is the closest we've seen offensively to him since imo, and LeBron is slightly inferior, but still comparable according to offensive RAPM. And they play the same role, so I don't understand the issues of portability with LeBron that aren't levied at someone like Magic, or eventually Nash, as severely.

Why exactly is he clearly not on their level, all things considered? The only people I've seen get offended at LeBron being mentioned so far are Lakers fans.

I wonder why?

I don't get how you can cite RAPM as the reason why Lebron is nearly as good as Nash offensively and in the same breath say he's the best perimeter defender since Scottie (when all numbers show he's clearly not). Something's gotta give.