#6 Highest Peak of All Time (Kareem '77 wins)

[Doctor MJ]

Hakeem is enshrined at the 5 spot, we move forward.

We'll do stick with the 3-day schedule again this time after needing it last time, and try 2-day again in the near future.

Reminders:

1. Indicate your vote clearly. Ex:

Vote: Adam Morrison '13

2. Do not vote if you're not on the panel. PM me if you want to be considered for the panel.

3. No "runoff" votes allowed. Ex: "X, but switch me to Y if Y is doing better". You can change your vote to Y at any time, but you've got to be the one to do it.

[therealbig3]

Vote: 09 LeBron

Really, it wasn't that much worse than Jordan's 91, which was highly regarded partly because of how "perfect" he was that season.

LeBron in 09 is very similar.

Can't complain though, because the competition is fierce...the way I see it out of the legitimate candidates:

1. LeBron
2. Bird
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Duncan
6. KG
7. Walton
8. Dr. J

And I can understand the case for literally every one of them right now.

[colts18]

Vote: LeBron 09 again

After that its Kareem. Im surprised no one talks about Kareem. I watched some of the 77 series and there is no doubt who is the better player. I don't know how anyone can watch that video and say Walton was a better player. Walton's passing was good but its overrated. Kareem was guarding him 1 on 1 with no help at all. Fortunately Blazers guards abused the Lakers guards were than Pierce beat down Radmonivich in 08.

[Doctor MJ]

After that its Kareem. Im surprised no one talks about Kareem. I watched some of the 77 series and there is no doubt who is the better player. I don't know how anyone can watch that video and say Walton was a better player. Walton's passing was good but its overrated. Kareem was guarding him 1 on 1 with no help at all. Fortunately Blazers guards abused the Lakers guards were than Pierce beat down Radmonivich in 08.

Here's how I approached this comparison

Things we know:
-Walton won an MVP and contemporary observers rave about his impact as the top defender around and as very smart player with a great motor.
-On/Off data really is so vastly in favor of Walton it's very hard to imagine that its a sample size issue.
-Kareem is a vastly superior scorer to Walton.

Watch video: There's not any real surprises. Pretty much every isolated thing that's said about each player is true. Walton really does stand out a notch above Kareem on everything but scoring, but Kareem is a far, far, FAR better scorer.

I cannot claim that watching the video Walton looked like the better player, however when I just use my eyes, I overrate scoring and underrate the more subtle things. My appreciation for the impact of subtle things comes from my analytic side, and as mentioned, people explain Walton's huge impact by pointing to how much better the Blazers were with him than without him, and identifying the specific things he did well.

All the stories, in other words, gel together and make me inclined to say I don't have a reason to disagree with the contemporary experts.

However, to be clear, the experts on the pro-Walton side were focused on his value, not his absolute goodness. I think it's clear that Walton was more valuable to the Blazers than Kareem was to those Laker teams Walton competed against, but the goodness debate is tougher. Walton's not going to have that impact on every team, and Kareem's impact varied too.

For right now, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Kareem here with the tiebreak being that Walton's fragility was an issue so big it even has to be considered in his peak. Walton even in his one big playoff run where his MPG stood way out above his norms still didn't average 40 MPG, while Kareem was known to flirt with Wilt-levels of playing time in the post-season.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: LeBron '09

Still not feeling right to switch up my vote. I do see this year of LeBron's to be very, very close to peak Jordan.

The LeBron vs Julius debate remains on my mind.

Bird & Magic aren't quite as close to LeBron in my mind at this point, but I feel like it's possible I could get swayed there.

[colts18]

Here's how I approached this comparison

Things we know:
-Walton won an MVP and contemporary observers rave about his impact as the top defender around and as very smart player with a great motor.
-On/Off data really is so vastly in favor of Walton it's very hard to imagine that its a sample size issue.
-Kareem is a vastly superior scorer to Walton.

Watch video: There's not any real surprises. Pretty much every isolated thing that's said about each player is true. Walton really does stand out a notch above Kareem on everything but scoring, but Kareem is a far, far, FAR better scorer.

I cannot claim that watching the video Walton looked like the better player, however when I just use my eyes, I overrate scoring and underrate the more subtle things. My appreciation for the impact of subtle things comes from my analytic side, and as mentioned, people explain Walton's huge impact by pointing to how much better the Blazers were with him than without him, and identifying the specific things he did well.

All the stories, in other words, gel together and make me inclined to say I don't have a reason to disagree with the contemporary experts.

However, to be clear, the experts on the pro-Walton side were focused on his value, not his absolute goodness. I think it's clear that Walton was more valuable to the Blazers than Kareem was to those Laker teams Walton competed against, but the goodness debate is tougher. Walton's not going to have that impact on every team, and Kareem's impact varied too.

For right now, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Kareem here with the tiebreak being that Walton's fragility was an issue so big it even has to be considered in his peak. Walton even in his one big playoff run where his MPG stood way out above his norms still didn't average 40 MPG, while Kareem was known to flirt with Wilt-levels of playing time in the post-season.

It's possible Walton had more value against the rest of the league than Kareem, but head 2 head, Kareem's size was an overwhelming advantage. He could literally shoot whenever he wanted on Walton which is why he was getting doubled and tripled. Walton is a better help defender but from the video I watched he didn't much of it because you can't exactly help off of Kareem and not expect to get burned.

The series was won because the Lakers ballhandlers literally couldn't dribble the ball up the court. One of the most basic things we take for granted in today's NBA, but in that series they struggled. Not to mention, Kareem was the only guy on the team with 6 rebounds per game or more. They basically played 3 guards, 1 forward, and Kareem. Walton had an all-star PF on his side who averaged 23 PPG in that series plus guards who were better at basketball.

[PTB Fan]

Vote: '77 Kareem

Should have been considered much earlier IMO. He was amazing overall, especially in the postseason where he was absolutely amazing despite the weak team he had around him. And to play up on that level like he did in the playoffs despite consistent double and triple teams is just amazing.

[bastillon]

what's LeBron's case over Kareem ? as I've said earlier, I don't like LeBron's 09 because Magic series was very much winnable. Magic were pretty much the same team in 09-11 and they really struggled against any decent team... excluding Cleveland. ElGee really showed how overrated those Cavs were by the SRS. they were pounding weak opposition but struggled against top teams. to me you show your true value against elite competition and not only this is more important than thrashing weak teams, it's the only thing that really matters. this is why I think Duncan is also overrated in this project.

Kareem played his best against the best. I don't see Magic winning the series if you swap LeBron and Kareem. conversely, I see Lakers still getting thrashed by the Blazers with LeBron in Kareem's place.

for now, vote for Kareem '77. pretty much the only big who had a legitimate chance of outplaying peak Dream head 2 head.

[C-izMe]

Duncan 03. Dominated everything.

[bastillon]

Duncan 03. Dominated everything.

against pathetic opposition though. Duncan didn't play one good man defender that postseason. look what happened year later when 40-year old Karl Malone was defending Duncan. this was pretty much the same player and failed miserably for an all timer. Duncan was a great player, but he didn't have enough talent to dominate against strong defenders. I can't imagine Duncan dominating vs Ewing/Robinson/Mourning/Karl Malone. Kareem could definitely do that.

[JordansBulls]

Between these guys for me

--------- RS PER, WS48, --------- PER, WS48 playoffs
KAJ 1971: 29.0, 0.33, -----------25.0, 0.27 (14 playoff games, title)
Duncan 2003: 26.9, 0.248------------28.4, 0.279 (24 playoff games, title)
Magic 1987: 27.0, 0.263-------------26.2, 0.265 (18 playoff games, title)
Bird 1986: 25.6, 0.244--------------23.9, 0.263 (23 playoff games, title)
Moses Malone 1983: 25.1, 0.248 -----25.7, 0.260 (13 playoff games, title)
Lebron James 2012:30.7, 0.298-------30.3, 0.284 (23 playoff games, title)
Dwyane Wade 2006: 27.6, 0.239-------26.9, 0.240 (23 playoff games, title)
Julius Erving 1976: 28.7, 0.262-----32.0, 0.321 (13 playoff games, title) - ABA



http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/ ... ormances-6


1987 MAGIC JOHNSON'S STATS
Points per game: 26.2
Boards per game: 8.0
Assists per game: 13.0
PER: 28.2


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/ ... ormances-3


2003 DUNCAN'S STATS
Points per game: 24.2
Boards per game: 17.0
Assists per game: 5.3
PER: 32.0


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/ ... nces-31-40

1986 BIRD'S STATS
Points per game: 24.0
Boards per game: 9.7
Assists per game: 9.5
PER: 22.4

I'm taking Kareem 1971. Best stats in the league by far, dominated in the season and playoffs and gave the Bucks its only title in only it's 3rd year in existence.

Vote: Kareem 1971

[lorak]

vote: LeBron '09

[ushvinder88]

Duncan 03. Dominated everything.

against pathetic opposition though. Duncan didn't play one good man defender that postseason. look what happened year later when 40-year old Karl Malone was defending Duncan. this was pretty much the same player and failed miserably for an all timer. Duncan was a great player, but he didn't have enough talent to dominate against strong defenders. I can't imagine Duncan dominating vs Ewing/Robinson/Mourning/Karl Malone. Kareem could definitely do that.

Duncan's competition was pathetic? Yeah beating kobe and shaq by himself is such a pathetic accomplishment, not to mention that dirk was there during the first 3 games of the series and he still dominated. The New Jersey Nets team were very strong defensively, just because they dont stand out on a piece of paper doesnt mean they werent a solid defensive core. But i forgot, accoriding to realgm, that lakers team was so 'washedup', the excuses here are whats pathetic.

Duncan has outplayed malone many times during the early part of his career, i love how one series is being cherrypicked. His 2004 run is being seen as a complete disaster yet his efficiency still is on par with any of karl malone's best playoff runs, oh my what a choke job!

Who exactly were bird and magic's comp, they had no comp until they reached the finals, and thier teams always had more depth than the opposition. I'll take duncan's 2 way dominance on a weak team, over 1 dimensional offense on stacked teams any day of the week.

Peak Magic Johnson's competition: The Nuggets, Warriors and Sonics, lol. 3 teams with a losing record, oh my god, tim duncan would never strive against those amazing teams, lol.

[Doctor MJ]

what's LeBron's case over Kareem ? as I've said earlier, I don't like LeBron's 09 because Magic series was very much winnable. Magic were pretty much the same team in 09-11 and they really struggled against any decent team... excluding Cleveland. ElGee really showed how overrated those Cavs were by the SRS. they were pounding weak opposition but struggled against top teams. to me you show your true value against elite competition and not only this is more important than thrashing weak teams, it's the only thing that really matters. this is why I think Duncan is also overrated in this project.

Kareem played his best against the best. I don't see Magic winning the series if you swap LeBron and Kareem. conversely, I see Lakers still getting thrashed by the Blazers with LeBron in Kareem's place.

for now, vote for Kareem '77. pretty much the only big who had a legitimate chance of outplaying peak Dream head 2 head.

I really don't get the whole "winnable" perspective on why LeBron's getting blamed for the upset lost. What exactly was LeBron supposed to do that he didn't do in that series?

I understand the argument of the super-LeBron-focused offense having a low ceiling, and for that you can use the loss to a not-that-impressive Magic team, but that's not the same argument as this one, and it's an argument that's been well discussed in these pages.

I also think it's just bizarre to argue against LeBron, playing with a supporting cast that would dropoff an insane amount without him, for not getting quite to the finals as part of arguing for Kareem when we saw Kareem teams do considerably worse in the middle of his prime. Obviously Kareem had weak supporting casts, but just as obviously Kareem wasn't having anywhere near the lift on those teams as LeBron was having in Cleveland in '09.

Now, I'm not saying we should judge Kareem simply by looking at disappointments of course, but if we're going to open up the debate by posting LeBron's disappointment as the foundation, how can we not immediately apply the same standard to Kareem?

Speaking to the actual play of the two players, I consider Kareem to be an astounding scorer, and simply good at everything else. (As mentioned vs Walton, Walton beats him at everything else that's not scoring.) Consider that, and then consider that LeBron's right in the same ballpark as Kareem as a scorer, can give you more in the rest of offense, and plays defense about as well as you can expect for a non-big.

[colts18]

against pathetic opposition though. Duncan didn't play one good man defender that postseason. look what happened year later when 40-year old Karl Malone was defending Duncan. this was pretty much the same player and failed miserably for an all timer. Duncan was a great player, but he didn't have enough talent to dominate against strong defenders. I can't imagine Duncan dominating vs Ewing/Robinson/Mourning/Karl Malone. Kareem could definitely do that.

I swear if this was KG, you would have propping him up based on your agenda. How do you completely ignore the fact that he faced the 03 Nets were the #1 defense (even better than the Spurs vaunted defense) and they had Collins, Mutombo, and Martin, all elite defenders.

[Doctor MJ]

Duncan's competition was pathetic? Yeah beating kobe and shaq by himself is such a pathetic accomplishment, not to mention that dirk was there during the first 3 games of the series and he still dominated. The New Jersey Nets team were very strong defensively, just because they dont stand out on a piece of paper doesnt mean they werent a solid defensive core. But i forgot, accoriding to realgm, that lakers team was so 'washedup', the excuses here are whats pathetic.

I'm not going to say I'd have used the term 'pathetic' to describe the '03 competition, but the picture you paint is extremely misleading.

Re: Beating Kobe & Shaq. He didn't beat them when they were playing well together. Peak Shaq-Kobe Lakers beat the '01 Spurs by over 20 PPG in a sweep, and that '01 Spurs team was better than the '03 Spurs team by any reasonable metric. More obviously, Shaq & Kobe were in the middle of the most-mindblowing self-destruction we've probably ever seen, which was why they got split up. The vibe in '03 was that because the Lakers were vacating the title, an unworthy champion would be crowned.

On the Spurs side, no one was shocked at how good they were playing. No one was saying "They're even better than the Lakers.", they were saying "I can't believe that this team is probably going to win a title, how did Shaq & Kobe let it come to this?".

Re: Beating the Mavs. That's the thing to brag about. Not nearly as good as beating peak Lakers of course, but that Mavs team was good, and Duncan led an inferior supporting cast past them.

Re: Nets had a good defense. I love how that's the best thing you can say about the Eastern champ Duncan had to go through. Quite true, they were good on defense, and utterly mediocre on offense, and overall a team that wouldn't have beaten any of the Western Conference 2nd round teams.

[Doctor MJ]

It's possible Walton had more value against the rest of the league than Kareem, but head 2 head, Kareem's size was an overwhelming advantage. He could literally shoot whenever he wanted on Walton which is why he was getting doubled and tripled. Walton is a better help defender but from the video I watched he didn't much of it because you can't exactly help off of Kareem and not expect to get burned.

The series was won because the Lakers ballhandlers literally couldn't dribble the ball up the court. One of the most basic things we take for granted in today's NBA, but in that series they struggled. Not to mention, Kareem was the only guy on the team with 6 rebounds per game or more. They basically played 3 guards, 1 forward, and Kareem. Walton had an all-star PF on his side who averaged 23 PPG in that series plus guards who were better at basketball.

Hmm, a few points:

1. Typically when someone focuses on the head-to-head instead of vs the league as a whole, they aren't trying to argue for someone whose team got swept in the head-to-head. If Kareem's team kept beating Walton's, I'd get ignoring Walton's help defense against other teams, but insisting on using the matchup against the Lakers as a way to rate Walton is seems baseless when you consider that the Lakers were by no means the gold standard of competition in that era.

2. "Kareem could shoot when he wanted against Walton". Kareem can shoot when he wanted against anyone. Walton made his life a lot tougher than most. Kareem's shooting ability of course needs to be a be a large factor in the debate of course, but obviously it alone wasn't enough to drag his team to elite levels because shooting at will isn't the same thing as scoring at will even when one is converting on a nice efficiency in the minority of possessions where the team offense can get you the ball where you can do something with it.

3. But I completely agree that there are points that need to be made on the Kareem side of things, which is why I explained ranking Kareem over Walton.

[ardee]

Vote: 1987 Magic Johnson

For the reasons I illustrated in the last thread. I haven't heard anyone respond to the point that if Russell gets voted in as the GOAT defensive peak, Magic should be voted in soon since he had the GOAT offensive peak.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: 1987 Magic Johnson

For the reasons I illustrated in the last thread. I haven't heard anyone respond to the point that if Russell gets voted in as the GOAT defensive peak, Magic should be voted in soon since he had the GOAT offensive peak.

This is a reasonable point to bring up for consideration, but reasonable rebuttals come just as quickly:

1) Russell got a plurality, not a majority. Most of us don't agree with where Russell was placed. Doesn't make the vote invalid, but for most of us, the argument here should be irrelevant.

2) It is not reasonable to say that GOAT Offense = GOAT Defense as a rule. Russell has the defensive title by a very wide margin imho, Magic's lead is quite small. More to it than that, and stuff to be brought in to defend Magic's case, but that's the point: More nuance is needed.

[ElGee]

vote: 1986 Larry Bird

I've posted a lot about Bird (and Magic) because I'm not sure in these projects if people really have a good grasp on him. (I know someone like fatal does.) I find him to be a fairly misunderstood player, I believe, because he was white and ran with short steps. As such, I find myself advocating for him in these projects, although I'm not sure if the information resonates with people because it's often left without response...

I have no idea whether people (outside Doc MJ) view Bird as a hair behind Magic on the all-time GOAT offensive list and as a basketball genius, super-portable offensive player. I've tried to make the argument for why I think that way. But then I feel people have concerns about the defense, and I realize holistically I've presented only some information. But look at when Magic and Bird were IN the lineup (using total team number for 4g missed or less):

1979 -4.78 2.95
1980 7.37 5.39
1981 6.05 4.79
1982 6.38 4.37
1983 5.34 5.06
1984 6.42 3.98
1985 6.47 6.86
1986 9.06 6.84
1987 6.88 8.32
1988 7.27 5.98
1989 1.26 6.84 (No Bird)
1990 2.94 6.74
1991 7.39 6.73

This is not to make the case to use such broad strokes when evaluating individuals (especially in the case of Bird and Magic), but I feel like people aren't aware the differences in team strength because they have been so conditioned to "Magic 5, Bird 3."

-The Celtics played in a vastly superior conference. For young people, think early 2000's West v East kind of difference.
-Then notice that the Celtics are a leg up (and in some cases way up) in SRS until 1987.
-The 86 Celtics were better than the 87 Lakers by SRS and just about every dominant/great team metric we can find. (something I believe as well) -- these, of course, are the peak years in question.

From 1987-1988 Bird missed 13 relevant games, and the Celtics defense dropped to +3.2. The 1980 Celtics saw a similar change defensively. The 86 Celtics were an excellent defensive team, and were just fine defensively without McHale (ITO of results, better in 15g w/out him). Bird looks like he has an impact on defense (in a good way)...with Magic, it's hard to see.

Look, these players are so close together. (I'm kind of amazed we all agree with that, btw.) None of this can "prove" anything. I just want people to know all the evidence that exists, and the evidence -- including 3 straight years of all-D play, the team stats, AND the eye test suggest Bird was a strong positive on defense. In 1986 I think that's to a lesser degree, but Larry Bird was a physically, bruising, strong player. This helped him with positioning and it helped him as a tremendous rebounder.

Finally, many have expressed a "security" in putting the ball in someone's hands as a QB versus Bird who played in so many different ways, but never as a QB. Well, in 1982 Boston lost their PG (Tiny) and the Celtics SRS improved for 14g to +7.9 SRS (no pace information). Then in 1991, the team plays without a traditional PG and the offense w/McHale in and with/without Bird goes from +1.6 (22g) to +7.3 ORtg (46g) for a 9.0 SRS. And FTR, the OREB% goes way down with Bird in...AND the defense gets way better.

There seems to be nothing about Bird's different "style" that prohibits massive offensive impact with massive offensive ceilings, with or without a traditional PG...AND he does it in really good defensive environments.