#12 Highest Peak of All Time (Walton '77 wins)

[SDChargers#1]

Don't know if I have voted yet. I am in a bit of a quandary because I don't feel I can vote for Walton and Erving because I personally feel they are romanticized a bit a don't deserve to go yet. I can't vote for Kobe, otherwise people will just call me a homer.

Erg...

Vote: Julius Erving '76

Though I don't feel very good about putting in an ABA year. At least he played every game. And the numbers he put up were incredible.

[bastillon]

vote: Walton 77

I've just watched NBA all-star game from '78. Walton completely dominated when he was on the floor (among NBA stars!). it wasn't about his numbers, it was about his impact. high motor, active defense, great rebounding, couple assists and he could really push the break. didn't have a great talent in comparison to other all time greats but he maximized his potential. total team player.

[ThaRegul8r]

vote: Walton 77

I've just watched NBA all-star game from '78. Walton completely dominated when he was on the floor (among NBA stars!). it wasn't about his numbers, it was about his impact. high motor, active defense, great rebounding, couple assists and he could really push the break. didn't have a great talent in comparison to other all time greats but he maximized his potential. total team player.

I believe that when the pendulum swung to individualism as the standard of greatness and the filter through which all players are evaluated, that some players become unappreciated. Most people look to see what a player does on-on-one, how many points he scored, basically how well he himself looks. Hence, the player whose strength lies in making the team look good is automatically at an inherent disadvantage. The only way he'll get recognized is if he also looks good in an individual, one-on-one situation, as that is more highly valued. How well he improves the team is incidental to most if they don't feel he looks impressive one-on-one(i.e., scoring).

[QuantMisleads]

Likewise those that do so much but come up short are somehow hurting their team. I think it's always more complicated than that, but I do use this gauge to say Wilt was better than Russell, even though the way Russell played made his team click.

[therealbig3]

Here's how the voting breaks down:

77 Walton - 7 (therealbig3, ardee, colts18, PTB Fan, ElGee, drza, bastillon)

76 Erving - 4 (C-izMe, DavidStern, Doctor MJ, SDChargers#1)

09 Kobe - 1 (Josephpaul)

06 Wade - 1 (JordansBulls)

[Dr Positivity]

I didn't officially vote, my vote is Walton 77

[Doctor MJ]

Okay, that's the clincher then.

Bill Walton '77 takes it.

Of note, this makes for almost the youngest player season listed on our ranking, just a few months older than LeBron '09.

Of course, in terms of NBA experience, Walton '77 is by far the least in terms of NBA experience. Very impressive, and we can only marvel at what he would have done if he'd stayed healthy.

[Johnlac1]

Guessing this will be Erving vs. Walton. I'm interested in reading about how good Dr. J was defensively if anyone could share. Something I noticed is how dominant defensively his Nets were from 74-76, then he joins the Sixers and they're dominant defensively from 77-84. His STL% and BLK% are very impressive, near 3% each during his prime (did it in both ABA and NBA) and 2.5% each for his career - the only notable player to average 2.5%+ in both (when ranking that list by WS, the 2nd highest guy to accomplish that feat has only 7.2 career WS).

Anyone care to break down his defensive impact? His defensive strengths and weaknesses (if any). Was he merely good or possibly great? I never see him come up when talking about the great wing defenders.

Erving was an excellent rebounder but only fair/average on-ball defense. He could be beaten, but he still could block shots and rebound well. And when he rebounded, his speed and ballhandling ability allowed him to get the ball up the floor very fast if he couldn't find the outlet man quick enough. Overall his impact was great. Saw that final game, and not only did Dr. J get 40 points in a close game, he posterized Walton on one of the most re-played dunks in NBA history. He could score on anybody. Only a fair outside shooter but inside the lane he had great elevation, body control, and a variety of moves. He got so high so quickly and got his shot off so quickly, nobody had time to get set to block his shot which he frequently banked. His hands were so huge the bb looked like a volleyball when he palmed it. Unstoppable in the open court. When he got the ball on a break after midcourt, you might as well chalk up two points. He took the sixers to three finals winning once. A truly great player.

[Johnlac1]

Vote: Walton 77

This has to go to Walton. When Walton played, the Blazers were playing better than the 86 Bulls. When he was out, they played like a below average team.

Agreed. Apart from Lucas, the Blazers had no other star players. Without Walton in '77, the Blazer go 5-12. With a healthy Walton the whole year, they easily win 60 games. In '78 the Blazers were cruising to another title, and Walton goes down. So do the Blazers. And I don't know why people underrate his offense. Walton could have easily averaged five or six more ppg without hurting his efficiency. The fact that he got more pleasure out of passing to a teammate for a layup rather than scoring on his defender speaks volumes for Walton as the ultimate team player. Comparing Walton to Russell, Russell probably had a slight edge in defense and rebounding, but Walton was clearly a superior scorer. But both were the chief parts of their team's offense in making it go. Walton's total effect cannot simply be measured by stats. Is there a stat for seeing a play develop on both offense and defense and reacting accordingly? Walton and Russell were both excellent in those areas.

[Johnlac1]

vote: Walton 77

I've just watched NBA all-star game from '78. Walton completely dominated when he was on the floor (among NBA stars!). it wasn't about his numbers, it was about his impact. high motor, active defense, great rebounding, couple assists and he could really push the break. didn't have a great talent in comparison to other all time greats but he maximized his potential. total team player.

What do you mean didn't have great talent? Physical or skill-wise? He wasn't a great jump shooter, but that's about it as far as deficiencies. He put his guide hand directly behind the bb which threw it off. However, he was very good at the 5-10 ft bank shot. But he had a great jump hook, and a tremendous knack of knowing where the ball was going. Tremendous athlete although not super strong.