#13 Highest Peak of All Time (Julius '76 wins)

[thebottomline]

I appreciate all the thought you're putting in here. Just responding as I read down:

-Can you elaborate on Dirk '11? By my count he averaged 28.4 PPG in the first 3 rounds, while Erving did 34.7 in his year. How are you concluding the volume is comparable?

-Really my bigger issue though with equating those partial post-seasons with Erving's (other than LeBron), is that scoring is only part of the shock there. Again, this was the Erving show in offense, rebounding, and defense. It's very rare to see anything like that, which is why I keep bringing it up.

-Your analysis of the flukiness leaves me a bit skeptical. Obviously it's an outlier, else it wouldn't be the obvious choice for his peak, but when I look at the next year's playoffs, I see him doing the 27 on 57% thing over the whole run, and him increasing his role & efficiency as the playoffs went on and the competition on stiffer.

When we see Erving in the "not so good" year putting up something that looks like it belongs up there with the guys you're comparing his scoring to, and you add in that the "not so good" year clearly has a lot to do with a new team situation, I really have a tough time saying about the "so good" year that there was something so fluky that we can't take it seriously.

But, that's for each person to decide, so I'll leave you with that thought.

Sorry for the delayed response, university just started up again...

With Dirk I was referring to his points per 75 in the playoffs. By my calculations '76 Erving scored 28.1 pts/75 and '11 Dirk scored 29.3 pts/75. I understand that scoring volume doesn't necessarily scale linearly with # of possessions. My only point here was that I was a little less impressed with his volume after seeing the pace-adjusted numbers and comparing it to others. i.e. His 35 PPG isn't really the same as '93 Jordan's 35 PPG (34.6 pts/75) or '09 LeBron's 35 PPG (35.6 pts/75) when pace is taken into account.

But I'd certainly agree with your next point that Erving's all-around excellence deserves recognition, though Robinson, Wade and Kobe were no slouches there either.

As for my labeling of his increase in volume scoring and efficiency in '76 as "flukey", I took a closer look at '77, which I assume is the down year you're referring to.

Here's how his production and efficiency increased from RS to PS:
1976: +2.3 pts/75, +4.1 TS%
1977: +2.9 pts/75, +2.4 TS%

So '77 does help legitimize his peak to me a bit, and currently I'm leaning Erving at 13th on my list.

[ElGee]

@ Colts -- I've run the odds on all -8 to +8 teams since 1986 using a 3 point edge for HCA. It was 4 points in the 80's, 3.5 points in the 90s and 3 points these days. It might be slightly more in the PS...That means that if

the team was +8 with a player for 82 games but 0 without him, they finished +8
the team was +8 with a player for 41 games but 0 without him, they finished +4

and so on and so on for all distributions of teams. Then I calculate the odds of them winning a PS series against the average opponent they would face in each round based on their own SRS -- if they have a lower SRS (not wins, SRS), I give the better team HCA in the calculation. All the results I discuss (and have linked to) are a result of analyzing all teams this way.

The reactions from most people in this post -- heck, the assumptions of the average person, including myself before I actually calculated this -- is yet another example of how bad humans are probability. We latch onto single examples, weigh them waaay too much, and feel we've come to a clear conclusion. eg "The Lakers would never win in 10 w/out HCA!" Sure, but Dallas won in 11 w/out HCA a bunch. We can play this game all day, so instead let's just look at ALL scenarios.

@fatal -- just to be clear, the odds are calculated based on the team's actual SRS. As in, the "actual" SRS. So if we calculate the odds of an 8 SRS team as an 8-seed, that means that the guy in the lineup actually made them an 8 SRS team. That means any team that struggled to really gel wouldn't be evaluated as an 8 SRS team.

@SD Chargers -- You're just using the word "arbitrary" here in a really weird way. I added on that data so people understand West's scoring. It's a figure in isolation -- it's not measuring defense, nor offensive creation.

-on that list, Jerry West and Oscar Robertson are easily the best creators. Easily.
-on that list, Gilmore, Kareem and McHale are the only really notable defenders...along with Jerry West.
-listing career value makes no sense when talking about single-seasons.

I've posted a stat, in detail, to provide context for people, and you've used that as a platform to make an attempt to personally discredit me. (Did you want me to leave out Darryl Dawkins or Reggie Miller because they were the only non-all-star seasons?) If you think I discount relevant data in my evaluations, simply argue that. Making the broad statement you did is just an empty ad-hom though...obviously it's really rare to score at that volume and that efficiency, and I think you are being deliberately difficult if you argue the 32 people who did so weren't excellent scorers. Creation and defense are the reasons those players aren't ALL in our peaks project.

(Frankly, looking over the list, it's mind-blowing that you aren't impressed with those player-seasons. Outside, West, 70% of the seasons are all-nba seasons...mostly by virtue of their scoring. 57% of the seasons finished in the top-5 in MVP, including 5 MVP years.)

Finally, I think you are just uneducated about HCA. Here are the odds of winning a 7-game series with HCA based on the team's SRS edge: http://www.backpicks.com/2012/07/10/the ... er-impact/ Those are based on actual results. Something for you to note:

If two teams are even, the team with HCA will win the game 58.5% of the time. That means they will win a PS series 52.7% of the time.

Not 80. Nor 60. Just over 50. That's the value of HCA if all things are equal.

-If you are 3 points better than your opponent and have HCA, you win 77.3% of the time.
-If you are 3 points better than your opponent and DON'T have HCA, you win 75.7% of the time.

That's the difference. I know it might seem "ridiculous" to some people, but it is what it is...

[Doctor MJ]

Sorry for the delayed response, university just started up again...

With Dirk I was referring to his points per 75 in the playoffs. By my calculations '76 Erving scored 28.1 pts/75 and '11 Dirk scored 29.3 pts/75. I understand that scoring volume doesn't necessarily scale linearly with # of possessions. My only point here was that I was a little less impressed with his volume after seeing the pace-adjusted numbers and comparing it to others. i.e. His 35 PPG isn't really the same as '93 Jordan's 35 PPG (34.6 pts/75) or '09 LeBron's 35 PPG (35.6 pts/75) when pace is taken into account.

No worries, and yeah it seemed like you knew what you're doing, so I ran the numbers myself and I'm getting pretty close numbers. Pretty fascinating. The behavior in pace change going into the playoffs between the two leagues in question is extremely different.

[Doctor MJ]

Deadline has passed, and here's how I count the votes:

76 Erving - 6 (ThaRegul8r, Doctor MJ, therealbig3, PTB Fan, DavidStern, ElGee)

09 Kobe - 2 (Josephpaul, SDChargers#1)

10 Wade - 1 (Dr Positivity)

06 Wade - 1 (JordansBulls)

08 Kobe - 1 (ardee)

63 Oscar - 1 (drza)

Thanks realbig.

Julius Erving '76 takes it.