#16 Highest Peak of All Time (Robinson '95 wins)

[Dr Positivity]

I don't mind DRob over 09 Wade. DRob shouldn't be any more punished for that playoff run than 09 Wade. I don't like DRob over 66 West, 06/10 Wade, 11 Dirk, 93 Barkley, etc. though

[thizznation]

I dont think players should get "punished" for a less than desirable post season after a fantastic regular one automatically, there needs to be a look into the context

I think players should get rewarded for having a long post season with equal or greater production than that of their regular season.

For an academic analogy: The regular season is the whole test... But playoffs are extra credit... But you can earn a lot of extra credit.

Make sense?

[Dr Positivity]

I dont think players should get "punished" for a less than desirable post season after a fantastic regular one automatically, there needs to be a look into the context

I think players should get rewarded for having a long post season with equal or greater production than that of their regular season.

For an academic analogy: The regular season is the whole test... But playoffs are extra credit... But you can earn a lot of extra credit.

Make sense?

Disagree, because a team's playoff run is the only thing that matters to their season, especially with players at this level where anything but a championship is a failure in their primes. It's much closer to the playoffs being the whole test and the regular season being the extra credit to me.

[thizznation]

When talking about the prime, a huge sample of that prime was shown in the regular season.... Like I said you have to look into the context of their "failure" in the post season.

[Doctor MJ]

I dont think players should get "punished" for a less than desirable post season after a fantastic regular one automatically, there needs to be a look into the context

I think players should get rewarded for having a long post season with equal or greater production than that of their regular season.

For an academic analogy: The regular season is the whole test... But playoffs are extra credit... But you can earn a lot of extra credit.

Make sense?

Disagree, because a team's playoff run is the only thing that matters to their season, especially with players at this level where anything but a championship is a failure in their primes. It's much closer to the playoffs being the whole test and the regular season being the extra credit to me.

I'd say I fall somewhere in the middle for one key reason: Sample size.

I don't have a problem putting huge weight on a guy's performance if we see him all the way through to the finals, but I put hardly any weight into a 1st round loss against a superior opponent.

At the same time, I don't agree with the "extra credit" philosophy per se because all I'm doing in the playoffs is seeing the guy with a new opportunity and weighing it in. There's no possible way a guy will leap pass someone else in the playoffs for me simply because of the quantity of his play, he's got take the quality edge too.

[thizznation]

Doctor MJ,
I agree. I think we see eye to eye here, I was playing it fast and loose with that analogy.

[ElGee]

I dont think players should get "punished" for a less than desirable post season after a fantastic regular one automatically, there needs to be a look into the context

I think players should get rewarded for having a long post season with equal or greater production than that of their regular season.

For an academic analogy: The regular season is the whole test... But playoffs are extra credit... But you can earn a lot of extra credit.

Make sense?

Disagree, because a team's playoff run is the only thing that matters to their season, especially with players at this level where anything but a championship is a failure in their primes. It's much closer to the playoffs being the whole test and the regular season being the extra credit to me.

I'd say I fall somewhere in the middle for one key reason: Sample size.

I don't have a problem putting huge weight on a guy's performance if we see him all the way through to the finals, but I put hardly any weight into a 1st round loss against a superior opponent.

At the same time, I don't agree with the "extra credit" philosophy per se because all I'm doing in the playoffs is seeing the guy with a new opportunity and weighing it in. There's no possible way a guy will leap pass someone else in the playoffs for me simply because of the quantity of his play, he's got take the quality edge too.

This (PS) seems to be such a big criteria for people in the project for good reason, but the application is misguided. The "results-oriented" approach makes little sense to me here, as in most walks of life. To wit...

In football we truly have a microscopic sample size. Most title teams play 3 playoff games. And of course, how you play in the playoffs is what 'counts," literally, by definition. This holds true in basketball as well, as Dr Positivity has correctly asserted.

BUT, the "how well did he play in the PS?" is not simply answered by looking at the 3 postseason games!!

This is the crux of sample-size and overall analysis of one's play versus results-oriented thinking. If the NBA championship were determined by free throw shooting between Shaq and Steve Nash, and Shaq shot 10-16 in the regular season (a football-like sample) and Nash 15-16, but in the PS Shaq shot 3-3 and Nash 2-3, it does not mean Shaq is a better free throw shooter.*

The first player-season that jumps into my head that illuminates this is 1988 Hakeem Olajuwon. (38 ppg, 17 rpg 64% TS). One could argue it's basically impossible to play much better in 4 games, but that does not mean we should conclude that 88 Olajuwon gives any team optimal odds to win a title. On a different team he may have performed differently. And against a different opponent he most likely would have performed differently. As great as Hakeem is, no one looks at those 4 PS games and says "GOAT season" for the very reasons I'm bringing up here. Heck, Hakeem had 4 RS games over 30 GmSc and one over 32 that year, and in that series all games were over 29 including a 38 and a 40.

Everything suggests this not what you could rely on from Olajuwon for ANY postseason circumstance...and THAT's what matters. If you ask me "who gives you the best chance to win that FT-based championship?" The answer is still Steve Nash, even the one time he lost. And if you ask "who gives you the best chance to win" -- how I define "goodness" in basketball -- the answer isn't necessarily the guy who had the best postseason series or two. It's the guy who is most LIKELY to have the best postseason series... the guy most likely to increase a team's point differential against any/all other teams.

People have generally been pretty good about this, but some are struggling with it. Namely, a lot of the Oscar and West peak years come to mind...

*[This analogy doesn't even include circumstance, which is probably the biggest thing to tease out in the PS. 2010 v 2009 LeBron did this, in which following the seasons closely one would likely say "2010 LeBron has more skill (including BBIQ and the application of the skill) but 2009 LeBron didn't play the Celtics." As a result, people don't separate circumstance -- they don't realize 2010 LeBron may have done better in those 6 games than 2009 LeBron would have done in the exact same 6 games...]

[bastillon]

First and foremost it's not a box score stat vs a regression thing that much, because people DRASTICALLY overrate Howard's shotblocking impact for no good reason. He doesn't block that many shots, the one's he does block are disproportionately like to go right back to the opponent, all he's really got going for him are those great team numbers, but you just saw this year how they collapsed with Howard still pretty much doing his thing. No player makes a #1 defense by yourself, and until you realize that, you'll probably overrate Howard.

complete nonsense. Magic consistently ranked #1 in fewest allowed points in the paint. Howard completely shut down the paint with his presence and he did it singlehandedly because Lewis and Anderson weren' t much help. when they fell off a cliff it was because they were the worst defensive team in the NBA (by far) after Howard went down.

Also with rebounding, the regression data is telling us he's getting overrated there too specifically because are defensive rebounding stat is so misleading. You don't want your defensive rebounder to max out his individual numbers, you want him to block out.

and yet Magic consistently ranked on the top in terms of defensive rebounding. surely it had nothing to do with Howard being 30+ DRB% player. this statement is even more ridiculous than the previous one.

[mysticbb]

Disagree, because a team's playoff run is the only thing that matters to their season, especially with players at this level where anything but a championship is a failure in their primes. It's much closer to the playoffs being the whole test and the regular season being the extra credit to me.

The issue with that argumentation is that a playoff run might be shortened by circumstances much more than by the respective peak ability of the discussed players. Running into a bad matchup or having teammates injured or whatsoever can cut a playoff run short, and thus we have a very small sample to choose from. Focussing entirely on the playoff performance is not a good way at all. If the peak season in terms of basketball playing level should be the key here, the average level in that season against an above average opponent should be the reference, because those opponents are basically the possible opponents during a playoff run. That a player faced a weaker opponent or a better matchup during the playoffs might as well just be coincedence as the opposite.