#2 Highest Peak of All Time (Shaq '00 wins)

[SilkStream]

You literally have to be near-perfect to defeat a team with peak Shaq.

Are you having second thoughts on these 2?

Portland nearly did it in 2000 and were up 15 in the 4th in game 7.

Portland had a much stronger, deeper and better balanced overall roster.

Peak Shaq was so dominant that LA almost took them out in 5 games and they would have if not for Shaq being the only one to show up in G5.

[Chris435]

Ah I see. Well, this is exactly what I was trying to say (also ineffectively I imagine) about my re-evaluation of Wilt. My current peaks list actually comes from trying to re-evaluate each individual's career. When it was all said and done, I had two outliers (Jordan and Shaq). Russell aside (a unique evaluation IMO), I had those two guys a full SRS point ahead of everyone else to ever play basketball. To me, that felt like a lot.

Just curious.. how did you calculate this?

[Dr Positivity]

A simple question for the Wilt > Russell folks:

-Did Bill Russell ever play with a team as good as the 67 76ers?

-If not, how do you reconcile the difference between the Celtics dominance and the 76ers dominance?

62 Celtics (8.3 SRS, more dominant than the 67 76ers relative to competition: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4723) arguably outperforming the 76ers with old Cousy, Jones, Heinsohn, Sanders? (9 points better than league average on defense.)

64 Celtics (6.9 SRS and 9.5 PS SRS) ~1.6 behind Philly in both categories, almost identical number of "dominant" wins, with 2nd-year Havlicek, Jones and Sanders and in spite of Heinsohn's gunning. (11 points better than league average on defense.)

Do people really feel these teams are comparable to 2nd-year Cunningham, Greer, Walker, Jackson and Jones??

My issue with the comparison would be that the Sixers and Celtics having each other in the league in 67, while year like 62 was an excellent opportunity for a team like Boston to put up a superhuman SRS because nobody else was particularly scary in the regular season (with the 2nd best team, LA, having Baylor for 48 games in his military year). In an 8-10 team league it's going to be much harder in general for a team to put up a massive SRS, since the average score in a year like 67 for the rest of the league is going to be single handidly taken up a ton by another superteam like Boston. In 67 BOS and PHI played 9 times out of 81, with the Celtics giving PHI 5 of their 13 losses, vs the rest of the league PHI played at a 73 W pace. The 67 Celtics having a 7 SRS+ 60 W season is actually EXTREMELY impressive considering how much more difficult that is with a super Sixers team in a condensed schedule, and their results in 66 (4.34) and 68 (3.87) seem to show a greater struggle to dominate in spite o fthat fact

Furthermore I understand the logic that a GOAT individual season should lead to GOAT results with talent like the 67 Sixers, just that I don't trust whether they hit those GOAT marks by comparing it to some of the high marks like the 90s Bulls (10+) just because it's a different league which may or may not have a varying impact on the highest SRS a team can get. The Sixers compared to their era had the greatest SRS/Ws season of the pre expansion era and then crushed the playoffs, including beating the greatest dynasty ever coming off a regular season indicating they're on their game in 5 games. The season passes the "GOAT worthy" test to me, results wise

[ThaRegul8r]

A simple question for the Wilt > Russell folks:

-Did Bill Russell ever play with a team as good as the 67 76ers?

-If not, how do you reconcile the difference between the Celtics dominance and the 76ers dominance?

62 Celtics (8.3 SRS, more dominant than the 67 76ers relative to competition: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4723) arguably outperforming the 76ers with old Cousy, Jones, Heinsohn, Sanders? (9 points better than league average on defense.)

64 Celtics (6.9 SRS and 9.5 PS SRS) ~1.6 behind Philly in both categories, almost identical number of "dominant" wins, with 2nd-year Havlicek, Jones and Sanders and in spite of Heinsohn's gunning. (11 points better than league average on defense.)

Do people really feel these teams are comparable to 2nd-year Cunningham, Greer, Walker, Jackson and Jones??

My issue with the comparison would be that the Sixers and Celtics having each other in the league in 67, while year like 62 was an excellent opportunity for a team like Boston to put up a superhuman SRS because nobody else was particularly scary in the regular season (with the 2nd best team, LA, having Baylor for 48 games in his military year). In an 8-10 team league it's going to be much harder in general for a team to put up a massive SRS, since the average score in a year like 67 for the rest of the league is going to be single handidly taken up a ton by another superteam like Boston. In 67 BOS and PHI played 9 times out of 81, with the Celtics giving PHI 5 of their 13 losses. The 67 Celtics having a 7 SRS+ 60 W season is actually EXTREMELY impressive considering how much more difficult that is with a super Sixers team in a condensed schedule, and their results in 66 (4.34) and 68 (3.87) seem to show a greater struggle to dominate in spite o fthat fact

Furthermore I understand the logic that a GOAT individual season should lead to GOAT results with talent like the 67 Sixers, just that I don't trust whether they hit those GOAT marks by comparing it to some of the high marks like the 90s Bulls (10+) just because it's a different league which may or may not have a varying impact on the highest SRS a team can get. The Sixers compared to their era had the greatest SRS/Ws season ever and then crushed the playoffs, including beating the greatest dynasty ever coming off a regular season indicating they're on their game in 5 games. The season passes the "GOAT worthy" test to me, results wise

What about the '64 Celtics, who were supposed to be ripe to be dethroned by Cincinnati after they extended them to seven games in the postseason the previous year, and then proceeded to take the season series from them that season to become the fourth team to do so since Boston began their dynastic run, which was then followed by Boston's subsequent thrashing of them in their showdown in the Eastern Division Finals?

[Dr Positivity]

I should point out, I think it's very reasonable that peak Russell could have more impact than 67 Wilt, or that peak Russell could be #1 period in impact and that he and Lebron have both been under-representated in the discussions so far. Just that I think early 60s Celtics seasons looking like 67 PHI's statistically with the 67 Sixers having more talent around Wilt, to be evidence vulnerable to clouding variables

[ElGee]

Great answers Dr Mu -- wait, why did you change your name? I didn't know that was possible...

The 64 team, which I think is basically Russell's peak, is what jumps out at me still though. I think 64 was a tougher league. Consider...

-The Warriors AND Royals could absolutely play.
-The next tier of teams -- St. Louis and LA -- were quite solid as well.
-Heck, Baltimore was OK with Gus, Bellamy and Dischinger. And this was a 9-team league.
-There was no expansion team in 1964, unlike 1967.

Yet the Celtics "domination" numbers are right in line with the 67 76ers. The Celtics had 38% of their wins by more than 13 points. Philly 40%. 64 Celtics had a 9.5 SRS in the PS. 67 76ers 12.3. There's variance in that short sample, so another way we can describe the PS is this:

-Boston wins 7 of its 8 wins by double-digits against the two 4.5 SRS teams. Average margin IN victories is 12.9 points.
-Philly wins 8 of 11 games by double-digits against 0 SRS, 7 SRS and 2 SRS teams. Average margin IN victories is 14.7.Including an OT and 3-point win in the 6-game FInals.

Again, it's close. Philly's 67 health is also better relative to the league.

Boston has Jones miss 9, including the first game where Philly punked them by 42.
SF has Thurmond miss 16 (Phi beats them by 37 in the 3 g w/out Nate)
LA has West miss 15, (Philly beats LA by 15 in the one game without West)
Beaty misses 33 for Stl,
Gus missed 8 for Bal.

Compare to the 64 health of the league
West misses 8 games
Beaty misses 21

There's really no other notable players missing time (Al Attles 10g?). Just removing the five games I mentioned above brings the Philly SRS under 8.

All told, it just seems like when you examine these teams in detail, they aren't far apart at all in what they accomplished. And yet if the supporting casts are clearly different quite different...

[ardee]

Really enjoyed this thread. A few final points before we pick it up in the next thread.

If people are unclear on why I think portability is important, please read the research I've done on the odds of winning based on SRS differences and the implications that come with that. Typically, we think of guys that "carry" teams as doing something remarkable, but if they can't "carry" them to a certain level it might be really impressive, but it's not as USEFUL as players who help good teams get better. This has more to do with marginal players than the first 13 we'll likely discuss...but it's still a small factor in differentiating between these guy.

In short, I'm trying to build a 13 SRS team (without getting into the nitty-gritty of salary). After that, I'm trying to build 10 SRS teams. And after that 8. And maybe 6. But I don't care about the multitude of ways to construct 2 to 4 SRS teams, so if you can't provide good impact impact on better teams, you aren't as good to me.

Do we all agree that anyone shooting under 70% from the FT line is a vain fool for not using Barry's granny FTs?

When one considers how much better Shaq (and Wilt for that matter) would have been if he weren't a vain fool just on this one front, does it seem far fetched to think that the GOAT debate we actually have seems as close as it does? Meaning, if we grant that Shaq should have been better than Jordan given decent free throw shooting, are we equivocating by agreeing that the gap between Shaq and the #1 highest peak is THIS close? Is it not more likely that, regardless of the direction, the gap is going to be relatively sizable?

Yes, many athletes are vain to a fault. I've always said, just off the cuff, that 70% FT-shooting Shaq would be the GOAT. If you look at the numbers, you'd see an extra 145 points in 2000, or an increase in ORtg of a little less than 2 points. They'd probably foul him slightly less, so let's say "70% FT Shaq" is 1.5 points better on offense than 2000 Shaq. I'm not sure how much debate there would be to the GOATness of this season. Remember, the Lakers offense would be FIRST in the NBA (108.8) under this scenario, and LA would be expected to win 69 games. You think it's far fetched that we'd view such a player as the clear GOAT?

------
As a teaser for the next post, I'm planning on voting Russell. I am however open to voting Bird, Magic, LeBron (unlikely) or Wilt (more likely) in the next spot...I just don't see the Sacred Peak pack, although relatively close together, as having an argument for the next spot outside of these guys.

A simple question for the Wilt > Russell folks:

-Did Bill Russell ever play with a team as good as the 67 76ers?

-If not, how do you reconcile the difference between the Celtics dominance and the 76ers dominance?

62 Celtics (8.3 SRS, more dominant than the 67 76ers relative to competition: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4723) arguably outperforming the 76ers with old Cousy, Jones, Heinsohn, Sanders? (9 points better than league average on defense.)

64 Celtics (6.9 SRS and 9.5 PS SRS) ~1.6 behind Philly in both categories, almost identical number of "dominant" wins, with 2nd-year Havlicek, Jones and Sanders and in spite of Heinsohn's gunning. (11 points better than league average on defense.)

Do people really feel these teams are comparable to 2nd-year Cunningham, Greer, Walker, Jackson and Jones??

What is it looking like right now?

[colts18]

Great answers Dr Mu -- wait, why did you change your name? I didn't know that was possible...

The 64 team, which I think is basically Russell's peak, is what jumps out at me still though. I think 64 was a tougher league. Consider...

-The Warriors AND Royals could absolutely play.
-The next tier of teams -- St. Louis and LA -- were quite solid as well.
-Heck, Baltimore was OK with Gus, Bellamy and Dischinger. And this was a 9-team league.
-There was no expansion team in 1964, unlike 1967.

Yet the Celtics "domination" numbers are right in line with the 67 76ers. The Celtics had 38% of their wins by more than 13 points. Philly 40%. 64 Celtics had a 9.5 SRS in the PS. 67 76ers 12.3. There's variance in that short sample, so another way we can describe the PS is this:

-Boston wins 7 of its 8 wins by double-digits against the two 4.5 SRS teams. Average margin IN victories is 12.9 points.
-Philly wins 8 of 11 games by double-digits against 0 SRS, 7 SRS and 2 SRS teams. Average margin IN victories is 14.7.Including an OT and 3-point win in the 6-game FInals.

Again, it's close. Philly's 67 health is also better relative to the league.

Boston has Jones miss 9, including the first game where Philly punked them by 42.
SF has Thurmond miss 16 (Phi beats them by 37 in the 3 g w/out Nate)
LA has West miss 15, (Philly beats LA by 15 in the one game without West)
Beaty misses 33 for Stl,
Gus missed 8 for Bal.

Compare to the 64 health of the league
West misses 8 games
Beaty misses 21

There's really no other notable players missing time (Al Attles 10g?). Just removing the five games I mentioned above brings the Philly SRS under 8.

All told, it just seems like when you examine these teams in detail, they aren't far apart at all in what they accomplished. And yet if the supporting casts are clearly different quite different...

just curious Elgee, in the 09-10 POY thread, you mentioned about secret stats you had access to that showed defensive errors/100, fouls drawn/100, defensive FG% against, etc. Do you still have access to that data? I'm curious about it for the 09 season because I want to compare LeBron, Wade, Kobe, CP3, and Howard for that seaons because I believe those are their peak seasons.

[ElGee]

Don't have 09 unfortunately. Had other basketball commitments that year.

To your other question, you mean what am I leaning toward right now? Probably Russell, then some order of Wilt, Magic and Bird. Maybe Bird based on a lot of the portability discussion in this thread. Can someone come up with a team (no need to use specific players, just archetypes) in which Bird doesn't make them ridiculously good? That'd be a fun game, like this one: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1199417

@Chris - It's an estimation. It's my attempt to put a number next to a player's value.

[Doctor MJ]

Lost track of the time. Had my guy lost by one vote, I'd have abstained. As is though:

Vote: Shaquille O'Neal '00

[Doctor MJ]

Shaquille O'Neal '00 takes the #2 spot.

[lorak]

@ElGee

Well, as colts18 pointed out, you can see that LeBron in Miami is still having serious offensive impact even though he is playing next to someone that doesn't fit him that well. No he's not the greatest at playing off ball and thus blending in with a lot of other stars (KG or Allen would be perfect though), but why would you want him to? It's like taking the ball out of Nash's hands. He could play off-ball, but you'll get the best results if you just give him the ball.

And in 2011 and 2012 combined, Miami is a -3.2 team without LeBron or Wade out there. Put Wade in, and they're +1.2, for a lift of +4.4. Take Wade out and put LeBron in, and the Heat are +5.3, for a lift of +8.5. And when it's just Wade and LeBron, we see a team that's +13.1 with a 114.8 ORating. That's all-time great offense, and that's an all-time great team. So I don't think the less than ideal fit of LeBron and Wade is as crippling as some people think, and I actually think it's quite impressive how he's blended in with Wade and Bosh. And we saw him play quite well with his cuts to the basket and his screens when he did play off-ball in the 2012 playoffs, and that was with a much weaker jump shot than he had in 09.

And similarly to how you said Magic is a guy you just give the ball to and get out of the way, I think that's the same case with LeBron. And just like Magic, LeBron was still a high impact player without having the ball in his hands as much and playing with other talented ball handlers. I think because 09 LeBron was a superior shooter to 12 LeBron, I don't think his portability is as big of an issue as you seem to think.

And the redundancy of a LeBron/Wade pairing is what really holds the duo back. If you paired Magic with Wade, I honestly don't think you'd see spectacular (relatively speaking) results either. Maybe better than LeBron/Wade, but again, you'd be forcing Wade to play off-ball, which as we've seen with LeBron/Wade, he isn't that great at. And if you gave the ball to Wade, you'd be forcing Magic off-ball, which would be totally wasting Magic's talent, and the offense wouldn't be as great as people would think it should be on paper. And that wouldn't be a knock on Magic imo. Even then, I agree it would work better than LeBron/Wade, but only because Magic and Wade aren't practically carbon copies of each other like LeBron/Wade are. LeBron/Wade play very similar games, so the redundancy there is more than we've seen from any other great duo imo.

Also, Paul vs LBJ offensively according to RAPM:

2008: +5.3 (LBJ) vs +3.8 (Paul)
2009: +6.6 (LBJ) vs +4.5 (Paul)
2010: +7.1 (LBJ) vs +3.1 (Paul)
2011: +4.1 (LBJ) vs +4.1 (Paul)
2012: +4.2 (LBJ) vs +5.3 (Paul)

They've only been comparable the last two years when LeBron paired up with Wade, and even then they're about the same level, with a slight edge to Paul last year.

And compare LeBron to Nash (who has been compared favorably to Magic/Jordan/Bird offensively) using RAPM and compare their best RAPM finishes to each other (05-12):

+7.9 (2007 Nash) vs +7.1 (2007 LeBron)
+7.4 (2008 Nash) vs +7.1 (2010 LeBron)
+6.3 (2010 Nash) vs +6.6 (2009 LeBron)
+6.2 (2009 Nash) vs +5.3 (2008 LeBron)
+6.2 (2011 Nash) vs +4.2 (2012 LeBron)
+4.7 (2012 Nash) vs +4.1 (2011 LeBron)
+4.4 (2006 Nash) vs +3.9 (2006 LeBron)
+4.0 (2005 Nash) vs +2.0 (2005 LeBron)

From 06-12, LeBron and Nash are quite comparable offensively, with a slight edge to Nash probably. At their peaks, pretty identical.

And this is supported by the 4-year RAPM from 07/08-10/11:

+6.6 (LeBron) vs +7.7 (Nash)...and LeBron is far and away the best in the league in terms of overall RAPM at +10.2. FTR, Paul is at +5.5 offensively.

Great post.

[SoulInTheHole7]

MJ's peak was 90, not 91.

[Gregoire]

Don't have 09 unfortunately. Had other basketball commitments that year.

To your other question, you mean what am I leaning toward right now? Probably Russell, then some order of Wilt, Magic and Bird. Maybe Bird based on a lot of the portability discussion in this thread. Can someone come up with a team (no need to use specific players, just archetypes) in which Bird doesn't make them ridiculously good? That'd be a fun game, like this one: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1199417

@Chris - It's an estimation. It's my attempt to put a number next to a player's value.

sorry for offtop, but have you SRS numbers for each players seasons from 1955? im interested in seasons of players like jordan,shaq ect... and career-wise