#34 Highest Peak of All Time (Frazier '72 wins)

[fatal9]

vote: '72 Frazier

I have him and Kidd ahead of all the PGs left. Good post by ElGee on the first page on him which sums up it up. Have him as a +3-3.5 offensive player, +1-1.5 defense and great intangibles to boot (I measure intangibles on a scale of 0-1 to add them as a bonus with the offense/defense splits), and he comes out ahead of everyone but Pettit (whose game I'm less sure about than anyone who is left, maybe regul8r and guys who post about that era can provide more insight? especially about his defense).

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: '72 Frazier

I'll jump on this bandwagon as well. I've got no qualms about Clyde.

[MisterWestside]

...I measure intangibles on a scale of 0-1 to add them as a bonus with the offense/defense splits...

We can measure intangibles now? Hmm.

Nice post on Walker, Dipper13. Terrific player who is often overlooked.

[C-izMe]

I'll vote 72 Frazier (one of the people I was considering) mainly because he's ahead and a Knick . No really he's very amazing and he dominated the Finals.

Great post Dipper. He probably just took my Rodman spot.

[Doctor MJ]

Frazier '72 takes it.

[fatal9]

...I measure intangibles on a scale of 0-1 to add them as a bonus with the offense/defense splits...

We can measure intangibles now? Hmm.

It's not a "measure" in the traditional sense, just a general grouping of players based on things like leadership, ability to perform in the playoffs, competitiveness, mental fortitude and etc. Low intangible players would be 0, average/good players get +.5, culture changers get +1. It's something to use to separate guys I see on a similar level (for example Ewing might be +1, D-Rob might be a 0, so even though D-Rob might be seen as a higher impact player in terms of offense/defense splits, Ewing catches up to him). The number itself isn't that important, it's a scale that represents my subjective opinion and helps me stay consistent when comparing players.

I've tried to compare players in a lot of different ways and this is by far the most consistent way. Break down their skills and impact on both ends, factor in intangibles and portability, develop a scale that represents how you see their game relative to other players. ElGee's posts in the past were very convincing on this, so I tried it out a few months ago, and I got results that were really consistent. It helped me remove some of the biases I had when comparing players. If you read my posts, I barely rely on stats but evaluate players based on watching them play and looking into their careers in detail. It's not a "stat", it's a ball park number on a scale of what sort of impact I see guys having in different facets of the game and is based entirely on my subjective opinion.

[MisterWestside]

Okay, that's a good breakdown. The important thing is you keep things consistent with your opinion, which people tend to lack when it comes to intangibles.

Thanks for the explanation.