My new project: top-5 1-year player peaks ever

[Swagalicious]

1. Jordan 91
2. Hakeem 94
3. Shaq 00
4. Wilt 67
5. Kareem 77

[Gregoire]

**Still working on the discussion, but I figured I'd get something posted. Will update periodically over the next day or two.

Methodology

The very same that Elgee used in the Peaks Project last year.

"What player gives a random team the best chance to win a title in a given season?"

That means to evaluate this, I'll be looking at how the player performed in his setting, and use that performance to evaluate how well his play would translate to other settings. I'll be judging these performances against the league environment that the player played in, not against some all-time standard or against different rule changes. Yes, this will mean using the surrounding seasons in a player's career (i.e. different context) to help evaluate a player's Portability -- how well he impacts other teams -- as well as his general strengths and weaknesses. - See more at: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1198314&start=15#sthash.tJfu4cdn.dpuf

The idea is to take a probabilistic approach; I care about the actual ability to play, not the "impressiveness" of a particular season or PS run (Ex:1990 Jordan doesn't get penalized in front of his 1st 3-peat years for not winning a championship, it falls in line with them).


Portability/Variance

Pretty straightforward. Player impact does not remain constant across teams, the general trend is obviously that sustaining impact becomes more difficult as the supporting cast grows stronger, but this trend differs for each and every player.

Low portability players are high variance players, their impact shows greater fluctuation around their mean (expected) level of impact. They will typically look much stronger on weaker teams than they will on an average team, and stronger on average teams than they will on strong teams. High portability players are therefore low variance players. Their impact will not show large spread beyond their mean level of impact.

Now, when establishing the criteria set above ("What player gives a random team the best chance to win a title in a given season?"), the underlying principle becomes that low variance players are more valuable than high variance ones, as they should enable the strongest team results. Given two players of equal impact level, the low variance player will yield a higher chance of winning a title. Further, at some base team level threshold of X, a lower impact low variance player may also yield a higher chance of winning a title than a higher impact high variance player (though this obviously varies based on the strength of said team and said players).

With all that said, this isn't going to be much of an issue right now. My top 5 has 4 guys that fall around the same level of variance. It just would have been wrong not to bring this up given that I am making an effort to account for it when I'm evaluating these players.


Scale

I've stuck to the SRS scale simply because its easy to work with, simple to shift onto a +/- per 100 scale (APM), and because Elgee has already done the dirty work (major props ). Archive link. Its not definitive by any means, but it helps me to evaluate everyone on a standardized plane.


Top 10

Code: Select all

Rk  Player            Year   Age   Off    Def     SRS     Port

1.  Lebron James      2013   28    7.0    3.0    10.0     AVG
2.  Michael Jordan    1992   28    7.0    2.0     9.0     AVG
3.  Shaquille O'Neal  2000   27    6.0    3.0     9.0     AVG
4.  Larry Bird        1986   29    7.5    0.5     8.0     HIGH
5.  Wilt Chamberlain  1967   30    4.5    3.5     8.0     AVG

6.  Bill Russell      1964   29    0.0    8.0     8.0     HIGH
7.  Hakeem Olajuwon   1993   30    4.5    3.5     8.0     HIGH
8.  Magic Johnson     1987   27    8.0   -0.5     7.5     AVG
9.  Kevin Garnett     2004   27    4.0    3.5     7.5     HIGH
10. Tim Duncan        2002   25    3.5    4.0     7.5     HIGH

Spoiler:

*As listed on BBR (Age of player on February 1st of season)

**Walton's health pushes him out, but SRS wise I'd have slotted him between 4 and 7 (1977).

***Kareem is on the same plane as the bottom half (1977), but I've never had his peak close to the top guys. His career is obviously ahead of almost everyone though.

****Erving is also just missing the cut (1976).

Discussion (Top 5)

5. Wilt Chamberlain, 1967

(forthcoming)

4. Larry Bird, 1986

He's the primary one-way guy in my top 5. His offensive impact is ridiculous, second only to Magic, and I'd argue that his particular skill-set enables a higher team offensive ceiling than Magic's does (remember the theoretical scenario; lower variance lower impact more valuable at a certain threshold than higher variance higher impact). Magic is the guy you build around; Bird is the guy you can just throw in anywhere.

Now, the driving reason for this impact is diversity. When looking strictly at offense, he's the rare master of all trades. GOAT level off-ball game, GOAT level outside shooting, GOAT level transition player/outlet passer, diverse post skillset and GOAT level interior passing, elite offensive rebounding. He can space the floor, he can divert defensive attention with just smart positioning, he can play inside and allow better spacing for an additional ball handler or ball dominant wing, he can run the floor himself, he's excellent at running the break, etc.

Having all of these together just enables huge lineup diversity. You can run anyone with this guy, and he enables them to play to their strengths while simultaneously playing to his own strengths (given that he has so many). He's a threat to score or create in virtually any offensive situation, he's basically pulling more offense out of lineups than anyone else is going to, and rarely plays poorly because he just has so much to provide.

He's no game changer on defense; he works effectively within the framework of the team defense and is a very strong rebounder, enabling very minimal positive impact, but his offensive so damn strong to begin with that this minor defensive impact propels him into my top 5 overall.

3. Shaquille O'Neal, 2000

I think either 00 or 01 can be argued for Shaq, they're both on the same plane for me.

The driving force behind Shaq's dominance was his offensive impact, and this was largely due to the "neutron star" effect. Essentially, create VERY high percentage shots at the rim and the entire defense gravitates towards you. Pretty straightforward, and when you couple that with a strong inside scoring skillset, and his knack of not frequently turning the ball over, you're going start creating some highly efficient team offense as the floor will open up for everyone else. But that's just the basis, the foundation if you will. What took him above and beyond the typical level of impact was two major factors. Passing, and spacing.

Shaq, for all his dominance on the inside, had the ability to play out up till the mid-block. Not up high, at that point he'd need a true outside shot and that wasn't happening, but far out enough that he could allow for optimal spacing within the triple-post offense (but really within any offense) and foster cutting action and ease corner shooting. Couple that with his ability and willingness to make passes, and he's going to be able to find guys in good positions to create or score. Else, he's not so far out that he's not going to be able to make a foray at the basket, had strong range on that hook, and was pretty comfortable on the baseline with that 1.5 handed short jumper.

What all this results in, then, is one of the best offensive big-men of all time and at +6, ranking just a level behind the elite wings and points. However, what allows the 2000 version to standout obviously is the focus on defense.

What he brings is what you'd expect, aggressive shot-blocking/rim protection, which is just an overall disruption factor for opponent offenses, and is something that is actively present at almost all times he's on the floor. Exceptional mobility for a 7'1, 300+ lb, which results in the ability to cover and affect a huge amount of floor space in the lane, helps in recovering for shot-blocking but on the other hand lateral defense was clearly not his forte; he's not shutting down the PnR. Still, all of that and the rebounding have me place him as a strong defensive player for a big-man. Clearly not at the level of the elites of his generation, but VERY strong nonetheless, and enough that when coupled with his offense, puts him close to tied for #2 overall for me.

2. Michael Jordan, 1992

(forthcoming)

1. Lebron James, 2013

(forthcoming)

*100% open to all criticism and commentary, but I'll say that I'm going to avoid making any rebuttals until after I've finished posting all of my thoughts above.

Great post, but why Lebron so high? I have him 6.5+2.5 with Shaq 6.0+ 3.0 and MJ 7.0 + 2.5. And Wilt too low imo.For me he had 5.0 + 3.5 at least maybe 4 for defense.

[Gregoire]

I have a lot of difficulty feeling good about my peak list. With career lists, even for players we have limited footage of (such as prime Russell and Wilt), I feel like we have enough info, and I've seen them play (with the available footage) to an extent where I don't feel "weird" at least having an opinion. I know it's likely I would feel differently about many of my all-time rankings if I had really followed certain players (for example, if I followed the Warriors closely in the mid-70s -- when I wasn't even born -- I might rank Rick Barry in a different spot than I do now, as I would obviously have a deeper understanding of his game and overall impact). However, there's enough out there that I can do all-time rankings (and, for fun, I keep an all-time top 100 I periodically adjust) and not feel like I'm just taking shots in the dark

With peaks, though, I feel like it's just WAY too hard to really tell. For example, how do I know what 67 Wilt's impact really was? There's hardly any footage from that time period, let alone that season, and there are all sorts of narratives that can be spun around it.

The narrative I'm most sympathetic to about Wilt 67 is that Wilt and Russell had similar quality teams for a reasonable sample size and Russell only lost once, and that Wilt's teammates and coach were definitely better in 1967, and that for those reasons (as the short version, anyway), I just don't lean towards taking the single season Wilt's team beat Russell's and saying it was the best season either of them ever had. Russell managed to win titles at least two or three seasons when he had inferior teammates than Wilt, but in 1967 the 76ers had a really great team (that stayed healthy) with many other valuable players (the top 6 guys were Wilt, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jones, and Jackson -- just an exceptional amount of talent) and an excellent coach, while the Celtics roster was definitely less impressive that year, and Russell was player-coaching his first season. Yes, Wilt really played great -- I mean, he obviously had an awesome season or we wouldn't all be discussing it in these threads. But how awesome was it? How much did the other guys on his team matter? How much negative impact from Wilt's poor FT shooting and (possibly) his interest in his own stats have? We really just don't know this stuff, and it's really hard to try to figure it out, and in a player evaluation sense everything that has any sort of (positive or negative) impact matters.

And then there's the question of "What if Player X played just as well, but his team didn't win the title?" and the answer is usually that he wouldn't be on the top peaks list; this clearly points to a major flaw in almost all top peaks lists, and possibly even with the entire idea of "peak" as we generally look at it. I'm guilty of the same thing -- most of my top peaks, when I really force myself to make my best guess, end up being title seasons, too. Yet, let's take Wilt 67 again. Almost everybody agrees that was an awesome season, but the 76ers actually had a pretty tough Finals against the Barry/Thurmond Warriors. The 76ers won 4-2, but they won both of the really close games in the series (a game 1 OT win and a 3-point clincher win in game 6). What if Barry was just, say 5% more accurate in both those games?

And then, after all of that stuff, there's the fact that the most important thing in basketball is how much you help your team to win, and despite the value of advanced stats, that's just something that goes way beyond statistical evaluation.

For example, let's say there's a player who could average 30 points, 9 rebounds, and 8 assists a game, while shooting 47-36-87. That would look awesome and it would be so efficient nobody could complain. But say that this player is on a very good overall team, and it's better that he shoots a little less (because some of his lower-percentage shots aren't as efficient as simply not taking them and looking for a better team opportunity) and it's also better that the offense keeps moving, which means he holds the ball a little less (which also results in less assists, since he's less likely to make the final pass before a shot that way), and it's also better if he boxes out while holding position a little stronger and longer (instead of breaking away sooner to run for the ball, which would result in more individual rebounds for him, but less overall rebounds for the team). Let's say this player is a great team player and has a great coach who asks him to do all these things, so he does them. And now he averages 25-7-6 on 50-38-87 splits. If he played the wrong way (resulting in the 30-9-8/47-36-87 line) and his team still won the title, he would likely make top peak lists, but now that he plays the right way and helps his team the most, he won't be on the vast majority top 10 peak lists because his stats aren't impressive enough. Sure, 25-7-6 on excellent efficiency is still a great statistical season -- but probably not even MVP-season-level most years, at least as far as the stats, much less top ten peaks level. But it's still better.

So, to sum this up, I really don't know... but here's my guess and it's going to be blasphemy compared to what almost everybody on this board seems to think, but what the hell.

1: Bill Russell (yes, I understand this is peaks, not career. I think the way he impacted his team at his peak was GOAT level. He doesn't have a crazy standout season like some other greats, but that's because that wasn't ever the optimal way to help his team. Russell is a great example of the sort of player described above who has a less-impressive looking statistical season by actually playing better). And I can't really pick a year, because, it would be impossible for me to tell you which of a few years in the early to mid 1960s was his best. But I believe that Bill Russell at his best was better than any other player at his best. We have limited resources... if a magic genie tells us the "true list," I wouldn't be surprised to be wrong, but if you put a gun to my head, asked me who had the greatest peak in NBA history, and told me I had to give the right answer to live, just before the magic "true list" was revealed, my answer would be Bill Russell.

2-6: TIE (in chronological order, because I've written enough for one post, and I really don't know how to objectively separate these players/seasons anyway at this point): Chamberlain (probably 67, but I think legit arguments could be made for a couple of other seasons, too), Bird 86, Jordan 91, Shaq 00, James 13

Honorable Mention that also introduces another concern I have with the whole "peak" concept:

Walton 78. In 1978, the Blazers started the year 50-10 (a 68-14) pace. They didn't have a very strong roster #2-#10 -- this was Walton and what was basically a 30-52-type team with a replacement player. That level of impact is just nuts... but then Walton got injured, the team finished the season 8-14 (a 30-52 pace), and lost in the first round of the PS. In one sense, if we are literally talking about "peak seasons," then Walton's injury diminishes that season drastically since he was unable to have an impact when it was most important. However, if there is a more flexible definition of peak, then Walton from the 1977 PS until game 60 of 1978 should be one of the players people bring up in GOAT peak discussions imo.

EDIT: Because I forgot Shaq in the original post, and he definitely belongs on this sort of list imo.

Monumental post. But why you can separate Russell, but cant separate others from each other? And what about peaks in order saying from 80s. In these era we know much more about players.

[Gregoire]

Just a preliminary list:

1) 67 Wilt (also considering 64, and there's a decent chance I change this)
2) 00 Shaq (also considering 01, but I don't think I can do playoffs only so I need to go with this year due to defense)
3) 64 Russell (pretty certain about this year)
4) 93 Hakeem (also considering 94 and 95, but I don't know how much sense they make)
5) 77 Walton (pretty sure about this too)

I really think Jordan and either Bird or LeBron should be in here, but at the present time I can't justify their placement based on my team-building philosophy. I'm reevaluating my stance on bigs (I might not change my position, but I'm breaking it down and giving it another look just to make sure I'm as certain as I can be). Kareem isn't too far behind Walton and I may swap them (unlikely).

HM (not in order): ?? Kareem, 04 Garnett, 03 Duncan, 76 Erving, 13 LeBron, ?? Jordan, ?? Bird, ?? Robinson, ?? Robertson.

So, how now you elaborate these guys order? I mean how you combined bigs peaks vs wings peaks?

[ceiling raiser]

Just a preliminary list:

1) 67 Wilt (also considering 64, and there's a decent chance I change this)
2) 00 Shaq (also considering 01, but I don't think I can do playoffs only so I need to go with this year due to defense)
3) 64 Russell (pretty certain about this year)
4) 93 Hakeem (also considering 94 and 95, but I don't know how much sense they make)
5) 77 Walton (pretty sure about this too)

I really think Jordan and either Bird or LeBron should be in here, but at the present time I can't justify their placement based on my team-building philosophy. I'm reevaluating my stance on bigs (I might not change my position, but I'm breaking it down and giving it another look just to make sure I'm as certain as I can be). Kareem isn't too far behind Walton and I may swap them (unlikely).

HM (not in order): ?? Kareem, 04 Garnett, 03 Duncan, 76 Erving, 13 LeBron, ?? Jordan, ?? Bird, ?? Robinson, ?? Robertson.

So, how now you elaborate these guys order? I mean how you combined bigs peaks vs wings peaks?

I'm not sure. Those bigs are my top 5 overall at the moment (I think Kareem is #6), then probably Jordan, LeBron, Garnett, Bird finishing out the top 10 (Dr. J, Duncan, Robinson are close). But I'm still not sure. I'm doing ElGee's SRS project for as many players as possible with offense/defense splits, and giving some threads on here another look (mostly abstract ones, but some involving lists). Apologies if my list isn't of the highest quality at the moment, it's a difficult process.

[trainwreckog]

looking at regular season stats can sometimes be irrelevant... it's like looking at a bunch of college players and basing their ranking based off their college stats.

to me, "peak" means level of dominance.

wilt, kareem, mj and shaq were the most dominant players of all time (maybe in that order, or maybe jordan ahead of kareem).. the stats prove that no one else is on their level of performance.. lebron's best postseason was 2012... his 2013 postseason was not great... only good... he almost lost the Finals on 44.7% shooting and 25 ppg... a very far cry from the best postseasons of shaq, mj, wilt or kareem.

[Gregoire]

Still waiting for these guys...
Doctor MJ
Mutnt
Dipper 13
ElGee
tsherkin
Penbeast0
ThaRegul8r
jals
bastillon
NugzHeat3
Durins Baynes
accrossthecourt
ShaqAttack3234
t

[D Nice]

1. Michael Jordan (’89, ’90, ’91, ‘92)
2. Wilt Chamberlin ('64, ‘67)
3. Shaquille O’Neal (’00, ’01, ‘02)
4. Magic Johnson (’86, ’87, ‘90)
5. Hakeem Olajuwon (’93, ’94, ‘95)

[JordansBulls]

1. 1991 Jordan
2. 1971 Kareem
3. 1994 Olajuwon
4. 2000 Shaq
5. 1967 Wilt/2013 Lebron

[Gregoire]

1. 1991 Jordan
2. 1971 Kareem
3. 1994 Olajuwon
4. 2000 Shaq
5. 1967 Wilt/2013 Lebron

IMO not only you overrate Kareem, but you take 71 instead of 74 or 77, why?

[colts18]

1. 1991 Jordan
2. 1971 Kareem
3. 1994 Olajuwon
4. 2000 Shaq
5. 1967 Wilt/2013 Lebron

IMO not only you overrate Kareem, but you take 71 instead of 74 or 77, why?

Because of win shares, PER, lack of HCA losses, and winning without an all star.

[Gregoire]

After some evaluating right now my top-10 peaks with SRS value for offense and defense are:
1. MJ 90-92 : 7,5 + 2,5
2. Shaq 00: 6,5 + 3,0
3. Wilt 67: 5,5 + 4,0
4 Lebron 13: 7,0 + 2,5
5. Hakeem 93: 5,5 + 4,0
6. Kareem 77: 6,0 + 3,0
7. Bird 86: 8,0 + 0,5
8. Russell 64: 1,0 + 7,0
9. Magic 87: 8,0 + 0,0
10.Duncan 03: 4,5 + 3,5
Something like this. 2-5 places are very close for me and generally interchangable, Russell and Magic too.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Because of win shares, PER, lack of HCA losses, and winning without an all star.

Oscar was an all-star in '71 as well as all-nba 2nd team. Dandridge was all-star caliber as well, imo.

[Gregoire]

Right, so Lebron who has proven to be worse than Shawn Marion offensively against handchecking is top 3, but you can't rank player who played with real rules in a league that didn't cater to promoting media golden children......seems legit. Lebron can not play in league' with handchecking, no defensive 3 seconds, ball handling rule enforcement, PED testing, player collusion rules, referee collusion rules, no media to revise history for him, etc. Please try to be objective when doing these rankings. The 2013 Heat played better when Lebron did not even play. You are ranking a guy who proved to be a liability to his team as some sort of legendary player, when his team struggled to get through a playoff run that included a .500 tanking Bucks team, the Rose/Deng-less Bulls with a hobbled Noah, the Pacers with a WOAT bench for a ECF team missing their best scorer, and a Spurs team with a hobbled Parker missing their backup SF. Several players were instrumental parts of their team's success, Lebron in 13 was a liability who hindered the Heat's dominance.

1. 91 MJ
2. 2000 Shaq
3. 67 Wilt
4. 86 Bird
5. 94 Hakeem

At this point I'm convinced he's the biggest LeBron fan in history.

Definitely. When you understand that he's making quite literally the worst possible arguments against LeBron and parodying the haters, his posts become quite hilarious and instructive - in what NOT to post.

Also, SideShow, would love to read your Wilt/MJ/LBJ writeups. You're one of the most knowledgeable posters overall here, but I know you have a little something extra when it comes to LeBron - want to see how/why exactly you can rank him above '00/'01 Shaq and '91/'92 Jordan.

Yes, awaiting too about his words about Bron, IMO he slightly overrated in his post.

[O_6]

Here’s my Top 5, with my full Top 10 included. I weighed a lot of things to pick out the season I thought was a player’s best. I looked at regular season individual performance, regular season team success, playoff performance, and playoff success. I picked the season where I thought the player had the best mix of those 4 aspects as their individual peak season.

There were a couple of tough ones. With Russell I chose ’65 over ’62 because I believe he was a better defender during ’65 and he was dominating a better league. With Kareem I chose ’71 over ’77, the toughest choice I had to make. Kareem might’ve been a more mature player in ’77, but he was a phenomenon in ’71 and dominated the league from start to finish. The ring and stronger regular season of ’71 trumps his ’77 playoff run and more refined game. You could pick any Jordan season from 88-92 but 91 sticks out as his ultimate form as a player.

Code: Select all

Player ------- PER ---- WS ----- TmSRS --- Wins --- pPER --- Title --- MVP
Jordan 91 ---- 31.6 --- 20.3 ---- 8.57 ---- 61 ---- 32.0 ---- Yes ---- Yes   
Wilt 67 ------ 26.5 --- 21.9 ---- 8.50 ---- 68 ---- 25.3 ---- Yes ---- Yes   
Shaq 00 ------ 30.6 --- 18.6 ---- 8.41 ---- 67 ---- 30.5 ---- Yes ---- Yes   
Russell 65 --- 19.5 --- 16.9 ---- 7.46 ---- 62 ---- 20.9 ---- Yes ---- Yes   
LeBron 13 ---- 31.6 --- 19.3 ---- 7.03 ---- 66 ---- 28.1 ---- Yes ---- Yes
   
Kareem 71 ---- 29.0 --- 22.3 ---- 11.91 --- 66 ---- 25.3 ---- Yes ---- Yes   
Magic 87 ----- 27.0 --- 15.9 ---- 8.32 ---- 65 ---- 26.2 ---- Yes ---- Yes
Hakeem 94 ---- 25.3 --- 14.3 ---- 4.19 ---- 58 ---- 27.7 ---- Yes ---- Yes   
Duncan 03 ---- 26.9 --- 16.5 ---- 5.65 ---- 60 ---- 28.4 ---- Yes ---- Yes
Bird 86 ------ 25.6 --- 15.8 ---- 9.06 ---- 67 ---- 23.9 ---- Yes ---- Yes
*pPER stands for playoffs PER

Jordan: He ranks first because of his complete offensive game paired with his perimeter defense. He’s the best offensive player ever in my mind, his scoring ability was just a level above anyone else’s in history. His physical tools paired with his complete offensive skillset made him an unstoppable offensive force during the ’91 season. I value bigs over wings due to defense, but Jordan played elite perimeter defense which is why I still rank him #1 ahead of 3 bigs. I agree with the general population, MJ was the GOAT.

Wilt: I believe his career tends to get overrated because of his scoring numbers in the early 60s. Those seasons were absolutely incredible at an individual level but they didn’t maximize his team’s potential. ’67 was the season where Wilt took a big dip in FGA and scoring to focus on being more of a facilitator and defender. His far more complete and efficient game allowed his team to become legendary. He’s still behind ’91 Jordan in my book because of Jordan’s impossibly complete offensive game, but I rank him 2nd ahead of ’65 Russell and ’00 Shaq because he was a better 2 way player than those guys.

Shaq: He was such an unstoppable force in 2000. I ranked him 3rd because he paired up his dominant offensive game with a very strong defensive season. His health and defensive laziness hurt him at other points in his career, but not this season. He was a man possessed and he owned the league during this season. I rank 2000 Shaq a tiny bit ahead of 1967 Wilt offensively despite Wilt’s more complete game, because Shag has such an edge in volume scoring while also being highly efficient and a good passer. But ’67 Wilt gets the slight edge overall because his agility and defensive ability made him more complete on that end than ’00 Shaq.

Russell: He’s obviously a very unique and difficult player to rank among the rest of the NBA elite. So much of his value comes from his defensive ability and intangible leadership. 1965 was probably the best individual defensive season in NBA history, the peak of Russell’s historic Celtics defense. His offensive game is underrated these days because his efficiency looks better relative to his league than it does overall. But in ’65, Russell had his best offensive playoff stretch. In terms of value added to a team in a season, I think ’65 Russell probably ranks first overall. But his game was a bit more era dependent and one-way than the 3 guys above. For those reasons I ranked him 4th.

LeBron: This 5th spot was the toughest. I had a really hard time comparing 2013 LeBron with 1971 Kareem. I gave the edge to LeBron because his unique skillset made him a more complete player than Kareem. And 2013 is also tougher than the 1971 NBA, which played a role here as well. But 2013 LeBron was incredible, about as complete a player as there has ever been. His volume scoring came on absurd efficiency and versatility, he was one of the best passers in the game, he was a monster defender, and he owned the league from start to finish. His playoff performance was very good but not legendary, which is the only reason this peak isn’t in the mix for Top 3.

The rest of the guys aren’t far behind. I have Kareem a clear 6th. He wasn’t as physically dominant as the 5 guys who rank above him. He was definitely a very strong athlete, but just not on the same level as the guys above him on my Peak list. His defensive potential also wasn’t legendary, but “merely” great. But his scoring ability is absurd. He was such a complete scorer and good passer. Magic at 7th is tough because like Russell, he’s hard to gauge because of his uniqueness. But he was such a one of a kind offensive juggernaut who simply owned that season. Hakeem at 8th was tough, he had an unreal playoffs but he was just never the regular season player the guys above him were. He had a relatively weak cast but a lot of that was on him. He matured into a mythical beast from ’93-’95, but before that he was a wild animal. In ’94, his 2 way game peaked in an epic way. His volume scoring potential trumps any other big on this list and he was a dominant defender that season. But he’s behind the other centers because he lacked their regular season consistency.

Duncan at 9th is tough too, I’ve always had a tough time comparing him against Hakeem and Shaq. But in terms of peak ability, I don’t think Duncan matched them because he didn’t have the same volume scoring ability. But Duncan was a more complete player than the other 2 and didn’t need to score 40 points to dominate a big game. Bird was a very complete offensive player, up there with anyone. He could dominate a game doing a variety of things. He was a smart defender too but limited on that end against certain forwards. He was an amazing passer as well who made the right pass and didn’t chase assists. There were other guys who I thought about, but I rank Bird 10th.

[B_Creamy]

I had a list set up that went something like.

1. Shaq '00
2. Jordan '91
3. LeBron '13
4. Bird '86
5. Russell '65

Hakeem and Wilt are pretty close and kind of interchangeable for the 5 spot. For anyone that has LeBron at #1 I'd love to hear your rationale. It's tough to see him above those 2 monsters.

[JordansBulls]

1. 1991 Jordan
2. 1971 Kareem
3. 1994 Olajuwon
4. 2000 Shaq
5. 1967 Wilt/2013 Lebron

IMO not only you overrate Kareem, but you take 71 instead of 74 or 77, why?

Because 1971 still led the league in advanced numbers and he carried an organization that never won before to a title while winning league and finals mvp.

[Gregoire]

Hoping posters soon to post here:
Doctor MJ
ElGee
John Thomas
jals
NugzHeat3
Durins Baynes
accrossthecourt
Boarder Patrol
OnePostLegend
Notanoob
thebottomline
islamovic
rravenred
PaulieWall
Y-Knot
Baseline Runner
DrazenForThree

and wishing
ShaqAttack3234

to finish his list...

[ThaRegul8r]

Hoping posters soon to post here:
Doctor MJ
ElGee
ThaRegul8r

With all due respect, while it's flattering that you apparently hold my opinion in high regard, I don't have any interest in posting lists ranking players. As I said 2½ weeks ago:

I couldn't care less whether someone's favorite player didn't rank as high as he wanted him to. That's one reason I stay away from things like subjective lists, since there's always someone whining about someone's ranking.

From my experience (I'm not saying this applies to you, but this has been the case during the time I've been talking basketball on the internet, which predates RealGM's existence), the majority (not all, but the majority) of people typically want my opinion on something in order to validate their agenda. (You can even see here that people will name drop certain posters when they've said something in the past that supports whatever point they're trying to make now.) I've had people praise me as a knowledgeable poster, and cite what I say, or information that I've presented that happens to be favorable to their agenda as supporting evidence. Yet the instant I say something that doesn't support their agenda, I suddenly don't know what I'm talking about, and become under attack. That's one reason I take praise with a grain of salt, as I know full well that people can praise you one minute and rip you the next. It solely depends on where you stand in relation to their agenda. These people aren't particularly interested in my "take" on something per se, but whether I will say anything that will be of present or future use to them.

For the most part, lists that rank players are political. People use their lists to push their favorites. They proselytize for their favorites. Anytime they see one of their favorites ranked lower than they've ranked them, they become upset, seeing it as an indictment against both their chosen player and their own taste. And since they have an emotional investment in their chosen player's ranking, ad hominems, thread derailments and other nastiness often ensues.

I have no interest in these politics. I have no agenda I'm trying to push, I am not trying to proselytize for anyone. I gain nothing from attempting to push a particular player(s) over all others. I have been asked on many occasions for my lists over the years, but a list with my name attached to it does not exist. As I said during a project in the past, I present information, and people can make up their own minds, but at least be informed when they do so.

My own interests lie in presenting information people weren't previously aware of, and team construction. People shouldn't care about my subjective opinion about anything, but only in any new information that I've presented that they weren't previously aware of, or things that I say that are objectively true. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass, though I thank you for thinking highly of me.

[Gregoire]

Hoping posters soon to post here:
Doctor MJ
ElGee
ThaRegul8r

With all due respect, while it's flattering that you apparently hold my opinion in high regard, I don't have any interest in posting lists ranking players. As I said 2½ weeks ago:

I couldn't care less whether someone's favorite player didn't rank as high as he wanted him to. That's one reason I stay away from things like subjective lists, since there's always someone whining about someone's ranking.

From my experience (I'm not saying this applies to you, but this has been the case during the time I've been talking basketball on the internet, which predates RealGM's existence), the majority (not all, but the majority) of people typically want my opinion on something in order to validate their agenda. (You can even see here that people will name drop certain posters when they've said something something in the past that supports whatever point they're trying to make now.) I've had people praise me as a knowledgeable poster, and cite what I say, or information that I've presented that happens to be favorable to their agenda as supporting evidence. Yet the instant I say something that doesn't support their agenda, I suddenly don't know what I'm talking about, and become under attack. That's one reason I take praise with a grain of salt, as I know full well that people can praise you one minute and rip you the next. It solely depends on where you stand in relation to their agenda. These people aren't particularly interested in my "take" on something per se, but whether I will say anything that will be of present or future use to them.

For the most part, lists that rank players are political. People use their lists to push their favorites. They proselytize for their favorites. Anytime they see one of their favorites ranked lower than they've ranked them, they become upset, seeing it as an indictment against both their chosen player and their own taste. And since they have an emotional investment in their chosen player's ranking, ad hominems, thread derailments and other nastiness often ensues.

I have no interest in these politics. I have no agenda I'm trying to push, I am not trying to proselytize for anyone. I gain nothing from attempting to push a particular player(s) over all others. I have been asked on many occasions for my lists over the years, but a list with my name attached to it does not exist. As I said during a project in the past, I present information, and people can make up their own minds, but at least be informed when they do so.

My own interests lie in presenting information people weren't previously aware of, and team construction. People shouldn't care about my subjective opinion about anything, but only in any new information that I've presented that they weren't previously aware of, or things that I say that are objectively true. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass, though I thank you for thinking highly of me.

Okey, your ponts are valid, but:
1. Why for you are such important the opinions of some posters in internet? Even if they would attack our later, its not armaggedon IMO... Take it easy. Its just opinion about basketball players.
2. All your phsychological things are valid, I know all these moments too, but its not hesitate me of giving my opinion, maybe bacause I have less fear of mistake? Aside of politics you really havent even thinkings of how you can rank them? With all respect, but it seems unlikely.
3. I remember you voted for Wilt at number one in peaks project...
4. I create these thread not for validate some agendas, but for experiense and for evaluate my opinion in this regard. And bacause of that I wanted some posters, which I respect, give their opinions for me. You are included in this list.Basically that.
5. Its your own right to pass, I respect it. But do you think someone couldnt give the list without political motivation?