Peaks Project: #1

[Ballerhogger]

LeBron in those four "bad" games still scored better than your GOAT pick '71 Kareem did in the entire playoffs (KAJ averaged 26.6 ppg on 54.8% TS).

I think the performance burden of proof is slightly higher for 2009 LeBron (a player whose team was upset in the playoffs) than it is for 1971 Kareem (a player whose team won the title).

I think this is an important statement that I agree with. In general when picking a GOAT season, the burden of proof on having enormous statistics is higher when the team that you were involved did not win a championship.

Adding the fact the cavs didnt even make it out the ECF. They were clear favourites to do so. Its was going be kobe vs Lebron story line in 09.

[Quotatious]

Adding the fact the cavs didnt even make it out the ECF. They were clear favourites to do so. Its was going be kobe vs Lebron story line in 09.

I think it's clear that they overachieved in the RS. Other than LeBron, they were exposed in the ECF against Orlando. Howard exposed their weak frontcourt.

[MyUniBroDavis]

As for my other two picks Jordan 1991 to second greatest peak of all time . 31.5 and 5.5 last and 6 boards amazing RS then 31pgg and 8.4 ast in the playoffs.Overall made his team even better in the playoffs. Of course has the golden standard of FMVP and MVP. Only 2 losses in the playoffs.

For my last ballot Wilt Chamberlin 1961-1962 season historically could be best basic stat line in all of sports .50.4ppg and 25.7 TRB. Playoffs 37ppg and 23.TRB

Just saying, It really annoys me to no end when people say
"best statline in ALL of sports" - Wilt
"best run organization in ALL of sports" - spurs
"most famous franchise in ALL of sports" - lakers
Federer isnt the most legendary sportsman int eh world I would assume, though imo he is up there.

Wilt's career achievemant and record and accolades page has 3500 words.
Federer's pushes 10 thousand.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Adding the fact the cavs didnt even make it out the ECF. They were clear favourites to do so. Its was going be kobe vs Lebron story line in 09.

I think it's clear that they overachieved in the RS. Other than LeBron, they were exposed in the ECF against Orlando. Howard exposed their weak frontcourt.

I feel like the idea that a player cannot be great for his lack of progress in the playoffs, as long as he performed well, and helped his team, is extremely naive and foolish.
Its basically like blaming Lebron in 2015 because he didnt win the championship.

[mtron929]

Adding the fact the cavs didnt even make it out the ECF. They were clear favourites to do so. Its was going be kobe vs Lebron story line in 09.

I think it's clear that they overachieved in the RS. Other than LeBron, they were exposed in the ECF against Orlando. Howard exposed their weak frontcourt.

In some sense, I would not be surprised if Lebron is a GOAT player when it comes to maximizing his team's outcomes when he has inferior teammates (even more so compared to Jordan or Shaq). We saw this with the Cavs early on (2009) as well as glimpse of this last playoffs when the Cavs were riddled with injuries.

On the other hand, I don't think Lebron is good as Shaq or Jordan when it comes to thoroughly dominating oppositions when he has a good supporting cast. For all the big 3 hoopla, they never really had an all time great teams like the Bulls or the Lakers. In some sense, you can blame the teammates but I've always thought that Lebron was all time great at getting the best out of role players while he was very mediocre at getting the best out of star/superstar teammates (e.g. Wade, Bosh).

[eminence]

Very interesting thread. A question for people who are involved with the voting. Is your subjective ranking pretty much synonymous with which player (for that particular year) you would pick if you had the 1st pick of every player that has ever played the game? If I were to make comparisons with that question in mind, then it seems like Lebron 09 clearly falls behind Jordan 91 and Shaq 2000. Yes, Lebron performed magnificently with inferior casts but I don't get too much confidence that he would have necessarily performed in a dominant fashion if he had players like Kobe or Wade as 2nd options. I just have too much skepticisms on whether Lebron 09 can deliver on winning a championship under variety of different circumstances (e.g. having a bad supporting cast, having a big 3 supporting cast, having an alpha dog as the 2nd option) over the other two.

I guess I don't really consider how they'd perform on super stacked teams or really terrible teams, all of these top guys would still win and perform great on great teams and no one player is enough to lift a terrible team(poor KG). More on how they'd do on a team that obviously wouldn't be a contender without them, but would still be a low-end playoff team. Anyways, that's my take.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Adding the fact the cavs didnt even make it out the ECF. They were clear favourites to do so. Its was going be kobe vs Lebron story line in 09.

I think it's clear that they overachieved in the RS. Other than LeBron, they were exposed in the ECF against Orlando. Howard exposed their weak frontcourt.

Just wondering
How much value to you put into intangibles, such as clutchness, etc?
I feel to some, that is a main arguement many make when, do you comparing players.
Also do you value being the "final piece of the puzzle" star, or the "Im the guy that made the puzzle" star
Because Thats where I believe Jordan and Lebron fit into, though they are so trancendant that they can go
either way and still be effectiveut

This might seem childish, but here is my opinion.
Jordan going to the Cavs in lebrons year would be no where near as succesful, but Jordan would have 3 peated in Miami (if wade was a sf)
I take that final piece of the puzzle part more, because imo, most teams need that first
Obviously, both players can fill both roles at once

[Owly]

still shot 55.4% TS (which is easily above average, especially in the playoffs, where players are usually less efficient than they are in RS).

The bar is a bit higher for someone claiming to be #1 of all time.

The bar of one arbitrarily chosen stat, reflecting one aspect of the game, for a span in the series selected for no reason to make the player look worse than they were?

What other bars are there? Do you need ...

An Assist Pct >= 14.1 for your 4 worst games in a given series?

and an Total Rebound Pct >= 10.9 for the first 4 games in a given series?

and a Usage Pct >= 19.5 in every other game

and a Block Pct >= 1.1 in four randomly picked games

and a Steal Pct >= 1.7 in games whose numbers are square numbers

and a Turnover Pct <= 13.5 for whatever series?


There is no "you must be above this line" in one specific attribute. But for what it's worth, if you did need to be more than a bit above average (say the above are roughly average) right across the box score, whose playoff runs do you think would pop up?

you can't search more than 4, but you can filter the other aspects with your eyes
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&type=advanced&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=Y&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&shoot_hand=&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&birth_state=&college_id=&draft_year=&is_active=&debut_yr_nba_start=&debut_yr_nba_end=&debut_yr_aba_start=&debut_yr_aba_end=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=&award=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=ast_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=14.1&c2stat=trb_pct&c2comp=gt&c2val=10.9&c3stat=stl_pct&c3comp=gt&c3val=1.7&c4stat=blk_pct&c4comp=gt&c4val=1.1&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=ws

[The-Power]

There are going to be some annoyig discussions ahead of us when people already starting to use a single game among roughly 100 games of sample size to make their point. Regardless of how important a certain game is, it should not be a part of a serious argument (maybe unless it was a total, mentally induced breakdown which is extremely unlikely anyway and not the case with LeBron) and it definitely shouldn't be used as the deciding factor.

I also expect overly nostalgic responds when people value recent peaks highly and at an all-time level because regardless of what the numbers indicate it's simply not possible because the other players are legends. But that's another topic and we're going to get there soon enough, so I'll leave it at that for now.

[drza]

re: italicized. This is a very common sentiment on these boards and an adage often quoted in general (e.g. great offense beats great defense). I've never been convinced. It seems to me that outlier defense is a rarer commodity than outlier offense, that it's more additive to great teams, and that it's overall impact that's most important as opposed to a whether that impact is more offensive or defensive in bent. Many (most?) don't agree with me, and would lean more towards your opinion, but I don't agree and I've never seen a particularly good case made for why that should be a default truism.

Just some random middle-of-the-night thoughts as I try to ease into this project...

I think best explanation is: offense sets defense. Being offensive player you could in every possesion dictate where play would go. Being defensive player you need to adjust and are influenced by offensive set, so if you have weaknesses (and every player had), offense could benefit from it easier.

I disagree. You can build defenses to prevent offensive teams/players from getting to the spots that they want. And regardless of who's the agressor, that still isn't any proof that one side is better than the other.

[PaulieWal]

After much deliberation I have my ballot ready. Up until last year I used to have MJ as the GOAT peak but that is no longer the case.

I am going with Shaq (00) as my 1st option here:

Right off the bat he had raw averages of 30/14/4 in the RS and then 31/15/3 in the PS.

I agree with a lot of what Spaceman and Q have said in regards to the different advantages of having a big like Shaq at his peak or wings like MJ/Bron. I think most of it comes down to your personal preference to be very honest. I just personally like my chances a lot more with peak Shaq in today's league. Although peak MJ or LeBron would wreck the league as well to be clear.

Now comes the hard part and I am struggling with this even as I am typing this. I am a big higher than I used to be on LBJ's peak after analyzing his seasons for this project.

My second option here is MJ (91).

With MJ I thought he had a strong case for a peak from 89-91. I basically see it as a 3 year peak and I think any version of that MJ would win a title with a strong enough team around him. With his peak athleticism he could get to the rim at the will and still had his mid-range game on which is what made him so deadly. I have recently read some excerpts that fpliii sent me regarding MJ and it does seem like MJ was a tad obsessed with his stats early on in his career but I don't think it takes away from his game and he was still a good passer who knew how to involve his teammates.

Third, I go with James in 2012.

I know this is a minority position on this board but to me 2012 was his absolute peak where he anchored an offense and a defense. His offense was a bit limited in 2012 but it was damn effective and no one could really stop him that year from getting to the rim. His post game while brutal and clunky was effective as hell. The league was still adjusting to him playing the 4 on the offense with Miami's pace and space offense. This year was basically a cheat code for him because there was going to be that one season where he went to the 4 on offense and teams were going to struggle to adjust right away. Even though his jumper was busted in the playoffs, in the big games his J still showed up. Now this is one of those "intangibles" thing but I think his drive and focus after losing in 2011 was simply amazing.

Defensively he anchored the Heat defense and was consistent in the RS/PS. In a vacuum his defense in 13 playoffs was better IMO but overall his defensive value was higher in my eyes in 2012. I do realize this is an unpopular opinion on this board but to me both 12 and 13 are tossups here. I'd take 12/13 LeBron before 09 easily.

To make it easy for trex, this is my ballot:

Ballot 1 - Shaq 00
Ballot 2 - MJ 91
Ballot 3 - LBJ 12

[PaulieWal]

Just a friendly reminder, some of you casting ballots and getting involved in the discussions need to register in the other thread.

[drza]

Adding the fact the cavs didnt even make it out the ECF. They were clear favourites to do so. Its was going be kobe vs Lebron story line in 09.

I think it's clear that they overachieved in the RS. Other than LeBron, they were exposed in the ECF against Orlando. Howard exposed their weak frontcourt.

In some sense, I would not be surprised if Lebron is a GOAT player when it comes to maximizing his team's outcomes when he has inferior teammates (even more so compared to Jordan or Shaq). We saw this with the Cavs early on (2009) as well as glimpse of this last playoffs when the Cavs were riddled with injuries.

On the other hand, I don't think Lebron is good as Shaq or Jordan when it comes to thoroughly dominating oppositions when he has a good supporting cast. For all the big 3 hoopla, they never really had an all time great teams like the Bulls or the Lakers. In some sense, you can blame the teammates but I've always thought that Lebron was all time great at getting the best out of role players while he was very mediocre at getting the best out of star/superstar teammates (e.g. Wade, Bosh).

I think this is an interesting concept, and speaks to something that El Gee would often write about. It also ties to that concept of impact = goodness + fit/uniqueness that I mentioned a few posts up. If we use RAPM as a quick way to quantify impact, LeBron in 2009 and 2010 put up the 3rd highest and 1st highest scores that we've seen since 1999 (again, using Doc MJ's normalization method). However, he visibly (and quantitatively) wasn't having the same magnitude of impact on teams in which there were other strong perimeter players that needed the ball to be maximized (in either Miami or Cleveland). Considering that perimeter players of that sort are more and more common, it does suggest that there may be limits to LeBron's ability to maximize his impact as his teams get better.

The other side of the coin would be someone like, say, Bill Russell, who one could argue might not be able to carry a very weak cast the way that LeBron could but has a skill set that is SUPREMELY portable as teammates get better.

How much emphasis do we put on portability? I've seen some give Jordan/LeBron an advantage over Shaq because of the versatility of their ways to attack. But in my opinion, versatility is primarily a strength because it suggests that one can have their max impact in a lot of different ways (and thus, to finish the thought, their maximum impact would be portable to different situations). But even if Shaq's game is not as versatile as LeBron's, if he still would be able to maximize his impact on a wider variety of teams (which I'd argue that he could) then he could still be more portable than LeBron...which I think is more important than being more versatile.

[Owly]

re: italicized. This is a very common sentiment on these boards and an adage often quoted in general (e.g. great offense beats great defense). I've never been convinced. It seems to me that outlier defense is a rarer commodity than outlier offense, that it's more additive to great teams, and that it's overall impact that's most important as opposed to a whether that impact is more offensive or defensive in bent. Many (most?) don't agree with me, and would lean more towards your opinion, but I don't agree and I've never seen a particularly good case made for why that should be a default truism.

Just some random middle-of-the-night thoughts as I try to ease into this project...

I think best explanation is: offense sets defense. Being offensive player you could in every possesion dictate where play would go. Being defensive player you need to adjust and are influenced by offensive set, so if you have weaknesses (and every player had), offense could benefit from it easier.

I disagree. You can build defenses to prevent offensive teams/players from getting to the spots that they want. And regardless of who's the agressor, that still isn't any proof that one side is better than the other.

To all in an offense versus defense debate (maybe these thoughts are moot and the debate has moved on but ...)

Isn't one teams offense always playing someone else's defense (and vice-versa). Someone will be playing one of those aspects at all times, so even if you could somehow say one was more important, how could you say whose defense was more important (which "end" of the court is important A on offense versus B on D, or B on offense and A on D)? Neither end gets played in a vacuum.

Even if one correlates more with success (lets say D, and ignore that your D is always up against someone elses O), could you infer causation. Or would it not be more likely that that end correlates (better) with other factors that create a winning team.


You can have debate at an individual skill-set level in terms of whether specific offensive or defensive skill-sets are additive or bring diminishing returns. But (maybe I'm missing something here) I've never quite got O versus D at a conceptual level.

[trex_8063]

It interesting that Shaq gets so many votes while Wilt almost none. What separates them? Shaq had better volume scoring numbers, but every other category goes to Wilt. Better rebounder (decent margin),

Not necessarily by "decent margin". Pace-adjusted, Wilt's per 100 possession estimates for rebounds are 20.8 in '67, 20.2 in '64. Shaq's in '00 were 17.5. And part of that difference is a result of lower shooting %'s in the 1960's.
Overall, I agree Wilt was a better rebounder than peak Shaq, but I feel the realistic margin is very very small.

more assists, less foul prone.

Although that bolded factor is in part due to Wilt's obsession with an arbitrary and meaningless (occasionally even harmful) individual goal of playing his entire career without ever fouling out. It's pretty well documented (at least by way of anecdotal accounts, and I want to say even a personal admission by Wilt, though I could be mis-remembering that) that Wilt would shy away from contesting shots or otherwise playing aggressive late in games if he was in foul trouble.

If volume scoring is such a imoortant thing, you could take Wilt 1964 season. He is still better rebounder, has better defensive stats and just as good volume scorer.

Defensive stats of the time period are woefully incomplete. I do note that the '64 Warriors were "only" the 2nd-rated defense in the land, even with a rookie Nate Thurmond alongside Wilt. Now admittedly "out-defensing" the Russell Celtics is a tall order, although they really didn't even come close (team DRtg was a full 4.8 shy of the Celtics that year).

In '67----even when Wilt put his focus pretty firmly on defense, rebounding, and playmaking----the Sixers were the 3rd-rated defense in the land.

In summary, when I look at career wholes, I tend to rate Wilt a little better as a defender, because he was pretty much always at least decent---with a couple of very good years---in his prime, and then took very well to a defensive-minded role late in his career (with the Lakers).
But when comparing peak only, I'm not sure Wilt has any particular defensive advantage over peak Shaq.

His team is also much worse than 2000 Lakers.

I'd commented on the '00 Lakers previously, and RayBan Sematra did a much better job of it; our respective conclusion being that the supporting cast in '00 wasn't overly impressive.

Wilt's supporting cast in '64 isn't overly impressive either, but nor is it garbage:
*He's got a weak offensively, but excellent defensive (and good rebounding) PF in rookie Thurmond (playing ~26 mpg).
**Tom Meschery was a totally decent scoring SF, imo.
***Although he's a 4-time All-Star (including in this year in question) who is now in the Hall of Fame, I must admit I've soured a bit on just how quality of a guard Guy Rodgers actually was. Nonetheless, he's at the very least a "capable" PG for the time period.
****Hightower and Attles were "OK" players.


I still think Shaq had a better supporting cast, but I guess what I'm calling into question is by how much of a margin? At least a small margin, and perhaps even a moderate one......but not a huge one, imo.

And suppose we conclude Shaq did have a better supporting cast by a moderate margin......he also achieved a moderately better team result with it: 81.7 win% vs. 60.0 win%, +8.41 SRS vs. +4.41 SRS, and a title vs. a finals loss.
So comparing their respective supporting casts ('00 and '64) doesn't really lean the argument in either player's favor.

There is nothing bad with taking Shaq over Wilt, but I'm curious why.

Speaking for myself, it's largely over consideration of the competition in the era. Wilt had his most dominant years in a time when the average athleticism, particularly of the perimeter players, was a bit lower (and where the average height in the league was at least marginally less). I'm not sure he's have demanded the same primacy or exerted the same level of era-relative dominance in league loaded with super-athletic perimeter players.

It's not a HUGE factor, but with all these peaks being so close (we're talking about a battle of inches, not miles), a small factor to throw some doubt on things is all it takes. fwiw, I have Wilt as my #4 peak.

[MyUniBroDavis]

It interesting that Shaq gets so many votes while Wilt almost none. What separates them? Shaq had better volume scoring numbers, but every other category goes to Wilt. Better rebounder (decent margin),

Not necessarily by "decent margin". Pace-adjusted, Wilt's per 100 possession estimates for rebounds are 20.8 in '67, 20.2 in '64. Shaq's in '00 were 17.5. And part of that difference is a result of lower shooting %'s in the 1960's.
Overall, I agree Wilt was a better rebounder than peak Shaq, but I feel the realistic margin is very very small.

more assists, less foul prone.

Although that bolded factor is in part due to Wilt's obsession with an arbitrary and meaningless (occasionally even harmful) individual goal of playing his entire career without ever fouling out. It's pretty well documented (at least by way of anecdotal accounts, and I want to say even a personal admission by Wilt, though I could be mis-remembering that) that Wilt would shy away from contesting shots or otherwise playing aggressive late in games if he was in foul trouble.

If volume scoring is such a imoortant thing, you could take Wilt 1964 season. He is still better rebounder, has better defensive stats and just as good volume scorer.

Defensive stats of the time period are woefully incomplete. I do note that the '64 Warriors were "only" the 2nd-rated defense in the land, even with a rookie Nate Thurmond alongside Wilt. Now admittedly "out-defensing" the Russell Celtics is a tall order, although they really didn't even come close (team DRtg was a full 4.8 shy of the Celtics that year).

In '67----even when Wilt put his focus pretty firmly on defense, rebounding, and playmaking----the Sixers were the 3rd-rated defense in the land.

In summary, when I look at career wholes, I tend to rate Wilt a little better as a defender, because he was pretty much always at least decent---with a couple of very good years---in his prime, and then took very well to a defensive-minded role late in his career (with the Lakers).
But when comparing peak only, I'm not sure Wilt has any particular defensive advantage over peak Shaq.

His team is also much worse than 2000 Lakers.

I'd commented on the '00 Lakers previously, and RayBan Sematra did a much better job of it; our respective conclusion being that the supporting cast in '00 wasn't overly impressive.

Wilt's supporting cast in '64 isn't overly impressive either, but nor is it garbage:
*He's got a weak offensively, but excellent defensive (and good rebounding) PF in rookie Thurmond (playing ~26 mpg).
**Tom Meschery was a totally decent scoring SF, imo.
***Although he's a 4-time All-Star (including in this year in question) who is now in the Hall of Fame, I must admit I've soured a bit on just how quality of a guard Guy Rodgers actually was. Nonetheless, he's at the very least a "capable" PG for the time period.
****Hightower and Attles were "OK" players.


I still think Shaq had a better supporting cast, but I guess what I'm calling into question is by how much of a margin? At least a small margin, and perhaps even a moderate one......but not a huge one, imo.

And suppose we conclude Shaq did have a better supporting cast by a moderate margin......he also achieved a moderately better team result with it: 81.7 win% vs. 60.0 win%, +8.41 SRS vs. +4.41 SRS, and a title vs. a finals loss.
So comparing their respective supporting casts ('00 and '64) doesn't really lean the argument in either player's favor.

There is nothing bad with taking Shaq over Wilt, but I'm curious why.

Speaking for myself, it's largely over consideration of the competition in the era. Wilt had his most dominant years in a time when the average athleticism, particularly of the perimeter players, was a bit lower (and where the average height in the league was at least marginally less). I'm not sure he's have demanded the same primacy or exerted the same level of era-relative dominance in league loaded with super-athletic perimeter players.

It's not a HUGE factor, but with all these peaks being so close (we're talking about a battle of inches, not miles), a small factor to throw some doubt on things is all it takes. fwiw, I have Wilt as my #4 peak.

I have 1 question though, and this is something that always puzzled me.
With a similar roster, how did hey go 17-65 one year?

[Gregoire]

I disagree. You can build defenses to prevent offensive teams/players from getting to the spots that they want. And regardless of who's the agressor, that still isn't any proof that one side is better than the other.

1. Not all offensive players could be prevented. Jordan, Lebron and even Shaq could not.

2. Even if D could prevent player from his spots, they are dependent of it and could be exploited by counter move.

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

I am not a voter.

I am posting as a part of the discussion in the hopes of being added to the voting. I believe no. 1 has to be 1967 Wilt Chamberlain. He anchored possibly the greatest single season team in history and led the first truly elite offense in NBA history, all while averaging 24/24/8.

Sets a FG% record, becomes the first real point-center, is the keynote of Hannum's percusor to the triangle offense, and leads the Sixers to a record 68-13. I don't know how much I need to say about this year, but I'll let you guys take a look at his game-log from the Playoffs:

1967 EDSF vs. Royals

G1 - 41 points, 23 rebounds, 5 assists, 63% FG
G2 - 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists, 67% FG
G3 - 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists, 62% FG
G4 - 18 points, 27 rebounds, 9 assists, 50% FG

Series Average: 28.0 ppg, 26.8 rpg, 11 apg, 61% FG
Oscar Robertson: 24.8 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 11.3 apg, 51.6% FG

He had as many assists as Oscar and killed him everywhere else!

1967 EDF vs. Celtics

G1 - 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks, 69% FG
G2 - 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks, 45% FG
G3 - 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks, 57% FG
G4 - 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, at least 3 blocks, 44% FG
G5 - 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks, 63% FG

Series Average: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg, 56% FG
Bill Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 36% FG

1967 NBA Finals vs. Warriors

G1 - 16 points, 33 rebounds, 10 assists, 75% FG (including a game-saving block on Nate)
G2 - 10 points, 38 rebounds (26 in 1st half), 10 assists, 10 blocks, 40% FG
G3 - 26 points, 26 rebounds, 5 assists, 52% FG
G4 - 10 points, 27 rebounds, 8 assists, 11 blocks, 50% FG
G5 - 20 points, 24 rebounds, 4 assists, 60% FG
G6 - 24 points, 23 rebounds, 4 assists, 62% FG

Series Average: 17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg, 56% FG
Nate Thurmond: 14.1 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg, 34% FG

That year, Wilt was fifth in scoring, first in rebounds, third in assists, and first in FG%. He was probably first or second in blocks too. How many players can achieve that level of statistical domination on an ELITE team?

He would get the rebound, either throw an outlet or let Greer bring it up before he got the entry pass at the high post again. Facing the basket, he then hit cutters, used a handoff to a guard to set a screen or either posted up to devastating effect (68% from the field!!!). Wilt was ungodly that year, there has never been anyone as good at basketball as Wilt was in 1967.

If I had a vote, it would be:

1. Wilt 1967
2. Jordan 1991
3. Shaq 2000

Very close between Jordan and Shaq. I value versatility, and Jordan can be used in a couple more ways than Shaq. In 1991 in particular if you watch the Finals, not only was he scoring like a maniac, he was also slicing up the Lakers with his off-ball movement. This proved to be a major decoy and allowed Pippen and Grant to have several huge games, including Pip's 32/13/7/5 in the closeout. Shaq is basically devastatingly effective as an offensive hub in the low post, and you'd wonder why anyone would want to use him in any other way, but at this highest of levels you're basically splitting hairs and anything that is an advantage has to be accounted for.

This is pretty decent content, and we appreciate your willingness to contribute even without voting eligibility. That's enough "good faith" for me; so in the interest of having a nice broad voter pool, I'm going to make you eligible to vote, effective immediately.

These ballots will be tallied. Please feel free to change your votes at any time; just be sure to make a new post informing me of the change, as well as making the changes in your original ballot-cast post.
Welcome aboard.

[Mutnt]

And I [somewhat] disagree that peak Shaq wasn't an elite (or at least "very good") passer for a center. But outside of Kobe and maybe Rice, he just didn't have much in the way of decent offensive options to pass out to.

Relative to his position, sure, but when we take into account the ability to make plays with his passing & handling he wasn't elite, whereas MJ and LeBron were. And the importance of the aspect above cannot be stressed enough, especially when we talk about dealing with defensive pressure. LeBron and MJ were just much better at countering the defense because they had way more skills at their disposal.

And again, I'm not sure why you're referencing Shaq's teammates. Unless we argue the '09 Cavs were more talented (and no one can realistically argue this, because they weren't) this is moot in comparison to LeBron at least.

Not sure we're actually disagreeing on anything here. I acknowledged somewhere within that post that Kobe was an excellent perimeter defender that year (though he missed 20% of the season). Harper was always solid on that end, too, but he was a bit long in the tooth at this point (ditto AC Green). Horry was indeed underrated defensively, but only playing 22 mpg, so......
Shaq appears to be the biggest factor in them achieving the #1 rated defense that year, is all I'm saying.

Ok, but the gist of it was basically that Shaq had a more talented defensive cast, so it would be logical to assume he'd lead a better defense. Or not?

'09 Cleveland had the #3 defense in the league and besides LeBron, there was like 1300 minutes of Ben Wallace and let's say Varejao, who wasn't quite Horry level, but at least he tried some.

I'd give Varejao a tiny bit more credit than that. He was pretty solid defensively, imo: hustled, totally decent on the defensive glass, very good pnr defender, got a few steals/blocks.....+2.59 PI DRAPM that year, too.

Meh. Fair enough, still worse than what Shaq got from Horry + Green if we combine their minutes.

Don't know that I agree there. Zydrunas was a reasonable (if not quite "good") defensive rebounder, avg 1.7 blk per 36 minutes (despite the terrifically slow pace the Cavs played that year: 2.6 blk/100 possessions), and had a PI DRAPM of +2.02 (which is significantly better than Green's in '00).

Outside of DRAPM all defensive metrics favor Green. I think Z was a solid defensive player in his prime, but by the time the Cavs became a '60-win' team, he tailed off quite significantly. His size and length could still be a factor but he was just slow and tired a lot of the time.

My source has '00 Shaq PI DRAPM at +2.31; same source has Lebron's at only +2.16 (one other source I use has Lebron at +2.5.....this source doesn't have data for '00); none of my sources have his DRAPM at 2.8, fwiw.

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/rapm

Admittedly, the source doesn't have '00 data, so I used another source which did. Can you give me the link to the source which has LeBron at 2.1?


[quote]
Let's not get defensive (or nasty).
The Lakers supporting cast was better at #2 (Kobe vs. Mo Williams, obv no contest), and probably better at #3 (Glen Rice vs. either Anderson Varejao or Big Z).....but imo Bron's supporting cast in Cleveland was likely better at #4 thru #8 than Shaq's in LA.

Ok, agree to disagree.

[urnoggin]

My source has '00 Shaq PI DRAPM at +2.31; same source has Lebron's at only +2.16 (one other source I use has Lebron at +2.5.....this source doesn't have data for '00); none of my sources have his DRAPM at 2.8, fwiw.

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/rapm

Admittedly, the source doesn't have '00 data, so I used another source which did. Can you give me the link to the source which has LeBron at 2.1?

I'm not trex, but this is the source that has LeBron's DRAPM in 2009 as +2.16

http://www.gotbuckets.com/statistics/rapm/2009-rapm/