Peaks Project: #1

[Owly]

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.

It's peripheral to the main debate but I'm not sure about how well this represents what went on.

Part one is I think Wilt was just a really really rare fouler. Not at any one specific time but in terms of his career rate of fouls per minute (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&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=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=1000&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=pf_per_mp&order_by_asc=Y), lower still per possession, but per minute is what is pertinent here. This means
- He was unlikely to get into foul trouble
- If in "foul trouble" he is comparatively low risk to foul out, given that playing a "normal game" he's still unlikely to foul out. (e.g. if he's already on 4 fouls at the half it would still take more than another 48 minutes, at his normal rate, to reach 6 fouls).

You could then argue is it possible to play good D whilst fouling rarely or to play aggressively without fouling out. I'd say Jimmy Butler and Moses Malone (Malone fouled out maybe once, iirc in his NBA career at an age below that at which Wilt entered the NBA, then didn't for the rest of his career (I believe) breaking Chamberlain's consecutive game non-foul out record. These aren't perfect analogies (neither example is a rim-protector) and this doesn't mean Wilt wasn't playing "soft" but it does suggest circumstantial evidence might be less firm than we might imagine.

And I'd say, to my knowledge, the closest Wilt has come to saying something about shying away from contesting shots, would be a defense (without necessarily accepting the premise) along the lines of "he at 80% was a darned sight better than his usual backup" (pretty true unless Nate), and this long after the fact (if you've read Wilt's final book, his word at that point doesn't mean that much).

Then too with the anecdotal accounts, are they game reports or is it after the fact. If after the fact, is it impartial sources or rivals.

I'm not saying I know it not to be the case that Wilt slacked off after 4-5 fouls (though I recall mentions of specific instance where it notably differed from this perception). I am saying "do we know it to be true?"

[trex_8063]

Thru post #139:

Michael Jordan - 40 pts
Lebron James - 22 pts
Shaquille O'Neal - 21 pts
Wilt Chamberlain - 8 pts
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 5 pts

Sort of surprised that it's been completely unanimous on Jordan's peak year, too. I thought for sure there'd be some votes for '89 or '90 (or even '88, '93....fpliii even mentioned '92).

I'm currently not on a computer, but I'll update this post with descriptions later.

Ballot 1: 2008-09 LeBron James

Ballot 2: 1990-91 Michael Jordan

Ballot 3: 1999-00 Shaquille O'Neal

HM: 1976-77 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 1966-67 Wilt Chamberlain

I counted these ballots and included them in the above tally, but just a reminder: we require reasoning and contribution to the discussion for ballots to be counted. If you do not return to the thread to provide some reasoning before this thread closes (this evening), I shall have to subtract your ballots from the tally.

.

I tallied your 3rd ballot as going for Shaq, because you stated you were "leaning" toward him, though you haven't yet confirmed. If you do not confirm by this evening, I'm going to leave the vote as going toward Shaquille.

As of right now i have Kareem 1971 . Just 2 losses in the postseason and 66 RS wins.. Clear MVP and outstanding 31ppg and 16 boards as basic stat line for the season. 1,207 points more than Oscar Roberston. 26.5 and 17 reb in the playoffs as basic stat line. FMVP and MVP gold standard for greatest peak of all time. First in offense and defense in the league . 103.9ortg and drtg 93.1. Complete dominance

Bit of a preach of "protocol" and courtesy by simply showing up in the first round, when you hadn't visited the "Interest/Metathinking" thread nor requested to join the project (and you've been around long enough to know better).

I've nonetheless entered you in the voter pool. In the future, for ease of counting, could you please put all of your ballots on the same post and clearly label and bold your choices? A touch more content/reasoning wouldn't hurt either (it's pretty bare-bones, especially for your 2nd and 3rd picks).

.

.

I don't suppose one of you could change your avatar? It's a touch confusing when scrolling thru the posts, especially giving me pause when I'm tallying the ballots.

[trex_8063]

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/

Yup. Got Buckets? is the site I use for '08 thru '14.

[Dr Spaceman]

Mutnt, we need to be really clear here. This:

LeBron and MJ were just much better at countering the defense

does not follow from this:

because they had way more skills at their disposal.

If you can point to specific examples of Shaq being successfully limited by defenses because of his lack of versatility during his peak season, that would be excellent and even better if you could provide box scores or even visual information. Otherwise, premise 1 is pretty easily knocked down when we consider the counterexample of literally every perimeter player worthy of discussion here.

I mean I want people to realize exactly how terrifying peak Shaq was. Post us ending with dunks were fairly routine, and not the spin-around or beat off the dribble type. I'm talking about Shaq sealing out the defender with a drop step and dunking through contact.

Skip to 0:30:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGNPNYJIZzI[/youtube]

Yes he had issues with FT shooting. Yes it is probably easier to deny him the ball than a perimeter player. But when the return on investment is THAT, well....

[Dr Spaceman]

So this thread is closing out, but I want to ask a general question as we move forward:

Those of you relying heavily on box score information, how confident are you that any results are actually measuring something real? For example, is the difference between Michael's scoring statistics and Shaq's really enough for you to proclaim Jordan the better scorer? Are we exactly sure that either guy was actually picking the best shot distribution for his team? I mean we're dripping with evidence for guys like Magic and Nash but for Jordan and Shaq it's not even clear that volume scoring above a certain threshold has any real value at all.

In my opinion there's too much stock being put into numbers and things that are "objective" and thus sort of unassailable. I understand they provide valuable information, but nuanced comparisons like this can't really come down to a difference in a few key statistics that may actually come up as neutral in a global context.

drza is kind of pushing this angle as well, and I hope to see more of it. Because here's something key to understand: stats are used on a scale. If you measure two tables in nanometers, the difference between them appears gargantuan. But in terms of "functional" difference, you can tell just from looking at them they're essentially the same size. Now in this case one table is inarguably "bigger" than another, but to end a discussion of merit there would be foolish.

A difference of ~5 ppg is much, much, much smaller than we realize, and when we consider everything that goes into global impact, it honestly shouldn't register.

[70sFan]

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.

So do you think 17.5 vs 20.8 is very very small margin? That's alomst 3 rebounds more per game (per 94 possession)

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.

Any player played less agressive in foul trouble. That's not a good point.

[Dr Spaceman]

Just a few more notes on Shaq:

1. Old, fat Shaq is likely stuck in people's heads due to the availability heuristic. Shaw in his peak years was one of the most athletic big men the game has ever seen. I honestly was a little surprised going back and not remembering how he would run the floor, block shots on the perimeter, and generally be a much more agile play than I realized:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtmXpAeWeH4[/youtube]

2. Shaq off ball. First, Shaq was a brilliant offensive rebounder. Brilliant. He attacked the glass with a real ferocity, and he was especially dangerous when teams decided to front or deny him the ball. And as we know, Shaq around the rim with the ball is game over.

And as I've mentioned earlier, Shaq's massive looming threat inspired such fear in opposing defenses that he warped entire teams and forced borderline suicidal strategies to be used. And this wasn't just on offense: if Shaq beat you down the floor, even just to get post position, it was over. Done. So the man guarding Shaq has to have a clock in his head on offense as well. This was one of Shaq's favorite techniques; just beat his man down the floor and seal him off. If Shaq got to the free throw line before you, that possession was a loss.

3. Shaq's portability. I saw Q mention in one thread something to the effect of "you let Jordan, LeBron and Shaq dominate the ball and build around them"... I don't agree that Shaq is a focal point in the way the other two are. As I've mentioned, I believe Shaq's off-ball threat is arguably the biggest part of what makes him so effective, and this is in pretty direct contrast to the other two. Shaw has had no trouble playing with ball-dominant players, and in fact very likely made things far easier for them. He and Kobe led a team that arguably had a higher ceiling than any in NBA history (2001), and even in Miami Wade (a player with little outside game) really found his groove next to Shaq. O'Neal is a paint clogger, no doubt about that. But Shaq in the paint often requires a built-in double or other scheme as soon as he receives the ball in that area, and thus can (and does) still suck defenders in with his threat to finish.

I'll respond to a couple other things at once here:

That being said, I think it's unfair to expect a wing to attract as much defensive attention (double and triple teams on most possessions, like Spaceman said) as a 7'1'', 325 lbs center with GOAT level athleticism.

Right, but in a debate like this you shouldn't make allowances like this. I shouldn't expect MJ or Shaq to attract defensive attention like Shaq does... and that's EXACTLY why I think Shaq is better than them.

Perhaps I misunderstood you here.

That's just the nature of the game - a guy like Shaq plays center, plays very close to the basket (basically "12 feet in" almost all the time), it's totally normal that teams could try to double him and still be able to recover at times if he kicked the ball out of a double team to an open shooter. You couldn't hope to do the same with Jordan or James because they attack from the perimeter, and usually from a face-up position. That means they are going to see almost the entire court if you send a double team, and with their great passing ability, you're at their mercy, just like it is the case with Shaq, if you leave him isolated 1 on 1 in the post.

This is a great point, and I think something Mutnt said as well. I'd counter with a scarcity argument (which I believe I saw dress make as well). In a nutshell: is it easier to find a guy who can reasonably approximate MJ/LBJ's playmaking, or Shaq's paint presence? That doesn't necessarily make one or the other more valuable, but I do consider it a feather in Shaq's cap. There are just far more players doing a facsimile of MJ than there are Shaq, and that's because Shaq is an Darwinian anomaly in the truest sense.

I would also argue that MJ/LBJ had to beat more defenders on their way to the basket than Shaq had to. They faced perimeter defense AND rim protectors (if they did beat their man on the perimeter).

But we should be debating efficacy here, not degree of difficulty or style points. If Shaq can get his looks off with less effort, that's a point in his favor.

What's your current position on KAJ? Not the same at-rim scorer as Shaq (so maybe there's not as much warping of defenses), so it's understandable if that's the difference. I think we also had a thread awhile back discussing KAJ/Magic, and how the offenses tended to improve as KAJ's primacy was reduced.

You mentioned the main difference for me. There are a few key other ones as well: offensive rebounding, Kareem tending to hold the ball longer, Kareem operating farther from the basket.

The main difference is a stylistic one, and the key is that Shaq overpowering single coverage and scoring was basically a 100% proposition. Kareem and Hakeem had ways of killing their man in isolation too, but there was more variance and a much lower hit rate.

The primacy thing I view as a symptom of the underlying skill deficit.

[Mutnt]

If you can point to specific examples of Shaq being successfully limited by defenses because of his lack of versatility during his peak season, that would be excellent and even better if you could provide box scores or even visual information. Otherwise, premise 1 is pretty easily knocked down when we consider the counterexample of literally every perimeter player worthy of discussion here.

'99 against the Spurs - 24 ppg on 50%TS. Granted is somewhat of an extreme outlier example since there's neigh impossible chances of your team having both D-Rob and Duncan to throw at Shaq but it still counts.

Year in question:

'00 against Sacto (who also had some bodies to throw at him) - 29 ppg on 53%TS. He got his points but wasn't particularly efficient.

'00 against Portland - 26 ppg on 55%TS. Awesome, but not exactly peak GOAT level production.

There were definitely ways to limit Shaq, some of them you yourself even listed at the end of this post. At the end of the day, what proof exists that Shaq's paint-bound gravity is this ultimate trump card in this scenario? How do we know that defending a predictable inside-out set is harder to recover from (for the defense) than LBJ/MJ just torpedoing all over the court, keeping the defense scrambled and guessing? I would imagine the sheer ground covered by those two and the fact that you can't leave them open anywhere would lead to more cross missmatches that the offense can use to their advantage.

And that's not accounting for other things. Transition for example, which is a big part of the game. With guys like MJ/LBJ you'll be creating and finishing a lot of transition plays which can't be undersold. There were literary games where these two would get like 10-15 points on the break. Those points are far more ''sure'' than feeding Shaq, because it's usually just a clear path to the basket for a dunk.

Now, I know you'll just argue that it ''doesn't matter'' since Shaq is supposedly ''the surest thing ever'' but I disagree. If Shaq was the most dominant offensive player in NBA than his team would post better offensive results because they certainly had the talent to. Not only that, Shaq would probably post better in advance stats too.

I mean I want people to realize exactly how terrifying peak Shaq was. Post us ending with dunks were fairly routine, and not the spin-around or beat off the dribble type. I'm talking about Shaq sealing out the defender with a drop step and dunking through contact.

Indeed, but he still peaked at 30 ppg (58%TS), which is far less than MJ and LeBron. I respect that he was an absolute pest down low, who demanded more attention there than anyone in NBA history by far, but on the other hand, MJ/LeBron are the two players that demanded the most attention when heading towards the rim (and they did that quite frequently). Logically they didn't start up with double teams (to their credit, because they'd just beat you with the pass) but after the initial line of defenders the help defense those two drew towards the basket is beyond anyone in NBA history and then you also need to factor that they're far better at finding, not only open players, but good shots for these players (Shaq's passes out of the post were usually to the nearest guy on the perimeter, once the defense shifted to one side of the court, Shaq rarely made a cross court pass to a wide open shot giving the defense 0 chance to recover in time, that's baically LeBron's game). AND they aren't countered by sending them to the line like Shaq is.

[The-Power]

Unfortunately I was/am short on time today and tomorrow (or let's say: short on time with internet access) which is why I can't explain my final vote in detail. I already elaborated on why Shaq to me moved down to my third choice and I was intensively thinking about whom should I take out of 1991 Jordan and 2009 and 2013 LeBron. Luckily I had Jordan's 1991 playoff-run on my iPad and re-watched it as well as chosen games in 2009 and 2013 for LeBron. I went back and forth about their overall performance and it remained close but I decided to go with 1991 as my first choice and 2013 LeBron as my second choice. I hope I'll find the time to give my reasoning tomorrow, but as I understood there is not so much time left to vote.

So my ballot (I hope it will count because people know that I gave it much thought (prove should be my prior post) even though I couldn't go into detail regarding Jordan vs. LeBron yet):
1991 Jordan
2013 LeBron
2000 Shaq

[Mutnt]

Imma have to get back on this ''portability'' issue too when I'll have the time. I just disagree that there are issues here with LeBron based on his usefulness off-ball. This isn't to say he attracts more pressure from the defense than Shaq does when he doesn't have the ball, because I don't think that's true myself, but some people are really going to the extreme of pointing that out as a serious flaw in his game, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Like I said, I'll go back to this when I have more time hopefully.

[trex_8063]

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.

So do you think 17.5 vs 20.8 is very very small margin? That's alomst 3 rebounds more per game (per 94 possession)

Highlighted a factor that already addressed this (lower shooting %'s = more missed shot attempts = more available rebounds). If shooting %'s were the same, the margin might be more like 0.3 rebounds per 90-100 possessions; and yes, I'd call that very very small.

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.

Any player played less agressive in foul trouble. That's not a good point.

Well, as Owly alluded to, it raises the question as to whether he was playing less physical than ideal on a semi-consistent basis (out of habit, perhaps, trying to preserve this record). I guess I can retract the point; perhaps Wilt just is innately less foul-prone, even if he didn't have this particular personal goal (to never foul out) in mind.

However, I still have to wonder if Wilt's defense and general aggressiveness suffered (perhaps even on a semi-regular basis) due to his desire to achieve this fairly meaningless record.

One would have to admit (at least I think so) that it's odd for a player who played >1,200 total games (rs and playoff) with a career avg of 45.8 mpg in the rs and 47.2 mpg in the playoffs to NEVER have fouled out---or avg as many as 3 PF/G---especially so when that player is a center. That record is beyond remarkable......it's downright suspicious, imo.

[trex_8063]

Unfortunately I was/am short on time today and tomorrow (or let's say: short on time with internet access) which is why I can't explain my final vote in detail. I already elaborated on why Shaq to me moved down to my third choice and I was intensively thinking about whom should I take out of 1991 Jordan and 2009 and 2013 LeBron. Luckily I had Jordan's 1991 playoff-run on my iPad and re-watched it as well as chosen games in 2009 and 2013 for LeBron. I went back and forth about their overall performance and it remained close but I decided to go with 1991 as my first choice and 2013 LeBron as my second choice. I hope I'll find the time to give my reasoning tomorrow, but as I understood there is not so much time left to vote.

So my ballot (I hope it will count because people know that I gave it much thought (prove should be my prior post) even though I couldn't go into detail regarding Jordan vs. LeBron yet):
1991 Jordan
2013 LeBron
2000 Shaq

You've provided more than enough content and debate itt. I rest assured that you've given this considerable thought.

[urnoggin]

I am not a voter

Here are my picks:

1. 2000 Shaquille O'Neal
Shaq 00' is my pick as the most dominant single-season peak ever. Compared to LBJ and Jordan, Shaq is on the same level as a scorer but his impact with his rebounding, defense, and unique playstyle puts him over the top for me. Obviously, because of their positions, Jordan and LBJ are better playmakers while Shaq’s a better rebounder. However, Shaq’s rebounding that year was elite averaging 13.6 a game (18.3 TRB%) which was 2nd in the league to Mutombo. Add in his superb post playmaking (3.8 APG) and I think his combination of rebounding and playmaking is more valuable than 09’ LBJ’s and 91’ Jordan’s. Defensively, while Jordan and LBJ might be historically better for their position, they are just unable to compare (because they are wings) to the impact that Shaq had on that end in 2000 where he should have won DPOY and been on All-Defensive First Team (both of which were awarded to Mourning).
Shaq vs opposition centers: 12.46 ppg at 42.5 FG%
Mourning vs opposition centers: 12.53 ppg at 45.4 FG%
---------------
Shaq DRB%, BLK%, DWS, DRtg: 24.8% / 5.3% / 7.0 / 94.6
Mourning DRB%, BLK%, DWS, DRtg: 21.6% / 7.8% / 5.6 / 96.0
Also, like others have mentioned, Shaq warped defenses to an extent that has never been replicated in NBA history. He also had a legendary playoff run that he capped off with arguably the GOAT Finals series. He also demonstrated his clutch factor in the Finals where in the 4th quarter, he averaged 11.5 PPG on 61.1 TS%. His per 48 clutch time stats with less than 5 min left with neither team ahead by more than 5 points: 44.9 points, 61.1 TS%, 6.6 blocks, 19.8 rebounds, 4.0 assists. Incredible.
Overall, Shaq ousts Jordan and LBJ for me because of his rebounding, defense, and his dominant playstyle that completely influences how the other team plays.

2. 1991 Michael Jordan
91’ Jordan and 09’ LBJ are very close with LBJ being a slightly better rebounder and playmaker while Jordan is the better scorer. While this may be trivial, what puts Jordan over the top for me is that he won a championship with his dominant playoff run while LeBron did not. Obviously, LeBron had a great series vs Orlando and it isn’t his fault at all that they lost. However, when talking about GOAT peaks, and with MJ and LeBron having similar playoff runs in their respective years in terms of production, Jordan gets the edge because his team achieved more (really just splitting hairs here). Also, I think that Jordan is also the more versatile offensive anchor because of his larger offensive skillset (better at posting up, mid-range, off-ball play) and that makes him slightly more valuable on that end because it translates to him being a slightly more efficient scorer (31.5 PPG on 60.5 TS% vs 28.4 PPG on 59.1 TS%).

3. 2009 LeBron James
09’ LBJ is arguably the best regular season ever when looking at advanced stats. His postseason is also amazing in this regard (37.4 PER!!!), but it is incomplete (imo), because his team lost in the ECF (who knows how he would have done in the Finals. If he pulls a 2011, the magical aura of this season probably fades). Was arguably at his peak defensively in 09’ coming 2nd in DPOY voting, but I believe his offense was better and more impactful later in his career (12’ and 13’) due to him developing a post game and improving his jumpshot (becoming an extremely efficient outside shooter which I never thought he would ever be). Others that I considered at 3 are 67’ Wilt and Kareem (71’, 72’, 77’?) who dominated the league in their respective peaks.

[Dr Positivity]

My voting strategy is to treat it like a draft. I get to pick a season to win the title without knowing anything else about my team.

Players I am not voting for in the top 3 yet

Magic Johnson and Bill Russell - Their value is too weighted towards either offense or defense for me while I aim towards balance

Larry Bird - I now believe he is a strong defender placing him in the two way group, but I don't see him as perfect offensively as some others as his game is less about driving to the basket and getting to the FT line. I prefer a few wings like MJ and Lebron offensively

Shaq - Just has some weaknesses that make me hesitant. I have to deal with his FT shooting, I have to build an offense around feeding a space clogging post play, defensively has issues in the pick and roll and mediocre leadership

Wilt - Like Shaq has some weaknesses like being a weird player to coach and FT shooting. I would be uneasy with my life bet on Wilt put it that way

Kareem - Not convinced about his defense and if I'm drafting a season, I like defense more than offense first from centers

Now of the remaining I am looking at

- Jordan
- Lebron
- Hakeem
- Duncan
- KG

A strong two way group who can mold into whatever roster I have. My vote

Ballot 1: Lebron James 2013

I'm a bit uneasy because the way this is going my vote will turn into one for Lebron 2009, which I WOULDN'T put over the other players. Although the greatest regular season accomplishment ever by doing the impossible and taking that team to 66 wins, I value polish and experience in the playoffs while 09 Lebron is more athleticism reliant than later versions. Nevertheless I vote for the 2013 version. I find PF Lebron to be a devastating cheat code of penetration, passing, post play, defense and spacing. In the playoffs his team isn't that stacked as Wade and Bosh aren't playing that great and he tops off the season with swinging a title by creating the comeback in Game 6 and then a huge G7 when the Spurs were game enough to win

Ballot 2: Michael Jordan 1991

All around impact of elite, efficiency/high volume scoring, his polished game is already there, passing, rebounding and one of the best wing defenders of all time. Crushed the playoffs. Not my favorite personality but he gets it done.

Ballot 3: Hakeem Olajuwon 1994

I'm more convinced in 94 than 95 of Hakeem's impact in the regular season, he brings a combination of elite defense, post play, passing, spacing and clutch playoff performances.

[Samurai]

Even when you adjust Kareem numbers to PER 36 in playoffs they are pretty good 23.2 and 14.8 . 271 WS in the playoffs 19% TRB in the playoffs.

I'm not sure which season is Kareem peak season. I'm between 1971, 1974 and 1977.
1972 and 1980 also have a case. What do you think? I'm curious because he would probably be my 4th ballot.

As i pointed out back in post #39, I tend to view peak value by how they compared to their peers since I am not aware of a good way to compare stats from different eras. In that post, I had already stated that 71 Kareem's PER was 23.4% higher than the runner ups West and Lanier and his WS was 42.9% higher than runner up Wilt. He also won a ring and was Finals MVP which seems to hold a lotof weight with the criteria for a number of poster. 74 Kareem did not even lead the league in PER, which would seem to to detract from that being the GOAT peak year. although if the Bucks had won game 7 of the finals against the Celtics, he certainly would have been the finals MVP. 77 Kareem's PER was 20.9% higher than runner up Lanier and his WS was 46% higher than runner up Gilmore. No ring in 77 as his team was decimated by injuries but his individual playoff performance ranks among the best ever that season. 77 was pretty similar to 71 in terms of level of dominance but also consider that in 77 the league's talent was no longer divided between the NBA and ABA. While those advantages are higher than the dominance that 00 Shaq, 91 Jordan or 67 Wilt had over their peers, it is less than Kareem's 72 season when he was 29.4% higher in PER and a whopping 60.8% higher in WS. But of course he did not win a ring in 72 and turned in a subpar playoff performance that year.

[theonlyclutch]

Sorry for the late submission, my final ballot vote is:

Ballot 1: Lebron James 2009

God.Damn, I still have precisely no idea how he got that motley crew of journeyman guards + old veterans coached by Mike Brown into 66 wins and an 8+SRS that year, ridiculous boxscore production and massive impact. I chose this over 2013 Lebron because although MIami Bron was more all rounded offensively, 2009 Lebron had clearly more stamina and athleticism, which translates into better defenses and more two-way impact. In the playoffs, he stepped up, but they clearly ran into a huge mismatch with Orlando, which was a 6.48 SRS team despite losing their starting PG for half the season, Dwight went crazy on that sorry big lineup of Cleveland's, while the 3-pointers falled in spades for Orlando, very little of this is Lebron's fault, as he still killed it on offense aplenty..

I would say that this sort of magitude of impact isn't highly replicable for '09 Lebron in many other teams, but since we are talking about peaks i.e a single season, it doesn't matter to me.

Ballot 2: Michael Jordan 1991

All-round elite impact, great combination of efficiency + volume scoring, stepped it up in the playoffs, his impact is likely more portable to different teams than '09 Lebron, but since this is a single season thing and I believe '09 Lebron had more impact to his team, that's not hugely relevant.

Ballot 3: Shaq 2000

The biggest warper of defenses, what he did with his supporting cast is arguably more impressive than Jordan in '91, the only trouble I have with this is his FT-shooting, making hack-a-shaq very viable tactic, this probably doesn't help his impact very much at all, and given none of the other candidates have weaknesses this clear, this sets him back.

[thizznation]

I'm feeling Spaceman's arguments about Shaq's offensive dominance but I just can't overlook Shaq's FT shooting and less than ideal pick and roll defense. These two holes are a very big deal to me and I consider them vulnerable to be exploited by the opposing team.

[Joao Saraiva]

agreed. The bar gotta be pretty high

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).

And this is when I say: individual performance is diferent from team success. But I guess some people will never understand basketball is a 5on5 game, with a bench, coaches, etc.

[Dr Spaceman]

Okay official ballot:

1. 2000 Shaquille O'Neal
2. 1991 Michael Jordan
3. 2013 LeBron James

Jordan looks like he won this in a runaway. Which is fine, although I'd say the thread results massively overstate any real gap that exists in favor of Jordan. #2 will be really tight, and I don't think we can predict where the Jordan voters will swing.

There's a pretty clear top 3, which mirrors our top 100 pretty closely. It's funny how that works. I remember a high school teacher talking about how humans are designed to think in chunks of 3- which leads to many of our truisms (deaths come in 3, 3 branches of government, Holy Trinity etc.). Anyway based on some trickle I've seen from this thread I think the field at 4 is going to be far wider than most expected going in- and I tend to think Hakeem is going to take a big dip.

Hopefully there's a bit more back and forth going forward- lots of self-contained posts in this thread. That's great, but I think the conversation can take this thing pretty deep. This is a peaks project- we're looking at individual years, so looking at individual series/ even games and may hips should be a priority.

And most of all I hope people come to these threads keep an open mind. Even if you know your vote, read the arguments and evaluate your own in context. This project can get really fun and informative if we focus on the information as opposed to the results.

[Quotatious]

I'm feeling Spaceman's arguments about Shaq's offensive dominance but I just can't overlook Shaq's FT shooting and less than ideal pick and roll defense. These two holes are a very big deal to me and I consider them vulnerable to be exploited by the opposing team.

Yeah, and also this post from Spaceman:

So this thread is closing out, but I want to ask a general question as we move forward:

Those of you relying heavily on box score information, how confident are you that any results are actually measuring something real? For example, is the difference between Michael's scoring statistics and Shaq's really enough for you to proclaim Jordan the better scorer? Are we exactly sure that either guy was actually picking the best shot distribution for his team? I mean we're dripping with evidence for guys like Magic and Nash but for Jordan and Shaq it's not even clear that volume scoring above a certain threshold has any real value at all.

In my opinion there's too much stock being put into numbers and things that are "objective" and thus sort of unassailable. I understand they provide valuable information, but nuanced comparisons like this can't really come down to a difference in a few key statistics that may actually come up as neutral in a global context.

drza is kind of pushing this angle as well, and I hope to see more of it. Because here's something key to understand: stats are used on a scale. If you measure two tables in nanometers, the difference between them appears gargantuan. But in terms of "functional" difference, you can tell just from looking at them they're essentially the same size. Now in this case one table is inarguably "bigger" than another, but to end a discussion of merit there would be foolish.

A difference of ~5 ppg is much, much, much smaller than we realize, and when we consider everything that goes into global impact, it honestly shouldn't register.

Makes sense, but if we are looking for THE best player ever, then things like Shaq's lack of shooting range past 10-12 feet, bad FT shooting, poor pick & roll defense, unwilligness to come out to the perimeter and contest shooters (guys like Sam Perkins, Raef LaFrentz, Brad Miller, even Vlade Divac, could all hurt Shaq's teams with their open jumpers - it applies as a valid criticism of Wilt, too), those things become a pretty big deal. I don't see Jordan or LeBron having such obvious weaknesses in their game.