Peaks Project: #1

[drza]

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.

See, it's a slippery slope here. Because Shaq (or Wilt) will never have the all around game of many of the best of all-time. Their games were more about dominance than versatility, and the idea was that it was so difficult to stop what they do that they could still be dominant despite their weaknesses. Said another way, it comes back to the versatility argument...does versatility connote greatness more than dominance does?

Also, as I've touched on a couple of times now but we haven't really sunk teeth into yet...what is the value of scarcity and portability? How important is it that the GOAT-level impact that we saw from these players in a given year be scalable upwards as teams and teammates get better? It's not even so much about LeBron or Jordan as an individual, but more that type of player...a high-usage, high-scoring wing just doesn't seem (to me) to be as portable as a dominant big. As someone pointed out up-thread, if I'm taking a player without knowing what his cast will be, I do have trouble picking an MJ or a LeBron when there are bigs with a similar demonstrated level of dominance that I know would be able to maintain that impact (and with less likelihood of having talent/usage overlap issues).

[Jim Naismith]

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.

But team success (not "great stats") is the ultimate goal of any individual performance.

I tend to be more forgiving of individual underperformance (1971 Kareem PS ) if it still gets the team the victory.

[trex_8063]

OK, calling it for Jordan (with the still surprising unanimous '91 as his peak year). Great start to the project, imo.

Am disqualifying yoyoboy's ballot since as far as I can tell, he never did come back to supply reasoning/content; and left JB's 3rd ballot choice as Shaq. Did not count newcomer urnoggin's ballot (though I'll include him beginning the next thread). None of these factors would change the outcome anyway.

So with those accounting notes in place, thru post #162:
Michael Jordan - 47
Lebron James - 28
Shaquille O'Neal - 25
Wilt Chamberlain - 8
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 5
Hakeem Olajuwon - 1

Will start thread for #2 in a few moments....

[Clyde Frazier]

~

See you already called it, but posting my vote here anyway. Will expand (and possibly change) in the next thread.

Ballot #1 - 91 Jordan

Specifically for this spot, i feel strongly enough about 2 things: with the majority of people considering jordan the GOAT, it's hard to figure how someone else peaked higher than him. His longevity isn't elite, and while his overall prime is very solid, there is a pretty clear progression and steady decline to it.

And while I'm a big proponent of basketball being a team game, and an individual's performance only being able to get them so far, I do believe the #1 ranked peak season should include a championship. Jordan was masterful that year, playing in all 82 games, and putting on a superb finals performance:

31.2 PPG, 6.6 RPG, 11.4 APG, 2.8 SPG, 1.4 BPG, 61.2% TS, 125 ORTG

This also included an AST% of 45.8%! Pippen and Phil Jackson were the final pieces to the puzzle, but Jordan did just about everything you could ask for in leading that team to the championship.

Ballot #2 - 2000 Shaq

Shaq showed in 2000 why he has a case for the most dominant offensive force in NBA history. I'm sure some of you have been watching the games on NBA TV during shaq week, and it's a good reminder of how he really played. The notion that he was just bigger and stronger than everyone else is silly. His ability to create space and find the right angles on his array of post moves was exemplary. His decision making and physical quickness for his size was unmatched. This included passing out of the post when necessary.

It's noted by some that he didn't face the likes of hakeem, ewing, robinson, etc. on the way to his first championship. This is with the implication that he didn't hold his own in the past against those guys, which simply isn't true. Also, the lakers faced the 10th, 3rd, 5th and 13th ranked defenses on their way to the championship that season, so they were definitely tested.

Ballot #3 - 2013 LeBron

I could just as easily go with 2012 here, but since they're both close, i'll go with 2013 being the full season and lebron facing a tougher opponent in the finals. While the spurs were a ray allen missed 3 away from winning the title that year, lebron showed up in game 7 and closed them out.

This is the version of lebron we saw really control a game without scoring, and it put it over the top for me compared to 09. I was so impressed with the attention he commanded in the post, not even being a dominant post player. His ability to find the open man and create from that area was unmatched. It was almost bizarre to watch. Add that to his being an elite, versatile defender, and it sealed it for me.

[trex_8063]

~

See you already called it, but posting my vote here anyway. Will expand (and possibly change) in the next thread.

Ballot #1 - 91 Jordan

Specifically for this spot, i feel strongly enough about 2 things: with the majority of people considering jordan the GOAT, it's hard to figure how someone else peaked higher than him. His longevity isn't elite, and while his overall prime is very solid, there is a pretty clear progression and steady decline to it.

And while I'm a big proponent of basketball being a team game, and an individual's performance only being able to get them so far, I do believe the #1 ranked peak season should include a championship. Jordan was masterful that year, playing in all 82 games, and putting on a superb finals performance:

31.2 PPG, 6.6 RPG, 11.4 APG, 2.8 SPG, 1.4 BPG, 61.2% TS, 125 ORTG

This also included an AST% of 45.8%! Pippen and Phil Jackson were the final pieces to the puzzle, but Jordan did just about everything you could ask for in leading that team to the championship.

Ballot #2 - 2000 Shaq

Shaq showed in 2000 why he has a case for the most dominant offensive force in NBA history. I'm sure some of you have been watching the games on NBA TV during shaq week, and it's a good reminder of how he really played. The notion that he was just bigger and stronger than everyone else is silly. His ability to create space and find the right angles on his array of post moves was exemplary. His decision making and physical quickness for his size was unmatched. This included passing out of the post when necessary.

It's noted by some that he didn't face the likes of hakeem, ewing, robinson, etc. on the way to his first championship. This is with the implication that he didn't hold his own in the past against those guys, which simply isn't true. Also, the lakers faced the 10th, 3rd, 5th and 13th ranked defenses on their way to the championship that season, so they were definitely tested.

Ballot #3 - 2013 LeBron

I could just as easily go with 2012 here, but since they're both close, i'll go with 2013 being the full season and lebron facing a tougher opponent in the finals. While the spurs were a ray allen missed 3 away from winning the title that year, lebron showed up in game 7 and closed them out.

This is the version of lebron we saw really control a game without scoring, and it put it over the top for me compared to 09. I was so impressed with the attention he commanded in the post, not even being a dominant post player. His ability to find the open man and create from that area was unmatched. It was almost bizarre to watch. Add that to his being an elite, versatile defender, and it sealed it for me.

OK, so thru post #164, that makes it:
Michael Jordan - 50
Lebron James - 29
Shaquille O'Neal - 27
Wilt Chamberlain - 8
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 5
Hakeem Olajuwon - 1

Should be a tight race for #2 between Lebron and Shaq; and who knows maybe Wilt and/or Kareem will make major headway, too.

[Gregoire]

Should be a tight race for #2 between Lebron and Shaq; and who knows maybe Wilt and/or Kareem will make major headway, too.

Not very fast for starting thread 2, a lot of posters didnt vote:Mutnt,SideshowBob,Moonbeam, theonlyclutch, LA Bird, PCProductions, drza

[Gregoire]

See, it's a slippery slope here. Because Shaq (or Wilt) will never have the all around game of many of the best of all-time. Their games were more about dominance than versatility, and the idea was that it was so difficult to stop what they do that they could still be dominant despite their weaknesses. Said another way, it comes back to the versatility argument...does versatility connote greatness more than dominance does?

Also, as I've touched on a couple of times now but we haven't really sunk teeth into yet...what is the value of scarcity and portability? How important is it that the GOAT-level impact that we saw from these players in a given year be scalable upwards as teams and teammates get better? It's not even so much about LeBron or Jordan as an individual, but more that type of player...a high-usage, high-scoring wing just doesn't seem (to me) to be as portable as a dominant big. As someone pointed out up-thread, if I'm taking a player without knowing what his cast will be, I do have trouble picking an MJ or a LeBron when there are bigs with a similar demonstrated level of dominance that I know would be able to maintain that impact (and with less likelihood of having talent/usage overlap issues).

It seems like you favor bigmen over wings, but where your ballot?

[trex_8063]

Should be a tight race for #2 between Lebron and Shaq; and who knows maybe Wilt and/or Kareem will make major headway, too.

Not very fast for starting thread 2, a lot of posters didnt vote:Mutnt,SideshowBob,Moonbeam, theonlyclutch, LA Bird, PCProductions, drza

People were well-informed ahead of time regarding the start-date, and it was clearly stated and agreed upon that it would be approximately 36-hour windows for each thread. It's up to the individuals to get their contributions in during that time. I [generally] won't be holding up the process to wait for people who may or may not show up in a timely fashion (if at all).

Besides, it's highly unlikely (nearly impossible) for their ballots to change the result (Jordan had a 21-point lead on the second place finisher); and theonlyclutch did cast his ballots in time (post #156).

[SideshowBob]

So running a bit late here, I'll just post my ballot/thoughts here and jump in tomorrow for #2 even if the vote doesn't count for this one. I'm also trying to do a quick top 25 ballot in the project thread.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 2000 Shaq +8.00

Spoiler:

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 essentially tied for #1.

Notably I've tightened my scale since 2013 when this was posted, so ignore the nominal SRS values.

2. 1990/91/92 Jordan +8.00

Spoiler:

I've got 90, 91, and 92 all on about the same level for Jordan, and I'll get into why I picked 92 later.

Jordan's dominance primarily drew from the offensive side of the ball. In that manner, he's like the wing version of Shaq; he has the same "neutron star" effect, only he's putting that kind of pressure on the defense virtually everywhere on the court, and is a better playmaker to boot. The gaudy assist numbers don't quite capture the effect, the insane pressure he puts on defenses with his own shot-creation (be it attacking the basket, operating on the block or in the midrange, moving without the ball, whatever) consistently put his teammates into positions where they could easily score without having to do much creation at all, which also reduces the tendency to turn the ball over. We already know that Jordan's exceptionally good at taking care of the ball, but his presence was also significantly driving the entire team's TOV% down. High% shot-making and creation, coupled with low mistake ratios basically makes him an offensive economizer. He's going to get you the best out of your offensive possessions.

On the defensive side of the ball, I consider him an anchor. In fact, I consider anyone who hits a certain threshold of defensive impact an anchor, regardless of what style leads to that impact. Is he on the level of the best interior anchors of all time? Of course not, but in any given year, he's still providing top level defensive impact. At a wingspan of 6'11, coupled with his motor, athleticism, and awareness, he provides an "all-over-the-place" effect; when dialed in, he's covering a ridiculous amount of lateral space, disrupting shots and passing lanes, inducing high TO rates and just wreaking havoc for opposing offenses all over the floor. Couple that with his ability to provide some degree of shot-blocking/rim protection and you see that he's providing a horizontal AND vertical game. He can carry a huge defensive load off the ball, while then additionally providing stifling on-ball defense coupled with positional versatility.

Now, why 92 over 91? It's mostly a matter of preference, but I can see 91's case. Results-wise, I don't think anything tops 91; just under a +7 RS offense, about on par with 92, and then a +11 offense in PS, which easily tops 92, and some insanely efficient box-score production to boot. Hard to argue with that. The case in my mind is that he's added a bit more weight, without really losing any of his explosiveness, making him more of a threat in the post, without taking away from his strengths. Add to that a slight refinement of skills that basically comes with every passing season, and a somewhat improved jumper, and I feel like you're getting ever so slightly more with 92 than 91. Again, its a small difference, and I'd be perfectly okay with slotting 91 here as well.

So those were my thoughts on Jordan's peak a couple years back. Only major change in my mind since then is how I look at defensive consistency throughout the RS/PS and how that factors in with regards to player motor. With 92 Jordan, I have

3. 2013/2010 James +8.00

Spoiler:

I had 2010 James at 3 prior to 2013, and that version to me was basically Jordan-lite. It was the same "neutron-star" theory; he's able to create high percentage offense for himself and that sucks in defensive attention to such an extent that it leaves others in very favorable positions to score. 2013 James though is a different beast. He's more diverse, more polished, less involved ON the ball and moreso OFF it, reminiscent of Bird to me more than anyone else.

Starting with offense, he's now a threat all over the place, not just at the basket. His spot up shooting was amongst the top in the league in 2013, he can space the floor all the way out to the three point line and is now a master at the corner 3 (35% in 2009, 38% in 2010, 32% in 2011/2012, and 49% in 2013), drawing the defense (often time the bigs; he played a lot of minutes at the PF) out and opening up the lane (which he can capitalize on with his passing). When he's not outside, he can either A.) be slotted into the post, and provide creation there, be it by scoring at the rim or again, sucking defensive attention and allowing for more operation space on the perimeter for others or B.) be seen actually moving off the ball, frequently cutting, and forcing defensive rotations predicated by his movement. Again, he's now a threat everywhere.

What this results in? Well, on-ball, I don't think he's as strong of a threat as he was back in 2010 or 2009, but off the ball he's gone from being simply a threat to cut (and that only when paired with a decent on-ball playmaker, granted there was a definite progression in 2010) to pressuring the defense at all times. What this allows is offensive lineup diversity. He doesn't need to be paired strictly with spacers, you can plant most any sort of lineup and he'll be able to fill an offensive role and thrive in it, while allowing others to do so as well. Even when paired with a ball dominant guard in Wade, we're seeing huge offensive results where we did not see them before (despite Wade's relative dropoff). So what he managed to bring was not only an improvement in skillset that allowed him to impact the game better, it also allowed him to fit with other offensive talents better. Is he quite at Bird level? No, certainly not in either regard (fit or impact), but he's not far behind at this point either.

I'll start on the defensive end by saying that I also consider James a defensive anchor, just as I do Jordan. At 6'8 with a 7'1 wingspan, he can also play above his size and provide shot-blocking/rim protection. But James thrives not as a guy who gets his hands on the ball, but moreso as someone who just makes everything difficult for the team with the ball. He provides massive floor coverage with that size, consistently disrupting opposing offensive positioning, terrorizing the pick and roll, aggressively trapping, having a near perfect sense of when to help on the double yet still being in position to recover, using his insane athleticism and lateral quickness to delay recovery times but still provide shot disruption. Combine this with the positional versatility, on (elite man defense, can overwhelm smaller guys with his size, is efficient at funneling ball handlers into the help, strong post defense with shot blocking) and off the ball (aggressive fronting and ball denial for bigger inside guys, quickness and agility to stick with smaller guys) and you've got a player who's providing high impact with a huge defensive load, much larger than you'd expect for the typical wing. I've got him and Pippen as basically on par with most elite defensive bigs (but not the GOAT level guys), and no other wing on that level.

Haven't really changed my qualitative opinions much since then (though I've come on James overall). I'll flesh out James' defense and James vs. Shaq a bit more in the #2 thread.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I see these 3 all on the same level. Differentiation between Jordan and Shaq is portability IMO. Shaq draws more of his impact via defense, which is inherently additive. There will always be less overlap on that end because you don't need the ball to thrive. James IMO has the same off/def split as Shaq (weaker O than Jordan, stronger D) and is thus more portable than Jordan as well, but loses the tiebreaker to the other two due to missed time.

[Moonbeam]

Whoops - missed the 36-hour deadline thing! That's pretty tight for me. Will try to be better about this for the next one. I don't mind Jordan getting the nod here - he'd likely be my pick, but I wanted to look at a few things first.

[Gregoire]

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....

I think example of it - series vs Portland in 2000. Especially 6 and 7 games.

And have you any proof that Shaq was more double-teamed at his peak than for example Hakeem in early 90s, Barkley, Kareem, even MJ in 80s? I remember watching the series Chicago vs Orlando in 95 and old MJ hd DT nearly as often as Shaq. Same with Hakeem in 95 finals. I think all these guys have a case for most double-teamed ever.