Peaks Project Secondary Thread: to determine Years

[Quotatious]

can't we just ask the 2012 people to vote between who they like more?

I agree. Leaving it as a tie would be awkward.

[RSCD3_]

can't we just ask the 2012 people to vote between who they like more?

I agree. Leaving it as a tie would be awkward.

Me and spaceman both decided to change our votes to 13 if that's the only way we can avoid a tie. I did in this very thread.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[thizznation]

LeBron 09

[RSCD3_]

Anyways about Wilt 64 vs 67

Wilt 64 had a large volume increase about 10-11 pts per 100 possessions roughly but Wilt 67 had a 10% higher TS%. That roughly scales out as 1 pt per 100 possessions vs one TS% point and while ideally the mix would be in the middle id rather have the higher efficiency one. His playoff scoring dropped to the relative same TS% as his 64 year on a lot lower volume so I'd give the scoring to wilt due to the 67 play. I think his defense was about the same in both years, and a lot of people chose 64 as higher so that's one a feather in 64 wilts cap. A large difference IMO is passing. Around 3 APG advantage to wilt in the RS / a 5 APG advantage in the PS. One season rated out as -1.8 ORTG with a terrible cast ( the 64 team ) and the other one had a great one and was +5.0 ORTG ).. But his volume gap especially in the playoffs is large. I think his defense and scoring advantages are enough to give 64 him a well deserved spot at no. 4

Vote 64 Wilt



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[thizznation]

Anyways about Wilt 64 vs 67

Wilt 64 had a large volume increase about 10-11 pts per 100 possessions roughly but Wilt 67 had a 10% higher TS%. That roughly scales out as 1 pt per 100 possessions vs one TS% point and while ideally the mix would be in the middle id rather have the higher efficiency one. His playoff scoring dropped to the relative same TS% as his 64 year on a lot lower volume so I'd call the scoring a tie. I think his defense was about the same in both years, and a lot of people chose 64 as higher so that's one a feather in 64 wilts cap. The big difference IMO is passing.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I had Wilt '67 originally and then I switched to '64. I decided the slightly prettier stats of '67 were more of a function of Wilt's superior team rather than a change in Wilt's personal skill. I also think he was more in his athletic prime in '64.

[RSCD3_]

Anyways about Wilt 64 vs 67

Wilt 64 had a large volume increase about 10-11 pts per 100 possessions roughly but Wilt 67 had a 10% higher TS%. That roughly scales out as 1 pt per 100 possessions vs one TS% point and while ideally the mix would be in the middle id rather have the higher efficiency one. His playoff scoring dropped to the relative same TS% as his 64 year on a lot lower volume so I'd call the scoring a tie. I think his defense was about the same in both years, and a lot of people chose 64 as higher so that's one a feather in 64 wilts cap. The big difference IMO is passing.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I had Wilt '67 originally and then I switched to '64. I decided the slightly prettier stats of '67 were more of a function of Wilt's superior team rather than a change in Wilt's personal skill. I also think he was more in his athletic prime in '64.

I compare it like this would you rather build around Amare's offensive skillet or Bill Walton's if everything else about them were equal. Walton's much higher playmaking level ( although wilt was a lot better than Amare's best in 64 ) lends itself better to helping teammates become more efficient. Yeah his team in 64 wasn't as talented but I don't think he could get the same out of them playing like he did in 64 and I think the 67 version could have gotten that team a higher offensive ceiling, like at least 0.0-1.0 above average.

Also think about this would you rather have a player averaging 20 PPG on 68 TS% plus him raising his teammates FG% up through GOAT level C facilitation or 29 PPG on 58% with only quite good facilitation.

[Owly]

1st ballot: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar '71/72/‘77
...
And ‘77 doesn’t absorb the same “water-down league” criticisms that some of Kareem’s other potential peak year seasons do. This was post-merger; all the Doctor J’s, Gilmores, Thompsons, Gervins, Issels, etc had joined the league…..and Kareem was still a clear stand-out.

otoh, '71 and '72 were both even more dominant (at least in the rs). '72, statistically speaking, was GOAT-level in-era dominance during the rs. '71 wasn't too overly far behind in the rs, and was better in the rs (part of title run). Though both years bear some criticism of being a weaker league.

Brought this quote over here because it pertains to year choice.

On dilution I think it helps to think about what particular effects you think it has on a player and which of them you are discussing (and which are most important).

For instance is dilution being argued as lowering the average player level thus ("artificialy") lowering the "average" player and making a players metrics look better. If so against what point in time (and to what level is potential talent pool considered); this aspect is a bit onerous on a fast paced project but it helps to at least be thinking about these things, even if you don't necessarily have all the answers.

Is dilution lowering competition at the position specifically.

Then ABA versus internal expansion mixes things further.

I'm not sure there's a huge amount of ABA based dilution at center, through '71. The NBA's Jabbar would face Chamberlain, Reed, Thurmond, Unseld, Cowens, Lanier, Boerwinkle/Fox, Bellamy et al

ABA had Beaty as probably their best center, then Daniels, rookie Issel maybe (I'm not sure of him as an NBA center at this time), Ray Scott, rookie Paultz maybe, Mike Lewis?

Based on past performance we can be pretty confident Beaty would be a good NBA center, Daniels should be an above league average player (though if his stats drop as much as Beaty's rose in coming to the NBA, not substantially so), rookie Issel probably isn't an NBA center and certainly couldn't guard the position, Ray Scott based on his NBA career would probably be about league average and perhaps primarily a power forward.

The impact of internal expansion was somewhat mitigated initially (for '71 at least) by having the expansion teams face one another a lot (so the established teams had to do the same to a lesser degree) meaning lower positional matchup quality against such opponents would be somewhat mitigated.

Regardless of how highly one rates the ABA center crop (and it was, imo, just begining to start a significant upsurge), and how much one buys into the legendary status as translating into production for Unseld, Reed, Cowens and Thurmond in that particular year, it would be tough to argue Jabbar wasn't facing a deep crop of talented centers. I suppose a possible counter to that would be chicken-egg debate over whether a center dominated game is caused by center friendly rules thereby making centers look good, or whether talented, productive centers eleveted the standing of the position at that time simply by being good.


The overall effect of expansion in terms of lowering the average player and thus pushing everyone up slightly is perhaps the more valid concern. Again, to this point the ABA didn't have that many players that you were confident were good NBA players (Barry, Beaty, Daniels and Issel - though moving into '72 this is beginning to change). But there were more teams including more NBA teams and so it would be hard to strongly reject dilution claims, though as mentioned earlier it is hard to know what this means in real terms (more jobs, but is ABA competition which pushes up wages also leading to people who wouldn't have become basketball players doing so? To what extent do we know the potential talent pool?).

Just some things to think about in terms of Kareem's peak and expansion etc.

[70sFan]

About Wilt.
I understand there's only between 2 years? 1964 vs 1967? If so, there is volume scoring vs team concept.
In 1964 Wilt had bad supporting cast on offense, so there's no suprise his team was much worse on that end than in 1967,when he had one of the GOAT team. On defense Warriors were dominant (Wilt and rookie Nate protecting the paint is enough to be all time great team), worse only than Russell Celtics (1964 Boston is GOAT defensive team, by any standards). 1967 76ers weren't as good on defense as compared team, but they were still great.
Inividually, both years are amazing, but I think his 1967 run is more legendary. Also, let's not act like Wilt in 1967 couldn't score at the same volume as years before. He had many dominant scoring games that year (even his playoffs vs Royals, which is one of his most efficient volume scoring performance ever).
I highly praise level of playing vs best competition. I posted Wilt stats vs best centers from 1964 and 1966 years. I want to show more.

Let's start with 1964:

vs Russell (8 games):
29.1 ppg. 26.9 rpg. 3.7 apg. 53.0% FG 42.9% FT
Playoffs (5 games):
29.2 ppg. 27.6 rpg. 2.4 apg. 51.2% FG 41.5% FT
vs Wayne Embry (9 games):
37.4 ppg. 21.6 rpg. 3.3 apg. (only 3 games) 53.7% FG (7 games) 53.5% FT

vs Zelmo Beaty (8 games):
31.3 ppg. 21.6 ppg. 2.5 apg. 54.3% FG 53.5% FT
Playoffs (7 games):
38.6 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 3.9 apg 55.9% FG 51.2% FT

vs Walt Bellamy (10 games):
35.0 ppg. 21.3 rpg. 6.0 apg. (6 games only) 55.0% FG (4 games only) 58.3% FT

He looks great vs great competition that year both in RS and playoffs.

!966:
vs Russell (9 games):
28.3 ppg. 30.7 rpg. 4.1 apg. 47.3% FG 54.0% FT
Playoffs:
28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 apg 50.9% FG 41.2% FT

vs Bellamy (11 games):
33.0 ppg. 19.8 rpg. 5.0 apg. 56.5% FG 47.1% FT

vs Beaty (10 games)
29.0 ppg. 21.1 rpg. 4.1 apg. (missing one game) 54.8% FG 40.0% Ft

vs Thurmond (9 games):
28.6 ppg. 25.4 rpg. 4.4 apg. 48.9% FG 54.6% FT

1962:

vs Russell (10 games):
39.7 ppg. 28.8 rpg. 2.1 apg. 46.8% FG 56.2% FT
Playoffs (7 games):
33.6 ppg. 26.9 rpg. 2.9 apg. 46.8 % FG 64.8 % FT

vs Bellamy (10 games):
52.7 ppg. 27.7 rpg. 2.5 apg. 50.1% FG 65.3% FT (just unreal volume)

vs Lovellette (3 games):
43.7 ppg. 20.0 rpg. 1.3 apg. 52.9% FG 62.1% FT

vs Walter Dukes (6 games):
47.8 ppg. 24.2 rpg. 2.7 apg. 47.6% FG 68.0% FT

Wilt shoot mouch less vs Celtics than against rest of the league. He played as good against other good centers as against the rest of the league.

1967:
vs Russell (9 games):
20.3 ppg. 26.7 rpg. 6.6 apg. 54.9% FG 45.8% FT
Playoffs (5 games):
21.6 ppg. 32.0 rpg. 10.0 apg. 6.4 bpg. 55.6% FG 50.9% FT

vs Bellamy (9 games):
22.3 ppg. 25.7 rpg. 6.3 apg. 70.9% FG 40.4% FT

vs Beaty (5 games):
21.6 ppg. 23.2 rpg. 4.8 apg. 61.8% FG 26.4% FT (Ouch!)

vs Thurmond (6 games):
20.8 ppg. 25.0 rpg. 8.5 apg. 63.3% FG 43.9% FT
Playoffs:
17.6 ppg. 28.5 rpg. 6.8 apg. 56.0% FG 30.6% FT
Show me player who did better through the whole season vs Nate the Great.

Overall he played great in every season I mentioned. I would do 1968 season if you want, but I think because of his last bad 2 games vs Celtics in playoffs, this season doesn't have a case.
Overall I would go:
1967
1964/1966
1968
1962

I vote for 1967, he was unbelievable this season.

I had Wilt '67 originally and then I switched to '64. I decided the slightly prettier stats of '67 were more of a function of Wilt's superior team rather than a change in Wilt's personal skill. I also think he was more in his athletic prime in '64.

Why do you think he was more in his athletic prime in 1964 than in 1967? I think he didn't decline athleticaly until his knee injury in 1970.
In 1964 he was bigger, so probably stronger than in 1967 but I don't think gap is big to be fair.

[FX20014]

So the man in question is Lebron James. Which year do you think was his best, and why?

LeBron James 2009, CLE: Team record 66 – 16, Lost ECF to Magic (4 – 2)
Traditional stats: 28 pts, 8 reb, 7 ast, 1 blk, 2 stl, 49% FG, 78% FT
Advanced stats: PER 31.7, On/off +/- 21, 20.3 Win Shares, +23 Net ORTG-DRTG, 27.8 Wins Produced
Accolades: MVP, All NBA 1st team, All Defensive 1st team, playoffs led team in points/rebounds/assists/steals

http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com:
LeBron in 2009 posted the highest PER and the most Win Shares since Michael Jordan was in his prime, the 2nd highest on-court/off-court +/- since 82games started tracking the stat in 2002 (behind only Garnett in 2003), led his team to 66 wins, and won the MVP by one of the largest margins ever with 97% of the highest MVP share possible. To put it in perspective, the only players since the NBA/ABA merger to post a higher MVP share than LeBron in ’09 were Larry Bird, Shaquille O’Neal, Michael Jordan, and Kevin Garnett. In the postseason LeBron posted the second-highest playoff PER in NBA history and swept through the first two rounds before running into a Magic team with more talent that was just a terrible match-up for the weaknesses of the Cavs.

We've seen a lot of great seasons by Lebron since he's been in this league. I think he became a better player post-2010 CLE, but I believe 2009 is one of his best, or the best season of his career.

[Quotatious]

Anyways about Wilt 64 vs 67

Wilt 64 had a large volume increase about 10-11 pts per 100 possessions roughly but Wilt 67 had a 10% higher TS%. That roughly scales out as 1 pt per 100 possessions vs one TS% point and while ideally the mix would be in the middle id rather have the higher efficiency one. His playoff scoring dropped to the relative same TS% as his 64 year on a lot lower volume so I'd call the scoring a tie. I think his defense was about the same in both years, and a lot of people chose 64 as higher so that's one a feather in 64 wilts cap. The big difference IMO is passing.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I had Wilt '67 originally and then I switched to '64. I decided the slightly prettier stats of '67 were more of a function of Wilt's superior team rather than a change in Wilt's personal skill. I also think he was more in his athletic prime in '64.

I agree. I'd go with '64, too. Even though he didn't win the title in '64, he didn't suffer a big drop-off in terms of his playoff scoring efficiency, compared to the regular season - actually, his efficiency slightly IMPROVED. I know that he played against prime Thurmond and Russell in the '67 playoffs, but in '67, both his scoring volume AND efficiency went down quite noticeably...His TS% declined by 9.1% (field goal percentage declined by 10.4, free throw percentage by 5.3%, to the point where he shot below 39% from the foul line in the postseason). Not that scoring efficiency is the single most important thing (and his scoring efficiency was still about 5% above average even after that decline), but I think it shows that he sustained his regular season level of play in the postseason in '64, and slightly declined in '67.

His '67 team was vastly superior to the '64 team, especially on offense. Seriously, the 6th best player on the '67 team (Wali Jones, probably) would be the 2nd or 3rd best player on the '64 team.

Let's not act like '64 Wilt didn't pass the ball...He averaged 5 assists per game in the RS, more than Russell or any other center in the league in '64. RSCD asked - "would you rather have Amare Stoudemire or Bill Walton" - well, on the '64 Warriors, I'd much rather have Amar'e. I don't want a facilitator if my team isn't particularly talented offensively. I want a scorer.
On the '67 Sixers, I'd much rather have Walton. That team was very talented offensively, with Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham. That's when I would want a facilitator. So, it really depends on context. There's no fixed answer (or at least an "always correct fixed answer").

Besides, have anyone mentioned that '64 Wilt was superior defensively? If not, then I will. '64 Wilt was better defensively than '67 (even though he was excellent in '67, too). '64 was arguably his best defensive season (I think it's between '64 and '68). How impressive is that, considering he was still averaging almost 37 ppg and 5 apg at the same time, still was the sole focal point of his team's offense?

[RSCD3_]

I found BBallref's per 100 possession estimates for each team

64 Wilt RS 32.1 PP100 15.1 RP100 4.3 AP100 on 53.7 TS%
64 Wilt PS 30.1 PP100 22.2 RP100 2.9 AP100 on 54.3 TS%

67 Wilt RS 19.6 PP100 19.7 RP100 6.3 AP100 on 63.7 TS%
67 Wilt PS 17.7PP100 23.7 RP100 7.3 AP100 on 54.6 TS%


and just to further that transferring his TS% and pace numbers to League average nowadays would give him

Corrected to 2015 PACE and League Averages ( and slight correction for the 3 minutes or so he had of rest )

64 RS 28.9 PPG 13.6 RPG 3.8 APG on 58.6 TS%
64 PS 27.1 PPG 20.0 RPG 2.6 APG on 59.3 TS%

67 RS 17.7 PPG 17.8 RPG 5.7 AP100 on 67.8 TS%
67 PS 16.0 PPG 21.3 RPG 6.6 APG on 58.7 TS%
AFTER seeing this and quotatious point I have decided to change my vote in my first post.

[70sFan]

I found BBallref's per 100 possession estimates for each team

64 Wilt RS 32.1 PP100 15.1 RP100 4.3 AP100 on 53.7 TS%
64 Wilt PS 30.1 PP100 22.2 RP100 2.9 AP100 on 54.3 TS%

67 Wilt RS 19.6 PP100 19.7 RP100 6.3 AP100 on 63.7 TS%
67 Wilt PS 17.7PP100 23.7 RP100 7.3 AP100 on 54.6 TS%


and just to further that transferring his TS% and pace numbers to League average nowadays would give him

Corrected to 2015 PACE and League Averages ( and slight correction for the 3 minutes or so he had of rest )

64 RS 28.9 PPG 13.6 RPG 3.8 APG on 58.6 TS%
64 PS 27.1 PPG 20.0 RPG 2.6 APG on 59.3 TS%

67 RS 17.7 PPG 17.8 RPG 5.7 AP100 on 67.8 TS%
67 PS 16.0 PPG 21.3 RPG 6.6 APG on 58.7 TS%
AFTER seeing this and quotatious point I have decided to change my vote in my first post.

Could you do this with 1962 and 1966 seasons? This would be nice

[trex_8063]

I found BBallref's per 100 possession estimates for each team

64 Wilt RS 32.1 PP100 15.1 RP100 4.3 AP100 on 53.7 TS%
64 Wilt PS 30.1 PP100 22.2 RP100 2.9 AP100 on 54.3 TS%

67 Wilt RS 19.6 PP100 19.7 RP100 6.3 AP100 on 63.7 TS%
67 Wilt PS 17.7PP100 23.7 RP100 7.3 AP100 on 54.6 TS%

??
bbref doesn't have per 100 possession estimates prior to '74.

I've prepared per 100 estimates for multiple players, but they're pretty vastly different from these results in some places:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xTcce_cLHEmvG6Dft5QwsYnhzh_dBk4gyYXoJiWY4T8/edit

How did you come by your figures?

[RSCD3_]

I found BBallref's per 100 possession estimates for each team

64 Wilt RS 32.1 PP100 15.1 RP100 4.3 AP100 on 53.7 TS%
64 Wilt PS 30.1 PP100 22.2 RP100 2.9 AP100 on 54.3 TS%

67 Wilt RS 19.6 PP100 19.7 RP100 6.3 AP100 on 63.7 TS%
67 Wilt PS 17.7PP100 23.7 RP100 7.3 AP100 on 54.6 TS%


and just to further that transferring his TS% and pace numbers to League average nowadays would give him

Corrected to 2015 PACE and League Averages ( and slight correction for the 3 minutes or so he had of rest )

64 RS 28.9 PPG 13.6 RPG 3.8 APG on 58.6 TS%
64 PS 27.1 PPG 20.0 RPG 2.6 APG on 59.3 TS%

67 RS 17.7 PPG 17.8 RPG 5.7 AP100 on 67.8 TS%
67 PS 16.0 PPG 21.3 RPG 6.6 APG on 58.7 TS%
AFTER seeing this and quotatious point I have decided to change my vote in my first post.

Could you do this with 1962 and 1966 seasons? This would be nice

Sure

1962 Wilt per 100

Spoiler:

RS 38.2 PP100 19.5 RP100 1.8 AP100 on 53.6 TS%
PS 26.6 PP100 19.7 RP100 2.3 AP100 on 50.8 TS%

1962 Wilt adjusted for pace and TS% ( slight difference because of adjusting his minutes to 45 MPG )

Spoiler:

RS 34.8 PPG 17.6 RPG 1.6 APG on 59.1 TS%
PS 23.6 PPG 17.8 RPG 2.1 APG on 56.3 TS%

1966 Wilt per 100

Spoiler:

RS 26.9 PP100 20.0 RP100 4.2 AP100 on 54.7 TS%
PS 22.8 PP100 24.6 RP100 2.4 AP100 on 50.0 TS%

1966 Wilt adjusted for pace and TS% ( slight difference because of adjusting his minutes to 45 MPG )

Spoiler:

RS 23.7 PPG 17.6 RPG 3.7 APG on 59.4 TS%
PS 20.1 PPG 21.6 RPG 2.1 APG on 55.5 TS%

[trex_8063]

Referencing both his induction thread (#4) and this thread, I'm calling the consensus year for Wilt's peak as '67 (leading 9 votes to 6).

[trex_8063]

1st ballot: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar '71/72/‘77
...
And ‘77 doesn’t absorb the same “water-down league” criticisms that some of Kareem’s other potential peak year seasons do. This was post-merger; all the Doctor J’s, Gilmores, Thompsons, Gervins, Issels, etc had joined the league…..and Kareem was still a clear stand-out.

otoh, '71 and '72 were both even more dominant (at least in the rs). '72, statistically speaking, was GOAT-level in-era dominance during the rs. '71 wasn't too overly far behind in the rs, and was better in the rs (part of title run). Though both years bear some criticism of being a weaker league.

Brought this quote over here because it pertains to year choice.

On dilution I think it helps to think about what particular effects you think it has on a player and which of them you are discussing (and which are most important).

For instance is dilution being argued as lowering the average player level thus ("artificialy") lowering the "average" player and making a players metrics look better. If so against what point in time (and to what level is potential talent pool considered); this aspect is a bit onerous on a fast paced project but it helps to at least be thinking about these things, even if you don't necessarily have all the answers.

Is dilution lowering competition at the position specifically.

Then ABA versus internal expansion mixes things further.

I'm not sure there's a huge amount of ABA based dilution at center, through '71. The NBA's Jabbar would face Chamberlain, Reed, Thurmond, Unseld, Cowens, Lanier, Boerwinkle/Fox, Bellamy et al

ABA had Beaty as probably their best center, then Daniels, rookie Issel maybe (I'm not sure of him as an NBA center at this time), Ray Scott, rookie Paultz maybe, Mike Lewis?

Based on past performance we can be pretty confident Beaty would be a good NBA center, Daniels should be an above league average player (though if his stats drop as much as Beaty's rose in coming to the NBA, not substantially so), rookie Issel probably isn't an NBA center and certainly couldn't guard the position, Ray Scott based on his NBA career would probably be about league average and perhaps primarily a power forward.

The impact of internal expansion was somewhat mitigated initially (for '71 at least) by having the expansion teams face one another a lot (so the established teams had to do the same to a lesser degree) meaning lower positional matchup quality against such opponents would be somewhat mitigated.

Regardless of how highly one rates the ABA center crop (and it was, imo, just begining to start a significant upsurge), and how much one buys into the legendary status as translating into production for Unseld, Reed, Cowens and Thurmond in that particular year, it would be tough to argue Jabbar wasn't facing a deep crop of talented centers. I suppose a possible counter to that would be chicken-egg debate over whether a center dominated game is caused by center friendly rules thereby making centers look good, or whether talented, productive centers eleveted the standing of the position at that time simply by being good.


[color=#0000BF]The overall effect of expansion in terms of lowering the average player and thus pushing everyone up slightly is perhaps the more valid concern.[/color] Again, to this point the ABA didn't have that many players that you were confident were good NBA players (Barry, Beaty, Daniels and Issel - though moving into '72 this is beginning to change). But there were more teams including more NBA teams and so it would be hard to strongly reject dilution claims, though as mentioned earlier it is hard to know what this means in real terms (more jobs, but is ABA competition which pushes up wages also leading to people who wouldn't have become basketball players doing so? To what extent do we know the potential talent pool?).

Just some things to think about in terms of Kareem's peak and expansion etc.

fwiw, I don't personally feel the early 70's (like '71 and '72) are too watered down. I nonetheless bring the whole "water-down" factor up as it is a criticism those years have to bear from others, and is a factor which causes many to look on those seasons with skepticism.

I still feel like there was substantial talent around the league (and especially at the center position): aside from Kareem himself there are his teammates Oscar and Bob Dandridge (Oscar was still very much a formidable player in '71 at least); there's Frazier/Reed/DeBusschere in NY (Bradley and Barnett are decent players, too); Unseld/Monroe/Honeycomb/Jack Marin in Baltimore; Cunningham/Greer/Archie Clark in Philly; Lou Hudson/Maravich/Bill Bridges and post-prime Bellamy in Atlanta; Bob Love/Jerry Sloan/Chet Walker (Boerwinkle was decent, too) in Chicago; Connie Hawkins/Silas/Van Arsdale in PHX; Tiny Archibald/the other Van Arsdale (also Sam Lacey, Norm Van Lier) in Cincinnati; West/Wilt/Goodrich/and last-legs Baylor in LA; Hondo/Cowens/White in Boston; Jeff Mullins/Nate Thurmond/Jerry Lucas in SF; Elvin Hayes, Bob Lanier, Spencer Haywood, etc around too.....

Overall, I think the league was doing OK for talent in those years. The NBA talent pool/talent concentration isn't growing in those years like it might have been if there'd not been an ABA drawing new talents to their league. But with a couple of exceptions like the Cavs and the Braves, I think the team talent levels held pretty steady to what they were in the 60's.
I think the NBA started to hurt a little for high-end talent in the mid-70's, after guys like West, Oscar, Wilt, Reed, DeBusschere, Lucas, Bellamy, etc had all dwindled and finally retired, and there wasn't much in the way of fresh talent to fill the void (because guys like Dr. J, Gilmore, Issel, Gervin, Thompson, McGinnis, Bobby Jones, etc had all opted for the ABA instead).

Anyway, that's how I feel about it; but others disagree and consider the early 70's a watered down league.

Where a watered down league has the potential to give a misled perception of someone like Kareem relates to the item I highlighted in blue in your above post. If the league was indeed watered down more than I'm suggesting (and again, there were those two expansion teams who were sorely hurting for talent), that does drag the league average down a bit. And as stats like PER and WS/48 are standardized such that the league average is the same from year to year.....well, you see where I'm going. Since so much of our analysis and comparison has a statistical base, it's a valid question to ask.

[trex_8063]

I found BBallref's per 100 possession estimates for each team

64 Wilt RS 32.1 PP100 15.1 RP100 4.3 AP100 on 53.7 TS%
64 Wilt PS 30.1 PP100 22.2 RP100 2.9 AP100 on 54.3 TS%

67 Wilt RS 19.6 PP100 19.7 RP100 6.3 AP100 on 63.7 TS%
67 Wilt PS 17.7PP100 23.7 RP100 7.3 AP100 on 54.6 TS%

??
bbref doesn't have per 100 possession estimates prior to '74.

I've prepared per 100 estimates for multiple players, but they're pretty vastly different from these results in some places:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xTcce_cLHEmvG6Dft5QwsYnhzh_dBk4gyYXoJiWY4T8/edit


Bump-asking this question: How did you come by your figures?

Strictly speaking, they CAN'T be straight-up per 100 possession estimates (at least not for the '64 rs figures you present): his pts:reb ratio in '64 was 1.6497......yet the ratio in the per 100 estimates you propose is 2.12583. Does not compute, you know?

And while the ratios hold more or less true/steady in the other figures, they differ to varying degrees from the estimates I have (and I'm pretty meticulous--->I basically don't round off at any point in the process).

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

1st ballot: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar '71/72/‘77
...
And ‘77 doesn’t absorb the same “water-down league” criticisms that some of Kareem’s other potential peak year seasons do. This was post-merger; all the Doctor J’s, Gilmores, Thompsons, Gervins, Issels, etc had joined the league…..and Kareem was still a clear stand-out.

otoh, '71 and '72 were both even more dominant (at least in the rs). '72, statistically speaking, was GOAT-level in-era dominance during the rs. '71 wasn't too overly far behind in the rs, and was better in the rs (part of title run). Though both years bear some criticism of being a weaker league.

Brought this quote over here because it pertains to year choice.

On dilution I think it helps to think about what particular effects you think it has on a player and which of them you are discussing (and which are most important).

For instance is dilution being argued as lowering the average player level thus ("artificialy") lowering the "average" player and making a players metrics look better. If so against what point in time (and to what level is potential talent pool considered); this aspect is a bit onerous on a fast paced project but it helps to at least be thinking about these things, even if you don't necessarily have all the answers.

Is dilution lowering competition at the position specifically.

Then ABA versus internal expansion mixes things further.

I'm not sure there's a huge amount of ABA based dilution at center, through '71. The NBA's Jabbar would face Chamberlain, Reed, Thurmond, Unseld, Cowens, Lanier, Boerwinkle/Fox, Bellamy et al

ABA had Beaty as probably their best center, then Daniels, rookie Issel maybe (I'm not sure of him as an NBA center at this time), Ray Scott, rookie Paultz maybe, Mike Lewis?

Based on past performance we can be pretty confident Beaty would be a good NBA center, Daniels should be an above league average player (though if his stats drop as much as Beaty's rose in coming to the NBA, not substantially so), rookie Issel probably isn't an NBA center and certainly couldn't guard the position, Ray Scott based on his NBA career would probably be about league average and perhaps primarily a power forward.

The impact of internal expansion was somewhat mitigated initially (for '71 at least) by having the expansion teams face one another a lot (so the established teams had to do the same to a lesser degree) meaning lower positional matchup quality against such opponents would be somewhat mitigated.

Regardless of how highly one rates the ABA center crop (and it was, imo, just begining to start a significant upsurge), and how much one buys into the legendary status as translating into production for Unseld, Reed, Cowens and Thurmond in that particular year, it would be tough to argue Jabbar wasn't facing a deep crop of talented centers. I suppose a possible counter to that would be chicken-egg debate over whether a center dominated game is caused by center friendly rules thereby making centers look good, or whether talented, productive centers eleveted the standing of the position at that time simply by being good.


[color=#0000BF]The overall effect of expansion in terms of lowering the average player and thus pushing everyone up slightly is perhaps the more valid concern.[/color] Again, to this point the ABA didn't have that many players that you were confident were good NBA players (Barry, Beaty, Daniels and Issel - though moving into '72 this is beginning to change). But there were more teams including more NBA teams and so it would be hard to strongly reject dilution claims, though as mentioned earlier it is hard to know what this means in real terms (more jobs, but is ABA competition which pushes up wages also leading to people who wouldn't have become basketball players doing so? To what extent do we know the potential talent pool?).

Just some things to think about in terms of Kareem's peak and expansion etc.

fwiw, I don't personally feel the early 70's (like '71 and '72) are too watered down. I nonetheless bring the whole "water-down" factor up as it is a criticism those years have to bear from others, and is a factor which causes many to look on those seasons with skepticism.

I still feel like there was substantial talent around the league (and especially at the center position): aside from Kareem himself there are his teammates Oscar and Bob Dandridge (Oscar was still very much a formidable player in '71 at least); there's Frazier/Reed/DeBusschere in NY (Bradley and Barnett are decent players, too); Unseld/Monroe/Honeycomb/Jack Marin in Baltimore; Cunningham/Greer/Archie Clark in Philly; Lou Hudson/Maravich/Bill Bridges and post-prime Bellamy in Atlanta; Bob Love/Jerry Sloan/Chet Walker (Boerwinkle was decent, too) in Chicago; Connie Hawkins/Silas/Van Arsdale in PHX; Tiny Archibald/the other Van Arsdale (also Sam Lacey, Norm Van Lier) in Cincinnati; West/Wilt/Goodrich/and last-legs Baylor in LA; Hondo/Cowens/White in Boston; Jeff Mullins/Nate Thurmond/Jerry Lucas in SF; Elvin Hayes, Bob Lanier, Spencer Haywood, etc around too.....

Overall, I think the league was doing OK for talent in those years. The NBA talent pool/talent concentration isn't growing in those years like it might have been if there'd not been an ABA drawing new talents to their league. But with a couple of exceptions like the Cavs and the Braves, I think the team talent levels held pretty steady to what they were in the 60's.
I think the NBA started to hurt a little for high-end talent in the mid-70's, after guys like West, Oscar, Wilt, Reed, DeBusschere, Lucas, Bellamy, etc had all dwindled and finally retired, and there wasn't much in the way of fresh talent to fill the void (because guys like Dr. J, Gilmore, Issel, Gervin, Thompson, McGinnis, Bobby Jones, etc had all opted for the ABA instead).

Anyway, that's how I feel about it; but others disagree and consider the early 70's a watered down league.

Where a watered down league has the potential to give a misled perception of someone like Kareem relates to the item I highlighted in blue in your above post. If the league was indeed watered down more than I'm suggesting (and again, there were those two expansion teams who were sorely hurting for talent), that does drag the league average down a bit. And as stats like PER and WS/48 are standardized such that the league average is the same from year to year.....well, you see where I'm going. Since so much of our analysis and comparison has a statistical base, it's a valid question to ask.

Very well said. This is exactly how i feel, and i've always thought the claim of the pre-merger 70s being watered down was overblown.

[mischievous]

FWIW I will be vouching for 2013 here. Of his "prime" years (post 08 Olympics) here's how I rank them

2013
2010

2009
2014
2012/2015

2011

To me, 2012 Lebron is easily better than the 2015 version. I don't think its even close honestly.

[mischievous]

Btw, i have 2012 as Lebron's peak but if i had to choose between 09 and 13 i would give a slight nod to 2009.