Peaks project #6

[trex_8063]

Few rambling thoughts on multiple topics which have come up recently.....

Bigs vs. perimeter players
It was [in not so many words] questioned as to whether we've been showing some favoritism to bigs so far in this project. Personally, I think it's been justified. It is---especially in an historic sense---a big man's game. Height is an inherent advantage in basketball. And at least up until the last decade anyway (with changes to hand-check rules), it has been a game where the big man has a greater potential to influence the outcome.
The absolute creme de la creme of elite perimeter players have the potential to lift the offense by perhaps 6-7 pt/100 possessions (and we're likely talking a relative few who have ever managed that: Nash and Lebron, and I would guess: Magic, Jordan, Oscar), though are typically then a defensive neutral or small negative (the exception in recent history has been Lebron James, who at his peak might have managed ~+6-6.5 on offense, and then another ~+2-2.5 on defense or thereabouts......I suspect Michael Jordan was doing similar at his peak, and without the benefit of changes to hand-check rules, though obv I can't prove that; at any rate they are more exceptions than the rule).
The best of the best centers have the potential to be +4-6 or so on offense and another +3-5 on defense. I think it's just the nature of the game.


Hakeem "demolished" Shaq in '95
That's a quote from within this thread. More than anyone, I feel like Hakeem is elevated based on these kinds of narratives, some of which are either half-truths (or maybe even "3/4-truths"), and some of which are mostly untrue. imo, this is one that falls into the latter category.
In the '95 Finals, Shaq, although averaging 5.3 topg, also avg 6.3 apg, as well as 28.0 ppg @ 60.6% TS; and although Hakeem outscored him, he helped hold Hakeem to 51.4% TS (also out-rebounded Dream by +1 per game). That hardly seems like he "demolished" Shaq.
I'd also like to point out that in this series the Magic went 34.7% from 3pt range (down from 37.0% in the rs), while the Rockets shot 40.2% from 3pt range (up from 36.8% in the rs). Further note that the Magic lost one game by 2 pts, another by just 3 pts; and in both games the gap in 3pt shooting was large (43.8% for the Rockets vs. 30.0% for the Magic in the 2 pt loss; 36.8% for the Rockets vs. 25.8% for the Magic in the 3 pt loss). fwiw, Shaq may have averaged 7+ apg had his shooters even been average.
Point being: this series was just the Magic shooting average from downtown (as opposed to sub-par) or the Rockets shooting average from downtown (as opposed to hot) from being tied at 2-2 (as opposed to a sweep). Again: either/or, BOTH was not required. And the Magic would have had HCA in two of the final three.

The Magic didn't get swept because Hakeem "demolished" Shaq.....they got swept because Shaq's shooters abandoned him for half the series.


Robinson vs. Hakeem in '94 and '95
I'd already sort of separately broken down the '95 WCF, '95 in the rs, and '94 in the rs. Here's what it boils down to all together....

Between '94 and '95 (which includes one peak season and one near-peak season for both), they met a total of 17 times (in rs and playoffs). As per my previous game-by-game breakdowns, Robinson had the better game eight times, Hakeem had the better game 8 times, with one game roughly a wash.

Their statistical profiles over these 17 games collectively looks like this:
Hakeem - 30.0 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 4.2 apg, 1.3 spg, 3.6 bpg, 3.7 topg, 53.5% TS, 104.2 ORtg/103.4 DRtg (+0.8)
David - 24.1 ppg, 11.9 rpg (despite playing next to Rodman, fwiw), 3.8 apg, 1.9 spg, 2.6 bpg, 4.2 topg, 53.6% TS, 107.4 ORtg/100.2 DRtg (+7.2)

Record: Spurs 10-7, Rockets 7-10
Anyway, fwiw...


The '03 Nets' elite defense was all about the perimeter D
It was suggested that the '03 Nets (the #1 defense in the land that year) were elite mostly due to their perimeter defenders and rotations. While I agree Kidd is obviously an excellent defender, and Kittles, Jefferson, Harris were all at least capable, I disagree with the notion that their post defenders were essentially a non-factor in this #1 defense. K-Mart has a very good defensive reputation (which fits with my memory), and Jason Collins was a very tough post-defender (and 6th in the league in PI DRAPM). They also had an early post-prime Dikembe Mutombo coming off the bench.


Well, gotta go, I'll try to throw in a bit more before bed. Need to tally up the ballots, too.

[drza]

I've been following the thread today, but haven't chimed in because haven't had time to do it justice. Still don't, but want to at least get a few words in.

Re: Moses Malone. He was an efficient scorer and excellent rebounder, but his lack of ability to pass the ball limited his ability to be an offensive hub. What he contributed on offense was very valuable, but wasn't necessarily better than what you would get from Robinson or Garnett on offense alone. And on defense, it was really no contest. Even if it's a bit early for him in this project, I still give the legend mad respect and wish him to rest in peace.

Re: Hakeem's offense vs. Duncan or KG. He's a more talented scorer than either of them, with more moves and counter-moves. That's never been in question. But I don't believe that the mark of a good offense is necessarily the ability to score a lot of points in creative ways, especially from the post. All things equal, I'd rather build the offense from the outside in. Hakeem's scoring ability is conducive to the kind of 4 shooters around a hub offense that he led to the promised land. But it doesn't scale. Surrounding him with more talent leads to diminishing returns.

Duncan doesn't score like Hakeem, but he is very effective as both a scorer and a passer. Bast, you're overstating the difference in the amount of attention that Hakeem got vs. Duncan or KG. Both of them were double-teamed almost all of the time, more than enough to warp defenses and open up the court for teammates. And both of them can have a maximal impact on the game even without heavy volume scorer. I don't believe that to be true of Dream. I think if Dream isn't the focal scorer, he is less effective. Dream also isn't always megatron efficient as a scorer, the way that Shaq or maybe peak Kareem were. As such, if I'm looking at the GOATs, I don't prefer to build my offense around either Dream or Duncan (I'd take a GOAT perimeter player first, with the possible exception of the Shaq/Kareem types). Both would put a ceiling on how good the offense could be, and while Dream might always have more points as an individual I think Duncan is just as likely to have an effective offense built around him because he can thrive better with better offensive teammates.

Said another way, I think Duncan's max value and Dream's max value are similar. But Dreams requires that he be the alpha, max scorer. Duncan's doesn't. Garnett is more like Duncan in that respect, except his max impact value was just a slight bit higher than either in a vacuum, and he was able to maintain that max value across a wider array of circumstances.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #61:

Hakeem - 36
Duncan - 31.5
Garnett - 9.5
Robinson - 9
Russell - 7
Bird - 5
Magic - 4

Counted michevious's tentative 3rd ballot for Magic, and SideShowBob's dubious half-vote each (3rd ballot) for Garnett/Duncan.

I'll give it a little longer, than call it for Hakeem and start the #7 thread.

Anyone who didn't cast a ballot for Hakeem, please go to the secondary thread and be heard about which year you think is his best (right now, it's 10.5 for '94, 4.5 for '93).

[trex_8063]

OK, calling it for Hakeem.

[SideshowBob]

Thru post #61:

Hakeem - 36
Duncan - 31.5
Garnett - 9.5
Robinson - 9
Russell - 7
Bird - 5
Magic - 4

Counted michevious's tentative 3rd ballot for Magic, and SideShowBob's dubious half-vote each (3rd ballot) for Garnett/Duncan.

I'll give it a little longer, than call it for Hakeem and start the #7 thread.

Anyone who didn't cast a ballot for Hakeem, please go to the secondary thread and be heard about which year you think is his best (right now, it's 10.5 for '94, 4.5 for '93).

If it matters, I'll just go all in on Garnett.

[bastillon]

As a side note: you people are relying too much on raw stats and not enough on context (opposition, injuries, team structure etc.). Duncan was simply a significantly worse player in 03 than in 02. There is over 10% FT difference between them. That meant 02 Duncan was a prolific scorer with high efficiency because of his FT shooting, while 03 Duncan was his usual self, which is a below average FT shooter. Also, Duncan's athleticism and defense were better in 02, just watching him play he looks a lot more agile, moves around better etc. Even raw stats favor 02 Duncan. The only reason anyone even considers 03 Duncan over 02 Duncan is because of the title. But that wasn't because of Duncan's improvement but the injuries to 3 other major contenders - Lakers, Mavs and Kings were all screwed over and all of them were favorites over the Spurs to win a title that year. Actually at the time Kings were the heavy favorites to win a title. Just because Spurs lucked out to have a walk in the park in the playoffs does not mean that Duncan made an improvement.

Yeah this sums up my thoughts on Duncan as well (I have and will continue to be voting for 02). I'm guessing you also think Garnett was probably also better than Duncan in 03, if not the same.

First, I view KG 03 as his best version by a comfortable margin.
Second, I think KG and Duncan are basically a wash in 03 in terms of impact but I would take KG personally because of higher portability.

[bastillon]

Re: Hakeem's offense vs. Duncan or KG. He's a more talented scorer than either of them, with more moves and counter-moves. That's never been in question. But I don't believe that the mark of a good offense is necessarily the ability to score a lot of points in creative ways, especially from the post. All things equal, I'd rather build the offense from the outside in. Hakeem's scoring ability is conducive to the kind of 4 shooters around a hub offense that he led to the promised land. But it doesn't scale. Surrounding him with more talent leads to diminishing returns.

Duncan doesn't score like Hakeem, but he is very effective as both a scorer and a passer. Bast, you're overstating the difference in the amount of attention that Hakeem got vs. Duncan or KG. Both of them were double-teamed almost all of the time, more than enough to warp defenses and open up the court for teammates. And both of them can have a maximal impact on the game even without heavy volume scorer. I don't believe that to be true of Dream. I think if Dream isn't the focal scorer, he is less effective. Dream also isn't always megatron efficient as a scorer, the way that Shaq or maybe peak Kareem were. As such, if I'm looking at the GOATs, I don't prefer to build my offense around either Dream or Duncan (I'd take a GOAT perimeter player first, with the possible exception of the Shaq/Kareem types). Both would put a ceiling on how good the offense could be, and while Dream might always have more points as an individual I think Duncan is just as likely to have an effective offense built around him because he can thrive better with better offensive teammates.

Said another way, I think Duncan's max value and Dream's max value are similar. But Dreams requires that he be the alpha, max scorer. Duncan's doesn't. Garnett is more like Duncan in that respect, except his max impact value was just a slight bit higher than either in a vacuum, and he was able to maintain that max value across a wider array of circumstances.

There are couple of points I'd like to touch upon:

1)[b] 'Dream isn't as efficient as Shaq or Kareem at his best'[/b]
Remember that I am talking about playoffs here. Dream is just as efficient as those guys, and you could argue that he's more efficient because he's able to maintain his high efficiency vs. top defenses (Kareem had more than a couple lapses in that regard).

Let's compare those three:
93-95 Hakeem averaged 29.8 ppg / 4.4 apg / 3.5 tov / 56.4% TS / 110 ORtg
00-02 Shaq averaged 29.9 ppg / 3.0 apg / 3.0 tov / 56.2% TS / 113 ORtg
78-80 Kareem averaged 30.3 / 3.7 apg / 3.8 tov / 61% TS / 116 ORtg

Out of the three Kareem is the most efficient and Shaq/Hakeem are a wash. I only took 78-80 Kareem because earlier years don't have tov stats. Kareem however was much less consistent than either Hakeem or Shaq. He had a couple series where he was even below 50% TS.

If we look at 71-73 Kareem, he averaged 26.6 / 3.5 apg (no data for tov) on 49.4% TS. One could argue that Kareem wasn't at his best offensively yet, and we should take into account late 70s where he was at his best offensively. But we know that Kareem's RS performances in those years were actually better than in late 70s. The difference was that young Kareem faced Thurmond and Wilt and he didn't play very efficiently in those series. It shows that Kareem's performance is susceptible to much greater variance, and thus is less consistent than Shaq's/Hakeem's.

So out of those "4 players" (early 70s Kareem, late 70s Kareem, Dream, Shaq) late 70s Kareem looks the best statistically in the playoffs. However, he was also the one who faced by far the worst competition. West was extremely depleted at the time, and this trend continued into the 80s when east was stacked and west was watered down (funny how that reversed in the 00s).

But there is no proof that Dream was less efficient that those guys. Taking into account quality of opposition, he actually looks the best. For example Shaq's performances vs. Blazers/Spurs was FAR worse than usually. Hakeem was the most consistent out of these 3. His performance had very little variance against top competition. If anything, you could argue that he was even better vs. Robinson/Ewing/Shaq.

2. 'Putting Hakeem on a team with talent leads to diminishing returns'

Where is the data to support this? It really seems like you are trying to reach your conclusion first and then justify this conclusion. You are presenting no data to support your arguments which is highly unusual for you.

Actually the data shows it is the exact opposite. When Hakeem was given anything to work with, Houston far exceeded expectations. Supporting cast in Houston was pretty much trash offensively during Hakeem's career. It changed in 95 when Drexler joined them and they moved Horry to PF for the playoffs. Rockets completely exploded offensively. Then 96 Rockets were banged up, including Hakeem. Barkley joined them in '97 and once again they were excellent offensively when everyone was healthy (horrendous defense though). Not to mention '86 when Rockets massacred the Lakers offensively (111 ORtg vs top7 defense; +5.2 relative to Lakers RS DRtg).

The history shows that talent works very well with Hakeem and does not lead to diminishing returns at all. The problem was never abundance of talent but quite to the contrary, the lack of talent. Even after Drexler joined them, Houston's supporting cast was far from championship caliber due to massive defensive mismatches. In the early 90s Hakeem had ok defensive cast and he made them top defense year to year. Post-94 Hakeem's teammates defensively were pretty bad. They would've been the worst defensive team in the league without Hakeem (that's what the data shows - games Hakeem didn't play in).

If you surrounded Hakeem with a cast like Parker/Green/Kawhi/Thorpe, or Kenny Smith/Reggie Miller/Iguodala/Tristan Thompson it would not lead to diminishing returns. This isn't even a stacked supporting cast. It's just a bunch of guys who can shoot, finish and mostly play defense.

3. 'All things equal, I'd rather build the offense from the outside in.'

That is correct. Historically, the best offenses come from outside in, not the other way around. However, historically, you need ATG perimeter player to build that kind of offense. I am assuming that you don't have one on your team, because it's extremely rare to pair so much talent into one team.

but drza, you should be more specific. You're just throwing out conclusions with no examples, no data, nothing. Name specific lineups where it would be more advantageous to build around Duncan/KG than Hakeem.

If you're being reasonable and give Hakeem/Duncan/KG some ok perimeter players, I can't see any instances where it would be more advantageous for your offense to have Duncan instead of Hakeem. KG, this is different, there are definitely lineups in which KG would work better (in particular with pnr PG). But Duncan can't do anything better than Hakeem could offensively. He's less mobile, has far worse jumpshot, ballhandling, faceup, b2basket game, poor variety of moves, even though Duncan was maybe a better passer he was still worse as a playmaker (which matters the most, since we are talking about anchoring offense, not being a sideshow on the team).

And you are missing the point anyway. Hakeem gives you a variety of options. He gives you strategic diversity. Multiple ways of building around him. You can put Drexler - a fantastic transition played with mediocre HCO skills. You can give him Reggie Miller - off ball scoring machine. You can surround him with Bruce Bowen and Danny Green. He gives you that option. Duncan/KG NEVER anchored as good playoff offenses as Hakeem did, plain and simple. Rockets '95 offense was much better than Celtics '08 even though the latter had far better supporting cast around KG.

But you have to talk about specific team compositions rather than vaguely concluding with general remarks. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

4) 'overstating the difference in the amount of attention that Hakeem got vs. Duncan or KG'

Once again you didn't back up your conclusion with any reasoning. Duncan and KG can be left in single coverage against top defenders at their position, as was the case during their career. Hakeem was left in single coverage only for stretches of games (like G2 vs. Magic in the finals, which ended up being a 20 pt-lead at halftime because Hakeem posted like 22/10 in that half) and even that was basically suicidal. There are multiple accounts, including Pat Riley and Phil Jackson, who have commented that Hakeem faced the most defensive attention they had ever seen. I haven't seen strategies being built to stop KG or Duncan from scoring, like "triple-team" strategy of '86 Celtics, or "trapping" strategy of 90s Sonics. None of that happened because there was no need. Both Duncan and Garnett were not consistent playoff scorers. Duncan was mediocre vs. quality defenders, and KG shot too many jumpshots which ended up being hit or miss depending on the day (see: 04 WCSF). You can't do sh*t like that vs. Hakeem because he will torture you 100%.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Bill Russell is going to be probably the hardest player to pin down in this project. While it might seem that he was one of the most dominant players of all time, when doing dreaded "time-machine" comparisons it never turns out well for Bill.

Yeah, it's hard to pin him down. Not that much easier than ranking George Mikan, to me (because at least Mikan was a more traditional star, high volume scorer, although obviously he played in the pre shot clock era which makes it hard to compare him to the shot clock era players). I'm fairly satisfied with the position where I ranked Russell, though. He was hugely impactful in his own era (which should be the predominant factor, in my opinion), and he consistently delieved in the playoffs, even more so than he did in the regular season.

If we are rating how he played among his peers then I believe we have to rank him high. The conundrum that we are faced with is "did the Celtics make Bill Russell or did Bill Russell make the Celtics?" Or is it neither and both were required for the fruitatin of the greatest dynasty in NBA History?

I'm pretty sure that Russell made the Celtics. They weren't particularly successful before he joined that team, with Cousy, Sharman and Macauley leading them. As soon as Russell joined in '57, he turned them into the best defensive team in the league (they were ranked 6th of 8 teams on defense in '56, one of the worst in the league). Then, when Sharman and Cousy retired, in '61 and '63, respectively, the Celtics didn't miss a beat, they were still winning titles every year (and it's not like Sharman and Cousy were irrelevant for their last few seasons - no, both were making All-Star appearances almost to the end of their careers, and averaged 25+ mpg (Cousy even averaged 30.2 in the '63 playoffs, just before his retirement).

There's that famous anecdote about a journalist implying that the Celtics won't win championships anymore after Cousy retired, and during that interview, Russell told him: "check who was the MVP of the league for the last three seasons - it was not Cousy, we'll be fine without him" or something like that.

First of all, Lol at Russell.
I would say though, that in his first year, they were 28-20 with Russell, and 16-8 without.

[thizznation]

His first season? Is that really relevant? What about his others?

[Quotatious]

First of all, Lol at Russell.

What do you mean by that? You mean it's laughable to mention/vote for Russell at this stage of the project, or you mean that Russell's interview was funny?

I would say though, that in his first year, they were 28-20 with Russell, and 16-8 without.

Like thizznation said - is it really relevant when we are talking about peak Russell here? That's like mentioning rookie Jordan when we talked about peak Jordan.

Anyway, you know - even weak teams have hot streaks sometimes. I don't know about you, but I certainly can't see the Celtics having the defense in the league or winning the title (beating a stacked team with Pettit, Hagan, Macauley and Martin in the finals) without Russell. Especially not without their All-Star starting center, Macauley, when got traded to St. Louis (but even with him, Cousy and Sharman, the Celtics were not very successful before '57).

[MyUniBroDavis]

First of all, Lol at Russell.

What do you mean by that? You mean it's laughable to mention/vote for Russell at this stage of the project, or you mean that Russell's interview was funny?

I would say though, that in his first year, they were 28-20 with Russell, and 16-8 without.

Like thizznation said - is it really relevant when we are talking about peak Russell here? That's like mentioning rookie Jordan when we talked about peak Jordan.

Anyway, you know - even weak teams have hot streaks sometimes. I don't know about you, but I certainly can't see the Celtics having the defense in the league or winning the title (beating a stacked team with Pettit, Hagan, Macauley and Martin in the finals) without Russell. Especially not without their All-Star starting center, Macauley, when got traded to St. Louis (but even with him, Cousy and Sharman, the Celtics were not very successful before '57).

I was talking about his interview, I have already voted for Russell at this stage.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I recall that in his second year they would have surely won the title had Russell stayed healthy in the finals. I also recall that after he left, despite there being no huge outgoings, the Celtics defense went from first and the league by a huge margin to barely league average.
The Celtics dynasty, that had been similar to the spurs continuity wise (their continuity rating over 13 years was unprecendented)
Completely collapsed after Russell and a perimeter oriented player left. (I'm sure it was 99 percent because of russell). One thing I would like to say is that's, regarding Russell's supporting cast, there are times I feel that people in general just say "7 hall of famers" or something and just leave. Those celtics teams, with or without russell, probably hover around worst in the league on offense. This isn't blaming russell for it at all, but its just an observation about his supporting cast.
His intangibles may put him above where I placed him too. His quote was just hilarious lol, i thought thought he was reserved and quiet, like Duncan.
His defensive impact alone, Imo, puts him at the level of top 7 ish all time peak wise.

As for me talking about his rookie year, I thought that was what the discussion was about? Nevertheless, I recall that it seemed more like luck than anything else, its just pointing something out, it doesn't have any sig ificance in my opinion either.
Something I find ridiculous is that, even using that Celtics team as a floor defensively, Russell's defensive impact at his peak would still be +7 ish (imo its more +10 ish relative to league average) which imo would already put him in that sicussion.
I'm typing on my phone, so I can't type much, but a quick question, are we allowed to put intangibles in these arguments? I pointed that out in my argument but didn't let it influence my voting. If we were allowed I probably would have ranked russel higher. I have him just* below Duncan right now, who I probably would have voted aver hakeen had we been allowed to factor intangibles and leadership in.

On defense, russell was essentially a faster, quicker, more athletic hakeen, who was a better defensive rebounder, better off ball and communicator (I assume for the last part, since everyone regressed defensively when he left) a better shot blocked, and with cp3 hand quickness (to be honest, his defense on wilt, a lot of it relies to denying him the ball at all. It's astounding to me that someone who doesn't really look that I ng, and gives up three inches, can deny the ball from someone who was taller and longer than shaq, so repeatedly)
Even his man to man defense, which imo, was not his forte, was, in my opinion, still second only to Thurmond.I remember Thurmond said that russell blocked more shots than wilt. It almost seems like taking mutomvo, Garnett, wilt, Duncan, and hakeem together defensively and putting them all together, and sustaining that for his entire career. I remember dipper made an analysis, and his defensive net ratings were off the charts
(Even a rookie russell who was far from his peak seemed to have defensive impact never seen before in nba history)
Sorry if I sounded offensive before