Peaks Project #12

[Clyde Frazier]

Hooray... magic and bird finally in

Ballot #1 - 76 Dr. J

Spoiler:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qNqZVklGm0[/youtube]

I get it. It's a 5 minute clip, but I still think you can tell just how talented this guy was that year. An unstoppable offensive force leading his team to the championship. Nets also ranked 1st in defense that season.

For those who doubt the ABA, check out his per 100 #s in 76 vs. 80:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ervinju01.html#per_poss::none

They’re nearly identical including efficiency. This is when he was given a bigger role in the offense after Cunningham came aboard as coach.

There were some questions in the last thread about his ball handling being suspect. It’s possible his ball handling is being underrated here due aesthetics. He kinda slapped the ball down as he dribbled, especially on the fast break. Similar to the way Barkley dribbled in his Sixers days. While it may have looked a little sloppy, I think it was just as effective given his big hands and long strides once he went to make his moves.

Also, his ability to get off shots at the rim in tight spaces was pretty incredible. This also had a lot to do with his body control.

The below footage is from 74, but it's pretty similar to the way he was playing in 76.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLWGRDjuAIw&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

Ballot #2 - 64 Oscar

Spoiler:

Oscar's 64 season was very impressive on a number of levels:

RS: 31.4 PPG, 9.9 RPG, 11 APG, 48.3% FG, 85.3% FT (league leading on 11.9 FTAs per game), 57.6% TS (+9.1% vs. league avg), .278 WS/48

PS: 29.3 PPG, 8.9 RPG, 8.4 APG, 45.5% FG, 85.8% FT (12.7 FTAs per game), 56.8% TS, .245 WS/48

The royals ranked 2nd in SRS that season, losing in the playoffs to the #1 ranked SRS and eventual champion celtics. While his raw averages can certainly be attributed to the fast paced play during that era, his overall efficiency and ability to get to the line at will is pretty staggering.

Oscar's playoff #s do drop slightly across the board, but there's nothing there to suggest that he struggled. His best teammate Jerry Lucas had a serious drop off in scoring and efficiency come playoff time (17.7 PPG on 57.8% TS in RS vs. 12.2 PPG on 43.8% TS in PS). That very well could've been the difference in the series.

63-64 was his 4th season, so the below footage should be able to capture his style of play at the time:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0-Iz6fQRAE[/youtube]

[Yeah... I could do without the music]

What stands out to me is his precision when he makes his moves as well as his strength when he gets inside. Reminds me of west, too, although he wasn't quite as powerful.

Oscar would win also win MVP that season in dominating fashion. Via NY Times:

Oscar Robertson, the Cincin­nati Royals' talented back‐court man, yesterday was voted the President's Trophy, the Na­tional Basketball Association's most valuable player award, by the biggest margin on record.

The voting is by N.B.A. play­ers, with the restriction that they cannot vote for members of their own teams. Robertson received 60 of a possible 85 first‐place votes. In the point scoring on a 5, 3, 1 basis, Robertson received a total of 362 points, a record.

Wilt Chamberlain of San Francisco, who won the trophy as a rookie in 1960, placed see­ond in the voting with 19 first­place votes and 215 points. Bill Russell of Boston, the winner for the last three years, was third with 11 firsts and 167 points.

Ballot #3 - 77 Walton

This one is tentative... may come back and change by tomorrow morning

[RebelWithACause]

Defensive On/Off:

LeBron 09: -8.2
LeBron 15: -4.3
LeBron 11: -4.3
LeBron 13: -3.4
LeBron 12: -1.6
LeBron 10: -1.5
LeBron 14: +2.1

Erving 83: -3.1
Erving 80: -2.0
Erving 82: -0.8
Erving 77: -0.2
Erving 78: +0.5
Erving 79: +0.7
Erving 85: +1.9
Erving 84: +2.6
Erving 81: +6.2

Kobe 10: -3.4
Kobe 01: -3.3
Kobe 03: -1.0
Kobe 07: -1.0
Kobe 08: -0.8
Kobe 04: +0.7
Kobe 09: +1.5
Kobe 05: +2.3
Kobe 06: +6.4
Kobe 02: +8.9


I don't know how some of you can say with a straight face that Dr J was a great defender.
Sorry, but he was a tad above average at best, same as Kobe.
LeBron is a consistent game changer amongst superstars on defense, the other 2 not so much.

Now I could also support the notion that I watched every tape on Dr. J I could get and I didn't walk away impressed on defense,
but the eye test is subjective anyway....

[thizznation]

Defensive On/Off:

LeBron 09: -8.2
LeBron 15: -4.3
LeBron 11: -4.3
LeBron 13: -3.4
LeBron 12: -1.6
LeBron 10: -1.5
LeBron 14: +2.1

Erving 83: -3.1
Erving 80: -2.0
Erving 82: -0.8
Erving 77: -0.2
Erving 78: +0.5
Erving 79: +0.7
Erving 85: +1.9
Erving 84: +2.6
Erving 81: +6.2

Kobe 10: -3.4
Kobe 01: -3.3
Kobe 03: -1.0
Kobe 07: -1.0
Kobe 08: -0.8
Kobe 04: +0.7
Kobe 09: +1.5
Kobe 05: +2.3
Kobe 06: +6.4
Kobe 02: +8.9


I don't know how some of you can say with a straight face that Dr J was a great defender.
Sorry, but he was a tad above average at best, same as Kobe.
LeBron is a consistent game changer amongst superstars on defense, the other 2 not so much.

Now I could also support the notion that I watched every tape on Dr. J I could get and I didn't walk away impressed on defense,
but the eye test is subjective anyway....

Well for one you don't have the metric for the very year in question for Dr J so I don't see how you can stay with a straight face that Dr J was not a great defender.

1976 Nets had the best defense in the league.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYA/1976.html

Now let's look at the 1976 Nets roster. Who is the best defensive player on the team?

Is it Kim Hughes, Al Skinner, or how about Brian Taylor?

The answer is Julius Erving was the best defender on the team and he lead the team to the best defense in the league. Even better than the Denver Nuggets; whom were lead defensively by one of the most famous defender's ever, Bobby Jones, whom next year took Denver to lead the merged league in defense.

This is way more concrete of evidence than speculation based off metrics of years that are not even of the year in question.

(Note: The information on Dr J's team's defense and his anchoring of the team was first brought to my notice from Quotatious.)

[eminence]

Same ballot hype!

1st Ballot: David Robinson 95-96 Once again, switched from 94-95 because I think the playoff performance was a bit better.

2nd Ballot: Stephen Curry 14-15 Had to go back and read The-Power's post again because it's just so good. When I think back to this years finals I've never seen a perimeter player command as much attention from the opposing defense as Curry did. Heck, the only big man I've seen get that attention was Shaq (haven't seen enough Wilt to judge).

3rd Ballot: Chris Paul 07-08 Only PG season that compares to prime/peak Magic in terms of scoring and assisting.

HM: Wade, DrJ, Moses, Walton, Kobe, West

[The-Power]

Paul Supporter here (likely have him 3rd on my ballot again), so here's my take on a couple of your questions.

1) Most of the top point guards are ball controlling, and I don't really feel Paul is excessively more-so than the others: Magic/Nash, or even the elite scoring guards to an extent Kobe/Wade. I do agree that it makes his impact generally more easy to capture in the boxscore.

2) I personally don't give him many points for his defense in '08. To his credit he made 2nd team all defense, but he certainly wasn't a big factor on defense. I don't have this influencing my ranking of him that much because unless they are large negative on defense (Nash) I don't value PG defense that much, it just doesn't seem to be an important part to building a strong defense. So to me PGs are ranked almost entirely off of their offensive value, where I rank Paul very highly - right with Magic/Nash/Curry for peak all-time.

3) Agreed, those two series are on extreme end for his ast/tov ratio. But he's still pretty clearly amongst the best ever in that regard for anyone who's at star level (sorry Jose Calderon).

Career Ast to TOV: RS/PS

Magic: 2.89/3.37
Stockton: 3.72/3.56
Paul: 4.13/3.35
Nash: 2.97/2.77
Thomas: 2.46/2.67
Payton: 2.96/2.73
Billups: 2.64/2.58
KJ: 2.97/26.4
Parker: 2.39/1.89
Kidd: 3.02/2.81

Stockton and Paul are the only two with real arguments for being the best at protecting the ball while still distributing at a high level.

4) Skill-wise I agree he's improved since '08, but the injuries really did slow him down. The biggest difference to me is that 22 year old Paul could simply carry a heavier load than any of the later post-injury versions, playing heavier minutes at a higher usage percent than in later seasons. For one play, a game, or even a series I'd heavily consider taking later versions, but for a full season I feel '07-'08 gives you your best chance at success.

First of all, thanks for the response. I also really appreciate the kind words you - and others - shared regarding my post about Curry. Some quick notes here:
1. Yes, there are a lot of ball-dominant players to which the same might apply. Maybe they don't exert as much control in the sense that they want to control the whole offense but overall I agree. And as I mentioned in my post, this is in no way meant to be criticism because Paul successfully led multiple great offenses - so despite the often brought up playoff-failures, which to me gets overblown often times, the success prove his approach right. My post referred more to the difficulties of directly comparing box-score stats when one player has an impact which isn't well-captured by the box-score and the other has not. Simply something to keep in mind.
2. I agree with your point of not overly valuing PG-defense. If you are a liability on that end you are going to get rightfully criticized but as long as you can play within a defensive system it shouldn't matter that much. In the end you're responsible for the offense and if you're good enough of an offensive anchor a team can find simple solutions for the defense unless you're completely garbage. Maybe on can use it as a tie-breaker when the offensive impact is at the same level - which rarely happens, though - but it certainly can't be the case with '08 Paul in my opinion. So I would look at his offense and not referring to his defense when I'm trying to advertise Paul.
3. Not doubt he is one of the best - if not the best - player in taking care of the ball as far as perimeter-players are concerned. That's nothing I'm disputing at all, it's arguably the most important aspect of Paul's greatness. I mentioned the '08 playoffs in order to make clear that they were an outlier even for him, reasons are the Mavericks defense and also the small sample size, and we should be careful with referring to this exceptional ratio. That people mention his general ratio or the '08 RS-ratio, which is absolutely brilliant in his own right, is not only fair but also absolute necessary. So no disagreement here, the way I see it.
4. So basically we're taking his best season rather than a comparable season with a more advanced skill-set because it doesn't quite match his '08 campaign. I can live with this stance, just - again - something we should keep in mind. Because people often tend to look at the probably best season (like '08 for Paul) and believe the player in his best season could do everything he did in worse seasons by default, i.e. they assume he had all his strenghts of say '15 (e.g. 3pt-shooting) in '08 and argue with them. But this wouldn't be quite true.

It's still a great playoffs run but it just seems like Draymond stepped up more for the playoffs than Curry did.

Did he really? On defense I tend to agree that he stepped up even considering his high level during the RS. On offense, however, I'm not so sure. His play making seemed to go through the roof but it's driven by two factors: 1) his shot from long range disappeared, despite him being below average even during the RS. This forced him to adjust and distribute the ball more often, at which he is quite good at, but the numbers might still be misleading to an extent. 2) I argued that defenses played Curry differently and the Warriors and him had to adjust. And I believe Draymond is the guy who gets the most box-score credit among Warriors-players from the credit the box-score took away from Curry. Draymond was Curry's first option to pass to whenever he was under pressure by two defenders, and when the ball successfully arrived in Draymond's hands he was the play-maker in the 4-vs-3 - or open-space - opportunities. He got credited with an assist, and this is not unjustified, but the main driver behind it was Curry on many occassions. Basically it's exactly the kind of impact I elobarotated on. Given the significant drop-off in his scoring-game I would hesitate to credit Green for a huge step-up in the playoffs on the offensive end even though he was able to showcase his play-making-skills.

gets absolutely crucified if he does any worse

Of course. When a team's star falls apart like he did after destroying everyone in the regular season he's gonna get criticized.

The problem is that Robinson already got criticized mightily for his drop-off in playoff-production and at some point we have to stop holding it against him because every single player right now has some question-marks above his case. I'm not sure if people realize that regarding Robinson we're probably talking about the best peak of all time - higher than Jordan, Shaq or LeBron most likely - without the drop-off come playoff-time. It's necessary to take the playoffs into account, sure, but at some point it's simply not justified to rank him lower and lower for this reason alone because it already happened from the start. A player with great arguments for the best regular season peak can't drop lower and lower and lower simply because he didn't live up to the standard in the playoffs - and it's not like he wasn't good, just not at the top of the Mount Olympus. To me we have already passed the reasonable threshold for Robinson in terms of placement on an ATG peak-list some time ago. If he drops even further it starts to become comical in my mind.

[trex_8063]

Calling it for Robinson.
Thru post #45:

David Robinson - 26
Julius Erving - 23
Bill Walton - 17
Dwyane Wade - 10
Stephen Curry - 10
Oscar Robertson - 10
Moses Malone - 2
Chris Paul - 2
Kobe Bryant - 1

If you did NOT cast a ballot for Robinson, please go to the secondary thread and indicate which year you feel is his peak and why. Opinion is spread all across '94-'96.

Will have #13 thread up shortly (I hope).

[trex_8063]

Plus, I don't agree with the way that you've been using averages as a "defense", if you will, of the playoff criticism of Robinson. The criticism was never that he couldn't DOMINATE lesser competition to the highest level of destruction, it was that when the competition gets hardest that Robinson's offensive impact went WAY down and his defensive impact may as well. Therefore, using averages from the '95 and '96 playoffs that are built on Robinson destroying lesser teams then playing poorly (with bad results on both offense AND defense) in every huge series featuring a player of his caliber from 94 - 96 does NOT address the criticism.

Focus: I'm not saying that the criticism of Robinson is necessarily correct. I'm saying that using his performance against lesser teams to argue that he doesn't shrink against the toughest competition doesn't in any way address the criticism. I'm still kind of waiting/hoping that someone from the Robinson camp would help to frame those criticisms in a more favorable light, but it kind of looks like he's just going to get voted in without that ever really being addressed.

I'm going to quote The-Power, as he kinda stated the gist of how I feel:

gets absolutely crucified if he does any worse

Of course. When a team's star falls apart like he did after destroying everyone in the regular season he's gonna get criticized.

The problem is that Robinson already got criticized mightily for his drop-off in playoff-production and at some point we have to stop holding it against him because every single player right now has some question-marks above his case. I'm not sure if people realize that regarding Robinson we're probably talking about the best peak of all time - higher than Jordan, Shaq or LeBron most likely - without the drop-off come playoff-time. It's necessary to take the playoffs into account, sure, but at some point it's simply not justified to rank him lower and lower for this reason alone because it already happened from the start. A player with great arguments for the best regular season peak can't drop lower and lower and lower simply because he didn't live up to that standard in the playoffs - and it's not like he wasn't good, just not at the top of the Mount Olympus. To me we have already passed the reasonable threshold for Robinson in terms of placement on an ATG peak-list some time ago. If he drops even further it starts to become comical in my mind.

.....and augment it with a quotation of myself in my reply to another from last thread:

fwiw, he also had good games at critical moments:

G4 of 1st round '94 (facing elimination): 27 pts @ 55.1% TS, 12 reb, 4 ast, 2 tov (against 7th-rated defense, too)
G5 of '95 WCSF (up 3-1, chance to eliminate, overtime game, fwiw): 34 pts @ 57.7% TS, 17 reb
G6 of '95 WCSF: 31 pts @ 63.8% TS, 15 reb
and a couple that we've already mulled over:
G3 of '95 WCF: 29 pts @ 76.5% TS, 9 reb, 4 ast, 1 tov
G4 of '95 WCF: 20 pts @ 49.0% TS, 16 reb, 3 ast, 1 tov (held Hakeem to 20 pts on 39.5% TS)


And fwiw, even players with as stellar playoff resumes as Hakeem drop the ball at critical moments:

'93 WCSF G5 (facing elimination): 14 pts @ 53.8% TS, 4 ast, 6 tov
'94 WCSF G6 (chance to eliminate opp): 23 pts @ 48.6% TS
'94 WCF G4: 16 pts @ 40.5% TS
'95 WCSF G1: 18 pts @ 44.3% TS (though only in 27 min, because it was a blow-out loss)
aforementioned G4 of '95 WCF (at stake: evening of series and giving HCA back to SA).

Not suggesting Hakeem had as many of this type of failing as Robinson; it's an issue for Robinson, no doubt. Just sayin': I can cherry pick games too.

And that is what feels so irritatingly unfair to me: in the 3-year peak period of Robinson's career ('94-'96), he played 272 total games (243 rs and 29 playoff). You could take ALL the rs game (every single one, the good and the bad) and any playoff game in which he at least played "decent".......basically you'd have a sample of 260-265 games over which Robinson avg ~27 ppg @ ~59% TS. And then maybe like 7-10 games or so over which he averaged like 20 pts @ 50% TS.

And on the basis of those 7-10 games, he's labeled as little more than mediocre offensively (despite the 260+ games to the contrary). I can understand the importance of stage and circumstance; but I feel a lot of the big picture is lost when it comes to Robinson. Everyone wants to formulate their opinion of him based on a mere handful (literally) of memorable poor performances.

While I know you want me to quit using averages and address some specific single-game or half-of-a-series failures......well, he had them. He had them more than some of his peers, I won't deny it.
What I resent is how the big picture of his usual performance gets so easily swept under the rug as a result.

Combining what both myself and The-Power are saying: take every single rs game (the good ones and the bad ones; the ones played against weak defenses and the ones played against elite defenses; the ones where he's matched up against guys like Rik Smits/Mike Gminski and the ones he's matched up against Hakeem/Mutombo/Mourning/Ewing/etc....all of them), plus any playoff game where he played at least semi-close to his rs standard.........we're looking at >260 games over the three-year period of '94-'96; this vs. perhaps 10 games with a "poor" performance.

In this sample that comprised ~96-97% of every game he played, he appears---on average, yes...sorry---marginally BETTER than Hakeem or Tim Duncan (this by nearly all available measures), more in the realm of peak Jordan, Lebron, and Shaq.

And yet people fixate on that 3-4% sample, and define Robinson as a player based upon it.

I know you're going to ask for comment on how whether or not that 97% sample only looks so great because he's trouncing the weak while merely treading water against the strong. I'll attempt to do so, because I don't quite believe that is the case.

I'd noted his performance in six rs H2H's against Hakeem in '95, where he had the better game in three of them (one game basically a wash, Hakeem having the clearly better game in two of them), with the Spurs winning 5 of 6; overall in those: 22.2 ppg @ 52.7% TS with 3.7 topg; though Hakeem struggled as well--->while Hakeem had 29.5 ppg it was on 49.8% TS and 4.5 topg; Robinson exceeded Hakeem in rpg, apg, and spg, too; Robinson's ORtg/DRtg gap over this rs series was +9.2, while Hakeem's was -2.0.

I don't have the figures right in front of me, but it's in one of those prior posts, and we see a similar comparison in their '94 rs H2H's (where Spurs won 3 of 5, and Robinson had at least a marginally better game than Hakeem in 3 of 5).

Here are some others.........

Vs. Ewing and the juggernaut '94 Knick defense:
only meeting: 32 pts @ 71.4% TS, 10 reb, 5 ast, 4 stl, 2 blk, 4 tov (W)

Vs. Dikembe in '94:
1st meeting: 17 pts @ 40.3% TS, 5 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 7 blk, 2 tov (W)
2nd meeting: 31 pts @ 58.1% TS, 5 reb, 6 ast, 3 stl, 3 blk, 0 tov (W)
3rd metting: 18 pts @ 52.1% TS, 11 reb, 5 ast, 4 stl, 3 blk, 2 tov (W)
4th meeting: 29 pts @ 58.7% TS, 7 reb, 6 ast, 3 stl, 5 blk, 2 tov (W)
5th meeting: 8 pts @ 29.1% TS, 9 reb, 1 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 2 tov (L)
6th meeting: 32 pts @ 54.1% TS, 12 reb, 6 ast, 0 stl, 3 blk, 4 tov (L)

^^^^^A couple of stinkers (one REALLY bad) above, but otherwise pretty decent. And it is Dikembe, after all. But then check out their rs encounters in '95.....

Vs. Dikembe in '95 regular season:
1st meeting: 33 pts @ 67.6% TS (70% eFG), 20 reb, 6 ast, 2 stl, 6 blk, 4 tov (L)
2nd meeting: 34 pts @ 71.1% TS, 7 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 3 blk, 1 tov (W)
3rd meeting: 18 pts @ 65.4% TS, 12 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 7 blk, 2 tov (W)
4th meeting: 42 pts @ 64.7% TS, 14 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 5 blk, 4 tov (overtime W)
5th meeting: 30 pts @ 58.3% TS, 10 reb, 2 ast, 4 stl, 2 blk, 5 tov (W)

^^^^He utterly trounces Dikembe in nearly all meetings. In '96......

Vs. Dikembe in '96 regular season:
1st meeting: 31 pts @ 61.3% TS, 15 reb, 5 ast, 3 stl, 3 blk, 5 tov (W)
2nd meeting: 25 pts @ 51.0% TS, 15 reb, 1 ast, 1 stl, 2 blk, 0 tov (W)
3rd meeting: 28 pts @ 64.5% TS, 13 reb, 1 ast, 1 stl, 7 blk, 2 tov (W)
*4th meeting: 6 pts @ 52.1% TS, 8 reb, 1 ast, 0 stl, 1 blk, 0 tov (W) *only played 13 minutes; no foul trouble, so I presume minor injury

^^^^Again pretty well destroying Mutombo in nearly all meetings.


Vs. Mourning in '94:
1st meeting: 31 pts @ 50.8% TS, 10 reb, 6 ast, 1 stl, 4 blk, 2 tov (W)
2nd meeting: 24 pts @ 52.5% TS, 6 reb, 1 ast, 3 stl, 3 blk, 1 tov (W)---limited minutes, fwiw, not sure why

Vs. Mourning '95:
1st meeting: 30 pts @ 64.8% TS, 9 reb, 2 ast, 0 stl, 1 blk, 2 tov (W)
2nd meeting: 42 pts @ 69.1% TS, 9 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 tov (L)


Anyway, I'll stop there, because it seems like the proposed narrative is already falling apart: I look at the above and I'm not seeing any consistent theme of him completely flubbing against elite competition.

So it really does boil down to this handful (and it basically is just a handful) of playoff failings that people fixate on, to the point where they're willing to all but disregard the other 96-97% of games he played.

[drza]

Spoiler:

Plus, I don't agree with the way that you've been using averages as a "defense", if you will, of the playoff criticism of Robinson. The criticism was never that he couldn't DOMINATE lesser competition to the highest level of destruction, it was that when the competition gets hardest that Robinson's offensive impact went WAY down and his defensive impact may as well. Therefore, using averages from the '95 and '96 playoffs that are built on Robinson destroying lesser teams then playing poorly (with bad results on both offense AND defense) in every huge series featuring a player of his caliber from 94 - 96 does NOT address the criticism.

Focus: I'm not saying that the criticism of Robinson is necessarily correct. I'm saying that using his performance against lesser teams to argue that he doesn't shrink against the toughest competition doesn't in any way address the criticism. I'm still kind of waiting/hoping that someone from the Robinson camp would help to frame those criticisms in a more favorable light, but it kind of looks like he's just going to get voted in without that ever really being addressed.

I'm going to quote The-Power, as he kinda stated the gist of how I feel:

Of course. When a team's star falls apart like he did after destroying everyone in the regular season he's gonna get criticized.

The problem is that Robinson already got criticized mightily for his drop-off in playoff-production and at some point we have to stop holding it against him because every single player right now has some question-marks above his case. I'm not sure if people realize that regarding Robinson we're probably talking about the best peak of all time - higher than Jordan, Shaq or LeBron most likely - without the drop-off come playoff-time. It's necessary to take the playoffs into account, sure, but at some point it's simply not justified to rank him lower and lower for this reason alone because it already happened from the start. A player with great arguments for the best regular season peak can't drop lower and lower and lower simply because he didn't live up to that standard in the playoffs - and it's not like he wasn't good, just not at the top of the Mount Olympus. To me we have already passed the reasonable threshold for Robinson in terms of placement on an ATG peak-list some time ago. If he drops even further it starts to become comical in my mind.

.....and augment it with a quotation of myself in my reply to another from last thread:

fwiw, he also had good games at critical moments:

G4 of 1st round '94 (facing elimination): 27 pts @ 55.1% TS, 12 reb, 4 ast, 2 tov (against 7th-rated defense, too)
G5 of '95 WCSF (up 3-1, chance to eliminate, overtime game, fwiw): 34 pts @ 57.7% TS, 17 reb
G6 of '95 WCSF: 31 pts @ 63.8% TS, 15 reb
and a couple that we've already mulled over:
G3 of '95 WCF: 29 pts @ 76.5% TS, 9 reb, 4 ast, 1 tov
G4 of '95 WCF: 20 pts @ 49.0% TS, 16 reb, 3 ast, 1 tov (held Hakeem to 20 pts on 39.5% TS)


And fwiw, even players with as stellar playoff resumes as Hakeem drop the ball at critical moments:

'93 WCSF G5 (facing elimination): 14 pts @ 53.8% TS, 4 ast, 6 tov
'94 WCSF G6 (chance to eliminate opp): 23 pts @ 48.6% TS
'94 WCF G4: 16 pts @ 40.5% TS
'95 WCSF G1: 18 pts @ 44.3% TS (though only in 27 min, because it was a blow-out loss)
aforementioned G4 of '95 WCF (at stake: evening of series and giving HCA back to SA).

Not suggesting Hakeem had as many of this type of failing as Robinson; it's an issue for Robinson, no doubt. Just sayin': I can cherry pick games too.

And that is what feels so irritatingly unfair to me: in the 3-year peak period of Robinson's career ('94-'96), he played 272 total games (243 rs and 29 playoff). You could take ALL the rs game (every single one, the good and the bad) and any playoff game in which he at least played "decent".......basically you'd have a sample of 260-265 games over which Robinson avg ~27 ppg @ ~59% TS. And then maybe like 7-10 games or so over which he averaged like 20 pts @ 50% TS.

And on the basis of those 7-10 games, he's labeled as little more than mediocre offensively (despite the 260+ games to the contrary). I can understand the importance of stage and circumstance; but I feel a lot of the big picture is lost when it comes to Robinson. Everyone wants to formulate their opinion of him based on a mere handful (literally) of memorable poor performances.

While I know you want me to quit using averages and address some specific single-game or half-of-a-series failures......well, he had them. He had them more than some of his peers, I won't deny it.
What I resent is how the big picture of his usual performance gets so easily swept under the rug as a result.

Combining what both myself and The-Power are saying: take every single rs game (the good ones and the bad ones; the ones played against weak defenses and the ones played against elite defenses; the ones where he's matched up against guys like Rik Smits/Mike Gminski and the ones he's matched up against Hakeem/Mutombo/Mourning/Ewing/etc....all of them), plus any playoff game where he played at least semi-close to his rs standard.........we're looking at >260 games over the three-year period of '94-'96; this vs. perhaps 10 games with a "poor" performance.

In this sample that comprised ~96-97% of every game he played, he appears---on average, yes...sorry---marginally BETTER than Hakeem or Tim Duncan (this by nearly all available measures), more in the realm of peak Jordan, Lebron, and Shaq.

And yet people fixate on that 3-4% sample, and define Robinson as a player based upon it.

I know you're going to ask for comment on how whether or not that 97% sample only looks so great because he's trouncing the weak while merely treading water against the strong. I'll attempt to do so, because I don't quite believe that is the case.

I'd noted his performance in six rs H2H's against Hakeem in '95, where he had the better game in three of them (one game basically a wash, Hakeem having the clearly better game in two of them), with the Spurs winning 5 of 6; overall in those: 22.2 ppg @ 52.7% TS with 3.7 topg; though Hakeem struggled as well--->while Hakeem had 29.5 ppg it was on 49.8% TS and 4.5 topg; Robinson exceeded Hakeem in rpg, apg, and spg, too; Robinson's ORtg/DRtg gap over this rs series was +9.2, while Hakeem's was -2.0.

I don't have the figures right in front of me, but it's in one of those prior posts, and we see a similar comparison in their '94 rs H2H's (where Spurs won 3 of 5, and Robinson had at least a marginally better game than Hakeem in 3 of 5).

Here are some others.........

Vs. Ewing and the juggernaut '94 Knick defense:
only meeting: 32 pts @ 71.4% TS, 10 reb, 5 ast, 4 stl, 2 blk, 4 tov (W)

Vs. Dikembe in '94:
1st meeting: 17 pts @ 40.3% TS, 5 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 7 blk, 2 tov (W)
2nd meeting: 31 pts @ 58.1% TS, 5 reb, 6 ast, 3 stl, 3 blk, 0 tov (W)
3rd metting: 18 pts @ 52.1% TS, 11 reb, 5 ast, 4 stl, 3 blk, 2 tov (W)
4th meeting: 29 pts @ 58.7% TS, 7 reb, 6 ast, 3 stl, 5 blk, 2 tov (W)
5th meeting: 8 pts @ 29.1% TS, 9 reb, 1 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 2 tov (L)
6th meeting: 32 pts @ 54.1% TS, 12 reb, 6 ast, 0 stl, 3 blk, 4 tov (L)

^^^^^A couple of stinkers (one REALLY bad) above, but otherwise pretty decent. And it is Dikembe, after all. But then check out their rs encounters in '95.....

Vs. Dikembe in '95 regular season:
1st meeting: 33 pts @ 67.6% TS (70% eFG), 20 reb, 6 ast, 2 stl, 6 blk, 4 tov (L)
2nd meeting: 34 pts @ 71.1% TS, 7 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 3 blk, 1 tov (W)
3rd meeting: 18 pts @ 65.4% TS, 12 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 7 blk, 2 tov (W)
4th meeting: 42 pts @ 64.7% TS, 14 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 5 blk, 4 tov (overtime W)
5th meeting: 30 pts @ 58.3% TS, 10 reb, 2 ast, 4 stl, 2 blk, 5 tov (W)

^^^^He utterly trounces Dikembe in nearly all meetings. In '96......

Vs. Dikembe in '96 regular season:
1st meeting: 31 pts @ 61.3% TS, 15 reb, 5 ast, 3 stl, 3 blk, 5 tov (W)
2nd meeting: 25 pts @ 51.0% TS, 15 reb, 1 ast, 1 stl, 2 blk, 0 tov (W)
3rd meeting: 28 pts @ 64.5% TS, 13 reb, 1 ast, 1 stl, 7 blk, 2 tov (W)
*4th meeting: 6 pts @ 52.1% TS, 8 reb, 1 ast, 0 stl, 1 blk, 0 tov (W) *only played 13 minutes; no foul trouble, so I presume minor injury

^^^^Again pretty well destroying Mutombo in nearly all meetings.


Vs. Mourning in '94:
1st meeting: 31 pts @ 50.8% TS, 10 reb, 6 ast, 1 stl, 4 blk, 2 tov (W)
2nd meeting: 24 pts @ 52.5% TS, 6 reb, 1 ast, 3 stl, 3 blk, 1 tov (W)---limited minutes, fwiw, not sure why

Vs. Mourning '95:
1st meeting: 30 pts @ 64.8% TS, 9 reb, 2 ast, 0 stl, 1 blk, 2 tov (W)
2nd meeting: 42 pts @ 69.1% TS, 9 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 tov (L)


Anyway, I'll stop there, because it seems like the proposed narrative is already falling apart: I look at the above and I'm not seeing any consistent theme of him completely flubbing against elite competition.

So it really does boil down to this handful (and it basically is just a handful) of playoff failings that people fixate on, to the point where they're willing to all but disregard the other 96-97% of games he played.

This'll be short/quick because I'm in Vegas celebrating my birthday with my wife, and she's not going to let me stay on here for long. So I can't go point-by-point. But in general, I think you and ThaPower are both...for want of a better way to put it, over-dramatizing the opposing position while simultaneously under-rating the opposing point.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly not disregarding the 97% to only focus on the 3%. If I were doing that, then Robinson wouldn't even be worth discussion at this point in the project. The reason that he is, is, BECAUSE his 97% of the time was so great, he deserves to be mentioned with the best-of-the-best ever. And that's the part that I think you may be not fully respecting (or, if that's too strong, I can say this is part of where we currently disagree with no fundamental way to say who's right or not). But we aren't comparing Robinson to just anyone...we're comparing him to players that very arguably match or (arguably exceed) his value even during the 97% of the time...and THEN don't have that 3% to hold them back.

For example, Walton. Robinson's box score stats are better, and if that's the primary evaluation tool then I can see why Robinson's 97% might seem better. But to the extent that we have non-boxscore/impact information for both, Walton's in/out crazy huge impact is at least as impressive (to me) as Robinson's mega on/off +/- results. And both of those are, primarily, regular season measures. And then if we look at skillset, the way that you and I have touched on a couple of times, I still see no real separation in either Robinson's or Walton's direction.

So what we're left with is that Walton has (very real) injury concerns while Robinson has this so-called 3% (I'm using your terms, even though I don't agree with them. The potential problem with Robinson isn't just 3%...it's that in 100% of his biggest playoff series at his peak, HE (not the team), but HE seems to have a game that can be neutralized on offense to a very large degree (we're not just talking a few TS % points, but large drops in both volume and efficiency with no extenuating circumstances or concommitant improvement elsewhere to help mitigate). If that's truly the case (and I still leave the door open for someone to help explain those situations in a way that doesn't seem so directly like a personal failing) then it's a potential poison pill.

Focus: and I'm NOT saying a poisong pill against EVERYONE. That's key, here. I'm saying a poison pill when comparing Robinson to players, like Walton or Oscar, that very arguably are as good as him at his very best. Against players like that, the best of the best, then yes, an exploitable flaw in your game to the extent alleged against Robinson could very well be enough to get them ranked ahead of him on a peak list. FWIW, Robinson would have been getting my vote very soon. But I certainly don't think that NOT voting for him yet is an indication of anything comical, as Power suggested. For me, I had him queued up to possibly vote for in the top-10 until someone really detailed the usual argument against him in a way that I couldn't ignore. And, for me, was never really addressed before he was voted in.

[trex_8063]

This'll be short/quick because I'm in Vegas celebrating my birthday with my wife,

Happy birthday.
I'm pegging you for early 40's, which is sort of like a 2nd puberty: an age when you start getting hair where there was no hair before (like your ears).

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly not disregarding the 97% to only focus on the 3%. If I were doing that, then Robinson wouldn't even be worth discussion at this point in the project. The reason that he is, is, BECAUSE his 97% of the time was so great, he deserves to be mentioned with the best-of-the-best ever. And that's the part that I think you may be not fully respecting (or, if that's too strong, I can say this is part of where we currently disagree with no fundamental way to say who's right or not). But we aren't comparing Robinson to just anyone...we're comparing him to players that very arguably match or (arguably exceed) his value even during the 97% of the time.....and THEN don't have that 3% to hold them back.

Outside of Walton and maybe Oscar, I don't think there's anyone left on the table who might have matched his impact in that 97% sample. All the other guys who had have already been voted in. That's my opinion on the 97%, anyway.

So what we're left with is that Walton has (very real) injury concerns while Robinson has this so-called 3% (I'm using your terms, even though I don't agree with them. The potential problem with Robinson isn't just 3%...it's that in 100% of his biggest playoff series at his peak, HE (not the team), but HE seems to have a game that can be neutralized on offense to a very large degree......

So in those games he basically became Bill Russell on offense? (oh snap!)

That's an over-simplification and not overly accurate, I know, but hopefully conveys the point I'm trying to make there: Even at his worst, Robinson is still more or less an average offensive player (and usually a little better, even when he's having a sub-par game). Meanwhile is still one of the most elite defensive bigs in the game (more on that below)........This isn't hugely different from Russell (defensive impact obviously larger, though as has been discussed to death I'm of the belief that Russell wouldn't be capable of similar level of defensive impact in modern era).

The major difference was that Robinson's teams ALSO depended on him to basically be Michael Jordan on offense; and when he wasn't able to meet that expectation, his team was lost.
Russell's team never expected similar from him; if he had a bad offensive game....not that big of a deal. He could almost be hidden offensively, somewhat the same as Nash is hidden defensively. Robinson couldn't be hidden; his circumstance would not allow for it.


As to his defense in the playoffs. I'm not sure how serious to take any team defensive deficits in series's that they lost. I believe I looked at all of them from '93 to '96, and the WORST the Spurs defense performed (as far as expected team DRTG) in any given series was +4.8. Considering sample size (like 6 games) it's kinda hard to say how statistically significant that is.
And again, there were other playoff series's where they EXCEEDED expectation, by as much as -17.2 iirc. So it seems as though he's still defensively present.

[SideshowBob]

Spoiler:

Tentative Ballot

10.Walton 77 +7.25 (+2.75 O/+4.50 D)

11.Robinson 94 +6.75 (+2.75 O/+4.00 D)

12. Magic 87 +6.75 (+7.00 O/-0.25 D)

13.Erving 76 +6.75 (+5.00 O/+1.75 D)

14.Jabbar 77 +6.50 (+5.00 O/+1.50 D)

[tie] 15.Wade 09 +6.25 (+5.00 O/+1.25 D)

[tie] 15.Curry 15 +6.25 (+6.25 O/+0.00 D)

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

Walton

Walton's 77 I value pretty highly; I don't penalize for missed time much, but when we're talking about razor-thin divisions between players at the top like this, that's enough to push him from top 5 to lower top 10 for me (I might have considered him last thread if it weren't for that.

I definitely still see Walton's peak as higher than Kareem's though. With Kareem IMO his "super-peak" (best offensive year + best defensive year) would have probably have been top 5, but I don't think his two-way play ever peaked together, and as a result, I hold him in slightly lower regard than most others (probably 12 or 13), and might be considering Robinson over him as well. I think his offense peaked in his later years (late 70s - 80), while the defense peaked pretty high earlier in his Milwaukee years (overall I think his top years are pretty similar, but 77 is the standout). I think if his peak was really top 5ish, then he'd have to be considered the easy GOAT because those other top years aren't really that far below 77 and his longevity is exceptional, even amongst the other all-timers.

IMO, his offense is similar to the other high-post hubs, with weaker scoring skills (though he could scale up when the team needed). On defense, he stands out - I think his motor, shot-blocking, and overall lane presence makes him a better defensive player than those that we've discussed (outside of Russell of course).

Like I said earlier, health was the reason I had him this low to begin with, otherwise I would have pushed him at the 4-6 spots.

Curry

On Curry's improvements in 2015

Huh. He's showed a marked improvement in his already amazing ability to shoot threes off the dribble, which he also seems to be doing better (and more frequently), despite the fact that he's now got a reputation for it and defenses that face GS will often make it a top priority to adapt to this ability.

Most clearly though, he's gotten much better at utilizing his crafty dribble to get into the lane (2014: 2.5 FGA at the rim and 4.4 FTA, 2015: 3.2 FGA at the rim and 4.8 FTA, despite minute decline from 36.5 to 32.8), and when he's there he's finishing at an elite level now (68%, gotten really comfortable with that floater, and his touch around the rim even in traffic is outstanding), up from 63%, despite the fact that he's become clearly more of a threat to get there and defenses are now more concerned with trying to control his penetration. Ultimately, this means he's more frequently able to collapse/disrupt defenses in the way that typical drive and dish guys are (while notably being a far superior pullup threat than any of those guys), and this is in addition to his already strong playmaking.

Building on that end, while he's no Nash/Paul, he's a clearly superior to most of the drive/kick wings/lead guards; he's more able to probe and force rotations/disruptions with his on-ball movement and then exploit openings/matchup advantages. Overall, his playmaking is certainly a step higher from before, he's more sound at running the system, he's brought his turnovers under control, and from what I've seen, his presence of mind/creation vision when he's off the ball seems to be, at the least, commendable, at best pretty remarkable.

I mean I can keep going. It seems pretty off base to suggest that he hasn't really improved "that much" this year, when he's gotten better at everything.

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

Kind of conflicted on Wade vs. Curry. I'm a lot more firm in my evaluation of Wade than Curry. Its easier to find parallels for 09 Wade, in the RS, his offense is similar to 09 Lebron's. Lebron IMO is a better playmaker, better 3pt shooter, and a deadlier finisher, but Wade's better at actually getting to the basket, has a far superior complimentary midrange game, and has better instincts attacking defenses. Wade also measures out similarly to a younger Jordan, with a slightly less refined post-game/jumpshot/etc. It's easy for me to gauge him on that end, and on defense as well (high activity level in the lanes, weak-side shot blocking, has the length and athleticism to cover the rim while also being a versatile/pesky man defender, strong rebounding out of the two spot, etc.). I penalize him a slight bit for being injured during the postseason but its minor.

Curry I have a tougher time with. I've championed him pretty high, and I can see my thoughts on him fluctuating in both directions. Am I too high on his defense? He looks good in the GS system but I don't know how well that might translate to less disciplined teams (I don't see the smarts outside of just sticking with the system). Am I too high (or low) on his offense? We've never seen someone have degree of gravity outside the arc before (on and off the ball), so its hard to find a comparison, even for the sake of a relativity comparison.

Also, I really like 2010 and 2011 from Wade; IMO he's not far off from 09 in those years.

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

Might post some thoughts on Durant later.

Whoops