Peaks Project #13

[trex_8063]

btw, I'm much more pleased with the amount and level of discussion on this thread relative to the previous few. Thank you to everyone who has contributed.

[thizznation]

I think there is some middle ground between ABA Julius Erving and the statistics we have from NBA on. Julius Erving in the NBA had a different role and was leaving his athletic prime and you could say there was a very slight increase of league strength. All three of those factors played into the statistical difference from ABA to NBA Juilus Erving. Having a black and white analysis of "the NBA numbers were never the same because the ABA was vastly weaker, thus explaining the reason for Erving's dominance" isn't taking into the whole picture in my opinion.

Absolutely I agree. And don't confuse what I'm saying: I'm not trying to suggest that '77 Erving='76 Erving. I simply feel that we cannot take his statistical dominance in '76 at face-value (at least not when comparing it to all these post-merger players).
Agreeing upon exactly where that middle ground is naturally going to be difficult.

Rick Barry bringing up his NBA production to his ABA production after a season of adjusting to a new team also helps to debunk the vast superiority of the NBA.

idk....again, if we take the stats at face-value, he clearly had his statistical peak between '69 and '70 in the ABA. I mean, his per 36 min numbers in '75 are barely behind what he was doing at his ABA peak, and his per 100 possessions stats---which I don't have up yet, but will try to get posted to that spreadsheet soon---are likely every bit equal (maybe even marginally better)......but on ~10% worse shooting efficiency (that's a MASSIVE gap in efficiency). He shredded the ABA in the '70 playoffs series, too. But no one considers that his peak because of where it occurred.

And though it's not my intent to suggest Barry wasn't athletic (he certainly was), he obviously wasn't the same class of athlete as Erving. His was a more skill-based game. And it's not uncommon for players with a more skill-based game to peak nearer to 30 years old (as opposed to the 25-27 age range we often see for your athletic outliers).

All good points. I agree with your insight that Barry's profile does indicate he would be due for a later peak then compared to some of his peers.

When we start looking at his 69' to 70' ABA stats I begin to think this is more telling of the change in how the game was played due to eras rather than the strengths of ABA vs NBA. The period of time wasn't great between the late 60's and mid 70's but there were major changes in style regarding pace and rule changes that were going on in both leagues. We have to remember that young Barry lit up the NBA back in the late 60's as well. So I think there is more of a difference between 1970 ABA and 1976 ABA than the difference between 1976 ABA and 1977 NBA.

[mischievous]

btw, I'm much more pleased with the amount and level of discussion on this thread relative to the previous few. Thank you to everyone who has contributed.

Do you have a tally thus far?

[Clyde Frazier]

I'm still not feeling Erving yet. I know some of his advocates are thoughtful posters who might start getting frustrated - and I would understand it since I had this feeling regarding Robinson and his non-consideration for the higher spots. But I can't ignore the fact that the defensive environment was considerably less tough in the ABA compared to the NBA, and that he never approached his peak-ABA level again - of course he still had a couple of really good seasons - doesn't help his case although I know that there are some other possible reasons for the decline. But that the ABA was a less talented league in which some player's dominated like they never did in the NBA again (and Rick Barry should be the most prominent example especially since he moved from the NBA to the ABA and back) is out of question to me. The question is how much worse it was in order to rank Dr J properly. And this question is indeed a tough one.

I've mentioned this several times now, but I guess you just missed it. 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 in philly.

I'm not claiming the ABA in 76 was a just as competitive as the NBA, but at that point it had reached the pinnacle of competition relative to past years. Dr. J's raw production in 1980 was somewhat less than 1976, and that was mainly due to playing a few less min at a slower pace. It's close enough that looking at per 100 stats when comparing the 2 seasons is reasonable.

With the information I've provided above, I don't think the bolded statement is an accurate evaluation of that season. I mean, even beyond the #s, you say he never approached that level again, yet he finished 2nd in MVP voting in 80, and would go on to win it just 1 season later. This is all in the "tougher" league.

[LA Bird]

1. 1977 Walton

On a per-minute basis, he is as good as any of the GOAT centers. This is probably a highly unpopular idea but besides durability, what is the difference between Walton and 67 Wilt? Similar offensive and defensive impact resulting in a ~8 SRS team. Both are overrated as scorers and in terms of passing, where the majority of their offensive impact came from, they are about equal with Wilt having the upper hand in assist numbers but Walton being (IMO) a fundamentally better passer. Defensively, Wilt establishes his impact primarily via rim protection while Walton provides a greater balance of both rim protection and defense away from the basket. If people are confident enough to vote Wilt in at #4 with a similar style of offensive play as a high post passing hub, why the hesitancy when it comes to Walton? He missed games in the regular season but the Blazers still finished with a solid +5.4 SRS and Walton was fully healthy for the playoffs as he led them to a championship. IMO, Durability is only a major concern if the player misses the playoffs - for example, I don't penalize Shaq's 1998 season too much despite him missing 22 games.

2. 2015 Curry

The-Power's post pretty much covers everything I had to say about Curry. However, I would like to add that Curry still doesn't get enough credit for his 4th quarter domination in the finals.

Most 4th Quarter Points in Final since 1991
1995 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5
2000 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5 (61.1% TS)
2015 Stephen Curry 10.8 (75.1% TS)
1997 Michael Jordan 10.7 (55.1% TS)
1998 Michael Jordan 10.6 (50.6% TS)
2011 Dirk Nowitzki 10.3 (68.0% TS)
1993 Michael Jordan 10.3
2015 Lebron James 10.2 (51.7% TS)

On a team level, this resulted in Warriors crushing the Cavs in the 4th quarter even though they were still evenly matched up through the first 3 quarters.

Warriors (2015 Finals)
Q1~Q3: 101.5 ORtg, 100.5 DRtg. Total: +1.0
Q4: 128.8 ORtg, 105.0 DRtg. Total: +23.8

From the previous #12 thread but I'll continue it here.

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.

I was thinking more of Green's defense. Bogut's playing time decreased the deeper the Warriors went in the playoffs but their defense didn't really drop off at all. Offensively, Curry responded well to the stronger and different defenses but his secondary assist numbers didn't go up (1.8 in 33 minutes in regular season compared to 2.0 in 39 minutes in the playoffs) so I think Draymond deserves some credit for his extra playmaking in the playoffs. The difference in the offensive on-offs for Curry in the playoff and regular season (-2.3 vs +14.3) is also a slight concern as well, although I would like to think that is mostly just noise instead of actual indication of Curry's offensive slump.

3. 2009 Wade

Wade is as good as anybody in penetrating, forcing the defense to collapse and then dishing to open shooters. In 2009, he also had his best shooting season before the Big 3 era. Put it all together and you have one of the GOAT offensive season from a 2-guard, especially after the All-Star break with averages of 34/5/8 on 61% TS. Defensively, Wade isn't really DPOY caliber but he is better than Dr J who is getting significantly overrated defensively just because of huge steal and block numbers. And FWIW, here's the adjusted numbers...

09 Wade: 3.0 steal%, 2.8 block%
76 Dr J: 2.9 steal%, 2.7 block%

Up next: 2011 Dirk. Maybe Oscar if he starts getting more support.

[Clyde Frazier]

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 - 66 West

Had west on my mind before voting in the last thread, and I'm going with him here sort of in the same vein as magic / bird putting him after oscar. West was a master volume scorer on great efficiency (especially for his era), not to mention an excellent playmaker, falling somewhere between a PG and SG throughout his career.

He had the poor luck of coming up during the russell celtics era, losing to them several times in the finals. He would lead the lakers to the finals in 66, again losing in game 7 by 2 to the celtics in heart breaking fashion. This would come after putting up 33.9 PPG, 6.4 RPG and 5.1 APG on 51.5% from the field and 87.1% from the line in the series. Will post more about that game in the next thread.

[trex_8063]

I'm still not feeling Erving yet. I know some of his advocates are thoughtful posters who might start getting frustrated - and I would understand it since I had this feeling regarding Robinson and his non-consideration for the higher spots. But I can't ignore the fact that the defensive environment was considerably less tough in the ABA compared to the NBA, and that he never approached his peak-ABA level again - of course he still had a couple of really good seasons - doesn't help his case although I know that there are some other possible reasons for the decline. But that the ABA was a less talented league in which some player's dominated like they never did in the NBA again (and Rick Barry should be the most prominent example especially since he moved from the NBA to the ABA and back) is out of question to me. The question is how much worse it was in order to rank Dr J properly. And this question is indeed a tough one.

I've mentioned this several times now, but I guess you just missed it. 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 in philly.

Well, awfully close in MOST areas, but I'd not say "nearly identical". Ast/100 are identical, Stl+Blk/100 are identical; and where some others are close, I'd pick a couple nits:
*His rebounds/100 poss are -3.4 in '80 relative to '76.
**While his pts/100 are +0.4, so are his turnovers (and that isn't an even trade).
***While his raw TS% is nearly identical, his rTS is not: it's 1.5% lower in '80 than in '76.

EDIT:
All that said, perhaps what he was doing in that '80-'82 range is a good indicator to put us in the vicinity of that "middle ground" thizznation and I were alluding to.

[Clyde Frazier]

I'm still not feeling Erving yet. I know some of his advocates are thoughtful posters who might start getting frustrated - and I would understand it since I had this feeling regarding Robinson and his non-consideration for the higher spots. But I can't ignore the fact that the defensive environment was considerably less tough in the ABA compared to the NBA, and that he never approached his peak-ABA level again - of course he still had a couple of really good seasons - doesn't help his case although I know that there are some other possible reasons for the decline. But that the ABA was a less talented league in which some player's dominated like they never did in the NBA again (and Rick Barry should be the most prominent example especially since he moved from the NBA to the ABA and back) is out of question to me. The question is how much worse it was in order to rank Dr J properly. And this question is indeed a tough one.

I've mentioned this several times now, but I guess you just missed it. 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 in philly.

Well, awfully close in MOST areas, but I'd not say "nearly identical". Ast/100 are identical, Stl+Blk/100 are identical; and where some others are close, I'd pick a couple nits:
*His rebounds/100 poss are -3.4 in '80 relative to '76.
**While his pts/100 are +0.4, so are his turnovers (and that isn't an even trade).
***While his raw TS% is nearly identical, his rTS is not: it's 1.5% lower in '80 than in '76.

Aware of the rebounds, fair point on the relative TS%. I don't get too worried about turnovers unless they're glaring or hindering a player's overall play. Even still, my general point was that he did in fact approach that 76 production again a few years later, something The-Power doesn't seem to realize.

[thizznation]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sLWGRDjuAIw#t=219

That no defense league...

[trex_8063]

fwiw, I changed my third ballot choice to '14 Durant (and btw, I did that BEFORE I tallied the votes; no conspiracy ).

Anyway, pt totals thru post #89 indicate we may end up with our first run-off unless we get more ballots and/or thizznation can break the tie (you've only cast two ballots, thizznation; care to add your 3rd ballot?).

Bill Walton - 21
Julius Erving - 21
Stephen Curry - 16.5
Dwyane Wade - 13.5
Oscar Robertson - 13
Chris Paul - 4
Moses Malone - 2
Kevin Durant - 1
Patrick Ewing - 1
Dirk Nowitzki - 1
Jerry West - 1

I'm counting SideshowBob's 3rd ballot tie as 0.5 pts each, unless he's willing to take a stand with one over the other.

.

I'll leave the polls open for another hour or two; if no change, we'll enter a 24-hour run-off between Erving and Walton.

[thizznation]

Right now I'm between Wade and Curry. Clyde had a good mention with West and I'm going to start looking into him more for upcoming ranks.

To borrow upon SideshowBob's rating system.


Erving: 5.5 Offense | 2.0 Defense

Robertson: 6.0 Offense | 1.25 defense

Wade: 5.5 Offense | 1.5 Defense

Curry: 6.0 Offense | 1.0 Defense

Erving is the best defender out of the group. What separates Erving and Dwayne Wade the most is rebounding where Erving has a large edge. Erving is a lot longer and can provide better help defense than Wade. Wade is better at covering speedier guards however. I wouldn't really ask Erving to cover those guards anyways. If anything Erving seems to be more of a tweener that could definitely see minutes at the 4 today.

Curry isn't too far behind Wade but he is ultimately limited by his athleticism. While Curry is an underrated man defender and can still provide clever help defense, it's not in Wade's league. This versatility from Wade puts him over for me.

Robertson fits in the middle of this. There is some guestimation with Robertson but it appears that he was a great athlete, very high bbiq, and fantastic fundamentals. This with his great rebounding and I come up with him being a positive on defense.

Curry and Oscar's offensive scores are higher due to the proven ability to run a very high level offense through them. Erving and Wade still have high scores due to being able to score on volume and do it efficiently. Wade has the extra playmaking and point edge, Erving has an edge in offensive rebounds, turnovers, and efficiency. Both equal themselves out to a good extent in my opinion.

Foot note regarding Oscar's offense. If Oscar played in today's NBA he would have a 3 point game I believe. I entered in a career Free Throw % average of Robertson and applied a 20 points per game limit in season finder. These are some of the names that pop up. (http://tinyurl.com/ozmykrp). If you look at the top sections of the list, they all have a 3 point game, some of them very good ones.

Long story short

1. Erving 1976
2. Robertson 1964
3. Wade 2009

[trex_8063]

Thru post #91:

Bill Walton - 21
Julius Erving - 21
Stephen Curry - 16.5
Dwyane Wade - 14.5
Oscar Robertson - 13
Chris Paul - 4
Moses Malone - 2
Kevin Durant - 1
Patrick Ewing - 1
Dirk Nowitzki - 1
Jerry West - 1

[trex_8063]

Alright, I'm officially pushing this into a 24-hour run-off. If you DID cast a ballot for either one (or both) of Walton/Erving, you do NOT need to state your position (I'll just use whoever was higher on your balloting as your pick). But for anyone who did NOT cast a ballot for either, please speak up regarding who you would pick and why.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[SactoKingsFan]

Run-off vote: 77 Bill Walton

I consider 76 Erving a legit top 15 candidate, but I prefer 77 Walton for his more portable skill-set and sizable defensive advantage (not buying Erving as an elite defender) which is considerably greater than Erving's offensive edge.

[thizznation]

Run-off vote: 77 Bill Walton

I consider 76 Erving a legit top 15 candidate, but I prefer 77 Walton for his more portable skill-set and sizable defensive advantage (not buying Erving as an elite defender) which is considerably greater than Erving's offensive edge.

Erving vs Walton

Per 100 Possession Post Season

Erving : 37.4 points | 13.6 rebounds | 5.3 assists | 2.1 steal | 2.1 block | .610 TS
Walton: 20.4 points | 17.1 rebounds | 6.2 assists | 1.2 steal | 3.8 block | .527 TS

First off Walton is getting blown out of the water offensively unless we are really reading into "non box score stats". How many hockey assists can Walton get to offset a point differential of 17 and a TS of eight percent? How much gravity is Walton pulling from his high post passing hub? Walton had a nice game but we are overstating his offensive impact here.

I don't see how we can say Erving's impact through defensive boxscores is massively overstated, and Walton's offensive impact from boxscores is massively underrated. To me it seems like there are some double standards occurring. Walton voters have also completely neglected to mention his health situation.

[RebelWithACause]

Run off vote: 77 Bill Walton

Tremendous 2-way player.
One of the best defensive anchors I have seen. Impact dwarfs almost any other player.
Great balance of everything D-related.
Fine scorer and great playmaker.
Not a transcendent offensive player, but very good. The missed games kind of thing barely reduce his champions odds. That's still 80 % games played.
He was available for the PS which neglects the missed games pretty much...

If I were to rate him SRS style, I would go for

Walton +6.5 (+2.5 / +4.0)

His run off Partner Erving, I would rate like this:

Erving +5.5 (+5.0 / +0.5) which is a generous rating for my taste...

So Walton, clearly is a better player.

[Quotatious]

Run-off vote: 77 Bill Walton

I consider 76 Erving a legit top 15 candidate, but I prefer 77 Walton for his more portable skill-set and sizable defensive advantage (not buying Erving as an elite defender) which is considerably greater than Erving's offensive edge.

Erving vs Walton

Per 100 Possession Post Season

Erving : 37.4 points | 13.6 rebounds | 5.3 assists | 2.1 steal | 2.1 block | .610 TS
Walton: 20.4 points | 17.1 rebounds | 6.2 assists | 1.2 steal | 3.8 block | .527 TS

First off Walton is getting blown out of the water offensively unless we are really reading into "non box score stats". How many hockey assists can Walton get to offset a point differential of 17 and a TS of eight percent? How much gravity is Walton pulling from his high post passing hub? Walton had a nice game but we are overstating his offensive impact here.

I don't see how we can say Erving's impact through defensive boxscores is massively overstated, and Walton's offensive impact from boxscores is massively underrated. To me it seems like there are some double standards occurring. Walton voters have also completely neglected to mention his health situation.

Yeah, that point about health is a really good one. When two players are so close, let's not act like 19 extra games you get from Erving (or 17, if we adjust for NBA schedule, because the ABA had 84-game regular season), that's A TON of additional value you get from Dr J. Even if Doc played 65 games like Walton did ,in the RS, I still wouldn't say that Walton was better on a per-game basis, let alone those 15+ extra games, which make it a no brainer in Erving's favor, IMO.

[RebelWithACause]

Yeah, that point about health is a really good one. When two players are so close, let's not act like 19 extra games you get from Erving (or 17, if we adjust for NBA schedule, because the ABA had 84-game regular season), that's A TON of additional value you get from Dr J. Even if Doc played 65 games like Walton did ,in the RS, I still wouldn't say that Walton was better on a per-game basis, let alone those 15+ extra games, which make it a no brainer in Erving's favor, IMO.

Games played regarding championship odds

Regular Season Player Health matters less than you think.

In the RS, for a normal portability 5 SIO player, playing the whole year results in a 21.4% chance to win the title. Playing half the year? An 20.2% chance. Playing even 10% of the year still results in an 18.0% chance to win the title, assuming the player is playing at a +5 SIO level in the RS and in the PS.

Why? Because the SRS differential the player created in the playoffs is more important than the HCA advantage lost. The majority of below average teams will never see the PS with such a player missing most of the year, but almost every time a player is on an above average team (51% of teams since 1986) his teammates will have qualified for the playoffs. Think Wilt Chamberlain in 1970 or Michael Jordan in 1986 and 1995.

The better the player, the more missing time will hurt him (because of the likelihood of losing HCA in the later rounds against better teams). An 8 SRS player added to a random team gives them a 45% chance of winning title if he's healthy all year. If he plays 10% of the RS and then the playoffs, a 32% chance of winning a title.

viewtopic.php?t=1197767

[thizznation]

Yeah, that point about health is a really good one. When two players are so close, let's not act like 19 extra games you get from Erving (or 17, if we adjust for NBA schedule, because the ABA had 84-game regular season), that's A TON of additional value you get from Dr J. Even if Doc played 65 games like Walton did ,in the RS, I still wouldn't say that Walton was better on a per-game basis, let alone those 15+ extra games, which make it a no brainer in Erving's favor, IMO.

Games played regarding championship odds

Regular Season Player Health matters less than you think.

In the RS, for a normal portability 5 SIO player, playing the whole year results in a 21.4% chance to win the title. Playing half the year? An 20.2% chance. Playing even 10% of the year still results in an 18.0% chance to win the title, assuming the player is playing at a +5 SIO level in the RS and in the PS.

Why? Because the SRS differential the player created in the playoffs is more important than the HCA advantage lost. The majority of below average teams will never see the PS with such a player missing most of the year, but almost every time a player is on an above average team (51% of teams since 1986) his teammates will have qualified for the playoffs. Think Wilt Chamberlain in 1970 or Michael Jordan in 1986 and 1995.

The better the player, the more missing time will hurt him (because of the likelihood of losing HCA in the later rounds against better teams). An 8 SRS player added to a random team gives them a 45% chance of winning title if he's healthy all year. If he plays 10% of the RS and then the playoffs, a 32% chance of winning a title.

viewtopic.php?t=1197767

The portability of a Walton held together by pvc pipe and duct tape doesn't seem stunning to me. To me it looked like the Blazers lucked out with a one in a million in 1977 considering Walton's health. Trying to keep Walton together for a full season plus post season run seems like trying to catch lighting in a bottle. I mean it literally only happened one time. The fact that Bill Walton was able to play the entire post season with out injury was nothing short than a miracle from God.

What I'm trying to say is when you do the math and put it all on paper, Walton's health seems excuseable. Try testing Bill Walton's body in the real world for that stretch and you will get shafted much more often than not.

[eminence]

Run off vote: '76 DrJ

With these two it kind of comes down to concerns about there games for me. DrJ has the competition concern from the last year of the ABA (not that the ABA was necessarily weaker than the NBA during that period, but both were weaker compared to other eras in my opinion), and also questions about whether his defensive impact was as high as it seemed to be that season.

For Walton I personally have doubts about whether his offense was as high impact as some are arguing. Even if he's KG levels good at all the off ball stuff (best big man I've seen) he still would need to make up around a 10 pp100 gap... It's just a lot. Combined with health concerns.

Overall I feel like the Walton concerns are bigger and more justified. My .02