Peaks Project #31

[theonlyclutch]

For those voting Penny in '96, why him over Harden?

Harden has better boxscore production (throughout the year), and Penny also had more help in the form of 52 games of prime(-ish) Shaq >>> 42 games of Howard (and not ORL Howard either)

[E-Balla]

For those voting Penny in '96, why him over Harden?

Harden has better boxscore production (throughout the year), and Penny also had more help in the form of 52 games of prime(-ish) Shaq >>> 42 games of Howard (and not ORL Howard either)

I mean yeah he had Shaq and it showed in how much better their offense was than Houston's. The Magic when Horace, Shaq, and Penny were healthy had a 10.0 SRS.

[ceiling raiser]

For those voting Penny in '96, why him over Harden?

Harden has better boxscore production (throughout the year), and Penny also had more help in the form of 52 games of prime(-ish) Shaq >>> 42 games of Howard (and not ORL Howard either)

I mean yeah he had Shaq and it showed in how much better their offense was than Houston's. The Magic when Horace, Shaq, and Penny were healthy had a 10.0 SRS.

What kind of result would you expect if Grant was healthy the entire series in 96 against Chicago? I think the Bulls still win, but probably isn't a sweep.

[theonlyclutch]

Final Ballot

1st Ballot - 2015 Harden

2nd Ballot - 2000 Alonzo

3rd Ballot - 1961 Baylor

Harden is 1st ballot, as his combination of boxscore production, team results, and impact stats makes me believe he has the most net positive impact here.

Zo is 2nd, as that season, he was an elite 2-way Big in the Dwight Howard mode,

Baylor is 3rd, looked very good that season with humongous volume, decent/good efficiency (era-adjusted), and very good rebounding.

[Clyde Frazier]

Ballot #1 - 72 Frazier

If you aren't at least considering Frazier at this point, my only guess is that you question how he'd perform in more recent eras. Outside of not having a 3PT shot, I don’t really see any issues holding him back. He’s arguably the best perimeter defender of his generation, could run an offense well, yet was far from ball dominant in his overall play. He also proved his ability to step up in the playoffs over multiple finals / championship runs.

I'd like to go with one of the championship years, but 72 was his best combo of RS and PS, so sticking with that for now. Reed didn't play in the finals, so the knicks just had no match for wilt, who put up 19.4 PPG and 23.2 RPG on 60% from the field. West was actually held to 19.8 PPG on 32.5% from the field in the series (24.8 PPG on 47.7% FG in RS)! Clyde was certainly doing work in that series on both ends of the court.

RS: 23.2 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 5.8 APG, 57.6% TS (+7.2% vs. league avg), .223 WS/48

PS: 24.3 PPG, 7 RPG, 6.1 APG, 58.6% TS, .227 WS/48

Matching / exceeding his already stellar reg season play is very impressive.

A quick note about frazier's defense: people tend to say "racking up steals doesn't mean you're a good defender", but that's typically referring to guys who gamble on D for the steal. Frazier rarely did that. He got his steals by playing the passing lanes, and uniquely knocking the ball out of the players' hands by tapping it from behind. His size at 6'4" allowed him to guard both positions, and he was quick enough to body up smaller guys and make it difficult for them.

I think he's more than deserving of a spot in this range.

https://youtu.be/TVaCNzvvNf0?t=1m1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bYpndoQOiU -- Yeah, it's an AS game, but it's from 72 specifically, and gives a nice look at him from that year

Ballot #2 - 75 Gilmore

Spoiler:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/KEN/1975.html

Excellent reg season capped off by an equally impressive championship run. By 75, the ABA was a more than legitimate pro league, and gilmore did put up similar #s for 2 seasons once he got to the NBA. I like what gilmore brought to the table offensively more than dwight and mourning, and I’d say reed is right there, too, but gilmore had a special season in 75. At the very least, deserves more of a look than he's gotten up to this point.

[E-Balla]

For those voting Penny in '96, why him over Harden?

Harden has better boxscore production (throughout the year), and Penny also had more help in the form of 52 games of prime(-ish) Shaq >>> 42 games of Howard (and not ORL Howard either)

I mean yeah he had Shaq and it showed in how much better their offense was than Houston's. The Magic when Horace, Shaq, and Penny were healthy had a 10.0 SRS.

What kind of result would you expect if Grant was healthy the entire series in 96 against Chicago? I think the Bulls still win, but probably isn't a sweep.

I think Orlando wins games 2 and 4 but lose in 6 with Chicago looking clearly better. That outscored Orlando 19 ppg in real life so Horace maybe closes that to more like 11 ppg.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #26:

James Harden - 12
Alonzo Mourning - 12
Elgin Baylor - 10
Artis Gilmore - 9
Walt Frazier - 6
Penny Hardaway - 6
Bob McAdoo - 3
Kevin McHale - 3
Grant Hill - 2
Scottie Pippen - 1
Clyde Drexler - 1

Well heck, it appears we will have to have our second run-off.
So there's no confusion: WE ARE OFFICIALLY ENTERING A 24-HOUR RUN-OFF BETWEEN JAMES HARDEN AND ALONZO MOURNING. I will change the title to reflect this.

If you already cast a ballot for one or both of them, you don't need to state your position (unless you have a change of heart). For those who DID NOT cast a ballot for either, please state who you believe peaked higher. Run-off will end Tuesday night.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Quotatious]

I'm wondering if Bob Pettit isn't getting underrated already. He was voted in at 21 in the top 100 project, and he got in because of his prime play, not some outstanding longevity (his longevity was okay, but nothing special), so he may perhaps be worth looking at, here...On the other hand, I think that Baylor probably peaked a little higher than Pettit, it's just that Pettit sustained his peak-ish level for more years than Baylor did.

[Quotatious]

1. Penny Hardaway (1996) - Led the Magic to 60 wins and the best player on the squad even over Shaq that season
2. Grant Hill (1997) - Great on both ends, triple double machine and was the scorer and playmaker for the Pistons.
3. Clyde Drexler (1992) - 2nd in MVP voting led Blazers to best record in the league and averaged 25/7/7

What turned you off of Dominique (he was your #1 ballot the last time you voted)? Not that I disagree with the change (I think all of your above three ballots peaked higher than Nique), but just curious.

Yeah, also if I recall correctly, JB voted for '75 Rick Barry a while ago (much better pick than Dominique, IMO).

[E-Balla]

I'm wondering if Bob Pettit isn't getting underrated already. He was voted in at 21 in the top 100 project, and he got in because of his prime play, not some outstanding longevity (his longevity was okay, but nothing special), so he may perhaps be worth looking at, here...On the other hand, I think that Baylor probably peaked a little higher than Pettit, it's just that Pettit sustained his peak-ish level for more years than Baylor did.

I'm not so sure about that. I mean we are still voting in MVP runner ups at this point. Is it not reasonable to say he was as that level?


For the runoff I'm taking the 2000 MVP runner up Zo. I just think he was much more well rounded than Harden and that he fit on all types of teams in plenty of roles.

[70sFan]

2000 Alonzo Mourning

Harden was great last year, but I always take dominant two-way big over scoring wing. Zo was amazing defender (one of the best ever) while being good scorer (nice midrange, solid low post skills). He's very bad passer, but overall I'd take him over Harden quite easily.
I likie that Quotatious mention Bob Petit. I'm not sure who should be next in my list - Reed or Petit. He's the most underrated player ever in my opinion - has a case even for top 15 all time. His peak is very good, he was great rebounder and very good scorer, also strong defender from what I've heard.

[trex_8063]

I'm wondering if Bob Pettit isn't getting underrated already. He was voted in at 21 in the top 100 project, and he got in because of his prime play, not some outstanding longevity (his longevity was okay, but nothing special), so he may perhaps be worth looking at, here...On the other hand, I think that Baylor probably peaked a little higher than Pettit, it's just that Pettit sustained his peak-ish level for more years than Baylor did.

I'd made a lengthy post about him previously (post #11 in the #29 thread), hoping to garner him some consideration. It's natural to have questions about how well he'd translate, though I see a lot of potential there. I think he'd be a valid candidate, and I expect I'll be giving him a ballot somewhere in the next 4-6 threads at least. I have no idea whether or not the rest of the panel will be ready for him.

I have him at #23 on my ATL, though tentatively not in my top 35 (maybe not top 40 either) for peaks. I don't necessarily feel those results contradict each other, though. For one (as you mentioned) there's his sustained greatness throughout his prime to consider (possible multiple peaks: '59 and '61 are pretty equally remarkable seasons, for instance; '57 and '63 perhaps not far behind, etc)......that sustained high level (as apposed to an outlier peak year a la McGrady) makes for considerable career value.
There are also career accomplishments which fall into consideration for an ATL (for most of us anyway).

And speaking for myself, I tend to consider era portability less within the context of my ATL then I do for a peaks project (this being a factor which potentially downgrades his rank in peaks).

[SideshowBob]

Not much to say on my absence other than an apology - I really should have just backed out given time restrictions but if its alright for me to just dip in when I can then I'll just continue to do that

For the runoff, I would vote 2000 Mourning.

00 is Zo's best combination of O+D, and I think his peak defense is nearly up there with the other post-merger greats so this is a pretty strong season.

Surprised that Harden and Davis are getting in here this early - I think they were both awesome last year (Davis more than Harden), but I don't quite have them this high and I'd take Westbrook over both of them at around the 30ish spot. I think while Harden made defensive improvements last year, he's still just "less bad" rather than good - still a negative on that end. On offense, I don't think he made any major improvement over the previous year. Yes, he carried a larger load and it's insane how much he's able to get to the line but I still see a lack of refinement in his skillset; I just don't think he's dynamic enough to separate himself from the other top offensive players of the league, and as he's the weakest defensively, I just can't have him this high up.

This is what my ballot looks like ATM (not asking for it to be counted, this is just where I stand):

Ballot

29. Westbbrook 15 +5.50 (+5.25 O/+0.25 D) (80% health brings him down a bit)

30. Mourning 00 +5.00 (+1.00 O/+4.00 D)

31. Frazier 71 +5.00 (+2.50 O/+2.50 D)

Spoiler:

32. Thurmond 67 +5.00 (+0.00 O/+5.00 D)

33. Barry 75 +5.00 (+4.50 O/+0.50 D)

34. Pippen 1995 +4.75 (+2.75 O/+2.50 D)

35. Hardaway 96 +4.50 (+5.00 O/-0.50 D)

[70sFan]

I'm wondering if Bob Pettit isn't getting underrated already. He was voted in at 21 in the top 100 project, and he got in because of his prime play, not some outstanding longevity (his longevity was okay, but nothing special), so he may perhaps be worth looking at, here...On the other hand, I think that Baylor probably peaked a little higher than Pettit, it's just that Pettit sustained his peak-ish level for more years than Baylor did.

I'd made a lengthy post about him previously (post #11 in the #29 thread), hoping to garner him some consideration. It's natural to have questions about how well he'd translate, though I see a lot of potential there. I think he'd be a valid candidate, and I expect I'll be giving him a ballot somewhere in the next 4-6 threads at least. I have no idea whether or not the rest of the panel will be ready for him.

I have him at #23 on my ATL, though tentatively not in my top 35 (maybe not top 40 either) for peaks. I don't necessarily feel those results contradict each other, though. For one (as you mentioned) there's his sustained greatness throughout his prime to consider (possible multiple peaks: '59 and '61 are pretty equally remarkable seasons, for instance; '57 and '63 perhaps not far behind, etc)......that sustained high level (as apposed to an outlier peak year a la McGrady) makes for considerable career value.
There are also career accomplishments which fall into consideration for an ATL (for most of us anyway).

And speaking for myself, I tend to consider era portability less within the context of my ATL then I do for a peaks project (this being a factor which potentially downgrades his rank in peaks).

Just read your post in #29 thread. It's amazing!! I don't know how I can miss it. Anyway, Petit NEEDS to be in top 35 in my opinion. He looks excelent on WCA video, much better than I thought some years ago. What is important to me is his quickness and
simplicity of his game. He looks so natural, but also tough at the same time. With his quickness, size and jumper I don't think he would have many problems with today game.
Do you know anything credible about his defense? I've heard that he was very good defender. If so, he is my next pick after Gilmore, if not - he would be behind Willis Reed.

[Clyde Frazier]

Runoff vote - 2000 Mourning

His elite defense gives him the edge over harden in my opinion. Still a very effective player offensively that season.

Will probably be looking at pettit for my 3rd ballot next thread.

[trex_8063]

I’d hoped to get my own take on the Howard/Mourning comparison before both were off the table, though it looks like I’m not really managing to do so. At a glance it seems appropriate that they place so closely:

As scorers.....
'11 Howard: 32.0 pts/100 poss @ 61.6% TS (+7.5% rTS) in rs
'00 Mourning: 33.5 pts/100 poss @ 59.6% TS (+7.2% rTS) in rs

So it looks basically like a wash, at least until we scrutinize the playoffs.....
'11 Howard: 34.8 pts/100 poss @ 67.7% TS (+13.5% rTS)
'00 Mourning: 32.6 pts/100 poss @ 54.2% TS (+1.9% rTS)

So I'd give Howard the small edge as the better/more reliable scorer. Though Mourning does have a more varied repertoire/skill-set (which perhaps gives you more versatility in offensive schemes/set-ups). Still, tiny edge to Howard as a scorer overall imo.

As passer/playmakers……
Neither is a particularly good passing big man, and both were a bit turnover prone.
‘00 Mourning: **2.4 ast/100 poss and 4.2 tov/100 poss. AST% 8.7, TOV% 13.1%
**Though it should probably be noted that this is a slight outlier, with the best ast:TO numbers of his entire career.
‘11 Howard: ***1.9 ast/100 poss and 5.0 tov/100 poss. AST% 6.8, TOV% 16.2.
***Though it should perhaps be noted that this is a slight outlier for him, too, though in the other direction: the worst ast:TO numbers of his career.

Still, it appears like a small edge to Mourning, especially when considering the set-up Howard had around him, which seems as though it should be somewhat ideal for a low-post oriented big to do some facilitating (similar to the set-up Hakeem had around him in the mid-90’s: a lot of floor-spacing 3pt shooters). Not a huge distinction, though, as neither is a playmaking hub.

Overall offensive grade: I’d basically call it a near-wash. If forced to decide, I side with Howard by the slightest of margins, based on him being a more reliable scorer in the post-season. Mourning’s edge as a passer probably doesn’t overcome that, as he’s still not a “good” passing big. But it’s a near-negligible margin.

Defensively.....
I give Mourning the edge; and while I wouldn’t call it a sizable edge, nor would I call it tiny. Let’s label it a “small” edge for Mourning. Simply put, he’s a significantly superior shot-blocker.

Rebounding.....
This is where the largest gap between them exists. Howard soundly trounces Mourning as a rebounder. Howard’s going for 19.7 reb/100 poss (21.8% TRB%) vs. 14.7/100 and 15.9% for Mourning. Just not the slightest bit close.

All things considered, I’d give the small (perhaps very small) edge to Howard……
Though Mourning is better defensively, peak Howard is [obviously] perfectly adequate as an elite defensive anchor. Meanwhile he appears to be the [at least marginally] more reliable scorer, and the much better rebounder.
So yeah, I think that equates to very small or small margin between their peaks overall.

The thing is, with every position so close (there’s really little difference other than preference between #25 and #30), makes me think that any notable gap at all leaves a little room for a player or two in between Howard and Mourning. In this instance, I would have prefered Harden in this run-off. He’s a better offensive player by a considerable margin, and a decent rebounder for his position, too. In ‘15 he finally managed to make himself a near-neutral defender, as well. And at any rate, it’s hard to imagine the consensus here faulting his defensive short-comings overly much, given he’s a perimeter player (defensive weaknesses are easier to hide, strengths create less impact, etc......these were the same basic arguments put forth in the recent Drexler vs. Pippen thread: Pippen the better defender, and by a larger margin than by which Drexler is the better offensive player…..and yet Drexler’s soundly beat him in the polls).

Anyway, calling it for Mourning. Will have #32 up shortly…..