RealGM Greatest Peaks Project---List, Interest, Metathinking thread

[SactoKingsFan]

The WOWY thread:
viewtopic.php?t=1333570

[70sFan]

I have a question about Moses. How much better his defense was in 1983 than during 1979-1982? Because I'm not sure if 1983 is his clearly the best season. I need more information, because there is not much videos from his Houston days (outside of 1981 finals).

[Texas Chuck]

I've been following this and I have a quick question:

Why so much time being spent on how older players(mostly Russell) would fare in the modern game? I thought this was about one peak year so I'm confused really to the relevance here.

[ElGee]

Since I've been quoted a bunch, I thought I'd add some context by sharing a ranking I made last fall after going through some offensive and defensive peaks. Some players might have multiple years at the same peak. Jerry West's best year was 1968, but missing 40% of the season dropped his value below his 1966 season.

Another thing I did was separate offensive and defensive portability. Defensive portability is fairly consistent -- players don't run into redundancy a lot -- but offensive portability is more variable and can have a larger impact. It's also important for people to understand that your portability rating (5-point likert scale from -2 to +2) is related to your offensive SIO. This is because portability is a concept to describe how much your value carries through as you scale up onto better teams (are your returns diminishing?).

Steph Curry would definitely replace David Thompson if I updated from this year.

Thoughts on 15 Curry's offense? Given you missed out on the POY thread. Seems like you regard him quite a bit lower than a lot of us (given he's getting traction in this project already), but I recall you saying you had a tough time gauging just how valuable he could be on offense.

EDIT: And 15 Harden and Westbrook while we're at it

Are 15 Harden and Westbrook that much better than 14? To clarify on Curry, I mean he would supplant Thompson from the list (who I'd probably have below Baylor). As to where, I'm not sure. Probably top 30, but not 20. I'm still not clear on Curry.

@trex: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cFY3Qk8eLJo8_bKK0z4k8K-A3UpwQRGOCAsrSuUeQl0/edit?pli=1#gid=1743584154

Some of the years are formatted incorrectly. For instance, Nash is "2005-07," which google interprets as a date (7th month of 2005). "PWins" are pythagoreon win expectation for an 82-game season based on SRS.

[drza]

I've been following this and I have a quick question:

Why so much time being spent on how older players(mostly Russell) would fare in the modern game? I thought this was about one peak year so I'm confused really to the relevance here.

To me, it seemed that Russell was sliding down the peaks list because there was a default assumption for many of the voters that his game/impact wouldn't translate to the modern era. The criteria for the votes isn't explicit, so for many that question was enough to leave him off of ballots. So I kind of forced the issue a bit in this thread, talking a lot about his crazy athleticism and comparing him to the best modern day defenders in an effort to push back against that era-based slide. That's my answer, at least.

[Texas Chuck]

To me, it seemed that Russell was sliding down the peaks list because there was a default assumption for many of the voters that his game/impact wouldn't translate to the modern era. The criteria for the votes isn't explicit, so for many that question was enough to leave him off of ballots. So I kind of forced the issue a bit in this thread, talking a lot about his crazy athleticism and comparing him to the best modern day defenders in an effort to push back against that era-based slide. That's my answer, at least.

Thanks for the response. But the bolded is really what my question is. If a peak is a player's specific best year, shouldn't the focus of the analysis be on what actually happened in that year rather than speculation on what a player might have done in a different era? And if one is going to question Russell if he played in 2015, shouldn't one question say Lebron in 1965? We know Lebron is different from Mike or Kobe in that he likes to be loved, by his teammates, by his foes, by the media, by the fans. Could he handle the racial climate? Could he develop his PG game at his size? Could he handle the ball without out being allowed to carry it? ETc...

I don't think a peak project is really the appropriate place for those questions either direction, but if one is going to question how the old guy would do shouldn't we question the reverse? Or at least establish why the standard should be today. And then if we create a standard far different from what the player was actually able to play in, should we not adjust for this in some fashion?

Anyway its not my project and I don't put much emphasis on one year, but I have really enjoyed reading the debate. I just don't get how one can judge a single year by guessing how a player might play in a different time. I think that type of analysis is heavily frought with peril, but it at least would seem to be more valid in a career comparison as opposed to one focused on a player's singular best year.

[trex_8063]

To me, it seemed that Russell was sliding down the peaks list because there was a default assumption for many of the voters that his game/impact wouldn't translate to the modern era. The criteria for the votes isn't explicit, so for many that question was enough to leave him off of ballots. So I kind of forced the issue a bit in this thread, talking a lot about his crazy athleticism and comparing him to the best modern day defenders in an effort to push back against that era-based slide. That's my answer, at least.

Thanks for the response. But the bolded is really what my question is. If a peak is a player's specific best year, shouldn't the focus of the analysis be on what actually happened in that year

I'd mentioned this within the most recent voting thread: if we're doing nothing more than scrutinizing the level of in-era dominance, George Mikan would probably have to be declared the greatest player peak of all-time. But that doesn't seem right to me. Does that seem right to you?

The degree to which a player dominated relative to his peers depends [to a large degree] on WHO those peers were, as well as to a myriad of other circumstances (evolutionary stage of the game, rules, era-specific trends and areas of focus, utilization and fit within his team, luck, etc). As I'd said previously, we're trying to determine "How good was this player at his best?"; not "How well can he perform/dominate within a very specific set of circumstances?"
EDIT: or put another way, the question we want to answer is "Who, at his best, was the best player ever?" (and then who was 2nd-best, 3rd-best, etc). That's a decidedly different question than "Who had the most in-era dominance?"

We can't adequately evaluate the "what actually happened" without some consideration of the specific circumstances around which it happened. It's only natural, when trying to make sense of said circumstances, that they be compared to other circumstances we can relate to.

[Texas Chuck]

We can't adequately evaluate the "what actually happened" without some consideration of the specific circumstances around which it happened. It's only natural, when trying to make sense of said circumstances, that they be compared to other circumstances we can relate to.

Thanks. And that makes sense.

I guess in reading the discussion, I see mostly this idea that old guys would all be worse today and essentially the assumption that modern players would be better (or the same) in the past---since there is absolutely no discussion of the reverse. Why is the modern era the default? And if the answer is the belief that today's game is the best, okay I can accept that. But then we are judging players by a standard they can't have met because they were trying to maximize their impact under very different conditions.

If we use a time machine, well lots of modern players wouldn't be as effective. Take Lebron whose peak was very high. He wouldn't be allowed to carry the ball, he wouldn't have the benefit of being surrounded by floor spacers, he would have to deal with a very different racial and economic environment. His coach might insist he defer to the guards more in handling the ball. Whatever.

And if we don't use a time machine but try and project how a player would perform if born 40 or 50 years earlier or later well at what point do we admit its more guess work than analysis? Magic probably doesn't get to be a PG, KG is probably a center, Dirk isn't even in the league.

It really feels like there is a very strong modern era bias when discussing portability between eras where the assumption seems to be made that the modern guys would develop their modern skills in an earlier era(seems comically unlikely in most cases) while most of the older players couldn't develop skills to compete today(reasonable enough, but it seems far more likely they could adapt to today's game than players today could keep their current game if they were born 50 years ago, I mean right?)


I mean its probably mostly irrelevant now since this seems to have been a Bill Russell issue, but if the idea is to judge players on a level playing field, I'd hope there would be more discussion on how they played than what height they'd be measured at or how good a high jumper they were or were not. Both things of limited relevance to one's impact as a basketball player.

[Texas Chuck]

I'd mentioned this within the most recent voting thread: if we're doing nothing more than scrutinizing the level of in-era dominance, George Mikan would probably have to be declared the greatest player peak of all-time. But that doesn't seem right to me. Does that seem right to you?

I'd have less of a problem with that than most. But my understanding of peak is clearly different from everyone elses. Peak to me means who had the best year--and yeah relative to their peers to me is very important because its the only thing that player could actually control. For Mikan to work on mobility to defend the PNR or develop range on his shot because 60 years later that's what would be required would be counter-productive.

Going too far away from in-era performance increases the amount of speculation involved and again it only impacts the older players. The modern players don't have to deal with how people think they would perform earlier and are judging heavily using statistical methods simply not available for the older players.

[sp6r=underrated]

But my thought process is not "how much impact did player X have in his era?". My thought process is player X did (or didn't do) A B C and D to W X Y Z degree, and in his era this sums up to +5 or +7 or whatever. I'm not trying to make an "impact in their era" list.

vs

Era

Kind of throws me off. I want to stick to worrying about what players did within their era. Trying to consider them transferred across eras seems like a logistical nightmare.

These are incompatible views.

As an aside, if I could change one thing about this board it would be how impact has a twin definition now of how much a player improves a team and on/off stats.

[SideshowBob]

But my thought process is not "how much impact did player X have in his era?". My thought process is player X did (or didn't do) A B C and D to W X Y Z degree, and in his era this sums up to +5 or +7 or whatever. I'm not trying to make an "impact in their era" list.

vs

Era

Kind of throws me off. I want to stick to worrying about what players did within their era. Trying to consider them transferred across eras seems like a logistical nightmare.

These are incompatible views.

As an aside, if I could change one thing about this board it would be how impact has a twin definition now of how much a player improves a team and on/off stats.

I should've added a few words and a statement to the first quote.

I'm not trying to make an "impact on their team in their era" list.

I'm trying to make a "goodness in their era" list.

[eminence]

I think one of the more interesting things about the project is how I find my opinions changing as the project has gone on.

Guys yet to come I've had my opinions changed on: Ewing and West are the big two - two guys I had a bit lower when first looking at guys, but that I'd currently put pretty high on the lists of guys left.

Guys already voted in: Been sold on Hakeem peaking a bit higher than I originally thought, Wade as well - though that one seems odd as I seemed mostly against him, just because I have Curry even higher. Meanwhile Bird/Magic have fallen quite a bit on my list as my criteria has evolved.

In all it's been a lot of fun so far

[bastillon]

Just for the record, this is my list so far:

tier I
1. Hakeem 93
2. Jordan 92

tier II
3. Kareem 77
4. Shaq 01
5. LeBron 13

tier III
6. Russell 66
7. Walton 77
8. Bird 86
9. Garnett 03
10. Duncan 02
11. Wilt 67

tier IV
12. Dirk 11
13. Magic 87
14. Oscar 64
15. Kobe 08
16. Ewing 90

tier V
17. D-Rob 94
18. Nash 06
19. West 68
20. Karl Malone 94
players in each tier are very close to each other but I think that tiers provide a clear difference.

my primary criteria were:
-postseason performance
-impact vs top teams (I didn't really care about performance vs poor teams)
-portability
-ability to step up in big games
-ability to make impact on a strong team (lifting a poor team meant much less)
-high reliance on context of surrounding seasons

[Quotatious]

Any of you guys feel like '15 Anthony Davis got overrated in the project? I love AD, he's one of my favorite current players, but I don't think he deserved to get in at 29, over Harden or Howard, and if AD is in, I think '15 Westbrook, '14 Love and '06 Brand should've been very close behind him. McHale should've been much closer to him, too.

[trex_8063]

Any of you guys feel like '15 Anthony Davis got overrated in the project? I love AD, he's one of my favorite current players, but I don't think he deserved to get in at 29, over Harden or Howard, and if AD is in, I think '15 Westbrook, '14 Love and '06 Brand should've been very close behind him. McHale should've been much closer to him, too.

idk, I still think 29 is more or less appropriate for him. On my tentative peaks list, I have him kinda 29b to Harden's 29a. I do agree the gap between he and McHale and Brand should be smaller (personally, I have McHale's peak as #33, Brand as #39). I don't have Pettit and Lanier in my top 40 peaks at all; I also have Frazier back at #40 and Mourning at #37, and Baylor ahead of all of them at #28 (all of which closes the gap between AD and McHale/Brand).
I do still think there's a noticeable (though not huge) gap between AD and Westbrook or Love, neither of whom are currently NOT in my top 45 (though both are in my top 50).

[giordunk]

Has anyone brought up Scottie Pippen yet?

[trex_8063]

Has anyone brought up Scottie Pippen yet?

Sure. He received ballots for most of the final few threads.

In the #38 thread, he was tied for 6th in balloting with 3 pts (winner had 10, 2nd place had 8, fwiw).
In #39 thread he was again tied for 6th in balloting with 2 pts (winner had 10, 2nd had 7).
In the #40 (final) thread he was tied for 5th in balloting with 4 pts (winner had 14, 2nd had 7).


If we'd kept going, it appeared likely he'd have been voted in by #45 or #46. The top three HM's by the end (based on balloting in the final 5-6 threads) appeared to be: Penny Hardaway, Clyde Drexler, and Connie Hawkins. The next two were probably Kevin Love and Scottie Pippen.

[SideshowBob]

Are 15 Harden and Westbrook that much better than 14? To clarify on Curry, I mean he would supplant Thompson from the list (who I'd probably have below Baylor). As to where, I'm not sure. Probably top 30, but not 20. I'm still not clear on Curry

Looking back, Harden looked like he was a bit less bad on defense in 2015, but yeah, I don't think there's a significant change from 14->15.

Westbrook looked like he was more explosive/able to attack the basket, probably a bit more consistent with his jumpshot, particularly mid-range and I thought it was impressive that he was able to scale up his usage. Also better on the boards but I've heard arguments against his rebounding overall.

16 Westbrook is IMO a better shooter from all over the floor, not elite but better than any prior year. He's also improved his floor awareness and looks like a physically better passer. I think there's a notable enough improvement for him from 14 > 15 > 16, but I was generally higher on him back in 14 than the average fan/poster anyway.

25% into the season, Curry looks really impressive. Biggest shift is pretty clearly his mindset, just far more willing to scale up his shooting, mostly from outside, and he's also willing to shoot from much farther out. He's also been craftier around the basket and his touch from 3-10 feet looks smoother.

I think GSW's offensive system is really polished, but I'm really high on current Curry. I don't know if this is the GOAT offensive season, but through 20 games he's up there.

[bballexpert]

Any of you guys feel like '15 Anthony Davis got overrated in the project? I love AD, he's one of my favorite current players, but I don't think he deserved to get in at 29, over Harden or Howard, and if AD is in, I think '15 Westbrook, '14 Love and '06 Brand should've been very close behind him. McHale should've been much closer to him, too.

Looking at his season now i kinda thinking his last season was kinda fluky the other one who is really unimpressive is Cousins people were talking him up but he has been super underwhelming Durmmond i think is better then Cousins now.

[Quotatious]

Any of you guys feel like '15 Anthony Davis got overrated in the project? I love AD, he's one of my favorite current players, but I don't think he deserved to get in at 29, over Harden or Howard, and if AD is in, I think '15 Westbrook, '14 Love and '06 Brand should've been very close behind him. McHale should've been much closer to him, too.

Looking at his season now i kinda thinking his last season was kinda fluky the other one who is really unimpressive is Cousins people were talking him up but he has been super underwhelming Durmmond i think is better then Cousins now.

I don't think "fluky" is the right word to describe AD's last season. He's still an excellent player right now, it's not like he became an average player all of a sudden. He was obviously better last year, but he's still not even 23 years old, so all indications are that the current season is just kind of a "down year" for him, compared to his previous one.

I can easily see Davis peaking higher than what he looked like in the 2014-15 season. He has a lot of the little things to figure out, particularly on defense.