Peaks project update: #1

[freethedevil]

Second, I don't understand how people are coming to the conclusion that Jordan in his peak years (post 88) was not an elite playmaker.

They're saying he's not elite comapred to some atg's like magic and lebron. And that makes sense. Because he's not.

[ardee]

Honestly, do we really want votes of LeBron, LeBron, LeBron or Jordan, Jordan, Jordan....

[Jaivl]

#1 1991 Michael Jordan
#2 2013 LeBron James
#3 1990 Michael Jordan

Kinda obvious picks whose arguments have been repeated ad nauseam. Same archetype - close to GOAT offense while adding lots of defensive value. I could essentially swap them all and it would be all right with me.

Both Jordans are absolutely equal in my book, going with 1991 first because... I really don't know, lol (RINGS!!!). Don't know either why I put Jordan over LeBron. The margins are that small. Despite being a clearly worse playmaker, o-rebounder, worse finisher, etc, he really has that absurdly robust offense/scoring (brutal slashing + absurd finishing, maybe second only to LBJ + automatic 50% midrange shot, with an absurd elevation and the ability to create it from isolation, off-ball AND from the post - are you kidding me). You just can't take it away, under any circumstance.

2013 James over his 2009 version because 1) 40% 3pt shot 2) Overall more polished - less of a gambler on defense, improved post game 3) even more lethal in transition thanks to the added mass, plus the same speed and instincts as always.

Hell, I'm raising LeBron to #2 just to symbolize how close I think they are.

By the way, strongly considering '67 Wilt over '04 KG, '00 Shaq, '03 Duncan... as of now. He got so overrated at a point that he might actually be underrated now.

[No-more-rings]

If i had to choose 3 seasons as the best in history, i'd probably go with this honestly.

1. 1991 MJ

2. 1990 MJ

3. 2000 Shaq

I think 4th would likely be a Lebron season, he'd possibly have the next 3 actually. I know i'm not a voter and i'm alright with that, i appreciate the discussion so far and i know there will be much more to come, but for me i can already see a fair amount of bias in this first thread and i don't think that'll go away. I think that's hard to avoid with any project of voting players, i think guys will vote for their favorite players even when they know deep down that they aren't deserving yet. I would probably be guilty of that too, that's why i don't participate, plus i will admit my interest will drop significantly after like 25 or so.

[Colbinii]

Honestly, do we really want votes of LeBron, LeBron, LeBron or Jordan, Jordan, Jordan....

How else would this be fair?

[Gibson22]

If i had to choose 3 seasons as the best in history, i'd probably go with this honestly.

1. 1991 MJ

2. 1990 MJ

3. 2000 Shaq

I think 4th would likely be a Lebron season, he'd possibly have the next 3 actually. I know i'm not a voter and i'm alright with that, i appreciate the discussion so far and i know there will be much more to come, but for me i can already see a fair amount of bias in this first thread and i don't think that'll go away. I think that's hard to avoid with any project of voting players, i think guys will vote for their favorite players even when they know deep down that they aren't deserving yet. I would probably be guilty of that too, that's why i don't participate, plus i will admit my interest will drop significantly after like 25 or so.

You are a voter if you want

[ardee]

Honestly, do we really want votes of LeBron, LeBron, LeBron or Jordan, Jordan, Jordan....

How else would this be fair?

What is fair about 70% of voters thinking player A peaked higher than player B and B still making it through? That's punishing A for having a really good career with multiple great years that can be considered peaks.

Sent from my SM-G615F using RealGM mobile app

[E-Balla]

Honestly, do we really want votes of LeBron, LeBron, LeBron or Jordan, Jordan, Jordan....

How else would this be fair?

What is fair about 70% of voters thinking player A peaked higher than player B and B still making it through? That's punishing A for having a really good career with multiple great years that can be considered peaks.

Sent from my SM-G615F using RealGM mobile app

Because this is a project about determining who had the best single seasons not to determine who people think is the best player. I think that's the gap here, you're mistaken about the whole point behind the project. We want to know who had the best single season, not who people think is the best player.

I don't want my vote for 09 Lebron to count as a vote for 16 Lebron who I rank well under 09 Lebron, and this gives us a clear criteria and voting system where all votes and more importantly non votes actually count.

Doing it any other way what we end up with is people arguing player vs player not season vs season.

[euroleague]

...While I don't want to make this post too much about Russell, I will mention that the 6th best player on the Celtics was arguably better than the 3rd best on the Philadelphia Warriors....

The celtics had a -1.5 srs over games Russel didn't play. Using hof selections after a team wins 11 chips tells you nothing regarding the quality of the supporting cast. The celtics without russel were below average. The celtics with russel were one of the greatest teams ever.

The celtics didn't win on the basis of an average offence, they won because of what was by far, the greatest defence ever centered around one great defender.

The notion that russell won on the backs of a stacked team is a baseless one.

The Celtics before Russell OR Heinsohn OR Havlicek joined barely lost in the Conference Finals. Then they added the first pick in Heinsohn and Russell as a territorial pick. 2 sure-fire HoF players in already starting to enter their primes after 4 years of college (back then, rookies made impacts because they were 23 years old).

They also had elite defenders at many positions, notably Havlicek who was the better defender than Russell for the last few rings and arguably the best perimeter wing defender in the world at the time.

When you build your team most heavily featuring one player, and that player goes out for a bench warmer, all the rotations change. All the on-ball and off-ball responsibilities change. The defensive scheme changes. If a team has no time to practice and prepare for that, then of course they will not do well when their star player is replaced by a bench player just because their schemes are all built terribly for their talent.

The Celtics after Russell AND Sam Jones retired were still a very good team - and that's with 2 all-star spots going to 2 bench-warmers. When they replaced Jones and Russell, they were immediately the best team in the league, getting the second best W/L record in NBA history.... built-around Havlicek who was already past his prime - his prime years were mostly with Russell.

[Gregoire]

Very interested in votes of participants:

[quote="yoyoboy"]
[quote="DrSpaceman"]
[quote="dontcalltimeout"]
[quote="PCProductions"]
[quote="LA Bird"

They seems to be great posters...

[E-Balla]

You're correct, Mikan was the best offensive player in the league at one point, but it was pretty early even for the shot clock era. (49-51). Another way that reflects it, his rank in OWS, PPG and TS

49 - 1st OWS, 1st PPG, 3rd TS
50 - 2nd OWS, 1st PPG, 4th TS
51 - 1st OWS, 1st PPG, 5th TS
52 - 7th OWS, 2nd PPG, 18th TS
53 - 5th OWS, 2nd PPG, 12th TS
54 - 10th OWS, 4th ppg, 14th TS

By the time of his last couple years he is clearly passed by a few players on offense in my opinion. He is still one of the highest scoring players in the league but both his volume and efficiency dropped hard. Neil Johnston is now scoring more points and doing it more efficiently, and there's a fair argument Cousy is the most valuable offensive player in the league, as PGs have an advantage over Cs on offense, and he was by far and away the best playmaker.

Well that's because in 52 they widened the lane. Prior to that he was unstoppable. This is what I meant by the era adjustment, if you don't care about the fact basketball was extremely rudimentary Mikan prior to 52 was the most dominant offensive force in NBA history.

There is also an argument for Schayes due to spacing. Arizin in 52 may have been the best offensive player before going to war as well. I don't think he's clowning the league anymore by 52-54 just based on the stats. It's possible that 49-51 Mikan is the most dominant player in NBA history, but later shot clock era Mikan is bringing the combination more like Duncan, Hakeem, Robinson, KG, etc. were for their league as being surpassed by a few offensive players, but being the best player when you consider DPOY level defense in addition to strong offense.

The question therefore is that did Mikan's drop in offense from 49-51 compared to the rest of the league come because of rule changes, declining quickly athletically or injuries, or did the rest of the league just get better? Do we value Cousy, Johnston, Schayes and Arizin's peak over his on offense because they did it in the later, presumably better non shotclock era? And if the rule changes was the biggest thing that hurt Mikan starting in 52, is it fair to credit him for being the most dominant player? Kareem, Wilt, Shaq never got to play with 6 foot foul lane or else they might have broken the league.

Overall I'm a supporter of Mikan being underrated and likely an all-star in any era, but I think there's a handful of all time great Cs who I think proved themselves against harder competition

I think there's no mistaking that the rules did remove his dominance. That was the whole point of even changing the rules in the first place. I don't think that should necessarily matter though. Are the 04 Pistons not the GOAT defense because the league changed the rules to blunt them and in 05 with the same exact players they went from being a -14 defense (with Sheed) to being short of a -5 defense (and never once got back to being anywhere near -14)?

Should we put defenses that weren't anywhere near as dominant as the 04 Pistons over them just because those defenses weren't blunted by rule changes because they were too good? It's really up to you, personally I wouldn't.

Mikan's competition wasn't the issue, the rules were. If you want to take away from him because of the rules I get that, but my point was the competition argument that the league wasn't integrated and he was playing a bunch of small scrubby white dudes makes no sense when other players from his era kept playing later and kept being dominant.

That all being said Mikan is at the bottom of the GOAT level guys for me so he's going to be the 9th person I start voting for, still I think he deserves to have a shot at top 10 here even though I doubt he'll even hit the list.

[E-Balla]

...While I don't want to make this post too much about Russell, I will mention that the 6th best player on the Celtics was arguably better than the 3rd best on the Philadelphia Warriors....

The celtics had a -1.5 srs over games Russel didn't play. Using hof selections after a team wins 11 chips tells you nothing regarding the quality of the supporting cast. The celtics without russel were below average. The celtics with russel were one of the greatest teams ever.

The celtics didn't win on the basis of an average offence, they won because of what was by far, the greatest defence ever centered around one great defender.

The notion that russell won on the backs of a stacked team is a baseless one.

The Celtics before Russell OR Heinsohn OR Havlicek joined barely lost in the Conference Finals. Then they added the first pick in Heinsohn and Russell as a territorial pick. 2 sure-fire HoF players in already starting to enter their primes after 4 years of college (back then, rookies made impacts because they were 23 years old).

They also had elite defenders at many positions, notably Havlicek who was the better defender than Russell for the last few rings and arguably the best perimeter wing defender in the world at the time.

When you build your team most heavily featuring one player, and that player goes out for a bench warmer, all the rotations change. All the on-ball and off-ball responsibilities change. The defensive scheme changes. If a team has no time to practice and prepare for that, then of course they will not do well when their star player is replaced by a bench player just because their schemes are all built terribly for their talent.

The Celtics after Russell AND Sam Jones retired were still a very good team - and that's with 2 all-star spots going to 2 bench-warmers. When they replaced Jones and Russell, they were immediately the best team in the league, getting the second best W/L record in NBA history.... built-around Havlicek who was already past his prime - his prime years were mostly with Russell.

They went from a 5.35 SRS to a -1.6 SRS and a -6.4 defense to a -0.1 (their offense didn't drop at all). Boston wasn't a very good team without Bill Russell. Plus the team wasn't built around Hondo they were built around MVP Dave Cowens and Hondo didn't play his best years with Russell at all his best seasons were the seasons in between Russell's retirement and Cowens winning MVP where he had his 3 highest scoring seasons, 3 highest efficiency seasons, and 3 highest assist totals.

Russell was also no longer at his top form from 67 on, clearly falling off in the boxscore and having the team defense fall off to a large degree.

[euroleague]

The celtics had a -1.5 srs over games Russel didn't play. Using hof selections after a team wins 11 chips tells you nothing regarding the quality of the supporting cast. The celtics without russel were below average. The celtics with russel were one of the greatest teams ever.

The celtics didn't win on the basis of an average offence, they won because of what was by far, the greatest defence ever centered around one great defender.

The notion that russell won on the backs of a stacked team is a baseless one.

The Celtics before Russell OR Heinsohn OR Havlicek joined barely lost in the Conference Finals. Then they added the first pick in Heinsohn and Russell as a territorial pick. 2 sure-fire HoF players in already starting to enter their primes after 4 years of college (back then, rookies made impacts because they were 23 years old).

They also had elite defenders at many positions, notably Havlicek who was the better defender than Russell for the last few rings and arguably the best perimeter wing defender in the world at the time.

When you build your team most heavily featuring one player, and that player goes out for a bench warmer, all the rotations change. All the on-ball and off-ball responsibilities change. The defensive scheme changes. If a team has no time to practice and prepare for that, then of course they will not do well when their star player is replaced by a bench player just because their schemes are all built terribly for their talent.

The Celtics after Russell AND Sam Jones retired were still a very good team - and that's with 2 all-star spots going to 2 bench-warmers. When they replaced Jones and Russell, they were immediately the best team in the league, getting the second best W/L record in NBA history.... built-around Havlicek who was already past his prime - his prime years were mostly with Russell.

They went from a 5.35 SRS to a -1.6 SRS and a -6.4 defense to a -0.1 (their offense didn't drop at all). Boston wasn't a very good team without Bill Russell. Plus the team wasn't built around Hondo they were built around MVP Dave Cowens and Hondo didn't play his best years with Russell at all his best seasons were the seasons in between Russell's retirement and Cowens winning MVP where he had his 3 highest scoring seasons, 3 highest efficiency seasons, and 3 highest assist totals.

Russell was also no longer at his top form from 67 on, clearly falling off in the boxscore and having the team defense fall off to a large degree.

While I'm not really trying to debate other people's positions on Russell and simply establishing my position on Wilt, I do disagree with many of these points.

1. Their offense didn't drop because Russell's replacement bench-warmer was better than he was offensively. The offense actually improved greatly without Russell, just as it dropped sharply after adding Russell (although not to the same extent) - The ORTG went way up DESPITE losing Sam Jones who was an elite offensive player.

Their defense did drop - because they had no starting C, effectively. Their main Center defender, in a league heavily based around rim-protection without a 3 point line, was Hank Finkel. Dave Cowens, as a rookie, brought their DRTG back to 3rd in the league.

2. They were very good - that's a statement to be taken in context. They're very good for losing two of their best players in Bill Russell and Sam Jones. I would expect a 20 win team from a 48 win team losing it's "best player and defensive anchor" as well as it's best SG. But they only won 14 games less.

3. Havlicek wasn't only at his peak after Russell retired - he was at his peak involvement in the offense, as he got to play point and run the offense to a larger extent. He was past his athletic and defensive peak, and was already 29 years old (in those days, without modern training, minutes restrictions, or injury prevention techniques, 29 was older than it is today. Russell was only 32 in 1967).

4. Last point, on Dave Cowens - with Cowens still in his prime, when Havlicek declined the team dropped out of contention sharply. Jojo White, Silas, Cowens, etc. were all still in their primes. Just Havlicek declined, and the team could no longer compete.

Cowens, McAdoo, Jojo White, Cedrix Maxwell, and Chris Ford - that team won 29 games...although Cowens had declined a bit since his peak. Then they added Larry Bird and won 61 games, but nobody credits Cowens

Can't respond to any posts, so if you want to debate feel free but I can't answer

[Timmyyy]

How else would this be fair?

What is fair about 70% of voters thinking player A peaked higher than player B and B still making it through? That's punishing A for having a really good career with multiple great years that can be considered peaks.

Sent from my SM-G615F using RealGM mobile app

Because this is a project about determining who had the best single seasons not to determine who people think is the best player. I think that's the gap here, you're mistaken about the whole point behind the project. We want to know who had the best single season, not who people think is the best player.

I don't want my vote for 09 Lebron to count as a vote for 16 Lebron who I rank well under 09 Lebron, and this gives us a clear criteria and voting system where all votes and more importantly non votes actually count.

Doing it any other way what we end up with is people arguing player vs player not season vs season.

First I have to say that I don't know why this is still talked about. We had a thread where this was discussed and we came out of it with this method (although I have to say in my opinion we should have officially counted votes, who preferred which method, because it was a little intransparent). Coming afterwards and complaining is flat out too late.

But I also have to say that what you just said is only your point of view. This thing is called (players) peak project. You might see this as a best season thing (focus on the season). Ardee might see this as which player peaked higher (focus on who was best at his peak) and under this premise this method does indeed not make sense. Example: 30 voters all of which choose Lebron as highest peak 10 choose 09, 10 12 and 10 16, all 30 vote for 91 Jordan as 2nd highest peak and 3rd place votes are again splitted like first place votes.
The result is that all voters are in agreement that Lebron has the highest peak of all time but somehow Jordan wins and is first in the realgm highest peaks list, despite the fact that nobody thinks he has the highest peak.

Just want to say that because right now it seems everybody thinks this voting system is the holy grail when it really depends on your perspective on the project. Although I have to agree that, when you want to go with the player perspective approach the seasons shouldn't even be voted to avoid confusion.

[dontcalltimeout]

Very interested in votes of participants:

They seems to be great posters...

Appreciate the compliment, but to be totally honest I was hoping there would be more of a discussion that would eventually lead-up to the voting. The focus on voting right of the bat is not as interesting to me, personally.

[E-Balla]

What is fair about 70% of voters thinking player A peaked higher than player B and B still making it through? That's punishing A for having a really good career with multiple great years that can be considered peaks.

Sent from my SM-G615F using RealGM mobile app

Because this is a project about determining who had the best single seasons not to determine who people think is the best player. I think that's the gap here, you're mistaken about the whole point behind the project. We want to know who had the best single season, not who people think is the best player.

I don't want my vote for 09 Lebron to count as a vote for 16 Lebron who I rank well under 09 Lebron, and this gives us a clear criteria and voting system where all votes and more importantly non votes actually count.

Doing it any other way what we end up with is people arguing player vs player not season vs season.

First I have to say that I don't know why this is still talked about. We had a thread where this was discussed and we came out of it with this method (although I have to say in my opinion we should have officially counted votes, who preferred which method, because it was a little intransparent). Coming afterwards and complaining is flat out too late.

But I also have to say that what you just said is only your point of view. This thing is called (players) peak project. You might see this as a best season thing (focus on the season). Ardee might see this as which player peaked higher (focus on who was best at his peak) and under this premise this method does indeed not make sense. Example: 30 voters all of which choose Lebron as highest peak 10 choose 09, 10 12 and 10 16, all 30 vote for 91 Jordan as 2nd highest peak and 3rd place votes are again splitted like first place votes.
The result is that all voters are in agreement that Lebron has the highest peak of all time but somehow Jordan wins and is first in the realgm highest peaks list, despite the fact that nobody thinks he has the highest peak.

Just want to say that because right now it seems everybody thinks this voting system is the holy grail when it really depends on your perspective on the project. Although I have to agree that, when you want to go with the player perspective approach the seasons shouldn't even be voted to avoid confusion.

I mean we had a whole discussion where me and other posters proposed this voting system specifically to make the focus individual seasons as it gives us a simple criteria for voting (the best year, not your favorite player and we figure out the year later). Like sure it's my POV, but that's the POV we chose to go into the project having as a group and we have a voting system meant to reflect that.

If it was on player peaks the project would be completely unruly since people can vaguely define what they personally see as a peak or the peak would have to be tied to single seasons in which case we should vote on seasons and not players anyway. I mean maybe you want a peak project where we discuss players more than seasons, but that's just not realistic and trying to do that the first 2 times is why we've never been able to get to 50.

[E-Balla]

Very interested in votes of participants:

They seems to be great posters...

Appreciate the compliment, but to be totally honest I was hoping there would be more of a discussion that would eventually lead-up to the voting. The focus on voting right of the bat is not as interesting to me, personally.

Keep paying attention to the project, after the early votes discussion will open up more. The reason there's less discussion right now is that it's basically agreed on that MJ, Lebron, Wilt, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, and Shaq are the GOAT tier candidates so there's not much to argue or discuss when everyone is in agreement. There's fringe conversations on Russell and Mikan mainly because those are guys many don't see at GOAT tier so there will be conversations about them.

Once people start mentioning KG, Robinson, Russell, Mikan, West vs Oscar, Magic, Bird, etc this project will open up.

[Colbinii]

Very interested in votes of participants:

[b]

They seems to be great posters...

[Timmyyy]

Because this is a project about determining who had the best single seasons not to determine who people think is the best player. I think that's the gap here, you're mistaken about the whole point behind the project. We want to know who had the best single season, not who people think is the best player.

I don't want my vote for 09 Lebron to count as a vote for 16 Lebron who I rank well under 09 Lebron, and this gives us a clear criteria and voting system where all votes and more importantly non votes actually count.

Doing it any other way what we end up with is people arguing player vs player not season vs season.

First I have to say that I don't know why this is still talked about. We had a thread where this was discussed and we came out of it with this method (although I have to say in my opinion we should have officially counted votes, who preferred which method, because it was a little intransparent). Coming afterwards and complaining is flat out too late.

But I also have to say that what you just said is only your point of view. This thing is called (players) peak project. You might see this as a best season thing (focus on the season). Ardee might see this as which player peaked higher (focus on who was best at his peak) and under this premise this method does indeed not make sense. Example: 30 voters all of which choose Lebron as highest peak 10 choose 09, 10 12 and 10 16, all 30 vote for 91 Jordan as 2nd highest peak and 3rd place votes are again splitted like first place votes.
The result is that all voters are in agreement that Lebron has the highest peak of all time but somehow Jordan wins and is first in the realgm highest peaks list, despite the fact that nobody thinks he has the highest peak.

Just want to say that because right now it seems everybody thinks this voting system is the holy grail when it really depends on your perspective on the project. Although I have to agree that, when you want to go with the player perspective approach the seasons shouldn't even be voted to avoid confusion.

I mean we had a whole discussion where me and other posters proposed this voting system specifically to make the focus individual seasons as it gives us a simple criteria for voting (the best year, not your favorite player and we figure out the year later). Like sure it's my POV, but that's the POV we chose to go into the project having as a group and we have a voting system meant to reflect that.

That's exactly what I wrote in my first paragraph.

If it was on player peaks the project would be completely unruly since people can vaguely define what they personally see as a peak or the peak would have to be tied to single seasons in which case we should vote on seasons and not players anyway. I mean maybe you want a peak project where we discuss players more than seasons, but that's just not realistic and trying to do that the first 2 times is why we've never been able to get to 50.

I WANT nothing. I never said what I prefer. I just said it because not everybody 'voted' for that approach (even though nobody was cleary opposed) in the first place and obviously ardee was missing the 'interest and sign in thread' where it was discussed. Some posts made it seem like there is only the one true way to make a peaks project and that is not true. But true is, for this project now, after our interest thread it is this way we have to go (and if you would have read my post you would see that I never doubted that). After all we are agreeing so there is no need for discussion.

[Owly]

[
2. They were very good - that's a statement to be taken in context. They're very good for losing two of their best players in Bill Russell and Sam Jones. I would expect a 20 win team from a 48 win team losing it's "best player and defensive anchor" as well as it's best SG. But they only won 14 games less.

4. Last point, on Dave Cowens - with Cowens still in his prime, when Havlicek declined the team dropped out of contention sharply. Jojo White, Silas, Cowens, etc. were all still in their primes. Just Havlicek declined, and the team could no longer compete.

...

Can't respond to any posts, so if you want to debate feel free but I can't answer

I'm sympathetic to some of your arguments. Some pushback on other areas:

You say you would expect a 28-win drop from losing a player of Russell's notional (to others) caliber given him being "best player and defensive anchor" and Sam Jones at the same time. Two notes:
1) Their win loss drop understates the dropoff. The '69 Celtics have a 5.35 SRS and a differential that gives 55 Pythagorean wins. The Pythagorean win dropoff was thus 19 games, closer to what you would expect, if not quite there.
2) The loss of Russell would be more greatly felt in the playoffs, where [in '69] he played 3.4 additional minutes per game (only 1.9 remain for a backup). His full value might be undersold in RS team performance.

Whilst others may have undersold Havlicek's role in the best 70s Celtics teams ...
regarding '76 in particular, it might be noise of the small sample of the playoffs, and Boston weren't exactly great champs but the Celtics did win a title with a pretty pedestrian Havlicek. Then too I'm having trouble with your timeline ... which team had a prime Cowens, prime (or indeed any) Silas (departed after ''76) and "dropped out of contention sharply".

Understand if you are unable to engage with these points.