#20 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[trex_8063]

.

And people seem to have a bit of a misunderstanding about how integrated the league was in Mikan's days, there were obviously still massive differences, but as far as I'm aware the only season Mikan played in a completely segregated league was the '49 BAA.

But the quoted text you provided wasn't in reference to his professional years (and thus the league is not the peer-group he was being [very favourably] compared to). It was in reference to his DePaul years in the early-mid 40's.

Also, 1-2 black players out of anywhere from ~96 to 190 total players (depending on the year) is basically segregated. It's splittin' hairs to say otherwise.
But at any rate, that comment was in response to statements made about his DePaul years (which likely was nearly 100% segregated).

[penbeast0]

Although it's often overstated [hyperbolic "a league of midgets" type statements] that he played against smaller centers, it does need to be acknowledged here that the peers he was bullying were indeed smaller [on average] than the peers Moses or Shaq were bullying. There weren't as many [any??] 7-footers about, and most of those who were close were rails. Note for instance the guys near him in rpg in the years you mention:
*In '51 he's [a somewhat distant] 2nd in the league in rebounding to Dolph Schayes (who I've alternately seen listed as 6'7" or 6'8", and anywhere from 195-220 lbs; the latter/larger numbers are currently what is listed on bbref, and look more consistent with reality to my eye, at least with later career Schayes).
**In '52 he's just +0.2 rpg to Larry Foust (6'9", 215 lbs) and Mel Hutchins (listed 6'6" and 200 lbs), and just +0.79 rpg to Arnie Risen, who was 6'9" but at a rail-thin 200 lbs listed.
***In '53, Neil Johnston (6'8", 210 lbs) is within a half a rpg of him.
****In '54 he finishes 2nd to the 6'6", 210 lb Harry Gallatin (although that is by way of higher mpg; Mikan did avg more per 36 minutes, but only by 1 rebound).

All that said, I don't necessarily disagree that Mikan is likely to be stronger than Marc Gasol. Mikan has impressive size and strength for an era that even actively DIScouraged weight training for basketball players.

I don't see him learning Gasol's outside game if he's truly dominant growing up in the USA rather than Europe.

I don't either, although he may adapt (a la Brook Lopez, etc).

So more a rich man's Vucevic type than a Gasol type I would say but with stronger defense.

Yeah, Vucevic is perhaps a better offensive comparison. I went with Gasol because [as you agree] I think his defense would be better than Vucevic (although [total sidebar comment] I think Vuce is a little underrated on that side of the ball).

OF course, I don't think Moses would be anywhere near the player he was in his prime playing in today's league either, or pretty much any great offensive post scorer in history, even a Wilt or Shaq would be utilized far less as coaches played a 4 out with them like Orlando Dwight Howard. The league has changed too much.

To be clear, when I said "modern(ish)" I wasn't only referring to the last few years; I was more referring to roughly the 21st century thus far ("born circa-1980"), although really anything roughly 1990's and after is "modern(ish)" to me.

I just don't think it's relevant to a question of greatest peaks. Curry wouldn't have a top peak in a pre 3 point era either . . . so what. It's about the dominance in era with an adjustment for era strength. The question is how massive the adjustment has to be for Mikan's segregated, baseball (and maybe football) dominated era.

I don't tend to use too much era portability considerations when ranking careers in general; I mostly just consider the overall strength of that era. I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why, but era portability (are you merely a product of your era? type questions) become more important to me in peaks projects.
And I totally agree wrt Curry. If not for that consideration, I think he has a reasonable top 10 case for peak. With that consideration in mind, though, I can't see arguing him any higher than maybe about 13th (probably a fringe top-15(ish) to me, with arguments existing to push him out around 20).

(a) Marc Gasol is one of the weaker rebounding centers in the league, Mikan was either 1st or 2nd in all the years we have records of and those are after his peak scoring years. He was also known for his strength when he played (though not to the extent of a Wilt/Artis/Shaq).
(b) Add 1 to 2 inches to each of those heights for measuring in bare feet instead of in shoes which started around the early 70s. The listed weights are also the college weights since the NBA didn't measure them itself, so most of those guys played a lot bigger than you list. The other key is that they didn't do weight room work or use PEDs, so comparing them to guys for whom those are the standard is going to give you false comps.
(c) I think the era portability question should be LESS important with peaks if anything. Primes/careers extent across multiple years and the leagues change, thus at least some small issues of era portability apply to everyone, far more to people who extended across periods of great change (like 56-59 or the modern era of building teams around 3 point shooting). A single peak year should have little change and era portability shouldn't be a consideration at all. Think about why you are using era portability more in a peaks than a career project. I'd like to hear a rationale for it; I might change my thinking.

[penbeast0]

I mostly agree with you. I find it incredibly unlikely the Russell or Mikan would be the best 3 point shooters ever, but I also think you underestimate the effect of practice.

Russell might become a 3 and D center, he moved out to the high post and he wasn't that successful with his scoring past his first 5 years. That and he was a student of the game. On the flip side, he was a poor FT shooter; just like with Chris Webber, it makes it unlikely he would become all that good.

The issue with Mikan is that (unlike Russell) he was a great scorer from the post. The better you are, the less likely you are to seek to change things up. Not that it can't happen; Embidd and Vucevic both shoot 3's to some degree and Brook Lopez was always a scorer (and not much else) even before he learned to shoot the 3 (and improved his defense).

[DatAsh]

I mostly agree with you. I find it incredibly unlikely the Russell or Mikan would be the best 3 point shooters ever, but I also think you underestimate the effect of practice.

Russell might become a 3 and D center, he moved out to the high post and he wasn't that successful with his scoring past his first 5 years. That and he was a student of the game. On the flip side, he was a poor FT shooter; just like with Chris Webber, it makes it unlikely he would become all that good.

The issue with Mikan is that (unlike Russell) he was a great scorer from the post. The better you are, the less likely you are to seek to change things up. Not that it can't happen; Embidd and Vucevic both shoot 3's to some degree and Brook Lopez was always a scorer (and not much else) even before he learned to shoot the 3 (and improved his defense).

Agree to disagree. You're looking at this through the lens of what you've seen, which biases you. Mikan born in 1924 was a great post player; Mikan born in 1990 might be a horrible post player. We just don't know, which is why I find it meaningless to try.

[penbeast0]

Agree to disagree. You're looking at this through the lens of what you've seen, which biases you. Mikan born in 1924 was a great post player; Mikan born in 1990 might be a horrible post player. We just don't know, which is why I find it meaningless to try.

Again, you can only make judgements by looking at what they did. Mikan was appreciably better than any other center (and any other player) of his era. Now, his era was appreciably weaker due to segregation, a lack of world talent, and basketball not yet being close to baseball and football in popularity . . . though the popularity issue is a lot less of an issue for big men than for smaller athletes since there is a natural push to any really ridiculously tall person to at least consider basketball. But you look at what he did well in his era and project unless he did it all with ridiculous athleticism, which I don't think is the case (other than size/strength). It's far from perfect but it's the best estimate we have.

[DatAsh]

Agree to disagree. You're looking at this through the lens of what you've seen, which biases you. Mikan born in 1924 was a great post player; Mikan born in 1990 might be a horrible post player. We just don't know, which is why I find it meaningless to try.

Again, you can only make judgements by looking at what they did. Mikan was appreciably better than any other center (and any other player) of his era. Now, his era was appreciably weaker due to segregation, a lack of world talent, and basketball not yet being close to baseball and football in popularity . . . though the popularity issue is a lot less of an issue for big men than for smaller athletes since there is a natural push to any really ridiculously tall person to at least consider basketball. But you look at what he did well in his era and project unless he did it all with ridiculous athleticism, which I don't think is the case (other than size/strength). It's far from perfect but it's the best estimate we have.

I guess I just see no reason to try and project at all. The only projection you can make is based on what you saw, which is 100% wrong, so why even try?

[penbeast0]

I guess I just see no reason to try and project at all. The only projection you can make is based on what you saw, which is 100% wrong, so why even try?

Fair enough; I don't see any reason to project for this list either. Players played in the environment of their day and if it favored a certain type of game, then that type will be more dominant. No reason to project forward to today or backward to then; too uncertain and speculative. Just dominance in their own day discounted for the strength of their era.

[eminence]

.

And people seem to have a bit of a misunderstanding about how integrated the league was in Mikan's days, there were obviously still massive differences, but as far as I'm aware the only season Mikan played in a completely segregated league was the '49 BAA.

But the quoted text you provided wasn't in reference to his professional years (and thus the league is not the peer-group he was being [very favourably] compared to). It was in reference to his DePaul years in the early-mid 40's.

Also, 1-2 black players out of anywhere from ~96 to 190 total players (depending on the year) is basically segregated. It's splittin' hairs to say otherwise.
But at any rate, that comment was in response to statements made about his DePaul years (which likely was nearly 100% segregated).

When a guy says human-being I'm going to assume they're considering all levels of play. Your segregation point is very true. Anywho, I still think you're way way off with your Gasol athleticism comp (Gasol is slow and always has been, Mikan was absolutely not slow before the broken feet and ankles). Oddly enough the majority of the Mikan highlights around are from that '52 Pistons game where he went up against a front line larger than most today in Share/Otten/Foust.

And a slick pass from Mikan most may not have seen before (doesn't seem to be in most of his highlight mixes)

Watch on YouTube

[liamliam1234]

So I was revisiting Kidd’s offence and defence, and, uh, exactly how much defensive credit are we giving him here? Because from what I can tell, his presence seemed to correlate a lot more strongly with good defences than with good offences. To the point that if I were to apply that data to a centre, they would be receiving a lot of praise for being a (likely) defensive anchor. But are we actually saying he had defensive impact equivalent to a good centre? Because that seems to be his case against Nash, and to me that seems patently ridiculous. The offensive gap is a lot larger than people seem to be assuming, so he kind-of needs that centre-level defensive impact just to keep up, which at least we should be able to acknowledge is rather improbable and much more likely a matter of imperfect correlation than direct causation.

[Mavericksfan]

So I was revisiting Kidd’s offence and defence, and, uh, exactly how much defensive credit are we giving him here? Because from what I can tell, his presence seemed to correlate a lot more strongly with good defences than with good offences. To the point that if I were to apply that data to a centre, they would be receiving a lot of praise for being a (likely) defensive anchor. But are we actually saying he had defensive impact equivalent to a good centre? Because that seems to be his case against Nash, and to me that seems patently ridiculous. The offensive gap is a lot larger than people seem to be assuming, so he kind-of needs that centre-level defensive impact just to keep up, which at least we should be able to acknowledge is rather improbable and much more likely a matter of imperfect correlation than direct causation.

Does he?

If Nash is a negative on D(Around -1-2) and around +5ish on offense Kidd would need aroud 3 on offense and 2 on defense to be comparable.

[AdagioPace]

So I was revisiting Kidd’s offence and defence, and, uh, exactly how much defensive credit are we giving him here? Because from what I can tell, his presence seemed to correlate a lot more strongly with good defences than with good offences. To the point that if I were to apply that data to a centre, they would be receiving a lot of praise for being a (likely) defensive anchor. But are we actually saying he had defensive impact equivalent to a good centre? Because that seems to be his case against Nash, and to me that seems patently ridiculous. The offensive gap is a lot larger than people seem to be assuming, so he kind-of needs that centre-level defensive impact just to keep up, which at least we should be able to acknowledge is rather improbable and much more likely a matter of imperfect correlation than direct causation.

Does he?

If Nash is a negative on D(Around -1-2) and around +5ish on offense Kidd would need aroud 3 on offense and 2 on defense to be comparable.

I think Nash is way more than a 5 if we use this rapm-mimick scale. A player who recorded the all-time best offensive score.

[No-more-rings]

So I was revisiting Kidd’s offence and defence, and, uh, exactly how much defensive credit are we giving him here? Because from what I can tell, his presence seemed to correlate a lot more strongly with good defences than with good offences. To the point that if I were to apply that data to a centre, they would be receiving a lot of praise for being a (likely) defensive anchor. But are we actually saying he had defensive impact equivalent to a good centre? Because that seems to be his case against Nash, and to me that seems patently ridiculous. The offensive gap is a lot larger than people seem to be assuming, so he kind-of needs that centre-level defensive impact just to keep up, which at least we should be able to acknowledge is rather improbable and much more likely a matter of imperfect correlation than direct causation.

Does he?

If Nash is a negative on D(Around -1-2) and around +5ish on offense Kidd would need aroud 3 on offense and 2 on defense to be comparable.

That’s only if you think offense and defense have equal value, I don’t think it’s even close to being equal for point guards. Maybe for centers it’s like 50/50 or 60/40, but point guards i’d say it’s like 80/20 in favor of offense.

[Mavericksfan]

So I was revisiting Kidd’s offence and defence, and, uh, exactly how much defensive credit are we giving him here? Because from what I can tell, his presence seemed to correlate a lot more strongly with good defences than with good offences. To the point that if I were to apply that data to a centre, they would be receiving a lot of praise for being a (likely) defensive anchor. But are we actually saying he had defensive impact equivalent to a good centre? Because that seems to be his case against Nash, and to me that seems patently ridiculous. The offensive gap is a lot larger than people seem to be assuming, so he kind-of needs that centre-level defensive impact just to keep up, which at least we should be able to acknowledge is rather improbable and much more likely a matter of imperfect correlation than direct causation.

Does he?

If Nash is a negative on D(Around -1-2) and around +5ish on offense Kidd would need aroud 3 on offense and 2 on defense to be comparable.

I think Nash is way more than a 5 if we use this rapm-mimick scale. A player who recorded the all-time best offensive score.

I have no clue what the most reliable sites are for RAPM but this had Kidd as around a 5 total in 05

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2005-rapm

Highest I could find for Nash is around 6 total (whopping +7.9on offense)

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2007-rapm

Still favors Nash but Kidd being around a 5 total opens the discussion imo.

[No-more-rings]

Since someone mentioned Barkley I believe it was either this thread or last one, i feel like he’s still probably 5-6 players away after Kobe and Ewing for me, maybe more.

I’m most likely taking these players all ahead:

Tmac
Moses
Harden
KD
Westbrook
Cp3
Kawhi

Idk..he’s someone with nice box scores, but i’m not really sure that his impact quite matches it. I also believe whatever impact data there is for that time pretty much confirms it.

[Odinn21]

Since someone mentioned Barkley I believe it was either this thread or last one, i feel like he’s still probably 5-6 players away after Kobe and Ewing for me, maybe more.

I’m most likely taking these players all ahead:

Tmac
Moses
Harden
KD
Westbrook
Cp3
Kawhi

Idk..he’s someone with nice box scores, but i’m not really sure that his impact quite matches it. I also believe whatever impact data there is for that time pretty much confirms it.

viewtopic.php?t=1344019
I feel like you’re are just biased against the guy.

Also, I feel like people contributing to this project got way too obsessed with advanced and impact metrics. These players are not some mathematical beings.
At the time one could always tell ‘this player’s impacting the game more than his stats’. Dirk for example. He could get 24/8/3 which is not the greatest statline. But we would know he was the center piece of the victory. A proper eye test was good enough most of the time for this. RAPM came along and it said what we already knew. Eye test can be misleading, for sure. But all these formula based statistical approach degraded what players have been doing on the court and how good they are. It has to be combination of the both.

Westbrook over Barkley?.. That’s way too much.

- - -

This is another thing. About Nash vs. Kidd;
Kidd was the best defender on a top 4 drtg team 6 times. On a top 8 drtg team 9 times. Aside from being the best defender and he was the anchor of that defense in most of them. Why are we punishing a guy for being defensive force at PG position?
This is like saying (to some extent, not entirely) Hakeem is better than Kareem because Hakeem was the better defender and defense is more valuable at C position. What matters is overall impact and what happened, how it happened.
Should we be punishing Frazier for how he affected the ‘70s Knicks?..

[cecilthesheep]

Westbrook over Barkley?.. That’s way too much.

- - -

This is another thing. About Nash vs. Kidd;
Kidd was the best defender on a top 4 drtg team 6 times. On a top 8 drtg team 9 times. Aside from being the best defender and he was the anchor of that defense in most of them. Why are we punishing a guy for being defensive force at PG position?
This is like saying (to some extent, not entirely) Hakeem is better than Kareem because Hakeem was the better defender and defense is more valuable at C position. What matters is overall impact and what happened, how it happened.
Should we be punishing Frazier for how he affected the ‘70s Knicks?..

Agreed that Westbrook over Barkley is a bit much, especially based on the idea that Barkley's stat lines overrate him - Westbrook is the definition of that.

As far as Kidd, has it been established that he was the most impactful defender, the reason those defenses were so good? I don't think it has. Point guard defense is, usually, just not as important as other positions. I might be swayed by a more detailed assessment of how Kidd impacted those defenses and why he was the anchor despite his position. So far I've just heard a lot of people saying he was really good at defense.

[tone wone]

2003 Kobe
2019 Harden
2015 Paul

[cecilthesheep]

2003 Kobe
2019 Harden
2015 Paul

this isn't going to count unless you explain why

[cecilthesheep]

Will we have rebuttals?
I think most of us have disagreements with the outcome (that’s also on dipped participation).

This list has gotten very strange for me.
If we’d phrase the question as ‘1995 Robinson vs. 1983 Moses’ or ‘2011 Dirk vs. 1993 Chuck’, I think the answers should be the ones those not are on the list currently. And those are direct positional comparisons.

I definitely disagree with both of these. Close, but we all thought about these questions, we just have different opinions - it's not that we never looked at it this way.

Well, Chuck vs. Dirk might be more controversial but after all the provided evidence how can anyone say Admiral at his best is better than Moses at his best.
Robinson got in there before Moses cause of love towards advanced and impact metrics. Not because he was actually better.

or because most of us think advanced metrics provide information about who was better ... the fact is reasonable people can disagree on this. Read through the voting threads to see how we can say it

[No-more-rings]

Since someone mentioned Barkley I believe it was either this thread or last one, i feel like he’s still probably 5-6 players away after Kobe and Ewing for me, maybe more.

I’m most likely taking these players all ahead:

Tmac
Moses
Harden
KD
Westbrook
Cp3
Kawhi

Idk..he’s someone with nice box scores, but i’m not really sure that his impact quite matches it. I also believe whatever impact data there is for that time pretty much confirms it.

viewtopic.php?t=1344019
I feel like you’re are just biased against the guy.

Also, I feel like people contributing to this project got way too obsessed with advanced and impact metrics. These players are not some mathematical beings.
At the time one could always tell ‘this player’s impacting the game more than his stats’. Dirk for example. He could get 24/8/3 which is not the greatest statline. But we would know he was the center piece of the victory. A proper eye test was good enough most of the time for this. RAPM came along and it said what we already knew. Eye test can be misleading, for sure. But all these formula based statistical approach degraded what players have been doing on the court and how good they are. It has to be combination of the both.

Westbrook over Barkley?.. That’s way too much.

- - -

This is another thing. About Nash vs. Kidd;
Kidd was the best defender on a top 4 drtg team 6 times. On a top 8 drtg team 9 times. Aside from being the best defender and he was the anchor of that defense in most of them. Why are we punishing a guy for being defensive force at PG position?
This is like saying (to some extent, not entirely) Hakeem is better than Kareem because Hakeem was the better defender and defense is more valuable at C position. What matters is overall impact and what happened, how it happened.
Should we be punishing Frazier for how he affected the ‘70s Knicks?..

So me not being as high on a player as you makes me biased? Okay then..

As for the link given, that’s interesting stuff and all but I don’t really know how much i can take raw on/off at face value and how accurate the numbers even are to begin with.

How is a guy that up a 30 point triple double, on decent efficiency and a record in BPM over Barkley not believable? I mean Westbrook ain’t as good as his numbers either, but he seems comparable to Barkley to me, likely better.

I do agree that some put too much faith into +/-, RAPM etc, some seem to use or ignore depending if it fits their argument. The eye test of course matters, because if it didn’t there’d be no point in watching the games.

Not sure what to make of your last point..if you wanna bring up the defenses Kidd was on, how do you ignore Nash’s year after year team offensive dominance?