Peaks project update: #1

[LA Bird]

1. 91 Jordan
2. 90 Jordan
3. 09 LeBron

91 Jordan achieved individual statistical dominance in regular season plus playoffs unparalleled by anybody besides arguably 64 Wilt and 77 Kareem while going up stronger competition against either of them. Not only that, MJ also led a 8.6 SRS team to the championship with one of the most dominant playoff runs in history. If 91 Jordan had shot a little better from 3pt in RS, this would be pretty much a perfect season. 90 Jordan has the advantage of playing heavier minutes and shooting better from 3 in RS but that did not hold up in the playoffs and combined with worse per possession numbers and team performance, I would slot it slightly behind 91 Jordan.

LeBron has multiple arguable peak seasons and while I would usually side with the later, more polished, higher IQ years (13/17) in these cases, 09 LeBron's athleticism was just so dominant on both ends of the floor throughout the season that I can't really come up with an argument against it that is not heavily based around rings. 09 is LeBron's best statistical year and it was also his highest on court +/-, highest on-off net season. He came 2nd in DPOY in 09 just like in 13 but was far more deserving of that placing, with a 2.6 DRAPM and a dominant -7.7 on court rDRtg (compared to only 0.6 DRAPM and -2.6 rDRtg in 13). Even though he was less well-rounded, the end result still point to 09 being LeBron's best year.

Edit: Seems like I was too slow. Votes have already been tallied.

[Gibson22]

1. 91 Jordan
2. 90 Jordan
3. 09 LeBron

91 Jordan achieved individual statistical dominance in regular season plus playoffs unparalleled by anybody besides arguably 64 Wilt and 77 Kareem while going up stronger competition against either of them. Not only that, MJ also led a 8.6 SRS team to the championship with one of the most dominant playoff runs in history. If 91 Jordan had shot a little better from 3pt in RS, this would be pretty much a perfect season. 90 Jordan has the advantage of playing heavier minutes and shooting better from 3 in RS but that did not hold up in the playoffs and combined with worse per possession numbers and team performance, I would slot it slightly behind 91 Jordan.

LeBron has multiple arguable peak seasons and while I would usually side with the later, more polished, higher IQ years (13/17) in these cases, 09 LeBron's athleticism was just so dominant on both ends of the floor throughout the season that I can't really come up with an argument against it that is not heavily based around rings. 09 is LeBron's best statistical year and it was also his highest on court +/-, highest on-off net season. He came 2nd in DPOY in 09 just like in 13 but was far more deserving of that placing, with a 2.6 DRAPM and a dominant -7.7 on court rDRtg (compared to only 0.6 DRAPM and -2.6 rDRtg in 13). Even though he was less well-rounded, the end result still point to 09 being LeBron's best year.

Edit: Seems like I was too slow. Votes have already been tallied.

No, I will count it

[pandrade83]

I still don't love this idea of voting for multiple years of one player - but I'll vote accordingly going forward.

[trex_8063]

.

To be blunt - I don't care whether you debate me point by point. However, to make a 'rebuttal' claiming I am wrong with such obviously twisted facts that don't support me being wrong at all is slightly annoying.

1. Higher USG rate doesn't mean you are better. It means you use the ball more.

USG rate didn't exist until Hondo's LAST season, so.....
But further, usage would only pertain to scoring numbers anyway; but ppg wasn't the only thing along Hondo's statline that got better/bigger in the post-Russell era: rebounding and assists (and shooting efficiency) all got higher, too.

2. See point 1.

See rebuttal above. His rate of scoring (and thus his probably usage you've cited) really didn't change much post-Russell. What DID expand were his playing time [dramatically, and while maintaining same(ish) scoring rate] and playmaking duties. So, in fact, his overall role on the team DID expand.......unless you would contend that as these [primarily offensive] roles/factors expanded he was taking a reduced role and energy/attention on the defensive side (would have to be to the degree that his defense became average [or arguably less] to offset the rest of his role expansion, at least if one is contending he was actually a worse player in the early 70's than in the 60's [or at least not any better].......but that would totally undermine your Havlicek > Cowens rhetoric from prior posts).

3. League wide TS% went up 2% 69 to 70.

And his went up >7%; highest rTS% (that is: relative to league) of his entire career was in '70.

4. Those are mostly stats which inflate with volume. His WS/48 stats were very good his rookie and sophomore years, and his scoring was at his peak efficiency relative to league average FG% in 63 and 67. Outside of those two years, he primarily thrived at the FT line in terms of scoring.

Well, if you're going to measure "scoring efficiency" based solely on FG%, and ignore FTAr and such, then there's no point debating further.
But by a more holistic [useful] means of evaluating scoring efficiency relative to the league, he had his most efficient year in '70, his 2nd-highest efficiency in '71, 3rd-highest in '72, 5th-highest in '73, 6th-highest in '76, 7th-highest in '73, 8th-highest in '75.......'67 is the ONLY year of the 60's that cracks the top half of his career (at 4th).

[euroleague]

.

To be blunt - I don't care whether you debate me point by point. However, to make a 'rebuttal' claiming I am wrong with such obviously twisted facts that don't support me being wrong at all is slightly annoying.

1. Higher USG rate doesn't mean you are better. It means you use the ball more.

USG rate didn't exist until Hondo's LAST season, so.....
But further, usage would only pertain to scoring numbers anyway; but ppg wasn't the only thing along Hondo's statline that got better/bigger in the post-Russell era: rebounding and assists (and shooting efficiency) all got higher, too.

2. See point 1.

See rebuttal above. His rate of scoring (and thus his probably usage you've cited) really didn't change much post-Russell. What DID expand were his playing time [dramatically, and while maintaining same(ish) scoring rate] and playmaking duties. So, in fact, his overall role on the team DID expand.......unless you would contend that as these [primarily offensive] roles/factors expanded he was taking a reduced role and energy/attention on the defensive side (would have to be to the degree that his defense became average [or arguably less] to offset the rest of his role expansion, at least if one is contending he was actually a worse player in the early 70's than in the 60's [or at least not any better].......but that would totally undermine your Havlicek > Cowens rhetoric from prior posts).

3. League wide TS% went up 2% 69 to 70.

And his went up >7%; highest rTS% (that is: relative to league) of his entire career was in '70.

4. Those are mostly stats which inflate with volume. His WS/48 stats were very good his rookie and sophomore years, and his scoring was at his peak efficiency relative to league average FG% in 63 and 67. Outside of those two years, he primarily thrived at the FT line in terms of scoring.

Well, if you're going to measure "scoring efficiency" based solely on FG%, and ignore FTAr and such, then there's no point debating further.
But by a more holistic [useful] means of evaluating scoring efficiency relative to the league, he had his most efficient year in '70, his 2nd-highest efficiency in '71, 3rd-highest in '72, 5th-highest in '73, 6th-highest in '76, 7th-highest in '73, 8th-highest in '75.......'67 is the ONLY year of the 60's that cracks the top half of his career (at 4th).

1. USG rate is designed to calculate offensive USG. It’s obvious it went up, you don’t need a formal number to identify exactly how much... your argument is really pedantic here.

2. Havlicek was one of the best defenders in decades in the late 60s. He was still elite, but obviously not that elite level in the 70s. Russell was good in 67, better in 65. Both times he was the anchor. I don’t see why you contend that logic can’t work for Havlicek, unless you use special thinking that only applies to Russell

His playmaking anount increases because the ball stopped sitting in Russell’s hands. Also a big void in rebounding. More volume doesn’t mean better, it means more responsibility.

3.its honestly fractions of 1% from what I recall (can’t check now, on phone and keep getting errors on bref), and those improvements likely came via having better offensive teammates drawing attention (although those teammates were clearly worse defensively than BR). I don’t think 70 was more than .1 or .2% different than the years he was highest (I can’t check, I recall that 60s was a higher rFG than 70. I don’t think TS is the best way to measure offense, and I’ve already explained my argument)

4. You refusing to address the errors in using TS% as an offensive measure is kind of absurd. From getting fouled late game when your team is over the limit, to reaching fouls, etc... many times you get fouled as a primary ball handler in ways that have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR OFFENSIVE ABILITY.

Acting like FT rate is a more important aspect of your offensive game than eFG% is just ignorance. eFG% is what creates pressure and causes defenses to warp to defend you. FTs are converting free shots that mostly come from the other team being over the foul limit or the defender making a mistake when you are dribbling. Saying “he handled the ball more, so he got more FTs, so he’s a better scorer” is logic that’s purely ridiculous.

If you can’t even discuss the validity of TS% than the argument is indeed pointless. I criticized it in my first post, before anyone even started debating with me (I notice you said nothing about it then, but now all of a sudden it’s wrong and not even debatable). FT% matters if it’s low - but is still a net positive. Not all fouls drawn are equal, though (star player vs bench player). Prior to 1973, many fouls resulted in a FT.

You’re basically arguing his Usage rate rose, and with hit his FTr, thus he’s a better scorer and offensive player. You have the right to judge TS% as “more holistic”, but to refuse to discuss it seems close minded. I also would like to stop discussing Hondo in the number one slot - my point was to NOT discuss Russell except how it pertains to people diminishing Wilt. But all people discuss is that one sentence on Bill Russell....

[penbeast0]

So you actually don't feel that players like James Harden or Allen Iverson or Moses Malone draw fouls at a very high rate due to the type of game they are playing? I think that is as disingenuous as saying that it doesn't matter whether you are hitting 3 point shots or two point shots in terms of your scoring ability as long as they are jump shots. Those points count. TS% is an attempt to quantify points generated per shot since the NBA, for some reason unknown to me, doesn't count missed shots when you are fouled. efg% is valuable but for general discussions of scoring ability, ts% is more so because it attempts to count the ability to draw free throws which is a real and valuable scoring skill.

[euroleague]

So you actually don't feel that players like James Harden or Allen Iverson or Moses Malone draw fouls at a very high rate due to the type of game they are playing? I think that is as disingenuous as saying that it doesn't matter whether you are hitting 3 point shots or two point shots in terms of your scoring ability as long as they are jump shots. Those points count. TS% is an attempt to quantify points generated per shot since the NBA, for some reason unknown to me, doesn't count missed shots when you are fouled. efg% is valuable but for general discussions of scoring ability, ts% is more so because it attempts to count the ability to draw free throws which is a real and valuable scoring skill.

There are exceptions - I think most players don’t draw fouls, especially in the 60s.

Flopping is a very valuable skill, but with defenses being much more physical in those eras, that wasn’t often a viable strategy.

For SOME players TS% MAY show their foul drawing ability - but it’s the huge minority, as most players don’t get their FTs from fouls they’ve drawn with offensive flops, tricks, or unstoppable rebounding in good position. Fouls drawn is a very valuable skill regardless of FT%, but FTs are not always awarded and being the primary ball handler will lead to more fouls regardless of that skill in drawing fouls (which I agree is valuable for many reasons)

In my experience, most FTs come from defensive mistakes

[Jaqua92]

My top 3
Kareem 1971 1972 My all time peak year MVP 34.16.6 REB 25.4 PER best overall year i seen player have
Shaq 1990-2000 The diesel great overall year real close Kareem
Kobe 2005-2006 greatest scoring season , lead one the worst teams to playoffs. Literally carry that laker team to the playoffs playing 41m a game

2006 Bryant: 35.6 Points [45.6 PP100], +2.3 TS% Rel League Average, 38.7 USG%
2019 Harden: 36.1 Points [48.2 PP100], +5.6 TS% Rel League Average, 40.5 USG%

Sorry man, but if you are including Kobe as the "greatest scoring season" then Harden trumped it this season by every metric we have.

Harden wouldn't put up those numbers back then.

This forum is the only place (and it's a minority whether you guys like it or not) that anyone from today as better than Kobe at his peak. Advanced metrics ruin sports. Advance stats provide numbers for specific contexts. They do not paint the whole picture.

Who know the day would come when numbers are used by people (without experience in research and statistics) to determine a players skill over watching an athlete do his thing.

Kobe at his best was a better scorer and player than Harden, Kawhi, KD (this one is arguable as a scorer) ever were.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[penbeast0]

I disagree. If you look at the degree to which FTA/48 differs from year to year for most players, it's actually pretty close (a bit less variation if I remember) than efg, even in the 60s. Thus the ability to draw a foul isn't some random thing any more than the ability to hit your shots; it's a skill and one that was even more important in the era before the 3 point shot became so valuable.

Back in the 60s, half court offenses tended to be built around either post scoring or drive and create playmaking. Post offenses were all about drawing double teams to create open looks or the ability to finish through the double team and draw fouls. Drive and dish is another where you force teams to double off to block penetration, creating disruption and fouls as well as open looks as men scramble to prevent the drive. So, if you have Wilt, he's not only going to draw a lot of fouls himself by being unstoppable one on one but the holes in the defense doubling him creates create chaos and chaos draws fouls. If you have Jerry West (consistently one of the higher FTA rates in NBA history), his ability to shoot from the outside forces his man to play him tight so he can beat him off the dribble, forcing defenses to collapse and creating chaos and therefore more fouls not only on West but for his teammates. Compare to a guy like Sam Jones who also scored a lot with a good efg but didn't draw fouls and you will see one of the several reasons why the Celtics offense was so inefficient despite the many fast break opportunities created by Russell's shot blocking and rebounding. Not ripping on Jones, but AFTr or FTr is a very significant thing.

[Ballerhogger]

My top 3
Kareem 1971 1972 My all time peak year MVP 34.16.6 REB 25.4 PER best overall year i seen player have
Shaq 1990-2000 The diesel great overall year real close Kareem
Kobe 2005-2006 greatest scoring season , lead one the worst teams to playoffs. Literally carry that laker team to the playoffs playing 41m a game

2006 Bryant: 35.6 Points [45.6 PP100], +2.3 TS% Rel League Average, 38.7 USG%
2019 Harden: 36.1 Points [48.2 PP100], +5.6 TS% Rel League Average, 40.5 USG%

Sorry man, but if you are including Kobe as the "greatest scoring season" then Harden trumped it this season by every metric we have.

Harden wouldn't put up those numbers back then.

This forum is the only place (and it's a minority whether you guys like it or not) that anyone from today as better than Kobe at his peak. Advanced metrics ruin sports. Advance stats provide numbers for specific contexts. They do not paint the whole picture.



Who know the day would come when numbers are used by people (without experience in research and statistics) to determine a players skill over watching an athlete do his thing.

Kobe at his best was a better scorer and player than Harden, Kawhi, KD (this one is arguable as a scorer) ever were.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Agreed , plus harden gets a ton of points from
Free throws . His team was not as bad comparing to that lakers team

[trex_8063]

1. USG rate is designed to calculate offensive USG. It’s obvious it went up, you don’t need a formal number to identify exactly how much... your argument is really pedantic here.

I suppose it was a bit pedantic the way I worded things ("usage didn't exist then..."). And, being a stickler for accuracy, I can be perceived as pedantic in general.

However, the broader point I was driving at (which I specifically alluded to in my 2nd point above) was that his rate of scoring (and thus his usage) actually probably did NOT increase by any relevant amount in the 70's. You say "it's obvious it went up", but in fact (sorry to be pedantic) we do NOT have any evidence that is the case. His rate stayed basically the same while his MINUTES went way up. Here are his pts/100 possession estimates by year (no longer est by '74):

'63: 19.5
'64: 23.7
'65: 24.6
'66: 24.1
'67: 26.4
'68: 23.1
'69: 22.8

'70: 23.8
'71: 25.4
'72: 25.2
'73: 23.7
'74: 24.2
'75: 22.7
'76: 22.3
'77: 21.4
'78: 21.4

This is a minute and pace adjusted stat, which shows no indication of relevant increase in 70's vs 60's. And given both league-wide TS% and his personal TS% relative to that league avg both improved in the 70's sample, that presumably means he was scoring at this same(ish) rate on FEWER attempts.......which arguably implies that, if anything, his usage actually DECREASED marginally in 70's relative to 60's.

His playmaking anount increases because the ball stopped sitting in Russell’s hands. Also a big void in rebounding. More volume doesn’t mean better, it means more responsibility.

idk, perhaps you're just being a little hyperbolic in the semantic choice of words, but "sitting in Russell's hands" implies Russell was sort of ball-dominant, which could hardly be farther from the truth. Really, replacing Russell (especially late-career Russell, who was extremely low "usage") with any even league-average center could arguably be INCREASING the amount of time the ball spends in the center's hands. The majority of Russell's handling of the ball (especially late in his career) were for some of those screen hand-off assists, or otherwise looking to pass out.

I'll give you the big void in rebounding.
However, "more responsibility" more or less = "expanded role", no?


I'll leave off with the TS% discussion, as penbeast0 already elaborated on places where I think we'll differ in opinion wrt how FT's are obtained. Although I'll comment about one statement you made:

....many times you get fouled as a primary ball handler in ways that have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR OFFENSIVE ABILITY.

Functioning as primary ball-handler also indicates "expanded role", I should think. Additionally, I would disagree that that has "nothing to do with your offensive ability", as someone who doesn't have the capability of functioning as a primary ball-handler generally will not be tasked with filling that role.