Peaks project update: #10

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#41 » by pandrade83 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:01 pm

E-Balla wrote:Good conversation here with a few things I want to say:

pandrade83 wrote:I wouldnt argue he played well in the 16 finals - but I’d say he was “fine”. Not the destroyer of worlds that he was but he still wasn’t a disaster as revisionist history has warped this into. Yes, the box was down but not BAD. They nearly won, they lost draymond for a game, Barnes took a massive dump all over the bed and klay was “meh”.

But that series was epic and was a virtual tie and i dont see that happening if Steph was BAD.

Well you vastly underestimate the rest of the Warriors then (which possibly explains why you're ranking him so highly).

Offensively Curry was definitely above average. Add in his bad defense and he was below average in that series or average at best. Replace him with a mid tier PG like Teague, Hill, Dragic, or Bledsoe and they'd probably play better than Curry did in that series and good enough for a win.

Steph shot extremely well in that series. Outside of that he was terrible (not just bad, but terrible). Turning over the ball constantly, fouling constantly on defense because he was getting picked on by the Cavs offense, blowing layups... He just wasn't good, and it's not only reflected in his pretty average PER and GmSc in that series but also in his pretty bad +/- in that series. The boxscore wasn't terrible (if you keep it to the basic slashline, ignoring turnovers) and that's really his only saving grace because he probably played as bad as if not worse than LeBron in 2011 but the difference is LeBron's greatness kind of overshadowed exactly how terrible Steph was.

For an easy example you can go look at those 5 plays I got from game 7. In such a close game mistakes like that are directly losing the game for your team. Not getting back on defense because you want a ghost call, having very dumb turnovers and letting Kyrie get out in transition up against guys he's always gonna make the layup on, letting Richard Jefferson take your cookies because you wanted to get flashy instead of protecting the ball... I can keep going but if you rewatch those games watching Curry more than you're watching Kyrie and LeBron (because it's hard to ignore LeBron having some of the best plays ever and Kyrie giving him a performance most dream their #2 could have) you'd notice exactly how bad he was at times in those games.

Mavericksfan wrote:Durant averaged 30 on 54% TS

I dont think there anyway to argue Durant was better

Btw such a small sample size for raw +/- doesnt tell us anything. Way too noisy

So you're right that his usage of those numbers wasn't really good. I also think he's vastly overestimating how KD played. That said Westbrook and KD still clearly outplayed Curry. I don't see that as too big a deal personally but that's because I rank 2016 Curry around where I rank 2013 KD and 2017 Westbrook. If I thought Curry was top 10ish all time level, getting outplayed like that by 2 players in one series, then getting outplayed by 3 players in the next series would be unacceptable.

At a certain point it comes down to one thing, do you value Curry's legitimate GOAT tier regular seasons or think his true level of play is more like his postseasons, which are great, but nowhere near top tier and neck and neck with guys in that 20-30 range. Some people like to take an average of both, which is why they're putting Curry here around 10, but that's kind of saying the regular season matters more than the postseason. Personally I see the regular season as a show of their play in low pressure situations but you can't win a ring only being low pressure and the regular season is only a prelude to the postseason. If you're consistently playing worse in the postseason it's a sign you have fundamental flaws in your game and I think that's an important thing when we're discussing an EXTREMELY one dimensional player like Curry.


Giving this the time I have:

On the okc series:

-kd destroyed draymond
-klay was not good outside of game 6.
-Steph is 28/6/6 on high efficiency
-gsw wins and somehow Steph is 3rd best in the series? The logic here doesn’t hold.


On the Cavs series:

Saying you could replace Steph with Jeff Teague or Eric Bledsoe and gsw wins means we are VERY far apart here. Steph makes klay and draymond better and the threat of him and the defensive attention he commands is not something that Jeff Teague could come close to replicating - all due respect to Jeff Teague. I think this underestimated stephs gravity and how an opponent game plans around him (especially without Durant).

On Steph playoffs in general:

From 15 forward he has:
27/6/6 62% ts, vorp north of 8, raw +/- of +8.6 on a loaded team (klay is negative, fwiw).

I do NOT see this as a guy who struggles in the playoffs. Yes, he’s struggled at times and yes he’s combatted injuries but by and large he is getting underrated.

This was cobbled together on my phone with not great internet access.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,828
And1: 25,122
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#42 » by E-Balla » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:39 pm

pandrade83 wrote:Giving this the time I have:

On the okc series:

-kd destroyed draymond

Draymond's offense isn't why he's a valuable player though. His defense was still amazing and he was still very good in that series.

-klay was not good outside of game 6.

Game 1: 25/9/4 on 25 shots, 0 FTs
Games 4-5: 26.5/5.0/1.5 on 60 TS%

Add in game 6 and Klay had a very good series. He showed up 4 games, disappeared in 3, but played good defense and his impact has always outpaced his boxscore production.

-Steph is 28/6/6 on high efficiency

Cool, KD put up 30/8/3 with 3.5 steals and blocks a game on mediocre efficiency against the arguable 2nd best defense in the league. Westbrook put up 27/7/11 with 3.7 steals a game on mediocre efficiency.

-gsw wins and somehow Steph is 3rd best in the series? The logic here doesn’t hold.

Sure if you ignore guys like Iguodala and most importantly Dion Waiters (who played more minutes than anyone outside of Serge, KD, and Russ while averaging 7/3/3 on 42 TS%) and Steven Adams (who wasn't terrible but got murdered by Golden State's small lineups since Golden State rarely played Festus and Bogut in the series). Steph doesn't have to be better than Westbrook and KD to beat those extremely flawed Thunder teams, he just needs his teammates to play great defense and hit shots.


On the Cavs series:

Saying you could replace Steph with Jeff Teague or Eric Bledsoe and gsw wins means we are VERY far apart here. Steph makes klay and draymond better and the threat of him and the defensive attention he commands is not something that Jeff Teague could come close to replicating - all due respect to Jeff Teague. I think this underestimated stephs gravity and how an opponent game plans around him (especially without Durant).

If Steph's gravity was so major in helping them perform he wouldn't have had bad +/- numbers would he? Gravity and making the defense key in on you is cool, what's better is not coughing up the ball every few minutes, playing defense, and running the offense well. Honestly his gravity is the only thing making his performance above average. He was extremely inefficient (only Barnes had a lower ORTG among high minute players), and in real time watching the games Livingston was clearly outperforming him. I remember after the first 3 games people were saying Livingston should be Finals MVP because that offense seemed to come and go with him. Steph in game 1 had 11 points, 6 assists, 5 turnovers, 15 shots, a -1 +/- and they still blew out the Cavs because of Livingston. It's like you're describing a theory of what might happen/might've happened and ignoring what we saw on the floor. If Livingston made that offense run that much better while playing good, those other guys that play at that level regularly would've probably outplayed Steph too.

On Steph playoffs in general:

From 15 forward he has:
27/6/6 62% ts, vorp north of 8, raw +/- of +8.6 on a loaded team (klay is negative, fwiw).

I do NOT see this as a guy who struggles in the playoffs. Yes, he’s struggled at times and yes he’s combatted injuries but by and large he is getting underrated.

This was cobbled together on my phone with not great internet access.

Because you're not comparing that to his regular seasons. Curry's regular seasons are legitimately LeBron, Jordan, Shaq, etc. level. His postseasons are KD, Malone, Westbrook level. That's a huge drop and enough of a drop for me to believe his true level of play is KD, Malone, Westbrook level.
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#43 » by pandrade83 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:11 pm

E-Balla wrote:


So a couple thoughts that tie more to the big picture:

1. Your Jeff Teague and Westbrook comments make me think we’re quite far apart on how we feel about Steph. I don’t yet have him inside my top 20 and I know some others do so it’s hard to say that I’m really bullish on Steph. I dont feel we will change each other’s mind on stephs playoff performance given those statements. My first statement in this section is why I didnt Address your prior post directly.

2. I “think” the difference might be in how we value efficiency - particularly if you think Westbrook is a comparable playoff performer.

3. I have Steph inside my top 25 but not too 20. Given that his longevity vs that tier of player is really poor, a peak ranking of around 12-15 is about right - unless you’re of the opinion that ranking is way too high to begin with.

4. Once magic gets in, there are no unassailable candidates. Everyone else sorta falls into a couple categories:

-goat level rs but faltered in a key series (Steph, Robinson come to mind,)

-had blah regular seasons (by standards of this project) but stepped up in the playoffs to anchor teams to championships (kawhi, dirk, Walton)

-had superb but not goat rs that gives them a case for best player in the league while leading the best or near best rs team and while they didn’t have a BAD playoffs, their team didn’t get it done for various reasons (Barkley, Malone, Durant, harden, Giannis, Oscar, kg)

-had stellar regular seasons burdened with blah teams but had a big part in leading their squad to a memorable upset or at the very least memorable series (Ewing, West, Davis, Moses,depending on year, Kobe depending on year, mcadoo)


-clear cut best player on 65 win title team; but team won because of the overall strength of team (Moses depending on year, Kobe depending on year)

Almost everyone left falls into one of those broad archetypes and you have to decide which one you can deal with the most and whose warts bother you the least.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,828
And1: 25,122
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#44 » by E-Balla » Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:37 pm

pandrade83 wrote:
So a couple thoughts that tie more to the big picture:

1. Your Jeff Teague and Westbrook comments make me think we’re quite far apart on how we feel about Steph. I don’t yet have him inside my top 20 and I know some others do so it’s hard to say that I’m really bullish on Steph. I dont feel we will change each other’s mind on stephs playoff performance given those statements. My first statement in this section is why I didnt Address your prior post directly.

We are, that's why we're having this conversation. I'm trying to see exactly why you'd say his impact was so large when his performance was so mediocre by both eye test and all available statistics in the 16 Finals.

I also hate the italicized part here because I would 100% change my opinion if presented with a solid argument. I'm not going to change my mind if you just mention his gravity and the impact that has with no numbers, analysis into why the team seemed to do just fine with Livingston in his place, or analyzing his defensive impact in that series (which was undeniably negative, I think we can all agree there). Maybe you won't change your mind, in that case hopefully someone else gets something from these arguments I'm making, but I rarely post here on topics I haven't thought a ton about mainly because I'm looking to hear new opinions and figure things out. It's most of the fun of committing to projects like this, I never had Kareem or Russell in my top 3 before I started entering these sort of discussions.

2. I “think” the difference might be in how we value efficiency - particularly if you think Westbrook is a comparable playoff performer.

I mean I don't value efficiency at all unless we're talking the efficiency of the team's offense. I value whatever helps the team win. If that's drawing tons of defensive attention with your aggression and kicking out for an assist, that's cool. If it's scoring efficiently within the flow of the offense, that's cool. I'm not valuing someone like Adrian Dantley over Lamarcus as scorers when there's tons of evidence Aldridge was a top tier offensive option at his position and zero evidence Dantley was even all star level. What good is scoring efficiently if for you to get your buckets everyone around you is less efficient?

3. I have Steph inside my top 25 but not too 20. Given that his longevity vs that tier of player is really poor, a peak ranking of around 12-15 is about right - unless you’re of the opinion that ranking is way too high to begin with.

Well I feel your list should be given by actually ranking their whole careers and their peaks by ranking their best seasons. I don't think you should be working backwards and going, "this guy is 20th on my all time list but his longevity is short so his peak should be over 20." At that point you're just ranking the player first, and coming up with ways to justify that ranking after the fact.

4. Once magic gets in, there are no unassailable candidates. Everyone else sorta falls into a couple categories:

-goat level rs but faltered in a key series (Steph, Robinson come to mind,)

-had blah regular seasons (by standards of this project) but stepped up in the playoffs to anchor teams to championships (kawhi, dirk, Walton)

I think it's totally unfair to describe them that way (totally fair for Kawhi).

Dirk had arguably his best regular season in 2011 when you remove his injury from the equation. With Dirk in the lineup they had a +8.0 SRS in games Dirk played and Caron Butler didn't play. In the first half of the year (well actually the 2010 part of the year because he got hurt on New Year's Day) before Caron got hurt Dallas was 24-7 with the 2nd best record in the league to San Antonio. Seriously his regular season gets slept on but it was still top tier. If Portland booted him in round one he'd still be at worst the 4th best player in the league that year (Dwight, Wade, and LeBron since I know y'all like that year from him).

Walton on the other hand missed 17 games but was still present for 44 wins and the team had a +7.8 SRS in the games he played (doesn't seem crazy but considering the SRS of teams at the time and how balanced the league was it's absurd). Walton lapped everyone else outside of Kareem and Dr. J that year, as shown by the fact he won MVP in 78 while playing only 58 games (Kareem got hurt and played 62 taking out his only competition for the award). I get that 17 games is a lot to miss but he was clearly GOAT level while out there, just like Curry was.

Kawhi was definitely a blah regular season though (assuming you take 2019, I'd probably put 2016 above that year).

And as a sidebar when I see GOAT regular season and non GOAT postseason, and it's a pattern for their whole careers, that just means to me that they can play when the lights aren't on and the games don't matter. If the regular season isn't really reflecting your true level of play I don't think it should matter.

-had superb but not goat rs that gives them a case for best player in the league while leading the best or near best rs team and while they didn’t have a BAD playoffs, their team didn’t get it done for various reasons (Barkley, Malone, Durant, harden, Giannis, Oscar, kg)

Oscar has no business being in this group. He put up 33/12/9 on 58 TS% against Boston and took them to 7 in 63. Everyone else you named at the very least got outplayed by someone else at some point. Oscar didn't and that's a very important distinction to make here and a whole category you're missing:

Guys that were clearly top level, had postseason performances that were clearly the best in the league (or best in the league level) but didn't win a ring because they had terrible supporting casts. As it is now it seems like you're just bunching those guys (namely Oscar, Wade in 09, and West) in with guys that flat out got outplayed by other stars in head to head matchups.

-had stellar regular seasons burdened with blah teams but had a big part in leading their squad to a memorable upset or at the very least memorable series (Ewing, West, Davis, Moses,depending on year, Kobe depending on year, mcadoo)


-clear cut best player on 65 win title team; but team won because of the overall strength of team (Moses depending on year, Kobe depending on year)

Almost everyone left falls into one of those broad archetypes and you have to decide which one you can deal with the most and whose warts bother you the least.

I do agree with these classifications a bit but I think you're ignoring a ton of guys you don't see as top level just because they didn't win a ring. I get that everyone has a winning bias, Kareem in 77 is the only year where the player didn't win a ring on this list so far, but I feel that's something we should at least try to account for here. I know for me I used it as a tie breaker and last resort for if I really couldn't figure guys out (so looking at Magic for example I can say a lot of my argument for him in 86 over Oscar comes down to Oscar not doing it on a championship level squad but I've already determined they're equal in all other ways).

I just want you to think on how Dr. J in 76 falls into any of those categories? How does Oscar in 63 or 64 fall into those categories? How does Wade in 06 fall into those categories? How does Kobe in 08 fall into those categories?

I don't know I think maybe you came into this with a list you felt was right, and maybe not the list you'd think was right based on the criteria you're setting personally.
Joey Wheeler
Starter
Posts: 2,444
And1: 1,359
Joined: May 12, 2017

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#45 » by Joey Wheeler » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:10 pm

pandrade83 wrote:-goat level rs but faltered in a key series (Steph, Robinson come to mind,)


Saying Curry "faltered in one key series" seems like an extremely generous way to describe a playoff run where: (1) he missed half of two of the four series - GSW got 2 of their 4 wins vs Houston without Curry at all and another one where he played 18 minutes + 2 of their 4 wins vs Portland without Curry. (2) he was almost certainly not the best player in his own team throughout the playoffs (Draymond) and (3) he had a negative -3,6 on/off through the entire playoffs.

Honestly, in the OKC series everything points to at least Durant (and maybe Westbrook) clearly outplaying Curry throughout the course the series, but even if we decide to ignore all the evidence and say Curry was better because his team won the picture painted above still seems to reveal a lot more than "faltering in one key series". GSW won over a quarter of their playoff games that season without Curry playing and they were about 4 points better when he was off compared to when he was on.
Joey Wheeler
Starter
Posts: 2,444
And1: 1,359
Joined: May 12, 2017

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#46 » by Joey Wheeler » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:17 pm

pandrade83 wrote:Giving this the time I have:

On the okc series:

-kd destroyed draymond
-klay was not good outside of game 6.
-Steph is 28/6/6 on high efficiency
-gsw wins and somehow Steph is 3rd best in the series? The logic here doesn’t hold.


Klay hit 30 threes in that series, that's still the 2nd most in a single series ever... behind Curry in that same series with 32.

It's not that unusual and not the first time it happened to OKC; in 2014 WCF Durant and Westbrook were clearly the two best players, no one on the Spurs was that close and Spurs still won the series far more comfortably than the Warriors did in 2016. Go forward a series and Lebron and Kyrie were the two best players in the Finals and it was basically a draw decided on a coinflip (like the WCF).

It's perfectly possible Durant and Westbrook were both better than Curry in that series but GSW still won it (series was a draw anyway, it's one of those series where both teams are at the same level and it has to fall one way). In fact it's what the numbers strongly suggest happened. GSW were just a better constructed team top to bottom with superior systems in place on both sides.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,696
And1: 8,336
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#47 » by trex_8063 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:54 pm

1st ballot - '04 Kevin Garnett
Another amazing two-way player. Dominant defensive year while also averaging 24.2 ppg and 5.0 apg (despite a damn-near stopped pace of just 89); only slightly above average shooting efficiency, but near GOAT-level big-man turnover economy. Anchored the 5th-rated offense while simultaneously anchoring the 6th-rated defense with principle supporting cast being Sam Cassell, an ancient Latrell Sprewell, Trenton Hassell, Fred Hoiberg, Mark Madsen, and Gary Trent.
I truly suspect they'd have gone to the finals (possibly won??) if not for Sam Cassell's most untimely injury [if memory serves, wasn't it a pulled groin as result of doing a celebratory "big balls" dance? :banghead: ].
Garnett is on another planet from every other player in the league in RAPM this season (literally +3 from the guy in 2nd [Shaq]). Though never one to fixate on a single metric, it's good to know that he was also #1 in the league in rs PER (by >2 over the 2nd-placed player), #1 in rs WS (by nearly 5 over the 2nd-placed player), #1 in rs VORP (by >2 over the 2nd-placed player), etc......by multiple measures he appears to be on an entirely different tier from any other player in the league that year. When someone is, in the modern era, exceeding his peers to such a dramatic degree, I think he certainly must get serious consideration by now.

fwiw, I specifically remember feeling he was on another level from everyone that year; I can place the time period exactly because I was in my 4th/final year of my post-grad studies, and recall sending a big "player eval/ranking" email to my dad one day when things were slow. Somehow the memory of composing that email has held semi-vivid in my mind, and I distinctly recall sort of marveling at how good KG seemed that year.


2nd ballot - '95 David Robinson
Don't know if this is a "dark-horse" pick for many at this stage, but the near-reality as I see is that David Robinson was asked [by the Spurs] to be Bill Russell on defense and simultaneously be Shaquille O'Neal on offense.......and he kinda takes some flack for not being up to the task [primarily in the playoffs]. But realistically, if he'd been consistently capable of maintaining his rs standard of offensive performance and efficiency during the playoffs, we'd have been discussing him in the top 3 positions of this project. So I don't think it's off base to give him some consideration now around #10. This version of Robinson anchored a -2.9 rDRTG (5th/27) with a principle cast [in descending order of minutes played] of Avery Johnson (scrappy and energetic, but seriously undersized even for a PG; mediocre defender overall), Sean Elliott (mediocre defender), Vinny Del Negro (probably slightly weak defensively, iirc), Chuck Person (a pinch past prime, never a good defender anyway), Dennis Rodman (erratic defensively [awful in the Houston series, fwiw], and missed 33 games), and JR Reid, Terry Cummings, post-prime Doc Rivers (Rivers probably the only one of those three I'd say was passable good defensively).
This version of Robinson simultaneously anchored a +3.4 rORTG (5th/27) with the aforementioned cast; they won 62 games (+5.90 SRS) overall. Made it to the WCF where Dennis Rodman had a total [and very public] meltdown, and the Spurs lost the series to Houston (with Hakeem in God-mode) in six games (outscored by a grand total of 10 pts in the entire series). Typically stated as Hakeem owning DRob and making him a helpless play-thing, though it's rarely acknowledged that Hakeem [because of how their offense and roster was structured] largely enjoyed single coverage (by Robinson), while Robinson was largely guarded by Olajuwon + 1-2 friends.
It's rarely acknowledged that DRob's cast [which had shot 37.5% from beyond the arc in the rs] somewhat crapped the bed shooting just 31.9% in this series; and again Rodman's meltdown and poor play is rarely given light of day in the construction of the usual narrative.
jsia, I think he deserves a look around now.


3rd ballot - '87 Magic Johnson
Was thinking of giving my third ballot to Robinson as well (either '94 or '96), but since I don't suppose he'll have any traction now anyway, and I think Magic is right there with him.....
I'm sure it's already been said by other regarding Magic, and I don't have time to elaborate just now. If I get a chance I'll try to add to this later.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
JoeMalburg
Pro Prospect
Posts: 885
And1: 520
Joined: May 23, 2015
     

Peaks project update: #10 - Joe Votes 

Post#48 » by JoeMalburg » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:20 am

First Vote: 1976 Julius Erving - It can't be overstated how great Doctor J was during this season. It's one of the few seasons in the 70's there is a legitimate rival to Kareem for the #1 spot. I give Dr. J the edge for the season. He is the league MVP, the playoff MVP and his team wins the title. But it's not like he has the best team. The second and third best players from his 1974 Championship Nets (Larry Kennon & Billy Paultz) are now on the Spurs along with George Gervin and peak James Silas. The defending Champion Kentucky Colonels have Artis Gilmore, Louie Dampier, Caldwell Jones and Maurice Lucas and the Nuggets are loaded with David Thompson, Bobby Jones, Ralph Simpson and Dan Issel. Ervings bets teammates are Brian Taylor and Super John Williamson who you've probably never heard of unless you have read about the ABA extensively. 35/13/5/2/2 on .610 ts% in the playoffs against the Spurs and Nuggets with NBA quality starting lineups. It's basically 2019 Kawhi's postseason on steroids.

Second Vote: 1987 Magic Johnson - Magic at the peak of his powers responding to Pat Riley's challenge for him to take the alpha role completely from Kareem. MVP season, capped by the junior, junior sky-hook over Bird/McHale/Parish in the Finals to win the rubber match versus Boston. Tough to beat at this point, especially considering he's the top ranked player all-time left on the board for most.

Third vote: 1964 Oscar Robertson - The best season of the 1960's by a non-center. Oscar leads the NBA's top offense and gives the Celtics one of their few regular season Eastern Division rivals prior to Wilt joining the 76ers. A picture of efficiency and control on offense. The little film available shows a player who can get whatever he wants, whenever he wants. It's like the NBA is made up of Wilt, Russell, the Big O and Oscar's 87 children who he just backs down in the driveway and shoots over at will.
User avatar
cecilthesheep
Senior
Posts: 635
And1: 482
Joined: Sep 17, 2018
       

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#49 » by cecilthesheep » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:27 am

1. '87 Magic - peak year for one of the greatest offensive forces in history, combining athleticism with fully developed vision and a jump shot that was finally a weapon.

2. '04 Garnett - splitting hairs here; Garnett was one of the most unique guys ever. Guarded anyone on the floor, protected the rim, played passing lanes, plus he captained the offense with smart passing and capable shooting and scoring.

3. Well, this is where it starts to get really complicated, but I settled on '64 Oscar Robertson. Also considered Curry, Kobe, and Jerry West, but Oscar's multi-tool capabilities while being every bit as good at his best skills as the other guys were at theirs seals the deal for me.
All-Time Spurs

T. Parker '13 | J. Silas '76 | J. Moore '83
G. Gervin '78 | M. Ginóbili '08 | A. Robertson '88
K. Leonard '17 | S. Elliott '95 | B. Bowen '05
T. Duncan '03 | L. Aldridge '18 | T. Cummings '90
D. Robinson '95 | A. Gilmore '83 | S. Nater '75
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#50 » by Odinn21 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:55 am

Wonder when Barkley will get mentioned. Maybe I'm a bit high on his peak than most but I feel like he should be getting mentions soon.

Looking at the results of the last project, I'm genuinely curious how he got ranked behind of Wade, Nowitzki, West, Curry, Durant, Ewing, Bryant and McGrady.

I mean aside from Ewing, Bryant and McGrady; those are close calls but seriously? McGrady?..
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Bel
Sophomore
Posts: 246
And1: 533
Joined: Jan 24, 2019
 

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#51 » by Bel » Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:13 am

I don't see anyone who is near Magic's level left.

1. 1987 Magic
2. 1991 Magic
3. 1986 Magic

Of those after him, Oscar and Dr. J have had strong cases presented so far.

Odinn21 wrote:Wonder when Barkley will get mentioned. Maybe I'm a bit high on his peak than most but I feel like he should be getting mentions soon.

Looking at the results of the last project, I'm genuinely curious how he got ranked behind of Wade, Nowitzki, West, Curry, Durant, Ewing, Bryant and McGrady.

I mean aside from Ewing, Bryant and McGrady; those are close calls but seriously? McGrady?..


You beat me to it!

For whatever reason Chuck seems to get ignored on these lists way more than he should given how his contemporaries saw him. There seem to be certain players where inaccurate stereotypes persist because almost nobody watches enough of their full games anymore, and of this list, I'd saw Barkley and West are the ones most hurt by it. Considering how highly guys from the 60's, books, and articles back then seemed to have viewed Oscar, he's probably also underspoken of. To name other instances I've seen of this for skills: Bird's defense, Jordan's passing, Bill Russell's offensive skills. But contemporaries saw Barkley at the same level as prime/peak Jordan and Magic. How many guys left do we have can that be said for? Probably no more than a couple. Barkley rightly takes a hit on an all time rankings given his laziness and health issues which give him a limited prime, but this is a peaks project, which is where Barkley excels.
Joey Wheeler
Starter
Posts: 2,444
And1: 1,359
Joined: May 12, 2017

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#52 » by Joey Wheeler » Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:57 am

Barkley definitely deserves serious consideration as soon as Magic is off the board. In terms of offensive peak, there's a good case he might be the best player left. Compared to league average, he's probably the most efficient scorer ever in his prime too.
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,448
And1: 1,871
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#53 » by euroleague » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:28 am

Bel wrote:I don't see anyone who is near Magic's level left.

1. 1987 Magic
2. 1991 Magic
3. 1986 Magic

Of those after him, Oscar and Dr. J have had strong cases presented so far.

Odinn21 wrote:Wonder when Barkley will get mentioned. Maybe I'm a bit high on his peak than most but I feel like he should be getting mentions soon.

Looking at the results of the last project, I'm genuinely curious how he got ranked behind of Wade, Nowitzki, West, Curry, Durant, Ewing, Bryant and McGrady.

I mean aside from Ewing, Bryant and McGrady; those are close calls but seriously? McGrady?..


You beat me to it!

For whatever reason Chuck seems to get ignored on these lists way more than he should given how his contemporaries saw him. There seem to be certain players where inaccurate stereotypes persist because almost nobody watches enough of their full games anymore, and of this list, I'd saw Barkley and West are the ones most hurt by it. Considering how highly guys from the 60's, books, and articles back then seemed to have viewed Oscar, he's probably also underspoken of. To name other instances I've seen of this for skills: Bird's defense, Jordan's passing, Bill Russell's offensive skills. But contemporaries saw Barkley at the same level as prime/peak Jordan and Magic. How many guys left do we have can that be said for? Probably no more than a couple. Barkley rightly takes a hit on an all time rankings given his laziness and health issues which give him a limited prime, but this is a peaks project, which is where Barkley excels.

It was kind of a "KG effect" before he won in Boston. Barkley was balling out on bad teams, and never making noise in the playoffs. On top of that, Karl Malone was dominating year in and year out. At the time, it seemed like the top tiers in the 90s were something like

0: MJ
1: Hakeem, David Robinson, Shaq, Karl Malone
2: Ewing, Barkley, Drexler

Barkley wasn't really considered the best at his position most of the 90s. Ditto KG in the 00s. Neither had playoff success (although KG changed that in 08).

Imagine if Dirk never won in 11? Before that ring, he was considered a soft European who overachieved in the regular season.

Barkley and Malone are both players whose legacies suffered from not getting a championship.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,828
And1: 25,122
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#54 » by E-Balla » Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:18 am

Odinn21 wrote:Wonder when Barkley will get mentioned. Maybe I'm a bit high on his peak than most but I feel like he should be getting mentions soon.

Looking at the results of the last project, I'm genuinely curious how he got ranked behind of Wade, Nowitzki, West, Curry, Durant, Ewing, Bryant and McGrady.

I mean aside from Ewing, Bryant and McGrady; those are close calls but seriously? McGrady?..

Really? That's funny because my main hangup with Barkley is that his best year is a year where he was worse than Ewing so I find it hard to take 90 Chuck off the board with 90 Ewing still on it. I'll find it but before they traded his team from under him midseason, while the Knicks we're headed towards 50-55 wins, Ewing was neck and neck in the MVP race with Barkley and Magic.

And as far as T-Mac goes I'd put him over KD too. His volume and efficiency combined was Jordan like in 03 and his team was terrible but he carried them to the playoffs and a 7 game series with a team that was about to start a streak of playing in the ECF 6 straight years.

Of those guys I'm currently ranking them:

West
Wade
Ewing
McGrady
Kobe
Dirk
Curry
Barkley

With Wade and Ewing's rankings being swappable (I'm mainly taking Wade because I know he can play just as dominant on a championship level squad, not because he proved he could play better in season).

Also my David Robinson post is coming soon but it'll mostly be old posts clipped together. Along with Reggie I probably have the most posts on him so I'm just going to piece them together.

Speaking of Reggie I only did my top 20 I need to figure out when he comes into play...
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,661
And1: 3,448
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#55 » by LA Bird » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:36 am

87 Magic is far ahead of the other candidates at this point so I will start the next round early.
Voting here is still open until the deadline, at which point I will count the final vote totals.

Edit: Since there was no more votes, the final totals remain at:

1) 87 Magic = 49.5 points
2) 76 Dr J = 21.5 points
3) 04 Garnett = 15.0 points
4) 16 Curry = 13.5 points
T5) 64 Oscar = 6.0 points
T5) 90 Magic = 6.0 points

1987 Magic wins.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,741
And1: 3,199
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: Peaks project update: #10 

Post#56 » by Owly » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:52 am

E-Balla wrote:
Odinn21 wrote:Wonder when Barkley will get mentioned. Maybe I'm a bit high on his peak than most but I feel like he should be getting mentions soon.

Looking at the results of the last project, I'm genuinely curious how he got ranked behind of Wade, Nowitzki, West, Curry, Durant, Ewing, Bryant and McGrady.

I mean aside from Ewing, Bryant and McGrady; those are close calls but seriously? McGrady?..

Really? That's funny because my main hangup with Barkley is that his best year is a year where he was worse than Ewing so I find it hard to take 90 Chuck off the board with 90 Ewing still on it. I'll find it but before they traded his team from under him midseason, while the Knicks we're headed towards 50-55 wins, Ewing was neck and neck in the MVP race with Barkley and Magic.

And as far as T-Mac goes I'd put him over KD too. His volume and efficiency combined was Jordan like in 03 and his team was terrible but he carried them to the playoffs and a 7 game series with a team that was about to start a streak of playing in the ECF 6 straight years.

Of those guys I'm currently ranking them:

West
Wade
Ewing
McGrady
Kobe
Dirk
Curry
Barkley

With Wade and Ewing's rankings being swappable (I'm mainly taking Wade because I know he can play just as dominant on a championship level squad, not because he proved he could play better in season).

Also my David Robinson post is coming soon but it'll mostly be old posts clipped together. Along with Reggie I probably have the most posts on him so I'm just going to piece them together.

Speaking of Reggie I only did my top 20 I need to figure out when he comes into play...

Traded his team from under him being ... what .... the trade of his backup point guard (Strickland) for a backup/timeshare point guard (Cheeks - an upgrade in that season based on boxscore and their defensive reps, fwiw).

That's his team? His whole team. Gone. From under him?

Did the team play well after the one-for-one trade? No. Does that mean "his team" was traded from under him? No.

And regardless of the merits of this team replacement, it is unclear why the before spell would get the focus, more so than the after (11-20 overstates it, but they were marginally outscored - by 25 points - over these game) or, most relevant, the overall.

Return to Player Comparisons