what is the difference between "peak" and "prime"?

[97 bulls]

I only read this on ISH. Ive alway thought that a players prime was when they were at their best. And last about five-six years from 26-32.

But i always read posters mentioning peak and prime as if theres a difference. Can you really be better than your prime?

[chazzy]

Peak is your absolute best 1 or 2 year stretch. Prime is a sustained high level of play for several years.

[StateOfMind12]

Peak = Absolute best, when you were at your very best, like your very best season.

Prime = Close to absolute best and includes your absolute best.

Lets take Tim Duncan for example.

His absolute peak was probably in 2002 and 2003 while his prime probably was probably from his rookie season or 1998 to about 2007.

There are plenty of players in history who have had a high peak play but low prime play due to the fact that they were unable to sustain their dominance which is more times than not due to injuries at least with all-time greats. A perfect example is probably Tracy Mcgrady.

[Odinn]

It's the same difference between the best and the absolute best.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah, prime is an extended stretch, typically around 5-6 years when you're game is at it's best, but peak is your absolute best, I've interpreted it to be a player's best season.

For example, Shaq's prime was around '98-'02 and his peak was '00. Or Magic's prime was '87-'90, but many consider his peak to be '87. Pippen's prime might be from '92-'97(though '94-'96 was his absolute best), and his peak is widely regarded as '94.

[97 bulls]

"Absolute best" seems kinda redundant. If your great, then your great. It seems as if perhaps people just look at a players best statistical season and call it their "peak". And forget the circumstances, roles, coaching chages etc.

Like duncan. Ive never seen a change in his game from even when he was a rookie.

[ShaqAttack3234]

"Absolute best" seems kinda redundant. If your great, then your great. It seems as if perhaps people just look at a players best statistical season and call it their "peak". And forget the circumstances, roles, coaching chages etc.

Like duncan. Ive never seen a change in his game from even when he was a rookie.

Nah, statistics aren't the only thing I use at all when I determine a player's peak or prime for that matter. Shaq put up 29/13/3 on 60% in '94, but he was raw and closer to a 7'1" Dwight Howard, so I don't even consider that his prime, or extended prime(which may be '95-'03).

And another example is that I sometimes lean towards '08 as Kobe's peak even though it is not his best statistical season, either '06 or '08 for me.

Bird's peak was '86, imo, even though he was better statistically in '85, '87 and '88.

I simply go by how well they play the game, what they've added to their game ect., sometimes that will reflect in statistics to some degree, but many things can't be measured in numbers, and nothing can be summed up in numbers.

Pippen's best statistical season was '92, 21/8/7 on 51%, but he was a better outside shooter, an even smarter defender and had a better post game from '94-'96 and was simply a better player to me than '92 despite his numbers being better than ever in '92.

Duncan was unusual, he entered the league closer to his prime level than any top 10 player I can think of, or any great period. But there were slight changes, very small in that his passing got even better and I think he became a bit more dominant defensively. And obviously, there's been a change since his prime. He's lost a significant amount of athleticism since the early-mid 00's and stamina.

[JohnnySic]

A prime can last 10+ years. A peak is the absolute best season or 2.

[bwink23]

Peak is when your on the top of your game, physically and mentally. Prime is playing at a high level over an extended period of years.

[Sarcastic]

It goes:
enter league->development---->prime------>peak->decline--->retirement.

[97 bulls]

I just dont see why the term peak is needed. Lets take magic for instance. 87 is considered by many to be magics best statistical season (what you guys would call peak) year. Why? He scored the most ppg in his career cuz riley asked him to assume a larger role in the offense as far as scoring. Does that make him better than say 86 or 88?

As a pippen fan, i feel his most impressive season was 95. Why? Not cuz he improved from 94. But cuz his role was so huge due to personnel.

I didnt see a change in birds game in 86. But his team the record record they had while bird was there.

[Rake2204]

Nah, statistics aren't the only thing I use at all when I determine a player's peak or prime for that matter. Shaq put up 29/13/3 on 60% in '94, but he was raw and closer to a 7'1" Dwight Howard, so I don't even consider that his prime, or extended prime(which may be '95-'03).

And another example is that I sometimes lean towards '08 as Kobe's peak even though it is not his best statistical season, either '06 or '08 for me.

Bird's peak was '86, imo, even though he was better statistically in '85, '87 and '88.

I simply go by how well they play the game, what they've added to their game ect., sometimes that will reflect in statistics to some degree, but many things can't be measured in numbers, and nothing can be summed up in numbers.

Pippen's best statistical season was '92, 21/8/7 on 51%, but he was a better outside shooter, an even smarter defender and had a better post game from '94-'96 and was simply a better player to me than '92 despite his numbers being better than ever in '92.

Duncan was unusual, he entered the league closer to his prime level than any top 10 player I can think of, or any great period. But there were slight changes, very small in that his passing got even better and I think he became a bit more dominant defensively. And obviously, there's been a change since his prime. He's lost a significant amount of athleticism since the early-mid 00's and stamina.
Well stated. I am in full agreement.

[Gifted Mind]

I just dont see why the term peak is needed. Lets take magic for instance. 87 is considered by many to be magics best statistical season (what you guys would call peak) year. Why? He scored the most ppg in his career cuz riley asked him to assume a larger role in the offense as far as scoring. Does that make him better than say 86 or 88?

As a pippen fan, i feel his most impressive season was 95. Why? Not cuz he improved from 94. But cuz his role was so huge due to personnel.

I didnt see a change in birds game in 86. But his team the record record they had while bird was there.

I agree, it's hard to pin-point one single year a player was at his best. For me peak is the best 2-4 seasons of a player, because like you mentioned they play at a certain absolute best level for more than a season. Thus Magic's peak would be 87-90 for me. His prime would be the next level down, including his peak, which for Magic was basically the rest of his career (80-91).

[jlauber]

It goes:
enter league->development---->prime------>peak->decline--->retirement.

Pretty much...but I would add that both prime and peak come pretty early in the career of the greats. It's just usually a question of how long their prime career lasts.

[jlauber]

I agree, it's hard to pin-point one single year a player was at his best. For me peak is the best 2-4 seasons of a player, because like you mentioned they play at a certain absolute best level for more than a season. Thus Magic's peak would be 87-90 for me. His prime would be the next level down, including his peak, which for Magic was basically the rest of his career (80-91).

Both Magic and Chamberlain had ENTIRE PRIME careers, with unbelieveable PEAK seasons (and some even separated.) They were both dominant from their first game until their last one (e.g...Chamberlain had a 43-28 17 block first game, and a 23-21 last game in game five of the '73 Finals.)

[Gifted Mind]

Both Magic and Chamberlain had ENTIRE PRIME careers, with unbelieveable PEAK seasons (and some even separated.) They were both dominant from their first game until their last one (e.g...Chamberlain had a 43-28 17 block first game, and a 23-21 last game in game five of the '73 Finals.)
I would agree (except for the 96' stint by Magic). I feel Jordan fits that description as well (while he was a Bull)

[Shepseskaf]

A prime can last 10+ years. A peak is the absolute best season or 2.
Prime years are closer to 5-6 years. Nobody is in prime for 10 years.

[Sarcastic]

Pretty much...but I would add that both prime and peak come pretty early in the career of the greats. It's just usually a question of how long their prime career lasts.

Ages 23/24 to about 27/28 are probably the most common peak years.


The reason Stern and the owner want to raise the age minimum for the NBA is that they know this, and don't want to pay the development years anymore. Anyone who thinks they are trying to do it to help the players is an absolute fool.

[Gifted Mind]

I think part of the confusion people are making is confusing physical prime between basketball prime. Physical prime's yes only last 5-6 seasons, however basketball primes may as well go on for 10+ seasons depending on how the player progresses and adapts.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Peak is a player's absolute best seaon/seasons, ranging from 1-3 seasons.

Prime is just sustained elite level of play, which is a much bigger range. You could think prime has having a great longevity.

Example, Kobe and T-Mac have comparable peaks, but Kobe's prime and overall career blows T-Mac's outta the water.

[97 bulls]

Peak is a player's absolute best seaon/seasons, ranging from 1-3 seasons.

Prime is just sustained elite level of play, which is a much bigger range. You could think prime has having a great longevity.

Example, Kobe and T-Mac have comparable peaks, but Kobe's prime and overall career blows T-Mac's outta the water.
Only because McGradys had alot of his prime lost to injuries.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I agree, it's hard to pin-point one single year a player was at his best. For me peak is the best 2-4 seasons of a player, because like you mentioned they play at a certain absolute best level for more than a season. Thus Magic's peak would be 87-90 for me. His prime would be the next level down, including his peak, which for Magic was basically the rest of his career (80-91).

Magic's level of play from '80-'83 was noticeably inferior to '84-'86, especially '87-'90 and '91. He was very good right away, but far from his prime level.

Sometimes it's difficult to choose a player's best year, but some are easy. Usually a player is at least close to his peak level for an extra year or 2. For example, Shaq's peak year was '00, but he had pretty much the same athleticism and skills in '01, similar production and a comparable playoff run, the reason most people choose '00 including myself is that he had a bit slower start in '01. Shaq himself called '00 his best year.

Magic himself called '87 his best year, but I agree that it's not as clear. '88 was his worst year from '87-'90, but in '89 and '90, he added a bit more range to his shot, and was perhaps even more dominant in the post than '87.

There are some players who are unusual like Patrick Ewing('90), T-Mac('03) and Elton Brand('06) who have a peak year that stands well above the rest of their prime.

[Myth]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e148/crazydonovan12/PeakvsPrime.jpg

[Solid Snake]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e148/crazydonovan12/PeakvsPrime.jpg


Perfect example.

[Gifted Mind]

Magic's level of play from '80-'83 was noticeably inferior to '84-'86, especially '87-'90 and '91. He was very good right away, but far from his prime level.


I disagree. Maybe you're looking too much into stats. The main reason Magic got more assists between 84-86 was because of the departure of Norm Nixon, who with Magic had PG duties for the Lakers. Otherwise there was no noticeable increase in his playmaking skills or abilities. He was also a slightly better defender in his younger years picking up a lot of steals due to his quickness. I'm not sure what was inferior about Magic from 80-83 vs. 84-86.




Sometimes it's difficult to choose a player's best year, but some are easy. Usually a player is at least close to his peak level for an extra year or 2. For example, Shaq's peak year was '00, but he had pretty much the same athleticism and skills in '01, similar production and a comparable playoff run, the reason most people choose '00 including myself is that he had a bit slower start in '01. Shaq himself called '00 his best year.

Magic himself called '87 his best year, but I agree that it's not as clear. '88 was his worst year from '87-'90, but in '89 and '90, he added a bit more range to his shot, and was perhaps even more dominant in the post than '87.

There are some players who are unusual like Patrick Ewing('90), T-Mac('03) and Elton Brand('06) who have a peak year that stands well above the rest of their prime.

That is the problem, there are many many players where it's difficult to say _____ was his best year. For me peak is a range of 2-4 years, rather than just 1 season. And prime is the level of play below the player's peak. Neither definition is perfect, however I think mine better represents reality.

[NewYorkNoPicks]

Peak is your absolute best 1 or 2 year stretch. Prime is a sustained high level of play for several years.

This

[Streetballer]

I think "Peak" Happens when a Player is in his "Prime" and he have his best Season Stats wise...

Example
Lebron: Career Numbers are around
26 ppg 7ast 7rebs (Prime)

Say one of those Seasons he goes up to
30ppg 9ast 9rebs (Peak)

After that Peak season number Numbers goes down to the Prime Years or Lower
The Season with his best Stats would be Considered his Peak...!!! I THINK!! lol

[ShaqAttack3234]

I disagree. Maybe you're looking too much into stats. The main reason Magic got more assists between 84-86 was because of the departure of Norm Nixon, who with Magic had PG duties for the Lakers. Otherwise there was no noticeable increase in his playmaking skills or abilities. He was also a slightly better defender in his younger years picking up a lot of steals due to his quickness. I'm not sure what was inferior about Magic from 80-83 vs. 84-86.

I'm talking about Magic's offensive game being a lot more limited, as his career went on, he added the post game and an outside shot. He had neither from '80-'83, but by '84 and '85, he was adding the outside shot and have seen games where he made quite a few. Prior to that, he'd rarely take them, and wouldn't usually make the ones he did take. Those skills made him much more of a threat, and it's why i think '84, maybe '85 was the first step in his improvement and having a case vs Kareem as the Lakers best player, but the post game and scoring mentality in addition to the improved shooting in '87 was the final step. And that really took Magic's game to another level compared to the all-time greats and even compared to contemporaries like Bird. Bird always had the clear edge to me through '86, but in '87 and '88, I think a legitimate case can be made for either.


That is the problem, there are many many players where it's difficult to say _____ was his best year. For me peak is a range of 2-4 years, rather than just 1 season. And prime is the level of play below the player's peak. Neither definition is perfect, however I think mine better represents reality.

I disagree, peak to me implies the absolute best, I don't think of a long period of time. Prime is close tgo that level, but over an extended stretch to me, when you still have most of your physical ability and your skills and overall effectiveness are at/near their best before you lose significant athleticism and stamina.

For most players, I think it can be narrowed down to either 1 or 2 years as their best. I consider Michael Jordan's prime to be '90-'93, and his peak would be either '90 or '91, and an argument can be made for '92.

And to me, the majority of players have a year where everything comes together enough to determine it's their best, not always, but most players.

[ILLsmak]

I only read this on ISH. Ive alway thought that a players prime was when they were at their best. And last about five-six years from 26-32.

But i always read posters mentioning peak and prime as if theres a difference. Can you really be better than your prime?

Yeah people are stupid. lol. This only really makes sense for players who had a very short run at the top.

The worst part is that these are labels that must be applied AFTER someone is clearly out of their prime. Nobody really knows when someone's 'prime' starts or when their 'peak' is. It's also pretty hard to say that in a 5 year stretch of domination one year was the best. I'd even go as far as to say it could be minor fluctuations in things such as luck, players around them playing differently... etc.

Also, a player could be at the end of their prime and have their peak because they came in more committed than they ever did.

I guess if I were to define it, I would say prime seems more like a physical thing, something that can be quantified as their best chance to achieve greatness, and their peak was the highest point they reached.

-Smak

[Nevaeh]

I think part of the confusion people are making is confusing physical prime between basketball prime. Physical prime's yes only last 5-6 seasons, however basketball primes may as well go on for 10+ seasons depending on how the player progresses and adapts.

That's not really considered "prime" though. That's considered "longevity", or "consistency" which are totally different things.

[SacJB Shady]

A prime can last 10+ years. A peak is the absolute best season or 2.



To me, Nash is still in his prime performance wise, he's just not in his PEAK prime. I mean when you average more assists than CP3 or Dwill, don't tell me that isn't great.

[97 bulls]

So in essence, when you guys are comparing players, you're gonna take roughly two maybe three years of a 14 year career and base your argument off that?

I liken it to the movie "spaceballs" when they say let's go to "ludicrous speed". Its just silly to me.

According to you guys, jordan best game didn't come in his "peak prime". The game when he dropped 69/18 and 7.

[97 bulls]

To me, Nash is still in his prime performance wise, he's just not in his PEAK prime. I mean when you average more assists than CP3 or Dwill, don't tell me that isn't great.
In my opinion, he's either in his prime or not. Its always been called the "twighlight" of a career. We need to move away from age and just look at the results. Especially when making comparisons. A players prime happens and lasts differently from one to another. I believe dominique wilkins avg his highest ppg at 32.

[ShaqAttack3234]

So in essence, when you guys are comparing players, you're gonna take roughly two maybe three years of a 14 year career and base your argument off that?

I liken it to the movie "spaceballs" when they say let's go to "ludicrous speed". Its just silly to me.

According to you guys, jordan best game didn't come in his "peak prime". The game when he dropped 69/18 and 7.

Not 2-3 years, I primarily judge a player based on how good they were in their prime, which typically lasts about a half decade, imo, give or take a year or 2. Not exclusively, but that's what most of my judgements are based on, and to a lesser extent other elite years that were before/after their prime, and their peak.

I think players can deserve credit for having a longer prime, but not to put them over players who were just clearly better to me. For example, Charles Barkley was in his prime from around '88 or '89 through '93, and Karl Malone's prime was probably longer, but Barkley was still clearly a better player to me.

And who the hell doesn't consider '90 part of Jordan's prime? :oldlol: I tend to lean towards that as his peak season, but everyone considers that part of his prime.



To me, Nash is still in his prime performance wise, he's just not in his PEAK prime. I mean when you average more assists than CP3 or Dwill, don't tell me that isn't great.

He's clearly not the player he was, but still very good and overlooked in best PG discussions. Prior to his injuries in the 2010-2011 season, he was very close.

[bdreason]

Peak is a more defined period of time (1-2 years typically), when a player strikes a perfect balance of physical ability and mental understanding of the game.


Prime encompasses a large period of time, where a player can still be improving their mental understanding, or losing their physical abilities... but still playing at a high level, typically in different fashions.

[Gifted Mind]

I'm talking about Magic's offensive game being a lot more limited, as his career went on, he added the post game and an outside shot. He had neither from '80-'83, but by '84 and '85, he was adding the outside shot and have seen games where he made quite a few. Prior to that, he'd rarely take them, and wouldn't usually make the ones he did take. Those skills made him much more of a threat, and it's why i think '84, maybe '85 was the first step in his improvement and having a case vs Kareem as the Lakers best player, but the post game and scoring mentality in addition to the improved shooting in '87 was the final step. And that really took Magic's game to another level compared to the all-time greats and even compared to contemporaries like Bird. Bird always had the clear edge to me through '86, but in '87 and '88, I think a legitimate case can be made for either.


I think Magic's transition to his mid-range game was a slow but always continuous process starting from his rookie year. Each year he got more and more comfortable. There wasn't any big jumps from one year to the next. I think it was by 86 when he really felt fully comfortable with his mid-range game. I have already agreed by 87 he was playing at another level, and that is when he should have started to be included into the all-time great conversations. However, we were discussing his play from 80-83 vs. 84-86, which I don't think there was a big difference. Sure he became an even more versatile offensive player, but his effectiveness on offense was about the same and had lost quickness on the defensive. Overall, there is no clear distinction or indicator that Magic was a superior player from 84-86 than 80-83. But yes from 87 onwards he did play at another level, which I would call his peak.




I disagree, peak to me implies the absolute best, I don't think of a long period of time. Prime is close tgo that level, but over an extended stretch to me, when you still have most of your physical ability and your skills and overall effectiveness are at/near their best before you lose significant athleticism and stamina.

For most players, I think it can be narrowed down to either 1 or 2 years as their best. I consider Michael Jordan's prime to be '90-'93, and his peak would be either '90 or '91, and an argument can be made for '92.

And to me, the majority of players have a year where everything comes together enough to determine it's their best, not always, but most players.

Ok I am curious then to when you think the peak and prime was for the following players:

Karl Malone
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Wilt Chamberlain
Larry Bird

[AlphaWolf24]

Prime = the ages when you body can perform at it's best physically and mentally

Peak = that one year when your at the best of your prime

Uber Peak = that one or two month stretch when your at the best of your peak

Uber Duper Peak = That one game when you perform at the best you are capable ever!

[ShaqAttack3234]

I think Magic's transition to his mid-range game was a slow but always continuous process starting from his rookie year. Each year he got more and more comfortable. There wasn't any big jumps from one year to the next. I think it was by 86 when he really felt fully comfortable with his mid-range game. I have already agreed by 87 he was playing at another level, and that is when he should have started to be included into the all-time great conversations. However, we were discussing his play from 80-83 vs. 84-86, which I don't think there was a big difference. Sure he became an even more versatile offensive player, but his effectiveness on offense was about the same and had lost quickness on the defensive. Overall, there is no clear distinction or indicator that Magic was a superior player from 84-86 than 80-83. But yes from 87 onwards he did play at another level, which I would call his peak.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Magic because I see a pretty clear improvement when I compare '84-'86 Magic to '80-'83.

'87 is the perfect example of our different definitions between prime and peak because Magic going to the next level in '87 and pretty much maintaining that through '90 was why I consider that his prime. You could argue it last through '91, but people were already talking about him losing a step.



Ok I am curious then to when you think the peak and prime was for the following players:

Karl Malone
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Wilt Chamberlain
Larry Bird


Malone- I'd say his peak was 1998 , unsure about prime, he lasted a ridiculously long time, started some time in the early 90's, and ended in the late 90's, possibly 2000.

Kidd- This is an easy one, his prime was from '99-'04 and his peak was '03. The microfracture surgery after the '04 season really marked the end of his prime, especially since he was 31, but he remained an effective player after that,

Nash- His peak was '07 and I'd say his prime was around '05-'10, you could argue it started with Dallas in the '02 season, but I thought he went to another level in Phoenix.

Wilt- Didn't watch him play, but from what I know about him, I'd definitely go with '67 as his peak. I would consider his prime to have lasted through '69 because he had the knee injury early in the following season. Not sure when it started, maybe '62, though he did become a much better defender, a much better passer and a better team player after that, starting around '64 from what I've read.

Bird- Peak was '86, and his prime was from '84-'88.

[jlauber]

Chamberlain was dominating from his first game, and even with a surgically repaired knee, into his LAST game. Peak? Hell, from '62 thru '69 he just BLEW AWAY the BEST centers in the league...year-after-year. How about this? 20 STRAIGHT games against Bellamy, covering two seasons, in which he averaged 48.2 ppg. And, he would continue to abuse Bellamy for the rest of his CAREER. Or in the 64-65 season, covering all nine H2H games, Wilt outscored Reed by an AVERAGE of 40-24 per game.

And I have maintained that no other center just CRUSHED his peers in EVERY facet, like Wilt did to his peers in his 65-66 season. He buried Bellamy in ten games. He murdered Thurmond in nine games (and the game that Nate missed, Chamberlain hung a 62-37 game.) And he pounded Russell in their 14 H2H's (including the post-season.)

And I agree with ShaqAttack that Wilt's "decline" started after his devastating knee injury early in the 69-70 season, but before he was injured, and in the first nine games of the season, Wilt was LEADING the league in scoring at 32.2 ppg, and on 60% shooting. And the season before, and playing with an incompetent coach who shackled him, he STILL hung TWO 60+ point games (one on a phenomenal 29-35 shooting performance), and went on a 17 straight game tear in which he brutalized the NBA (averaging 31.1 ppg in that span.)

Even after his injury, he battled a PRIME Kareem to a statistical draw over the course of ten straight games (including five in the post-season) in Kareem's first MVP season in '71. And by universal consensus, he outplayed a PRIME Kareem, in Kareem's greatest statistical season, in the '72 WCF's. Even into their final six H2H games of the 72-73 season, Wilt severely limited Kareem, outshooting him by a staggering .737 to .450 margin in those six H2H's.

At the age of 35 Wilt came in third in the MVP balloting, and then went on to win the FMVP. And in his LAST season, at age 36, he led the NBA in rebounding, was voted first-team all-defense, and set a FG% mark that will never be broken. Then, in the playoffs, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg, and took an injury-riddled Laker team to the Finals, where, in his last game, he put up a 23 point, 9-16 shooting, 21 rebound game.