#4 NBA Player Peak Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

[fpliii]

Jordan 5th, interesting.

A peak Hakeem (assuming c '93-'95) is greater than a peak MJ (assuming c '89''93)?

Personally I'd take any version of #23 MJ from 1990-1998 over any version of Hakeem on any day. Even when he was physically depleted, MJ still had a greater impact on his team than Hakeem ever did.

Not sure the numbers always back that up, suspect they don't, but I know how it felt watching both guys during their respective title runs. Jordan was always in control, and as someone always rooting against him, that was pretty frustrating.

perhaps I'm overrating rebounding ability (I consider it to be a separate phase of the game from offense/defense), but Hakeem also was the defensive anchor for his teams (it's possible I'm overrating this as well) while Jordan largely was not (though he was an excellent man defender and help defender)

I'm judging these guys in terms of degree impact rather than greatness...a center can just by nature more easily leave his mark on a game (at least historically, today this probably isn't true); Jordan is one of three co-GOATs on my current list (while Hakeem is not; admittedly my list needs revision so I'm not going to post it here atm)

[Rnbizzle]

Lebron James.

[Deuce Bigalow]

fpliii, I didn't literally mean Mikan, I was just speaking figuratively.
I'll go with 87-90 Magic.

[fpliii]

fpliii, I didn't literally mean Mikan, I was just speaking figuratively.
I'll go with 87-90 Magic.

fixed

[dyna]

Bird

[oolalaa]

As far as Russell's peak goes, just consider this.

1962 is sometimes thought of as his best year, but 1964 and 1965 get just as much mention if not more. In 1962 Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 ppg and 26 rpg, Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double and Elgin Baylor put up 38-19 without practicing and yet the players who played against all of them voted Russell most valuable, by a definitive margin.

So in what wasn't even his unanimous peak season he was more valuable than the player who posted the greatest statistical season ever by a center, forward and guard...Wilt, Elgin and Oscar respectively.

Is it fair to say that Russell was a regular season coaster, ala Tim Duncan? Someone who consciously saved his best for the post season? The numbers certainly suggest that, and from my understanding of his mental make-up, I think it's a fair assumption.

MVPs are subjective regular season awards, and, crucially, they were voted by the players back then. Baylor wasn't going to win because he only played half the season. Oscar wasn't going to win because the Royals only won 43 games. And Wilt? He was making a mockery of the league. He was embarassing teams and players on an almost daily basis. His peers were consistently, incessantly and openly critical of his play throughout the season.

They loathed the way he played....but that doesn't take away from his insane dominance. He outscored Russell by 31ppg and outrebounded him, too. For all the talk of his selfishness, and the fact that his teammates were merely pawns who subjected themselves to the will of one man, the Warriors finished with 49 wins, the 3rd best record in the league. The Warriors were a very average team, were they not? I would say the Celtics, Lakers, Hawks, Royals and Nationals were all more talented than Philly.

In my opinion, Wilt got flat out ROBBED of the MVP (I don't think this was the only season he was robbed, incidentally. I think he should have won in '64, and probably '61 as well, although his 'retirement' in the off-season didn't exactly propagate a 'winning' atmosphere to begin the season). Russell was certainly the player and the man you wanted on your team to go to war with in the post season (Wilt did take a significantly more talented Boston team all the way to a 7th game though. That shouldn't be glossed over), but regular seasons are entirely different. There's a different mind-set and intensity. Wilt played full throttle for just about every minute of every quarter of every game the entire season (Offensively at least). Even though he was doing this for the wrong reasons (i.e for scoring records rather than wins), it should be commended and respected.

[tmacattack33]

I want you to disregard my vote for Hakeem (it post number 61 in this thread).

I only vote for players from my time and up (1994 or so). And I only choose to vote for them at a spot that seems like they deserve.

I now believe that others before 1994 have a good argument for this spot (Magic and Bird), and so i think i'd just rather not vote for anyone at this spot.

[oolalaa]

'62-'65 he was the best player in the NBA while Wilt, Oscar, Baylor and West were also in their primes. That's his peak to me. '

As for '64, I don' see how Wilt abused him. That SF team needed Wilt to do everything, his numbers had to be huge for them to compete with Boston. Russell rested more in that series than any Finals series of his career. Even the '58 sweep of the Minneapolis Lakers required less mpg from Felton.

Perhaps 'abused' was too strong a word, but I find it hard to come to a other conclusion than Wilt comprehensively outplaying Russell across the series (With the exception of game 1). There comes a point where you cannot simply brush aside the statistical discrepancy, especially their scoring. The '64 season was arguably Wilt at his absolute peak - finally commited on the defensive end, shooting the ball less, moving the ball more, Hannum gave him a renewd focus and determination after coasting through 62/63. The Celtics were, again, significantly more talented than the Warriors. That's surely the main reason for the series score. In fact, I am not totally against Wilt winning FMVP, although I do need to look into it more deeply.

Russell and the Celtics won ever game with relative ease except game five.

Don't forget about game 4.

[crisoner]

Kobe Bryant...

All those 40 plus games...60 plus in three quarters....81 points.
One of the greatest scorers in the history of the game.

[oolalaa]

What's the argument besides superior teammates and better passing ability?

It's already enough they get cast way ahead on 'legacy lists'.

Bird and Magic had almost unmatched 'intangibles' (Leadership, competitiveness, clutchness etc) Hakeem? Not so much, although his defense made up for most, if not all, of that.

[DatAsh]

Kobe Bryant...

All those 40 plus games...60 plus in three quarters....81 points.
One of the greatest scorers in the history of the game.

Over Russell, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Duncan, Lebron?

Everyone has their biases, and it all comes down to opinion, but do you truly feel that Kobe from 06-08 had a bigger effect on his team winning games than the guys I listed above?

[rhythmic]

Over Russell, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Duncan, Lebron?

Everyone has their biases, and it all comes down to opinion, but do you truly feel that Kobe from 06-08 had a bigger effect on his team winning games than the guys I listed above?

Uhm, yes he had similar impact but he played a different role. He had to carry those Laker teams offensively.

Mihm, Brown, S.Parker do any of these players even exist anymore?
Yeah lets compare Kobe to players who during their peak played on great teams and had the fortune to win while playing at their absolute best.

Funny, as soon Kobe got another star (Gasol), he led his team to 3 straight final appearances while not even being at his absolute best, besides maybe 08'.

So please don't start questioning Kobe's ability to win games.

[DatAsh]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[DatAsh]

I do think it's somewhat unfortunate that the majority of Kobe's peak was spent on a lackluster team; I'm not sure we can really complain though, seeing as he has been quite lucky in a comprehensive sense with respect to his supporting casts.