PDA

View Full Version : Which do you value more: Peak or Longevity?



PinnacleFlash
10-11-2011, 12:13 PM
I want to know and why.

mightybosstone
10-11-2011, 12:43 PM
I know this is a tough question and you can certainly make a case one way or the other. Also, no one should use ONLY one or the other when evaluating players. BUT, if I absolutely have to pick between the two, I'm taking a player's peak and prime. Here's my reasoning....

Would you rather have 22 years of Kevin Willis or would you rather have Bill Walton's years from 77-78 when he won an MVP, a championship and a Finals MVP? Willis is a very good player who played solid defense and was a strong No. 2 or No. 3 option in his best years, and he ended up fifth in career games, 24th in career rebounds and 77th in career points. Certainly not a bad career and you would have been happy to have him on your franchise.

But you won't win a championship with Kevin Willis as your best or second best player. Bill Walton really only had 3-4 really strong years, but he was arguably the greatest player in the world during that stretch and brought Portland its only championship in franchise history.

To me, it goes back to the question of... "Would you rather have one championship surrounded by 10 years of being horrible or would you rather be competitive for 10 years, but never win a title?" For me, give me the title and it'll make the sucking tolerable...

JordansBulls
10-11-2011, 12:54 PM
Depends on how long the peak/prime lasted. For instance, If it is David Robinson's Prime/Peak or vs Karl Malone's longevity I'd take Malone's longevity.
If it is Hakeem's peak/prime vs Malone's longevity, I'm taking Hakeem's prime/peak.

Overall I guess it depends on the ratio. How much more longer is the longevity?

For instance,
Malone had 16 years of averaging at least 21 ppg and 8 rpg and a PER of nearly 21+.
Hakeem had around 13 years.


Kareem had around 17 seasons of great longeviity as an elite player while Wilt had 11 seasons.

JordansBulls
10-11-2011, 12:57 PM
Also is the player's longevitiy prolonged because he ended up having a player better than he was on his team for a few years? Or are we talking about his longevitiy where he was the best player on nearly all of his teams? That makes a big difference as well.

I'd take a great 10 year prime/peak of a player over 15 years of longevitity if the 10 year prime/peak the player was a top 3 player in the league while for the guy with the longevitity was a top 3 player in the league for 5-7 years and the rest he was top 5-10.

rickshaw
10-11-2011, 01:09 PM
I think the peak is great but my girlfriend would rather the longevity

Archer
10-11-2011, 01:12 PM
I think the peak is great but my girlfriend would rather the longevity

Danger Zone

Archer
10-11-2011, 01:12 PM
Double post

mightybosstone
10-11-2011, 01:20 PM
Depends on how long the peak/prime lasted. For instance, If it is David Robinson's Prime/Peak or vs Karl Malone's longevity I'd take Malone's longevity.
If it is Hakeem's peak/prime vs Malone's longevity, I'm taking Hakeem's prime/peak.

Overall I guess it depends on the ratio. How much more longer is the longevity?

For instance,
Malone had 16 years of averaging at least 21 ppg and 8 rpg and a PER of nearly 21+.
Hakeem had around 13 years.

Kareem had around 17 seasons of great longeviity as an elite player while Wilt had 11 seasons.

I agree with this. Obviously it's subjective on a case by case basis, and there are a lot of cases where I would take longevity over peak. But, speaking in a general sense, I think I would take peak. I would rather have five peak years of an elite player than 15 years of a very good player.

knightstemplar
10-11-2011, 01:21 PM
I think the peak is great but my girlfriend would rather the longevity

:laugh2:

Archer
10-11-2011, 01:27 PM
I agree with this. Obviously it's subjective on a case by case basis, and there are a lot of cases where I would take longevity over peak. But, speaking in a general sense, I think I would take peak. I would rather have five peak years of an elite player than 15 years of a very good player.

There are so many factors that go into it for example:

Most people would take Shaq's peak (Lakers first three-peat, most unstopable force in basketball) vs. Kemp's peak (94-97).

One factor not being considered is the competition at the time, when Shaq peaked he wa the last true big man, no more Hakeem, Robinson, Ewining, ect. Kemp peaked during Jordan's dominance and during an era with a ton of great bigmen.

If a players peak comes at the right time it can be the diffrence between mulitple championships and highlights.

mightybosstone
10-11-2011, 01:31 PM
There are so many factors that go into it for example:

Most people would take Shaq's peak (Lakers first three-peat, most unstopable force in basketball) vs. Kemp's peak (94-97).

One factor not being considered is the competition at the time, when Shaq peaked he wa the last true big man, no more Hakeem, Robinson, Ewining, ect. Kemp peaked during Jordan's dominance and during an era with a ton of great bigmen.

If a players peak comes at the right time it can be the diffrence between mulitple championships and highlights.

I understand what you're trying to say, but comparing Kemp vs. Shaq is a horrible example. I don't think there's a decent NBA analyst anywhere who would take Kemp's best season over any of Shaq's prime years from 98-03. And regardless of the talent during their careers, I wouldn't consider Kemp to be a top 5 big man at any point in his carer.

Archer
10-11-2011, 01:34 PM
I understand what you're trying to say, but comparing Kemp vs. Shaq is a horrible example. I don't think there's a decent NBA analyst anywhere who would take Kemp's best season over any of Shaq's prime years from 98-03.

I'm not comparing them at all, in NO WAY, I'm doing the opposite, showing two ends of the spectrum, how circumstances can make a peak go really right, or really wrong.

RevisIsland
10-11-2011, 01:42 PM
Peak, you only have so many shots at a ring.

PinnacleFlash
10-11-2011, 01:58 PM
Prime > Longevity > Peak.

beliges
10-11-2011, 02:12 PM
Its those players that can stay on top for a long time that separates great players from legends.

ink
10-11-2011, 02:14 PM
I'm assuming that longevity still means being very good. Obviously no one will pick a bench career that lasts for 16 years.

To me the question could be: GHill or VC ... and I would take Hill every time because he had the athletic ability and intelligence to make himself useful even when he is not at his physical peak. It was interesting to see them side by side in PHX. It only pointed out how much more admirable GHill's career has been.

ink
10-11-2011, 02:17 PM
I think the peak is great but my girlfriend would rather the longevity

hahaha

Same thing applies in the NBA IMO. Staying power over flash in the pan any day.

clehmun
10-11-2011, 02:54 PM
For some reason, TMac vs Ray Allen came across my mind. And I pick Ray Allen.

Soxsnation4life
10-11-2011, 03:08 PM
I value both. Some players will have a great peak for 2-3 years of scoring 25 or so points per game, and some players can average consistently 15+ ppg for 10+ seasons. The players who can consistently be on their "peak" for years and years are the great ones. It's what separates Tracy Mcgrady and Lebron James

JordansBulls
10-11-2011, 03:47 PM
For some reason, TMac vs Ray Allen came across my mind. And I pick Ray Allen.

Or Yao Ming vs Dwight Howard or John Stockon vs Chris Paul

PinnacleFlash
10-11-2011, 07:18 PM
For some reason, TMac vs Ray Allen came across my mind. And I pick Ray Allen.
Paul Pierce vs. Allen Iverson and Tmac, Paul Pierce easily for both.

Chronz
10-11-2011, 08:14 PM
Paul Pierce vs. Allen Iverson and Tmac, Paul Pierce easily for both.

uMM...



# of Top 8 finishes for the MVP:
T-Mac: 6x
AI: 5x
Pierce: 1x


So if you define longevity by MVP caliber play, Tmac got more years in.



If you define it by All-NBA caliber seasons it looks like this:
Player - Total - (1st Team Selections)
Tmac - 7x (2x)
Iverson - 7x (3x)
Pierce - 4x (O)


Tmac has an underrated longevity factor, he didnt last as long as you would expect but he wasnt Bill Walton.

PinnacleFlash
10-11-2011, 08:21 PM
Championships

Pierce: 1x
Tmac: 0x

Finals MVP:

Pierce: 1x
Tmac: 0x

First round exits

Tmac: Everytime other than 09 where he didn't even play
Pierce: Twice


Move along Tmac bandwagoner. Only reason why you ever paid attention to the Houston Rockets in the first place. I'm so glad that loser is pretty much out of the league done.

PrettyBoyJ
10-11-2011, 08:43 PM
I think the peak is great but my girlfriend would rather the longevity

lmao

Chronz
10-11-2011, 09:08 PM
Championships

Pierce: 1x
Tmac: 0x

Finals MVP:

Pierce: 1x
Tmac: 0x

First round exits

Tmac: Everytime other than 09 where he didn't even play
Pierce: Twice


Move along Tmac bandwagoner. Only reason why you ever paid attention to the Houston Rockets in the first place. I'm so glad that loser is pretty much out of the league done.

So Cedric Maxwell > Gervin? Wes Unseld > Pierce?

You dont get to bring KG and Ray Allen with him in this discussion.

PS Why mention first round exits as a negative, it implies you carried your team to the playoffs, which depending on the talent base could be a remarkable achievement. If your going to mention the 1 and done runs you should point out how often they missed the playoffs in their prime.

PinnacleFlash
10-11-2011, 09:20 PM
Not really. Then again you are a tmac bandwagoner so obviously you are going to be biased about this subject.

You act as if Tmac could replace Pierce on the 08 celtics and the same result would happen when it wouldn't.

Pierce > Tmac.

Chronz
10-12-2011, 07:39 PM
Not really. Then again you are a tmac bandwagoner so obviously you are going to be biased about this subject.

You act as if Tmac could replace Pierce on the 08 celtics and the same result would happen when it wouldn't.

Pierce > Tmac.

LMFAO

What you dont realize is that JB already made a thread asking that very question:

Would the Celtics still had won the title in 2008 with Mcgrady over Pierce? (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=651253&highlight=Tmac%2C+Pierce%2C+defense)


My thoughts then:

By 2008 Tmac was done as a defensive presence, that team relied on Pierce to defend Bron and Kobe for crucial stretches. This was the time before Rondo emerged as a legit focal point so they also used Pierce to facilitate the offense. Tmac could fill that roll with ease and possibly better than Pierce, but he wasnt as adept at finishing plays created for him and that takes away from Rondo when the 2 share the court. Its just a flat out downgrade, they could possibly still win but the odds are greatly diminished considering Tmac's physical state by then (playing with bad knees/shoulder).

hard_candy
10-12-2011, 08:12 PM
Peak or longevity?











That's what she said.

Andrew32
10-12-2011, 08:13 PM
Early 00 TMac was definitly better then Pierce ever was.

I value Peak + Longevity.

The players who managed to sustain GOAT level Peak play over 5+ - 7+ year periods of play and still managed to play at an All-Star level for 12-14+ Years.

IE - Jordan / Shaq / Kareem the three greatest players of all time.

Bishnoff
10-12-2011, 08:38 PM
The question is too broad. It depends on the level of the player, his supporting cast, whether he’s the #1 option or a role player, whether he’s predominantly an offensive or defensive player etc.

The only way to look at this is to compare a "peak" player with a similar position/style "longevity" player.

hugepatsfan
10-12-2011, 09:12 PM
A great peak w/ 0 longevity doesn't make you elite. But a long career w/out a great peak doesn't either. A combination of the 2 is needed. I know that's kind of a cop out answer, but it's not black and white.

hugepatsfan
10-12-2011, 09:12 PM
Chronz, I'm interested to know... whose do you have ranked higher career wise, Pierce or T-Mac?

OGMarkWahlberg
10-12-2011, 09:25 PM
Question isn't really specific enough for me to answer .. someone's peak could be 1 year, while another's career could be up to 20 years .. also depends on the type of players we are speaking about and how great their primes are compared to their respective careers