PDA

View Full Version : Identifying a players "Peak Run"



Chronz
10-20-2012, 05:38 PM
Not to be mistaken for a players "Prime", a players Peak run is a stretch of play that is head and shoulders above the standard he has set for his career. For most people, remaining an All-Star caliber player means you are technically still around your prime, its only when you drop off immensely ala Gary Payton status, that you have exited your prime.

The subjective nature of these characterizations means not all of us will agree with these terminologies so as usual, to help illustrate the difference between a players Prime and Peak Run Ive given a few examples.







Moses Malone: His career spans 2 decades, hes made 12 All-Star teams. You could argue his prime lasting somewhere between 12-15 years based solely on individual production levels. However, his PEAK Run was clearly from 1978-1983, a solid 5 year span when he was winning MVP's, championships, and producing at a historic rate. Some might shorten or stretch that out but its in that range.






Guys like Moses are the reason I feel the need for separate terms. But not all players are as easily identified, some players make us wonder if they ever even had a peak run or if their entire prime was a peak run. Here are some players Im interested in seeing if you guys can pin point the best stretch of ball they have ever displayed:






-----------------------------------------------------------------


Hakeem: Go ahead, try and figure this one out.

Shaq: Very interesting, Ive seen some call him a superstar from day 1, Ive seen others say his peak lasted as few as 3 years.

Duncan:

Iverson, T-Mac, Vince, Pierce, KG ..... feel free to add to the list but try to tackle the ones Ive listed plz.

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 08:33 PM
Well in most cases I think its impossible to perfectly define a players Prime or Peak.
Different people define those terms differently.

Kobe's Prime was from 06-09.
I haven't defined his Peak yet but I tend to lean towards 09.

Shaq's Prime was from 94 or 95-04.
I also think he was in his Prime in 05 until he got injured late in the regular season.
That injury ended his Prime.
His Peak was probably from 98-03.

I'll post again soon and add more.

I also don't think just remaining at or achieving an All-Star level means you are still in your Prime.
Shaq for example was still clearly an All-Star level player in 06, a Top 5-10 player and the best C in the league but he was clearly out of his Prime by then.
I couldn't disagree more with that particular view.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-20-2012, 08:45 PM
Andrew32 at it again llullz

#trollhard

jerellh528
10-20-2012, 08:58 PM
of course andrew32 would mention kobe in his post...like 99.99% of his others lol.

Bruno
10-20-2012, 09:09 PM
Kobe's Prime was from 06-09.
I haven't defined his Peak yet but I tend to lean towards 09.


you just did.

his prime was the 2000s.

ewing
10-20-2012, 09:13 PM
Tim Thomas peaked at Paterson Catholic HS. I played against him and man he was good.

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 09:24 PM
you just did.

his prime was the 2000s.
I disagree although that may just be because we define "Prime's" differently.

Kobe was a much (understatement) better player from 06-09 then he was from 00-05.

He wasn't even on the same level as Peak Pippen in (00, 02, 04) and his (03 / 05) seasons ended up getting derailed by injuries.

I consider his Prime to be from 06-09 and currently define his Peak as 09.
I guess you could just say Kobe didn't have a Peak if you think his 06-09 seasons are all on a similar level.

xnick5757
10-20-2012, 09:28 PM
Kobe's peak is clearly the 2005-06 season

his prime most likely started in the '99 season and ended with the '08 season, excluding 04 (an off year)

Vinylman
10-20-2012, 09:29 PM
what a shock... the attention whore is hijacking another thread

PSD... where trolling is the accepted norm

Greedy22
10-20-2012, 09:45 PM
i consider kobe's peak to be the 02-03 season and his prime 05/06-09/10

Chronz
10-20-2012, 10:14 PM
There is a reason Kobe wasn't mentioned and Andrew I said "for most players" that rule holds true. That said, I dont agree with Kobe having such a short prime, thats pretty laughable

Hawkeye15
10-20-2012, 10:23 PM
There is a reason Kobe wasn't mentioned and Andrew I said "for most players" that rule holds true. That said, I dont agree with Kobe having such a short prime, thats pretty laughable

Kobe had a short prime he says? hahahahaha. Kobe's length of prime is the only reason I have him top 10.

Chronz, out of curiosity, give me Duncan's prime, in your opinion. His stat line is almost cyborg-like.

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 10:26 PM
There is a reason Kobe wasn't mentioned and Andrew I said "for most players" that rule holds true. That said, I dont agree with Kobe having such a short prime, thats pretty laughable
#1. Sorry then. I wasn't trying to de-rail the thread with Kobe talk although you did say we could include other players.
#2. Fair enough.

#3. It is hard for me to just lump Kobe's early 00 years together with his late 00 years and label that as his Prime considering the massive difference in quality between those two groups of years.

That doesn't mean his early 00 years and some of his more recent years (which I don't consider to be his Prime years) (10-12) don't retain and add significant value to his career.

Generally I think a players Prime is supposed to maintain a certain level of consistency in terms of production/impact only perhaps being surpassed noticeably for 1-3 years when a player Peaks.

Chronz
10-20-2012, 10:31 PM
#3. It is hard for me to just lump Kobe's early 00 years together with his late 00 years and label that as his Prime considering the massive difference in quality between those two groups of years.

That doesn't mean his early 00 years and some of his more recent years (which I don't consider to be his Prime years) (10-12) don't retain and add significant value to his career.

Generally I think a players Prime is supposed to retain a certain level of consistency in terms of production/impact only perhaps being surpassed noticeably for 1-3 years during a player Peaks.

Thats partly why I made this thread, to see how others define the terms. I find it easier to lump up his relatively consistent performance as his prime and his clearly outstanding years as him performing at the peak of his abilities.

Kobe had a VERY long prime and a sporadic peak run thanks to off court issues.

Greedy22
10-20-2012, 10:39 PM
Kobe had a short prime he says? hahahahaha. Kobe's length of prime is the only reason I have him top 10.

Chronz, out of curiosity, give me Duncan's prime, in your opinion. His stat line is almost cyborg-like.

what do you consider Kobe's prime years?


Duncan's prime :drool:

Chronz
10-20-2012, 11:15 PM
Kobe had a short prime he says? hahahahaha. Kobe's length of prime is the only reason I have him top 10.

Chronz, out of curiosity, give me Duncan's prime, in your opinion. His stat line is almost cyborg-like.


what do you consider Kobe's prime years?


Duncan's prime :drool:

Yes give us your thoughts

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 11:32 PM
Kevin Garnett.

Prime : 00 - 08
Peak : 03 - 06

Bravo95
10-20-2012, 11:54 PM
Olajuwon:

Prime - The day he was drafted - '96
Peak: '92-'95

Chronz
10-21-2012, 12:17 AM
Olajuwon:

Prime - The day he was drafted - '96
Peak: '92-'95

Solid work, agreed on the Peak Run. I can agree with the prime run but out of curiosity is there anything in particular that had you end it at 96?

Chronz
10-21-2012, 12:21 AM
Kevin Garnett.

Prime : 00 - 08
Peak : 03 - 06

Not a fan of the lockout year KG? Is 2002 really that different from 2006 KG?

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 12:26 AM
Solid work, agreed on the Peak Run. I can agree with the prime run but out of curiosity is there anything in particular that had you end it at 96?

I agree.
98 was the year Hakeem fell off.

He was still in his Prime in 97.

He actually bounced back and had a pretty good regular season in 99 though but he had a pretty poor playoffs.


Not a fan of the lockout year KG? Is 2002 really that different from 2006 KG?
His efficiency was worse and his defense wasn't as good.
Also certain advanced stats seem to separate those years I picked from his 02 season.

dh144498
10-21-2012, 12:33 AM
Well in most cases I think its impossible to perfectly define a players Prime or Peak.
Different people define those terms differently.

Kobe's Prime was from 06-09.
I haven't defined his Peak yet but I tend to lean towards 09.

Shaq's Prime was from 94 or 95-04.
I also think he was in his Prime in 05 until he got injured late in the regular season.
That injury ended his Prime.
His Peak was probably from 98-03.

I'll post again soon and add more.

I also don't think just remaining at or achieving an All-Star level means you are still in your Prime.
Shaq for example was still clearly an All-Star level player in 06, a Top 5-10 player and the best C in the league but he was clearly out of his Prime by then.
I couldn't disagree more with that particular view.

I've always thought u were biased, but now I realized that you are just a troll.
His prime is from 2000 to now and possibly 2 more years. His PEAK, however, is from 06 to 09 or 10.

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 12:37 AM
Your opinion is different then mine so I will call you a troll.
Have fun with that. :o


His prime is from 2000 to now and possibly 2 more years. His PEAK, however, is from 06 to 09 or 10.

There is no comparison between 00-05 Kobe and 06-09 Kobe and Kobe fell off big time in 2010.

Kobe in most years before 06 was either dealing with injuries or playing at a level below that of Peak Pippen.

If you define his Prime as any year he was an All-Star that is fine with me and I can't say you are wrong but that is just your opinion and it is not a fact.

The fact is Kobe was only a Super-Star player from 06-09.
In almost all of his other years he was just an All-Star in terms of oncourt impact.

Because of that I believe his Prime was from 06-09.
He had a very short Prime.

Greedy22
10-21-2012, 12:54 AM
Have fun with that. :o



There is no comparison between 00-05 Kobe and 06-09 Kobe and Kobe fell off big time in 2010.

Kobe in most years before 06 was either dealing with injuries or playing at a level below that of Peak Pippen.

If you define his Prime as any year he was an All-Star that is fine with me and I can't say you are wrong but that is just your opinion and it is not a fact.

The fact is Kobe was only a Super-Star player from 06-09.
In almost all of his other years he was just an All-Star in terms of oncourt impact.

Because of that I believe his Prime was from 06-09.
He had a very short Prime.

So a guy who averaged 26.3 ppg with a TS% of .551 isn't super star status? Lol at playing below a level of peak Pippen, way to vastly underrate the guy.

Bravo95
10-21-2012, 12:56 AM
Solid work, agreed on the Peak Run. I can agree with the prime run but out of curiosity is there anything in particular that had you end it at 96?
Meant the '96-'97 season as the last year of his prime.

Averaged 23 PPG on 51% FG that season, Rockets make it to the WCF, lost on Stockton's game-winner.

Next season, 16 PPG on 48% and his defense fell off. Rockets went from 13th in Opp PPG to 24th, first round loss.

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 12:57 AM
Lol at playing below a level of peak Pippen, way to vastly underrate the guy.
Playoffs :

00 Kobe = 20 / 4.5 / 4.5 on 52%TS
02 Kobe = 26 / 6 / 4.5 on 51%TS
04 Kobe = 25 / 5 / 5.5 on 50%TS

92 Pippen = 20 / 9 / 7apg on 54%TS + way greater defensive impact.

So yes Peak Pip was better then every Kobe before 06 except for 01 Kobe.
03 and 05 don't count due to injuries although I admit 03 Kobe before injury was also better then Peak Pip.

b@llhog24
10-21-2012, 01:02 AM
Andrew almost makes me like Kobe. :laugh2:

Greedy22
10-21-2012, 01:03 AM
Playoffs :

00 Kobe = 20 / 4.5 / 4.5 on 52%TS
02 Kobe = 26 / 6 / 4.5 on 51%TS
04 Kobe = 25 / 5 / 5.5 on 50%TS

92 Pippen = 20 / 9 / 7apg on 54%TS + way greater defensive impact.

So yes Peak Pip was better then every Kobe before 06 except for 01 Kobe.
03 and 05 don't count due to injuries although I admit 03 Kobe before injury was also better then Peak Pip.

Small sample size you're using right there of 20-22 games.

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 01:05 AM
Andrew almost makes me like Kobe. :laugh2:
Don't go to the dark side. :pity:


Small sample size you're using right there of 20-22 games.
Playoffs > RS in terms of importance in my book.

Your argument would also hold more weight if the example's I used were from short 4-10 game runs instead of 16-20+ ones.

Greedy22
10-21-2012, 01:08 AM
Lol oh so like you were saying to the guy earlier...that's your opinion not a fact

Your argument is a joke.

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 01:11 AM
Your argument is a joke.
What do you mean?

If you think judging players using playoff numbers is unreasonable due to their relatively smaller sample size
(even though I used multiple 20+ game runs) that is fine but it doesn't make my argument a joke.

Should we just judge players based on regular season numbers?

Sorry but everything I said was 100% true and I backed it up with irrefutable numbers and solid logic/reasoning.

If you disagree explain why.

Greedy22
10-21-2012, 01:21 AM
What do you mean?

If you think judging players using playoff numbers is unreasonable due to their relatively smaller sample size
(even though I used multiple 20+ game runs) that is fine but it doesn't make my argument a joke.

Should we just judge players based on regular season numbers?

Sorry but everything I said was 100% true and I backed it up with irrefutable numbers and solid logic/reasoning.

If you disagree explain why.

How about using both Regular Season and Playoff stats for the said year? I mean using a 20 game span isn't always accurate...you can have let's say D Wade going berserk for a 4-6 weeks and putting up better numbers than Lebron during that time. Does that mean he's the better player during said season because of that run? That's what I'm getting at.

Meaze_Gibson
10-21-2012, 12:07 PM
Steve Nash Prime 2004 to 2010. Peak was 2005 to 2008

D Wade Prime 2004 until ???..... Peak (both offensively and defensively) was 2005 to 2010.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 12:46 PM
How about using both Regular Season and Playoff stats for the said year? I mean using a 20 game span isn't always accurate...you can have let's say D Wade going berserk for a 4-6 weeks and putting up better numbers than Lebron during that time. Does that mean he's the better player during said season because of that run? That's what I'm getting at.

More importantly how about applying some context, like Kobe was playing alot better in 2000 before he got injured in the Finals. Also playoff numbers should be adjusted to reflect the strength of the opposition and since no one has ever faced as many top tier defensive clubs, you can bet Kobe has had it harder than most to replicate his regular season output.

Greedy22
10-21-2012, 02:25 PM
More importantly how about applying some context, like Kobe was playing alot better in 2000 before he got injured in the Finals. Also playoff numbers should be adjusted to reflect the strength of the opposition and since no one has ever faced as many top tier defensive clubs, you can bet Kobe has had it harder than most to replicate his regular season output.

Thank you, he missed a game with a badly sprained ankle and still led them to a huge win with shaw fouled out in that series.

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 03:05 PM
Thank you, he missed a game with a badly sprained ankle and still led them to a huge win with shaw fouled out in that series.
Oh please... that was probably the only game in that series he was even relevant in and lets not act like he was the saviour in that game.

Shaq carried the Lakers throughout the entire game including scoring 16pts in the 4th Q + OT.

Kobe made two baskets or something at the end to put them away but Shaq was still easily the MVP of that game and it isn't close.

Kobe was practically irrelevant in that series.


Also playoff numbers should be adjusted to reflect the strength of the opposition and since no one has ever faced as many top tier defensive clubs, you can bet Kobe has had it harder than most to replicate his regular season output.
Please... that is a terrible argument.
Kobe was not facing all these crazy defenses like you say.
Sure he faced "some" good ones and "some" great ones but you are heavily exaggerating.

Peak Pippen faced better overall defensive teams in his 92 run then Kobe faced in any of his.
Even if you feel the opposite the difference would be so small it certainly would not hold any relevance in this discussion.

Anyway comparing the performance of two players in similar roles using similar sample sizes is perfectly reasonable.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-21-2012, 03:07 PM
Oh please... that was probably the only game in that series he was even relevant in and lets not act like he was the saviour in that game.

Shaq carried the Lakers throughout the entire game including scoring 16pts in the 4th Q + OT.

Kobe made two baskets or something at the end to put them away but Shaq was still easily the MVP of that game and it isn't close.

Kobe was practically irrelevant in that series.

Please... that is a terrible argument.
Kobe was not facing all these crazy defenses like you say.
Sure he faced "some" good one and "some" great ones but you are heavily exaggerating.

Peak Pippen faced better overall defensive teams in his 92 run then Kobe faced in any of his.

Anyway comparing the performance of two players in similar roles using similar sample sizes is perfectly reasonable.

llullz, Shaq's genitalia must be really sore right about now.

Greedy22
10-21-2012, 04:33 PM
Oh please... that was probably the only game in that series he was even relevant in and lets not act like he was the saviour in that game.

Shaq carried the Lakers throughout the entire game including scoring 16pts in the 4th Q + OT.

Kobe made two baskets or something at the end to put them away but Shaq was still easily the MVP of that game and it isn't close.

Kobe was practically irrelevant in that series.

Please... that is a terrible argument.
Kobe was not facing all these crazy defenses like you say.
Sure he faced "some" good ones and "some" great ones but you are heavily exaggerating.

Peak Pippen faced better overall defensive teams in his 92 run then Kobe faced in any of his.
Even if you feel the opposite the difference would be so small it certainly would not hold any relevance in this discussion.

Anyway comparing the performance of two players in similar roles using similar sample sizes is perfectly reasonable.

Based on a sample size of 22 games, sure Pippen>Bryant, but you're the one who said Peak Pippen was better than 00-05 Bryant which is just asinine. How many times are you gonna change this argument to fit your agenda?

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 04:41 PM
Based on a sample size of 22 games, sure Pippen>Bryant, but you're the one who said Peak Pippen was better than 00-05 Bryant which is just asinine. How many times are you gonna change this argument to fit your agenda?
I didn't say that.

I said based on their playoff performances I thought Peak Pippen was a more impressive/valuable player then 00, 02 and 04 Kobe.

Kobe was better in 03 and 05 but both seasons ended up getting derailed by injuries.

I feel that is a fair opinion even though I can certainly respect if you feel differently.

KnicksorBust
10-21-2012, 04:43 PM
Duncan

Prime = 1998 - 2010
Peak = 2002 - 2007

Greedy22
10-21-2012, 04:47 PM
I didn't say that.

I said based on their playoff performances I thought Peak Pippen was a more impressive/valuable player then 00, 02 and 04 Kobe.

Kobe was better in 03 and 05 but both seasons ended up getting derailed by injuries.

I feel that is a fair opinion even though I can certainly respect if you feel differently.

Oh whoops, read that wrong. I'll have to go look at the rest to see if I agree though.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 05:07 PM
Oh please... that was probably the only game in that series he was even relevant in and lets not act like he was the saviour in that game.

Shaq carried the Lakers throughout the entire game including scoring 16pts in the 4th Q + OT.
The point remains Kobe was playing at a higher level before the injury.


Please... that is a terrible argument.
Kobe was not facing all these crazy defenses like you say.
Sure he faced "some" good ones and "some" great ones but you are heavily exaggerating.
I didn't exaggerate anything, I spoke of an irrifutable fact, throughout his career the defensive efficiency of the teams he faced is higher than any other star you can name. If you think that doesn't influence statistical output then thats on you but that doesn't make it a terrible argument, Ill side with the APBR community on this one, you always take into account the defensive environment the player is in, at least when you want to be thorough.

However terrible it is to state a fact, stating generalizations like "some good ones and some great ones" is why people sig-quote your posts, no the truth is he faced THE STRONGEST DEFENSIVE CLUBS. Do yourself a favor and be more precise, stop with the vague definitions. When your terms end up putting Odom and Kobe on comparable footing, thats when you should expand your criteria. The truth is, Kobe was facing the best defenses throughout his career, that is not an exaggeration, that is a KNOWN FACT.



Peak Pippen faced better overall defensive teams in his 92 run then Kobe faced in any of his.
Based on what exactly? All I see are 2 ******, I repeat ****** defensive teams, 1 epic one and 1 strong one. Thats your smoking gun? With that level of production? Kobe had a harder run in 02 when he faced 3 of the best defensive teams in the league (including a Nets team you were hyping up earlier that is actually less impressive defensively than the Spurs).



Even if you feel the opposite the difference would be so small it certainly would not hold any relevance in this discussion.
What discussion is that? I honestly dont know, hard to keep up with various arguments. If your arguing a single season run vs any Kobe has ever had then I think its pertinent, if your comparing certain years vs Kobe then it may not matter much, regardless, accounting for defensive environments is still more telling than not.



Anyway comparing the performance of two players in similar roles using similar sample sizes is perfectly reasonable.
Are you still talking to me? I dont care what you compare, just try to be thorough. Ignoring injuries and overall defensive strength isnt my style.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-21-2012, 05:16 PM
Chronz giving it to Andrew32 real good. :smoking:

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 05:18 PM
When your terms end up putting Odom and Kobe on comparable footing, thats when you should expand your criteria.

Ignoring injuries and overall defensive strength isnt my style.

#1. That never really happened and obviously most "terms" when either mine or others are not perfect.

#2. It isn't mine either.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 05:29 PM
So you didn't use the phrase low level all-star to describe both Kobe and Odom?

And you didn't just post stat lines with Kobe injured?

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 05:32 PM
So you didn't use the phrase low level all-star to describe both Kobe and Odom?

And you didn't just post stat lines with Kobe injured?
#1. Obviously that term isn't perfect.

There is a range of Tiers even when looking at Low, Mid and High level All-Stars/Super-Stars.
00 Kobe would obviously be on a higher Tier then Odom.

I used the phrase only with 00 Kobe who I don't think is really that far above Peak Odom anyway.

#2. Yeah I did I suppose and I should have mentioned the injury.

Bravo95
10-21-2012, 05:38 PM
It was a good thread idea so I'll just keep going.

'Nique:

Prime - '85 season until Pete Babcock and Stan Kasten decided a 1st place team should trade their leading scorer at midseason.

Peak - '87 thru '91 or some could argue until his Achilles injury.

Bravo95
10-21-2012, 05:41 PM
Kobe was not facing all these crazy defenses like you say.
Wow.

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 05:44 PM
Wow.
He really didn't

The only really good / special defenses I remember him facing are the 02 Spurs, the 04 Pistons and the 08 Celtics.

Other teams had good DRatings (01 SAS / 09 ORL) but putrid perimeter defenses.

Context... context.

Greedy22
10-21-2012, 05:58 PM
Chronz giving it to Andrew32 real good. :smoking:

This should be fun :nod:

Bravo95
10-21-2012, 06:06 PM
Other teams had good DRatings (01 SAS / 09 ORL) but putrid perimeter defenses.
"Putrid" perimeter defenses?

2001 Spurs were 2nd in Opponents 3PT% and 1st in Opponents FG%.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2001.html#opponent::9

2009 Magic were 2nd in Opponents 3PT% and 3rd in Opponents FG%.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2009.html#opponent::9

I'll let Chronz have this debate. Doesn't seem like much to be gained here.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 07:21 PM
#1. Obviously that term isn't perfect..
When it leads to expressions like that, its FAR from perfect. Thats the issue, you could do alot better.


There is a range of Tiers even when looking at Low, Mid and High level All-Stars/Super-Stars.
So there are tiers within your tiers? Why not just separate them all into their own separate tiers? Your making things needlessly complicated and coming to laughable conclusions in the process. Thats a sign for change.




#2. Yeah I did I suppose and I should have mentioned the injury
No ****. Im willing to bet you ignored injuries when discussing Wilt as well.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 07:49 PM
It was a good thread idea so I'll just keep going.

'Nique:

Prime - '85 season until Pete Babcock and Stan Kasten decided a 1st place team should trade their leading scorer at midseason.

Peak - '87 thru '91 or some could argue until his Achilles injury.

I remember getting alot of flak for saying I really enjoyed Nique's short tenure with us. I felt he still had game and enjoyed every moment he was with us, that probably says more about the Clippers and our low expectations than it says about Nique but Ill never forget his time here, so Ill always contend he was still in his prime, even if well removed from his glory years. I got his prime at 85-94. His peak is harder for me to identify for the reasons you gave. On one hand he didn't lose much statistically, that is until the playoffs came around. Not sure what to make of it without more details.

Bravo95
10-21-2012, 08:11 PM
I remember getting alot of flak for saying I really enjoyed Nique's short tenure with us. I felt he still had game and enjoyed every moment he was with us, that probably says more about the Clippers and our low expectations than it says about Nique but Ill never forget his time here, so Ill always contend he was still in his prime, even if well removed from his glory years. I got his prime at 85-94. His peak is harder for me to identify for the reasons you gave. On one hand he didn't lose much statistically, that is until the playoffs came around. Not sure what to make of it without more details.
I hope you all did enjoy his time there because I pretty much hated Manning (and our front office) from the moment he arrived. 'Nique definitely still had something left at the time of the trade, came back to the Omni and dropped 36 on us a few weeks after the deal while Danny did nothing in that game. That '93-'94 team was the best chance they had to win the title... Hawks with' Nique were better than the Knicks in my opinion. Still believe he had a few more prime years left if not dealt.

Lakersfan2483
10-22-2012, 04:24 AM
Every time I read a thread and Andrew 32 is involved it has something to do with Kobe Bryant. This thread had nothing to do with Kobe until you brought him up, as usual. The comparison thread is flooded with your posts regarding Kobe. 99.9 pct of what you post on here has something to do with the aformentioned player above.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-22-2012, 04:56 AM
Every time I read a thread and Andrew 32 is involved it has something to do with Kobe Bryant. This thread had nothing to do with Kobe until you brought him up, as usual. The comparison thread is flooded with your posts regarding Kobe. 99.9 pct of what you post on here has something to do with the aformentioned player above.

Andrew32, naps, el hidalgo, 3RDASYSTEM and dnewguy have formed a cult on this forum.

They are the Kobephobes. They're like the villainous group in a comic book series. :laugh2:

Lakersfan2483
10-22-2012, 04:59 AM
Andrew32, naps, el hidalgo, 3RDASYSTEM and dnewguy have formed a cult on this forum.

They are the Kobephobes. They're like the villainous group in a comic book series. :laugh2:

I see.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-22-2012, 05:01 AM
I see.

Just don't respond to those 3rd class cartoon characters. It's just not worth it.

NoahH
10-22-2012, 03:39 PM
MIKE JAMES - His peak run came in the 2005-2006 season where he averaged 20.3ppg with Toronto. His peak was a single year.

:laugh2:

dh144498
10-23-2012, 11:24 AM
Have fun with that. :o



There is no comparison between 00-05 Kobe and 06-09 Kobe and Kobe fell off big time in 2010.

Kobe in most years before 06 was either dealing with injuries or playing at a level below that of Peak Pippen.

If you define his Prime as any year he was an All-Star that is fine with me and I can't say you are wrong but that is just your opinion and it is not a fact.

The fact is Kobe was only a Super-Star player from 06-09.
In almost all of his other years he was just an All-Star in terms of oncourt impact.

Because of that I believe his Prime was from 06-09.
He had a very short Prime.

What you are generalizing is not a matter of opinion. If you just simply watch the games instead of playing around with numbers and make up skewed stats to prove your agenda, then you will notice that Kobe's prime started in 2000 or 2001 and is still going. And that whole comparison of below Pippen's prime is pathetic. You can make an argument for his prime to end in 2010 and I don't have a problem with it because it's fairly justified. I don't call you a troll because you have a different opinion than mine. But when your opinion is so idiotically moronic that you say Kobe's prime only lasted 3 years is just downright pathetic. No one with half a brain would say that no matter how much they hate Kobe. So conclusion: you are a troll.
Have fun with that.

JordansBulls
10-23-2012, 11:38 AM
Not to be mistaken for a players "Prime", a players Peak run is a stretch of play that is head and shoulders above the standard he has set for his career. For most people, remaining an All-Star caliber player means you are technically still around your prime, its only when you drop off immensely ala Gary Payton status, that you have exited your prime.

The subjective nature of these characterizations means not all of us will agree with these terminologies so as usual, to help illustrate the difference between a players Prime and Peak Run Ive given a few examples.







Moses Malone: His career spans 2 decades, hes made 12 All-Star teams. You could argue his prime lasting somewhere between 12-15 years based solely on individual production levels. However, his PEAK Run was clearly from 1978-1983, a solid 5 year span when he was winning MVP's, championships, and producing at a historic rate. Some might shorten or stretch that out but its in that range.






Guys like Moses are the reason I feel the need for separate terms. But not all players are as easily identified, some players make us wonder if they ever even had a peak run or if their entire prime was a peak run. Here are some players Im interested in seeing if you guys can pin point the best stretch of ball they have ever displayed:






-----------------------------------------------------------------


Hakeem: Go ahead, try and figure this one out.

Shaq: Very interesting, Ive seen some call him a superstar from day 1, Ive seen others say his peak lasted as few as 3 years.

Duncan:

Iverson, T-Mac, Vince, Pierce, KG ..... feel free to add to the list but try to tackle the ones Ive listed plz.

I'd say Duncan's prime was 1998 to 2009, while his peak was 2002-2005.

Tmac's prime from 2001-2008, and his peak 2002-2005