#14 Highest Peak of All Time (Oscar '63 wins)

[Dr Positivity]

Does 2008 Paul have a case against any of Wade, Kobe, Oscar, West, Tmac? I did feel he should've gotten MVP before Kobe that year, then had a great playoffs. I'm almost definitely voting 08 Paul over the best Nash season

I would say in '09 Paul was just a much superior all-around player.

I would say 09 Paul is a better RS player, but his poor playoff performance make it a pretty easy decision towards 08 for this project IMO

[colts18]

You want more data -- look at the 4,000 game set I used.

You barking up a tree about the information I've presented as "ridiculous" and then trying to contradict it without controlling for team strength (the whole point of the exercise) and with a super small sample prone to variance (see for yourself) against a dataset 40x bigger.

Here, I'll save you the time. Here's my research of 3,513 games from the last 3 years:


Home Team SRS Advantage -- % of Games Won -- Sample Size
15 92.7% 55
14 88.9% 27
13 93.5% 46
12 90.2% 51
11 90.5% 63
10 84.0% 94
9 82.2% 90
8 83.5% 115
7 83.2% 137
6 80.3% 142
5 79.5% 176
4 78.2% 188
3 66.2% 195
2 66.8% 223
1 62.4% 210
0 58.5% 195
-1 58.8% 187
-2 54.1% 170
-3 40.3% 191
-4 49.7% 167
-5 37.2% 148
-6 37.6% 149
-7 33.6% 113
-8 25.4% 114
-9 27.1% 70
-10 29.6% 54
-11 13.7% 51
-12 34.5% 29
-13 13.3% 30
-14 9.1% 22
-15 18.2% 11

You'll notice with a 3500 game sample I STILL have a variance issue in the outlying games. According to seasonal research, the effect would probably be bigger in the 80's than today. Now, can we move on to discussing top peaks again?

HCA is big when the two teams are closer as I showed in the posts above. Here is more data on conference finalists.

Team with HCA is:
5-5 series record when having a worse SRS
7-4 series record when SRS difference is between 0 and +1

Team w/HCO at home:
+1.98 better than opponent in regular season (by SRS)
+5.27 point differential
+3.28 HCA

Team w/o HCO at home:
-1.97 worse than opponent in regular season
3.22 point differential
+5.19 HCA

Average HCA is +4.24 based on that.

Teams that are within -1 to 1 SRS of each other:
Home team: 69-35 (.663)
home team: +3.85 point differential

Teams that are within -0.5 to 0.5 SRS of each other:
Home team: 46-23 (.667)
Home team: +4.10 point differential

Games 6 and 7 for teams within -1 to 1 SRS of each other:
home team: 12-4 (.750) record
point differential: +5.19

So even with teams that are very even (within 1 or 0.5 SRS) with each other, HCA is still big. It's about 2/3 for the home team and that advantage increases later in the series.

[LikeABosh]

Doctor MJ, I'd like to play along in this project, but would it be unfair if I missed the first 13 selections and just jumped right into #14?

[thebottomline]

Oscar wasn't scoring with Kobe-like volume when you consider the fact that Oscar was playing 35-40 more offensive possessions per game than Kobe. Oscar peaked at 21.7 pts/75 in 1964... in 1963 he was at 19.5 pts/75. Kobe has averaged 27+ pts/75 for the last 7 seasons, with several seasons near or above 30.

Oscar was closer to Magic in scoring volume than the elite wings imo... Oscar's career pts/75 is 18.9, Magic's is 19.0.

Still, Oscar's offensive impact was obviously tremendous so I'm not saying he doesn't deserve consideration here.

[lorak]

Oscar wasn't scoring with Kobe-like volume when you consider the fact that Oscar was playing 35-40 more offensive possessions per game than Kobe. Oscar peaked at 21.7 pts/75 in 1964... in 1963 he was at 19.5 pts/75. Kobe has averaged 27+ pts/75 for the last 7 seasons, with several seasons near or above 30.

Oscar was closer to Magic in scoring volume than the elite wings imo... Oscar's career pts/75 is 18.9, Magic's is 19.0.

Still, Oscar's offensive impact was obviously tremendous so I'm not saying he doesn't deserve consideration here.

True, Oscar's volume wasn't anywhere near Kobe's, but Robertson was more efficient scorer and overall more valuable offensive player.

[Radbe]

how about the fact that oscar was in a 8-team league playing against a bunch of white UN-athleic guards with 12-130 possessions to work with while kobe was in a 30 team league with far better scouting/defenses/athleticism/perimeter competition. and about 90 possessions a game.

the league in the 00's was just so much better

[lorak]

how about the fact that oscar was in a 8-team league playing against a bunch of white UN-athleic guards with 12-130 possessions to work with while kobe was in a 30 team league with far better scouting/defenses/athleticism/perimeter competition. and about 90 possessions a game.

the league in the 00's was just so much better

Wilt and Russell from the same 8 team league are already selected, so...

[ElGee]

As for Oscar v West, I'm really surprised to see people sort of defaulting to Oscar. I assume a lot of this is based on his 1968 in/out numbers of 19 g (we can kill two games where he barely played). But let me explain why I feel really comfortable with peak West > peak Oscar even though they are obviously close in this same glop of players.

In 1968, Oscar's Royals were -10 SRS in those 19 games. With him, they were +2.6.
In 1968, West's Lakers were -0.5 SRS without him in 31 games. With him, they were +8.1 SRS.

Which do you think I find more impressive? Easily. Both because of sample size and because of the height to which one team is being raised...

West has a tremendous pattern of value this way throughout the decade, as I've posted. But let's look at it from another POV...people love the Royal's ORtg's throughout the decade. But what about the Laker ORtgs???

1961 Cin 3.5 LA -1.3
1962 Cin 4.5 LA 2.1
1963 Cin 3.7 LA 1.7 *** But +4.1 w West in if we simply assume a constant pace
1964 Cin 3.9 LA 3.3
1965 Cin 4.4 LA 4.0
1966 Cin 2.8 LA 3.5
1967 Cin 2.1 LA 1.4 *** But +1.9 w West in
1968 Cin 4.4 LA 5.3 *** LA is +8.7 w West in (106.3 offense!!!) and Cin +6.6 w Oscar in
1969 Cin 4.8 LA 3.6 *** LA is +4.8 w West in
1970 Cin -0.7 LA 0.2 *** Cin -0.5 w Oscar in, LA +3.0 w West in
1971 Mil 7.3 LA 1.3 *** LA +3.0 w West in
1972 Mil 5.2 LA 6.3 *** Mil +5.8 w Oscar in
1973 Mil 2.2 LA 4.0 *** +5.8 w West in

So the estimations are obviously a bit fuzzy because we have to assume a constant pace, and that's unlikely, but it's also unlikely that there was much of a deviation one way or the other. In other words, the small error that would be present here is not much different than the small error from offense/defense strategy that we are unaware of as well, so it's at least good to know these numbers as another data point. And what do they say?

They say that with both players in the game, West had a better offense 6 times in 11 years, with 1969 being a tie. We also know that West had, pretty clearly, the best looking offense of the era basically in 1968. Some things to consider when interpreting the numbers:

-Oscar played w Jack Twyman, a big-time score, in 1961 (Twyman started to tail off after 62)
-In 64, the Royals add Jerry Lucas
-By 69, Tom Van Arsdale has become a 20 ppg scorer
-In 70, Bob Cousy coaches the team and clashes w Robertson

-West joins Elgin Baylor's team that posted +0.7 and -3.0 ORtg's in the prior years
-Baylor misses 32 games due to military service in 1962. Est ORtg (constant pace) w him: +3.8.
-Baylor injures his knee at end of 1965 (misses PS) and struggles physically in 66 (in and out of lineup)
-68 Lakers hire Van Breda Koff, implement something like Princeton offense and pick up Archie Clark.
-69 Lakers pick up Wilt, lose Clark and Goodrich
-In 70, Wilt missed the whole season (but 12)
-In 71, Lakers get back Wilt, Goodrich and add Happy Hairston, no more Baylor
-In 72, Bill Sharman (fantastic coach) takes over, Jim McMillian becomes 19 ppg scorer
-Hairston misses most of the 73 season

In general, I find the 70 to 73 numbers to be a wider distribution because of the rapid expansion and split leagues. So again, I find something like the 68 Laker offense to be the most impressive of all these offenses by far. Furthermore, if you look at it from West's prime through the end of the decade, you could say when both guys were in:

1962 Lakers weren't far behind Royals with Baylor in
1963 Lakers were slightly better
1964 Royals were slightly better -- added Jerry Lucas
1965 Royals were slightly better
1966 Lakers were better despite a hobbling Baylor
1967 Royals were barely better.
1968 Lakers were clearly better. GOAT-level offense
1969 Even (Lakers lose 2 guards, add Wilt. Van Arsdale emerges for Cin)
1970 Lakers WAY better, even without Wilt (Cousy and Oscar but heads)

And during it all, the Lakers were always a much better TEAM. We're trying to isolate one half of the ball but West had a reputation as a ball hawk and his overall team results were, obviously, much better in the 60s.

There's a statistical component that is incredibly impressive from both of them. And stylistically, I'm reminded of some of the Magic-Bird debate. West truly is a lead guard -- he's a very good passer. Oscar is an amazing passer who was the originator of the QB-style PG. He used space, angles, PnR, and was just on-ball all the time. Amazing, of course. West, OTOH, posses a basic attribute that I constantly tout when discussing portability: he was an unreal shooter. So he could drive (look at those FTA's!), pass, and shoot for himself and shoot off the ball in a system. I'm actually not surprised, having seen them both play, that you could claim West's 68 Lakers were the highest peak offense of the era (even though I only stumbled upon this information this year).

And a giant PS: I think West was a better defender based on contemporary praise and limited eye test (long, long arms). More flashbacks of Bird-Magic...

[ThaRegul8r]

Hmm. Interesting. As I look at my notes, I see that I had made note of the fact that '68 was West's most efficient regular and postseasons, and I remember looking at the games West had missed that season during the Retro Player of the Year Project, but I wasn't aware of just how good the Lakers were with West versus without him, as quantitative analysis is not my area of specialty. Out of curiosity, what year exactly would you pinpoint as Oscar's peak?

[Doctor MJ]

Doctor MJ, I'd like to play along in this project, but would it be unfair if I missed the first 13 selections and just jumped right into #14?

My rule has been:

1) tell me you want in
2) participate for a bit without voting so i know you're legit
3) then i'll consider adding you to the panel.

So just follow that. PM me if you have questions.

[therealbig3]

I see peak Nash as slightly but clearly better than peak Paul, so I can't consider Paul until Nash gets voted in.

Well we know Paul is better defensively. So are we really saying Nash is a clearcut superior offensive player to make up for that?

I know people are in love with the ORTGs Nash anchored, but there's a lot of situational variables in those numbers. A Marion/Amare frontcourt, a ton of 3pt shooters, and the fastest pace/Mike D'Antoni's offense only mindset (players have said he doesn't coach defense in practices), albeit they also put up an elite number in 2010. The Suns and Royals having better ORTGs than the Hornets doesn't necessarily mean Nash and Oscar are better offensive players. Those teams paid the price defensively to be that good offensively. Playing Amare at C in particular and having a devastating pick and roll play as a result is poison candy, it might taste really good for a while, but then it will make you sick and kill you

Well, yeah, I do think Nash is superior offensively, and by enough to compensate for Paul's defense.

I agree, the Suns played lineups that ramped up their offense and sacrificed defense...but Nash has still maintained historic ORatings with conventional lineups as well, better than Paul typically has. In 06, without Amare and with 53 games of Kurt Thomas, Nash led the Suns to a +5.3 offense. As you pointed out, without Marion in 2010 and with Channing Frye, Grant Hill, Amare Stoudemire, and Jason Richardson filling out the roster, Nash led the Suns to a +7.7 offense.

And the last two years, with a pretty sad supporting cast, Nash has led a top 10 offense both years, past his prime.

Paul has never led offenses like that, even with similar talent in LAC and NO at times.

Also, as someone who does value RAPM, Nash consistently beats Paul offensively, and beat him overall in 2008, while being pretty much even with him in 09. And that wasn't even Nash at his best, I think 05 or 07 was Nash's peak.

[Doctor MJ]

Well we know Paul is better defensively. So are we really saying Nash is a clearcut superior offensive player to make up for that?

I know people are in love with the ORTGs Nash anchored, but there's a lot of situational variables in those numbers. A Marion/Amare frontcourt, a ton of 3pt shooters, and the fastest pace/Mike D'Antoni's offense only mindset (players have said he doesn't coach defense in practices), albeit they also put up an elite number in 2010. The Suns and Royals having better ORTGs than the Hornets doesn't necessarily mean Nash and Oscar are better offensive players. Those teams paid the price defensively to be that good offensively. Playing Amare at C in particular and having a devastating pick and roll play as a result is poison candy, it might taste really good for a while, but then it will make you sick and kill you

It's the combination of team offense plus +/- related things that does it.

#1 team plus meh +/- leaves uncertainty
meh team plus #1 +/- leaves uncertainty
#1 team plus #1 +/-? What's the issue?

Of course, that's a value-centric argument. It doesn't stop you from saying "I think in the right setting, Paul could be more valuable?". The question is, what's your basis for saying that?

I can't know how you think of it, but what I can say is that if you think the current evidence says that Paul is Nash without the weak spots, you're mistaken. They have very different strengths as distributors. Nash dominates in his ability to get his players to make better shots, Paul dominates in his ability to do a solid job producing opportunities while keeping turnovers to an absolute minimum.

Re: Paid the price defensively. As has been mentioned before, the Suns' offense did not require that the center suck at defense. When Amare went out in '05-06, the Suns offense remained fantastic with Kurt Thomas at center. And obviously while having an offensive player as gifted as Amare helps, Nash wouldn't be dominating the offensive +/- statistics if the team's success had hinged first and foremost on Amare.

[Doctor MJ]

HCA is big when the two teams are closer as I showed in the posts above. Here is more data on conference finalists.

Team with HCA is:
5-5 series record when having a worse SRS
7-4 series record when SRS difference is between 0 and +1

Team w/HCO at home:
+1.98 better than opponent in regular season (by SRS)
+5.27 point differential
+3.28 HCA

Team w/o HCO at home:
-1.97 worse than opponent in regular season
3.22 point differential
+5.19 HCA

Average HCA is +4.24 based on that.

Teams that are within -1 to 1 SRS of each other:
Home team: 69-35 (.663)
home team: +3.85 point differential

Teams that are within -0.5 to 0.5 SRS of each other:
Home team: 46-23 (.667)
Home team: +4.10 point differential

Games 6 and 7 for teams within -1 to 1 SRS of each other:
home team: 12-4 (.750) record
point differential: +5.19

So even with teams that are very even (within 1 or 0.5 SRS) with each other, HCA is still big. It's about 2/3 for the home team and that advantage increases later in the series.

colts, first off, you seem to be repeatedly coming back with different data that you think says something else than what ElGee is instead of telling him what he's doing wrong. This is bound to get annoying to him because he's already told you what he thinks you're doing wrong, and to my knowledge you aren't addressing it.

You do make a point that I find compelling though:

If home teams in the playoffs seem to do better than we'd expect given what home court advantage means in the regular season, what does that mean?

I can understand a philosophy that it doesn't matter what causes it, we should simply accept the data. However we shouldn't forget how weird the concept of HCA is to begin with.

To me, there's a few things that stand out relating to playoff series:

1. Home crowds are more amped. This could make HCA bigger.
2. Visiting teams get far more comfortable with the venues, should make HCA smaller.
3. The prolonged nature of the competition, and the perception that home games are more winnable, means teams tend to try harder at home, which makes HCA appear bigger.
4. The strategic adjustments of the series make it difficult for one team to win multiple games in a row, which sometimes helps HCA and sometimes hurts it.

[Dr Positivity]

The 06 Suns had the same ORTG as the 08 Hornets and did drop down a few points from 05 and 07. This is with Diaw getting a lot of center minutes over the year (backup center to Kurt Thomas, then starting center without him, + Tim Thomas becomes backup center at that point) The Suns offense went from 100.3 pts per all-star break to 107.2 pts after it, with the latter being the stretch without Thomas. Kurt Thomas' on court ORTG was 110.4 via 82games while Diaw's was 113.8, Amare's in 05 was 118.9 and in 07 was 115.8. This is all aside from the fact that the Hornets were a bottom 5 pace team that walked up the court vs the Suns SSOL which makes a difference. So I wouldn't say the evidence that the Suns would match their 05/07 offense/get to a level Paul hasn't touched with Kurt Thomas at C, is very strong

[MisterWestside]

Also, as someone who does value RAPM, Nash consistently beats Paul offensively, and beat him overall in 2008, while being pretty much even with him in 09.

Eh...kinda unfair to Paul, since 08 was his "breakout" year and Nash hit his peak as a player in 06 (prior-informed RAPM likes that a little bit). The Hornets also had some decent PGs behind Paul during some seasons; like Collison, who actually played more traditional PG in a reserve role than the larger Dragic, who played more combo guard.

Not only that, he played with the like of washed-up Peja/Posey and useless Songalia in '10, and Willie Green (turbulent season) and the inconsistent Ariza in '11. Not the most ideal pieces and offensive specialists to fit Paul with.

[Doctor MJ]

Ok, very controversial pick to some, but I really haven't seen anything against him that I find to be all that convincing.

Vote: 09 Dirk Nowitzki

I've posted my rationale before:

Dirk has my #14 vote as of right now. Robinson to me is Amare with elite defense (to be clear: damn good player, and a top 20 peak ever). Not a great passer, can't really create for himself consistently, and his only real attribute offensively is his crazy athleticism which he uses to face up and finish around the rim and get to the line. Good player offensively, but not really close to what Dirk provides as an offensive player. And Dirk is super portable offensively. IMO, I would take Robinson over Dirk if Dirk was a bad defensive player, but that's not the case, because Dirk is definitely a positive impact player on defense, even if it is small, and even if you can't build a great defense around him specifically.

Dirk just had more impact at his peak than Kobe/T-Mac/Wade, and is easier to build around, which is why I'm going with him over them. Admittedly, I'm still not super sure about where West or Oscar go, but since I have them around the same level as Kobe/T-Mac/Wade, I have Dirk ahead of them as of right now too.

Really haven't heard anything convincing against Dirk, and why he can't be considered at this level.

Don't really understand why Dirk being in the top 15 is such a ridiculous thought. He probably is my #14 pick, and it's not even based off 11.

I do think Dirk pre-08 was a flawed player in terms of skillset (couldn't take advantage of smaller defenders), but after that, he really did become a pretty unstoppable offensive player. I'd probably take Dirk in 08, 09, or 10 to be honest, over 11. 11 gets all the credit, because he won a title, but he was doing the same things in those years, except with better rebounding and probably better defense because he was younger. I'd probably go with 09 Dirk to be honest.

And what is Dirk at his peak? He's a ridiculous offensive player, probably top 10 offensive player of all time, or in that vicinity. And on top of that, he's an excellent defensive rebounder, and he's a solid defensive piece that rotates well, has great positioning, and has great hands.

His offense is most likely getting underrated here if his peak isn't considered close to top 15. I'd take him as an offensive player over guys like Kobe or Wade or T-Mac, for example.

Compare his ORAPM from 03-07 (before his peak imo) to other top offensive stars:

03

Dirk: +2.6

T-Mac: +1.4
Kobe: +2.5
Shaq: +4.3
KG: +3.6

04

Dirk: +3.7

T-Mac: +1.9
Kobe: +2.0
Shaq: +4.1
KG: +4.5

05

Dirk: +3.4

T-Mac: +1.9
Kobe: +1.8
Shaq: +3.2
KG: +3.1
LeBron: +2.0
Wade: +2.3
Nash: +4.0

06

Dirk: +4.5

Kobe: +5.9
KG: +2.5
LeBron: +3.9
Wade: +4.6
Nash: +4.5

07

Dirk: +6.0

Kobe: +6.0
KG: +2.7
LeBron: +7.1
Wade: +6.1
Nash: +7.9


We see a guy who is clearly on the same level offensively as some of the best offensive players in the league.

From 07/08-10/11 (which is his highest level of play imo, after he incorporated his midpost game), the offensive RAPM of the league's stars look like this (based on the 4-year RAPM study):

Dirk: +5.0

Kobe: +4.7
Paul: +5.5
LeBron: +6.6
Wade: +6.2
Nash: +7.7

He's right there on par with Kobe and Paul...LeBron and Nash are two of the 6 or 7 best offensive players ever imo, and Wade was really, really good and peaked ridiculously high as well during this time.

And overall, Nowitzki is 2nd in the 4-year study, with +7.8, tied with Nash.

So I'm seeing a ridiculously high impact player, with underrated defense and historically good offense. I have no problem voting him in right after the top 13, and I probably will.

To me, Dirk is like the 3rd or 4th best offensive player left, behind Nash and Oscar, and more or less even with Barkley. And he provides a lot more on defense than any of them provide. Not saying he's an elite defensive player, but his shortcomings have always been majorly exaggerated on that end...as I've posted before, he's an excellent defensive rebounder, and very good at positioning himself. He's a pretty solid man defender in the post, and he has quick hands. High IQ player as well. I'd consider Dirk a "good" defender, while Nash and Oscar are more or less neutral, and Barkley might be a negative.

mysticbb has also posted in another thread at some point about Dirk peaking higher than Kobe as well, I'll try and find that.

I want to say that I really like the effort you're putting in, and you trying to apply logic coherently. I think you're probably right to say that Dirk didn't go through a personal transformation in '11, the team just changed...but isn't that disconcerting?

After all, the Mavs in this later era aren't putting up super-impressive offense really. The defense is improving, and along with it, Dirk's defensive RAPM is improving.

I get the idea that Dirk's got a defensive edge on the Barkleys of the world, but no one thinks he's huge on defense right? And meanwhile, the offenses later Dirk is producing aren't in the same league as what Barkley's teams did at his peak. Even more so with Nash, and Oscar too if you adjust for league standards.

So when this is an offensive guy who isn't producing mega-team offense with his subtle improvements, on what grounds do you put him up on a pedestal with these other guys to the point where you jump right to the defensive tie break?

[therealbig3]

Well, first of all, the playoff offenses that Dirk has lead since he made the improvement in his mid-post game HAVE been elite...historically good even.

Every 2nd round or better offense from the Mavericks since 07 has been +7 or better in the playoffs.

Also, it seems weird that all of a sudden pointing to team offenses makes more sense than to see how Dirk is stacking up to the league's offensive superstars by RAPM, and he looks very comparable.

And anyway, can you even make the case that later Dirk has had offensive support similar to Nash or Oscar or Barkley? Again, maybe less so than with defense, but it does take a team effort to build a great offense, and it's unfair to me to say "Dirk with 2 decent ball handlers and creators, and a solid group of role players isn't leading the same offense as Barkley with KJ/Majerle/Ceballos and a similar cast of role players or Nash with Amare/Marion/Barbosa/Dragic and an elite group of shooters". With that said, I do think Nash is better offensively. But Barkley led some really disappointing results in Philadelphia, FWIW.

And even then, I've also always been confused why Nash gets the credit for running elite offenses while in Dallas, when it was clear to me that the offense was built around Dirk, or at the very least both Dirk and Nash. So Dirk should get the same credit for leading elite offenses in the early 2000s with the Mavericks as well.

01 Mavs: +4.1
02 Mavs: +7.7
03 Mavs: +7.1
04 Mavs: +9.2

93 Suns: +5.3
94 Suns: +5.4
95 Suns: +6.2
96 Suns: +2.7

Granted, KJ was injured a lot during these years. But a relatively healthy KJ without Barkley in 97 was able to lead a +2.6 offense, comparable to the offense the year before with Barkley, and considering Barkley's reputation as an offensive superstar, not too much of a dropoff from 93-95.

Why Dirk from 08-now has been so impressive is that he's been able to lead very good but not quite elite offenses, despite the Mavericks playing a lot more defensive-oriented lineups. He's able to keep the offenses afloat and playing at a solid level, while the Mavericks can play guys like Kidd, Stevenson, Chandler and Marion with Dirk and also play very well on the defensive side of the ball.

So I don't really agree with the idea to look at the team offenses of the Mavericks in recent years and compare it to the Barkley Suns, or Nash Suns, or Oscar Royals, because A. the Mavericks have focused more on defense than offense, and B. Dirk hasn't played with nearly the same amount of offensive talent.

I do think pre-08 Dirk on the 08-12 Mavericks wouldn't have been able to lead the same offenses, because he was a lot easier to slow down.

[therealbig3]

And if you want to discuss portability, maybe Dirk there isn't more impressive than Nash (who is so good with the ball in his hands that it doesn't even really matter if he can play without it, because only a fool would make him) or Oscar (similar to Nash, but also showed a great ability to adapt to Kareem's game)...but he's clearly vastly more portable than Barkley to me. Current Dirk with a slightly past their primes Hakeem and Drexler/Pippen would have resulted in much better team results.

[therealbig3]

And here are the offenses that Dirk led (or co-led with Nash) in his prime (on 2nd round or better teams):

01 Mavs: +4.0 (10 games)
02 Mavs: +9.0 (8 games)
03 Mavs: +10.0 (20 games)
05 Mavs: +9.1 (13 games)
06 Mavs: +7.4 (23 games)
09 Mavs: +7.4 (10 games)
11 Mavs: +7.3 (21 games)

From before. So it's actually only been two teams that have made it past the 1st round since 07, but 09 was +7.4 and 11 was +7.3.

In the 5 game series loss against the Hornets in 08 (Dirk per 36 averaged 23/10/3 on 59% TS), the Mavs had a 108.0 ORating against the 105.7 DRating of the Hornets (+2.3). I know everyone outside of Dirk, Terry, and Bass shot like crap, and I remember Kidd being hopelessly ineffective as Chris Paul ran wild.

In the 6 game series loss against the Spurs in 10 (Dirk per 36 averaged 25/8/3 on 64% TS), the Mavs had a 105.1 ORating against the 104.5 DRating of the Spurs (+0.6). Again, while Dirk played great, nobody outside of Butler shot well at all, and Kidd was again embarrassingly bad in that series. Parker, Ginobili, and Hill all played great, while Dampier and Haywood couldn't stop a 33-year old Duncan.

I fail to see how those are on Dirk, or what else he could have done. Again, we can "assume" the supporting cast plays poorly for anyone else ever, and they wouldn't be leading great offenses either.

[Doctor MJ]

The 06 Suns had the same ORTG as the 08 Hornets and did drop down a few points from 05 and 07. This is with Diaw getting a lot of center minutes over the year (backup center to Kurt Thomas, then starting center without him, + Tim Thomas becomes backup center at that point) The Suns offense went from 100.3 pts per all-star break to 107.2 pts after it, with the latter being the stretch without Thomas. Kurt Thomas' on court ORTG was 110.4 via 82games while Diaw's was 113.8, Amare's in 05 was 118.9 and in 07 was 115.8. This is all aside from the fact that the Hornets were a bottom 5 pace team that walked up the court vs the Suns SSOL which makes a difference. So I wouldn't say the evidence that the Suns would match their 05/07 offense/get to a level Paul hasn't touched with Kurt Thomas at C, is very strong

Eh, well first, PPG can be misleading. Check out how much more the Suns score on the road for example. Note also what happens to the Suns FTAs and ORBs as the season ends. If you want to say that Kurt Thomas' injury didn't affect the offense nearly as much as the defense, I agree. If you want to say that playing Diaw at center was a cheat toward offense over defense, I'll agree but not that it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about a team's "offensive cheats" when the team is that injury depleted.

Second, if you're wanting to say that Paul's best has equaled what Nash's offense has done without Amare, make sure you drill down. Those Hornets were certainly not as good at putting the ball in the basket on the first try as the '06 Suns. They made up for it with their offensive rebounding, because the '06 Suns were dead last in offensive rebounding.

Now this is clearly territory where you can talk about different teams with different strengths. I have no issue with saying the Hornets were the equal of the average-'06 Suns on offense because offensive rebounding should count, but the strength of the Hornets offense had a lot more to do with its boarding strength than the Suns did, and when they lost that boarding strength in future years, the Hornets went right back to mediocrity in offensive ratings.

So what I"m seeing is Paul being able to lead a team to a similar offensive rating as Nash in certain situations, but when you're comparing healthy to healthy, and injured to injured, Nash has been the one who has the better track record with both offense and overall performance.