current/Peak Doncic vs Peak Nowitzki (brought to you by Jason Kidd)

[DCasey91]

2007 with 67 wins 109 ppg average at a 90 possession pace is crazy good.

Dirk is underrated imho. Different players

I do think it’s easier to build around Dirk and have more organic style of play.

His resiliency is fine as well in the post season.

I do think you leave something on the table for other on ball players if pairing up with Luka. Complimentary pieces is complimentary and what works at every level of winning is basically the same for other ATG’s.

All this time I have Luka Ball unders Harden in the regular that’s why his +- isn’t crash hot, but in the playoffs he has risen and remained inelastic (way bigger repertoire and a better playmaker objectively).

[LukaTheGOAT]

No basketball result has ever been achieved only playing offense, just like no dynasty has ever only played offense. The 'top-level result' in NBA basketball is winning titles (the more often and more convincing the better). Offensive helios have largely not achieved that top level result (compared to defensive anchors and players usually seen as non-helio offensive stars). If we're operating in a space where MJ/Kobe/Steph* count as heliocentric guys, then I'd argue the term has lost any meaning it may have had and is essentially synonymous with 'offensive star that can dribble'.

*At least the title winning versions, each had periods in their career where they operated as more of a helio, but achieved lesser results.

I'd say Magic moved into helio territory after Nixon left (maybe arguable in Nixon's last season with the Lakers).

LeBron has been a fringe helio for most of his career, but he's certainly not at the forefront of the movement (Nash, Harden, Luka).

How do you personally weight offensive results versus overall results in terms of evaluating the impressiveness of an offensive player?

In your opinion, would you argue that what Nash achieved as an offensive #1 was less impressive than what Kobe did as a #1 because Kobe's teams reached greater heights and was less offensively slanted?

The above was just a random example btw.

I apparently lean notably more heavily towards the overall team results than most these days. Not sure it's readily quantifiable. Any suggestions for doing so?

Probably not, Nash is my pick for best offensive player ever in prime, very very impressed with his Phoenix run, particularly the start of it. I'd have Kobe somewhere around 10th. "Less impressive" does make it a bit more nebulous vs something like "which was the better offensive player in prime".

I don't consider it some crazy comparison either way.

5 year rapm splits (cheema) - possession volume going pretty clearly Kobe's way if one were measuring value rather than goodness

Nash
'05-'09: 4.01 (7th)
'06-'10: 4.07 (6th)

Kobe
'05-'09: 4.13 (6th) LBJ/KG/Duncan/Manu/Wade above both
'06-'10: 4.26 (5th) LBJ/Wade/KG/Duncan above both, Manu dropping to 7th

I feel Kobe was a better defender than Nash generally (maybe not when Phil wasn't around), but we're not talking about a gigantic margin there, both are having easily 80+% of their impact on the offensive side of the ball. A Kobe that's not deserving of offensive comp to Nash doesn't largely match Nash across impact metrics in prime.

I was more so building upon OhayoKD's point around helios being better. I could be misunderstanding him, but I believe his thinking is that Lebron, Magic, and Nash guys are examples that helio offense is more impressive than what we have seen. A rebuttal of Lebron and Nash might be some of their teams were more offensively slanted and thus lesser than non-helio guys.

Though, I might be misunderstanding his argument.


You've done quite well for yourself in terms of basketball projection, so no need to change your approach or do anything differently.

[eminence]

I was more so building upon OhayoKD's point around helios being better. I could be misunderstanding him, but I believe his thinking is that Lebron, Magic, and Nash guys are examples that helio offense is more impressive than what we have seen. A rebuttal of Lebron and Nash might be some of their teams were more offensively slanted and thus lesser than non-helio guys.

My reply to OhayoKD was in response to this statement:

"But Helios are the most proven offensive archetype in terms of

A. Generating top-level results"

When I look at the "top-level results" in NBA history, I see very few built around heliocentric offensive stars (just Magic imo).

I don't see an answer to which archetype is 'better'. I don't believe player archetypes are inherently better than one another, they describe the shape of a players impact, not the volume of impact.

[tsherkin]

So yeah try again. Pretty sure you aren't actually interested in a discussion considering you tried to bring up some past beef you have with me, sigh.... But for the record for other posters reading the thread:

What?

No, I wasn't trying to bring up any beef at all, and wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that post. I'm not sure where that came from at all, to be honest. That is something you fabricated entirely in your own mind, man.

Anyone who knocks Dirk's defense and passing and then makes the highlighted statement is clearly implying Dirk is only a scorer.

*sigh*

Dirk wasn't a defensive anchor. He wasn't an especially elite help defender. I am not contending that he was some horrid defensive void, just that he wasn't good enough on D to make of this a major gap between these two players.

Because not only did Dirk not impede the offense, he was the offense. And I shouldn't have to explain to anyone that Dirk setting a screen, that shows up nowhere in the box score but leads immediately to a wide open shot for a teammate is shot creation. Or Dirk drawing a double in the high post, kicking it to the wing for a swing to an open corner 3 when the defense rotates is shot creation. and elite shot creation.

So yeah it was implied and his offensive impact intentionally undersold. But take that up with the poster choosing that path.

I have a great deal of respect for peak Dirk's impact on offense. In 06 and 07, he was an exceptional offensive impact player until he hit defenses he hadn't quite figured out yet in the playoffs. He was not that level of player the entire time, however, and that matters in this specific comparison. I understand that you are a large Dirk fan and you are attempting to view what I said through a lens of criticism to your guy, but you need to separate those things out.

There is a very, very big difference in playmaking and shot creation between Dirk and Luka. That isn't a contestable point. Yes, Dirk's presence warped the D. Yes, he was able to set screens and get involved in the PnR. Yes, he was a willing passer who didn't have sticky hands and didn't waste excessive time in isolations. He didn't impede the flow of the offense. Actively creating for others, however, was not his primary bag, and that's just... reality. You even touch on this to some extent when you draw the Nash/Kobe offensive comparison later in the thread. That's not an insult to Dirk, nor an attempt at erasing his success in driving high-end offenses. Indeed, with himself featuring as the most prominent impact factor on them, and with considerably more separation once Nash left.

But yeah, I need you to recalculate how you think about what's going on when I reply in threads like this; I'm not trying to "bring up beef" or whatever, man. We generally get along well and I respect your opinions even when I disagree, so that was some left-field stuff right there.

[tsherkin]

<... snipped for brevity>

This then to say that while I'll currently side with Dirk over Luka as the better player, and I'll point to Dirk showing far greater signs of regular season impact than Luka that I don't think it reasonable to ignore, the playoffs may eventually end up telling a very different story even if the regular season does not.

Interesting, thanks for responding.

[Texas Chuck]

No, I wasn't trying to bring up any beef at all, and wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that post. I'm not sure where that came from at all, to be honest. That is something you fabricated entirely in your own mind, man.

I understand that you are a large Dirk fan and you are attempting to view what I said through a lens of criticism to your guy, but you need to separate those things out.

There is a very, very big difference in playmaking and shot creation between Dirk and Luka. That isn't a contestable point.

But yeah, I need you to recalculate how you think about what's going on when I reply in threads like this; I'm not trying to "bring up beef" or whatever, man. We generally get along well and I respect your opinions even when I disagree, so that was some left-field stuff right there.

In order --

I directly quoted another poster when I said that. It wasn't about you. He repeatedly tries to stir up old stuff, not just with me but with a multitude of posters. He is here mostly to fight I think not discuss hoops. So I try and not engage with someone here to fight. I know that's not you. Never remotely said it was you.

Dismissing me as a Dirk homer sucks. I am the most open poster on the entire PC board about my own biases. I talk about them constantly because I am aware I have them. I've never hidden my Dirk bias, but that doesn't mean I can't discuss him.

I think its more contestable than you. Not in terms of passing obviously. Or volume. I am aware Luka has lapped the league for 4 years now in shot creation. But in terms of quality of looks? Dirk takes a backseat to absolutely nobody imo. It just requires us to not require him to make a pass. Which doesn't feel unreasonable since we understand there are a multitude of ways to create open shots of others.

I didn't make this personal. You took a response to another poster and internalized it. And then you decided I was just the Dirk defense force..... I simply strongly disagree with your post that well Dirk didn't impede the offense which is reductive as hell. But that's okay. We get to disagree.

[tsherkin]

I directly quoted another poster when I said that. It wasn't about you. He repeatedly tries to stir up old stuff, not just with me but with a multitude of posters. He is here mostly to fight I think not discuss hoops. So I try and not engage with someone here to fight. I know that's not you. Never remotely said it was you.

My quote box is separate from Ohayo's, if that's who you mean, so it looked as if you were directly addressing me.

My bad, though!

I think its more contestable than you. Not in terms of passing obviously. Or volume. I am aware Luka has lapped the league for 4 years now in shot creation. But in terms of quality of looks? Dirk takes a backseat to absolutely nobody imo. It just requires us to not require him to make a pass. Which doesn't feel unreasonable since we understand there are a multitude of ways to create open shots of others.

There are. I think there are also various ways to impact on an offense. In terms of active pressure, there's absolutely no contestable platform for Dirk over Luka because that's literally not how he was using possessions. But of course he was violently efficient relative to his era, he didn't waste a lot of time and he was able to routinely get involved in the PnR. And of course he demonstrated quite handily that he didn't need a Nash-level PG for that to work out pretty well. His best years came after Nash had gone, after all.

Dirk was a league-leader in offensive impact a couple seasons at his apex, and of course we are speaking of peak ITT, so it's an interesting one. Just not in terms of creating for others.

I also didn't mean for "didn't impede the offense" to sound so... dismissive, I guess? He wasn't a helio guy. He wasn't the active initiator, that just wasn't his game ITO shot creation/alteration. He bent the D with his gravity, he moved well without the ball, he played the two-man game about as well as anyone since the Mailman (even if he didn't finish at the rim the same way) and he was a staggering, ATG mid-range shooter.

In essence, that's an argument for portability. And as a +6% ish rTS guy who can work alongside any perimeter guy you'd care to name, that's a pretty easy slot-in for team success.

And something I routinely forget to mention when speaking well of Dirk but which is very much the case, he is about as low-turnover as later-career Jordan.

So in terms of possession economy, he's insane. That, coupled to his efficiency, is probably worth more than any of what we're hammering back and forth about his relative value to teammate shot quality.

[Texas Chuck]

Yes, but we can't ignore his shot creation. Which is huge. He was the guy creating the open shots. Call it gravity or something else, but the net result is the same. And we can't set it aside as something different.

But just watch Mavs possessions. Dirk sets screen. Guard is picked off, big stays with Dirk and now Nash is playing 4 on 3 or JET is shooting wide open 15 footers or Barea is beelining for the rim. Good shots everywhere.

Or Dirk gets the ball at the elbow. Double comes. He kicks to the guy on the wing who swings to the corner when the defense rotates. Wide open corner 3.

This is elite shot creation. It doesn't look like a Luka crosscourt bullet pass or an over the head how did he see that pass, but its not about style. It's about results. And Dirk was creating incredible shot after incredible shot.

It's much closer than you think, I assure you.

[Texas Chuck]

My quote box is separate from Ohayo's, if that's who you mean, so it looked as if you were directly addressing me.

I quoted you internally to my response to him so that's why you got a notification, but if you look at the context of my post its clearly directed at him--he claimed I was inventing a narrative so I needed to quote your post to show him that I didn't make up what you had posted.

We are all good, just wanted to clear that up. If you go back and look at my post, it will be clear to you.

[tsherkin]

I quoted you internally to my response to him

Yeah, I believe you, I was just explaining why I hit the post and how the way it looked made me respond as I did. I WAS DECEIVED!!!

But yeah, I can see in retrospect what was going on, for sure. I was confused as hell for a bit, heh.

[trex_8063]

It has him #1 in ORAPM and essentially tied for the #3 spot overall. What are you blabbering about?

Firstly to split a couple hairs: it has him tied for #1 in ORAPM over this time period, and tied for #4 overall.

Secondly, cut out the antagonism right now please. I'm not going to jump into a Kobe debate, and I know Doc is higher on Nash than I am; that said, he pointed out [correctly] that if there is information he's not seen which runs contrary to what he's been saying, that makes him ignorant, not delusional. This was followed by a very polite request to see this information.

Such a post did not merit this "b-b-b-but", laughing emojies, etc, type of nonsense.
Taunts of that nature are not going to be tolerated in the long-term under ANY circumstance, fyi.

[OhayoKD]

And something I routinely forget to mention when speaking well of Dirk but which is very much the case, he is about as low-turnover as later-career Jordan.

So in terms of possession economy, he's insane. That, coupled to his efficiency, is probably worth more than any of what we're hammering back and forth about his relative value to teammate shot quality.

This isn't the first time I've brought this up, but "possession economy" is really just "end of possession economy". You can put them in the same sentence, but Dirk if their turnovers are the same, then Dirk's turnover economy is substantially worse.

the idea that creation quality is higher on plays you affect less opposing defenders less is...odd to say the least(yes tsherkin, I'm aware it wasn't you), but if we're reconceptualizing english, may as well get funky with common sense.

[tsherkin]

This isn't the first time I've brought this up, but "possession economy" is really just "end of possession economy". You can put them in the same sentence, but Dirk if their turnovers are the same, then Dirk's turnover economy is substantially worse.

What is that supposed to actually mean, though? Yes, "possession economy" refers to how a possession was used, thus it's end result. "End of possession economy" is just the former with more words, because "mid-possession economy" doesn't mean anything at all.

When you have a guy who scores very efficiently and doesn't turn the ball over, that's extremely good use of your possessions. If you have a guy who scores less and/or turns the ball over more, that's worse. There's no need to overcomplicate this.

[OhayoKD]

This isn't the first time I've brought this up, but "possession economy" is really just "end of possession economy". You can put them in the same sentence, but Dirk if their turnovers are the same, then Dirk's turnover economy is substantially worse.

What is that supposed to actually mean, though? Yes, "possession economy" refers to how a possession was used, thus it's end result. "End of possession economy" is just the former with more words, because "mid-possession economy" doesn't mean anything at all.

Because it's a team sport and the "result" is not exclusively created by whoever has the ball at the end or whoever has the ball before the person with the ball at the end. Dirk's ball-handling is a weakness which requires teammates to contribute in a way Jordan's do not. If you do not account for that you are not actually measuring turnover-economy. Dirk does less and has less opportunity to turn the ball over. If he is turning the ball over as much as Jordan anyway, then his turnover economy is worse.

[tsherkin]

Because it's a team sport and the "result" is not exclusively created by whoever has the ball at the end or whoever has the ball before the person with the ball at the end.

Suuuuuure.... but wholly irrelevant to my point. You give him a possession, and he scores efficiently and rarely turns it over. That has a very specific value. Obviously, there are other variables involved in any given possession, but Dirk's ability goes largely beyond that in terms of the two traits I was discussing.

Dirk's ball-handling is a weakness which requires teammates to contribute in a way Jordan's do not.

Not entirely. I mean, if you're trying to say he could play helio ball, sure, he could, but he demonstrably saw more team success when he got OFF the ball more frequently.

If you do not account for that you are not actually measuring turnover-economy. Dirk does less and has less opportunity to turn the ball over.

Yeah, I mean, playmaking tends to raise turnover rate. Dirk's TOV% looks a lot like Jordan's TOV% in the second three-peat when he was shooting a great many jumpers and playing a lot less dribble attack to the rack than in earlier seasons, though...

[eminence]

Dirk was largely good at lowering team turnover rates, Jordan was elite, Luka (back to the thread) looks fairly average to date.

[OhayoKD]

Because it's a team sport and the "result" is not exclusively created by whoever has the ball at the end or whoever has the ball before the person with the ball at the end.

Suuuuuure.... but wholly irrelevant to my point. You give him a possession, and he scores efficiently and rarely turns it over. That has a very specific value. Obviously, there are other variables involved in any given possession, but Dirk's ability goes largely beyond that in terms of the two traits I was discussing.

Sure. He is tough to force into turnovers as a scorer. I'd say that's paticularly note-worthy in a comparison with say...Durant. With Luka? Eh. Luka is generally being "given" more of the possession than Dirk is, even if we limit it to possessions where the two score. It's not like Luka is easy to force into shooting turnovers anyway. He's not someone you can bully physically, and he has historically top-tier body and ball-control.

Dirk's ball-handling is a weakness which requires teammates to contribute in a way Jordan's do not.

Not entirely. I mean, if you're trying to say he could play helio ball, sure, he could, but he demonstrably saw more team success when he got OFF the ball more frequently.

It's a gradient scale, really, not a binary "on or "off. A "helio" stretch like Lebron's 2009/2010 is on a completely different level in terms of "how much you're doing" than the arch-angel stretch Jordan had in 89. A "non-helio" stretch like Jordan's other years are on a different level than pick-your-year-of-Larry-Bird. We've criticized Durant's ball-handling relative to players like Jordan and Curry, but he' is doing that significantly more than Dirk is.

That is not to say KD getting more turnovers is only a result of role(again, much easier to bully in his spots), but there are levels to this.

If you do not account for that you are not actually measuring turnover-economy. Dirk does less and has less opportunity to turn the ball over.

Yeah, I mean, playmaking tends to raise turnover rate. Dirk's TOV% looks a lot like Jordan's TOV% in the second three-peat when he was shooting a great many jumpers and playing a lot less dribble attack to the rack than in earlier seasons, though...

Fair.

[tsherkin]

Sure. He is tough to force into turnovers as a scorer. I'd say that's paticularly note-worthy in a comparison with say...Durant. With Luka? Eh. Luka is generally being "given" more of the possession than Dirk is, even if we limit it to possessions where the two score. It's not like Luka is easy to force into shooting turnovers anyway. He's not someone you can bully physically, and he has historically top-tier body and ball-control.

Oh, I see, you misinterpreted my remark. My point about possession economy was in a vacuum. I often find myself on the other side of arguments about Dirk, so I've been consciously trying to remember to also remark on positive elements of his game when I discuss him. Same same with someone like Kobe. It wasn't meant vis a vis Luka.

It's a gradient scale, really, not a binary "on or "off. A "helio" stretch like Lebron's 2009/2010 is on a completely different level in terms of "how much you're doing" than the arch-angel stretch Jordan had in 89. A "non-helio" stretch like Jordan's other years are on a different level than pick-your-year-of-Larry-Bird. We've criticized Durant's ball-handling relative to players like Jordan and Curry, but he' is doing that significantly more than Dirk is.

Yes, I can agree with all of that. That said, Dirk was a league-leading offensive monster during the 06 and 07 RS campaigns and he wasn't working with a lot of high-end anything to make him look that good. And that's basically the Dirk we're discussing here, so there's some space to remind ourselves that POA dribble drives and PnRs aren't everything in all systems.

[OhayoKD]

Sure. He is tough to force into turnovers as a scorer. I'd say that's paticularly note-worthy in a comparison with say...Durant. With Luka? Eh. Luka is generally being "given" more of the possession than Dirk is, even if we limit it to possessions where the two score. It's not like Luka is easy to force into shooting turnovers anyway. He's not someone you can bully physically, and he has historically top-tier body and ball-control.

Oh, I see, you misinterpreted my remark. My point about possession economy was in a vacuum. I often find myself on the other side of arguments about Dirk, so I've been consciously trying to remember to also remark on positive elements of his game when I discuss him. Same same with someone like Kobe. It wasn't meant vis a vis Luka.

Ah, fair.

I should probably try incorporating a bit of praise more when I critique a player. Though I really hate beating around the bush

It's a gradient scale, really, not a binary "on or "off. A "helio" stretch like Lebron's 2009/2010 is on a completely different level in terms of "how much you're doing" than the arch-angel stretch Jordan had in 89. A "non-helio" stretch like Jordan's other years are on a different level than pick-your-year-of-Larry-Bird. We've criticized Durant's ball-handling relative to players like Jordan and Curry, but he' is doing that significantly more than Dirk is.

Yes, I can agree with all of that. That said, Dirk was a league-leading offensive monster during the 06 and 07 RS campaigns and he wasn't working with a lot of high-end anything to make him look that good. And that's basically the Dirk we're discussing here, so there's some space to remind ourselves that POA dribble drives and PnRs aren't everything in all systems.

Yeah that's fair too.

[LukaTheGOAT]

I was more so building upon OhayoKD's point around helios being better. I could be misunderstanding him, but I believe his thinking is that Lebron, Magic, and Nash guys are examples that helio offense is more impressive than what we have seen. A rebuttal of Lebron and Nash might be some of their teams were more offensively slanted and thus lesser than non-helio guys.

My reply to OhayoKD was in response to this statement:

"But Helios are the most proven offensive archetype in terms of

A. Generating top-level results"

When I look at the "top-level results" in NBA history, I see very few built around heliocentric offensive stars (just Magic imo).

I don't see an answer to which archetype is 'better'. I don't believe player archetypes are inherently better than one another, they describe the shape of a players impact, not the volume of impact.

Right, but knowing OhayoKD, my impression was that he speaking at the highest peak of offensive results, thus Nash, Magic, and Lebron. Probably too many assumptions on my part.