Greatest Offensive Legends of the Modern Era - ON Court Offensive Rating

[Primedeion]

LeBron 2012-2017 is incredible. +10.6 and weighed down by a finals performance against one of the better modern defenses we have ever seen, with J.R. Smith as a 2nd option and Matthew Dellavedova as a secondary playmaker.

Kobe having incredible synergy with Pau and Shaq and then being slightly above average supports a lot of my thoughts about him being excellent, synergizing with a big man, and also not being an elite central hub without the perfect secondary option.

Jokic peaking at +7.4 and +7.6 as a post-season anchor means he has a lot of ground to make up on the other ATG offensive centerpieces of the data ball era.

Nash, with the best 3-year peak at +36.7, followed closely by LeBron at +36.4, tracks well with what many people think are the two best offensive players of the 21st Century.

2013-2023 Average: +8.1/+9.1

How are you calculating the average? 73.8/9 is 8.2, yet you have +9.1 for the post-season. Thanks!

Yeah the guy with the highest offensive on/off ever recorded, who was #1 in a million different offensive impact metrics (including O-EPM, O-xRAPM, O-raptor, ORPM, ORAPM, OAPM, etc), who anchored a borderline top five offense with a horrific supporting cast (including literally one of the worst offensive players in the league starting and playing 30 mpg)wasn't an ELitz CeNTral Hub.

[Primedeion]

We are talking about offense, and his teams playoff offenses were absolutely incredible and not the reason they lost in the playoffs.

Yeah those teams blatantly sacrificing their defense/rebounding to artificially boost their offense has nothing to do with it.

Even at their absolute peak those teams could never crack above a +7 SRS. Never once posted a full strength of +8

Bunch of losers and chokers.

And now he's suddenly the best offensive player ever when he has MAYBE one or two seasons as the best offensive player.

Nash fans do nothing but repeat the same old talking points about his TEAM offenses (even though he wasn't even the best offensive player on his own team for a bunch of those seasons) or cherry pick certain ORAPM studies. It's infuriating.

I think this idea that they sacrificed their defense to boost their offense misses the point a bit. It is also consistent with individual RAPM data.

The only one missing the point is the Nash fanboys. They've never understood the point that the goal is to build the best possible TEAM, not the best possible offense. And not only did he play with a ridiculous amount of offensive talent, and with extremely slanted lineups, but he also wasn't the best offensive player on his own team for a bunch of those seasons.

And, again, he has MAYBE two seasons where the he was the best offensive player in the league, but somehow he's the GOAT?

The rest is just the usual cherrypicking from the Nash fans. He's not #1 in Engelmann's 2002-2011 ORAPM, which perfectly captures his prime. Not even top two. He's not even top five in lifetime ORAPM. He doesn't separate himself from the other guys in Ben Taylor's two year offensive peak APM. He has TWO seasons where he's #1 in O-EPM. He's not even top ten in career OBPM. He doesn't look GOAT level by Ben Taylor's OBPM. He's not even top four in James Bucato 2002-2006 ORAPM. His finishes in intraocular's pure offensive OAPM have him looking like a offensive superstar, but not certainly not the best ever. He's nowhere near the top guys in career O-RAPTOR. He's nowhere near offensive GOAT by the xORAPM data or ORPM etc etc. His career xORAPM is, what, #9 and nowhere near the top guys. I could keep going and going. Ahmed Cheema's five year RAPM stretches doesn't give him a SINGLE stretch where he's even top three in the league, and his absolute best five year mark ranks #80 all-time. His second best stretch? #92. You'd think the GOAT offensive player would rank higher eh? See? I can cherrypick, too.

"Best offensive player ever" His entire "argument" comes from fanboys using TEAM success to prop him and cherrypicking certain offensive+/- studies, while ignoring the ton of other studies that don't have him as the top guy in his OWN league, and the million other offensive impact metrics/offensive boxscore that don't have him anywhere near the top.

What a total joke.

[FrodoBaggins]

Yeah those teams blatantly sacrificing their defense/rebounding to artificially boost their offense has nothing to do with it.

Even at their absolute peak those teams could never crack above a +7 SRS. Never once posted a full strength of +8

Bunch of losers and chokers.

And now he's suddenly the best offensive player ever when he has MAYBE one or two seasons as the best offensive player.

Nash fans do nothing but repeat the same old talking points about his TEAM offenses (even though he wasn't even the best offensive player on his own team for a bunch of those seasons) or cherry pick certain ORAPM studies. It's infuriating.

I think this idea that they sacrificed their defense to boost their offense misses the point a bit. It is also consistent with individual RAPM data.

The only one missing the point is the Nash fanboys. They've never understood the point that the goal is to build the best possible TEAM, not the best possible offense. And not only did he play with a ridiculous amount of offensive talent, and with extremely slanted lineups, but he also wasn't the best offensive player on his own team for a bunch of those seasons.

And, again, he has MAYBE two seasons where the he was the best offensive player in the league, but somehow he's the GOAT?

The rest is just the usual cherrypicking from the Nash fans. He's not #1 in Engelmann's 2002-2011 ORAPM, which perfectly captures his prime. Not even top two. He's not even top five in lifetime ORAPM. He doesn't separate himself from the other guys in Ben Taylor's two year offensive peak APM. He has TWO seasons where he's #1 in O-EPM. He's not even top ten in career OBPM. He doesn't look GOAT level by Ben Taylor's OBPM. He's not even top four in James Bucato 2002-2006 ORAPM. His finishes in intraocular's pure offensive OAPM have him looking like a offensive superstar, but not certainly not the best ever. He's nowhere near the top guys in career O-RAPTOR. He's nowhere near offensive GOAT by the xORAPM data or ORPM etc etc. His career xORAPM is, what, #9 and nowhere near the top guys. I could keep going and going. Ahmed Cheema's five year RAPM stretches doesn't give him a SINGLE stretch where he's even top three in the league, and his absolute best five year mark ranks #80 all-time. His second best stretch? #92. You'd think the GOAT offensive player would rank higher eh? See? I can cherrypick, too.

"Best offensive player ever" His entire "argument" comes from fanboys using TEAM success to prop him and cherrypicking certain offensive+/- studies, while ignoring the ton of other studies that don't have him as the top guy in his OWN league, and the million other offensive impact metrics/offensive boxscore that don't have him anywhere near the top.

What a total joke.

Who is the best, in your opinion? Where does Nash rank all-time?

[lessthanjake]

Yeah those teams blatantly sacrificing their defense/rebounding to artificially boost their offense has nothing to do with it.

Even at their absolute peak those teams could never crack above a +7 SRS. Never once posted a full strength of +8

Bunch of losers and chokers.

And now he's suddenly the best offensive player ever when he has MAYBE one or two seasons as the best offensive player.

Nash fans do nothing but repeat the same old talking points about his TEAM offenses (even though he wasn't even the best offensive player on his own team for a bunch of those seasons) or cherry pick certain ORAPM studies. It's infuriating.

I think this idea that they sacrificed their defense to boost their offense misses the point a bit. It is also consistent with individual RAPM data.

The only one missing the point is the Nash fanboys. They've never understood the point that the goal is to build the best possible TEAM, not the best possible offense. And not only did he play with a ridiculous amount of offensive talent, and with extremely slanted lineups, but he also wasn't the best offensive player on his own team for a bunch of those seasons.

And, again, he has MAYBE two seasons where the he was the best offensive player in the league, but somehow he's the GOAT?

The rest is just the usual cherrypicking from the Nash fans. He's not #1 in Engelmann's 2002-2011 ORAPM, which perfectly captures his prime. Not even top two. He's not even top five in lifetime ORAPM. He doesn't separate himself from the other guys in Ben Taylor's two year offensive peak APM. He has TWO seasons where he's #1 in O-EPM. He's not even top ten in career OBPM. He doesn't look GOAT level by Ben Taylor's OBPM. He's not even top four in James Bucato 2002-2006 ORAPM. His finishes in intraocular's pure offensive OAPM have him looking like a offensive superstar, but not certainly not the best ever. He's nowhere near the top guys in career O-RAPTOR. He's nowhere near offensive GOAT by the xORAPM data or ORPM etc etc. His career xORAPM is, what, #9 and nowhere near the top guys. I could keep going and going. Ahmed Cheema's five year RAPM stretches doesn't give him a SINGLE stretch where he's even top three in the league, and his absolute best five year mark ranks #80 all-time. His second best stretch? #92. You'd think the GOAT offensive player would rank higher eh? See? I can cherrypick, too.

"Best offensive player ever" His entire "argument" comes from fanboys using TEAM success to prop him and cherrypicking certain offensive+/- studies, while ignoring the ton of other studies that don't have him as the top guy in his OWN league, and the million other offensive impact metrics/offensive boxscore that don't have him anywhere near the top.

What a total joke.

The vast majority of those measures you list are either purely box measures or have a box prior on them. I’m not opposed to those kinds of measures in general, but it doesn’t strike me as surprising that a pass-first PG might be underrated by box components. And one of the measures you listed (Cheema) isn’t even parsed out by offensive impact, so there’s no way of knowing what it thinks of Nash’s offense (and, honestly, the fact that he is such a weak defensive player and the guys above him tend to all be substantially better defensive players doesn’t really lead to an inference you’d like).

The only two that I believe the above doesn’t apply to is the 2002-2011 ORAPM and the lifetime ORAPM—both from Engelmann. Engelmann’s own single-season PI RAPM tells a different story. And I think 2002-2011 and lifetime RAPM are actually worse than somewhat shorter timespans, because the long time horizons end up glossing over huge differences in how players evolve over time. To take just one example, in both of those measures (and especially the lifetime one), Nash is going to be penalized a lot for playing with old Shaq, because the measure is going to try to adjust for Shaq’s presence on the floor while mostly assuming Shaq was at his prime level. That’s just one of many examples of the issues with RAPM over too long a timespan. There’s generally considered to be a sweet spot that is high-enough sample size to not be too noisy and low-enough sample size to not be made quite inaccurate by failing to account for changes in player quality over time. That sweet spot is generally thought to be 5-year RAPM (which is why, for instance, measures like BPM assess their own accuracy as compared to five-year RAPM with no box prior), and that’s why I gave you multiple sources of 5-year RAPM that did not have a box component. Those have Nash as absolutely looking like the offensive GOAT. I think it’s not entirely unreasonable to decide that you actually like things like lifetime RAPM more, or that you rely on stuff with box components and don’t think they underrate pass-first PGs enough to put Nash over the top. So you can look at the data overall and end up coming to a dimmer conclusion on Nash’s offense. But there definitely is data support for Nash being the offensive GOAT, and it basically comes from the gold-standard of five-year RAPM with no box prior.

I also think that, as with anything, data is only one piece of the puzzle. For me, I thought Nash was the best offensive player I’d ever seen even while just watching him at the time. My view on this didn’t begin by looking at team data (or individual data). It began by watching him play. The team data and the individual data I’ve outlined to you only confirms what my eye test has told me. If your eye test tells you something different about him, then that’s fine I guess.

[ReggiesKnicks]

LeBron 2012-2017 is incredible. +10.6 and weighed down by a finals performance against one of the better modern defenses we have ever seen, with J.R. Smith as a 2nd option and Matthew Dellavedova as a secondary playmaker.

Kobe having incredible synergy with Pau and Shaq and then being slightly above average supports a lot of my thoughts about him being excellent, synergizing with a big man, and also not being an elite central hub without the perfect secondary option.

Jokic peaking at +7.4 and +7.6 as a post-season anchor means he has a lot of ground to make up on the other ATG offensive centerpieces of the data ball era.

Nash, with the best 3-year peak at +36.7, followed closely by LeBron at +36.4, tracks well with what many people think are the two best offensive players of the 21st Century.

2013-2023 Average: +8.1/+9.1

How are you calculating the average? 73.8/9 is 8.2, yet you have +9.1 for the post-season. Thanks!

Yeah the guy with the highest offensive on/off ever recorded, who was #1 in a million different offensive impact metrics (including O-EPM, O-xRAPM, O-raptor, ORPM, ORAPM, OAPM, etc), who anchored a borderline top five offense with a horrific supporting cast (including literally one of the worst offensive players in the league starting and playing 30 mpg)wasn't an ELitz CeNTral Hub.

And yet his results aren't ATG.

But I never said he wasn't elite. Of course Jokic is elite. I just don't think he is on the level of the GOATs.

[Onus]

Yes draymond played some center, but when the other players are Iguodala and Bogut 2 other players you don't really need to guard at the 3 point line, having 2 players you don't need to guard but at the rim in Dray and Bogut, that's going to suppress your offense. Those early warriors teams were a defensive team first more akin to the AI Sixers than the Nash led Suns.

Except that Draymond and Bogut being very good screeners and passers playing with 2 of the greatest shooters of all-time was offensively synergistic. Basketball isn't just stacking talented names. How these players interact matters. The Warriors during that era loved to exploit anyone ignoring Bogut or Draymond because they operated as screeners for elite shooters. The league has since adjusted and figured out different switching schemes to negate non-shooting screeners a bit, but back then it was deadly on offense.

Had you been able to "upgrade" Bogut/Iggy/Dray with better offensive players (say... Aldridge/Kevin martin/Tobias Harris), I don't think that boosts the offense at all.

Even to this day, the Kerr/Curry/Draymond era in Golden State has prioritized playing Steph (+ Klay and now Hield) with good passers.

What if you upgraded with actually talented players like Anthony Davis?

[cupcakesnake]

Yes draymond played some center, but when the other players are Iguodala and Bogut 2 other players you don't really need to guard at the 3 point line, having 2 players you don't need to guard but at the rim in Dray and Bogut, that's going to suppress your offense. Those early warriors teams were a defensive team first more akin to the AI Sixers than the Nash led Suns.

Except that Draymond and Bogut being very good screeners and passers playing with 2 of the greatest shooters of all-time was offensively synergistic. Basketball isn't just stacking talented names. How these players interact matters. The Warriors during that era loved to exploit anyone ignoring Bogut or Draymond because they operated as screeners for elite shooters. The league has since adjusted and figured out different switching schemes to negate non-shooting screeners a bit, but back then it was deadly on offense.

Had you been able to "upgrade" Bogut/Iggy/Dray with better offensive players (say... Aldridge/Kevin martin/Tobias Harris), I don't think that boosts the offense at all.

Even to this day, the Kerr/Curry/Draymond era in Golden State has prioritized playing Steph (+ Klay and now Hield) with good passers.

What if you upgraded with actually talented players like Anthony Davis?

Yeah. Sure. And if we upgraded those SSOL with Kevin Garnett and Reggie Miller, oh man! Why stop at AD? Give Curry prime Jordan and Wilt.
What's the point of this line of thinking?

The question was based around the relative offensive/defensive slant on these specific Suns and Warriors rosters. A roster "slant" indicates you're sacrificing one for the other. Making the defense worse by playing offense-ccentric players or vice versa. You're arguing the Warriors roster has a defensive slant by listing the defensive players. It's a fair place to start. I'm pointing out that in the Warriors offense, those guys offensive skills were integral to the offense. They weren't there just playing defense and sucking the life out of the offense. We have years of data on the best kinds of players to put next to Curry in Kerr's offensive system. Super smart, tough dudes who can operate as screeners and playmakers. If that role on offense is important, you aren't doing much better than Draymond, Iggy, and Bogut. Just talking offense, it's hard to upgrade those guys without bringing in all-NBA types (Jokic or Sabonis, for example). It would certainly be better if Bogut was a better finisher, or if Iggy was a better shooter, of if Draymond could turn his drives into points. Those guys were still big offensive pluses in that system, and they were bringing value in ways other players could not.

The SSOL Suns had something similar in that they could maximize limited players in that system. If you were a shooter or a rim runner, you could be really valuable in Phoenix. Guys like Steven Hunter and Quentin Richardson weren't particularly good NBA players, but it really worked in a specific role in that offense. The Suns were a little more insecure figuring it out, bringing in guys like Kurt Thomas despite him having zero offensive role in that system. Raja Bell and Shawn Marion are players who mostly added value with defense over their careers, but in that offense they brought big offensive value.

[Onus]

Except that Draymond and Bogut being very good screeners and passers playing with 2 of the greatest shooters of all-time was offensively synergistic. Basketball isn't just stacking talented names. How these players interact matters. The Warriors during that era loved to exploit anyone ignoring Bogut or Draymond because they operated as screeners for elite shooters. The league has since adjusted and figured out different switching schemes to negate non-shooting screeners a bit, but back then it was deadly on offense.

Had you been able to "upgrade" Bogut/Iggy/Dray with better offensive players (say... Aldridge/Kevin martin/Tobias Harris), I don't think that boosts the offense at all.

Even to this day, the Kerr/Curry/Draymond era in Golden State has prioritized playing Steph (+ Klay and now Hield) with good passers.

What if you upgraded with actually talented players like Anthony Davis?

The question was based around the relative offensive/defensive slant on these specific Suns and Warriors rosters. A roster "slant" indicates you're sacrificing one for the other. Making the defense worse by playing offense-centric players or vice versa. You're arguing the Warriors roster has a defensive slant by listing the defensive players. It's a fair place to start. I'm pointing out that in the Warriors offense, those guys offensive skills were integral to the offense. They weren't there just playing defense and sucking the life out of the offense. We have years of data on the best kinds of players to put next to Curry in Kerr's offensive system. Super smart, tough dudes who can operate as screeners and playmakers. If that role on offense is important, you aren't doing much better than Draymond, Iggy, and Bogut. Just talking offense, it's hard to upgrade those guys without bringing in all-NBA types (Jokic or Sabonis, for example). It would certainly be better if Bogut was a better finisher, or if Iggy was a better shooter, of if Draymond could turn his drives into points.

So you agree that the offense could've been better if they had better offensive players.

Just like the Suns had a better offense since they focused on getting more offensive slanted players.

[cupcakesnake]

What if you upgraded with actually talented players like Anthony Davis?

The question was based around the relative offensive/defensive slant on these specific Suns and Warriors rosters. A roster "slant" indicates you're sacrificing one for the other. Making the defense worse by playing offense-centric players or vice versa. You're arguing the Warriors roster has a defensive slant by listing the defensive players. It's a fair place to start. I'm pointing out that in the Warriors offense, those guys offensive skills were integral to the offense. They weren't there just playing defense and sucking the life out of the offense. We have years of data on the best kinds of players to put next to Curry in Kerr's offensive system. Super smart, tough dudes who can operate as screeners and playmakers. If that role on offense is important, you aren't doing much better than Draymond, Iggy, and Bogut. Just talking offense, it's hard to upgrade those guys without bringing in all-NBA types (Jokic or Sabonis, for example). It would certainly be better if Bogut was a better finisher, or if Iggy was a better shooter, of if Draymond could turn his drives into points.

So you agree that the offense could've been better if they had better offensive players.

Just like the Suns had a better offense since they focused on getting more offensive slanted players.

You're trying to dumb down what I'm saying so you can fit it into your point and I'm not really interested.

The Suns would have been better if their offensive slanted players were better at defense. The Warriors were so good because their defensive slanted players were really good at offense. That's the simple version. The Warriors had way more 2-way players.

It's not like the Suns were rejecting defense for offense. They badly wanted to add more defense around Nash/Amar'e. They tried and failed and happened to have some success with bargain contracts to offensive slanted players the league wasn't valuing at the time (guys like Tim Thomas).

Tbh, I think the Warriors much bigger advantage over the Suns was their depth. Those Warriors were still running 9-10 deep in the conference finals and finals. Whenever the Suns got to the later rounds, they'd have 7 useful guys and then sustain an injury and be down to 6. Shawn Marion would be playing 45mpg and finally exhaust himself and the Suns would be done.

[Onus]

The question was based around the relative offensive/defensive slant on these specific Suns and Warriors rosters. A roster "slant" indicates you're sacrificing one for the other. Making the defense worse by playing offense-centric players or vice versa. You're arguing the Warriors roster has a defensive slant by listing the defensive players. It's a fair place to start. I'm pointing out that in the Warriors offense, those guys offensive skills were integral to the offense. They weren't there just playing defense and sucking the life out of the offense. We have years of data on the best kinds of players to put next to Curry in Kerr's offensive system. Super smart, tough dudes who can operate as screeners and playmakers. If that role on offense is important, you aren't doing much better than Draymond, Iggy, and Bogut. Just talking offense, it's hard to upgrade those guys without bringing in all-NBA types (Jokic or Sabonis, for example). It would certainly be better if Bogut was a better finisher, or if Iggy was a better shooter, of if Draymond could turn his drives into points.

So you agree that the offense could've been better if they had better offensive players.

Just like the Suns had a better offense since they focused on getting more offensive slanted players.

You're trying to dumb down what I'm saying so you can fit it into your point and I'm not really interested.

The Suns would have been better if their offensive slanted players were better at defense. The Warriors were so good because their defensive slanted players were really good at offense. That's the simple version. The Warriors had way more 2-way players.

It's not like the Suns were rejecting defense for offense. They badly wanted to add more defense around Nash/Amar'e. They tried and failed and happened to have some success with bargain contracts to offensive slanted players the league wasn't valuing at the time (guys like Tim Thomas).

Tbh, I think the Warriors much bigger advantage over the Suns was their depth. Those Warriors were still running 9-10 deep in the conference finals and finals. Whenever the Suns got to the later rounds, they'd have 7 useful guys and then sustain an injury and be down to 6. Shawn Marion would be playing 45mpg and finally exhaust himself and the Suns would be done.

We're only talking about offense here. 2 way players can usually shoot and score the basketball. So because of certain players we were able to play more defensive guys who couldn't really shoot and score the basketball at average 2 way levels.

On the bench we had what Barbosa and Speights? Livingston was a guard who couldn't shoot beyond 10 ft. There's a reason he was a journeyman for so many years before the warriors. It's really hard to play guards who can't shoot.

You look at the best offenses and they have 5 shooters on the floor providing spacing. The warriors were constantly playing with 2 non shooters on the court at all times and we're comparing them to the best offenses. You don't see the discrepancy there?

[uncleduck13]

Steve Nash is easily a top 10 offensive player of all-time. PPG merchants can be mad all they want.

[cupcakesnake]

So you agree that the offense could've been better if they had better offensive players.

Just like the Suns had a better offense since they focused on getting more offensive slanted players.

You're trying to dumb down what I'm saying so you can fit it into your point and I'm not really interested.

The Suns would have been better if their offensive slanted players were better at defense. The Warriors were so good because their defensive slanted players were really good at offense. That's the simple version. The Warriors had way more 2-way players.

It's not like the Suns were rejecting defense for offense. They badly wanted to add more defense around Nash/Amar'e. They tried and failed and happened to have some success with bargain contracts to offensive slanted players the league wasn't valuing at the time (guys like Tim Thomas).

Tbh, I think the Warriors much bigger advantage over the Suns was their depth. Those Warriors were still running 9-10 deep in the conference finals and finals. Whenever the Suns got to the later rounds, they'd have 7 useful guys and then sustain an injury and be down to 6. Shawn Marion would be playing 45mpg and finally exhaust himself and the Suns would be done.

We're only talking about offense here. 2 way players can usually shoot and score the basketball. So because of certain players we were able to play more defensive guys who couldn't really shoot and score the basketball at average 2 way levels.

On the bench we had what Barbosa and Speights? Livingston was a guard who couldn't shoot beyond 10 ft. There's a reason he was a journeyman for so many years before the warriors. It's really hard to play guards who can't shoot.

You look at the best offenses and they have 5 shooters on the floor providing spacing. The warriors were constantly playing with 2 non shooters on the court at all times and we're comparing them to the best offenses. You don't see the discrepancy there?

Shaun Livingston was "a journeyman for so many years before the warriors" because of a horrific injury. He was an extremely talented player who couldn't get healthy for years. Livingston finally got his feet under him in Brooklyn as a 28-year-old, reinventing himself as a short-mid-range scorer who added value with his high-iq passing. It was awesome that he stayed healthy in Golden State and he fit their roster perfect because with Steph, because he was yet another high-iq ball handler who could make reads in their offense.

On your bench you also had... Andre Iguodala! Livingston and Iggy was a sick bench, and you only needed Barbosa for spot minutes. Speights was behind Ezeli.

"You look at the best offenses and they have 5 shooters on the floor providing spacing". It's cool to play 5 out but how many of the best offenses ever have actually assembled that? Modern Boston is cool but... Phoenix played Shawn Marion, Amar'e, Steven Hunter, Boris Diaw, Kurt Thomas in their rotations. 5-out is a sick advantage, but it's hard to assemble that personnel (though it gets easier and easier every year). Draymond wasn't a good shooter, but he spaced the floor for a few years before the shot fell off. It's ideal if every player can shoot, but it's hard to assemble the personnel that can also check all the other boxes.

[Onus]

You're trying to dumb down what I'm saying so you can fit it into your point and I'm not really interested.

The Suns would have been better if their offensive slanted players were better at defense. The Warriors were so good because their defensive slanted players were really good at offense. That's the simple version. The Warriors had way more 2-way players.

It's not like the Suns were rejecting defense for offense. They badly wanted to add more defense around Nash/Amar'e. They tried and failed and happened to have some success with bargain contracts to offensive slanted players the league wasn't valuing at the time (guys like Tim Thomas).

Tbh, I think the Warriors much bigger advantage over the Suns was their depth. Those Warriors were still running 9-10 deep in the conference finals and finals. Whenever the Suns got to the later rounds, they'd have 7 useful guys and then sustain an injury and be down to 6. Shawn Marion would be playing 45mpg and finally exhaust himself and the Suns would be done.

We're only talking about offense here. 2 way players can usually shoot and score the basketball. So because of certain players we were able to play more defensive guys who couldn't really shoot and score the basketball at average 2 way levels.

On the bench we had what Barbosa and Speights? Livingston was a guard who couldn't shoot beyond 10 ft. There's a reason he was a journeyman for so many years before the warriors. It's really hard to play guards who can't shoot.

You look at the best offenses and they have 5 shooters on the floor providing spacing. The warriors were constantly playing with 2 non shooters on the court at all times and we're comparing them to the best offenses. You don't see the discrepancy there?

Shaun Livingston was "a journeyman for so many years before the warriors" because of a horrific injury. He was an extremely talented player who couldn't get healthy for years. Livingston finally got his feet under him in Brooklyn as a 28-year-old, reinventing himself as a short-mid-range scorer who added value with his high-iq passing. It was awesome that he stayed healthy in Golden State and he fit their roster perfect because with Steph, because he was yet another high-iq ball handler who could make reads in their offense.

On your bench you also had... Andre Iguodala! Livingston and Iggy was a sick bench, and you only needed Barbosa for spot minutes. Speights was behind Ezeli.

"You look at the best offenses and they have 5 shooters on the floor providing spacing". It's cool to play 5 out but how many of the best offenses ever have actually assembled that? Modern Boston is cool but... Phoenix played Shawn Marion, Amar'e, Steven Hunter, Boris Diaw, Kurt Thomas in their rotations. 5-out is a sick advantage, but it's hard to assemble that personnel (though it gets easier and easier every year). Draymond wasn't a good shooter, but he spaced the floor for a few years before the shot fell off. It's ideal if every player can shoot, but it's hard to assemble the personnel that can also check all the other boxes.

Iguodala is a defensive player as is Ezeli. We're talking about offense, which is why I left them out. But yes no shooting on the bench outside of Barbosa and Speights.

Ok so you named the Suns center rotation outside of Marion, so they played 4 out instead of 5 but even then most of their 5s could at least shoot in an era many teams weren't even taking a lot of 3s.

[Primedeion]

LeBron 2012-2017 is incredible. +10.6 and weighed down by a finals performance against one of the better modern defenses we have ever seen, with J.R. Smith as a 2nd option and Matthew Dellavedova as a secondary playmaker.

Kobe having incredible synergy with Pau and Shaq and then being slightly above average supports a lot of my thoughts about him being excellent, synergizing with a big man, and also not being an elite central hub without the perfect secondary option.

Jokic peaking at +7.4 and +7.6 as a post-season anchor means he has a lot of ground to make up on the other ATG offensive centerpieces of the data ball era.

Nash, with the best 3-year peak at +36.7, followed closely by LeBron at +36.4, tracks well with what many people think are the two best offensive players of the 21st Century.



How are you calculating the average? 73.8/9 is 8.2, yet you have +9.1 for the post-season. Thanks!

Yeah the guy with the highest offensive on/off ever recorded, who was #1 in a million different offensive impact metrics (including O-EPM, O-xRAPM, O-raptor, ORPM, ORAPM, OAPM, etc), who anchored a borderline top five offense with a horrific supporting cast (including literally one of the worst offensive players in the league starting and playing 30 mpg)wasn't an ELitz CeNTral Hub.

And yet his results aren't ATG.

But I never said he wasn't elite. Of course Jokic is elite. I just don't think he is on the level of the GOATs.

You literally said he wasn't an elite central hub when he was putting together one of the best offensive seasons in history lmao.

His results are the definition of ATG. Do you understand that basketball is a team game?Going by your logic, 21 Curry is also not a "elite central hub".

[ReggiesKnicks]

Yeah the guy with the highest offensive on/off ever recorded, who was #1 in a million different offensive impact metrics (including O-EPM, O-xRAPM, O-raptor, ORPM, ORAPM, OAPM, etc), who anchored a borderline top five offense with a horrific supporting cast (including literally one of the worst offensive players in the league starting and playing 30 mpg)wasn't an ELitz CeNTral Hub.

And yet his results aren't ATG.

But I never said he wasn't elite. Of course Jokic is elite. I just don't think he is on the level of the GOATs.

You literally said he wasn't an elite central hub when he was putting together one of the best offensive seasons in history lmao.

His results are the definition of ATG. Do you understand that basketball is a team game?Going by your logic, 21 Curry is also not a "elite central hub".

I didn't say that. I said he has ground to make up on the ATG Offensive Hubs (LeBron, Nash and Curry) of the data-ball era.

Statistically he is simply behind them.

[MrPainfulTruth]

if you look at +-, then you need to take the teams into consideration. Jokers game is based on helping his team mates and compared to most of LeBron and Nash prime, he has had much, much less competent teams. How do you take that into consideration? Or do we pretend superteams didnt exist?

[ReggiesKnicks]

if you look at +-, then you need to take the teams into consideration. Jokers game is based on helping his team mates and compared to most of LeBron and Nash prime, he has had much, much less competent teams. How do you take that into consideration? Or do we pretend superteams didnt exist?

Nash and LeBron were also the clear-cut catalysts for their respective teams.

[MrPainfulTruth]

if you look at +-, then you need to take the teams into consideration. Jokers game is based on helping his team mates and compared to most of LeBron and Nash prime, he has had much, much less competent teams. How do you take that into consideration? Or do we pretend superteams didnt exist?

Nash and LeBron were also the clear-cut catalysts for their respective teams.

Yes and both had a lot more competent rosters compared to Jokic, dont you think? Imagine Jokic on the Miami superteam with Mike Miller, Ray Allen, Bosh, Wade...or surrounded by Amare, Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw and Barbosa.

[ReggiesKnicks]

if you look at +-, then you need to take the teams into consideration. Jokers game is based on helping his team mates and compared to most of LeBron and Nash prime, he has had much, much less competent teams. How do you take that into consideration? Or do we pretend superteams didnt exist?

Nash and LeBron were also the clear-cut catalysts for their respective teams.

Yes and both had a lot more competent rosters compared to Jokic, dont you think? Imagine Jokic on the Miami superteam with Mike Miller, Ray Allen, Bosh, Wade...or surrounded by Amare, Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw and Barbosa.

Offensively, I think you could argue that LeBron and Nash had seasons where their supporting cast, on the offensive end, had more talent than what Jokic had worked with.

Now, you start to lose me when you start naming Mike Miller, who played 40-50 games and 15-20 minutes with the Heat, as a super team.

When you name 37 and 38-year-old Ray Allen, you seem to have some biases here and aren't arguing in good faith.

Furthermore, it appears LeBron's best offensive years were in Cleveland during the 2016 and 2017 seasons, which isn't with Wade, Bosh, or the superstars you claim as Mike Miller and Ray Allen.

Unfortunately, as much as this discussion interests me, you are arguing in bad faith by throwing Mike Miller and 37 year-old Ray Allen into the term "Superteam".

[MrPainfulTruth]

Nash and LeBron were also the clear-cut catalysts for their respective teams.

Yes and both had a lot more competent rosters compared to Jokic, dont you think? Imagine Jokic on the Miami superteam with Mike Miller, Ray Allen, Bosh, Wade...or surrounded by Amare, Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw and Barbosa.

Offensively, I think you could argue that LeBron and Nash had seasons where their supporting cast, on the offensive end, had more talent than what Jokic had worked with.

Now, you start to lose me when you start naming Mike Miller, who played 40-50 games and 15-20 minutes with the Heat, as a super team.

When you name 37 and 38-year-old Ray Allen, you seem to have some biases here and aren't arguing in good faith.

Furthermore, it appears LeBron's best offensive years were in Cleveland during the 2016 and 2017 seasons, which isn't with Wade, Bosh, or the superstars you claim as Mike Miller and Ray Allen.

Unfortunately, as much as this discussion interests me, you are arguing in bad faith by throwing Mike Miller and 37 year-old Ray Allen into the term "Superteam".

We do not need to continue this discussion if you think there isnt a very very obvious difference in the "supporting cast" (what a horrible name for players) between Jokic and Nash / LeBron. Thats just so outworldly we better end it here, i think you are on your own.

And without Ray Allen, LeBron would have one less ring. I would swap him for MPJ in a heartbeat.