Gary Payton as a scorer

[tsherkin]

re: 3s on a small volume, Payton actually led the NBA in both total makes and attempts in 1999-00, with 34% at 6.3. He finished in the top 10 on two other occasions. 2000 looks like an outlier (in terms of overall 3 point volume and efficacy), but I think that the additional spacing in the modern era (and inclination to actually practise 3s) makes me think emulating 2000 more frequently in a future timeline is entirely reasonable.

That is to what I was referring, yes.

I don't think he was a generational playmaker, but the fact that he has accrued more assists all time than anybody (bar 9 players) is something that is often forgotten, or sometimes, simply unknown.

He played a while. When we discuss longevity, we don't always mention that he played 17 seasons. He also played 80+ games 13 times, and in 9 of his first 10 seasons (played all 50 in the lockout season), then played 79, then 80+ for three more years, then closed out with 77, 81 and 68. He also logged five straight seasons of 40+ mpg never playing less than 79 games, and had two seasons of 39+ mpg prior to that (81 and 82 GP). He was present, which helps makes up some ground when you aren't an ATG playmaker in terms of the raw assist production.

[prolific passer]

GP had a stretch from 95-03 in which he averaged 21ppg and 8apg on 50% shooting. Combined that with elite defense during that stretch and I'd say he was pretty good.

[kcktiny]

he noted that Payton was an excellent man defender, but didn't have the same impact when his man didn't have the ball (whereas Kidd was essentially a forward on defence, consistently impacting defensive possessions no matter what)... we know he was a great man defender, but that's not the only constituent of great defence.

Just what exactly did Kidd do on defense that Payton didn't? Payton was all-defensive 1st team 9 times, Kidd 4 times. The people that saw them play the most certainly liked Payton's defense - a lot.

We've got plus-minus data back to 1997, and Payton seems to be "slightly above average" for a PG.

Since when did plus-minus become the definitive player evaluation tool? Plus-minus data is about as accurate as PER. Both are flawed.

Of note, a Payton-driven offense based on how he played in his own career would not be good

Guess again. From 1992-93 to 1997-98, Seattle ranked 2nd best in the league in offensive efficiency at 110.0 pts/100poss scored (only Utah was better). Those 6 years Payton scored 1400 more points than any other Sonic, and threw for more than twice as many assists as any other Sonic.

I'm not as high on his defense as you are, but the fact is he was indeed a great defender in his way, and more importantly, could contribute to a high level offense while also being a key cog in a high level defense.

Those same 6 seasons Seattle was 3rd in the league in defensive efficiency at 102.1 pts/100poss allowed - despite being just 11th in lowest 2pt FG% allowed and just 18th in highest defensive rebounding percentage.

But they were far and away best in the league in turnovers forced at 19.4 opponent TO/100poss. And Payton had 1182 steals, no one else on the Sonics had even 800.

The playmaking aspect is deserving of more attention. No, he wasn't an elite passer or PnR playmaker.

How many assists does a player have to throw for to be considered elite?

From 1997-98 to 2002-03 (6 years) Payton threw for the 2nd most assists (3889) and the 2nd most ast/g (8.5 ast/g) - more than Stockton, Nash, Mark Jackson, Marbury, Strickland, and Andre Miller. Is that not elite?

He wasn't Magic or Nash or anything as a playmaker

Very few were.

Because of his defense and scoring profile, he's never remembered as a playmaker.

This is it in a nutshell. Payton was absolutely one of the greatest PGs when it came to scoring and defense, so very few give him credit as a great passer. But he was.

Payton was a more prolific facilitator than we like to remember him for

Correct.

probably because it wasn't his foremost skill the way it is with other guards.

But it was one of his foremost skills. Scoring, defense, passing - he did it all.

Early in his career he played alongside Nate McMillan. McMillan was the definitive pass-first PG, and even when playing SF alongside Payton he still played like a PG, with Payton scoring 20 pts/g. So for the first 6-7 years of Payton's career he was basically in the lineup with another PG, and thus did not throw for a ton of assists.

But once McMillan was gone Payton was throwing for 9 ast/g (1998-99 to 2002-03).

[tsherkin]

Of note, a Payton-driven offense based on how he played in his own career would not be good

Guess again. From 1992-93 to 1997-98, Seattle ranked 2nd best in the league in offensive efficiency at 110.0 pts/100poss scored (only Utah was better). Those 6 years Payton scored 1400 more points than any other Sonic, and threw for more than twice as many assists as any other Sonic.

You really need to stop excising the names of the people you're quoting, unless your whole intent is to go unnoticed when you're quoting someone. Like, you have to go out of your way to do this, because the raw function of the QUOTE button includes a reference to the person quoted. Why do you do that?

How many assists does a player have to throw for to be considered elite?

Raw APG isn't an indication of elite status as a playmaker. This has been covered ad nauseum.

But it was one of his foremost skills. Scoring, defense, passing - he did it all.

That's not what "foremost skill" implies, though. His primacy came from his scoring and his defense. He was ALSO a good playmaker, and a better playmaker than how he is typically remembered, but it was not the prime focus of how he played the game. These are not mutually-exclusive notions. You think that suppression of APG matters here, which is why you mention McMillan and Payton's later averages, but that's really not what's in-play in this discussion at all.

[kcktiny]

You really need to stop excising the names of the people you're quoting

Says who? Says you?

unless your whole intent is to go unnoticed when you're quoting someone.

Now who is presupposing? You know everyone's intent here? How prescience of you.

When I post I respond to what is said, not who said it. I couldn't care less who said it.

I post to the topic at hand, because I enjoy the topic, not who has contributed to it.

If you don't like being called out when you post something that is simply not true, or get upset that it's pointed out, then don't post.

But don't make this personal just because you posted something that was factually incorrect.

Raw APG isn't an indication of elite status as a playmaker. This has been covered ad nauseum.

Fine. Then during that 6 year stretch of 1997-98 to 2002-03 when Payton was 2nd in both assists and ast/g if he wasn't an elite passer was anyone in your opinion during that time? If so then why?

You think that suppression of APG matters here, which is why you mention McMillan and Payton's later averages, but that's really not what's in-play in this discussion at all.

So now it is you and only you who gets to define what is in-play in this discussion? Shall I bow to your reverence?

[tsherkin]

You really need to stop excising the names of the people you're quoting

Says who? Says you?

Basic courtesy? The expectation of someone actually finding your response and continuing the discussion? Common sense? The basic intended function of the feature...

Fine. Then during that 6 year stretch of 1997-98 to 2002-03 when Payton was 2nd in both assists and ast/g if he wasn't an elite passer was anyone in your opinion during that time? If so then why?

"Elite" is an overly semantic starting point for that discussion. If you're asking whom I consider to be in a tier above Payton during that period.

Kidd and Stockton are the only two who really stand out in 1998 specifically. Of course, that speaks more to the absence of first-tier playmakers in the league at the time, those two aside, than anything else. By 03, Nash was playing enough to be put on that list. But yeah, your Stricklands, your Andre Millers, your Jamaal Tinsleys... not really the guys I'd be looking at as high-impact needle-movers on offense.

If you want to reshape the question to "where did Payton stand as a playmaker relative to who was in the league," then he was probably the third-best playmaker in the league for most of the period you're describing. Again, that has more to do with the absence of high-end playmaking in the league at the time than anything else, but is another way to view the question you're asking, for sure.

But ultimately, this is a weird conversation to be carrying on, because my initial point was that Payton is generally underrated as a playmaker. That was what I actually said. You took umbrage to the idea I presented that a Payton-centric offense geared around Payton playing as he did in his own era would struggle to reach the same level of impact in today's environment because of the increase in baseline offensive quality in today's league.

You turned around and talked about his ranking in-era, which is patently irrelevant. You also didn't address the point I made about Payton's Seattle offenses relative to league-average in today's game. Seattle's offensive ranking in the 90s is immaterial, because the actual production level of the offense in that period was below league-average last year.

This doesn't presuppose that Payton couldn't adapt some, it specifically hinges on him playing the way he did in his actual career. If, as discussed elsewhere in the thread, he was able to open his game with some improved 3pt shooting and was able to find the right roster pieces and what have you, then the discussion evolves. As noted, repeatedly, elsewhere in the thread, by myself and others.

So now it is you and only you who gets to define what is in-play in this discussion? Shall I bow to your reverence?

No, it just circles back to you orbiting a concept that doesn't mean much. You're free to talk about APG all you want, it just isn't going to answer the questions you're asking or add meaningfully to the examination of Payton (or anyone) as a playmaker because of what assist production does and does not actually tell us about on-court events. THis is the PC Board, not the General Board; we have spent a fairy large amount of time over the preceding decade and a half or so addressing this concept in various places and such. Even more so than with PPG or RPG, there is a very limited amount of information pure APG provides about the quality and impact that production is creating.

[Frosty]

The thread just reminded me of when Payton as drafted he had a reputation as a scorer and ended up being known as a defender.

[kcktiny]

Basic courtesy? The expectation of someone actually finding your response and continuing the discussion? Common sense? The basic intended function of the feature...

You do seem to feel that you are all-knowing when it comes to the functions of this discussion board, don't you?

Sorry, but what may be common sense to you is not to others. You have chosen to make this personal by pointing out how someone else specifically uses this board, compared to how you do, rather than simply sticking to the topic of conversation.

I choose to address the topic and the topic only, not the author of any specific statements. I find that to be far more courteous.

"Elite" is an overly semantic starting point for that discussion. If you're asking whom I consider to be in a tier above Payton during that period. Kidd and Stockton are the only two who really stand out in 1998 specifically.

If you want to reshape the question to "where did Payton stand as a playmaker relative to who was in the league," then he was probably the third-best playmaker in the league for most of the period you're describing.

Fine. Are you saying that during this time period Kidd/Stockton were elite passers? Then what specifically in your opinion makes Kidd/Stockton elite passers during this time frame but not Payton, leaving assists out of it.

Again, that has more to do with the absence of high-end playmaking in the league at the time than anything else, but is another way to view the question you're asking, for sure.

Or are you saying there were no elite passers during this time frame?

because of the increase in baseline offensive quality in today's league.

How is this determined?

You turned around and talked about his ranking in-era, which is patently irrelevant. You also didn't address the point I made about Payton's Seattle offenses relative to league-average in today's game. Seattle's offensive ranking in the 90s is immaterial, because the actual production level of the offense in that period was below league-average last year.

League-wide points scored/allowed per team possession has increased to all-time highs the past couple of years - but whether you want to claim players are better offensively or worse defensively is semantics.

It's mostly due to rule changes that this has altered more than anything else. It's easy to say players now are better offensively because you can see the rise in FG% and the reduction in turnovers. But I don't see a whole lot of people claiming players today are just so much worse defensively than 2-3 decades ago because they can't keep FG%s down or can't grab as many steals or draw as many offensive fouls.

And that's because most people have a hard time evaluating player defense versus player offense.

Notice above that the statement was not "because of the decrease in baseline defensive quality in today's league".

But for all intent and purpose it's the same thing.

You put the Seattle teams of the 90s into today's game - playing by today's rules - and they would be just as good, as would Payton.

This doesn't presuppose that Payton couldn't adapt some, it specifically hinges on him playing the way he did in his actual career. If, as discussed elsewhere in the thread, he was able to open his game with some improved 3pt shooting

Dejounte Murray doesn't take alot of 3s, and doesn't hit them all that much (kinda like Payton his years 5-10). Yet still a damn good PG.

You're free to talk about APG all you want, it just isn't going to answer the questions you're asking or add meaningfully to the examination of Payton (or anyone) as a playmaker because of what assist production does and does not actually tell us about on-court events. THis is the PC Board, not the General Board; we have spent a fairy large amount of time over the preceding decade and a half or so addressing this concept in various places and such.

You want to claim Kidd/Stockton elite passers but not Payton without explaining why (and without discussing assists) is your perogative. But falling back on we've discussed this "ad nauseum" is nothing but a dodge.

Perhaps others will address this.

[tsherkin]

You do seem to feel that you are all-knowing when it comes to the functions of this discussion board, don't you?

It's rude to quote someone and then not offer them the notification that you're doing so, making it less likely that they'll be able to respond directly. But you can't seem to have this discussion without insulting me, so let's focus back on Payton.

Fine. Are you saying that during this time period Kidd/Stockton were elite passers? Then what specifically in your opinion makes Kidd/Stockton elite passers during this time frame but not Payton, leaving assists out of it.

A perfectly fair question. To me, it's vision, it's their ability to operate more effectively in different scenarios. Both, for example, were better pick-and-roll passers than Payton was. Timing, tempo management, how they handled resetting the offense after an initial failure.

Or are you saying there were no elite passers during this time frame?

Again, using the word "elite" is probably improper here. Or at least adds to confusion. "Elite" is vague. Apart from Kidd and Stockton (and then at the very end of the period you described, Nash), I don't think there were any tier one playmakers in the league, no. They aren't a constant fixture in the league.

How is this determined?

I think it's fairly obvious, but to reiterate, offensive efficacy in terms of ORTG... which I referenced multiple times, as have you. Including the point I very specifically made about 2022 league average, and the one you made about Seattle team average across a given timeframe.

League-wide points scored/allowed per team possession has increased to all-time highs the past couple of years - but whether you want to claim players are better offensively or worse defensively is semantics.

This is somewhat immaterial, because the comment initially made was about playing a style of basketball as played in the 90s, which produces an inherently lower point-per-possession value, as I've noted on multiple occasions. It was a very specific comment.

You put the Seattle teams of the 90s into today's game - playing by today's rules - and they would be just as good, as would Payton.

No, no I don't think so. They'd be able to do pretty well, but there would be an adjustment beyond the simple change of rules. Of all the teams in the league at the time, though, they would be most likely to adapt well given enough time. Perkins, Hawkins, Schrempf, they had shooters, that's for sure.

Dejounte Murray doesn't take alot of 3s, and doesn't hit them all that much (kinda like Payton his years 5-10). Yet still a damn good PG.

He's okay, yeah. Certainly not a high-end PG, nor one who really moves the needle a lot for his team offensively. He's a pretty mediocre scorer by standards set even a decade ago and his offensive impact numbers are not really a good way to defend the idea of Payton (who, of course, was a lot better than Murray). Murray is traditionally about league-average in scoring efficiency circa 2005 and isn't a real stunning playmaker.

You want to claim Kidd/Stockton elite passers but not Payton without explaining why (and without discussing assists) is your perogative. But falling back on we've discussed this "ad nauseum" is nothing but a dodge.

I don't have time to write an precognitive essay every time I sit down to author a post, somehow telepathically knowing exactly what you want me to address. If you stopped playing silly games of condescension, then perhaps we could have a proper discussion about what you're trying to get after, as I've no issue discussing it, as I did above. Focus on the content instead of insulting me.

[AEnigma]

Funny thing is you already tried to discuss passing measurements with him three weeks ago, but he ignored you.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2229604&start=40#p101422414

[tsherkin]

Funny thing is you already tried to discuss passing measurements with him three weeks ago, but he ignored you.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2229604&start=40#p101422414

I did, too. At this point, I think I'm going to take my own advice and just exit, stage left, hey? Nothing more to be gained from engaging.

But for your sake, how do you rank Payton as a playmaker, AEnigma? Where do you think his strengths and weaknesses lie in that aspect of his game?

[AEnigma]

I do not have too much to add to what you and Picc have been saying, but if I were to build off what you have already discussed, I would highlight his complement to the relatively modern style of the Sonics. The 1998 Sonics might have been the best shooting team in league history to that point, and while I do not have access to some of those advanced “team spacing” numbers, I suspect the Sonics from around 1995-2002 would pretty consistently show up in the top five. For a point guard who is at his best in a drive-and-kick system, that is a beautiful recipe, and pair that with Payton’s ability to generate transition opportunities, makes sense how for the better part of a decade they were basically a locked in +3-4 offence with him on the court.

On page 1 I compared him to Baron Davis as a scorer, and I think that holds pretty true as overall players. Don Nelson replicated the benefits of putting that archetype on a team with strong spacing, and the Warriors were something like a +5 offence with Baron on the court. Compared to Baron, I think Payton was (or at least became) a more controlled ballhandler, showed more offball intuition (likely a partial product of playing next to McMillan for so long), was a more gifted finisher near the rim (Baron could dunk but had much worse touch and nowhere near the same craftiness in the post), and was more reliable as a lead decision-maker (low bar lol). So maybe the comparison does him too little credit.

Not the first person to make this observation either, but Westbrook is the juiced form or evolution of that archetype, as a volume scorer and as a volume passer, and in the modern league I do not see Payton ever taking it to that level. He was a good passer, but not the most aggressive one. His scoring threat elevates him up the ladder of all-time playmakers, and I think I would have him top twenty on that front… or at least among guys who have played for a certain number of years… but there too he was never one of these “heliocentric” forces; he is not generating his team’s offence as singly as someone like Isiah Thomas or Kevin Johnson, and for me that reflects more on his mentality than any true lack of ability compared to those two. He did not regularly miss reads or anything from my limited eye test, but he did not have that drive to outright create reads the way those two did (and other better playmakers do). Like it is a nice status or whatever to be a top three playmaker from 1995-2003, but he would not have that status in a range like 1985-93, 2005-2013 or certainly not 2015-2023.

Maybe Walt Frazier is the analogy? Not as scoring types, but in their passing vision and drive to create — good and specifically fair over a certain period of time relative to their respective leagues, but not all-time.

[tsherkin]

I do not have too much to add to what you and Picc have been saying, but if I were to build off what you have already discussed, I would highlight his complement to the relatively modern style of the Sonics. The 1998 Sonics might have been the best shooting team in league history to that point, and while I do not have access to some of those advanced “team spacing” numbers, I suspect the Sonics from around 1995-2002 would pretty consistently show up in the top five. For a point guard who is at his best in a drive-and-kick system, that is a beautiful recipe, and pair that with Payton’s ability to generate transition opportunities, makes sense how for the better part of a decade they were basically a locked in +3-4 offence with him on the court.

They definitely had outstanding shooting support, that's clear. Schrempf was one of those guys who was ahead of his time in skill set for his position. And even as an old dude, Dale Ellis could stitch it. he actually had a phenomenal shooting year that first season after the line was pushed back out.

Not the first person to make this observation either, but Westbrook is the juiced form or evolution of that archetype, as a volume scorer and as a volume passer, and in the modern league I do not see Payton ever taking it to that level.

Yes and no. Payton was a better shooter than Westbrook pretty much throughout, but as you say, he was electric in transition and did a lot of similar things with the ball. There are some stylistic differences, but I suppose that'll happen with basically any comparison.

. He did not regularly miss reads or anything from my limited eye test, but he did not have that drive to outright create reads the way those two did (and other better playmakers do). Like it is a nice status or whatever to be a top three playmaker from 1995-2003, but he would not have that status in a range like 1985-93, 2005-2013 or certainly not 2015-2023.

I'm with that. Payton was pretty good and he didn't lose out on a lot of opportunities compared to other guys but he didn't fabricate them from nothing the way some of the very best could do, I like how you put that.

Maybe Walt Frazier is the analogy? Not as scoring types, but in their passing vision and drive to create — good and specifically fair over a certain period of time relative to their respective leagues, but not all-time.

Interesting inclusion, for sure.