RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #29 (James Harden)

[70sFan]

-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's

When did it happen?

[OhayoKD]

-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's

When did it happen?

+2 when pippen played in 94, +1 in 95 before jordan came back

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Harden - 10 (AEnigma, rk, hcl, trelos, f4p, falco, ltj, trex, Ohayo, LA Bird)
Pettit - 6 (HBK, Samurai, Doc, OSNB, Clyde, Gibson)
Stockton - 3 (beast, iggy, Joao)
Ewing - 1 (ZPage)

No majority. Going to 2nd vote for Harden vs Pettit:

Harden - 1 (Joao)
Pettit - 0 (none)
neither - 3 (beast, iggy, ZPage)

Harden 11, Pettit 6

James Harden is Inducted at #29.



Nomination Vote 1:

Miller - 5 (AEnigma, rk, hcl, falco, LA Bird)
Kawhi - 3 (HBK, ltj, iggy)
Frazier - 7 (Samurai, trelos, beast, Doc, OSNB, Clyde, Joao)
Baylor - 1 (trex)
Havlicek - 1 (ZPage)
none - 3 (f4p, Ohayo, Gibson)

No majority. Going to 2nd vote for Frazier vs Miller:

Miller - 0 (none)
Frazier - 2 (HBK, ZPage)
neither - 6 (ltj, iggy, trex, f4p, Ohayo, Gibson)

Frazier 9, Miller 5

Walt Frazier is added to Nominee list.

[OhayoKD]

...
-> unlike Stockton, he directed teammates where to go as the bulls primary on-court decision-maker...

I love Pippen and am not going to denigrate him to try to prop up other players, but who do you think was directing Utah's offense?

I was not thinking

[Owly]

Vote

1. James Harden, played the best team ever(-iggy) to a draw, did it again the next year with weaker support, and then had an all-time rs and playoff carry job in 2020 playing great against one of the best defenses ever with injury nuking his co-star and mediocre spacing.

Wierd that he's going to go multiple spots lower than Durant given KD+Curry+Klay+Dray was unable to gain seperation from his team when he had backend of his prime Chris Paul. Also excellent longevity dueling the westbrook-less +9 srs thunder to a draw the first year he had an opportunity to shine a year removed from being the opposing defenses' primary focus on a statistically all-time non-champion.

People have pushed for Barkley, but Harden's just seems like a stronger version. Charles probably shouldn't be voted in when contemporaries that looked similarly capable as #1's like Pippen and Ewing haven't even been nominated

2. Pippen

A. Skillset

-> excellent creator, even when we limit creation to passing:

While he was a phenomenal finisher and transition player, Pippen’s best offensive attribute was his passing. By my estimates, he dolled out “good” or “great” passes on about 3 plays per 100, which, for comparison, was slightly behind John Stockton’s rate.

-> unlike Stockton, he also broke defenses down as a penetrator with a legitimate scoring threat
-> unlike Stockton, he directed teammates where to go as the bulls primary on-court decision-maker
-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's

Also unlike Stockton was arguably the best ever non-big defensively, coordinating teammates as a floor-general, making more plays on the perimeter than anyone, being the bulls primary help defender and also functioning as a co-primary paint protector:

Spoiler:

I did 40 possessions from the 4th game of the 91 ECF today just looking at the distribution of, as 70's calls it, "load as a paint-protector":
[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]
(if you want to check, 20 possessions are finished through 19:42 amd 40 are finished through 49:52)

Note it was very hard to make out players(besides pippen whose got a nasty case of roblox head), so i could be misattributing here and there though I used jersey numbers, names, commentators, and head/body shapes the best i could. I also counted "splits" for both parties(which is why the numbers don't add up to 40)


Distribution went

Pippen/Grant
14 each

Purdue
6 or 7

Cartwright
4

Armstrong/Jordan
1 each

FWIW, Grant seemed more significantly more effective than Pippen but otoh, Pippen was trusted to deal with laimbeer far more than anyone else

All that aside, what's notable here is that it's the non-bigs who are checking rim threats the most. Not the centres. With one of the two deterring attempts, sometimes on an island, the rest of the team was enabled to try and force turnovers with suffocating pressure.

Chicago's defense was average before Pippen(and grant's) ascension in the second half of 1990. Their offense was good but not historic. At his apex, doing as much as he could, Jordan had done a commendable job(or at least most of the commendable job) turning a 27-win team into a 53-win one(full-strength ratings here), but it was the help that elevated the Bulls into a legitimate title threat in 1990 and then a dynasty for near the next decade with Pippen as the guy seeing the biggest jump in raw-production and the biggest jump in load/responsibility(on both ends).

He proceded to lead a contender in 1994 in spite of intense internal conflict and the bulls stayed very good in 1995 despite the best and 3rd best players missing(with Scottie filing a trade request).

Notably the Bulls defense consistently elevated in the postseason, something which was not happening when it was just micheal/oakley/sam vincient. Using san's rolling srs, there were years where the defense outpaced the offense. Consider playoff scottie also saw a general "simple box" improvement, proceeded to lead the bulls to an elevated post-season outing in 1994, and then played a signficant role nearly knocking off the 67-win Lakers post-prime, and the notion Scottie wasn't also a playoff elevator seems detached from reality.

In fact, Pippen managed to anchor, by sans rolling ratings, the 7th and 22nd best playoff defenses ever in 96 and 98 respectively. He was arguably as close as any non-big has ever come to being a defensive superstar. And he was also someone who could lead good offenses in the absence of overwhelming talent. I think that combination demands induction sooner rather than later. Even if you pay no heed to the team-success, some of which came without Micheal. People speculate he lacked the intangibles of an alpha, but the results disagree.

It's not the sort of thing I'd look a great deal at it's noisy and only a single season.

But that defense that Pippen "anchored" in the '98 playoffs ... it's worse when he's on the court than off it. Not by a lot, that doesn't mean it's bad, solid wing defender depth etc.

Still if I'm invoking a team level achievement and then talking about "anchoring" I'd be thinking of the likes '99 Robinson, '01 Mutombo type differences where the anchor has evidence of being the driver (may not have to be to that degree but those two came to mind as something that did fit anchoring) rather than just looking like "a part". This is a noisy stat but then just team level performance is more so.

[70sFan]

-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's

When did it happen?

+2 when pippen played in 94, +1 in 95 before jordan came back

Good is an overstatement then.

[OhayoKD]

When did it happen?

+2 when pippen played in 94, +1 in 95 before jordan came back

Good is an overstatement then.

i am willing to lower it to good in 94/decent in 95

[HeartBreakKid]

Vote: James Harden
Nom: Reggie Miller

Copy pasting f4p's long post on Harden:

Spoiler:

I will copy and paste from the last thread.

Vote: James Harden

So I guess I'll write a Harden post, for whatever reason. It's sad people dislike him so much. For a guy who never got in trouble off the court, said anything bad, or punched people in the nether regions like Chris Paul, and who mostly just stayed to himself, people sure don't like that he drew a lot of fouls. For a guy who started his career coming off the bench for 3 seasons and then worked his way up to a 5-time MVP candidate, people sure do seem to think he's just a partier who didn't try very hard. For a 6'-5", moderately athletic, below average straight-line-speed shooting guard who isn't an all time elite shooter, he sure never gets the "How did he do it with his physical limitations?!!" praise that some other people get. Wonder why that is.

For a guy who averaged 30.7/6.7/5.9 against the 2015/18/19 Warriors, he sure gets a lot of "Worst playoff performer ever!" talk. In fact, I would struggle to name someone so great about whom so little positive is said as James Harden. LIke Lebron has probably gotten more negative attention than anyone in NBA history, but it's balanced with probably the 2nd most positive attention ever as well. But every James Harden story is either outright bad or starts with "He sucks in the playoffs, but man could he...". It's crazy, for a guy 12th all time in MVP shares. For a guy who hard carried a franchise for a decade of almost never missing a game and playing league-leading type minutes, only to have to bash up against a perennial 10 SRS (when they tried) dynasty year after year. Who had his best chance stolen by injury to a teammate. And 2nd best chance stolen by an injury to himself, that he still tried to play through.

MVP guys without an alpha championship - Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, Harden, Nash, Paul

Is there any argument against Harden having the best "oh so close" championship case with the 2018 Rockets? 4 guys are already in and Barkley looks next. Why is Harden getting inducted behind all these guys? Or at least so far behind them?

Best Team (or best "oh so close" team)
Barkley - 1993 Suns
Malone - 1997 Jazz
Ewing - 1994 Knicks
Robinson - 1995 Spurs
Harden - 2018 Rockets
Nash - 2007 Suns
Paul - 2014 Clippers

Regular Season Quality
Harden: +8.2 SRS - Paul misses 24 games, Harden misses career-high 10 games, Rockets 44-5 with +11.0 SRS in games Harden/Paul play, so extremely good when healthy
Malone: +8.0 SRS - expansion inflated number maybe more like +7.2 or +7.5, no injuries (82 games from big 3)
Nash: +7.3 SRS - no real injuries, Nash missed 6 games and Diaw 9
Paul: +7.3 SRS - decent amount of injuries, Paul misses 20 games but team only plays at 58 win pace with him so not much difference, Redick misses half the season but team plays the same with or without him
Ewing: +6.4 SRS - lots of role players missed games but Ewing/Oakley play almost all games, Mason misses 9 games
Barkley: +6.3 SRS - injuries to KJ and Dumas (49 and 48 games played) but team has basically the same record with or without those 2
Robinson: +5.9 SRS - only Rodman missed games but he only played 49 and the team was 40-9 (67 wins pace) so very good when healthy, though MOV was only +6.4 (58 win pace) in Rodman's games so may have been some luck in that record

So Harden seems to have generated the best regular season team of any of them, by a significant margin when healthy

Toughest Team Who They Lost To
Harden: 2018 Warriors - maybe a small step below the 2017 Warriors, still GOAT level
Malone: 1997 Bulls - maybe a small step below the 1996 Bulls, still GOAT level
Nash: 2007 Spurs - +8.4 SRS, very good team, but a step down from the 2 above
Barkley: 1993 Bulls - 16-4 playoff run through 3 6+ SRS teams, equal to 2007 Spurs
Robinson: 1995 Rockets - terrible regular season, great playoffs, Hakeem going berserk makes them tougher than 1994 Rockets
Ewing: 1994 Rockets - a one-star title team without the confidence of having already won a title
Paul: 2014 Thunder - good +6.7 team but didn't even make finals

How Close They Came To Winning
Harden: Game 7
Ewing: Game 7
Malone: Game 6
Nash: Game 6
Barkley: Game 6
Robinson: Game 6
Paul: Game 6

Led the Series?
Harden: 3-2
Ewing: 3-2
Paul: 1-0 (not 2-0 for a change)
Malone: No
Nash: No
Barkley: No
Robinson: No

Mitigating Reason For Losing?
Harden: Best teammate injured for 2 games with series lead
Nash: Best teammate suspended for 1 game with tied series
Robinson: Rodman going crazy (also Hakeem going crazy)
Ewing: No (could say Starks shooting in Game 7 but Ewing shot horribly for the whole series so no room to talk)
Barkley: No
Paul: No
Malone: No

Harden has the best regular season team (yes, with the best teammate), lost to at least tied for the best opponent, got closer to winning than anyone but Ewing, had a series lead late unlike anyone but Ewing, and had the best mitigating reason for losing. He didn't lose the first 2 games at home like Barkley, didn't have a 39 TS% like Ewing, wasn't 1-4 with 3 points and 3 turnovers with 9 minutes to go in the closeout game like Nash (after going 1-8 in the 4th while losing a lead in the previous game), didn't get slaughtered by his counterpart like Robinson, didn't miss the potential series swinging free throws like Malone, and I can't remember but I think this was the series Chris Paul committed some huge crunch time error to lose one game.

But 4 and about to be 5 of these guys are in and who knows, Ewing might make it yet before Harden.


But maybe they've got way better careers:

SRS defeated as a team alpha in the playoffs:
Malone: 41.9 (Top 35 teammate for 18 years)
Harden: 27.1
Ewing: 22.1
Nash: 21.3
Paul: 18.6 (32.2 if you counted 2021 but that seems iffy and all opponents injured)
Barkley: 14.9 (didn't count negative SRS opponent in 1986 1st round to be nice)
Robinson: 7.2 (!!, he is ranked so much lower without Duncan showing up)

Doesn't seem like a ton of winning from these guys to outpace Harden

What about standard career-long measures:

Win Shares - Regular Season
Malone: 234.6
Paul: 205.0
Robinson: 178.7
Barkley: 177.0
Harden: 158.0
Nash: 129.7
Ewing: 126.5

VORP - Regular Season
Malone: 99.0
Paul: 96.2
Robinson: 81.9
Barkley: 80.5
Harden: 76.0
Ewing: 50.0
Nash: 48.2

Win Shares - Postseason
Malone: 23.0 (7900 minutes, 0.143 WS48)
Paul: 21.2 (5442 minutes, 0.187 WS48)
Harden: 20.6 (5750 minutes, 0.172 WS48)
Barkley: 19.5 (4850 games, 0.193 WS48)
Robinson: 17.5 (4220 minutes, 0.199 WS48)
Ewing: 14.1 (5200 minutes, 0.130 WS48)
Nash: 11.9 (4300 minutes, 0.133 WS48)

VORP - Postseason
Malone: 12.1
Harden: 11.9
Paul: 11.9
Barkley: 10.2
Robinson: 8.7
Ewing: 6.7
Nash: 5.6

Definitely some regular season advantages for the others, but Harden jumps back up in the playoffs.

So Harden is the guy with the best championship case, beat more opponent SRS in the playoffs than anyone but the massive-longevity guy who had a hall of fame teammate for almost 2 decades, and look middle of the pack by the career measures. But maybe we shouldn't compare him to those guys.

James and the Giant Reach or James Harden is either way more like Steph Curry than you think or Steph Curry is way more like James Harden than you think

These guys end up next to each other a lot in different measures. And Harden doesn't always lose.

Normalized 10 Year Box Score (my calculation, nothing fancy)
22. Harden 0.593
24. Steph 0.576

2 peas in a pod. Only 2 spots apart.

Harden is terrible at playoff resiliency. But guess who else is:
Resiliency (my calculation, nothing fancy)
34th out of 41. Steph -0.1613
39th out of 41. Harden -0.1982

So small advantage for Steph, but once again right there in the same range (Harden would actually be ahead if it included 2011).

RAPM 97-22?
13. Steph 6.5
22. Harden 5.1

Okay, an advantage for Steph, but probably not as excessive as people would guess. But what if we just do the playoffs:
Playoff RAPM - Cheema
6. Steph 4.12
7. Harden 4.11

Well damn, that's about as close as it gets.

What about plain ol' playoff plus/minus for these BFF's
Steph 2013-23, (11 years, 9 playoffs): +12.0 on/off (all prime years)
Harden 2011-22 (12 years, 12 playoffs): +11.0 on/off (not all prime years)

So really close, even in the area where Steph dominates. But we included a little non-prime for Harden. What if we just do 2011-2021, still as many years and more playoffs than Steph:
Harden 2011-21 (11 years, 11 playoffs): +11.4 on/off

Even closer. What if we just do 2011-2020? Still more playoffs than Steph. +11.9. Practically a tie.

And just to show how disastrous the Milwaukee hamstring series was, what if we just do 2011 up until the end of the 1st round in 2021:
Harden 2011-21 1st Round: +12.9

So Harden spent a decade having every bit the playoff on/off impact that Steph did.

But f4p, they played 3 head to head series and Steph won them all, checkmate.

Stats from 2015/18/19 Series
Harden: 30.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 5.9 apg, 58.0 TS% (-3.4% from regular season), 21.9 Game Score
Steph: 26.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 59.5 TS% (-5.9% from regular season), 19.2 Game Score

But those are box score numbers, we know Steph is all about impact:

Harden On/Off: +16.2 per 48 (Harden with a hilarious +48.8 in 2015)
Steph On/Off: +5.3 per 48

But this isn't about how much better Harden is than Steph and how he seems to have definitely outplayed him in these series, it's about how similar they are. So let's try a little magic. I'll get rid of those garbage time minutes I always talk about in Game 2 and Game 3 in 2018. While they do make the series look a lot further apart than it was, they also seriously inflated Harden's plus/minus because they were disastrous "off" minutes. So now it's:

Harden +11.7
Steph +10.4

Wow, still not that different once again. And Harden still ahead. Of course, I'm a vengeful god, and I can't help but notice how well Steph did in Games 6 and 7 in 2018, after the talent advantage became overwhelming. Kind of like how 2017 was coincidentally his best playoffs ever. So what if we remove those (while still removing the garbage time):

Harden +13.0
Steph +5.5

Wow. So the guy who lost all 3 series had better box numbers and on/off numbers. I'm sure people are taking that into account in these rankings (feel free to check the on/off numbers in case I somehow botched them).

So Harden seems to look a lot more like Steph Curry than "rangz" would indicate and has plenty of reasons to be ahead of the non-alpha title guys. Why is he about to be outvoted by almost all of them (and maybe 6 spots behind Nash!) and somehow have Bob Pettit squished in between him and those guys?

A Requiem for the 2018 Houston Rockets or "Are we sure Harden didn't play on a top 5 healthy team ever?" or "**** Chris Paul's hamstring"

Chris Paul's hamstring. **** that thing. Mike D'Antoni might be widely recognized as a genius coach forever if that that thing stays healthy. Daryl Morey's revolutionizing of the NBA and his team building might be cemented as legendary if that thing stays healthy. Chris Paul gets his championship. And James Harden might be considered the leader of a top 5 team ever if that thing stays healthy.

The 2018 Rockets were very good. 65-17 and +8.21 SRS. But that belies their real strength. James Harden and Chris Paul only played 49 games together. The Rockets were 44-5 with a +11.0 SRS. That's a 74 win pace. When Clint Capela also played, they were 42-3 with a +12.1 SRS. That's a 77 win pace (it was actually 41-2 before losing the 2nd to last game). Chris Paul missed 24 games. James Harden missed a career high (at the time) 10 games. Capela missed 8 games. And other than PJ Tucker, Capela's 74 games led the team. Gordon/Ariza/Mbah-a-moute/Anderson also missed a combined 65 games (13 to 21 each).

How does that compare?
1967 76ers (68-13): 6 best guys played 80 or 81 games
1972 Lakers (69-13): Jerry west played 77, rest of top 5 played 80+
1983 76ers (65-17): Erving played 72 and Jones off the bench played 74, but mostly 77-80 games
1996 Bulls (72-10): Rodman 64 games but basically no other major missed games (Longley missed some)
2016 Warriors (73-9): the big 3 missed 6 combined games

You win lots of game by being healthy. Or you are the 2018 Rockets and you just never lose when healthy. Now would the Rockets have really won 77 games if healthy? Obviously not. And can you expect absolutely perfect health? No. But what if they had 1983 Sixer or 1996 Bulls health? Chris Paul plays 74 games, Harden maybe 76, Capela 78. That team is at least winning 68 and takes on a new level of dominance only being behind the big 4 (69, 69, 72, 73). And honestly, 69 and 70 don't seem out of reach, especially since 70 wouldn't have the kind of pressure and teams gunning for you it did before the Warriors won 73 two years before.

Imagine a 69 or 70 win Rockets team goes into the playoffs. That's a team chasing an all-time legacy.

And that team was great in the 1st 2 rounds. In the 2018 Rockets/2020 Lakers thread, someone posted point differentials through 3 quarters. It was to boost the Lakers case, because they got outscored a lot during garbage time. But it turned out the Rockets were really good as well.

Through 2 rounds against teams who weren't top 5 all-time teams, against teams with an average +3.9 SRS, the Rockets MOV through 3 quarters was 11.2. That compares to (I didn't check these numbers except the 2017 Warriors, someone else posted them):

2020 Lakers +8.3 points (average SRS +1.9)
2017 Warriors +9.0 (average SRS +3.4 but much lower without Kawhi for the Spurs, other 3 opponents +2.2)
2014 Spurs +7.7 (average SRS +4.5)
2001 Lakers +9.8 (average SRS +5.5)
2018 Warriors 8.6 (average SRS +3.3)

The 2018 Rockets were extremely good. What if they had followed their +11.7 SRS 1st Round and +14.7 SRS 2nd Round and then somehow, some way taken down the 2018 Warriors with a healthy Chris Paul before smacking the Cavs around? Where is that team ranked all-time? Nothing about Harden has changed. He just has a healthy best teammate. And is 33 year old, never been out of the 2nd round Chris Paul really so good that 68+ wins and a dominant title is expected? I'm thinking no. Now the 1967 76ers did smack the 1967 Celtics around by 10 ppg but they lost 4 playoff games in 3 rounds. They were basically at the same regular season SRS completely healthy (+8.5) as the Rockets injured. Wilt gets a ton of credit (and should) for being on such a dominant team. And that's peak Wilt for most people.

And yet James Harden with a prime but not peak Chris Paul managed to be the best player on a team every bit as dominant, just not as healthy. And it wasn't Harden's health that was the problem. This isn't to knock Wilt. But to point to a proof of concept that you can create a really, really great, all-time type team with James Harden as the best player. A team better than the vast majority of champions throughout history. And significantly better than a number of champions. All that separated Harden from his ring and a much better legacy was either good health for his best teammate or not having a ridiculous opponent. And there's no reason to think 2019 or 2020 Harden couldn't have accomplished just as much if those were the years he got a great team around him. Anyway, **** Chris Paul's hamstring.

I've said enough on Pettit already but it still surprises me how much heavy lifting a single game can do for a player's reputation. Consistent playoff dropoff every year and he was averaging 21.6 ppg on 44.8% TS in the championship run before the last game (compared to Hagan's 29.0 ppg on 59.0% TS). One 50 point game should not put him above all criticism. If Pettit had consistently maintained his regular season level, I would be voting for him in the top 25 or even higher... but he didn't.

For nomination, the top candidates seem to be Frazier, Reggie, Kawhi and I am cool with any of them being up next. I also have Davis on my list coming up soon so I am kind of surprised MyUniBroDavis hasn't already started pushing for him

It seems like to me that Bob is pretty close to his regular season level (which is quite high, is it not?). Also, why do you keep comparing him to Hagen?

[LA Bird]

I've said enough on Pettit already but it still surprises me how much heavy lifting a single game can do for a player's reputation. Consistent playoff dropoff every year and he was averaging 21.6 ppg on 44.8% TS in the championship run before the last game (compared to Hagan's 29.0 ppg on 59.0% TS). One 50 point game should not put him above all criticism. If Pettit had consistently maintained his regular season level, I would be voting for him in the top 25 or even higher... but he didn't.

It seems like to me that Bob is pretty close to his regular season level (which is quite high, is it not?). Also, why do you keep comparing him to Hagen?

No, his RS and PO are not close. As I've said earlier already, Pettit's advanced metrics went down every single year except 63. His second highest WS/48 in the playoffs is even worse than his career worst in the regular season. His RS performance is at another level (especially 56-59 RS) and I have no issue if people were to vote for Pettit here based on that. But guys talk about him like he was as dominant in the playoffs simply because he won a ring and dropped 50 once. That's like ESPN-level analysis. A single game shouldn't define a player's overall career, even if it's the close out game in the Finals. Just because you put in the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle doesn't mean you are most responsible for putting in all the pieces beforehand. If Pettit was so good at stepping up when it matters, how did he do in all the other playoff games over his career? (Hint: not nearly as great).

I point out the comparison to Hagan because many people like to think Pettit didn't have a teammate who literally peaked higher than him in the postseason. I also compare Pettit to Schayes because he is an actual example of someone who maintained their RS performance into the PO from that era at the same position.

[falcolombardi]

When did it happen?

+2 when pippen played in 94, +1 in 95 before jordan came back

Good is an overstatement then.

Is fairly solid relative to available talent, not a bad floorraising result at all imo

There are few players who would take a team like the 95 bulls to legit strong offense and most od them are already voted in or are primarily offensive players without anythingh close to pippen defense value

[HeartBreakKid]

I've said enough on Pettit already but it still surprises me how much heavy lifting a single game can do for a player's reputation. Consistent playoff dropoff every year and he was averaging 21.6 ppg on 44.8% TS in the championship run before the last game (compared to Hagan's 29.0 ppg on 59.0% TS). One 50 point game should not put him above all criticism. If Pettit had consistently maintained his regular season level, I would be voting for him in the top 25 or even higher... but he didn't.

It seems like to me that Bob is pretty close to his regular season level (which is quite high, is it not?). Also, why do you keep comparing him to Hagen?

No, his RS and PO are not close. As I've said earlier already, Pettit's advanced metrics went down every single year except 63. His second highest WS/48 in the playoffs is even worse than his career worst in the regular season. His RS performance is at another level (especially 56-59 RS) and I have no issue if people were to vote for Pettit here based on that. But guys talk about him like he was as dominant in the playoffs simply because he won a ring and dropped 50 once. That's like ESPN-level analysis. A single game shouldn't define a player's overall career, even if it's the close out game in the Finals. Just because you put in the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle doesn't mean you are most responsible for putting in all the pieces beforehand. If Pettit was so good at stepping up when it matters, how did he do in all the other playoff games over his career? (Hint: not nearly as great).

I point out the comparison to Hagan because many people like to think Pettit didn't have a teammate who literally peaked higher than him in the postseason. I also compare Pettit to Schayes because he is an actual example of someone who maintained their RS performance into the PO from that era at the same position.

All his stats went down

vs

His stats are close

They aren't binary terms.


What advance stats are you talking about? He played in the 1950s, there are barely any available. Yes, his PER/WS went down - those aren't really all that valuable stats.


His stats are still all-nba/MVP level in the post season. A career average of 51 TS% going down to 50 TS% is not a drastic difference, and 50 TS% is good for his era.


Also, I don't get how my one statement invoked so much aggression about what is seemingly irrelevant. Why is half of your giant paragraph about some random game Bob Pettit won? I never have mentioned that in my post nor my vote. PennBeast is the only guy who even mentioned that in this thread that I can recall.

You're ironically saying how one game made him seem so great, but you're the one harping on it. I would also argue that overvalueing PER is "ESPN level analysis" as PER is a commonly used stat among ESPN circles...

[falcolombardi]

Somethingh to remember is that the average post season defense a team facea is fairly stronger to way stronger than the average regular season defense (except maybe for weird runs like lakers in the early 80's and all those ass defensive teams in the west)

So having only a slight drop off in the playoffs is virtually the same as not having any drop off

[HeartBreakKid]

Somethingh to remember is that the average post season defense a team facea is fairly stronger to way stronger than the average regular season defense (except maybe for weird runs like lakers in the early 80's and all those ass defensive teams in the west)

So having only a slight drop off in the playoffs is virtually the same as not having any drop off

Yeah, exactly. When people say guys can't play in the playoffs it's talking about major drop offs, not slight dips. Slight dips do show that that player is resilient.

[tsherkin]

Yes, slight dips happen to almost everyone. Someone who maintains their stats from RS to PS, just maintains, is doing quite well. Risers are uncommon/rare.

[OhayoKD]

Vote


1. Pippen

A. Skillset

-> excellent creator, even when we limit creation to passing:

While he was a phenomenal finisher and transition player, Pippen’s best offensive attribute was his passing. By my estimates, he dolled out “good” or “great” passes on about 3 plays per 100, which, for comparison, was slightly behind John Stockton’s rate.

-> unlike Stockton, he also broke defenses down as a penetrator with a legitimate scoring threat
-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's

Also unlike Stockton was arguably the best ever non-big defensively, coordinating teammates as a floor-general, making more plays on the perimeter than anyone, being the bulls primary help defender and also functioning as a co-primary paint protector:

Spoiler:

I did 40 possessions from the 4th game of the 91 ECF today just looking at the distribution of, as 70's calls it, "load as a paint-protector":
[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]
(if you want to check, 20 possessions are finished through 19:42 amd 40 are finished through 49:52)

Note it was very hard to make out players(besides pippen whose got a nasty case of roblox head), so i could be misattributing here and there though I used jersey numbers, names, commentators, and head/body shapes the best i could. I also counted "splits" for both parties(which is why the numbers don't add up to 40)


Distribution went

Pippen/Grant
14 each

Purdue
6 or 7

Cartwright
4

Armstrong/Jordan
1 each

FWIW, Grant seemed more significantly more effective than Pippen but otoh, Pippen was trusted to deal with laimbeer far more than anyone else

All that aside, what's notable here is that it's the non-bigs who are checking rim threats the most. Not the centres. With one of the two deterring attempts, sometimes on an island, the rest of the team was enabled to try and force turnovers with suffocating pressure.

Chicago's defense was average before Pippen(and grant's) ascension in the second half of 1990. Their offense was good but not historic. At his apex, doing as much as he could, Jordan had done a commendable job(or at least most of the commendable job) turning a 27-win team into a 53-win one(full-strength ratings here), but it was the help that elevated the Bulls into a legitimate title threat in 1990 and then a dynasty for near the next decade with Pippen as the guy seeing the biggest jump in raw-production and the biggest jump in load/responsibility(on both ends).

He proceeded to lead a contender in 1994 in spite of intense internal conflict and the bulls stayed very good in 1995 despite the best and 3rd best players missing(with Scottie filing a trade request).

Notably the Bulls defense consistently elevated in the postseason, something which was not happening when it was just micheal/oakley/sam vincient. Using san's rolling srs, there were years where the defense outpaced the offense. Consider playoff scottie also saw a general "simple box" improvement, proceeded to lead the bulls to an elevated post-season outing in 1994, and then played a signficant role nearly knocking off the 67-win Lakers post-prime, and the notion Scottie wasn't also a playoff elevator seems detached from reality.

In fact, Pippen managed to anchor, by sans rolling ratings, the 7th and 22nd best playoff defenses ever in 96 and 98 respectively. He was arguably as close as any non-big has ever come to being a defensive superstar. And he was also someone who could lead good offenses in the absence of overwhelming talent. I think that combination demands induction sooner rather than later. Even if you pay no heed to the team-success, some of which came without Micheal. People speculate he lacked the intangibles of an alpha, but the results disagree.

Nomination
1. Draymond Green

I think he's legitimate superstar and should be afforded more respect. If the likes of hondo and manu are being considered, draymond shouldn't be too far:

Spoiler:

Career clearly favors Malone

Peak for Peak, Dray is much better in pretty much everything that isn't scoring.

-> much better passer,
-> much better defender,
-> much better ball-handler
-> top-tier iq which allows him to function as a floor-general on both ends

Scoring's a big deal, but historical and contemporary impact and team-success would suggest it's not nearly as big of a factor as people think it is. Of the GOAT or near-goat scorers, it's only the ones who also function as defensive anchors who actually have GOAT-tier lift even though preople presume the one who doesn't has a similar or better peak.

In pretty much every decade since the 60's(which were dominanted by a defense-only guy individually and collectively in a way no one else has ever dominated), a two-way big has looked about as or outright more valuable than everyone.

Malone is not even close to a top-tier offensive player, while Draymond is one of the best defenders ever in addition to various attributes that make him valuable on the other-end. As it so happen, Dryamond also looks like one of the most situationally valuable players of data-ball and scales up in the playoffs while Malone clearly scaled-down.

I think peak draymond vs peak malone is a perfectly reasonable debate in a vacuum. Granted PER would disagree.

If that “choosing to build around” for Green comes with Curry and Klay, I could see taking him. If you have to pick one in a vacuum it seems silly to take Draymond first.

what exactly are you looking at when you assume green needs to come with curry and klay to be better than karl malone. Absence of evidence =/ evidence of absence

-> looks alot stronger in rapm and lineup-adjusted metrics

Granting that I'm very much not a RAPM expert
looking at ones I've got saved
97-14 looks awesome (4th rate behind LeBron, Duncan, O'Neal; 8th RAPM points above average ... add KG, Dirk, Bryant, Wade)
97-17 Manu's 5th (Curry's 6th, Draymond is 24th incomplete on Draymond but with a curve much more pro-Curry whilst still enough sample for Warriors to look strong ... in contrast to)
97-22 with Green 10th 6.6; Curry 11th 6.5; Manu 15th 6.0
Can't speak to other sources.

Here are the sourced databall-spanning sets I have numbers for both from

JE
Draymond -> 8.5
Manu -> 7.5

JE playoffs 1998-2019
Draymond -> 7.65, 4322 minutes
Manu -> 7.13, 6075 minutes


Cryptbeam(scaled single-year)
-> Draymond has the highest mark(+7 over nearly 6000 posessions) and 2 years in the top 250 with 5000+ possessions in both
-> Manu doesn't have a mark similar to dray's 2016, but shows up 6 times. Caveat, he does not cross 4500 possessions once and only crosses 4000 possesions thrice

Cheema 97-22
-> Manu, 131k poss, 4.3
-> Draymond, 110k poss, 4.25

Cheema 5-year
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/ahmed.cheema8618/viz/FiveYearRAPMPeaks1997-2021/FiveYearRAPMPeaks1997-2021
Draymond's best 5-year mark clears and he has another 5-year mark similatly positioned to manu's best

Not sure how it looks in Ben's

Would say Draymond is advantaged over "prime/peak", but perhaps "strongly" was strong.

On the Green side ... RAPM is looking for the best solution in terms of credit/distribution/cause of impact. Warriors are really good ... this number has him ahead of Curry. I think the consensus here and everywhere is that he isn't as good as Curry. They play a lot together. This isn't to make the Draymond isn't very good, he's less important than Thompson etc case. But I think most will be curving down or just mentally regarding that number on Draymond with at least some amount of pessimism.

Yeah, I don't think this helps manu at all. I alluded to why in the stuff you snipped out but

-> Duncan clears Curry in JE, Cheema, Ben's scaled set, JE, and Cryptbeam over nearly any time frame, especially if we factor in possession-count
-> Duncan-Manu minute distribution in general and without the other is way more lopsided
-> Manu doesn't look very good when we take out rotations as a factor with wowy
-> Draymond looks very good when we take out rotations as a factor with wowy
-> Curry's numbers go up as draymond ascends, Duncan's do not seem to benefit from Manu

Being pessimistic on Manu is alot easier to empirically justify then Draymond. Most people should be favoring draymond if "is it really --them--" is the question.

Green's also still a bit behind Manu for career RS minutes and I would guess his later years are going to be weaker than thus far and so likely to pull big sample RAPMs down.

Sure, but Draymond looks better over similar time frames with more possessions played. Not looking to argue career value.

For those looking at that (this has been impact facing) Manu's box-side stuff might give him a boost (or greater certainty in impact, or greater confidence that an efficient creator for self and others has value everywhere) - which not to say Draymond's box is "bad".

Yeah, but 'box" isn't really real and can't hurt you. I can easily swing "box" to draymond just by counting different things:

-> progressive passes -> Draymond
-> progressive carries -> Draymond
-> chances created -> Draymond
-> touches -> draymond
-> shots deterred -> draymond
-> shots blocked -> draymond
-> pressures completed -> draymond
-> points scored -> manu

Shouldn't be too hard to compute something there that favors draymond and generally correlates with winning.

Comparing a defensive anchor who runs his team's offense and defense as a floor-general to a guy who scores more is going to naturally result in conventional box-aggregations favoring the latter. It's not a meaningful point.

I'll tell you though that I think a critical recent juncture for me came with the identification of Dray's playoff impact to be more of an early round thing, while Ginobili's actually gets more impressive in the deeper rounds - and he led the Spurs in raw +/- in all 4 of the the Spur title runs he was a part of.

Very noisy stuff here. Not that you have to, but the first step to persuading me(and probably others) is explaining in basketball terms what manu ginobli was doing that turned him from seemingly not very impactful in the regular-season to potentially best perimiter player of the era if used right in the playoffs.

2. Westbrook, creation king, playoff impact all-timer, all-time elevator, and the most valuable piece of a team that took the 73-win warriors to 7 and thumped the 67-win 70-win srs spurs. Longetivity is the only knock at this level and even that is underplayed. Even as early as of 2013, a +9 srs team was getting matched/thumped by +3 srs non-contenders when he went out.

Also an all-time teammate/lockeroom quite literally setting okc for the future by endearing paul-george to a longer contract. Not even KD talks **** about westbrook. Leader of men and an all-time player in the most talented version of the league

[NBA4Lyfe]

I will copy and paste from the last thread.

Vote: James Harden

So I guess I'll write a Harden post, for whatever reason. It's sad people dislike him so much. For a guy who never got in trouble off the court, said anything bad, or punched people in the nether regions like Chris Paul, and who mostly just stayed to himself, people sure don't like that he drew a lot of fouls. For a guy who started his career coming off the bench for 3 seasons and then worked his way up to a 5-time MVP candidate, people sure do seem to think he's just a partier who didn't try very hard. For a 6'-5", moderately athletic, below average straight-line-speed shooting guard who isn't an all time elite shooter, he sure never gets the "How did he do it with his physical limitations?!!" praise that some other people get. Wonder why that is.

For a guy who averaged 30.7/6.7/5.9 against the 2015/18/19 Warriors, he sure gets a lot of "Worst playoff performer ever!" talk. In fact, I would struggle to name someone so great about whom so little positive is said as James Harden. LIke Lebron has probably gotten more negative attention than anyone in NBA history, but it's balanced with probably the 2nd most positive attention ever as well. But every James Harden story is either outright bad or starts with "He sucks in the playoffs, but man could he...". It's crazy, for a guy 12th all time in MVP shares. For a guy who hard carried a franchise for a decade of almost never missing a game and playing league-leading type minutes, only to have to bash up against a perennial 10 SRS (when they tried) dynasty year after year. Who had his best chance stolen by injury to a teammate. And 2nd best chance stolen by an injury to himself, that he still tried to play through.

MVP guys without an alpha championship - Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, Harden, Nash, Paul

Is there any argument against Harden having the best "oh so close" championship case with the 2018 Rockets? 4 guys are already in and Barkley looks next. Why is Harden getting inducted behind all these guys? Or at least so far behind them?

Best Team (or best "oh so close" team)
Barkley - 1993 Suns
Malone - 1997 Jazz
Ewing - 1994 Knicks
Robinson - 1995 Spurs
Harden - 2018 Rockets
Nash - 2007 Suns
Paul - 2014 Clippers

Regular Season Quality
Harden: +8.2 SRS - Paul misses 24 games, Harden misses career-high 10 games, Rockets 44-5 with +11.0 SRS in games Harden/Paul play, so extremely good when healthy
Malone: +8.0 SRS - expansion inflated number maybe more like +7.2 or +7.5, no injuries (82 games from big 3)
Nash: +7.3 SRS - no real injuries, Nash missed 6 games and Diaw 9
Paul: +7.3 SRS - decent amount of injuries, Paul misses 20 games but team only plays at 58 win pace with him so not much difference, Redick misses half the season but team plays the same with or without him
Ewing: +6.4 SRS - lots of role players missed games but Ewing/Oakley play almost all games, Mason misses 9 games
Barkley: +6.3 SRS - injuries to KJ and Dumas (49 and 48 games played) but team has basically the same record with or without those 2
Robinson: +5.9 SRS - only Rodman missed games but he only played 49 and the team was 40-9 (67 wins pace) so very good when healthy, though MOV was only +6.4 (58 win pace) in Rodman's games so may have been some luck in that record

So Harden seems to have generated the best regular season team of any of them, by a significant margin when healthy

Toughest Team Who They Lost To
Harden: 2018 Warriors - maybe a small step below the 2017 Warriors, still GOAT level
Malone: 1997 Bulls - maybe a small step below the 1996 Bulls, still GOAT level
Nash: 2007 Spurs - +8.4 SRS, very good team, but a step down from the 2 above
Barkley: 1993 Bulls - 16-4 playoff run through 3 6+ SRS teams, equal to 2007 Spurs
Robinson: 1995 Rockets - terrible regular season, great playoffs, Hakeem going berserk makes them tougher than 1994 Rockets
Ewing: 1994 Rockets - a one-star title team without the confidence of having already won a title
Paul: 2014 Thunder - good +6.7 team but didn't even make finals

How Close They Came To Winning
Harden: Game 7
Ewing: Game 7
Malone: Game 6
Nash: Game 6
Barkley: Game 6
Robinson: Game 6
Paul: Game 6

Led the Series?
Harden: 3-2
Ewing: 3-2
Paul: 1-0 (not 2-0 for a change)
Malone: No
Nash: No
Barkley: No
Robinson: No

Mitigating Reason For Losing?
Harden: Best teammate injured for 2 games with series lead
Nash: Best teammate suspended for 1 game with tied series
Robinson: Rodman going crazy (also Hakeem going crazy)
Ewing: No (could say Starks shooting in Game 7 but Ewing shot horribly for the whole series so no room to talk)
Barkley: No
Paul: No
Malone: No

Harden has the best regular season team (yes, with the best teammate), lost to at least tied for the best opponent, got closer to winning than anyone but Ewing, had a series lead late unlike anyone but Ewing, and had the best mitigating reason for losing. He didn't lose the first 2 games at home like Barkley, didn't have a 39 TS% like Ewing, wasn't 1-4 with 3 points and 3 turnovers with 9 minutes to go in the closeout game like Nash (after going 1-8 in the 4th while losing a lead in the previous game), didn't get slaughtered by his counterpart like Robinson, didn't miss the potential series swinging free throws like Malone, and I can't remember but I think this was the series Chris Paul committed some huge crunch time error to lose one game.

But 4 and about to be 5 of these guys are in and who knows, Ewing might make it yet before Harden.


But maybe they've got way better careers:

SRS defeated as a team alpha in the playoffs:
Malone: 41.9 (Top 35 teammate for 18 years)
Harden: 27.1
Ewing: 22.1
Nash: 21.3
Paul: 18.6 (32.2 if you counted 2021 but that seems iffy and all opponents injured)
Barkley: 14.9 (didn't count negative SRS opponent in 1986 1st round to be nice)
Robinson: 7.2 (!!, he is ranked so much lower without Duncan showing up)

Doesn't seem like a ton of winning from these guys to outpace Harden

What about standard career-long measures:

Win Shares - Regular Season
Malone: 234.6
Paul: 205.0
Robinson: 178.7
Barkley: 177.0
Harden: 158.0
Nash: 129.7
Ewing: 126.5

VORP - Regular Season
Malone: 99.0
Paul: 96.2
Robinson: 81.9
Barkley: 80.5
Harden: 76.0
Ewing: 50.0
Nash: 48.2

Win Shares - Postseason
Malone: 23.0 (7900 minutes, 0.143 WS48)
Paul: 21.2 (5442 minutes, 0.187 WS48)
Harden: 20.6 (5750 minutes, 0.172 WS48)
Barkley: 19.5 (4850 games, 0.193 WS48)
Robinson: 17.5 (4220 minutes, 0.199 WS48)
Ewing: 14.1 (5200 minutes, 0.130 WS48)
Nash: 11.9 (4300 minutes, 0.133 WS48)

VORP - Postseason
Malone: 12.1
Harden: 11.9
Paul: 11.9
Barkley: 10.2
Robinson: 8.7
Ewing: 6.7
Nash: 5.6

Definitely some regular season advantages for the others, but Harden jumps back up in the playoffs.

So Harden is the guy with the best championship case, beat more opponent SRS in the playoffs than anyone but the massive-longevity guy who had a hall of fame teammate for almost 2 decades, and look middle of the pack by the career measures. But maybe we shouldn't compare him to those guys.

James and the Giant Reach or James Harden is either way more like Steph Curry than you think or Steph Curry is way more like James Harden than you think

These guys end up next to each other a lot in different measures. And Harden doesn't always lose.

Normalized 10 Year Box Score (my calculation, nothing fancy)
22. Harden 0.593
24. Steph 0.576

2 peas in a pod. Only 2 spots apart.

Harden is terrible at playoff resiliency. But guess who else is:
Resiliency (my calculation, nothing fancy)
34th out of 41. Steph -0.1613
39th out of 41. Harden -0.1982

So small advantage for Steph, but once again right there in the same range (Harden would actually be ahead if it included 2011).

RAPM 97-22?
13. Steph 6.5
22. Harden 5.1

Okay, an advantage for Steph, but probably not as excessive as people would guess. But what if we just do the playoffs:
Playoff RAPM - Cheema
6. Steph 4.12
7. Harden 4.11

Well damn, that's about as close as it gets.

What about plain ol' playoff plus/minus for these BFF's
Steph 2013-23, (11 years, 9 playoffs): +12.0 on/off (all prime years)
Harden 2011-22 (12 years, 12 playoffs): +11.0 on/off (not all prime years)

So really close, even in the area where Steph dominates. But we included a little non-prime for Harden. What if we just do 2011-2021, still as many years and more playoffs than Steph:
Harden 2011-21 (11 years, 11 playoffs): +11.4 on/off

Even closer. What if we just do 2011-2020? Still more playoffs than Steph. +11.9. Practically a tie.

And just to show how disastrous the Milwaukee hamstring series was, what if we just do 2011 up until the end of the 1st round in 2021:
Harden 2011-21 1st Round: +12.9

So Harden spent a decade having every bit the playoff on/off impact that Steph did.

But f4p, they played 3 head to head series and Steph won them all, checkmate.

Stats from 2015/18/19 Series
Harden: 30.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 5.9 apg, 58.0 TS% (-3.4% from regular season), 21.9 Game Score
Steph: 26.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 59.5 TS% (-5.9% from regular season), 19.2 Game Score

But those are box score numbers, we know Steph is all about impact:

Harden On/Off: +16.2 per 48 (Harden with a hilarious +48.8 in 2015)
Steph On/Off: +5.3 per 48

But this isn't about how much better Harden is than Steph and how he seems to have definitely outplayed him in these series, it's about how similar they are. So let's try a little magic. I'll get rid of those garbage time minutes I always talk about in Game 2 and Game 3 in 2018. While they do make the series look a lot further apart than it was, they also seriously inflated Harden's plus/minus because they were disastrous "off" minutes. So now it's:

Harden +11.7
Steph +10.4

Wow, still not that different once again. And Harden still ahead. Of course, I'm a vengeful god, and I can't help but notice how well Steph did in Games 6 and 7 in 2018, after the talent advantage became overwhelming. Kind of like how 2017 was coincidentally his best playoffs ever. So what if we remove those (while still removing the garbage time):

Harden +13.0
Steph +5.5

Wow. So the guy who lost all 3 series had better box numbers and on/off numbers. I'm sure people are taking that into account in these rankings (feel free to check the on/off numbers in case I somehow botched them).

So Harden seems to look a lot more like Steph Curry than "rangz" would indicate and has plenty of reasons to be ahead of the non-alpha title guys. Why is he about to be outvoted by almost all of them (and maybe 6 spots behind Nash!) and somehow have Bob Pettit squished in between him and those guys?

A Requiem for the 2018 Houston Rockets or "Are we sure Harden didn't play on a top 5 healthy team ever?" or "**** Chris Paul's hamstring"

Chris Paul's hamstring. **** that thing. Mike D'Antoni might be widely recognized as a genius coach forever if that that thing stays healthy. Daryl Morey's revolutionizing of the NBA and his team building might be cemented as legendary if that thing stays healthy. Chris Paul gets his championship. And James Harden might be considered the leader of a top 5 team ever if that thing stays healthy.

The 2018 Rockets were very good. 65-17 and +8.21 SRS. But that belies their real strength. James Harden and Chris Paul only played 49 games together. The Rockets were 44-5 with a +11.0 SRS. That's a 74 win pace. When Clint Capela also played, they were 42-3 with a +12.1 SRS. That's a 77 win pace (it was actually 41-2 before losing the 2nd to last game). Chris Paul missed 24 games. James Harden missed a career high (at the time) 10 games. Capela missed 8 games. And other than PJ Tucker, Capela's 74 games led the team. Gordon/Ariza/Mbah-a-moute/Anderson also missed a combined 65 games (13 to 21 each).

How does that compare?
1967 76ers (68-13): 6 best guys played 80 or 81 games
1972 Lakers (69-13): Jerry west played 77, rest of top 5 played 80+
1983 76ers (65-17): Erving played 72 and Jones off the bench played 74, but mostly 77-80 games
1996 Bulls (72-10): Rodman 64 games but basically no other major missed games (Longley missed some)
2016 Warriors (73-9): the big 3 missed 6 combined games

You win lots of game by being healthy. Or you are the 2018 Rockets and you just never lose when healthy. Now would the Rockets have really won 77 games if healthy? Obviously not. And can you expect absolutely perfect health? No. But what if they had 1983 Sixer or 1996 Bulls health? Chris Paul plays 74 games, Harden maybe 76, Capela 78. That team is at least winning 68 and takes on a new level of dominance only being behind the big 4 (69, 69, 72, 73). And honestly, 69 and 70 don't seem out of reach, especially since 70 wouldn't have the kind of pressure and teams gunning for you it did before the Warriors won 73 two years before.

Imagine a 69 or 70 win Rockets team goes into the playoffs. That's a team chasing an all-time legacy.

And that team was great in the 1st 2 rounds. In the 2018 Rockets/2020 Lakers thread, someone posted point differentials through 3 quarters. It was to boost the Lakers case, because they got outscored a lot during garbage time. But it turned out the Rockets were really good as well.

Through 2 rounds against teams who weren't top 5 all-time teams, against teams with an average +3.9 SRS, the Rockets MOV through 3 quarters was 11.2. That compares to (I didn't check these numbers except the 2017 Warriors, someone else posted them):

2020 Lakers +8.3 points (average SRS +1.9)
2017 Warriors +9.0 (average SRS +3.4 but much lower without Kawhi for the Spurs, other 3 opponents +2.2)
2014 Spurs +7.7 (average SRS +4.5)
2001 Lakers +9.8 (average SRS +5.5)
2018 Warriors 8.6 (average SRS +3.3)

The 2018 Rockets were extremely good. What if they had followed their +11.7 SRS 1st Round and +14.7 SRS 2nd Round and then somehow, some way taken down the 2018 Warriors with a healthy Chris Paul before smacking the Cavs around? Where is that team ranked all-time? Nothing about Harden has changed. He just has a healthy best teammate. And is 33 year old, never been out of the 2nd round Chris Paul really so good that 68+ wins and a dominant title is expected? I'm thinking no. Now the 1967 76ers did smack the 1967 Celtics around by 10 ppg but they lost 4 playoff games in 3 rounds. They were basically at the same regular season SRS completely healthy (+8.5) as the Rockets injured. Wilt gets a ton of credit (and should) for being on such a dominant team. And that's peak Wilt for most people.

And yet James Harden with a prime but not peak Chris Paul managed to be the best player on a team every bit as dominant, just not as healthy. And it wasn't Harden's health that was the problem. This isn't to knock Wilt. But to point to a proof of concept that you can create a really, really great, all-time type team with James Harden as the best player. A team better than the vast majority of champions throughout history. And significantly better than a number of champions. All that separated Harden from his ring and a much better legacy was either good health for his best teammate or not having a ridiculous opponent. And there's no reason to think 2019 or 2020 Harden couldn't have accomplished just as much if those were the years he got a great team around him. Anyway, **** Chris Paul's hamstring.

Great analysis, I agree harden is underrated on most atg rankings. He changed the game and the rise of heliocentric ball and moreyball that’s a staple in the league today can be attributed to his rockets tenure

I also believe that just like wilt, harden will move up atg list as time passes. People forget wilt was just as hated as harden is now when he was playing in his era