RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #20 (Chris Paul)

[f4p]

since there seem to be a million RAPM's and i don't know most of them, which one's say nash is good in RAPM (i certainly don't see why we would just look at O-RAPM)? The Cheema 97-21 set seems to have him at only +2.22 in the postseason, and pretty much all of nash's playoffs are prime seasons so he's not being drug down by off-prime years.

Engelmann's (from what it seems, the most prominent one) and Doctor MJ's chronology spreadsheet have been the ones I have cited thus-far in pushing for Nash.

Nash also looks pretty good in ben's scaled set iirc with his 5-year stretch ranking 6th.

He also looks very good in cryptbeam's scaled set with 8 yeaqrs in the top 250(for comparison Wade has 5).

With the 4 databall spanning rapm sources I know of I'd interpret it as

Cheema: favors Wade
JE: Favors Nash
Ben: Favors Nash
Crypt: Favors Nash

so is this database that rk2023 referenced in other threads different than the ones listed above:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201024055547/https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/97-14-rapm-2

it has Wade 7th and Nash 35th for 97-14, which is basically the perfect time period for their whole careers. also worth noting nash's 4 year peak in this measure is 2008-2011 (rk2023 references this peak). if this is counting postseason in the calculation, then his best 4 years are the years he plays least in the playoffs (2 playoff misses and a short first round in another year). 2005-2007 don't look nearly as good.

also, JE 97-22 has wade 167th, just above greg minor. it seems weird that you find the box score to be crazy useless but dwade and AD being tied with max strus and brian cardinal in the 160's and a little behind trent forrest is fine.

Nash is also a darling in terms of real-world signals(2004->2005 turnaround, team still being really good without amare) but I have not really done any sort of in-depth analysis for him or wade

ok, but didn't his old team literally get better without him? that's what i mean, it's all a one way street for nash. offense is great, who cares if his teams collapse defensively. new team gets way better, who cares if his old team gets better also (i'm sure there will be a bunch of adjustments that somehow prove they actually got worse).

And then of course Nash has goated creation and leads the best regular-season and playoff offneses ever

playoff offenses that managed to lose because the defense somehow fell off even more than the offense got better in some of the bigger series. right? i mean the 2005 and 2010 WCF offenses do look truly incredible, like off the charts type stuff, but somehow the defenses fell off by more than 10 points, indicating that his teams are just hardcore leaning into offense at the expense of defense. is that not a reasonable interpretation? it can't just be that nash made the offense good and then, for completely unrelated reasons, the defense got terrible.

You can poke holes(why were dallas not better than they were?)

so why don't people poke holes? it's one of those things people mention then quickly brush past. he played with a guy who has already been voted in, both in their primes and definite all-star seasons for nash according to this project, and they managed a 1-2 conference finals deficit against one of duncan's weaker teams for their peak accomplishment. that's not inaccurate is it?

nash was terrible in the elimination series in 2001 and 2004. after dirk got hurt in 2003, seemingly his chance to step up, he averaged 15/6 on 53 TS% for the remaining 3 games. and that's his age 28 season, not some early career season where it's reasonable to think he wouldn't be ready.

and "scalability" is a more legitimate concern here(relies heavily on offense, doesn't have a strong post-game, not an all-time cutter/slasher), but emperically speaking he has a very strong rs impact portfolio(with the most favorable interpretations even top 10-worthy but I think dallas needs to factor in somewhat).

His best teams also grade out reasonably well in the playoffs(overall) by sans method despite external context hindering both

Spoiler:

Playoff Offensive Rating: +16.19 (1st), Playoff Defensive Rating: +5.71 (100th)
Playoff SRS: +10.64 (48th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +2.00 (59th)
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +1.99 (59th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -4.09 (8th)

Playoff Heliocentrism: 23.8% - Nash
Playoff Wingmen: 42.9% - Stoudemire & Marion
Playoff Bench: 33.3%

Round 1: Memphis Grizzlies (+2.6), won 4-0, by +11.0 points per game (+13.6 SRS eq)
Round 2: Dallas Mavericks (+6.3), won 4-2, by +6.7 points per game (+13.0 SRS eq)
Round 3: San Antonio Spurs (+9.6), lost 1-4, outscored by 4.2 points per game (+5.4 SRS eq)
Round 4:

Spoiler:

Playoff Offensive Rating: +6.75 (33th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -3.63 (69th)
Playoff SRS: +9.56 (70th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +1.10 (79th)
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.43 (48th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -2.67 (34th)

Round 1: Los Angeles Lakers (+0.2), won 4-1 by +10.4 points per game (+10.6 SRS eq)
Round 2: San Antonio Spurs (+8.2), lost 4-2 by +0.5 points per game (+8.7 SRS eq)

that's because there's nothing Sans spreadsheet loves more than a big win over a decent opponent in rounds 1 and 2. it gives you a quick boost against non-contenders that doesn't necessarily mean that much . it's how you get a team like 2020 boston being really highly ranked. 2005/07/10 phoenix is basically this setup to a tee, winning big in rounds 1 and 2 before underperforming (by SRS at least) in the WCF in both 2005/10, though they did basically play up to their SRS in 2007.

in fact, looking at the losses in 2003/05/06/07/10, nash's teams were +6.8 nRtg teams and his opponents were +7.2 nRtg teams. these weren't impossible wins.

Nash has been on 2 teams that can reasonably argue they were the 2nd best team in the playoffs(took the most games and the best point-differential) and was the best player on one and was without his team's best player on the other. His suns are realistically one of the best non-champions ever despite early exits specifically because they faced the eventual champions earlier. The yeah they didn't face the eventual champions, they faced an eventual finalist who also gave the actual their toughest fight in a razor-close series

okay, but that's not as good as 2006 dwade, wouldn't you agree? i mean 2006 dwade shows us massive performance and stepping up in a big situation that we've never seen from nash. look at those heat teammate numbers from the finals again. there is no way wade should have been able to make that team win with almost negative offense from his teammates. and nothing about 2009/10/11 wade tells us he's any different. would you have any steve nash season above dwade's top 4? and given that we've seen nash's dallas seasons just aren't that great (even RAPM seems to agree), this feels like a peak to peak contest that wade wins and then still has seasons like 2005/12 to eclipse dallas nash.

moses is the same case, with a dominant 5 year peak above nash's best 5 year run (2005 to 2010 if you take out 2009) and then lesser years surrounding that like nash.

and of course, you just nominated harden, who basically feels like nash with better numbers and an even better "oh so close" title argument against an even better team with more mitigating circumstances.

Spoiler:

The closest thing to a team-level black mark here is probably being taken to 7 by Kobe but that doesn't really hold up so well with injury context:
[spoiler]

No he didn't. He went up against a Suns team that HAD BEEN clearly superior for most of the year before they got hit with more injuries. Then they lost their ability to hang in the paint, they played .500 ball the rest of the way, and this continued in the playoffs as they got outrebounded by 8 boards per game. Nobody should be winning series with rebounding that bad, but the Suns did, because their .500-ish ball was still about as good as the Lakers and Clippers.

This is the obviously year to bring up of course. I have no issue with people who think Kobe was a better candidate than Nash that year, but in general I've always found that year to be complete parity on the MVP front. Between these two Dirk, LeBron & Wade, it really could have gone to any of those guys.

Also ftr, those Lakers didn't take a healthy #2 seed to 7 games. That Sun team by that point had lost both their quality bigs and had been playing .500 ball getting wrecked on the boards from that point on.

You are welcome to run "my simple box has a 96% correlation with the top 100 so far"(or 0% or 40% or 60% if we use different frames),

a. there was no 0%. you just missed someone in the range you specified.
b. you seem to talk about sample size a lot but sure are proud that the box score thing, which was only based on prime, ever so slightly had different placements for longevity giants for the exact small sample cut-off you picked, right before that same measure quickly listed the longevity giants and then basically ran the table on the rest of the project. i mean you guys just referenced something that had wade 167th between 1997 and 2014 so i think a small deviation can be handled.

i wrote this in the last thread and did not see you respond so i'll ask again:

a simple box score measure of just primes only got a mere 23 out of 24 right. i can only guess you are sitting on a bunch of metrics that are 24 for 24? i'm not saying that you aren't, you very well might be. if you are, i would be very interested to know about them because i would use them pretty heavily to inform my future rankings. if you are not, please respond to indicate you are not so we can close this item one way or the other.

which measures are doing so much better?

i even went through the trouble of adding longevity (with a bonus for an FMVP) to the calculation. we're now lined up enough to say "Box*Longevity plus best player on a title team" does a pretty good job of explaining the votes so far. even if i give nash the full 12 years, he'd still be by far the biggest outlier if he got in at 26. 22 spots above this ranking. the previous biggest outliers are steph of course (+12) and bird (+13), an impact god with 4 titles and a legend from the past with 3 titles. no one else is even +9. it just seems weird that the new biggest outlier, by a lot (an outlier's outlier), is going to be a 0 title guy without a real playoff moment to his name:

Code: Select all

Rk    Player Name              Box*Longevity
1     LeBron James             1.4668       
2     Kareem Abdul-Jabbar      1.2683       
3     Michael Jordan           1.2142       
4     Wilt Chamberlain         1.0446       
5     Tim Duncan               1.0031       
6     Bill Russell             0.8489       
7     Shaquille O'Neal         0.8392       
8     George Mikan             0.8117       
9     Hakeem Olajuwon          0.7426       
10    Dirk Nowitzki            0.7109       
11    Magic Johnson            0.6964       
12    Karl Malone              0.6945       
13    Kevin Garnett            0.6565       
14    Jerry West               0.6422       
15    Kevin Durant             0.6394       
16    Julius Erving            0.6323       
17    Dolph Schayes            0.6192       
18    Charles Barkley          0.5976       
19    Kobe Bryant              0.5876       
20    Oscar Robertson          0.5856       
21    Chris Paul               0.5753       
22    Nikola Jokić             0.5277       
23    Stephen Curry            0.5187       
24    James Harden             0.5118
25    John Stockton            0.5012       
26    David Robinson           0.4945       
27    Larry Bird               0.4933       
28    Bob Pettit               0.4602       
29    Reggie Miller            0.4568       
30    Giannis Antetokounmpo    0.4481       
31    Moses Malone             0.4354       
32    Kawhi Leonard            0.4303       
33    Elgin Baylor             0.4203       
34    Ray Allen                0.3995       
35    Dwyane Wade              0.3913       
36    Pau Gasol                0.3796       
37    Anthony Davis            0.3785       
38    Clyde Drexler            0.3771       
39    Dwight Howard            0.3704       
40    Rick Barry               0.3694       
41    Manu Ginóbili            0.3576       
42    Paul Pierce              0.3563       
43    Chauncey Billups         0.3194       
44    Adrian Dantley           0.2996       
45    Walt Frazier             0.2881       
46    George Gervin            0.2819       
47    Vince Carter             0.2763       
48    Steve Nash               0.2598       
49    Isiah Thomas             0.2553       
50    Carmelo Anthony          0.2517       
51    Russell Westbrook        0.2512       
52    Patrick Ewing            0.248       
53    Scottie Pippen           0.2411       
54    Shawn Kemp               0.2343       
55    Kyrie Irving             0.2335       
56    Cliff Hagan              0.2309       
57    Sam Jones                0.2268       
58    Jimmy Butler             0.2206       
59    Rudy Gobert              0.2205       
60    Bobby Jones              0.2017       
61    Clyde Lovellette         0.1958       
62    Kevin McHale             0.1936       
63    Amar'e Stoudemire        0.1919       
64    George Yardley           0.1855       
65    Blake Griffin            0.1604       
66    Terry Porter             0.1544       
67    Joel Embiid              0.1505       
68    Gus Williams             0.1415       
69    Frank Ramsey             0.1337       
70    Clint Capela             0.1178       
71    Anfernee Hardaway        0.0968       
72    Jamal Murray             0.0791       


but that aside not seeing any real reason Nash shouldn't be in a discussion for nomination here when players like Barkley(being in a conference away from the actual champions does not mean you were better), Durant(generally looks alot worse by impact including rapm(rs or playoffs), pretty much always sees his teams underperform when he's clearly or even arguably the #1), or chris paul are in this conversation(has never had the "took the champions the furthest" case outside of 1 year as a clear 2nd fiddle, big big playoff dropper despite great rs heights, ect).


2 MVPS, 2 "2nd best" teams, great impact on winning emperically, and fits the player profile of the most valuable offensive players ever while leading the best offenses ever with top 2 all-time creation metrics seems pretty reasonable.

He is a better scorer than Durant is...er, anything that isn't scoring and a better playmaker than Durant is a scorer(clear best of era vs a guy who ranges from 2-4 among contemporaries(lebron and kawhi are definitively better in the playoffs)). Is that overcome by situationally negative defense? The data(that which is tied to winning) would suggest no.

For the "Longetvity isn't that important" crowd, Nash over Durant is pretty easy

well i would say this project definitely leans in the longevity direction.

[One_and_Done]

Does it? A large wing who can't shoot the 3, isn't a great passer [Worse than Kobe/Wade by a margin, for example] and didn't score at the volume of Wade/Kobe for most of his prime.

He was never really asked to score at that volume in the NBA. But tbf to him, maybe from 80-84, he was scoring at a similar per-possession rate in the NBA as he did in the ABA. He was just playing fewer minutes. Like, he was a 32.4 PTS100 guy in the ABA and 29.8 in the NBA. But from 80-84, he was a 32.5 PTS100 guy in the NBA. He had four seasons of >32 PTS100... one in the ABA in 76 and then three in a row in the NBA from 80-82 (34.8, career-high, 32.5 and 33.8).

Obviously, that still isn't in the same strata as what Wade and Kobe were doing, but the Sixers made the Finals made the Finals four times between 77 and 83 and won a title, so I don't think anyone in Philly was complaining (and they averaged 61 wins per season from 80-83. Different routes. You don't NEED to be a volume scorer. In fact, it was traditionally frowned upon pre-Jordan. The whole "you can't be a scoring leader and win titles" thing, even though that was a bit BS even back then, recalling 30.6 ppg from Rick Barry in 75 when he was #2 in PPG...). Doctor J blended in with his teams pretty well.

He wasn't scoring at the rate of Wade or Kobe, but those guys also weren't huge forward sized super freaks who could palm the ball and be a devastating weapon on both ends.

These are peak Dr J's stats. I'll take that over Wade or Kobe's peak.

1976 RS Erving: 34.4 pp 100, 12.9 r, 5.9 a, 116 Ortg/97 Drtg, 569 TS%

1976 PS Erving: 37.4 pp 100, 13.6 r, 5.3a, 2.1, 2.2, 128 Ortg/103 Drtg, 610 TS%, and a title.

Eye test wise; when I watch Dr J clips I see a guy who would be an MVP today.

[iggymcfrack]

Saw this on Reddit, thought it was pretty interesting:

Again, DPM is the metric voted most accurate by NBA GMs. Definitely helps make the case for Chris Paul as he's always ahead of KD continually from 2008-2020, but also is interesting just in the context of a lot of players voted in already. Duncan dominates for a solid 8 years at the #1 spot and Kobe never quite breaks into the top 5.

[Doctor MJ]

Spoiler:

Do you happen to have data for this documented for different star players? Seems like a very cool approach.

Okay so I put together something.

NBA Playoff 50 OnWin Ratios

So this is:
1. NBA Playoffs
2. Against teams who played at a 50-32 pace
3. In games where the player played at least 24 minutes
4. Looking at OnWins - games where the players had a positive +/-
5. Looking at Wins.
6. Looking at differences between OnWins and Wins.

The first tab contains the top 200 guys by such OnWins, which can only go back to '96-97. Here's the leaderboard of those whose OnWins surpass their Wins by the most:

1. Steve Nash +10
2. Tim Duncan +9
3. Manu Ginobili +8
(tie) James Harden +8
5. Jason Kidd +7
(tie) Vlade Divac +7
(tie) Boris Diaw +7
(tie) Arvydas Sabonis +7
9. David Robinson +6
(tie) Anderson Varejao +6

And the lowest numbers - again among guys who are among the Top 100 in OnWins, so a pretty successful group:

1. Klay Thompson -8
2. Bruce Bowen -7
(tie) Robert Horry -7
4. Ron Harper -6
(tie) Jae Crowder -6
(tie) JR Smith -6
7. Mario Elie -5
8. Tyler Herro -4
(tie) Latrell Sprewell -4
(tie) Serge Ibaka -4
(tie) Tristan Thompson -4
(tie) Allan Houston -4
(tie) Dwyane Wade -4
(tie) Draymond Green -4

And for good measure, other guys I see on the list who are Top 100 candidates:

Scottie Pippen +5
Paul George +5
Joel Embiid +4
Chris Paul +4
Kevin Garnett +4
Chauncey Billups +4
Giannis Antetokounmpo +4
Rudy Gobert +4

Carmelo Anthony +3
Elton Brand +3
LeBron James +3
Ray Allen +3
Karl Malone +3
Russell Westbrook +3
Dikembe Mutombo +3
Vince Carter +3
Nikola Jokic +3
Anfernee Hardaway +2
Shaquille O'Neal +2
Dirk Nowitzki +2
Jeff Hornacek +2
Reggie Miller +2

Jayson Tatum +1
Ben Wallace +1
Anthony Davis +1
Luka Doncic +1
Kobe Bryant 0
Steph Curry 0
Kawhi Leonard 0
Pau Gasol 0
John Stockton 0
Michael Jordan 0
Dwight Howard 0
Damian Lillard 0
Allen Iverson 0

Tony Parker -1
Jimmy Butler -1
Rasheed Wallace -1
Kevin Durant -2
Paul Pierce -2
Shawn Marion -2
Chris Webber -2
Gary Payton -2
Dennis Rodman -2
Chris Bosh -3
Patrick Ewing -3

Looking at all these numbers I'd be remiss if I didn't note that Wade isn't coming off great here. I'll look at that in more depth.

Cool work.

My inkling is the sample sizes are so small and over a large sample size everyone who is a + player [Whether +0.5 or +8] will regress to 1.00.

[One_and_Done]

Saw this on Reddit, thought it was pretty interesting:

Again, DPM is the metric voted most accurate by NBA GMs. Definitely helps make the case for Chris Paul as he's always ahead of KD continually from 2008-2020, but also is interesting just in the context of a lot of players voted in already. Duncan dominates for a solid 8 years at the #1 spot and Kobe never quite breaks into the top 5.

I get the feeling we could just substitute your votes for a formula derived from this video graphic, as it seems to mirror your lists almost exactly. It doesn't look bad for the most part though.

Still haven't come around on nominating Nash?

[ZeppelinPage]

Vote: Julius Erving
Nomination: Moses Malone

There are a few players I'd have over Erving that haven't been nominated yet, but I'm gonna go with him based on his ability to score, pass, rebound, and defend that I find superior to any of the other players remaining. I put an emphasis on prime and playoff performances and this, along with injuries, pushes Erving ahead of Paul for me.

Moses Malone's playoff resiliency is extremely impressive to me, and I'll nominate him over Pettit who is admittedly close in this comparison. As Pat Riley says, "No rebounds, no rings." And Malone, who at one point out-rebounded an entire Sonics team by himself on a night he had 21 offensive rebounds, adds so many valuable possessions to a team. These extra possessions through rebounding can enable a team to win even if they lose the efficiency battle. In my eyes, that's just so valuable and gives a team more than what other players can offer at this point.

[iggymcfrack]

Saw this on Reddit, thought it was pretty interesting:

Again, DPM is the metric voted most accurate by NBA GMs. Definitely helps make the case for Chris Paul as he's always ahead of KD continually from 2008-2020, but also is interesting just in the context of a lot of players voted in already. Duncan dominates for a solid 8 years at the #1 spot and Kobe never quite breaks into the top 5.

I get the feeling we could just substitute your votes for a formula derived from this video graphic, as it seems to mirror your lists almost exactly. It doesn't look bad for the most part though.

Still haven't come around on nominating Nash?

I was kinda surprised how well the long-term DPM mirrored my previous opinions. Only thing I was surprised by was KG not breaking through more although I guess he never really had the rolling multi-year span of being the guy.

As for Nash, like if it was for voting for a spot, sure I’d choose between my #27 and #29 guy, but for a nomination, I just don’t see the point nominating a guy that I’m not gonna vote for anyway. Whether someone makes the ballot should be judged on how many people support someone enough to consider voting for them, not on who has them as a 9th choice vs. an 11th choice.

[One_and_Done]

Saw this on Reddit, thought it was pretty interesting:

Again, DPM is the metric voted most accurate by NBA GMs. Definitely helps make the case for Chris Paul as he's always ahead of KD continually from 2008-2020, but also is interesting just in the context of a lot of players voted in already. Duncan dominates for a solid 8 years at the #1 spot and Kobe never quite breaks into the top 5.

I get the feeling we could just substitute your votes for a formula derived from this video graphic, as it seems to mirror your lists almost exactly. It doesn't look bad for the most part though.

Still haven't come around on nominating Nash?

I was kinda surprised how well the long-term DPM mirrored my previous opinions. Only thing I was surprised by was KG not breaking through more although I guess he never really had the rolling multi-year span of being the guy.

As for Nash, like if it was for voting for a spot, sure I’d choose between my #27 and #29 guy, but for a nomination, I just don’t see the point nominating a guy that I’m not gonna vote for anyway. Whether someone makes the ballot should be judged on how many people support someone enough to consider voting for them, not on who has them as a 9th choice vs. an 11th choice.

That would make sense, except we're limited to choosing between 5 people, so the nominating is just as important as the voting. You potentially end up in a situation where you hate all 5 candidates, kinda like how you felt for the #12 vote.

[One_and_Done]

Shaq's plus minus numbers suck. Where did we rate him? There's more to assessing a guy than what his advanced stats were.

No they don't?

RS:

2001-04 LAL ON Shaq: +8.6
2001-04 LAL OFF Shaq: -3.9
On/Off: +13.5

PS:

2001-04 LAL ON Shaq: +7.1
2001-04 LAL OFF Shaq: -9.1
On/Off: +16.2

Suck is maybe too strong. On a longer time horizon they don't align with the idea he was the 8th best player of all-time (noting I voted him even higher than that).

[homecourtloss]

CP3 is one of the greatest PG defenders in NBA history who can still QB defenses through his super high IQ and communication skills at an advanced age. Having a strong plus defender at the point guard position is a huge advantage since most point guards are defensive liabilities, especially when that point guard is an all-time great offense creator who also doesn’t turn the ball over.

You only see wings and bigs anywhere near -2 in JE’s career RAPM with confidence levels. Lowry is at -1.6. This is including when Paul is 35+ years old.



As for “Not looking at his New Orleans years because they weren't really ever close to winning anything.” Well, that wasn’t Chris Paul’s fault.



It’s apparent to me that a tremendous playmaker who doesn’t turn the ball over, who can also score in volume efficiently, who also is one of the best defenders at his position in NBA history would be incredibly Impactful and every single era of basketball. You have a player who came into the league making impact right away EVEN as a rookie PG (how many rookie point guards are plus defenders? Almost none, but Chris Paul was) did not need to learn any system or have any system cater to him, because his core skills made him a plus player both on offense and defense. The personnel around him in New Orleans, and in Los Angeles, and in Oklahoma City, and in Phoenix, and in Houston were all different, but he showed that he could make impact on both sides of the ball, regardless of who was on the court, and regardless of who was the coach, and regardless of what the system was in, regardless of what the league style of basketball was.



Vote: Chris Paul
Alt: Dr. J
Nominate: Steve Nash

[LA Bird]

Vote: Chris Paul
Alt: Julius Erving
Nom: Steve Nash

I have Paul slightly higher (#18) but can understand him dropping a bit with concerns over his health in the playoffs. Overall though, he has a pretty rock solid case here - he is consistently the best in advanced stats and +/- of this group of candidates and there are virtually no holes in his skillset. Sure, Paul is not a huge scorer but his scoring is still better than the weakest areas of any other players here and if volume scoring was a major criteria, Magic wouldn't be top 10 anyway. The real problem with Paul is his lack of postseason success and it is valid to a certain extent, with his teams sometimes underperforming relative to their regular season success. However, I don't really have any reason to believe that a Paul team can never win a title considering how close they were in 2018 and 2021. Besides, both Durant and (NBA) Dr J won their rings on loaded teams which doesn't really prove much in this comparison.

Moses vs Nash is an interesting discussion but I am not that high on Moses outside of the epic 1983 season. His Houston teams were very lopsided on offense and defense at their most extreme (1st O, 2nd to last D in 79!) and general team success wasn't great (+0.2 RS SRS, +0.6 PO relative rating during 79-82). Nash obviously never made Finals but his Suns teams were more dominant in both regular season and the playoffs (+5.2 RS, +8.2 PO during 05-10). Could see the argument for Moses if there were some plus minus numbers to suggest him having monster impact carrying weak teams like a KG or Oscar but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[One_and_Done]

Hmm looks like Paul has this. Next thread likely to come down to Erving vs KD.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

There are still a handful of voters from last thread who haven't voted yet, and it's 10-7 with preferences. Not over yet.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Also Nash has pulled ahead by 1 in the nomination race. Very close.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

Durant, Doc, and Barkley should all go before both CP3 and Nash imo. Arguably Moses too but less sure about that. I'd take Nash over CP3 though. Uncomfortable with CP3 getting in this high.

JMO.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

Durant, Doc, and Barkley should all go before both CP3 and Nash imo. Arguably Moses too but less sure about that. I'd take Nash over CP3 though. Uncomfortable with CP3 getting in this high.

JMO.

That's interesting you have relatively one way players like Chuck and Moses over CP3 and Nash. You think they are better on offense than them?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I'm actually thinking if Nash makes it I might vote for him for #21. I think Nash and Paul are pretty close to each other.

Durant, Doc, and Barkley should all go before both CP3 and Nash imo. Arguably Moses too but less sure about that. I'd take Nash over CP3 though. Uncomfortable with CP3 getting in this high.

JMO.

That's interesting you have relatively one way players like Chuck and Moses over CP3 and Nash. You think they are better on offense than them?

Well - first, Nash is a one way player too. And second, I did say I was less sure about Moses...I have hard time figuring out my own opinion of him, he's a tough one to pin down. I'd never call Moses an elite defender, but there are those who argue he was solid at least.

As for Barkley, I think his scoring(combination of volume and efficiency) and rebounding(on both sides of the ball) are elite enough to take him over a two-way player, yeah.

I like CP3, I've always been a fan, but I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around him as a Top 20 guy. I know what the impact metrics say, but the guy gets hurt too much and has had some underwhelming back-against-the-wall playoff performances. And I know the eye test is not necessarily reliable, but let's just say with CP3, for me, the eye test does not quite suggest the level of impact his metrics do.

There's also the fact that I'm pretty slow to let active/recent players into such vaunted company in the Top 20. LeBron and Steph are undeniable, and KD's scoring is elite enough that I'd have to consider it(though this is #20 and I voted for Doc over him), but in general the notion of letting active players into the upper echelons is something I don't do easily. Jokic and Giannis may well get in the 21-30 range, which I can live with, though even that gives me pause.

[HeartBreakKid]

Durant, Doc, and Barkley should all go before both CP3 and Nash imo. Arguably Moses too but less sure about that. I'd take Nash over CP3 though. Uncomfortable with CP3 getting in this high.

JMO.

That's interesting you have relatively one way players like Chuck and Moses over CP3 and Nash. You think they are better on offense than them?

Well - first, Nash is a one way player too. And second, I did say I was less sure about Moses...I have hard time figuring out my own opinion of him, he's a tough one to pin down. I'd never call Moses an elite defender, but there are those who argue he was solid at least.

As for Barkley, I think his scoring(combination of volume and efficiency) and rebounding(on both sides of the ball) are elite enough to take him over a two-way player, yeah.

I like CP3, I've always been a fan, but I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around him as a Top 20 guy. I know what the impact metrics say, but the guy gets hurt too much and has had some underwhelming back-against-the-wall playoff performances. And I know the eye test is not necessarily reliable, but let's just say with CP3, for me, the eye test does not quite suggest the level of impact his metrics do.

My curiosity isn't about one way players vs two way players. I see all 4 of them as predominantly offensive oriented players (CP3 is the only real two way player, but I would still say his defense is not that big of a selling point at #20).

I have a hard time rationalizing how Barkley could be so much better on offense than two ATG PG's, even more so when Barkley was a negative on defense for a large portion of his career to give him another handicap. (I'm aware Nash was as well)

It just seems unlikely to me.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

That's interesting you have relatively one way players like Chuck and Moses over CP3 and Nash. You think they are better on offense than them?

Well - first, Nash is a one way player too. And second, I did say I was less sure about Moses...I have hard time figuring out my own opinion of him, he's a tough one to pin down. I'd never call Moses an elite defender, but there are those who argue he was solid at least.

As for Barkley, I think his scoring(combination of volume and efficiency) and rebounding(on both sides of the ball) are elite enough to take him over a two-way player, yeah.

I like CP3, I've always been a fan, but I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around him as a Top 20 guy. I know what the impact metrics say, but the guy gets hurt too much and has had some underwhelming back-against-the-wall playoff performances. And I know the eye test is not necessarily reliable, but let's just say with CP3, for me, the eye test does not quite suggest the level of impact his metrics do.

My curiosity isn't about one way players vs two way players. I see all 4 of them as predominantly offensive oriented players (CP3 is the only real two way player, but I would still say his defense is not that big of a selling point at #20).

I have a hard time rationalizing how Barkley could be so much better on offense than two ATG PG's, even more so when Barkley was a negative on defense for a large portion of his career to give him another handicap. (I'm aware Nash was as well)

It just seems unlikely to me.

Well, I didn't say "better on offense", I said "his scoring", which is not the same thing. Purely as a scorer, Barkley is much better than Paul, while Nash is right there with Barkley(albeit they score in very different ways).

I am also very high on Barkley's rebounding ability, both defensive and offensive boards.

Also, the lack of defense didn't stop people from voting Karl Malone in - as I've said over and over, despite his reputation, I have seen no statistical evidence that he was a consistently positive defender either.

But this is probably an uphill battle for me because Barkley doesn't seem to be very popular around here.