Why did the Jazz accomplish so little from 88-95?

[bastillon]

He was a decent player who didn't pass, didn't rebound, didn't get to the line, didn't stretch the floor, and wasn't a particularly good finisher or defender. His mid range game was his strong suit, and he was able to get a lot of easy mid range baskets in a league where the average FG% was a LOT higher than it was a decade later. He was artificial fluff, and when he went to a team that had a system in place, had a creator and a lead dog type scorer, he was exposed as the average player type that he really was. Again, OK type player, but not the type of 3rd wheel you need to win championships.

it's essentially a description of Rip's game. Jeff Malone was one of the greatest midrange shooters ever, so if you wanna be exact here, you should really underline that sentence. HE WAS IN THE LEAGUE because of his midrange shooting.

So basically "the league was watered down" is your excuse? Its interesting that, even though Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq, Penny, Payton, Kemp, et al, not to mention the greatest player, greatest duo and greatest team of all time, were still in the league playing at or near their peak, it was suddenly the league that was on a downward trend?

LOL at saying that Robinson, Ewing or Hakeem were at or near their peak. by the 97/98 most of them were simply done or close to done. Robinson lasted a bit longer bc he came later but he wasn't near his old, pre-injuries self. every great team declined in the late 90s and league was watered down due to new teams in mid 90s. that's pretty clear to me and I agree with TrueLA fan's argument. who did these Jazz beat ? Rockets with way past prime legends, that's it.

Lol, I've never seem someone with a more blatant agenda. What's funny is that if this were a 6-5 athletic black dude putting up the same numbers, people would probably have him as an indisputable top 15 guy who just didn't ever have the help he needed to win it all. But because he was a 6 foot white dude who wasn't much of a leaper, his assists HAVE to be inflated. Don't they?

when you don't have anything to answer with you're just using "you're biased" argument ?
Stockton's assists are inflated because:

1.Jazz system enabled them to put up ridiculous amount of assists, even before Stockton and regardless of whether they had productive offense or not. this tells me that Stockton's assists weren't exactly as productive as you'd expect them to be and didn't have as great impact.

2.Jazz system allowed Stockton not only to get low-quality assists but also inflated them in terms of volume. I showed the example of Rickey Green who was a decent playmaker but in his tenure with Jazz was able to avg 8.6 assists per36. also his example shows that Stockton wouldn't have the same assists totals outside of Utah - Green increased/dropped dramatically when he came/left the Jazz.

3.Jazz offense was the best with Stockton having lesser role on that team. there was a negative correlation between his assists and team ORtg, showing that it wasn't necessarily Stockton who was so great offensively and his assists weren't helping team offense as much.

4.teammates who got to play with Stockton weren't much better in Utah in terms of efficiency. I'm questioning if Stockton made them much better like Nash, Magic or Bird did. Stockton simply wasn't creating easy opportunities for their teammates as his assists totals would indicate, otherwise his teammates would've played much better with him and it was NOT the case.

5.despite having a TOP10-15 offensive player AND great 3rd options in Jeff Malone/Hornacek, he wasn't able to lead the Jazz to promised land on offense. Jazz were great in couple of years but in general he doesn't come close to truly dominant offensive smalls like Nash, Jordan or Magic. for example Nash DID MORE with LESS. Amare was nowhere close to prime Malone, Marion couldn't even create a shot, young JJ was no better than Jeffs. hell, f*ck them, Nash's teams were better offensively even with Boris Diaw, one of the worst centers in the league, and Shawn Marion, a contender for the "biggest overachiever ever" with his 06 season. imagine if you put a player who could score on isolation sets (Karl Malone) and direct the other guy who could direct the offense (Hornacek). in 2004 and 2005 these conditions were sort of fulfilled and these two, respectively, were the best offensive squads EVER to play.

[erudite23]

Also, the idea that "his TS% is higher because he took more threes" is patently ridiculous. His two seasons in Philly he averaged 3.2 and 3.1 3PA per game. In Utah, his 1st three seasons he averaged 2.7, 2.7 and 2.4. Now, he MADE more with the Jazz, which is why his TS% is higher, but of course that is...what? A result of league trends? Improved ability to see the rim? Random **** chance?

shortened 3 point line.

During the year in which the 3 point line was shorted, he started the season 50 games in, by shooting 32% from the newly shorted line. At the deadline he was dealt to Utah, where that number immediately jumped up to 43%.

[erudite23]

Now I get your angle, you're a Nash homer. That's what's really at the core here, and you feel all butt hurt because Nash, considered the pre-eminent PG of the decade and an amazing player, wasn't able to sniff Stockton's assist records despite the fact that Nash played at a much higher pace with better--by far better--teammates.

Let me slay these one by one.

He was a decent player who didn't pass, didn't rebound, didn't get to the line, didn't stretch the floor, and wasn't a particularly good finisher or defender. His mid range game was his strong suit, and he was able to get a lot of easy mid range baskets in a league where the average FG% was a LOT higher than it was a decade later. He was artificial fluff, and when he went to a team that had a system in place, had a creator and a lead dog type scorer, he was exposed as the average player type that he really was. Again, OK type player, but not the type of 3rd wheel you need to win championships.

it's essentially a description of Rip's game. Jeff Malone was one of the greatest midrange shooters ever, so if you wanna be exact here, you should really underline that sentence. HE WAS IN THE LEAGUE because of his midrange shooting.

Yes, Jeff was a very good midrange shooter. One of the best? Not only no but hell no. Numbers don't say everything, and he missed a lot of big shots in particular. Still, his mid range game was a very nice weapon. Unfortunately, he had tunnel vision as well. Look at his assist rates playing alongside Stockton. He got the ball and he shot it.

Not just that, but he was a pathetically bad rebounder as well. Consider that Jeff Hornacek, a slow, aging, unathletic white dude who was no more than 6'3", posted a better rebound rate than Jeff did during his time with the Jazz.

Also, one such as yourself might look at his slightly better assist rates in Washington and accuse Stockton of dominating the ball and taking away opportunities for Jeff to pass and get others involved. If that were true, we wouldn't have seen Jeff Hornacek's assist rates hold steady and slightly improve from his established career norms (excepting his outlier of a 92-93 season when his AR shot up 50% due to him playing out of position at the point for much of the season).

No, Malone was a flawed player who didn't do ANYTHING except shoot, shoot and shoot. Well, he also didn't turn the ball over. So there's that.

So basically "the league was watered down" is your excuse? Its interesting that, even though Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq, Penny, Payton, Kemp, et al, not to mention the greatest player, greatest duo and greatest team of all time, were still in the league playing at or near their peak, it was suddenly the league that was on a downward trend?

LOL at saying that Robinson, Ewing or Hakeem were at or near their peak. by the 97/98 most of them were simply done or close to done. Robinson lasted a bit longer bc he came later but he wasn't near his old, pre-injuries self. every great team declined in the late 90s and league was watered down due to new teams in mid 90s. that's pretty clear to me and I agree with TrueLA fan's argument. who did these Jazz beat ? Rockets with way past prime legends, that's it.

Robinson was still in his prime. At 32 he posted one of the best years of his career. His RR, Block Rate, TS%, Assist Rate and FT Rate were all at or near his career best marks. His PER was the 4th best of his career. He was in his prime still, and had a straight-out-of-the-box superstar in Tim Duncan playing alongside him. As a rookie Duncan was immediately on par with the great bigs to ever play the game, and actually led the league in defensive win shares as a rookie.

Ewing was older, at 35, and got injured mid way through the year, but was playing at a level that was on par with all but his very best season before he got hurt. His minutes took a hit, but he was still dominating when he played.

Shaq was playing at All-Time levels.

Duncan was there for that season.

KG had started to take off.

And let's not forget that Mourning and the Heat were playing at a very high level. Or Reggie's Pacers. Or Payton and Kemp's Sonics. Or...

I mean...its patently absurd to assert that. You want big names? There aren't any bigger than that. Shaq had a team with an excellent all around supporting cast and himself was playing the best ball of his life. They won 61 games and posted an SRS of nearly 7. The Jazz swept them in embarrassing fashion.

Its all arbitrary. Until you find some quantifiable or even anecdotal evidence, I'm ignore anything further from this sector. Ridiculous.

Lol, I've never seem someone with a more blatant agenda. What's funny is that if this were a 6-5 athletic black dude putting up the same numbers, people would probably have him as an indisputable top 15 guy who just didn't ever have the help he needed to win it all. But because he was a 6 foot white dude who wasn't much of a leaper, his assists HAVE to be inflated. Don't they?

when you don't have anything to answer with you're just using "you're biased" argument ?
Stockton's assists are inflated because:

1.Jazz system enabled them to put up ridiculous amount of assists, even before Stockton and regardless of whether they had productive offense or not. this tells me that Stockton's assists weren't exactly as productive as you'd expect them to be and didn't have as great impact.

This isn't really a point by itself, this is more a thesis. As such it shouldn't have it's own numbers. The points below are the proofs, so I'll address them.

2.Jazz system allowed Stockton not only to get low-quality assists but also inflated them in terms of volume. I showed the example of Rickey Green who was a decent playmaker but in his tenure with Jazz was able to avg 8.6 assists per36. also his example shows that Stockton wouldn't have the same assists totals outside of Utah - Green increased/dropped dramatically when he came/left the Jazz.

Low-quality assists...lmao. I love that.

Rickey Green made his name in the league at Utah. He started in GS and moved to Detroit in his second season, but he established himself as a real NBA player as Jazz man. There is no way to distinguish his early escalation in assist rates from normal progression that a young player goes through. In his prime, he was a borderline All Star, a very good player who held Stockton back for a good couple seasons. When he finally left Utah, he was a 34 year old player who relied on quickness that saw a very rapid decline. There is no measurable way to distinguish normal age-based regression from actual performance here, and given that he was playing minimal minutes for bad Hornets and Bucks teams as a fill-in, the sample size is too small to say anything close to definitive.

3.Jazz offense was the best with Stockton having lesser role on that team. there was a negative correlation between his assists and team ORtg, showing that it wasn't necessarily Stockton who was so great offensively and his assists weren't helping team offense as much.

As has been covered in detail, the Jazz offense was best when they had players who could play. I will not go through this again in depth. Refer to previous posts. And here is a good example where his greatest strength, his unparalleled durability, works against him because we have nothing to show how the team did without him.

However, according to your logic, there was a negative correlation between Michael Jordan's scoring and his team's offensive rating, so thus his scoring brilliance was overrated. Well done.

4.teammates who got to play with Stockton weren't much better in Utah in terms of efficiency. I'm questioning if Stockton made them much better like Nash, Magic or Bird did. Stockton simply wasn't creating easy opportunities for their teammates as his assists totals would indicate, otherwise his teammates would've played much better with him and it was NOT the case.

Have you ever thought it funny that not one single player has ever left Utah and been as successful, let alone MORE, successful than they were while at Utah? Ever raised any fishiness in your brain? I guess not. But it's not a coincidence.

Stockton made players around him better moreso then did Nash, Bird or Magic.

There, its on the internet so it must be true, right? Show me.

5.despite having a TOP10-15 offensive player AND great 3rd options in Jeff Malone/Hornacek, he wasn't able to lead the Jazz to promised land on offense. Jazz were great in couple of years but in general he doesn't come close to truly dominant offensive smalls like Nash, Jordan or Magic. for example Nash DID MORE with LESS. Amare was nowhere close to prime Malone, Marion couldn't even create a shot, young JJ was no better than Jeffs. hell, f*ck them, Nash's teams were better offensively even with Boris Diaw, one of the worst centers in the league, and Shawn Marion, a contender for the "biggest overachiever ever" with his 06 season. imagine if you put a player who could score on isolation sets (Karl Malone) and direct the other guy who could direct the offense (Hornacek). in 2004 and 2005 these conditions were sort of fulfilled and these two, respectively, were the best offensive squads EVER to play.

First of all, Jeff Malone was not a great 3rd option. Done and done.

Once the Jazz acquired a TRUE great 3rd option, their offense took off. They went from a 107-108ish team in ORTG to going 114.3, 113.3, 113.6, 112.7 in the next four subsequent seasons. Nash's Suns in his first four seasons? 114.5, 111.5, 113.9, 113.3.

I'm loving how Nash suddenly did so much with so little. Shawn Marion was nothing special now? Amare's amazing PERs are empty....the bevy of quality shooters had nothing to do with anything...blahblahblah.

I also really get a huge laugh from your contention that they were the best of all time, when there are others that posted better PP100P numbers, and had a better collection of players and "names". Your arguments are useless and hollow, made even moreso by your desperate need to discredit someone else as a means of riding your own players jock.

And the only argument you really have is that the "numbers are empty"...despite the fact that every other type of evidence is there as well. But, hey, you can jack around subjective arguments, which leaves only cold, hard numbers to discredit and, since there's no way to deny them or twist them to your satisfaction, you just want to dismiss them altogether as "empty".

[erudite23]

Also, for any others wanting to make the "Utah's system inflates assist totals"...here's the proof that its in people's imaginations:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... yca01.html

Carlos Arroyo's player profile

His per36 assist numbers were 6.4 and 6.6 in his two full seasons at Utah. His career number is 6.5, with a high of 9.0 in the assist-inflating system used in Detroit.

Seriously...if there was anything just magical about Utah's system, why did we go three straight years without a single player in the top 20 between the exit of John Stockton and the coming out year of Deron Williams?

Really hard to explain.


Hey! Here's an idea...what if its the players that are responsible?!?

[TrueLAfan]

Discussions of race with respect to players on this thread stop. Now. The next poster that attempts to infuse a racial component into a thread dedicated to caliber of team play, or argue about this policy with respect to this thread will get an immediate 7-Day Suspension. This is not open for debate--comments in that vein should be taken to the "Feedback and Suggestions" forum.

[lorak]

TrueLAfan, could you post these votes totals for All NBA Teams before 1995?

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQlwuTuVOEwwZGQ1ZG1ucjRfMzRjZGp0d3NncA&hl=en

Thank you very much!

[TrueLAfan]

I'm just not following you about Jeff Malone. First, I don't think anybody who is able to play in the NBA long enough to score over 17,000 points and have an 11-year peak at over 20 ppg while shooting 49% as a SG is an "average" player. I'm not sure where Jeff Malone fits in the Rolando Blackman/Eddie Johnson/Ricky Pierce/Rip Hamilton group or debate, but they're all good players. (And, frankly, I could light a fart for SRS, but a team that average 40 wins a game with an average SRS of less than -1 over five consecutive years is pretty much the epitome of mediocrity.) I mean, I prefer Jeff Hornacek to Jeff Malone--I'd want the range--but it's not like there's a huge difference between those two players. To be more blunt, I'd say 1991-2 Stockton plus 1991-2 Jeff Malone is at least = to 1997-8 Stockton + 1997-8 Jeff Hornacek. Hornacek is better--but younger Stockton was better too, and you got him for more time each season. And, again, I'm not seeing enough of a difference with players 4-8 in the Jazz rotation to create 10 more wins a year. I think the league of the late 90s was simply weaker and, in terms of style, moved toward the Jazz rather than away from them. Specifically:

--League expansion in 1996 (the second expansion in less than a decade). League is 16% larger than it was just seven years before.
--Aging of the prime players from the late 1980s; From 1988 to 1993, on average, more than 8 of the top 10 in MVP voting were under the age of 30 when the season started. In 1989, all 10 of the top 10 in MVP voting were under 30. Only 4 of the top 15 players in the 1997 MVP vote were under 30 when the season started.
--Big decline in Cs; Shaq missing games, DRob getting hurt, Hakeem and Ewing declining.
--FG and FT% continue to drop (FT% from 1994 to 1999 is at the lowest level in three decades).
--Duncan joins league in 1998, but other great players of the early 2000s (Kobe, KG, Dirk, McGrady) are either undeveloped or not in the league yet.
--Virtually no international players or influence.

It's not just that the league wasn't as good in the late 1990s. It couldn't be. The game slowed and became a horrific push and shove slow ball league by 2000. Nobody shot well. The changes meant to counteract the scoring and high speed play of the 80s had boomeranged. It worked terrific for the Jazz, though. since they never were a fast paced team. In essence, the league was coming back to them in that respect.

I'm not exactly sure where bastillon is going with his comments about assists; I don't think there's anything cheap about John Stockton's assists. But, yeah....John Stockton was in a fixed system that had few (often no) other primary ballhandlers and passers, and had a top 15 player frontcourt player that averaged over 27 ppg. His highest assist years were in a somewhat fast paced era (even though they were often slow by contemporary standards, the Jazz of 1988-91 would be one of the fastest paced teams in the league today). Most importantly, the Jazz offense was structured so that individual creation of points was frowned upon/discouraged. Essentially, it's a perfect storm for assist creation. We can see this if we look at the assist percentages (percentages of total field goals made credited with an assist) for top teams of the era and compare it to the Jazz.

League average : ~ 61%

1980-6 Celtics: 60.65%
1980-4 Sixers: 61.42%
Championship Bulls Teams: 62.55%
1980-6 Lakers: 62.90%
...
1988-99 Jazz: 67.96%

That's a huge discrepancy. And while John Stockton is a part of that, a much bigger part is the structure of the offense. Those other teams had great individual PGs (Magic, Cheeks), or players that were among the greatest passers ever for their positions (Bird, Pippen, Jordan)...and they still hover around the league average. Why? Because all of those teams had a "normal" mix--players that created individual shots, and players that scored within an offensive framework. Again, the Jazz are a perfect storm...they created much more heavily within the offensive structure. It had a significant impact on the team and individual assist numbers, particularly those of Stockton.

[lorak]

League average : ~ 61%

1980-6 Celtics: 60.65%
1980-4 Sixers: 61.42%
Championship Bulls Teams: 62.55%
1980-6 Lakers: 62.90%
...
1988-99 Jazz: 67.96%

Basketball is a team game and this shows that Jazz played team ball as good as anyone. Less iso plays from main scorers, more team oriented creation from point guard… that’s good thing.
That’s also maybe one of the reasons why people didn’t like Jazz and don’t appreciate them now – they weren’t like typical NBA team (stars playing one on one, many isos etc) but much closer to European basketball (sharing the ball, ball movement etc).

[erudite23]

Those are compelling arguments. I can accept most of those points. Certainly expansion was a factor, but it didn't really take ahold until two or three years after. I acknowledge that the downward trend had certainly started by 98. But in 95, 96 etc, the league was at an all time apex. The Jazz proved themselves during that time, and their statistical profile was actually better in those years than it was in 98. There is overwhelming evidence that the Jazz were at the top of the league during a period of time when the league was at the top of its own game. Expansion doesn't really begin to dilute the talent pool until a couple years after those new teams come in. The first couple of seasons, those teams are made up of cast offs and as a result they are simply teams on the bottom that are able to pad the win totals of mid-level teams. Their presence wouldn't have effected the overall quality of the league or the quality of the top teams for a couple of seasons at least.

As for the MVP voting and such, those are valid points, but they are also a result of a unique phenomena. The league went from being on the verge of bankruptcy, publicly perceived as a bunch of black dudes with drug problems by their white constituency (don't lock the thread or suspend me, this is a well documented fact), with no real marketability to mainstream USA. With the explosion of popularity that was ushered in by Bird and Magic (and even Dr J, who I think doesn't get enough credit here), and the resulting growth in popularity of the league and its players, it changed the face of the league and the players that built that popularity, first Magic and Bird, but also Jordan, Dominique, Hakeem, Barkley, Ewing and, yes, Stockton and Malone were able to build their names to the points where they were receiving accolades (including MVP votes) long after they were worthy of them. There was no cycle in place to balance the old with the new like there is now. The Kemps, the KGs, the Webbers didn't gain traction as quickly as they would in modern times because mainstream fandom as well as the sportswriters who documented the meteoric rise of the league and the players didn't want to let go.

Well, and between Jordan, Stockton, Malone, Robinson and Hakeem you had an unnaturally long-lasting group of superstars. Malone and Stockton both established career years in terms of efficiency during their mid 30s. Robinson was a monster past his 30th Bday. Jordan was league MVP and the universally acknowledged best player in the game when he was 32, 33, 34....so different factors contributed to that being the case.

With guys like Shaq, KG, C-Webb, Kemp, Payton, Dice, Mourning, Kidd, Hill etc etc etc coming into the league in the early-mid 90s, and thus coming into their prime during the time period we're talking about, its not like their was a dearth of incoming top-tier talent.

Expansion is really the only significant point that can be made there, and as I described it wouldn't have effected the league from top to bottom for a few years after those teams came into the league. By 98, there's no doubt that the league was firmly in the grip of the "boomerang effect" you described. But the Jazz established themselves from 94 to 97 before those issues came too much into play. The league didn't go from its very apex--which it was clearly at from about 93 to 96--to the "diluted" or "watered down" in one or two seasons. It took a half decade to get there, and we saw that from about 99 to 04, before the rush of Euros and ever expanding talent pool combined to offset it. At this point, I think we're pretty close to be back to where we were in 1995.

[erudite23]

League average : ~ 61%

1980-6 Celtics: 60.65%
1980-4 Sixers: 61.42%
Championship Bulls Teams: 62.55%
1980-6 Lakers: 62.90%
...
1988-99 Jazz: 67.96%

Basketball is a team game and this shows that Jazz played team ball as good as anyone. Less iso plays from main scorers, more team oriented creation from point guard… that’s good thing.
That’s also maybe one of the reasons why people didn’t like Jazz and don’t appreciate them now – they weren’t like typical NBA team (stars playing one on one, many isos etc) but much closer to European basketball (sharing the ball, ball movement etc).

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what this is intended to do. Everyone knows that the Jazz rely on ball movement to score more than any other team in the league. They always have.

What the question is is whether it artificially inflates their PGs assist numbers. Since we never saw Stockton play anywhere else, and since we've never seen DWill play anywhere else, there isn't any REAL evidence that demonstrates that. Basically the implication of the statement is to say that Stockton and Deron Williams both got assists that they didn't "earn" or wouldn't otherwise have been able to get had they not played in that system. That is such ridiculous bunk that I can't wrap my head around it. At least with Nash you have a documented case of him posting 7-8 apg for years before going to Phoenix and suddenly throwing up 10 or 11 apg every night for 5 seasons.

But you know what that tells me? It simply tells me that the Mavs weren't using him to his full potential. Not that his APG weren't legit with Phoenix. If a system could ever make a player who wasn't good into a player that was good, then everyone would run that system and we'd have an even playing field. If you want to know why not everyone runs the same "system" that Phoenix does, look at Chris Duhon. If you want to know why not everyone runs the same "system" that Utah does, look at Carlos Arroyo and Raul Lopez.

Players do what they do. There's not a system alive that allows a player to do something he's not capable of doing. This isn't a pace argument, ie a quantitative one, its a qualitative one and people are suggesting that some weird ethereal thing floating around in the air is responsible for the actions of a player and not the player himself. Does anyone not see how stupid that sounds?

[bastillon]

1.your comment about the pace is wrong.

Code: Select all

Suns

year    pace
 05     95.9
 06     95.8
 07     95.6
 08     96.7
 09     96.0
 10     96.4

Suns averaged 96.07 possessions/game.

Code: Select all

Jazz

year    pace
 88    101.5
 89     98.0
 90     96.1
 91     95.3
 92     95.5
 93     96.5
 94     93.1


Jazz averaged 96.57 possessions/game.
if you want to use this as an argument then it's AGAINST Stockton.

I won't even comment on "by far better teammates" because it's too ridiculous to answer. if Nash had TOP15 player ever, someone who's considered better than Kevin Garnett on this board, this would be close in terms of teammates. Nash had just bunch of finishers who couldn't create shots very well and even with Diaw/Marion as his supporting cast, Suns still were better offensively than Jazz.

2.Jeff Malone

right before Jeff Malone went to Utah, he averaged for five years better numbers than any swingman Nash played with. Jason Richardson is comparable but he's not as good as a scorer and less efficient (without Nash). just because Malone regressed in Utah, doesn't mean that he wasn't a good player. Joe Johnson is better but he wasn't nearly as good at the time and before Nash signed in Phoenix he wasn't even in the same ballpark, very inefficient and didn't even have the same usg%.

Code: Select all

                    PPG   RPG   APG   TOV   ORtg   TS%
Washington 86-90   22.2   2.8   3.0   2.1   109    52.9
Utah Jazz  91-94   18.5   2.6   1.9   1.5   109    54.8

so non-Stockton (not playing with Stock) Jeff Malone was better than any non-Nash swingman Nash played with. the difference was that once a player got to play with Nash, his numbers and efficiency were almost always much better and it was not the case with Stockton, as JM actually REGRESSED playing with him. 22/3/3 player with very solid offensive efficiency was without a doubt great 3rd option and if Stockton was able to play the role of 2nd fiddle, the Jazz would've succeeded.

3.Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, KG and their peaks

Code: Select all

        year    age    notes
DRob     98      32    coming off of serious season-ending injury,
                       was never the same afterwards
Dream    98      34    47 games, career lows in PPG, BPG and MPG
Ewing    98      35    played 26 games
KG       98      21    3rd season coming from high school, more of SF
Duncan   98      21    rookie season
Shaq     98      25    3rd straigh season missing at least 20 games

you're a crazy man if you think it was their peak or even close to prime, especially the way they were missing games that season... yet you said they

were still in the league playing at or near their peak

embarassing.

4.Rickey Green and assists inflation.

Code: Select all

    ast per 36
78      4.9
79      5.3

80      6.5    U   J
81      8.0    T   A
87      9.3    A   Z
88      9.7    H   Z

89      7.7
90      7.1

your argument about Green's prime would alright if there wasn't any drastic changes from year-to-year. now you can say all you want, but I won't believe that he regressed much across one freaking offseason. it was Utah's system, clearly.

5.Low quality assists

Jazz were always one of the league leaders in assists. whether Stockton was there or not. regardless of their offensive efficiency.

Code: Select all

year    ORtg rank    ast rank     oRtg-ast rank   
 83        20           8             12
 84         9           6              3
 85        21          14              7
 86        20           8             12
 87        21           6             15
 88        16           2             14
 89        17          11              6
 90        10           5              5
 91        11           3              8
 92         4           6             -2
 93         6           3              3
 94         7           4              3
 95         4           2              2

as I said, they were much higher in assists rank than in ORtg, which suggests that assists didn't translate to offensive success. considering most of these assists came from Stockton, you have the answer right there. Stockton's assists didn't make as much impact as you'd expect.

6.Making teammates better

Stockton making teammates better is a mythological conception, I've never seen anyone post any evidence to support that thesis (bc we can't call it anything else when it's unproven). you can easily see that in case of Nash, Magic or Bird bc players who got to play with them had career seasons and in general improved much. Jeff Malone actually regressed, despite being a type of player who should've been influenced the most (off-ball shooting wing), so if evidence point any direction, it's the opposite way. I think Stockton did make teammates better but the difference was marginal and doesn't matter in comparison to truly great players in that regard, like Nash or Magic, who made teammates' efficiency skyrocket.

7.Jazz offense

they weren't really better than league avg team in the early 90s and then became contenders for one of the best offense in the league. Suns meanwhile DOMINATED their competition, posting ORtg MUCH higher than any other in the league at the time. you can't simply look at ORtg without context. Jazz were "only" one of the best offensive teams in the league, Suns were one of the best EVER. Jazz peak seasons in watered-down 97 and 98 were close to Suns avg seasons on offense.

peak seasons:

Code: Select all

team   team ORtg    lg ORtg   above lg avg
UJ 95     114.3      108.3       6.0
UJ 96     113.3      107.6       5.7
UJ 97     113.6      106.7       6.9
UJ 98     112.7      105.0       7.7
UJ 99     105.8      102.2       3.6
UJ 00     107.3      104.1       3.2
 
PS 05     114.5      106.1       8.4 (2nd best offense ever)
PS 06     111.5      106.2       5.3 (losing Amare, JJ for Diaw and Bell)
PS 07     113.9      106.5       7.4 (Amare back)
PS 08     113.3      107.5       5.8
PS 09     113.6      108.3       5.3 (best ever after firing Porter,
                                      Nash was role player under Porter,
                                      without Amare, Barnes as PF)
PS 10     113.9      106.8       7.1

so Suns just dominated a lot more offensively in general, they did basically what Jazz in peak years. the difference is that Jazz were only slightly above average during first part of the 90s while Suns dominated no matter what (Shaq, injuries, D'Antoni or not) as long as Nash played. during that period Nash had the best offensive adjusted +/- in the league and Suns were ranked 1st or 2nd offensively.

your silly comparison of teammates isn't even something worth responding to. Amare was never very efficient offensive player without Nash. just like Marion or Barbosa or tons of other players. in fact, Nash had better results than Stockton with Marion-Diaw instead of Hornacek-Malone and it quite shows how big the gap really is. those shooters you're mentioning were also much worse without Nash to create for them. he was the reason why they were shooting so well.

Code: Select all

3pt%

teammate    change
Barbosa     +1.03
Bell        +3.91
JJ          +12.23
Hill        +6.57
QRich       +0.61
JRich       +1.85
Barnes      +1.87

And the only argument you really have is that the "numbers are empty"...despite the fact that every other type of evidence is there as well. But, hey, you can jack around subjective arguments, which leaves only cold, hard numbers to discredit and, since there's no way to deny them or twist them to your satisfaction, you just want to dismiss them altogether as "empty".

it has nothing to do with subjective opinions or whatever you call it. there's tons of evidence that I presented and tons more to present. the main reason Stockton is overrated is because his assists totals wouldn't be anywhere near that level outside of Utah. he'd be a 14-10 player which is still great but is nowhere near his stats in his prime. Stockton was a very good player, borderline TOP10 player, more of a TOP15 and one of the best point guards with great longetivity. however, if you wanna claim that he was some kind of a MVP caliber player (which Nash IS) you're just making up stories, bc that's not how it was and nobody ever considered him as an MVP candidate in his time. there's a reason people think his stats are overrating his impact and that reason is inflated assists totals, just people are not sure what it is yet. now, after doing some research on that, I can honestly say that I am. it's his assists.

[lorak]

4.Rickey Green and assists inflation.
your argument about Green's prime would alright if there wasn't any drastic changes from year-to-year. now you can say all you want, but I won't believe that he regressed much across one freaking offseason. it was Utah's system, clearly.

Stockton and Green played together in Utah from 1984/85 to 1987/88 so for most of the time (three of four seasons) Stockton was coming off the bench.

Their per36 numbers in that span of time:
Stockton 12.2
Green 8.7

It’s also worth to mention that even old, past his prime Green averaged similar number of assists outside of Utah: in 1988/89 he played 33 games for Hornets and had 8.0 ast per 36; 30 games for Bucks and 7.5 ast per 36. Next season (he was 35 years old!) and 7.1 ast per 36 for Pacers. So he definitely was above average passer and Utah system didn’t inflated his numbers in significant way.

The rest of your post is full of data manipulation but I haven’t time, besides it seems pointless. Maybe erudite23 have more patience .

BTW, here's very interesting information about pace: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=977497

[dalekjazz]

LOL at Steve Nash being mentioned in the same sentence as Magic and being able to elevate players' games. Nowitzki put up bigger number once Nash left. Joe Johnson became a superstar once he joined the Hawks. Shaq was completely ineffective playing with Nash. D'Antoni's system inflated players' offensive numbers. A 40 year old Stockton had his only triple double against Nash in the playoffs.

[bastillon]

It’s also worth to mention that even old, past his prime Green averaged similar number of assists outside of Utah: in 1988/89 he played 33 games for Hornets and had 8.0 ast per 36; 30 games for Bucks and 7.5 ast per 36. Next season (he was 35 years old!) and 7.1 ast per 36 for Pacers. So he definitely was above average passer and Utah system didn’t inflated his numbers in significant way.

9.7 per36 in last season in Utah. 7.7 in first season outside of Utah. not at all significant

Nowitzki put up bigger number once Nash left.

volumes, yes, but he was more efficient with Nash. volumes increased because Dallas 00-04 consisted of high usage players who took away possessions. in 04 there was Nash, Finley, Jamison, Walker and Nowitzki as TOP6 players.

Joe Johnson became a superstar once he joined the Hawks.

fail. Joe Johnson played much better with Nash and that's despite being way pre-prime. he had 3.47 better TS%, 12.23 better 3pt% and 2.35% higher FG. if you compare pre-Nash JJ to 2005 JJ (per36):

Code: Select all

          PPG   FG%   3p%   TS%   TOV   ORtg
JJ       13.6  41.8  33.1  48.1   1.9     99 no Nash
JJ       15.6  46.1  47.8  55.6   1.6    113 with Nash

Shaq was completely ineffective playing with Nash.

fail. Shaq rejuvenated his career as a Phoenix Suns player. he was completely useless in Miami and was expected to retire soon. suddenly Nash made him an all-star while Shaq posted the best scoring numbers per36 since like 2003/2005, shooting his career high FG% and TS%. now he's back to his old trajectory (which Nash temporarily changed) , putting up some 10.7/6.7 on career low efficiency.

ORtg
last season - 117
this season - 102

pts per 36
last season - 21.3
this season - 17.3

FG%/TS%
last season - 61%/62%
this season - 53%/54%

Shaq was playing as effective as he's ever been and that's despite being 36. Nash made him much better than he really was, bc he was a scrub in reality as can be seen quite easily now in Cleveland.

D'Antoni's system inflated players' offensive numbers.

unless Nash missed games due to injuries/whatever... so it wasn't D'Antoni's system - it was Nash. can be seen easily now in Knicks. I don't see any players overachieving there, just a bunch of idiots (Al Harrington!!) shooting bricks from the outside.

once upon a time I wrote this:

here's what D'Antoni accomplished in seasons without Nash:

Code: Select all

Season    Age    Lg      Tm     G     W     L    W-L%    W > .500  Finish
1998-99    47    NBA    DEN    50    14    36    .280    -11.0       6
2003-04    52    NBA    PHO    61    21    40    .344    -9.5        6
2008-09    57    NBA    NYK    82    32    50    .390    -9.0        5

I forgot to add one more thing. there's a common misconception that Nash was that great because of D'antoni's great offense and despite its(its=the offense) success he couldn't lead his team to the finals. well this D'Antoni's succesful offense led him to:

with Nash 248-107 [57W pace]
without Nash 52-124 [29W]

so clearly offense had nothing to do with Phoenix success and it was all Nash.
D'Antoni is a terrible coach, who is another example of Nash promoting scrubs and earning them money. Amare, Marion, JJ, Diaw, Bell, D'Antoni all these guys should give like 100 mlns back to Nash...

your post is full of failures, essentially nothing you said is true and can be easily dismissed with the data I provided or actually by anyone who knows a damn about NBA.

[erudite23]

1.your comment about the pace is wrong.

Code: Select all

Suns

year    pace
 05     95.9
 06     95.8
 07     95.6
 08     96.7
 09     96.0
 10     96.4

Suns averaged 96.07 possessions/game.

Code: Select all

Jazz

year    pace
 88    101.5
 89     98.0
 90     96.1
 91     95.3
 92     95.5
 93     96.5
 94     93.1


Jazz averaged 96.57 possessions/game.
if you want to use this as an argument then it's AGAINST Stockton.

I won't even comment on "by far better teammates" because it's too ridiculous to answer. if Nash had TOP15 player ever, someone who's considered better than Kevin Garnett on this board, this would be close in terms of teammates. Nash had just bunch of finishers who couldn't create shots very well and even with Diaw/Marion as his supporting cast, Suns still were better offensively than Jazz.

As for the supporting cast argument...lol. I think its pretty obvious that you are delusional here. The Matrix was a special player. Amare is a horrible defensive guy, but offensively he was very, very close to Malone at his peak. Not just that, but Nash's array of shooters has always been vastly superior to whatever Utah ever put around Stockton. They players overall weren't better, per se, but the skills that allowed them to make baskets were significantly better. I don't think I need to make my point here, no one believes what you say on this topic.


Well, to be fair, I was talking about Pace relative to league norms, but whatever. My argument was that Nash was getting numbers due to his massive pace in a league where the norm was much slower and thus teams weren't geared towards stopping the fast break pace.

But whatever, I'll concede this point and move on.

2.Jeff Malone

right before Jeff Malone went to Utah, he averaged for five years better numbers than any swingman Nash played with. Jason Richardson is comparable but he's not as good as a scorer and less efficient (without Nash). just because Malone regressed in Utah, doesn't mean that he wasn't a good player. Joe Johnson is better but he wasn't nearly as good at the time and before Nash signed in Phoenix he wasn't even in the same ballpark, very inefficient and didn't even have the same usg%.

Code: Select all

                    PPG   RPG   APG   TOV   ORtg   TS%
Washington 86-90   22.2   2.8   3.0   2.1   109    52.9
Utah Jazz  91-94   18.5   2.6   1.9   1.5   109    54.8

so non-Stockton (not playing with Stock) Jeff Malone was better than any non-Nash swingman Nash played with. the difference was that once a player got to play with Nash, his numbers and efficiency were almost always much better and it was not the case with Stockton, as JM actually REGRESSED playing with him. 22/3/3 player with very solid offensive efficiency was without a doubt great 3rd option and if Stockton was able to play the role of 2nd fiddle, the Jazz would've succeeded.

Your willfull ignorance blows my mind. Jeff Malone scored less points because he took way fewer shots and used way fewer possessions. His TOs dropped, and his shooting numbers escalated by a long shot. As a scorer, Jeff Malone was a pretty good player. Certainly above average. His role in Washington made him seem like a more valuable player than he really was, since he created more shots--even though those shots weren't quality shots, given his own efficiency and that of his teammates--and scored more points. In a system where there were better options, his total contribution shrunk and his efficiency improved considerably.

Still, the case for his suckitude as a player was due to the fact that he didn't do anything BUT score, and even as a scorer he wasn't that good.

When he joined Utah, his became more efficient player that used less. That is the mark of "improving" a player. You'll see this universal to all "best player on bad teams" guys who moved to good teams and had to take a smaller role.

The numbers prove this out, I'm done arguing. You're wrong and its obvious.

3.Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, KG and their peaks

Code: Select all

        year    age    notes
DRob     98      32    coming off of serious season-ending injury,
                       was never the same afterwards
Dream    98      34    47 games, career lows in PPG, BPG and MPG
Ewing    98      35    played 26 games
KG       98      21    3rd season coming from high school, more of SF
Duncan   98      21    rookie season
Shaq     98      25    3rd straigh season missing at least 20 games

you're a crazy man if you think it was their peak or even close to prime, especially the way they were missing games that season... yet you said they

were still in the league playing at or near their peak



embarassing.

Here is my initial quote:

So basically "the league was watered down" is your excuse? Its interesting that, even though Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq, Penny, Payton, Kemp, et al, not to mention the greatest player, greatest duo and greatest team of all time, were still in the league playing at or near their peak, it was suddenly the league that was on a downward trend?

As you can see, I wasn't talking about JUST 97-98, but the entire period from 95 to 98.

Having said that, your own little proof is...I mean,...its just....wow. So stupid. You want to argue that a Prime Shaq shouldn't count because he "missed 20 games"...as if that matters? Shaq has missed 20 games a year since his he was 23 for hell sakes. That's just a paper tiger, its completely and utterly ridiculous, and you post it there as if it means something. Its making my head hurt.

As for Robinson, I already proved he was at the top of his game, so you're off in BFE there, too.

Hakeem was certainly down in 98, but as I showed above, I was talking about the whole time period that the Jazz dominated (again, 95-98) which featured some of Hakeem's best seasons and even 96-97 was near peak level for him.

As I showed with Ewing, he got hurt but was still playing very well during that season when he did play. But as with the Hakeem comment, he was still near his prime level during the 95-97 seasons.

Duncan came out of the gate at All-Time levels.

KG wasn't great, but by 98 he was playing very well.

Payton and Kemp were dominating. As was Penny.


As you can see, my point stands. The league was not watered down. LAFan made a much more compelling case then you. You're obviously in over your head here, I would stop. Just stop.

4.Rickey Green and assists inflation.

Code: Select all

    ast per 36
78      4.9
79      5.3

80      6.5    U   J
81      8.0    T   A
87      9.3    A   Z
88      9.7    H   Z

89      7.7
90      7.1

your argument about Green's prime would alright if there wasn't any drastic changes from year-to-year. now you can say all you want, but I won't believe that he regressed much across one freaking offseason. it was Utah's system, clearly.

Do you think you posted anything here to gainsay my point? The season was a 14.4mpg reserve for GS. The second was as a 16mpg reserve for Detroit in just 27 games. As you can see, for reasons that are so **** obvious that it blows my mind I even have to point them out, these sample sizes are a) too small, b) polluted by outside influences and c) not that far out of the ordinary anyway. Young players go through growth curves with dramatic jumps in production ALL...THE...TIME, that proves nothing.

As for when he left....first let's practice full disclosure and say that a) he played just 13 mpg in his final season with the Jazz, undermining the validity of his career high 9.7apg per 36. Let's just look at his career norms. In the system, during his prime he averaged 8.6 apg per 36. We cannot use the 9.7 from his last season as a comparative figure, as it was accomplished with a ridiculously low sample size, or the year before of 9.3, as it had nothing to do with the system and thus was normal random statistical variance, so we'll go with that 8.6 number.

Now, upon leaving the Jazz, as a 34 year old PG who relied heavily on his quickness he experienced a .9 apg drop in his per36 apg numbers from the standard at Utah. Explain to me how a 0.9 drop in assists (again, with a very small sample size due to playing as a reserve) from a 34 year old speed demon proves anything about Utah "system". I'm all ears.

5.Low quality assists

Jazz were always one of the league leaders in assists. whether Stockton was there or not. regardless of their offensive efficiency.

Code: Select all

year    ORtg rank    ast rank     oRtg-ast rank   
 83        20           8             12
 84         9           6              3
 85        21          14              7
 86        20           8             12
 87        21           6             15
 88        16           2             14
 89        17          11              6
 90        10           5              5
 91        11           3              8
 92         4           6             -2
 93         6           3              3
 94         7           4              3
 95         4           2              2

as I said, they were much higher in assists rank than in ORtg, which suggests that assists didn't translate to offensive success. considering most of these assists came from Stockton, you have the answer right there. Stockton's assists didn't make as much impact as you'd expect.

Lol...are you serious? There are a ton of flaws in this argument. Among them are:

1) Who said that there is a strong correlation between number of assists and the efficiency of an offense? The Jazz run a system where a lot of assists are generated, true. And a lot of times--like today's Jazz--you'll see players from top to bottom get assists and, yes, their passing numbers are inflated from what they might be elsewhere. If you're trying to say that AK or Ronnie Brewer or Carlos Boozer are getting more assists than they might elsewhere, then sure. That part is true. But there is no evidence to suggest that high assist numbers always produce efficient offenses or that a team that passes the ball a lot would produce ONE player that towers above the league. In fact, and I'll get to this in a bit, it actually works in the reverse.

No, all you've done here is prove that team assists don't necessarily correlate with good offense. Well done.

2) ORTG. Do you know what comprises ORTG? Its not a measure of the quality of shots that a PG gets his teammates, its a measure of the complete picture offensively, one that takes into account not just the proficiency with which you make shots, but THE NUMBER OF SHOTS YOU GENERATE. A PG gets his teammates good shots and when they make them, he gets an "assist". Thus, when a player is able to get a lot of assists, it tells you that he is getting his teammates easy shots and "making them better."

So, why should we take the team's ability to offensive rebound and avoid TOs as an indictment of Stockton's passing? As has already been mentioned in this thread, the reason for the Jazz being not quite elite in offense was largely to do with their horrendous ORR. Should Thurl Bailey's ORR have an impact on the "quality" of Stockton's assists? Lol. Obviously not.


No, a better measure here is to use FG%, since passing is supposed to be used as a means of creating good shots, no? A quick reference shows this:

Code: Select all

 year   FG%     ast rank   
 83        17           8             
 84         8           6               
 85        19          14             
 86        11           8             
 87        21           6             
 88         4           2             
 89        10          11           
 90         1           5             
 91         5           3             
 92         5           6             
 93         4           3             
 94         6           4             
 95         1           2
 96         1           1
 97         1           1
 98         1           2

As you can see, from 83 to 87 there didn't seem to be a strong correlation between assists and FG%. Not just that, but every single year during this stretch the Jazz finished better in assists than in FG%, suggesting that maybe their assist numbers weren't producing as good of shots as you might think, or--as you so eloquently put it--maybe they were getting "low-quality" assists. However, beginning in 88 there is a very strong correlation, as every year for the next 11 seasons the FG% rank coincided with the assist rank within two spots, with the lone exception of 1990 when they ranked 1st in FG% but only 5th in assists. (Additionally, the FG% rank finished better than the assists rank 4 times, worse 5 times and the exact same twice, suggesting a centralized statistical correspondence.) Of those 11 years, the assist rank coincided almost exactly (within 1 rank) with that of the FG% rank. Interestingly enough, and as I said before, this "coincidence" began in 88, which was also the year in which John Stockton took over the PG position full time.

Whoops.


3) No more really needs said, but I just want to mention that in an offense where EVERYONE is involved in distributing the ball, the lead dog would actually suffer. The Jazz m.o. is to pass the ball around the court, from one player to another, rather than have the lead dog dribble the ball around and fire a pass to a player who then takes a shot or holds the ball, resets it and lets the lead dog do it again....kind of like Phoenix does with Nash. Stockton would make a pass, which would lead to a pass, which would lead to another pass. In a related story, the Jazz team had two decent passers in the regular rotation. Stockton and Malone....people wonder why they turned the ball over so damn much during this period of time. When they got Hornacek, who was a terrific passer, and guys like Carr and Russell (who were barely competent instead of horrible) their TO rate dropped enough to allow their dominant FG% to make a real difference.

6.Making teammates better

Stockton making teammates better is a mythological conception, I've never seen anyone post any evidence to support that thesis (bc we can't call it anything else when it's unproven). you can easily see that in case of Nash, Magic or Bird bc players who got to play with them had career seasons and in general improved much. Jeff Malone actually regressed, despite being a type of player who should've been influenced the most (off-ball shooting wing), so if evidence point any direction, it's the opposite way. I think Stockton did make teammates better but the difference was marginal and doesn't matter in comparison to truly great players in that regard, like Nash or Magic, who made teammates' efficiency skyrocket.

This is probably, even in a series of posts full of them, the most egregious and blatantly false statement you've made. I've already posted how Jeff Malone's efficiency jumped to career highs with the Jazz. Similar things happened to a number of different players.

In this case, Stockton is believed to be among the greatest of all time at making his teammates better, on such authority as John Wooden, Charles Barkley, David Robinson, Phil Jackson, Michael Jordan and many more who pull a lot more cred than you do. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that this perception is false. If you are going to do that you need to post some sort of tangible evidence to refute the idea. Otherwise ST*heck*U.

7.Jazz offense

they weren't really better than league avg team in the early 90s and then became contenders for one of the best offense in the league. Suns meanwhile DOMINATED their competition, posting ORtg MUCH higher than any other in the league at the time. you can't simply look at ORtg without context. Jazz were "only" one of the best offensive teams in the league, Suns were one of the best EVER. Jazz peak seasons in watered-down 97 and 98 were close to Suns avg seasons on offense.

peak seasons:

Code: Select all

team   team ORtg    lg ORtg   above lg avg
UJ 95     114.3      108.3       6.0
UJ 96     113.3      107.6       5.7
UJ 97     113.6      106.7       6.9
UJ 98     112.7      105.0       7.7
UJ 99     105.8      102.2       3.6
UJ 00     107.3      104.1       3.2
 
PS 05     114.5      106.1       8.4 (2nd best offense ever)
PS 06     111.5      106.2       5.3 (losing Amare, JJ for Diaw and Bell)
PS 07     113.9      106.5       7.4 (Amare back)
PS 08     113.3      107.5       5.8
PS 09     113.6      108.3       5.3 (best ever after firing Porter,
                                      Nash was role player under Porter,
                                      without Amare, Barnes as PF)
PS 10     113.9      106.8       7.1

so Suns just dominated a lot more offensively in general, they did basically what Jazz in peak years. the difference is that Jazz were only slightly above average during first part of the 90s while Suns dominated no matter what (Shaq, injuries, D'Antoni or not) as long as Nash played. during that period Nash had the best offensive adjusted +/- in the league and Suns were ranked 1st or 2nd offensively.

your silly comparison of teammates isn't even something worth responding to. Amare was never very efficient offensive player without Nash. just like Marion or Barbosa or tons of other players. in fact, Nash had better results than Stockton with Marion-Diaw instead of Hornacek-Malone and it quite shows how big the gap really is. those shooters you're mentioning were also much worse without Nash to create for them. he was the reason why they were shooting so well.

Here you actually begin to make some sense. My argument is not to say that the Suns weren't among the best offenses ever. So I won't spend a lot of time going back and forth here.

One qualification I will make, though, is that the league changed during that 04-05 season. The new, more stringent, hand checking rules came into play and a league which had seen a dilution of talent, and an increasingly ugly style of basketball was blindsided by the first true, died in the wool, open-floor team we'd seen in at least a decade. As you'll notice, it was that first team that posted the truly special differential between their ORTG and the league average. Every team thereafter regressed to about the same level as the Jazz teams you posted. The league changed quickly, and the Suns were just another dominant offensive team.

Overall ORTG is still important, especially in context of rule changes. The Jazz played at a time when defense was beginning to rule the day and all sorts of bull **** tactics were allowed to impede offensive teams. But they also played a style that was conducive to success under those conditions. So, you make a fair point here, but pure ORTG is still every bit as important as adjusted ORTG.

Code: Select all

3pt%

teammate    change
Barbosa     +1.03
Bell        +3.91
JJ          +12.23
Hill        +6.57
QRich       +0.61
JRich       +1.85
Barnes      +1.87

First of all, this is lying, as it uses simply the previous season of these players rather than their established career norms to compare.

Still, there is no doubt that Phoenix's system allows players to shoot much better. Well done.

And the only argument you really have is that the "numbers are empty"...despite the fact that every other type of evidence is there as well. But, hey, you can jack around subjective arguments, which leaves only cold, hard numbers to discredit and, since there's no way to deny them or twist them to your satisfaction, you just want to dismiss them altogether as "empty".

it has nothing to do with subjective opinions or whatever you call it. there's tons of evidence that I presented and tons more to present. the main reason Stockton is overrated is because his assists totals wouldn't be anywhere near that level outside of Utah. he'd be a 14-10 player which is still great but is nowhere near his stats in his prime. Stockton was a very good player, borderline TOP10 player, more of a TOP15 and one of the best point guards with great longetivity. however, if you wanna claim that he was some kind of a MVP caliber player (which Nash IS) you're just making up stories, bc that's not how it was and nobody ever considered him as an MVP candidate in his time. there's a reason people think his stats are overrating his impact and that reason is inflated assists totals, just people are not sure what it is yet. now, after doing some research on that, I can honestly say that I am. it's his assists.

I can see that you want to devalue Stockton's achievements to lift Nash up.

I'm sad for you. Nash is a great player, he really is. Offensively, I think he is close to Stockton's level, maybe even neck and neck with him. His shooting is something that we have never seen before and might never see again. He is sensational. But he's not the passer that Stockton was and he's not the defender Stockton was. He's just not, and there is a mountain of both factual data and anecdotal evidence/testimony to prove it.

Sorry you wasted your time.

[bastillon]

I'm not wasting my time. it would be true if I wanted to convince you but I'm no dumbass to assume that Utah Jazz fan can be convinced. I know you think Stockton is a TOP2 PG ever, and I don't wanna change your opinion. all I'm doing is trying to disprove false facts that you notoriously present, like inflated pace or that Utah had better offense. there's just tons of ridiculous statements from your side and until you actually back it up with some valid points, there's no way I could consider you "objective", or someone that can be convinced. I'm trying to convince other people, because -unlike you- Jazz basketball isn't their religion.

in the first paragraph alone, you mentioned that:

Shawn Marion was a special player.

he was. offense wasn't his strength though. Marion was an excellent defender and rebounder as SF. on offense he was a mediocre player who never really could be efficient on high volumes without Nash. he was essentially a bonafide role player. if he could create his own shot he'd be a complete player, but he wasn't able to do that and wasn't excellent at any aspect of offense. average passer, great finisher on the break, terrible in the half court (any Suns fan can tell you he was easily the league leader in wasting easy points on lay-ups), useless shooter unless wide open, couldn't create anything. he was basically a great defensive player who had his impact lessened in the Suns system as a PF (where he was abused by pretty much any competent big) and mediocre player offensively who happened to be in the right place at the right time playing with one of the best creators ever.

Amare was close to peak Malone on offense.

pre vs with Nash

Code: Select all

          PPG   FG%   3p%   TS%   TOV   ORtg
Amare    17.5  47.4   ---  53.3   2.9    102 pre-Nash
Amare    24.1  56.6   ---  63.0   2.6    119 all-time w/Nash

no Nash (injured or smth)

Code: Select all

          PPG   RPG   APG   SPG   BPG   TOV   TS%
2005    22.43  7.43  1.43  1.86  1.57  3.29  56.0
2007    25.17 11.17  1.50  0.50  0.83  4.00  57.0
2009    17.40  5.00  0.80  0.80  1.20  3.60  55.0

what we can see is that
-Amare was always an effective scorer, but was much better scorer with Nash (both efficiency and volume)
-he's a big time TO prone, but Nash significantly lowered his TOs.
-he can't pass
-he's not a very efficient offensive player overall without Nash bc of so many TOs and lack of assists.

according to DavidStern's data:

Code: Select all

1990     eFG%   TS%    PPG   MPG
Without: 53.5   59.2   26.2  39.5
With:    56.8   62.8   31.2  39.0

1998     eFG%   TS%    PPG    MPG
Without: 52.3   58.2   24.9  36.6
With:    53.3   60.0   27.7  37.6

Overall  eFG%   TS%    PPG    MPG
Without: 52.5   58.4   25.1   37.1
With:    55.3   61.6   29.6   37.8

we can see that:
- (no Stock, no Nash) Malone was much better scorer than Stoudemire, both volume and efficiency. it's not really close - Malone scored 25 on 58.4% TS, Amare 17.5 on 53% pre-Nash and ~22 on 56% in 05, 07, 09.
-difference in non-scoring aspects of the offense is even bigger - Amare avged ~1-1.5 APG with 3.5 TOs, Malone avged 3.5/3.5 in 98.
-Malone was a great offensive player even without Stockton, and was much better than Amare on BOTH ends of the floor.

Amare is close to Jeff Malone actually, he's more efficient scorer, but Jeff Malone doesn't turn the ball over as often and is much better passer. on rebounding both are liabilities but Amare is much worse defender.

Suns had special shooters.

I've responded to that in previous post where I showed you how much Suns players benefited from having Nash, and how their 3pt% suddenly increased. James Jones (in CY), Raja Bell, Joe Johnson. these are players who are special shooters. the rest of those "special" shooters are mostly bonafide scrubs who were playing much better with Nash. there are also guys like J-Rich (recently J-Poor), who are good shooters but by no means special.

in one paragraph there's just tons of false statements and if I had to go through every BS fact you presented I'd be writing posts all my life. since it's useless I'll just focus on these more valuable ones. trash arguments will be left unasnwered.

Your willfull ignorance blows my mind. Jeff Malone scored less points because he took way fewer shots and used way fewer possessions. His TOs dropped, and his shooting numbers escalated by a long shot. As a scorer, Jeff Malone was a pretty good player. Certainly above average. His role in Washington made him seem like a more valuable player than he really was, since he created more shots--even though those shots weren't quality shots, given his own efficiency and that of his teammates--and scored more points. In a system where there were better options, his total contribution shrunk and his efficiency improved considerably.

his shooting efficiency improved, but his overall offensive efficiency stayed the same, at 109 ORtg. shooting efficiency improved just because he took fewer shots. Stockton didn't make him better. Jeff Malone's usg% went from 26-29 to 22-24 and yet his ORtg stayed the same. it tells me one thing. he was worse overall. just like Kobe Bryant would be worse player if he scored 21-22 PPG on the same efficiency.

As you can see, I wasn't talking about JUST 97-98, but the entire period from 95 to 98.

lol, Jazz lost in the first round in 95 and didn't make it to the finals in 96 (with Stockton being dominated/humiliated by Gary Payton). they became succesful when league regressed and these players:

Code: Select all

        year    age    notes
DRob     98      32    coming off of serious season-ending injury,
                       was never the same afterwards
Dream    98      34    47 games, career lows in PPG, BPG and MPG
Ewing    98      35    played 26 games
KG       98      21    3rd season coming from high school, more of SF
Duncan   98      21    rookie season
Shaq     98      25    3rd straigh season missing at least 20 games

WERE NOT in peak/close to peak/prime levels. they were all pre-prime/past-prime players who were either done by this point (Ewing, Hakeem), developing (Duncan, KG), had constant injury issues (Shaq) or just not playing at the level they used to (DRob).

I'm gonna respond to D-Rob's case, the rest is just to obvious and the way you keep arguing Ewing was a good player makes me laugh. this is what you wrote:

As for Robinson, I already proved he was at the top of his game, so you're off in BFE there, too.

Code: Select all

DRob   PPG   APG   RPG   SPG   BPG   TS%   ORtg   MPG
90-96 25.6   3.1  11.8   1.7   3.6  59.2   118   38.1
98    21.6   2.7  10.6   0.9   2.6  58.1   114   33.7

you're way off.

Now, upon leaving the Jazz, as a 34 year old PG who relied heavily on his quickness he experienced a .9 apg drop in his per36 apg numbers from the standard at Utah. Explain to me how a 0.9 drop in assists (again, with a very small sample size due to playing as a reserve) from a 34 year old speed demon proves anything about Utah "system". I'm all ears.

he was a 34-year-old PG who didn't lose much of his quickness in one offseason yet his APG average was down by 2.0 or by 20%. it proves that he had inflated numbers in Utah, period.

No, all you've done here is prove that team assists don't necessarily correlate with good offense. Well done.

overall, there's a quite strong correlation between assists and ORtg. because Jazz had negative correlation, it means their assists aren't worth as much as other teams' assists. whether it was because they had passing system that led to many TOs or whatever - they weren't worth as much.

This is probably, even in a series of posts full of them, the most egregious and blatantly false statement you've made. I've already posted how Jeff Malone's efficiency jumped to career highs with the Jazz. Similar things happened to a number of different players.

Jeff Malone is described earlier. I didn't see Karl Malone's efficiency much better with Stockton. 2% better TS is okay, just not all-time level... and we have to remember that Malone was the one who benefited the most as they worked together. wings like Jeffs didn't really improve. thesis that Stockton makes teammates better is supported only by the fact that Karl Malone played a bit better with him.

So, you make a fair point here, but pure ORTG is still every bit as important as adjusted ORTG.

when league avg was at 2005-2008 level, Utah's ORtg suffered much. they were simply playing in offensive league in the 90s, where avg team defensively was about as good as effective as 20-25th team in DRtg today. all that matters is how you play vs lg avg. if there was every team playing like Golden State, they all would score 120 pts per 100 poss, but it doesn't mean they'd be dominant offensive teams.

Still, there is no doubt that Phoenix's system allows players to shoot much better. Well done.

Phoenix Suns system ? D'Antoni exclusively or Gentry and Porter also had such a system ?
why didn't this system work without Nash ? no Nash, players didn't improve one bit.

I'm sad for you. Nash is a great player, he really is. Offensively, I think he is close to Stockton's level, maybe even neck and neck with him. His shooting is something that we have never seen before and might never see again. He is sensational. But he's not the passer that Stockton was and he's not the defender Stockton was. He's just not, and there is a mountain of both factual data and anecdotal evidence/testimony to prove it.

well, Stockton was a very good player. always one of the best PGs in the league in the 90s, with Magic, pre-injuries Penny and pre-injuries KJ better than him, and couple of PGs comparable. he played at high level for a very long time. he was always TOP15 player in the league during that period. he wasn't MVP candidate though. he wasn't a borderline TOP5 player in any year. he wasn't a guy who could lead his own team anywhere, even playoffs would be a tough challenge for him.

that's where Nash seperates himself. he's a much better alpha player and more dominant in his time. consistently TOP5 or TOP10 player and perennial MVP winner/candidate. he makes his teammates better the way Magic did. he is shooting better than anyone. he dominates. something Stockton could never do.

[meat tray]

so when did this become a Nash vs Stockton thread? pretty sure we already have one of those...

[Doctor MJ]

so when did this become a Nash vs Stockton thread? pretty sure we already have one of those...

The moment a thread got started about Stockton. It's a rule.

[erudite23]

so when did this become a Nash vs Stockton thread? pretty sure we already have one of those...

I have no wish to discuss Stockton versus Nash. Bastillon has tried to force the issue.


If you'll look at my posts, the vast majority of my time is spent on disproving assertions that there is not the normal correlation between his level of production and winning or offensive success that one would normally expect.


The thread was started in an attempt to undermine Stockton and his stature as the best pure PG who ever lived (ie, not included wings with PG skills like Magic or the Big O), by saying that if a guy like Stockton was so great, why weren't the Jazz offenses of the late 80s and early 90s more proficient. I've gone to great lengths to prove that it was--surprise!--a result of the ridiculously poor weapons that the Jazz surrounded Stockton and Malone with, and shown in detail how the offense (and team) took off after ineffective or mediocre players like Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey, Blue Edwards, Ty Corbin, David Benoit, Mike Brown or Mark Eaton (from an offensive standpoint) were replaced by Jeff Hornacek, Bryon Russell, Greg Ostertag (he was Wilt compared to Eaton), Adam Keefe, Chris Morris and Antoine Carr.


Also, you can't get butt hurt over comparisons like the Nash/Stockton one. One of the most important aspects of making a quality argument is establishing both context and standard. In order to do that, you have to compare players to what others like them have done. Its normal and justified.

That said, there's no reason why these Nash fanboys should be so up in arms to try and discredit Stockton in an attempt to make Nash look better. They're both great players. For obvious reasons, you have to give Stockton the edge.

[erudite23]

I'm not getting roped into your Suns talk. Think what you want. You're about the only person alive that would believe that crap.

Amare is close to Jeff Malone actually, he's more efficient scorer, but Jeff Malone doesn't turn the ball over as often and is much better passer. on rebounding both are liabilities but Amare is much worse defender.

Your willfull ignorance blows my mind. Jeff Malone scored less points because he took way fewer shots and used way fewer possessions. His TOs dropped, and his shooting numbers escalated by a long shot. As a scorer, Jeff Malone was a pretty good player. Certainly above average. His role in Washington made him seem like a more valuable player than he really was, since he created more shots--even though those shots weren't quality shots, given his own efficiency and that of his teammates--and scored more points. In a system where there were better options, his total contribution shrunk and his efficiency improved considerably.

his shooting efficiency improved, but his overall offensive efficiency stayed the same, at 109 ORtg. shooting efficiency improved just because he took fewer shots. Stockton didn't make him better. Jeff Malone's usg% went from 26-29 to 22-24 and yet his ORtg stayed the same. it tells me one thing. he was worse overall. just like Kobe Bryant would be worse player if he scored 21-22 PPG on the same efficiency.

K, champ. You go ahead and believe that. I've shown differently.

As you can see, I wasn't talking about JUST 97-98, but the entire period from 95 to 98.

lol, Jazz lost in the first round in 95 and didn't make it to the finals in 96 (with Stockton being dominated/humiliated by Gary Payton). they became succesful when league regressed and these players:

Yeah, they did. They lost to the eventual champs. It doesn't matter when it happened, they lost to the NBA champions. And it came down to the final seconds of the decisive game. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

Code: Select all

        year    age    notes
DRob     98      32    coming off of serious season-ending injury,
                       was never the same afterwards
Dream    98      34    47 games, career lows in PPG, BPG and MPG
Ewing    98      35    played 26 games
KG       98      21    3rd season coming from high school, more of SF
Duncan   98      21    rookie season
Shaq     98      25    3rd straigh season missing at least 20 games

WERE NOT in peak/close to peak/prime levels. they were all pre-prime/past-prime players who were either done by this point (Ewing, Hakeem), developing (Duncan, KG), had constant injury issues (Shaq) or just not playing at the level they used to (DRob).

I'm gonna respond to D-Rob's case, the rest is just to obvious and the way you keep arguing Ewing was a good player makes me laugh. this is what you wrote:

As for Robinson, I already proved he was at the top of his game, so you're off in BFE there, too.

Code: Select all

DRob   PPG   APG   RPG   SPG   BPG   TS%   ORtg   MPG
90-96 25.6   3.1  11.8   1.7   3.6  59.2   118   38.1
98    21.6   2.7  10.6   0.9   2.6  58.1   114   33.7

you're way off.

Again, most of this is drivel. The only thing you just did was show that David Robinson played 5mpg less than he was used to in 1998. His PER was the 4th highest of his career. His Rebound Rate, Assist Rate, ORR, DRR, Block Rate, Steal Rate, shooting numbers and usage were all at or near his career high standards. Quit trying to distort the truth.

And if we're using individual ORTG....btw, there is a strong argument that John Stockton is the greatest player of all time. He was leading the league in that stat during MJ's peak.

Now, upon leaving the Jazz, as a 34 year old PG who relied heavily on his quickness he experienced a .9 apg drop in his per36 apg numbers from the standard at Utah. Explain to me how a 0.9 drop in assists (again, with a very small sample size due to playing as a reserve) from a 34 year old speed demon proves anything about Utah "system". I'm all ears.

he was a 34-year-old PG who didn't lose much of his quickness in one offseason yet his APG average was down by 2.0 or by 20%. it proves that he had inflated numbers in Utah, period.

You basically just restated what you said before. I already disproved this. You don't use his previous season, in which he played a career low in mpg, as the barometer for his APGper36 as a player in Utah's system. You use the number he established as a full time player over several years PLAYING MORE THAN 13 MINUTES PER GAME. I can't believe you actually expect people to buy that stupidity.

More importantly, I can't believe that I'm dumb enough to argue with you. Maybe I'm the idiot here.


And, yes, there is PLENTY of history of players having massive one year dropoffs. Isaih Thomas lost 2.8 apg off his PER36 numbers when he turned 30. It happens.

And EVEN IF IT DIDN'T, you're dealing with such small samples here that simply the reduced minutes is enough to undermine any argument you want to make. With that small of a sample size, random chance could easily be responsible. You obviously aren't very good at crafting arguments.

No, all you've done here is prove that team assists don't necessarily correlate with good offense. Well done.

overall, there's a quite strong correlation between assists and ORtg. because Jazz had negative correlation, it means their assists aren't worth as much as other teams' assists. whether it was because they had passing system that led to many TOs or whatever - they weren't worth as much.

Lol, I nailed you to the wall and you won't even acknowledge it. Good form there. You can't argue with the evidence I provided. Check mate on that one, bud.

This is probably, even in a series of posts full of them, the most egregious and blatantly false statement you've made. I've already posted how Jeff Malone's efficiency jumped to career highs with the Jazz. Similar things happened to a number of different players.

Jeff Malone is described earlier. I didn't see Karl Malone's efficiency much better with Stockton. 2% better TS is okay, just not all-time level... and we have to remember that Malone was the one who benefited the most as they worked together. wings like Jeffs didn't really improve. thesis that Stockton makes teammates better is supported only by the fact that Karl Malone played a bit better with him.

Malone played in probably um...25 career games without Stockton? There is no standard. And I'm not going to try to diminish the greatness of Malone to build Stockton up. Unlike you, I don't cut off my nose to spite my face.

So, you make a fair point here, but pure ORTG is still every bit as important as adjusted ORTG.

when league avg was at 2005-2008 level, Utah's ORtg suffered much. they were simply playing in offensive league in the 90s, where avg team defensively was about as good as effective as 20-25th team in DRtg today. all that matters is how you play vs lg avg. if there was every team playing like Golden State, they all would score 120 pts per 100 poss, but it doesn't mean they'd be dominant offensive teams.

Didn't say adjusted wasn't important, but its not the only thing that counts. You have to take both into account. The Suns were a magnificent offensive team, for sure, but they had the advantage of being a unique team who took the league by storm with their new approach to the game. That gives them a historical significance that the Jazz can't claim, but it doesn't make their offense better, necessarily.

Still, there is no doubt that Phoenix's system allows players to shoot much better. Well done.

Phoenix Suns system ? D'Antoni exclusively or Gentry and Porter also had such a system ?
why didn't this system work without Nash ? no Nash, players didn't improve one bit.

Lol, that one was just to show you what its like when other people try to discredit the talents of a great player by crowing about his system. As you can see, its not pleasant to hear.

I'm sad for you. Nash is a great player, he really is. Offensively, I think he is close to Stockton's level, maybe even neck and neck with him. His shooting is something that we have never seen before and might never see again. He is sensational. But he's not the passer that Stockton was and he's not the defender Stockton was. He's just not, and there is a mountain of both factual data and anecdotal evidence/testimony to prove it.

well, Stockton was a very good player. always one of the best PGs in the league in the 90s, with Magic, pre-injuries Penny and pre-injuries KJ better than him, and couple of PGs comparable. he played at high level for a very long time. he was always TOP15 player in the league during that period. he wasn't MVP candidate though. he wasn't a borderline TOP5 player in any year. he wasn't a guy who could lead his own team anywhere, even playoffs would be a tough challenge for him.

that's where Nash seperates himself. he's a much better alpha player and more dominant in his time. consistently TOP5 or TOP10 player and perennial MVP winner/candidate. he makes his teammates better the way Magic did. he is shooting better than anyone. he dominates. something Stockton could never do.



Stockton was the greatest PG ever to play the game, and if he had played in a bigger market and gotten more exposure, and not been a facilitator with a great scorer like Karl Malone there to get all the credit, he would have been even more highly regarded than he already is.

To be honest, I don't even have a problem with you claiming that Nash is better. Its false, but I love Nash and I appreciate his game. He certainly did me a big favor by helping the league get back to a brand of ball that is actually fun to watch, and he is a wizard with the ball. I love him and I'm not going to argue against him or try to undermine what he is or what he's done in this league.

That said, he does have limitations. Limitations that ultimately put him in a class just below John Stockton on the All Time PG lists. We aren't going to ignore those.


But I'm done. Continue to do your thing. I've provided plenty of compelling evidence to show that

1) The Jazz were held back during this specific time period because of lack of offensive players.
2) Stockton's brilliance directly correlated to Jazz success offensively
3) The Jazz rose to prominence in a league that was at its apex in terms of overall quality of teams from top to bottom, as well as elite quality teams.

That's all I was trying to do.