RealGM Top 100 List #18

[penbeast0]

Because it's the one place other than MVPs that Nash has a clear advantage on Stockton . . .

Oh, and Shawn Kemp was not a defensive force to be reckoned with. He was foul prone and a gambler who constantly left his feet defensively. He got a lot of steals and blocks for a big but played poor man defense . . . his offense is a bit overrated also because of the big flashy dunks though not as much.

[ElGee]

That's the crux of the issue between Nash and Stockton as players: Nash was always a threat to SCORE or make the right decision if the offense took it away. Stockton made efficient plays when they were available.

I'm not sure how you don't see that -- that's exactly what it looks like just watching them. That pretty much every available piece of information backs that up is like using an A-bomb to kill an ant.

Except I have posted plenty of evidence to the contrary. I have already said that Nash is the more explosive scorer, Stockton however, was just as efficient. Stockton was just as much of a threat to find a weakness in the defense, and hit the open man for a score. His unparalleled production as a playmaker backs that up. Stockton was also one of the best PGs ever at setting screens, and the best ever at stripping the ball away on defense.

Both players were great offensive PGs, but Stockton also played defense. Even more striking is that Stockton's individual offensive production is off the charts. His individual ORtg is higher than Nash's. Stockton's AST/To ratio is much higher too.

It's fine if you want to reference team ratings in the comparison. But it doesn't trump how they performed as individuals. I really don't know why these rating stats has taken over the debate.

Noooooo. When you say "Stockton is more efficient," it's like saying Adrian Dantley is more efficient than Michael Jordan. Or Gilmore more efficient than Shaq. Who cares what their efficiency is if Stockton can't score like Nash can? (volume, threat, creation)

The defensive difference between these PG's has been hashed out endlessly. You just ignore it.

Stockton played in an inflated system. I don't mean just the team ball movement, I mean Utah is known for counting assists liberally. And Phoenix is known for counting assists conservatively. That's been told you too, you ignore it. I mean, what do you think an assist is? Why is it so valuable to you in this debate?

You cite INDIVIDUAL ORtg here but want to throw out team ORtg (a near perfect stat)? Do you know what individual ORtg is and how it's calculated? Can you surmise how it's possible that Stock's might be higher and he might not be nearly the offensive player Nash is? You know who else doesn't have a great individual ORtg...

The team ratings were brought up because you said this on page 6:

If you're going to give Nash credit for PHX in the regular season, then you need to give him blame in the playoffs. Those Suns teams were stifled offensively when they were forced into playing halfcourt. Does he get no blame for this?

And it's categorically false. It's like saying "you really have to account for Jordan's team going in the tank when he came back in 1996."

[mysticbb]

Well, by my calculations they were 114.7 and that's why I was saying the best of all time. But maybe my calculations are bad, I was doing them several years ago, so I'll check it tomorrow morning.

I think you miscalcuated that, because you devided the points scored just by the amount of games, not by minutes. The pace was 89.2 (funny, the same as without him). They scored 6536 points in those 64 games, they played 3087 minutes ->

6536/3087/89.2*4800 = 113.9

Yes, but their efficiency differential improved with him (almost x2!), and of course W-L% (from 50-51 team, to 65). It seems he was worth about 15 wins.

They went from a +2.49 SRS team to +7.6 SRS team. The win% is misleading, they played a weak schedule, hard to find a team with such a stretch like the first 18 games the Jazz had, -1.84 SOS, but that still means -0.52 SOS for the remaining 64 games. That SRS is indicating rather 61 wins with a normal schedule than 65. And the SRS without him is rather 48, that makes roughly 13 wins difference.

Well, playoffs are different story. I was just pointing how big impact had 35 year old Stockton during that regular season (and APM data we have confirms that he had big impact outside of box score, so it's rather not a fluke). But it wouldn't be first time when he disappointed in the playoffs.

And that is something we should keep in mind too, Stockton had his fair share of personal playoff failures, enough games in which he performed well, but rather bad. As someone pointed out, Stockton was highly efficient when the opportunity was there, but creating and scoring when it was needed, he had trouble. Similar to David Robinson, for example.

[penbeast0]

The myth that Utah counted inflated assists by a huge amount is just that, a myth. There's a thread about it in the statistical analysis board. Utah inflated assists a little, but nowhere near as much as, say, LA during Magic's tenure . . . and even if they had, Stockton's assist totals still dwarf Nash's or anyone else which combines with his low turnover rate to make the the most effective playmaker of all time.

He didn't score as much as Nash but it's not a huge gap and the efficiency is about even. And his defense is clearly better. What it comes down to is what the Nash advocates are trying to show with the team numbers . . . . does Steve Nash have a positive effect on an offense that isn't shown by individual stats . . . and they are doing a pretty good job of it too.

But again, THIS thread isn't Nash v. Stockton -- there's a separate thread for that, Stockton has only Unbiased (and FJS who is on vacation) supporting him; it's about Nash (9 nominations) v. Isiah Thomas (6 nominations) and I haven't seen much to show that Thomas is better than Nash (or Payton or even Stockton for that matter). But I keep hoping.

So Unbiased, please let the Stockton support go until the next thread and let's focus the debate on Steve Nash v. Isiah Thomas.

[colts18]

Has anyone even discussed the #18 player of all-time in the last 10 pages? It seems like its all about the nomination battle which is surprising.

[OldSchoolNBA]

Oh, and Shawn Kemp was not a defensive force to be reckoned with. He was foul prone and a gambler who constantly left his feet defensively. He got a lot of steals and blocks for a big but played poor man defense . . . his offense is a bit overrated also because of the big flashy dunks though not as much.

This is definitely true. He never boxed out either and most of the rebounds he got were due to athleticism rather than a result of smart defensive positioning. I think his offense gets overrated too because he thought he was a better player than he actually was. Too many times where he dribbled the ball off his foot, made silly turnovers or took bad long range jumpers (around 20 feet or so). His jumper didn't come along until 1996 or so. Monster athlete, though.

[lorak]

Well, by my calculations they were 114.7 and that's why I was saying the best of all time. But maybe my calculations are bad, I was doing them several years ago, so I'll check it tomorrow morning.

I think you miscalcuated that, because you devided the points scored just by the amount of games, not by minutes. The pace was 89.2 (funny, the same as without him). They scored 6536 points in those 64 games, they played 3087 minutes ->

6536/3087/89.2*4800 = 113.9

I can't sleep because I keep thinking about what I did wrong with this calculations
Points and minutes are the same in my calculations. Pace is different (88.6). I'm using formula from b-r: 48 * ((Tm Poss + Opp Poss) / (2 * (Tm MP / 5)))
Possessions I'm also calculating from b-r formula and total in this case is 5695,4. Do you have different result?

They went from a +2.49 SRS team to +7.6 SRS team. The win% is misleading, they played a weak schedule, hard to find a team with such a stretch like the first 18 games the Jazz had, -1.84 SOS, but that still means -0.52 SOS for the remaining 64 games. That SRS is indicating rather 61 wins with a normal schedule than 65. And the SRS without him is rather 48, that makes roughly 13 wins difference.

Still pretty impressive

Well, playoffs are different story. I was just pointing how big impact had 35 year old Stockton during that regular season (and APM data we have confirms that he had big impact outside of box score, so it's rather not a fluke). But it wouldn't be first time when he disappointed in the playoffs.

And that is something we should keep in mind too, Stockton had his fair share of personal playoff failures, enough games in which he performed well, but rather bad. As someone pointed out, Stockton was highly efficient when the opportunity was there, but creating and scoring when it was needed, he had trouble. Similar to David Robinson, for example.

I agree, and that's why I rather prefer Nash. I think he and Stockton are equal as playmakers, but Nash's ability to score makes him better player.

[An Unbiased Fan]

That's the crux of the issue between Nash and Stockton as players: Nash was always a threat to SCORE or make the right decision if the offense took it away. Stockton made efficient plays when they were available.

I'm not sure how you don't see that -- that's exactly what it looks like just watching them. That pretty much every available piece of information backs that up is like using an A-bomb to kill an ant.

Except I have posted plenty of evidence to the contrary. I have already said that Nash is the more explosive scorer, Stockton however, was just as efficient. Stockton was just as much of a threat to find a weakness in the defense, and hit the open man for a score. His unparalleled production as a playmaker backs that up. Stockton was also one of the best PGs ever at setting screens, and the best ever at stripping the ball away on defense.

Both players were great offensive PGs, but Stockton also played defense. Even more striking is that Stockton's individual offensive production is off the charts. His individual ORtg is higher than Nash's. Stockton's AST/To ratio is much higher too.

It's fine if you want to reference team ratings in the comparison. But it doesn't trump how they performed as individuals. I really don't know why these rating stats has taken over the debate.

Noooooo. When you say "Stockton is more efficient," it's like saying Adrian Dantley is more efficient than Michael Jordan. Or Gilmore more efficient than Shaq. Who cares what their efficiency is if Stockton can't score like Nash can? (volume, threat, creation)

The defensive difference between these PG's has been hashed out endlessly. You just ignore it.

Can you stop with this I'm "ignoring" stuff. I have been answering your posts. Disagreeing, is not "ignoring".

As I have said multiple times now, Nash is the more explosive scorer. However, the difference in FGA between both players in their primes is only 1 FGA a game. That's hardly enough of a difference to skew shooting efficiency.

And the defensive difference was "hashed out endlessly", really? Oh, ok. So did we mark that down as a clear advantage for Stock?

Stockton played in an inflated system. I don't mean just the team ball movement, I mean Utah is known for counting assists liberally. And Phoenix is known for counting assists conservatively. That's been told you too, you ignore it. I mean, what do you think an assist is? Why is it so valuable to you in this debate?

Wait, so let me get this straight......

Stockton played in an inflated system.......as opposed to Nash who was coached by Nelson in Dallas....and then D'Antoni in PHX.....hmmm. Nevermind the fact that Stock put up the same numbers under Frank Layden, and that Nash's numbers skyrocketed at age 30 when he went to PHX. That's quite amazing.

Oh, and apparently Stockon's APG was inflated by the stat counters, while Nash was robbed? I mean really, do you expect me to just disregard assists now when comparing 2 PGs. So now I can't even use Stockton's all-time great stats because "they're tainted".

I don't even no how to respond to this.

You cite INDIVIDUAL ORtg here but want to throw out team ORtg (a near perfect stat)? Do you know what individual ORtg is and how it's calculated? Can you surmise how it's possible that Stock's might be higher and he might not be nearly the offensive player Nash is? You know who else doesn't have a great individual ORtg..

I cited individual ORtg because you keep referencing ORtg, and I though it was funny that Stock's individual rating is higher than Nash's. I really don't value the stat, but it is interesting how arbitrary the "perfect stat' list is. Which goes back to my point earlier about no stat being flawless.

Also, did you "miss' the AST/TO comparison....

The team ratings were brought up because you said this on page 6:
If you're going to give Nash credit for PHX in the regular season, then you need to give him blame in the playoffs. Those Suns teams were stifled offensively when they were forced into playing halfcourt. Does he get no blame for this?


And it's categorically false. It's like saying "you really have to account for Jordan's team going in the tank when he came back in 1996."

Actually, the team ratings were brought up well before this. I won't get back into this issue because we already have several pages on it.


Anyway, I'm done comparing Stock vs Nash until both are nominated. It's fairly clear that no point will sway people's mind.

[Fencer reregistered]

Isiah's advantages over Nash, without stats:

Eye test: Best lay-up shooter ever. Nash is close behind, but Isiah is better yet.

Played on vastly better defensive teams, even relative to their respective era. This lends plausibility to the claim that he was a better individual defender.

Intangibles seem similar -- both feuded with some teammates, but are regarded as having favorable team-leadership intangibles even so.

In my opinion, both should be joining the nominee list right now.

I'll nominate: Isiah Thomas

[TMACFORMVP]

Forgot to put my vote

Vote: LeBron James
Nominate: Isiah Thomas

[Laimbeer]

Does anyone have a vote count?

[Doctor MJ]

The myth that Utah counted inflated assists by a huge amount is just that, a myth. There's a thread about it in the statistical analysis board. Utah inflated assists a little, but nowhere near as much as, say, LA during Magic's tenure . . . and even if they had, Stockton's assist totals still dwarf Nash's or anyone else which combines with his low turnover rate to make the the most effective playmaker of all time.

I know you don't want this to just be Nash vs Stockton, but there's a key thing to understand here about inflated assists generally that happens not coincidentally to involve Stockton, the all-time assist leader.

In '86-87, the year before Stockton became a starter, the Jazz were 6th in the league in assists, but 21st in ORtg in a 23 team league. So: By assists, they appeared to be an almost elite team, but in actuality there offense was hideously bad.

How is that possible? Well, the reality has always been that quite a lot of scoring that has no connection to assists. This does not mean the scoring is not connected good passing or good offensive leadership though.

Unbiased Fan is asking "Are you suggesting I can't even USE assists?" as if that's a crazy concept, but I think it's far crazier to assume the guy with more assists is the better floor general. I don't throw out assists, but nor do I accept them as a precise measurement for a great basketball ability, just as I don't think you can measure a scorer simply by how many points he scores.

[drza]

As Colts pointed out, this is one of the first threads in the project where the nomination discussion has absolutely dwarfed the actual voting discussion. Perhaps that's because LeBron has been talked about a lot in previous threads so people don't have much more to say on that front, but I was hoping that my post about how Pettit actually has his own playoff failures similar to what we hold against LeBron and Robinson would generate more traction. But frankly, I don't know if I've seen a single Pettit or LeBron post since I posted that last night, so I guess no dice.

Anyway, my vote is the same as last thread, and my nomination will be too. The Nash/Isiah debate is very interesting, and it's still a my heart (Isiah) vs my head (Nash) thing, but I still feel that Pippen is worthy to be on the list by now so I'll stay with him. I still think that he is VERY arguably the best small forward defender of all-time, and that he is on the extremely short list of non-big defenders that may have had as much defensive impact as the all-time big defenders.

Vote: LeBron James
Nominate: Scottie Pippen

[Wavy Q]

Vote: Barkley
Nominate: Nash

[An Unbiased Fan]

Unbiased Fan is asking "Are you suggesting I can't even USE assists?" as if that's a crazy concept, but I think it's far crazier to assume the guy with more assists is the better floor general. I don't throw out assists, but nor do I accept them as a precise measurement for a great basketball ability, just as I don't think you can measure a scorer simply by how many points he scores.

*sigh*

Doc, I have said about million times in this very thread that no stat should be the end all for a debate. I have pointed to quite a few things beside assists. I won't get into those because this debate has run it's course, i just need to clarify that this is not what I was arguing. I wanted to use assists in the debate, not as the sole determinant for the better floor general.

Anyway, my vote is the same as last thread, and my nomination will be too. The Nash/Isiah debate is very interesting, and it's still a my heart (Isiah) vs my head (Nash) thing, but I still feel that Pippen is worthy to be on the list by now so I'll stay with him. I still think that he is VERY arguably the best small forward defender of all-time, and that he is on the extremely short list of non-big defenders that may have had as much defensive impact as the all-time big defenders.

I don't think I can put Pippen over Drexler or Isiah. Especially with his leadership issues.

Speaking of great defenders, I having a tough time placing where Rodman may go.

[therealbig3]

The 91 and 93 Bulls had Horace Grant, one of the best defensive forwards in the league, and Scottie Pippen, one of the best defensive players ever. The 93 Sonics had a prime Shawn Kemp, who was just an overall force to be reckoned with.

Grant is overrated as defender. Bulls actually improved when he left.
And Kemp in 1993 was still too young.
And are you really comparing them to Hakeem, Robinson and Malone?! Because about such quality big men I was talking about.

In the 93 series against the Spurs, it looks like Barkley's scoring numbers are skewed by an abnormally bad shooting night in game 1, when he went 5-21, and Robinson had a monster game. Barkley outplayed Robinson in games 2, 3, 5, and 6. He also out-rebounded Robinson. It seems to me that despite what the overall scoring numbers suggest, Barkley outplayed Robinson in 93.

94, yeah Hakeem just outplayed Barkley all-around. But in 95, Barkley outplayed Olajuwon through the first 2 games, but then Barkley just had an embarrassing shooting night in game 3, in which he went 0-10, and Olajuwon had big game. That seems to have also skewed Barkley's overall scoring numbers for the series. Olajuwon basically outplays him in the last 5 games of the series, but especially game 3. Barkley does out-rebound Olajuwon though.

For these two series especially, it just seems like Barkley overall scoring numbers are completely thrown off by one especially bad game, to the point where it's not telling you how he actually scored in that series.

Even in 96, it looks like Barkley had better games 1 and 3, while Robinson had better games 2 and 4. It's just that when Robinson outplayed Barkley it was by more than when Barkley outplayed Robinson. This seems more of an even matchup.

[Fencer reregistered]

I don't think I can put Pippen over Drexler or Isiah. Especially with his leadership issues.

What were those?

[JordansBulls]

I don't think I can put Pippen over Drexler or Isiah. Especially with his leadership issues.

What were those?

Sitting out the final seconds of a game when your team is down 2-0 in the series and down 2 points because a play wasn't designed for you.

[therealbig3]

I don't think I can put Pippen over Drexler or Isiah. Especially with his leadership issues.

What were those?

Sitting out the final seconds of a game when your team is down 2-0 in the series and down 2 points because a play wasn't designed for you.

1. The play worked anyway, so it didn't cost the Bulls the game.

2. It didn't affect any of the other games. Pippen responded with 25/8/6 in game 4 in a Bulls win, and he played a key role throughout that series. And if not for a very questionable call at the end of game 5, in which the Bulls lost by 1 point, the Bulls probably would have advanced to the Conference Finals.

3. He apologized for it after and admitted his mistake, so what's the problem? What else could he have done?

I think that whole situation is blown way out of proportion. He was a great player and a great leader...didn't Jordan say that Pippen deserved one of the Finals MVPs as much as he did...I think it was 91? If Jordan is giving you mad props like that, then you know how much he meant to the team and how much the players looked up to him. I'm not going to say he was as important as MJ, because he wasn't, but without Pippen, the Bulls don't win a single title.

As for Pippen vs Drexler, I think Pippen vs Drexler on offense is closer than people think. Pippen's offense gets underrated imo, he was a pretty efficient 20 ppg scorer, who was also a great playmaker. Drexler fit this description as well, and he was actually a better scorer, but not really by all that much. So really, the only advantage that Drexler has over Pippen is being a little bit better as a scorer, while I really don't think it's close at all between the two defensively. Like drza pointed out, I think you can make the case that Pippen's defensive impact was as big as any great defensive big man's. He was truly unique in that regard. And he was also an elite rebounder for his position as well, better than Drexler.

I think we can pretty much regard Pippen as an elite defensive anchor. In fact, the more I think about it, he reminds me of KG. Great, versatile defense, good scorer (but not really his calling card), great passer, great rebounder, and a lot of what he does isn't captured in the raw box score.

[lorak]

If I'm not mistaken:

LJ 11
Doctor MJ FJS DavidStern Gongxi Dr Mufasa drza
ElGee ronnymac2 shawngoat23 Baller 24 TMACFORMVP

Pettit 10
penbeast0 mysticbb Laimbeer JordansBulls cpower
Fencer reregistered RoyceDa59 JerkyWay Black Feet An Unbiased Fan

Barkley 3
fatal9 therealbig3 Jay From LA




Nash 10
Doctor MJ DavidStern mysticbb fatal9 RoyceDa59
ElGee JerkyWay Black Feet Baller 24 Jay From LA

Isiah 8
Laimbeer JordansBulls cpower Dr Mufasa ronnymac2
shawngoat23 TMACFORMVP Fencer reregistered

Pippen therealbig3 drza
2

Stockton FJS An Unbiased Fan
2

Gilmore penbeast0 Gongxi
2