Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #15-#16 Spots

[ReggiesKnicks]

VOTING POST BELOW

Rudy Gobert deserves mention if players like Anthony Davis, Ben Wallace and Dwight Howard are getting traction.

2021 Rudy Gobert was an all-time great season for a key reason.

2021 Rudy Gobert: +728
2021 Mike Conley: +548

2020 Anthony Davis: +240
2020 LeBron James: +442

2009 Dwight Howard: +550
2009 Rashard Lewis: +582

2010 Dwight Howard: +620
2010 Vince Carter: +497

First of all, Rudy Gobert was head-and-shoulders the leader of both the league +/- in 2021 but also his teams +/-. This isn't the case for Anthony Davis or Dwight Howard in their selective seasons (and really none for Prime Anthony Davis). In fact, Rudy Gobert's dominance in 2021 is unique, as the +728 number is in rarified air for the +/- tracking data we have (going back to 1997). For everyone, including myself, who are approaching this project with a Lense for +/- data, Rudy Gobert pops off the page.

Rudy Gobert was also good in the post-season, even with a 2nd-round exit Gobert still had a strong +/- (+4.3 per 100) and On/Off (+15.3). Like Dwight Howard, Rudy Gobert was the lynchpin of both Utah's Offense and Defense (this wasn't the case for AD with LeBron James at the offensive helm) and this resulted in the Jazz having the 3rd ranked offense and 4th ranked defense.

#1 Steve Nash 2005 (2007, 2006)
#2 James Harden 2018 (2020, 2017)
#3 Rudy Gobert 2021
#4 Jayson Tatum 2024 (2025)

Nash: GOAT level offensive anchor who helped re-invent modern basketball. Exceptional post-season skill-set who could dissect even the strongest defenses. Statistically an outlier in terms of offensive anchors who are left in this pool.

Harden: Unique Iso-scoring skill-set which led to being the most productive isolation scorer in NBA history. This impact didn't translate 1:1 to +/- family, which is why he is being considering here and not as a Top 10 possibility. Albeit categorized as a playoff dropper, he was still incredibly productive in the post-season and is incredibly unlucky to not have at least 1 championship.

Gobert: See Above

Tatum: All-Around player who impacts the game in every where imaginable. The modern-day "Jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none" where he is in the 80th+ percentile in a ton of different aspects. The prototypical "two-way superstar" who has little weaknesses and pops in the +/- family compared to some others here (AD/Howard, for example).

[Top10alltime]

Got it: use context except when it is inconvenient to your agenda. Can do!

Then I guess the Suns offense improved by an Earth-shaking +13.1 [not +9.9] from '04 to '05!!!

You added the context, makes Nash' numbers look a lot worse.

Also, I don't have agendas. I just don't follow the casual narrative like all of you do (and I'm right)

Okay, so I’m genuinely confused by what you think people are saying to you.

Here’s the reality:

By rORTG, the 2004 Mavericks had a +9.2 rORTG while the 2005 Mavericks only had a +4.2 rORTG. So they got 5.0 points worse on offense after Nash left. Meanwhile, the 2004 Suns had a -1.5 rORTG and the 2005 Suns had a +8.4 rORTG. So they got +9.9 points better on offense when Nash arrived.

If you used raw ORTG instead of rORTG, it just shifts the numbers around a bit, in light of the fact that average offense was notably more efficient in 2005 (which was likely due to rule changes in the offseason regarding hand checking). So the 2004 Mavs did only have a +1.8 higher ORTG in 2004 than in 2005, but the Suns had a +13.1 higher ORTG in 2005 than in 2004.

Either way, the average difference between the offensive efficiency in the years when these teams had Nash and when they didn’t was +7.5 (because (5.0+9.9)/2=7.5 and (1.8+13.1)/2=7.5). And even if we instead used the 2004 Suns’s ORTG just in games Amare played, it’s more like a +6.8 difference on average, using PBPstats data (note: if we filtered it down to just games where Amare *and* Marbury played, the offense was actually a couple points worse, so that would not help your argument at all).

Considering Nash played like 34 MPG, for him to make a +6.8 difference offensively to his teams overall actually implies something like a +9.6 offensive impact in the minutes when he’s actually on the court (because 6.8*(48/34)=9.6). Which is pretty in line with what RAPM tells us (though RAPM peaks out for him at a slightly lower +9.2 ORAPM).

Which is to say that this offensive WOWY stuff actually looks great for him—it’s even better than his ORAPM, which is itself incredible! This is not a surprise, since Nash looks amazing by WOWY measures in general. For instance, Nash is 3rd all time in WOWYR.

We value raw impact, not adjusted, misleading impact here. The context you guys use help me, but you are too blinded by narratives to admit this.

Steve Nash is not even better than KD offensively. And as for WOWYR, I don't think much of made up formulas.

So, please tell me where you can find series by series ORTG numbers?

[eminence]

For a cumulative +/- purpose it's worth noting '21 was a slightly shortened season (as was '20).

I dig the Rudy mention - he is my top Jazz guy for the period, and is my pick for '21 RS MVP. With a heavier RS slant than I've been going with I can see him in the late teens/early twenties for sure. I don't think I'll personally wind up voting for him, but I do very much see him with the tier 3 type of guys we're about to enter into.

Tier 1, roughly 1-5
Tier 2, 6-late teens
Tier 3, 20-???

Though I probably wouldn't say he was the lynchpin to the offense.

[iggymcfrack]

1. 2005 Manu Ginobili
2. 2016 Draymond Green
3. 2017 Russell Westbrook
4. 2018 James Harden

With no championship level ones left, why not start with 2 of the greatest #2s of all-time who arguably have better impact stats than their much more popular and famous teammates who were much higher up the list? Manu and Draymond both filled their roles excellently, showing incredible balance by being able to fulfill many different roles on each side of the ball. Both players had achievements that in isolation would wow anyone and propel them far up an all-time list if they weren't just overshadowed by Duncan and Curry even when they were outplaying them.

Next is a season that I think gets unfairly made into some kind of punchline after the fact when Westbrook actually had the most efficient season of his career on all-time volume and made an insane amount of clutch plays. Russ's 2016 and 2017 seasons rank significantly higher in DARKO DPM than any other seasons left on the board for any player. In his actual peak season of 2017, Russ basically had a very deserved MVP and then followed it up with a playoff loss to the Rockets where his on/off was +62.8. I'm really not seeing a lot of flaws.

Meanwhile, Harden has the best box stats left, the best EPM left, and his RAPM even beats Nash's if you include even one Dallas season in a 4 or 5 year RAPM sample. He does have some incredibly memorable and high profile chokes on his resume with some truly awful individual Game 6s and 7s, but a lot of that is from trying to do too much and hitting a wall with fatigue, and I do think he really hit on something in the 2018 season with pulling back and letting CP3 handle more of the crunch time load when he was running out of steam. If it weren't for the key injury, Harden could have done something very historic with an all-time team.

[Owly]

Yeah, I mean that was the point of my initial post on this! He looks better in the playoffs in terms of shooting, but the sample is fairly small so it’s certainly susceptible to a “this is just noise” interpretation.



Yeah, I mean, the smaller the sample, the more the “this is just noise” interpretation seems likely compared to the “he’s actually a playoff riser” interpretation. If we’re talking about 60 games, though, I’m not sure it’s just categorically on the “this is just noise” side of the equation (though I think the counterargument would be that the sheer number of shots in those 60 games is still not very high). It feels more to me in the “it’s kind of impossible to know and it could plausibly be either” zone. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s just noise, but I don’t think it’s crazy to think otherwise, especially if one just has a general view of Davis as a guy who focuses up more in the playoffs (which is something I’ve seen people in this thread talking about).



So this is an interesting point. But even that is like 4% above his career RS average. And that’s after taking his best data point out of the sample! Like, if he wasn’t a playoff riser in this regard, then wouldn’t we expect him to be *below* his RS average if we took out his best year? I do get the point, though, that 2020 looks more outlier-y if you take it out of the sample. I just am not sure taking it out of the sample is the best way to assess what his playoff baseline is.

On the last, I get that ... but if the hypothesis is "'20 is real" and '20 is also a huge chunk of your sample which is your evidence base that seems even more problematic. And I think the default with small samples is it's luck.

And on "Like, if he wasn’t a playoff riser in this regard" ... see the quote ... it's not "this is strong proof he's not a riser" it's "the case that he's a riser here hinges on him making 3 of these jump shots than expected" i.e. it's probably just luck. Just as the otherwise worse 3 point shooting is also probably just luck.

One small thing to add (which they mention in the Thinking Basketball project) is that AD's long-midrange also improves in the playoffs. I haven't taken the time to delve into the specifics, and this doesn't concretely answer the 'is this luck or not' question entirely (he could be on an overall hot-streak that's still lucky), but it does add a bit more to the distance shooting sample.... people may vary on exactly how to interpret it though!

Maybe one of us is missing something ...

Yes, per above his long midrange is slightly above expectations in the other playoffs. Outside of '20 though it's (I think) 32 of 76 where 29 makes would be more in line with RS expectations. Excluding '20 as evidence for itself being real then ... those 3 extra makes don't make a strong case for "real" rather than luck. IDK if TB did something more complex with shot quality and precise distance and contests. In any case I don't think there's the sample there to start talking about a thing being real and predictive.

Fwiw, per above the three point shooting looked significantly worse in the playoffs in those other years.

Fwiw, I'm probably near the very bottom of how much people tilt towards playoffs and having long runs. But if one is doing that (and aren't just saying "What happened happened, don't care about luck") then ... I guess from that view the lack of big playoff samples to corroborate is in and of itself a negative for Davis, no? Unless one is saying these other seasons you're trying to measure something different?

[lessthanjake]

You added the context, makes Nash' numbers look a lot worse.

Also, I don't have agendas. I just don't follow the casual narrative like all of you do (and I'm right)

Okay, so I’m genuinely confused by what you think people are saying to you.

Here’s the reality:

By rORTG, the 2004 Mavericks had a +9.2 rORTG while the 2005 Mavericks only had a +4.2 rORTG. So they got 5.0 points worse on offense after Nash left. Meanwhile, the 2004 Suns had a -1.5 rORTG and the 2005 Suns had a +8.4 rORTG. So they got +9.9 points better on offense when Nash arrived.

If you used raw ORTG instead of rORTG, it just shifts the numbers around a bit, in light of the fact that average offense was notably more efficient in 2005 (which was likely due to rule changes in the offseason regarding hand checking). So the 2004 Mavs did only have a +1.8 higher ORTG in 2004 than in 2005, but the Suns had a +13.1 higher ORTG in 2005 than in 2004.

Either way, the average difference between the offensive efficiency in the years when these teams had Nash and when they didn’t was +7.5 (because (5.0+9.9)/2=7.5 and (1.8+13.1)/2=7.5). And even if we instead used the 2004 Suns’s ORTG just in games Amare played, it’s more like a +6.8 difference on average, using PBPstats data (note: if we filtered it down to just games where Amare *and* Marbury played, the offense was actually a couple points worse, so that would not help your argument at all).

Considering Nash played like 34 MPG, for him to make a +6.8 difference offensively to his teams overall actually implies something like a +9.6 offensive impact in the minutes when he’s actually on the court (because 6.8*(48/34)=9.6). Which is pretty in line with what RAPM tells us (though RAPM peaks out for him at a slightly lower +9.2 ORAPM).

Which is to say that this offensive WOWY stuff actually looks great for him—it’s even better than his ORAPM, which is itself incredible! This is not a surprise, since Nash looks amazing by WOWY measures in general. For instance, Nash is 3rd all time in WOWYR.

We value raw impact, not adjusted, misleading impact here. The context you guys use help me, but you are too blinded by narratives to admit this.

Steve Nash is not even better than KD offensively. And as for WOWYR, I don't think much of made up formulas.

So, please tell me where you can find series by series ORTG numbers?

I have no idea what you mean by “raw impact, not adjusted, misleading impact” in the context of this conversation. I also am not sure you understand what WOWYR is, because it’s not really a formula, but rather is a regression model.

I also just want to note that calling things “made up formulas” is something I only ever remember seeing one person on this website do before. That person used that phrase a lot, and then they got banned in part for scripting posts for people, including you. Others can take from that what they will, but I do find it interesting to see some very familiar phrasing from you.

As for where to find series-by-series ORTG numbers, you have to pull the ORTGs manually using PBPstats’s “WOWY” tool.

[Owly]

... and his RAPM even beats Nash's if you include even one Dallas season in a 4 or 5 year RAPM sample.

Maybe I'm missing something but ... "if I purposefully don't pick the best sample but one an unstated amount worse for one of the players..." is that not what the above case is?

Just in terms of 4 year on-off every single 4-year Suns spell (all five of them) is better than going back and including the final Dallas year. So whilst that may not be true of RAPM (I don't know, and the later "On" gets weaker) ... "even one Dallas season" ... seems like a big ask if you're sincerely looking to compare players' best spells.

Like I say, perhaps I'm missing something.

[Djoker]

I would actually like to hear the reasoning. How do people see Harden vs. Luka, especially those who voted for Harden on their ballots? I see Luka as an improved version of Harden due to superior PS resilience. Harden has superior RS impact metrics so I guess that must be it.

[ReggiesKnicks]

I would actually like to hear the reasoning. How do people see Harden vs. Luka, especially those who voted for Harden on their ballots? I see Luka as an improved version of Harden due to superior PS resilience. Harden has superior RS impact metrics so I guess that must be it.

2021: 1 series sample
2022: Luka's sole argument, though I see Luka as worse offensively overall and defensively was a turnstyle vs Golden State as he ran out of stamina
2024: Not as good from start to finish, worse offensively overall

I don't see a large different offensively, but enough indicators this far that Harden has been better over a larger sample against various elite defenses compared to Luka, while Luka has his 2022 series vs Golden State as a defensive blemish which Peak Harden doesn't have.

I fully expect Luka to be able to surpass Harden in the next year or two, but so far I can't be certain of that given what has transpired to date.

[Doctor MJ]

I would actually like to hear the reasoning. How do people see Harden vs. Luka, especially those who voted for Harden on their ballots? I see Luka as an improved version of Harden due to superior PS resilience. Harden has superior RS impact metrics so I guess that must be it.

The Harden vs Luka debate is actually what I'm thinking about right now.

There's a part of me that sees Luka as something of an improved version of Harden - though actually I'd tend to see Luka and Harden both as more like poor man's LeBron. Luka's extra height I think helps him be more like LeBron, but both he and Harden lack the outlier physical talent of LeBron.

I'll also say that the extreme grift-game of Harden is something that I've really soured on. Aesthetically I never liked it, but I tend not to blame players for taking advantage of sub-optimal officiating. However, it's disturbed me to see continue with the grifting, and being whiny about it, in situations where it seemed clear that the norms weren't going to give those calls (either new rules, or playoff norms). I won't begrudge grifting when it's a cherry on top of your game, but when you get addicted to it and struggle when you must adapt without it, I'll knock you.

At the same time, while I'd tend to see Luka as a playoff-raiser and Harden as a playoff-faller, it's not like this has actually led to a glaring difference in playoff achievement to this point (peak Harden Rockets > peak Luka any-team-so-far), and basically any full-season perspective hurts Luka. I tend to have a sense that Luka is more capable than Harden, but I'm not sure that he deserves a higher spot than Harden in the scope of this project circa 2025.

[Owly]

It's actually a 37-game sample that I'm citing... 2020 PS + 2023 PS.

Even Ben Taylor struggled with this. How to deal with a guy who shoots way way better in a smaller PS sample. Do you not take the shooting at face value even though it happened? Honestly I'm ok with either approach and I understand why people have him lower.

I'll voice my opinion since I took struggle with this.

A post-season run is such a a small sample size, facing 1-4 incredible variation in variables with different opponents (personell and coaching) results in statistically speaking, nothing any scientist or data analyst would ever consider as a signal if doing a real life study.

This is why I try to cite multi-year studies when supporting my analytical assessment of a player in a given year as it provides context.

I don't fault anyone for honing in on a small sample like a single year, but when that single year is a clear statistical outlier, it does bring in some confidence interval questions and doubts regarding the statistical anomaly.

In support of what DJoker is saying, AD has proven twice now, in different post-season samples (albeit insignificant in size) that AD does possess this ability to have high-variance in his shooting spreads, which is valuable to his overall profile.

Good post but sometimes multiyear studies may not be applicable. There are two factors in Davis' case.

1) AD is a significant playoff riser and it's possible, dare I say probable, that his large sample RS data underrates him.

2) There just isn't that much playoff data for peak AD. We have 2020. The only PS in surrounding years is 2021 but he was injured in that one. Both 2019 and 2022 his team missed the PS. Then we have 2018 (9 games) and 2023 (16 games) but both of those may not be what one would consider his peak. He was arguably a different player in both of those years than in 2020. In the PS, we are often kind of forced to resort to small samples for players. The man only played in 60 playoff games over 10 years.

Isn't point 1 putting the cart before the horse.

If we presuppose he "is" a playoff riser isn't that pre-determination, already answering the luck question that's being asked.

Unless by that phrase what is meant is ... "he is a player whose box-aggregates (or whatever measure) for the playoffs are above what would be expected based on the regular season."

And then as I've recently noted ... whilst I'm not a tilt-heavily playoffs guy - if one is and one particularly values long playoff runs ... isn't Davis's very small external (i.e. non-'20) sample a significant negative in and of itself? I don't know because that's not really my angle but I think I can see an internally consistent logic there.

[f4p]

.

Compare this to Harden, whose box stats (including EPM which has a box component) look best, but whose pure impact lags behind. This is consistent with the heliocentric playstyle, which tends to overrate pure impact compared to the box estimate. In fact, we can actually see this in Harden’s impact evolution. He’s at his most impactful per-possession pre-heliocentric ball, then becomes less impactful per-possession as he raises his load to record-breaking amounts. Some of this was discussed in prior threads by DoctorMJ, and I agree with some of his conclusions. I do think some of the lineups were set to reduce Harden’s raw plus minus (most notably Harden and Paul’s minutes were offset more than most star pairings, with Paul leading the bench lineups). But a) these lineups effects should be corrected in adjusted metrics RAPM, where Harden still comes out behind the competition, and b) this speaks to Harden’s scalability issues (and the scalability issues of heliocentrism in general)

What exactly are those issues? Harden became super heliocentric and the 2018 rockets are one of the best teams ever. Seems like a kind of obvious non-issue. In fact, seems like the increased usage made increased success. With nash we brainstorm reasons why certain numbers might look low but with harden we're just like "the team was amazing, hardens impact must have decreased as apparently the rest of the team not only offset that decrease but went so far up they created an all time team in spite of him.". Imagine if hardens teammates had been so impactful when he was good. The 2018 rockets won like 90% of their games when healthy (44-5). What does 2014 or 2016 harden do with that cast? 95%, 100%? Do the warriors just forfeit and say "hey, can we play this game in 4 years"?

I feel like the Nets being fairly easily the best offense in the league (and something crazy when the big 3 played), and harden having a top 5 offense for 5 franchises and 6 coaches, should reduce scalability concerns.

Well, what exactly do you mean by 'one of the best teams ever'? Do you have them top 10? I personally think that's beyond uncertainty range. Do you have them top 20? I could maybe see the argument, but it doesn't make me comfortable. Do you have them top 30? Personally, that's where I start to think things are more reasonable, though I could see them lower depending on criteria, and top 40 wouldn’t be crazy to me at all.

They're
-tied 19th-22nd in regular season wins (I think over full NBA history),
~33rd in regular season SRS (full NBA history),
-way down at 94th in overall SRS (RS+PS; although as we've discussed this likely underrates their opponent Warriors since it was calculated on a rolling basis; they were on pace for getting just inside the top 30 from 1955-2020 before they faced the warriors, i.e. on pace to be ranked in the mid/low 30s all time from 1947-2025),
-they're 29th in full-season ELO (from 1947-2023 and likely just outside of 30 including the last two seasons).
Which is genuinely great stuff! Very respectable ceiling raising.

But at the same time, we're talking about two top ~30 peak players of all time (both playing in their prime and one playing during their ~3 year peak), + a respectable 3rd best player who fits well, + solid depth that fits well, + a fantastic / all-time coach, + playing a strategy ahead of their time. Has there ever been a team in NBA history that had even 4/5 of these and not been in the top 30/40 ever?

They may be slightly higher if we filter for health. The oft-cited record or MOV with Chris Paul (+ optionally Harden/Capella) healthy which you mention looks even better!

so i think it's clear i mean when they were healthy. i mean if harden created an all time great team without chris paul, then he should be like the #1 peak. also d'antoni was a fantastic coach for the suns whose career seemed over after disaster-class stints with the knicks and warriors.

and you think it's likely that sansterre's 94th ranking for the rockets underrates them because of the warriors? likely? let's set aside that San literally gives bonuses for making the finals and winning the championship, which is fine, but 2 great teams in a conference already nerfs whichever team doesn't make it out. yes i would say playing a +5 regular season team that plays +15 playoff basketball over 2 years is going to make the rockets look worse. you have Draymond in your name and always post how amazing steph curry is, so either you need to really lower these guys in your rankings or they are more like the +15 team from the playoffs. which again kind of nukes the rockets when the warriors net rating treats them like a slightly better Utah Jazz. and the rockets basically played them even (up 3-2, -1.4 ppg in non-garbage time). so they were a +11 SRS team when healthy in the regular season, +12 in the 1st round, +14.5 in the 2nd round, and played within a few point of a +15 team. so all evidence is the healthy rockets are up there with basically any team ever who isn't the 2017 warriors, 2001 lakers, or 1991 bulls.

Although it starts getting into smaller and smaller samples, doesn't correct for opponents, doesn’t correct for home court, and doesn't compare apples to apples (the fair thing would be to filter every team's SRS when their top 3 were playing and compare, rather than just compare the healthy rockets to the potentially unhealthy competition).

so this gets to a fair question. i always point out what the rockets did healthy. but we should compare them to other great teams when healthy. but the 2018 rockets end up looking remarkably unhealthy. harden and cp3 played 49 games toghether. i did this before the 2024 celtics and 2025 thunder and don't feel like looking through their game logs, but tatum/brown and shai/williams didn't miss enough games to drop them below 49 shared games so it won't change much.

we can look at the 6 teams to ever win 68 and see how many games their top 2 played together.

2016 warriors (steph and dray) - 78 games
1996 bulls - 77 games
1997 bulls - all 82 games
1972 lakers - 77 games
1973 celtics - 80 games
1967 76ers - 79 games

so remarkable health. basically every team is getting 30 extra games from their top 2. and we can extend to the top 3 to look at that.

Missed games by top 3 players
2016 warriors - 6 total games (less than any rockets top 3 player missed individually)
1996 bulls - 23 games, basically all rodman so not much from the top 2
1997 bulls - 27 games, all rodman
1972 lakers - 7 games
1973 celtics - 2 games (!!)
1967 76ers - 4 games

so even out to 3 players, basically only dennis rodman ever misses games on any of these teams.

now it's looks a little less crazy once we get past these 6 teams, but again these are teams topping out at 67 wins, only 2 wins above the rockets.

2017 warriors - 60 games played by top 2 (steph and KD), but this is basically all because of KD only playing 61 games. steph plays 79, klay plays 78, draymond plays 76, iggy plays 74. so basically as good of health as possible (i'm guessing some of these missed games are just rest games) outside of 20 missed KD games for the most stacked roster ever. 29 missed games for the top 3 but 75% of them are just KD.

2016 spurs - a very deep and almost ensemble cast. duncan plays 61 games and ginobili plays 58 games, but the top 2 kawhi and aldridge play 74 and 72 and every other major contributor is in the high 70's or even up to 80.

2015 warriors - 77 games for the top 2, only 10 missed games by the top 3 (basically insane health from steph/klay/dray from 2015 to 2017)

2007 mavs - 77 games for top 2 (i think i had terry as the 2nd), 17 missed games by the top 3

2000 lakers - 64 games for the top 2 but this is basically all kobe missed games and kobe isn't even really kobe yet anyway. only 21 missed games for top 3, again basically all by kobe

1992 bulls - 80 games for the top 2, only 3 missed games by the top 3 (remarkably healthy run by the bulls as well as the warriors, also the 2 main dynasties of the last 35 years)

1986 celtics - 68 games for top 2 but it's all mchale missed games, only 15 missed by top 3 as bird and parish only miss 1 game combined

2013 heat - 68 games for the top 2, 27 missed by top 3, one of the lower teams and still 19 more games from their top 2, also only 1 more win than the rockets

2009 cavs - 81 games for the top 2, 20 missed by the top 3

2008 celtics - 71 games for the top 2, 22 missed by the top 3

1971 bucks - 81 games for the top 2, 4 missed by the top 3

2009 lakers - 81 games for the top 2, 5 missed by the top 3

1987 lakers - 80 games for the top 2, 6 missed by the top 3

1983 76ers - 68 games for the top 2, 17 missed by the top 3

2018 rockets - 49 games for the top 2, 42 missed by the top 3

so of these 20 other teams, 40% of them managed to have single digits missed games even if we go out to the top 3, literally having their top 3 miss fewer games than just capela's 8 games. only the best roster ever even comes sort of close to the rockets 49 games for their top duo, and then basically had perfect health outside of durant. and the 2000 lakers are the only other team within 15 games of the rockets, but shaq was by far the main guy and played 79 so not as bad as it looks. every other team is getting 19 extra games from their duo. 13 of the 20 got at least 77 games from their duo. what would that mean for the rockets? even if we just gave them 68 games. the rockets were 21-12 in the non-harden+cp3 games, a 63.6% winning percentage. even if we say the rockets 44-5 record and 74 win pace with harden and cp3 is obviously unsustainable, even if we just knock them down to a 64 win pace, in those 19 games they would go from 12-7 to 15-4. adding 3 wins, they are now a 68 win team. now tied for 5th best record ever. probably get the SRS up to top 15. give the harden/cp3 duo the 77 or 78 games other guys are getting, and it feels almost certain they get to 69 wins and tied for top 3.

and just to add, the rest of the rockets were not particularly healthy either. i didn't go through all of the teams above and don't want to be misleading, but there are a whole lot of 77 and 82 game seasons for the non-Top 3 as well. PJ Tucker played 82 games but after that no one else made it to 70 games. capela at 74 feels like one of the injured guys, but he's literally 2nd on the team in games played. harden at 72 games is 3rd. gordon is at 69, ariza is 67, anderson is 66, mbah-a-moute is 61 games. so the big 3 averaged 68 games played and the next 5 averaged 69.

i've mentioned this before, most great teams are great partially because they are just always healthy. the rockets were unhealthy but won a lot of games by basically just never losing when they actually were healthy.

Add in that we're talking about regular-season only with two players who don't exactly have a reputation for playoff improvement (fair or not) and two players who play a lot worse just one year later even with the same big 3... and it takes some of the shine off that stat.

ignoring that their lack of playoff improvement seems to be remarkably similar to people like steph and nash (harden actually goes up in +/=, RAPM, and team net rating), why don't we add in that we're obviously not talking regular season only? i mean, they actually played in the playoffs so i don't even know what your comment means. they were +12 and +14.5 in the first 2 rounds. is that fairly awesome? +15 in the first round the next year. are lots of non-great teams matching these numbers over 3 series? up 3-2 on the 2018 warriors. staying with 1.7 pp100 of the 2019 warriors, 6 pp100 better than any other opponent ever during the KD run. so when they weren't playing equal to another ATG team, they were playing like +14 basketball in the playoffs. did lots of other top 30 teams face other top 10 teams and beat them in the playoffs? i'm assuming no because then those teams probably wouldn't only be top 30 if they did.

The 2018 Rockets won 65 games. Then in 2019, with the same big 3 of Harden Paul and Capella, with Harden nominally getting a smidge better (and a young Capella being a year older which should hopefully partially balance out the aging of Paul), with the same coach and scheme, just with a little loss of depth (they lose Ariza, admittedly one of their better starts but far from a star, and Luc who's their 7th man)... they only manage 53 wins. They get a blazing hot 50-8 in games Paul played in 2018, but a much cooler (though still good) 39-19 (55 win pace) when Paul played in 2019. The team roster’s a bit worse in 2019, but it still does give credence to the idea that small sample noise/luck boosted their numbers a bit in the healthy-only regular-season-only 2018 team numbers. And if the team drops so much due to a few changes outside of Harden, that too gives credence to the idea that the apparent ceiling-raising was helped by factors outside of Harden, potentially moreso than some of the other players we’re ranking in this tier.

hmm, seems a bit disingenuous to call them only a bit worse. we could start or end with cp3 but let's end. the rockets #3 guy in minutes played in 2018 was ariza. he played 0 minutes for the 2019 rockets because the owner wanted luxury tax savings. The #7 guy luc played 0 minutes. even the #8 guy anderson played 0 minutes. the rockets replaced them with carmelo anthony and MCW. i don't go to many basketball games but we went to 2019 opening night for a work event. by halftime, i realized the team would do nothing until carmelo and MCW, the 2 big signings of the offseason, were out of the rotation. not "let's work around these guys", but they have to be off the team. luckily d'antoni and morey were quick on the draw to remove them, but carmelo played a staggering 30 mpg for 10 games and proved me right with a -18 on/off. MCW mercifully only played 150 minutes, but had a -29 on/off. outside of the main 5 of harden/cp3/gordon/tucker/capela, the next 9 guys on the team in minutes played were:

Gerald Green
Austin Rivers
Danuel House Jr
James Ennis III
Gary Clark
Kenneth Faried
Nene
Iman Shumpert
Melo

From those 9 guys, gerald green never played in the nba again, faried never played in the nba again, nene never played in the nba again, shumpert never played in the nba again, and melo did play again but couldn't get a job for the rest of the 2019 season because no one wanted him. i don't even remember who James Ennis and Gary Clark were but they barely played any more so that leaves us with House, who is most famous for getting kicked out of the bubble, and Austin Rivers, who at the point the rockets acquired him in 2019 was putting up a 6.8 PER, -0.014 WS48 (yeah, negative), -5.3 BPM season in washington. so the rockets went from a deep team to a team playing replacement players off the bench, and they only played replacement players because they signed sub-replacement players in the offseason and then dumped them for rivers and shumpert (shumpert's numbers were equally terrible as rivers before joining the rockets). and a bunch of guys who never played again.

and then of course cp3. who went from a 24.4 PER to a career low 19.7 (22.1 previous low in rookie season, 26.5 during 2008-2017 prime). went from 0.265 WS48 to a career low 0.172 (0.178 WS48 rookie year, 0.266 during his prime). went from a 7.1 BPM to a career low 3.9 (5.0 in 2nd season, 8.8 during his prime). cp3 didn't just decline a little. he fell apart before, by all accounts, taking his health much more seriously right after he left the best team he was ever on (seems like you'd want to take advantage of the 2018/2019 situation, but i'm not cp3). i'd say getting 58 games from chris paul's worst season ever (by a significant margin) and having replacement players on the bench is a much, much worse situation than the 2018 team, which had MVP-ish chris paul and went like 10 deep. even someone who was already older like nene had a substantial decline from 2018 to 2019. the fact that team finished the season 20-4, had a +15 first round, and played the warriors evenly should be a massive feather in harden's cap.

In terms of scalability concerns re: heliocentrism, well, yeah Harden upping his load to game-breaking levels and not really seeing any increase in his pure impact metrics is a concern. It may have been the best way for that team to win, but as D'Antoni has said, he designs his schemes to maximize the impact and winning of his players and teams... so Harden having lower impact numbers than some of the the competition (in this thread or in the ones just voted in ahead of him) in this scenario doesn't give a ton of confidence that Harden's the better player. He's close enough we can argue it and people may differ, but it is a legit concern.

i don't know what any of this means. in any other sporting situation, if the coach said "we're putting it all on this one guy" and the team had more success than it had ever had. everyone would be amazed at that guy. in any other walk of life, if an organization put it all on one person and then saw outsized success, everyone would be promoting that person and giving them bonuses and stock options and everything. harden does it and y'all are like "well, 99 pieces of evidence say it was remarkable, but this one piece of evidence that seeming inversely correlates to everything else, must be right". it's funny that a stat that is constantly cited like EPM has 2018/19/20 harden as #2/#1/#1 while someone like 2005/06/07 nash only cracks the top 5 once, but that also doesn't give us confidence harden was amazing.

It’s not that a younger Harden would have done better. It’s that as the team got better, as we added more talent around Harden, Harden’s impact dropped — which is exactly what bad scalability means!

Then we look at the chemistry and fit with costar Paul and it does leave a little to be desired. In 2018, they had a net rating of + 12.84 with Paul + Harden on, but a net rating of +12.37 with only Paul on, and a net rating of +8.64 with only Harden on. Really great stuff to reach +12, but a far cry from the +14 +16 or +18 that some pairings with great chemistry + all the things Harden had (depth, coaching, scheme) can reach. Compare the on-rating with them both vs just Paul, and it's a disappointingly small improvement adding Harden to Paul. Then comparing the Paul-only vs Harden-only lineups and Harden's disappointingly lower (against potentially more starting lineups, but still…). Then we look at the film, and they take a your-turn my-turn style of offense that doesn't suggest much chemistry as some costars, and we see that their rotations are separated by an unusual amount for costars, again suggesting a lack of additive chemistry... which gets harder in the playoffs, when the expectation is you'll be playing both your best players for most of the game so it gets harder to get dominance if they aren't additive on the floor together.

Adding in 2018-2019 and the trend continues. +9.14 Harden+Paul on, +10.41 Paul-only, +7.16 Harden-only. So they're actually worse with the two of them playing than Paul-only, and Paul-only lineups continue to look better than Harden-only (again potentially against more bench lineups which might shrink the concerns, but still).

What about chemistry with Cappella? Taking a larger sample over Harden's full 3-year peak now that we have it available, 18-20 Harden + Capella on are +7.25, Harden-only 6.97, Capella-only 1.94. So it's a tiny bit more additive this time, but still a pretty small improvement pairing the stars, and now we're far from the region of diminishing returns. Compared to AD... 20-22 LeBron + AD on are + 6.83, LeBron only 3.93, AD only -2.83 (oof). So AD looks less impactful, but more is a little more scalable (additive relative to his normal value), pretty much exactly like I predicted in my voting post.

so i think the problem, and i think this might be handed down from Ben Taylor when he introduced portability/scalability, is that you guys tend to treat it as an inherent quality of one player when it's an inherent quality of 2 players simultaneously. like should i be surprised steph and draymond are additive. one gets like 90% of his value on offense and the other 90% on defense. it would be shocking if they weren't additive. and draymond's one functional offensive skill is perfect for steph, to the point that steph sees his offensive performance boosted consistently and by a lot by a defensive guru like draymond, which is very unique. AD and lebron, manu and duncan. a defensive big and a dynamic offensive wing will always be more additive than something like lebron/wade, 2 guys exactly the same, even though both might blend better with plenty of other players.

harden and cp3 are all time point guards. from oscar to magic to stockton to nash to kidd, i can't think of basically any ATG point guards who didn't need to dominate the ball. since daryl morey couldn't exactly say "oh, all you have is super awesome, highly impactful cp3? but he and james aren't very additive, can i have another available superstar?", the rockets pretty much went in knowing it was going to be my turn/your turn. there wasn't really a different way for it to play out. luckily they both provided spacing for each other but it's not like they could be an offense/defense combo and with their size, neither could be a pick and roll partner for the other. they played my turn/your turn because that's what basically any similar players would do and it worked spectacularly.

[Cavsfansince84]

So, this perspective makes a lot of sense.

I do think there's a specific question about something like shooting in the Bubble though.

Which is fine but my post wasn't written particularly with AD in mind either. Just as a way how people keep wanting to normalize every peak season around surrounding seasons to such a degree when I think it's counterproductive to this project. A lot of people are treating this project like its a math problem to be solved.

[iggymcfrack]

... and his RAPM even beats Nash's if you include even one Dallas season in a 4 or 5 year RAPM sample.

Maybe I'm missing something but ... "if I purposefully don't pick the best sample but one an unstated amount worse for one of the players..." is that not what the above case is?

Just in terms of 4 year on-off every single 4-year Suns spell (all five of them) is better than going back and including the final Dallas year. So whilst that may not be true of RAPM (I don't know, and the later "On" gets weaker) ... "even one Dallas season" ... seems like a big ask if you're sincerely looking to compare players' best spells.

Like I say, perhaps I'm missing something.

I think when we’ve seen Nash in different systems and he’s SOOOOO much more impactful in one specific system that was tailored to him with an ahead of his time coach and a roster where he’s the only real playmaker than he was in other system, it makes sense to be a little skeptical. I think his poor defense and need to dominate the ball to show impact make it hard for him to scale up next to other elite talent. His actual value has to be somewhere between what he showed in Phoenix and what she showed in Dallas and LA.

Do you really think it’s just a super weird aging curve that made him elite from age 30-37 in Phoenix and not show any comparable impact before or after? We’ve seen Harden perform in a variety of roles and systems and be very effective. Nash probably has the biggest difference in performance I’ve seen for how a player did in one system vs. how he did in any other system, and he also has some of the biggest difference between his peak impact stats and his box stats. If there’s any player in NBA history where the context would make me question his peak impact stats, it’s Nash.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think when we’ve seen Nash in different systems and he’s SOOOOO much more impactful in one specific system that was tailored to him with an ahead of his time coach and a roster where he’s the only real playmaker than he was in other system, it makes sense to be a little skeptical. I think his poor defense and need to dominate the ball to show impact make it hard for him to scale up next to other elite talent. His actual value has to be somewhere between what he showed in Phoenix and what she showed in Dallas and LA.

Do you really think it’s just a super weird aging curve that made him elite from age 30-37 in Phoenix and not show any comparable impact before or after? We’ve seen Harden perform in a variety of roles and systems and be very effective. Nash probably has the biggest difference in performance I’ve seen for how a player did in one system vs. how he did in any other system, and he also has some of the biggest difference between his peak impact stats and his box stats. If there’s any player in NBA history where the context would make me question his peak impact stats, it’s Nash.

Nash didn't become a full time starter until 2001. So in those 4 years before going to Phx he led the #4, 1, 1, 1 ranked offenses. Is that not impact? Granted it's a bit easier to do that alongside a guy like Dirk but I think Nash more than did his job in Dallas. 9 straight years where teams he played on had a top 2 offense. I've also mentioned multiple times how Nash went all in on fitness/cardio when he went to Phx which is part of how he was able to get those results there.

[Owly]

... and his RAPM even beats Nash's if you include even one Dallas season in a 4 or 5 year RAPM sample.

Maybe I'm missing something but ... "if I purposefully don't pick the best sample but one an unstated amount worse for one of the players..." is that not what the above case is?

Just in terms of 4 year on-off every single 4-year Suns spell (all five of them) is better than going back and including the final Dallas year. So whilst that may not be true of RAPM (I don't know, and the later "On" gets weaker) ... "even one Dallas season" ... seems like a big ask if you're sincerely looking to compare players' best spells.

Like I say, perhaps I'm missing something.

I think when we’ve seen Nash in different systems and he’s SOOOOO much more impactful in one specific system that was tailored to him with an ahead of his time coach and a roster where he’s the only real playmaker than he was in other system, it makes sense to be a little skeptical. I think his poor defense and need to dominate the ball to show impact make it hard for him to scale up next to other elite talent. His actual value has to be somewhere between what he showed in Phoenix and what she showed in Dallas and LA.

Do you really think it’s just a super weird aging curve that made him elite from age 30-37 in Phoenix and not show any comparable impact before or after? We’ve seen Harden perform in a variety of roles and systems and be very effective. Nash probably has the biggest difference in performance I’ve seen for how a player did in one system vs. how he did in any other system, and he also has some of the biggest difference between his peak impact stats and his box stats. If there’s any player in NBA history where the context would make me question his peak impact stats, it’s Nash.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I was just wondering if there was a good reason for this ... I'm now even more doubtful.

Maybe I'm wrong in being persuaded that Nash was the core and the mind of that Phoenix system.

So my first instinct questions from this would be

Are you curving towards playoff success, deep runs as many seem to be? I'm not tracking every voters preferences, so maybe not. A lot of the early voting trended towards title-team players.
If yes, then how does this fit with penalizing a player for doing well in positive circumstances?

On the lines of reasoning offered though

I think when we’ve seen Nash in different systems and he’s SOOOOO much more impactful in one specific system that was tailored to him with an ahead of his time coach and a roster where he’s the only real playmaker than he was in other system

How many systems are we counting here, just to understand the framing? A personal taste aside but I trend a little ... skeptical ... on CAPS to make a point in general. My understanding is the core of the "one specific system is ..." often argued as get the ball up quickly, let Nash make decisions. Arguably a positive that a player does well when trusted to make decisions. "Only real playmaker" seems a stretch with Johnson and then Diaw. On D'Antoni (beyond above regarding system) ... it was replicated with Gentry once they realized Shaq wasn't the route to go down. How high one wants to go on D'Antoni is up for grabs (and some of his doesn't have to be zero-sum ... trusting a smart player to do smart things is ... smart even if perhaps you may only be enabling by not impeding) ... but it may potential ring a little hollow from anyone using Harden and any of his box-side numbers under that coach.

I think his poor defense and need to dominate the ball to show impact make it hard for him to scale up next to other elite talent.

My recollection of the older impact stuff suggested defensive weaknesses were somewhat overstated (and are baked into IRL impact). And given his smarts I'd argue they're the sort of relative weaknesses that could be covered, blended well with good defenders, good coaching, perhaps a rim-protector. And whilst at the margin there may be some scaling stuff ... the idea that your point guard who's having terrific impact playing on the ball and making decisions is a bad thing ... sits a touch uneasy. It's also possible some might lodge these criticisms at Harden.

His actual value has to be somewhere between what he showed in Phoenix and what she showed in Dallas and LA.

Wait ... LA is a significant part of your assessment of Nash. And specifically Nash at his peak?

Do you really think it’s just a super weird aging curve that made him elite from age 30-37 in Phoenix and not show any comparable impact before or after?

You want it after 37?

On before ... I'd argue it's largely moot for peaks unless everyone's getting this systematically, but one can debate rules changes (and how one accounts for this across eras), versus being given the keys to the offense, versus commitment to conditioning (and some may say pride, "I'll show you" as a motivator), versus did Dirk's primacy mute his offensive impact to why his impact signal was so much weaker in Dallas. Still I am inclined towards he largely was the system in Phoenix and that succeeded so whilst it probably has to take away from potential career accumulated value ... I'm not sure how much Dallas matters to his peak.

We’ve seen Harden perform in a variety of roles and systems and be very effective.

Fairly fuzzy so it somewhat depends what you mean. I really liked how final year OKC Harden was effective and impactful whilst he wasn't being given a lot of opportunity in terms of primacy. Still beyond that ... and whilst defensive concerns for him too were sometimes overblown ... it's not like he didn't like holding on to the ball. And on his best in-strong-prime chance, whilst injuries were a major blow and he faced elite opponents ... I think it's generally perceived that he and Paul didn't mix well and then Harden sought to move Paul on for a worse fit and worse player. He's a great player and absolutely worthy of contending here. Fwiw, to my knowledge barring some mental gymnastics I don't think he does have Nash's pure impact-side profile at apex but I'm not an expert.


IDK, I just kind of hoped there was something ... deeper to why we'd be using clearly lower level years versus another player's actual peak.

[eminence]

I get the want for replicability even for peak evaluation - but when it requires looking outside of an 8 year period... I think we've lost the plot.

It's not like Harden did anything outside of Houston (also 8 seasons) that would have anyone discussing him for this project. And that applies to a bunch of players.

[Doctor MJ]

... and his RAPM even beats Nash's if you include even one Dallas season in a 4 or 5 year RAPM sample.

Maybe I'm missing something but ... "if I purposefully don't pick the best sample but one an unstated amount worse for one of the players..." is that not what the above case is?

Just in terms of 4 year on-off every single 4-year Suns spell (all five of them) is better than going back and including the final Dallas year. So whilst that may not be true of RAPM (I don't know, and the later "On" gets weaker) ... "even one Dallas season" ... seems like a big ask if you're sincerely looking to compare players' best spells.

Like I say, perhaps I'm missing something.

I think when we’ve seen Nash in different systems and he’s SOOOOO much more impactful in one specific system that was tailored to him with an ahead of his time coach and a roster where he’s the only real playmaker than he was in other system, it makes sense to be a little skeptical. I think his poor defense and need to dominate the ball to show impact make it hard for him to scale up next to other elite talent. His actual value has to be somewhere between what he showed in Phoenix and what she showed in Dallas and LA.

Do you really think it’s just a super weird aging curve that made him elite from age 30-37 in Phoenix and not show any comparable impact before or after? We’ve seen Harden perform in a variety of roles and systems and be very effective. Nash probably has the biggest difference in performance I’ve seen for how a player did in one system vs. how he did in any other system, and he also has some of the biggest difference between his peak impact stats and his box stats. If there’s any player in NBA history where the context would make me question his peak impact stats, it’s Nash.

Hmm. So I get where you're coming from, but I'd disagree fundamentally.

If a coach goes and makes Shaq a 3-point shooter, he's going to drastically decrease Shaq's impact. Should we then try to judge Shaq's "value" as halfway between him being used like a dominant interior big and him being used like something he's awful at? I don't think anyone would say "Yes". The most pushback I could imagine is someone saying "That's not realistic because no coach is that dumb.", but this rebuttal falls apart when you chew on it. If we're judging players based on their talent being so obvious even an idiot coach won't misuse it, then we're literally punishing smart players for being smart. Why would we do that?

Re: think just a super weird aging curve that made Nash elite from 30-37? No I don't. I think it was coaches & GMs not being smart enough to do their job optimally. Not saying I would have done better, just saying, given what Nash proved himself capable of doing, he very clearly should have been seen as a big time prospect... but he wasn't.

RE: system. Such a problematic word because people are using it like it's some intricate super-plan that the players follow, but that's not what happened in Phoenix. As I've said before, what D'Antoni did with Nash is essentially just let him make all the decisions on the floor. He deserves credit for this, but it's not the same thing as if Nash were a puppet doing what he was told.

Re "if there's any player in history where context makes me question peak impact it's Nash". I mean I'd just say: You're not really thinking about context when you're factoring in a year of Nash in Dallas and pointing at what RAPM says. You're instead saying that if a player's value was dependent on context, then it wasn't really HIS value. You're trying to use a zero-sum method of value allocation wherein the possibility of a player not being able to give value in all contexts damns him... but you're not following through with this logic to all other players because there's not a stat like RAPM that let's you see it the same way, even though it really could be done with absolutely any player.

A player's value is dependent on how he's used. Take the world's best basketball decision maker - arguably Nash - and don't let him make as many decisions, and he won't be as valuable. Take the world's best 3-point shooter (obvs Steph) and don't let him shoot 3's, he won't be as valuable. Take the biggest, baddest mofo in the history of the NBA (arguably Shaq) and make him do anything on the perimeter, and he won't be as valuable.

And by that same token: Take the world's best drummer and make him sing, he won't be as good. Take the world's best chef and make him work short-order, he won't be as good. Take the world's best anything and make them do anything else, they won't be as good. We all know this and don't try to judge Einstein the theoretical physicist by how he'd do at experimental physics, writing calligraphy, or ballroom dancing, we judge him by what he could achieve if his gifts were properly made use of.

I would suggest, we shouldn't lose sight of this general norm we all follow without worry elsewhere, and if usage of a given stat is leading to do that, then we need to step back and ask ourselves why we don't see our approach as problematic.

[iggymcfrack]

Maybe I'm missing something but ... "if I purposefully don't pick the best sample but one an unstated amount worse for one of the players..." is that not what the above case is?

Just in terms of 4 year on-off every single 4-year Suns spell (all five of them) is better than going back and including the final Dallas year. So whilst that may not be true of RAPM (I don't know, and the later "On" gets weaker) ... "even one Dallas season" ... seems like a big ask if you're sincerely looking to compare players' best spells.

Like I say, perhaps I'm missing something.

I think when we’ve seen Nash in different systems and he’s SOOOOO much more impactful in one specific system that was tailored to him with an ahead of his time coach and a roster where he’s the only real playmaker than he was in other system, it makes sense to be a little skeptical. I think his poor defense and need to dominate the ball to show impact make it hard for him to scale up next to other elite talent. His actual value has to be somewhere between what he showed in Phoenix and what she showed in Dallas and LA.

Do you really think it’s just a super weird aging curve that made him elite from age 30-37 in Phoenix and not show any comparable impact before or after? We’ve seen Harden perform in a variety of roles and systems and be very effective. Nash probably has the biggest difference in performance I’ve seen for how a player did in one system vs. how he did in any other system, and he also has some of the biggest difference between his peak impact stats and his box stats. If there’s any player in NBA history where the context would make me question his peak impact stats, it’s Nash.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I was just wondering if there was a good reason for this ... I'm now even more doubtful.

Maybe I'm wrong in being persuaded that Nash was the core and the mind of that Phoenix system.

So my first instinct questions from this would be

Are you curving towards playoff success, deep runs as many seem to be? I'm not tracking every voters preferences, so maybe not. A lot of the early voting trended towards title-team players.
If yes, then how does this fit with penalizing a player for doing well in positive circumstances?

On the lines of reasoning offered though

I think when we’ve seen Nash in different systems and he’s SOOOOO much more impactful in one specific system that was tailored to him with an ahead of his time coach and a roster where he’s the only real playmaker than he was in other system

How many systems are we counting here, just to understand the framing? A personal taste aside but I trend a little ... skeptical ... on CAPS to make a point in general. My understanding is the core of the "one specific system is ..." often argued as get the ball up quickly, let Nash make decisions. Arguably a positive that a player does well when trusted to make decisions. "Only real playmaker" seems a stretch with Johnson and then Diaw. On D'Antoni (beyond above regarding system) ... it was replicated with Gentry once they realized Shaq wasn't the route to go down. How high one wants to go on D'Antoni is up for grabs (and some of his doesn't have to be zero-sum ... trusting a smart player to do smart things is ... smart even if perhaps you may only be enabling by not impeding) ... but it may potential ring a little hollow from anyone using Harden and any of his box-side numbers under that coach.

I think his poor defense and need to dominate the ball to show impact make it hard for him to scale up next to other elite talent.

My recollection of the older impact stuff suggested defensive weaknesses were somewhat overstated (and are baked into IRL impact). And given his smarts I'd argue they're the sort of relative weaknesses that could be covered, blended well with good defenders, good coaching, perhaps a rim-protector. And whilst at the margin there may be some scaling stuff ... the idea that your point guard who's having terrific impact playing on the ball and making decisions is a bad thing ... sits a touch uneasy. It's also possible some might lodge these criticisms at Harden.

His actual value has to be somewhere between what he showed in Phoenix and what she showed in Dallas and LA.

Wait ... LA is a significant part of your assessment of Nash. And specifically Nash at his peak?

Do you really think it’s just a super weird aging curve that made him elite from age 30-37 in Phoenix and not show any comparable impact before or after?

You want it after 37?

On before ... I'd argue it's largely moot for peaks unless everyone's getting this systematically, but one can debate rules changes (and how one accounts for this across eras), versus being given the keys to the offense, versus commitment to conditioning (and some may say pride, "I'll show you" as a motivator), versus did Dirk's primacy mute his offensive impact to why his impact signal was so much weaker in Dallas. Still I am inclined towards he largely was the system in Phoenix and that succeeded so whilst it probably has to take away from potential career accumulated value ... I'm not sure how much Dallas matters to his peak.

We’ve seen Harden perform in a variety of roles and systems and be very effective.

Fairly fuzzy so it somewhat depends what you mean. I really liked how final year OKC Harden was effective and impactful whilst he wasn't being given a lot of opportunity in terms of primacy. Still beyond that ... and whilst defensive concerns for him too were sometimes overblown ... it's not like he didn't like holding on to the ball. And on his best in-strong-prime chance, whilst injuries were a major blow and he faced elite opponents ... I think it's generally perceived that he and Paul didn't mix well and then Harden sought to move Paul on for a worse fit and worse player. He's a great player and absolutely worthy of contending here. Fwiw, to my knowledge barring some mental gymnastics I don't think he does have Nash's pure impact-side profile at apex but I'm not an expert.


IDK, I just kind of hoped there was something ... deeper to why we'd be using clearly lower level years versus another player's actual peak.

At age 37 in Phoenix, Nash has much better impact numbers than he did in any of his 24-29 seasons in Dallas. At age 38 in Los Angeles, he’s completely washed and a shell of himself. Yes, I absolutely think that’s relevant!

Look at these 2 year RAPMs:

Last 2 years in Dallas (age 28-29): -0.6 (177th in the league)

First 2 years in Phoenix: (age 30-31): 6.1 (3rd in the league)

Last 2 years in Phoenix (age 36-37): 4.0 (15th in the league)

2 years in Los Angeles (age 38-39): -1.5 (357th in the league)

I don’t see how that doesn’t give you any pause. If his RAPM was negative immediately surrounding these Phoenix years where he’s always top 20, AND the box numbers and hybrid systems all suggest he’s not as good as the impact stats would suggest, I don’t see how you can just take them as gospel.

[Cavsfansince84]

At age 37 in Phoenix, Nash has much better impact numbers than he did in any of his 24-29 seasons in Dallas. At age 38 in Los Angeles, he’s completely washed and a shell of himself. Yes, I absolutely think that’s relevant!

Look at these 2 year RAPMs:

Last 2 years in Dallas (age 28-29): -0.6 (177th in the league)

First 2 years in Phoenix: (age 30-31): 6.1 (3rd in the league)

Last 2 years in Phoenix (age 36-37): 4.0 (15th in the league)

2 years in Los Angeles (age 38-39): -1.5 (357th in the league)

I don’t see how that doesn’t give you any pause. If his RAPM was negative immediately surrounding these Phoenix years where he’s always top 20, AND the box numbers and hybrid systems all suggest he’s not as good as the impact stats would suggest, I don’t see how you can just take them as gospel.

What about things like Phx adding 33 wins in year 1? All the top 1-2 offenses? All the 60+ win seasons? There's a lot more that has to be thrown out the window to think of Nash as less than what he's being made out to be than just rapm variance between Phx and Dallas. There's an awful lot of stuff which points to him having very strong impact on a bb court. Not to even mention the 50/40/90 and 5x leading the league in apg part of it.