RealGM

Wow this will be an interesting run off!

Run-off vote: James Harden

He's adding MVP season after MVP season.

Offensive impact is tremendous. Great scorer, very good playmaker. Honestly I feel he might even be lower on the list than he should be getting voted in now.

Nate was a great player but I wouldn't trust him as much as a franchise player as I do with Harden.

penbeast0 wrote:Wasn't speaking of everything, just that one film when I broke it down. Presumably his line for the rest of the game was far superior because other than those out of bounds passes, his offense that quarter was not good.

Interesting, because I saw a lot of positives.

Vote: James Harden

Tough one. Both are absolutely deserving of the spot.

I just think Harden is more exceptional. I have my criticisms of the man, but I have to say he has a unique basketball intellect to him. No one's ever played like Harden plays, and the way Harden plays is devastating in its effectiveness.

Runoff Vote: James Harden

Thurmond is up and coming in my votes, but Harden is frankly too good to be at this level. He dropped off in part because of his defense, but I am frankly not convinced it hurts his team more than someone like Nash, who I championed in the 20's. His playoff record has a couple holes here and there, but he's also been markedly consistent depending on the playoff series and season we're looking at. He's very clearly in the middle of a fantastic superstar run and well on the pace to being Top 20-30 all time, and even now he's borderline Top 50. He's another level of great in comparison to Thurmond, and at this point I am more than willing to ignore the fact that he's only in his 9th season.

Vote Nate Thurmond

Thurmond has such high defensive impact that he only needs to be decent on offense to be a great player, and his longevity is much better than Harden's

Outside wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Wasn't speaking of everything, just that one film when I broke it down. Presumably his line for the rest of the game was far superior because other than those out of bounds passes, his offense that quarter was not good.

Interesting, because I saw a lot of positives.

He was a willing pick setter and had good mechanics on the picks, he had two good shots, one a fallaway from the baseline and one nice dunk, no turnovers trying to be a hero which is a good thing too.

penbeast0 wrote:

Outside wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Wasn't speaking of everything, just that one film when I broke it down. Presumably his line for the rest of the game was far superior because other than those out of bounds passes, his offense that quarter was not good.

Interesting, because I saw a lot of positives.

He was a willing pick setter and had good mechanics on the picks, he had two good shots, one a fallaway from the baseline and one nice dunk, no turnovers trying to be a hero which is a good thing too.

On a side note, I saw a lot of turnovers from other players who tried to force passes into tight windows, some of which seemed to have a really small chance of success. It's one of the many areas where the game has evolved, where now taking care of the ball and valuing possessions is a point of emphasis. I've always been curious about the pace of that era, why the stats show it was so high when I watch the games and it's not like it's ping pong with the teams going back and forth at breakneck speed; the Suns "seven seconds or less" teams seem like they went just as fast, and I've heard that today's teams play at a faster pace than those Suns on average.

Anyway, watching this video made me think that turnovers might be a significant factor in the pace stats from the 60s, because pace is a measure of how many possessions a team has per game, and if they throw the ball away more frequently, that would inflate the pace numbers. The NBA didn't record turnovers until 1977-78, so the info isn't available.

I think you have a good point. I see a lot of turnovers and attempts to force assists in most of those games, even from players like Jeff Mullins in that game who have a reputation as being very fundamentally sound.

Votes now stand at Harden 6, Thurmond 4; calling it for Harden.