RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #19 (George Mikan)

[Magic Is Magic]

Voting for the #19 spot:

1. Kevin Durant
2. Charles Barkley
3. Moses Malone

1. I really dislike Kevin Durant's move in 2017 but his overall resume is hard to ignore. 4x Scoring Champion, MVP, 4 Finals, 2 Finals MVPs, 11-straight seasons of 25 ppg or more, 10x All Star (approaching Oscar level who had 12), ROY. KD has averaged 25 ppg or higher every single playoff run and has one of the top 6 all time Finals when ranked by Game Score. He is 14th all time in MVP win shares, 10th all time in playoff points. Again, strongly dislike his move in 2017 but the rest is hard to ignore. I don't think any player not already included in the top 14 has that resume to match up with him.

-Top 10 all time playoff scoring (every one ahead of him in playoff points is already ranked ahead of him except for Tony Parker but KD will pass TP in his next playoff run in 2021 meaning he will be at least top 9 all time in playoff scoring)
-11-straight 25 ppg seasons
-EVERY playoff run is 25 ppg or higher
-4 Scoring Titles
-4 Finals
-2 Finals MVPs
-1 Regular season MVP
-No one else is close offensively if you ask me, and probably not even remotely close. He has that uncanny ability to pull off a 30 ppg 50/40/90 season, something that very few have ever been able to do



2. Charles Barkley. Sir Charles is a legend, but a ringless legend! If he had actually won a championship he would be much higher up but I also find it very hard to make the top 15 without a championship when so many other ATGs were able to win at least one ring. He is an 11x All-Star, 11x All NBA, 1993 MVP and had a brilliant Finals performance too. He also has the only single playoff game in league history with a Game Score over 50.0 (1994, WC1). Charles' rebounding ability was also on another level, especially for his height, and he is a respectable top 25 in MVP win shares (Karl Malone is #8). I think 1993 is the one year where Jordan truly stopped someone from winning a championship because Barkley was on a roll and probably not losing to anybody except an all-time performance by MJ where had to average 40 ppg for the series to beat Chuck's Suns.

3. Moses Malone with nearly 30k points is huge! He is sitting at 9th all time at 27,409 which is a big accomplishment no doubt about it. Plus him being top 30 in playoff rebounds is notable as is his 3x MVP which is another big accomplishment. Come to think of it, there aren't any other 3x MVP winners that aren't already ranked in this discussion (LBJ, MJ, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, Russell off the top of my mind). Lastly, you can't talk about all time great playoff runs without mentioning that 1983 run. That 76ers run is one of very few to win a championship while only losing 1 game along the way. The others that come to mind are the 2001 Lakers and 2017 Warriors. Which means Moses is one of only three teams to ever do it! (albeit the 76ers was 12-1, not 15-1 LAL or 16-1 GSW).

[Magic Is Magic]

1st vote: Chris Paul
I think Paul suffers severely in the esteems of the media and casual fans alike because he's a pass-first PG (which limits ppg), because he's not been to the finals, and a relative lack of flash.
But this is a player who is 9th all-time in career PER (despite a career lasting 15 seasons, >1000 games, >35,000 minutes), 14th in WS (12th in NBA-only careers), and 7th in VORP.
In the playoffs he's got the 10th-best career PER of all-time (ahead of contemporaries like Dirk, Kawhi, Steph Curry, and James Harden), as well as being 34th in WS and 24th in VORP (despite never making a run as deep as the finals).

In terms of impact, his best 10 years RAPM added is 5th among those players we have the data for. Only Lebron, Garnett, Duncan, and Shaq exceed him in this (all of them already voted in, the nearest being 8 places ago)......which means he's AHEAD of contemporaries like Dirk and Wade. He's also ahead of the best 10-years of Charles Barkley, fwiw (and we have some pseudo-RAPM going back as far as '88 for Barkley).

While I think Paul's fallen slightly short of the offensive peaks attained by Nash or Magic (I think his relative conservatism holds him back), it's notable that he combines the offense he does provide [GOAT-tier mid-range shooting, GOAT-tier turnover economy] with frequently being one of the best defensive PG's of his generation: he's short, but thick, strong, and aggressive. He's not easily abused even by bigger guards, doesn't die on screens, is persistently pesky on ball [with quick hands], and is impeccable in his positioning to interfere with the slip pass on pnr defense. Rebounds reasonably well for his size, too (obviously well shy of Magic in this regard, not that Magic is on the table for comparison presently).


2nd vote: Charles Barkley
One of the greatest offensive forwards ever, imo. Led THE LEAGUE in TS% for four consecutive years while averaging anywhere from 23-28.3 ppg. Multiple other high scoring seasons at ~60+% TS, and a career 12.5% OREB% (once led the league in this as well [in the same year he led the league in TS%]), as well as being a more than capable passing forward. Just a tremendous [GOAT-tier] foul-draw capacity, devastating finisher (both in the half-court and in transition), excellent at passing out of doubles, and capable of taking the point on the fast-break.
You watch young Barkley and you see one of the most uniquely athletic players of all-time. Only 6'5", but long arms, strong as a bull, fast in the open court, and able to explode almost effortlessly from a two-footed jump.

Barkley ticks most of the "accomplishment" boxes, except for having a title; but that's hardly a requisite [imo] at this stage of the list.
His biggest weaknesses are that he didn't take care of himself tremendously well (but he still played >39,000 minutes in 16 seasons), and his defensive shortcomings by the mid-point of his career and after are at times glaring.
But still a worthy candidate at this stage.


3rd vote: John Stockton
I'll keep it short 'cause I'm out of time. Yeah, meaningful longevity matters to me: Stockton was valuable (almost a borderline All-Star calibre player) even in his 19th and final season (every metric, including the impact variety, bare this to be true).
So clever (and dirty), particularly defensively, excellent shooter, fantastic [if a touch overly "safe"] passer; and bloody tough as nails.
I imagine I'll be championing him for awhile before others are willing to give him votes, so I'll have to work up some more extensive arguments at a later time.


Anticipating where the vote for this thread may go (so I'm not ghosted away), if it comes to Mikan vs Durant and my vote is needed as a potential tie-breaker, I go with Durant. I'll also go with Moses over Mikan.
If it comes to Durant vs Moses.....that one I'll have to think about.

Chris Paul is hard to rank for me but he is definitely getting up there in this discussion discussion. You put CP3 over Kevin Durant though?

[colts18]

I don't see nash above Stockton. Old Stockton was a better player than Dallas/Phoenix Nash from 96-03. They were playing at the same time during the most physical defensive-oriented era in history and Stockton was shining over Nash. If you put Stockton on the D'Antoni Suns, I believe that he would be an MVP also. His shooting was on par with Nash.

I don't see Steve Nash having the same impact in Jerry Sloan's system being the #2 behind Karl Malone in a slow offense in a defensive era.

Alright, so I'll make bring up some points here for people to chew on in the other direction. I don't really want to make an argument why someone has to have Nash over Stockton because I can certainly see reasonable people disagreeing here.

First thing, you're dismissing basically Nash's entire Dallas career. That Dallas team was the best offense in the world Nash's last 3 years there with Nash being #2 guy in on-court ORtg in the entire league behind teammate Dirk. How are those years being dismissed? It's one thing to say that Nash wasn't an MVP candidate that year and quite another to talk as if it's nothing.

I'll add that Nash was 9th in the league in ORtg, and first on the Mavs the, the previous year in '00-01. Basically all 4 years in Dallas he put up numbers that basically look like Nash starter numbers, he was a world class offensive player in terms of his impact, and there's good reason to think he could have been having even more had the SSOL just come earlier.

So that leaves Nash in his first 4 years as really the only thing left to explain, but let's note that Stockton doesn't really get going until his 4th year himself, so we're really just talking about a 1 year prime duration edge up front by Stockton to go along with however you see the backend. Stockton absolutely was good until an older age, but Nash was the most effective offensive player in the league until the age of 36 and like Stockton was named all-star his last time at age 37.

Back to those first 4 years:

The 3rd & 4th were disappointing ones in Dallas during which Nash was injury-plagued. It's worth noting those years were disappointing at the time specifically because there was some buzz around Nash that he didn't live up to until after those first couple stumbles in Dallas. And where did the buzz come from?

People were very impressed by how Nash played in Phoenix the first time around. There were people on the staff who thought it was a mistake to trade Nash instead of Kidd, and some of these people were among those pushing to get him back circa 2004. The fact that Nash was a comparable passer to Kidd and a far greater shooter was clear. What was not clear to probably anyone back then, was that the team was doing better with Nash on the floor than Kidd.

It's sometimes brought up in analyzing '98-99, Kidd's Phoenix peak, that he had mammoth on/off numbers. "The team fell apart without him!" Well, that only happened because they didn't have Nash any more, because the previous year Steve Nash led the team in +/- despite playing less minutes than Kidd.

What all this means, as I see it, is that there's actually pretty good reason to think that Nash wasn't really a late bloomer in terms of his capabilities. Had he been handed the reins in Phoenix as a rookie, I think he blossoms early. But he wasn't, and then he got hurt. When he finally became an all-star, he was still seen as a secondary star for years more. That, along with his appearance tricked us all into thinking he wasn't capable of more.

For the record, I have analogous feelings about Stockton's arc. I think Stockton could have been leading the league in assists considerably earlier too.

I'm not questioning Nash's offensive impact. All I'm saying is you can't analyze Nash's impact without mentioning the Offensive environment he played in. Nash's prime came in Mike D'Antoni's system which emphasized Offense by sacrificing defense. The same thing in Dallas with Nellie, another offensive minded coach. He played in a system that played to his strengths. The Suns played at a high pace, shot an absurd amount of 3 pointers, and he played after the handchecking ban came into effect.

Stockton's prime otoh came during handchecking, in a slow offense, and with oaf centers clogging the basket (Ostertag and Eaton).

Do you know where the Jazz were ranked in 3 point attempts during their 2 finals years? Last place both seasons even though they shot well from deep. Despite that, the Jazz finished 2nd and 1st in O rating. In 97, the Jazz shot just 11 3 Pointers per game with a shortened line. In 1998, they shot a measly 8 3 pointers per game. It was absurd how Jerry Sloan was holding back the Jazz from shooting 3's. Stockton was shooting just 2.2 3 pointers even though he was shooting over 42% from 3 and the line was shortened that year. Freakin Gary Payton was shooting over Double the amount 3 pointers and barely hitting above 30%. Their Pace in 1998 was 90 during those years, very slow.

Compare that to Nash's MVP 2005 year. The Suns were 1st in 3 point attempts at 24 per game (3x as many as the 98 Jazz). They played at a 96 pace, 1st in the league.

How does Nash do in an offense where he isn't allowed to shoot as many 3's, his teammates don't shoot 3s, the pace is slowed to a crawl, he has Greg Ostertag clogging up the paint, and teams are allowed to be physical with him? He would struggle. And that's what happened when Nash played from 96-2000.

How would John Stockton fare if his coach allowed him to release the shackles, shoot 3s, play with 4 3 point threats spacing the floor, no handcheck, with an uptempo offense? He would thrive in that scenario.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not questioning Nash's offensive impact. All I'm saying is you can't analyze Nash's impact without mentioning the Offensive environment he played in. Nash's prime came in Mike D'Antoni's system which emphasized Offense by sacrificing defense. The same thing in Dallas with Nellie, another offensive minded coach. He played in a system that played to his strengths. The Suns played at a high pace, shot an absurd amount of 3 pointers, and he played after the handchecking ban came into effect.

Stockton's prime otoh came during handchecking, in a slow offense, and with oaf centers clogging the basket (Ostertag and Eaton).

Do you know where the Jazz were ranked in 3 point attempts during their 2 finals years? Last place both seasons even though they shot well from deep. Despite that, the Jazz finished 2nd and 1st in O rating. In 97, the Jazz shot just 11 3 Pointers per game with a shortened line. In 1998, they shot a measly 8 3 pointers per game. It was absurd how Jerry Sloan was holding back the Jazz from shooting 3's. Stockton was shooting just 2.2 3 pointers even though he was shooting over 42% from 3 and the line was shortened that year. Freakin Gary Payton was shooting over Double the amount 3 pointers and barely hitting above 30%. Their Pace in 1998 was 90 during those years, very slow.

Compare that to Nash's MVP 2005 year. The Suns were 1st in 3 point attempts at 24 per game (3x as many as the 98 Jazz). They played at a 96 pace, 1st in the league.

How does Nash do in an offense where he isn't allowed to shoot as many 3's, his teammates don't shoot 3s, the pace is slowed to a crawl, he has Greg Ostertag clogging up the paint, and teams are allowed to be physical with him? He would struggle. And that's what happened when Nash played from 96-2000.

How would John Stockton fare if his coach allowed him to release the shackles, shoot 3s, play with 4 3 point threats spacing the floor, no handcheck, with an uptempo offense? He would thrive in that scenario.

I'm all for asking how Stockton would do in a D'Antoni-like situation. I'm less interested in asking how Nash would do with a dumber coach because I see "good coaching" here as essentially just a) use strategy we now see as obviously correct and b) letting make the on-court decisions.

I don't see Stockton as having demonstrated the ability to do what Nash did.

I don't think Stockton was the same level of shooter as Nash. Nash was a drastically superior free throw shooter, more established shooting 3's at greater volume, and far more comfortable shooting basically anywhere in the half court with his arsenal of floaters and off-balanced shots.

I don't think Stockton was the same level of passer as Nash. You can argue that they were comparable in transition and that Stockton wasn't given the same chance to improvise in the half court, but Stockton wasn't probing and manipulating the defense on the regular like Nash was, and Nash was doing that long before his MVP season.

[WestGOAT]

I'm not questioning Nash's offensive impact. All I'm saying is you can't analyze Nash's impact without mentioning the Offensive environment he played in. Nash's prime came in Mike D'Antoni's system which emphasized Offense by sacrificing defense. The same thing in Dallas with Nellie, another offensive minded coach. He played in a system that played to his strengths. The Suns played at a high pace, shot an absurd amount of 3 pointers, and he played after the handchecking ban came into effect.

Stockton's prime otoh came during handchecking, in a slow offense, and with oaf centers clogging the basket (Ostertag and Eaton).

Do you know where the Jazz were ranked in 3 point attempts during their 2 finals years? Last place both seasons even though they shot well from deep. Despite that, the Jazz finished 2nd and 1st in O rating. In 97, the Jazz shot just 11 3 Pointers per game with a shortened line. In 1998, they shot a measly 8 3 pointers per game. It was absurd how Jerry Sloan was holding back the Jazz from shooting 3's. Stockton was shooting just 2.2 3 pointers even though he was shooting over 42% from 3 and the line was shortened that year. Freakin Gary Payton was shooting over Double the amount 3 pointers and barely hitting above 30%. Their Pace in 1998 was 90 during those years, very slow.

Compare that to Nash's MVP 2005 year. The Suns were 1st in 3 point attempts at 24 per game (3x as many as the 98 Jazz). They played at a 96 pace, 1st in the league.

How does Nash do in an offense where he isn't allowed to shoot as many 3's, his teammates don't shoot 3s, the pace is slowed to a crawl, he has Greg Ostertag clogging up the paint, and teams are allowed to be physical with him? He would struggle. And that's what happened when Nash played from 96-2000.

How would John Stockton fare if his coach allowed him to release the shackles, shoot 3s, play with 4 3 point threats spacing the floor, no handcheck, with an uptempo offense? He would thrive in that scenario.

I'm all for asking how Stockton would do in a D'Antoni-like situation. I'm less interested in asking how Nash would do with a dumber coach because I see "good coaching" here as essentially just a) use strategy we now see as obviously correct and b) letting make the on-court decisions.

I don't see Stockton as having demonstrated the ability to do what Nash did.

I don't think Stockton was the same level of shooter as Nash. Nash was a drastically superior free throw shooter, more established shooting 3's at greater volume, and far more comfortable shooting basically anywhere in the half court with his arsenal of floaters and off-balanced shots.

I don't think Stockton was the same level of passer as Nash. You can argue that they were comparable in transition and that Stockton wasn't given the same chance to improvise in the half court, but Stockton wasn't probing and manipulating the defense on the regular like Nash was, and Nash was doing that long before his MVP season.

RS = Regular season
PS = Post season
PTS = Points
TSA = True Shots attempt



I will never understand why people think that Stockton could easily elevate his scoring game if he played in a different system, considering most of the times the Jazz came short in the playoffs he simply did not shoot enough. What does godly TS% matter on relatively low volume when your teammates cannot buy a bucket? I think it's too convenient to hide by the excuse "it is simply the system he played in". I realize 88-98 might be too broad for Stockton, so maybe I'll crunch the 88-93 numbers myself one day.

Yes there are some exceptions like against the Warriors and Lakers in the late 80's, but they are what they are; exceptions/cherry-picking.

And not to mention that PG defence is over-glorified here. Unless a PG can guard wing players, like Payton and Marcus Smart could do, the extra defence provided is just a nice bonus to have, and nothing game-changing. How valuable was Stockton's defence when he got lit up by Terry Porter (twice) and also did not fare well at all against Kenny Smith (twice).

[70sFan]

1990s Jazz offenses didn't struggle in postseason, this is a myth.

[Dutchball97]

It's been a while since I've had to include a new playerbin my ballot so I'll have to look at it for a bit. I'm mainly going to be looking at Barkley or Moses, I'm open for arguments on these guys as they are pretty difficult to compare imo. I'm also thinking about voting Wade but he doesn't seem to get much traction yet so that might be another wasted vote right now.

[70sFan]

It's been a while since I've had to include a new playerbin my ballot so I'll have to look at it for a bit. I'm mainly going to be looking at Barkley or Moses, I'm open for arguments on these guys as they are pretty difficult to compare imo. I'm also thinking about voting Wade but he doesn't seem to get much traction yet so that might be another wasted vote right now.

I think that Durant, Barkley, Moses, Nash (maybe Paul?) should be next guys. I don't like Curry or Wade argument because their relevant careers are so short, but if you don't mind about that then they are also there. I can also see Pettit fighting for spots here, but his longevity is not amazing either (only slightly better than Durant).

Anyway:

Mikan
Pettit
Moses
Barkley
Nash
Wade
Paul
Durant
Curry

are the next tier in my opinion and I don't have anyone else here. Stockton's longevity is amazing, but I'd have him slightly below them.

[zonedefense]

I see that the PG debate is starting to get more intense. Really interested to hear the cases for CP3, Curry, Stockton, Nash, Kidd and Thomas.

[penbeast0]

Well, for a start Walt Frazier is clearly superior to Kidd and Thomas in my book so I think you've a couple of the wrong guys up there. Payton is probably up there too but I'll start with the argument for Frazier over either.

Kidd's poor shooting early on limits him quite a bit; he was a contender for GOAT rebounding PG and for GOAT defensive PG (of course, so was Frazier) but Frazier was one of the most dangerous scorers in the league while Kidd was enough of a weakness that teams would sag and double off him. I also think Kidd's passing gets overrated a bit, compare him to Nash where they both played with some of the same people and you can see a huge difference. As for Isiah, the argument is that he put up big pts/ast numbers before the Pistons became good and was the leader of the two Piston titles; of course Frazier put up better scoring numbers when you take efficiency (especially relative to the league) and his offenses were better (though I would argue the offensive personnel around him was better too). His offenses weren't designed for him to be ball dominant and get lots of assists so he gets underrated as a floor general. I will say that people underrate Isiah as a defender from what I saw; I thought Isiah was better on ball than, say, John Stockton but Stockton's steal numbers got him some All-D awards and Isiah was never talked about in that category. Still, compared to Frazier, Isiah is clearly levels down defensively.

And so it comes down to (a) short prime and (b) playing in the 70s. I can see arguments there (though the 80s gets overrated compared to eras other than the 70s) but I have Clyde clearly over either Kidd or Isiah and closer to guys like Chris Paul.

[70sFan]

Yeah, I don't see Thomas and Kidd arguments for being this high either. They just weren't good enough offensively to be considered top 25 players ever and in Thomas case, he doesn't bring anything valuable on defense either.

If we're just talking about PG debate, then I agree with penbeast that Frazier should be above some of these names.

[Dutchball97]

It's been a while since I've had to include a new playerbin my ballot so I'll have to look at it for a bit. I'm mainly going to be looking at Barkley or Moses, I'm open for arguments on these guys as they are pretty difficult to compare imo. I'm also thinking about voting Wade but he doesn't seem to get much traction yet so that might be another wasted vote right now.

I think that Durant, Barkley, Moses, Nash (maybe Paul?) should be next guys. I don't like Curry or Wade argument because their relevant careers are so short, but if you don't mind about that then they are also there. I can also see Pettit fighting for spots here, but his longevity is not amazing either (only slightly better than Durant).

Anyway:

Mikan
Pettit
Moses
Barkley
Nash
Wade
Paul
Durant
Curry

are the next tier in my opinion and I don't have anyone else here. Stockton's longevity is amazing, but I'd have him slightly below them.

Yeah this is exactly how I'm looking at it as well. I don't think Curry and Wade lack longevity but I understand if others prefer guys with longer primes.

[Whopper_Sr]

My choices are the same and most likely won't be considering anyone else until at least 2 of them get voted in. Now that Dr. J and Admiral are off the board, it's even more clear cut.

In short, Paul/Nash/Curry are/were elite enough on offense that the advantages in other areas for the other candidates don't quite offset the gap on offense.

Among the next group of candidates, I'm liking Barkley the most so far.

1. Chris Paul
2. Steve Nash
3. Stephen Curry

[trex_8063]

So i’m curious to how much Chris Paul’s habitual playoff injuries play a role in his ranking to you. He seemed to get hurt every other year and often in at critical times.

2009- Got hurt player like garbage in a first round exit
2010- Hurt in the regular season no playoffs for him
2012- Got hurt played like garbage against the Spurs in an embarrassing sweep
2014- Pulled a hamstring and went to 7 against the Warriors when that series shouldn’t have went past 5 or 6 games tops
2015- Got hurt missed 2 games against the Rockets and blew an embarrassing 3-1 lead
2016- Got hurt and missed 2 games in a highly favored series for them
2018- Missed 2 critical games blowing a 3-2 lead which would’ve taken them to the finals and a likely championship.

Chris Paul’s resume is littered with a bunch of injuries and blotched series in his prime. At what point do we stop acting like none of this matters and just cite his box scores and put a blanket over his injuries, as if durabilty and availability in the playoffs isn’t a big deal?

This crap has gotten so ridiculous when it comes to him.

I largely agree with your points here. There's only so much I can reward him for being top 10 in all these rs metrics every year. Plus the fact he's only played in 70 or more rs games 8 times in 15 years. Maybe its bad luck to some degree but I can't reward him for it. Durability is something of a tangible thing and having it does count for something in my mind.

Small nit to pick: I think it would be more appropriate to say he played 70+ games NINE times in 15 years (you're counting '12 as one of the years where he fell short: a year where NO ONE played 70 games [because the season was only 66 games]; pro-rated to a full year he was on pace for 74-75 games).

I hope the same criticism is applied in extra portion to Kawhi Leonard when the time comes: he's managed 70+ games just three times in 9 seasons (and that's prorating '12 and '20 to full-length seasons); managed <10 games one year.

I'll try to respond to the rest later....

[Joao Saraiva]

Votes
Moses Malone
Kevin Durant
Steph Curry

I'll start saying Moses has very good longevity, with 13 seasons I consider him a star in the league.

Definitely one of the faces of the league in the late 70s and early 80s, he was an offensive force. Both his scoring and offensive rebounding were very good, and given the way the game was played back then it made him a major offensive weapon.

On defensive he could have been better, but during his best years he was still a good player in that regard.

Good playoff performer overall, even tough not as consistent as Dr. J (and that's why I gave Doc my vote on the last thread), more longevity than KD, and an historic part of the team 83 team when he won the ring. For a team to show domination like they did it has something to do with him and Dr. J definitely being great players. I give them a ton of credit for coexisting and making that super historic run.

Had Moses been a better playmaker than he was and I'd consider giving him a top 15 spot. Since he wasn't, I feel top 20 is about right for him for now. Can see Steph and KD taking his spot once he we redo this proejct again.

[Joao Saraiva]

I'm not questioning Nash's offensive impact. All I'm saying is you can't analyze Nash's impact without mentioning the Offensive environment he played in. Nash's prime came in Mike D'Antoni's system which emphasized Offense by sacrificing defense. The same thing in Dallas with Nellie, another offensive minded coach. He played in a system that played to his strengths. The Suns played at a high pace, shot an absurd amount of 3 pointers, and he played after the handchecking ban came into effect.

Stockton's prime otoh came during handchecking, in a slow offense, and with oaf centers clogging the basket (Ostertag and Eaton).

Do you know where the Jazz were ranked in 3 point attempts during their 2 finals years? Last place both seasons even though they shot well from deep. Despite that, the Jazz finished 2nd and 1st in O rating. In 97, the Jazz shot just 11 3 Pointers per game with a shortened line. In 1998, they shot a measly 8 3 pointers per game. It was absurd how Jerry Sloan was holding back the Jazz from shooting 3's. Stockton was shooting just 2.2 3 pointers even though he was shooting over 42% from 3 and the line was shortened that year. Freakin Gary Payton was shooting over Double the amount 3 pointers and barely hitting above 30%. Their Pace in 1998 was 90 during those years, very slow.

Compare that to Nash's MVP 2005 year. The Suns were 1st in 3 point attempts at 24 per game (3x as many as the 98 Jazz). They played at a 96 pace, 1st in the league.

How does Nash do in an offense where he isn't allowed to shoot as many 3's, his teammates don't shoot 3s, the pace is slowed to a crawl, he has Greg Ostertag clogging up the paint, and teams are allowed to be physical with him? He would struggle. And that's what happened when Nash played from 96-2000.

How would John Stockton fare if his coach allowed him to release the shackles, shoot 3s, play with 4 3 point threats spacing the floor, no handcheck, with an uptempo offense? He would thrive in that scenario.

I'm all for asking how Stockton would do in a D'Antoni-like situation. I'm less interested in asking how Nash would do with a dumber coach because I see "good coaching" here as essentially just a) use strategy we now see as obviously correct and b) letting make the on-court decisions.

I don't see Stockton as having demonstrated the ability to do what Nash did.

I don't think Stockton was the same level of shooter as Nash. Nash was a drastically superior free throw shooter, more established shooting 3's at greater volume, and far more comfortable shooting basically anywhere in the half court with his arsenal of floaters and off-balanced shots.

I don't think Stockton was the same level of passer as Nash. You can argue that they were comparable in transition and that Stockton wasn't given the same chance to improvise in the half court, but Stockton wasn't probing and manipulating the defense on the regular like Nash was, and Nash was doing that long before his MVP season.

Stockton without spacing was dishing tons of 20 assist games in the late 80s. If he was a more creative passer than Nash? Maybe not. If he was destroying defenses in the half court with his passing? Absolutely.

Give him a team that likes to run and that has spacing and watch him dishing the ball 25 times with no problem.

As for being a worse scorer than Nash... I'm with you on that.

[freethedevil]

1. Curry

As far as corp is concerned, he has the most accumulative value left.

Easily the highest peak left and if anyone disputes that, I dare them to make a compelling case for 91 MJ or 71 Kareem as being significantly better seasons than 15 curry on the basis of lift either in the playoffs or the regular season.

2. Steve Nash

Second most valuable peak here, second most career value per raw corp, the bill russell of offense, ect, ect, you get the idea.

3. Chris Paul

Third highest career val per raw corp which does nuke people for playoff injuries, great looking impact numbers, meaningful imapct defensively+league leadign creation+historically effecient scoring(on admittedly moderate volume), not sure why exactly people think chris paul's stats overrate him to the extent he should be ranked below stastically less impressive contenders, but I'm open. Even a well post peak chris paul had incredible impact on a title level rockets team before upgrading in the playoffs.

[No-more-rings]

So i’m curious to how much Chris Paul’s habitual playoff injuries play a role in his ranking to you. He seemed to get hurt every other year and often in at critical times.

2009- Got hurt player like garbage in a first round exit
2010- Hurt in the regular season no playoffs for him
2012- Got hurt played like garbage against the Spurs in an embarrassing sweep
2014- Pulled a hamstring and went to 7 against the Warriors when that series shouldn’t have went past 5 or 6 games tops
2015- Got hurt missed 2 games against the Rockets and blew an embarrassing 3-1 lead
2016- Got hurt and missed 2 games in a highly favored series for them
2018- Missed 2 critical games blowing a 3-2 lead which would’ve taken them to the finals and a likely championship.

Chris Paul’s resume is littered with a bunch of injuries and blotched series in his prime. At what point do we stop acting like none of this matters and just cite his box scores and put a blanket over his injuries, as if durabilty and availability in the playoffs isn’t a big deal?

This crap has gotten so ridiculous when it comes to him.

I largely agree with your points here. There's only so much I can reward him for being top 10 in all these rs metrics every year. Plus the fact he's only played in 70 or more rs games 8 times in 15 years. Maybe its bad luck to some degree but I can't reward him for it. Durability is something of a tangible thing and having it does count for something in my mind.

Aren't all the injuries the reason Chris Paul isn't borderline top 10?

Are we really going to be voting at 50 and using the same excuse to not vote CP3?

I don't really buy that Paul would be borderline top 10 even with great health. Looking at the competition he wouldn't for sure be top 15 either. Looking at the guys in that range, he's not clearly better than Kobe, Dirk, West, Oscar, or Dr J.

I feel like 15-20 range is more where he could've been had he actually not gotten hurt so much and made deep playoff runs.

I see a big problem with having a guy that can't stay healthy for 3 playoff rounds in the top 20. His injuries aren't just bad luck they're perpetually a problem. People voting for him in this spot are basically saying that getting hurt when it matters most doesn't matter.

Of course he doesn't belong out of the top 50, but we should ask what odds is giving you over his career to win championships compared to some of the other guys? Based on what actually occurred i don't feel very confident in it at all.

[Jordan Syndrome]

I largely agree with your points here. There's only so much I can reward him for being top 10 in all these rs metrics every year. Plus the fact he's only played in 70 or more rs games 8 times in 15 years. Maybe its bad luck to some degree but I can't reward him for it. Durability is something of a tangible thing and having it does count for something in my mind.

Aren't all the injuries the reason Chris Paul isn't borderline top 10?

Are we really going to be voting at 50 and using the same excuse to not vote CP3?

I don't really buy that Paul would be borderline top 10 even with great health. Looking at the competition he wouldn't for sure be top 15 either. Looking at the guys in that range, he's not clearly better than Kobe, Dirk, West, Oscar, or Dr J.

I feel like 15-20 range is more where he could've been had he actually not gotten hurt so much and made deep playoff runs.

I see a big problem with having a guy that can't stay healthy for 3 playoff rounds in the top 20. His injuries aren't just bad luck they're perpetually a problem. People voting for him in this spot are basically saying that getting hurt when it matters most doesn't matter.

Of course he doesn't belong out of the top 50, but we should ask what odds is giving you over his career to win championships compared to some of the other guys? Based on what actually occurred i don't feel very confident in it at all.

You mean like Kevin Durant who got hurt in 2015, 2019 and 2020?

[MO12msu]

I’m just an observer in this thing but if you’re going to downgrade Paul for durability (fair) you have to downgrade Curry the same amount.

Stephs injury history, including in the playoffs, is pretty dang similar to Cp3’s.