RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #23 (Chris Paul)

[trex_8063]

Thru post #33:

Stephen Curry - 4 (Doctor MJ, Dutchball97, Magic Is Magic, penbeast0)
Bob Pettit - 2 (Cavsfansince84, Odinn21)
Chris Paul - 1 (sansterre)


About 22 hours left for this thread.
freedthedevil your vote will not be counted without arguments/reasons.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

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: John Stockton
Again: meaningful longevity matters to me; and Stockton's got that in spades. He 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).
He was so clever (and dirty), particularly defensively, as well as being an excellent shooter, fantastic [if a touch overly "safe"] passer; and bloody tough as nails. There's some value to having a guy you can count on being there EVERY night. He's also a teammate that no one ever did [no one ever would, I suspect] say something bad about. Just a humble, hard-working class act; though still tough as anyone (someone who Chris Webber once referred to as "the baddest man in the NBA").

While I don't think he attained the offensive heights of Steve Nash, he so thoroughly trumps Nash as a defender AND in terms of longevity that I have him comfortably ahead in an all-time sense.
vs Chris Paul: I feel Paul was a slightly better offensive engine in the rs, and certainly a bit better [or at least more consistent] where the playoffs are concerned. He's also every bit Stockton's peer (a bit better at his peak, actually) defensively. This is what pulls him roughly even, despite lesser longevity. I could [and have] flip their order relative to each other.

Also, see post #33 itt for further arguments.


3rd vote: Dwyane Wade
I'll try to put together some arguments for him in coming threads (doubt he's got serious traction in this one).

Top HM for me is actually someone who I don't think has been even mentioned yet: Patrick Ewing. I'll try to drum up some discussion on him soon, too.

[Joao Saraiva]

Votes
1. Steph Curry
2. John Stockton
3. D. Wade

I'm quite confident in Curry going here.

Fundamental piece of a dinasty with the Warriors, game changer with his 3 point shooting accarucy off the dribble, great fit with great players, great peak, leader of the team with the most wins in the RS, 3 time champion, most valuable player in the playoffs at least on the 15 run...

Proven leader, good intangibles, lakcs a bit of longevity but his prime and peak speak for themselves. I think he's done enough to be selected here since I feel a lot has been said and Curry is going to be selected here with or without my vote.

I'm not sure I want to speak much more about him but if needed I'll do it. Dude is a generational type of player.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Stephen Curry
Vote 2 - John Stockton
Vote 3 - Bob Pettit

Curry has played long enough that he now fits into the Magic/Bird mold of truly exemplary play despite so so longevity. His 2016 season is arguably the GOAT offensive regular season, top 5 at worst. The warriors were appointment television every night and it all hinged on steph's gravity pulling the defense in. It got to the point where some teams were checking him once he stepped inside half court. His hyper efficient volume scoring was as good as we'd ever seen post-merger.

He carried that play to truly impressive team impact throughout his career, and you can't argue with the results. Since Curry and Durant could get voted in back to back, let's take a look at some regular season ON/OFF nubmers from 16-17 to 18-19 via pbpstats.com:

Curry/Klay/Draymond ON, Durant OFF: 808 min, 119.45 ORtg, 105.91 DRtg, 13.54 Net Rtg

Durant/Klay/Draymond ON, Curry OFF: 639 min, 111.94 ORtg, 110 DRtg, 1.94 Net Rtg

Klay/Draymond ON, Curry/Durant OFF: 184 min, 106.18 ORtg, 102.54 DRtg, 3.64 Net Rtg

When you realize finals MVP is voted on by 11 random media members, it loses a lot of its significance. I don't fault curry for not winning one at all. His overall body of work speaks for itself.

[colts18]

...

Good post trex. One thing to note is that Stockton and Malone's peak did not coincide at the same time. Stockton's best years were from 1988-1992 when he was younger and attacked the basket more. Malone's best years were 1994-1999 when he was older and developed his passing game. Both of them had down years in 1993, maybe a Post-Olympics hangover? Young Malone was a beast on the fast break and was more reliant on Stockton's passing to set him up. Older Malone developed a strong mid range jumper and was an effective playmaker. Malone's scoring and rebounding numbers were similar in the 88-92 period and the 94-99 period. However, Malone was better later because of his passing.

88-92: RS: 2.8 AST/3.5 TOV (0.8 AST/TOV), PS: 2.3 AST/3.1 TOV (0.7 AST/TOV)
94-99: RS: 4.0 AST/2.9 TOV (1.4 AST/TOV), PS: 3.7 AST/2.7 TOV (1.4 AST/TOV)

Malone increased his assists while cutting back on his turnovers, nearly doubling his AST/TOV ratio. That's why Stockton was likely the better offensive player early in their careers, then Malone surpassed him when they got older.

[freethedevil]

1. currybest peak best longetvity, should been voted in ages ago imo

2. Nash, second best peak, second best longetvity

3. Pippen, close enough ere in corp that I figure prperly appreciatign his playoff creation swings him here.

[DQuinn1575]

1

Recap:
-The Jazz lost to 10 opponents who averaged 59 wins and a 6.66 SRS (better than the 2020 Lakers).
-If the Jazz beat their opponent during the 8 years they lost before the finals, they would have face an average 2 more teams each year with an average record of 60-22, 6.43 SRS (same SRS as the 2019 Warriors).

How do you expect them to beat teams as good as the championship LeBron Lakers, then beat a team as good as the 2019 Warriors in the WCF, then beat another team as good as the KD/Curry Warriors in the finals? That's a near impossible task.

They never beat the best or second best team in the league. Really hard to win the title if you don't beat on of the top two teams in the league.

[DQuinn1575]

On Pettit - Don't really agree with the statement that he was ever the best player (maybe in some sort of net fashion, though there I'd probably side with Schayes) in the league between Mikan and Russell. His rookie year I don't really see the claim at all, '56 it seems fairly weak compared to Arizin's, '57 is probably Pettit's best shot at the crown in Russell's rookie year.

Pettit's level of respect around the league seems to me to have inflated his historical claim to goodness when looking at his play. I really really don't see the separation from Schayes/Arizin on a prime level.

I'll co-sign some on this.

I think when you really break down the years between Mikan's reign and Russell's, the only guy who has a clear cut championship belt moment is Paul Arizin, and it's really just for a moment.

How do we come to think Pettit reigned? I think it's the combination of the '55-56 MVP and his '57-58 championship. It paints a certain picture that breaks down when you look at it. Arizin was clearly the best player of '55-56 from an all-season perspective, and the Hawks don't get that chip if Russell's not hurt.

I have always rated Pettit ahead of Arizin in general because I'm impressed by how he adapted to '60s play and the extended prime this gave him, but peak vs peak, really not sure I'd side with Pettit over Arizin.

And on Schayes, I'm still not seeing a prime vs prime comparison with him and Arizin. Arizin probably had the best offensive season of the entire decade carrying his offensively dominant team to a title, Schayes was a less dominant offensive force at peak who peaked after his team won their championship with defense for which he was not as praised as some of his teammates.

As said, no gripe if you have Schayes > Arizin by overall career, but I'm not seeing what's pointing us to an actual debate best vs best.

I kind of see the title of best player has vacant between Mikan and Russell - Neil Johnston might also have a claim with Arizin,Pettit Schayes, I have Pettit highest, but not sure if he was best long enough for me to give him the title.

[DQuinn1575]

Spoiler:

Do you legit think Benoit/Corbin were better than Jeff Malone/Thurl Bailey or is that some stat talking?

Corbin was better than Bailey by the time of the trade. He was younger, better production for the past 3 years (mentally aggregating the B-Ref box-y composites), better intangibles (Corbin considered elite here, per Rick Barry and Jordan Cohn) and better on D (Bailey slipping).

Why did the Jazz not win a title? ...

Some thoughts on the post in general.

Utah were a bit unlucky with Humphries collapsing exactly after they acquired him, it looked like they were getting ... say a league average starter (maybe better, if he shook of the effects of a neck injury nagging him the prior year) as their 3rd guard. Also Murdock is overrated by the boxscores (super aggressive gambleer on D, offensive point instincts questioned too) and unlikely to find a role due to being exclusively a 1 given his size (Humphries - a combo guard - fit better). It didn't work out, which is what matters here, but even if you think they gave up too much (though Humphries would - reasonably enough I think - have been regarded as a sure thing in his role, the pieces the other way not so much), it's understandable. The "three firsts" angle is mean, part of the reason for the bad picks is they're picking low because Stockton and Malone are good: it's a 21st, a 21st and a 23rd (in a 27 team league).

Did the Jazz make any trades that would help out their squad? None until the Hornacek trade.

Yes. See Corbin above. I think given what was given up for him the Jeff Malone deal is perhaps undersold here, based on the above statement. I would tend to agree with the net sentiment that the front office did a bad job and the "didn't win a title so ..." angle is missing this context.

The VORP table isn't necessarily calibrated to my tastes (even if I was higher on BPM). If you were high minutes on a good team, given the low bar to be positive in VORP if you can get in the vicinity of 3000 minutes you don't have to be that good to get to 2 VORP (Willie Anderson, young Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson) and so it's as much about do you have a stable (high-end [in minutes - not talent] heavy) rotation. I didn't love the inclusion of single players (Robinson and Duncan) or at least they should have been separate imo, there's just more stats to consume (and a greater share of team-based credit available in a way that might junk up the comparison. This maybe be a result of recycling material from an old post and a different context.

Owly,

Great post. Your views on Corbin vs Bailey align with mine. I don't see Bailey as anything special. He was a scorer who was not particularly efficient (above average TS% in 3 out of 13 seasons), wasn't a passer (never above 2.0 APG), and he was a 6' 11 player who sucked at rebounding (Career high Rebounds is 6.6 Per Game). He has 1 career season above 0 BPM (+0.2). His career high in PER is just 16.3. I do think he was solid in the 1988 and 1989 seasons (20 PPG on 55 TS%). From 1990-1992, he had a clear dropoff (13 PPG on 51 TS%). He was fine in the 1988 and 1990 playoffs, but was straight up garbage in the 1989 and 1991 playoffs. I like Corbin's fit better with the Jazz. Even when he left the Jazz, he was a starter on the 1997 Hawks team that had one of the most productive starting lineups since 1997.


As far as VORP, I do see your point about role players racking up VORP by playing high minutes. The Jazz players were still not good in per possession stats either. Here are the Jazz players with above average BPM's from 1988-1994 (Min. 1000 MP):

93 Corbin +0.6
89 Eaton +0.6
92 Corbin +0.4
90 Eaton +0.4
88 Bailey +0.2
88 Edwards +0.0

# of players with a BPM worse than -2.0: 20

The best mark in those 7 years was just a +0.6 BPM. They never once had 2 players with a BPM over 0 from 1988-1994. None of the role players on those Jazz teams did anything worthy of note either before Stockton/Malone or after leaving the Jazz. They simply weren't good players.

Compare that to 1995-1999 (5 seasons):
96 Hornacek +4.4
97 Hornacek +3.9
95 Hornacek +3.8
98 Hornacek +3.7
99 Hornacek +3.4
97 Russell +1.9
99 Russell +1.5
96 Morris +0.9
99 Ostertag +0.8
98 Russell +0.8
98 Anderson +0.7
98 Keefe +0.6

# of players with a BPM worse than -2.0: 9

That's 12 players in 5 seasons (2.4 per season). 11 different seasons in those 5 years better than the best 88-94 season. Is it any wonder why the Jazz were significantly more successful from 95-99 than they were from 88-94? The Jazz had actual solid role players during those years. They even had bench players who could contribute which didn't happen in 1988-1994 when they would go 6 or 7 deep come playoff time.

Lots of good stuff about the woes of Utah in getting second level support other than Hornacek - I guess my problem with Stockton is that he never stepped it up on scoring - his line looks incredibly consistent, he wasnt an Isiah, Magic, Frazier, Chris Paul who tried to score more when his team needed it. He got a team to be so good, but didnt quite have enough to put them over the top.

[DQuinn1575]

1. Chris Paul - defense, ball-handling, clutch scoring - checks all the boxes I have,

2. Harden - excellent scorer, passer, improved defense in last few years,

3, Curry - A lot less games than Paul and less than Harden. I'm giving longevity more weight than I have in the past, and that hurts Curry against the two above.

[colts18]

Recap:
-The Jazz lost to 10 opponents who averaged 59 wins and a 6.66 SRS (better than the 2020 Lakers).
-If the Jazz beat their opponent during the 8 years they lost before the finals, they would have face an average 2 more teams each year with an average record of 60-22, 6.43 SRS (same SRS as the 2019 Warriors).

How do you expect them to beat teams as good as the championship LeBron Lakers, then beat a team as good as the 2019 Warriors in the WCF, then beat another team as good as the KD/Curry Warriors in the finals? That's a near impossible task.

They never beat the best or second best team in the league. Really hard to win the title if you don't beat on of the top two teams in the league.

I'd argue that the 98 Lakers were the 2nd best team in the league. Anyways, it's not like the Jazz didn't beat some really good teams. They 5 wins vs 56+ win teams. The Warriors had just 2 wins against those teams during that span and had 2 losses also. It's not like the Warriors were beating great teams outside of the 2018 Rockets. They played 3 great teams and beat 1 (Rockets) and lost to 2 of them (Cavs and Raptors).

[eminence]

Recap:
-The Jazz lost to 10 opponents who averaged 59 wins and a 6.66 SRS (better than the 2020 Lakers).
-If the Jazz beat their opponent during the 8 years they lost before the finals, they would have face an average 2 more teams each year with an average record of 60-22, 6.43 SRS (same SRS as the 2019 Warriors).

How do you expect them to beat teams as good as the championship LeBron Lakers, then beat a team as good as the 2019 Warriors in the WCF, then beat another team as good as the KD/Curry Warriors in the finals? That's a near impossible task.

They never beat the best or second best team in the league. Really hard to win the title if you don't beat on of the top two teams in the league.

I'd argue that the 98 Lakers were the 2nd best team in the league. Anyways, it's not like the Jazz didn't beat some really good teams. They 5 wins vs 56+ win teams. The Warriors had just 2 wins against those teams during that span and had 2 losses also. It's not like the Warriors were beating great teams outside of the 2018 Rockets. They played 3 great teams and beat 1 (Rockets) and lost to 2 of them (Cavs and Raptors).

Poor '16 Thunder, missed out on greatness by that 1 RS win.

But seriously, it feels like you're losing objectivity here.

[Dr Positivity]

1. Bob Pettit
2. Stephen Curry
3. Chris Paul

I'm still voting for players who peaked at MVP level rather than the Stockton and Pippens yet. I think Curry is the best player of these three but he has less longevity. Paul would have the best resume if not for weakest intangibles. Pettit's case is great all around and he could have gotten in aroung the same range as Erving in my opinion.

[No-more-rings]

So before saying anything else i can see you sort of seem to be basing this on what Harden is likely to do rather than what he's done so far, by bringing up career totals and such.

I'm not going to say they aren't far off at this point because they aren't--they're close no doubt. Unless Harden has a career ending injury he will pass Wade in every regular season totals stat except blocks (points, rebounds, assists, steals). He will also pass Wade in every per-game regular season stat as well (not that I like per game as much due to giving advantages to when people leave the league) but nonetheless he will have better stats than Wade in fewer season due to Wade's injuries.

This makes my point.

Harden also has better playoff per-game stats at the moment and isn't far behind in total stats in the playoffs.

He doesn't really have better playoff stats at all looking at primes. Wade's career numbers are drug down by his past prime seasons so i don't think this is the way to go about it at all.

Wade(05-12): 97 games 26.2/5.8/5.3 3.7 tov 56.5 ts% 24.9 PER 7.4 BPM

Harden:13-20) 85 games 28.4/5.7/7.1 4.4 tov 57.8 ts% 24.0 PER 7.6 BPM

Statilstically that seems damn near even, considering Wade has a pretty good advantage on defense i think he comes out ahead.

Harden has the MVP and Wade the FMVP (which I'd argue MVP is technically harder to win, ask Cedric Maxwell and Andre Iguodola)

Wade could've won mvp if he didn't have crap supporting casts in 09 and 10, and if he wasn't competing with some of Lebron's best regular seasons.

but close either way. I also wish Wade won at least 1 MVP (the hardest award to win in the NBA) or had better longevity, or at least had more Finals appearances without LeBron's help. Wade without Lebron = 1 Finals appearance and the controversial D-Whistle chip.

The "controversial D-whistle chip is sort of a nonsense argument that doesn't really belong in high level discussions like this. Wade was on fire the whole playoffs destroying some of the best defenses in the league(4th ranked nets, 5th rank pistons), controversial officiating or not doesn't discredit Wade's dominance.

I really like Harden's 6x All-NBA 1st teams to Wade's 2x, that's one of the biggest reasons.

This doesn't mean anything really. At the very least he was comparable to Nash and Kobe in the 2006 regular season, and clearly better than Kobe in 2011. He was robbed of fist team in 2011.

Harden also has the incredible ability to lead the league in scoring 3x and also won an Assist title (very rare and elite company to win both scoring and assist title in a career, I believe this has only done by maybe 8 players ever?)

Harden usually hasn't been able to keep that scoring up in the postseason so i don't know why you put so much stock into it.

I do think Harden may have a bit more longevity but i don't buy that he's as good as Wade was when he was healthy and relevant.

[Magic Is Magic]

So before saying anything else i can see you sort of seem to be basing this on what Harden is likely to do rather than what he's done so far, by bringing up career totals and such.

I'm not going to say they aren't far off at this point because they aren't--they're close no doubt. Unless Harden has a career ending injury he will pass Wade in every regular season totals stat except blocks (points, rebounds, assists, steals). He will also pass Wade in every per-game regular season stat as well (not that I like per game as much due to giving advantages to when people leave the league) but nonetheless he will have better stats than Wade in fewer season due to Wade's injuries.

This makes my point.

Harden also has better playoff per-game stats at the moment and isn't far behind in total stats in the playoffs.

He doesn't really have better playoff stats at all looking at primes. Wade's career numbers are drug down by his past prime seasons so i don't think this is the way to go about it at all.

Wade(05-12): 97 games 26.2/5.8/5.3 3.7 tov 56.5 ts% 24.9 PER 7.4 BPM

Harden:13-20) 85 games 28.4/5.7/7.1 4.4 tov 57.8 ts% 24.0 PER 7.6 BPM

Statilstically that seems damn near even, considering Wade has a pretty good advantage on defense i think he comes out ahead.

Harden has the MVP and Wade the FMVP (which I'd argue MVP is technically harder to win, ask Cedric Maxwell and Andre Iguodola)

Wade could've won mvp if he didn't have crap supporting casts in 09 and 10, and if he wasn't competing with some of Lebron's best regular seasons.

but close either way. I also wish Wade won at least 1 MVP (the hardest award to win in the NBA) or had better longevity, or at least had more Finals appearances without LeBron's help. Wade without Lebron = 1 Finals appearance and the controversial D-Whistle chip.

The "controversial D-whistle chip is sort of a nonsense argument that doesn't really belong in high level discussions like this. Wade was on fire the whole playoffs destroying some of the best defenses in the league(4th ranked nets, 5th rank pistons), controversial officiating or not doesn't discredit Wade's dominance.

I really like Harden's 6x All-NBA 1st teams to Wade's 2x, that's one of the biggest reasons.

This doesn't mean anything really. At the very least he was comparable to Nash and Kobe in the 2006 regular season, and clearly better than Kobe in 2011. He was robbed of fist team in 2011.

Harden also has the incredible ability to lead the league in scoring 3x and also won an Assist title (very rare and elite company to win both scoring and assist title in a career, I believe this has only done by maybe 8 players ever?)

Harden usually hasn't been able to keep that scoring up in the postseason so i don't know why you put so much stock into it.

I do think Harden may have a bit more longevity but i don't buy that he's as good as Wade was when he was healthy and relevant.

Clearly you just like Wade over Harden. And that's fine.

[Owly]

Spoiler:

Corbin was better than Bailey by the time of the trade. He was younger, better production for the past 3 years (mentally aggregating the B-Ref box-y composites), better intangibles (Corbin considered elite here, per Rick Barry and Jordan Cohn) and better on D (Bailey slipping).


Some thoughts on the post in general.

Utah were a bit unlucky with Humphries collapsing exactly after they acquired him, it looked like they were getting ... say a league average starter (maybe better, if he shook of the effects of a neck injury nagging him the prior year) as their 3rd guard. Also Murdock is overrated by the boxscores (super aggressive gambleer on D, offensive point instincts questioned too) and unlikely to find a role due to being exclusively a 1 given his size (Humphries - a combo guard - fit better). It didn't work out, which is what matters here, but even if you think they gave up too much (though Humphries would - reasonably enough I think - have been regarded as a sure thing in his role, the pieces the other way not so much), it's understandable. The "three firsts" angle is mean, part of the reason for the bad picks is they're picking low because Stockton and Malone are good: it's a 21st, a 21st and a 23rd (in a 27 team league).


Yes. See Corbin above. I think given what was given up for him the Jeff Malone deal is perhaps undersold here, based on the above statement. I would tend to agree with the net sentiment that the front office did a bad job and the "didn't win a title so ..." angle is missing this context.

The VORP table isn't necessarily calibrated to my tastes (even if I was higher on BPM). If you were high minutes on a good team, given the low bar to be positive in VORP if you can get in the vicinity of 3000 minutes you don't have to be that good to get to 2 VORP (Willie Anderson, young Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson) and so it's as much about do you have a stable (high-end [in minutes - not talent] heavy) rotation. I didn't love the inclusion of single players (Robinson and Duncan) or at least they should have been separate imo, there's just more stats to consume (and a greater share of team-based credit available in a way that might junk up the comparison. This maybe be a result of recycling material from an old post and a different context.

Owly,

Great post. Your views on Corbin vs Bailey align with mine. I don't see Bailey as anything special. He was a scorer who was not particularly efficient (above average TS% in 3 out of 13 seasons), wasn't a passer (never above 2.0 APG), and he was a 6' 11 player who sucked at rebounding (Career high Rebounds is 6.6 Per Game). He has 1 career season above 0 BPM (+0.2). His career high in PER is just 16.3. I do think he was solid in the 1988 and 1989 seasons (20 PPG on 55 TS%). From 1990-1992, he had a clear dropoff (13 PPG on 51 TS%). He was fine in the 1988 and 1990 playoffs, but was straight up garbage in the 1989 and 1991 playoffs. I like Corbin's fit better with the Jazz. Even when he left the Jazz, he was a starter on the 1997 Hawks team that had one of the most productive starting lineups since 1997.


As far as VORP, I do see your point about role players racking up VORP by playing high minutes. The Jazz players were still not good in per possession stats either. Here are the Jazz players with above average BPM's from 1988-1994 (Min. 1000 MP):

93 Corbin +0.6
89 Eaton +0.6
92 Corbin +0.4
90 Eaton +0.4
88 Bailey +0.2
88 Edwards +0.0

# of players with a BPM worse than -2.0: 20

The best mark in those 7 years was just a +0.6 BPM. They never once had 2 players with a BPM over 0 from 1988-1994. None of the role players on those Jazz teams did anything worthy of note either before Stockton/Malone or after leaving the Jazz. They simply weren't good players.

Compare that to 1995-1999 (5 seasons):
96 Hornacek +4.4
97 Hornacek +3.9
95 Hornacek +3.8
98 Hornacek +3.7
99 Hornacek +3.4
97 Russell +1.9
99 Russell +1.5
96 Morris +0.9
99 Ostertag +0.8
98 Russell +0.8
98 Anderson +0.7
98 Keefe +0.6

# of players with a BPM worse than -2.0: 9

That's 12 players in 5 seasons (2.4 per season). 11 different seasons in those 5 years better than the best 88-94 season. Is it any wonder why the Jazz were significantly more successful from 95-99 than they were from 88-94? The Jazz had actual solid role players during those years. They even had bench players who could contribute which didn't happen in 1988-1994 when they would go 6 or 7 deep come playoff time.

Lots of good stuff about the woes of Utah in getting second level support other than Hornacek - I guess my problem with Stockton is that he never stepped it up on scoring - his line looks incredibly consistent, he wasnt an Isiah, Magic, Frazier, Chris Paul who tried to score more when his team needed it. He got a team to be so good, but didnt quite have enough to put them over the top.

So the questions that occur to me are

How valuable is variance in scoring in a point guard?
How valuable is variance in scoring in a point guard given a known average performance (given known average in box scoring, overall box, impact)?
Is it intrinsically valuable (Abdul-Rauf)? Or requiring other factors/contexts?
Is it different to supporting high scoring games in teammates?
How valuable is, twice/thrice in a lifetime 40 point games to a career evaluation? Can be adjusted to point per 75, or where the target threshold for the top half a percent or quarter of a percent of scoring games should be?
Does whether your team wins those big point games matter to your evaluation?


The bolded seems incompatible with having read and accepted the post in response to, which you seemed to do. He's got big lift in RAPM, WoWY, 94-96 on-off, all the boxscore production, you know there were a bunch of non-elite-contender level casts, but the top end players made them way too good to reboot or rebuild through picks (even on arrival, before they're good, high picks tend to get other high picks as their core/trade base and talent on the same timeline [OKC did this really well; Process augmented it with other picks; Bulls did well enough with acquiring picks to get Oakley, Pippen, Grant] but the Jazz never bottomed out and almost never hit on their picks) but "he didn't have enough to put them over the top". Is it that he didn't have enough points?

[Owly]

1

Recap:
-The Jazz lost to 10 opponents who averaged 59 wins and a 6.66 SRS (better than the 2020 Lakers).
-If the Jazz beat their opponent during the 8 years they lost before the finals, they would have face an average 2 more teams each year with an average record of 60-22, 6.43 SRS (same SRS as the 2019 Warriors).

How do you expect them to beat teams as good as the championship LeBron Lakers, then beat a team as good as the 2019 Warriors in the WCF, then beat another team as good as the KD/Curry Warriors in the finals? That's a near impossible task.

They never beat the best or second best team in the league. Really hard to win the title if you don't beat on of the top two teams in the league.

This seems like large part truism ... hard to win the title if you didn't win the title ... since if you beat the best team you probably did win the title.

Then too, it's hard to beat the 2nd best team if you are it ('97, probably when healthy '98 - though others may have "when healthy" claims).

And then they did, in '98, beat the top 2 non-Chicago SRSes (Seattle, LA).

And then it's a team level thing anyway. So say, if you consider the '88 Lakers a top 2 team, what is it about Stockton's performance/game that you felt impeded them from winning?

[ccameron]

Harden also has better playoff per-game stats at the moment and isn't far behind in total stats in the playoffs

I think this analysis doesn't hold up at all. If you are talking about playoffs and beginning to think Harden is a better playoff performer than Wade, something is off and needs to be reassessed. I know I'm just quoting one line out of your response but when you take something like career playoff stats as a point of comparison you need to take this into more context. As No-more-rings pointed out, Wade was in the playoffs well past his prime/injured (2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018), so Harden doesn't have that yet.

Wade is very clearly a better playoff performer, and comparing points per game and TS across eras, as you know, does not tell the whole story.I don't agree with all of Ben Taylor's analysis but I would recommend this podcast comparing Harden, Kobe, and Wade:

https://www.stitcher.com/show/thinking-basketball-podcast/episode/34-harden-vs-kobe-vs-wade-great-debates-65452113

[LA Bird]

1. Chris Paul
2. John Stockton
3. Steve Nash

Spoiler:

Paul is the most well-rounded point guard ever, his advanced metrics are among the best in both regular season and playoffs, and he has quietly accumulated some huge career totals (he is 6.0 career RS+PO WS away from Oscar who is widely regarded as the second best point guard ever). One of the main criticism against Paul it that he is too conservative and risk-averse in his offensive approach but that argument doesn't make sense when Paul's on-court ORtg is still all time great and his scoring volume actually goes up in the playoffs and in the clutch. This was an old post of mine from the last top 100 project (numbers will be updated if I can find the spreadsheet):

Since CP3 is criticized for his 'failures' in the clutch again, I thought I'll present the playoffs career clutch stats (per 36) for the best perimeter players in recent years:

Curry: 35.7 / 5.1 / 4.3 / 59.2% TS
Kobe: 32.4 / 4.4 / 3.5 / 54.2% TS
Paul: 32.1 / 5.5 / 4.5 / 63.4% TS
LeBron: 32.1 / 7.7 / 5.8 / 55.0% TS
Durant: 26.6 / 7.5 / 2.4 / 54.9% TS
Harden: 25.1 / 4.8 / 2.5 / 55.9% TS
Wade: 23.2 / 6.7 / 3.3 / 52.3% TS
Westbrook: 22.7 / 7.7 / 4.3 / 40.6% TS
Nash: 21.8 / 4.1 / 9.1 / 63.3% TS

Contrary to the narrative of him being a playoff choker, Paul is one of the top scorers in the clutch with elite shooting efficiency.

Stockton didn't have an all time peak for a point guard but he climbed his way up the rankings through unmatched longevity. He was never a top 5 player in any season but if he was, he would be in the top 10 next to Garnett not here at around #25. Nash could have been in the same tier as Paul if his Mavs years were as good as his Suns years.

If I am picking point guards, some might ask why no Curry when he peaked higher than all three? Firstly, I think Draymond doesn't get enough credit for his impact on the pre-KD Warriors. People talk about Curry's offense as though Golden State were a revolutionary team built off GOAT offense like Nash's Suns when half of their success as a small ball team came on defense. Secondly, Curry missed playoffs games and didn't play near RS level when he did play in both the 2016 and 2018 playoffs, in addition to missing a huge chunk of the 2018 regular season. Paul gets crucified for missing 2 playoff games while Curry gets a pass for missing 6 playoff games just because his team was good enough to win without him. Curry will climb higher by the time his career is over but at the moment, I have him around Wade level with slightly less longevity.

[Joey Wheeler]

1-Dywane Wade

Incredible force at his peak, one of the best Finals performances ever. Could be much higher if not for injuries/longevity. He's one of the greatest forces ever attacking the rim.

2-Isiah Thomas

Clear cut best player on a dynastic-type team (back to back champions, would have 3-peated if not for an egregious call + injury, 5 ECFs in a row) that overcame Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers. He lacks the individual dominance of other guys who were clear cut best players in dynastic type teams, but this is about the range where he belongs. Great floor general, could really ramp up his scoring when necessary and elevated his game in the playoffs. Also of course great intangibles, he was the captain of the team and set the tone for the "Bad Boy" culture.

3-TBD - don't feel strongly about anyone here, would have to think about it a bit more