#18 Highest Peak of All Time (Dirk '11 wins)

[Dr Positivity]

I think Moses is an excellent offensive player and still deserving of top 25 consideration, but between lacking things in defensive anchor skillset, recent data suggesting going for ORBs costs teams defensively, and questioning whether he had a DRB impact, that his impact is almost solely on the offensive end. He might mean more to his defense than Chris Paul, but taking up the most important defensive position (C) is responsible for a lot of that IMO. Eg. Paul + average defensive C is probably close to Moses + average defensive PG

And I just don't see a big case for Moses over Paul, Nash, West, Tmac, Barkley, Dirk, K Malone on offense considering how spectacular those guys were on that end, and I'm definitely leaning heavily towards Ewing and Dwight's combination of defensive impact + still good offense, getting the edge over him

[nikomCH]

2008 Paul perfected the PG position, he was great at everything. I always say he's a more efficient, better shooting, less turnover prone version of Isiah Thomas

2009 Paul is superior to 2008 Paul in almost every way. People are penalizing him way too much for those playoff games against the Nuggets.

If 2009 Wade just got in then there is no reason for why 2009 Paul shouldn't.

[bastillon]

2008 Paul perfected the PG position, he was great at everything. I always say he's a more efficient, better shooting, less turnover prone version of Isiah Thomas

2009 Paul is superior to 2008 Paul in almost every way. People are penalizing him way too much for those playoff games against the Nuggets.

If 2009 Wade just got in then there is no reason for why 2009 Paul shouldn't.

obviously Wade shouldn't have been voted in then. his back injury was a no-no for any team with Wade 09, be it Miami Heat 09, or some hypothetical scenario. just because posters made a wrong choice going with a guy who wasn't 100% in the postseason doesn't mean that they have to make the same mistake again. Paul had a groin/hamstring injury in 2009 playoffs and he was pretty much destroyed by Dahntay Jones and Billups. I don't think he was 60% of himself at the time. there is absolutely no case for 09 CP as a guy who will help you win a championship. if you're severely injured come playoff time, you can't be a legit candidate because you won't be able to help your team win a lot.

[bastillon]

Which leads me to Karl Malone. If you compare Karl and Dirk as post players, guess who has more moves? Dirk. But Carmelo Anthony also has more faceup moves than LeBron...it's not the complete picture of a player. Malone isn't overstated as a scorer, he's radically understated. Consider some basic information about Karl Malone that is swept away because of Losing Bias, Clutch Obsessions and his consistency (which hurts him in a peak spotlight):

-Karl Malone has 2 of the top 19 scoring rates seasons of all time.
-Karl Malone is one of 10 members of the 30 per 75 club (30 pts per 75 pos for a season)
-Karl Malone is the ONLY player in NBA history to score 30+ per 75 at at least 8% better than league TS%. (+8.9%)
-Karl Malone's scoring barely changes whether Stockton plays, ages, or doesn't play

totally wrong comparison. it's Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson. although Robinson often averaged more points in the RS, he wasn't a better scorer. the same as Pau Gasol wasn't a better scorer than McHale. Dirk is a radically superior offensive player. Malone's stats overstate his actual abilities and that's why you see such a big postseason drop off. you know exactly what I'm talking about because you were championing the same approach in D-Rob vs Hakeem debates a while back. Karl Malone's wasn't close to Dirk as a postseason performer, plain and simple.

his limited offensive repertoir wasn't a problem in the RS but it became a huge issue come playoff time. not being able to overpower his opponents into easy layups/FTs anymore, Malone became more of a jumpshooter come playoff time and his efficiency dropped off accordingly. I agree that he had too much load offensively and he shouldn't have been taking this many shots in the first place... but that excuse doesn't work in comparison with Dirk because the other guy is actually getting praised for the ability to raise his volume/role on the team while maintaining the same elite efficiency. my argument is that while Karl Malone was getting exposed in the playoffs time after time (he was still great, just not as great as RS Malone), Dirk's true colors really came out as well but he was obviously looking much better then.

so what was your answer ? Malone has 2 of top19 scoring rates of all-time... in the RS. Malone is elite member of 30/75 club... in the RS. at the same time he scored @ +8% TS... in the RS. so... I'm saying Malone's stats are impressive but his skillset isn't and that's why it got exposed in the postseason and then you come back with more Malone RS stats ? is that your answer really ?

so how big was that postseason dropoff ? for his career Karl Malone averaged 25 ppg at 58% TS. in the playoffs those averages went down to 24.7 ppg... @ 52.6% TS. per-36 it went from 24.2 to 21.7. now I think it deserves a mention that I've been defending Garnett for years despite the fact that his postseason scoring left a lot to be desired as well. but I've always maintained that Garnett's scoring is only a cherry on top type of contribution because he's so versatile, he does so many things, that it's simply hard to measure his impact with ppg numbers. contrary to Garnett's case, scoring is actually Malone's forte. when it goes down, his best attribute is gone. dropoff of -1.5 pts36 @ - 5.1% TS is huge. Malone's ORTG went from 113 to 106. he was no longer a dominant offensive player come playoff time. I mean he was still dominating most of the time, just not top20 peak type dominance.

compare it to Dirk who goes from 22.9 ppg to 25.9 ppg. TS% from 58.1 to 58.4. ORTG from 117 to 118. Dirk flat out improves his value as an offensive player. he slightly improves his efficiency while being given a bigger role in team's offense and facing far tougher competition.

based on the RS Malone is more impressive than guys like Hakeem, for example. his resume is through the roof. but his limited offensive skillset was a problem and it hurts him a lot in comparison's with Dirk who is basically unstoppable with good teammates around him. I really don't see a case for Malone. none whatsoever.

[bastillon]

btw, I'd like people to answer these questions in the following threads to come:

1. was Ewing a net negative offensive player ?
2. why did Knicks perform better without him offensively ?
3. do you think his offensive impact would've been bigger with different teammates/lesser role ?
4. was Ewing a good playoff performer or disappointing ?

really interesting to me. Ewing's impact defensively probably was underrated (GOAT level, it seems). I don't think Duncan seperates himself from Ewing defensively. I'd take Ewing's better man defense and shotblocking over Duncan's superior help defense and defensive rebounding. but offensively Ewing did not seem to work well with his team. so what happened ? was he really having a 2-way impact ?

[C-izMe]

btw, I'd like people to answer these questions in the following threads to come:

1. was Ewing a net negative offensive player ?
2. why did Knicks perform better without him offensively ?
3. do you think his offensive impact would've been bigger with different teammates/lesser role ?
4. was Ewing a good playoff performer or disappointing ?

really interesting to me. Ewing's impact defensively probably was underrated (GOAT level, it seems). I don't think Duncan seperates himself from Ewing defensively. I'd take Ewing's better man defense and shotblocking over Duncan's superior help defense and defensive rebounding. but offensively Ewing did not seem to work well with his team. so what happened ? was he really having a 2-way impact ?

Great post. As a Knicks fan I have to say the most interesting thing I've ever read about flaws in star players is the Ewing Theory. I can't simply dismiss a fairly large sample size, and I can't see Ewing having negative impact on either side of the ball; best shooting center ever among all timers, decent passer, high iq, and on the other end he led best defensive dynasty since Russell's Celtics (I'm sure everyone can agree on this), played great man defense while intimidating the other team, and is a top 5-8 defensive player ever.
His track record speaks for itself: The Jordan championship teams played worse agains the Knicks then anyone else (by a distance), he guarded Hakeem well in the 94 Finals holding him to 26.9ppg in 7 games which I believe was his lowest in a series between both championship years and possibly 93 [EDIT: Forgot about the Sonic series] too (don't ask about Ewing's offense though), and in his prime (from 90-94) he averaged 23.8/11.1/2.5 on 52TS. Slightly underwhelming but not bad at all (especially considering his competition).

Someone posted the numbers of Jordan in the PS against Pat and everyone else. If someone can find it and post it I'll be thankful because he's definetly in the next batch of players.

[C-izMe]

And to add I see Ewing best in a slightly more involved KG (now) role. Open spot up jumpers, PNRs, and the occasional post up. As a centerpiece he did a better job than most (including me) probably give him credit for because offensively those teams were dead. Even in 89 (when his next best offensive player was probably Mark Jackson) he led them to a top ten finish. He also seemed to raise his assists in the PS (most bigmen experience the opposite) which is odd to me.

[PTB Fan]

Still think that '83 Moses is the best option

Vote: '83 Moses Malone

[fatal9]

If we are considering peak Ewing only, that would be him in 1990. Offensively he was much better back then. He was moving much better, his knees were feeling probably the best they ever did in the NBA and he posted 29 ppg on 58 TS% (55 FG%). Couple of things that might throw people off are that Knicks were "only" 45-37, but consider that Oakley missed 21 games, Mark Jackson had the worst season of his career (benched in favor of 33 year old Cheeks by end of season), mid-season trades (Strickland for Cheeks), a new coach, a net negative player like old Kiki V joining the team at the end of the season (7-15 in games he played...this stretch took the air out of Ewing's MVP candidacy) and it's obvious the '90 team didn't really have the stability and continuity of the other Knick teams.

In the playoffs Ewing pulled off an upset against the Celtics by winning three straight elimination games (had 33/19, 44/13/5/7/2 on 75% shooting (!), 31/8/10/4 in those three games respectively). Against the Pistons in the next series he was in foul trouble in some games but still averaged 27/10 on 56 TS% against them. This is a version of Ewing without the offensive inefficiency that we're used to from him in the 90s. He gets more space on his baseline fadeaway and he's better at finishing baskets when he gets the ball down low. You can't look at his offensive impact later on in the 90s when the "Ewing Theory" really caught steam and use that say he was a net negative player offensively in the early 90s/late 80s (particularly 1990) because he was a different player then, especially physically. Felt like he aged 5 years between 1990 and 1992.

Despite all of this, you don't want a roster where you depend on Ewing for 30 points a night, and with a proper team I doubt he would be asked to score that much and would expend more energy on the boards/defense. But still, it's nice to know that he had another gear offensively that year where you could really ride him to wins.

The only thing is that in '90, his team defensive performance wasn't quite as dominant as we're used to. But that's more because of the personnel surrounding him, continuity issues and the biggest difference is probably that he wasn't under a defensive minded coach like Riley yet. His shot blocking is dominant here, 4 bpg, second only to Hakeem, which is impressive considering how much energy he was expending on offense. With the way he was moving back then (and it's not like he's inexperienced...he was 27 in 1990), I don't see how he doesn't have the same impact defensively if put in a system where defense is emphasized. So team defensive performance is down that year, but he's still the same great defensive anchor.

So while over the course of Ewing's career, I think there are questions about his offensive impact, I don't have those concerns when we look at just his peak.

[fatal9]

I actually think Moses is a solid post defender. He had the strength to keep guys away from getting good position, this really bothered KAJ at times, and in general doesn't give up anything too easy one on one.

But why was he a bad defender?

- Moses was relentless on the offensive boards, which sounds like a good thing, but at a certain point, this also kept him from getting back on defense. This is something that's pretty clear to me after watching his games.
- He was consistently the most turnover prone center in NBA history. He had 8 (!) NBA seasons where he averaged more than 3.5 TO/game (by far more than any other C). Sometimes these were turnovers which don't hurt you defensively (like offensive fouls) but a lot of times it was him forcing plays which ended up creating very easy fast break points for the opponent. He also did not handle double teams well, forced a lot of bad shots which again resulted in leak outs for the opponent. So his offensive game fundamentally hurts his teams on defense.
- He doesn't protect the basket well, his team defense can be lackadaisical (possibly tied to the enormous amount of energy he spent on the offensive boards) and he doesn't cover for his teammates like a good defensive center should. The Sixers overcame this because of how dominant the defensive combination of Dr. J, Cheeks and Toney/Jones was (those guys were on some GOAT level **** with their defensive activity on the perimeter).

With all these factors combined, I'm trying to figure out if team defense wise he's at the level of a liability or if he's just mediocre.

And count me as someone who doesn't think it's at all obvious who the best player on the '83 Sixers was, which doesn't say a lot of good about Moses considering Doc was past his prime by then. People need to really get over Moses' raw stats because you're never going to assess him as a player properly if you let yourself get enamored with them (we saw this with Wilt in the past here). He's a flawed player on both sides of the ball whose game produces better numbers than it does impact.

[thizznation]

Could some '11 Nowitzki guys explain their case over '06? Statistically it looks like he was peaking in 06'. I'm trying to ignore the outcome of the playoffs and concentrate on the stats.

06' Nowitzki has considerably better rebounding and less turnovers. '06 Scored a tad more but '11 had .020 better TS% in the regular season and .014 ts% better in the post-season.

I think '06 nowitzki is the peak.




I also agree with some of the previous posters about '90 Ewing, I feel it's about time that he starts to enter the discussion.



I'm having a little trouble with Moses at the moment. I'm not understanding how his offensive rebounds are getting discredited so drastically. He dominated the boards with high efficiency scoring, even with the gaps in his defense that have been mention he was not a "net negative" on the defensive side. I would also ask the '83 voters to check out '82 Moses. He is basically putting up the stats that '83 Moses put up in the playoffs for the entire season in '82.

I'm leaning towards '68 west , '82 moses, '06 nowitzki for the next players up (at the moment)

[Doctor MJ]

I don't know how anyone can champion 68 West when he missed 31 games. Considering HCA is so important in the playoffs, thats a huge deal. There is no argument for him over 11 Dirk.

I don't begrudge anyone not voting him because they take the missed games so seriously.

My approach to this has always been that I don't see the point in finding reasons to penalize a player that didn't actually affect the team significantly. In the end I'm trying to find the most impressive players, so if I"m going to DQ the superior player because of missed time, I'd like to be able to point to the actual consequences of that missed time.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm looking at 2005 as my Nash vote. That crazy 121.7 ORTG when he's on the court number sticks out to me, and I like the fact that he proved he could dominate individually when he FU'd Dallas. I'm not 100% on a Nash vote though because I do think he's more system reliant than all of these guys to have that impact, he's kind of like the conductor of the orchastra on that Suns team. He's in my top 22-25 but I'm leaning Paul over him, I would trust taking his more dangerous scoring/penetrating ability (+ better defense)

Going to be hard for me to pass up '05 as well. That was the Dream Season. I'll admit I'd probably feel differently if the ball had bounced differently and the Suns had beat the Spurs in '07, but in '05 you have:

The single greatest offensive turnaround in NBA history by a massive margin ascending into GOAT contention
This despite the fact that Nash only played 64% of the minutes...
and when he jumped to playing 84% minutes in the playoffs, the Suns offense was the most dominant we've ever seen by a wide margin.

Add in, the way he turned into a phenomenal volume scorer when teams in desperation cheated to stop his passing, showing that there really wasn't any way to stop the offense.

Then remember, that the Suns' loss to the Spurs in '05 had everything to do with Marion just playing hideously bad. Granted Marion's not known as a huge playoff performer, but never was there anything close to what he did in that series.

Re: Other years.

'07 is the one that's the threat for me. As cool as '06 was, this was a team that legit wasn't very good in its playoff run, and could have used some extra defense and rebounding from Nash.

With '07 in a lot of ways it feels like the Suns reaching as good as they ever got, and with Nash as comfortable as he'd ever get before we started seeing the small signs of decline, but the year doesn't quite pop the same way for me.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Nash vs Paul, I still side with Nash. I feel like a lot of the arguments for Paul rely on saying, "Well their both geniuses, but Paul is more well rounded." and I absolutely hate any analysis that says "I'm going to assume these two players' most important characteristics are a tie and make a decision based on something much less important."

I think APM-like regression analysis has been so great here. What we see when we look at individual factors is that Nash blows the doors off other point guards in terms of affecting eFG% in a good way, Paul blows the doors off other point guards in terms of affecting TOs in a good way, and that RAPM doesn't show a clear edge in either direction. So it's tight, and then your remember:

-Nash is the one who has blown the doors off all ceilings of team offense, which Paul hasn't proven he can do, which means ceiling concerns are clearly more on Paul's side.
-Nash has spent more time proving himself at the upper echelons of team success period.
-Nash is arguably the best leader of his generation, while Paul has been talked both as a bit of a follower and turned tail on the Hornets seemingly instantly after re-uping with them. While Paul's negatives there may not come into play in a given season, he's certainly not having the kind of off-court influence Nash has.

So yeah, tight, but there are some clear reasons for me to give Nash the benefit of the doubt.

[mysticbb]

I'm going to leave the Dirk stuff alone other than to ask anyone thinking about 11 Dirk the following:

-In April of 2011, were you thinking "holy ****, this Dirk guy is playing near an all-time level right now all of a sudden!?"

-How can you clearly distinguish 2011 Dirk as being better than 2006 Dirk when 06 Dirk was better defensively and on the boards? If you can't were you thinking 2006 Dirk was an all-time level peak??

Doesn't your "losing bias, clutch obsession and consistency" argument you brought up for Karl Malone also apply for Nowitzki before 2011? Isn't it the case that Nowitzki was doubted and not seen as good, because of those things you mentioned are negatively affecting the opinion on Karl Malone?
See, that's what I call intellectual dishonest argumentation, when it fits your personal belief, we have to look at all those biases, but when it is not, you are actually encourage people to have those biases. It becomes really sad and the longer it goes, the more weird are your argumentations becoming.

I'm championing Jerry West here, who I never saw play live. But I would never look to his stats first and then try and rank him. I'd look to learn about the Lakers TEAM, the history of the team, the coaches, and anything and everything contemporaries observed from tendencies to quirks to patterns to strengths to weaknesses. THEN go to the stats, and try and make more sense of them with all the information available (ie adding ORtg/DRtg and SRS, in/out, etc.).

So, you are implying that you are the only one doing that? Can you imagine that others are doing that as well, just coming to a different conclusion?

Which leads me to Karl Malone. If you compare Karl and Dirk as post players, guess who has more moves? Dirk.

And against better teams, he is actually using those better skills to achieve better results. That's what Nowitzki is doing. You are impressed by Malone's regular season numbers, but guess what? In 1998 he had 24.73 GameScore per 75 possessions against below average teams, against above average teams it was 21.06. I think it is important to acknowledge such things. You are so adamant about making proper analyses, but when it comes to the player you like more than other people, you seem to forget about that really quickly. You are talking about championship odds and how the performance in the playoffs matters, but then you proceed to completely ignore the fact that someone like Karl Malone actually showed a big difference between his performance level against weaker and better teams. What is more important for a championship run? That someone is beating up on weak teams or that someone is actually performing well against better teams? What is more likely? That someone will face below average teams during a championship run or that someone is facing above average teams?

First 18 1998: 24.5 pts 58.3% TS 9.5 FTA per 36

In 1998, there's no John Stockton. The idea that Malone needed Stockton to score or that Malone, in any way, wasn't a great iso/one-on-one scorer is entirely unsubstantiated. Malone shows similar performance in

I love how the opponents are ignored in that example, also, how you completely left out the 64 games with Stockton as a reference.

Now, let us check that: The Jazz played 11 home games during those 18 games (well, Malone scored at a higher rate and with higher efficiency in home games throughout his career) and the Jazz faced opponents with an average SRS of -1.84 (and that is not even accounting for the Shaq-less Lakers they faced on opening day), making the SOS -2.19. Sounds like a pretty easy schedule to me. Overall the Jazz had 1.7 SRS during that stretch, while Malone scored 24.5 on 58.2 TS% per 36 min. For the remaining 64 games Malone scored 26.5 per 36 min on 60.1 TS% while the Jazz played a -0.42 SOS and overall like a 6.86 SRS team. Did Stockton really had no effect on Malone? Was Stockton really that low of an impact player? Or is that just a myth you want to spread?
Malone's scoring rate raises while his TS% goes up as well, the Jazz play 5.16 points better with Stockton than without him.

-the 4 games Stockton missed in 1990...Malone averaged 26.3 ppg, 59% TS 9.5 FTA's
-the 5th game against Por in 1992 that Stockton missed 60% of w injury...Malone finished with 38 points on 58% TS 6 FTA
-the Seattle series in 1996 Stockton played injured in ...Malone averaged 27 ppg 50% TS (5.1 apg to 2.7 tpg) 10.0 FTA's. In 4 RS games, he averaged 23.3 ppg 49% TS

You are so adamant about sample size and variance, but now 4 games or even part of one game is enough?

[C-izMe]

Re: Nash vs Paul, I still side with Nash. I feel like a lot of the arguments for Paul rely on saying, "Well their both geniuses, but Paul is more well rounded." and I absolutely hate any analysis that says "I'm going to assume these two players' most important characteristics are a tie and make a decision based on something much less important."

I think APM-like regression analysis has been so great here. What we see when we look at individual factors is that Nash blows the doors off other point guards in terms of affecting eFG% in a good way, Paul blows the doors off other point guards in terms of affecting TOs in a good way, and that RAPM doesn't show a clear edge in either direction. So it's tight, and then your remember:

-Nash is the one who has blown the doors off all ceilings of team offense, which Paul hasn't proven he can do, which means ceiling concerns are clearly more on Paul's side.
-Nash has spent more time proving himself at the upper echelons of team success period.
-Nash is arguably the best leader of his generation, while Paul has been talked both as a bit of a follower and turned tail on the Hornets seemingly instantly after re-uping with them. While Paul's negatives there may not come into play in a given season, he's certainly not having the kind of off-court influence Nash has.

So yeah, tight, but there are some clear reasons for me to give Nash the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry but this is flat out wrong. Whenever someone talks about the toughest competitors they bring up the same players: Garnett, Nash, Paul, Rose, Kobe. Most clearly see Paul as a great leader and I've really never heard him referred to as a follower.

http://www.rantsports.com/nba/2012/08/0 ... argentina/

Anyway back to Paul, although Paul may not of been the one hitting deep three’s, or throwing down tomahawk dunks like the one Russell Westbrook over Argentina’s Juan Pedro Gutierrez. But his stellar play which, on a team like this consisting of high flyers like Westbrook and James, can sometimes go unnoticed, provided the groundwork for an absolutely outstanding showing in the second half by the US.
Paul demonstrated why he is one of the best, if not the best, point guards in the NBA. Being a great player is not always epitomized by your play, sometimes you need to be a leader, someone who can make other players around him better, and someone who can set an example for others. Paul, with his great effort of 17 points, 3 steals, 4 rebounds, and 7 assists, earned the right to head into the locker room at half, and let his teammates know that their play just wasn’t cutting it. Not just any player can do such a thing, if Anthony Davis had stepped up at halftime and told his elder, future foes, that they were playing horrible it may not have been taken so well. Luckily for the USA it was Paul who stepped into a leadership role against Argentina.

And this is on team USA so I know he's leading his teams (Flop City didn't flop until he showed up for example).


http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/cli ... leadership

Clippers guard Randy Foye spent his rookie season on the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2006-2007, where he played with Kevin Garnett. Foye said Garnett would make his presence known as a leader not just during games but also during team dinners, card games on flights and in practices. He did it so often, no one even questioned when he spoke out or barked violently a time or two in key moments.

"That's what Chris does too," Foye said.

The rest of your criticisms are legit and I'll get into that later when it comes up but I wanted to shut that CP3 isn't a leader talk down. He is probably the best leader of his era (Nash falls short of KG IMO).

[colts18]

I love how the opponents are ignored in that example, also, how you completely left out the 64 games with Stockton as a reference.

Now, let us check that: The Jazz played 11 home games during those 18 games (well, Malone scored at a higher rate and with higher efficiency in home games throughout his career) and the Jazz faced opponents with an average SRS of -1.84 (and that is not even accounting for the Shaq-less Lakers they faced on opening day), making the SOS -2.19. Sounds like a pretty easy schedule to me. Overall the Jazz had 1.7 SRS during that stretch, while Malone scored 24.5 on 58.2 TS% per 36 min. For the remaining 64 games Malone scored 26.5 per 36 min on 60.1 TS% while the Jazz played a -0.42 SOS and overall like a 6.86 SRS team. Did Stockton really had no effect on Malone? Was Stockton really that low of an impact player? Or is that just a myth you want to spread?
Malone's scoring rate raises while his TS% goes up as well, the Jazz play 5.16 points better with Stockton than without him.

-the 4 games Stockton missed in 1990...Malone averaged 26.3 ppg, 59% TS 9.5 FTA's
-the 5th game against Por in 1992 that Stockton missed 60% of w injury...Malone finished with 38 points on 58% TS 6 FTA
-the Seattle series in 1996 Stockton played injured in ...Malone averaged 27 ppg 50% TS (5.1 apg to 2.7 tpg) 10.0 FTA's. In 4 RS games, he averaged 23.3 ppg 49% TS

You are so adamant about sample size and variance, but now 4 games or even part of one game is enough?

The funny thing is that the 4 game sample size doesn't even prove Elgee's point, it contradicts it. This is what the Jazz did in the 4 games Stockton missed. Keep in mind they faced 3 -7 SRS teams in that span and lost to the -8.73 SRS Magic.

W/O stockton: 102.9 O rating (-7.1 relative to opponent), -4.46 SRS
With Stockton: 110.7 O rating ( +2.7 relative to average), 5.30 SRS
+9.8 O rating impact, +9.75 SRS difference


1998:
Malone w/Stockton: 119 O rating
Malone w/o Stockton: 111 O rating

Everything points to Stockton being a god offensive player.

[ElGee]

Nah, it doesn't contradict the point at all. I was clearly talking about scoring (based on bastillon's comment), and I'm not sure what the stuff you listed has to do with Malone's scoring.

[ardee]

Re: Nash vs Paul, I still side with Nash. I feel like a lot of the arguments for Paul rely on saying, "Well their both geniuses, but Paul is more well rounded." and I absolutely hate any analysis that says "I'm going to assume these two players' most important characteristics are a tie and make a decision based on something much less important."

I think APM-like regression analysis has been so great here. What we see when we look at individual factors is that Nash blows the doors off other point guards in terms of affecting eFG% in a good way, Paul blows the doors off other point guards in terms of affecting TOs in a good way, and that RAPM doesn't show a clear edge in either direction. So it's tight, and then your remember:

-[b]Nash is the one who has blown the doors off all ceilings of team offense, which Paul hasn't proven he can do[/b], which means ceiling concerns are clearly more on Paul's side.
-Nash has spent more time proving himself at the upper echelons of team success period.
-Nash is arguably the best leader of his generation, while Paul has been talked both as a bit of a follower and turned tail on the Hornets seemingly instantly after re-uping with them. While Paul's negatives there may not come into play in a given season, he's certainly not having the kind of off-court influence Nash has.

So yeah, tight, but there are some clear reasons for me to give Nash the benefit of the doubt.

Nash vs Paul is definitely a very intriguing debate. I personally side with Nash as well, however, I think the sentence I underlined is not very fair.

The best offensive supporting cast Paul ever had was in 2008, when he was in his third season, and played with a decent All-Star in David West, one great shooter in Peja, and a couple of so-so ones in Morris Peterson and Janerro Pargo. No one besides Paul and West to some extent could create his own shot.

In 2007, Nash's peak imo, there was Amare and Marion who were better than anyone on the 2008 Hornets besides Paul himself, Barbosa who could play point if need be at any time, plus Bell (knockdown shooter), and Diaw (versatile post scorer), and another pure shooter in James Jones.

It's not as if Paul's 2012 Clipper team is overflowing with talent. Maybe this year, Odom will be better, Billups might prove to be Nash's Barbosa if things go well, Crawford is a decent perimeter option off the bench, and Blake of course might improve. So hopefully for Paul things will change in 2013.

But until then, I'm not sure how we can penalize Paul to that extent for leading the 2008 Hornets to an ORtg 2.4 points lower than Nash's 2007 Suns even though he had a vastly worse supporting cast.

[ElGee]

Doc, don't forget Nash played on a team where the center was "cheating" out of position. Amare's really a PF and they shifted Marion and Amare up, which gives them an offensive advantage at the expense of defense (with a net gain). In 2006 Phoenix tried to run a traditional center and Nash's on oRtg was just under 115. In NO, Paul's 08 on court was 116.

Now, it's obviously amazing he posted a 115 rating with that team. But until Paul gets to play with a PnR player like Amare and 2-3 shooters spaced across the court, I'm not sure it's a fair argument to bring up. Or, maybe put another way, is there something about Paul's game/past results that suggests he couldn't approximate Nash's results in the same setting? (Keep in mind I think Nash is a better offensive player, but Paul's making it ~ even with his better defense.)