Peaks Project #18

[E-Balla]

PGs:
1. 08 Chris Paul
2. 66 Jerry West
3/4. 05 Nash/96 Penny (in order of who I'm leaning towards)
5. 99 Jason Kidd

Wings:
1 03 T-Mac
2. 06 Kobe Bryant
3. 14 Kevin Durant
4. 61 Elgin Baylor
5. 97 Grant Hill

Bigs:
1/2/3. 11 Dirk/90 Pat/83 Moses (in order of who I'm leaning towards)
4. 90 Charles Barkley
5. 11 Dwight/98 Karl/00 Zo (again, in order)

My nominations will be:
1. 03 Tracy McGrady
2. 11 Dirk Nowitzki
3. 90 Patrick Ewing

When do you think Stockton comes into play for PGs? Is he far from the pack?

I think Stockton's best season is 89. That said Tiny Archibald in 73 is better even with the major question of his postseason performance, 15 Westbrook is better, and even in the 1989 season Kevin Johnson (who is probably right under Kidd) is better. 11 Rose might be too.

[Quotatious]

I think Stockton's best season is 89. That said Tiny Archibald in 73 is better even with the major question of his postseason performance, 15 Westbrook is better, and even in the 1989 season Kevin Johnson (who is probably right under Kidd) is better. 11 Rose might be too.

How about '85 Isiah?

[E-Balla]

I think Stockton's best season is 89. That said Tiny Archibald in 73 is better even with the major question of his postseason performance, 15 Westbrook is better, and even in the 1989 season Kevin Johnson (who is probably right under Kidd) is better. 11 Rose might be too.

How about '85 Isiah?

Good one that I missed. He might actually belong in Kidd's spot. I also forgot 98 Gary Payton who is probably tied with KJ IMO. So yeah Stockton is not really on my radar and with Gilmore, McHale, etc. at the big positions not even on my top 5 yet I don't think he will be.

[The-Power]

I'm not super into ortg, but 2008 Chris Paul has a higher ortg than anything in Steve Nash's career?

You're looking at individual ORTG which is a boxscore-based efficiency stat extrapolated to 100 possessions a player hypothetically uses. It has nothing to do with the on/off-court ORTG most people in this project have been referring to so far. Just for clarification.

[Dr Spaceman]

Or maybe, both series were a bit of a fluke (cause he didn't duplicate that Spurs series) and the reality is somewhere in between. Nash consistently fell in efficiency in the playoffs and there really is no argument there, it's a fact.

Re: didn't replicate Spurs series, I am quite unsure what you mean here. If you're saying "he didn't replicate his Spurs series in the 2007 playoffs," then technically you're correct. If you're saying "he never played that well against the Spurs the rest in his prime", well, you're just wrong.

2005 WCF: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2010 WCSF: 20.2 PPG/ 64.3 TS%

Re: consistently fell off in efficiency in the playoffs. Actually again you're drawing too strong a conclusion. Here are Nash's first round performances during his 05-07 prime:

2005 vs. MEM: 15.0 PPG/56.6 TS%
2006 vs. LAL: 22.1 PPG/63.4 TS% (He was Phoenix's leading scorer)
2007 vs. LAL: 16.0 PPG/53.4 TS%

Here are his second and third round stats:

2005 vs. DAL: 30.3 PPG/63.9 TS%
2005 vs. SAS: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2006 vs. LAC: 19.1 PPG/58.4 TS%
2006 vs. DAL: 20.7 PPG/62.6 TS%

We've been over 2007 so I won't rehash.

So this is really interesting. Nash had a couple of really poor first round series in which he didn't score much and didn't shoot well. What happened in these series? His team won in 4/5 games.

Then, come the later rounds (or 2006 when he was forced into being the team's leading scorer) we see him consistently scale up his volume and efficiency.

Now I'm looking at these data and I'm going to restate a conclusion I brought up in my first post: Nash had the ability to sore on more volume with comparable efficiency when it was a priority for him. We see him put up horrific scoring performances in series where his teams were winning in blowouts and then we see him take on about 5 PPG more volume and a significant (sometimes as much as 10%) uptick in efficiency as well.

But even if you don't accept the paragraph above, you have to admit that all this makes your "Nash's efficiency drops off in the playoffs" look more like "Nash's efficiency drops off in first round series where his teams win in blowouts."

Ignoring playoffs again, woohoo! Nash has the regular season scoring edge, but in the playoffs he has no such edge.

Well I addressed his playoff scoring above but why don't we look at team offensive performance in the playoffs as well, just to get the whole picture? Because here Nash looks like the GOAT while Paul quite simply does not.

Gap between the two defenses is pretty small ('07 Spurs #2 -6.6, '08 Spurs #3 -5.7) And as I'm sure you know the Suns played at a much higher pace, 100.5 ppg to 92.1 ppg, Paul scored a greater portion of his teams points by a solid margin (25.7% vs 21.1%).

Okay but you asked for playoff data and you asked for a "more relevant series". There they are. If you're going to tell me I'm not using numbers enough then you can't back out when the numbers are placed in front of you.

Got work, so gonna be brief, you're trying to prop up Nash as an alltime level scorer and it's not the truth. He was good, but has no huge edge over Paul in that department like you're trying to make it seem.

Perhaps not ITO production, but in terms of skill set he does, and I have postulated that that enabled him to both score at higher efficiency than Paul and scale up his scoring volume when it was needed from him.

Watch the sequence starting at 4:10 here, as Nash in consecutive plays can make a much better case for his scoring skill set than I can do here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSzjeA35jwQ[/youtube]

The ability to pop 3s off the dribble like that cannot be overlooked. You simply can't go under screens against Nash or he'll burn you. And then the very next possession the Spurs adjust, having Duncan come up higher so he's in position to close out and Nash makes him look like he's wearing cinder blocks.

You simply can't defend that, and I haven't ever seen Paul display either that shooting ability off the dribble or that explosiveness on drives.

[E-Balla]

Or maybe, both series were a bit of a fluke (cause he didn't duplicate that Spurs series) and the reality is somewhere in between. Nash consistently fell in efficiency in the playoffs and there really is no argument there, it's a fact.

Re: didn't replicate Spurs series, I am quite unsure what you mean here. If you're saying "he didn't replicate his Spurs series in the 2007 playoffs," then technically you're correct. If you're saying "he never played that well against the Spurs the rest in his prime", well, you're just wrong.

2005 WCF: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2010 WCSF: 20.2 PPG/ 64.3 TS%

Re: consistently fell off in efficiency in the playoffs. Actually again you're drawing too strong a conclusion. Here are Nash's first round performances during his 05-07 prime:

2005 vs. MEM: 15.0 PPG/56.6 TS%
2006 vs. LAL: 22.1 PPG/63.4 TS% (He was Phoenix's leading scorer)
2007 vs. LAL: 16.0 PPG/53.4 TS%

Here are his second and third round stats:

2005 vs. DAL: 30.3 PPG/63.9 TS%
2005 vs. SAS: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2006 vs. LAC: 19.1 PPG/58.4 TS%
2006 vs. DAL: 20.7 PPG/62.6 TS%

We've been over 2007 so I won't rehash.

So this is really interesting. Nash had a couple of really poor first round series in which he didn't score much and didn't shoot well. What happened in these series? His team won in 4/5 games.

Then, come the later rounds (or 2006 when he was forced into being the team's leading scorer) we see him consistently scale up his volume and efficiency.

Now I'm looking at these data and I'm going to restate a conclusion I brought up in my first post: Nash had the ability to sore on more volume with comparable efficiency when it was a priority for him. We see him put up horrific scoring performances in series where his teams were winning in blowouts and then we see him take on about 5 PPG more volume and a significant (sometimes as much as 10%) uptick in efficiency as well.

But even if you don't accept the paragraph above, you have to admit that all this makes your "Nash's efficiency drops off in the playoffs" look more like "Nash's efficiency drops off in first round series where his teams win in blowouts."

Ignoring playoffs again, woohoo! Nash has the regular season scoring edge, but in the playoffs he has no such edge.

Well I addressed his playoff scoring above but why don't we look at team offensive performance in the playoffs as well, just to get the whole picture? Because here Nash looks like the GOAT while Paul quite simply does not.

Gap between the two defenses is pretty small ('07 Spurs #2 -6.6, '08 Spurs #3 -5.7) And as I'm sure you know the Suns played at a much higher pace, 100.5 ppg to 92.1 ppg, Paul scored a greater portion of his teams points by a solid margin (25.7% vs 21.1%).

Okay but you asked for playoff data and you asked for a "more relevant series". There they are. If you're going to tell me I'm not using numbers enough then you can't back out when the numbers are placed in front of you.

Got work, so gonna be brief, you're trying to prop up Nash as an alltime level scorer and it's not the truth. He was good, but has no huge edge over Paul in that department like you're trying to make it seem.

Perhaps not ITO production, but in terms of skill set he does, and I have postulated that that enabled him to both score at higher efficiency than Paul and scale up his scoring volume when it was needed from him.

Watch the sequence starting at 4:10 here, as Nash in consecutive plays can make a much better case for his scoring skill set than I can do here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSzjeA35jwQ[/youtube]

The ability to pop 3s off the dribble like that cannot be overlooked. You simply can't go under screens against Nash or he'll burn you. And then the very next possession the Spurs adjust, having Duncan come up higher so he's in position to close out and Nash makes him look like he's wearing cinder blocks.

You simply can't defend that, and I haven't ever seen Paul display either that shooting ability off the dribble or that explosiveness on drives.

Question were you watching basketball back in 06-09?

His first playoff game ever:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYymt-2FpfY[/youtube]

Chris Paul's speed and ability to drive without the need for a PNR is easily miles ahead of Nash and as a midrange shooter he's top 10 all time easily. I think you're thinking of Paul now that he's slowed down. Nash's shooting levels the playing field but CP3 is way better at driving into the lane and as scorers they're probably even with maybe a light edge to Paul.

[RSCD3_]

I sort of agree with some of the points made in Nash vs Paul.

If New Orleans Sacrificed more of their offense for defense, and they could maintain the same overall level of play...then Paul would get more credit while the teams effectiveness would change so much.

[trex_8063]

1st ballot: Kevin Durant '14
Info recently posted by MyUniBroDavis suggestive that Durant is a better defender than I've given him credit for. He's also very good to elite as both a rebounder and playmaker for a SF. And then GOAT-level pure scorer: 41.8 pts/100 possessions @ 63.5% TS . fwiw, I'd also constructed formula founded on Moonbeam's Score+ rating (I called mine "Modified Score+").......'14 Durant is the 2nd-highest MS+ rating on record (just barely behind '88 Barkley, and just barely ahead of '83 Dantley).
He couldn't quite maintain that in the playoffs, but still......35.9 pts/100 poss @ 57.0% TS while playing 42.9 mpg; that's still very elite level scoring, and---collectively with the rs numbers---has him in contention for greatest ever pure scoring season. And bear in mind the defense he was facing in the '14 playoffs:
1st round: -2.1 rDRTG (ranked 7th of 30; being guarded primarily by Tony Allen, who I think is arguably the greatest perimeter man-defender of this generation)
2nd round: -1.9 rDRTG (9th of 30)
3rd round: -4.3 rDRTG (3rd of 30; being guarded by Kawhi Leonard)

fwiw, where portability is concerned, although obviously it's very speculative, I suspect Durant's is reasonably high, as he's primarily an off-ball player (takes less of the table), and---at least in the modern setting---provides a ton of floor spacing, which is quite important. I mean, his defender literally has to be glued to him even 25-26 ft from the hoop, and is basically taken out of help defense entirely.


2nd ballot: Dirk Nowitzki '06
Helluv' an offensive anchor, who also must be listed as one of the greatest pure scorers, especially when factoring his ability to hold steady or even scale up in the playoffs. He didn't dwindle in the post-season in '06 while bringing his team to the brink; and I'll be honest, the '06 Finals almost has a small asterisk by it in my mind, as there was some fishy-seeming officiating going on in that one.

Why '06 over '11? I know his post game isn't as refined as in '11, and hasn't figured out how to deal with double-teams quite as well as in '11 either.....but I kinda like the better motor and mobility he had on him in his younger years, like that fact that he could carry the load and have a big impact for 38 mpg (instead of 34) while missing only a single game all year, too. Significantly better rebounder in '06 than he was in '11. And it was my impression of both eras of his career that he was a better defender in '06 (again maybe the better motility and lateral quickness, etc), though I'll admit the impact data does not reflect this opinion.


3rd ballot: Tracy McGrady '03
It feels a little weird voting TMac this high, but '03 was a heck of an outlier year for him. Hard to deny this season. Amazing box and advanced metrics during the rs, numbers that easily put him in contention here, as he lifted a pretty mediocre (poor, actually) cast to a top-10 offense (he had the 2nd-highest OPRAM---behind only Shaq---that year) and a playoff berth. Went for 31.7/6.7/4.7 on 56.1% TS (27.0 PER, .181 WS/48, +9.3 BPM) against a top-5 defense in the playoffs, while taking the #1 seed to 7 games.


Will try to write some more on Barkley vs. Dirk and Paul vs. Nash later. Sorry it's just been such a busy weekend.

[theonlyclutch]

Or maybe, both series were a bit of a fluke (cause he didn't duplicate that Spurs series) and the reality is somewhere in between. Nash consistently fell in efficiency in the playoffs and there really is no argument there, it's a fact.

Re: didn't replicate Spurs series, I am quite unsure what you mean here. If you're saying "he didn't replicate his Spurs series in the 2007 playoffs," then technically you're correct. If you're saying "he never played that well against the Spurs the rest in his prime", well, you're just wrong.

2005 WCF: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2010 WCSF: 20.2 PPG/ 64.3 TS%

Re: consistently fell off in efficiency in the playoffs. Actually again you're drawing too strong a conclusion. Here are Nash's first round performances during his 05-07 prime:

2005 vs. MEM: 15.0 PPG/56.6 TS%
2006 vs. LAL: 22.1 PPG/63.4 TS% (He was Phoenix's leading scorer)
2007 vs. LAL: 16.0 PPG/53.4 TS%

Here are his second and third round stats:

2005 vs. DAL: 30.3 PPG/63.9 TS%
2005 vs. SAS: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2006 vs. LAC: 19.1 PPG/58.4 TS%
2006 vs. DAL: 20.7 PPG/62.6 TS%

We've been over 2007 so I won't rehash.

So this is really interesting. Nash had a couple of really poor first round series in which he didn't score much and didn't shoot well. What happened in these series? His team won in 4/5 games.

Then, come the later rounds (or 2006 when he was forced into being the team's leading scorer) we see him consistently scale up his volume and efficiency.

Now I'm looking at these data and I'm going to restate a conclusion I brought up in my first post: Nash had the ability to sore on more volume with comparable efficiency when it was a priority for him. We see him put up horrific scoring performances in series where his teams were winning in blowouts and then we see him take on about 5 PPG more volume and a significant (sometimes as much as 10%) uptick in efficiency as well.

But even if you don't accept the paragraph above, you have to admit that all this makes your "Nash's efficiency drops off in the playoffs" look more like "Nash's efficiency drops off in first round series where his teams win in blowouts."

Ignoring playoffs again, woohoo! Nash has the regular season scoring edge, but in the playoffs he has no such edge.

Well I addressed his playoff scoring above but why don't we look at team offensive performance in the playoffs as well, just to get the whole picture? Because here Nash looks like the GOAT while Paul quite simply does not.

Gap between the two defenses is pretty small ('07 Spurs #2 -6.6, '08 Spurs #3 -5.7) And as I'm sure you know the Suns played at a much higher pace, 100.5 ppg to 92.1 ppg, Paul scored a greater portion of his teams points by a solid margin (25.7% vs 21.1%).

Okay but you asked for playoff data and you asked for a "more relevant series". There they are. If you're going to tell me I'm not using numbers enough then you can't back out when the numbers are placed in front of you.

Got work, so gonna be brief, you're trying to prop up Nash as an alltime level scorer and it's not the truth. He was good, but has no huge edge over Paul in that department like you're trying to make it seem.

Perhaps not ITO production, but in terms of skill set he does, and I have postulated that that enabled him to both score at higher efficiency than Paul and scale up his scoring volume when it was needed from him.

Watch the sequence starting at 4:10 here, as Nash in consecutive plays can make a much better case for his scoring skill set than I can do here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSzjeA35jwQ[/youtube]

The ability to pop 3s off the dribble like that cannot be overlooked. You simply can't go under screens against Nash or he'll burn you. And then the very next possession the Spurs adjust, having Duncan come up higher so he's in position to close out and Nash makes him look like he's wearing cinder blocks.

You simply can't defend that, and I haven't ever seen Paul display either that shooting ability off the dribble or that explosiveness on drives.

Question were you watching basketball back in 06-09?

His first playoff game ever:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYymt-2FpfY[/youtube]

Chris Paul's speed and ability to drive without the need for a PNR is easily miles ahead of Nash and as a midrange shooter he's top 10 all time easily. I think you're thinking of Paul now that he's slowed down. Nash's shooting levels the playing field but CP3 is way better at driving into the lane and as scorers they're probably even with maybe a light edge to Paul.

The thing is, CP3 doesn't have both the hyper-deadly midrange/perimeter shot and the speed and ability to drive at the same time, the former belonged more to Clippers CP3, while the latter was what 08 CP3 possessed ( assuming that is the peak being discussed here). It's very clear that Clippers CP3 was more focused on activity around the elbows, while 08 CP3 was taking it more to the rim..

I think Stockton's best season is 89. That said Tiny Archibald in 73 is better even with the major question of his postseason performance, 15 Westbrook is better, and even in the 1989 season Kevin Johnson (who is probably right under Kidd) is better. 11 Rose might be too.

How about '85 Isiah?

If Isiah is being shown here already, Billups should be as well..

[trex_8063]

Thru post #49:

Dirk Nowitzki - 15
Jerry West - 12
Patrick Ewing - 11
Kevin Durant - 8
Tracy McGrady - 8
Kobe Bryant - 7
Moses Malone - 3
Steve Nash - 2

Will leave this open for about another hour or so, then will have to call a winner and move on.

btw, Spaceman, in the future please try to confine your ballots to a single post (so I don't run the risk of double-counting yours).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[E-Balla]

Re: didn't replicate Spurs series, I am quite unsure what you mean here. If you're saying "he didn't replicate his Spurs series in the 2007 playoffs," then technically you're correct. If you're saying "he never played that well against the Spurs the rest in his prime", well, you're just wrong.

2005 WCF: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2010 WCSF: 20.2 PPG/ 64.3 TS%

Re: consistently fell off in efficiency in the playoffs. Actually again you're drawing too strong a conclusion. Here are Nash's first round performances during his 05-07 prime:

2005 vs. MEM: 15.0 PPG/56.6 TS%
2006 vs. LAL: 22.1 PPG/63.4 TS% (He was Phoenix's leading scorer)
2007 vs. LAL: 16.0 PPG/53.4 TS%

Here are his second and third round stats:

2005 vs. DAL: 30.3 PPG/63.9 TS%
2005 vs. SAS: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2006 vs. LAC: 19.1 PPG/58.4 TS%
2006 vs. DAL: 20.7 PPG/62.6 TS%

We've been over 2007 so I won't rehash.

So this is really interesting. Nash had a couple of really poor first round series in which he didn't score much and didn't shoot well. What happened in these series? His team won in 4/5 games.

Then, come the later rounds (or 2006 when he was forced into being the team's leading scorer) we see him consistently scale up his volume and efficiency.

Now I'm looking at these data and I'm going to restate a conclusion I brought up in my first post: Nash had the ability to sore on more volume with comparable efficiency when it was a priority for him. We see him put up horrific scoring performances in series where his teams were winning in blowouts and then we see him take on about 5 PPG more volume and a significant (sometimes as much as 10%) uptick in efficiency as well.

But even if you don't accept the paragraph above, you have to admit that all this makes your "Nash's efficiency drops off in the playoffs" look more like "Nash's efficiency drops off in first round series where his teams win in blowouts."







Well I addressed his playoff scoring above but why don't we look at team offensive performance in the playoffs as well, just to get the whole picture? Because here Nash looks like the GOAT while Paul quite simply does not.




Okay but you asked for playoff data and you asked for a "more relevant series". There they are. If you're going to tell me I'm not using numbers enough then you can't back out when the numbers are placed in front of you.





Perhaps not ITO production, but in terms of skill set he does, and I have postulated that that enabled him to both score at higher efficiency than Paul and scale up his scoring volume when it was needed from him.

Watch the sequence starting at 4:10 here, as Nash in consecutive plays can make a much better case for his scoring skill set than I can do here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSzjeA35jwQ[/youtube]

The ability to pop 3s off the dribble like that cannot be overlooked. You simply can't go under screens against Nash or he'll burn you. And then the very next possession the Spurs adjust, having Duncan come up higher so he's in position to close out and Nash makes him look like he's wearing cinder blocks.

You simply can't defend that, and I haven't ever seen Paul display either that shooting ability off the dribble or that explosiveness on drives.

Question were you watching basketball back in 06-09?

His first playoff game ever:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYymt-2FpfY[/youtube]

Chris Paul's speed and ability to drive without the need for a PNR is easily miles ahead of Nash and as a midrange shooter he's top 10 all time easily. I think you're thinking of Paul now that he's slowed down. Nash's shooting levels the playing field but CP3 is way better at driving into the lane and as scorers they're probably even with maybe a light edge to Paul.

The thing is, CP3 doesn't have both the hyper-deadly midrange/perimeter shot and the speed and ability to drive at the same time, the former belonged more to Clippers CP3, while the latter was what 08 CP3 possessed ( assuming that is the peak being discussed here). It's very clear that Clippers CP3 was more focused on activity around the elbows, while 08 CP3 was taking it more to the rim..

Oh yeah if my post made it sound like his midrange jumper was as good as it is now back then my bad but it was very close. From 08-10 he was 52% in the paint (outside the restricted area), 47% from 10-16, and 45% from 16-23. In LA he's 50% in the paint (non-restricted), 49% from 10-16, and 47% from 16-23. Basically 2% better on that midrange jumper now. Still in 08 and 09 over a quarter of his shots were in the restricted area.

My main point was that Spaceman sounded like he was talking about 2015 CP3 when 7 years ago he was a different class of athlete.

I think Stockton's best season is 89. That said Tiny Archibald in 73 is better even with the major question of his postseason performance, 15 Westbrook is better, and even in the 1989 season Kevin Johnson (who is probably right under Kidd) is better. 11 Rose might be too.

How about '85 Isiah?

If Isiah is being shown here already, Billups should be as well..

No way in hell. I'd love to hear an argument supporting any of Chauncey's seasons over 85 IT. They're not even in the same class of player peak for peak.

[theonlyclutch]

Final Ballot:

1st Ballot - 2014 Kevin Durant

2nd Ballot - 2011 Dirk Nowitzki

3rd Ballot - 1966 Jerry West

Reason: Led the best offense in the league with phenomenal individual production, all accounts have him as an elite perimeter defender, went down fighting against the Russell-led Celtics..

[Dr Spaceman]

Or maybe, both series were a bit of a fluke (cause he didn't duplicate that Spurs series) and the reality is somewhere in between. Nash consistently fell in efficiency in the playoffs and there really is no argument there, it's a fact.

Re: didn't replicate Spurs series, I am quite unsure what you mean here. If you're saying "he didn't replicate his Spurs series in the 2007 playoffs," then technically you're correct. If you're saying "he never played that well against the Spurs the rest in his prime", well, you're just wrong.

2005 WCF: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2010 WCSF: 20.2 PPG/ 64.3 TS%

Re: consistently fell off in efficiency in the playoffs. Actually again you're drawing too strong a conclusion. Here are Nash's first round performances during his 05-07 prime:

2005 vs. MEM: 15.0 PPG/56.6 TS%
2006 vs. LAL: 22.1 PPG/63.4 TS% (He was Phoenix's leading scorer)
2007 vs. LAL: 16.0 PPG/53.4 TS%

Here are his second and third round stats:

2005 vs. DAL: 30.3 PPG/63.9 TS%
2005 vs. SAS: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2006 vs. LAC: 19.1 PPG/58.4 TS%
2006 vs. DAL: 20.7 PPG/62.6 TS%

We've been over 2007 so I won't rehash.

So this is really interesting. Nash had a couple of really poor first round series in which he didn't score much and didn't shoot well. What happened in these series? His team won in 4/5 games.

Then, come the later rounds (or 2006 when he was forced into being the team's leading scorer) we see him consistently scale up his volume and efficiency.

Now I'm looking at these data and I'm going to restate a conclusion I brought up in my first post: Nash had the ability to sore on more volume with comparable efficiency when it was a priority for him. We see him put up horrific scoring performances in series where his teams were winning in blowouts and then we see him take on about 5 PPG more volume and a significant (sometimes as much as 10%) uptick in efficiency as well.

But even if you don't accept the paragraph above, you have to admit that all this makes your "Nash's efficiency drops off in the playoffs" look more like "Nash's efficiency drops off in first round series where his teams win in blowouts."

Ignoring playoffs again, woohoo! Nash has the regular season scoring edge, but in the playoffs he has no such edge.

Well I addressed his playoff scoring above but why don't we look at team offensive performance in the playoffs as well, just to get the whole picture? Because here Nash looks like the GOAT while Paul quite simply does not.

Gap between the two defenses is pretty small ('07 Spurs #2 -6.6, '08 Spurs #3 -5.7) And as I'm sure you know the Suns played at a much higher pace, 100.5 ppg to 92.1 ppg, Paul scored a greater portion of his teams points by a solid margin (25.7% vs 21.1%).

Okay but you asked for playoff data and you asked for a "more relevant series". There they are. If you're going to tell me I'm not using numbers enough then you can't back out when the numbers are placed in front of you.

Got work, so gonna be brief, you're trying to prop up Nash as an alltime level scorer and it's not the truth. He was good, but has no huge edge over Paul in that department like you're trying to make it seem.

Perhaps not ITO production, but in terms of skill set he does, and I have postulated that that enabled him to both score at higher efficiency than Paul and scale up his scoring volume when it was needed from him.

Watch the sequence starting at 4:10 here, as Nash in consecutive plays can make a much better case for his scoring skill set than I can do here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSzjeA35jwQ[/youtube]

The ability to pop 3s off the dribble like that cannot be overlooked. You simply can't go under screens against Nash or he'll burn you. And then the very next possession the Spurs adjust, having Duncan come up higher so he's in position to close out and Nash makes him look like he's wearing cinder blocks.

You simply can't defend that, and I haven't ever seen Paul display either that shooting ability off the dribble or that explosiveness on drives.

Question were you watching basketball back in 06-09?

His first playoff game ever:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYymt-2FpfY[/youtube]

Chris Paul's speed and ability to drive without the need for a PNR is easily miles ahead of Nash and as a midrange shooter he's top 10 all time easily. I think you're thinking of Paul now that he's slowed down. Nash's shooting levels the playing field but CP3 is way better at driving into the lane and as scorers they're probably even with maybe a light edge to Paul.

Sorry, was referring to 15 Paul. Wires a bit crossed. Here's the thing: if we use 08 Paul, and accept that he's really good driving in the lane, the flips is of that coin is that he doesn't have all that dangerous a jumper (can't leave him open/go under screens, but he's not going to punish you immediately the way Nash did and he needs lots of space). Nash brought a combination of shooting and slashing that Paul has never had at any one point in his career.

In a nutshell, the logical flow of my thoughts:

Nash had a combination of shooting/slashing on the PNR Paul never touched.
This, Nash is more dangerous and versatile as a scorer.
Thus, Nash is more efficient and leads better offenses.
Thus, Nash is a better scorer than Paul.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Oh, I forgot to submit my votes lol.
Durant 14 - As established before, one of the greatest scorers ever. Not only that, but while also being a good playmaker, rebounder, etc, he was an underrated defender. was among the league leaders in isolation defense.
Dirk 11 - Pretty much, everything said here is enough.
on a sidenote, his rapm offensively was comparable to Curry, and defensively it seemed very, very good. his npi was higher than curry, who was ranked first this year.

Leaning towards nash for my third.

[E-Balla]

Re: didn't replicate Spurs series, I am quite unsure what you mean here. If you're saying "he didn't replicate his Spurs series in the 2007 playoffs," then technically you're correct. If you're saying "he never played that well against the Spurs the rest in his prime", well, you're just wrong.

2005 WCF: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2010 WCSF: 20.2 PPG/ 64.3 TS%

Re: consistently fell off in efficiency in the playoffs. Actually again you're drawing too strong a conclusion. Here are Nash's first round performances during his 05-07 prime:

2005 vs. MEM: 15.0 PPG/56.6 TS%
2006 vs. LAL: 22.1 PPG/63.4 TS% (He was Phoenix's leading scorer)
2007 vs. LAL: 16.0 PPG/53.4 TS%

Here are his second and third round stats:

2005 vs. DAL: 30.3 PPG/63.9 TS%
2005 vs. SAS: 23.2 PPG/57.5 TS%
2006 vs. LAC: 19.1 PPG/58.4 TS%
2006 vs. DAL: 20.7 PPG/62.6 TS%

We've been over 2007 so I won't rehash.

So this is really interesting. Nash had a couple of really poor first round series in which he didn't score much and didn't shoot well. What happened in these series? His team won in 4/5 games.

Then, come the later rounds (or 2006 when he was forced into being the team's leading scorer) we see him consistently scale up his volume and efficiency.

Now I'm looking at these data and I'm going to restate a conclusion I brought up in my first post: Nash had the ability to sore on more volume with comparable efficiency when it was a priority for him. We see him put up horrific scoring performances in series where his teams were winning in blowouts and then we see him take on about 5 PPG more volume and a significant (sometimes as much as 10%) uptick in efficiency as well.

But even if you don't accept the paragraph above, you have to admit that all this makes your "Nash's efficiency drops off in the playoffs" look more like "Nash's efficiency drops off in first round series where his teams win in blowouts."







Well I addressed his playoff scoring above but why don't we look at team offensive performance in the playoffs as well, just to get the whole picture? Because here Nash looks like the GOAT while Paul quite simply does not.




Okay but you asked for playoff data and you asked for a "more relevant series". There they are. If you're going to tell me I'm not using numbers enough then you can't back out when the numbers are placed in front of you.





Perhaps not ITO production, but in terms of skill set he does, and I have postulated that that enabled him to both score at higher efficiency than Paul and scale up his scoring volume when it was needed from him.

Watch the sequence starting at 4:10 here, as Nash in consecutive plays can make a much better case for his scoring skill set than I can do here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSzjeA35jwQ[/youtube]

The ability to pop 3s off the dribble like that cannot be overlooked. You simply can't go under screens against Nash or he'll burn you. And then the very next possession the Spurs adjust, having Duncan come up higher so he's in position to close out and Nash makes him look like he's wearing cinder blocks.

You simply can't defend that, and I haven't ever seen Paul display either that shooting ability off the dribble or that explosiveness on drives.

Question were you watching basketball back in 06-09?

His first playoff game ever:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYymt-2FpfY[/youtube]

Chris Paul's speed and ability to drive without the need for a PNR is easily miles ahead of Nash and as a midrange shooter he's top 10 all time easily. I think you're thinking of Paul now that he's slowed down. Nash's shooting levels the playing field but CP3 is way better at driving into the lane and as scorers they're probably even with maybe a light edge to Paul.

Sorry, was referring to 15 Paul. Wires a bit crossed. Here's the thing: if we use 08 Paul, and accept that he's really good driving in the lane, the flips is of that coin is that he doesn't have all that dangerous a jumper (can't leave him open/go under screens, but he's not going to punish you immediately the way Nash did and he needs lots of space). Nash brought a combination of shooting and slashing that Paul has never had at any one point in his career.

In a nutshell, the logical flow of my thoughts:

Nash had a combination of shooting/slashing on the PNR Paul never touched.
This, Nash is more dangerous and versatile as a scorer.
Thus, Nash is more efficient and leads better offenses.
Thus, Nash is a better scorer than Paul.

In the postseason and regular season combined Chris Paul was 47.5% on 2 point jumpers and he took a little more than he did this past season. On what planet is that not incredibly dangerous. Chris Paul would punish you for going under screens back then.

Your post sounds more like a description of Derrick Rose than CP3.

Mid Range Shooting In 08

So Mo Williams, Nash, and Calderon (all of whom took nearly half the amount of shots he did) are the only ones better.

[E-Balla]

Also for any Nash voters or future Nash voters (same can go for CP3): Why Nash or CP3 over Kobe? For a while I felt CP3 was better but as I got older and started being more objective I don't think Nash or CP3 can be put over Kobe in 06 or 08.

[Dr Spaceman]

Question were you watching basketball back in 06-09?

His first playoff game ever:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYymt-2FpfY[/youtube]

Chris Paul's speed and ability to drive without the need for a PNR is easily miles ahead of Nash and as a midrange shooter he's top 10 all time easily. I think you're thinking of Paul now that he's slowed down. Nash's shooting levels the playing field but CP3 is way better at driving into the lane and as scorers they're probably even with maybe a light edge to Paul.

Sorry, was referring to 15 Paul. Wires a bit crossed. Here's the thing: if we use 08 Paul, and accept that he's really good driving in the lane, the flips is of that coin is that he doesn't have all that dangerous a jumper (can't leave him open/go under screens, but he's not going to punish you immediately the way Nash did and he needs lots of space). Nash brought a combination of shooting and slashing that Paul has never had at any one point in his career.

In a nutshell, the logical flow of my thoughts:

Nash had a combination of shooting/slashing on the PNR Paul never touched.
This, Nash is more dangerous and versatile as a scorer.
Thus, Nash is more efficient and leads better offenses.
Thus, Nash is a better scorer than Paul.

In the postseason and regular season combined Chris Paul was 47.5% on 2 point jumpers and he took a little more than he did this past season. On what planet is that not incredibly dangerous. Chris Paul would punish you for going under screens back then.

Your post sounds more like a description of Derrick Rose than CP3.

Mid Range Shooting In 08

So Mo Williams, Nash, and Calderon (all of whom took nearly half the amount of shots he did) are the only ones better.

So,

A. I watched that video and there's absolutely nothing there that would indicate Paul was "way better" at driving to the lane, or even better at all. If you could point to specific plays where this is evident, that would be a help.
B. The Spurs were having Parker and Bowen going under screens for most of that video. That's not what you do when you're truly afraid of someone killing you with jumpers. Paul hit a bunch, which is exactly what he should do, and the started going over in the 2nd quarter. But again in the 3rd and 4th the Spurs went under every screen and Paul wasn't killing them for it.

And also, just for clarity, Paul shoots exactly 2% better on midrange shots than Nash shoots on 3s. And however good a job Paul was doing with his midrange shot agains the Spurs you can't seriously argue he was anywhere near as dangerous as Nash who hit well over half of his 3s (!) in their 07 series. And those were mostly off the dribble!

[theonlyclutch]

Question were you watching basketball back in 06-09?

His first playoff game ever:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYymt-2FpfY[/youtube]

Chris Paul's speed and ability to drive without the need for a PNR is easily miles ahead of Nash and as a midrange shooter he's top 10 all time easily. I think you're thinking of Paul now that he's slowed down. Nash's shooting levels the playing field but CP3 is way better at driving into the lane and as scorers they're probably even with maybe a light edge to Paul.

Sorry, was referring to 15 Paul. Wires a bit crossed. Here's the thing: if we use 08 Paul, and accept that he's really good driving in the lane, the flips is of that coin is that he doesn't have all that dangerous a jumper (can't leave him open/go under screens, but he's not going to punish you immediately the way Nash did and he needs lots of space). Nash brought a combination of shooting and slashing that Paul has never had at any one point in his career.

In a nutshell, the logical flow of my thoughts:

Nash had a combination of shooting/slashing on the PNR Paul never touched.
This, Nash is more dangerous and versatile as a scorer.
Thus, Nash is more efficient and leads better offenses.
Thus, Nash is a better scorer than Paul.

In the postseason and regular season combined Chris Paul was 47.5% on 2 point jumpers and he took a little more than he did this past season. On what planet is that not incredibly dangerous. Chris Paul would punish you for going under screens back then.

Your post sounds more like a description of Derrick Rose than CP3.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/plus/shot_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=single&year_id=2008&is_playoffs=&team_id=&opp_id=&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&shot_pts=2&is_make=&shot_type=JUMP_SHOT&shot_distance_min=&shot_distance_max=&q1=Y&q2=Y&q3=Y&q4=Y&q5=Y&time_remain_minutes=12&time_remain_seconds=0&time_remain_comp=le&margin_min=&margin_max=&c1stat=fga&c1comp=ge&c1val=200&c2stat=&c2comp=ge&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=ge&c3val=&order_by=fg_pct

% of FGA from 0-10ft
08 - 42.2% of FGA, 15 - 20% of FGA
% of FGA from 10-<3
08 - 38.5% of FGA, 15 - 49.4% of FGA
% of FGA from 3
08 - 19.3% of FGA, 15 - 29.8% of FGA

It's clear CP3 is taking way more shots from the midrange now than 7 years ago, that shot chart (if one doesn't know who the player is) looks like a completely different player

How about '85 Isiah?

If Isiah is being shown here already, Billups should be as well..

No way in hell. I'd love to hear an argument supporting any of Chauncey's seasons over 85 IT. They're not even in the same class of player peak for peak.

At his peak (06/08), Chauncey's combination of:
- elite 3 point shooting
- elite foul draw ability (think James Harden)
- great propensity to protect the ball (12.0-13.0% TOV is great for a PG)

allowed the Pistons to run a great offense while playing at a brutally slow pace (the mid-00s Pistons were consistently bottom-runners), which Isiah hasn't been able to do without either cranking up the pace, or have great supporting offensive talent.

In any case, I don't have these seasons coming up that soon, so this discussion should be continued at a later time

[trex_8063]

Calling it for Dirk.

Thru post #57:

Dirk Nowitzki - 19
Kevin Durant - 14
Jerry West - 13
Patrick Ewing - 11
Tracy McGrady - 8
Kobe Bryant - 7
Moses Malone - 3
Steve Nash - 3

Will have #19 up shortly....

[E-Balla]

Sorry, was referring to 15 Paul. Wires a bit crossed. Here's the thing: if we use 08 Paul, and accept that he's really good driving in the lane, the flips is of that coin is that he doesn't have all that dangerous a jumper (can't leave him open/go under screens, but he's not going to punish you immediately the way Nash did and he needs lots of space). Nash brought a combination of shooting and slashing that Paul has never had at any one point in his career.

In a nutshell, the logical flow of my thoughts:

Nash had a combination of shooting/slashing on the PNR Paul never touched.
This, Nash is more dangerous and versatile as a scorer.
Thus, Nash is more efficient and leads better offenses.
Thus, Nash is a better scorer than Paul.

In the postseason and regular season combined Chris Paul was 47.5% on 2 point jumpers and he took a little more than he did this past season. On what planet is that not incredibly dangerous. Chris Paul would punish you for going under screens back then.

Your post sounds more like a description of Derrick Rose than CP3.

Mid Range Shooting In 08

So Mo Williams, Nash, and Calderon (all of whom took nearly half the amount of shots he did) are the only ones better.

So,

A. I watched that video and there's absolutely nothing there that would indicate Paul was "way better" at driving to the lane, or even better at all. If you could point to specific plays where this is evident, that would be a help.
B. The Spurs were having Parker and Bowen going under screens for most of that video. That's not what you do when you're truly afraid of someone killing you with jumpers. Paul hit a bunch, which is exactly what he should do, and the started going over in the 2nd quarter. But again in the 3rd and 4th the Spurs went under every screen and Paul wasn't killing them for it.

And also, just for clarity, Paul shoots exactly 2% better on midrange shots than Nash shoots on 3s. And however good a job Paul was doing with his midrange shot agains the Spurs you can't seriously argue he was anywhere near as dangerous as Nash who hit well over half of his 3s (!) in their 07 series. And those were mostly off the dribble!

About 5 minutes in he makes a great dive to the rim off a head fake, around 6:30 is the best play of his career (with Tony ducking under the screen he decides to drive anyway, crosses Tony, Tony clearly beat off the cross steps in too late to draw a foul, falls, and CP finishes with a spinning behind the head and 1 layup), around 7:50 in transition Paul notices the rim is nearly clear and drives to the rim forcing the 4 Spurs defenders already back to swarm him and he gets the ball to West for a dunk, and 8 and a half minutes in he beats Tony under the screen, splits a double team, and makes a layup on the other side of the rim. Now you might be thinking that Nash can make those plays too but I can't remember many single games where Nash made that many similar plays. He needed things to be perfect to put the defense in a position where he could dive to the rim like Paul did.

And you are right that they went under screens but that's because of how deadly he was slashing to the rim and finishing (he was 61% on layups and 47% on midrange Js - I know which shot I'm playing him for). Did you notice how he still beat them to the rim a few times with them going under the screen? Paul wasn't killing them for going under the screen in the 3rd and 4th with his jumper but by getting to the rim even with them going under screens (17 points and 3 assists in that half). Paul back then was trying to get to the rim first, get in the lane second, and shoot a deep 2 if they completely shut down the first 2 options. He was 62% at the rim, 53% from 3-10 feet, and 45% from 10-23 feet so his strategy made sense.

Now he's not as deadly as Nash with his jumper but there's more types of shots other than jumpers. Nash shoots miles better than Dwyane Wade and Jordan but he's not even in their class as a scorer. Chris Paul got to the paint like few other PGs and Nash flat out didn't and when he did he didn't finish like CP3 did.