RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Magic Johnson)

[OhayoKD]

Lol, you might want to take a look at a post I’d *already* made by the time you posted this, which specifically went over the numbers while adjusting relative to the opponents’ defensive ratings, instead or relative to league average. If anything, it makes Steph look better.

Just saw. Comparing Steph over 8 years to Magic over 16 years is pretty dubious. As noted, compare them over a similar time-frame and Magic's opponent adjusted offenses are much better...

Huh? I literally included every single playoff opponent they had in their entire career that satisfied the criteria I’d set forth. It was a complete list, not limited to any particular timespan for either of them. And you can feel free to delete the 1996 data point if you want, and Steph will still look better.

And your criteria has us comparing Magic over a longer stretch to Steph over a shorter one.

Similar time-frame and...

Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Even Kevin Durant does not get Steph to parity with Johnson. Even from 88-90 Magic is leading better offenses(two of those years are without kareem, and the year with is probably weaker support than Steph's ever won a title with).

Magic is pretty clearly the winner here. Needing to toss in extra years is a pretty good indicator Steph doesn't belong.

[lessthanjake]

Just saw. Comparing Steph over 8 years to Magic over 16 years is pretty dubious. As noted, compare them over a similar time-frame and Magic's opponent adjusted offenses are much better...

Huh? I literally included every single playoff opponent they had in their entire career that satisfied the criteria I’d set forth. It was a complete list, not limited to any particular timespan for either of them. And you can feel free to delete the 1996 data point if you want, and Steph will still look better.

And your criteria has us comparing Magic over a longer stretch to Steph over a shorter one.

Similar time-frame and...

Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Even Kevin Durant does not get Steph to parity with Johnson. Even from 88-90 Magic is leading better offenses(two of those years are without kareem, and the year with is probably weaker support than Steph's ever won a title with).

Magic is pretty clearly the winner here. Needing to toss in extra years is a pretty good indicator Steph doesn't belong.

Again, you can toss out 1996 if you want and still be left with the same overall result, so I don’t see your point about the timespan. It seems more like you’re trying to limit discussion only to a certain timespan so you can ignore that Magic’s teams had a fair few struggles offensively in the playoffs for the first half of the 1980s.

I’d also point you to the post I just made in response to LukaTheGOAT:

Spoiler:

I’ve admittedly not done a deep dive into this specific data/methodology you posted, but I’ll just note that any analysis of what Magic’s teams did in the playoffs is IMO very likely to be skewed by the fact that his teams absolutely destroyed a load of bad teams in the Western Conference. Even by the method I looked at, if you expand out the consideration set to include all playoff opponents, I think Magic’s teams would have a higher average rORTG than Steph’s teams, because the Lakers were very frequently stomping bad teams in a very weak Western Conference, producing really efficient offense while they did so. Steph’s teams didn’t face nearly as many weak teams, and when they did, they didn’t actually tend to destroy them quite as much. However, when Steph’s teams faced actually good teams, their rORTG stayed much more steady (indeed, barely going down at all compared to what they did against weaker teams), while when Magic’s teams faced actually good teams their average rORTG went down a huge amount, such that it was clearly below what the Warriors did against good teams. In other words, the Warriors offenses were better and more resilient against good playoff opponents than the Lakers’ were, while the Lakers’ offense smashed weaker playoff opponents by more than the Warriors did (and also faced weaker playoff opponents much more often) but struggled more often against good playoff opponents. Personally, I much prefer greater offensive resilience against good playoff opponents over destroying weaker opponents by even more.

Basically, Magic’s offenses destroyed weak playoff teams (and they played *a lot* of them in the 1980s Western Conference) by more than the Warriors’ offense destroyed weak playoff teams (which they played less often), but Magic’s offenses were not as resilient against good playoff teams. The result is that Steph’s teams had clearly higher average rORTG against good playoff opponents than Magic’s teams did (and fewer outright negative rORTG series), but Magic’s teams actually had a higher average playoff rORTG overall. Again, I personally much prefer greater offensive resilience against good playoff opponents over offensively destroying weak playoff opponents by even more.

[ijspeelman]

I'm between Curry and Magic for this spot.

As others have said, it really is the battle for the of the best offensive PGs (some may have West or Robertson higher).



Here is just a look at Curry and Magic's scoring. Now, obviously Magic was not a total scorer and instead used his passing ability to create offense for his teammates and in transition. However, Curry's scoring is otherworldly, especially for a guard. Magic's relative TS% is insane, but he shot below league average to average volume his entire career. Portions of Curry's seasons exceed Magic rTS% while firing on all cylinders. Curry also is the best off-ball player of all time which adds extreme value in his spaced out era.

Magic didn't use his monstrous height advantage at PG to his advantage as much he probably could have.



As we all know, Magic is one of, if not the greatest passer ever. Steph has a pretty good rAST/75 rate, but Magic's is that of a pure PG.

However, my question is how much does Steph's scoring and movement off-set Magic's passing.





According to Thinking Basketball's box creation metric, Curry is the one that comes out on top (this data is missing 2021-22 and 2022-23 which are 12.0 and 13.3 respectively with 7.1 and 6.2 passer rating). Without being a better passer, Curry is creating more shots for his teammates. Now this is only an estimation so I am taking it with a grain of salt.

Defensively, I rate Curry higher because of his effort on-ball and in the passing lanes (a lot of this actually improves as he's gotten older imo). Magic should have the advantage solely on size, but I do not like his defense one bit. He was consistantly placed on the weakest offensive player and wasn't much of a guy that used his size and speed to help.

I am not set in stone on this one. I plan on delving into numbers and film to make my final decision. Feel free to sway me with whatever you got.

[f4p]

Offensively, I do like Magic's ability to exert control over a possession a little bit more than Curry's ability to break defenses with shooting gravity and think it has a bit more resiliency. There's been a few times where defenses have found little ways to chip away at Curry's value (not to the point where he still wasn't really **** good) in ways that I haven't perceived with Magic. Whether it was jamming him on cuts, top locking, or switching actions, I've seen stuff work against Curry. If someone could give me a comparable example where Magic was stopped from producing elite playoff offense before the 90s.

When the Lakers faced good teams in the early 1980s, their playoff offenses were not actually very good.

For instance, here’s the Lakers’s rORTG (compared to RS league average that year) where either the Lakers faced: (1) a 4+ SRS team, (2) a finalist, or (3) they lost the series:

Lakers Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

1980 vs. SuperSonics: +0.1
1980 vs. 76ers: +1.6
1981 vs. Rockets: -4.2
1982 vs. 76ers: +1.6
1983 vs. 76ers: -5.0
1984 vs. Celtics: +4.4
1985 vs. Celtics: +4.4
1986 vs. Rockets: +0.2
1987 vs. Celtics: +10.1
1988 vs. Pistons: +0.9
1989 vs. Suns: +5.8
1989 vs. Pistons: +5.3
1990 vs. Suns: +3.8
1991 vs. Blazers: +4.0
1991 vs. Bulls: -3.4
1996 vs. Rockets: -5.6

Career Avg: +1.5

Given some of these negative numbers, I don’t think it’d be correct to think teams couldn’t chip away at Magic’s value, particularly in the early 1980s, where the Lakers playoff offenses against good teams really just weren’t very good. Indeed, the 1983 Finals was basically a horror show from Magic. And even the best series in that time period (i.e. 1984 vs. Boston) actually arguably hinged on Magic having some really serious problems at a bunch of key points.

For reference, here’s comparable numbers for Steph’s Warriors for his entire career:

Warriors Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

2013 vs. Nuggets: +5.0
2013 vs. Spurs: -3.2
2014 vs. Clippers: +3.8
2015 vs. Cavaliers: +1.7
2016 vs. Thunder: +1.4
2016 vs. Cavaliers: +2.1
2017 vs. Jazz: +7.3
2017 vs. Spurs: +13.4
2017 vs. Cavaliers: +12.5
2018 vs. Rockets: +5.9
2018 vs. Cavaliers: +16.0
2019 vs. Rockets: +5.3
2019 vs. Blazers: +6.0
2019 vs. Raptors: -0.3
2022 vs. Grizzlies: -2.2
2022 vs. Celtics: -1.2
2023 vs. Lakers: -3.2

Career Avg: +4.14

Steph’s Warriors never had a series as bad offensively as the Lakers had vs. the 1983 76ers, vs. the 1981 Rockets, or vs. the 1991 Bulls (or against the 1996 Rockets, but I don’t really consider that in any meaningful way for Magic). And the Warriors were essentially always good offensively in the playoffs against good teams (in fact, the Warriors were often extremely good), except in the last few years and in 2013, when he’s had substantially less help than Magic had. So I’m not sure it makes sense to say that Steph “was stopped from producing elite playoff offense” more than Magic was.

this is just a wee bit favorable to curry. assuming your numbers are correct, in the non-KD series curry is at +9.9 over 11 series, or only +0.9. it's basically just the +60.4 in 6 series with KD that is boosting everything. and of course, even that comes with him getting boosts from the 2018 cavs (horrible defense), the 2017 cavs (21st defense that only qualifies because it made the finals), and 2019 blazers who just slip in with a +4.4 SRS. oh, and a nice +13.4 from the 2017 spurs series where the spurs obviously wouldn't qualify without kawhi (also where the warriors were doing badly with kawhi and then exploded without him).

and of course this included 1996 magic for some reason, which would bump it all the way up to +2 or so if we removed it. almost all of magic's underperformances comes from early in his career at ages younger than curry was when he first made the playoffs so it would certainly seem that peak magic started doing very well.

[homecourtloss]

Not really seeing why we would use league relative ratings rather than opponent relative ratings. Those opponent adjusted results have been pretty clear on who has the advantage on average (even with the Durant effect), and on an individual level, Magic has little to criticise over the course of his career:

Magic Johnson against -2+ relative defences (40.64% of playoff games): 40.9 mpg, 8.0 rpg, 11.2 apg, 4.0 tov, 18.8 ppg on 50.1% FG, 27.0% 3FG, 84.8% FT and 60.1% TS (+6.49% rTS)

Magic Johnson against -4+ relative defences (15.51% of playoffs games): 40.3 mpg, 8.2 rpg, 10.5 apg, 3.9 tov, 19.7 ppg on 51.9% FG, 19.2% 3FG, 83.3% FT and 59.5% TS (+5.96% rTS)

There’s an argument to look at opponents’ defense in doing a list like I did above, rather than league average. I’m a little skeptical that that’s a better way to do it, though, since I think we have to realize that regular season defensive ratings can often be skewed a large amount by a team’s offensive rating. A really great offense is going to give up more points in the regular season because they simply don’t need to defend as well and their opponents are almost always needing to go all out on offense (there’s tons of literature on how teams let up a significant amount when they get ahead by a lot). So a high SRS team that doesn’t have a great defensive rating often actually *is* a good defense, and a low SRS team that has a really good defensive rating often actually *isn’t* a particularly great defense.

Aside from the current discussion, this is an interesting topic to discuss and one that's been brought up in the top 100 project, i.e., the effect an offense has on a defense.

1) About the literature concerning teams letting up when they get ahead by a lot: As far as I remember, the lead itself was discussed a lead that involves offense and defense; teams got a big lead, and then let up. But do they let up on defense? Let up on offense? How did they get those leads? To support your point here, we'd have to know that it was outsized offense that was getting those leads. Is there further literature that shows that those big leads were due primarily to strong offensive performances? If not, we don't know what contributed to the leads in what proportion, i.e., how much was offense and how much was defense, which takes away from the point. I suppose we could scrape data from 25+ point wins and use that as an approximation and see how teams did offensively and defensively relative to that year's league average. This would tell us if those big leads are due more to offense or defense or a balance (most likely)

2. The other thing that's been discussed is whether or not strong offenses lead to strong defenses since strong offenses will offer up fewer transition opportunities. It's interesting to look historically within seasons at how offenses affected defenses. Of course, there are multiple components to this, but for now a quick and dirty set of correlations is worth looking at



From 1977 to 1983, ORtgs correlated slightly positively with DRtgs, i.e., HIGHER ORtgs were slightly correlated with HIGHER DRtgs.

Code: Select all

Year   r Coefficient
1977   0.219
1978   0.172
1979   0.149
1980   -0.072
1981   -0.062
1982   0.258
1983   0.151


From 1989 to 1998, ORtgs moderately inversely correlated with DRtgs, i.e., HIGHER ORtgs were moderately correlated with LOWER DRtgs.

Code: Select all

Year   r Coefficient
1984   0.29
1985   -0.007
1986   0.062
1987   -0.167
1988   -0.114
1989   -0.284
1990   -0.053
1991   -0.269
1992   -0.375
1993   -0.442
1994   -0.462
1995   -0.398
1996   -0.371
1997   -0.498
1998   -0.273

Then you had an interesting little period from 2004 to 2006 in which ORtgs slightly correlated positively with DRtgs, i.e., HIGHER ORtgs were slightly correlated with HIGHER DRtgs.

Code: Select all

Year   r Coefficient
1999   0.006
2000   -0.264
2001   -0.196
2002   -0.051
2003   0.056
2004   0.271
2005   0.064
2006   0.205

Then you have from 2007 to 2023; ORtgs inversely correlated slightly to moderately with DRtgs in every season for the past 17 seasons with HIGHER ORtgs slightly/moderately correlating with LOWER DRtgs.

Code: Select all

Year   r Coefficient
2007   -0.017
2008   -0.454
2009   -0.401
2010   -0.157
2011   -0.18
2012   -0.276
2013   -0.212
2014   -0.193
2015   -0.21
2016   -0.509
2017   -0.141
2018   -0.269
2019   -0.28
2020   -0.356
2021   -0.155
2022   -0.377
2023   -0.342


[Samurai]

Vote for #10: Magic Johnson
This came down to Magic and Steph Curry for me and whichever one doesn't make it this round will be my vote for the next round. It is close enough for me that I would not have a problem with either one. Magic had the uncanny ability to spot a weakness and do whatever was necessary to take advantage of it. Need to run to exploit the other team's relative lack of foot speed? No one that I ever saw ran the fast break better than Magic; he was absolutely beautiful to watch leading the Showtime Lakers on the break. In 1990, he addressed one of the few kinks in his offensive arsenal by shooting 38% on 3's (league average was 33%). The big unknown, of course, is whether he could have replicated that shooting if he hadn't missed his ages 32-35 years. If I had to guess, I think he could have given how he improved his FT% as his career progressed (Magic never had a true jump shot; he shot 3's much like his FT's more as a set shot). Magic could take bigger guys outside and drive past them or bully-ball smaller defenders in the low post. GOAT-level passer with uncanny vision and court awareness.

Clearly his defense was not close to his elite offense and I'm not aware of any stats, or the eye test, to suggest he was a plus defender. But he was an outstanding defensive rebounder, particularly valuable on the Showtime Lakers since he could then immediately start the fast break without needing to receive an outlet pass.

Curry is my favorite player to watch today. Magic was by far my favorite to watch in the 80's. Flipped a coin and it landed on nostalgia.

Nominate: Jerry West

[eminence]

Personally I tend towards viewing PO series as their own individual entities, some take on a grind it out defensive style, some more free flowing and loose, but either way, distinct from the RS in flavor and in how I measure success. I view the Warriors as tending towards grindy style series, and the MDA Suns as committing to outgunning everyone. I don't PO rRatings are particularly strong evidence that prime Nash > most everyone on O, just as I don't view it as Dray > your favorite non-Russell player on D (both defensible positions, but not as clearly as that data would suggest imo).

[One_and_Done]

Screw it. The Curry arguments are more persuasive. Switching to Curry and editing my vote. To hell with nostalgia.

[rk2023]

Vote for #10 - Magic Johnson
Alternate Vote - Kobe Bryant
Nomination - Jerry West

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2310981&p=107789559#p107789559

^^ My explanations for Magic and West from the past iteration, the former with more nuance - though I plan to look into West a little bit further than the seasonal breakdown I did for him, Oscar, & Dirk.

As for Kobe, I don't think he has the best peak out of the nominees - but I view his 08/09 campaigns as closer to Bird, Magic, and Curry's respective apex points. Not only that, Kobe flanks these impressive efforts with incredible longevity with 15 seasons at an All-NBA threshold with a fair share of them being MVP-level ones. None of the other nominees even have 15 seasons played. I'll dive into more in the iteration(s) to come - as I see this particular round being a landslide for Magic.

[eminence]

Vote for #10 - Magic Johnson:
Alternate Vote - Kobe Bryant:
Nomination: Jerry West:

Leaving it blank for now, and will revisit. Have explained Magic’s stronger points in last threads, and hope to visit those for Kobe / West. Ultimate Laker homer ballot

I'm a bit envious, no Ultimate Jazz homer ballot will be happening anytime soon.

[penbeast0]

Vote for #10 - Magic Johnson:
Alternate Vote - Kobe Bryant:
Nomination: Jerry West:

Leaving it blank for now, and will revisit. Have explained Magic’s stronger points in last threads, and hope to visit those for Kobe / West. Ultimate Laker homer ballot

I'm a bit envious, no Ultimate Jazz homer ballot will be happening anytime soon.

I can see Karl Malone and John Stockton in the 20s with a nomination for Adrian Dantley (though a bit low for the Mailman and high for AD).

When you think the earliest time an ultimate Wizards/Bullets ballet shows up, lol?

[rk2023]

Vote for #10 - Magic Johnson:
Alternate Vote - Kobe Bryant:
Nomination: Jerry West:

Leaving it blank for now, and will revisit. Have explained Magic’s stronger points in last threads, and hope to visit those for Kobe / West. Ultimate Laker homer ballot

I'm a bit envious, no Ultimate Jazz homer ballot will be happening anytime soon.

We need Jaivl to get Rubio’s name circulating

[One_and_Done]

I'm hoping the modernist voters find someone to rally around soon so that I have someone I can vote for in good conscience at #13. I'm not sure how great I'll feel choosing between Mikan, Kobe, West, Oscar, etc, but that's how it could go at this rate. I might start a thread about Dirk vs KD vs D.Rob vs K.Malone vs Giannis vs Dr J to see if some sort of consensus emerges from the discussion. Until one modernist candidate enters the voting pool there's going to be minimal engagement with the arguments I'm presenting for them it seems.

[lessthanjake]

Offensively, I do like Magic's ability to exert control over a possession a little bit more than Curry's ability to break defenses with shooting gravity and think it has a bit more resiliency. There's been a few times where defenses have found little ways to chip away at Curry's value (not to the point where he still wasn't really **** good) in ways that I haven't perceived with Magic. Whether it was jamming him on cuts, top locking, or switching actions, I've seen stuff work against Curry. If someone could give me a comparable example where Magic was stopped from producing elite playoff offense before the 90s.

When the Lakers faced good teams in the early 1980s, their playoff offenses were not actually very good.

For instance, here’s the Lakers’s rORTG (compared to RS league average that year) where either the Lakers faced: (1) a 4+ SRS team, (2) a finalist, or (3) they lost the series:

Lakers Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

1980 vs. SuperSonics: +0.1
1980 vs. 76ers: +1.6
1981 vs. Rockets: -4.2
1982 vs. 76ers: +1.6
1983 vs. 76ers: -5.0
1984 vs. Celtics: +4.4
1985 vs. Celtics: +4.4
1986 vs. Rockets: +0.2
1987 vs. Celtics: +10.1
1988 vs. Pistons: +0.9
1989 vs. Suns: +5.8
1989 vs. Pistons: +5.3
1990 vs. Suns: +3.8
1991 vs. Blazers: +4.0
1991 vs. Bulls: -3.4
1996 vs. Rockets: -5.6

Career Avg: +1.5

Given some of these negative numbers, I don’t think it’d be correct to think teams couldn’t chip away at Magic’s value, particularly in the early 1980s, where the Lakers playoff offenses against good teams really just weren’t very good. Indeed, the 1983 Finals was basically a horror show from Magic. And even the best series in that time period (i.e. 1984 vs. Boston) actually arguably hinged on Magic having some really serious problems at a bunch of key points.

For reference, here’s comparable numbers for Steph’s Warriors for his entire career:

Warriors Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

2013 vs. Nuggets: +5.0
2013 vs. Spurs: -3.2
2014 vs. Clippers: +3.8
2015 vs. Cavaliers: +1.7
2016 vs. Thunder: +1.4
2016 vs. Cavaliers: +2.1
2017 vs. Jazz: +7.3
2017 vs. Spurs: +13.4
2017 vs. Cavaliers: +12.5
2018 vs. Rockets: +5.9
2018 vs. Cavaliers: +16.0
2019 vs. Rockets: +5.3
2019 vs. Blazers: +6.0
2019 vs. Raptors: -0.3
2022 vs. Grizzlies: -2.2
2022 vs. Celtics: -1.2
2023 vs. Lakers: -3.2

Career Avg: +4.14

Steph’s Warriors never had a series as bad offensively as the Lakers had vs. the 1983 76ers, vs. the 1981 Rockets, or vs. the 1991 Bulls (or against the 1996 Rockets, but I don’t really consider that in any meaningful way for Magic). And the Warriors were essentially always good offensively in the playoffs against good teams (in fact, the Warriors were often extremely good), except in the last few years and in 2013, when he’s had substantially less help than Magic had. So I’m not sure it makes sense to say that Steph “was stopped from producing elite playoff offense” more than Magic was.

this is just a wee bit favorable to curry. assuming your numbers are correct, in the non-KD series curry is at +9.9 over 11 series, or only +0.9. it's basically just the +60.4 in 6 series with KD that is boosting everything. and of course, even that comes with him getting boosts from the 2018 cavs (horrible defense), the 2017 cavs (21st defense that only qualifies because it made the finals), and 2019 blazers who just slip in with a +4.4 SRS. oh, and a nice +13.4 from the 2017 spurs series where the spurs obviously wouldn't qualify without kawhi (also where the warriors were doing badly with kawhi and then exploded without him).

and of course this included 1996 magic for some reason, which would bump it all the way up to +2 or so if we removed it. almost all of magic's underperformances comes from early in his career at ages younger than curry was when he first made the playoffs so it would certainly seem that peak magic started doing very well.

Check out the later post that I made that showed rORTG in these series relative to opponents’ defensive ratings. https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107834211#p107834211

If anything, Curry looks even better in that—certainly from the standpoint of how often these players’ offenses underperformed in the playoffs, which was the discussion that this analysis started with. It’s just objectively true that Magic’s offenses put in more legitimately subpar offensive performances in the playoffs than Steph’s offenses did.

I also think it’s pretty silly to try to not count series where Curry had Durant for purposes of looking at an average rORTG, especially in a comparison with the 1980s Lakers of all teams. I think you’d be very hard-pressed to argue that the average offensive talent on the Warriors in the listed series was higher than the average offensive talent on the Lakers, even with the Durant years in the mix. And if you took out the series’s with Durant, then the gap in average offensive talent on the two teams would be an absolutely enormous chasm. You’d have to be remarkably unfair to Steph to try to parse things in a way that would stop him from looking better in this regard.

[lessthanjake]

.

All interesting points. I’d say that it’s hard to draw much meaning from what the correlation is between ORTG and DRTG, in part because we’d probably expect there to be an actual positive relationship between a team’s offensive ability and defensive ability (for instance, we’d expect highly athletic players to be better on both sides of the ball; we’d expect coaches that are great at motivating players and whatnot to make them better at both sides of the ball, etc.).

I think if we were able to isolate everything else out, it is surely true that doing better offensively would lead to worse defense, and vice versa. You are right that in a given game a team might have a giant lead because of its defense, rather than because of its offense, and vice versa. But what I’m thinking about is that if we held a team’s defensive performance constant and increased their offensive prowess, then they will have more frequent blowouts in which their defense will naturally be worse due to having a big lead. And they will also have fewer times where they’re being blown out and the other team lets up offensively. Given that, we’d surely expect that if there were two teams with equal levels defensively and one was better offensively, the team with the better offense would end up with a worse defensive rating. EDIT: It occurs to me though that there’s the countervailing force of it being easier to defend after a made basket, which would tend to make defensive rating go down as the offense got better. So there’s factors that go both ways, though I do think the first effect I mentioned is probably bigger.

Anyways, it’s an interesting issue IMO, and I’m happy to discuss it further. For purposes of this discussion, I do want to just note that I don’t think it really matters much, since I first brought this up in relation to my original analysis of Steph’s and Magic’s playoff offenses looking at ORTG’s relative to league average as opposed to relative to opponents’ defensive ratings. But I’ve subsequently done the same analysis using rORTG relative to opponents’ defensive rating as well, and the results are quite similar, so the substantive issue being discussed there doesn’t really depend on a question of whether or not it makes sense to base the analysis off of opponents’ defensive ratings.

[OhayoKD]

According to Thinking Basketball's box creation metric, Curry is the one that comes out on top (this data is missing 2021-22 and 2022-23 which are 12.0 and 13.3 respectively with 7.1 and 6.2 passer rating). Without being a better passer, Curry is creating more shots for his teammates. Now this is only an estimation so I am taking it with a grain of salt.

Defensively, I rate Curry higher because of his effort on-ball and in the passing lanes (a lot of this actually improves as he's gotten older imo). Magic should have the advantage solely on size, but I do not like his defense one bit. He was consistantly placed on the weakest offensive player and wasn't much of a guy that used his size and speed to help.

I am not set in stone on this one. I plan on delving into numbers and film to make my final decision. Feel free to sway me with whatever you got.

Uhhhhh, no?

Passer-rating does not measure passing quality, it meassures quality of creation. What that graph is saying is Magic creates at a similar volume, but what he creates is significantly more valuable. In other words, at least by that metric, Magic is the more valuable creative force.

[ijspeelman]

According to Thinking Basketball's box creation metric, Curry is the one that comes out on top (this data is missing 2021-22 and 2022-23 which are 12.0 and 13.3 respectively with 7.1 and 6.2 passer rating). Without being a better passer, Curry is creating more shots for his teammates. Now this is only an estimation so I am taking it with a grain of salt.

Defensively, I rate Curry higher because of his effort on-ball and in the passing lanes (a lot of this actually improves as he's gotten older imo). Magic should have the advantage solely on size, but I do not like his defense one bit. He was consistantly placed on the weakest offensive player and wasn't much of a guy that used his size and speed to help.

I am not set in stone on this one. I plan on delving into numbers and film to make my final decision. Feel free to sway me with whatever you got.

Uhhhhh, no?

Passer-rating does not measure passing quality, it meassures quality of creation. What that graph is saying is Magic creates at a similar volume, but what he creates is significantly more valuable. In other words, at least by that metric, Magic is the more valuable creative force.

I didn't really bring up passer rating and am not calling Steph a better passer by any means. I also believe passer rating measures quality of passing rather than the quality of creation.

I make that distinction because my point in bringing up box creation is that Curry "creates more opportunities" for his teammates than Magic did (again box creation is an estimation so I am personally taking it with a grain of salt). Not that Curry found his teammates for all those opportunities, but it may have allowed his other teammates to find open teammates. My question was if Curry's spacing + passing was more important than Magic's spacing + passing.

[lessthanjake]

Spoiler:

I'm between Curry and Magic for this spot.

As others have said, it really is the battle for the of the best offensive PGs (some may have West or Robertson higher).



Here is just a look at Curry and Magic's scoring. Now, obviously Magic was not a total scorer and instead used his passing ability to create offense for his teammates and in transition. However, Curry's scoring is otherworldly, especially for a guard. Magic's relative TS% is insane, but he shot below league average to average volume his entire career. Portions of Curry's seasons exceed Magic rTS% while firing on all cylinders. Curry also is the best off-ball player of all time which adds extreme value in his spaced out era.

Magic didn't use his monstrous height advantage at PG to his advantage as much he probably could have.



As we all know, Magic is one of, if not the greatest passer ever. Steph has a pretty good rAST/75 rate, but Magic's is that of a pure PG.

However, my question is how much does Steph's scoring and movement off-set Magic's passing.





According to Thinking Basketball's box creation metric, Curry is the one that comes out on top (this data is missing 2021-22 and 2022-23 which are 12.0 and 13.3 respectively with 7.1 and 6.2 passer rating). Without being a better passer, Curry is creating more shots for his teammates. Now this is only an estimation so I am taking it with a grain of salt.

Defensively, I rate Curry higher because of his effort on-ball and in the passing lanes (a lot of this actually improves as he's gotten older imo). Magic should have the advantage solely on size, but I do not like his defense one bit. He was consistantly placed on the weakest offensive player and wasn't much of a guy that used his size and speed to help.

I am not set in stone on this one. I plan on delving into numbers and film to make my final decision. Feel free to sway me with whatever you got.

On this question of creation, I just want to point you to a couple posts I made a while back that get to this question:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107624238#p107624238

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107628798#p107628798

Basically, as per the first link, when we look at the average increase in “shot quality” of teammates when a player is on the floor, we find that Steph looks the best in the play-by-play era, even as compared to guys like Nash, Jokic, and LeBron. And we can see where that largely comes from in the second link, which goes over the average increase in rim shot frequency of teammates when a player is on the floor. Steph is a total outlier in that regard, indicating that his presence on the court (both his playmaking and his gravity) creates shots at the rim (the best shots in basketball) for teammates more than anyone else. “Creation” is ultimately about creating high quality shots for teammates, and Steph’s presence on the floor seems to create those more than even the greatest passers of the last couple decades, so I don't think it's at all a stretch to think that his playmaking overall is at the level of Magic Johnson (or perhaps even higher)—it's just a different type of playmaking.

[OhayoKD]

According to Thinking Basketball's box creation metric, Curry is the one that comes out on top (this data is missing 2021-22 and 2022-23 which are 12.0 and 13.3 respectively with 7.1 and 6.2 passer rating). Without being a better passer, Curry is creating more shots for his teammates. Now this is only an estimation so I am taking it with a grain of salt.

Defensively, I rate Curry higher because of his effort on-ball and in the passing lanes (a lot of this actually improves as he's gotten older imo). Magic should have the advantage solely on size, but I do not like his defense one bit. He was consistantly placed on the weakest offensive player and wasn't much of a guy that used his size and speed to help.

I am not set in stone on this one. I plan on delving into numbers and film to make my final decision. Feel free to sway me with whatever you got.

Uhhhhh, no?

Passer-rating does not measure passing quality, it meassures quality of creation. What that graph is saying is Magic creates at a similar volume, but what he creates is significantly more valuable. In other words, at least by that metric, Magic is the more valuable creative force.

I didn't really bring up passer rating and am not calling Steph a better passer by any means. I also believe passer rating measures quality of passing rather than the quality of creation.

I make that distinction because my point in bringing up box creation is that Curry "creates more opportunities" for his teammates than Magic did (again box creation is an estimation so I am personally taking it with a grain of salt). Not that Curry found his teammates for all those opportunities, but it may have allowed his other teammates to find open teammates. My question was if Curry's gravity was more important that Magic's passing.

From what I understand by design it is supposed to be tracking the quality of what you're making. Hence why all-time raw passers like Bird grade out substantially worse than "Limited" guys like jordan and steph there

That said, even on the volume front, Magic is favored if you use era-adjusted versions:


Magic is clear of steph in both volume and effeciency and leads better offenses and has a more dominant in-era impact portfolio, and is obviously the more successful guy.

Steph is not a comparable creator to Magic.

[ijspeelman]

On this question of creation, I just want to point you to a couple posts I made a while back that get to this question:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107624238#p107624238

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107628798#p107628798

Basically, as per the first link, when we look at the average increase in “shot quality” of teammates when a player is on the floor, we find that Steph looks the best in the play-by-play era, even as compared to guys like Nash, Jokic, and LeBron. And we can see where that largely comes from in the second link, which goes over the average increase in rim shot frequency of teammates when a player is on the floor. Steph is a total outlier in that regard, indicating that his presence on the court (both his playmaking and his gravity) creates shots at the rim (the best shots in basketball) for teammates more than anyone else. “Creation” is ultimately about creating high quality shots for teammates, and Steph’s presence on the floor seems to create those more than even the greatest passers of the last couple decades, so I don't think it's at all a stretch to think that his playmaking overall is at the level of Magic Johnson (or perhaps even higher)—it's just a different type of playmaking.

This is great stuff and backs up my thoughts on Curry's creation through gravity.

I am not yet ready to make a distinction between Curry and Magic's creation on a team level yet. This basically goes without saying for Magic, but I really love the high level passes he's able to make on a consistent basis.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube