RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #32 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 10/9/23)

[trex_8063]

I think we should be aware that we don't need to deal with absolutes, you know? There is a lot of middle ground between "it's all about peak" and "it's all about longevity".

I am saying this as someone who would probably vote Stockton in already and who wouldn't have all the recent guys that high.

I still think you should participate as a voter, too .

I can't remember......have you assembled or otherwise maintained a partial all-time list?

[homecourtloss]

Spoiler:

Looking at the greatest peaks project last year.

21. 2016-17 Kawhi Leonard
26. 2019-20 Anthony Davis
33. 1989-90 Patrick Ewing
35. 2010-11 Dwight Howard
36. 2021-22 Joel Embiid
37. 1957-58 Bob Pettit
38. 1994-95 Scottie Pippen
44. 1971-72 Walt Frazier

He’s only 38th, but for me, Pippen’s peak was just as good as Ewing, and he held that peak for a few more years.

By virtue of his position, Ewing’s defense is more valuable. And Ewing was certainly a top 10 defensive C of all time. Pippen of course, being the greatest wing defender of all time gets close, but overall, Ewing has the advantage on D.

On offense, Ewing was tasked to score, and did so reasonably well, 25 pp75 on +3 ish rTS%. In the playoffs, he lost his efficiency, but still scored more or less 25 pp75 on league average efficiency.

Pippen as the second banana was a high teens scorer on around league average efficiency. In the playoffs, he got that up to almost 20 on +2%.

Where Pippen excels, and separates himself in my eyes is the playmaking aspect. He had a passer rating of around 7, peaking at 7.8. He was also a tremendous stealer of the ball.

Overall, my personal rankings say it isn’t close. Pippen with 6 weak MVP level seasons, Ewing with 3. They both had 8 all NBA level seasons, and comparable all D and All-Star level seasons. If you’re not as high on Pippen’s peak, it might bring him back into a close debate vs Ewing, but I still have him ahead. Scoring and overall defensive impact slight edge to Ewing, Passing and creation big edge to Pippen.

Vote: Pippen
Alt vote: Ewing

Nomination: Kawhi Leonard. Probably best peak of remaining players. 5 all NBA, 8 all star campaigns is a bit short vs others, but I think his peak makes up for it.

Alt Nom: Havlicek. I have him a bit lower, but if you can get to a few weak MVP level seasons in the early 70’s, he definitely belongs

I have many of the sentiments as above.

VOTE: Scottie Pippen
Nomination: John Havlicek
Alt Nomination: Draymond Green

The most common knock against Pippen is that he couldn’t be a #1 on a title team, but for me, 1994 and 1995 showed that he could given the right circumstances as he’s not at the level of the few who could bring almost any team to contention.

The 1994 Bulls with Pippen were a contending team and in many ways outplayed the eventual finalist that lost a 50-50 Finals that it easily could have one had Ewing played a little bit better. This was WITH a replacement level player in Myers playing significant minutes and this was WITH Pippen and Grant missing the most gsmes they ever had up to thst point. Replace Myers with any type of plus player and the Bulls, even with injuries to Grant and Pippen, could win 60+ games. As it is, their defense improved even though they added largely non-defensive players and a young Kucoc who would improve tremendously in the next few years and had a very good playoffs,

When both Pippen and Grant were in the lineup they posted a regular season srs of 4.7, aka, a 55-win pace:

In the playoffs they played like a +8 team, boosting their srs from +4.7 to +5 for the season. Aka, a 58-win pace. Then without Grant(who would see the Magic jump from first-round outs to finalists), the Bulls won at a 52-win pace:

Pippen’s playmaking has been underrated by many. This is a reason why the 1994 Bulls were so effective offensively vs. the Cavs AND Knicks.

Look at how well the 1994 Bulls performed offensively in the two playoff series. The 1994 series against the Cavs see the bulls have their fourth highest relative offensive rating for a series from playoff series played between 1985 and 1998. The offense against the all-time great 1994 Knicks defense held up admirably well and actually did better than what the 1992 and 1996 juggernaut Chicago teams did.

Bulls’ rORtg in playoff series

1991 vs. Pistons, +17.0
1992 vs. Heat, +15.8
1996 vs. Heat, +15.2
1994 vs. Cavs, +13.6
1993 vs. Knicks, +12.7
1997 vs. Hawks, +12.6
1998 vs. Pacers, +12.6
1996 vs. Magic, +11.9
1991 vs. Sixers, +10.8
1993 vs. Hawks, +10.8
1998 vs. Nets, +10.8
1997 vs. Bullets, +10.8
1991 vs. Lakers, +10.7
1993 vs. Cavs, +10.4
1990 vs. Bucks, +10.0
1996 vs. Sonics, +9.2
1991 vs. Knicks, +8.8
1994 vs. Knicks, +8.5
1989 vs. Knicks, +8.3
1990 vs. Sixers, +8.3
1992 vs. Knicks, +7.0

1996 vs. Knicks, +1.7

Only negative ones
1989 vs. Pistons, -1.6
1990 vs. Pistons, -2.1
1988 vs. Pistons, -9.5

This was in large part to the playmaking of Pippen as well as the overall genius of Phil Jackson.

1995 gets lost but Pippen showed he very well could be a #1.





Pippen’s RWoWY numbers compare favorably with whom he’s being compared with here and even more so if you look at the actual numbers in the dataset.

And the 90s Bulls:

- St. Louis Hawks
Key players: Bob Pettit, Cliff Hagan, Lenny Wilkens, Clyde Lovellette, Zelmo Beaty, Lou Hudson

I actually had a really tough time choosing between Patrick Ewing and Scottie Pippen. If you give Patrick Ewing even slightly better office of talent between 1992 and 1994, there is a very reasonable chance that his Knicks could win two titles and defeat, the Jordan bulls, at least once which they should’ve been able to do anyway, have you in Player just a little bit better.

Then there’s John Stockton. There’s no denying his impact profile, especially his late career impact profile as an older point guard, which are some of the most remarkable numbers in NBA history, but I cannot envision a team that is competing for titles with Stockton as the clear-cut best player, which for me puts him behind someone like Scottie Pippen or like Patrick Ewing , even though Stockton’s career CORP translated odds might give them a better chance

[iggymcfrack]

You might find it less weird and puzzling if you paid attention to the criticisms rather than repeating VORP ranks.

It's always "well he didn't peak that high". Never mind that the guys who actually did peak extraordinarily high like Jokic, Giannis, and Kawhi all went extremely low too. Like if it's all about peak, Kawhi should be in the top 20. If it's all about value over the course of a career, Stockton should be top 15. I don't see a consistent argument that keeps both out of the top 30.

I think we should be aware that we don't need to deal with absolutes, you know? There is a lot of middle ground between "it's all about peak" and "it's all about longevity".

This is it. Everyone's on their own spot on a little balancing act of the different things which matter to them. Some people value longevity more than peak, some the other way around, some in the middle with a little lean in one direction or the other. Sometimes, there are other considerations. Sometimes, there are thresholds.

Like, with Kawhi. Leonard hasn't played 75 games in a season, ever. In 12 seasons, he's played 70+ games twice, missed a whole season, played 9 games in another season and played under 60 games 5 times overall. He's not really a guy who is regularly available for the season to the extent of other stars. He has 3 or 4 big-time seasons from an offensive production standpoint and only 3 seasons in the top 5 of the MVP vote.

What people will make of that information will differ. For some, the 4 seasons are enough, because that describes a pretty good peak. 50+ games in most of those seasons... and of course he has the accolades. Couple of DPOYs, he's hit Finals MVP once very clearly and another time that is up for some debate, steals title, he has been in that top 5 of the MVP vote, he's got rings, the Toronto ring in particular resonates well. There's stuff to talk about, it all boils down to the coefficient you put on each piece of the equation, right?

And then you have someone like Stockton, where one of his major claims is all of those end-career seasons he has for extra, non-contention value. Big-time RAPM stuff in those later seasons. And of course he was also a ridiculous iron man on top of the number of seasons. Stockton is 5th all-time in total games played in NBA history. Parish, Kareem, Vince Carter and Dirk Nowitzki are the only guys ahead of him. Karl Malone's behind him at #6, fittingly. Then KG and Kevin Willis, followed by the only active player, Lebron, 3 behind Willis. And indeed, he has some big assist and steals records, and the Jazz had six 112+ ORTG squads in the 90s, including 4 in a row from 95-98, which was a big deal then. The first one had them 10th in the league in 1990. The second had them 4th in 92. Then they were 4th, 2nd, 2nd and 1st from 95-98, which was quite the impressive run alongside Hornacek and Malone.

Like 70s says, there's some middle ground to examine here. There is a lot of information to parse and weigh.

I mean, I'm not saying there's some OBJECTIVE TRUTH behind my opinions. I realize that people can value 13 season careers way more than elite 10 season careers or very good 20 season careers. But at the same time, I kinda have a hard time understanding how an elite defender and playmaker who has more VORP than Dirk Nowitzki in less games isn't voted in as one of the top 32 players in a project that's mostly valued longevity. Is that fair?

[rk2023]

.

By chance, do you know how Hondo looks in Moonbeam's Models?

[tsherkin]

I mean, I'm not saying there's some OBJECTIVE TRUTH behind my opinions. I realize that people can value 13 season careers way more than elite 10 season careers or very good 20 season careers. But at the same time, I kinda have a hard time understanding how an elite defender and playmaker who has more VORP than Dirk Nowitzki in less games isn't voted in as one of the top 32 players in a project that's mostly valued longevity. Is that fair?

Probably because of factors that go beyond longevity. Dirk has an MVP and a ring. Dirk was the scoring force of his team offenses with and after Nash. Dirk's a notable playoff riser. Those are variables that will trump something like VORP and longevity for some people. VORP isn't any kind of be-all, end-all, just another piece of information on the pile.

[homecourtloss]

.

By chance, do you know how Hondo looks in Moonbeam's Models?

- Boston Celtics
Key players: Bill Russell, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, KC Jones, Tom Sanders, Bailey Howell



- Boston Celtics
Key players: John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Jo Jo White, Paul Silas, Don Chaney, Don Nelson

[Doctor MJ]

Thanks for posting hcl!

To reiterate what I've said before: Havlicek looks like the strongest non-Russell Celtic of the era by the RWOWY data, which surprised me because I had expected Cowens to look better than him. While I want to be careful about taking the data too seriously, in the past I've ranked Havlicek ahead of Cowens based on the entirety of his career despite thinking Cowens was probably better at his best, so seeing Havlicek come out ahead here makes it hard for me to even have that debate really.

[lessthanjake]

That's not true, Frazier was clearly the best player on 1973 team.


The bolded part is questionable, considering that he had a teammate that was arguably better than him that year.

That’s a fair point about Frazier, but I think he was the best player on the 1973 Knicks in a similar way to Isiah Thomas with the Bad Boys Pistons—the best of an ensemble cast. But it’s a fair point.

As others already implied, I don't think you can create a reasonable argument that Frazier was not the best player in 1973 Knicks team. If you want to make a case for someone like DeBusschere, then we don't we start talking about Lowry and Gasol Vs Kawhi?

1970 is an open field, but Frazier improved from that point, while Reed became a roleplayer due to injuries. A lot of people equate Thomas runs to Frazier's, but I fail to see the comparison - outside of playing on good defensive minded rosters (but then you can also equate Kawhi to them).

Ultimately, while it may be true that Frazier was the best player on the team and there probably isn’t a *great* argument for any other specific player over him, we are still talking about someone whose numbers had him with a below-20 PER in both regular season and playoffs, on a team that also had multiple other all-star-level players. To me that’s simply not equivalent to what Kawhi did with the Raptors. Saying Frazier was the best player on an ensemble cast isn’t saying someone on the team was better than him, but rather just that he wasn’t as far above the rest of his team as someone like Kawhi was. And I think that matters quite a lot. I know PERs were lower at the top end of the NBA at the time (so Frazier was still 9th in the league that season), but then that also gets to another issue—which is that 1973 is around the height of the ABA siphoning off talent, so I also just don’t value something from that era as highly. Same is true of Rick Barry’s title, and I’m nominating him, so it’s not dispositive to me, but it does matter in a comparison with Kawhi (and that is part of why I was nominating Kawhi ahead of Rick Barry in prior threads).

[tsherkin]

we are still talking about someone whose numbers had him with a below-20 PER in both regular season and playoffs, on a team that also had multiple other all-star-level players. To me that’s simply not equivalent to what Kawhi did with the Raptors.

Yeah but they also weren't recording steals for Frazier, while they did for Kawhi, and that does impact things. Blocks, same, even though neither were huge in that regard. It's true that Kawhi scored more, but in 2023, I don't think we should really be entertaining PER in direct player-to-player comparisons any longer...

Saying Frazier was the best player on an ensemble cast isn’t saying someone on the team was better than him, but rather just that he wasn’t as far above the rest of his team as someone like Kawhi was. And I think that matters quite a lot. I know PERs were lower at the top end of the NBA at the time (so Frazier was still 9th in the league that season), but then that also gets to another issue—which is that 1973 is around the height of the ABA siphoning off talent, so I also just don’t value something from that era as highly. Same is true of Rick Barry’s title, and I’m nominating him, so it’s not dispositive to me, but it does matter in a comparison with Kawhi (and that is part of why I was nominating Kawhi ahead of Rick Barry in prior threads).

If the contention is that Kawhi was better than the next guy on the Raptors than Frazier was compared to the next guy on the Knicks, then let's look at that. Kawhi's next-best guys were Lowry and Siakam. Both of whom were good, I'd argue that was actually Siakam's best season so far, actually. Bradley and DeBusschere were below league average in efficiency and weren't ripping it up. Earl Monroe and Jerry Lucas were pretty good, but also playing relatively light minutes and not shooting/scoring that much. They had a nice, distributed passing system which suppressed individual assist numbers (and thus also PER), and Frazier was the third-leading rebounder on the team after DeBusschere and Reed, just ahead of Lucas (per-game).

The separation there isn't hugely different than what we saw on the title Raps.

Understand that the Raptors were a 59-win team the year BEFORE the Kawhi trade, and were slightly worse on O in the RS after, and won 58 games with him. Marc Gasol was a mid-season acquisition, too, and changed a lot about the team.

Kawhi scored a lot of points while maintaining his RS efficiency in the PS. 30.5 ppg, which was great. If there's an argument to be made about his contribution on the Raps, it's his postseason scoring run while others kind of floundered, so that's worth discussing.

[DSMok1]

Of the top 20 players in career VORP (RS + playoffs combined) only 2 of them aren’t voted in so far. #3 Stockton and #20 Kidd. It’s honestly getting kinda weird and puzzling how low everyone’s been on Stockton so far.

You might find it less weird and puzzling if you paid attention to the criticisms rather than repeating VORP ranks.

It's always "well he didn't peak that high". Never mind that the guys who actually did peak extraordinarily high like Jokic, Giannis, and Kawhi all went extremely low too. Like if it's all about peak, Kawhi should be in the top 20. If it's all about value over the course of a career, Stockton should be top 15. I don't see a consistent argument that keeps both out of the top 30.

I just wanted to make a point here at VORP (as one of the primary developers of the stat):
VORP is primarily intended to estimate a player's contract value. It is comparing a player to a theoretical $0/minimum value player. In the NBA, that is set somewhere around -2 to -2.5 pts/100 poss, depending on how you assess it.

If your target is winning the title, then the your bar to clear for positive impact is much higher. A poor playoff team is around league average. A team in the finals is likely +5. In order for a player to have positive value in a playoff series, I would argue that the bar is around League average or perhaps even a bit higher by the finals.

[Clyde Frazier]

I'll probably add to this but getting in my votes for now.

Vote 1 - John Stockton
Vote 2 - Walt Frazier
Nomination 1- Rick Barry
Nomination 2 - John Havlicek

Stockton's the poster boy for all time great longevity and durability. When you play that long you're going to have some missteps along the way, but the late career impact data certainly bolsters his case. Yes there are other players still on the table who significantly contributed to winning titles, but it's still a team accomplishment. I get not everyone subscribes to total career value, but it's hard to argue against stockton at this point if you do.

[70sFan]

That’s a fair point about Frazier, but I think he was the best player on the 1973 Knicks in a similar way to Isiah Thomas with the Bad Boys Pistons—the best of an ensemble cast. But it’s a fair point.

As others already implied, I don't think you can create a reasonable argument that Frazier was not the best player in 1973 Knicks team. If you want to make a case for someone like DeBusschere, then we don't we start talking about Lowry and Gasol Vs Kawhi?

1970 is an open field, but Frazier improved from that point, while Reed became a roleplayer due to injuries. A lot of people equate Thomas runs to Frazier's, but I fail to see the comparison - outside of playing on good defensive minded rosters (but then you can also equate Kawhi to them).

Ultimately, while it may be true that Frazier was the best player on the team and there probably isn’t a *great* argument for any other specific player over him, we are still talking about someone whose numbers had him with a below-20 PER in both regular season and playoffs, on a team that also had multiple other all-star-level players. To me that’s simply not equivalent to what Kawhi did with the Raptors. Saying Frazier was the best player on an ensemble cast isn’t saying someone on the team was better than him, but rather just that he wasn’t as far above the rest of his team as someone like Kawhi was. And I think that matters quite a lot. I know PERs were lower at the top end of the NBA at the time (so Frazier was still 9th in the league that season), but then that also gets to another issue—which is that 1973 is around the height of the ABA siphoning off talent, so I also just don’t value something from that era as highly. Same is true of Rick Barry’s title, and I’m nominating him, so it’s not dispositive to me, but it does matter in a comparison with Kawhi (and that is part of why I was nominating Kawhi ahead of Rick Barry in prior threads).

I mean, if you think that Frazier was not clearly one of the best players in the league with outstanding postseason run simply because he didn't have 20 PER, then whatever...

[Mogspan]

Now that he's nominated, I'd have to go with Kawhi. Just an absolutely freakish, borderline top-10 peak due to his all-time combo of playoff scoring efficiency and perimeter defense. Durability issues have resulted in fewer All-Star years than some of the other nominees, but being a 2x DPOY, a 3x First Teamer, and a 2x FMVP over the Heatles and KD Warriors is an unasailable résumé worthy of a top-32 spot.

[homecourtloss]

Thanks for posting hcl!

To reiterate what I've said before: Havlicek looks like the strongest non-Russell Celtic of the era by the RWOWY data, which surprised me because I had expected Cowens to look better than him. While I want to be careful about taking the data too seriously, in the past I've ranked Havlicek ahead of Cowens based on the entirety of his career despite thinking Cowens was probably better at his best, so seeing Havlicek come out ahead here makes it hard for me to even have that debate really.

I suspected between Havlicek and Cowens. Cowens is one of my favorite players ever.

Cowens played a modern game back on the ‘70s—a highly skilled, high motor, unselfish player who did things all over the court.

—he could challenge on guards on the perimeter
—he had an endless motor that would be even more effective when playing shorter minutes (pace in his day was fast, so he was running up down the court all game while playing heavy minutes)
—ran in transition extremely well
—was really strong and could defend inside even when young and looked more wiry than solid
—great hands
—great positioner for rebounds, had great rebound instincts
—not the greatest rim protector but did contest shots well and had good length
—could dribble and position himself for that beautiful lefty jumpshot
—was a very good free throw shooter and midrange shooter who, I think, could develop a three point shot for today’s game
—had tremendous upcourt instincts perfect for the game at the time. I love watching highlights of him grab rebounds and turn his head to look upcourt before he even lands with the ball
—very good passer, great outlet passer

Actually, this leads me to ask— how many high motor bigs have there been who weren’t positive impact players?

[falcolombardi]

Now that he's nominated, I'd have to go with Kawhi. Just an absolutely freakish, borderline top-10 peak due to his all-time combo of playoff scoring efficiency and perimeter defense. Durability issues have resulted in fewer All-Star years than some of the other nominees, but being a 2x DPOY, a 3x First Teamer, and a 2x FMVP over the Heatles and KD Warriors is an unasailable résumé worthy of a top-32 spot.

Gotta mention those defense and scoring peaks didnt really overlap, maybe the closest they got to come together was 2017, but by 2019 kawhi defense was a very in spurts thingh while still being fairly above the mean, not just all time levels of above

[Rishkar]

Induction Vote 1: John Stockton. I think Stockton is a very difficult player to rank. His box composites place him as likely a top 15 player ever, and the impact data we have for his career places his 98-02 places him at around 50th all time. Statistically, he should be around a top 15 career ever. The issue comes that the stats don't match up well with the eye test and his team results. This leaves us throwing darts exhale blindfolded, trying to pin down his actual impact on winning. I think he's a lot closer to how good his numbers indicate, and its hard to find a significant weakness in his game.
Induction Vote 2: Walt Frazier. Shorter prime and career than most of the other candidates, but one of the greatest defenders ever at his position while having a solid offensive game. I prefer him over Kawhi due to durability concerns, and think he was just a better player than Miller (despite the large disparity in longevity). I don't like Pippen's intangibles, and I'm much more impressed by Frazier's title runs than what Pippen did when he was missing Jordan. I also prefer Hondo and Kidd over Pippen, which leads to
Nomination Vote 1: Jason Kidd. Incredible passer, Incredible defender, poor scorer. Fantastic longevity and finished second in MVP voting in 02, so had at least a decent peak.
Nomination Vote 2: Hondo. One of the coolest nicknames in NBA history. Goat motor. Great defender, a good passer, great longevity (especially for era: he retired tied with Dolph Shayes for the longest career to that point), decent shooter. Hondo helped extend Russell's dynasty and then took over as a copartner with Dave Cowens in the 70's. Prefer him over Pippen because he was equally successful in his role (6 championships as a number two) but then led the Celtics to two more (and I think he had better intangibles).

[Doctor MJ]

Actually, this leads me to ask— how many high motor bigs have there been who weren’t positive impact players?

In general I think motor is a huge deal and a big value-add so long as the decision making isn't bad.

I think sometimes you see a young guy trying to chase every block and so for that type of play his high motor can contribute him a) failing to do what he was trying to do, and b) now being out of position - or having a foul called on him, but even then I still like seeing the motor.

Something Ben and I have talked about is scouting players based on what they do when they're sitting on the bench. If they can't sit still even when they have nothing to do - ADHD style - it probably bodes well for their on-court motor.

[Doctor MJ]

Havlicek is the opposite. He was a super high motor hustling player that played good defense and he turned himself into a slightly above efficiency scorer in the weaker leagues of the post Russell 70s NBA. But this is a guy who shot a lot and for his career he's a -341.6 TS Add. He played on very fast paced offenses much of his career so his scoring totals seem a bit inflated but I've never been as impressed by guys who shot more while making less than the guys around them. It would seem a player credited for being highly intelligent would see that and adjust. You will see others say the same thing about Elgin Baylor but it seems Havlicek gets a pass for it.

I'm always a bit unsure what to do with all the Celtics from the '60s & '70s with poor shooting efficiency. Obviously it's not appropriate to pretend they were efficient when they weren't...but it kinda seems like it's a Red Auerbach signature of the time period to tell certain guys to look to shoot as a matter of course, and since it's generally not a situation where you have one volume scorer who is very efficient and the other very inefficient, kinda feels like there were no obvious signals to indicate "this is a bad shot" even though from our 20/20 hindsight we can see the sub-optimality of it.

This then to say that while it's tough for me to call Hondo or Cowens all-time great in the BBIQ department, I'm hesitant to be too negative on them.

In the comparison with Baylor, I think the biggest thing for me is their defense compared to his.

[penbeast0]

Havlicek is the opposite. He was a super high motor hustling player that played good defense and he turned himself into a slightly above efficiency scorer in the weaker leagues of the post Russell 70s NBA. But this is a guy who shot a lot and for his career he's a -341.6 TS Add. He played on very fast paced offenses much of his career so his scoring totals seem a bit inflated but I've never been as impressed by guys who shot more while making less than the guys around them. It would seem a player credited for being highly intelligent would see that and adjust. You will see others say the same thing about Elgin Baylor but it seems Havlicek gets a pass for it.

I'm always a bit unsure what to do with all the Celtics from the '60s & '70s with poor shooting efficiency. Obviously it's not appropriate to pretend they were efficient when they weren't...but it kinda seems like it's a Red Auerbach signature of the time period to tell certain guys to look to shoot as a matter of course, and since it's generally not a situation where you have one volume scorer who is very efficient and the other very inefficient, kinda feels like there were no obvious signals to indicate "this is a bad shot" even though from our 20/20 hindsight we can see the sub-optimality of it.

This then to say that while it's tough for me to call Hondo or Cowens all-time great in the BBIQ department, I'm hesitant to be too negative on them.

In the comparison with Baylor, I think the biggest thing for me is their defense compared to his.

I have Havlicek over Baylor too, but Elgin does add considerable shooting volume and rebounding in his prime.

[WestGOAT]

I saw penbeast mention that someone previously provided the numbers demonstrating how Frazier locked down opposing PGs in the playoffs, so I had a look myself:

Frazier during his prime [1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978]:

Code: Select all

 Season         Round          PLAYER   Age    MP   PTS   TSA   TS%  AST  TOV  STL   PF
   1969     E.D.Semis  Kevin Loughery 28.00 43.25 20.25 24.12 41.02 5.25 <NA> <NA> 4.00
   1969    E.D.Finals       Em Bryant 30.00 37.40 12.40 12.30 48.90 3.60 <NA> <NA> 4.20
   1969    E.D.Finals Larry Siegfried 29.00 24.00  9.00  9.50 47.40 3.00 <NA> <NA> 3.00
   1970     E.D.Semis     Earl Monroe 25.00 42.71 28.00 26.29 53.01 4.00 <NA> <NA> 3.29
   1970    E.D.Finals  Flynn Robinson 28.00 29.00 12.00 16.12 36.65 3.25 <NA> <NA> 2.75
   1970    E.D.Finals     Guy Rodgers 34.00 17.00  6.00  5.00 60.00 6.00 <NA> <NA> 3.00
   1970        Finals      Jerry West 31.00 47.86 31.29 29.29 53.96 7.71 <NA> <NA> 3.00
   1971     E.C.Semis    Walt Hazzard 28.00 40.40 14.00 17.70 38.80 5.40 <NA> <NA> 4.40
   1971    E.C.Finals     Earl Monroe 26.00 39.71 24.43 25.64 48.06 4.29 <NA> <NA> 3.57
   1972     E.C.Semis    Archie Clark 30.00 45.17 26.67 25.92 50.73 7.83 <NA> <NA> 2.50
   1972    E.C.Finals     Jo Jo White 25.00 39.20 22.60 24.40 46.52 4.40 <NA> <NA> 2.60
   1972        Finals      Jerry West 33.00 41.20 19.80 26.30 37.02 8.80 <NA> <NA> 2.40
   1973     E.C.Semis    Archie Clark 31.00 42.80 21.20 20.20 51.72 5.20 <NA> <NA> 4.00
   1973    E.C.Finals     Jo Jo White 26.00 43.71 23.57 25.50 45.96 5.14 <NA> <NA> 4.14
   1973        Finals      Jerry West 34.00 34.40 21.40 22.40 46.80 4.60 <NA> <NA> 2.80
   1974     E.C.Semis    Archie Clark 32.00 35.00 13.67 17.00 39.20 3.33 <NA> <NA> 3.33
   1974     E.C.Semis    Kevin Porter 23.00 37.25 16.50 18.38 44.25 5.75 <NA> <NA> 4.75
   1974    E.C.Finals     Jo Jo White 27.00 38.00 15.20 17.60 42.90 5.00 <NA> <NA> 4.60
   1975 E.C.1st Round   Calvin Murphy 26.00 36.67 20.67 21.17 48.93 5.00 <NA> 2.33 4.00

Stockton during his prime [1988,1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997]:

Code: Select all

 Season         Round             PLAYER   Age    MP   PTS   TSA   TS%   AST  TOV  STL   PF
   1988 W.C.1st Round       Terry Porter 24.00 37.25 17.00 14.62 58.52  7.00 3.25 2.50 3.25
   1988     W.C.Semis      Magic Johnson 28.00 38.57 18.71 16.71 55.49 10.29 3.86 1.00 2.00
   1989 W.C.1st Round    Winston Garland 24.00 38.67 14.00 14.83 47.37  4.33 1.00 1.33 3.67
   1990 W.C.1st Round         Greg Grant 23.00 17.00  4.00  6.00 33.30  3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
   1990 W.C.1st Round      Kevin Johnson 23.00 41.25 24.75 25.38 49.77 10.25 4.75 1.00 2.00
   1991 W.C.1st Round      Kevin Johnson 24.00 36.50 12.75 17.00 37.58  9.75 3.00 0.50 2.25
   1991     W.C.Semis       Terry Porter 27.00 38.40 22.20 18.10 62.28  6.80 2.20 1.80 2.40
   1992 W.C.1st Round         Doc Rivers 30.00 37.40 15.20 13.90 56.24  4.20 0.60 1.20 3.20
   1992     W.C.Semis        Gary Payton 23.00 28.67  5.33  5.00 59.27  3.33 0.67 0.67 1.67
   1992     W.C.Semis      Nate McMillan 27.00 33.00 10.00  9.25 54.10 10.50 2.00 3.50 4.00
   1992    W.C.Finals       Terry Porter 28.00 40.50 26.00 18.50 69.70  8.33 1.33 1.00 2.00
   1993 W.C.1st Round        Gary Payton 24.00 34.60 12.60 13.60 43.76  4.20 1.80 2.00 3.60
   1994 W.C.1st Round      Negele Knight 26.00 27.00  9.25 11.75 38.92  3.00 1.75 0.75 2.25
   1994     W.C.Semis Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf 24.00 32.20 15.80 16.00 47.72  3.40 0.80 0.60 2.20
   1994     W.C.Semis        Robert Pack 24.00 33.00 17.50 16.25 53.75  4.00 4.50 3.00 2.00
   1994    W.C.Finals        Kenny Smith 28.00 36.50 17.50 12.62 67.67  5.00 1.50 1.25 2.00
   1994    W.C.Finals        Sam Cassell 24.00 28.00 14.00 14.00 50.00  4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00
   1995 W.C.1st Round        Kenny Smith 29.00 34.80 17.40 11.00 75.26  5.40 2.40 0.40 2.20
   1996 W.C.1st Round     Rod Strickland 29.00 40.40 20.60 20.40 50.30  8.40 2.40 1.00 2.80
   1996     W.C.Semis      Avery Johnson 30.00 38.33 10.83 12.42 42.25  7.00 2.83 2.50 2.17
   1996    W.C.Finals        Gary Payton 27.00 42.14 20.71 18.21 56.49  6.00 3.71 1.57 3.43
   1997 W.C.1st Round     Darrick Martin 25.00 31.02 11.00 11.75 44.55  5.50 1.00 0.00 2.50
   1997 W.C.1st Round    Pooh Richardson 30.00 16.68  2.00  3.50 28.60  3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
   1997     W.C.Semis      Nick Van Exel 25.00 41.83 19.20 18.20 52.42  6.40 2.20 1.60 2.20
   1997    W.C.Finals       Matt Maloney 25.00 31.49  6.50  8.25 36.82  3.17 1.83 0.67 2.33
   1997        Finals         Ron Harper 33.00 29.88  5.50  6.75 35.67  2.75 0.50 1.25 2.50
   1997        Finals         Steve Kerr 31.00 24.62  4.50  4.50 37.50  0.50 0.50 0.00 2.00

At face value, it looks like Stockton had trouble more often than Frazier keeping the other PG in check. So was Stockton that much better on offense than Frazier to elevate him higher, even with the longevity advantage? It doesn't seem like their respective prime duration is that much different.

Note I put this quickly together, so I'll look into adjusting PTS, TSA, TS% relative to regular season numbers to make the comparison more apple-like. If anyone has any posession data for these playoff games/series that'd be great, then I could also calc (rel) ORTg/DRtg.

I'm not sure the difference is as much as you thought at first glance. I went thru and figured what the opposing guards were averaging (series to series, or "per series", if you like).

*NOTE: where you listed TWO opposing guards, I COMBINED their numbers as though they were one guard, even though at times their minutes added up to MORE THAN 48. This could inflate the per-game averages of the opposing guard(s), and fwiw that will inflate the numbers of those Stockton faced more, because there are six [out of 21] such series's in his sample, vs just two [of 17] for Frazier.

**NOTE #2: I used your listed TS% on first pass, EXCEPT where combining the guards in a single series (there I calculated using the listed pts and TSA). HOWEVER, I noted your TS% listed are wrong in almost all instances. Usually only by a small amount, and they're off in BOTH directions, so I'm hoping that comes out in the wash; I didn't want to have to calculate them myself for each one. But fyi, most of them are wrong.
The only one I saw where the listed TS% was off by a LARGE amount was that of Harper/Kerr in the '97 Finals (but I calculated the TS% from the TSA [which I double-checked on bbref] for them anyway [because they're "combined" into one guard]).

And I did the rTS% for each series, too.

Here's how it shaped out.....

Average series of opposing guard(s) facing Frazier: 21.1 pts @ -3.98% rTS, 5.7 ast (turnovers not available)

Average series of opposing guard(s) facing Stockton: 17.8 pts @ -2.07% rTS, 7.1 ast, 2.5 tov (again, bearing in mind "combined guard" series's inflating the volume stats slightly more for Stockton that for Frazier's opponents)

TS% is off, albeit consistently, I don't think it matters in the long run*, since I simply use 0.5 instead of 0.44 when multiplying FTA:

Code: Select all

    dataset['TSA'] = dataset['FGA'] + 0.5 * dataset['FTA']
    dataset['TS%'] = (dataset['PTS'] / (2 * dataset['TSA']) * 100).round(1)

Thanks for posting relative TS%, adjusted for league average TS% I assume? That definitely helps, but I'll be posting different sorts of relative numbers (TS%) later, for example why not also adjust for league average point-guard TS%?

Regardless, Frazier's opp reduction in TS% (-3.98% vs -2.07%) looks substantially more impressive, though admittedly I'd say Stockton's opponent PGs look of higher quality on average (though my pre-80 knowlegde is limited).

*I guess this would penalize players that proportionally have more FTA? I'm not sure if 0.44 can be simply applied to all seasons troughout history.