RealGM Top 100 List #25

[Ryoga Hibiki]

He's a valid choice; I think he's played enough to establish a level of excellence and a window that his team can exploit to go after rings. On the other hand, last time we thought the same thing of Dwight Howard . . . .

Well, I'm much more impressed by Durant's career so far than Dwight's one in Orlando.
Anyway, last time I think DH he went around #40, don't think he'll slip so much from there.

[Texas Chuck]

Well I'm thrilled to see there is one other guy who views Kidd as highly as me. And I'm glad he made a case because I could never do it that well.

But as Colts18 has posted a bunch about Nash before/after on team ortg entering and leaving Phoenix the 2nd time. I like looking at Kidd and his impact on before/after w/l because well its hard to ignore the impact he was having on winning games. He's not the offensive savant Nash is so judging him on offensive numbers doesn't do justice to his impact. But this effect is so clear and obvious---and with the exception of being drafted and signing with the Knicks and the very beginning and end of his career--he was traded for which means the team he joined had to lose meaningful assets to get him unlike Nash in Phoenix.

Obviously I understand this is a team accomplishment and that there are other factors besides Kidd in play in each one. But the same is true of Nash and the ortg stuff. Plus this much smoke....

93-94 Mavs (pre-Kidd) 13-69
94-95 Mavs (with Kidd) 36-46

95-96 Mavs (Kidd's final full year) 26-56
97-98 Mavs (first full year no Kidd) 20-62
96-97 Mavs (8-14 with Kidd, 16-44, no Kidd)

95-96 Suns(No Kidd) 41-41
96-97 Suns( 17-32 no Kidd, 23-10 with Kidd)
97-98 Suns (first full year with Kidd) 56-26

00-01 Suns (with Kidd) 51-31
01-02 Suns (no Kidd) 36-46

00-01 Nets (no Kidd) 26-56
01-02 Nets (with Kidd) 52-30

06-07 Nets (last full year with Kidd) 41-41
07-08 Nets (22-29 with Kidd, 12-17 no Kidd)
08-09 Nets (no Kidd) 34-48


Now the Mavs didn't see this impact from Kidd when he joined them in 08 tho he was a key part to the title run in 2011. But its hard for me to look at those impact numbers and not realize no matter how how "ugly" Kidd might be doing it--the guy manages to have enormous impact on his team's chance to win games.

[Quotatious]

Well, I'm much more impressed by Durant's career so far than Dwight's one in Orlando.
Anyway, last time I think DH he went around #40, don't think he'll slip so much from there.

I think he's clearly added more quality seasons since 2011 than for example someone like Wade. Howard was still a top 5-ish player in 2012 and 2014, and top 10-15 in 2013. That's some nice longevity to add to his resume.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Well, I'm much more impressed by Durant's career so far than Dwight's one in Orlando.
Anyway, last time I think DH he went around #40, don't think he'll slip so much from there.

I think he's clearly added more quality seasons since 2011 than for example someone like Wade. Howard was still a top 5-ish player in 2012 and 2014, and top 10-15 in 2013. That's some nice longevity to add to his resume.

yes, but I'm expecting his childish behavior will affect the way some people see even his better seasons.

[Quotatious]

yes, but I'm expecting his childish behavior will affect the way some people see even his better seasons.

It's certainly possible, but I think people really exaggerate that. He was still serious enough to become a very successful player, best center in the league and a top 5 player for about 4 or 5 straight seasons - 2008-11 at least, possibly also 2012, and even in 2007, he was already very close to his usual prime numbers (although I think that he really entered his prime when Stan Van Gundy became the Magic coach in the summer of '07, and the team got better as a whole, adding Rashard Lewis, and Hedo's improvement was certainly an important factor as well). Plus, he really seems like he's bounced back - his 2014 season was pretty good, at least on the same level as 2012.
Howard has really lived up to the hype, and despite being extremely raw, was good enough to average a double-double in his rookie season, as an 18/19 year old kid. That's pretty impressive, and I think that a lot of people underestimate his competitive spirit - you don't become one of the best players in the world and a top 10 all-time caliber center if you don't care/don't have a strong work ethic. I think that he has a lot in common with Melo, in terms of mentality - both certainly had bad moments ("Melodrama/Dwightmare"), but both have really had pretty impressive careers up to this point, and pretty consistent.

I'll say this again - I'm really not a fan of Howard (or Anthony), but I have a lot of respect for them, for how good they are, and I'll gladly defend them (Howard definitely more so) in our project, when their times comes (and it seems that I'm not even that high on Howard, considering that for example fpliii ranked him at 25 on his pre-list, and I have him in the early 40s).

If Shaq didn't get that much flak for being childish, I don't see why Dwight should.

[E-Balla]

snip

Great post on Kidd. The only reason I consistently put Nash and Walt over him was his postseason performance but if its true that he was more impactful than both in the postseason I can see him climbing way up my list.

[ElGee]

As you might expect, Nash's best 5 years all come from his time with the Suns and 4 of Kidd's 5 best marks came from his time with the Nets. However, it does have to be at least mentioned that both players played in multiple situations. How much those other time periods are weighed is of course up to the evaluator, but I think we should include that data here to make for easier evaluation:

Kidd (Late 90s, Phoenix): average scaled RAPM of +4.8 from 1998 - 2000
Kidd (late 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +4.4 from 2008 - 2011
Nash (early 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +0.5 from 2002 - 2004

I think this was important to point out for a few reasons. Nash is universally rated higher in Phoenix than in Dallas, but I don't think many people appreciate the massive scale of difference in his impact. In Phoenix he was the most impactful offensive player of this generation, but in Dallas (despite being a 2-time All Star) he was pretty much measuring out as a net neutral player. Kidd, on the other hand, measured out as a strong positive player at every stop in his career. His +4.8 and +4.4 averages would both have snuck into the top-20 scores from 1998 - 2012, despite his roles changing dramatically.

I don't agree with this part. Nash was among many offensive quality players in Dallas. RAPM doesn't "know" this or have any way of adjusting for interactions based on skill types.His actual His 3-year offensive average there is +2.2. Overall from 2002-2004:

Dirk +5.8
Finley +3.1
Nash +0.5

In 2004 Antawn Jamison was +1.6. Josh Howard was +1.4. Najera +2.1. Nash was -0.8. I look at those numbers and sort of expect some kind of entanglement where someone is going to come out looking weaker due to diminishing returns on offense. Do you really look at that and think Nash was the 6th most valuable Mav? Or put another way, in 2004 do you think Dirk, Finley, Howard and Jamison were big-minute players helping Dallas and Nash and Antoine Walker were big-minute players hurting them?

And, for a counter data point, consider that from 02-04 Dirk missed 16 controlled games and the Mavs were a +4.6 team without him and only a +5.4 team with him. (Wowy Score +0.7.) Does that diminish Dirk as a player in those years, especially in 03 and 04?

Regarding Kidd, I'm wondering how you rate him when you put a number on it. I have his peak offense at +2 and his peak defense at +2 for a one-year peak of +4 and a number of +3.5 surrounding seasons (99-05). Compare to Nash, I have his peak offense at +7 and defense at -1 for most of his prime for a peak season of +6 with four more years at least +5 (05-10). If you perceive a notable difference there, I'm wondering why (i.e what makes you think Kidd moves offenses in the +3-4 range if you think that, or what makes you think Nash is lower if you think that).

[Owly]

No Arizin is not better than Cousy but Cousy has a top 15 resume.

What is strange to me is Willis Reed. A 2 time FMVP with 2 titles and he is maybe the most portable big man of all time who would be a much better player today than in his own era.

However IMHO we should let the bigs take a back seat and let the 20s be about PGs and scoring wings.

Reed is a strange one because people are focussed on the retrospective narrative that points to Frazier being the star of the team (often using his mythical 19 assist game as a basis for that) and some comments made by his coach.

To me it would almost be a case of someone using Spoelstra's quotes saying Bosh is Miami's most important player to discredit LeBron or Wade in 30 years time (see: http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/ ... nt-player/).

Here's one of my posts from the 2011 Top 100:

I completely agree. Reed was the leader of the Knicks in 1970 and I've always been slightly confused as to how, over time, perception has put Frazier in the limelight. It was well documented about how much of an impact Reed had in that series vs. LA, and when he returned from injury to inspire the win. It could of course be the 17 vs. 7 assists info that came to light on this forum last week.

You touched on Reed's accolades, in 1970 alone, he was MVP. Finals MVP. All Star. All NBA 1st. All Defensive 1st. Champion. 20.9/13.7 where his numbers, which don't necessarily blow you away, but he was a good leader on the court.

What was notable that year, was his success against Chamberlain (playing alongside Baylor and West). Whilst it wasn't the absolute prime of Wilt's career - he turned 33 that season, he was nonetheless a 27/18 guy! And 5th on this list.

Here's the matchup:

Game 1 - Willis Reed - 37 pts / Wilt Chamberlain 17 pts (Frazier DNP)
Game 2 - Willis Reed - 29 pts / Wilt Chamberlain 19 pts
Game 3 - Willis Reed - 38 pts / Wilt Chamberlain 21 pts
Game 4 - Willis Reed - 23 pts / Wilt Chamberlain 18 pts
Game 5 - Injured / Wilt leads LAL in scoring (23 pts)
Game 6 - Injured / Wilt leads LAL in scoring (45 pts)
Game 7 - Reed hobbles back onto the court, Wilt no longer leads LAL in scoring (18pts)

Pretty impressive, IMO. Unfortunately, more detailed box scores are not available.

Reed's prime was short, injuries taking their course, but that series was nothing short of dominance, and it's why I've continually been nominating him.

I'm now self linking a post which I'll refer to later. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1159463

I don't get the Bosh, Frazier analogy. Was Bosh marginally better than LeBron by boxscore metrics (as Frazier was with Reed).

And yes Wilt averaged 27-18 (over 12 games) but he was still coming off a big knee injury from which he hadn't been expected to recover that season. And yes Willis scores well, but the efficiency hardly blows you away, and Chamberlain isn't suffering at all on the boards. Reed's game 5 (8 mins) and game 7 (27m, a body on Wilt and floor spacing, but obviously not himself) numbers certainly skew his per game numbers but when you're emphasising the one series these contextual factors (Wilt's immobility and reluctance to guard the perimeter, Willis' %s, Wilt still effective on the boards) are at least worth noting as much whether Wilt led the team with 23 points.

To me Reed has a bit of what if about him. Because unless you really value the rings a lot, or give a lot of leeway for this sort of thing, there's a lot of sub-optimal performance for reasons beyond his control. Firstly there's his move to forward where after adjusting he became good, but not great. Then his two best years on a nicely balanced team. Then injuries again. Obviously he's very significant in NBA history (MVP including single season MVP triple crown, iconic '70 G7); also clearly a very good player and he has tended to do well on published versions of these type of lists (otoh, inevitably above Ewing, for instance). But without a blockbuster peak it would seem to me one would have to put a lot of value on the accolades and the titles (including '73 when, realistically, he's a role player) to seriously consider him within the next few spots.

[Doctor MJ]

Was Frazier really better than Reed?

It can certainly be debated who was better at their very best, but the longevity/durability issues of Reed are pretty extreme.

If that's "extreme" in that case, then what about Nash and Stockton?

Frazier played 175 regular season and 15 playoff games more than Reed.
Stockton played 287 regular season and 62 playoff games more than Nash.

And it's not like it can't be debated who was better between John and Steve, because as you could see many people think Stockton was the better player.

In terms of ratios, the minutes comparison of Nash/Stockton is closer than Reed/Frazier, and realistically I don't even look at it that way. I'm not going to let someone who played 100,000 minutes be my GOAT under the tyranny of sustained mediocrity. The effect of longevity for me is decidedly sublinear. So yeah, Stockton's longevity edge over Nash is much smaller to me than Frazier's edge over Reed (or Nash's edge over Frazier for that matter).

This, plus of course there's the matter that I don't see the peak comparisons the same. I said Frazier vs Reed could be debated, but I'd take Frazier's peak push come to shove. Meanwhile I take Nash's peak over Stockton.

[Doctor MJ]

Well you can look at Ray Allen, Kobe, and Vince's RAPM from 03-04 to 06 (especially Ray's offense). None as crazy as Nash's leap though.

And I think Nash understands how great he is. I mean 2 MVPs can let you know...

Hmm. Interesting. I think what you're looking at there is coincidental, but I'll concede it goes along with what you've been saying.

Note thought that all those guys are scorers, and Nash is first and foremost a distributor. If we compare Nash to other distributors, well, Jason Kidd didn't see any major improvement in RAPM with the rule change. Neither did Andre Miller, Baron Davis, Tony Parker or Chauncey Billups. So to me, to the extent there is an actual trend here, it seems to continue to follow the box score trend of helping perimeter scorers rather than someone like Nash.

Re: 2 MVPs can let you know how great you are. Well, remember his reaction to them though. He didn't get all Floyd Mayweather about them. He seemed embarrassed.

[Doctor MJ]

Spoiler:

As you might expect, Nash's best 5 years all come from his time with the Suns and 4 of Kidd's 5 best marks came from his time with the Nets. However, it does have to be at least mentioned that both players played in multiple situations. How much those other time periods are weighed is of course up to the evaluator, but I think we should include that data here to make for easier evaluation:

Kidd (Late 90s, Phoenix): average scaled RAPM of +4.8 from 1998 - 2000
Kidd (late 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +4.4 from 2008 - 2011
Nash (early 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +0.5 from 2002 - 2004

I think this was important to point out for a few reasons. Nash is universally rated higher in Phoenix than in Dallas, but I don't think many people appreciate the massive scale of difference in his impact. In Phoenix he was the most impactful offensive player of this generation, but in Dallas (despite being a 2-time All Star) he was pretty much measuring out as a net neutral player. Kidd, on the other hand, measured out as a strong positive player at every stop in his career. His +4.8 and +4.4 averages would both have snuck into the top-20 scores from 1998 - 2012, despite his roles changing dramatically.

I don't agree with this part. Nash was among many offensive quality players in Dallas. RAPM doesn't "know" this or have any way of adjusting for interactions based on skill types.His actual His 3-year offensive average there is +2.2. Overall from 2002-2004:

Dirk +5.8
Finley +3.1
Nash +0.5

In 2004 Antawn Jamison was +1.6. Josh Howard was +1.4. Najera +2.1. Nash was -0.8. I look at those numbers and sort of expect some kind of entanglement where someone is going to come out looking weaker due to diminishing returns on offense. Do you really look at that and think Nash was the 6th most valuable Mav? Or put another way, in 2004 do you think Dirk, Finley, Howard and Jamison were big-minute players helping Dallas and Nash and Antoine Walker were big-minute players hurting them?

And, for a counter data point, consider that from 02-04 Dirk missed 16 controlled games and the Mavs were a +4.6 team without him and only a +5.4 team with him. (Wowy Score +0.7.) Does that diminish Dirk as a player in those years, especially in 03 and 04?

Regarding Kidd, I'm wondering how you rate him when you put a number on it. I have his peak offense at +2 and his peak defense at +2 for a one-year peak of +4 and a number of +3.5 surrounding seasons (99-05). Compare to Nash, I have his peak offense at +7 and defense at -1 for most of his prime for a peak season of +6 with four more years at least +5 (05-10). If you perceive a notable difference there, I'm wondering why (i.e what makes you think Kidd moves offenses in the +3-4 range if you think that, or what makes you think Nash is lower if you think that).

Yeah, +/- is a funny thing. Obviously I use it a lot, but I feel much more comfortable looking at it when judging extreme tiers than I do at judging the guys in the middle. In Dallas, Nash was putting up all-star numbers on an extremely effective offense. Is it really at all reasonable to look at RAPM, see a neutral number, and conclude he wasn't much of a player? I mean, doesn't team redundancy have to be a huge part of it?

I say this not to advocate he be credited with Phoenix-level impact for his time in Dallas, but more to advocate moderation. When I look at Nash, I see a good long time in Phoenix with clear superstar-level impact, and then I see several more years in Phoenix where he was clearly showing enough that you can't look at him and say "he was a completely different player! a scrub!", which to me rounds out his impact, and reminds that Nash is 3rd all-time in assists with almost all of those assists coming in star-level seasons.

From another perspective: Phoenix was only able to get Nash because they went HARD after him. They desperately wanted Nash, and then he came and immediately won an MVP. Obviously, they saw something in Nash that made them think he could come in and make a splash for them, and if you watch some Nash highlights from Dallas, it's not hard to see what that was. To look at those Dallas years as somehow damning then is to take the precise stuff that made D'Antoni & co lust after Nash, and turn your nose up at it.

[The Infamous1]

If Your going to bring up Nash/Kidd/Stockton you have to bring up CP3. He's arguably flat out better than alll 3 and as has similar number superstar level seasons(08,09,12,13,14). And if I'm completely honest I never looked at either kidd or Stockton as franchise superstar level guys. Even during his magical 2 years in NJ leading them to the finals Kidd was always a step behind the KG's, Kobe's, Duncan's, Shaq's, tmacs, etc of the world and that because he has serious flaws as a franchise guy.

[E-Balla]

Well you can look at Ray Allen, Kobe, and Vince's RAPM from 03-04 to 06 (especially Ray's offense). None as crazy as Nash's leap though.

And I think Nash understands how great he is. I mean 2 MVPs can let you know...

Hmm. Interesting. I think what you're looking at there is coincidental, but I'll concede it goes along with what you've been saying.

Note thought that all those guys are scorers, and Nash is first and foremost a distributor. If we compare Nash to other distributors, well, Jason Kidd didn't see any major improvement in RAPM with the rule change. Neither did Andre Miller, Baron Davis, Tony Parker or Chauncey Billups. So to me, to the extent there is an actual trend here, it seems to continue to follow the box score trend of helping perimeter scorers rather than someone like Nash.

Good point. I might just be looking way too much into it. Maybe the truth is that for that team surrounded by those guys he was just that important.

Re: 2 MVPs can let you know how great you are. Well, remember his reaction to them though. He didn't get all Floyd Mayweather about them. He seemed embarrassed.

Nash was the Mackelmore of accepting MVPs.

[lorak]

As you might expect, Nash's best 5 years all come from his time with the Suns and 4 of Kidd's 5 best marks came from his time with the Nets. However, it does have to be at least mentioned that both players played in multiple situations. How much those other time periods are weighed is of course up to the evaluator, but I think we should include that data here to make for easier evaluation:

Kidd (Late 90s, Phoenix): average scaled RAPM of +4.8 from 1998 - 2000
Kidd (late 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +4.4 from 2008 - 2011
Nash (early 00s, Dallas): average scaled RAPM of +0.5 from 2002 - 2004

I think this was important to point out for a few reasons. Nash is universally rated higher in Phoenix than in Dallas, but I don't think many people appreciate the massive scale of difference in his impact. In Phoenix he was the most impactful offensive player of this generation, but in Dallas (despite being a 2-time All Star) he was pretty much measuring out as a net neutral player. Kidd, on the other hand, measured out as a strong positive player at every stop in his career. His +4.8 and +4.4 averages would both have snuck into the top-20 scores from 1998 - 2012, despite his roles changing dramatically.

I don't agree with this part. Nash was among many offensive quality players in Dallas. RAPM doesn't "know" this or have any way of adjusting for interactions based on skill types.His actual His 3-year offensive average there is +2.2. Overall from 2002-2004:

Dirk +5.8
Finley +3.1
Nash +0.5

In 2004 Antawn Jamison was +1.6. Josh Howard was +1.4. Najera +2.1. Nash was -0.8. I look at those numbers and sort of expect some kind of entanglement where someone is going to come out looking weaker due to diminishing returns on offense. Do you really look at that and think Nash was the 6th most valuable Mav? Or put another way, in 2004 do you think Dirk, Finley, Howard and Jamison were big-minute players helping Dallas and Nash and Antoine Walker were big-minute players hurting them?

1. What are those numbers? Because 2004 Mavs RAPM is:
Josh +2.8 (+3.0 ORAPM)
Dirk +3.4 ( +2.8)
Jamison +0.9 (+2.6)
Nash +0.3 (+1.6)
Finley +0.9 (+0.4)
Walker -2.9 (-0.6)
Najera +0.8 (-0.2)

2. Are you saying that under different circumstances, with different team settings, Nash would have bigger impact in 2004?

[colts18]

Steve Nash's numbers per 100 possessions.
01-04: 25-12-5, 4 TOV, .590 TS%, 21 PER, 118 O rating, .176 WS/48
05-10: 25-16-5, 5 TOV, .628 TS%, 22 PER, 121 O rating, .191 WS/48

Not much of a difference other than his Assists going up. His efficiency did go up but once you adjust for the fact that 01-04 is a much tougher defensive environment, the efficiency gap is really close.

[Doctor MJ]

Just a quick note, I see people bringing up Paul & Durant. Makes sense to do so. They might be lagging behind because in past projects it didn't make sense to consider them near this stage.

Personally I could totally see Paul getting in before some of the other guards we've been seriously speaking of despite his youth, but I'm still a bit further off on Durant.

[Colbinii]

Steve Nash's numbers per 100 possessions.
01-04: 25-12-5, 4 TOV, .590 TS%, 21 PER, 118 O rating, .176 WS/48
05-10: 25-16-5, 5 TOV, .628 TS%, 22 PER, 121 O rating, .191 WS/48

Not much of a difference other than his Assists going up. His efficiency did go up but once you adjust for the fact that 01-04 is a much tougher defensive environment, the efficiency gap is really close.

The Numbers have a slightly larger gap just comparing his first 4 years in PHX.

.634 TS%, 22.5 PER, 122 oRTG, .205 WS/48, 47.7 AST% compared to 36.3 AST% in 01-04, granted his TOV% also went up in 05-08.

What about eFG%? It went from .536 to .588. That is a huge increase!

I think that even though his numbers didn't have a huge increase, his impact did. What does the RAPM and +/- say about this?

[SactoKingsFan]

This spot will probably go to Nash or Stockton, so I’ll focus on why I prefer Stockton over Nash.

Stockton had the more impressive peak and prime, greater longevity (6-7 additional quality seasons) and was a vastly superior defender (arguably top 5 defensive PG). I don’t subscribe to the notion that PG defense is largely irrelevant, therefore, I see Stockton’s defensive edge over Nash as a significant factor when comparing their careers.

Nash only has a significant advantage over Stockton as a scorer. Stockton is either comparable or clearly better than Nash at everything outside of volume scoring and 3PT shooting. I also think Stockton is more portable than Nash. Stockton would most likely be fine or thrive in any era, but I doubt whether Nash could be as effective had he played his prime seasons in a more physical era.

PEAK

Top 5 ASPM Seasons
Stockton:: 6.8 (89), 6.4 (90), 6.3 (88), 6.3 (91), 6.2 (92)
Nash: 4.1 (07), 3.6 (06), 3.5 (03), 3.0 (05), 2.7 (10)

Extended Peak Estimated Impact
Stockton 88-92: 4.2, 4.6, 4.9, 4.3, 4.7
Nash 03, 05-08: 2.9, 2.4, 2.7, 3.3, 2.0

Extended Peak VORP
Stockton 88-92: 6.3, 7.4, 6.5, 6.8, 6.4
Nash: 03, 05-08: 4.0, 3.5, 4.2, 4.3, 3.3


DURABILITY/LONGEVITY

Durability
10 Year Prime Stockton: 816 GP, 29543 MP
10 Year Prime Nash: 783 GP, 26632

Longevity
Stockton: 16 high quality seasons
Nash: 9-10 high quality seasons

PRIME

10 Year Prime ASPM
88-97 Stockton: 6.3, 6.8, 6.4, 6.3, 6.2, 4.4, 5.6, 6.0, 4.7, 4.8
02-11 Nash: 2.1, 3.5, 1.6, 3.0, 3.6, 4.1, 2.3, 1.3, 2.7, 1.8

10 Year Prime Estimated Impact
88-97 Stockton: 4.2, 4.6, 4.9, 4.3, 4.7, 3.2, 3.9, 4.8, 4.0, 4.1
02-11 Nash: 1.9, 2.9, 1.8, 2.4, 2.7, 3.3, 2.0, 1.2, 2.4, 1.5

10 Year Prime VORP
88-97 Stockton: 6.3, 7.4, 6.5, 6.8, 6.4, 4.9, 6.0, 6.0, 5.2, 5.2
02-11 Nash: 3.2, 4.0, 2.6, 3.5, 4.1, 4.3, 3.3, 2.3, 3.4, 2.6


Prime Regular Season
88-97 Stockton RS per 100: 21.8 PTS, 4.1 TRB, 17.9 AST, 3.9 STL+BLK, 4.7 TOV
88-97 Stockton RS: 22.7 PER, .619 TS%, .418 Ftr, 122 ORtg, 104 DRtg, .221 WS/48

03-10 Nash RS per 100: 24.9 PTS, 5.0 TRB, 15.1 AST, 1.4 STL+BLK, 4.8 TOV
03-10 Nash RS: 21.8 PER, .616 TS%, .266 FTr, 121 ORtg, 111 DRtg, .189 WS/48

Prime Postseason
88-97 Stockton PS Per 100: 21.4 PTS, 4.8 TRB, 16.2 AST, 3.3 STL+BLK, 4.5 TOV
88-97 Stockton PS: 20.4 PER, .574 TS%, .403 FTr, 117 ORtg, 108 DRtg, .163 WS/48

03-10 Nash PS per 100: 25.7 PTS, 5.1 TRB, 13.5 AST, 1.0 STL+BLK, 4.8 TOV
03-10 Nash PS: 20.7 PER, .590 TS%, .274 Ftr, 117 ORtg, 114 DRtg, .145 WS/48

Vote: John Stockton

[DQuinn1575]

I can't pick him over Nash, who was top player twice in much tougher era.

I love Nash but let's be honest, he never was the top player.

Meant to say considered for top player - I think Arizin in 52 doesn't have a stronger case than Nash in 2 seasons for best player in league.

Or Durant for this past year - I think about 1/2 the time the best player is debatable - and I'm willing to give Durant and James both credit for this year for example - I'm willing to concede the same to Nash.

I'm still bouncing around a lot of guys right now, and my point really is that Cowens, Nash, and Durant are 3 guys for example that have no case for me to put behind Arizin.

[Basketballefan]

Going controversial and voting for Kevin Durant.
As short as his career has been so far, his accomplishments rival all the other guys left on the table
- 1 MVP and 3 2nd places, as a contemporary of peak LeBron. His has been one of the greatest campaigns ever
- already 13th all time in MVP shares
- 5 consecutive and unanimous 1st all NBA teams
- historical combination of scoring volume and efficiency
- already one final, 2 WCF and one WCSF in the PS
- GOAT MVP acceptance speech
all this before turning 26
His peak is so much ahead all the other guys left that I'm ready to take 5-6 years of him than the other contenders for a full career.
We all know the next project he'll be ranked much higher than this, ma imo there's really no point waiting.

No offense but what the hell does Kd's acceptance speech have to do with his ranking or how good he is as a player?

Anyways you must weigh peak rather heavily because i would have a tough time taking Kd's 4-5 elite years over a whole career of excellence from that of baylor, hondo, drexler etc.