RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #63

[pandrade83]

The issue for me is that Harden's "few bad games" that I listed come at such crucial points in those series. It would be equally fair to point to Worthy's bad pass in the 1984 finals against Boston as a terrible error that led to Boston winning game 2 and tying the series (Bird said that if they'd lost both games 1 and 2 in Boston, the series would've been over). But Worthy has numerous excellent counterbalancing games, particularly in the finals, such as a 36 pt, 16 reb, 10 ast triple-double in game 7 against the Pistons and was finals MVP. Although I'm sure he had poor games sometimes, Worthy's notably poor playoff performance is mainly confined to that one bad pass. Harden has numerous notable bad games, and he doesn't have counterbalancing great performances in crucial situations like Worthy does.

Here's a comparison of their basic stats overall.

Worthy RS stats
926 games, 17.6 pts, 5.1 reb, 3.0 ast, 1.1 stl, 0.7 blk, 2.0 tov, 55.9 TS%
Worthy PS stats
143 games, 21.1 pts, 5.2 reb, 3.2 ast, 1.2 stl, 0.7 blk, 2.1 tov, 57.8 TS%

Harden RS stats
632 games, 22.4 pts, 5.0 reb, 5.8 ast, 1.5 stl, 0.4 blk, 3.4 tov, 60.7 TS%
Harden PS stats
88 games, 20.7 pts, 5.2 reb, 5.2 ast, 1.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 3.2 tov, 59.0 TS%

For RS, Harden has better scoring, assists, and excellent TS%. But it's not a shutout -- Worthy doesn't have great longevity, but it's significantly better than Harden, and his TS% was excellent for his day (I don't have rTS%, maybe someone else does).

For PS, Worthy has a much larger sample size, elevated his game significantly in the PS in general, and was a great performer in the finals in particular. Harden's stats, on the other hand, go down in the PS, to the point that Worthy has better PPG and almost matches him in TS%, which is remarkable considering the advantage that Harden has in threes and FTs.

People value RS and PS differently, but given Harden's poor longevity to date and his lack of PS accomplishments compared to Worthy, it's easy for me to put Worthy above Harden.

I’m struggling with the Harden playoff woes. So I’m trying to refresh my memory (fyi I run a lot of long queries at work….so I do these kinds of posts sometimes between loads…I’m sure at some point IT or my boss is going to ask about this lol). 2015 is especially difficult as Harden had 3 of the best game I can remember by someone who isn’t lebron james against the warriors. His team just lost 2 of the 3. All 3 games clearly in my mind better than your example of a great Worthy game. I just can’t get my head around being critical of his two admittedly poor games given those circumstances. I also didn’t think the rockets would beat the clippers that year. Game 7 against the Clippers 31 8 assists 7 rebounds, 3 steals, and a block. Yes 7 turnovers, 1 personal foul (actually that’s impressive given 3 steals and a block), and 35% from the field, 18 free throws. He was also critical in game 5 with a triple double in a must win game, which was needed to then have the game 6 that you’re critical of. Overall I’d give that playoff run no worse than a B+. He was simply outstanding in my view. I just can’t get more granular that this when judging a player, I just can’t get into the level of so and so made a bad pass so we should consider it a poor playoff series, I just can’t or maybe I just won’t.

Against the Warriors in 15.
Points assists rebounds steals
28-9-11-4
38-9-10-3
45-5-9-2 (only game with a win in this)

James worthy in contrast had 12 playoff games of 25-5-5 in his career. Joe Dumars had 1 such game (though he was known for defense which is why I haven’t discussed him, harder to compare).

2012 is a bit of a struggle for me. He was certainly a key player, but he wasn’t an allstar. He was a 16 a game reserve, poor man’s Manu if you will. I don’t see stats that jump out, but I recall him being critical in their win over, imo, a better Spurs team. Now his stats are good in that series, game by game, key games, etc. So again I have to ask why playing well against the spurs is not placed against a poor performance in the finals?

I think winners bias is playing too much of a part in this against mcgrady/harden.

They’re playing at a much higher level overall in the playoffs then lesser players. But the teams are so much weaker that one bad game, one ts% too low is the difference between winning and losing - despite an outstanding overall effort.

Whereas some of these other players - they have huge games under the bright lights - games that they are playing on in large part because they’re playing with a goat caliber talent - really shine and then we lionize them and have a tendency to put them ahead of someone less fortunate.

But if you’re picking someone to build around, you’re clearly picking mcgrady/harden over those guys. There are very few guys left who were among the very best when they were in a sustained prime and we shouldn’t discredit them because of their team environment if they had less playoff success but still turned in excellent performance.

[Outside]

I'm judging these guys based on their abilities and what they accomplished with those abilities - I made it quite clear that I'll be supporting those players in the near future based on what they actually accomplished - not some hypothetical.

But for all the hype about the playoff performance of that group, their playoff PER & playoff BPM PEAKS falls short of what McGady accomplished and only Worthy's peak hits Harden's average. Even in the playoffs - which is the crux of your argument - McGrady & Harden were objectively better players.

Now, Dumars, Worthy & Jones all have more memorable playoff moments and moments that impact things from a historical perspective & that's part of their legacy & its a part of their argument. But they aren't the same caliber of player as Harden or McGrady regardless of what context. Those are players who accomplished what they did because of a favorable team environment - and it is pretty clear that their team environment makes them higher than they would be otherwise; whereas the opposite holds true for McGrady/Harden. And I'd rather take the players who are clearly the better more impactful players. We're talking guys who were amongst the very best when they played against guys who just weren't.

Metrics like PER and BPM peaks don't mean as much without context. The assumption you seem to be making is that McGrady would continue to put up that level of PER and BPM even if his team kept advancing. I can't do that.

McGrady's peaks represent one series against good-but-not-great competition, while for the other guys, their performance is accumulated over multiple rounds against competition that gets better the further they go. Worthy's PS PER peaks were in 87-89, when he went to the finals three times, winning twice. McGrady's three best PER peaks represent 18 games, while Worthy's represents 57.

Then there's the issue with PER in particular, which doesn't include much of a penalty for inefficiency. In 2001, McGrady had a PER of 26.8 and a TS% of 48.3. In 2002, he had a lower PER (25.6) despite having much better efficiency (55.3 TS%).

I'm not saying to discount McGrady's peaks completely, but peaks for a single series aren't the same measuring stick as peaks over four rounds.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #62:

Vince Carter - 6 (Dr Positivity, Outside, Doctor MJ, penbeast0, LABird, Joao Saraiva)
Tracy McGrady - 4 (Clyde Frazier, pandrade83, trex_8063, dhsilv2)


Been a good discussion, mostly on McGrady. Hopefully that carries over a little to the next. Calling this one for Carter. Will have #64 up in minute.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[dhsilv2]

I'm judging these guys based on their abilities and what they accomplished with those abilities - I made it quite clear that I'll be supporting those players in the near future based on what they actually accomplished - not some hypothetical.

But for all the hype about the playoff performance of that group, their playoff PER & playoff BPM PEAKS falls short of what McGady accomplished and only Worthy's peak hits Harden's average. Even in the playoffs - which is the crux of your argument - McGrady & Harden were objectively better players.

Now, Dumars, Worthy & Jones all have more memorable playoff moments and moments that impact things from a historical perspective & that's part of their legacy & its a part of their argument. But they aren't the same caliber of player as Harden or McGrady regardless of what context. Those are players who accomplished what they did because of a favorable team environment - and it is pretty clear that their team environment makes them higher than they would be otherwise; whereas the opposite holds true for McGrady/Harden. And I'd rather take the players who are clearly the better more impactful players. We're talking guys who were amongst the very best when they played against guys who just weren't.

Metrics like PER and BPM peaks don't mean as much without context. The assumption you seem to be making is that McGrady would continue to put up that level of PER and BPM even if his team kept advancing. I can't do that.

McGrady's peaks represent one series against good-but-not-great competition, while for the other guys, their performance is accumulated over multiple rounds against competition that gets better the further they go. Worthy's PS PER peaks were in 87-89, when he went to the finals three times, winning twice. McGrady's three best PER peaks represent 18 games, while Worthy's represents 57.

Then there's the issue with PER in particular, which doesn't include much of a penalty for inefficiency. In 2001, McGrady had a PER of 26.8 and a TS% of 48.3. In 2002, he had a lower PER (25.6) despite having much better efficiency (55.3 TS%).

I'm not saying to discount McGrady's peaks completely, but peaks for a single series aren't the same measuring stick as peaks over four rounds.

TS% is absolutely factored into PER. I'm I'm not mistaken TS% was created as part of PER. There's just a lot more to basketball than TS% which PER looks at.

[Outside]

2012 is a bit of a struggle for me. He was certainly a key player, but he wasn’t an allstar. He was a 16 a game reserve, poor man’s Manu if you will. I don’t see stats that jump out, but I recall him being critical in their win over, imo, a better Spurs team. Now his stats are good in that series, game by game, key games, etc. So again I have to ask why playing well against the spurs is not placed against a poor performance in the finals?

He had a good series in 2012 against the Spurs, and he definitely deserves credit for that.

His overall stats in the series:

18.5 pts (2nd on the team, slightly above Westbrook), 5.5 reb, 3.7 ast, 1.2 stl, 3.3 tov, 64.1 TS%

That's really good with great efficiency (he was 14/23 on threes), though not at the production level of recent Harden, which reflects that he was a Manu-type sixth man on OKC. His best game stats-wise appears to be game 2 (30 pts, 7 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 0 tov, ridiculous 80.1 TS%, though he did foul out), but he was pretty consistent throughout the series, with only game 4 being notably sub-par. A really good performance.

You're correct that for a fair assessment we need to consider his good conference finals in addition to his poor finals. So the question becomes how to balance those performances. As is evident in this whole discussion, I put greater emphasis on the performance at the higher stage. For me, performing poorly in the finals is a more severe negative than performing well against the Spurs was a positive. Others may feel differently.

[dhsilv2]

2012 is a bit of a struggle for me. He was certainly a key player, but he wasn’t an allstar. He was a 16 a game reserve, poor man’s Manu if you will. I don’t see stats that jump out, but I recall him being critical in their win over, imo, a better Spurs team. Now his stats are good in that series, game by game, key games, etc. So again I have to ask why playing well against the spurs is not placed against a poor performance in the finals?

He had a good series in 2012 against the Spurs, and he definitely deserves credit for that.

His overall stats in the series:

18.5 pts (2nd on the team, slightly above Westbrook), 5.5 reb, 3.7 ast, 1.2 stl, 3.3 tov, 64.1 TS%

That's really good with great efficiency (he was 14/23 on threes), though not at the production level of recent Harden, which reflects that he was a Manu-type sixth man on OKC. His best game stats-wise appears to be game 2 (30 pts, 7 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 0 tov, ridiculous 80.1 TS%, though he did foul out), but he was pretty consistent throughout the series, with only game 4 being notably sub-par. A really good performance.

You're correct that for a fair assessment we need to consider his good conference finals in addition to his poor finals. So the question becomes how to balance those performances. As is evident in this whole discussion, I put greater emphasis on the performance at the higher stage. For me, performing poorly in the finals is a more severe negative than performing well against the Spurs was a positive. Others may feel differently.

But as said by others, that's a winners bias. He had to play like he did against the spurs to have an opportunity to have the subpar finals. This is the same thing as penalizing a player for losing with HCA, but not pointing out it took great play to get it in the first place.

This gets even more complex if we talk about matchups. If Harden just has an unfavorable matchup in the finals, suddenly he's only as good as a bad matchup?

The same could apply for say a Tmac, most greats get early round games where they win easily and can pad their stats for when they play better teams later. Tmac didn't have that opportunity.

[Outside]

Then there's the issue with PER in particular, which doesn't include much of a penalty for inefficiency. In 2001, McGrady had a PER of 26.8 and a TS% of 48.3. In 2002, he had a lower PER (25.6) despite having much better efficiency (55.3 TS%).

TS% is absolutely factored into PER. I'm I'm not mistaken TS% was created as part of PER. There's just a lot more to basketball than TS% which PER looks at.

I get that shooting efficiency is a factor in PER. The formula behind PER is really complicated, and I'm sure others here understand it far better than I do since my understanding is basic at best.

But my understanding is that it favors efficient volume the most, but when it comes to volume vs efficiency, it favors volume significantly more.

Using the BBR season finder, I searched for seasons with >30 PER and >60 games. There are 19 such seasons in NBA history. Here are the results, listed in descending order by PER:

http://bkref.com/tiny/nmjK9

The top PER season, Wilt in 1962-63, has the third-worst TS% of the group. The differences in PER are relatively small, but the TS% varies quite a bit and doesn't correlate neatly with PER.

My intention isn't to dive into the intricacies of PER (I am ill-equipped for that), but I think my original point still stands regarding McGrady having a really high PER for his 2001 series against Milwaukee despite having a poor TS% of 48.3 takes a significant amount of shine off that PER.

[dhsilv2]

Then there's the issue with PER in particular, which doesn't include much of a penalty for inefficiency. In 2001, McGrady had a PER of 26.8 and a TS% of 48.3. In 2002, he had a lower PER (25.6) despite having much better efficiency (55.3 TS%).

TS% is absolutely factored into PER. I'm I'm not mistaken TS% was created as part of PER. There's just a lot more to basketball than TS% which PER looks at.

I get that shooting efficiency is a factor in PER. The formula behind PER is really complicated, and I'm sure others here understand it far better than I do since my understanding is basic at best.

But my understanding is that it favors efficient volume the most, but when it comes to volume vs efficiency, it favors volume significantly more.

Using the BBR season finder, I searched for seasons with >30 PER and >60 games. There are 19 such seasons in NBA history. Here are the results, listed in descending order by PER:

http://bkref.com/tiny/nmjK9

The top PER season, Wilt in 1962-63, has the third-worst TS% of the group. The differences in PER are relatively small, but the TS% varies quite a bit and doesn't correlate neatly with PER.

My intention isn't to dive into the intricacies of PER (I am ill-equipped for that), but I think my original point still stands regarding McGrady having a really high PER for his 2001 series against Milwaukee despite having a poor TS% of 48.3 takes a significant amount of shine off that PER.

His turnovers were massively lower in 2001 though. 5.4% vs 10.5%. His assist rate are higher 36.7% vs 33.8%. Doesn't shock me to see the higher PER, but if you'd rather have a metric more closely tied to TS% OBPM and WS/48 are painting that narrative.

That said his turnover rate just at a glance is mind blowing.

[Outside]

But as said by others, that's a winners bias. He had to play like he did against the spurs to have an opportunity to have the subpar finals. This is the same thing as penalizing a player for losing with HCA, but not pointing out it took great play to get it in the first place.

Well, winning is a factor in my criteria, and I don't see what's wrong with that. The object of the game is to win, and what I attempt to assess in my ranking is a player's net positive impact toward winning. It's of course impossible to isolate that impact from the quality of the player's teammates, the system the team runs, and other factors, but the goal for me is to compensate for all those variables and get at the crux of how much a player's performance contributes toward winning basketball.

It's not that a player has to win a title to be considered great; I rank Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Elgin Baylor, and others who never won a title very highly on my list. On the flip side, I don't automatically bump Robert Horry, Steve Kerr, and Satch Sanders onto the list because they won a bunch of titles.

I'm not sure what to make of this notion of "winning bias." It sounds like a pejorative to me, but winning is absolutely a factor. I don't see how it can't be. Being tested in the playoffs is crucial to finding out how good a player is, and playing against the best competition deeper in the playoffs is a more meaningful test than the first round. I don't see how using that as a measuring stick is "bias." If we go down that road, any factor we consider could be called a bias.

This gets even more complex if we talk about matchups. If Harden just has an unfavorable matchup in the finals, suddenly he's only as good as a bad matchup?

It's not just the matchup; it's how he performs in that matchup. Miami was the better team and deserved to win the series. But I expect more from a top-100 player than 12.4 pts, 4.8 reb, 3.6 ast, 1.2 stl, 0.0 blk, 2.4 tov on 37.5 FG% and 31.8 3PT%. It's not all Harden's fault -- Westbrook was bad too, shooting 43.3% overall and a horrendous 3/22 on threes.

Harden just didn't play well in his only finals appearance. Maybe he'll get there multiple more times and show that he's the player his advocates believe he is. Magic Johnson was Tragic Johnson after the 1984 finals, but he came back and redeemed himself with his play in subsequent postseasons. Maybe Harden will do the same, and if he does, I'll be happy to credit him for it. But he hasn't done that yet.

The same could apply for say a Tmac, most greats get early round games where they win easily and can pad their stats for when they play better teams later. Tmac didn't have that opportunity.

Most greats get their teams out of the first round at some point, even if they don't have good supporting rosters.

[Outside]

TS% is absolutely factored into PER. I'm I'm not mistaken TS% was created as part of PER. There's just a lot more to basketball than TS% which PER looks at.

I get that shooting efficiency is a factor in PER. The formula behind PER is really complicated, and I'm sure others here understand it far better than I do since my understanding is basic at best.

But my understanding is that it favors efficient volume the most, but when it comes to volume vs efficiency, it favors volume significantly more.

Using the BBR season finder, I searched for seasons with >30 PER and >60 games. There are 19 such seasons in NBA history. Here are the results, listed in descending order by PER:

http://bkref.com/tiny/nmjK9

The top PER season, Wilt in 1962-63, has the third-worst TS% of the group. The differences in PER are relatively small, but the TS% varies quite a bit and doesn't correlate neatly with PER.

My intention isn't to dive into the intricacies of PER (I am ill-equipped for that), but I think my original point still stands regarding McGrady having a really high PER for his 2001 series against Milwaukee despite having a poor TS% of 48.3 takes a significant amount of shine off that PER.

His turnovers were massively lower in 2001 though. 5.4% vs 10.5%. His assist rate are higher 36.7% vs 33.8%. Doesn't shock me to see the higher PER, but if you'd rather have a metric more closely tied to TS% OBPM and WS/48 are painting that narrative.

That said his turnover rate just at a glance is mind blowing.

Actually, TS% is most closely tied to TS% I happen to like using TS% in these assessments, but I'm not looking for one stat. To me, it's looking at lots of different stats, plus other factors. My impression is that I put more emphasis on basic stats and less on derived metrics than most posters here. I'm open to being swayed by other data, but I'll use that other data in combination with the basic info, not as a replacement for it.

I have work to do to educate myself on advanced metrics, and I hope to do that at some point, time willing. But I'd like to think that I serve a purpose for the group in my relative ignorance on that topic because I'm willing to be a voice of skepticism or point out different ways that certain data (WOWY, for example) can be interpreted. It's not that I think advanced metrics are bogus, because I don't. But I think I understand the game itself pretty well, and if data doesn't gibe with my understanding of the game, I'll press pause and try to figure out what's going on.

My approach to assessing players is highly subjective, but I do think it's logical and based on my deep understanding and appreciation of the game. I may come up with a formula to rank players at some point, a unified ranking theory, but it would likely include applying numerical values to certain subjective criteria (leadership, to pick one example). I can't ever see myself basing everything solely on stats. Stats are valuable tools, but they don't capture everything.

[dhsilv2]

But as said by others, that's a winners bias. He had to play like he did against the spurs to have an opportunity to have the subpar finals. This is the same thing as penalizing a player for losing with HCA, but not pointing out it took great play to get it in the first place.

Well, winning is a factor in my criteria, and I don't see what's wrong with that. The object of the game is to win, and what I attempt to assess in my ranking is a player's net positive impact toward winning. It's of course impossible to isolate that impact from the quality of the player's teammates, the system the team runs, and other factors, but the goal for me is to compensate for all those variables and get at the crux of how much a player's performance contributes toward winning basketball.

It's not that a player has to win a title to be considered great; I rank Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Elgin Baylor, and others who never won a title very highly on my list. On the flip side, I don't automatically bump Robert Horry, Steve Kerr, and Satch Sanders onto the list because they won a bunch of titles.

I'm not sure what to make of this notion of "winning bias." It sounds like a pejorative to me, but winning is absolutely a factor. I don't see how it can't be. Being tested in the playoffs is crucial to finding out how good a player is, and playing against the best competition deeper in the playoffs is a more meaningful test than the first round. I don't see how using that as a measuring stick is "bias." If we go down that road, any factor we consider could be called a bias.

This gets even more complex if we talk about matchups. If Harden just has an unfavorable matchup in the finals, suddenly he's only as good as a bad matchup?

It's not just the matchup; it's how he performs in that matchup. Miami was the better team and deserved to win the series. But I expect more from a top-100 player than 12.4 pts, 4.8 reb, 3.6 ast, 1.2 stl, 0.0 blk, 2.4 tov on 37.5 FG% and 31.8 3PT%. It's not all Harden's fault -- Westbrook was bad too, shooting 43.3% overall and a horrendous 3/22 on threes.

Harden just didn't play well in his only finals appearance. Maybe he'll get there multiple more times and show that he's the player his advocates believe he is. Magic Johnson was Tragic Johnson after the 1984 finals, but he came back and redeemed himself with his play in subsequent postseasons. Maybe Harden will do the same, and if he does, I'll be happy to credit him for it. But he hasn't done that yet.

The same could apply for say a Tmac, most greats get early round games where they win easily and can pad their stats for when they play better teams later. Tmac didn't have that opportunity.

Most greats get their teams out of the first round at some point, even if they don't have good supporting rosters.

Winning bias is not giving credit for winning, but ignoring bad games from teams that win.

Case and point and I don't mean to attack Worthy but he's the comp you gave.

7 points, 3-9 shooting, 1 rebound, 1 assist in an nba finals loss to the pistons in 88. I guess it was a game 4 so we can give him a pass? Or the team played bad so it's ok?

87 finals game 5. 12 points, 3 assists, 7 rebounds, 6 of 19, 38 minutes played.
87 finals game 3 13 points, 3 assists, 3 rebounds, 6 of 18

91 finals game 4. 12 points, 2 assists, 3 rebounds, 6 of 16 in 31 minutes

The Lakers won in 87 so Worthy's bad games are forgotten. Same with 88. And 91 was against MJ so nobody remembers anything but MJ and Magic playing in the finals.

There's just no real case that Harden is a poor playoff guy. There's a case he falls off more than others and there's a case he's a guy who has high volatility in terms of production (all time great games followed by poor games), but he simply is not a poor performer. Worthy was never asked to carry a team, but even as a second or 3rd option, it looks to me like he laid some pretty big eggs and generally got bailed out. That isn't to say he didn't have some great playoff series or games.

[Outside]

Winning bias is not giving credit for winning, but ignoring bad games from teams that win.

Then I don't have winning bias.

Case and point and I don't mean to attack Worthy but he's the comp you gave.

7 points, 3-9 shooting, 1 rebound, 1 assist in an nba finals loss to the pistons in 88. I guess it was a game 4 so we can give him a pass? Or the team played bad so it's ok?

87 finals game 5. 12 points, 3 assists, 7 rebounds, 6 of 19, 38 minutes played.
87 finals game 3 13 points, 3 assists, 3 rebounds, 6 of 18

91 finals game 4. 12 points, 2 assists, 3 rebounds, 6 of 16 in 31 minutes

The Lakers won in 87 so Worthy's bad games are forgotten. Same with 88. And 91 was against MJ so nobody remembers anything but MJ and Magic playing in the finals.

My argument isn't that Harden never had a good playoff game or Worthy never had a bad one. You play enough games, you're going to get some of both.

I think I'm looking at two things:

1. What kind of performances did the player have in the PS, with deeper rounds counting for more because they come against better competition and under greater pressure.

2. Not just whether I can cherry-pick a few good games for a player I favor or a few bad games for a player I don't, but the balance between good and bad performances for each player.

As I pointed out in my argument for Worthy over TMac, Worthy has 143 playoff games. That includes 34 finals games. You had to skip by a lot of good finals games, including many really good ones, to find those four bad finals games you listed.

The first game you mention for Worthy is from the 1988 finals. Are you honestly saying that game is representative of Worthy's performance in that series or representative of his impact to his team winning the series? It would obviously be easy for me to come up with counterbalancing performances to that game, especially considering he was named finals MVP.

When those arguing for Harden point to his PS production, I argued that his overall production masked that he had come up small repeatedly in big games. You (or someone) correctly pointed out that he had performed well in the conf finals against the Spurs, and you (or someone) may have pointed to a very good game or two against Golden State. But in my view, on balance, he has way too many instances of coming up small. Putting up a stinker when your team is down 0-2 and has a chance to turn it around in game 3 at home is a performance that lingers, as is setting the all-time record for turnovers in a closeout game. His performances in games 5 and 6 against San Antonio last season, with Kawhi out and the series tied 2-2 and apparently for the taking, carry a stench that erases a lot of good will from other games.

This good game/bad thing isn't a simple 1:1 thing, where you need one good performance to make up for a bad one. Games that bad in the biggest moments carry a lot more weight than outdueling Westbrook in the first round.

Harden has a few good games at that level to point to, but on balance, his bright lights PS ledger isn't in his favor.

Worthy, on the other hand, has some poor games in the finals, but they are few, and none approach the negative impact of Harden's bad games.

The crack that comes to mind is that only one of them is called Big Game James, but that isn't fair to Harden. Harden has to carry a heavier load for his team than Worthy generally did, so it's easier for Harden's poor games to impact his team more severely. Harden's also not done yet, so he may yet have breakout performances that show he's a consummate performer in the clutch. I'd actually say that's more likely than him continuing a run of poor performances because he's really talented and skilled, and he'll hopefully benefit from the experience he's gained so far to do better the next time that moment arrives. I hope he does well. But to this point, his record is what it is.

[dhsilv2]

Winning bias is not giving credit for winning, but ignoring bad games from teams that win.

Then I don't have winning bias.

Case and point and I don't mean to attack Worthy but he's the comp you gave.

7 points, 3-9 shooting, 1 rebound, 1 assist in an nba finals loss to the pistons in 88. I guess it was a game 4 so we can give him a pass? Or the team played bad so it's ok?

87 finals game 5. 12 points, 3 assists, 7 rebounds, 6 of 19, 38 minutes played.
87 finals game 3 13 points, 3 assists, 3 rebounds, 6 of 18

91 finals game 4. 12 points, 2 assists, 3 rebounds, 6 of 16 in 31 minutes

The Lakers won in 87 so Worthy's bad games are forgotten. Same with 88. And 91 was against MJ so nobody remembers anything but MJ and Magic playing in the finals.

My argument isn't that Harden never had a good playoff game or Worthy never had a bad one. You play enough games, you're going to get some of both.

I think I'm looking at two things:

1. What kind of performances did the player have in the PS, with deeper rounds counting for more because they come against better competition and under greater pressure.

2. Not just whether I can cherry-pick a few good games for a player I favor or a few bad games for a player I don't, but the balance between good and bad performances for each player.

As I pointed out in my argument for Worthy over TMac, Worthy has 143 playoff games. That includes 34 finals games. You had to skip by a lot of good finals games, including many really good ones, to find those four bad finals games you listed.

The first game you mention for Worthy is from the 1988 finals. Are you honestly saying that game is representative of Worthy's performance in that series or representative of his impact to his team winning the series? It would obviously be easy for me to come up with counterbalancing performances to that game, especially considering he was named finals MVP.

When those arguing for Harden point to his PS production, I argued that his overall production masked that he had come up small repeatedly in big games. You (or someone) correctly pointed out that he had performed well in the conf finals against the Spurs, and you (or someone) may have pointed to a very good game or two against Golden State. But in my view, on balance, he has way too many instances of coming up small. Putting up a stinker when your team is down 0-2 and has a chance to turn it around in game 3 at home is a performance that lingers, as is setting the all-time record for turnovers in a closeout game. His performances in games 5 and 6 against San Antonio last season, with Kawhi out and the series tied 2-2 and apparently for the taking, carry a stench that erases a lot of good will from other games.

This good game/bad thing isn't a simple 1:1 thing, where you need one good performance to make up for a bad one. Games that bad in the biggest moments carry a lot more weight than outdueling Westbrook in the first round.

Harden has a few good games at that level to point to, but on balance, his bright lights PS ledger isn't in his favor.

Worthy, on the other hand, has some poor games in the finals, but they are few, and none approach the negative impact of Harden's bad games.

The crack that comes to mind is that only one of them is called Big Game James, but that isn't fair to Harden. Harden has to carry a heavier load for his team than Worthy generally did, so it's easier for Harden's poor games to impact his team more severely. Harden's also not done yet, so he may yet have breakout performances that show he's a consummate performer in the clutch. I'd actually say that's more likely than him continuing a run of poor performances because he's really talented and skilled, and he'll hopefully benefit from the experience he's gained so far to do better the next time that moment arrives. I hope he does well. But to this point, his record is what it is.

This is completely winners bias.

Worthy's worst finals game of his career came in the 88 finals, but you gloss over it, while you criticize Harden for the warriors series in 2015 where he never had a game as bad as what Worthy did.

Worthy in the 88 finals was 22 7.4 4.4 with a GmSc of 16.6. If harden had a series like that his team would be swept and he'd be criticized, but this is being used to claim that Worthy was a big man hero.

Harden vs the warriors 28.4 7.8 6.4 GmSc 23.2

Worthy wasn't good in game 5 either btw. 14 points on 4 of 10 shooting 4 rebounds and 4 assists. That game left the lakers down 2-3 and needing to win back to back to win the series. Had the pistons made a single extra basket, they'd have won the series and Worthy would have had two poor games in a losing effort. Instead the lakers go on to win, Worthy has a very good game 6 and a great game 7 and he wins the finals MVP and people just ignore that he had bad games in the series.

I just can't understand how you're critical of Harden for having a poor game 3 after he just had two MVP hall of fame worthy games in game 1 and 2 and his team just came up short, and he followed the poor game 3 up with a master piece to avoid the sweep. That's what happens when you play a vastly better team and you have to score 30-40 and have a near triple double to give your team even a chance at a win, and even playing that well you are still likely to lose. The rockets weren't supposed to be there in the first place and they likely weren't supposed to even win a game in the series.

Anyway you've actually raised my view of Harden's playoffs and firmed up my alt vote for him. I'd not that closely reviewed his playoff games till now. I can now say without a doubt he's a great playoff guy who's not perfect and absolutely hasn't matched his regular season production, but remains an elite playoff guy and is likely one of the best we have left on the board. Especially going back and remembering those warriors games. I recall watching live game one and two and just being in disbelief at how great he was. He was this one man blur and nearly carries his team to a 2-0 lead on the road against the warriors.

[Outside]

Well, I think we've exhausted the productive path of this discussion. Thanks for presenting your arguments.