RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 (Moses Malone)

[Cavsfansince84]

Seeing Isiah v. Stockton, but I would guess Nash v. Paul is the more relevant to who goes in next. I rate Stockton over Nash but I am willing to bet that's a minority opinion. Anyone want to weigh in on Steve Nash v. Chris Paul?

I'm leaning towards Stockton mainly due to consistent high level+availability for 13-14 straight years. CP3 had higher highs but in terms of overall career I can't help but feel Stockton did more and gives you a better chance at winning a ring if you can give him a good supporting cast for the duration of his career. Also, Stockton's peers all speak very highly of the sort of competitor and player he was. That speaks to his intangibles to some degree imo.

Come on now... Stockton had Karl Malone for his entire prime, and up until Hornacek's arrival they weren't succeeding much in the playoffs. Comparing Paul's teams in his career, only 2018 and 2019 Rockets were better than the Jazz from 1994 to 1998.

He had Karl Malone for almost 20 years and wasn't able to win a ring but imo those teams always lacked real depth and even Hornacek wasn't much more than a guy who brought shooting a little playmaking. In his Utah years he only averaged around 10fgapg. So I'm not excusing the lack of overall success anymore really than I am excusing the lack of it by CP3. I do think your chances are probably better with 20 years of Stockton though than with the 15 years of CP3 which we've seen play out. Stockton isn't like 3rd all time in vorp by accident.

[Odinn21]

I'm leaning towards Stockton mainly due to consistent high level+availability for 13-14 straight years. CP3 had higher highs but in terms of overall career I can't help but feel Stockton did more and gives you a better chance at winning a ring if you can give him a good supporting cast for the duration of his career. Also, Stockton's peers all speak very highly of the sort of competitor and player he was. That speaks to his intangibles to some degree imo.

Come on now... Stockton had Karl Malone for his entire prime, and up until Hornacek's arrival they weren't succeeding much in the playoffs. Comparing Paul's teams in his career, only 2018 and 2019 Rockets were better than the Jazz from 1994 to 1998.

He had Karl Malone for almost 20 years and wasn't able to win a ring but imo those teams always lacked real depth and even Hornacek wasn't much more than a guy who brought shooting a little playmaking. In his Utah years he only averaged around 10fgapg. So I'm not excusing the lack of overall success anymore really than I am excusing the lack of it by CP3. I do think your chances are probably better with 20 years of Stockton though than with the 15 years of CP3 which we've seen play out. Stockton isn't like 3rd all time in vorp by accident.

Hornacek was a huge addition. He was like a budget Ginobili in a way. That’s some way to underrate what he brought to the table.
As I posted earlier Stockton was a player that had a hard time with keeping up with 15 ppg as the 2nd best player of his team.
A team with Chris Paul as the best player?
A team with John Stockton as the best player?

This VORP argument is getting out of hand BTW. It is a number that shows that Stockton had the ultimate career for a #2 player.
He doesn’t give you a better win condition than Barkley, Wade, Durant, Paul, Nash, Ewing, even Kidd who are clearly behind Stockton in VORP total and still in the conversation to be picked.
Stockton’s VORP total is more than twice of Ewing’s and 6-7 seasons of Ewing gives a better win condition than 15+ seasons of Stockton...

[colts18]

First off, let's make it clear. The Jazz did not underachieve in the playoffs in the 90s. The Jazz played fine in the playoffs. What happened is that they went up again stiff competition every year. In fact, the Jazz playoff SRS in the 90s was HIGHER than their Regular season SRS. True story.

SRS:
RS: 5.28
PS: 6.55

Average opponent faced in the playoffs: 4.51 SRS

Average team they lost to: 6.67 SRS

They lost to 7 teams with an SRS over 6.0, 5 teams with an SRS over 7. That's actually understating how brutal the slate of opponents they faced were. Their SRS is being dragged down by the 94 and 95 Rockets (4.19 SRS and 2.32). The SRS understates the Rockets because they overachieved in the postseason. If you adjust for that, the average team they lost to was around 7 SRS.

To put it into perspective how tough their competition was, the 2020 Lakers had a 6.28 SRS. The average the Jazz lost had a BETTER SRS than the championship Lakers.

They outperformed their regular season SRS in 6 out of 10 Postseasons. They were 3+ SRS in 9/10 PS, 5+ SRS in 6/10 PS

Jazz Playoff SRS each year in the 90s.

Code: Select all

Year   SRS
1990   5.09
1991   10.15
1992   3.53
1993   3.06
1994   5.18
1995   -2.28
1996   13.15
1997   7.88
1998   5.87
1999   4.23
Total   6.55


[Cavsfansince84]

Hornacek was a huge addition. He was like a budget Ginobili in a way. That’s some way to underrate what he brought to the table.
As I posted earlier Stockton was a player that had a hard time with keeping up with 15 ppg as the 2nd best player of his team.
A team with Chris Paul as the best player?
A team with John Stockton as the best player?

This VORP argument is getting out of hand BTW. It is a number that shows that Stockton had the ultimate career for a #2 player.
He doesn’t give you a better win condition than Barkley, Wade, Durant, Paul, Nash, Ewing, even Kidd who are clearly behind Stockton in VORP total and still in the conversation to be picked.
Stockton’s VORP total is more than twice of Ewing’s and 6-7 seasons of Ewing gives a better win condition than 15+ seasons of Stockton...

Hornacek was a good addition but why was he only taking 10 shots a game for them when that was his primary strength as a player? He helped but had his definite limitations which showed in both finals he played in. I wouldn't take 6-7 years of Ewing over Stockton either but that's really neither here nor there. We can just disagree as it pertains to Stockton's value as a player and I don't base that just on vorp just as I never rely on any single metric when I form opinions on players. No single metric can be relied on in that way. For most players I am going off of what I saw of them plus lots of forms of statistical research which I've been doing to some degree since the 80's.

[freethedevil]

1. Curry's accumulative value is already the highest of anyone left.

He also easily has the highest peak of anyone left and if people find this claim dubious, I chellange them to make a lift-based case for 91 jordan over 15 Curry. Curry was worth 25 wins in the regular season via impact metrics and was comparable in the playoffs in effiency creating more and defending a bit worse.

2. Nash, everything I said of curry basiclally applies to nash albeit he's not really the same calibre of player.

3. Undecided. I'm considering Pippen, Chris Paul, Barkley, Malone

[freethedevil]

Stockton has to start being discussed in this range. His statistical profile


All-time Ranks:
Minutes 11th
Games Played 5th
Assists 1st
Steals 1st
BPM 8th
VORP 3rd
Win Shares 6th
WS/48 11th
TS% 15th
O Rating 5th

So you chose a bunch of stats that are easily the least predictive and lest results-rooted(ie, they ae tied in some way to the end of the means they're supposed to lead to, like, goodness-> impact, creation->OC)

How is assists not redundnat, when we have measures that better correlate with offensive effiency like A:T ratio, Box Creation, Oppurtunies reated, ect.

How is steals meaningful when we can actually track prime stockton's defensive impact

How is BPM, WS/48 not rendudnat, RPM, PIPM, all of which predict winning better and measure defense in some way when it comes to stockton

Why would we bother with Winshares or Vorp when we have metrics actually rooted in comphrensive studies in what leads to rings like CORP?

Why are we using O rating when we cna track stockton's induvdiaul impact?


All stats ar enot created equal, and if other stats better measure what ever the stat you're using measures, there's zero reason to keeep using the obsolete things.

Stockton vastly trails steph curry and steve nash in terms of creation
Prime Stockton's impact is murked by curry, nash, barkley malone going by anything that adjusts for lineups.

TS? Again curry and Nash exist.

Accumualtive value, there are 5-6 players with higher corps


Unless you have some other purpose for these stats outside of measuring a players effect on offense, overall team success, how well they create for teammates, or how well they score, there's really no reason to think stockton's 'stastical profile' paints him as worthy of a vote here.

[Dutchball97]

Any reason why people use RAPM and PIPM over BPM/VORP? RAPM and PIPM are terrible at giving a rough ranking of how well someone played unlike BPM/VORP but then there is also very little useful in depth analysis going on in RAPM/PIPM to offset that.

Is it just people enjoying their shiny new toys over the 'boring' alternatives?

[Amares]

Any reason why people use RAPM and PIPM over BPM/VORP? RAPM and PIPM are terrible at giving a rough ranking of how well someone played unlike BPM/VORP but then there is also very little useful in depth analysis going on in RAPM/PIPM to offset that.

Is it just people enjoying their shiny new toys over the 'boring' alternatives?

Any reason why people use BPM/VORP at all? This stat(s) was pretty bad from the beginning like most box score driven estimated, and quite useless when it comes to defense. And recently author changed formula, because he/others didn't like some results. Stats like that should be eliminated and ignored, just for these reasons, but somehow still are commonly used by people. I assume it's because it's available since 70s, and it's very easy to find BPM/VORP for any player, unfortunately it doesn't solve the main problem here.

[Dutchball97]

Any reason why people use RAPM and PIPM over BPM/VORP? RAPM and PIPM are terrible at giving a rough ranking of how well someone played unlike BPM/VORP but then there is also very little useful in depth analysis going on in RAPM/PIPM to offset that.

Is it just people enjoying their shiny new toys over the 'boring' alternatives?

Any reason why people use BPM/VORP at all? This stat(s) was pretty bad from the beginning like most box score driven estimated, and quite useless when it comes to defense. And recently author changed formula, because he/others didn't like some results. Stats like that should be eliminated and ignored, just for these reasons, but somehow still are commonly used by people. I assume it's because it's available since 70s, and it's very easy to find BPM/VORP for any player, unfortunately it doesn't solve the main problem here.

You speak in generalities. BPM and VORP were always bad? Why? BPM can get too generous based on small sample sizes, while VORP can put too much value into simply playing a lot of games/minutes (especially in the play-offs). Using it together gives solid results though. If you can point me to any one stat that is better at giving a general idea about where a player stands than a combination of BPM/VORP I'd love to hear it but all the alternatives I've seen so far have been convoluted messes that really aren't useful for any purpose.

In the end all stats like this are is a way for us to check if our personal opinions about players are backed up by anything. The more stats that see a player as good, the likelier the player is to actually be good. There are plenty of worse stats than BPM/VORP that can still be usesful like PER and WS. The author revising his formula isn't a good enough reason to completely dismiss a stat.

[WestGOAT]

The more traditional playoff RelRatings over each of the discussed periods (plus Curry). Removed series where Curry missed sizable time, I don't think any of the other guys had series like that on first glance, but if I missed one let me know.

Pistons '85-'90, 18 Series
+4.5 Off, -5.3 Def, +9.8 Net

Suns '05-'10, 12 Series
+11.4 Off, +2.9 Def, +8.5 Net

Jazz '88-'93, 10 Series
+3.9 Off, -0.9 Def, +4.7 Net

Curry w/o KD '13-'19, 11 Series
+4.5 Off, -3.5 Def, +7.9 Net

Curry w/KD '17-'19, 8 Series
+9.7 Off, -4.7 Def, +14.4 Net

Curry total '13-'19, 19 Series
+6.7 Off, -4.0 Def, +10.6 Net

Just adding CP3's career #'s. Didn't wind up removing any series for Chris, as he was present for the majority of his. '09 vs the Nuggets is by bar the most damaging.

CP3 total '08-'20, 19 Series
+3.3 Off, +0.1 Def, +3.2 Net

I found this google sheet apparently containing Relative PS Off-Def Ratings 1952-2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lMHVWmmq6lEy9O9XqLk0Ji-xawtX8gPRtHHwbvV9634/edit#gid=999526014
Do these numbers match the numbers you have eminence? I would like to use this as a resource.

Also if anyone already has numbers for 2015-2020, it'd be much appreciated if you can share!

Any reason why people use RAPM and PIPM over BPM/VORP? RAPM and PIPM are terrible at giving a rough ranking of how well someone played unlike BPM/VORP but then there is also very little useful in depth analysis going on in RAPM/PIPM to offset that.

My main issue with the usage of (some) advanced stats is that they are often used to draw conclusions between players that play different roles. I.e for example Iverson 2001 vs Stockton 2001, just look at this thread I started only recently:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2015571
and the follow-up thread:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2017977&start=20

[Amares]

Any reason why people use RAPM and PIPM over BPM/VORP? RAPM and PIPM are terrible at giving a rough ranking of how well someone played unlike BPM/VORP but then there is also very little useful in depth analysis going on in RAPM/PIPM to offset that.

Is it just people enjoying their shiny new toys over the 'boring' alternatives?

Any reason why people use BPM/VORP at all? This stat(s) was pretty bad from the beginning like most box score driven estimated, and quite useless when it comes to defense. And recently author changed formula, because he/others didn't like some results. Stats like that should be eliminated and ignored, just for these reasons, but somehow still are commonly used by people. I assume it's because it's available since 70s, and it's very easy to find BPM/VORP for any player, unfortunately it doesn't solve the main problem here.

You speak in generalities. BPM and VORP were always bad? Why? BPM can get too generous based on small sample sizes, while VORP can put too much value into simply playing a lot of games/minutes (especially in the play-offs). Using it together gives solid results though. If you can point me to any one stat that is better at giving a general idea about where a player stands than a combination of BPM/VORP I'd love to hear it but all the alternatives I've seen so far have been convoluted messes that really aren't useful for any purpose.

In the end all stats like this are is a way for us to check if our personal opinions about players are backed up by anything. The more stats that see a player as good, the likelier the player is to actually be good. There are plenty of worse stats than BPM/VORP that can still be usesful like PER and WS. The author revising his formula isn't a good enough reason to completely dismiss a stat.

Both were bad, one of the reasons was it contained DBPM and it's commonly known that boxscore estimated stats are terrible when it comes to evaluating defense. They miss all non-box base components which is ~95% of defense. Now in 2nd version it deepened bpmv1 issues with overrating high volume scorers (they are even more overrated by this stat now), and is presenting defense like some irrelevant or 3rd fiddle part of the game. I can see some reasons to use OBPM, but still it contains flaws and it's based on formula that's one single person subjective vision. The same problem was with PER, which everyone knows this stat is obsolete and just bad - it ignored most the game and even author was publicly announcing he reworked formula until Jordan was the first. BPM is driven in similar way now, so for me it has about the same value as PER (like all these all in one stats), You can use these stats because nothing better is available(however I think even WS is probably better option here), but it doesn't change fact this is not very good way to rank and compare players, especially across eras.

[trex_8063]

Seeing Isiah v. Stockton, but I would guess Nash v. Paul is the more relevant to who goes in next. I rate Stockton over Nash but I am willing to bet that's a minority opinion. Anyone want to weigh in on Steve Nash v. Chris Paul?

I'm leaning towards Stockton mainly due to consistent high level+availability for 13-14 straight years. CP3 had higher highs but in terms of overall career I can't help but feel Stockton did more and gives you a better chance at winning a ring if you can give him a good supporting cast for the duration of his career. Also, Stockton's peers all speak very highly of the sort of competitor and player he was. That speaks to his intangibles to some degree imo.

Come on now... Stockton had Karl Malone for his entire prime, and up until Hornacek's arrival they weren't succeeding much in the playoffs. Comparing Paul's teams in his career, only 2018 and 2019 Rockets were better than the Jazz from 1994 to 1998.

And yet they achieved less.
Not that this is a great way to evaluate things, but jsia.

And I've stated in other places that I think it's more than a little likely that the '98 Jazz win the title if the refs don't botch two crucial calls [both in Chicago's favour] in game 6.
Never would Karl Malone be outside the top 15 of any list if he has a ring [and FMVP] in '98. And though Stockton would likely still not be a front-runner for #20 or #21, he wouldn't encounter so much opposition at this stage with a title in '98 [again: a title I think they were potentially robbed of].

.

[trex_8063]

1. Curry's accumulative value is already the highest of anyone left.

He also easily has the highest peak of anyone left and if people find this claim dubious, I chellange them to make a lift-based case for 91 jordan over 15 Curry. Curry was worth 25 wins in the regular season via impact metrics and was comparable in the playoffs in effiency creating more and defending a bit worse.

2. Nash, everything I said of curry basiclally applies to nash albeit he's not really the same calibre of player.

3. Undecided. I'm considering Pippen, Chris Paul, Barkley, Malone

You better make a decision soon, or your vote is likely to be ghosted, fwiw.

[trex_8063]

This VORP argument is getting out of hand BTW.

It's odd to read this statement from you, as it seems like fairly consistently obpm has been the crux [or at least a prominent feature] of your arguments for/against players.

fwiw, Moses Malone's career BEST obpm in the playoffs is +7.8.
Stockton's career best obpm in the playoffs is +7.2.

Moses Malone's best 5-year stretch ['79-'83] obpm in the playoffs is +5.5.
Stockton's best 5-year stretch ['88-'92] in the playoffs is +5.6.

Hardly any difference.

But Stockton was of consistent value defensively, which cannot necessarily be said for Moses.
And fwiw, this is reflected in Stockton's dbpm: is much better, giving him a +7.7 total bpm over that stretch in the playoffs. Moses's bpm over those years is +4.2 (negative dbpm).

[Hal14]

1. Moses Malone
2. Elgin Baylor
3. Bob Pettit

Moses is my top choice here.I actually have him slightly ahead of Dr. J because if Dr. J put up those numbers and had all of those accolades in the NBA, he'd have a stronger case. But his fist few years he did it in a slightly weaker league, the ABA - I only say slightly though. The ABA did have some very good teams and have a good amount of talent, but wasn't quite as good as the NBA, as evidenced by the Doctors individual stats and team success suffering a little bit after he went from ABA to NBA.

Moses meanwhile, matched up very well vs Kareem (the no. 3 GOAT according to this board), leadings his team to wins over Kareem's Lakers in the playoffs in both 81 and 83, leading his team to the finals in 81 and sweeping the defending champs Lakers in 83. Yes, Dr. J was on that 83 Sixers team but Moses was the MVP of the league that year and finals MVP. Moses won 3 NBA MVPs compared to 1 for Dr. J. Yes, Dr. J won 3 ABA MVPs, but again, it depends how much you value the level of competition in the ABA. IMO, 3 NBA MVPs is just as impressive as 3 ABA MVPs and 1 NBA MVP - possibly more.

Dr. J was a better defender and passer, but he was by no means GOAT level at either defending or passing, whereas Moses was a GOAT level rebounder.

Baylor gets the slight edge over Pettit because Baylor was faster, better passer and better ball handler. And in terms of impact, Baylor was Dr. J before Dr. J. Baylor was Connie Hawkins before Connie Hawkins. Jordan modeled his game after Dr. J, as did Dominique Wilkins. Kobe and LeBron modeled their game after Jordan. Baylor was a pioneer. He paved the way for all of the explosive, big, strong, athletic wings to come later.

And speaking of impact, you could also make the argument that Baylor is the one who invented the euro-step:

Watch on YouTube

Also, Pettit's crowning achievement was his 50 point, 19 rebound game to led the Hawks to the win in game 6 over the Celtics to clinch the 1958 NBA championship. However, Russell only played 20 minutes that game because he had a severely sprained ankle suffered in game 3 of that series. Baylor meanwhile, scored 61 points and pulled down 22 rebounds to lead the Lakers to a win over the Celtics in game 5 of the 1962 NBA finals, so Baylor put up better numbers and did it against a healthy Russell who played all 48 minutes of that game. Baylor also played all 48 minutes that game. Jerry West? He had 26 points, 4 rebounds and 0 assists.

Baylor is the best all-around player left on the board IMO when you take into account his scoring, rebounding, passing, defense, ball handling and ability to score/defend both inside and outside.

Baylor and Pettit are both very close and it's definitely debatable which was the greater player. I think both have a case to be top 20 of all time. Scary to think how good they would have been if they played in the modern era with the advantage of 50 years of advances in basketball skills, more favorable rule changes, less days off between games, better equipment, better facilities, better weight training, better nutrition, better sports science, etc.

[Odinn21]

I'm leaning towards Stockton mainly due to consistent high level+availability for 13-14 straight years. CP3 had higher highs but in terms of overall career I can't help but feel Stockton did more and gives you a better chance at winning a ring if you can give him a good supporting cast for the duration of his career. Also, Stockton's peers all speak very highly of the sort of competitor and player he was. That speaks to his intangibles to some degree imo.

Come on now... Stockton had Karl Malone for his entire prime, and up until Hornacek's arrival they weren't succeeding much in the playoffs. Comparing Paul's teams in his career, only 2018 and 2019 Rockets were better than the Jazz from 1994 to 1998.

And yet they achieved less.
Not that this is a great way to evaluate things, but jsia.

And I've stated in other places that I think it's more than a little likely that the '98 Jazz win the title if the refs don't botch two crucial calls [both in Chicago's favour] in game 6.
Never would Karl Malone be outside the top 15 of any list if he has a ring [and FMVP] in '98. And though Stockton would likely still not be a front-runner for #20 or #21, he wouldn't encounter so much opposition at this stage with a title in '98 [again: a title I think they were potentially robbed of].

My point was Stockton having better teams than what Paul usually had on average.
"gives you a better chance at winning a ring if you can give him a good supporting cast for the duration of his career."
This is very hard to agree with.
Stockton had a player better than him on his team, a teammate ended up in top 15 in all top 100 projects but 1 in here. How is that a better win condition?
Another thing is; a team with Paul as their best player would do better than a team with Stockton as their best player. This is hardly up to debate.

This VORP argument is getting out of hand BTW.

It's odd to read this statement from you, as it seems like fairly consistently obpm has been the crux [or at least a prominent feature] of your arguments for/against players.

fwiw, Moses Malone's career BEST obpm in the playoffs is +7.8.
Stockton's career best obpm in the playoffs is +7.2.

Moses Malone's best 5-year stretch ['79-'83] obpm in the playoffs is +5.5.
Stockton's best 5-year stretch ['88-'92] in the playoffs is +5.6.

Hardly any difference.

But Stockton was of consistent value defensively, which cannot necessarily be said for Moses.
And fwiw, this is reflected in Stockton's dbpm: is much better, giving him a +7.7 total bpm over that stretch in the playoffs. Moses's bpm over those years is +4.2 (negative dbpm).

I usually make comparisons with stats when the roles are similar.
Can 1992 Stockton's +5.7 obpm in the playoffs have an impact and output/production as big as 1981 Malone's +4.8 obpm in the playoffs for 1981 Rockets? I certainly do not think so.

Even when the roles are similar, it's still down to context.
Olajuwon in his prime; +4.3 obpm in the playoffs ('86-'95)
M. Malone in his prime; +4.5 obpm in the playoffs ('79-'87)
Stockton in his prime; +5.1 obpm in the playoffs ('88-'97)
Paul in his prime; +6.6 obpm in the playoffs ('08-'17)

And I would go Olajuwon, Malone/Paul, Stockton to have on my team for the playoffs. (For offense surely.)

[colts18]

Stockton has to start being discussed in this range. His statistical profile


All-time Ranks:
Minutes 11th
Games Played 5th
Assists 1st
Steals 1st
BPM 8th
VORP 3rd
Win Shares 6th
WS/48 11th
TS% 15th
O Rating 5th

So you chose a bunch of stats that are easily the least predictive and lest results-rooted(ie, they ae tied in some way to the end of the means they're supposed to lead to, like, goodness-> impact, creation->OC)

How is assists not redundnat, when we have measures that better correlate with offensive effiency like A:T ratio, Box Creation, Oppurtunies reated, ect.

How is steals meaningful when we can actually track prime stockton's defensive impact

How is BPM, WS/48 not rendudnat, RPM, PIPM, all of which predict winning better and measure defense in some way when it comes to stockton

Why would we bother with Winshares or Vorp when we have metrics actually rooted in comphrensive studies in what leads to rings like CORP?

Why are we using O rating when we cna track stockton's induvdiaul impact?


All stats ar enot created equal, and if other stats better measure what ever the stat you're using measures, there's zero reason to keeep using the obsolete things.

Stockton vastly trails steph curry and steve nash in terms of creation
Prime Stockton's impact is murked by curry, nash, barkley malone going by anything that adjusts for lineups.

TS? Again curry and Nash exist.

Accumualtive value, there are 5-6 players with higher corps


Unless you have some other purpose for these stats outside of measuring a players effect on offense, overall team success, how well they create for teammates, or how well they score, there's really no reason to think stockton's 'stastical profile' paints him as worthy of a vote here.

Steals is meaningful because we can track Stockton's defensive impact. His defensive impact BLOWS away Nash's impact. We have some RAPM data for Stockton's career and they show his impact very high. That doesn't include his best defensive years when he was younger.

We don't have RPM and PIPM for Stockton so I don't know why you are bringing it up. Nash was fairly mediocre RPM so I don't think you want to bring that stat up to compare him to other greats.

What "comprehensive studies" is CORP rooted in? It's a made up subjective stat. It's great that ElGee did a ton of work to track all-time GOAT's, but at the end of the day, CORP is subjective. Elgee is known Malone fan and Stockton hater. He has always tried to downplay Stockton to raise Karl Malone. Elgee's rankings of Stockton's are a joke. His own stats rate Stockton higher but he has to lower Stockton so he can raise up Malone. He has 2002 and 2003 Dallas Nash ahead of every single Stockton season. The impact stats we have show that not that's not in the case. In fact, we have impact stats for Stockton and Nash during the 7 years they shared together in the NBA. In ALL 7 years, Stockton finished ahead of Nash.

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Stockton's impact stats were bad compared to Nash or Curry or any other great player. Every single impact stat we have of Stockton (97-03 RAPM, 94-96 +/-) shows that Stockton was one of the most impactful players in history.

If you don't believe me, you can here from your guy. Elgee created a historical WOWY stat that emulates an RAPM stat. Do you want to guess where Stockton's prime (88-97) ranked all-time? 2nd place.

https://backpicks.com/2016/09/28/iii-historical-impact-wowyr-60-years-of-plus-minus/

Every single stat whether its box score or plus/minus related places Stockton as one of the greatest players ever.

[eminence]

I found this google sheet apparently containing Relative PS Off-Def Ratings 1952-2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lMHVWmmq6lEy9O9XqLk0Ji-xawtX8gPRtHHwbvV9634/edit#gid=999526014
Do these numbers match the numbers you have eminence? I would like to use this as a resource.

Also if anyone already has numbers for 2015-2020, it'd be much appreciated if you can share!

Some rounding differences it looks like, but those look good to me.

Very nice, I'll have to bookmark that one

Thanks WestGOAT!

[colts18]

My point was Stockton having better teams than what Paul usually had on average.
"gives you a better chance at winning a ring if you can give him a good supporting cast for the duration of his career."
This is very hard to agree with.
Stockton had a player better than him on his team, a teammate ended up in top 15 in all top 100 projects but 1 in here. How is that a better win condition?
Another thing is; a team with Paul as their best player would do better than a team with Stockton as their best player. This is hardly up to debate.

People are sleeping on the teammates CP3 had. Karl Malone was better than Griffin. After that, CP3's cast significantly outperforms Stockton's cast. Blake Griffin finished 3rd place in the MVP voting. DeAndre Jordan made 3 All-NBA teams including a 1st team All-NBA. Jamal Crawford won 3 6th man of the year awards. J.J. Redick left the Clippers and scored 17 PPG on 61 TS% in Philly. That was an underrated cast.

We can see what happened when both players missed an extended period of time. In 1998, John Stockton missed the first 18 games of the year. In 2014, CP3 missed 18 games in a row mid season. How did their teams do without them?

Clippers: 12-6, 6.13 SRS
Jazz: 11-7, 1.72 SRS

The Clippers significantly outperformed the Jazz w/o CP3.

[Owly]

The same problem was with PER, which everyone knows this stat is obsolete and just bad - it ignored most the game and even author was publicly announcing he reworked formula until Jordan was the first.

Do you have a source on this? Have heard this before on here but no source was provided (and heard stuff years ago that it was reverse engineered for LeBron to be top, despite it predating him as a pro). Thanks.