RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Julius Erving)

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,723
And1: 8,354
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#81 » by trex_8063 » Mon Sep 4, 2023 12:16 am

PaulieWal wrote:Seeing more Harden/Nash mentions than Wade is a bit weird to me. CP already got in at 20. Seems to me this particular group is very low on Wade. To me Wade is clearly better than Harden, Nash, CP etc. so I am getting a bit disoriented lol.


Speaking for myself.....well, you know me by now: my criteria is based upon a total career value above replacement concept. Wade is simply hurt by lacking [relative to other all-timers] in terms of longevity/durability.

His full career is 1054 games, literally only half (527 games, from '06-'13 [eight years]) of which might be reasonably called his prime.

Take Chris Paul as counterpoint: even with his injury woes that he's criticized for, in his career of two additional seasons, he's thus far played [despite a couple being shortened in the pandemic] 1214 games (+160, or two full seasons relative to Wade), with his prime lasting 11 years and 750 games ['08-'18]. Plus, he's had value-adding seasons ALL 18 of his seasons. The final two of Wade's 16 seasons realistically did not add any (or minimal, at best) value. Paul simply wins out on length of prime and total valuable career for me.

Similar arguments exist for Nash and, to a lesser degree, Harden at this point. Harden's full career is only 14 seasons, though he's only 54 total games back of Wade (despite pandemic-shortened years). His prime, however, is probably nine years ['13-'21] (to Wade's eight), and +130 games relative to Wade's. Plus, his entire career (save maybe his rookie season) is value-adding (again: cannot say the same for Wade, as his final two seasons are not for me).

That said: Harden above Wade is definitely not a hill I'm willing to die on, and have waffled on it; and presently I have Wade ranked AHEAD of Nash.
Just sayin' that these are things that can and likely are considerations for some.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,978
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#82 » by AEnigma » Mon Sep 4, 2023 12:27 am

tone wone wrote:Chris' 1st postseason was absolutely on the level of Wade's best. It just only lasted 2 rounds.

Paul’s series against a weaker version of the Mavericks was worse than 2006 Wade’s, and his series against the Spurs was significantly worse than 2006 Wade’s against the Pistons or 2010 Wade’s against the Celtics. I do not see the peak argument as particularly defensible — but it also does not need to be, because Paul was still consistently playing like one of the two to three best guards in the league.
f4p
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,969
And1: 1,981
Joined: Sep 19, 2021
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#83 » by f4p » Mon Sep 4, 2023 12:28 am

DraymondGold wrote:Some Concerns with Giannis

For those voting for Giannis: what are your criteria?



i'm not voting for him, but i have been tracking how the project follows things like the box score and "ringz".

if we went by a pure "prime box score" (10 years, age 22-31, 75/25 PS/RS) multiplied by longevity (# of prime years) calculation, the biggest outliers so far would be steph (+20 spots) and bird (+15). ignoring bill russell for a multitude of reasons, next would be kobe at +8 and then giannis would either be +7 if he gets in an 23 or obviously +9 if he got in at 21. and if i knocked him down to 6 prime seasons instead of 7 for his playoff injuries (probably should), he would be +17. so definitely reasons to think his longevity is being slightly overrated.

if i try to get a better fit to what the project is actually voting on and factor in Titles and FMVP's (or basically best player on a title team), which the project likes, and i assume Dr. J is going to win #21 (i didn't count the whole thread but he had like 4 votes on just the last page), i can get an R^2 of 0.77 (see chart below) to the project and based on that, the biggest outliers would be:

garnett +7
robertson +8
robinson +9
paul +10
giannis +11 (if voted #23)
moses +11 (if voted #25)
nash +31 (if voted #26)

so again, reasons to think giannis is not being penalized for longevity quite like others (i penalize him probably more for poor resiliency and basically only winning when every other major contender was injured). note that the average player is about +2 because obviously already being voted into the list has a positive bias.

also, even if durant gets in at #22, he will be well ahead as the biggest negative outlier so far at -8.

Image
f4p
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,969
And1: 1,981
Joined: Sep 19, 2021
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#84 » by f4p » Mon Sep 4, 2023 12:57 am

trex_8063 wrote:
PaulieWal wrote:Seeing more Harden/Nash mentions than Wade is a bit weird to me. CP already got in at 20. Seems to me this particular group is very low on Wade. To me Wade is clearly better than Harden, Nash, CP etc. so I am getting a bit disoriented lol.


Speaking for myself.....well, you know me by now: my criteria is based upon a total career value above replacement concept. Wade is simply hurt by lacking [relative to other all-timers] in terms of longevity/durability.

His full career is 1054 games, literally only half (527 games, from '06-'13 [eight years]) of which might be reasonably called his prime.

Take Chris Paul as counterpoint: even with his injury woes that he's criticized for, in his career of two additional seasons, he's thus far played [despite a couple being shortened in the pandemic] 1214 games (+160, or two full seasons relative to Wade), with his prime lasting 11 years and 750 games ['08-'18]. Plus, he's had value-adding seasons ALL 18 of his seasons. The final two of Wade's 16 seasons realistically did not add any (or minimal, at best) value. Paul simply wins out on length of prime and total valuable career for me.

Similar arguments exist for Nash and, to a lesser degree, Harden at this point. Harden's full career is only 14 seasons, though he's only 54 total games back of Wade (despite pandemic-shortened years). His prime, however, is probably nine years ['13-'21] (to Wade's eight), and +130 games relative to Wade's. Plus, his entire career (save maybe his rookie season) is value-adding (again: cannot say the same for Wade, as his final two seasons are not for me).

That said: Harden above Wade is definitely not a hill I'm willing to die on, and have waffled on it; and presently I have Wade ranked AHEAD of Nash.
Just sayin' that these are things that can and likely are considerations for some.


2012 is certainly a prime harden season. he's playing 1984 mchale minutes (31.4 mpg) and more mpg than almost every ginobili season and putting up all-star type production stats (and big plus/minus stats) in both the regular season and playoffs. and if he weren't being compared to his peak self and was being compared to other prime seasons for top 30 type guys, 2023 would also count. and 2011 wouldn't count in the regular season but his playoffs are well up there.
DraymondGold
Senior
Posts: 710
And1: 910
Joined: May 19, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#85 » by DraymondGold » Mon Sep 4, 2023 1:07 am

homecourtloss wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:This decline shows up in the individual data too. In Augmented Plus Minus, Giannis declines by -8% in the playoffs, which would be the 2nd biggest decline on record to be voted in. For context, Chris Paul declines -4% and Durant declines -1%, and both have overall more postseason value. Note that this data is only through 2021: he improved slightly in 2022 and likely declines in 2023, so the true average may look slightly better, but likely not enough to take him over Durant or make up for the longevity disadvantage.


Do you have the APM declines (those available) for the top 100 list so far?
Here're the Augmented Plus Minus regular season to postseason changes I have on hand. Note they are 1997–2021 (so some players only have partial data), and they are per game (not per 100 possessions). I've added an asterisk next to those who have been voted in.

Playoff Change, in Augmented Plus Minus per game:
*Robinson (97+), improves 29%
*Jordan (only in 97-98) improves 22%.
*Hakeem (only 97-98) improves 15%
*LeBron improves 13%
*Shaq improves 7%
*Garnett improves 9%
*Duncan improves 8%
Wade improves by 0%
Jokic gets worse by -0%
*Curry gets worse by -1%
Durant gets worse by -1%
*Dirk gets worse by -1%
*Chris Paul gets worse by -4%
Giannis gets worse by -8%
*Karl Malone get worse by -17%.
DraymondGold
Senior
Posts: 710
And1: 910
Joined: May 19, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#86 » by DraymondGold » Mon Sep 4, 2023 1:38 am

Voting Post! :D

Vote: Durant
Alternate: Erving
Nomination: Stockton
Alternate Nomination: Nash

To me, this is between Durant and Erving. Highest peak of this group (along with Giannis). Significantly higher longevity than the other top peak player. To me, this gives them the best cumulative career value / goodness of this group. Erving has more longevity, Durant has a more consistent prime. Erving has a higher peak if you value ABA, Durant has a higher NBA peak. Erving's probably the better floor raiser (he's at least a more resilient floor raiser), Durant might be the more scalable ceiling raiser.

Ultimately, I think Durant may have done just enough to pass Erving in his career. I haven't heard enough counter arguments to explain Erving's low impact (e.g. on/off and Augmented Plus Minus) in the early NBA. For example, was Erving's rotations aligned with the bench more than expected? Are there more historical/contextual factors for why we should value the ABA and not be discouraged by the early NBA performance? More arguments here could absolutely sway me.

For reference, here's a snapshot of the earlier post I made on their cumulative impact:
DraymondGold wrote: Let’s check PIPM as a ballpark estimate for total career value. It’s just one stat, it’s not perfect, but it does a fairly good job at capturing value (it’s like luck-adjusted RAPM), it includes playoffs, and it has one of the better box estimates on the market going back to the NBA Merger.

PIPM Career Value (1977–2020):
Giannis (through 2020): 74.1 wins
Giannis (estimate through 2023): 118.8 (assuming 2021–23 have the same value per game as 2019–2020)
Erving (post 1977): 126.2
Erving (estimate for ABA years): 187.3 (assuming 1972–76 have the same value per game as 1977–78)
Moses (post 1977): 147.1
Moses (estimate for ABA years): 159.7 (assuming 1975–76 have the same value per game as 1977)
Durant (through 2020): 149.8
Durant (estimating through 2023): 182.1 (assuming 2021–23 have the same value per game as 2019–2020)
Barkley: 187.8

Some recent nominations and other (post-1977) Top 30 candidates are also ahead of Giannis:
Nash: 130.1
Wade: 142.3
Pippen: 179.5
Stockton: +258.0[
These estimates are obviously very approximate, but it does illustrate the point. Moses is 34% ahead, Durant’s 53% ahead, Erving and Barkley are 57% ahead in total career PIPM.

...

What about Moonbeam’s RWOWY? WOWY metrics have super wide uncertainty ranges, but they’re based on actual impact, and we have all the years for everyone.
Durant: 1-2 samples touching 100th percentile, 4 over 97th, 8 over 90th, 11 over 75th, 12 over 50th
Dr J: 0 touching 100th percentile, 1 over 97th percentile, 6–7 over 90th percentile, 13 over 75th percentile, 16 over 50th percentile
Barkley: 1 touching 100th percentile line, 1 over 97th percentile, 8 over 90th percentile, 18 over 75th percentile, 18 over 50th percentile
Moses: 0 touching 100th percentile line, 0 over 97th percentile, 3 over 90th percentile, 8 over 75th percentile, over 50th percentile
Giannis: 0 touching 100th percentile line, 1-2 over 97th percentile, 4 over 90th percentile, 5 over 75th percentile, 5 over 50th percentile


As for nominations, I think f4p made some compelling arguments against Nash. He is absolutely lower in the box metrics (although not as low in the best box metric, Backpicks BPM). He looks great in some RAPM types (e.g. Goldstein RAPM), not quite as great in others or in certain derivatives (e.g. PIPM). He also looks worse in some of our best hybrid metrics like EPM (he was 11th and 13th during his MVP years in 05–06). I do think box performance has a hard time capturing his level of game-changing passing. Box stats tend to miss the subtler forms of creation, where is Nash absolutely a star. I also agree with f4p's point about people being too reliant on relative offensive rating (a team stat, and on only one side of the floor at that) to evaluate a single player's total impact (i.e. on both sides of the floor). It's a good ballpark measure, but not one we should rely on as much as people do. I prefer to use it in concert with other more granular measures.

With that, I think I've convinced myself that Stockton has surpassed Nash in career impact, although this group gets very close together. I would consider arguments for Wade (though generally I'm lower on his peak than others around here). Jokic is like Giannis -- better than any of the other nominations in terms of peak, but we just haven't had enough years yet for me to vote him now.

I'd also encourage people to start considering Pippen or Ewing for nomination soon! I don't have them over my current nominations, but I do think it might be time for them to enter into the general tier of players we're considering nominating soon.
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 9,790
And1: 5,787
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#87 » by One_and_Done » Mon Sep 4, 2023 2:19 am

I can see I'm going to need to make some posts arguing for other nominees aside from Gilmore soon, as I'm seeing names of guys like Stockton and Ewing who aren't close yet for me. Stockton wouldn't even be in my top 50.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 34,243
And1: 21,859
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#88 » by Colbinii » Mon Sep 4, 2023 4:00 am

DraymondGold wrote:
homecourtloss wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:This decline shows up in the individual data too. In Augmented Plus Minus, Giannis declines by -8% in the playoffs, which would be the 2nd biggest decline on record to be voted in. For context, Chris Paul declines -4% and Durant declines -1%, and both have overall more postseason value. Note that this data is only through 2021: he improved slightly in 2022 and likely declines in 2023, so the true average may look slightly better, but likely not enough to take him over Durant or make up for the longevity disadvantage.


Do you have the APM declines (those available) for the top 100 list so far?
Here're the Augmented Plus Minus regular season to postseason changes I have on hand. Note they are 1997–2021 (so some players only have partial data), and they are per game (not per 100 possessions). I've added an asterisk next to those who have been voted in.

Playoff Change, in Augmented Plus Minus per game:
*Robinson (97+), improves 29%
*Jordan (only in 97-98) improves 22%.
*Hakeem (only 97-98) improves 15%
*LeBron improves 13%
*Shaq improves 7%
*Garnett improves 9%
*Duncan improves 8%
Wade improves by 0%
Jokic gets worse by -0%
*Curry gets worse by -1%
Durant gets worse by -1%
*Dirk gets worse by -1%
*Chris Paul gets worse by -4%
Giannis gets worse by -8%
*Karl Malone get worse by -17%.


This is interesting. Wish we had more data on Robinson from Pre-97 because Robinson's Career from 1997-2003 and duplicated for another 5-8 prime years isn't close to a Top 20 player of all-time.
User avatar
OldSchoolNoBull
General Manager
Posts: 9,107
And1: 4,506
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Ohio
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#89 » by OldSchoolNoBull » Mon Sep 4, 2023 4:27 am

Vote: Julius Erving

I gave Durant a long look here, but I'm sticking with Dr. J.

Doc led the league in RS WS/48 five times(three times in the ABA, twice in the NBA) and RS BPM six times(three times in each league). He led the league in PO WS/48 3 times and BPM twice(all of those in the ABA).

Durant led the league in RS WS/48 twice and BPM once, and never either in the PO.

I know using these particular metrics in this way might not seem persuasive to some of you, but it's what put me over the edge. Doc's +/- in the NBA per the spreadsheet that's been shared in this thread are somewhat underwhelming, but I feel like I just don't have enough information to completely discount his "impact" - no +/- for his ABA years, no RAPM at all, etc. I realize I'm squinting to see the argument here because Durant looks better in a number of statistical categories, but based on the above, I think that in era relative terms, by a little bit, Doc was better compared to the league he was playing in. And since that league was the ABA when Doc was at his peak, it's going to be a nebulous argument for some of you, but it's where I am atm.

But gosh it's closer than I thought it would be, and I'm wobbling here.

Secondary Vote: Kevin Durant

Nomination: Nikola Jokic

This is a very close nomination race between Nash and Jokic, and I've gone back and forth with it too. I'm choosing between these two because one of them is going to get it and I want my voice to be heard.

I'm going with Jokic despite having serious reservations about putting a player with only eight years under his belt into contention this high, because between these two guys, I think Jokic's peak his higher(if, indeed, he has actually peaked yet), and in the interests of being logically consistent with my previously stated preference for peak over longevity, I feel I have to go with Jokic here.

Jokic is #8 on JE's 97-22 RAPM, with a 7.2. Nash is #42 with a 4.3.

Here are Nash's WS/48 and BPM in the RS and PO of the four seasons he got closest to a championship:

2002-03 - .206 WS/48, 4.6 BPM RS, .113 WS/48, 2.2 BPM PO
2004-05 - .203 WS/48, 4.7 BPM RS, .164 WS/48, 4.7 BPM PO
2005-06 - .212 WS/48, 5.0 BPM RS, .153 WS/48, 3.7 BPM PO
2006-07 - .225 WS/48, 5.9 BPM RS, .165 WS/48, 3.2 BPM PO

vs Jokic's last three seasons:

2020-21 - .301 WS/48, 12.1 BPM RS, .181 WS/48, 9.0 BPM PO
2021-22 - .296 WS/48, 13.7 BPM RS, .202 WS/48, 10.7 BPM PO
2021-22 - .308 WS/48, 13.0 BPM RS, .305 WS/48, 12.8 BPM PO

with very comparable shooting efficiency and playmaking between the two.

There may also be some recency bias here as I just watched Jokic have an incredible championship run, but I think the numbers back it up.

Secondary Nomination: Bob Pettit
MrVorp
Freshman
Posts: 51
And1: 38
Joined: Aug 03, 2020

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#90 » by MrVorp » Mon Sep 4, 2023 5:15 am

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Are there individual season RAPM datasets that go past 2019? I have JE's set that goes through 2018-19 and his cumulative 97-22 sheet, but I'm looking for post-2019 single year RAPMs.

I would have linked NBA Shot Charts that had single season RAPM but it looks like the site is no longer active.
User avatar
OldSchoolNoBull
General Manager
Posts: 9,107
And1: 4,506
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Ohio
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#91 » by OldSchoolNoBull » Mon Sep 4, 2023 5:27 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
So, not to take anything away from how good Nash was, but I do want to push back a little against that guy's tweet - I'm weary of giving any individual credit for "inventing" the modern game or for changing the game from what it was until the early 00s to what it is now. I've seen Nash and Steph and Mike D'Antoni given this type of credit over the years and I just think there's more to it.

The fact is, the way the game has changed over the last 20 years is not some kind of natural evolution, nor is it the result of one genius player or coach coming along and changing everything. It was a business decision the league made. Straight up, they made a series of rule changes in the early 00s, in an era when ratings were slipping due to the game having become very defensive and slow and due to the Dream Team generation retiring, with the expressed intent of opening up offenses in order to boost the game's popularity. That's what happened. They legalized zone defenses and implemented the defensive three-second rule in 2001 and eliminated hand-checking in 2004(incidentally right as Nash was joining Phoenix and 7SOL was getting underway), for these reasons, and there were people who weren't happy about it at the time. The game would not have been able to evolve the way it has since then without those rule changes. It is not a coincidence that the "modern" era of the league is usually said to start around 2005. Again, this is not to in any way argue against Nash or Steph as players, but I'm not sure they'd have been able to what they've done without the rule changes. I just think we need to remember that before giving any individual credit for changing the game.

Having said all that, if I was to give credit to any one individual, it would be Don Nelson. He was decades ahead of his time. He was D'Antoni before D'Antoni. He was using point forwards and small-ball and run-and-gun offenses in the 80s and 90s. So out there were his offenses that they were seen as a novelty in those years - "Nellyball!" - fun to watch but you can't win playing like that, was the thought(and it may have been correct prior to the rule changes). Now, the current NBA is all of his dreams realized. The phrase "run and gun" isn't really even used anymore because the whole league is run and gun now. And also, who did Nash break out under before going to Phoenix? Don Nelson. And who guided the Warriors' front office to select Steph Curry in 2009 as one of the last significant acts of his NBA career? Don Nelson. (Also worth nothing that it was Nelson who selected Dirk in 1998, another very modern player, for the Mavs.)

Yeah, I'm high on Nelson.


So, I'm going to push back on your push back here a bit, but to be clear, I do respect the history you're bringing in and I also chafe at the idea that Nash "invented" pace & space basketball.

Key points for me:

a. While there were indeed rule changes made in the early '00s intended to increase the pace and give more freedom of motion, and those rule changes are a part of the "pace & space revolution" equation...they're a very small part in the grand scheme of things.

First because the key rule change came in 1980 with the addition of the 3 point shot. That was the essential ingredient, and it's my assessment that the only reason we didn't see a pace & space revolution in the '80s is because those with the power to make it happen lacked the vision and courage. I don't want to act to dismissive of these folks because they did know quite a lot about basketball at the time, and those who were running teams knew things I still don't know...but they also "knew" some things that just weren't true.

This is how it goes with paradigm shifts. It's not a pace & space thing, you'll see it in the precursor to any paradigm shift, and most certainly in scientific revolutions which of course is where the notion of paradigm shifts came from. When it comes to the 3, we can point to specific reasons why some amount of delay was necessary between its inception in 1980 and the time when it came to dominate the sport...but there's absolutely no reason that it needed to take decades. It could have been much, much faster.

b. I am so confident in asserting that the 2000s rule changes were a small part of the shift, because we know that the truly big acceleration came not immediately after their addition, but in fact a decade plus later. I think it's critical to understand that if a rule change doesn't immediately result in "the big shift", then we need to look closer to the big shift to understand what really did the trick.

In pace & space, it really had everything to do with teams breaking through and winning titles with this approach. Those breakthrough teams were heavily influenced by the pace & space Suns...but the league didn't really follow suit until the emulators broke through. I would suggest this would have happened in the '00s if the Suns had won a title and then continued to be a serious threat afterward. And this absolutely could have happened, but for reasons worth discussing - in another post if desired - it didn't.

c. Nelson wasn't D'Antoni before D'Antoni, though it's understandable you see it that way. In reality Mike D'Antoni was on this trend BEFORE 1980 because he was playing Europe. His brother Dan - a basketball coach - has told the story of Mike talking to him from Europe and emphasizing that the 3-point shot was working surprisingly well in his league, and that it seemed the way forward.

So D'Antoni was basically playing this way before the shot ever came to the NBA, and was known for pushing the style of play further after he retired as a player from Olimpia Milano and becoming the coach of Olimpia Milano in 1990. From there, at every stop along the way D'Antoni's been making the team's he joins shoot a lot more 3's.

Hence, while Nelson had NBA effect before D'Antoni, this absolutely wasn't a situation where D'Antoni was inspired by Nelson to do this. It was already his philosophy before Nelson even had the opportunity to try it.

d.. Nelson wasn't even the most 3-forward coach in the NBA in the '80s. That would be Rick Pitino. For perspective here, in '88-89, here are the relevant 3PA rates:

Knicks (Pitino) .151
Warriors (Nelson) .079
League Average .074

Recall that Nelson had access to perimeter scorers, and most notably Chris Mullin, one of the great shooters from the era. Between the two teams, here's the Top 4 guys by 3PA:

1. Trent Tucker (NYK) 296
2. Johnny Newman (NYK) 287
3. Mark Jackson (NYK) 240
4. Gerald Wilkins (NYK) 172

So yeah, while Nelson can claim to have NBA influence before D'Antoni or Pitino, he didn't really grasp the potential of the 3 to anywhere near the degree of those other guys.

In general, I'd see D'Antoni & Pitino as true 3-point zealots, while Nelson was more of a mad scientist willing to try a whole bunch of weird ideas but never really staying the course and taking things to their logical conclusion. Doesn't necessarily make those other guys better coaches of course - Nelson clearly has a greater NBA coaching career than Pitino at the very least - I think it's important not to be under the impression that Nelson was typically way out in front of everyone else on 3's.

e. "Who did Nash break out under? Don Nelson." Ah, but key thing:

Who pushed for Nash to get drafted in Phoenix? Donnie Nelson, then working for the Suns.
Who pushed for Dallas to acquire Nash? Donnie Nelson, then working for the Mavs.
Who pushed to kill of illegal defense to encourage pace in the NBA? Jerry Colangelo.
Who re-acquired Nash for Phoenix? Bryan Colangelo working with father Jerry.

Don had a role to play here, but the key people involved with championing Nash were all in Phoenix in 1996, and these things weren't a coincidence. There were people in the Suns front office during Nash's initial run there who were adamant that the franchise was making a mistake in choosing the more established Jason Kidd over Nash, and Nash maintained relationships in Phoenix after that - including playing pick-up ball there in the summer for years.

Jerry Colangelo saw a way forward for basketball, and the avatar of that way forward was Steve Nash...who instinctively played in this way in pick-up games.


While your position is well-argued, we're going to have to disagree about how much of a factor the 00s rule changes were. It's just hard for me to believe it's a coincidence that the 7SOL Suns happened right after the rule changes, and that Popovich completely changed the Spurs offense right then in the mid-late 00s, or that Nelson's Mavs teams rose right after the 01 rule changes. You are right that teams over the last 5-10 years have leaned into pace-and-space at a dramatically higher rate than before, but just because it didn't happen overnight doesn't mean the change didn't start back then in the early/mid 00s. Your position is that people in charge back in the 80s and 90s were just too set in their ways and that it was only when teams started winning playing like this that things changed, but my reply to that is that those teams may well not have won if they were playing with pre-2001 rules.

Your points re Nelson vs Pitino/D'Antoni are fair on the specific issue of three point shooting, but I still think Nelson did more than just that; using Marques Johnson as a point forward back in the 80s, and experimenting with smallball with the Warriors in the early 90s, etc.

Also, I'd have to assume Donnie Nelson's basketball philosophy would have to have a lot to do with his father's.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,870
And1: 22,806
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#92 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Sep 4, 2023 6:48 am

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
While your position is well-argued, we're going to have to disagree about how much of a factor the 00s rule changes were. It's just hard for me to believe it's a coincidence that the 7SOL Suns happened right after the rule changes, and that Popovich completely changed the Spurs offense right then in the mid-late 00s, or that Nelson's Mavs teams rose right after the 01 rule changes. You are right that teams over the last 5-10 years have leaned into pace-and-space at a dramatically higher rate than before, but just because it didn't happen overnight doesn't mean the change didn't start back then in the early/mid 00s. Your position is that people in charge back in the 80s and 90s were just too set in their ways and that it was only when teams started winning playing like this that things changed, but my reply to that is that those teams may well not have won if they were playing with pre-2001 rules.

Your points re Nelson vs Pitino/D'Antoni are fair on the specific issue of three point shooting, but I still think Nelson did more than just that; using Marques Johnson as a point forward back in the 80s, and experimenting with smallball with the Warriors in the early 90s, etc.

Also, I'd have to assume Donnie Nelson's basketball philosophy would have to have a lot to do with his father's.


I respect you saying we're going too have to agree to disagree, but with your subsequent statement I'm going to continue the conversation at least a little further.

Let's first consider the phrase above "hard...to believer it's a coincidence that the 7SOL Suns happened right after the rule changes".

As I've said, these things aren't a coincidence because both events were spearheaded by the Colangelo family. I don't think we should brush past this point. I'm not saying this was some kind of conspiracy, I'm saying that this was a thing right out in the open.

But the important thing to consider is the "happened right after" part of things. Correlation is not causation. I think we've seen pretty clearly in the 2010s forward that pace & space is just a more effective way of playing than what was happening before. You can't just make your team optimized for it overnight to be sure, but that doesn't mean that the team who shocked the world with their runaway offensive success wasn't demonstrating a superior way to play offense.

Logically, it's actually remarkably simple:

Defenses are toughest when they get set, so we should try to attack in transition.
Actually knowing how proficient humans can become at 3-point shooting completely changes the wisest way to play.

And I say "remarkably simple" not throwing shade at you or anything like that, but just noting that this stuff just wasn't obvious to people at the time, but with hindsight, it's 20/20.

Also, "happened right after". Let's be clear here: The rule change that really matters here - other than adding the 3 in the first place - is the removal of illegal defense in 2001, not the hand check.

Whenever the NBA cracks down on a particular rule - aka "point of emphasis" - it tends to benefit one side or the other, with offense most often being the beneficiary. The hand check has been repeatedly crack down on over the years, each time in helps the offense the next year and then gradually dissipates as a new emphasis is chosen by the league.

And this just isn't the trend we're talking about when we're talking about the pace & space revolution. The former is a policy change happened in 2004, the latter is a performance trend largely centered from the mid-2010s to the present.

Bringing us back to the 2001 one illegal defense removal, I think it's important to think about how this worked to eventually help get pace & space going.

Colangelo's theory - which some coaches & GMs thought was dead wrong and would have the opposite effect of what he claimed - was that by taking the handcuffs off of half-court defense, teams would be more incentivized to attack before the defense was set. I'd say he was right...but of course it was HIS team that proved this right in 2004, 3 years later.

Why 3 years later specifically? Well, I mean, that's when they got Nash, right? Nash signed his previous contract in 1999. 2004 was literally the first opportunity to acquire Nash through free agency after the 2001 rule change, and they went after him HARD.

So yeah, I'd say it didn't have to have been 3 years later. Could have been a year later or earlier, could have never happened...and frankly could have happened even without removing illegal defense, so it could have occurred before 2001 altogether.

That last statement may well be where we have to go our separate ways, but I'd really urge you to remember that fast breaks and 3-point shots existed long before 2001 or 2004, so what we're talking about is only something would potentially nudge effectiveness to a degree. 15 years ago it was plausible to argue that that nudge explained what we'd seen in performance improvement since the rule changes, but after the 2010s there's just no doubt that this would be the best way to play back before the rule changes if you had players with sufficient skills.

Re: Nelson deserves innovation credit for things small ball. Absolutely. He's one of the most innovative coaches the NBA's ever seen, he just wasn't as deeply committed to 3-point shooting as some others.

Re: Donnie like Don tho, right? Sure, but we should just take care with what precisely we're giving Don credit for. When Donnie was working for Phoenix, pretty sure they weren't sending the money to his father.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,978
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#93 » by AEnigma » Mon Sep 4, 2023 6:50 am

NOMINATE: Steve Nash
AEnigma wrote:Paul’s series against a weaker version of the Mavericks was worse than 2006 Wade’s, and his series against the Spurs was significantly worse than 2006 Wade’s against the Pistons or 2010 Wade’s against the Celtics. I do not see the peak argument as particularly defensible — but it also does not need to be, because Paul was still consistently playing like one of the two to three best guards in the league.

Branching off this idea, for the peaks project I put this together as a Nash versus Paul comparison:
AEnigma wrote:2008 Paul (full postseason): 24.1/11.3 on 56.5% efficiency
2008 Paul (Spurs): 23.7/10.7 on 55.5% efficiency
2008 Paul (Mavericks): 24.6/12 on 57.9% efficiency

2007 Nash (Spurs): 21.3/12.7 on 60.5% efficiency
2006 Nash (Mavericks): 20.7/10.2 on 62.6% efficiency
2005 Nash (Spurs): 23.2/10.6 on 57.5% efficiency
2005 Nash (Mavericks): 30.3/12 on 63.9% efficiency
2005/07 Nash (Spurs): 22.2/11.7 on 59% efficiency
2005/06 Nash (Mavericks): 25.5/11.1 on 63.4% efficiency
2005-07 Nash (full): 21.2/11.3 on 60.2% efficiency

And as an add-on…
2005-10 Nash (Spurs): 20.7/10 on 59.1% efficiency, +30 plus/minus over 20 games

I personally have no real questions about his Phoenix prime. I think at that point he was maybe the best offensive player ever alongside Magic, with a shooting profile — imo easy second-best shooter after Steph — which translates indefinitely into the modern era. While his Dallas years were not at the same level, I do think they are a little worth exploring. Doc has highlighted Nash’s notable delta in “on-court wins” versus absolute wins, and a fair bulk of those took place in Dallas. 2002, the Mavericks are eliminated 1-4 in a series where Nash won his minutes thrice. 2003, the Mavericks are eliminated 2-4 in a series where Nash again won his minutes thrice (twice without Dirk). 2004, a 1-4 loss where Nash twice won his minutes.

You may have noticed that Nash had a positive plus/minus against the Spurs in Phoenix despite losing three series to them and never going seven games. I can even include 2003 and he is still +5 despite the series record being 1-4 over that span (and the games record being 10-16). Add his two games with the Lakers, and he is neutral despite now a 10-18 record. There are rotational aspects, sure, but we are making a general point here that for was much as we can penalise Nash for not winning or not showing up enough in the box score, his teams were typically eliminated via games they lost when he was off the court. 2005, the Suns lose 1-4 with Nash adding to his delta. 2006, the Suns lose 2-4 with Nash adding to his delta. 2007, the Suns lose 2-4 with Nash actually winning his minutes four times. Some of those losses can still be held against him — he could have played more — but I really try not to penalise people for what their backups do or fail to do.

Canada’s return to the Olympics today has briefly brought back memories of the Nash Olympics. Not overly relevant, but I think it may be of at least mild interest. Canada went 5-2 in Olympic competition that year, second best mark. They were the other group-winner, and they had the second best point differential. Nash led all players in total assists and assists per game. They beat one of the top ranked teams in the tournament behind a 26/8/8 output by Nash (on 79.3% efficiency). The team is largely forgotten because they went out ignominiously in the quarterfinals against eventual silver medalist France, after an abominable Nash performance. But again, Nash was the only reason they made it that far. The prior year, they qualified for the Olympics (only time in a thirty year stretch) after Nash lead Team Canada to a silver medal in the Tournament of Americas and won tournament MVP amidst a group of hall-of-famers like Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, and Tim Hardway.

Nash was great early. Not an MVP. Not the top 20-25 peak I think he eventually became. But better than often credited. To Doc’s point about Don Nelson being more experimental than visionary, I think there is an easy argument that had he committed to Nash more in 2000, the Mavericks might have made the playoffs. While acknowledging that part of the “blame” is on Nash’s health — the Mavericks went 9-17 in the games he missed — I think it is telling that when he was made a full-starter for the final twenty games of the season, he had a +7.8 plus/minus and the Mavericks went 15-5. I think about how the Lakers regularly struggled against strong offences and how Shaq defences were routinely burned by Stockton and Reggie and Billups and Bibby, and a part of me wonders, what might have happened if Nelson had committed to Nash just a bit earlier, just early enough for the Mavericks to sneak in as an 8-seed. No more meaningful than “what if the Lakers ran into a healthy Spurs team” or “what if the seeding matched up the Lakers with the Jazz in the second round,” but still a thought I have every so often when considering how much circumstances drive these narratives.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,870
And1: 22,806
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#94 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Sep 4, 2023 7:16 am

1st Induction Vote: Julius Erving

Image

2nd Induction Vote: Kevin Durant

Repeating my prior vote. Honestly I keep flip flopping between these two in my head.

Spoiler:
There I go flipping at the last minute. My impression is that this vote is really about Paul vs one of these two, so it won't matter which guy I vote first between the two. I may be confused, but regardless, I wonder if that's making it easier for me to flip.

I'll put the thought in my mind at the moment like this:

If it were simply about on-court career value, I'm inclined to side with Durant. I do think Durant's had significant negative impact on his franchises though because of his behavior, where I think Erving is a positive. is that enough to move Erving ahead? Maybe. Hard to say definitively. Right now, as I'm typing this, I'm siding with Erving.


1st Nomination Vote: Dwyane Wade

Image

2nd Nomination Vote: Steve Nash

With Moses going in, Nash enters my ballot, with Wade still keeping the spot above.

To state again my assessment on Wade:

It's amazing to me to look back now having joined RealGM in 2005, just as a 2nd year Wade would singe our eyebrows in the playoffs, and realize that in the 18 years I've been here, I don't think anyone since has gotten as effective, as quickly as Wade did upon joining the NBA.

There are certainly arguments for other guys over him based on longevity, and frankly other things depending on one's criteria, but what I want to emphasize more than anything else is that what Wade did just isn't normal in the NBA, and he was able to do it because unique athletic capabilities and a dangerously overclocked aggression. (I have hopes that we see Ja reach the same heights as Wade or higher, but we haven't seen such a season from him yet.)

For the next slot, I was debating between Nash, Bob Pettit & Nikola Jokic.

I'll start by noting that I've already put Jokic on my ballot once in this project, but as much as I love the guy, this was about me thinking he had a chance to win out over Giannis & Barkley based on the tallies I'd read. I did and do have him ahead of both of those guys, but I find those comparisons to be oddly straight forward in Jokic's favor, and these other debates are murkier.

At present I'd be inclined to vote Pettit over Jokic. I think Jokic is better, but I also think Pettit was great, and he has considerably more longevity.

Nash vs Pettit was tough for me, but I did realize that if it wasn't for Pettit breaking through for the chip and Nash not, this would be pretty straight forward for Nash to me...because Pettit literally probably wins no titles without a perfectly timed Russell injury, and Nash's Suns literally looked to me like they had the better of the Spurs before and now utterly indefensible set of suspensions tipped the scales away from them.

I've written so, so many long posts talking about the greatness of Nash, but I think I'll have to save further elaboration for another time. For now I'll just say:

I'm so impressed by Nash that I think I'm "underrating" him based on my achievement-based criteria for this project. I really don't think there was any critical reason why Nash needed to wait so many years before breaking out as an NBA star. This was a 4 year college player already demonstrating his killer advantage - probing decision-making - who then secures a spot in the 1st round based on his pre-draft competitive performances against other draft picks. The idea that such a player could be a particularly "raw" rookie just twists the notion of rawness to pretzel.

But that time when he should have been a starting point guard but wasn't, can't help but hurt him here for me.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
OldSchoolNoBull
General Manager
Posts: 9,107
And1: 4,506
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Ohio
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#95 » by OldSchoolNoBull » Mon Sep 4, 2023 7:53 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
While your position is well-argued, we're going to have to disagree about how much of a factor the 00s rule changes were. It's just hard for me to believe it's a coincidence that the 7SOL Suns happened right after the rule changes, and that Popovich completely changed the Spurs offense right then in the mid-late 00s, or that Nelson's Mavs teams rose right after the 01 rule changes. You are right that teams over the last 5-10 years have leaned into pace-and-space at a dramatically higher rate than before, but just because it didn't happen overnight doesn't mean the change didn't start back then in the early/mid 00s. Your position is that people in charge back in the 80s and 90s were just too set in their ways and that it was only when teams started winning playing like this that things changed, but my reply to that is that those teams may well not have won if they were playing with pre-2001 rules.

Your points re Nelson vs Pitino/D'Antoni are fair on the specific issue of three point shooting, but I still think Nelson did more than just that; using Marques Johnson as a point forward back in the 80s, and experimenting with smallball with the Warriors in the early 90s, etc.

Also, I'd have to assume Donnie Nelson's basketball philosophy would have to have a lot to do with his father's.


I respect you saying we're going too have to agree to disagree, but with your subsequent statement I'm going to continue the conversation at least a little further.

Let's first consider the phrase above "hard...to believer it's a coincidence that the 7SOL Suns happened right after the rule changes".

As I've said, these things aren't a coincidence because both events were spearheaded by the Colangelo family. I don't think we should brush past this point. I'm not saying this was some kind of conspiracy, I'm saying that this was a thing right out in the open.

But the important thing to consider is the "happened right after" part of things. Correlation is not causation. I think we've seen pretty clearly in the 2010s forward that pace & space is just a more effective way of playing than what was happening before. You can't just make your team optimized for it overnight to be sure, but that doesn't mean that the team who shocked the world with their runaway offensive success wasn't demonstrating a superior way to play offense.

Logically, it's actually remarkably simple:

Defenses are toughest when they get set, so we should try to attack in transition.
Actually knowing how proficient humans can become at 3-point shooting completely changes the wisest way to play.

And I say "remarkably simple" not throwing shade at you or anything like that, but just noting that this stuff just wasn't obvious to people at the time, but with hindsight, it's 20/20.

Also, "happened right after". Let's be clear here: The rule change that really matters here - other than adding the 3 in the first place - is the removal of illegal defense in 2001, not the hand check.

Whenever the NBA cracks down on a particular rule - aka "point of emphasis" - it tends to benefit one side or the other, with offense most often being the beneficiary. The hand check has been repeatedly crack down on over the years, each time in helps the offense the next year and then gradually dissipates as a new emphasis is chosen by the league.

And this just isn't the trend we're talking about when we're talking about the pace & space revolution. The former is a policy change happened in 2004, the latter is a performance trend largely centered from the mid-2010s to the present.

Bringing us back to the 2001 one illegal defense removal, I think it's important to think about how this worked to eventually help get pace & space going.

Colangelo's theory - which some coaches & GMs thought was dead wrong and would have the opposite effect of what he claimed - was that by taking the handcuffs off of half-court defense, teams would be more incentivized to attack before the defense was set. I'd say he was right...but of course it was HIS team that proved this right in 2004, 3 years later.

Why 3 years later specifically? Well, I mean, that's when they got Nash, right? Nash signed his previous contract in 1999. 2004 was literally the first opportunity to acquire Nash through free agency after the 2001 rule change, and they went after him HARD.

So yeah, I'd say it didn't have to have been 3 years later. Could have been a year later or earlier, could have never happened...and frankly could have happened even without removing illegal defense, so it could have occurred before 2001 altogether.

That last statement may well be where we have to go our separate ways, but I'd really urge you to remember that fast breaks and 3-point shots existed long before 2001 or 2004, so what we're talking about is only something would potentially nudge effectiveness to a degree. 15 years ago it was plausible to argue that that nudge explained what we'd seen in performance improvement since the rule changes, but after the 2010s there's just no doubt that this would be the best way to play back before the rule changes if you had players with sufficient skills.

Re: Nelson deserves innovation credit for things small ball. Absolutely. He's one of the most innovative coaches the NBA's ever seen, he just wasn't as deeply committed to 3-point shooting as some others.

Re: Donnie like Don tho, right? Sure, but we should just take care with what precisely we're giving Don credit for. When Donnie was working for Phoenix, pretty sure they weren't sending the money to his father.


Well, you're giving me a lot to think about.

I will say, re:Colangelo - if he was behind both the removal of illegal defense and the Suns' acquisition of Nash, then it would be reasonable to think that he thought he needed that rule change in order to do what he wanted to do with Nash.

In any event, whether causal or not, one can clearly see a trend towards 3PT-heavy offenses starting from the early/mid-00s, at least in philosophy if not actual volume of 3PA. You see Nelson's Mavs rise from 01-04, you see 7SOL, you see the Spurs offense go from the inside-out offense of 99 and 03 to the offenses of 05/07/beyond that were much more dependent on Manu/Parker's perimeter offense and the shooting of others(Bowen was known for that corner three), you see the 09/10 Lakers play lineups with Gasol at C and Odom at PF next to Ariza/Artest/Kobe/Fisher(that would've worked better if Odom was actually a better shooter), and more.

You see the Heatles make the adjustment in 2011-12 of moving Bosh to center and using him as a stretch 5 while putting another wing with range next to LeBron at forward(mainly Battier, but also Rashard Lewis, Mike Miller, and Ray Allen in 13/14 too), as opposed to Bosh at PF and Joel Anthony at C like they'd done in 2010-11, which opened their whole offense up.

You see the KD/Harden/Westbrook Thunder, which was a very perimeter-oriented offense.

And finally the Warriors and everything beyond.

To be fair, there were teams in the years before the rule changes that had unusually high 3PA for the time, but they were mostly teams that generated their 3PA from inside out offenses built around transcendent big men...I'm thinking specifically of 94/95 Rockets, 95/96 Magic, 00-02 Lakers. On the other side...there's the second-threepeat Bulls and Payton/Kemp Sonics...both had unusually high 3PA, but theirs were probably generated from high-level defenses enabling fastbreak offense.
f4p
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,969
And1: 1,981
Joined: Sep 19, 2021
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#96 » by f4p » Mon Sep 4, 2023 10:46 am

Vote
1. Kevin Durant

Nomination:
1. James Harden



tough choice. more impressed with durant's peak than other options and he's had great chances ruined by teammate injuries in 2013 and 2021. looking at durant's stats from age 21 to now is just crazy. still churning out 25 PER, 0.200 WS48, 7 BPM seasons after an achilles tear and had a crazy 67.7 TS% last year. erving has playoff issues and only won when moses was easily the best player in the playoffs for philly in 1983.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,231
And1: 25,504
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#97 » by 70sFan » Mon Sep 4, 2023 10:55 am

f4p wrote:erving has playoff issues and only won when moses was easily the best player in the playoffs for philly in 1983.

1. Julius won two titles in the ABA, beating very formidable competition.

2. I don't see Julius playoff issues as any bigger than Durant's.
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 9,790
And1: 5,787
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#98 » by One_and_Done » Mon Sep 4, 2023 1:11 pm

Given Harden's longevity advantage tough to see him behind Wade.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,935
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#99 » by OhayoKD » Mon Sep 4, 2023 2:24 pm

Sorry I was late, hopefully it counts

Vote

1. Julius Erving

Was probably the 3rd or 4th best peak of the 70's, great carry jobs in the aba vs teams full of good nba talent, gets some credit for a bunch of close-misses and a title as the second fiddle in 82. Certainly if we are considering Durant, winning with Moses should factor in.

Nomination
1. Harden
2. Wade

Playing the warriors to a draw with durant is impressive in broad-strokes(unsure how good he was individually though), and 2020 is pretty impeachable as a full season at this level. Underrated longevity. Was playing durant to a near draw as early as 2013 and might have already broken out earlier on another team.

Also a bunch of series with great scoring and box-playmaking though defense is a question mark. His assists probably oversell his impact(he had as many assists than Westbrook in 2017 despite Westbrook generating vastly better returns in terms of teammate efficiency), but this low everyone's overrated in one way or another.
User avatar
Joao Saraiva
RealGM
Posts: 13,461
And1: 6,226
Joined: Feb 09, 2011
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#100 » by Joao Saraiva » Mon Sep 4, 2023 2:29 pm

Vote Julius Erving
Alternate Kevin Durant
Nomination John Stockton


My vote goes to Dr. J. I still think he's a step ahead of KD. Very well rounded player, dominant at the rim, good defender and he has it all - the longevity, the accodales, the rings, the peak, the prime and impact stats like him too.

He was a part of one of the most dominant runs ever in Philadelphia and at least one player of that team should be elected the way I see it. Maybe I should be voting for Moses but I'm more impressed with Dr. J's career overall.

I still believe his availability puts him over Kevin Durant, as longevity is larger than years played.

Sorry for not making a longer post but plenty has been said.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan

Return to Player Comparisons