#23 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[E-Balla]

So for my breakdown of players I want to start with Barry vs McAdoo since it's the same season (1975). Basically they're 2 players with equal strength teammates (by that I mean weak teammates). Buffalo won 49 games and was 5th in SRS in 75, while Golden State won 48 games and was 4th. Barry led the 1st ranked offense (+2.7) and McAdoo the 4th (+2.1). McAdoo just so happened to play in the East (where 49 wins got them the 3rd seed and a matchup with Washington in their only round) and Barry in the West (where 48 wins got them the 1st seed and they only saw Washington in the Finals).

As individual players I love both of their games and they're super modern players I think would be more successful thrown into a modern league unlike many would say for Doc, Gilmore, and Cap who were the other 3 best players undeniably top 5 in the world. McAdoo was the follow up to Dolph Schayes (who was a 90% freethrow shooter in the 60s... insane) and the 2nd great shooting big man. Seriously this is his 50 point game 4 against Washington the day he was announced MVP and he only scores off 8 combined dunks/layups (I'm counting shot attempts he was fouled on too).

Watch on YouTube

Most of his jumpers were either contested turnarounds or out near the 3 point line (21+ feet out). McAdoo was basically Dirk before Dirk and when watching him play it's not hard to imagine him being as accomplished as Dirk if he played in a league more suited to outside play. He could handle the ball but it wasn't until 76 he became a better ball handler and playmaker but his jumper never fell as much as in 75 so he was never as effective overall. Defensively he was a quick guy with the ability to hit the boards hard and decent shot blocking ability. He's a natural PF but played C and was able to hold his own leading Buffalo to an average defense.

Rick Barry on the other hand is arguably the best jump shooting wing of the pre 3 point line era. Not the most accurate shooter, but in terms of getting his shot off he was easily #1 and a precursor to the Kobe Bryant, late MJ style of play. He started off as a scoring forward averaging 31/10/3 in his first 2 NBA seasons before getting shipped to the ABA where he kept that same role in Oakland and Washington. Because of the lack of strength in the league at the time and the increased spacing he was the most efficient player by far in the ABA. He then switched teams and finally became a point forward and his efficiency plummeted. Barry was never inefficient going forward but he was never well above average efficiency in the point forward role because he was a bit of a chucker known for taking many pullup jumpers. He was a very good passer placing top 6 in assists 4 times (same amount as LeBron to compare). I'd easily put him in any list of top 3 passing SFs alongside Bird, and Hill. Around this time he became a 90-94% FT shooter too (he shot 92% on FTs from 75 on) and in 1980 as he was falling out of the league, old, and only averaging 12 ppg he was 2nd in 3s made and attempted while shooting 33% from deep in only 25 mpg. Brian Taylor, Downtown Freddie Brown, and Larry Bird were probably the only shooters better league wide. In 75 he also led the league in steals and while he wasn't known for his defense he was a pest on that end causing turnovers and creating easy buckets. Early in his career he was a clear negative on that end but in the mid 70s he started playing defense and it benefitted him tremendously.

The real reason I have so much love for Barry is his passing though. He's Ginobili like with the ball in his hands consistently making amazing plays. This is from ElGee's top 40 list but it's a compilation of Barry's passes in one game.

Watch on YouTube

According to ElGee he only missed one opportunity to make a high quality pass all game. Basically in the modern game I see him as a Manu Ginobili with Kobe's approach to the game.

Overall in differentiating between the two seasons it comes down to their performances against Washington. McAdoo scored 34+ in all 7 games against Washington's #1 defense averaging 37.4 ppg on 53 TS% while leading a +5.6 offense. Meanwhile the Braves defense played bad, but not horrible so I don't have a reason to believe McAdoo played bad on that end in a series where he averaged 2.7 bpg, 9.9 DRBs a night, and 0.9 spg. They had no business going to 7 but they did and they did it with Randy Smith and Jim McMillan being the only other above averaged players on the team.

The other side of that is Barry. Barry didn't play as well offensively as McAdoo but he still averaged 29.5 ppg on 52.2 TS% in a very low scoring series alongside 3.5 spg while sweeping Washington to win the NBA Finals. This is especially notable because outside of ROTY Jamaal Wilkes and Clifford Ray they had no other above average players on the roster. He was so much better than the next guy on his team he played 40% more minutes than them. Alongside Hakeem and Dirk, Barry is seen as the player most see as one of the few players to drag a not that good team to a Finals win.

I'm leaning McAdoo for now because of their superior offensive performance but it's worth considering that Barry played better defensively and way better passing the ball and maybe that's why they won handedly while Buffalo struggled and fought to get to game 7.

I do think these are the 2 best years left for the most part though.

[E-Balla]

What, the better offence the year before, where the team was better, healthier, and supported by an end-of-prime Chris Paul?

And the year before then when Chris Paul wasn't even on the roster? Forgot the Houston offensive explosion happened in 2017 not 2018?

He did not go on a historic scoring run on a lark. He went on the scoring run because no one else was stepping up. Maybe on paper his supporting cast did not need that level of offensive output, but they sure did not act like it.

In the beginning? Yes. It was a necessity of circumstance with EG playing horrible and CP3 being hurt. Later in the year once EG figured himself out and went back to being 4/9 from deep most nights and CP3 came back he was doing it for the glamour and not to help them win. A better coach than D'Antoni would've got the ball out of his hands that much.

If we are adjusting for era, why would it only go one way? Stars player fewer minutes now. That is part of it.

Stars also command a higher percentage of possessions when they're on the floor now because role players are more specialized when back in the day they weren't. Overall the amount of total possessions stars have in general nowadays are higher, even if the minutes are lower. If this is your idea of adjusting for era you're doing a poor job of it.

Completely speculative and assumes the entire team is a profoundly irrational actor, or dominated by a profound ego of "I want to score as much as possible" which has never been suggested. And no, I would not say losing to the Warriors is underachieving, apart from (obviously) game six. And if the ending to that series is prohibitive, fine, but that is a separate reason (and it is not like they lost because he scored too much anyway ).

Yes because it's not like MOST NBA teams and coaches don't optimize their talent well.

I literally just gave this exact same criticism to Kawhi. I gave it to LeBron. I gave it to pre-Phil Jordan. Scroll to the top of this page I gave it to Rick Barry. It's not uncommon for a player to be a damn ballhog... At all. Harden's time of possession last year was 9.3 minutes a game. Second place was John Wall at 7.8 minutes. The gap between him and 2nd place is the same as the gap between 2nd and 13th place in time of possession. Harden had by far the highest average time per touch and the 2nd highest since the NBA has tracked time per touch (2014).

They should've probably beat Golden State with Curry playing like cheeks and KD missing the end of game 6 and game 7.

[70sFan]

So for my breakdown of players I want to start with Barry vs McAdoo since it's the same season (1975). Basically they're 2 players with equal strength teammates (by that I mean weak teammates). Buffalo won 49 games and was 5th in SRS in 75, while Golden State won 48 games and was 4th. Barry led the 1st ranked offense (+2.7) and McAdoo the 4th (+2.1). McAdoo just so happened to play in the East (where 49 wins got them the 3rd seed and a matchup with Washington in their only round) and Barry in the West (where 48 wins got them the 1st seed and they only saw Washington in the Finals).

As individual players I love both of their games and they're super modern players I think would be more successful thrown into a modern league unlike many would say for Doc, Gilmore, and Cap who were the other 3 best players undeniably top 5 in the world. McAdoo was the follow up to Dolph Schayes (who was a 90% freethrow shooter in the 60s... insane) and the 2nd great shooting big man. Seriously this is his 50 point game 4 against Washington the day he was announced MVP and he only scores off 8 combined dunks/layups (I'm counting shot attempts he was fouled on too).

Watch on YouTube

Most of his jumpers were either contested turnarounds or out near the 3 point line (21+ feet out). McAdoo was basically Dirk before Dirk and when watching him play it's not hard to imagine him being as accomplished as Dirk if he played in a league more suited to outside play. He could handle the ball but it wasn't until 76 he became a better ball handler and playmaker but his jumper never fell as much as in 75 so he was never as effective overall. Defensively he was a quick guy with the ability to hit the boards hard and decent shot blocking ability. He's a natural PF but played C and was able to hold his own leading Buffalo to an average defense.

Rick Barry on the other hand is arguably the best jump shooting wing of the pre 3 point line era. Not the most accurate shooter, but in terms of getting his shot off he was easily #1 and a precursor to the Kobe Bryant, late MJ style of play. He started off as a scoring forward averaging 31/10/3 in his first 2 NBA seasons before getting shipped to the ABA where he kept that same role in Oakland and Washington. Because of the lack of strength in the league at the time and the increased spacing he was the most efficient player by far in the ABA. He then switched teams and finally became a point forward and his efficiency plummeted. Barry was never inefficient going forward but he was never well above average efficiency in the point forward role because he was a bit of a chucker known for taking many pullup jumpers. He was a very good passer placing top 6 in assists 4 times (same amount as LeBron to compare). I'd easily put him in any list of top 3 passing SFs alongside Bird, and Hill. Around this time he became a 90-94% FT shooter too (he shot 92% on FTs from 75 on) and in 1980 as he was falling out of the league, old, and only averaging 12 ppg he was 2nd in 3s made and attempted while shooting 33% from deep in only 25 mpg. Brian Taylor, Downtown Freddie Brown, and Larry Bird were probably the only shooters better league wide. In 75 he also led the league in steals and while he wasn't known for his defense he was a pest on that end causing turnovers and creating easy buckets. Early in his career he was a clear negative on that end but in the mid 70s he started playing defense and it benefitted him tremendously.

The real reason I have so much love for Barry is his passing though. He's Ginobili like with the ball in his hands consistently making amazing plays. This is from ElGee's top 40 list but it's a compilation of Barry's passes in one game.

Watch on YouTube

According to ElGee he only missed one opportunity to make a high quality pass all game. Basically in the modern game I see him as a Manu Ginobili with Kobe's approach to the game.

Overall in differentiating between the two seasons it comes down to their performances against Washington. McAdoo scored 34+ in all 7 games against Washington's #1 defense averaging 37.4 ppg on 53 TS% while leading a +5.6 offense. Meanwhile the Braves defense played bad, but not horrible so I don't have a reason to believe McAdoo played bad on that end in a series where he averaged 2.7 bpg, 9.9 DRBs a night, and 0.9 spg. They had no business going to 7 but they did and they did it with Randy Smith and Jim McMillan being the only other above averaged players on the team.

The other side of that is Barry. Barry didn't play as well offensively as McAdoo but he still averaged 29.5 ppg on 52.2 TS% in a very low scoring series alongside 3.5 spg while sweeping Washington to win the NBA Finals. This is especially notable because outside of ROTY Jamaal Wilkes and Clifford Ray they had no other above average players on the roster. He was so much better than the next guy on his team he played 40% more minutes than them. Alongside Hakeem and Dirk, Barry is seen as the player most see as one of the few players to drag a not that good team to a Finals win.

I'm leaning McAdoo for now because of their superior offensive performance but it's worth considering that Barry played better defensively and way better passing the ball and maybe that's why they won handedly while Buffalo struggled and fought to get to game 7.

I do think these are the 2 best years left for the most part though.

Outstanding post (especially on Barry's passing part) but I have one question - how do you know that McAdoo worked on his handles from 1976 on? I don't disagree with you, I just want to know where have you found it.

[E-Balla]

So for my breakdown of players I want to start with Barry vs McAdoo since it's the same season (1975). Basically they're 2 players with equal strength teammates (by that I mean weak teammates). Buffalo won 49 games and was 5th in SRS in 75, while Golden State won 48 games and was 4th. Barry led the 1st ranked offense (+2.7) and McAdoo the 4th (+2.1). McAdoo just so happened to play in the East (where 49 wins got them the 3rd seed and a matchup with Washington in their only round) and Barry in the West (where 48 wins got them the 1st seed and they only saw Washington in the Finals).

As individual players I love both of their games and they're super modern players I think would be more successful thrown into a modern league unlike many would say for Doc, Gilmore, and Cap who were the other 3 best players undeniably top 5 in the world. McAdoo was the follow up to Dolph Schayes (who was a 90% freethrow shooter in the 60s... insane) and the 2nd great shooting big man. Seriously this is his 50 point game 4 against Washington the day he was announced MVP and he only scores off 8 combined dunks/layups (I'm counting shot attempts he was fouled on too).

Watch on YouTube

Most of his jumpers were either contested turnarounds or out near the 3 point line (21+ feet out). McAdoo was basically Dirk before Dirk and when watching him play it's not hard to imagine him being as accomplished as Dirk if he played in a league more suited to outside play. He could handle the ball but it wasn't until 76 he became a better ball handler and playmaker but his jumper never fell as much as in 75 so he was never as effective overall. Defensively he was a quick guy with the ability to hit the boards hard and decent shot blocking ability. He's a natural PF but played C and was able to hold his own leading Buffalo to an average defense.

Rick Barry on the other hand is arguably the best jump shooting wing of the pre 3 point line era. Not the most accurate shooter, but in terms of getting his shot off he was easily #1 and a precursor to the Kobe Bryant, late MJ style of play. He started off as a scoring forward averaging 31/10/3 in his first 2 NBA seasons before getting shipped to the ABA where he kept that same role in Oakland and Washington. Because of the lack of strength in the league at the time and the increased spacing he was the most efficient player by far in the ABA. He then switched teams and finally became a point forward and his efficiency plummeted. Barry was never inefficient going forward but he was never well above average efficiency in the point forward role because he was a bit of a chucker known for taking many pullup jumpers. He was a very good passer placing top 6 in assists 4 times (same amount as LeBron to compare). I'd easily put him in any list of top 3 passing SFs alongside Bird, and Hill. Around this time he became a 90-94% FT shooter too (he shot 92% on FTs from 75 on) and in 1980 as he was falling out of the league, old, and only averaging 12 ppg he was 2nd in 3s made and attempted while shooting 33% from deep in only 25 mpg. Brian Taylor, Downtown Freddie Brown, and Larry Bird were probably the only shooters better league wide. In 75 he also led the league in steals and while he wasn't known for his defense he was a pest on that end causing turnovers and creating easy buckets. Early in his career he was a clear negative on that end but in the mid 70s he started playing defense and it benefitted him tremendously.

The real reason I have so much love for Barry is his passing though. He's Ginobili like with the ball in his hands consistently making amazing plays. This is from ElGee's top 40 list but it's a compilation of Barry's passes in one game.

Watch on YouTube

According to ElGee he only missed one opportunity to make a high quality pass all game. Basically in the modern game I see him as a Manu Ginobili with Kobe's approach to the game.

Overall in differentiating between the two seasons it comes down to their performances against Washington. McAdoo scored 34+ in all 7 games against Washington's #1 defense averaging 37.4 ppg on 53 TS% while leading a +5.6 offense. Meanwhile the Braves defense played bad, but not horrible so I don't have a reason to believe McAdoo played bad on that end in a series where he averaged 2.7 bpg, 9.9 DRBs a night, and 0.9 spg. They had no business going to 7 but they did and they did it with Randy Smith and Jim McMillan being the only other above averaged players on the team.

The other side of that is Barry. Barry didn't play as well offensively as McAdoo but he still averaged 29.5 ppg on 52.2 TS% in a very low scoring series alongside 3.5 spg while sweeping Washington to win the NBA Finals. This is especially notable because outside of ROTY Jamaal Wilkes and Clifford Ray they had no other above average players on the roster. He was so much better than the next guy on his team he played 40% more minutes than them. Alongside Hakeem and Dirk, Barry is seen as the player most see as one of the few players to drag a not that good team to a Finals win.

I'm leaning McAdoo for now because of their superior offensive performance but it's worth considering that Barry played better defensively and way better passing the ball and maybe that's why they won handedly while Buffalo struggled and fought to get to game 7.

I do think these are the 2 best years left for the most part though.

Outstanding post (especially on Barry's passing part) but I have one question - how do you know that McAdoo worked on his handles from 1976 on? I don't disagree with you, I just want to know where have you found it.

I can say I don't have any source but watching the games you can see a clear difference. He came in the league without a left hand (this is notorious, I can source this with a search of old SI articles I'm sure) or the ability to beat PFs off the bounce but watching him after 75 it's clearly a part of his game. Can't find highlight clips but we can find full games from 76 and further to go through parts of looking for example if him putting the ball on the floor, but maybe not in this thread I'm flying it to Seattle tomorrow.

As a the 80s came McAdoo improved his handles enough to play PF finally, because if you watch clips from 74 and 75 he's mostly catch and shoot or posting up. Not many faceups.

[liamliam1234]

And the year before then when Chris Paul wasn't even on the roster? Forgot the Houston offensive explosion happened in 2017 not 2018?

You mean before they traded half their team for Paul?

In the beginning? Yes. It was a necessity of circumstance with EG playing horrible and CP3 being hurt. Later in the year once EG figured himself out and went back to being 4/9 from deep most nights and CP3 came back he was doing it for the glamour and not to help them win. A better coach than D'Antoni would've got the ball out of his hands that much.

A.) Again, totally speculative. B.) Seems like a coaching issue then.

Stars also command a higher percentage of possessions when they're on the floor now because role players are more specialized when back in the day they weren't. Overall the amount of total possessions stars have in general nowadays are higher, even if the minutes are lower. If this is your idea of adjusting for era you're doing a poor job of it.

If Harden maintained his legendary scoring rate over a higher number of possessions, that helps his case, not hurts, in the same way (all else being equal) it tends to be more valuable for a player to average 36 points in 36 minutes per game than it is to average 30 points in 30 minutes per game.

Yes because it's not like MOST NBA teams and coaches don't optimize their talent well.

Classic armchair coaching.

I literally just gave this exact same criticism to Kawhi.

And it was comical then.

I gave it to LeBron.

A similarly bad take.

I gave it to pre-Phil Jordan.

And I am sure I would disagree with how you applied that context as well, although here at least that involves an evolution rather than an assumed random devolution.

Scroll to the top of this page I gave it to Rick Barry.

Woah, Barry was not the same player in 1975 as he was in 1967!?

It's not uncommon for a player to be a damn ballhog... At all. Harden's time of possession last year was 9.3 minutes a game. Second place was John Wall at 7.8 minutes. The gap between him and 2nd place is the same as the gap between 2nd and 13th place in time of possession. Harden had by far the highest average time per touch and the 2nd highest since the NBA has tracked time per touch (2014).

This coming from a guy voting for Westbrook, my sides.

They should've probably beat Golden State with Curry playing like cheeks and KD missing the end of game 6 and game 7.

5 and 6, and yep, but that has nothing to do with his regular season scoring. Again, the Rockets did not lose that series because Harden scored too much.

[E-Balla]

You mean before they traded half their team for Paul?

They traded Lou WIll (who wasn't even on the team as they started their offensive explosion at the beginning of the year and was traded for Corey Brewer), offensive juggernaut Patrick Beverly ( ), Sam Dekker (who played 18 mpg in Houston, and hasn't hit 1,000 minutes since then), and Montrezl (who is good but barely hit 1000 minutes in Houston because he was still young) for CP3. None of those players played a large role in the success of the 2017 Rockets, to say otherwise is to ignore reality.

A.) Again, totally speculative. B.) Seems like a coaching issue then.

A) As is everything we're discussing here outside of the numbers which are hard facts.

B) I never said it wasn't, what I said was his volume doesn't matter to me when it doesn't help the team. Wilt's 50 ppg season isn't even in his top 3 if you ask me. MJ's 37 ppg season isn't in his top 5 seasons. If all that increased volume does is take his teammates out the game making them less effective and give him less energy on defense then why would I value it?

If Harden maintained his legendary scoring rate over a higher number of possessions, that helps his case, not hurts, in the same way (all else being equal) it tends to be more valuable for a player to average 36 points in 36 minutes per game than it is to average 30 points in 30 minutes per game.

I feel like you're intentionally avoiding addressing my point by saying something unrelated here...

We were discussing adjusting for era. What the hell does this have to do with my point? I forgot I already stopped doing this before with you because you don't enter discussions to actually argue your point in good faith. My bad for forgetting that and have a nice one.

[liamliam1234]

My point is that arguing a different year is Harden’s peak because his passing was worth more than the gap in scoring is different from trying to diminish the scoring by fiddling with minutes and declaring without context that it is in some sense inherently harmful. You claim I argue in bad faith when most of the time I just want you lot to quit stubbornly locking yourselves into these preordained conclusions measuring “value”. It is not acting in bad faith to call out instances where you seem to have chosen a hill on which to die and then starting throwing out whatever you can to defend it.

[E-Balla]

My point is that arguing a different year is Harden’s peak because his passing was worth more than the gap in scoring is different from trying to diminish the scoring by fiddling with minutes and declaring without context that it is in some sense inherently harmful.

No one argued the bolded. What was argued was that he was better because he's of more value to the team with the ball in his hands less in general, not just passing more. It allows his teammates, who are high level players themselves, to create for themselves and increases how optimal the TEAM is.

For the second part, this is what I mean by bad faith. You claim I added no context to my statements, while at the same time what is bolded in this sentence is literally what you perceived to be the context I was adding to my statement. If I'm saying Harden shooting so much hurts the team more than when he's passing more and has the ball less, how am I not adding context to when I say "he shot too much"? Stop trying to "win" whatever that means to you and try to contribute.

You claim I argue in bad faith when most of the time I just want you lot to quit stubbornly locking yourselves into these preordained conclusions measuring “value”. It is not acting in bad faith to call out instances where you seem to have chosen a hill on which to die and then starting throwing out whatever you can to defend it.

When everyone but you is wrong maybe you need to look at yourself as the issue. Everyone here values different things on the court, and you're not changing that by continually giving them information they already know without context, which is all you've done. Keep mentioning Harden's scoring numbers, I'm sure no one but you can look on bball ref and get his ppg and ts%. Or maybe we've already seen those, have our own context we apply to them, and your continual refusal to read anything we're saying means you're completely ineffective at addressing our arguments and changing our opinions. Just maybe.

[liamliam1234]

My point is that arguing a different year is Harden’s peak because his passing was worth more than the gap in scoring is different from trying to diminish the scoring by fiddling with minutes and declaring without context that it is in some sense inherently harmful.

No one argued the bolded. What was argued was that he was better because he's of more value to the team with the ball in his hands less in general, not just passing more. It allows his teammates, who are high level players themselves, to create for themselves and increases how optimal the TEAM is.

For the second part, this is what I mean by bad faith. You claim I added no context to my statements, while at the same time what is bolded in this sentence is literally what you perceived to be the context I was adding to my statement. If I'm saying Harden shooting so much hurts the team more than when he's passing more and has the ball less, how am I not adding context to when I say "he shot too much"? Stop trying to "win" whatever that means to you and try to contribute.

You misread. I know that is not what you were arguing. If it were what you were arguing, there would be no issue, just like if you had simply argued that you preferred Kawhi's 2016 defensive advantage over his 2017/2019 incarnations I would have had (relatively) no issue. It is when you get into these nonsense takes that it is better to let worse teammates score less efficiently than to just score efficiently yourself. If you want to show that Harden's (or 2016 Kawhi's...) passing improves the net efficiency of the other players to a degree greater than their own efficiency, that is a good way to make the case. But instead you get bogged down pretending it is actually bad that Harden scored a half point every possession on over 60% true shooting.

When everyone but you is wrong maybe you need to look at yourself as the issue.

Fantastic. Tell me, how often have you entertained the idea that your assessments are wrong? How exactly have you responded to people coming up with takes with contrast your own? Are you really this self-oblivious?

Everyone here values different things on the court

Yet, keeping with the above, you keep acting as if everyone is wrong for valuing efficient high-volume scoring.

Keep mentioning Harden's scoring numbers, I'm sure no one but you can look on bball ref and get his ppg and ts%.

Yes, that is definitely what I was saying. You got it.

Or maybe we've already seen those, have our own context we apply to them, and your continual refusal to read anything we're saying means you're completely ineffective at addressing our arguments and changing our opinions. Just maybe.

And the iconic close-out of, "Waaaaaaahhh, you did not read anything I said." I love these little go-tos. Really strengthens your arguments.

[E-Balla]

You misread. I know that is not what you were arguing. If it were what you were arguing, there would be no issue, just like if you had simply argued that you preferred Kawhi's 2016 defensive advantage over his 2017/2019 incarnations I would have had (relatively) no issue. It is when you get into these nonsense takes that it is better to let worse teammates score less efficiently than to just score efficiently yourself.

Do you not think it's possible that in the pursuit of getting off an efficient look you might be stepping on the toes of your teammates and not allowing them to get off efficient looks?

Do you not think it's possible that the increase of turnovers caused by giving the ball to Harden more might lead to more easy buckets for the opponent and an offense less in rhythm?

Do you not think it's possible the strategy of isolating constantly might make it harder for players to be as efficient as they could in a better offensive system?

Do you not think there's more energy left to not be a sieve defensively if you're not handling the ball every possession and trying to beat the man in front of you 1 on 1?

We have plenty of examples of great coaches taking the ball out of the hands of players and the team improving for it offensively because other talented teammates can also get buckets efficiently. Also every extra shot taken is probably less efficient than the last when we're talking about a guy that was already close to leading the league, if not leading the league, in total TSA already. That's the reason Harden was more efficient when he took less shots. Adjust his 2018 numbers to the 2019 league average and he took an extra 5.1 TSA per 100 at 55.8 TS%, below league average and well below the average TS% for non Harden players on the Rockets. That's not even including the increase in turnovers.

If you want to show that Harden's (or 2016 Kawhi's...) passing improves the net efficiency of the other players to a degree greater than their own efficiency, that is a good way to make the case. But instead you get bogged down pretending it is actually bad that Harden scored a half point every possession on over 60% true shooting.

Read what I just typed above. It's insane to me you don't see how taking an extra 5 shots a game at a below average TS%, and increasing your turnovers to do so is a negative...

:rofl2:

Fantastic. Tell me, how often have you entertained the idea that your assessments are wrong? How exactly have you responded to people coming up with takes with contrast your own? Are you really this self-oblivious?

The gap here is I'm not trying to tell people they're wrong for what they value. There's been multiple conversations that reached their logical conclusion. For example with plenty of posters the Curry and Robinson argument just came down to some people valuing the regular season, and other people valuing the ability of a player to get rings. It's not my place to tell someone not to value the regular season, but what I did was make it so that people who do value the postseason see exactly how bad he was in the postseason. What you're attempting to do is make me believe there's an intrinsic value in scoring regardless of whether or not it helps a team or can be shown to help a team.

Yet, keeping with the above, you keep acting as if everyone is wrong for valuing efficient high-volume scoring.

No I'm saying you're wrong for valuing a style of play that led to a worse team offense because we're judging guys off what they do to win games of basketball. Scoring a lot of points on a few shots isn't the same as scoring efficiently. Lamarcus Aldridge was one of the worst high volume shooters in the league in 2014 but he was clearly helping his team be more efficient overall by taking those shots. But again, you haven't put more thought into it other than "look at his ppg and ts%" or really made an argument besides that so...

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

So for my breakdown of players I want to start with Barry vs McAdoo since it's the same season (1975). Basically they're 2 players with equal strength teammates (by that I mean weak teammates). Buffalo won 49 games and was 5th in SRS in 75, while Golden State won 48 games and was 4th. Barry led the 1st ranked offense (+2.7) and McAdoo the 4th (+2.1). McAdoo just so happened to play in the East (where 49 wins got them the 3rd seed and a matchup with Washington in their only round) and Barry in the West (where 48 wins got them the 1st seed and they only saw Washington in the Finals).

As individual players I love both of their games and they're super modern players I think would be more successful thrown into a modern league unlike many would say for Doc, Gilmore, and Cap who were the other 3 best players undeniably top 5 in the world. McAdoo was the follow up to Dolph Schayes (who was a 90% freethrow shooter in the 60s... insane) and the 2nd great shooting big man. Seriously this is his 50 point game 4 against Washington the day he was announced MVP and he only scores off 8 combined dunks/layups (I'm counting shot attempts he was fouled on too).

Watch on YouTube

Most of his jumpers were either contested turnarounds or out near the 3 point line (21+ feet out). McAdoo was basically Dirk before Dirk and when watching him play it's not hard to imagine him being as accomplished as Dirk if he played in a league more suited to outside play. He could handle the ball but it wasn't until 76 he became a better ball handler and playmaker but his jumper never fell as much as in 75 so he was never as effective overall. Defensively he was a quick guy with the ability to hit the boards hard and decent shot blocking ability. He's a natural PF but played C and was able to hold his own leading Buffalo to an average defense.

Rick Barry on the other hand is arguably the best jump shooting wing of the pre 3 point line era. Not the most accurate shooter, but in terms of getting his shot off he was easily #1 and a precursor to the Kobe Bryant, late MJ style of play. He started off as a scoring forward averaging 31/10/3 in his first 2 NBA seasons before getting shipped to the ABA where he kept that same role in Oakland and Washington. Because of the lack of strength in the league at the time and the increased spacing he was the most efficient player by far in the ABA. He then switched teams and finally became a point forward and his efficiency plummeted. Barry was never inefficient going forward but he was never well above average efficiency in the point forward role because he was a bit of a chucker known for taking many pullup jumpers. He was a very good passer placing top 6 in assists 4 times (same amount as LeBron to compare). I'd easily put him in any list of top 3 passing SFs alongside Bird, and Hill. Around this time he became a 90-94% FT shooter too (he shot 92% on FTs from 75 on) and in 1980 as he was falling out of the league, old, and only averaging 12 ppg he was 2nd in 3s made and attempted while shooting 33% from deep in only 25 mpg. Brian Taylor, Downtown Freddie Brown, and Larry Bird were probably the only shooters better league wide. In 75 he also led the league in steals and while he wasn't known for his defense he was a pest on that end causing turnovers and creating easy buckets. Early in his career he was a clear negative on that end but in the mid 70s he started playing defense and it benefitted him tremendously.

The real reason I have so much love for Barry is his passing though. He's Ginobili like with the ball in his hands consistently making amazing plays. This is from ElGee's top 40 list but it's a compilation of Barry's passes in one game.

Watch on YouTube

According to ElGee he only missed one opportunity to make a high quality pass all game. Basically in the modern game I see him as a Manu Ginobili with Kobe's approach to the game.

Overall in differentiating between the two seasons it comes down to their performances against Washington. McAdoo scored 34+ in all 7 games against Washington's #1 defense averaging 37.4 ppg on 53 TS% while leading a +5.6 offense. Meanwhile the Braves defense played bad, but not horrible so I don't have a reason to believe McAdoo played bad on that end in a series where he averaged 2.7 bpg, 9.9 DRBs a night, and 0.9 spg. They had no business going to 7 but they did and they did it with Randy Smith and Jim McMillan being the only other above averaged players on the team.

The other side of that is Barry. Barry didn't play as well offensively as McAdoo but he still averaged 29.5 ppg on 52.2 TS% in a very low scoring series alongside 3.5 spg while sweeping Washington to win the NBA Finals. This is especially notable because outside of ROTY Jamaal Wilkes and Clifford Ray they had no other above average players on the roster. He was so much better than the next guy on his team he played 40% more minutes than them. Alongside Hakeem and Dirk, Barry is seen as the player most see as one of the few players to drag a not that good team to a Finals win.

I'm leaning McAdoo for now because of their superior offensive performance but it's worth considering that Barry played better defensively and way better passing the ball and maybe that's why they won handedly while Buffalo struggled and fought to get to game 7.

I do think these are the 2 best years left for the most part though.

Love the breakdown, though I would disagree that Wilkes and Ray were the only above avg teammates on the '75 Warriors: imo Butch Beard was a clearly above average player. EDIT: though I guess he was merely "average" in the playoffs.

[E-Balla]

I've already posted about Zo and 2016 Kawhi and I already made my case for why I see Hornets CP3 over Clippers CP3 (tl;dr: he underachieved given the talent he had around him thanks to his own failures, injuries, and lack of chemistry with his teammates) so it's time to get into why I have Penny in the same class as all these other guys by doing a comparison of 96 Penny and 08 Paul. Maybe I might talk myself into putting Penny over CP3 because there's a legit case there.

When it comes to his game CP3 has always been good or elite across the board for a PG no matter how granular you get. Driving to the rim and finishing? He was well above average in the paint and took 6.8 shots a game inside of 10 feet while rarely being assisted inside. Drawing fouls? Well his FTr was .30 but it was over .40 in every other year prior to his injury in 2010. Shooting from midrange? He was 45% on midrange jumpers in 2008, which is 6% over league average back then. 3 point shooting? Well he wasn't taking a ton off the bounce, especially compared to the post Curry NBA but he was a 37% shooter from deep on good efficiency, it was just a shot he took less than basically all starting PGs do now because it was a shot you didn't just launch constantly back then.

This is a game where he had 40 points on 17 makes. Only 3 layups and a floater by my count, everything else is jumpers.

Watch on YouTube

At the same time he had games like this where he had 37 points on 15 makes with only 3 jumpers and everything else being floaters and layups.

Watch on YouTube

Basically you weren't stopping him once he decided to score and you were picking your poison on each possession. Was he going to get a good look inside, or was he going to get a good midrange shot up? That's why they performed at a +9.1 level in the postseason that year despite not having a ton of talent on that end. When they needed buckets the majority of the time Chris Paul got them.

Now we get into his ball handling and passing and of course he's the Point God. His handles are some of the sharpest ever and he's probably the best lob passer ever. Chris Paul works incredibly well with athletic bigs because he can get to any spot on the floor and is a threat from any spot on the floor and if you have to commit to him he was immediately throwing the lob. He has a single major weakness of not really taking high risk passes but that only matters in comparisons to amazing passers. He's a little too safe with the ball but I don't think that limits his teams. What is his biggest weakness offensively IMO is his dominance of the ball. I think Chris Paul now can work well off ball but I have my doubts 2008 Chris Paul can and Clippers CP3 didn't seem to do all too well at giving the ball to Blake more. On top of that he clashed with Harden off the court, so it's really not something he could so. Chris Paul + high usage offensive player might not get the cohesiveness others would get and it's a question as to how much locker room issues have limited him on the court but as the sole leader of an offense he's great enough to make those questions not really matter and definitely great enough to get a ring if he had a bit of good luck and it was a weak season.

Defensively he was genius level but a bad man defender due to his size. He later improved on that end but I don't remember 2008 CP3 being much on that end. What he did do extremely well was use his size, speed, and hands to play the passing lane and strip other players. He broke a record for consecutive games with a steal in 2008 by having a steal in every single game.

Now Penny on the other side of that was wild and untamed. He mostly relied on amazing instincts, flashy moves, his size, and great athleticism. Penny was one of the rare PGs that was always 2 steps from dunking on anyone. And I mean that.

Watch on YouTube

Dude was explosive enough to jump from the dotted line and posterize Deke. He coupled that with great touch inside, and a sharp midrange game. His shot from deep was below average, but not terrible. Just good enough to where you couldn't leave him open but not good enough to justify him taking tons off the bounce (which he didn't). There's something to be said for just being more physically dominant than your competition. His go to was probably his postgame. He has the honor of being the strongest player I can think of at 190-195 lbs and he would take a PG or even many SGs and SFs to the rim and make easy hooks over them. Next to MJ, Kobe, and Magic I think Penny has the best postgame of any G ever. In this game you can see that strength and postgame.

Watch on YouTube

One thing you notice a lot watching old Penny games is that teams constantly kept switching defenders on him because he was a mismatch to everyone. He was also amazing off ball with his cuts and he knew how to somehow get lost in traffic despite undeniably being the focus of the opposing defense when he didn't have the ball. Defensively Penny was big, and capable of spectacular plays but was never a strong defender. Not really anything worth discussing on that end.

In terms of their actual play CP3 averaged a spectacular 21.1/4.0/11.6 with 2.7 spg and only 2.5 TOVs a night on 57.6 TS% with a 125 ORTG. In the playoffs he averaged 24.6/5.6/12.0 against Dallas (only a 57.9 TS% but a 134 ORTG because of his abysmally low 5.3 TOV%) and against San Antonio he averaged 23.7/4.4/10.7 with a 55.5 TS% and a 121 ORTG thanks to his 9.3 TOV%. Now I will point out his playstyle made for bigger numbers than his actual impact was. Still the Hornets were a +5.5 team while featuring a decent but not special supporting cast and they went to 7 with a deep +5 San Antonio team so I'm comfortable saying +5 was their true level of play. With his teammates being Tyson Chandler, an aging Peja, and barely top 30 (if he was top 30) in the league David West that's impressive results.

Now Penny on the other hand was on a legit contender and stacked squad. He was still the best player on it. In 95 his +/- numbers were just as good as Shaq's but Shaq was better pretty easily. In 96 Shaq was dealing with injuries though. For the first time in his career Penny was THE MAN and even without Shaq he was still surrounded with talent so how did he perform? Well Penny was 3rd in MVP voting mainly for leading the Magic to a 20-8 record without Shaq, and averaging 25.5/4.8/6.5 on 62 TS% in the 28 games Shaq missed (remember that's over a full third of the season).

Looking at the +/- estimates we have from 95-97 paints a great picture of how important he was to the success of those Magic teams:

95
Shaq 79 GP, 2923 MP, +11.9 on/off
Penny 77 GP, 2901 MP, +12.1 on/off
Grant 74 GP, 2693 MP, +9.5 on/off
Anderson 76 GP, 2588 MP +8.9 on/off
Royal 70 GP, 1841 MP, +1.4 on/off
Shaw 78 GP, 1836 MP, -7.3 on/off
Scott 62 GP, 1499 MP, -2.3 on/off

96
Scott 82 GP, 3041 MP +11.3 on/off
Penny 82 GP, 3015 MP, +17.1 on/off
Anderson 77 GP, 2717 MP +2.9 on/off
Grant 63 GP, 2286 MP, +11.3 on/off
Shaq 54 GP, 1946 MP, +10.2 on/off
Shaw 75 GP, 1679 MP, -7.2 on/off
Koncak 67 GP, 1288 MP, -2.9 on/off

97
Seikaly 74 GP, 2615 MP, -2.3 on/off
Grant 67 GP, 2496 MP, +6.3 on/off
Penny 59 GP, 2221 MP, +12.0 on/off
Wilkins 80 GP, 2202 MP, -10.9 on/off
Scott 66 GP, 2166 MP, +7.0 on/off
Anderson 63 GP, 2163 MP +9.9 on/off
Strong 82 GP, 2004 MP, -0.2 on/off
Shaw 31 GP, 1867 MP, -18.3 on/off
Shaq (LAL) 51 GP, 1941 MP, +4.9 on/off

His impact was tremendous and it's hard to wonder if Penny was 2nd to only Jordan in that 3 year stretch (I'm taking Hakeem and Shaq over him too, but it's closer than most would like to admit). Overall he averaged 21.7/4.3/7.1 on +6.3 rTS% with a 122 ORTG in the regular season while having a +10.1 estimated on/court rating and being 3rd in estimated RAPM to MJ and Robinson (the 2 guys with more MVP votes too).

In the playoffs they easily swept Grant Hill's Pistons with Penny coasting and averaging 19.3 ppg and 7.3 apg on 56.0 TS% with a 131 ORTG, then in round 2 they coasted only losing one game (I posted the highlights of it above) to the Deke/Mookie/Smitty Hawks. He averaged 24.2 ppg and 6.6 apg on 56.0 TS% with a 128 ORTG. Then they went up against the 72 win Bulls and got crushed but it wasn't any fault of Penny's (sidebar: Penny played well against Chicago in 95 too). Outside of Penny the team was 21% from deep and couldn't buy a bucket. Thanks to that they had a -1.9 offense in the series. He still averaged 25.5 ppg, and 4.3 apg on 55.2 TS% with a 108 ORTG. Everyone over 15 mpg outside of Shaq, Penny, and Donald Royal (who averaged 3.5 ppg) had a 46.2 TS% or lower and a 85 ORTG or lower. It was obvious how doomed they were from the first tip off too. Penny scored a dominant 38 points in game one on 15/21 shooting and they still only scored 83 points and lost by 38 points. Overall his 23.3/4.7/6.0 on 55.7 TS% with a 121 ORTG was amazing production and in 97 he dominated an elite Miami defense without Shaq on the team showing the presence of the big fella wasn't opening up his game as much as it was limiting it.

Overall these guys are nearly a toss up to me but overall I give Paul the edge. I think maybe I only give him the edge because he was undeniably THE guy, but maybe there's something to be said for the fact that an older Paul couldn't coexist with stars while Penny was coexisting with Shaq better than anyone else ever managed to. Not to mention he was on one of the best offenses ever in 95 showing he could lead a top tier team on that end when surrounded with enough talent.

[E-Balla]

Spoiler:

So for my breakdown of players I want to start with Barry vs McAdoo since it's the same season (1975). Basically they're 2 players with equal strength teammates (by that I mean weak teammates). Buffalo won 49 games and was 5th in SRS in 75, while Golden State won 48 games and was 4th. Barry led the 1st ranked offense (+2.7) and McAdoo the 4th (+2.1). McAdoo just so happened to play in the East (where 49 wins got them the 3rd seed and a matchup with Washington in their only round) and Barry in the West (where 48 wins got them the 1st seed and they only saw Washington in the Finals).

As individual players I love both of their games and they're super modern players I think would be more successful thrown into a modern league unlike many would say for Doc, Gilmore, and Cap who were the other 3 best players undeniably top 5 in the world. McAdoo was the follow up to Dolph Schayes (who was a 90% freethrow shooter in the 60s... insane) and the 2nd great shooting big man. Seriously this is his 50 point game 4 against Washington the day he was announced MVP and he only scores off 8 combined dunks/layups (I'm counting shot attempts he was fouled on too).

Watch on YouTube

Most of his jumpers were either contested turnarounds or out near the 3 point line (21+ feet out). McAdoo was basically Dirk before Dirk and when watching him play it's not hard to imagine him being as accomplished as Dirk if he played in a league more suited to outside play. He could handle the ball but it wasn't until 76 he became a better ball handler and playmaker but his jumper never fell as much as in 75 so he was never as effective overall. Defensively he was a quick guy with the ability to hit the boards hard and decent shot blocking ability. He's a natural PF but played C and was able to hold his own leading Buffalo to an average defense.

Rick Barry on the other hand is arguably the best jump shooting wing of the pre 3 point line era. Not the most accurate shooter, but in terms of getting his shot off he was easily #1 and a precursor to the Kobe Bryant, late MJ style of play. He started off as a scoring forward averaging 31/10/3 in his first 2 NBA seasons before getting shipped to the ABA where he kept that same role in Oakland and Washington. Because of the lack of strength in the league at the time and the increased spacing he was the most efficient player by far in the ABA. He then switched teams and finally became a point forward and his efficiency plummeted. Barry was never inefficient going forward but he was never well above average efficiency in the point forward role because he was a bit of a chucker known for taking many pullup jumpers. He was a very good passer placing top 6 in assists 4 times (same amount as LeBron to compare). I'd easily put him in any list of top 3 passing SFs alongside Bird, and Hill. Around this time he became a 90-94% FT shooter too (he shot 92% on FTs from 75 on) and in 1980 as he was falling out of the league, old, and only averaging 12 ppg he was 2nd in 3s made and attempted while shooting 33% from deep in only 25 mpg. Brian Taylor, Downtown Freddie Brown, and Larry Bird were probably the only shooters better league wide. In 75 he also led the league in steals and while he wasn't known for his defense he was a pest on that end causing turnovers and creating easy buckets. Early in his career he was a clear negative on that end but in the mid 70s he started playing defense and it benefitted him tremendously.

The real reason I have so much love for Barry is his passing though. He's Ginobili like with the ball in his hands consistently making amazing plays. This is from ElGee's top 40 list but it's a compilation of Barry's passes in one game.

Watch on YouTube

According to ElGee he only missed one opportunity to make a high quality pass all game. Basically in the modern game I see him as a Manu Ginobili with Kobe's approach to the game.

Overall in differentiating between the two seasons it comes down to their performances against Washington. McAdoo scored 34+ in all 7 games against Washington's #1 defense averaging 37.4 ppg on 53 TS% while leading a +5.6 offense. Meanwhile the Braves defense played bad, but not horrible so I don't have a reason to believe McAdoo played bad on that end in a series where he averaged 2.7 bpg, 9.9 DRBs a night, and 0.9 spg. They had no business going to 7 but they did and they did it with Randy Smith and Jim McMillan being the only other above averaged players on the team.

The other side of that is Barry. Barry didn't play as well offensively as McAdoo but he still averaged 29.5 ppg on 52.2 TS% in a very low scoring series alongside 3.5 spg while sweeping Washington to win the NBA Finals. This is especially notable because outside of ROTY Jamaal Wilkes and Clifford Ray they had no other above average players on the roster. He was so much better than the next guy on his team he played 40% more minutes than them. Alongside Hakeem and Dirk, Barry is seen as the player most see as one of the few players to drag a not that good team to a Finals win.

I'm leaning McAdoo for now because of their superior offensive performance but it's worth considering that Barry played better defensively and way better passing the ball and maybe that's why they won handedly while Buffalo struggled and fought to get to game 7.

I do think these are the 2 best years left for the most part though.

Love the breakdown, though I would disagree that Wilkes and Ray were the only above avg teammates on the '75 Warriors: imo Butch Beard was a clearly above average player. EDIT: though I guess he was merely "average" in the playoffs.

I don't really think Butch was above average. I think Barry was such a great playmaker that he made Butch look that good because outside of his 2 years next to Rick would you say he's above average? Hell even as a coach he was mediocre. He went from a 51.8 TS% his first 3 seasons to a 57.3 his 2 years with Barry, to a 51.7 in 76 when he wasn't next to Barry anymore. It's similar to Walton and Twardzik but Walton turned Twardzik from a 55-60 TS% guy to a 65-70 TS% guy. There's a reason they traded him for Dwight Davis who was a 9.8/5.9 bench player on a 40 win Cleveland squad.

[liamliam1234]

Do you not think it's possible that in the pursuit of getting off an efficient look you might be stepping on the toes of your teammates and not allowing them to get off efficient looks?

Sure. It is also possible your looks are more efficient than your teammates (more on this later).

Do you not think it's possible that the increase of turnovers caused by giving the ball to Harden more might lead to more easy buckets for the opponent and an offense less in rhythm?

Where did I say the turnovers were a good thing. Obviously they are a factor, just as reduced passing is a factor, and just as potential defensive lapses are a factor. But that is a shift away from the question of his scoring. I have never said there is zero case that Harden was better in a different year; and as far as I know, I have not even said I think this is inherently his best year.

Also, again, amazing criticism from the sole Westbrook voter.

Do you not think it's possible the strategy of isolating constantly might make it harder for players to be as efficient as they could in a better offensive system?

The Rockets iso-ed constantly the preceding season, to enormous success (albeit somewhat flukey). I know everyone wants to see every team transform into the 2016 Warriors / 2014 Spurs, but that is not always feasible. And we can see the limits of this theoretically hyper-efficient motion offence by looking at Utah.

I also could get into a playoff discussion here, but Harden's dips there makes that rather tangential anyway.

Do you not think there's more energy left to not be a sieve defensively if you're not handling the ball every possession and trying to beat the man in front of you 1 on 1?

Sure, and that is a factor, and you can weigh how much value he loses on defence versus how much is gained by scoring. And once more, never said otherwise.

We have plenty of examples of great coaches taking the ball out of the hands of players and the team improving for it offensively because other talented teammates can also get buckets efficiently.

Yep, and I will leave that to the coach without blaming the player for the hypothetical that maybe it would have been more efficient to do otherwise.

Also every extra shot taken is probably less efficient than the last when we're talking about a guy that was already close to leading the league, if not leading the league, in total TSA already. That's the reason Harden was more efficient when he took less shots. Adjust his 2018 numbers to the 2019 league average and he took an extra 5.1 TSA per 100 at 55.8 TS%, below league average and well below the average TS% for non Harden players on the Rockets. That's not even including the increase in turnovers.

Read what I just typed above. It's insane to me you don't see how taking an extra 5 shots a game at a below average TS%, and increasing your turnovers to do so is a negative...

Alright, this is better. This is an actual numerical case. Unfortunately, as seems to be your trend, the analysis is hardly an honest one.

Harden went from 61.9% true shooting to 61.6% true shooting. Relative rTS was +6.3 and +5.6, although I do not feel that is remotely as relevant when looking at the Rockets in isolation (and I always felt it was lazy to make a direct application of league-wide trends to superstars anyway). In fact, since the question is about the Rockets specifically, I would say it is outright dishonest to adjust his numbers based on a league-wide scale and then look at the unadjusted numbers for everyone else. Volume increased 31.2%, whereas points only increased 28.6%, but because of your manipulative adjustment, that is not equivalent to the dip you are claiming.

Anyway, looking at Houston's other top seven, you have Tucker with a lower .547 true shooting. Based on your number, which as I said is manipulated to disadvantage Harden against literally all of his teammates, Chris Paul had a slightly higher .560. Gerald Green had a marginally lower .555. Austin Rivers had a much lower .511. Eric Gordon had a lower .549. Now, as you said, Gordon started off poorly, so we can presume that was respectably better once he rounded into form. If you feel like doing the mathematics, go ahead, but I feel safe assuming it is not especially extreme efficiency. More principally, I think it would be kind-of ridiculous to radically change the scheme because one guy is kind-of hot. And of course you have the reasonable possibility that he was just taking good shots, and that his later season success could have quickly dropped under increased volume. Obviously the main name I have yet to mention is Capela, with an excellent .658 true shooting. There I will not deny he almost certainly should have been fed the ball more... but given his role within the scheme, where the focus is basically isolated to around-the-basket scoring (as it is for many centres, with Deandre Jordan being the most blatant recent example, and Rudy Gobert being a prominent concurrent one), you cannot assume that he can just be given the ball whenever.

So while there might be an element of truth to your point specifically as it applies to the next three lead scorers on the team, it is nowhere near as clear cut as you want to portray it.

And that could be an interesting discussion by itself. But then you bring in this:

Scoring a lot of points on a few shots isn't the same as scoring efficiently. Lamarcus Aldridge was one of the worst high volume shooters in the league in 2014 but he was clearly helping his team be more efficient overall by taking those shots. But again, you haven't put more thought into it other than "look at his ppg and ts%" or really made an argument besides that so...

Yes, Lamarcus Aldridge and his .507 true shooting (and grossly inferior passing) was enormously beneficial to a Blazers squad led by players with true shooting values of .605 (Robin Lopez), .589 (Nic Batum), .588 (Wes Matthews), and .568 (Damian Lillard), but Harden was a team poison who clearly diminished everyone's effectiveness. Phenomenal take, and it just stands so well on its own.

What a joke.

Oh, almost forgot...

The gap here is I'm not trying to tell people they're wrong for what they value.

No I'm saying you're wrong for valuing a style of play that led to a worse team offense

Womp womp.

[E-Balla]

Where did I say the turnovers were a good thing. Obviously they are a factor, just as reduced passing is a factor, and just as potential defensive lapses are a factor. But that is a shift away from the question of his scoring. I have never said there is zero case that Harden was better in a different year; and as far as I know, I have not even said I think this is inherently his best year.

Also, again, amazing criticism from the sole Westbrook voter.

I'm sorry was Westbrook taking shots away from guys that have led #1 offenses before? No? So how is it relevant?

I understand Kobe, Westbrook, and Jordan taking that many shots while on rosters where their next most talented offensive players are pre Indiana Oladipo, Lamar Odom, and John Paxson. Not so much when you're on a roster with CP3 and Eric Gordon. It's like you don't get the gap here, the issue is Harden took that many shots while there were better options. Not that he took that many shots in general. If you want to contest there were better options that's why I posted about how they did better when he had the ball less. I can also bring up things like the team having a higher ORTG and net rating in lineups with EG and without Harden than lineups with both. Overall over the last 3 seasons the Rockets have a higher net rating with just EG than with EG+Harden mainly because EG goes from being an efficient 25 points per 36 guy with Harden on the bench to a 16 points per 36 on below average efficiency with him on the floor. Turns out his ball dominant playstyle isn't conductive to getting the most out of his teammates.

The Rockets iso-ed constantly the preceding season, to enormous success (albeit somewhat flukey). I know everyone wants to see every team transform into the 2016 Warriors / 2014 Spurs, but that is not always feasible. And we can see the limits of this theoretically hyper-efficient motion offence by looking at Utah.

There's a normal level of iso and there's the level of iso Houston is at. There's no way doing any single action that much is a smart strategy offensively even if it works in the regular season.

Yep, and I will leave that to the coach without blaming the player for the hypothetical that maybe it would have been more efficient to do otherwise.

Where's this blame thing coming from? We're discussing the year a player was at his best. Whether it's because a coach reigned them in or not. Wilt in 67 still made the list didn't he?

Alright, this is better. This is an actual numerical case. Unfortunately, as seems to be your trend, the analysis is hardly an honest one.

Harden went from 61.9% true shooting to 61.6% true shooting. Relative rTS was +6.3 and +5.6, although I do not feel that is remotely as relevant when looking at the Rockets in isolation (and I always felt it was lazy to make a direct application of league-wide trends to superstars anyway). In fact, since the question is about the Rockets specifically, I would say it is outright dishonest to adjust his numbers based on a league-wide scale and then look at the unadjusted numbers for everyone else. Volume increased 31.2%, whereas points only increased 28.6%, but because of your manipulative adjustment, that is not equivalent to the dip you are claiming.

Pause... WTF are you talking about here? Why would any numbers need to be adjusted for anyone else and who else is even being discussed here for there to be an anyone else? What does any of this mean? Also if his volume increased more than his points did that's a show that his extra shots weren't as efficient as the shots before right? And why did I even need to post this, did you not realize his efficiency was down this year?

First off the idea it's lazy to make a direct application of league-wide trends to stars would make sense if it wasn't obvious that stars and league average TS% are heavily impacted by league environment. The distribution of rTS% year to year is pretty consistent and looking at someone like Shaq for example we can clearly see his efficiency change with the league wide efficiency. KD is another guy who's efficiency has shot up over the years while his rTS% has remained in the same range. Lebron (outside of 2012-14) is the same. Kobe might be the best example of this as he was around a +2.5-3.5 rTS% each year of his prime and his TS% varied wildly based on the league environment. Kareem is the same. I can keep going but I'll stop now. There's no evidence that league averages don't effect stars because league averages reflect the rules of the time and the talent in the league at all times and opponents matter. There's next to no players that perform at an equal level against good and bad defenses, so why would the quality of defense league wide not matter?

Anyway, looking at Houston's other top seven, you have Tucker with a lower .547 true shooting. Based on your number, which as I said is manipulated to disadvantage Harden against literally all of his teammates,

Just because you said it doesn't make it true. How is it manipulated? It's literally the efficiency of his extra shot attempts adjusted for league average because that stupid freedom of movement rule change meant the NBA effectively outlawed good defense.

Chris Paul had a slightly higher .560. Gerald Green had a marginally lower .555. Austin Rivers had a much lower .511. Eric Gordon had a lower .549. Now, as you said, Gordon started off poorly, so we can presume that was respectably better once he rounded into form. If you feel like doing the mathematics, go ahead, but I feel safe assuming it is not especially extreme efficiency. More principally, I think it would be kind-of ridiculous to radically change the scheme because one guy is kind-of hot. And of course you have the reasonable possibility that he was just taking good shots, and that his later season success could have quickly dropped under increased volume. Obviously the main name I have yet to mention is Capela, with an excellent .658 true shooting. There I will not deny he almost certainly should have been fed the ball more... but given his role within the scheme, where the focus is basically isolated to around-the-basket scoring (as it is for many centres, with Deandre Jordan being the most blatant recent example, and Rudy Gobert being a prominent concurrent one), you cannot assume that he can just be given the ball whenever.

So while there might be an element of truth to your point specifically as it applies to the next three lead scorers on the team, it is nowhere near as clear cut as you want to portray it.

No the first half of your sentence and the actual numbers makes it pretty obviously clear cut. Especially when EG has a 53.8 TS% with Harden on the floor and a 56.6 without him and CP3 has a 54.0 TS% with Harden on the floor and a 58.1 TS% without him. Yes they don't look like great options to get the ball but that's because he's making them look worse.

Yes, Lamarcus Aldridge and his .507 true shooting (and grossly inferior passing) was enormously beneficial to a Blazers squad led by players with true shooting values of .605 (Robin Lopez), .589 (Nic Batum), .588 (Wes Matthews), and .568 (Damian Lillard), but Harden was a team poison who clearly diminished everyone's effectiveness. Phenomenal take, and it just stands so well on its own.

What a joke.

See unlike with Harden Lamarcus was taking shots to help his teammates outside of him get better looks. I'll pick 2 players out of those because like I said I hate responding to all the gish gallop (oh look, you make more unsubstantiated claims I now have to debunk with actual facts, YAY!) but Wes Matthews had a 55.8 TS% without Lamarcus on the floor and a 60.3 TS% with him on the floor. Dame went from a 55.8 TS% without Lamarcus on the floor to a 57.5 TS% with him on the floor. Then we bring in the fact that Lamarcus led to a major cut in turnovers and a large increase in eFG% for the team when he hit the floor despite his inefficiency. His shots were built into the offense and his role was taking every bad shot the team got because he was making them at a way higher than expected clip. It tanked his efficiency well below his career norms (he had a 53 TS% the year before and a 52.8 the year after with the same teammates on worse offenses) but made Portland the #2 offense in the league.

Again, scoring efficiently for the sake of scoring efficiently at the cost of your teammates is useless. Scoring inefficiently at the benefit of your teammates is useful. I don't give 2 **** about ppg and ts% without context. Call that a joke if you want, I call it analysis.

Womp womp.

I mean you obviously understand using the language someone else uses back at them but let's act like you don't for the purposes of "winning" since obviously that's what you value in "arguments". I'm sure you're proud of the fact that 23 threads in you finally landed a gotcha. Sure you didn't make any points but you got someone to say words that sound contradictory out of the context of what you said to illicit the response.

At the end of the day, you've shown in your inability to just flat out say you were wrong and Harden wasn't more efficient than the expected alternative in his extra attempts so I'm done here, not even responding to your false claims on this topic either I have a busy weekend and no time to spend looking up 50 facts to backup my arguments while you take 3 seconds to type the first thing that pops in your head.

[liamliam1234]

I'm sorry was Westbrook taking shots away from guys that have led #1 offenses before? No? So how is it relevant?

I was talking about the turnover complaining. Not that I think 2018 Chris Paul was in a state to lead a #1 offence. Actually, speaking of which, I guess giving shots to other players on the Rockets by rights would take shots away from the guy who literally led a #1 offence the year before, huh?

But may as well lean into it. Harden, even with all the injuries, led his team to the second-best offensive rating in the league (after the superteam Warriors). The year before, he led the best offence in the league. The year before that, he led an offence second to the superteam Warriors again. The year before that, in a down year (the all-NBA snub year), he led his team to fourth place. The year before he was sixth. Gee, what a damaging offensive player.

I understand Kobe, Westbrook, and Jordan taking that many shots while on rosters where their next most talented offensive players are pre Indiana Oladipo, Lamar Odom, and John Paxson. Not so much when you're on a roster with CP3 and Eric Gordon. It's like you don't get the gap here, the issue is Harden took that many shots while there were better options. Not that he took that many shots in general. If you want to contest there were better options that's why I posted about how they did better when he had the ball less. I can also bring up things like the team having a higher ORTG and net rating in lineups with EG and without Harden than lineups with both. Overall over the last 3 seasons the Rockets have a higher net rating with just EG than with EG+Harden mainly because EG goes from being an efficient 25 points per 36 guy with Harden on the bench to a 16 points per 36 on below average efficiency with him on the floor. Turns out his ball dominant playstyle isn't conductive to getting the most out of his teammates.

Well, that settles it, Eric Gordon is a better player than James Harden. And seeing as this is over three seasons, apparently it does not matter how much Harden passes, because Harden is just naturally poisonous and harmful to his teammates no matter what he does!

More seriously, even if we ignore the offensive results of recent years, alright, no one is disputing that James Harden is not a Lebron James level offensive player, let alone a Steve Nash level offensive player. Saying he does not get the most out of his teammates is not in itself a point against his scoring, which, because you apparently need to be reminded, is what you initially zeroed in on.

There's a normal level of iso and there's the level of iso Houston is at. There's no way doing any single action that much is a smart strategy offensively even if it works in the regular season.

A. The frame of the discussion is specifically about the regular season, no?
B. Superstar iso-plays are even more important in the playoffs. But again, irrelevant to the main point.

Where's this blame thing coming from? We're discussing the year a player was at his best. Whether it's because a coach reigned them in or not. Wilt in 67 still made the list didn't he?

You do not seem to be grasping the difference between "arguably had better years" and "has shown a scoring peak which in isolation is effectively unparalleled". And you chastise me about reading. You know, I think you did forget how this started, which is sad because it literally only goes back a page.

Pause... WTF are you talking about here? Why would any numbers need to be adjusted for anyone else and who else is even being discussed here for there to be an anyone else? What does any of this mean? Also if his volume increased more than his points did that's a show that his extra shots weren't as efficient as the shots before right? And why did I even need to post this, did you not realize his efficiency was down this year?

Do you seriously not see the problem in "adjusting" a players numbers for the previous year and then not bothering to do that with anyone else with whom you are comparing him?

And yes, I realised it. I was saying the inefficiency gap was not as large as you were saying. That is not a denial that his efficiency dipped, and it requires a profound misreading to assume that I did not notice the efficiency gap.

First off the idea it's lazy to make a direct application of league-wide trends to stars would make sense if it wasn't obvious that stars and league average TS% are heavily impacted by league environment. The distribution of rTS% year to year is pretty consistent and looking at someone like Shaq for example we can clearly see his efficiency change with the league wide efficiency. KD is another guy who's efficiency has shot up over the years while his rTS% has remained in the same range. Lebron (outside of 2012-14) is the same. Kobe might be the best example of this as he was around a +2.5-3.5 rTS% each year of his prime and his TS% varied wildly based on the league environment. Kareem is the same. I can keep going but I'll stop now. There's no evidence that league averages don't effect stars because league averages reflect the rules of the time and the talent in the league at all times and opponents matter. There's next to no players that perform at an equal level against good and bad defenses, so why would the quality of defense league wide not matter?

I did not say they do not affect stars. I said I did not think the effect on the average NBA player was necessarily the same as the effect on superstars. More poor reading. But the other stuff is a reasonable enough counter, on a basic level at least.

ust because you said it doesn't make it true. How is it manipulated? It's literally the efficiency of his extra shot attempts adjusted for league average because that stupid freedom of movement rule change meant the NBA effectively outlawed good defense.

Again, did you adjust anyone else's?

No the first half of your sentence and the actual numbers makes it pretty obviously clear cut. Especially when EG has a 53.8 TS% with Harden on the floor and a 56.6 without him and CP3 has a 54.0 TS% with Harden on the floor and a 58.1 TS% without him. Yes they don't look like great options to get the ball but that's because he's making them look worse.

Oh, look, actual support for the concept. Why does it always take you so long to get to this point?

See unlike with Harden Lamarcus was taking shots to help his teammates outside of him get better looks. I'll pick 2 players out of those because like I said I hate responding to all the gish gallop (oh look, you make more unsubstantiated claims I now have to debunk with actual facts, YAY!)

Tell me, what in that comment was unsubstantiated? You were the only who made a strong definite claim and provided no support, and now you are complaining about... having to back it up with facts? Why is every push for you to make a complete case a "gish gallop"?

but Wes Matthews had a 55.8 TS% without Lamarcus on the floor and a 60.3 TS% with him on the floor. Dame went from a 55.8 TS% without Lamarcus on the floor to a 57.5 TS% with him on the floor.

Good data which should have been included last time, but not inherent support that the offence was better because he was inefficient.

Then we bring in the fact that Lamarcus led to a major cut in turnovers and a large increase in eFG% for the team when he hit the floor despite his inefficiency. His shots were built into the offense and his role was taking every bad shot the team got because he was making them at a way higher than expected clip. It tanked his efficiency well below his career norms (he had a 53 TS% the year before and a 52.8 the year after with the same teammates on worse offenses) but made Portland the #2 offense in the league.

Again, kind-of assuming the conclusion. I take it the principle is that Aldridge basically had a season where he just tried to make something happen in the final five seconds?

Again, scoring efficiently for the sake of scoring efficiently at the cost of your teammates is useless. Scoring inefficiently at the benefit of your teammates is useful. I don't give 2 **** about ppg and ts% without context. Call that a joke if you want, I call it analysis.

As you are wont to do, it is partial analysis. And in the original context of the discussion, this point on Harden's teammate effect is a separate point from whether he was scoring historically well.

Womp womp.

I mean you obviously understand using the language someone else uses back at them but let's act like you don't for the purposes of "winning" since obviously that's what you value in "arguments". I'm sure you're proud of the fact that 23 threads in you finally landed a gotcha. Sure you didn't make any points but you got someone to say words that sound contradictory out of the context of what you said to illicit the response.

Lol, that really tilted you, huh.

At the end of the day, you've shown in your inability to just flat out say you were wrong and Harden wasn't more efficient than the expected alternative in his extra attempts so I'm done here, not even responding to your false claims on this topic either I have a busy weekend and no time to spend looking up 50 facts to backup my arguments while you take 3 seconds to type the first thing that pops in your head.

And you have hardly provided any definitive proof that Harden was inherently less efficient that some nebulous alternative result; if we want to really lean into the data you showed, I guess D'Antoni should have completely staggered Harden's minutes so Paul and Gordon could have a super offence on their own.

You keep pouting over needing to backup your arguments, and about adding all this extra effort which you yourself are creating. It is like you think these comments occur in a vacuum.

This all started because you wanted to diminish Harden's scoring status. It was not about impact. Which is especially funny, because I referred to impact, and apparently you could have jumped right into that. But no, instead you dismissed it because of rule changes, praised his offensive impact (even despite the rule change obsession), and went into a tangent over his defence. You created that work.

I ignored the defence stuff, because as I said, it was not applicable to any part of my post, and shortly said that even if you want to give Jordan extra credit, Harden's scoring status stands. And you try to diminish it further by talking about turnovers.

I point out that referring to turnovers demands creation become a part of the calculus, and again reiterate that the overall point of his scoring level stands. Then you split focus into more pedantic quibbling over per possession versus per minute calculus, and create, for yourself, a new point that Harden did not help his offence that much. Again, your initial objection referred merely to the quantifiable fact that Harden is at the top of the points per possession leaderboard, by a fair margin, with excellent efficiency. And here you start making declarations about how harmful that scoring actually was. That is your choice.

And I do not even really dispute that notion. I simply say that fits the context of the season. But nope, you keep going, still creating more work for yourself, focusing on the impact of passing, totally foreign to your original reply focusing on rule changes.

I still do not say much, mostly focusing on respective season context and the actual scoring, without really weighing in on whether Harden was better in the role where he passed more. You reign it in a bit in the next response, but now you are talking about what you should be valuing, which is, yet again, a point developed well-beyond your original complaint. It is almost funny to see the shift from "no one is denying Harden is an awesome and impactful offensive player" to "this guy hurts his offences". And you say I am too concerned with "winning"? But not as funny as you having a moment of clarity and effectively asking, "How did we get here?"... except without the follow-up realisation that we got here because you brought us here.

I try to reign it back in to the original point and specifically accuse you of throwing out multiple arguments expanding past the original comment (but sure, I am the one who "gish gallops"). You misread this grossly.

I tell you how you misread my comment, and then the rest does not deal with specific claims. You respond by yet again going in on overall offensive impact, including passing and turnovers and rhythm and coaching and greater volume not meaning anything on 0.7 worse rTS. All work you are doing. All points well beyond your initial snide "rule changes" response. All work you created. And as a bonus we get the beautiful little "I do not tell people what to value" slip.

And you want to whine to me about creating work? You want to whine to me about refusing to back down? Next time, maybe do not be a pedant because it bothers you that Harden might have some scoring claim over Jordan. Next time, do not expand that initial act of pedantry into broad claims of offensive effect and the nature of high-volume scoring and whether a player is actually hurting his team by scoring too much. And if you do decide to go that route, back up your claims the first time rather than making them and then grumbling when you later need to bring in, gasp, some honest data as support. I am so tired of this "woe is me" routine. You create these situations for yourself and then rage against anyone who does immediately cave in to your criticisms. Boo hoo. Sorry you did not have fun arguing against yourself. As I have said before, for someone who loves to talk about not being read, you sure do a dreadful job of following the actual position of the other person in a discussion.

But hey, I guess you sure saved a bunch of time three weeks from now when some random person does vote for 2019 Harden.

[freethedevil]

Giannis was nowhere near Harden’s points per possession output. Harden literally scored twenty-five percent more per possession.

Which is a measure of volume, not efficiency.

But I did exaggerate: Harden only trails Curry’s efficiency in the top ten best points per possessions seasons ever. Expanding to top twenty includes 2014 Durant and 2017 Isaiah (R.I.P.).

You realize this is a filter that is biased towards volume rather than efficiency?

“Use the data you think is flawed to show me how the data is flawed” is a quintessentially [you] request.

Uh, no, I said:

It only shows the flaws if you can prove they're flaws.

I gave you no instructions or demands on how to prove they are flaws. If they are flaws, you should be able to substantiate the notion they're flaws. Otherwise you are using an unsubstantiated viewpoint contradicting data to argue about the presence of flaws in the data(off course you haven't even bothered to explain how the specific mechanics of this data collection would somehow be unfair to volume scorers). You're making a claim, i'm asking you to support it.

[liamliam1234]

Maybe you should reread the original post, seeing as you seem to be under the impression that I was talking about the list of true shooting leaders.

You know, Tyson Chandler was more efficient than Giannis. He on your ballot?

[freethedevil]

Maybe you should reread the original post, seeing as you seem to be under the impression that I was talking about the list of true shooting leaders.

Yes you riffed on production implying that production was undervalued by data that harden looked worse in. YOu haven't established any sort of basis for production having a greater value than data says it does, you haven't even established specifically what you consider "rightly valued" and you haven't bothered to specify how this undervaluing took place. So we're left with hearsay:

harden produced alot! He must be super valuable! This data says he isn't as valuable as I think he is because he produced alot! Therefore data is flawed!

I brought up effiency, you responded with "points per possesion" which is a measure volume. It's odd to quote lines about effiency in response to volume and then say, "harden had 25% more volume than giannis!"

You know, Tyson Chandler was more efficient than Giannis. He on your ballot?

neither me, nor the data you're saying you've seen a flaw for says a less effecient player can't be more valuable. Where did this come from?

[liamliam1234]

You sure dropped that "yOu CoNfuSed eFFiCieNcy aNd vOluME" argument quickly, huh.

Oh, no, not with that edit. How sad.

neither me, nor the data you're saying you've seen a flaw for says a less effecient player can't be more valuable. Where did this come from?

Maybe from you talking about efficiency when Giannis is not in the top twenty points per possessions seasons, which was the frame I set. Talk about a separate frame if you want, but it has nothing to do with my comment. He literally did not apply. He was not part of it.

Also, this is hardly the first time I have criticised the conclusions of your chosen means of "data". And you have never, ever, not once, given any indication that you would be open to a conclusion not indicated by an easy to digest number.